A neuroscientific perspective on the therapeutic

alliance and how talking changes the brain: Supporting

a common factors model of psychotherapy
pacja.org.au/2019/12/a-neuroscientific-perspective-on-the-therapeutic-alliance-and-how-talking-changes-the-brain-
supporting-a-common-factors-model-of-psychotherapy-2

Return to Articles

Nicole Hess, psychologist, PhD, University of New England.

Introduction

Neuropsychologist Allan Schore (2014) describes psychotherapy as a dance, a

synchronicity of mind and body that occurs between therapist and client. His description
of the psychobiologically attuned clinician recognises the intricacy and inextricable
entanglement between human biological processes, unique experience, and mental life.
Shore paints an evocative image of psychotherapy as an arena for intimate, authentic,
and unique encounter between the client and the therapist. However, Shore’s dance
metaphor is not merely a romantic notion; the assertions contained within are truisms
supported by a larger scientific body of evidence.

For decades, the application of psychotherapy has been informed and driven by the
medical model paradigm (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010). This framework of
practice is empirically based, informed by double-blinded randomised controlled trials
(RCTs), and subsequently seeks to identify specific therapeutic ingredients in
psychotherapy (Duncan et al., 2010). Couched within this paradigm, for a
psychotherapeutic treatment to be classified as “empirically supported,” the therapeutic
intervention alone must be demonstrated to be the mechanism responsible for change.
The rigid criteria of this model fail to recognise the innate human qualities of the client to
grow and heal, and as such are not suited to the discipline of psychotherapy. Most
importantly, the model ignores research evidence suggesting that only 15% of
psychotherapeutic outcome is accounted for by the type of therapy engaged in (Hubble,
Duncan, & Miller, 1999) and that therapist qualities and the overall therapeutic alliance
account for a significant portion of the curative outcomes of therapy (Norcross & Lambert,
2018). Over the past 80 years, psychotherapists have argued that non-specific common
factors are responsible for the success of their work (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Indeed, the
research evidence to date does not conclusively support the superiority of any one
psychotherapy over another (Sparks, Duncan, & Miller, 2008). Common factors (e.g.,
collaborative goal setting, therapeutic alliance, unconditional positive regard, and
therapist congruence) are believed to be the potent mechanisms that underly the efficacy

1/11
of psychotherapy. Understanding the unique context of the client’s life is viewed as the
most significant factor, closely followed by therapist attributes and the working alliance
(Hubble et al., 1999).

In an era where neuroscience now informs psychotherapy (Grawe, 2017), Carl Rodgers
is vindicated. The empathetic relationship formed between therapist and client has been
neurologically demonstrated to provide the “necessary and sufficient conditions for
psychotherapeutic change” (Rogers, 1957). Talking changes brains, both structurally and
functionally, and limbic states are shared (Siegel, 2006). Consequently, the role of the
psychotherapist is to operationalise adaptive patterns of neuronal activation in their client.

Despite the impracticable framework of a medically based model to support

psychotherapy, the efficacy of psychotherapeutic treatments is strongly upheld by robust
neuroscientific foundations. Psychotherapy and science integrate when the therapist
incorporates scientific principles and evidence-based theories within the idiographic
context of each client. An integrative framework of this nature supports the formulation
of flexible and individualised therapeutic interventions for each client. The therapist
elegantly intertwines these processes with the potency of empathetic, attentive, and
authentic presence. To date, the codifying process of what constitutes an “evidence-
based” treatment has failed to recognise the evidence basis of these interpersonal factors
(Norcross & Lambert, 2018). Such an omission seriously undermines the integrity of a so-
called codification process that would seek to inform best practice and training on the
basis of scientific and clinical rigour. Techniques such as practice-based research,
process-based research, transdiagnostic methodology, and evidence-based case
formulation both inform and enhance best practice methods in psychotherapy (Norcross
& Lambert, 2018). Importantly, each of these protocols provides a viable alternative to a
rigid manualised and diagnostic framework of practice.

