For many therapists, it can seem like mental health research studies try to “put people in a box”. It may seem like researchers are not open to the unique and important human qualities of each individual. However, researchers aren’t trying to “peg” people into strict classes. Researchers would actually agree that each individual is crucially different, with different learning histories and different reactions to stress. Afterall, that’s what the research finds!
Researchers do care. They are actually trying to understand multiple aspects of human psychology and how they interact in order to help. Researchers attempt to understand common ways humans respond to a range of situations (aka “nomothetic factors”, to be nerdy). They also seek to learn how unique aspects of each individual influence mental health (aka “idiographic factors”, like unique learning history, genetics, family environment, social conditions, etc).
Understanding these aspects of “how we tick” helps us all understand how to best provide helpful approaches to clients. This can help us more easily determine who will respond well to which treatment. A great example is current efforts by substance abuse researchers to provide a menu of recovery options that will best help.
Another example concerns PTSD. Fear responses to reminders of the event sometimes maintains a client’s trauma. But sometimes shame/guilt and beliefs regarding one’s role in the event (e.g., fault) drives PTSD. Fear-based PTSD usually indicates prolonged exposure therapy (PE) will be helpful. Whereas cognitive processing therapy (CPT) greatly benefits shame-based PTSD.
Some develop depression from lack of contact with rewarding activities or interactions. Others develop depression from negative thoughts and negative beliefs about self/world/others. Some experience a combination of these and/or other factors. In the case of lack of reward, behavioral activation is found to be helpful. Whereas CBT is highly effective for learning new ways to approach negative thoughts and beliefs. The original version of cognitive therapy for depression even includes both approaches!
But mental health research studies merely intend to provide a framework. They are not meant as a hard-and-fast way to view every client. The emphasis is to be flexible within that framework. For example, CBT proposes a common way depression develops. But this approach, by design, emphasizes the unique aspects each individual. The content of their thoughts, how and when those patterns of thoughts developed, and what contexts are difficult for that individual are all important to understanding and helping each unique client.
And like our boy Carl Rogers, researchers emphasize a strong need for positive regard and good therapeutic relationship. The relationship is seen as a necessary ingredient along with formulated well-researched approaches!
Our continuing education resources has information on how to train in a range of different research based therapy approaches. We also have therapist resources, like books and workbooks clients can use for various research-based therapies.
Researchers work to combine common human experiences (e.g., the effect of negative beliefs) with flexible openness to each unique individual. This helps us provide an opportunity to get clients the most effective approach and more quickly. That way, they don’t have to shop around until they find an approach that works for them.
