Psychotherapy Volume 22/Fall 1985/Number 3

TEACHING INTEGRATION OF PSYCHOTHERAPY MODELSTO BEGINNING THERAPISTS

RICHARD P. HALGINUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst

This article discusses issues andtechniques pertaining to the teaching oftherapeutic integration to beginningpsychotherapists. Consideration is givento the problem of therapeuticnarrowness, the recent trend towardrapprochement, as well as didactic andsupervisory strategies which might serveto encourage the synthesizing ofdivergent therapeutic models.

During this decade a major transition is tak-ing place in the theory and practice of psy-chotherapy. The rigid boundary lines whichpreviously delineated the major psychothera-peutic models is being replaced by more flex-ible and resilient borders. Though disregardand occasional disdain characterized the atti-tude of many therapists to techniques differentfrom their own, the present climate is one ofincreasing acceptance of other approaches.And even more remarkable is the trend towardintegration of techniques which for many yearshad been considered incompatible. Thoughconsiderable change has occurred in the deliv-ery of integrated therapeutic techniques, thereis a surprising lack of discussion about the is-sue of how to teach such integration. In fact,at the present time most trainees still confronta curriculum which sharply segregates modelsof therapy, and inadvertently leads new train-ees to conclude that one makes an early choiceregarding therapeutic approach and adheres toit narrowly and permanently.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard P. Hal-gin, Department of Psychology, University of Massachu-setts, Amherst, MA 01003.

The Problem of Therapeutic NarrownessThe curricula in most programs offer a

number of discrete courses across various psy-chotherapeutic models. Though the coursesmay work well by themselves, they inadver-tently perpetuate the notion of therapeuticseparatism. Beginners tend to use these coursesto strengthen the affiliations which had begunto develop prior to entering graduate trainingand to look at their course learning as an op-portunity to develop a "set of skills." Theyseek out a reference group, from whom theyseek peer support (Wisocki & Sedney, 1978).As time goes on, they continue to confirm theiraffiliation.

The process very likely begins even prior toentering one's professional training. A cursoryreview of introductory and abnormal psy-chology textbooks would lead one to believethat in the field of psychotherapy, a profes-sional aligns with a singular model and appliesthe tenets of that model with chauvinistic com-mitment. As Brammer (1969) pointed out, stu-dents frequently ask a professor to define"what school" dominates his or her depart-ment. The problem with most responses to thisquestion is that they tend to be reductionisticand simplistic, and unfortunately leave theinquirer to continue believing that the divid-ing lines are more clearly drawn than theyreally are.

Prior to entering training there seems to bea pressure to affiliate with a theoretical ori-entation. For example, preferential evaluationis given by clinical psychology admissionscommittees to an applicant who identifies atheoretical affiliation. An applicant is consid-ered more mature if familiar with the literaturein a single area and able to provide a rationalefor being behavioral or psychodynamic orwhatever. A similar phenomenom exists in

555

Richard P. Halgin

terms of research directions; the applicant whohas precisely mapped out research plans getshigher ratings than the individual who repliesto such inquiries with uncertainty. Studentspick up on these cues and absorb insular modesof thinking and learning (Halgin, in press c).

Most novices are quite content to thinksimplistically about models of psychotherapyat first; but, as time goes on, many feel un-comfortable and confused, as they come tolearn how different the practice of therapy isfrom the dogma. Some students recognizeearly on that the learning of a single approachis quite limiting; and some programs stronglyencourage the simultaneous acquisition ofskills of different models. Though such effortsare admirable, there is insufficient attentiongiven to the strain placed on the trainee, es-pecially when the presentation of models lacksany attempt at synthesis. Tennen (1974) de-scribed the "schizophrenogenic experience"of trying to learn divergent therapeutic modelsconcomitantly, and the failure of supervisorsto recognize the confusion and stress in theirsupervisees in such situations.

Steiner (1978) found that the most impor-tant factors in determining one's choice ofpsychotherapeutic orientation were the ori-entation of one's therapist, course work, in-structors, and orientations of senior col-leagues. Norcross & Prochaska (1983) dis-agreed with the commonly held notion that ac-cidental circumstances are the determiningvariables, and they concluded that "cliniciansmake deliberate choices of their orientations,primarily predicated on clinical experience,values and personal philosophy, and graduatetraining" (p. 205). What Norcross & Pro-chaska do not fully acknowledge is the factthat the variables of experience, personal phi-losophy, and graduate training are often quiteaccidentally determined.

