Allen asked: "Can anyone suggest why studies carried out in the 1980s might be expected to have some methodological shortcomings? I'm sure serious consideration of the problems involved with studies of psychotherapeutic efficacy goes back considerably further than that, given that Eysenck raised the issue in the 1950s."
Well, yes. Because they were done by old coots who were obviously not as smart as "the current authors". (I do know that is fallacious- but we do see that kind of thinking among students quite frequently). Recently in a general psych class we were discussing the Bandura, Ross and Ross studies. When discussing about the third or fourth one in sequence, one student asked, "Why didn't they see this was going to happen? I just don't get why they did the first study when this one seems to disprove what it found!" This student decided not to major in psychology- whew! But I find similar comments being made even at conferences- certainly not with that degree of naiveté but similar in kind- "That old stuff!". Tim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
