Toward a Unified Conceptual Framework
of Psychotherapy
Barry E. Wolfe
Private Practice, Rockville, Maryland
The increase in theoretical redundancy and the fact that all theories of
psychotherapy possess weaknesses as well as strengths suggest that the
time may be ripe for the emergence of a unified theory of psychotherapy.
Three questions are addressed that are prerequisite to the development of
a unified conceptual framework in psychotherapy: (1) What is the current
state of the field of psychotherapy integration? (2) How do we move
toward a unified theory of psychotherapy? and (3) What must a unified
psychotherapy theory include? Unification is merely the next step in the
evolution of psychotherapy theory, which is expected to oscillate between
stages of unification and differentiation.
Keywords: psychotherapy, theories of psychotherapy, unified theory of psychotherapy
The unification of psychotherapy has been described as impossible
by some (Franks, 1984), a breeder of confusion by others (Lazarus,
1992), and as the road to a new ossified orthodoxy by still others
(Arkowitz, 1997). Yet the increase in theoretical redundancy and the
fact that all theories of psychotherapy possess weaknesses as well as
strengths suggest that the time may be ripe for an emergence of a unified
theory of psychotherapy (Wolfe, 2001). I would like to address three
questions that are prerequisite to the development of a unified concep-
tual framework in psychotherapy. They are: (1) what is the current state
of the field of psychotherapy integration? (2) How do we move toward
a unified theory of psychotherapy? And (3) what must a unified psy-
chotherapy theory include?
Barry E. Wolfe, Private Practice, Rockville, Maryland.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Barry E. Wolfe, PhD,
2325 Glenmore Terrace, Rockville, MD 20850-3061. E-mail: barwolfe1@comcast.net
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 18, No. 3, 292–300 1053-0479/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1053-0479.18.3.292
292

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD OF
PSYCHOTHERAPY INTEGRATION?
During the past two decades, a number of different pathways to psycho-
therapy integration have been defined including technical eclecticism, theo-
retical integration and the common factors approach (Arkowitz, 1997). A
close inspection of the various existing models of integration suggests that
most bear the stamp of the developer’s original theoretical orientation. Messer
(1992) has labeled these models as examples of assimilative integration. As-
similative integration involves the incorporation of practices and perspectives
from other schools of therapy into one’s own orientation. This approach allows
therapists to maintain their cherished perspective on psychotherapy yet gives
them permission to flexibly draw upon the wisdom of other schools of therapy
to enhance the quality of therapeutic benefits.
Assimilative integration may be considered the status quo in psycho-
therapy integration, since most current integrative models of psychother-
apy would seem to fall under this rubric. Assimilative integrations have
been produced from a variety of theoretical perspectives including psy-
chodynamic, cognitive–behavioral, family systems, and experiential/ hu-
manistic. There are also assimilative models of integration that are based in
psychotherapies informed by eastern philosophies such as Buddhism. In a
special issue of the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, edited by Stan
Messer (2001), four different assimilative models of psychotherapy inte-
gration are presented. These were followed by 3 commentaries, which
raised many important questions about this trend (Fisch, 2001; Frank, 2001;
Wolfe, 2001). One interesting point that emerged from these commentaries
is that while Wolfe argued that assimilative integration is a stepping-stone
to a unified grand theory, Fisch suggested that assimilative integration was
preferable to unification because of its heuristic value for theory develop-
ment and clinical practice.
Most assimilative models of integration tend to privilege certain ori-
entations while ignoring others. For example, Wachtel’s (1997) Cyclical
Psychodynamics focuses mainly on integrating psychodynamic, behavioral,
and systems perspectives. His integration, however, does not include much
from the humanistic/experiential perspective on psychotherapy. By con-
trast, Lazarus’(1992) Multimodal Therapy privileges behavioral and cog-
nitive–behavioral perspectives and borrows little from psychodynamic and
experiential approaches.
Dr. Magnavita’s paper (this issue), which is the stimulus for this
discussion, is a fascinating attempt to unite a significant range of ther-
apeutic orientations. Despite the seeming comprehensiveness of his
integrative approach, it possesses two basic limitations: (1) the absence
293Symposium: Toward a Unified Framework of Psychotherapy