Educators maintain an educational statusquo that offers a simplistic parody of how psy-chotherapy works. Greben (1983) noted thatexperienced therapists are often more humanin their work with patients than their reportsat professional meetings, published papers, orsupervision of students would suggest. Grebensuggested that this discrepancy results largelyfrom believing that modifications from strictdogma will risk professional criticism; the unTfortunate consequence is that the dogma getspassed on from one generation of therapists to

the next. Havens & Dimond (1978) describedthe unfortunate situation of professors pro-moting a specific theoretical position and der-ogating all others. They criticized clinical psy-chology programs in particular, which weredescribed as typically lacking in unification,not possessing the latitude to tolerate and en-courage varied interests, and being unrespon-sive to the realities of the marketplace.

In discussing the issue of identification witha model, Brammer (1969) posited that thera-pists look for "conceptual hooks" (p. 196) onwhich to hang observations and experiences;having an area or model with which to identifyreduces anxiety and gives a sense of belonging.Goldfried (1980) humorously reflected on theneed to belong by asking, "Without a specifictherapeutic orientation, how would we knowwhat journal to subscribe to or which conven-tions to attend?" (p. 996).

As Goldfried & Padawer (1982) pointed out,the sociology of science is such that the sci-entific community operates by a competitive setof rules, and scientists are encouraged to outdoeach other. Those who think differently, orwho proffer alternate methodologies, are re-garded as adversaries. In discussing the fieldof therapy in particular, Goldfried (1982ft)stated, "[It] places too much emphasis on theownership of ideas, such that we are unwillingto consider the merit of certain notions if theycome from those we do not consider to be partof our reference group" (p. 387). Raimy (1976)spoke of the role which schools have had incontributing to the enthusiasm and competi-tive urge to drive therapists to develop theirthinking and their techniques, but he also de-scribed the limited horizons and rigidity of theproponents of certain schools.

RapprochementFortunately, the field of psychotherapy may

be entering an era in which the divisions areno longer needed. Behaviorists have acquiredgreat respect during the past decade, and prob-ably feel less need to be vehement defendersof their thoughts and techniques. Those whohave been more phenomenologically orientedhave generated a renewed respect for theirstyles. Psychodynamic therapists have increas-ingly acknowledged that truth exists outside oftheir own circle, and that useful techniques canbe learned from others. It seems a fortuitoustime to convey to students the message that

556

Teaching Integration of Psychotherapy Models

there exists a wealth of effective methods inthe various clinical models.

Presently, two prominent psychologists,Paul Wachtel and Marvin Goldfried, appearto be the prime movers in the rapprochementmovement. Wachtel's book, Psychoanalysisand Behavior Therapy: Toward an Integration(1977), is regarded by many as a watershed inthe dialogue between behavior therapists andpsychodynamic therapists. It provides a ra-tionale and methodology for formulatingtreatment plans geared more toward clientneeds than personal theoretical leanings.Goldfried (19826) has been influential in com-municating to his colleagues the propriety oftherapeutic flexibility. His edited volume,Converging Themes in Psychotherapy: Trendsin Psychodynamic, Humanistic, and Behav-ioral Practice (Goldfried, 1982a) has broughttogether some of the most thought-provokingwritings on the topic. Wachtel and Goldfriedhave done a major service for the professionby bringing together a network of therapists,The Society for the Exploration of Psycho-therapy Integration. Clinicians from all fieldsand therapeutic persuasions are joining in dia-logue and learning from each other ways tobetter serve clients.

In reviewing the rapprochement literature,it is apparent that the field of psychotherapyhas become more honest and more humble.There is an increasing acknowledgment thatwhat is done in practice may be less straight-forward and more complex than previouslyadmitted. There is also recognition that evena skilled therapist working with a refined ther-apeutic technique may not be enough for everyclient.

In their review of salient therapist variables,Orlinsky & Howard (1978) wrote of the dangerin assuming that there exists a close corre-spondence between professed orientation andactual clinical behavior. Methods of practiceare as distinctive as the labels associated withthem. In a review of the outcome literature,Bergin & Lambert (1978) concluded that schoolaffiliation does not accurately describe ther-apeutic operations. And Sloane et al. (1975)found surprising therapeutic similarities thatwould not have been anticipated on the basisof professed orientation.

In what is becoming a frequently quotedcomment, Grinker (1976) stated that once theoffice doors are closed, much goes on within

the psychoanalytic hour that clearly departsfrom orthodox analysis. There is presently anincreased willingness to discuss some of the"unorthodox" techniques and to confirm thatsome of the newly acquired techniques havecome from the previously designated enemy,behavior therapy.

