Contrasts Two Approaches to Psychology - Essay Example

Contrasts two approaches to psychology Contemporary psychology encompasses a variety of different approaches. These approaches are inherently perspectives or views, which consist of various beliefs or assumptions regarding human behavior (Hampton & Morris, 2006). This concerns issues such as the way people function and which aspects about them are worth noting and studying, as well as the most applicable methods of performing such studies. A single approach can allow for the utilization of different approaches, but they essentially share these basic assumptions. This paper will examine two distinctive psychological approaches; the cognitive-behavioral approach and the psychodynamic approach. One of the best ways to appreciate these psychological approaches is to assess their origin and development. After providing a brief examination of the two approaches individually, their inherent methods will be contrasted in order to appreciate their relevance to the modern field of psychology. The psychodynamic approach refers to a psychological approach that aims at exploring the manner in which the human mind, particularly the unconscious section of the mind is responsible for people’s every day behavior. Freud was the pioneer of this approach, and he was of the opinion that behavior is influenced primarily by past experiences, which are held in the unconscious mind, which consists of the id, the super-ego and the unconscious ego (Bateman & Holmes, 2005). The psychodynamic approach considers these elements of the unconscious mind as the psychic determinism concept. In the development of the psychodynamic approach, Freud compared the adult personality to an archaeological site consisting of layers; when new layers are built, they retain certain features of the former layer. The central concepts of the psychodynamic approach consist of transference, splitting and countertransference (Coren, 2001). There are two distinct schools of thought related to psychodynamics; the first school of thought is object relations thinking or the way children achieve self-other differentiation through their interactions with external objects. The second is the intersubjective view, which poises that development takes place due to relationships, as well as mutual recognition. As a consequence of the various schools that emerged, there is some confusion concerning the therapies applicable to psychodynamics (Hampton & Morris, 2006). The cognitive-behavioral approach, on the other hand, also combines two distinctive schools of thought; the behavioral approach and the cognitive approach. The concept of cognitive psychology was developed by Ulric Neisser in 1967. The concept is essentially concerned with the examination of mental processes, as well as states such as language, problem solving and memory. Cognitive psychologists demonstrate the level of mental processing by highlighting the strength of a memory on the basis of how deep it has been encoded. Behavioral psychologists argue that only observable behavior can be examined (Coren, 2001). The application of the cognitive-behavioral approach to psychology centers on the modification of everyday behaviors, as well as thoughts with the view of positively influencing target behaviors and emotions. The cognitive-behavioral approach allows for a very close partnership between therapist and client, thereby enhancing the process of problem-solving. Notably, situations arise where the therapist may need to intervene so as to refocus a session towards solving a certain behavioral or cognitive problem (Hampton & Morris, 2006). For instance, the cognitive-behavioral approach requires the therapist to initially introduce the client to key elements of the approach, for instance, automatic thoughts. This is quite different from the psychodynamic approach where addressing the process is tantamount to pre-empting experience (Coren, 2001). The greatest criticism of the psychodynamic approach is that it is not empirical based. On the other hand, the cognitive-behavioral approach has a long empirical standing, which makes it effective in dealing with people experiencing mental distress. A critical contrast between the two approaches is the length of individual sessions, as well as the entire therapy. The psychodynamic approach provides for lengthy therapies, pushing clients to seek alternatives to problem-solving, for instance, brief therapies and medication (Hampton & Morris, 2006). However, the lengthy sessions are appropriate for complex psychiatric problems. Clients often find it difficult to understand the underpinning causes of psychological distress, therefore, long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy helps to focus their awareness of the problem, thereby facilitating easy solving (Coren, 2001). Cognitive-behavioral approach has produced meaningful improvements in clients, albeit over a limited period. This approach has, however, been criticized for being unclear in terms of how long the client will require care and assistance to solve his or her inherent cognitive and behavioral problem. This unpredictability discourages a regular element in the client’s life. In addition, since cognitive-behavioral approach also allows for the performance of group therapy, the approach can encourage the development of avoidance behaviors, which are quite detrimental to a client’s overall capacity to solve the deep-rooted problem effectively. The group therapy approach is primarily used among low-income patients who require cost-effective therapies. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is renowned for being quite costly, which serves as a deterrent for most clients (Bateman & Holmes, 2005). Therefore, as clients seek cost-effective strategies, they may wind up taking cognitive-behavioral therapy performed within a group setting. Unlike psychodynamic psychotherapies, cognitive-behavioral therapies are not setting-specific, thus are appropriate for computer-use. Computer-assisted cognitive-behavioral therapy is quite an easy skill, which, in addition to being cost-effective also increases the client’s contact with effective problem-solving strategies and treatments that are empirically-based (Hampton & Morris, 2006). Another critical difference between the two approaches is that, in the psychodynamic approach, the therapist’s personal feelings towards the client can influence psychotherapy. Such countertransference has a massively negative effect on problem-solving since, instead of focusing on pinpointing the client’s problem; the therapy focuses on the therapist’s personal conceptions regarding the client (Hampton & Morris, 2006). On its part, the cognitive-behavioral approach does not pay attention to the personal histories of clients in a similar manner; therefore, the issue of counterinterference does not prove problematic in problem-solving undertakings, which are the basis of the therapy (Bateman & Holmes, 2005). However, by steering clear of the client as an individual, the cognitive-behavioral approach produces weak therapeutic generalizations, which are relatively ineffective in terms of resolving the client’s overall mental and behavioral disorder or issue. Another clear contrast between the two approaches lies in the termination procedure of their therapies. The termination procedure in psychodynamic psychotherapies is managed by a specific set of rules, which encourage the client to contemplate the therapeutic journey and the ensuing gains. In this sense, reflection allows them to appreciate the difference between what they have been through and what they have achieved (Bateman & Holmes, 2005). The termination procedure of cognitive-behavioral therapies is not as positive and clients may not attribute their progress to their newly acquired skills, but rather the therapy sessions. This is quite detrimental since it points to a poor process of problem-solving since the clients are likely to revert to their former behaviors (Hampton & Morris, 2006). Although the two approaches are quite different, there are numerous commonalities between them. In cognitive-behavioral, problem-solving strategies include internal dialogues, which reflect on clients’ beliefs and the way there core beliefs are reflected in the same ways as the conceptions of psychoanalysis (Hampton & Morris, 2006). For instance, the beliefs people hold about the self and their world in cognitive therapy are quite similar to the manner in which internal objects of the ego and part objects are considered in psychoanalysis. Although the relationship between therapist and client has been contrasted in the two approaches, their comparison must also be taken into account. The approaches, which psychodynamic psychotherapies and cognitive-behavioral therapies take differ significantly, but the institution of a therapeutic relationship is, nonetheless, quite paramount in both approaches (Bateman & Holmes, 2005). The therapist-client relationship in the cognitive-behavioral approach is quite close, and this is quite central to the approach’s operation. However, the same can also be said regarding psychodynamics (Coren, 2001). The psychodynamic approach is rich in terms of knowledge, which forms a significant basis for the understanding of nurse-patient relationships. Another critical comparison is that the cognitive-behavioral approach has also been considered as a form of psychotherapy itself. This is because the cognitive-behavioral approach provides a helpful style of thinking in order to solve the problem of negative and dysfunctional emotions and behavior, respectively. References Bateman, A., & Holmes, J. (2005). Introduction to psychoanalysis: Contemporary theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge. Coren, A. (2001). Short-term psychotherapy: A psychodynamic approach. London, UK: Palgrave. Hampton, P., & Morris, P. (2006). Understanding cognition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Limited. Read More