The founder of common factors: A conversation with Saul Rosenzweig (original) (raw)
Related papers
A common factors revolution: Let's not "cut off our discipline's nose to spite its face
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2001
Technique is but one feature, although a very prominent one, of the psychotherapeutic endeavor. Previous attempts by Bruce Wampold and others to downplay psychotherapeutic techniques and to endorse a common factors approach have met with strong scientific and political resistance. However, given the methodological merits of the H. Ann and Wampold study (2001) and the strong programmatic basis for their position, the author does not believe that a methodological debate is warranted. Instead, some of the major economic and professional forces in opposition to a common factors approach to psychotherapy research, practice, and training are outlined. Implications of a common factors revolution, and a proposed alternative, are also explored. I thank Jennette Lybeck-Brown for comments on an earlier version of this article, and I thank my students who continue to stimulate my thinking on these issues.
The difficulties of demonstrating that any specific form of psychotherapy is more effective than any other has led to the formulation of the so-called Dodo Bird Verdict (that all forms of therapy are equally effective) and to the suggestion that what really matters for therapeutic efficiency are factors that are common to different forms of therapy. The term " common factors " , however, is seldom defined in an unambiguous way. In this paper, two different models of " common factors " are differentiated, and their implications are compared. The first model is referred to as the Relational-Procedural Persuasion (RPP) model and is primarily based on the writings of Frank and Wampold; according to this model effective psychotherapy requires a good therapeutic relationship, a specified therapeutic procedure, and a rhetorically skilful psychotherapist who persuades the client of a new explanation that provides new perspectives and meanings in life. The contents of these procedures and perspectives, however, are less important – according to this model, the treatment procedures are beneficial to the client because of the meaning attributed to these procedures rather than because of the specific nature of the procedures. The other model, the Methodological Principles and Skills (MPS) model, is based on the assumption that effective psychotherapy relies on common methodological principles that are instantiated in various ways in different forms of psychotherapy, and on the therapist's capacity of applying these principles in a skillful way. According to this model, method matters, and it is possible to improve existing methods. Whereas the MPS model carries a hope for the improvement of psychotherapy, the RPP model implies a more pessimistic view of psychotherapy as forever bound by the limits of the Dodo Bird Verdict. It is concluded that psychotherapy research may benefit from using the MPS model as a working hypothesis, but that a comprehensive model of common factors in psychotherapy also needs to integrate important insights from the RPP model, as well as an understanding of the structural characteristics that psychotherapy shares with other kinds of social interaction.
Common versus specific factors in psychotherapy: opening the black box
The Lancet Psychiatry, 2017
Do psychotherapies work primarily through the specific factors described in treatment manuals, or do they work through common factors? In attempting to unpack this ongoing debate between specific and common factors, we highlight limitations in the existing evidence base and the power battles and competing paradigms that influence the literature. The dichotomy is much less than it might first appear. Most specific factor theorists now concede that common factors have importance, whereas the common factor theorists produce increasingly tight definitions of bona fide therapy. Although specific factors might have been overplayed in psychotherapy research, some are effective for particular conditions. We argue that continuing to espouse common factors with little evidence or endless head-to-head comparative studies of different psychotherapies will not move the field forward. Rather than continuing the debate, research needs to encompass new psychotherapies such as e-therapies, transdiagnostic treatments, psychotherapy component studies, and findings from neurobiology to elucidate the effective process components of psychotherapy.
The cognitive structure used by 16 American Board of Professional Psychology-certified psychologists and 5 experienced psychotherapy researchers to delineate common factors of psychotherapy was examined using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. The results indicate that 2 dimensions—hot (feeling) versus cool (thinking) processing and therapeutic activity—and 3 clusters—bond, information, and role—are used in conceptualizing common factors. Results are discussed with respect to research and conceptualization of common factors. Psychotherapy is undeniably complex and multifaceted, and to professionals and laypersons alike there seem to be dramatic differences in the way it is practiced. Whether these differences are considered primarily in terms of the different forms of psychotherapy (i.e., the distinct theoretical approaches or treatments) or in terms of the common or nonspecific factors present in all forms of psy-chotherapy is a source of long-standing debate about the ...
and Wampold (2013) argue that common factors (CFs) have largely been ignored by clinical researchers developing research-based interventions but that CFs are primarily responsible for therapeutic change. On the contrary, many clinical researchers developing empirically supported treatments have been studying the contribution of these factors for decades. What has been demonstrated is that these factors are contributory, but are not sufficient to produce maximum effects and their impact differs greatly from disorder to disorder. But we also take note of a change of tone and perhaps substance from these authors on the contribution of CFs to evidence-based psychological interventions, and reflect on recent changes in our own views both of which may reduce differences in our respective positions.
