The Dodo Verdict And The Effectiveness Of Psychotherapy
Psychology is a relatively young science (the first scientific psychology laboratory would not be created until 1879) and that continually evolves, with different schools of thought having emerged dedicated to different areas and conceptualizations of the human psyche. One of the most well-known and popular areas is clinical psychology and psychotherapy, which greatly helps to improve patients suffering from different ailments, difficulties and disorders.
However, treating a patient is not saying the first thing that comes to mind: it requires the use of different techniques that have been shown to have real and significant effectiveness. Assessing the effectiveness of a technique requires evaluating not only the possible improvement of a patient but also comparing it with the absence of therapy and with other treatments and currents. The research carried out in this sense has generated great repercussions and ways of understanding psychotherapy and its effects. Even today there is debate regarding whether or not different types of therapy present significant differences in terms of effectiveness, discussing something with a curious name: Dodo effect, related to an issue known as the Dodo verdict We will talk about these two concepts here.
A hypothetical phenomenon is called the Dodo effect. reflects that the effectiveness of all psychotherapy techniques maintains almost equivalent effectiveness, there being no significant differences between the multiple theoretical and methodological currents available. The Dodo verdict is the topic of debate that revolves around the existence or non-existence of this effect. Do therapies work because of their effectiveness in activating the precise psychological mechanisms according to the theoretical model from which they are based, or do they simply work because of other things that all therapists apply without realizing it?
Its name is a metaphor introduced by Rosenzweig In reference to Lewis Carrol’s book, Alice in Wonderland One of the characters in this narrative is the Dodo bird, who considered at the end of the endless race the fact that “everyone has won and everyone must have prizes.” The effect in question was suggested by this author in a publication in 1936, considering after carrying out some research that it is the factors shared between the different perspectives and the functioning of the therapy that really generates a change and allows the patient’s recovery.
If this effect really exists, the implications could be highly relevant to the application of practical clinical psychology: the development of different therapies between the different currents of thought would become unnecessary and it would be advisable to investigate and generate strategies that focus on explaining and enhancing the elements they have in common (something that in reality is already usually done in practice, being the technical eclecticism quite common in the profession).
However, different research has questioned and denied its existence, observing that certain approaches work better in certain types of disorder and population.
Two opposing poles: the Dodo verdict
Initial research that seemed to reflect the existence of the Dodo effect They encountered fierce opposition at the time from various professionals, who conducted their own research and found that there really are significant differences. However, these investigations were later refuted by other authors, and we still find different investigations that suggest different conclusions.
In this way, we can find that there are mainly two sides in the consideration of whether there are statistically significant differences regarding the effectiveness of different therapies.
The importance of the therapeutic relationship
On the one hand, those who defend the existence of the Dodo effect They claim that almost all therapies have similar effectiveness to each other, not so much the specific techniques of each theoretical current but rather the common elements underlying all of them that generate a real effect on patients. The latter defend the need to investigate and reinforce these common elements.
Some authors such as Lambert defend that recovery is due to non-specific effects: partly to factors of the therapeutic relationship, personal factors of the subject unrelated to the therapy itself, the expectation of recovery and of working towards improvement and, only in one much more modest way, to elements derived from the theoretical model or technique itself.
The truth is that in this sense different investigations have emerged that support the great importance of these aspects, some of the main ones being the therapeutic relationship between professional and patient (something that has been given great importance by all disciplines) and the therapist’s attitude towards the patient and their problems (empathy, active listening and unconditional acceptance between them). But this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that (as Lambert proposes), there are differences between treatments when it comes to being effective.
The importance of the therapy model
Those who defend that there are significant differences between therapies, on the other hand, observe real differences in the effectiveness of the treatments and value that the basic functioning of the different intervention strategies used It is what generates behavioral and cognitive change in the patient, with some strategies having greater effectiveness than others in certain disorders or alterations.
The different investigations carried out comparing treatments have shown different levels of effectiveness depending on the problem to be treated and the circumstances surrounding it.
Likewise, it has been observed that certain therapies can even be counterproductive depending on the disorder in which they are applied, something that has had to be controlled so that patients can improve and not quite the opposite. Something like this would not happen if all therapies worked the same. However, it is also true that this does not prevent the core of the change from being due to common factors between the different therapies.
The truth is that the debate continues to this day and is still ongoing, and there is no clear consensus on the matter and the investigation is ongoing as to whether the effect or verdict of the Dodo is really there or not. In both cases, different methodological aspects have been criticized that may cast doubt on the results obtained or have implications different from those initially considered.
It can probably be considered that neither of the two sides is absolutely right, with procedures that are more appropriate than others in certain situations and subjects (after all, each subject and problem has its own ways of functioning and its modification requires more focused action. in certain areas) but the elements shared between the different therapies are the main mechanism that allows the generation of change.
In any case, we must not forget that the clinical practice of psychotherapy is or should always be done for the benefit of the patient, who is the one who comes to the consultation looking for professional help from a person prepared for it. And this implies both knowing specific techniques to be able to use that have been proven to be effective and developing and optimizing basic therapeutic skills in such a way that a context that is, per se, beneficial for him can be maintained.
