CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,091Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empiricially, "all must have prizes."

Wampold, Bruce E., Mondin, Gregory W., Moody, Marcia, Stich, Frederick, Benson, Kurt, Ahn, Hyun-nie·1997·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.203
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This recta-analysis tested the Dodo bird conjecture, which states that when psychotherapies intended to be therapeutic are compared, the true differences among all such treatments are 0. Based on comparisons between treatments culled from 6 journals, it was found that the effect sizes were homogeneously distributed about 0, as was expected under the Dodo bird conjecture, and that under the most liberal assumptions, the upper bound of the true effect was about .20. Moreover, the effect sizes (a) were not related positively to publication date, indicating that improving research methods were not detecting effects, and (b) were not related to the similarity of the treatments, indicating that more dissimilar treatments did not produce larger effects, as would be expected if the Dodo bird conjecture was false. The evidence from these analyses supports the conjecture that the efficacy of bona fide treatments are roughly equivalent. In 1936, Rosenzweig proposed that common factors were responsible for the efficacy of psychotherapy and used the conclusion of the Dodo bird from Alice in Wonderland (Carroll, 1865/1962) to emphasize this point: At last the Dodo said, 'Everybody has won, and all must have prizes' (p. 412). Later, Luborsky, Singer, and Luborsky ( 1975 ) reviewed the psychotherapy outcome literature, found that the psychotherapies reviewed were generally equivalent in terms of their outcomes, and decreed that the Dodo bird was correct. Since Luborsky et al.'s seminal review, the equivalence of outcome in psychotherapy has been called the Dodo bird effect. To many interested in the technical aspects of particular psychotherapies, the Dodo bird effect was distasteful and, on the face of it, unbelievable: If the indiscriminate distribution of prizes argument carried true conviction . . . we end up with the same advice for everyoneRegardless of the nature of your problem seek any form of psychotherapy. This is absurd. We doubt whether even the strongest advocates of the Dodo bird argument dispense this advice. (Rachman & Wilson, 1980, p. 167)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.203

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 145 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–999 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H.-N.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Wampold, Bruce E.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1997-11
Volume
122
Issue
3
Pages
203-215
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.203
OpenAlex
W2094838887
Cited by
1,091
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 57 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 51
FWCI
4.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
treatment effect size, common factors in psychotherapy, psychotherapy efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review