Marquette University

e-Publications@Marquette
College of Education Faculty Research and
Education, College of
Publications

2-1-2013

Beyond Theoretical Orientations: The Emergence

of a Unified Scientific Framework in Professional
Psychology
Timothy P. Melchert
Marquette University, timothy.melchert@marquette.edu

Accepted version. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013):
11-19. DOI. © 2013 American Psychological Association. Used with permission.
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Beyond Theoretical Orientations:

The Emergence of a Unified
Scientific Framework in Professional
Psychology

Timothy P. Melchert
Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology
Marquette University
Milwaukee, WI

Abstract: Psychology has been remarkably successful as both a basic and

applied science despite serious and persistent conflict between its many
theoretical camps and schools of thought. By far the most influential
approaches to conceptualizing clinical practice in psychology have been the
traditional theoretical orientations, even though they are widely viewed as
inadequate and incomplete. This manuscript reviews the underlying reasons
for these conflicts and then discusses the emergence of a unified scientific
framework that moves the profession beyond these problems. Outmoded
conceptual frameworks are not appropriate for a science-based profession,
and professional psychology needs to consider making a systematic transition
to a comprehensive scientific approach to understanding human development,
functioning, and behavior change.

Keywords: unified theory, theoretical orientations, biopsychosocial,

professional psychology, psychological science

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
1
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Psychology has been remarkably successful as both a basic and

applied science since its founding in the late 19th century. The field
has had a major influence on important areas within the social
sciences, education, health care, public policy, organizations and
businesses, and even on culture in general. It has helped transform
society's understanding of mental health and psychological functioning,
and psychosocial treatments have provided relief to countless
individuals suffering from psychological dysfunction and distress. The
professional practice of psychology has also grown remarkably.
Psychologists played a small role in American health care before 1945
when the first licensure law for psychologists was enacted, and just 60
years later the number of licensed psychologists grew to over 85,000
(Duffy et al., 2006).

Despite its remarkable growth and many achievements, the field

has also found it challenging to develop consensus explanations of
personality, psychopathology, and behavior change that provide a
solid scientific foundation for the clinical practice of psychology.
Scientifically verified explanations have emerged regarding many
psychological phenomena, but other aspects of the tremendous
complexity of human psychology have been difficult to unravel and are
currently understood only in outline form. This is particularly true for
more complicated higher level processes that are often the focus of
psychological treatment. Many basic processes of sensation,
perception, cognition, affect, learning, and development are
understood in detail, but explanations are much less complete for
many complex processes such as the nature and development of
personality and intelligence, the nature and causes of
psychopathology, and the mechanisms that account for behavior
change and treatment effectiveness.

Within professional psychology (PP), by far the most influential

approaches to understanding personality, psychopathology, and
psychotherapy have been the traditional theoretical orientations.
Standard textbooks that cover this material often take a chronological
approach to reviewing these orientations, starting with Freudian theory
and progressing through psychodynamic, behavioral, humanistic,
cognitive, systemic, multicultural, and integrative approaches. The
more than 400 theoretical orientations that have now been developed
vary widely in focus and scope (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Some
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
2
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

theories focus primarily on the development of personality and

psychopathology with little emphasis on the process of psychotherapy
(e.g., existentialism, multicultural approaches), while others focus
primarily on therapy processes and methods (e.g., interpersonal
therapy, eclectic approaches). The earliest of these theories, Freudian
psychoanalysis, was the most comprehensive and thorough attempt to
explain all these factors, though it also ended up being the most
controversial.

These theoretical orientations continue to play very important

roles in PP education and practice. For example, while it is obviously
not possible to learn a large number of them in detail, learning one or
more of them is generally considered required training in the field. The
Application for Psychology Internship, used by nearly all psychology
internship programs in the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and
Internship Centers (APPIC), requires that applicants complete the
following essay question: “Please describe your theoretical orientation
and how this influences your approach to case conceptualization and
intervention” (APPIC, 2009, p. 22). The conclusions of the American
Psychological Association (APA) Assessment of Competency
Benchmarks Work Group (2007) also support this approach. They
noted that the “ability to formulate and conceptualize cases and plan
interventions utilizing at least one consistent theoretical orientation”
(p. 43) is an “essential component” for demonstrating clinical
intervention skill. The Guidelines and Principles of the APA Commission
on Accreditation (2009) are also consistent with this approach by
noting that “The accreditation guidelines and principles are specifically
intended to allow a program broad latitude in defining its philosophy or
model of training and to determine its training principles, goals,
objectives, desired outcomes (i.e., its “mission”) and the methods to
be consistent with these” (p. 4).

Given the central role that the traditional theoretical orientations

have played in PP education and practice, it is remarkable how
controversial they have been across the entire history of the field. The
criticisms and weakness of these various orientations are very well
known—standard undergraduate and graduate textbooks routinely
discuss them as part of the presentation of the theories. Even the
most influential current single approach, cognitive–behavioral therapy,
is widely considered inadequate as an explanation for psychotherapy
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
3
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

change (e.g., Kazdin, 2007). (See the sections that follow for more
discussion of these issues.)

The traditional theoretical orientations in PP are perhaps

universally considered to provide incomplete explanations of
personality, psychopathology, and behavior change, but they continue
to play central roles in the field nonetheless. Indeed, it would be
difficult for many students, faculty, and practicing psychologists to
imagine case conceptualizations that are not based on these
orientations. The appropriateness of this practice from a scientific
perspective, however, is clearly questionable. Is it appropriate for
clinicians to select one or more of the traditional theoretical
orientations to guide their approach to clinical practice if those
orientations are widely viewed as incomplete and inadequate? Further,
given that this practice is incorporated into major organizational
structures within the profession, to what extent does this raise
questions about the strength of the scientific foundations of the
profession? This article reviews the origins and nature of these
problems before going on to advocate that it is time for the field to
transition to a unified science-based approach to professional practice.

