Cognitive Psychotherapy. Which kind of integration is possible?

Author/s Hèctor Férnandez Alvarez
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2013/33 Language Italian
Pages 10 P. 9-18 File size 119 KB
DOI 10.3280/QPC2013-033002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

In this article is shown a re-riding of the historical path of psychology and cognitive psychotherapy. Cognitive psychotherapy is a field with several components, particularly fragmented and characterized by a wide multiplicity of aspects. Discussing if integration is possible it at first requires the comprehension of the differences and, most of all, the origins of these differences. The aim of this work is to give a referential context that allows to understand on which basis is nowadays possible to think about different models’ integration. The interesting perspective might be that to apply to cognitive therapy those lines which have dominated the more general integration field. We have identified four main lines: a) common factors; b) technical eclecticism; c) integrative assimilation; d) theoretical integration.

Keywords: Cognitive psychotherapy, integration.

  1. Adams F., Aizawa K. (2008). The bounds of cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
  2. David D., Hofmann S.G. (2013). Another error of Descartes? Implications for the “third wave” cognitive-behavioral therapy. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies. 13 (1): 115-124.
  3. Gelso C. (2011). Emerging and continuing trends in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48 (2): 182-187. DOI: 10.1037/a002344
  4. Hayes S. (2012). Humanistic psychology and contextual behavioral perspectives. Psychotherapy, 49 (4): 455-460. DOI: 10.1037/a0027396HofmannS.G.,AsnaaniA.,VonkJ.J.,SawyerA.T.,FangA.(2012).Theefficacyofcognitivebehavioraltherapy:areviewofmeta-analyses.Cognit.Ther.Res.,36(5):427-440.doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-
  5. Mahoney M., Gabriel T.J. (1987). Psychotherapy and cognitive sciences: an evolving alliance. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1 (1): 60. Osbeck L. (2009). Transformations in Cognitive Science: Implications and Issus Posed. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29 (1): 16-33.
  6. Pacciolla A., Mancini F., editors (2010). Cognitivismo esistenziale. Del significato del sintomo al significato della vita. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  7. Paris J. (2013). How the history of psychotherapy interferes with integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23 (2): 99-106.
  8. Rapaport D. (1967). La estructura de la teoría psicoanalítica. Buenos Aires: Paidós (version original: The Structure of Psychoanalytic Theory, 1960, New York: Int. Univ. Press).
  9. Sembrano A.G. (2010). Possibili integrazioni con el cognitivismo. In Pacciolla A., Mancini F., Cognitivismo esistenziale, Milano: FrancoAngeli, pp. 21-47.
  10. Young J.E., Klosko J.W, Weishaar M.E. (2003). Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Guilford Press.

Hèctor Férnandez Alvarez, Psicoterapia cognitiva. Quale integrazione possibile? in "QUADERNI DI PSICOTERAPIA COGNITIVA" 33/2013, pp 9-18, DOI: 10.3280/QPC2013-033002