"Four groups of judges, three of which differed in therapeutic experience, were asked to rate a series of 60 psychothera-peutic interpretations. Two groups rated for "depth"; two groups rated for "plausibility." High intragroup agreement was obtained on both depth and plausibility scales. When mean plausibility ratings were correlated with mean depth ratings, a sufficiently high relationship was found to suggest that the two scales may be measuring the same underlying construct. Plausibility ratings of therapeutically naive graduate students correlated .88 with depth ratings from experienced psychologists and .86 with psychiatrists'' depth ratings, implying that advanced training in therapy and psychodynamics may not be prerequisite for a knowledge of what is "deep" or "shallow." It was also noted that less experienced raters tend to judge interpretations as more deep (and implausible) than experienced therapists. The possible advantages and implications of conceptualizing depth in terms of plausibility are discussed.".