Behavior therapists have made dramatic al-terations in therapeutic style during the pastdecade as well. Yates (1983) commented thatan independent observer of the behavior ther-apy scene as it was in 1965 would be astonishedat the changes which have taken place sincethen. He noted, "The sharply edged bound-aries of behavior therapy originally drawn inthe early stages have become considerablymore blurred in recent years, while at the sametime concessions have been made in respect ofpsychoanalysis which would have been incon-ceivable twenty years ago" (p. 113).

The limitations of any single therapeutic ap-proach have been more openly recognized asclinicians have more ardently sought after pro-cedures which are helpful for their clients, re-gardless of the theoretical source. Goldfried &Padawer (1982) summarized the phenomenon:"There is an increasing tendency to look to-ward common factors that cut across allschools of thought, as well as a growing will-ingness to incorporate procedures into one'sclinical armamentarium that may come fromother therapeutic orientations" (pp. 3-4).Much of what has developed is more a resultof pragmatism than of idealistic efforts atbeing cooperative. As Marmor & Woods (1980)noted, "No one theory or discipline is likely,in the foreseeable future, to explain, much lesspredict, all of the complexities of human be-havior" (p. xi). The "creative synthesis" de-scribed by Ricks, Wandersman, and Poppen(1976), or the "prescriptive eclecticism" for-mulated by Dimond and Havens (1975), or the"dynamic synthesis" described by Murray(1976) all spring from a very pragmatic de-mand on the part of clients, other profession-als, and even insurance companies, for psy-chotherapists to provide effective andappropriate treatments.

Eclecticism?Many have conceptualized synthesis as ec-

lectic; however the label has a long history ofnegative connotations. Though recent studieshave shown that a majority of clinicians de-

557

Richard P. Halgin

scribe themselves as eclectic (Garfield, 1982;Garfield & Kurtz, 1976, 1977; Wildman &Wildman, 1967), there is considerable disres-pect for the label eclectic. Goldfried and Pa-dawer (1982) stated that term "conjures up animage of a therapist who has difficulty in mak-ing a commitment to an accepted and coherentviewpoint and whose professional identitytends to fall somewhere between the cracks"(p. 23). Ryle (1982) viewed the issue similarly,' 'To be an eclectic is to have a marginal profes-sional identity" (p. 385). Garfield (1982) com-mented that many individuals have viewed theterm eclectic as being "synonymous with 'mud-dleheadedness' or minimal brain damage"(p. 612).

The term pragmatic blending is offered asan alternative to the term eclectic (Halgin,1982, in press a,b,d). This term seems moreinnocuous, and perhaps more accurate, in de-scribing the phenomenon being discussed. In1964, London spoke of a "quiet blending oftechniques by artful therapists" (p. 39). In1976, Murray described the "conscientiouspragmatic therapist" (p. 561), and in 1977,Garfield and Kurtz spoke of the "pragmaticutility" (p. 83) of therapists who look beyonda single theory in their work. The decision tointegrate is pragmatically determined, and thetherapeutic process involves a sensitive blend-ing of diverse components.

Pragmatic blending is differentiated fromother proposed modes of integration such as:(a) concurrent but separate therapies, occa-sionally provided by different therapists; (b)one therapy complementing another, but pro-vided sequentially. An example of the firstwould be the implementation of a behavioralintervention for a circumscribed problem,while concurrently providing an exploratoryintervention for broader issues. An example ofthe second type would be the sequential andindependent provision of such treatments.Though there may be arguments for eachof these two strategies, it would seem thatthey could result in artificial segmenting ofthe client's psychological needs; also, suchapproaches are not easily able to respond toongoing fluctuations characteristic of anypsychotherapy.

Pragmatic blending is less restrictive thaneither of the alternative forms of therapeuticintegration presented above; it allows the ther-

apist—actually encourages—to determine thecourse of the treatment in response to the im-mediate needs of the client. Direction can beprovided as warranted; exploration can bedone when appropriate; and support can beoffered when needed. This is not to suggestthat case formulation or treatment planningwould be unnecessary. Quite the contrary, thepragmatic blending of approaches requires thatthe therapist carefully assess the client's needsand make a determination as to which aspectsof varying approaches would be warranted.

Pragmatic blending, as practiced by the au-thor, characteristically taps four theoreticalmodels: psychodynamic, interpersonal, per-son-centered, and behavioral. The psychody-namic model provides techniques such asinterpretation, analysis of transference, andanalysis of resistance. The interpersonal modelprovides a framework within which the ther-apist can use the therapeutic relationship as ananalog to understand a client's interpersonalstyle. The person-centered model enables thetherapist to respond in ways which affirm thecompetence and goodness of the client. Andthe behavioral model provides techniques suchas modeling, cognitive restructuring, and ed-ucative interventions.

