Advertisement

Psychotherapie Forum

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 146–152 | Cite as

Geburt, Tod und Wiedergeburt des Dodo-Vogels: Mythen der Psychotherapie und Psychotherapieforschung

  • Klaus-Peter SeidlerEmail author
Originalarbeit

Zusammenfassung

Die Psychotherapieforschung hat viele Lehrmeinungen der verschiedenen Therapieverfahren nicht bestätigen können, sodass diese als Mythen erscheinen. Gleichzeitig hat die Forschung aber deutliche Belege für die Wirksamkeit von Psychotherapie erbracht. Insofern stellt die Forschung nicht die Bedeutung der Psychotherapie, sondern vielmehr die verbreiteten Vorstellungen über ihre Wirkungsweise infrage. Das so genannte Dodo-Vogel-Verdikt, wonach die wichtigsten Psychotherapieverfahren eine ähnliche Wirksamkeit aufweisen, wird kontroversiell diskutiert. Viele der aktuellen Forschungsergebnisse legen nahe, dass sich die Wirkungsweise von Psychotherapie nicht anhand eines medizinisch orientierten Modells erklären lässt, demgemäß Psychotherapie aufgrund eines spezifischen, auf die psychischen Probleme der Patienten abgestimmten therapeutischen Vorgehens wirkt. Die Datenlage spricht eher für ein Modell, wonach Psychotherapie als ein Prozess der sozialen Einflussnahme zu konzipieren ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Psychotherapieforschung Therapieschulenvergleich Modelle der Wirkungsweise von Psychotherapie 

La naissance, la mort et la résurrection de l'oiseau dodo – les mythes en psychothérapie et en recherche

The dodo-bird's birth, death, and rebirth: Myths of psychotherapy and psychotherapy research

Abstract

Many of the psychotherapy schools' theoretical assumptions haved turned out to be myths because psychotherapy research has not been able to confirm them. However, research has also established clear evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. Thus, research is not questioning the relevance of psychotherapy but rather the widespread assumptions about the mode of its functioning. The validity of the so-called dodo-bird verdict is controversial. According to the dodo-bird verdict, the most important psychotherapy schools have a similar efficacy. Many of the current research results suggest that a medical model is not appropriate to explain psychotherapy's mode of functioning. According to this model, psychotherapy is effective as a result of a specific therapeutic procedure which is matched to the patient's mental problems. In contrast, a model is indicated in which psychotherapy is conceived as a process of social influencing.

