I can remember exactly where I was when I first “met” Swedish psychologist, K. Anders Ericsson. Several hours into a long, overseas flight, I discovered someone had left a magazine in the seat pocket. I never would have even given the periodical a second thought had I not seen all the movies onboard — many twice. Its target audience wasn’t really aimed at mental health professionals: Fortune.
Bored, I mindlessly thumbed through the pages. Then, between articles about investing and pictures of luxury watches, was an article that addressed a puzzle my colleagues and I had been struggling to solve for some time: why were some therapists more consistently effective than others?
In 1974, psychologist David F. Ricks published the first study documenting the superior outcomes of a select group of practitioners he termed, “supershrinks.” Strangely, thirty-years would pass before another empirical analysis appeared in the literature.
The size and scope of the study by researchers Okiishi, Lambert, Nielsen, and Ogles (2003), dwarfed Rick’s, examining results from standardized measures 
administered on an ongoing basis to over 1800 people treated by 91 therapists. The findings not only confirmed the existence of “supershrinks,” but showed exactly just how big the difference was between them and average clinicians. Clients of the most effective experienced a rate of improvement 10 times greater than the average. Meanwhile, those treated by the least effective, ended up feeling the same or worse than when they’d started — even after attending 3 times as many sessions! How did the best work their magic? The researchers were at a loss to explain, ending their article calling it a “mystery” (p. 372).
By this point, several years into the worldwide implementation of the outcome and session rating scales, we’d noticed (and, as indicated, were baffled by) the very same phenomenon. Why were some more effective? We pursued several lines of inquiry. Was it their technique? Didn’t seem to be. What about their training? Was it better or different in some way? Frighteningly, no. Experience level? Didn’t matter. Was it the clients they treated? No, in fact, their outcomes were superior regardless of who walked through their door. Could it be that some were simply born to greatness? On this question, the article in Fortune, was clear, “The evidence … does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts.”
So what was it?
Enter K. Anders Ericsson. His life had been spent studying great performers in many fields, including medicine, mathematics, music, computer programming, chess, and sports. The best, he and his team had discovered, spent more time engaged in an activity they termed, “deliberate practice” (DP). Far from mindless repetition, it involved: (1) establishing a reliable and valid assessment of performance; (2) the identification of objectives just beyond an individual’s current level of ability; (3) development and engagement in exercises specifically designed to reach new performance milestones; (4) ongoing corrective feedback; and (5) successive refinement over time via repetition.
I can remember how excited I felt on finishing the article. The ideas made so much intuitive sense. Trapped in a middle seat, my row-mates on either side fast asleep, I resolved to contact Dr. Ericsson as soon as I got home.
Anders replied almost immediately, giving rise to a decade and a half of correspondence, mentoring, co-presenting, and friendship. And now he is gone. To say I am shocked is an understatement. I’d just spoken with him a few days prior to his death. He was in great spirits, forever helpful and supportive, full of insights and critical feedback. I will miss him — his warmth, encouragement, humility, and continuing curiosity. If you never met him, you can get a good sense of who he was from the interview I did with him two weeks ago. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Until next time, I wish you health, peace, and progress.
Scott
I like this video and the idea of learning from other disciplines and applying them to psychological practice . I feel that too otfen therapists are glued to their brand of therapy, whatever is in fashion, rather than focusing on the needs of each individal client, which calls for varied psychological practices.
Yes, your are right! They often stick on their perception and on their illusions, not on customer s REALITY. The ability to feel it is the genuine empathy which gives sense in any therapy.
I was amazed at how generous Professor Ericsson was in his correspondence with me. He was kind enough to write a lovely review for my latest book and from the moment I had connected with him through email, meeting him and talking with him about psychology was on my bucket list for sure. I am so sad he has gone and my sincere condolences to all left behind. Thank you so much for the confidence you gave me, RIP.
Couple of this lovely gentleman’s comments that resonate for me, words to the effect that it’s sustained daily effort to improve whatever it is you want to improve and holding the idea that with this daily sustained effort today I am a little different to what I was yesterday
Vale Anders Ericsson! Forty years of work & our therapy field is still mostly unaware of the importance of deliberate practice to improve outcomes for our clients. I totally appreciate that you & your colleagues are continuing to carry the torch.
Wow, what a wonderful and rich video Interview – one that I’m sure you will cherish forever, along with Dr Ericsson’s inspiration and Foreward for Better Results. Thanks for sharing this.
I’m very impressed by the interview, by the coincidental significance of the whole situation and the contactfullness of what happenend within your relationship and cooperation in research with V.A. Ericsson. I feel much solace, comfort and inspiration in the ideas that you and V.A. Ericsson are transmitting in your conversation and like to thank you very much for sharing this with us.
As a supervisor I have struggled With my participants to Persuade them to learn by taping and watching and trying to see alternative ways of doing the therapy. It was very helpful when Anders Said something like: it is usually more tempting to be satisfied With what you already Do than to see what is lacking and train to get better.
Thanks Scott for sharing this precious video.
It’s such a lovely way to remember mr Ericsson❤
intrigued by discussion from 15:25 to 16:25 in which reflecting on one’s thinking prior to a not-so-effective intervention can be helpful in generating more effective interventions. i realize it’s more than this but it seems reminiscent of thoreau’s “an unexamined life is not worth living”.
thank you, scott, for your ongoing generosity.
sam hogg
What a wonderful interview !
I was as impressed by your [Scott’s] articulate expression of the real issues in psychotherapy practice as I was by Anderson’s research-rich and relevant and productive responses ! For example, your point that “models” have never shown much relation to outcome; that even the mere measurement of outcome is problematic; that traditional education may have little to do with someone learning the skills that lead to good outcomes… And Anders had some substantial experience, relevant and deep, to share about each one of these items !
I was an elite athlete many years ago, and in/around the 90’s some new coaching methods produced an amazing (to me !), quantum-level improvement in my sport….. Not just in a few competitors, but for the entire field.
The interview contributed to me seeing actual hope that eventually, the field’s investment in “models” and the narrow focus of teaching their related intellectual concepts as the essential therapeutic ingredient — will fade away. And with an eye on measured outcomes, the distinction of concrete skills, the development of coaching and practice for the profession, — there will be an analogous, quantum-level improvement in the effectiveness of psychotherapy services.
Once again, what an informative and inspirational interview conversation !
* edit: Ander’s… and perhaps I was being a bit too familiar and lacking in due respect, in using Dr Ericsson’s first name. Apologies.