Behavior Therapy Theory

Science is equally concerned with understanding and explanation as it is with prediction and control. Prediction has a straightforward understanding; one makes a specific forecast and subsequently determines how accurate it was. Likewise, control also has a straightforward meaning in that one decides upon a desirable change and then attempts to make it so. Understanding and explanation are more complex matters. One might say that we understand something once it has been explained. But what does explanation require? What must one do to properly explain why something occurred, such as why a particular psychological intervention produced the observed outcome or why the outcome did not materialize? No simple answer will suffice here. Theorists vary in that they use different explanatory bases. Behavior therapy theories have employed at least four explanatory bases. The first is the functional analysis of behavior that characterizes operant conditioning explanations that are associated with the experimental analysis of behavior. The second explanatory basis is reciprocal inhibition; it underlies systematic desensitization and related therapies. Cognitive theory provides a third explanatory basis. A fourth network explanatory basis is discerned on the grounds that it recognizes independent emotional nodes that are not the exclusive product of cognitive processing. Each theoretical basis is explained below.

Behavior therapists continue to differ widely with regard to their interests in the scientific basis of their accomplishments. They are split by the differential extent to which they value basic versus applied research. Investigators who value basic over applied research typically value explanation and understanding over prediction and control as their main goals. They use prediction and control in the service of explanation and understanding. Investigators who value applied over basic research typically value prediction and control almost exclusively. They frequently argue that as clinicians, they do not need to understand why their treatments are effective as long as they are skilled at their implementation. A more complete understanding of the science underlying their effective treatments may or may not lead to more effective interventions. Only if it can be demonstrated that a more complete scientific understanding and explanation of behavioral therapeutics leads to new more effective clinical methods are advances in basic science deemed worthy of the time and effort to obtain and the journal space to publish. The possibility that a better understanding of the scientific principles involved may guide the refinement and development of behavior therapies is insufficient justification. This applied science value impedes theoretical development because it denies the necessary intellectual, academic, and financial resources for its development.

Eysenck published a seminal paper in 1952 that augmented the basic and applied science split within psychology by questioning the effectiveness of psychotherapy (see suggested readings). He claimed that the available evidence indicated that treated patients did not improve beyond what could be expected on the basis of spontaneous remission. The burden of proof to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychological interventions was now squarely placed on the shoulders of psychologists. Behavior therapies developed in part as a response to this clarion call for psychotherapy outcome research. Behavior therapists became primarily concerned with getting results: producing outcomes that meet the standards of scientific evidence. It is prudent to first determine whether a treatment works before theorizing about why it works.

...