The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.131.5.499

Psychoanalysis and behavior therapy developed within separate, contrasting, and seeminingly incompatible scientific/epistemological traditions. Psychoanalysis was founded by clinicians who were trying to "make sense of" introspective self-report data, while while behavior therapy was founded by experimentalists who were empolyzing the data of direct observation, explicitly excluding consideration of private (subjective) events. Over the past decade, a growing acknowledgment of the clinical utility and scope of behavioral methods has reduced chauvinistic sparring and has led to greater mutual respect, as well as to some pioneering collaborative work. Although the theoretical determinants of psychoanalysis and behavior therapy are both historically and philosophically context-dependent and represent no absolute deterrent to genuine theoretical synthesis, until now there has been no real consensus about the need for or form of a conceptual integration. The authors here propose that this is not only possible but necessary in order to preserve all the data of the clinical therapeutic process.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.