Keywords

Psychotherapy research Efficacy of psychotherapy schools Models of psychotherapy's mode of functioning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ahn H, Wampold BE (2001) Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology 48: 251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskin TW, Tierney SC, Minami T, Wampold BE (2003) Establishing specificity in psychotherapy: a meta-analysis of structural equivalence of placebo controls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73: 973–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beutler LE (2002) The dodo bird is extinct. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beutler LE, Mohr DC, Grawe K, Engle D, MacDonald R (1991) Looking for differential effects: cross-cultural predictors of differential psychotherapy efficacy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 1: 121–142Google Scholar
  5. Beutler LE, Moleiro C, Malik M, Harwood TM, Romaneli R, Gallagher-Thompson D, Thompson L (2003) A comparison of the Dodo, EST, and ATI factors among comorbid stimulant-dependent, depressed patients. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 10: 69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryson B (2003) A short history of nearly everything. Black Swan Book, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Castonguay LG, Goldfried MR, Wiser S, Raue PJ (1996) Predicting the effect of cognitive therapy for depression: a study of unique and common factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64: 497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambless DL (2002) Beware the dodo bird: the dangers of overgeneralization. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan BL (2002) The legacy of Saul Rosenzweig: the profundity of the dodo bird. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 12: 32–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emmelkamp PM (1982) Phobic and obsessive-compulsive disorders: theory, research, and practice. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Fonagy P, Roth A (2004) Ein Überblick über die Ergebnisforschung anhand nosologischer Indikationen. Teil 1. Psychotherapeutenjournal 3: 204–218Google Scholar
  12. Frank JD, Frank JB (1991) Persuasion and healing: a comparative study of psychotherapy, 3. Aufl. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  13. Grawe K (1992) Psychotherapieforschung zu Beginn der neunziger Jahre. Psychologische Rundschau 43: 132–162Google Scholar
  14. Grawe K, Donati R, Bernauer F (1994) Psychotherapie im Wandel: von der Konfession zur Profession. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  15. Green B (1983) Körpertherapie. In: Corsini R (Hrsg) Handbuch der Psychotherapie, Bd 1. Beltz, Weinheim, S 513–528Google Scholar
  16. Hunsley J, Di Giulio G (2002) Dodo bird, phoenix, or urban legend? The question of psychotherapy equivalence. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 1: 11–22Google Scholar
  17. Klein DF (2002) Dodo deliberations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 28–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambert MJ (Hrsg) (2004) Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, 5. Aufl. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambert MJ, Ogles BM (2004) The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In: Lambert MJ (Hrsg) Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, 5. Aufl. Wiley, New York, S 139–193Google Scholar
  20. Leichsenring F (1996) Zur Meta-Analyse von Grawe und Mitarbeitern. Gruppenpsychotherapie und Gruppendynamik 32: 205–234Google Scholar
  21. Leichsenring F (2001) Comparative effects of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy in depression: a meta-analytic approach. Clinical Psychology Review 21: 401–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leichsenring F, Rabung S, Leibing E (2004) The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in specific psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis. Archives of General Psychiatry 61: 1208–1216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lohr JM, Olatunji BO, Parker L, DeMaio C (2005) Experimental analysis of specific treatment factors: efficacy and practice implications. Journal of Clinical Psychology 61: 819–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luborsky L, Singer B, Luborsky L (1975) Comparative studies of psychotherapies: is it true that "Everyone has won and all must have prizes"? Archives of General Psychiatry 32: 995–1008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Johnson S, Halperin G, Bishop M, Schweizer E (1999) The researcher's own therapeutic allegiances: a "wild card" in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 6: 95–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Luborsky L, Rosenthal R, Diguer L, Andrusyna TP, Berman JS, Levitt JT, Seligman DA, Krause ED (2002) The dodo bird verdict is alive and well – mostly. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIntosh VVW, Jordan J, Carter FA, Luty SE, McKenzie JM, Bulik CM, Frampton CMA, Joyce PR (2005) Three psychotherapies for anorexia nervosa: a randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Psychiatry 162: 741–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Messer SB, Wampold BE (2002) Let's face facts: common factors are more potent than specific therapy ingredients. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norcross J (Hrsg) (2002) Psychotherapy relationships that work: therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Orlinsky D (2003) Störungsspezifische, personenspezifische und kulturspezifische Psychotherapie: Erkenntnisse aus Psychotherapieforschung und Sozialwissenschaften. Psychotherapeut 48: 403–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reimer C, Rüger U (Hrsg) (2000) Psychodynamische Psychotherapien: Lehrbuch der tiefenpsychologisch orientierten Psychotherapien. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenzweig S (1936) Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 6: 412–415Google Scholar
  33. Rounsaville BJ, Carroll KM (2002) Commentary on dodo bird revisited: why aren't we dodos yet? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider KJ (2002) The dodo bird: less a verdict than an opportunity. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9: 26–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seidler KP (2003) Vorurteile – Mythen – empirische Wirklichkeiten: neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Konzentrativen Bewegungstherapie. Psychoanalyse und Körper 2: 89–111Google Scholar
  36. Seidler KP, Schreiber-Willnow K, Hamacher-Erbguth A, Pfäfflin M (2002) Die Praxis der Konzentrativen Bewegungstherapie (KBT): Frequenz – Dauer – Setting – behandelte Störungsbilder. Psychotherapeut 47: 223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selvini Palazzoli M, Cirillo S, Selvini M, Sorrentino AM (1999) Anorexie und Bulimie: neue familientherapeutische Perspektiven. Klett-Cotta, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  38. Simons AD, Garfield SL, Murphy GE (1984) The process of change in cognitive therapy and pharmacotherapy for depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 41: 45–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauß B (2001) Abschied vom Dodo-Vogel: störungsspezifische versus allgemeine Therapie aus der Sicht der Psychotherapieforschung. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie 51: 425–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sydow Kv, Weber A, Reimer C (1998) "Psychos" in den Medien. Psychotherapeut 43: 80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tracey TJG, Lichtenberg JW, Goodyear RK, Claiborn CD, Wampold BE (2003) Concept mapping of therapeutic common factors. Psychotherapy Research 13: 401–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tryon GS, Winograd G (2002) Goal consensus and collaboration. In: Norcross JC (Hrsg) Psychotherapy relationships that work: therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients. Oxford University Press, London, S 109–125Google Scholar
  43. Tschuschke V, Heckrath C, Tress W (Hrsg) (1997) Zwischen Konfusion und Makulatur: zum Wert der Berner Psychotherapie-Studie von Grawe, Donati und Bernauer. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  44. Wallerstein RS (1990) Zum Verhältnis von Psychoanalyse und Psychotherapie: Wiederaufnahme einer Diskussion. Psyche 44: 967–994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wampold BE (2001) The great psychotherapy debate: models, methods, and findings. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  46. Wampold BE, Mondin GW, Moody M, Stich F, Benson K, Ahn H (1997) A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: empirically, "all must have prizes". Psychological Bulletin 122: 203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinberger J (1995) Common factors aren't so common: the common factors dilemma. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2: 45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westen D, Novotny CM, Thompson-Brenner H (2004) The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin 130: 631–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung Sozialpsychiatrie und PsychotherapieMedizinische Hochschule HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations