A woman who had been married for 14 years called into Dr. Laura’s radio show. The woman says she recently realized that she has never loved her husband, and she informs Dr. Laura that she has told her husband that. The couple has received marriage counseling, but Dr. Laura tells the caller that counseling is useless because of her attitude, according to a YouTube recording of the episode. The conversation continues:
Dr. Laura: “What is your question for me?”
Caller: “What type of advice can you give me to try to…?”
Dr. Laura (interrupting): “Too late, too late, you were cruel.”
Caller: “At the time …”
Dr. Laura (interrupting again): “Try to make it up to him by just being nice every day. Maybe you’re just broken in the I-can-feel-compassion-for-someone department.”
In an episode of Dr. Phil’s television show that first aired on April 1, 2009, Dr. Phil spoke to a guest who was seeking help because she gets very angry at her children and sometimes hits them. His advice: “You can stop. You can stop because you do stop for other people … It’s not that you won’t, it’s just that you don’t….”
Participants in the Dr. Laura (Schlessinger) and the Dr. Phil (McGraw) shows seek help for a variety of personal problems, and the advice the hosts provide reaches a lot of people. Earlier this year Dr. Laura’s call-in show drew more than nine million listeners per week. At about the same time, Dr. Phil attracted roughly four million viewers per program. Yet neither host claims to practice psychotherapy. What is more, both Schlessinger’s and McGraw’s typical takes on people’s troubles are at odds with much of the psychological literature, which suggests that their recommendations are unlikely to work most of the time and might even do damage.
Although Schlessinger holds a California license in marriage, child and family counseling, her Ph.D. is in physiology, not psychology, making the use of “Dr.” as a qualification for giving personal advice misleading. McGraw has a psychology Ph.D. and was licensed as a psychologist in Texas until 2006, when he let his license expire.
Blaming the Victim
McGraw and Schlessinger are right to emphasize personal responsibility and discourage blaming others for problems. Yet they often take individual accountability to an extreme, implying that people are to blame for all their difficulties when, in fact, factors such as an individual’s genetic makeup, personal history and current circumstances may contribute significantly to psychological problems. Emphasizing personal control above all else can discourage people from identifying the external issues or situations that might be contributing to their problems and that might need to be addressed.
Another drawback of the Schlessinger and McGraw styles is their lack of empathy—a willingness to understand another person’s thoughts, feelings and struggles from that person’s perspective. Schlessinger typically spends only a few minutes with callers, frequently interrupting them and sometimes referring to their behaviors with derogatory terms, such as “stupid.” Her strongly worded advice is usually based on her socially conservative and religious views and often neglects many of the specific problems that the caller is facing. McGraw typically spends somewhat more time listening, but he comes to relatively quick conclusions about the causes of and solutions for his guests’ problems, again reflecting little appreciation for the complexities of people’s lives.
Recent research suggests that a lack of empathy is a handicap when trying to help people with psychological or social problems. In a 2002 quantitative review of numerous studies psychologist Arthur Bohart, then at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and his colleagues found a correlation between high levels of empathy in therapists and successful outcomes in their patients. In a 1992 study psychiatrist David Burns, then at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and his colleagues used advanced statistical techniques for distinguishing cause and effect and found that a therapist’s ability to empathize not only is correlated with a patient’s progress but also contributes to it. Empathy is the cornerstone of psychotherapy, both because therapists need it to provide useful and relevant guidance and because patients benefit from feeling truly understood.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentI don't interpret anything that Dr. Laura suggests as "advice", but rather her OPINION, and her suggestions to be just that - suggestions. People can choose to do, or not do, whatever they wish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd by the way, when did the word "stupid" become a bad word?
Are Arkowitz and Lilienfeld serious when they infer that Dr. Laura's and Dr. Phil's callers and guests have "psychological problems"? Of course such problems cannot be "changed by simple directives". But to conclude their article with that blanket statement is to infer that the two are practicing psychology without a license, as opposed to helping houswives and students out (like myself) utilizing their life experience and opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find many faults with this article. One of which is the criticism levied at Dr. Laura for not spending enough time with her callers. Obviously finding it impractical to host a national radio show with 3 guests for one hour each every day she instead chooses to interact with several callers during her allotted broadcast time. In doing so, her millions of listeners are given the chance to hear her personal advice on several real world situations.
In doing so her trademark 'lack of empathy', although perhaps not as helpful to the individual caller as the authors would like, illustrates problems and then her advice to millions of listening audience members who are helped by the back and forth. In my opinion, Dr. Laura's directness with her callers is likely more helpful to those millions of listeners than if she was indirect and more reassuring ironically.
Dr. Laura also knows her limits and routinely advises callers on air that she cannot help them when they present her with a problem beyond her training and knowledge.
Finally, if the worst example of Dr. Laura the authors can find is that she advised a wife to "try being nice every day" and the worst example of Dr. Phil being that an 18 year old "should not do that" in regards to marrying a 30 year old with 2 chldren after a "very short courtship", then the authors really appear to be grasping at straws.
The fact that Arkowitz and Lilienfeld would take time to critique a radio and tv show host lead me to believe they are insecure or jealous as to their own impact on the world. Dr. Laura and Phil are not professors of psychology as the authors are, but do not pretend to be, so the apples to oranges comparison of what they do is wholly unfair and unjustified.
In closing, just for the record, believe it or not I am not a sycophantic fan of the Dr. Laura show, though I did hear her radio program several times over a period of two years while working a previous job.