The current paper discusses: (1) the implications of contextualising psychotherapeutic

practice within the framework of the medical model, and the limitations of this perspective;
(2) the neuroscientific vindication for the acceptance of a common factors approach,
whereby interpersonal factors and the strength of the therapeutic alliance can affect
neural networking; 3) the need to review and address current conceptualisations of what
constitutes successful psychotherapy; and, 4) the need for an acceptance of evidence-
based protocols other than the RCT paradigm. Finally, recommendations are presented
in support of an integrative approach to psychotherapy that is guided by person-centred,
idiographic considerations, yet underpinned by neuroscientific and evidence-informed
treatment protocols.

A Very Brief History

For millennia people have sought out personal healing and context through talking in
order to ease their troubled minds (Duncan et al., 2010; Van Deurzen, 2012). Such an
enduring human pursuit suggests that these relationships have not been coincidental,
that talking as a therapy does affect personal healing, and that maybe humans are drawn
to interpersonal healing by innate forces.

2/11
Despite this time-old practice of healing through talking, driven by the influence of
Sigmund Freud during the 19th century, the medical discipline increased its strong hold
on the practice of psychotherapy; so much so that by the later periods of the 19th century,
it was decreed that only physicians would be qualified to conduct psychotherapy (Duncan
et al., 2010). Today, however, psychotherapy is no longer purely an arena for physicians,
and also encompasses the disciplines of psychology and counselling. Nonetheless, to a
great extent, psychotherapeutic practice is still heavily intertwined within the medical
model (Duncan et al., 2010). This integration is problematic for psychotherapists who do
not bind themselves to a medical model of practice or to diagnostic taxonomies such as
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International
Classification of Diseases (ICD) (Duncan et al., 2010). The aim of these practitioners is
not to diagnose or label; instead, they endeavour to work within the idiographic framework
of each client (McLeod, 2013).

A Medical Model of Practice

The medical model encapsulates a framework of best-practice for medicine. It guides

research and diagnostic formulation regarding both physical and psychological difficulties
within a causation-remediation paradigm (Laing, 1971). The five assumptions of the
medical paradigm that have also been applied to the psychotherapeutic model are: there
is a disorder, problem or complaint; there is a biological explanation for the disorder;
mechanisms of change exist that are congruent with theoretical explanations for the
disorder; mechanisms of change dictate the type of therapeutic application; and,
specificity (i.e., the therapeutic intervention alone is responsible for psychotherapy
outcomes, and not aspects such as therapeutic alliance or other non-specific factors)
(Duncan et al., 2010). Within this model, RCTs are heralded as the “gold standard”
research protocol when establishing the validity of empirically supported therapies
(ESTs), which are psychotherapeutic treatments that have demonstrated clinical
significance through RCTs (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1998; Yontef & Jacobs, 2008). This is
because RCTs aim to illuminate the efficacy of specific therapeutic ingredients while
controlling for extraneous confounding effects, such as placebo and unspecified factors
(Wampold & Imel, 2015). Whilst this can be a useful model for the medical discipline, it
tends to be problematic, inadequate, and impractical when applied to psychotherapy, as
non-specific common factors are reported to be responsible for the majority of the change
outcomes that occur from therapy.

Non-Specific Common Factors

More than 80 years ago, Rosenzweig (1936) suggested that non-specific common factors
underpinned the success of psychotherapy, as opposed to any specific ingredient
attributed to any specific treatment. Research evidence continues to support this
argument; the psychotherapeutic relationship has been consistently demonstrated to
substantially contribute to therapeutic outcomes irrespective of the treatment type used
(Norcross & Lambert, 2018). Research has also indicated that the strength of the working
alliance formed between client and therapist is a stronger predictor of treatment outcomes
than actual treatment type (Flückiger, Del Re, Wampold, & Horvath, 2018; Fluckiger, Del

