This is a negative example of an annotated bibliography. Which of the criteria does it fail to meet? What problems does it have? How can you be sure your annotation meets more of the criteria than this one?
By: Blackmon, Wayne D. American Journal of Psychotherapy. Fall1994, Vol. 48 Issue 4, p624-632. 9p. DOI: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.19184.108.40.2064.
Wayne talks about three patients he had who benefited from playing the game. One patient played for five hours each week, another played for three, and the third only got to play for one hour! I like this source. They played a game called Savage Word. Wayne says that he tried to create situations in the game that would let the patients practice experiencing things that gave them stress in the real world. This stressful things were just in the game, so the patients knew they were not in the real world. So, they could consider the stressful thing from an emotional distance and think about it without it being too personal. Then, when they did encounter the stressful thing in the real world they were ready for it because they had already thought about it as part of the game that they had played with Wayne. It is wonderful that Wayne thought of this. The thing about this is that I don’t know if the game mechanics of most games are flexible for most doctors in Wayne’s position to do this. Also, a big part of most games is randomness, from either like dice or sometimes shuffled cards. Its not really the game without randomness, but what if the randomness happens in a way that freaks the patient out? That’s not good. How to do patients really make the switch from games to IRL. Maybe if patients are afraid of spiders IRL they could beat some giant spiders in the game, but if patients are afraid to talk to their boss about vacation days, how would that work in the fame? It’s not like dragons sit on piles of vacation days.