WHY THERE ARE DIFFERENT APPROACHES IN PSYCHOTHERAPY?

Anyone who has seen a psychologist/psychotherapist in life, even better if more than one, will surely have noticed how there are differences between the clinical approach of each one of them, sometimes even big ones, both from a theoretical and a way-of-working-with-the-patient point of view: there are those who are more "silent", who seem to intervene only every now and then and mostly concentrate on listening to the patient, while others are more

"participant" and intervene in a more directive way with advice and/or exercises; some focus mainly on the patient's past while others focus more on the present and there are those who address the patient informally, while others seem more "formal"... In short, the range is quite varied. But have you ever wondered why these differences exist? Especially since they can often make us feel more or less comfortable in the consultation/therapy.

The reasons for these differences are multiple: at the base there is the complexity of the human mind, and its more "abstract" nature, compared to an areas such as medicine/anatomy which are much more easily observable and documentable. This has led to the birth of theoretical approaches that study, conceive and represent the human mind and its functioning in different ways. To this we must add the different philosophical and ideological positions, including the historical ones from which these currents have developed, which inevitably influence the conception of pathology, approach, treatment, etc.

For example, psychodynamic schools, which evolved from Freud's psychoanalysis, give great importance to the unconscious and the past as fundamental factores in the development of the patient's psyche and symptoms, and often have a undertstanding of cure that presupposes working on "the root" of the problem, leading to change through the resolution of the underlying issues. Instead, there are approaches such as the congitive-behavioral, which comes from the initial studies of behaviorism and subsequent movements, which prefer a more here-and-now approach, focusing on the cognitive processes that lead to the patient's symptoms and discomfort, aiming to restructure these dysfunctional processes.

There is no such thing as a better or more effective approach per-se: it actually depends rather on what objectives are set for the therapy, that will be pursued through different strategies and techniques: That being understood that the common objective is always the well-being of the patient, and the resolution of the problem that led him/her to seek help. However, there are patients who, both due to their circumstances and their characteristics, can benefit more from one approach rather than another.

BUT THEN HOW DO I CHOOSE??

First of all, you can always do some research and read up a little beforehand as to have a general idea of the theoretical approach of a particular clinician.

Afterwards, the kinf of "chemistry" that emerges between the therapist and the patient, also called therapeutic alliance, rapport, etc. depending on the theoretical approach, is a very important element that depend on many complex factors, and that is the basis of any effective therapy. It is therefore important that the patient might feel good with the psychologist/psychotherapist with whom he is working, and he can only know this after a few sessions. It is then essential during the evaluation phase of the treatment for the patient to talk about these first impressions with the professional, who will be able to help understand whether his approach is the most suitable for the patient's clinical needs.