This discussion will show that a sound rationale exists to support solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). First, it will provide a brief comparison between SFBT and positive psychology (PP) and then present a research-based argument to support SFBT. An annotated list of resources supporting the rationale for SFBT as well as an annotated list of assumptions of SFBT will follow the post.
More Than Miracles (Routledge Mental Health Classic Editions)
SFBT and PP are similar in focus and pathological perspective. F. P. Bannink explains that both therapies focus on solutions instead of problems and neither “seek or create pathology” (Bannink and Jackson 2011, 3-4). As the founder of solution-focused therapy, Steve de Shazer (1985) states, “Interventions can initiate change without the therapist’s first understanding…what has been going on” (119).
SFBT and positive psychology also have a number of differences. A primary difference is that SFBT focuses on practice while PP “aims to be scientific” (Bannink and Jackson 2011, 5). The founder of PP, Martin E. P. Seligman, refers to it as “a new science of strength and resilience” (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000, 8). Additionally, PP points toward strengths while SFBT points toward exceptions; PP produces theories while SFBT takes a “not knowing” stance, and PP focuses on a present solutions while SFBT focuses on a future solutions (Bannink and Jackson 2011, 6-10).
SFBT exhibits a number of strengths that support a rationale for utilization. First, it is positive therapy built on hope. Bannink (2007) supports the hopeful assertion by stating that, “happiness is not the result….of right genes or mere chance” (87). Second, SFBT has a broad application. De Shazer and Yvonne Dolan (2007) state that SFBT is “applicable to all problems, and indeed has been applied to a wide range of problems” (13). Third, SFBT is easy to learn and versatile. Terry S. Trepper et al. suggest that SFBT is “deceptively easy to learn” and “many techniques can be integrated into SFBT (Trepper et al. 2006, 134). Fourth, Jacqueline Corcoran and Vijayan Pillai (2009) explain that due to the brief nature of SFBT, it is “a cost-effective method” (240). Finally, although limited, certain empirical evidence supports SFBT. Specifically, Corcoran and Pillai’s (2009) review of numerous SFBT experiments from 1985 to 2006 concludes, “about 50 percent of the studies can be viewed as showing improvement over alternative conditions or no-treatment method” (240). Furthermore, Bannink (2007) explains that numerous pre-post studies have also shown success, but the “studies are not controlled…and hence cannot be considered satisfactory evidence” (90).
Some have expressed potential theological weaknesses of SFBT. For example, regarding SFBT’s focus on solutions, James R. Beck asks, “Does not the Bible contain an equally powerful theme regarding suffering?” (Beck 1998). Although certain theological weaknesses may exist, the overall evidence appears to support a sound rationale for SFBT.
___________________________________________________
References
- Bannink, F. P. 2007. Solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 37, no. 2 (June): 87-94.
- Bannink, Fredrike, and Paul Z. Jackson. 2011. Positive psychology and solution focus – looking at similarities and differences. Interaction. The Journal of Solution Focus in Organisations 3, no. 1 (May). http://www.fredrikebannink.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PP-and-SF-2010-def.1.pdf (accessed May 20, 2012).
- Beck, James R. 1998. Solution-focused pastoral counseling. Denver Seminary. http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/solution-focused-pastoral-counseling/ (accessed May 20, 2012).
- Corcoran, Jacqueline, and Vijayan Pillai. 2009. A review of the research on solution-focused therapy. British Journal of Social Work 39, no. 2 (March): 234-42.
- De Shazer, Steve. 1985. Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
- De Shazer, Steve, and Yvonne Dolan. 2007. More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth Press.
- Seligman, Martin E. P., and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2000. Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist 37, no. 2 (June): 87-94.
- Trepper, Terry S., Yvonne Dolan, Eric E. McCollum, and Thorana Nelson. 2006. Steve de Shazer and the future of solution-focused therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 32, no. 2 (April): 133-139.
Annotated References
Supporting a Rationale for SFBT
Bannink, F. P. 2007. Solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy 37, no. 2 (June): 87-94.
Bannink provides a concise overview of solution-focused brief therapy that includes a short history, practical presuppositions, and results of recent outcome studies. Additionally, Bannink identifies the differences between problem-focused and solution-focused therapy highlighting certain benefits of the latter.