To clarify the significance of these issues, this article first briefly

reviews problems associated with the traditional approaches to
conceptualizing professional practice in psychology and then examines
the most important reasons behind the confusing conceptual
foundations of the field. The article then discusses the characteristics
of a comprehensive science-based solution to these problems. Relying
on outmoded theoretical frameworks for education, practice, and
research is not appropriate for a science-based profession, and it is
critical that PP continually re-examines these issues and updates the
scientific foundations on which it is based.

Theoretical Conflict and Confusion in PP

One of the more remarkable characteristics of psychology as a

scientific discipline has been the proliferation of theoretical approaches
to understanding the nature of psychological phenomena. Right from
the start, there was major controversy regarding the most appropriate
approaches to understanding psychology. Wilhelm Wundt, who
established the first psychology laboratory in 1879, argued that higher
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
4
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

cognitive processes should not even be investigated because they

were simply too complex to understand using available experimental
methods. His students were only allowed to study elemental
experiences such as basic sensations, associations, and feelings. By
the turn of the century, Sigmund Freud was advocating for a radically
different approach to understanding human psychology that revolved
around the role of the unconscious. In 1913, John Watson presented
another radically different perspective, urging his colleagues to
abandon their interest in consciousness and instead focus on behavior.
Remarkably varied approaches to understanding human psychology
continued to proliferate over the decades. Thomas Kuhn (1962) noted
that such theoretical proliferation and competition also characterized
the natural sciences when they were young and concluded that
psychology was in a similar “immature” and preparadigmatic stage as
the physical sciences were in the 17th century.

The proliferation of theoretical approaches in PP has continued

up to the present. New eclectic and integrative approaches continue to
be developed (see Norcross, 2005), as well as entirely new approaches
such as positive psychotherapy (Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006),
attachment therapy (Wallin, 2007), personality-guided relational
psychotherapy (Magnavita, 2005), and coherence therapy (Ecker &
Hulley, 2006). In addition, no individual approach has become
dominant. Surveys normally find that the largest number of adherents
to any one orientation, even an eclectic or integrative approach, still
remains a minority, usually less than one third of the sample
(Prochaska & Norcross, 2010). The intensity of contention and conflict
between the theoretical camps appears to have diminished in recent
years (Goodheart & Carter, 2008; Magnavita, 2008; Norcross, 2005),
but disagreements between advocates of the differing theoretical
orientations remain strong nonetheless.

In addition to conflicts between theoretical camps, there have

been several other controversies and schisms that reflect confusion in
the conceptual foundations of the field. In 1976, the National Council
for Schools of Professional Psychology broke off from the APA because
of fundamental differences regarding the appropriate training model
for PP education. In 1988, a large number of psychological scientists
became disillusioned with the practice emphasis of the APA and broke
off to form the APA. The empirically supported treatment movement in
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
5
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

PP quickly became controversial after the APA Division 12 Task Force

on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures applied
the concept in 1995. Controversies surrounding recovered memories of
child sexual abuse became so intense in the 1990s that they became
known as the “memory wars” (Loftus & Davis, 2006; p. 470), one of
the most conflictual periods ever in the history of psychology. Concern
has also grown recently regarding discredited or potentially harmful
therapies. Norcross, Koocher, and Garofalo (2006) conducted a survey
listing dozens of treatments and asked experts about the degree to
which they believed each of them had been discredited. They found 25
treatments that were rated on average as somewhere between
“probably discredited” and “certainly discredited” (e.g., sexual
reorientation therapy, rebirthing therapies, Thought Field Therapy,
reparenting therapy).

Controversies and conflicts between the theoretical camps and

schools of thought in psychology have been so pervasive and
persistent over the decades that many psychologists seem to accept
them as a normal, almost natural characteristic of the field. Many
leaders in psychology, however, have been concerned that the field
has become so conflictual and fractured that it might not be able to
continue as a scholarly discipline (e.g., Gardner, 2005; Kendler, 2002;
Rychlak, 2005; Staats, 2005; Sternberg, 2005). Driver-Linn (2003)
noted that “Perceptions of psychology as beleaguered by fractionation
and uncertainty are almost ubiquitous” (p. 270).

Reasons Underlying the Theoretical and

Conceptual Confusion in PP

There is a great deal of consensus regarding the underlying

reasons for the conflicts and contention within PP. These reasons are
important for identifying solutions to the conflicts and so they are
briefly reviewed next. There are four issues in particular that are
important for understanding why theoretical development in the
discipline has been especially complicated.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
6
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Philosophical Underpinnings of Many Theoretical

Orientations

The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the

historically important theoretical orientations in PP are generally well-
known. While the details involved are highly complicated, the basic
issues can be easily summarized. Many of these orientations are based
on foundational assumptions or first principles that take widely varying
perspectives on human nature (e.g., biologically based drives in
Freudian theory, the blank slate of nearly complete malleability in
behaviorism, an optimistic self-actualizing tendency in humanistic
theories, a postmodern constructivism in solution-focused therapy).
These philosophical starting points often conflict in fundamental ways
that lead to irreconcilable differences in the understanding of human
psychology and behavior change (Messer & Winokur, 1980; Wood &
Joseph, 2007). Adherence to these orientations consequently often
involves acceptance of their underlying philosophical assumptions or
worldview as opposed to being convinced by the weight of the
scientific evidence examining their validity. As a result, disagreements
between adherents of the different theories sometimes resemble
philosophical or political disputes more than scientific ones.

Nonfalsifiability of Psychological Theories

From a scientific standpoint, many of the traditional theoretical

orientations in psychology suffer from a second critical weakness. The
purported mechanisms involved in the development of personality and
psychopathology or in behavior change obviously differ greatly across
the theories (e.g., developmental fixations, one's learning history,
imposed conditions of worth, depressogenic cognitions, a constructed
phenomenological worldview). Nonetheless, many of these theories
have been used to explain virtually all outcomes that occur in
individual cases, and it is consequently difficult to disprove that a
particular theory could account for any particular outcome (Popper,
1963). Instead of evaluating these issues on the basis of logical
scientific analysis, students learning the profession are often advised
to choose a theoretical orientation based on the fit between the
orientations and their personality and worldview (e.g., Corsini &
Wedding, 2008; Truscott, 2010).

