Contemporary Negative Assessments of Alcoholics Anonymous: A Response

ABSTRACT

This article is a response to unfounded assessments of the value and effectiveness of Alcoholic Anonymous (AA) as an agent of recovery from alcohol/other drug disorders. Three recent examples are identified: Dodes and Dodes (2014), Glaser (2015), and Mohammad (2016). To challenge these assessments, three publications offering scientific support for AA are presented: Emrick et al. (1993); Vaillant (2012); and Humphreys, Blodgett, and Wagner (2014). A detailed examination is then undertaken of how Dodes and Dodes arrive at the conclusion that AA’s long-term sobriety rate is between 5% and 8%. Our review of the studies cited by Dodes and Dodes reveals that long-term abstinence rates for actively involved members of AA and other 12-Step groups are impressively high.

KEYWORDS:

• Alcoholics Anonymous
• treatment of alcoholism
• 12-Step programs
• 12-Step program effectiveness

Acknowledgment

A special debt of gratitude is given to Colin Coleman, BA; Sharron Lavoy, EdM; E. Brie Thumm, MSN, MBA; and Narin Wongngamnit, MD, for their contributions to the preparation of this article.

Notes

1. The list of scientists who have devoted some, if not all, of their careers to studying AA is quite lengthy (see, e.g., John Allen, Linda J. Beckman, Larry E. Beutler, Stephanie D. Brown, Raul Caetano, Carlo C. DiClemente, John Finney, Richard L. Gorsuch, Lee Kaskutas, Ernest Kurtz, Richard Longabaugh, Klaus Makela, Barbara S. McCrady, William R. Miller, Rudolf Moos, Jon Morgenstern, Joseph Nowinski, Alan C. Ogborne, Robin Room, Christine Timko, and J. Scott Tonigan). We are aware that this list has left out many researchers worthy of mention. Our doing so is in no way intended to suggest that their work is any less significant than the researchers identified. For purposes of striving to place some limits on the length of this article, the names of numerous fine researchers have gone unlisted.