Developing Respect for IntegrationIn order to reduce perpetuating the myth of

separatism, there must be restructuring of theeducational processes for training psychother-apists. As Reisman (1975) stated, a university"should provide a system of analysis or aframework by which a multiplicity of theoriesand methods could be organized into an in-tegrated understanding" (p. 191). Ironically,Reisman goes on to recommend that programsdevelop specialties and that they guide eachstudent into a program with treatment meth-odologies most synchronous with his or herown aptitude. Rather than reducing a stu-dent's exposure to the multiplicity of availableapproaches, it seems more advisable to in-crease exposure and look for ways to developrespect in trainees for the nuances of each ap-proach, as well as cross-theoretical common-alities. Goldfried (1982a) concluded, "To theextent that clinicians are able to arrive at acommon set of strategies, it is likely that whatemerges will consist of robust phenomena"(p. 386). In a similar plea for pursuit of

558

Teaching Integration of Psychotherapy Models

commonalities, Gar field (1982) asserted thatwe need to ascertain what is truly therapeuticin the various systems of psychotherapy, andto operationalize some of the common varia-bles which seem to play a role in mostpsychotherapies.

One critical point for trainees is that psy-chotherapy, regardless of technique, has acommon goal. As Goldfried & Padawer (1982)noted in reviewing the works of others, "Allforms of therapy share a common clinicalstrategy of providing patients/clients with analternate way of looking at themselves, theirbehavior, and the world around them" (p. 16).Furthermore, students should be apprised ofthe increasing amount of research suggestingthat specific techniques employed by a thera-pist are not necessarily the primary determi-nants of change in the client; reviews of psy-chotherapy outcome studies have concludedthat there is little support for the differentialeffectiveness of techniques (Bergin & Lam-bert, 1978; Butcher & Koss, 1978; Hynan,1981; Metzoff & Kornreich, 1970; Roback,1971; Smith et al., 1980).

Some authors have focused on issues ofthe language and lexicons of different models,and how the terms used stand in the way offacilitating cooperation (Goldfried & Pa-dawer, 1982; Krasner, 1978; Ryle, 1982.).Goldfried's recommendation that psychother-apists begin using the vernacular is a com-mendable idea, but more dramatic pedagogi-cal changes are also needed.

Dimond et al. (1978) presented an impres-sively lucid model for the eclectic practice ofpsychotherapy. The model focuses on thebroad clinical processes of theory, assessment,goal setting, intervention, and evaluation, andprovides a framework and guidelines for fa-cilitating a logical, planful approach to treat-ment. In the initial stage, in which theory isorganized, they recommend that a frameworkserve a synthesizing function, be multitheo-retical, and act as a conceptual superstructurewithin which elaborations from all aspects ofpsychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthro-pology may be subsumed. They suggest a viewof personality based on biophysical, intra-psychic, phenomenological, behavioral, andenvironmental models. They recommend anadaptation of Millon's (1969) approach toclinical assessment, in which data from several

sources are integrated so as to best appreciatethe client's uniqueness. Goal setting involvesa process of comprehending and respecting theclient's expressed goals and synchronizing theclient's goals with the therapist's abilities. Theintervention phase involves the individualiza-tiqn of each therapy in accordance with theclient's needs. Finally, evaluation is mandatedat every point along the way, and the clinicianis urged to return to the assessment stage toalter the process when it is called for. The au-thors acknowledged that their approach placesa strain on the therapist, "for it implies thatan eclectic clinician is an individual who canfocus all efforts on the client, be aware of andsensitive to current social issues, be willing tomaintain currency in the literature and train-ing, and entertain the possibility of referringinappropriate clients elsewhere" (p. 247).

Training programs could be restructuredalong the lines of the paradigm proposed byDimond et al. (1978). Courses or training ex-periences already exist in theory, assessment,treatment planning, intervention, and evalu-ation. As noted above, such courses are typ-ically taught along the lines of models orschools. Rather than stopping after all of themodels are presented, a new educational com-ponent could be added which synthesizes allof the preceding material. An alternative ap-proach would involve the teaching of inte-grated therapeutic assessment and interven-tion from the outset. Several books haveappeared recently specifically geared towardthe teaching of integrated clinical approaches;these include Beutler's Eclectic Psychother-apy: A Systematic Approach (1983), Hart'sModern Eclectic Therapy (1983), Garfield'sPsychotherapy: An Eclectic Approach (1980),and Palmer's A Primer of Eclectic Psycho-therapy (1980).

The author has developed and taught a clin-ical assessment course that attempts to inte-grate components of the four models that serveas the bases for pragmatic blending. Studentsare taught an assessment strategy that blendsexploratory, interpersonal, person-centered,and behavioral techniques. When indicated,medical assessment information is also in-cluded. The extent to which each model istapped is determined by the presenting needsof each client. Treatment plans are multi-theoretically based, with varying degress of ex-

559

Richard P. Halgin

ploratory, interpersonal, person-centered, andbehavioral work.

Teaching Therapeutic Integration throughSupervision

Since major curriculum changes typicallycome about slowly, it would be beneficial tolook to individual supervision as a forum tocommunicate rapprochement, and to teachskills of pragmatic blending of different mod-els. Loganbill et al. (1982) provide a compre-hensive look at the literature and current stateof individual clinical supervision, as well as amodel for the conceptualization of such su-pervision. In the model, supervision is definedalong the lines of a "master/apprentice" ap-proach as "an intensive interpersonally fo-cused, one-to-one relationship in which oneperson is designated to facilitate the develop-ment of therapeutic competence in the otherperson" (p. 4). The authors express concernabout the supervisory philosophy which sep-arates various theoretical models (e.g., Boyd,1978; Hess, 1980). In lieu of such fragmen-tation, they offer a more unified and inte-grated perspective that identifies core com-ponents of supervision and seeks to respect theuniqueness of the theoretical leanings of theindividual supervisor.

Applying a developmental model to the con-ceptualization of supervision, Loganbill et al.(1978) delineate three stages: stagnation, con-fusion, and integration. The stagnation stageis characterized by a "naive unawareness ofany difficulty or deficiency in a specific areaor in regard to any of the important issues ofsupervision" (p. 18). The beginner typicallyhas a naive sense of security, deceptive stabil-ity, and simplistic black-and-white thinking.The confusion stage is characterized by in-stability, disorganization, erratic fluctuation,disruption, confusion, and conflict. "The su-pervisee may be troubled because for the firsttime he or she realizes that something is amissand that the solution package is nowhere onthe immediate horizon" (p. 18). The signifi-cance of the second stage is that "old ways ofbehaving and thinking have been shaken andshattered leaving open the opportunity to bereplaced by a new and fresh perspective"(p. 19). In the integration stage, the superviseecan reorganize and develop a new cognitiveunderstanding, flexibility, and personalsecurity.

Loganbill et al. (1978) delineate several is-sues that recur in any supervision, one of whichpertains to the issue of theoretical identity.They describe the difficult process by whichthe beginner is beset by a myriad of differenttheories and must attempt to develop a syn-thesized theoretical identity. Along the lines oftheir developmental framework, they describehow the beginning supervisee is unaware of theneed for an integrated sense of theoreticalidentity, and barely comprehends the need forone. During the second stage, the confused su-pervisee yearns for a consistent theoreticalidentity, which sometimes may "drive him orher to make theories 'fit' " (p. 23). As the su-pervisee passes into the third stage, a "com-mon thread of identity should begin toemerge" (p. 23).

Supervisors play a critical role in escortingbeginners through their experiences of artifi-cial security, subsequent confusion, andonward to a process of integration. The su-pervisor who pushes a beginner into an inap-propriate affiliation with a singular model isreally colluding with the beginner's simplisticnotion that there might indeed be only one cor-rect way of doing therapy. Such a supervisoris not likely to be sensitive to the struggles ofthe beginner who is trying to make sense of anoverwhelming number of theories and tech-niques. This beginning period in an individu-al's professional development provides an ex-cellent opportunity for communicating theimportance of developing integrated metho-dologies, for it is during this period that theindividual is most malleable.

