Breeding Resistance
Instead of trying to understand their guests, Schlessinger and McGraw are often confrontational and directive, authoritatively telling people what to do or not to do with relatively little input from the recipients of their instructions. For example, Dr. Phil told a 19-year-old man who was considering marrying a 30-year-old woman with two children after a very short courtship: “You absolutely, unequivocally should not do this!”
However much the viewer might agree, numerous studies reveal that a directive therapist style leads many people to dig in their heels and may even worsen a situation or psychological problem. In 1985 psychologists Gerald Patterson and Marion Forgatch of the Oregon Social Learning Center concluded that directives from therapists who were coaching mothers to deal with difficult children triggered more resistant responses from the mothers than did a supportive approach involving gentle encouragement and belief in a child’s ability to change. In a 1993 study psychologist William R. Miller of the University of New Mexico and his colleagues found that therapists who used more directive and confrontational statements elicited more opposition from patients who were problem drinkers. In addition, the more directive the therapists were, the more the clients drank a year after the therapy.
Most psychotherapists know that merely telling people to stop their problem behaviors is rarely helpful, and indeed no data exist to show that anyone has benefited from Schlessinger’s or McGraw’s advice. After a thorough search of the research literature and the Internet, we could not find a single follow-up study of the participants, formal or informal.
Because Schlessinger’s and McGraw’s practices are unsubstantiated, we believe that these well-known hosts need to demonstrate that they are not causing harm. Calling what they do “entertainment” or “education” does not exclude them from this requirement. Both shows inaccurately portray how mental health professionals understand and help people. Most psychological problems do not simply reflect a lack of self-control and cannot be changed by simple directives. Believing that they can could lead millions of people to ignore important biological or social causes of their troubles and fail to seek effective treatments for themselves or others.
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.