Can depression be de-medicalized in the 21st century: scientific revolutions, counter-revolutions and the magnetic field of normal science

This article is about our scientific investigations of the change mechanisms in cognitive therapy (CT) for depression. In a previous clinical trial, we found that so-called ‘cognitiveʹ interventions were not necessary for the success of CT: the behavioral activation (BA) component, a treatment precluding attempts to change thinking, worked as well as the entire CT package, both in maximizing acute treatment response and in relapse prevention over a two year period. We tentatively suggested at the time of publication [Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Truax, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., Gortner, E. T., & Prince, S. E. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treament for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 295–304; Gortner, E. T., Gollan, J. K., Dobson, K. S., & Jacobson, N. S. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression: relapse prevention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 377–384.] that the ‘cognitiveʹ components of CT may not only be unnecessary but potentially a liability, since they result in a less parsimonious treatment package that may be not be cost effective. In this article, we not only defend this contention, but counteract the skepticism expressed by some CT advocates that the quality of our CT was deficient. Finally, we describe a study designed to confirm our conclusions from the earlier trial and, in the process, reintroduce a contextual perspective on depression, one which counters the currently dominant defect models reflected in both Beckʹs cognitive model and in theories that emphasize biological causation.