THE EVOLUTION OF AN AMERICAN MYTH



Louis H. Regal, PhD



This title emanates from my contention that there are many wide spread myths in our society that have become deeply ingrained in the fabric of Americana. One such institution is Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) which has become an icon among American institutions. Even as a graduate student in psychology, I was told that both physicians and psychologists need not treat alcoholics because AA was the treatment of choice.


I have come to doubt this truism because of my deep professional and personal interest in the area of alcohol abuse, which has resulted in my reading many studies, publications and scholarly works on the subject. My latest excursion into this area was the recent Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) Conference which is one of several options to AA that have been developing slowly in recent years.


Among some of the options to AA besides SOS are Rational Recovery, SMART, and some "moderation clinics," such as a top flight one at the University of Washington. The renewed interest in moderation drinking was sparked by a tragic incident involving Audrey Kishline who wrote a book on Moderation Management. It was called Moderate Drinking: The New Option for Problem Drinkers.


Kishline, while legally intoxicated, drove the wrong way on a Washington State Highway and created an accident that killed two people. Besides the original news item in the LA Times, the LA Times later wrote an article by an obvious AA disciple. It is full of AA platitudes and a typical exposition of AA dogma which is all anecdotal and while it is pretty prose, it is terrible science! Another article in Time magazine which while not as obviously biased for the AA dogma, the last paragraph reads "Alcoholics in recovery have tried moderation. Kishline’s tragedy shows (such attempts) don’t work." While not going into the particulars of this case, this statement does not follow scientifically. There have been numerous studies that support moderation management but none were cited in any of the media’s coverage.

There is hope, however. A recent and unexpected breakthrough was Peter Jennings 20/20 hour-long program, which exposed millions of viewers to true experts in the field, some of whom see AA as a cult-like organization. Another area in the behavioral sciences that has come into question through research is "grief counseling." This does not only happen in the behavioral sciences. Look at the controversies about global warming and the efficacy of a missile defense system. The individuals’ interpretation of the "facts" often reflect an individual’s political and world view attitudes.


The main point from my perspective as a psychologist is that we generally should ask, "What is the evidence." More specifically,


• What kind of study was done?

• What was the dependent variable?

• Was there a control group?

• What kinds of statistical tests were used to analyze the data?

• Has the study been replicated?


Many scholars think that scientific literacy in America is at an all time low. Institutions such as AA, which eschews research, help promote this trend. I believe humanists, skeptics, rationalists, etc. should take the lead in helping the media present their "scientific facts" with greater accuracy and validity. So before you believe a given "scientific" version of the facts in the media or in everyday conversation, you are well served to ask yourself "What EXACTLY is the evidence?"