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
7
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

The individual credited with first explaining the nature of this

problem is the philosopher Karl Popper (1902 – 1994). As a young
student in Vienna in 1919, he heard both Freud and Einstein present
their work and was very impressed with both their theories. He also
noticed a fundamental difference between them, however (Popper,
1963). Freud presented his theory in terms that made it amenable to
confirmation, while Einstein's theory had testable implications which, if
false, would prove the theory wrong. Popper noted that many theories
such as Freudianism, Adlerianism, or Marxism were only amenable to
confirmation and could not be refuted. He therefore judged them to be
poor theories. Popper argued that scientific theories must be refutable
and, further, that genuine tests of theories are attempts to refute
them.

Complexity of Human Psychology

The complicated evolution of theory in psychology also cannot

be understood without appreciating the tremendous complexity of the
subject matter involved. The extraordinary intricacy, complexity, and
range of psychological phenomena make psychology an endlessly
fascinating field of study, but also highly challenging. The human brain
is almost unfathomably complex. In just a three-pound organ, roughly
100 billion neurons each with an average of 1,000 synaptic
connections carry our own personal history, our family's history, and
even the evolutionary history of our species, while also constantly
interacting with, being shaped by, and even creating one's
environment, at co-occurring subconscious and conscious levels.
Indeed, the human mind appears to be the most complex
phenomenon humans have ever attempted to understand. The
biologist Richard Dawkins noted that “… we animals are the most
complicated and perfectly designed pieces of machinery in the known
universe” (1976, p. xxii), while E. O. Wilson stated that “…the most
complex systems known to exist in the universe are biological, and by
far the most complex of all biological phenomena is the human mind”
(1998, p. 81).

Some of the main critiques of the traditional theoretical

orientations have focused on their failure to fully incorporate biological
and sociocultural influences on development and functioning. From a

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
8
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

scientific perspective, there is no question that all levels of natural

organization are important to understanding human psychology. No
explanation of human development and functioning is complete that
does not emphasize the interactions between biological (e.g., genetics,
neurophysiology, physical health, and disease), psychological (e.g.,
cognition, emotion, behavior), and sociocultural influences on human
psychology (e.g., family, community, culture, religion, education,
socioeconomic factors). The traditional theoretical orientations in
psychology, however, were generally not designed to be
comprehensive in this manner.

Power and Precision of Available Scientific Tools

Another critical perspective for understanding the evolution of

scientific disciplines involves the power and precision of the scientific
tools available for examining phenomena. The role these tools play in
the development of the physical sciences is very well-known, but their
importance is often underappreciated in the social sciences. Scientific
progress is directly dependent on these tools, and some of the most
important ones have been conceptual rather than technological. For
example, mathematics in Europe was written out in words prior to the
13th century when algebra and symbolic mathematics were invented.
Vastly more complex calculations could then be performed and science
and commerce were transformed as a result. Four centuries later,
Newton's and Leibnitz's invention of calculus proved to be so useful
that science was again transformed. The use of calculus quickly led to
major advances in understanding the nature of gravity, heat, light,
sound, fluid dynamics, electricity, and magnetism. The more recent
development of statistics and advanced mathematical modeling again
transformed the kinds of phenomena that could be investigated and
explained.

Scientific progress is also heavily dependent on the development

of technological tools. For example, Copernicus hypothesized that the
earth revolved around the sun in 1543, but his hypothesis could not be
confirmed until Galileo built his first telescope in 1609. Each further
advance in telescope technology over the centuries has tended to
result in important advances in understanding the cosmos. The
microscope has been one of the most versatile and transformative

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
9
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

scientific instruments ever invented. Van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723)

made the best early instruments, capable of 270x magnification, and
became the first person to observe protozoa, bacteria, spermatozoa,
blood corpuscles, and blood circulation through capillaries. Biology was
transformed as a result. The next revolutionary advance in
microscopes in the 1930s using beams of electrons instead of beams
of light allowed very small objects such as viruses, chromosomes, and
nucleic acids (including deoxyribonucleic acid) to be observed, and
biology was transformed once again.

Many recent advances in science would obviously be impossible

without the electronic computer. Advances in brain imaging, genetics,
and particle physics, for example, require massive amounts of data
processing in addition to highly sophisticated technological equipment.
Recent “big science” projects such as the Human Genome Project and
the Large Hadron Collider will actually generate more scientific data by
several orders of magnitude than what has been collected in all of
prior human history (Hey & Trefethen, 2003). Such capabilities are
even transforming the way science is conducted in these areas.
Instead of the traditional approach, which can be summarized as
“Hypothesize, design and run experiment, analyze result,” the new
approach involves “Hypothesize, look up answer in database” (Lesk,
2004, p. 1).

Recent improvements involving instrumentation, measurement,

infomatics, and mathematical modeling are having a revolutionary
impact on the neurosciences in particular. For example, the very high
spatial and temporal resolution in magnetoencephalography (MEG)
brain scanning is making it possible to make highly precise
measurements of neuronal activity–(the difference between MEG and
functional magnetic resonance imaging is analogous to watching brain
activity with a high resolution video camera compared with a series of
poorly focused still photos). Instead of investigating psychological
phenomena from the perspective of “bottom-up” connections from one
neuron to the next, or “top-down” models such as the organization of
intelligence through the factor analysis of IQ test data, for the first
time it is becoming possible to investigate comprehensive, detailed,
multilevel models that simultaneously combine both bottom-up and
top-down approaches in one model (Wood et al., 2006).