3/11
Re, Wampold, Symonds, & Horvath, 2012; Horvath & Symonds, 1991; Martin, Garske, &
Davis, 2000) and that within-group variances due to therapist qualities was greater than
the variances observed between different treatment groups (Crits-Christoph, 1997;
Wampold & Serlin, 2000). These findings suggest that the interpersonal relationships
formed during therapy are more potent than the actual psychotherapeutic treatment. In
fact, specificity is reported to account for a mere 1% of the overall therapeutic outcome
(Duncan et al., 2010; Sparks et al., 2008). Despite the absence of specificity in
psychotherapy, meta-analyses have demonstrated that clients receiving
psychotherapeutic treatment are 80% better off than clients who do not receive treatment
(Ahn & Wampold, 2001; Asay & Lambert, 1999). Comparative analysis has established
that psychotherapy is equivalent to, or more effective than, many current evidence-based
medical practices, including angioplasty and beta-blockers used in cardiology,
budesonide used to treat asthma, and alendronate sodium and calcium used to treat
osteoporosis (Wampold, 2007). Moreover, psychotherapy has been demonstrated to be
as effective as pharmacotherapy for mental health difficulties with the outcomes more
enduring (Imel, Malterer, McKay, & Wampold, 2008; Nemeroff et al., 2003).

Quite clearly, the research identifies that psychotherapy works. Subsequently, a more
appropriate model for psychotherapy than a medical model that requires specificity is one
that: (a) emphasises common factors, such as the strength of therapeutic relationships,
as indicative of successful outcomes; and, (b) predicts that all treatments intentionally
engaged in by therapist and client that are intended to be therapeutic are equally effective
(Duncan et al., 2010). The nuances of these common factors appear to emerge from
client attributes, therapist attributes, and the therapeutic alliance (Duncan et al., 2010;
Groth-Marnat, 2009; Hubble et al., 1999). By their nature, common factors are uniquely
dynamic for each client-therapist relationship thus cannot be manipulated in experimental
protocols (Imel & Wampold, 2008).

Four common factors are believed to account for change in all therapy (Asay & Lambert,
1999; Hubble et al., 1999). First, each client brings a unique theory of change to therapy,
such that roughly 40% of the therapeutic benefit is attributed to unique client factors.
These factors may encompass qualities such as the client’s willingness to change, the
client’s theory of change given the context of their challenges, and the client’s belief that
change can occur and that the chosen therapy can affect this change (Carter et al., 2011;
Duncan & Miller, 2000). Second, the relationship between therapist and client accounts
for around 30% of therapeutic outcome. Therapeutic alliance encompasses both the bond
between client and therapist and their mutual agreement regarding the structure and
goals of therapy (Horvath & Symonds, 1991). Research suggests that: therapists who are
able to form better alliances report better client outcomes (Baldwin, Wampold, and Imel,
2007); therapists’ personal characteristics and in-session activities positively influence
therapeutic alliance (Ackerman and Hilsenroth, 2003); and, therapists’ hypotheses-
generating skills are an important factor in clients’ therapy experiences (Morran, Kurpius,
Brack, and Rozecki 1994). Third, 15% of the therapeutic outcome is accounted for by
clients’ expectations; their hopes and beliefs that change will occur as a consequence of
treatment (Greenberg, Constantino, & Bruce, 2006). Fourth, the remaining 15% of what

4/11
works in therapy is presumed to be related to the actual treatment type. Consequently,
with 85% of psychotherapeutic outcome purportedly reliant on factors other than specific
treatment type, and minimal evidence supporting treatment superiority for any one
particular psychotherapy over another, it is no wonder that practitioners question the
necessity and validity of ESTs (Sparks et al., 2008).

A Neuroscientific Perspective Supporting a Common Factors Model

Neuroscience informs us that the human brain is a highly social organ wired to seek out,
connect to, and learn from other brains (Cozolino, 2002; Grawe, 2017). Through the
creation of experiences that foster adaptive capacities and encourage self-regulation and
well-being in the client, psychotherapy is able to affect enduring structural and functional
changes within the brain (Siegel, 2006). Further vindication for the field of psychotherapy
is that the mechanisms of change involved in operationalising altered neuronal patterns
appear to be congruent with those underlying a common factors model. Specifically, the
right neural hemisphere, the limbic system (emotional centre), and the mirror neuron
system (a system that mirrors the affective and behavioural states observed in others and
is believed to constitute the neural basis of empathy [Siegel, 2006]) are significant neural
correlates of psychotherapeutic outcomes.

