Adlerian Therapy?

[ThisIsTheWay]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I'm a first-year clinical psychology PhD student. Last semester I met a clinician who described their theoretical orientation as Adlerian. I've never heard of that. I have a healthy dose of skepticism about it, especially since the creator of Adlerian was apparently previously linked with Freud. And I haven't seen much research evidence of it either. Also, my program is not psychodynamic at all so I would have never heard of this if I had not met this person. Just seeking thoughts or opinions from those who've been in the field longer than me.

Have you heard of this Adlerian theoretical orientation before?
Is it legitimate?
What clinical populations is it most beneficial for?

Thanks!

 

[R. Matey]

This was an offshoot of psychoanalysis that has little clinical utility today if you think in terms of evidenced based practice. Some psychotherapy textbooks have chapters on Adlerian psychotherapy as an idea, but it's hardly a protocol on its own as far as I am aware.

 

[Sanman]

Adlerian therapy is a form of psychodynamic/insight oriented therapy that was based on the teachings of Alfred Adler. I actually find the structure and teachings much more applicable to modern psychotherapy than anything Freud did. The structure of the therapy is one that is used by many therapists today, including myself. The basic teachings do not preclude CBT, ACT, or utilization of other techniques. A lot of it is the basic ground rules for good psychotherapy and can be used with any population.

 

[R. Matey]

Adlerian therapy is a form of psychodynamic/insight oriented therapy that was based on the teachings of Alfred Adler. I actually find the structure and teachings much more applicable to modern psychotherapy than anything Freud did. The structure of the therapy is one that is used by many therapists today, including myself. The basic teachings do not preclude CBT, ACT, or utilization of other techniques. A lot of it is the basic ground rules for good psychotherapy and can be used with any population.

Curious how you feel this differs from technical eclecticism

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Curious how you feel this differs from technical eclecticism

Technical Eclecticism....95% of the time it's someone who throws together a bunch of diff techniques they like (regardless if frameworks clash) and then call their approach integrated. Yes it does exist and it can work, but I'm *highly" skeptical of people who claim to be any flavor of "eclectic" therapy bc they tend to be weak on the details and nuances of the various frameworks they claim to integrate.

 

[bluecolourskies]

I'm a first-year clinical psychology PhD student. Last semester I met a clinician who described their theoretical orientation as Adlerian. I've never heard of that. I have a healthy dose of skepticism about it, especially since the creator of Adlerian was apparently previously linked with Freud. And I haven't seen much research evidence of it either. Also, my program is not psychodynamic at all so I would have never heard of this if I had not met this person. Just seeking thoughts or opinions from those who've been in the field longer than me.

Have you heard of this Adlerian theoretical orientation before?
Is it legitimate?
What clinical populations is it most beneficial for?

Thanks!

If you are a first year student, I would think you will learn about many different frameworks for psychotherapy (not learn in depth, just an overview. Like feminist psychology, for example).
I am heavily biased in saying this because I LOVE Adler and his teachings. If you read his writings, you will see many of his ideas can be seen in the "modern" forms of psychotherapy, but he was often not credited for his ideas because he cared more about promoting psychology among "laypeople" aka schools and families, and not about being published and getting credit (like Freud).

I may be showing my age here but when I was in grad school and taking a similar class, the section on ACT in my textbook was a small paragraph lol and I imagine it has grown since then.

But in short, yes it is legitimate (well I guess it depends on how you would define legitimate) but it is not a random orientation someone made up.

 

[Sanman]

Technical Eclecticism....95% of the time it's someone who throws together a bunch of diff techniques they like (regardless if frameworks clash) and then call their approach integrated. Yes it does exist and it can work, but I'm *highly" skeptical of people who claim to be any flavor of "eclectic" therapy bc they tend to be weak on the details and nuances of the various frameworks they claim to integrate.

Agreed with this. The framework of building rapport, assessing the client, providing insight, and reorientation is essentially what most of us still do today. Is providing insight/reorientation really that different from addressing cognitive distortions and reframing them? Adlerian and later humanistic schools of therapy still provide the basis of establishing rapport and creating the environment for change to take place. Newer schools of therapy focus on limiting the focus of problems addressed, but nuts and bolts are still the same. You cannot fix the problem before establishing the trust.

 

[R. Matey]

Technical Eclecticism....95% of the time it's someone who throws together a bunch of diff techniques they like (regardless if frameworks clash) and then call their approach integrated. Yes it does exist and it can work, but I'm *highly" skeptical of people who claim to be any flavor of "eclectic" therapy bc they tend to be weak on the details and nuances of the various frameworks they claim to integrate.

That's a good clarification, thanks.

Agreed with this. The framework of building rapport, assessing the client, providing insight, and reorientation is essentially what most of us still do today. Is providing insight/reorientation really that different from addressing cognitive distortions and reframing them? Adlerian and later humanistic schools of therapy still provide the basis of establishing rapport and creating the environment for change to take place. Newer schools of therapy focus on limiting the focus of problems addressed, but nuts and bolts are still the same. You cannot fix the problem before establishing the trust.

I'm not saying that Alder had no good ideas, but I think a distinction can be made between how he influenced psychotherapeutic process and what psychotherapeutic techniques are distinctly Adlerian. By the above definition, almost everyone would qualify as an Adlerian, but the OP is asking what makes a therapist uniquely identify as Adlerian.

Edit: Also, speaking as a cognitive therapist, yes...it is different because distortions are theorized to operate at differing levels of processing. It matters because the techniques one uses to correct a thinking error might differ techniques used to evaluate hidden assumptions and rules.

 

[Sanman]

That's a good clarification, thanks.



I'm not saying that Alder had no good ideas, but I think a distinction can be made between how he influenced psychotherapeutic process and what psychotherapeutic techniques are distinctly Adlerian. By the above definition, almost everyone would qualify as an Adlerian, but the OP is asking what makes a therapist uniquely identify as Adlerian.

I may be overgeneralizing, but I was responding to the questions of legitimacy. Even making the distinction you suggest, I am not sure how we can distinguish this without asking the person classifying themselves as such. Does being a modern Adlerian therapist in that person's mind refer to the process steps and being an insight oriented therapist or this person diagnosing people with only inferiority complexes based on their birth order?

 

[R. Matey]

I may be overgeneralizing, but I was responding to the questions of legitimacy. Even making the distinction you suggest, I am not sure how we can distinguish this without asking the person classifying themselves as such. Does being a modern Adlerian therapist in that person's mind refer to the process steps and being an insight oriented therapist or this person diagnosing people with only inferiority complexes based on their birth order?

Right, that's what I meant that it, as a standalone system, had little clinical utility today. I'd be highly suspicious of someone who was diagnosing inferiority complexes in their notes given all of the advances in personality theory over the last 100 or so years. But, as far as being one of the first theorists to break with Freud on motivation? Yeah, definitely. That theoretical work was foundational to some of the insight oriented EBPs (interpersonal, brief dynamic etc).

 

[Sanman]

Right, that's what I meant that it, as a standalone system, had little clinical utility today. I'd be highly suspicious of someone who was diagnosing inferiority complexes in their notes given all of the advances in personality theory over the last 100 or so years. But, as far as being one of the first theorists to break with Freud on motivation? Yeah, definitely. That theoretical work was foundational to some of the insight oriented EBPs (interpersonal, brief dynamic etc).

It's a fair point. However, given the choice between an Adlerian and a modern psychoanalyst, I would take my chances with the Adlerian. Perhaps that is just me.

 

[R. Matey]

It's a fair point. However, given the choice between an Adlerian and a modern psychoanalyst, I would take my chances with the Adlerian. Perhaps that is just me.

Lol, I want someone to pay for me to get Lacanian psychoanalysis, just for the experience.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's a fair point. However, given the choice between an Adlerian and a modern psychoanalyst, I would take my chances with the Adlerian. Perhaps that is just me.

What about an Analrapist? Dr Funke may have some openings.

 

[foreverbull]

Adlerian (Individual psychology) is still included as a unique theory in counseling theory textbooks. I’ve taught the class relatively recently and it’s in every textbook right after Freud.

Adler had some interesting ideas about striving for superiority (not the layman definition) and social interest as being critical to healthy development in life. His list of interventions was extensive, and he was one of the first to use humor in therapy. He also thought family influenced our development and was important piece to explore in therapy (that said, the “birth order influencing personality” research is not really sound, so I take that piece with a big grain of salt). But some worthy contributions, nonetheless.

He was a precursor to interpersonal/relational and some of the more popular family systems approaches, I’d argue, so although not super popular today, a lot of us actually use some of his ideas without realizing it.

 

[R. Matey]

Adlerian (Individual psychology) is still included as a unique theory in counseling theory textbooks. I’ve taught the class relatively recently and it’s in every textbook right after Freud.

Adler had some interesting ideas about striving for superiority (not the layman definition) and social interest as being critical to healthy development in life. His list of interventions was extensive, and he was one of the first to use humor in therapy. He also thought family influenced our development and was important piece to explore in therapy (that said, the “birth order influencing personality” research is not really sound, so I take that piece with a big grain of salt). But some worthy contributions, nonetheless.

He was a precursor to interpersonal/relational and some of the more popular family systems approaches, I’d argue, so although not super popular today, a lot of us actually use some of his ideas without realizing it.

Again, I think it's important to draw a distinction between Adler's influence on psychotherapy in general and what makes someone an Adlerian therapist in clinical practice today. No one is saying that Adler made no contribution to psychotherapy--that would be a hard position to defend. I think the question is really more, what would make someone a distinctly Adlerian therapist if they were practicing a science-based intervention?

