The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critique and reformulation of "learning-theory" approaches to psychotherapy and neurosis.
Abstract
This classic paper by Breger and McGaugh was the first within the field of clinical psychology to critically review and elegantly dissect the overly simplistic theoretical explanations of the process of behavioral therapy. Without denying the clinical usefulness of certain behavioral therapies, the authors cogently demonstrate that the explanations given by their proponents of how they work are quite inadequate. Particularly open to criticism are (a) the emphasis on the peripheral response, (b) the assumption that concepts taken from Pavlovian and operant conditioning can be utilized as explanatory principles, and (c) the use of the concept of reinforcement. Breger and McGaugh, in addition, demonstrate the inadequacy of a conception of neurosis that is couched only in terms of discrete symptoms. Finally, they offer a reformulation of the learning process in which it is seen as the acquisition and storage of information, with emphasis on the role of central processes. Thus they construct a theoretical structure that can more adequately explain what goes on in both behavioral therapies and dynamic psychotherapies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957) · doi:10.1037/10627-000 · Cited by 4,894
Olds, J., & Milner, P. (1954) · Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0058775 · Cited by 3,176
Harlow, H. F. (1958) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0047884 · Cited by 2,022
Imprinting: empirical basis and theoretical significance
Moltz, H. (1960) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0041214 · Cited by 118
Cited by
Some myths of psychotherapy research and the search for a paradigm.
Kiesler, D. J. (1966) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0022911 · Cited by 731
Toward the delineation of therapeutic change principles.
Goldfried, M. R. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.11.991 · Cited by 451
Systematic desensitization and nonspecific treatment effects: A methodological evaluation.
Kazdin, A. E., & Wilcoxon, L. A. (1976) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.83.5.729 · Cited by 416
Cognitive modification of test anxious college students.
Meichenbaum, D. H. (1972) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0033896 · Cited by 362
Stress-induced recovery of fears and phobias.
Jacobs, W. J., & Nadel, L. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.512 · Cited by 322
Metadata
- Authors
- Breger, L., & McGaugh, J. L.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1965-05
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 338-358
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W1981969581
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 37.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critique and reformulation of "learning-theory" approaches to psychotherapy and neurosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0021788
- The paper
- Breger, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (1965). Critique and reformulation of "learning-theory" approaches to psychotherapy and neurosis. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021788
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.