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
10
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Given the complexity of psychological phenomena and the

limited scientific tools that have been available to study them, it is
completely understandable that science is only now beginning to
unravel the nature of more complex psychological processes. In
hindsight, it was perhaps inevitable that many different explanations
would be offered to explain the tremendous biopsychosocial
complexity of human psychology, just as there were many diverse
explanations offered to explain gravity, electricity, magnetism, heat,
light, and sound when the physical sciences were young (Kuhn, 1962).
Because of the lack of a single scientific paradigm for understanding
psychological phenomena, Kuhn concluded that psychology was an
“immature,” preparadigmatic science. Characterizing psychology in
this way emphasizes the underdeveloped state of theory in the field
but fails to emphasize the reasons for that underdevelopment. PP may
still be in its preparadigmatic stage of development, but the reasons
primarily involve the complexity of the subject matter and the limited
scientific tools that have been available. Less complex phenomena will
naturally be described and explained before more complex
phenomena. If the human mind and brain truly are the most complex
systems in our universe, it is only natural that they are understood in
less detail than other less complicated classes of natural phenomena.

Due to the above reasons, the traditional theoretical orientations

have not been able to adequately explain the complexity of human
psychology. Psychological science has been advancing steadily,
however. The question now facing the field is whether the science of
psychology has advanced sufficiently that a solution to this problem is
now available.

Is a Single Unified Theory the Solution for

Psychology?

The discovery of a single, unified theory that successfully

explained human development, functioning, and behavior change
would obviously bring PP out of its preparadigmatic stage of
development. There have been many calls over recent decades for a
unified theory that would solve the preparadigmatic theoretical
confusion in psychology (e.g., Anchin, 2008; Magnavita, 2006;
Sternberg, 2005). There are clear reasons, however, why such a

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
11
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

theory is unlikely to emerge in the near future. The experience of the

other sciences suggests why.

Physics is the oldest of the sciences (more than 2 millennia old)

and has certainly been successful in explaining a wide range of natural
phenomena from the exceedingly small (e.g., subatomic particles) to
the very large (e.g., the cosmos). Despite all its achievements,
however, physics has not yet discovered a unified theory that explains
matter and energy. In fact, there are critically important aspects of the
physical world about which very little is known, from the level of
particle physics to the cosmos (e.g., 95% of the universe consists of
“dark matter” and “dark energy” about which very little are known;
Randall, 2011). The discovery of a unified theory of matter and energy
is regarded by many as the ultimate goal of physics, but the field may
still be a long way from reaching that goal (Mitchell, 2009).

Biology is a much younger science than physics but has also

been highly successful. Biology was largely a descriptive science until
Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of Species, and it took until the 1930s
and 1940s before the full significance of natural selection was
appreciated (Quammen, 2006). Modern evolutionary theory is
continuing to develop (Larson, 2004), and there is obviously a great
deal about many biological processes that still remains to be
discovered. There is some excitement that the West, Brown, and
Enquist metabolic scaling theory may bring biology together under one
unified theoretical framework, but that possibility is still far from being
proven (Mitchell, 2009).

Despite being very well-established and successful disciplines,

physics and biology have not yet discovered unified theories for
explaining phenomena within those fields. In contrast, psychology is a
much younger discipline that investigates extraordinarily complex
phenomena. The power and precision of scientific tools have been
advancing, but clearly much remains to be done to unravel the
complexity of human psychology. There is no reason to expect that a
unified theory will be discovered in psychology before one is
discovered in physics or biology.

It is critical to recognize, however, that a unified scientific

theory of psychology is not necessary for psychology to leave behind
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
12
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

its preparadigmatic past. There are now no unified theories in physics,

chemistry, or biology, but those fields are all viewed as solidly
scientific. It is also not necessary to explain all phenomena within a
particular area for a field to be considered scientific. Take the case of
medicine. Certainly the success of the biomedical sciences is
impressive. Nonetheless, the amount that remains to be discovered is
substantial. For example, there remain a large number of idiopathic
diseases for which the causes and cures are unknown (e.g.,
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, most seizures, multiple sclerosis,
rheumatoid arthritis, Type I diabetes). Concern is also growing about
the safety of many medical procedures and the widespread use of
tests and interventions that may cause more harm than benefit (e.g.,
Institute of Medicine, 2000; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,
2012).

The point at which medicine in the U.S. reached the “tipping

point” when it most clearly transitioned from primarily an art to a
science was in 1910 when Abraham Flexner submitted his report on
the state of medical education. Biology had been making many
important advances and the practice of medicine was transforming
dramatically at the end of the 19th century. In 1878, Pasteur
introduced the germ theory of infection and in the following year
tested the first vaccination. Sterilization of medical instruments had
been introduced and was becoming widespread toward the end of the
century—(before antiseptic methods were introduced, death rates
following amputations, for example, reached 100% for some
physicians; Porter, 1997). To evaluate whether American medical
education was sufficiently science-based, Flexner visited and rated
nearly every one of the 168 medical schools in the U.S. and Canada.
His highly influential report included his ratings and often scathing
criticisms of the individual schools, and several of them closed soon
after as a result. Over the next decades, 42% of the schools closed,
and the schools that remained had significantly increased their
admission standards and laboratory and clinical training requirements
(Hiatt & Stockton, 2003).

Enough was discovered in physics, chemistry, and biology that

those fields long ago reached the tipping point when they became
considered scientific (and paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense). Unified
theories for explaining phenomena within those disciplines clearly had
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
13
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

not been discovered, but enough verified explanations of important

phenomena had accumulated, and these in turn enabled the applied
fields of engineering and medicine to be practiced in an increasingly
safe and effective manner.

Psychology has been on a developmental course similar to that

of the natural sciences. Psychological science has been advancing
steadily, and PP is increasingly embracing the need to base clinical
intervention on reliable research evidence. Indeed, APA officially
endorsed the evidence-based approach to clinical practice in 2005
(APA, 2005). Nonetheless, confusion persists regarding the appropriate
theoretical and scientific foundations for practicing psychology. The
question now facing PP is whether the field has reached the tipping
point where its practitioners can converge around a unified science-
based approach to PP education, practice, and research.

