Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 67–81 | Cite as

Fault Lines in the Great EST Debate

Article

Abstract

Three fault lines traverse inquiries into empirically supported therapies, along which pro and contra positions can be taken. First, failure to distinguish scientific from artistic properties of therapy has lead to neglect of pervasive personological and cultural variables that are implicated in this field of inquiry. Second, scientific anomalies result from focusing more on what ESTs are than on how they effect change. Psyche is portrayed as a humanistic Cartesian place-holder for an encroaching neuro-endocrinological and systemic understanding of human experiencing. Third, the EST movement is seen as a socio-political and business model, confounded with and eroding scientific objectives.

Keywords

empirically supported treatments psychotherapy psyche common factors therapist variables 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn, H., & Wampold, B. E. (2001). Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 251–257.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, J. (1993). Cranks, quarks, and the cosmos: Writings on science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Beutler, L. E., & Baker, M. (1998). The movement toward empirical validation: At what level should we analyze, and who are the consumers? In K. S. Dobson & K. D. Craig (Eds.), Empirically supported therapies: Best practice in professional psychology. (pp. 43–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Boas, F. (1930). The religion of the Kwakiutl Indians, Part II, X, Translations, Columbia University contributions to anthropology. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohart, A. C. (2000). The client is the most important common factor: Clients’ self-healing capacities and psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 10, 127–149.Google Scholar
  6. Bohart, A. C., O’Hara, M., & Leitner, L. M. (1998). Empirically violated treatments: Disenfranchisement of humanistic and other psychotherapies. Psychotherapy research, 8, 141–157.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, D. (2003, Dec. 27). Arguing with Oakeshott. New York Times. Op-Ed page.Google Scholar
  8. Carroll, K. M., & Nuro, K. F. (2002). One size cannot fit all: A stage model for psychotherapy manual development. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9 (4). Available on the World Wide Web: http://clipsy.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/9/4/396.
  9. Crits-Christoph, P. (1998). Training in empirically validated treatments: The Division 12 APA Task Force recommendations. In K. S. Dobson & K. D. Craig (Eds.), Empirically supported therapies: Best practice in professional psychology (pp. 3–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Chambless, D. L. & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.Google Scholar
  12. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
  13. Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harvest Book (Harcourt).Google Scholar
  14. Dobson, K. S., & Craig, K. D. (Eds.) (1998). Empirically supported therapies: Best practice in professional psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books (Knopf).Google Scholar
  17. Frank, J. D. (1974). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
  18. Gaffan, E. A., Tsaousis, I., & Kemp-Wheeler, S. M. (1995). Researcher allegiance and meta-analysis: The case of cognitive therapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 966–980.Google Scholar
  19. Garb, H. N. (1994). Cognitive heuristics and biases in personality assessment. In L. Heath, R. S. Tinsdale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, E. Henderson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 73–90). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  20. Genia, V. (1994). Secular psychotherapists and religious clients: Professional considerations and recommendations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 395–398.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, S. C. (1998). Scientific practice guidelines in a political, economic, and professional context. In K. S. Dobson, & K. D. Craig (Eds.), Empirically supported therapies: Best practice in professional psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kernberg, O. F. (1995) Discussion: Empirical research in psychoanalysis. In T. Shapiro, & R. N. Emde (Eds.), Research in psychoanalysis: Process, development, and outcome (pp. 369–380). Guilford, CT: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kimble, G. (2004, March 18). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  24. Lakatos, I, & Musgrave, A. (Eds.) (1974). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lambert, M. J., & Okiishi, J. C. (1997). The effects of the individual psychotherapist and implications for future research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 66–75.Google Scholar
  26. Luborsky, L. (2000). A pattern-setting therapeutic alliance study revisited. Psychotherapy Research, 10, 17–29.Google Scholar
  27. Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1990). Understanding transference: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  28. Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. New York: Harvest Books.Google Scholar
  29. Meehl, P. E. (1973). Why I do not attend case conferences. In P. E. Meehl (Ed.), Psychodiagnosis: Selected papers (pp. 225–302). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.Google Scholar
  31. Merton, R. K. (1964) Foreword. In J. Ellul (Ed.), The technological society, New York: Knopf (Vintage books).Google Scholar
  32. Rivara, F. P., & Cummings, P. (2002). Publication bias: The problem and some suggestions. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 424–425.Google Scholar
  33. Rossi, E. L. (Ed.) (1980). Innovative hypnotherapy by Milton H. Erickson: The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson on hypnosis (Vol. IV). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  35. Tallman, K., & Bohart, A. C. (1999). The client as a common factor. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change (pp. 91–132). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  36. Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically validated psychological treatments. Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3–23.Google Scholar
  37. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wampold, B. E., Ahn, H., & Coleman, H. L. K. (2001). Medical model as metaphor: Old habits die hard. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 268–273.Google Scholar
  39. Wong, E. C., Kim, B. S. K., Zane, N. W. S., Kim, I. J., & Huang, J. S. (2003). Examining culturally based variables associated with ethnicity: Influences on credibility perceptions of empirically supported interventions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 88–96.Google Scholar
  40. Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational and Counselling PsychologyMcGill UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations