From Learning Theory to Fragmentation: CBT and the Problem of Borrowed Scientific Credibility
Year: 2026
Type: preprint
Abstract: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is widely regarded as the most scientifically grounded form of psychotherapy, owing to the extensive evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This article argues that this reputation increasingly rests on borrowed credibility. CBT was originally founded on a coherent theoretical framework rooted in learning theory and experimental psychology. It has since become an umbrella label for a heterogeneous set of protocols and techniques, from Beck's cognitive therapy to mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches, schema therapy and EMDR, that share neither theoretical assumptions nor a common research base and that differ markedly in empirical support. Under this label, newer approaches inherit the scientific prestige earned by well-validated protocols without having to demonstrate their own connection to basic psychological research. I contend that CBT, as a unified framework, is no longer a scientific theory: individual protocols may be scientific, but only insofar as they combine empirical validation with theoretical coherence and a link to basic research. I examine the epistemological inconsistencies among the main strands of CBT, the limits of the trial evidence on which its status rests, and the conditions a psychotherapy must meet to be considered scientific. To prevent further fragmentation, I propose reconnecting psychotherapy with general psychology and learning theory, grounding new protocols in explicit theory, complementing randomized trials with modern single-case experimental designs, and ultimately moving toward a psychotherapy without adjectives.
Source: PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints)
Author: Aristide Saggino
Language: English
Subfield: Clinical Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W7223050189