The Solution: A Metatheoretical Framework

The answer to this question depends on whether psychological

science has progressed sufficiently to be able to provide a unified
scientific approach to clinical practice that can replace the diverse
assortment of irreconcilable theoretical orientations that have
historically guided case conceptualization and intervention in the field.
If PP is ready to make this transition, it would, of course, represent a
major milestone for the field. But what would the new approach look
like?

As was just noted, it is not currently possible for a true unified

theory of psychology to provide the foundation for unifying PP around
a single scientific approach—such a theory is unlikely to be discovered
for a very long time (if ever). Instead, the solution to this problem is
(naturally) the same as it was for the natural sciences. When it comes
to discrete, less complex phenomena, scientific laws and theories are
often able to explain the processes involved. Explanations of highly
complex phenomena involving many variables and processes are
frequently not yet available, however. As a result, metatheoretical
frameworks and models are needed to integrate what is known and
provide approximate explanations of these phenomena (Mitchell,
2009; Rodgers, 2010). Metatheoretical frameworks attempt to identify
the most essential characteristics that need to be integrated to
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
14
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

understand complex phenomena, and specific models built from these

metatheories can then be empirically tested and refined. Whether it be
the climate, the behavior of galaxies or subatomic particles, or the
development of personality disorders, the refinement of these models
results in increasingly more complete and accurate explanations of
phenomena.

At the metatheoretical level, the outlines of the framework

needed to understand human psychology are clear. At the most
general level, there is no disagreement across the sciences and
humanities that human psychology is determined by a range of
psychological, sociocultural, and biological factors that interact through
complex developmental processes. The influence of specific factors
varies dramatically depending on the phenomenon and the
developmental, environmental, and other contextual factors involved,
and of course more is known about some phenomena than others. But
taken together, the amount that is known is extensive. Psychologists
are probably in agreement that all the major “waves” of theory
development in the field (e.g., psychodynamic, behavioral, humanistic,
cognitive, systemic, multicultural) have contributed important insights
into understanding human psychology, but that these insights also
need to be integrated with those from the neuro- and biological
sciences, the various social sciences, and the humanities to gain a
comprehensive understanding. Of course, the integration of all these
perspectives is staggeringly complex and will require a huge amount of
additional research. At the general metatheoretical level, however,
there is unanimity that human psychology cannot be understood
without taking a comprehensive, integrative approach that spans the
biological, psychological, and sociocultural levels of natural
organization.

Again, the question is not whether all of human psychology can

now be explained with precision and detail, but whether enough is
known to justify a transition away from the clearly incomplete and
inadequate theories of the past to a single, unified, science-based
metatheoretical orientation. Psychological phenomena are obviously
tremendously complex and the amount that remains to be discovered
is huge, to be sure. Nonetheless, a great deal is now known. Is it
enough to justify a general transition away from practicing psychology
primarily as an art where one selects from among a diverse array of
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
15
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

theoretical orientations, and instead move to a unified science-based

approach that essentially includes just one metatheoretical
orientation?

The evidence for a unified science-based metatheoretical

framework for psychology is overwhelming. At its most general level,
this framework would be based on a biopsychosocial perspective. This
perspective was described by George Engel in 1977, though other
terms or frameworks could be used to reflect this perspective (e.g.,
Bronfenbrenner's, 2001bioecological approach). Whatever term or
framework is used, it needs to encompass the biological and
sociocultural levels of natural organization that are just below and
above that of human psychology. Human development and functioning
simply cannot be explained without capturing the interaction of all
three of these general levels of natural organization. The term
biopsychosocial is widely known and accepted throughout health care
and human service fields (e.g., see APA, 2006), and the
biopsychosocial framework has been incorporated into medical
education throughout the U.S. and Europe (Frankel, Quill, & McDaniel,
2003). It has also been adopted within several of the clinical
specializations in PP (e.g., in child, school, health, and addiction
psychology, neuropsychology, and geropsychology; see Martin,
Weinberg & Bealer, 2007; Seagull, 2000; Shah & Reichman, 2006;
Suls & Rothman, 2004; Williams & Evans, 2003). Therefore, it is a
strong candidate for the basic scientific framework needed in the field.

The practice of psychology has revolved around the traditional

theoretical orientations throughout its history, however, and replacing
those as the predominant frameworks for conceptualizing clinical
practice would involve a major readjustment for many psychologists.
For generations, students and psychologists have had to answer
questions about their chosen theoretical orientations, and many
clinicians would consider it completely foreign to conceptualize cases in
a manner that did not revolve around those orientations. If the field
were to abandon these practices and transition to a unified
biopsychosocial metatheoretical orientation, what would that
orientation look like and what would replace the traditional practices?

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
16
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Implications of a Unified Biopsychosocial

Approach to PP

The impact of a unified science-based approach on PP

education, practice, and research would be much greater in some
areas than in others. For example, the standard psychosocial history
and multiaxial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual diagnosis already
require that information regarding all three biopsychosocial domains
be collected, evaluated, and integrated. Other practices would change
markedly, however. Several of these issues have been discussed
extensively in the specializations that already rely heavily on the
biopsychosocial approach (e.g., child, school, health, and addiction
psychology, neuropsychology, and geropsychology). They have been
discussed far less with regard to the general practice areas, however,
or for PP as a whole (for recent exceptions, see Henriques, 2011 and
Melchert, 2011). Below are several issues that would need to be
discussed as part of a systematic transition to a unified science-based
biopsychosocial approach for PP as a whole.