Talking, or creating narrative, promotes the integration of the brain’s left hemisphere
(which is predominately semantic, sequential, concrete, narrowly focused, and
interpretive) and right hemisphere (which is predominately holistic, creative, emotion-
detecting, and autobiographical) (Siegel, 2006). Integrating these two hemispheres
enhances the client’s ability to view their life story holistically and coherently (Siegel,
2006). Narrative reflection in therapy enables the client to consciously identify their
maladaptive patterns while also offering them the opportunity to change these patterns
(Siegel, 2006). Just as the coherent narratives of parents have been demonstrated to be
a strong predictor of adaptive attachment in children (Harter, 1999) the coherent
narratives of therapists may also enhance healthy attachment styles in clients. One-to-
one attuned communication through verbal and non-verbal behaviours (e.g., eye contact,
reflective comment, empathy, and perceiving expressions) create internal states within
the therapist that resonate with the client (Siegel, 2006). In fact, therapist empathy is
believed to create adaptive patterns of neural activation in the client (Gallese, 2003). This
state of limbic resonance alters physiological, affective, and intentional states (Siegel,
2010), opening the client’s mind to experience the adaptive social states resonated by the
therapist. Armed with this extraordinarily powerful influence, it is vital that the therapist
remains authentic, congruent, and vigilantly mindful of their cognitive and affective states.
The mechanisms for change that are suggested by the common factors model and
supported by neuroscience include, but are not limited to: the client’s experience of an
authentic, congruent empathetic relationship; unconditional positive regard; therapist
authenticity and congruence; and, the therapist’s experience of and engagement in the
therapeutic process.

5/11
Arising from these neuroscientific principles, interpersonal neurobiology (e.g., Siegel,
1999) emerges as a new paradigm of understanding. Interpersonal neurobiology provides
an integrative framework for understanding how mental processes arise from the brain
and how these processes are directly shaped by interpersonal experiences (Siegel,
1999). Interpersonal neurobiology is a multidisciplinary field that harnesses knowledge
from all branches of science and knowing, and seeks to understand ways in which the
brain interacts with subjective experiences to form mental lives (Siegel, 2010). Patterns in
the flow of energy and information that define mental processes not only occur within one
brain, but also flow between other brains. Such interactions have the capacity to alter
neuronal structure and function and are the key component to successful
psychotherapeutic outcomes (Siegel, 2001). Interpersonal neurobiology is a
phenomenally powerful approach to understanding the mechanisms of psychotherapy
and breathes new life into an age-old debate that questions the evidence basis of talking
therapies. This multidisciplinary field offers a practical example of how a synchronous
understanding and appreciation between science and the common factors of therapy
might be achieved.

An Evidence-Informed Approach to Psychotherapy

Whilst a purely evidence-based approach that relies on RCT as a gold standard has
significant limitations in psychotherapy, this does not relinquish the need for research
evidence to inform the discipline. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a process that
collates a broad range of clinical activities, such as the best available research,
psychological assessment, case formulation, client attributes and experience, and
therapeutic relationship (APA, 2006). However, ESTs based on clinical research data
alone, drawn purely from RCTs conspicuously lack valuable input and expertise from
practicing psychotherapists. They also fail to recognise the significant role that “evidence-
based psychotherapeutic relationships” have in the curative outcomes of therapy
(Norcross & Lambert, 2018). Thus, understandably, many therapists are reluctant to
adopt these treatments (Goldfried, 2010). This is probably also due to a perceived lack of
relevance by therapists as clinical research settings do not easily translate to natural
psychotherapeutic settings.

With advances in neuroscience highlighting the inextricable relationship between

cognitive, behavioural, social, emotional, neurological, and biological processes, and the
potency of limbic resonance between therapist and client, it would seem logical that
contemporary psychotherapy removes the shackles of pure evidence-based approaches
and moves towards a more integrative formulation of determining treatment efficacy and
selection. Furthermore, fostering an understanding among researchers that different
research questions may be better answered by different research techniques that are
equally as valid as RCTs (Greenberg & Newman, 1996), and that an openness to
evidence-based research by means of clinical observation, client feedback, qualitative
research, systematic case studies, process outcome studies, and meta-analysis might
enhance clinician-researcher collaboration. Findings from these types of research may
offer more practical means for therapists to determine the utility of certain treatments in

6/11
the context of their client. A purely diagnostic approach merely reduces clients to their
mental health difficulties, ignoring the significant contribution of their unique social
contexts.