The supervisor plays a role that parallels thetherapeutic relationship. This author hasfound that just as pragmatic blending of dif-ferent approaches can enrich therapy, so alsocan it enrich the supervision; a supervisorymodel has been developed that blends psycho-dynamic, interpersonal, person-centered, andbehavorial techniques (Halgin, in press b). Inthis model the supervisor uses the psychody-namic techniques of interpretation, analysis ofresistance, analysis of transference, and freeassociation, the interpersonal model providesa structure within which there can be explo-ration of the relationship between the super-visor and the supervisee. The person-centeredmodel provides the supervisor with a per-spective from which the supervisee can beapproached with respect, genuineness, and

560

Teaching Integration of Psychotherapy Models

empathy. The behavioral model provides strat-egies such as didactic work, modeling, andcognitive restructuring. The supervision con-sists of a pragmatic blending of these modelsin such a way that each supervision is individ-ually designed so as to respond to the partic-ular style and needs of the supervisee as wellas to the clinical needs of the client being con-sidered. The model is conceptualized along thelines of an apprenticeship; it conveys the senseof one teaching a "craft" to another (cf.Colby, 1962), or imparting the nuances of anart. As Goldfried & Padawer (1982) stated,"The only effective way of learning the art ofpsychotherapy is through an apprenticeshipundertaken with a skilled clinician" (p. 29).One of the factors which this model of super-vision attempts to address is the central roleplayed by the supervisor in the life of thetrainee. Supervisors often expend considerableeffort in helping supervisees recognize the cen-tral role which they, as therapists, play in thelives of their clients; but many supervisors failto appreciate how a comparably central role isplayed by the supervisor in the life of the su-pervisee. For example, seemingly insignificantcomments of a supervisor can serve to invig-orate or deflate a trainee. Rosenblatt & Mayer(1975) described how stressful a supervisoryrelationship can be for a supervisee, and Has-senfeld & Sards (1978) recounted some of theemotional costs of an insensitive supervisoryrelationship.

Just as carefully memorized "techniques"are acquired by beginning therapists in orderto decrease anxiety, it seems that supervisorscan hide behind the teaching of techniques perse. It can be a great boost to one's ego to feelthat one has some technique to teach, but thereis a danger in conveying to the supervisee thatthe technique alone is the key to successfuloutcome. How much better it would be to con-vey that success is determined by a complexityof factors, the most significant of which is therelationship (Appelbaum, 1978; Strupp, 1973,1976). Instead of depending on clinical tech-niques per se, the blended supervisory modelattempts to individualistically respond to theintrapsychic, interpersonal, and didactic needsof the supervisee. It concomitantly attempts toteach a similar style to the supervisee for usein his or her work with the client.

In teaching the pragmatic blending of mod-els, it is important that both the uniqueness of

the client and the uniqueness of the therapistbe respected by the supervisor. As Dimond &Havens (1975) concluded, each client "must beviewed not only as someone possessing aunique personality but also as an individualbiased by culture, society, and many other fac-tors" (p. 199). With such a recognition, thetherapist is able to orient theory and tech-niques to most closely approximate the con-cerns and dynamics of the individual in treat-ment. Just as each client has individualizedneeds, so also does each therapist. Hogan(1964) described the process whereby a ther-apist proceeds through several stages in at-tempting to mesh personality with method, theultimate goal being the development of a "per-sonal idiom." Brammer (1969) discouragedtherapists from going to the literature lookingfor a ready-made theory of psychotherapy; in-stead he urged therapists to get to know them-selves well, to be aware of personal values,need-distorted perceptions, potentials, limi-tations, and unique style of interaction. Withthe help of the supervisor, the trainee can cometo appreciate such uniqueness and use it as apowerful therapeutic tool. The advantage ofpragmatic blending is that it encourages thetherapist to tap his or her unique qualities andstyles, and in so doing, increase effectivenessof the therapeutic relationship. As Shoben(1969) stated, "Eclecticism is a primary routeby which we all form and re-form the stylisticidentities by which we are basically known andby which we basically know ourselves"(p. 200). It is critically important to let begin-ning therapists learn what does and does notwork for them. This may not be as easy as itsounds, for each supervisor has an armamen-tarium of strategies perceived as effective, andmost have strong feelings about what shouldor should not be done in therapy. Perhaps theeffectiveness of a chosen technique has muchto do with unique personal style, and it maybe that the same technique might be ineffectivewhen tried by someone else. A supervisor canhelp beginners to determine the personalizedstyles of doing therapy which are most con-cordant with their own personalities.

If respect for integration begins early in theeducational process, it will be possible for thenext generation of therapists to be freed fromthe belief that they ought to adhere to discretemodels. They will be encouraged to seek in-tegrated therapeutic methods which are de-

561

Richard P. Halgin

rived from the best of what the field ofpsychotherapy has to offer, and to apply pro-cedures that respond to client needs rather thanto theoretical biases.

ReferencesAPPELBAUM, S. A. (1978). Pathways to change in psy-

choanalytic therapy. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,42, 239-251.

BERGIN, A. E. & LAMBERT, M. J. (1978). The evaluationof therapeutic outcomes. In A. E. Bergin and S. L. Gar-field (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and BehaviorChange: An Empirical Analysis (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley.