 

[PsyDr]

PsyDr's version of history:

Freud was a higher class guy, who treated higher class population. Like a lot of physicians of that era, he periodically treated people VIA MAIL (e.g., his famous letter about homosexuality). His model was initially abreactive, and and MUCH shorter. You have a problem you come in, you get it out of you, you feel better. Battabing, battaboom. Freud get paid, smokes 9 cigars, hangs out with his friends, has another kid, writes a new book, and has the free time to take a steamship to the USA.

Adler was a colleague (not a student) who treated working class people including carnies. You think carnies are going to feel comfortable laying down in a fainting couch, surrounded by cheap knock off artifacts from foreign places? You think they're gonna respond to weird literary references in therapy? No? Neither did Adler. He gave people advice, and had them sit across from him, like a normal person. In terms of advice, it's not really ground breaking. But compared to literally the only other option, it wasn't bad.

In modern life, that advice isn't really useful. Inferiority complexes have reached the common parlance. So has Sullivan's term, "self esteem".

 

[cara susanna]

The director of my training program was an Adlerian. Although I turned out to be a CBT person myself, it was cool to get exposure to that orientation and conceptualization.

 

[Sanman]

PsyDr's version of history:

Freud was a higher class guy, who treated higher class population. Like a lot of physicians of that era, he periodically treated people VIA MAIL (e.g., his famous letter about homosexuality). His model was initially abreactive, and and MUCH shorter. You have a problem you come in, you get it out of you, you feel better. Battabing, battaboom. Freud get paid, smokes 9 cigars, hangs out with his friends, has another kid, writes a new book, and has the free time to take a steamship to the USA.

Adler was a colleague (not a student) who treated working class people including carnies. You think carnies are going to feel comfortable laying down in a fainting couch, surrounded by cheap knock off artifacts from foreign places? You think they're gonna respond to weird literary references in therapy? No? Neither did Adler. He gave people advice, and had them sit across from him, like a normal person. In terms of advice, it's not really ground breaking. But compared to literally the only other option, it wasn't bad.

In modern life, that advice isn't really useful. Inferiority complexes have reached the common parlance. So has Sullivan's term, "self esteem".

This is probably more spot on than anything they teach you in school. Freud and Adler also hated each other after Adler defected and they both made a ton of money lecturing and opening psychotherapy schools. Adler was also a socialist. Ironically, this bent towards treating common people is likely what makes his work more applicable to most therapists and why I don't have to shell out thousands of dollars for a custom Victorian day bed (though I guess this would make it easier to nap between clients).

 

[foreverbull]

Again, I think it's important to draw a distinction between Adler's influence on psychotherapy in general and what makes someone an Adlerian therapist in clinical practice today. No one is saying that Adler made no contribution to psychotherapy--that would be a hard position to defend. I think the question is really more, what would make someone a distinctly Adlerian therapist if they were practicing a science-based intervention?

I mentioned the social interest, family influence, and striving for superiority as some of the key parts of the theory rather than just his contributions. You could either ask an Adlerian practitioner here or skim the textbook chapter to learn more about what is integral to the theory, and most of not all of the theory textbooks (even older ones from the 2000s) have a section at the end of each chapter/theory discussing research support for the theory, which may answer your question more thoroughly.

I am not an Adlerian practitioner, to be clear, so I can’t speak to the research support other than the birth order stuff. If I recall, the research was a bit scant for this theory specifically.

 

[R. Matey]

I mentioned the social interest, family influence, and striving for superiority as some of the key parts of the theory rather than just his contributions. You could either ask an Adlerian practitioner here or skim the textbook chapter to learn more about what is integral to the theory, and most of not all of the theory textbooks (even older ones from the 2000s) have a section at the end of each chapter/theory discussing research support for the theory, which may answer your question more thoroughly.

I am not an Adlerian practitioner, to be clear, so I can’t speak to the research support other than the birth order stuff. If I recall, the research was a bit scant for this theory specifically.

Please remember that you're speaking to a peer. And I am asking an Adlerian practitioner to define themselves, I replied to you because you claimed that you recently taught the theory.

 

[foreverbull]

Please remember that you're speaking to a peer. And I am asking an Adlerian practitioner to define themselves, I replied to you because you claimed that you recently taught the theory.

I’m confused….how did you interpret my post? I respectfully responded and noted that I’m not an Adlerian and mentioned research (which you were interested in) and info available in textbooks if you were curious (another way to satisfy your curiosity as well, not intended to be patronizing).

 

[cara susanna]

I now want to lobby for PsyDr to teach the History of Psychology.

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

I now want to lobby for PsyDr to teach the History of Psychology.

Yes, this! Can we pleeease have a version of PsyDr's take on psych history in a separate thread? 🤓

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yes, this! Can we pleeease have a version of PsyDr's take on psych history in a separate thread? 🤓

He really has some cool and interesting tidbits and perspectives on things.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Yes please. Our field certainly has the material to make this great in our short history of existence. Booze, drugs, racism, sexism, all the isms, poor boundaries, cheeky and non cheeky shenanigans, crime, infidelity, willful ignorance of ethics and / or being a decent human being, on and on ...