Toward the Theoretical Unification
of Clinical Psychology
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry
University of Pennsylvania
Preface
• Goal is to provide an introduction to a new
way of thinking about the field of psychology
in general and clinical psychology in
particular.
• Only key points, highlights, and major
components will be addressed
• Diagrammatic Representations
• Full Circle
Outline of Presentation
• Psychology is a fragmented discipline
• Three New Sets of Ideas
– The Tree of Knowledge System
– Behavioral Investment Theory
– The Justification Hypothesis
• Unifying Clinical Psychology
– Connecting previously disparate domains
A Unified Psychology is a
Powerful Concept
The difference between fragmentation
and unification is the difference
between noise and music.
Defining the Elements of a Unified
Clinical
Psychology
• Applied
(Effect Change)
• Individual Human Level
• Focus on fixing
psychopathology
• Applications based on
unified pure science of
psychology
• Pure Science
(Describe Change)
• Defined as Science of Animal
Behavior, Mental Behavior,
Behavior of Nervous System
as a Singularity
• A precisely defined set of
ideas that exists between
Skinner and Freud and
Biology and Sociology
Psychology is a Fragmented
Discipline
• No agreed upon definition of the field
• No agreed upon subject matter
• Proliferation of overlapping, yet
contradictory concepts
• Fundamentally different epistemological
assumptions
Schisms Abound
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nature v. Nurture
Mental v. Behavioral
Constructivist v. Empiricist
Scientist v. Practitioner
Free Will v. Deterministic
Natural v. Social Science
Bio-psychiatric v. psychosocial
Fragmentation Hurts
• Empirical findings are of limited value if there
is no shared agreement about relevant questions.
This seriously impedes accumulation of
knowledge.
• Loss of respect from those outside field and
often seen as a “would be” science
• Paradigms are defined against one another and
huge resources are spent on infighting.
The Fragmentation of the Field can be
characterized as “The Skinner-Freud Problem”
“Skinner and Freud occupy opposite ends of the full spectrum
of positions that psychologists take regarding the nature of
their inquiry...” (Stanovich, 1992, p. 3)
Science of
SKINNER
FREUD
PSYCHOLOGY
“Skinner and Freud remain pillars of the field, but there is
currently no way to blend the insights of the two together in a
coherent fashion.” (Henriques, in press)
The Current State of the Field
Psychology is currently a poorly
organized set of ideas that exists
between Skinner and Freud on
the one hand and Biology and
Sociology on the other.
Lack of an Overarching
Framework
“We
have a surfeit of facts. What we do not have,
and most of us in the quiet of our nights know it, is
an overarching conception of context in which we
can put these facts and, having done so, the truth
then stands a chance of emerging.”
Seymour B. Sarason (1989, p. 279)
The Tree of Knowledge System
The Needed
Overarching Framework
What is the ToK System?
• A proposal for a universally agreed upon
representation of scientific knowledge.
• A diagram that depicts a consilient scientific
philosophy on the dimensions of time and
complexity.
• A new form of knowledge technology that
functions to merge theories together into
one integrated framework.
Four Fundamental Levels of Complexity
Four Fundamental Classes of Science
Four Fundamental Classes of Objects
Four Fundamental Levels of Existence
Key Points About
the ToK System
• Provides a new way of defining extremely broad
concepts (e.g., Life, Mind) and defines how they
exist in relationship to one another.
• Demonstrates a strong correspondence between
levels of complexity and fundamental divisions in
science.
• Suggests the presence of two key theories or
“joint-points” that provide the framework for
unifying psychology and the social sciences.
The Structure of the ToK Suggests the
Existence of Four Fundamental Theories
Solving the Skinner-Freud
Problem
JUSTIFICATION
HYPOTHESIS
BEHAVIORAL
INVESTMENT
THEORY
A Remarkable Unacknowledged
Correspondence
“The three
personae of
psychoanaly
tic theory
are in many
respects
close to our
three levels
of selection;
but…”
(Skinner,
1981)
“[T]he
assumption
of a
distinction
between ego
and id [in
higher
animals]
cannot be
avoided.”
(Freud,
1940)
Behavioral Investment Theory
A Formal Proposal for the
Life-to-Mind Joint Point
What is BIT?