KIA: 'when did the word "stupid" become a bad word?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it was used to refer to you... stupid. ;-)
Those who post opinion that approach the long of the article discussed should at least take the time to read that article completely (clearly ChrisMcD did not, or he'd know that the authors give McGraw due credit for having a PhD in Psychology).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese "experts" are nothing but frauds, as well as clowns. It boggles my mind that anyone takes them as anything more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article quoted Miller's work which is the basis for Motivational Interviewing. MI is a scientifically proven method for helping people to achieve change. Miller and other have done a lot of research which shows that TELLING ADULT HUMANS WHAT TO DO is completely ineffective. While there are some people who have dependent personality traits and/or lack of internal authority who may take the advice, in the long run directing someone's life may be counter productive as it will only encourage dependence. Good counselors try to help their clients develop "internal locus of control" so that they are capable of existing independently and making their own decisions ('be your own best advisor'). It takes a certain lack of self-esteem to subject oneself to the contempt often displayed by Dr. Laura. Of course, by the very nature of these programs they can't really be very effective. Change is possible, but it does take effort and TIME. Unfortunately programs like these and our 'take a pill for it' culture encourage people to seek quick fixes and instant gratification. Adult brains can change, but they are not like the brains of children. It take a lot of work! Lastly, the articles comments about empathy being necessary for good therapy are totally correct. Study after study has confirmed this. Check out the work of Dr. Bruce Perry for more information or the book A General Theory of Love is excellent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article provides no proof that either the call-ins nor the listeners were helped or not helped. The article is entirely speculation and rhetoric. Proof would be an analysis of the change in the life, positive-neutral-negative of the call-ins or listeners. I don't see how this is science. It is nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is worth discouraging people from seeking advice from those who are, essentially, involved in the entertainment industry. Radio shows, newspapers and internet sites are always going to be primarily concerned with building or maintaining an audience. The welfare of particpants can only ever be a secondary consideration. What runs on radio is generally shallow as ditchwater, conservative nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPE - It is up to those providing a treatment to assure that it is safe and effective. "First, do no harm." And "advice" from people claiming to be mental health professionals is treatment - no matter what their lawyers say. So far, the evidence in the field suggests it is not effective, and probably harmful. Professionals with a license would like lose it for behaving this way, if it was known. Those without a license (e.g. Dr Phil), should be prosecuted for treating patients without one - and doing it poorly. Make no mistake, the callers are patients (or "clients" if you choose) because callers contact these Professionals due to the claims of training and expertise, and they ask for help within that field of expertise. If my Family Physician or licensed therapist recommends jumping on my left foot 600 times per day - without regard to whether it is helpful and probably harmful, (s)he should lose the license. And if I stop my physician on the street and ask for "advice" about my aching left knee, and get advice without proper history, exam, and chart records, then that physician is violating the licensure standards and should lose that license. Why should it be different for radio/TV "therapists?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if I take advice about my marriage or my knee from a radio host who makes no claim of training or expertise (e.g. Howard Stern), then I'm stupid.
"This article provides no proof that either the call-ins nor the listeners were helped or not helped. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. I didn't think it was science. It seemed largely opinion. My comment on the conservative nature of radio was pure observation....I mean seriously are there any liberal shock jocks? If so I will gladly consign them to the same ditch as their conservative equivalents.
No doubt I have many failings, but I don't generally lapse into abuse, as you did, with those offering a different opinion. From your tone I infer that you think radio is an appropriate medium for psychotherapy. Good luck.
I've enjoyed the discussion as well. The one area I would like to encourage is the increasing discussion about the relatively useless concept of telling people what to do is a form of educating. This area of "I told them....." as though anything has been communicated is ridiculous. I've written a blog on the subject called "If you lust...the world of Aladdin" This area of telling people as a substitute for learning is bizarre. All telling someone something does, is present a point of view in fairly clear terms. Much advice is given in these terms. If this form worked than we could wake up and read a bit of paper which says, "eat well, exercise, be thoughtful and happy" each day and that would be that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very frustrating neck of the woods for me and this blog is one angle on that frustration from being inundated with advice on social networking sites which are full of similar advice. http://www.morenocollegium.com.au/if_you_just_and_world_aladdin
People have been hurt by these on-air psycho pop stars. They may be careful in avoiding lawsuits by their little disclaimers - but there are a lot of misinformed people who do not understand that the "expertise" being provided is in a format (mass media entertainment) not intended for addressing individual problems. The TV/radio is not talking to you - it's just talking...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This article provides no proof that either the call-ins nor the listeners were helped or not helped. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors didn't set out to provide proof! They looked for it and couldn't find it - their point was they felt Dr. Laura & Dr. Phil ought to provide it.
If someone calls themselves "Dr." on TV or radio and talks to people about a certain topic, then they are intentionally positioning themselves as an expert in that topic, not just to people on the show but to everyone watching and listening. This encourages people to believe what they are saying. There is zero difference between opinion and advice when they are directly telling people what to do.
If I go to an auto repair shop and there is a guy there who says, "I'm the head mechanic here, and you need to have your coolant line replaced." If he's the head mechanic and it turns out he's incompetent, and the problem was something else, I'd be totally justified in complaining, wouldn't I? Legally I can probably even force him to give me my money back! Nobody would tell me, "well it's just his OPINION, you have a CHOICE about whether to believe him," blaming me because I don't know more about cars than the guy who's says he's the expert. If this same guy decides to go on TV and tells people how to fix their cars, isn't he still a fraud? The guy shouldn't be on TV if he doesn't know what he's talking about! Why is it different with psychology?
If what they are saying is ineffective or damaging then they are committing fraud, plain and simple, and they should stop in that case. I agree that the burden of proof is on them, too.