Therapeutic Relationship vs. Treatment Model

Blog Home

Blog Archive




August 06, 2013 at 5:58 AM

When I call therapists in other locations to check them out for a referral, I briefly describe the case and ask what their approach would be. Quite a number of these therapists have said something like, “I mainly focus on the relationship, since that’s where the healing comes from.” In a recent survey I saw a number of similar comments. One question focused on choice of technique in a particular context, and a number of respondents wrote some version of, “The technique is irrelevant – it’s the relationship that heals.” Based on my nonscientific sample, I suspect that this position is not uncommon among therapists.

The way it is expressed indicates that this view of the relationship’s primacy is not about psychodynamic theory – in which the therapy relationship is systematically utilized for healing. Psychodynamic people tell you that they’re psychodynamic; they’re clear about what they’re doing, and about the role of technique. No, these therapists are saying that they’ve extracted the essence of the so-called “common factors” research, and concluded that as long as they develop a good relationship with their client, everything else falls into place.

The common factors research – focusing on factors such as empathy, warmth, and positive regard, that may be common across treatment approaches – is quite important, and the centrality of common factors to therapy’s effectiveness has become ever more widely recognized and embraced (e.g., Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010). However, this valuing of the relationship over treatment approach reflects a profound misunderstanding of the common factors research.

Duncan & colleagues’ (2010) recent synthesis of the common factors research emphasized the integration and inextricability of the various factors. That is, you can’t just add more empathy or therapeutic alliance to an otherwise non-viable treatment approach and suddenly have a viable treatment. Rather, the common factors are necessarily grounded in a coherent and credible treatment model – itself a common factor – that is embraced by therapist and client. Such a treatment model serves as the foundation for the explanation of the problem, the plans for rectifying the problem, and the hope for successful change. These constitute much of the basis for the therapeutic alliance, the most important predictor of treatment success (Norcross, 2010).

Although it is heartening to see that the common factors literature has reached the practice community, it is concerning to see that it has been commonly misinterpreted in such a way that many therapists may be disregarding the importance of using a coherent treatment approach. It is also worth mentioning that not all coherent treatment approaches are equal; for example, our own trauma-informed phase model of treatment is particularly facilitative of the common factors. Other approaches may be more or less so.

I have often advised friends looking for love not to try to find it via dating. It’s difficult to develop a strong relationship merely by wishing to do so, even if over dinner. Rather, I have advised these friends to do what they care about – in the company of others – because relationships are best built from shared experiences. In therapy, similarly, you can focus on “building a relationship” but then what do you have? Probably a client who feels good while with you, but doesn’t make much progress in therapy. It’s better to build the relationship by going through the essential activities of therapy, one step at a time. As the client identifies and invests in his/her goals, develops a good understanding of what’s in his/her way and what to do about it, and starts to do those things, making real steps towards success... Well, when the therapist is helping the client to make progress in therapy, the relationship tends to do pretty well too.


Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Wampold, B. E., & Hubble, M. A. (2010). The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy (2nd Edition). Washington, DC: APA.

Norcross, J. C. (2010). The therapeutic relationship. In B. L. Duncan, S. D. Miller, B. E. Wampold, & M. A. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works in therapy, 2nd edition, pp. 113-141.


14382 hits

Please add a comment

Posted by Ruth Silverberg on
Great post! I wish you could disseminate this in a larger arena. It is succinct and to the point. Thanks!
Posted by Ricky Greenwald on
Thanks. This is a new blog but we can make it a "larger arena" by posting comments, sharing, etc. I also did include this point in the book on Progressive Counting that was published earlier this year.

I think the common factors research is really important, and would like to see it used properly.
Posted by Domna Ventouratou on
Thank you Ricky, I totally agree !!
Posted by Tom Cloyd MS MA on
I couldn't agree more. It strikes me that the "common factors" eager beavers too often (a) fail to note that significant portions of this general concept were well laid out some years ago by Carl Rogers' researach, and (b) that if mere good relationship were all that were needed, then therapists would really be no different than good friends. These errors reflect muddled thinking.

We ARE more than "nice people". In fact, some of the most effective therapists I have known aren't all that nice, but they sure do know how to provoke and support real change in people.

I value relationship highly myself, but I value effectiveness more. I always remind people: you're not buying friendship, you're buying results. That has to be our focus.

As always, Ricky, your writing is lovely. I'm going to post a link to this in the G+ stream. It deserves more readers!
Posted by Nicole Wolasz on
Thank you Ricky, I couldnt agree more!!!!! I, too, value the therapeutic realtionship, but once that is established and maintained throughout treatment, challenging the client with a solid and comprehensive treatment approach has proven to be most effective for me in working with clients.

I would love for this post to be disseminated in some way to newer social workers coming out of MSW programs. I feel as though this is a key point to stress those new to the field.
Posted by Ricky Greenwald on
I notice that everyone chiming in here is a trauma therapist. Not a coincidence?

I suspect that the advent of effective trauma therapy is integral to the shift from relationship-only focus to relationship-plus-technique focus. We trauma therapists now have techniques that can make a big difference. Perhaps when trauma-informed therapy is more widely disseminated, the over-emphasis on relationship will fade.
Posted by Sheri Oz on
This is so important and you write it so well. There definitely needs to be theory of trauma healing behind all work with trauma survivors. There is much more to therapy than "the relationship".
Posted by jenny phaure on
A wonderful post. Here in the UK I sense we are at the beginning with embedding trauma into therapeutic approaches, but I believe that effective treatment models need to run alongside the teachings in respect of the common factors. It isn't an adjunct it is integral to good outcomes. Many thanks.
Leave a Reply

(Your email will not be publicly displayed.)

Captcha Code

Click the image to see another captcha.