W7 Flashcards
Why did the integration/ eclecticism of psychotherapy emerge?
It emerged because of a dissatisfaction
with single-school approaches and a naturally associated desire to look across
school boundaries to see how patients can benefit from other ways of conducting
psychotherapy
Ultimate goal: To enhance the efficacy and applicability of psychotherapy by
crosscutting perspectives (by tailoring one’s approach to the
unique needs of the client). Integrative psychotherapy leads by following the client.
The integrative imperative to tailor psychotherapy to the patient can be
misconstrued as an authority figure therapist prescribing a particular form of
psychotherapy for a passive client. The real goal is for an empathic therapist to work toward an optimal relationship that
both enhances collaboration and secures the patient’s sense of safety and
commitment.
The Four Primary Routes to Integrated Psychotherapies
Technical eclecticism,
theoretical integration, common factors, and assimilative integration
Technical Eclecticism
Seeks to improve our ability to select the best treatment techniques or
procedures for the individual person and their individual problem
This search is guided primarily by research on which methods have worked
best in the past with similar problems and patients with similar characteristics.
Focuses on predicting for whom interventions will work; its foundation is
actuarial (mathematical/statistical) rather than theoretical
Uses Procedures drawn from different therapeutic systems without necessarily
subscribing to the Theories that spawned them.
For technical eclectics, no necessary connection exists between conceptual
foundations and techniques.
[Selects the techniques that have worked best with similar circumstances in the past; without necessarily subscribing to the theories that spawned the techniques]
Theoretical Integration
Two or more therapies are united with the hope that the result will be better
than the constituent therapies alone
There is an emphasis on integrating the underlying theories of psychotherapy
as well as the techniques from each.
It involves a commitment to a conceptual or theoretical creation beyond a
technical blend of methods.
Goal: To create a conceptual framework that synthesizes the best elements of
two or more therapies! The aim is an emergent theory that is
more/better than the sum of its parts.
Common Factors Approach
An attempt to identify core ingredients shared by different therapies
Goal: Creating more parsimonious and efficacious treatments based on the
commonalities between different successful therapies.
Based on the belief that commonalities are more important in
accounting for therapy success than the unique factors that differentiate
approaches.
Common factors most frequently proposed: Development of a therapeutic
alliance, opportunity for catharsis, acquisition and practice of new behaviors,
and clients’ positive expectancies.
Assimilative Integration
A firm grounding in one system of psychotherapy but with a willingness to
selectively incorporate/ assimilate practices from other systems
It combines the advantages of both a single, coherent theoretical system with the
flexibility of a broader range of technical interventions from multiple systems.
Some say it is a realistic way-station on the path to a
more sophisticated integration.
For people who are against it, it is a halfway station of people unwilling to
commit to an approach (both agree that assimilation is a tentative step toward full integration).
Most therapists gradually incorporate parts and methods of other approaches
once they discover the limitations of their original approach and inevitably
integrate new methods into their home theory.
Commonalities between Assimilative Integrationists and Technical Eclectics
Assimilative integrationists and technical eclectics both believe that synthesis
(the combination of the parts) should occur at the level of PRACTICE, rather than
theory - by incorporating therapeutic methods from multiple schools.
In some circles, the terms integrative and eclectic have become synonymous
(seen as having the same meaning) and are often viewed ambivalently because of their alleged disorganized and indecisive
nature.
This opposition can be attributed to syncretism (the creation of uncritical and unsystematic
combinations)
How do the Authors approach Integrative Practice?
Their approach is broadly characterized as integrative and is specifically labeled
systematic treatment selection (STS) - or prescriptive.
They intentionally blend several of the four paths toward integration (which are not mutually exclusive!)
Attempt to customize psychological treatments and therapeutic relationships to the
specific, varied needs of individual patients.
They do so by drawing on effective methods across theoretical schools (eclecticism),
by matching those methods to particular clients on the basis of evidence-based
principles (treatment selection), and by adhering to an explicit and orderly
(systematic) model [new therapy for each client - that evolves throughout the process along with the client]
Our integrative therapy is expressly designed to transcend the limited applicability of
single-theory or “school-bound” psychotherapies
This is accomplished by emphasizing change principles (or processes) rather than a
closed theory or a limited set of techniques.
Result: More efficient and effective therapy that fits both client and clinician
Four weaknesses of single school therapies
The creation of most psychotherapies was more rational than empirical. They
were developed without or with little regard to the research evidence on their
effectiveness. In an era of accountability demanding evidence-based practice
(EBP), psychotherapies without controlled outcome research will not last long.
Single-school therapies tend to favor the strong personal opinions/ pathological conflicts that were of most interest to their originators. Patients suffer from a multitude of specific problems that should
be remedied with a similar multitude of methods.
Most pure-form systems of psychotherapy recommend their
treatment for virtually every patient and problem. The clinical reality is that no single approach to therapy is effective
for all patients and situations, no matter how good it is for some. Evidence-
based practice demands a flexible, if not integrative, perspective.
Psychotherapy should be flexibly tailored to the unique needs and contexts of
the individual client, not applied as if one size fits all.
They largely consist of descriptions of psychopathology and personality rather
than of mechanisms that promote change. They are actually theories of
personality rather than theories of psychotherapy; they offer lots of information
on the content of therapy but little on the process of change.
Five Advantages of Integrative Psychotherapies
Tend to be more empirical in creation and more evidence based in revision
Case conceptualization is based more on the actual patient than on an
obscure theory
Therapy is more likely to be adapted or responsive to the unique patient and
the singular situation
Treatment is more focused on the process of change than on the content of
personality
Integration promises more evidence, flexibility, responsiveness, and
effectiveness
What is an early example of integrating therapies?
Freud constantly struggled with selection and integration of
diverse methods, and introduced psychoanalytic psychotherapy as an
alternative to classical psychoanalysis; in recognition of the fact that the more rarified
approach lacked universal applicability
These early attempts at integration were largely theory driven and empirically
untested
The Grandfather of Eclecticism
Frederick Thorne.
Introduced systematic integration and likened contemporary psychotherapy to a plumber who used only a
screwdriver! Like this plumber, deep-set psychotherapists apply the
same treatment to all people, regardless of individual differences, and
expected the patient to adapt to the therapist/therapy; rather than vice versa.
“Prescriptive Psychotherapies”
Written by Goldstein and Stein and outlined treatments
for different people based on the Nature of their problems and on Aspects of
their living situations.
Lazarus and Multimodal theory
Arnold Lazarus emerged as a prominent spokesperson for eclecticism in the 1960s. His
multimodal theory inspired a generation of mental-health professionals to
think and behave more broadly.
At the same time, an appreciation of common factors was gaining traction (i.e., therapeutic change resulting from common elements - pioneered in part by Garfield who introduced an eclectic psychotherapy in the 1980s predicated on
common factors )
The contributions of Jerome Frank
Wrote “Persuasion and healing” - which argued that all psychotherapeutic methods
are elaborations and variations of age-old procedures of psychological healing
Argued that therapeutic change is predominantly a function of four factors
common to all therapies: [R.R.R.H - relationship, ritual, rationale, healing (setting)]
(1) an emotionally charged, confiding relationship
(2) a healing setting
(3) a rationale or conceptual scheme
(4) a therapeutic ritual
Nonetheless, the features that distinguish psychotherapies from each other receive
special emphasis in the pluralistic, competitive American society. Little glory has
traditionally been accorded to common factors.
The contributions of Godfried
Influential article in the American Psychologist calling for the
description of therapeutic change principles
He was a leader of the integration movement
Argued that if therapists from different schools can arrive at common
strategies, they will consist of robust phenomena as they have survived
the distortions of therapist with different theoretical biases!
The Contributions of Wachtel
His book began as an effort to portray behaviour therapy as foolish.
Realised that a lot of the concepts were similar to the form of psychotherapy
that he gravitated towards
This experience shows us that isolated theoretical schools perpetuate
caricatures of other schools, thereby foreclosing changes in viewpoint and
preventing expansion in practice.
Who introduced the transtheoretical approach in one of the first integrative textbooks?
Transtheoretical approach (across theories) was introduced in a book by Prochaska and DiClemente
The book reviewed different theoretical orientations from the standpoint of
common change principles and the stages of change
The transtheoretical approach in general and the stages of change in particular are among the most extensively researched integrative therapies!
Integrative Therapies in the Modern Day
Between one-quarter and one-half of contemporary clinicians prefer the label integrative or eclectic over identifying with a particular school of psychotherapy (with integration being the typical modality in the U.S)
This prevalence is assessed directly by asking whether one endorses the integrative orientation or obtained indirectly by
determining whether one endorses multiple orientations.
International organizations reflect this popularity:
o Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration (SEPI)
o Society of Psychotherapy Research (SRPR)
Being trained in a single theoretical
orientation does not always result in
clinical competence, but it does reduce clinical complexity and theoretical
confusion. However, there is a growing appreciation that single
orientations are theoretically incomplete and clinically inadequate for the
variety of patients, contexts, and problems they confront in practice (too narrow for real life)