ABSTRACT
Dating from the 1930s when Rosenzweig noted the importance of `implicit' common factors in psychotherapy, understood as the unrecognized, often relational, factors that did not form part of the of®cial model, there has been a growing interest in common factors that make for effective therapeutic change. Hubble et al. (1999), when discussing common factors, speak of relationship-mediated variables such as `caring, empathy, warmth, acceptance, mutual af®rmation, and encouragement of risk taking and mastery' (p. 9). Current research into child development and neurobiology supports this focus on relational variables and currently is signi®cantly informing the practice of psychotherapy. Critics of the common factors approach to integration are concerned that we will lose the conceptual richness inherent in different approaches and the variety of technique embedded in these if we try to `reduce' the practice of therapy to a common denonimator. They also see a common language as leading to a similar attenuation of richness and sophistication. However, it must be remembered that as early as the 1950s Fiedler's study showed that there are often greater similarities between experienced clinicians from different orientations than between beginners and advanced clinicians of the same orientation. Norcross (2002) is not alone in recommending a shift of focus in research studies to factors that do not emphasize a speci®c set of techniques or speci®c presenting problems of clients, highlighting the ways that this focus can lead potentially to `disembodied therapists performing procedures on Axis I disorders' (p. 4). Instead, Norcross argues for a focus on the person of the therapist, the therapy relationship and the patient's characteristics, emphasizing the need in research studies for a greater emphasis on the integration of what is known about the therapeutic relationship, the change process, as well as speci®c techniques. He also highlights the need for a
