Therapeutic Schools, Styles, and Schoolism: a National Survey

Abstract

Dale has enjoyed a diverse career including lecturing at private practice, consultation, and clinical research. Dale's current exploration of innovative training programs for effective helping and interpersonal relating is particularly challenging and rewarding to him. He is presently editing a book in this area. SUMMARYThis article summarizes a national survey of behavioral, gestalt, psychoanalytically oriented, and transactional analysis psychotherapists. Therapists were asked to express their views on a wide range of therapeutic issues and to describe selected in-therapy behaviors. Additionally, self-reported interschool contact and attitudes were compared. Striking school differences were obtained in all of these areas. The findings are discussed in relation to developments in contemporary psychotherapy.Contemporary schools of therapy compete both conceptually and financially in the therapeutic marketplace, and the marketplace is buzzing. For example, an NIMH (1975) report indicates that there are now over 130 different &dquo;therapies&dquo; being practiced in the United States. Comparative psychotherapy research has not kept pace with this fast changing field, and there is a paucity of studies comparing practitioners from the major current schools of therapy (Larson, 1977). The present study reports data gathered from a national sample of therapists identified with the approaches of either the behavioral, gestalt, psychoanalytically oriented, or transactional analysis schools.Two major research concerns are addressed here. First, self-reported therapeutic beliefs and practices are examined. Our popular stereotypes associate strongly contrasting therapeutic philosophies and behaviors with

Hellenic Integrative Psychotherapy: A Total Holistic Approach

“…To quote Norcross (2005: p. 3) who of course is referring to recent post-Freudian times: "Rivalry among theoretical orientations has a long and undistinguishing history in psychotherapy, dating back to Freud. In the infancy of the field, therapy systems, like battling siblings competed for attention in a 'dogma eat dogma' environment (Larson, 1980). Clinicians traditionally operated from within their own particular frameworks, often to the point of being blind to alternative conceptualizations and potentially superior interventions.…”