1. Only One Theoretical Orientation for Conceptualizing Clinical

Practice in Psychology Would Be Taught. Many PP education programs
currently take a survey approach to teaching the traditional theoretical
orientations while other programs emphasize the theoretical
orientations of their faculty. Taking a science-based biopsychosocial
approach to understanding psychology results in a very different
curriculum, however. From this perspective, neither individual clients
nor demographic and diagnostic groups can be understood without
taking a comprehensive, integrative biopsychosocial approach.
Therefore, students would no longer learn to conceptualize cases
according to a chosen theoretical orientation, but would instead learn
to conceptualize cases according to a biopsychosocial approach.
Particular ramifications of this perspective are discussed below.

2. PP Would Become More Clearly Oriented Around Being a

Health Care Profession. PP has frequently been conceptualized as
primarily a service industry where clients interested in obtaining
psychological services can choose a clinician whose services and
orientation are consistent with the individual's preferences and needs
(Melchert, 2011). In contrast, governments license psychologists as

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
17
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

health care providers responsible for meeting the behavioral health

needs of the public and insurers reimburse psychologists for the health
care services they provide. Defining PP as a health care profession
emphasizes its role as an applied science that is based on science and
professional ethics. From this perspective, psychologists address
patients' behavioral health needs and work to improve their
biopsychosocial functioning using interventions that have been
evaluated for safety and effectiveness.

3. A Comprehensive, Holistic Perspective on Behavioral Health

Care Emphasizes Functioning Broadly Across the Important Domains
Of Life. Given the interactions across the psychological, sociocultural,
and biological domains, a comprehensive, holistic view of human
psychology emphasizes individuals' functioning across all the
biopsychosocial domains. Many of the traditional theoretical
orientations focused on particular psychological factors (e.g., cognitive
therapy for depression, behavioral therapy for fear and anxiety, client-
centered therapy for low self-worth). Taking a holistic biopsychosocial
perspective certainly maintains an emphasis on psychological factors,
but also broadens the focus of assessment and treatment to physical
health as well as functioning within the family, school and work
settings, and community.

A useful starting point for gaining a comprehensive

understanding of the behavioral health needs and biopsychosocial
functioning of the public is an epidemiological perspective. To illustrate
the implications of this perspective, the prevalence data reported in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000) finds that the most common problems experienced
by the general public involve sexuality (i.e., hypoactive sexual desire
and orgasmic disorder in females, premature ejaculation in males) and
nicotine and alcohol dependence (all of which are more prevalent than
major depression, the next most common disorder; Melchert, 2011).
In addition, nearly 50% of the U.S. population lives with a chronic
health condition that requires routine treatment and/or activity
limitations (Partnership for Solutions, 2004). The data regarding
relationship problems, parenting, educational attainment, vocational
effectiveness, financial stress, and other factors also indicate that large
numbers of individuals are dealing with significant challenges and are
not functioning optimally in several areas. Despite their clear
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
18
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

importance to behavioral health, many of these topics receive limited

attention in current PP education. A biopsychosocial perspective, on
the other hand, emphasizes all these issues.

4. Teaching the Biological and Sociocultural Bases of Behavior

Would Be Strengthened. A biopsychosocial approach to PP education
would continue to emphasize the psychological bases of behavior but
would also include more systematic coverage of the biological and
sociocultural bases of behavior. In addition to the psychological
domain, a comprehensive understanding of human psychology
requires training in evolutionary psychology, the neurosciences,
physical health and disease, the influence of childhood, families,
relationships, neighborhoods, culture, religion, educational
achievement, and vocational stability. Though this type of training
would be significantly more extensive than what is currently offered in
most PP education programs, students typically learn a significant
amount regarding these topics because of their importance in clients'
lives. Their learning about these topics is often quite haphazard,
however, because PP education currently tends not to cover them
systematically. It is important to note that the same issue applies to
physical health and medicine, a comprehensive understanding of which
spans all the way from molecular biology to public health and
sociocultural levels. Approaches that do not take all these levels into
account are limited in both explanatory power and effectiveness.

5. The Traditional Theoretical Orientations Would Generally Be

Reconceptualized as Therapies. When taking a science-based
biopsychosocial approach to understanding human psychology, the
term theory and related terms would normally be used in their
scientific sense to refer to explanations of phenomena that have
survived experimental tests aimed at verification and falsification. As a
result, the traditional theoretical orientations would generally no longer
be referred to as theoretical orientations because of their inadequacies
as scientific theories (e.g., their reliance on assumptions or
worldviews, their inability to be falsified; see above). However, many
of the treatments based on these orientations provide demonstrably
effective therapies for addressing behavioral health needs. Therefore,
while a single unified biopsychosocial approach would be used to
understand human development and functioning, there is a full range
of evidence-based psychologically, socioculturally, and biologically
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
19
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

oriented therapies and other interventions (e.g., support groups,

physical exercise, and diet) that psychologists can safely and
effectively use to address individuals' problems and improve their
biopsychosocial functioning.

6. Many Long-Standing Conflicts Within the Field Would Quickly

Become Irrelevant. The historical practice of selecting a theoretical
orientation to guide one's clinical practice naturally led to competition
between the theoretical camps. A unified biopsychosocial approach, on
the other hand, involves a fundamentally different framework that
renders much of this competition obsolete. The biopsychosocial
approach integrates the best scientific evidence available regarding all
the important influences on a person in order to explain the
development and functioning of the whole person, at the macro level,
rather than focus on particular midlevel psychological processes as
have many of the traditional theoretical orientations. This approach is
tremendously complex, to be sure. But this complexity is unavoidable
because human nature is simply very complicated.

The biopsychosocial approach relies on the accumulation of

scientific knowledge regarding all of the many different influences on
human development and functioning. From this perspective, all levels
of natural organization are important, all perspectives that help explain
psychological processes are valued, as are all therapies and other
interventions that are demonstrated to improve biopsychosocial
functioning. Traditional conflicts about the superiority of particular
theoretical orientations, the relevance of research to practice, the
superiority of qualitative versus quantitative research, or untested
claims regarding the etiology of psychopathology or the mechanisms
that account for therapeutic change all quickly fade in importance
when a comprehensive science-based approach is applied.