Transdiagnostic approaches, case formulation-driven psychotherapy, and process-based

research simultaneously embrace nomothetic and idiographic practice. These practices
contrast the reductionist approach of a purely medical/scientific/evidence-based model
against more constructivist approaches (Goldfried, 2010; Persons, 2006). Integrative and
client-centred approaches to therapy individualise psychotherapeutic treatment by
integrating diverse theories and techniques in response to each client’s unique world
view, experiences, and theory of change (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005; Persons, 2006),
thus strengthening the therapeutic alliance and the likelihood of positive change for the
client. Importantly, these approaches are guided by continuous assessment protocols
which recognise the evolving nature of psychotherapy; the therapist works with their client
dynamically, weaving an ever-evolving therapeutic space in response to their client’s
immediate needs.

Conclusions

As science and medicine grapple with rigid evidence-based models to establish specificity
and best-practice for psychotherapy, therapists and their clients sit at the coalface of
psychotherapy. Brought together by the forces of being human and enmeshed in an
intimate relationship of trust and vulnerability, each case is unique. Indeed, at first glance
it would appear that the sciences relentlessly seek to reduce complex human experiences
to rigid diagnostic criteria, manualised treatment protocols, and biological/neurobiological
states. However, on closer investigation it is probably more prudent to consider the
differences between a purely evidence-base/scientific/medical framework of practice and
a hybrid of client-centred, scientifically, and medically informed procedure. There is
certainly a place for science in psychotherapy. Essentially, the practice of psychotherapy
is an art and the therapist the artist; the therapist is required to draw on the mediums of
science, theory, clinical expertise, and client contextualisation to create a unique picture
of psychotherapy for each client.

References

Ackerman, S. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2003). A review of therapist characteristics and

techniques positively impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology Review,
23(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00146-0

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(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.251

American Psychological Association (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology.

American Psychologist, 61(4), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271

7/11
Asay, T. P., & Lambert, M. J. (1999). The empirical case for the common factors in
therapy: Quantitative findings. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The
heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 23–55). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11132-001

Babor, T. F. (2008). Treatment for persons with substance use disorders: Mediators,
moderators, and the need for a new research approach. International Journal of Methods
in Psychiatric Research, 17(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.248

Baldwin, S. A., Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2007). Untangling the alliance-outcome
correlation: Exploring the relative importance of therapist and patient variability in the
alliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(6), 842-852.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.842

Buhringer, G., & Pfeifer-Gerschel, T. (2008). COMBINE and MATCH: The final blow for
large scale black box randomised controlled trials. Addiction, 103, 708-709.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02162.x

Carter, J. D., Luty, S. E., McKenzie, J. M., Mulder, R. T., Frampton, C. M., & Joyce, P. R.
(2011). Patient predictors of response to cognitive behaviour therapy and interpersonal
psychotherapy in a randomised clinical trial for depression. Journal of Affective Disorders,
128(3), 252-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.07.002

Cozolino, L. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Building and rebuilding the

human brain. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Crits-Christoph, P. (1997). Limitations of the dodo bird verdict and the role of clinical trials
in psychotherapy research: Comment on Wampold et al. (1997). Psychological Bulletin,
122(3), 216-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.216

Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (2000). The client’s theory of change: Consulting the client
in the integrative process. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 10(2), 169.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009448200244

Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Wampold, B. E., & Hubble, M. A. (2010). The heart and soul
of change: Delivering what works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12075-000

Flückiger, C., Del Re, A., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult
psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316-340.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172

Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., Symonds, D., & Horvath, A. O. (2012). How
central is the alliance in psychotherapy? A multilevel longitudinal meta- analysis. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025749

8/11
Gallese, V. (2003). The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural
basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology, 36(4), 171-180.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000072786

Goldfried, M. R. (2010). The future of psychotherapy integration: Closing the gap

between research and practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 20(4), 386-396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022036

Goldfried, M. R., & Wolfe, B. E. (1998). Toward a more clinically valid approach to therapy
research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 143.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.143

Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How the neurosciences inform effective

psychotherapy. New York: Psychology Press.