Corcoran, Jacqueline, and Vijayan Pillai. 2009. A review of the research on solution-focused therapy. British Journal of Social Work 39, no. 2 (March): 234-42.
This article summarizes a review of treatment outcomes of solution-focused therapy from 1985 to 2006. The purpose of the project was to assess the empirical evidence available regarding the effectiveness of solution-based therapeutic initiatives. The authors conclude by documenting the results obtained from the review process.
De Shazer, Steve, and Yvonne Dolan. 2007. More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth Press.
As the final work of Steve de Shazer, this book provides the latest advances in solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). The authors provide a rather comprehensive investigation of SFBT; however, the overview in the first chapter is especially helpful in assisting the reader in understanding the benefits and tenets of SFBT.
Trepper, Terry S., Yvonne Dolan, Eric E. McCollum, and Thorana Nelson. 2006. Steve de Shazer and the future of solution-focused therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 32, no. 2 (April): 133-139.
This article investigates the potential future of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) in light of its broader applications. Following a summary of the SFBT practice, the authors provide an exploration of training and research in SFBT that provides additional rationale for the therapeutic approach.
Annotated List of Assumptions for SFBT
1. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it (De Shazer 2007, 1-2; Kollar 2011, 82).
Certain schools of psychology suggest therapy needs to exist even without a presenting problem. SFBT is relevant only if a problem exists, and then moves toward doing more of what works. Alternatively, if a certain exercise is not working, SFBT avoids blaming the client and suggests something different.
2. Small steps can lead to big changes (De Shazer 2007, 2).
SFBT is a minimalistic approach to therapy that supports manageable steps to avoid overwhelming the client. The assumption is that small changes will naturally lead to larger changes in the life of the individual and once enough changes occur to mitigate the presenting problem, the therapy terminates.
3. The solution is not necessarily directly related to the problem (De Shazer 2007, 2).
Most forms of therapy begin with the problem and then move toward a solution. SFBT reverses the formula and begins with the solution. Accordingly, SFBT spends little or no time on pathology. Kollar (2011) explains this assumption by suggesting that the problem is the problem, not the counselee’s psychopathology (77-80).
4. The language for solution development differs from problem analysis (De Shazer 2007, 3).
Language pertaining to problems normally focuses on history and presumes permanence. SFBT language is more hopeful and future-focused. Kollar (2011) endorses the concept by suggesting that language should focus on “when” not “if” change will occur based on the assumption that the counselee is always changing (70-72).
5. No problems happen all the time (De Shazer 2007, 3).
A major intervention of SFBT assumes that even apparently insignificant exceptions can activate healthy behavioral change. Kollar (2011) furthers the argument by suggesting that complex problems do not demand complex solutions and assisting the client in discovering exceptions helps create the solutions (Kollar 2011, 67-70).
6. The future is both created and negotiable (De Shazer 2007, 3).
The tenet assumes a future that is hopeful where individuals create their own destiny. Kollar (2011) clarifies De Shazer’s assumption with the application of a biblical worldview by suggesting that solutions are co-created by joining God in His current activity within the life of the counselee (76-77).
7. God is already active in the counselee (Kollar 2011, 62-67).
It is necessary for Christian counselors to be open to where God is already working in the life of the counselee. SFBT within a Christian context looks for events where God is working and focuses on these areas rather than the presenting problems.
8. The counselee is the expert and defines goals (Kollar 2011, 72-75).
The counselee’s emphasis on client-generated solutions holds the counselee capable of change and creates an environment where the counselee is more likely to take ownership of the solutions. Furthermore, the client-centered approach mitigates the risk of an unhealthy dependent relationship with the counselor.
9. The counseling relationship is positional (Kollar 2011, 80-82).
SFBT assess the willingness of a client from a positional perspective. Specifically, the counselor identifies whether the client is in the willing, blaming, or attending position. If necessary, the counselor attempts to move the counselee toward willingness by supporting the client’s identified goals.
References
- De Shazer, Steve, and Yvonne Dolan. 2007. More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth Press.
- Kollar, Charles Allen. 2011. Solution-focused pastoral counseling: an effective short-term approach for getting people back on track. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