Principles of Psychotherapy: By Irving Weiner. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998. 328 pp
Clinical Psychology Review, 2002
How prescriptive should an author be in explaining the practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy? One extreme is to emphasize a broad range of common practices, presenting several different methods of case formulation, responses to resistance, or guidelines for interpretation. This method can provide clinicians with a well-stocked toolbox that they can select from based on their own penchants and the needs of their clients. But even if the author is careful to include criteria for determining which techniques to use, the lack of clear direction can leave readers paralyzed or without a firm understanding of potential difficulties, especially if they are inexperienced therapists. The opposite extreme, typified by treatment manuals, is to advocate strongly for one coherent style, presenting a relatively prescriptive method. If done well, acknowledging some limitations and subjectivity, this method gives therapists firm rules to cling to while navigating through psychotherapy, rules that reflect established clinical wisdom. However, especially when wandering far from empirically supported recommendations, the author risks being dogmatic and failing to give readers clear ideas on when and how it would be appropriate to break the rules he has handed down. In Principles of Psychotherapy, Irving Weiner leans toward the latter method, providing a valuable step-by-step approach to the general practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Yet sometimes in recommending his methods in unequivocal terms, he fails to address how the same goals might be reached by different means. While broadening his approach would have lengthened the book, it might also have made his ideas more compelling to some readers by providing a more comprehensive context in which to understand and evaluate them.
J Hist Behav Sci, 1983
This encyclopedia is one of the major publication efforts in psychology, comparable on the German scene only with the weighty Handbuch der Psychologie. It may be divided into three equal parts. The first part comprises a single albeit large volume, and represents an historical introduction to the remaining fourteen volumes of the encyclopedia. The seven volumes constituting the second part (vols. 2-8) are centered around major figures of twentieth-century psychology: . The single volumes are not monographs devoted to the individuals named on the title pages, but rather accounts of the developments (die Folgen in the fields first symbolized by the selected seven "great men" and in the neighboring areas. The last seven volumes (vols. 9-15) deal primarily with the applications of psychology in medicine (vols. 9 and lo), education (vols. 11 and 12), work (vol. 13), crime (vol. 14), and religion, literature, and art (vol. 15).
Common Factors in Historical Perspective
2002
Although therapy (generically) is robust in its efficacy, different types of therapy do not appear to produce different types or degrees of benefit for clients. From this fact has emerged the perspective that it is factors that are common across therapies and nonspecific to any particular approach that hold the key to efficacy. This view, first logically reasoned and later supported by empirical research, has been reflected within the profession for 65 years. This paper reviews the history of the "common/nonspecific factors" perspective on therapeutic efficacy and the nature of various proposed "common factors." (Contains 40 references.) (Author) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
The Vices and Virtues of Monolithic Thought in the Evolution of Psychotherapy
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration Vol 24(2), Jun 2014, 79-90. , 2014
Psychotherapists loyal to Single Orientation (SO) movements (such as cognitive–behavioral therapy [CBT], psycho-dynamics, Gestalt, etc.) are usually described in negative terms as having attitudes of superiority, contempt, and aversion toward other adjoining therapeutic “cultures.” In contrast to such a viewpoint, this article using post-positivists philosophy emphasizes the importance of theoretical fundamentalism associated with SO to the evolution of theory in psychotherapy. Through an analogy between the evolution of psychotherapy and the assimilation of the discoveries of the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, the article illustrates the extent to which loyalty to a single approach enables and encourages the enterprise of inventors, developers, and implementers belonging to various psychotherapeutic movements. The article calls upon integrationist theoreticians to embrace a dialogic and dialectic perspective and to adopt a tolerant view in relation to theoretical fundamentalism. Finally, the implications of this approach to training, practice, and the integration movement are discussed.
Schools of psychotherapy and the beginnings of a scientific approach
2010
The theoretical, clinical, and empirical foundations of psychotherapy come from five primary movements that still exist today, continue to evolve, and remain scientifically productive: psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, humanistic, systemic, and integrative. The goal of this chapter is to examine the philosophical, clinical, and scientific underpinnings of each of these major traditions in detail. Experts in these five approaches will describe: (a) the model of psychopathology (especially focusing upon etiological and maintenance factors emphasized in assessment and case formulation); (b) the focus and specific techniques used in treatment planning and implementation; (c) the hypothesized therapeutic mechanisms of change; and (d) the outcome literature/empirical support for each modality. We conclude with a look toward the future of the science of psychotherapy and the scientist-practitioner model of psychotherapy.