Abstract
H. J. Eysenck's (1952, 1963, 1966) criticisms of psychoanalytic therapy have recently been rejected by several psychologists. In 1952, Eysenck assessed the effectiveness of both psychoanalytic and nonpsychoanalytic psychotherapies. Based on a review of the literature, and referring to 24 studies covering over 7,000 cases, he concluded that the data failed to prove that psychotherapy facilitates the recovery of neurotics. One objection is that his argument mistakenly assumes an inflated spontaneous remission rate; another is that his interpretation of some of the studies he cites is radically defective. It has also been argued that more recent studies provide fresh evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. The present article recontructs Eysenck's original argument and tries to show how it can be defended against recent criticisms. (52 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 435-443 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | American Psychologist |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 1 1980 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- psychoanalysis & clinical effectiveness, analysis of H. J. Eysenck's arguments
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Psychology(all)
Cite this
Psychoanalytic therapy : The Eysenck argument. / Erwin, Edward.
In: American Psychologist, Vol. 35, No. 5, 01.05.1980, p. 435-443.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychoanalytic therapy
T2 - The Eysenck argument
AU - Erwin, Edward
PY - 1980/5/1
Y1 - 1980/5/1
N2 - H. J. Eysenck's (1952, 1963, 1966) criticisms of psychoanalytic therapy have recently been rejected by several psychologists. In 1952, Eysenck assessed the effectiveness of both psychoanalytic and nonpsychoanalytic psychotherapies. Based on a review of the literature, and referring to 24 studies covering over 7,000 cases, he concluded that the data failed to prove that psychotherapy facilitates the recovery of neurotics. One objection is that his argument mistakenly assumes an inflated spontaneous remission rate; another is that his interpretation of some of the studies he cites is radically defective. It has also been argued that more recent studies provide fresh evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. The present article recontructs Eysenck's original argument and tries to show how it can be defended against recent criticisms. (52 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
AB - H. J. Eysenck's (1952, 1963, 1966) criticisms of psychoanalytic therapy have recently been rejected by several psychologists. In 1952, Eysenck assessed the effectiveness of both psychoanalytic and nonpsychoanalytic psychotherapies. Based on a review of the literature, and referring to 24 studies covering over 7,000 cases, he concluded that the data failed to prove that psychotherapy facilitates the recovery of neurotics. One objection is that his argument mistakenly assumes an inflated spontaneous remission rate; another is that his interpretation of some of the studies he cites is radically defective. It has also been argued that more recent studies provide fresh evidence for the effectiveness of psychoanalysis. The present article recontructs Eysenck's original argument and tries to show how it can be defended against recent criticisms. (52 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
KW - psychoanalysis & clinical effectiveness, analysis of H. J. Eysenck's arguments
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0019015304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0019015304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/0003-066X.35.5.435
DO - 10.1037/0003-066X.35.5.435
M3 - Article
C2 - 7386972
AN - SCOPUS:0019015304
VL - 35
SP - 435
EP - 443
JO - American Psychologist
JF - American Psychologist
SN - 0003-066X
IS - 5
ER -