BEUTLER.L. E. (1983). Eclectic Psychotherapy: A System-atic Approach. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon.

BOYD, J. D. (1978). Counselor Supervision: Approaches,Preparation, Practices. Muncie, In: AcceleratedDevelopment.

BRAMMER, L. M. (1969). Eclecticism revisited. Personneland Guidance Journal, 48, 192-197.

BUTCHER, J. N. & Koss, M. P. (1978). Research on briefand crisis oriented therapies. In A. E. Bergin and S. L.Gar field (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Be-havior Change: An Empirical Analysis (2nd ed.). NewYork: John Wiley.

COLBY, K. M. (1962). Discussion of papers on therapist'scontribution. In H. H. Strupp and L. Luborsky (Eds.),Research in Psychotherapy, Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.:American Psychological Association.

DIMOND, R. E. & HAVENS, R. A. (1975). Restructuring psy-chotherapy: Toward a prescriptive eclecticism. Profes-sional Psychology, 6, 193-200.

DIMOND, R. E., HAVENS, R. A. & JONES, A. C. (1978). A

conceptual framework for the practice of prescriptiveeclecticism in psychotherapy. American Psychologist,33, 239-248.

GARFIELD, S. L. (1980). Psychotherapy: An Eclectic Ap-proach. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

GARFIELD, S. L. (1982). Eclecticism and integration inpsychotherapy. Behavior Therapy, 13, 610-623.

GARFIELD, S. L. & KURTZ, R. (1976). Clinical psycholo-gists in the 1970's. American Psychologist, 31, 1-9.

GARFIELD, S. L. & KURTZ, R. (1977). A study of eclecticviews. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,45, 78-83.

GOLDFRIED, M. R. (1980). Toward the delineation of ther-apeutic change principles. American Psychologist, 35,991-999.

GOLDFRIED, M. R. (Ed.) (1982a). Converging Themes inPsychotherapy: Trends in Psychodynamic, Humanistic,and Behavioral Practice. New York: Springer.

GOLDFRIED, M. R. (19826). On the history of therapeuticintegration. Behavior Therapy, 13, 572-593.

GOLDFRIED, M. R. & DAVISON, G. C. (1976). Clinical Be-havior Therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

GOLDFRIED, M. R. & PADAWER, W. (1982). Current statusand future directions in psychotherapy. In M. R. Gold-fried (Ed.), Converging Themes in Psychotherapy:Trends in Psychodynamic, Humanistic, and BehavioralPractice. New York: Springer.

GREBEN, S. E. (1983). Bad theater in psychotherapy: Thecase for therapists' liberation. American Journal ofPsychotherapy, 37, 69-76.

GRINKER.R. R. (1976). Discussion of Strupp's "Some crit-ical comments on the future of psychoanalytic ther-apy." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 40, 247-254.

HALGIN, R. P. (1982). Teaching the integration of differ-ent models to therapists-in-training. In R. P. Halgin(Chair), Integrating Behavioral and PsychodynamicTherapies: Issues in Training and Treatment. Sympos-ium presented at annual meeting of the American Psy-chological Association, Washington, D.C., August1982.

HALGIN, R. P. (In press a). On learning eclecticism. In-ternational Journal of Eclectic Psychotherapy.

HALGIN, R. P. (In press b). Pragmatic blending of clinicalmodels in the supervisory relationship. The ClinicalSupervisor.

HALGIN, R. P. (In press c). The teaching of integrativepsychotherapy in the clinical psychology curriculum. InJ. Norcross (Ed.), International Journal of EclecticPsychotherapy, Special Issue.

HALGIN, R. P. (In press d). Treatment of sexual dysfunc-tion in the context of general psychotherapy. In R. A.Brown and J. R. Field (Eds.), Advances in the Under-standing and Treatment of Sexual Problems: A Com-pendium for the Individual and Marital Therapist.Spectrum.

HART, J. (1983). Modern Eclectic Therapy. New York:Plenum.

HASSENFELD, I. N. & SARRIS, J. G. (1978). Hazards andhorizons of psychotherapy supervision. American Jour-nal of Psychotherapy, 32, 393-401.

HAVENS, R. A. & DIMOND, R. E. (1978). A proposed ed-ucation and training model for clinical psychologists.Teaching of Psychology, 5, 3-6.

HESS, A. K. (Ed.) (1980). Psychotherapy Supervision:Theory, Research and Practice. New York: John Wiley.

HOGAN, R. A. (1964). Issues and approaches in supervi-sion. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1,139-141.