“Behavioral Investment Theory is a theory of the conceptual
nervous system… BIT posits that the nervous system evolved as an
increasingly flexible computational control system that computes
and coordinates the behavioral expenditure of energy of the animalas-a-whole. Expenditure of behavioral energy is computed on an
investment value system built phylogenetically through natural
selection operating on genetic combinations and ontogenetically
through behavioral selection operating on neural combinations. As
such, the current behavioral investments of the animal are
conceptualized as the joint product of the two vectors of phylogeny
and ontogeny.”
(Henriques, in press)
What Does BIT Do?
• BIT provides the theoretical framework for
understanding how the psychological dimension of
complexity emerges out of the biological dimension by
suggesting the following “parallel” synthesis:
Darwin + Genetics = Modern Synthesis (Biology)
Skinner + CNP = BIT (Psychology)
• BIT links distal causation with proximal causation with
the same general concept of behavioral investment.
These two vectors can be used to identify the focus of
various disciplines.
The Two Vectors of Phylogeny
and Ontogeny
Integrating Skinner with
Mainstream Psychology
BEHAVIORAL
INVESTMENT
THEORY LINKS
SKINNER WITH
COGNITIVE
SCIENCE AND
BIOLOGY
BIT Ultimately Combines Five Prominent BrainBehavior Paradigms into One Unified Framework
BIT can be thought of as a Cognitive1Behavioral2, Bio3-Physical4 Systems5
Theoretic6 Approach to the Science of
Psychology
5
2
1
4
6
3
The Justification Hypothesis
A Formal Proposal for the
Mind-to-Culture Joint-Point
What is the Justification
Hypothesis?
• The JH is the notion that humans have an
elaborate self-awareness system because the
evolution of language created the problem
of justification. Humans became the only
animal that had to explain why it did what it
did.
The Three Postulates of the JH
1. Freud’s fundamental observation was that the
human consciousness system functions as a
justification filter for behavioral investments.
2. This justification filter evolved because
language creates the “problem of
justification.”
3. The Justification Hypothesis provides the
psychological foundation for a unified theory
of culture and links the natural to the social
sciences.
What Does the JH Do?
• Provides the framework for understanding
evolutionary changes in mind that led to the
emergence of human culture
• Links self-awareness at the individual level to
cultural belief systems at the group level
• Defines what makes humans unique
• Provides functional conception of self-awareness
• Links the natural and social sciences
Edward O. Wilson’s Description of the
Fundamental Problem in Explaining Human
Behavior
We know that virtually all of human behavior is transmitted by culture. We also
know that biology has an important effect on the origin of culture and its
transmission. The question remaining is how biology and culture interact, and in
particular how they interact across all societies to create the commonalities of
human nature. What, in the final analysis, joins the deep, mostly genetic history
of the species as a whole to the more recent cultural histories of far-flung
societies? That, in my opinion, is the nub of the relationship between the two
cultures. It can be stated as a problem to be solved, the central problem of the
social sciences and the humanities, and simultaneously one of the great remaining
problems of the natural sciences.
At present time no one has a solution. But in the sense that no one in 1842
knew the true cause of evolution and in 1952 no one knew the nature of the
genetic code, the way to solve the problem may lie within our grasp. (p. 126)
From Consilience
Integrating Freud with
Mainstream Psychology
The JH links
psychodynamic
theory with social,
cognitive, and
personality
psychology and
sociological levels
of analysis
General Summary of
Unified Theory
• ToK is a new form of knowledge technology
which allows theories to be merged. Suggests
presence of two “joint-points” that box in
psychology
• BIT is the Life-to-Mind Joint Point
• JH is the Mind-to-Culture Joint Point
Unified Clinical Psychology
Using the unified theory in the
application of ameliorating human
psychopathology
A unified clinical psychology integrates the best
from the best within the SAME framework
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR
THERAPY
THERAPY
SOCIAL
PERSONALITY
HUMANISTIC
PSYCHODYNAMIC
DEVELOPMENTAL
FAMILY
SYSTEMS
BIOPSYCHIATRIC
FEMINIST
EXISTENTIAL
INTERPERSONAL
Some Current Directions
• The Behavioral Shutdown Model of
Depression
• Definition of Mental Disorder and the
differentiation of clinical psychology and
psychiatry
• Pervasive Adult Developmental Disorder
• Connecting Cognitive Theory, Interpersonal
Theory and the Personality Disorders
Connecting Sociotropy-Autonomy, the
Interpersonal Circumplex, and the Personality
Disorders
As an example of how a unified movement
can lead to empirical investigations, the
following offers an integration between three
traditionally separate domains of thought:
1. Beck’s concepts of Sociotropy-Autonomy
2. Leary’s Interpersonal Circumplex
3. The Personality Disorders
Beck’s Concepts of Sociotropy
and Autonomy
Autonomous Mode
Sociotropic Mode
• Self-Centered
• Other-Centered
Orientation
Orientation
• Invested in positive
• Invested in preserving
interchange with
independence, or
others
dominance over situation
• Hyper-reactive to
• Hyper-reactive to
situations that might
situations that impeded
reflect loss of love or
their goal directed
affection from others
behavior
Factor Structure and Sample Items
of Sociotropy and Autonomy
Autonomy
Sociotropy
• Independent Goal Attainment
• Preference for Affiliation
“If a goal is important to me I
will pursue it even if it may
make other people
uncomfortable.”