7. Psychology Would Be Better Able to Integrate Into the Health

Care Professions. Integrating behavioral health care into primary
health care has recently become a priority for many psychologists
(APA Presidential Task Force on the Future of Psychology Practice,
2009; Goodheart, 2010). This is occurring at the same time that
medicine is increasingly recognizing the importance of behavior and
lifestyle to physical health and disease (e.g., Institute of Medicine,
2004). Improving the overall health of the general public will require
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
20
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

that mental health, behavior, and lifestyle issues are more effectively
addressed in health care generally, and this may in turn require that
psychologists become better integrated into primary health care.

Taking a biopsychosocial approach to PP education and practice

will not only facilitate such integration, it may even be necessary
before psychologists can easily integrate into primary health care.
Traditional approaches to PP that revolve around theoretical
orientations are often not easily understood by medical health care
professionals and the other stakeholders in health care systems. The
biopsychosocial approach, on the other hand, is quite familiar to other
health care and human service professionals. Sharing a general
conceptual framework is important to the successful integration of PP
into primary health care.

Conclusion

The science of psychology has advanced significantly in recent

years. Despite the very large amount that remains to be discovered,
the available evidence overwhelmingly points to a comprehensive,
integrative biopsychosocial approach for understanding human
psychology. PP as a whole has not yet systematically adopted this
perspective and instead continues to rely on many past practices
associated with adopting one or more of the traditional theoretical
orientations. The time has come to evaluate whether PP should
discontinue those practices and replace them with a unified science-
based biopsychosocial approach to education, practice, and research in
the field. Given the inexorable progress of science, this is likely a
question of when this transition will occur rather than if it occurs.

Adopting a unified science-based approach to understanding

human psychology will allow PP to leave behind its preparadigmatic
past, a period marked by large amounts of conflict, contention, and
controversy. Many of those conflicts and controversies are outdated at
this point because the biopsychosocial complexity of human
psychology is simply far greater than what the traditional theoretical
orientations (even when combined) are able to capture. Those conflicts
and controversies have caused a great deal of distraction and
inefficiency, and leaving them behind will provide significant relief for
the field as well as allow time and energy to be focused more
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
21
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

productively on improving our understanding of human psychology and

improving behavioral health care effectiveness. There is not enough
space here to illustrate how more detailed explanations of the links
between biopsychosocial processes are leading to a more complete
understanding of human development, functioning, and behavior
change, but interested readers are referred to several fascinating
programs of research that are making major contributions to informing
human psychology and behavioral health care (e.g., Davidson &
Begley, 2012; Kahneman, 2011; Porges, 2011; Sroufe, Egeland,
Carlson, & Collins, 2005).

Psychologists' expertise spans all the biopsychosocial domains of

functioning. We are naturally situated at the intersection of these three
levels of natural organization and are very knowledgeable regarding
the interplay of mental and physical health, of family and sociocultural
influences on physical and mental health, and the myriad other
interactions between the biopsychosocial domains. As a result, the
profession is in a natural position for leading efforts to improve health
and well-being in general. Entering the paradigmatic era in PP will not
only facilitate this type of leadership, it may very well be necessary for
moving ahead effectively in this direction. If the profession is
successful in this regard, PP is on the verge of entering a truly exciting
period in its development.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual

for mental and emotional disorders (4th ed., text revision).
Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2005). Policy statement on evidence-

based practice in psychology. Retrieved from http://0-
www.apa.org.libus.csd.mu.edu/practice/resources/evidence/evidence-
based-statement.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2006). Health care for the whole person
statement of vision and principles. Retrieved from
[www.apa.org/practice/hcwp_statement.html]

American Psychological Association Assessment of Competency Benchmarks

Work Group. (2007). A developmental model for the defining and

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
22
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

measuring competence in professional psychology. Washington, DC:

Author.

American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation. (2009).

Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional
psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on the Future of

Psychology Practice. (2009). Final report. Retrieved from http://0-
www.apa.org.libus.csd.mu.edu/pubs/info/reports/future-practice.aspx

Anchin, J. (2008). Pursuing a unifying paradigm for psychotherapy: Tasks,

dialectical considerations, and biopsychosocial systems metatheory.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 18, 310–349.
doi:10.1037/a0013557

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers. (2009).

Application for psychology internships. Retrieved from
[http://www.appic.org/match/5_3_match.html]

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development.

In N. J.Smelser & P. B.Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the
social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). New York,
NY: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00359-4

Corsini, R. J., & Wedding, D. (2008). Current psychotherapies (8th ed.).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Davidson, R. J., & Begley, S. (2012). The emotional life of your brain: How its
unique patterns affect the way you think, feel, and live, and how you
can change them. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Driver-Linn, E. (2003). Where is psychology going? Structural fault lines

revealed by psychologists' use of Kuhn. American Psychologist, 58,
269–278. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.4.269

Duffy, F. F., Wilk, J., West. J. C., Narrow, W. E., Rae. D. S., Hall, R.,
…Manderscheid, R. W. (2006). Mental health practitioners and
trainees. In R. W.Manderscheid & J. T.Berry (Eds.), Mental health:
United States, 2004 (pp. 256–309). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
23
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Services Administration. Retrieved from

[http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA06–4195/SMA06–
4195.pdf]

Ecker, B., & Hulley, L. (2006). Coherence therapy practice manual and
training guide. Oakland, CA: Pacific Seminars.

Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical mode: A challenge for
biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136. doi:10.1126/science.847460

Frankel, R. M., Quill, T. E., & McDaniel, S. H. (Eds.). (2003). The

biopsychosocial approach: Past, present, and future. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.

Gardner, H. (2005). Scientific psychology: Should we bury it or praise it. In R.

