Running head: Lin Article Critique Part 1

Lin Article Critique Part 1

Brandon Hampton

Liberty University

September 4, 2011

Lin Article p.2

Summary

The Lin article begins by stating that anger and violence are linked with substance abuse and

alcohol users are significantly higher as compared to the general population. Reduction of anger

is the feature and potential focus of recovery programs. According to the Lin article, “Anger and

resentment are pivotal emotions for most recovering alcoholics.” (Lin, 2004, p.1114) Resent is

the unexpressed anger people keep in themselves which in turn triggers a user to break sobriety.

Current approaches in anger management and expression are the focus of substance abuse

treatment centers. Also, according to the Lin article, there is not much resource or data

documenting the efficacy of this type of therapy. Cognitive behavioral and group therapies seem

to have some efficacy in coping skills. According to the article, resentment and anger are the

justifiable means which lead to violent behavior and problems in daily function of life.

According to the Lin article there are four phases in the progress of forgiveness therapy:

1) uncovering 2) decision 3) work 4) discovery. Forgiveness therapy (FT) has shown decrease of

frequency of anger and resentment and improved coping skills. The Lin article advocates FT by

hypothesizing that clients participating in FT will demonstrate reduced anger, depression and

anxiety leading to vulnerability to substance abuse. All participants of the study were diagnosed

as substance abuse dependant and participated in the following tests: 1) Enright Forgiveness

Inventory, 2) Beck Depression Inventory II 3) Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory 4) State Trait

Anxiety Inventory. All tests provided positive feedback to the participants meeting the criteria

for the study of anger and resent correlating with substance abuse. Vulnerability to substance

abuse was based upon thoughts and feelings of the participants while experiencing anger and

resentment. Treatment was based upon self paced progress and (FT) Forgiveness Therapy was

introduced in contrast to excusing, condoning, forgetting and reconciliation. Reframing was the

Lin Article p.3

focus for participants based upon similar cognitive behavioral theory. Reframing was used to

teach the participant to see the offender as a person with their own problems and fears. This is

called the work phase. A discovery phase focuses on what has been learned from the work phase.

An alternative therapy was used on other participants to measure a contrast in treatment and

recovery referred to as (ADC) Alcohol Drug Counseling. Hypothesis was made in comparison of

the two treatments Forgiveness Therapy and Alcohol Drug Counseling. The FT group reflected

greater improvement than that of the ADC recipients. Less vulnerability was noticed with the FT

recipients. In discussing the overall study the researchers concluded that confronting resentment

from the past reduced substance abuse and emotional health was improved. Also, self esteem

was improved and depression was reduced with the participants of the FT group as compared to

the ADC group. Summary of the researchers conclude that substance abuse can be a symptom of

unresolved anger and resentment and to be aware of this as counselors to avoid treating

symptoms rather than causes.

Cautions are also recommended by the researchers as the study is new and not based

upon past studies. A recommendation of comparison of FT with other anger focused therapies is

encouraged for further study regarding improved results.

Critique of Title

The title in it’s description is specific and relevant to the study described. The concise

expression is as comprehensive and specific as possible regarding the subject and study

conducted. The types of individuals participating is mentioned in the title; for example the

words, dependant substance users who are effected by anger and mood are written within the

title. A specific theory “Effects of Forgiveness” is mentioned and its effects upon a specified

Lin Article p.4

group of participants who are involved in the study. The author did avoid entitling the results in

the article. The results are discussed later in the article under discussion and in the method of

study. A yes or no question was also avoided in the title of this article, leaving the

conclusions and discussions to be based upon comparison of the study. In this article there is one

title with no subtitle. The main title is satisfactory as described previously in this critique for the

study specified and the participants involved.

Critique of Abstract

The purpose of the study was not clearly implied in the abstract, rather results of the therapy

were summarized. Yes, some not all research methodology were mentioned in the article

regarding “Forgiveness Therapy”. However, the (ADC) Alcohol Drug Counseling method, was

not mentioned in the abstract but rather mentioned further into the article. The highlights of the

results were described fairly well within the abstract, arguing the positive results of the (FT)

“Forgiveness Therapy” methodology of treatment. Overall the abstract is effective in displaying

a summary and interest in the article. It gives results and methods summaries clearly and

concisely along with how the study was conducted. This researcher feels appropriateness was

displayed with in the abstract. This researcher feels the purpose of the study was not as clearly

stated in the abstract but is mentioned further into the closure of the article.

Critique of Literature Review

This researcher noticed the problem the article was referring to was identified within

the introduction; using the opening sentence of introduction. The statement was specific and

concise without bringing maleficence to any specific group or individual. The importance of the

problem area “ substance abuse as relating to resentment and anger was referred to in the article

with clarity, urgency and comparison with that of another alternative method of treatment.

Lin Article p.5

According to table 3 of the Lin article, pretest and posttest changes advocate forgiveness therapy

as showing significant improvement with participants over the ADC method.

Lin Article p.6

Two theories of treatment are mentioned and compared. ADC, Alcohol Drug Counseling

and FT, Forgiveness Therapy. According to the article explanation of the two theories and

procedures are explained, comparing and contrasting the two theories. (Lin, 2004, p.1116)

The purpose of the Lin article flows from purpose into a hypothesis of forgiving leads

to reduced urgency or feeling of substance abuse to anesthesize their feelings. According to

Lin, “We hypothesized that individuals in residential treatment for alcohol and drug dependence,

after receiving treatment augmented by FT, would demonstrate less anger, depression, anxiety

and vulnerability to substance use and more self esteem that those receiving residential treatment

augmented with a similar amount of a more standard regimen, alcohol and drug counseling

(ADC). That was not focused on anger reduction.” (Lin, 2004, p.1115) The purpose statement is

stated later in the introduction which precedes a hypothesis. However the purpose is not clearly

stated but rather suggested through a statement, hypothesis and later results.

Excessive citing on a singular point was found on two accounts of this article. Eight

citations for researchers developing new therapeutic approach of forgiveness therapy, and seven

citations referring to “robust results”of forgiveness therapy with certain populations. (Lin, 2004,

p.1115) It appears to this researcher that the Lin article reflects positive criticism when

comparing forgiveness therapy with alcohol drug counseling. For example, “The forgiveness

treatment was effective in bringing the clients up to normal levels; whereas clients undergoing

the alternative treatment continued to manifest low self-esteem through the follow up.” (Lin,

2004, p.1119)

Lin Article p.7

A distinguishing of research rather than opinion has been stated through usage of tables,

statistics and quotations of current results in comparison. Under the results category section, the

two treatments of forgiveness therapy and alcohol counseling were compared followed by a case

study. ( Lin, 2004, p. 1117) The review portion of the article was again concise, direct, abstractly

presented and clearly opened interest for further reading. The focus and purpose were evident

from the first page and began to unfold in a chronological manner.

Critique of Research Hypothesis

The article states the question concerning the validity and value of forgiveness therapy

and results of forgiveness and it relates to anger, resentment and substance abuse. The authors of

the article affirm that forgiveness therapy should be researched further and has validity in usage

for dependent substance abuse suffers. The research hypothesis was clearly stated as mentioned

in this critique of page six under “critique of literature review”. The flow of the article leading to

the hypothesis is again stated on page six of this critique. The efficacy of the research is reflected

in the article in a comparative research study of two theories of treatment. Results are clearly

shown with some past research cited as guidelines and foundational directive for the study. Little

past research have been conducted therefore, the efficacy of the research is foundational itself

and argues for further study to establish valuable truths and theories for treatment reliability.

Lin Article p.8

References

Table 3. Dependent Variable Gain Scores. Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and

Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance- Dependent Clients,” by Lin, Wei-

Fin, Enright D. Robert, Krahn, Dean, Mack, David, Baskin W. Thomas, 2004, Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 72, pp. 1114-1121. Copyright 2004 by the American

Psychological Association.