A Critical Review of the Psychodynamic Model, Explained

UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 4.5 Free with a free account

A Critical Review of the Psychodynamic Model

Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 4: Psychodynamic Theories and Therapeutic PracticeSection 4.5 · lesson 18 of 9712 min · free with a free account

← Key Psychodynamic TechniquesNext lesson: Core Principles of the Behavioral Approach →

Earn 3 college credits for Abnormal PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 180 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Abnormal Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Each criticism at full strength, each defense with equal seriousness, and no verdict.

  • State the principal scientific criticisms in their strongest form
  • State the strongest defense of the model with equal seriousness
  • Identify which contributions survive in contemporary psychology
  • Separate claims about the theory from claims about the treatment

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,600 words). Read along, or search it.

Psychodynamic Theories and Therapeutic Practice

A Critical Review of the Psychodynamic Model

This section is deliberately two-sided, and it does not end in a verdict. Each criticism is presented at full strength. Then answered with the best defense available. Then followed by a statement of what remains unsettled. Two readings of this material are equally wrong. That the model is worthless. And that the criticisms have been answered. Where contemporary research supports a psychodynamic idea, that is stated as plainly as the criticisms. We will cover falsifiability, circularity, the evidence, the harms, and what survives. And one composite case that shows how to grade an interpretation part by part.

Falsifiability

Explaining Everything, Predicting Nothing

Falsifiability is the property of a claim that some observation would count against it. The objection is not that psychodynamic claims are false. It is that many are not the kind of claim that could be false. A theory explaining every outcome after the event predicts none before it. Suppose the model holds that unresolved conflict about aggression produces symptoms. A man who is habitually aggressive is discharging the impulse directly. A man who is conspicuously gentle shows reaction formation against the same impulse. And a man aggressive only under stress shows the defense failing. Both extremes and the middle are consistent with the theory. So no observation of this man's behavior could disconfirm it. One note before we go further. This material is educational, not a basis for diagnosis.

The Contrast

What a Testable Version Would Look Like

Now compare a claim the same tradition could make instead. That people reporting more early disruption of care will, on average, show more adult relationship difficulty. That claim forbids something. It could turn out that no such association exists. But notice what this does not say. It does not say the untestable claim is false. A claim can be true and untestable. The criticism concerns what can be known, not what is the case. The strongest defense has three parts. First, the objection applies unevenly. Second, falsifiability is demanding, and other useful frameworks fail it at their edges. Third, an unfalsifiable framework can still be a productive source of hypotheses. What remains unsettled is whether the falsifiable portion is large enough. Because the defense concedes that the core interpretive apparatus is not testable. And that apparatus is what the clinical tradition mostly consists of.

Circularity

The Sharper Objection

Interpretive circularity is the structure we flagged in four point four. A client's agreement with an interpretation confirms it. And their disagreement is read as resistance. It is that no response the client could give would count against it. It concerns the everyday operation of the treatment, not abstract claims. And it carries an ethical cost the other objection lacks. A person is told their considered account of their own experience is a symptom. The defense is that this describes the concept misused, not the concept itself. Interpretations are offered tentatively, so rejection is available without a contest. The working rule treats disagreement as evidence about the interpretation. What remains unsettled is whether that solves the problem or manages it. And coding consistently is agreement, which is not the same as accuracy.

The Theory

Assess the Constructs Separately

Assessing the constructs separately is far more informative than a verdict on the whole. Start with what is supported, in modified form. That a great deal of mental processing occurs outside awareness is now mainstream. But the unconscious that research describes is not the one this model proposes. It is a set of automatic processes, not a repository of excluded wishes. The core claim held, though. People are not transparent to themselves. Defensive reasoning has extensive support under other names. Motivated reasoning. Self-serving attribution. Dissonance reduction. Attachment-influenced developments produced the strongest case of all. Now what is not supported. Drive energy has no basis in modern biology. The psychosexual stages and their fixations have not held up. And symbolic dream decoding has no support at all.

The Treatment

Working Is Not the Same as Working for the Stated Reason

The treatment and the theory must be assessed separately. A treatment can work for reasons its framework does not correctly describe. Randomized trials support short-term dynamic therapy for some presentations. With effects broadly comparable to other established psychological treatments. That is a real evidence base, and smaller than for some approaches. There are no controlled trials of classical analysis at all. Now the common-factors argument: most established therapies produce broadly similar outcomes. And what they share may account for much of the effect. An alliance. An expectation of improvement. A rationale that makes the difficulty intelligible. On this view, evidence that the therapy works is not evidence that it works psychodynamically. The defense is that the argument cuts equally against every approach. What is unsettled is how much of the effect is common and how much is specific.

The Founding Evidence

Four Methodological Failures

The evidential basis of the original theory was a small number of case descriptions. Four failures follow, and they are the ones chapter two would predict. First, the case base was small and unrepresentative. A limited number of patients, largely one social class, one city, one period. Second, there were no controls. Improvement in a treated person cannot be attributed to the treatment without comparison. Third, the therapist was the sole recorder and interpreter. Decided what was significant, interpreted it, and reported the outcome. Fourth, the records were reconstructed, written from memory after sessions. The defense is anachronism: judging a theory of nineteen hundred by the trial methods of two thousand. But the defense obliges the tradition to have replaced that founding evidence. That happened for the attachment program, and not for the core interpretive apparatus.