• Sensitivity to Others’ Control
“I don't like people to
invade my privacy.”
“Having close bonds with
other people makes me
feel secure.”
• Fear of Criticism/Rejection
“I censor what I say
because I am concerned
that the other person
may disapprove or
disagree.”
Leary’s Interpersonal Circumplex
• Based on psychoanalytic
tradition from Freud to
Harry Stack-Sullivan to
Henry A. Murray
• The Circumplex consists of
two underlying dimensions
which range from hate to
love on the horizontal axis
(affiliation) and from
submissive to dominance on
the vertical axis
(competition-control)
ResponsibleCompetitiveNarcissistic C
o Hypernormal
n
t
Affiliation
r
o
DocileRebellious- l
Distrustful
Dependent
Connecting the Sociotropy-Autonomy Factors
with the Interpersonal Circumplex
Method
• Participants were 1610 adult outpatients who were
evaluated at the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the
University of Pennsylvania.
• All patients were diagnosed using the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition,
revised
• Each participant also completed the SociotropyAutonomy Scale
• Participants were included only if they either were not
diagnosed with a personality disorder or were
diagnosed with only one personality disorder.
Procedure
• Individuals’ scores on each of the four subfactors of the
SAS scale were computed.
• To generate the scores for the dominance-submission
dimension, scores on the FCR subfactor were
subtracted from the scores on the IGA subfactor.
Likewise, to create the hostility-affiliation dimension,
SOC scores were subtracted from the PFA scores. This
then created a two dimensional grid.
• Scores from individuals with no personality disorder
were then set as the center point (0,0). The means of
each of the groups of personality disorders were then
used to plot where the particular personality disorder
fell on the grid.
A Priori Predicted Distribution of the Personality
Disorders on the SAS-Circumplex Grid
Actual Distribution of the Personality Disorders
on the SAS-Circumplex Grid
Discussion
• Although Beck’s concepts of sociotropy and autonomy
clearly have a strong interpersonal component to them,
few connections with between these constructs and the
Interpersonal Circumplex have been drawn.
• This presentation suggests that such a merger might
yield much, both in terms of linking cognitive theory
with interpersonal theory and for understanding the
personality disorders.
• By synthesizing traditionally disparate fields, a greater
opportunity to develop cumulative knowledge is
achieved.
Conclusion
A well-defined subject matter, a shared language, and conceptual
agreements about the fundamentals are key elements that constitute a
mature science. The physical and biological sciences have reached
maturity. The psychological sciences have not. Instead, students of
psychology are given choices to be or not to be radical behaviorists,
cognitive psychologists, evolutionary psychologists, social constructivists,
feminists, physiological psychologists, or psychodynamic psychologists,
among others. The lack of a shared, general understanding has had
unfortunate consequences. Paradigms are defined against one another
and epistemological differences justify the dismissal of insights gleaned
from other approaches. The result has been a fragmented field and a gulf
between the natural and social sciences.
This analysis suggests that the fragmentation that currently
characterizes the field of psychology is unnecessary. Instead, by utilizing
the ToK System as a meta-theoretical framework, a coherent unified
theory of psychology is possible.