Different Therapeutic Approaches

Therapeutic Approaches Different Therapeutic Approaches and a Diversity of Clients The prolific nature of theory generation makes it difficult for a therapist to choose a single approach with regard to a specific client type. Cave (1999) listed the "broad" categories of theory as somatic (medical interventions), psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, and humanistic. Under these broad headings are many different subsets of theory that can be used to treat a specific type of malady. However, this proliferation does offer one benefit to the therapist searching for an approach.

Since the diagnostic and statistical manual offers so many choices with regard to disease, the therapist needs just as many avenues for treatment. When the number of possible diagnoses are coupled with the range of different personality types, it can be even more difficult to find an effective therapy. But, at least the choices are there. And if the choice is not available, it offers the therapist the opportunity to publish new research, or at least a case study.

An issue also exists when therapy type and personality type are further complicated by cultural differences. Different cultures often prefer one type of therapy (this is a general statement, and not always accurate).

As Paniagua noted in 2005, "In general, African-American, American Indian, Hispanic, and Asian clients prefer therapeutic approaches that are directive (i.e., they want to know what the problem is and what they need to do to solve the problem), active (i.e., they want to play a role in the therapeutic process), and structured (i.e., they want to know exactly what the therapist recommends to solve the problem)." The counter to this direct approach, the indirect, can be a good fit for people who do not understand the process that has led them to therapy.

This is especially true of infants/young children and others who have experienced severe relational trauma (Baradon, 2010). Psychotherapeutic stance is important because the consumer inherently trusts the therapist to "fix" what is wrong. Although, a "fix" in therapy is not as immediate or satisfying as one is in the mechanics shop, the job of the therapist is to at least help the individual understand what is happening to them in part, and begin the healing process.

This healing is even more difficult when the cause of the trauma is someone close to the victim. A direct approach is often antithetical to relational trauma (Trepper & Barrett, 1989). Because the consumer does not understand why they have been hurt by a trusted family member, or other close acquaintance, they may not be able to answer to directive therapeutic interventions. It is then necessary to choose an approach will allow the consumer to uncover the trauma and begin to heal.

The problem with the indirect approach though is "indirect approaches are strategic interventions designed to encourage change, but these are usually paradoxical, provide less or even counterintuitive information to the family about the problem and how to change it, and are often considered inconsistent of confusing.