Greenberg, L., & Newman, F. (1996). An approach to psychotherapy change process

research: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 64(3), 435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.3.435

Greenberg, R. P., Constantino, M. J., & Bruce, N. (2006). Are patient expectations still
relevant for psychotherapy process and outcome? Clinical Psychology Review, 26(6),
657-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.002

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York:
Guilford Press.

Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome
in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.38.2.139

Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). The heart and soul of change: What
works in therapy. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11132-000

Imel, Z. E., Malterer, M. B., McKay, K. M., & Wampold, B. E. (2008). A meta-analysis of
psychotherapy and medication in unipolar depression and dysthymia. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 110(3), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.018

Imel, Z. E., & Wampold, B. E. (2008). The importance of treatment and the science of
common factors in psychotherapy. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Handbook of
Counselling Psychology, 4th ed. (pp. 249-266). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Laing, R. D. (1971). The politics of the family, and other essays (Vol. 5). London:
Psychology Press.

9/11
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with
outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68(3), 438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438

McLeod, J. (2013). An introduction to counselling (5th ed.). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill

Education.

Morran, D. K., Kurpius, D. J., Brack, G., & Rozecki, T. G. (1994). Relationship between
counselors’ clinical hypotheses and client ratings of counselor effectiveness. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 72(6), 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1994.tb01698.x

Nemeroff, C. B., Heim, C. M., Thase, M. E., Klein, D. N., Rush, A. J., Schatzberg, A. F., .
. . Dunner, D. L. (2003). Differential responses to psychotherapy versus pharmacotherapy
in patients with chronic forms of major depression and childhood trauma. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 100(24), 14293-14296.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2336126100

Norcross, J. C., & Goldfried, M. R. (2005). The future of psychotherapy integration: A

roundtable. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 15(4), 392-471.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1053-0479.15.4.392.

Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2018). Psychotherapy relationships that work III.
Psychotherapy, 55(4), 303. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000193

Persons, J. B. (2006). Case formulation-driven psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology:

Science and Practice, 13(2), 167-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00019.x

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality

change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357

Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of

psychotherapy. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6(3), 412-415.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1936.tb05248.x

Schore, A. N. (2014). The right brain is dominant in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy,

51(3), 388-397. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037083

Siegel D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of interpersonal

experience. New York: Guilford Press.

Siegel, D. J. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind:

Attachment relationships, “mindsight,” and neural integration. Infant Mental Health
Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 22(1‐2),
67-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(200101/04)22:1<67::AID-IMHJ3>3.0.CO;2-G

10/11
Siegel, D. J. (2006). An interpersonal neurobiology approach to psychotherapy.
Psychiatric Annals, 36(4), 248-256.

Siegel, D. J. (2010). The mindful therapist: A clinician’s guide to mindsight and neural
integration. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Sparks, J. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (2008). Common factors in psychotherapy. In
J. L. Lebow (Ed.), Twenty-first century psychotherapies: Contemporary approaches to
theory and practice (pp. 453-497). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stiles, W. B., Barkham, M., Mellor-Clark, J., & Connell, J. (2008). Effectiveness of
cognitive-behavioural, person-centred, and psychodynamic therapies in UK primary-care
routine practice: Replication in a larger sample. Psychological Medicine, 38(5), 677-688.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291707001511

Van Deurzen, E. (2012). Existential counselling and psychotherapy in practice (3rd ed.).
London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Wampold, B. E. (2007). Psychotherapy: The humanistic (and effective) treatment.

American Psychologist, 62(8), 857-873. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.857

Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for
what makes psychotherapy work. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203582015

Wampold, B. E., & Serlin, R. C. (2000). The consequence of ignoring a nested factor on
measures of effect size in analysis of variance. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 425-433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.425

Wetherell, J. L., Gatz, M., & Craske, M. G. (2003). Treatment of generalized anxiety
disorder in older adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 31-40.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.31

Yontef, G., & Jacobs, L. (2008). Gestalt therapy. In R. J. Corsini, & D. Wedding (Eds.),
Current Psychotherapies (8th ed.) (pp. 328-367) Belmont, CA: Thompson Higher
Education.

Return to Articles

11/11