J.Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp.
77–90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10847-005

Goodheart, C. D. (2010). Economics and psychology practice: What we need

to know and why. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41,
189–195. doi:10.1037/a0019498

Goodheart, C. D., & Carter, J. A. (2008). The proper focus of evidence-based

practice in psychology: Integration of possibility and probability. In W.
B.Walsh (Ed.), Biennial review of counseling psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
47–70). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.1037/a0019498

Henriques, G. R. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York, NY:

Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0058-5

Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. (2003). The data deluge: An e-science perspective.
In F.Berman, A.Hey, & G.Fox (Eds.), Grid computing—Making the
global infrastructure a reality (pp. 809–824). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Hiatt, M. D., & Stockton, C. G. (2003). The impact of the Flexner Report on
the fate of medical schools in North America after 1909. Journal of
American Physicians Surgeons, 8, 37–40.

Institute of Medicine. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
24
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Institute of Medicine. (2004). Improving medical education: Enhancing the

behavioral and social science content of medical school curricula.
Washington, DC: Author.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus,
& Giroux.

Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy

research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1–27.
doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432

Kendler, H. H. (2002). A personal encounter with psychology (1937–2002).

History of Psychology, 5, 52–84. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.5.1.52

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Larson, E. J. (2004). Evolution: The remarkable history of a scientific theory.

New York, NY: Modern Library.

Lesk, M. (2004). Online data and scientific progress: Content in

cyberinfrastructure. Paper presented at Digital Curation Centre,
Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrieved from
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/337419

Loftus, E. F., & Davis, D. (2006). Recovered memories. Annual Review of

Clinical Psychology, 2, 469–498.
doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095315

Magnavita, J. J. (2005). Personality-guided relational psychotherapy: A

unified approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10959-000

Magnavita, J. J. (2006). In search of the unifying principles of psychotherapy:

Conceptual, empirical, and clinical convergence. American
Psychologist, 61, 882–892. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.882

Magnavita, J. J. (2008). Toward unification of clinical science: The next wave

in the evolution of psychotherapy?Journal of Psychotherapy
Integration, 18, 264–291. doi:10.1037/a0013490

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
25
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Martin, P. R., Weinberg, B. A., & Bealer, B. K. (2007). Healing addiction: An

integrated pharmacopsychosocial approach to treatment. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.

Melchert, T. P. (2011). Foundations of professional psychology: The end of

theoretical orientations and the emergence of the biopsychosocial
approach. London, UK: Elsevier.

Messer, S. B., & Winokur, M. (1980). Some limits to the integration of

psychoanalytic and behavior therapy. American Psychologist, 35, 818–
827. doi:10:1037/0003-066x.35.9.818

Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Norcross, J. C. (2005). A primer on psychotherapy integration. In J.

C.Norcross & M. R.Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy
integration (2nd ed., pp. 3–23). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.

Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Garofalo, A. (2006). Discredited

psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 515–522. doi:10.1037/0735-
7028.37.5.515

Partnership for Solutions. (2004). Chronic conditions: Making the case for
ongoing care. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific

knowledge. London, UK: Routledge.

Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations

of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. New
York, NY: Norton.

Porter, R. (1997). The greatest benefit to mankind: A medical history of

humanity. New York, NY: Norton.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2010). Systems of psychotherapy: A

transtheoretical analysis (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Quammen, D. (2006). The reluctant Mr. Darwin. New York, NY: Atlas Books.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
26
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Randall, L. (2011). Knocking on heaven's door. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Rodgers, J. L. (2010). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical

modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist,
65, 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0018326

Rychlak, J. R. (2005). Unification in theory and method: Possibilities and

impossibilities. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility
or pipedream? (pp. 145–158). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10847-009

Seagull, E. A. (2000). Beyond mothers and children: Finding the family in

pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 25, 161–169.
doi:10.1093/jpepsy/25.3.161

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy.

American Psychologist, 61, 774–788. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.61.8.774

Shah, S., & Reichman, W. E. (2006). Psychiatric intervention in long-term

care. In L.Hyer & R. C.Intrieri (Eds.) Geropsychological interventions in
long-term care (pp. 85–107). New York, NY: Springer.

Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The
development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and
adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford.

Staats, A. W. (2005). A road to, and philosophy of, unification. In R.

J.Sternberg (Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp.
159–178). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10847-010

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Unifying the field of psychology. In R. J.Sternberg

(Ed.), Unity in psychology: Possibility or pipedream? (pp. 3–14).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10847-001

Suls, J., & Rothman, A. (2004). Evolution of the biopsychosocial model:

Prospects and challenges for health psychology. Health Psychology,
23, 119–125. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.2.119

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
27
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Truscott, D. (2010). Becoming an effective psychotherapist: Adopting a

theory of psychotherapy that's right for you. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12064-000

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2012). U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force. Retrieved from http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/

Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford.

Williams, W. H., & Evans, J. J. (2003). Biopsychosocial approaches in

neurorehabilitation: Assessment and management of neuropsychiatric,
mood and behavioural disorders. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York, NY:

Knopf.

Wood, A., & Joseph, S. (2007). Grand theories of personality cannot be

integrated. American Psychologist, 62, 57–58. doi:10:1037/003-
066x62.1.57

Wood, C. C., Berger, T. W., Bialek, W., Boahen, K., Brown, E. N., Holmes, T.
C., …Sweedler, J. V. (2006). Steering Group Report: Brain science as a
mutual opportunity for the physical and mathematical sciences,
computer science, and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.

About the Author:

Timothy P. Melchert received his Ph.D. in counseling psychology from the

University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is an associate professor and the
assistant vice provost for graduate programs at Marquette University. His
research interests include the theoretical and scientific foundations for
behavioral health care practice and family of origin influences on development
and functioning.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy P.

Melchert, Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology,
168F Schroeder Complex, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201. Email:
tim.melchert@marquette.edu.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
28
NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be
accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2013): pg. 11-19. DOI. This article is © American
Psychological Association and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette.
American Psychological Association does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted
elsewhere without the express permission from American Psychological Association.
29