The Harm

The Recovered-Memory Episode

This is the most serious harm associated with the tradition. The model implied this. If repressed experiences still produce symptoms from outside awareness, and if treatment aims to make that material conscious, then recovering buried memories becomes a therapeutic goal. But memory research established that memory is reconstructive rather than a recording. Each recollection is assembled, and shaped by current beliefs and by how a question is asked. Suggestive questioning can produce detailed, emotionally felt memories of events that did not occur. And critically, confidence and vividness do not distinguish a true memory from a made one. The techniques used to recover memories were the techniques shown to create them. Families were destroyed by accusations arising in treatment. Practice has changed substantially. Memory recovery is not a mainstream goal. That some people do not recall abuse for long periods and later remember is not in dispute. The finding is that suggested memories are unreliable, not that delayed recollection is always false.

Cultural Criticisms

Documented Harm, and Revisions From Within

Three cultural and historical criticisms, and all three concern documented harm. First, the treatment of women. Early theorizing framed female development as a deficiency relative to male development. Women's dissatisfaction with the constraints of their situation was read as internal conflict. Rather than as a response to those constraints. That is a serious clinical failure. Second, the pathologizing of sexual orientation. It was treated as a developmental failure, and classified as a disorder until nineteen seventy-three. People were treated for something that was not a disorder, on a theory with no evidence. Third, class and cultural narrowness. The original patients were a narrow group, and the theory was presented as universal. The defense is that both of the first two claims were revised from within the tradition. What is unsettled is whether the errors were removable, or structural.

Delivery And Defense

Practical Limits, and the Case in Favor

Four criticisms concern delivery rather than truth. Duration. Classical analysis required several sessions a week over years. Cost. Duration multiplied by session cost puts the classical form beyond almost everyone. Access. Publicly funded services commission shorter treatments, so availability depends on paying privately. And fit. The approach needs stability, verbal fluency, and reflective capacity. It is a poor fit for acute crisis, active psychosis, or severe cognitive impairment. Now the strongest defense, stated as seriously as the criticisms. It addressed questions other frameworks ignored. The alternatives then were a tradition with no treatment, and a moral view treating difficulty as fault. This framework proposed that symptoms had meaning, that history mattered, and that talking helped. Each of those is now so general that it is easy to forget it had to be established.

What Survives

That Something Happens, Not What It Is Made Of

Here is the single most useful division in this section. Unconscious influence on behavior survived, in substantially modified form. Defensive processing survived, under other names. Early experience shaping later relationships survived, reformulated and measurable. The therapeutic relationship as an active ingredient is well supported. Symptoms as meaningful is retained as a clinical stance, not as a testable claim. What did not survive: drive energy, the psychosexual stages, symbolic dream decoding. And repression as a mechanism for burying intact memories, which is actively contradicted. Now notice where the line falls. The concepts that survived describe that something happens. The ones that did not specify what it is made of. Unconscious influence survived. The unconscious as a reservoir of wishes did not. And the clinical vocabulary remains in wide daily use across orientations.

Composite Case

Louise, 37: Grade the Parts, Not the Package

A composite case, constructed for instruction. It describes no real person. Louise is thirty-seven, referred with difficulty in workplace relationships. She has left three jobs in six years. Each time after a deteriorating relationship with a female manager. She describes her mother as exacting. In therapy she has twice become briefly cold after arrangements were changed. The reading ties all of that into one pattern. Now grade it part by part. Three parts could be tested. That the pattern is real, checkable against her employment record. That she expects unfair treatment from women in authority, measurable in advance. Three parts could not be tested. That the origin is specifically her mother, rather than temperament or another relationship. And the practical response is the same either way. If treatment is identical, that part is decoration.

About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study

Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study

Understand mental health disordersAbnormal Psychology covers how psychological disorders are defined, assessed, explained and treated. It is a core course for psychology majors and useful for nursing, social work, counseling and criminal justice.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About A Critical Review of the Psychodynamic Model

Why is psychoanalysis criticized as unfalsifiable?
Psychoanalysis is criticized as unfalsifiable because many of its claims can explain any outcome after the fact, so no observation could count against them. If conflict about aggression is said to explain a man being aggressive, conspicuously gentle, or aggressive only under stress, then every behavior fits. The criticism concerns what can be known, not whether the claims are false, and some psychodynamic ideas can be restated in testable form.
Which psychodynamic ideas are still supported by research today?
Several psychodynamic ideas survive in modified form. Much mental processing occurs outside awareness, though as automatic processes rather than a reservoir of hidden wishes. Defensive thinking is supported under names like motivated reasoning and dissonance reduction, early relationships shaping later ones is measurable through attachment research, and the therapeutic relationship is a well-supported ingredient. Drive energy, the psychosexual stages, and symbolic dream decoding have not held up.
What was the recovered memory controversy?
The recovered memory controversy arose when some therapy aimed to uncover repressed memories of abuse that were assumed to be stored intact. Memory research showed that memory is reconstructive and that suggestive questioning can create detailed, emotionally convincing memories of events that never happened, with confidence and vividness unable to tell true from false. Accusations arising in treatment harmed families, and memory recovery is no longer a mainstream therapeutic goal.
Is psychodynamic therapy effective?
Randomized trials support short-term psychodynamic therapy for some presentations, with effects broadly comparable to other established psychological treatments, while classical psychoanalysis has no controlled trials. Showing that a therapy works does not validate its theory, however. The common-factors argument holds that much of the benefit may come from features shared across therapies, such as the therapeutic alliance, an expectation of improvement, and a rationale that makes the difficulty understandable.

About the Abnormal Psychology course

How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 97 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 97 lessons total about 24 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.

97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Abnormal Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Abnormal Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →