ABSTRACT
Looking at the development of Beck's early and middle-stage work, we see a process of evolution which is quite different from many other models of therapy and different even from some types of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). Just the titles of his books tell us that he started by describing a way of working with depression (1979b), and then, having experienced some success with that work, tried the same principles with anxiety (Beck & Emery, 1985), relationship dif®culties (1988), personality disorders (Beck, Freeman & Associates, 1990) and substance abuse (Beck et al., 1993). Notice, too, that he uses the phrase `cognitive therapy'. The `c' is lower case because it is an adjective; it has not yet hardened into a double-barrelled noun, `Cognitive Therapy'. Beck also frequently uses the title style `cognitive therapy of . . .,' not The Cognitive Therapy of . . .' Beck does not seem to have had a desire to construct a therapy school or model as such and that continues to be his position
therapy has a
socio-psycho-CBT `imperialist'. In fact, cognitive therapy is potentially, the most self-limiting therapy model: it is literally only as much use as its applications and as its results. As a prime example of `evidencebased practice', cognitive therapy may have to live with and die by that sword ± namely, if sound outcome research starts to point to other, more effective forms of therapy, the cognitive therapist should have no hesitation in abandoning current methods and taking up these alternatives, no matter how close to or distant they may be from cognitive therapy methods. If it ever falters in the effectiveness stakes, it will quickly lose what might seem like its current imperial power. It is primarily a `pragmatic' approach but is also less likely to follow some models' hazy application areas such as `growth work' and `life coaching'.
