The Move Toward Cognitive-Behavioral Ther-
apy. In reflecting upon these cognitive trends,
apparent even almost four decades ago, Mahoney
(1977a) observed:
Despite their long history of often bitter
rivalry, behaviorists and cognitive psy-
chologists appear to be cautiously easing
into the same theoretical bed. This rather
startling flirtation is not, of course, without
its detractors. A few behaviorists seem to
be viewing it as a softheaded fling with
mentalism that they hope will pass. Like-
wise, some cognitive psychologists have
viewed the merger with suspicion. (p. 5)
Although several effective treatments based on
traditional behavioral learning principles had been
developed, by the early 1970s it was clear that a
number of frequently encountered clinical condi-
tions (e.g., depression) were not so easily addressed
by treatments based on classical or operant condi-
tioning. In a sense, the present blending of behav-
ioral and cognitive methods was stimulated by the
limitations of both psychodynamics and radical
behaviorism. This blending was also facilitated by
the presence of several theoretical models that incor-
porated cognitive variables along with the scientific
and experimental rigor so precious to behaviorists.
The Role of Social Learning Theory. In partic-
ular, Rotter’s social learning theory (Rotter, 1954;
Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972) helped bridge the
chasm between traditional psychodynamic clinical
practice and learning theory. It was a theory that
explained behavior as a joint product of both rein-
forcement and expectancies. People choose to
behave in the way they do because the behavior
chosen is expected to lead to a goal or outcome
of some value.
The presence of such a social learning theory
had at least two effects on the development of
behavior therapy. First, it produced a number of
clinicians (and influenced others) who were ready
to accept newer behavioral techniques and were
equipped with a theoretical point of view that
could facilitate the modification of those techniques
along more cognitive lines. Second, the theory,
being both cognitive and motivational, was capable
of blending the older psychodynamically derived
therapeutic procedures with the newer behavioral
and cognitive approaches. By its very presence,
then, social learning theory facilitated a fusion of
approaches that is still in progress. In evaluating
the relevance of this social learning theory for the
practice of both traditional psychotherapy and
behavior therapy, consider the following implica-
tions discussed by Rotter (1970):- Psychotherapy is regarded as a learning situa-
tion, and the role of the therapist is to enable
the patient to achieve planned changes in
observable behavior and thinking. - A problem-solving framework is a useful way
in which to view most patients’difficulties. - Most often, the role of the therapist is to guide
the teaming process so that not only are inad-
equate behaviors and attitudes weakened but
more satisfying and constructive behaviors are
learned. - It is often necessary to change unrealistic
expectancies; in so doing, one must realize how
it was that certain behaviors and expectancies
arose and how prior experience was misapplied
or overgeneralized by the patient. - In therapy, the patient must learn to be con-
cerned with the feelings, expectations, motives,
and needs of others. - New experiences or different ones in real life
can often be much more effective than those
that occur only during the therapy situation. - In general, therapy is a kind of social
interaction.
Another highly significant contribution that has
facilitated the cognitive swing in behavior therapy
has been the work of Bandura (1969). Bandura
demonstrated the importance of vicarious learning
and the role of cognitive mediators in both affect
and performance. Bandura’s (1977a) emphasis on
the ways in which various treatment procedures
increase the patient’s sense of self-efficacy is a
PSYCHOTHERAPY: BEHAVIORAL AND COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVES 413