Talk:Emotion-Focused Therapy

Hello,

I was directed to start a "talk" page re. a dispute. The issue as I understand it is that

"The dispute lies in the fact that you claim the two therapies are not related, but someone else thought they were and redirected the page you created."

I do not contend that the two therapies are not related. They are related. They are also distinct. So, linking from one page to the other makes sense, but I fail to see how there should be no page for "emotion-focused therapy" and a redirect to "emotionally focused therapy."

I look forward to a response.

hereandnow73

suggestion 1
Hi, 3 issues here, that  I can see:


 * article may have been deleted in the belief that it was a simple duplicate, which the person deleting felt clearer about because
 * the style and contents also falls outside several WP guidelines, particularly apparently just promoting one person/organisation
 * it is new and doesn't have a lot of content and connection to other pages, inclining belief to it being just an "advert" left here.

But I'm still very much learning the ropes too. My personal suggestion would be to copy it from its last version here: and put it in a sandbox page at your user page and incubate it, rather than argue for its existence as is.

You could do that by editing your user page (say a bit about yourself while doing so) and place a link to a page that doesn't exist yet, say User:hereandnow73/emotion-focused therapy, saving that page, then clicking upon the link you just made, whereupon you'll get another blank editing box page where you can paste what you copy from the edit box on the page linked from above.

If you'd like any more help from a not-so long here but adventurous newbie, call in at Trev M (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Just been to your user talk page User_talk:Hereandnow73, created automatically by a robot, and there is a whole (automated) explanation there about copyright breach. Trev M (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Emotion-focused and emotionally-focused are different branches
Les Greenberg and Susan Johnson are the progenitors of the EFT approach for couples. Subsequently, Les's work has focused mostly on individuals; he typically uses the term "emotion-focused therapy" to describe what he does (this is in the title of several books and articles.)  Sue's work has focused on couples; she uses the term "emotionally-focused therapy" exclusively. Now that Sue's conjoint treatment model has been adapted for family work, some are using the shorthand "EFT-C" and "EFFT" to denote EFT for couples and EFT with families, respectively.

IMHO it would make sense to have separate articles for Les's work with individuals, since it focuses primarily on intrapsychic processes, micro-expressions of emotion, etc., and Sue's work with couples and families, which focus on interactions between people in a significant attachment relationship.

Neither approach has anything to do with the "Emotional Freedom Technique" also called EFT, which is a poorly-supported pseudo-science.12.149.202.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Commenting to say that I concur with the previous comment - I teach graduate level Marriage and Family Therapy, and emotionally focused therapy. Students learning Johnson's EFT (or EFT-C/EFFT) sometimes get hold of Greenberg's emotion-focused therapy articles/chapters and find themselves very confused because rather than talking about a systemic, couple/family focused treatment based in experiential work during sessions, Greenberg describes an individually-focused intrapsychic approach. I regularly have to caution them to carefully review sources before including them in literature reviews, to be certain which branch of therapy is really being addressed, or else they get quite mixed up trying to understand two very different sets of techniques. They share some interests and assumptions, but so do, say, Structural and Strategic Family Therapies (at least Strategic as practiced by Jay Haley, which incorporated Structural ideas but also MRI brief therapy/cybernetics), or Narrative and Brief Solution Focused Therapies. They are not the same and should be treated separately.

76.218.68.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

minor differences at the theoretical level
EFCT/EFFT and EFT share more than their underlying neo-humanistic principles and focus on affect-regulation. Both have made extensive use of Les Greenberg's task analysis methodology to understand change processes in psychotherapy. Furthermore, attachment theory plays a prominent role in case conceptualization for all of these therapies, both in regards to treatment of other and with regard to treatment of self. Differences among EFCT, EFFT, and EFT seem to be a direct result of differences in the population being treated - couples, families, or individuals. One could further differentiate between populations, e.g., between depressed and traumatized populations, but differentiation at the population level seems more appropriate to a within-page rather than between-page dissection. Alternatively, one page articulating underlying shared theoretical principles (which alone would be quite extensive) could link to discrete pages describing the ways in which the therapy manifests when treating a particular population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.188.237 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)