CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics

Common factors aren’t so common: the common factors dilemma

Weinberger, Joel·1995·Clinical Psychology Science and Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00024.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is apparently little difference in the effectiveness of different kinds of psychotherapy. One explanation is that common factors cut across them. The major schools do not much attend to common factors, however, and it may be that outcome equivalence is due as much to common neglect of common factors as to their use. Five common factors are discussed: the therapeutic relationship, expectations, confronting problems, mastery, and attribution of outcome. Linear conceptions of causality seem to contribute to the problem of selective neglect of common factors, and it is suggested that reciprocal interaction may constitute a more viable way of understanding therapeutic processes. Although technical eclecticism and therapy integration have been proposed as potentially integrating the common factors, eclecticism lacks theoretical coherence, and viable integrations have yet to be offered, although statistical methods for testing them (causal modeling) may exist. To suggest what a productive integration could look like, a clinical example is connected metaphorically to a developmental model of attachment. Strategies for further research are also suggested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00024.x

Cites

215 of 215 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Weinberg discusses common factors including the therapeutic relationship, expectations of therapeutic success, confronting the problem, experience of mastery or control, and attribution of therapeutic success or failure to internal rather than external causes.

    “For example, Weinberg (71) discusses such common factors as: (i) the therapeutic relationship between a therapist and a client/patient, (ii) expectations of therapeutic success, (iii) client’s confronting or facing the problem they struggle with, (iv) experience of mastery or control over the problematic issue, and (v) attribution of therapeutic success or failure to internal causes (e.g., changes”

    From Waiting for a digital therapist: three challenges on the path to psychotherapy delivered by artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weinberger, J.
Affiliations
Adelphi University (US)
Corresponding author
Weinberger, Joel
ORCID
Weinberger, Joel
Venue
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
45-69
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00024.x
OpenAlex
W2078415908
Cited by
206
References
215
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
14.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 7548 d)
Locations
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Keywords
common factors, psychotherapy outcome, therapeutic relationship, treatment expectations, mastery, outcome attribution, treatment integration, technical eclecticism, reciprocal interaction, attachment theory, psychotherapy effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review