HYNAN, M. T. (1981). On the advantages of assuming thatthe techniques of psychotherapy are ineffective. Psy-chotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 18, 11-13.

KRASNER, L. (1978). The future and the past in the be-haviorism-humanism dialogue. American Psychologist,33, 799-804.

LOGANBILL, C , HARDY, E. & DELWORTH, U. (1982). Su-

pervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psy-chologist, 10, 3-42.

LONDON, P. (1964). The Modes and Morals of Psycho-therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

MARMOR, J. & WOODS, S.M. (1980). The Interface be-tween Psychodynamic and Behavioiral Therapies. NewYork: Plenum.

METZOFF, J. E. & KORNREICH, M. (1970). Research in Psy-chotherapy. New York: Atherton.

MILLON.T. (1969). Modern Psychopathology: A BiosocialApproach to Maladaptive Learning and Functioning.Philadelphia: Saunders.

MURRAY, M. E. (1976). A dynamic synthesis of analyticand behavioral approaches to symptoms. AmericanJournal of Psychotherapy, 30, 561-569.

NORCROSS, J. C. & PROCHASKA, J. O. (1983). Clinicians'theoretical orientations: Selection, utilization, and ef-ficacy. Professional Psychology, 14, 197-208.

ORLINSKY, D. O. & HOWARD, K. I. (1978). The relation ofprocess to outcome in psychotherapy. /« A. E. Bergin

562

Teaching Integration of Psychotherapy Models

and S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapyand Behavior Change: An Empirical Analysis (2nd ed).New York: John Wiley.

PALMER, J. O. (1980). A Primer of Eclectic Psychother-apy. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.

RAIMY, V. (1976). Changing misconceptions as the ther-apeutic task. In A. Bur on (Ed.), What Makes BehaviorChange Possible? New York: Brunner/Mazel.

REISMAN, J. M. (1975). Trends for training in treatment.Professional Psychology, 6, 187-192.

RICKS, D.F., WANDERSMAN, A. & POPPEN, P. J. (1976).

Humanism and behaviorism: Toward new syntheses. InA. Wandersman, P. J. Poppen & D. F. Ricks, (Eds.),Humanism and Behaviorism: Dialogue and Growth.Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon.

ROBACK, H. B. (1971). The comparative influence of in-sight non-insight psychotherapy on therapeutic out-come: A review of the experimental literature. Psy-chotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 8, 23-25.

ROSENBLATT, A. & MAYER, J. E. (1975). Objectionablesupervisory styles: Students' views. Social Work, 20,184-189.

RYLE, A. (1982). A common language for psychothera-pies? In M. R. Goldfried (Ed.), Converging Themes inPsychotherapy: Trends in Psychodynamic, Humanistic,and Behavioiral Practice. New York: Springer.

SHOBEN, E. J. (1969). Stray thoughts on revisited eclec-ticism. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 48, 198-200.

SLOANE.R. B., STAPLES, F. R., CRISTOL, A. H., YORKSTON,

N. J. & WHIPPLE, K. (1975). Short-Term AnalyticallyOriented Psychotherapy vs. Behavior Therapy. Cam-

bridge: Harvard University Press.SMITH, M. L., GLASS, G. V., & MILLER, T. I. (1980). The

Benefits of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

STEINER, G. L. (1978). A survey to identify factors in ther-apists' selection of a theoretical orientation. Psycho-therapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 371-374.

STRUPP, H. H. (1973). On the basic ingredients of psy-chotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 41, 1-8.

STRUPP, H. H. (1976). The nature of the therapeutic in-fluence and its basic ingredients. In A. Burton (Ed.),What Makes Behavior Change Possible? New York:Brunner/Mazel.

TENNEN, H. (1974). The reciprocal inhibition of schizo-phrenogenic communications: Learning behavior ther-apy in an insight oriented training program. Voices: TheArt and Science of Psychotherapy, 10, 56-59.

WACHTEL, P. L. (1977). Psychoanalysis and BehaviorTherapy: Toward an Integration. New York: BasicBooks.

WILDMAN, R. W. & WILDMAN, R. W.( JR. (1967). The

practice of clinical psychology. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 22, 292-295.

WISOCKI, P. A. & SEDNEY, M. A. (1978). Toward the de-velopment of behavioral clinicians. Journal of BehaviorTherapy and Experimental Psychology, 9, 141-147.

YATES, A. J. (1983). Behavior therapy and psychodynamicpsychotherapy: Basic conflict or reconciliation and in-tegration? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22,107-125.

563