Award for

Distinguished Professional
Contributions to Independent
or Institutional Practice in
the Private Sector
This award recognizes outstanding service delivery by a
licensed psychologist who is primarily engaged in the practice

2006
of psychology in a private sector setting. The award is intended
to recognize outstanding practitioners in psychology.
Nominations are considered for psychologists working in any
area of clinical specialization, health services provision, or
consulting, and services provided to any patient population or
professional clientele in an independent or institutional practice

AWARD
setting are considered. Contributions can be judged
distinguished by virtue of peer recognition, advancement of the
public’s recognition of psychology as a profession, relevant
professional association honors, or other meritorious

winners accomplishments denoting excellence as a practitioner,

including advancement of the profession. In previous years,
this award was called the Award for Distinguished
Contributions to Applied Psychology as a Professional Practice.
The name was changed in 2003 to better describe this award.

1972 Carl R. Rogers 1989 Patrick H. DeLeon

1973 David Wechsler Florence W. Kaslow
1974 Noble H. Kelley 1990 George Stricker
1975 George W. Albee 1991 Stanley R. Graham
1976 John C. Flanagan 1992 Herbert Freudenberger
David Shakow 1993 Charles D. Spielberger
1977 George Katona 1994 Robert D. Weitz
1978 Arthur L. Benton 1995 Patricia M. Bricklin
Distinguished Professional 1979 Herbert Dörken 1996 Christine A. Courtois
Contributions 1980 Zygmunt A. Piotrowski Robert J. Resnick
Douglas W. Bray 1997 Jack G. Wiggins Jr.
1981 Jack I. Bardon 1998/
The 2006 recipients of the
APA Professional Contribution Awards 1982 Milton Theaman 1999 Dorothy W. Cantor
were selected by the 2005 Board of Professional 1983 Donald R. Peterson 2000 Mathilda B. Canter
Affairs (BPA). Members of the 2005 BPA were 1984 Nicholas A. Cummings 2001 Reuben J. Silver
Rosie Phillips Bingham, PhD (Chair); 1985 Rogers Wright 2002 William R. Safarjan
Kristin A. Hancock, PhD; Keith N. Humphreys, PhD;
1986 Wilbert E. Fordyce 2003 Philip G. Levendusky
Larry C. James, PhD; Jennifer F. Kelly, PhD;
Richard J. Klimoski, PhD; Annette M. La Greca, PhD; 1987 Carl Zimet 2004 Miki Paul
Barbara T. Roberts, PhD; and Peter L. Sheras PhD. Alfred Wellner 2005 Edward A. Wise
1988 Stanley Moldawsky 2006 Jeffrey J. Magnavita
George D. Goldman

Jeffrey J. Magnavita
Award for Distinguished Professional Contributions
to Independent or Institutional Practice in the
Private Sector
Citation
“For his passionate devotion to the advancement of the
practice and science of psychotherapy. As a full-time clini-
cian and affiliate professor, Jeffrey J. Magnavita has pub-
lished numerous volumes and articles on the treatment of
personality disorders and the practice of intensive psy-
chotherapy. His major accomplishment is his theoretical
modeling of integrative and unified approaches to psy-
chotherapy using audiovisual analysis. His most recent
achievement is a unified relational approach for patients
with personality dysfunction and complex clinical syn-
dromes. He is currently undertaking the development of
personality systematics, which seeks to identify the unify-
ing processes and principles of psychotherapy, psychopa-
thology, and personality theory.”
Biography
Jeffrey J. Magnavita was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia, in 1953. His parents were first-generation immigrants:
His paternal grandparents left Italy in the early 1900s and
settled in Philadelphia, and his maternal grandparents emi-
grated during the same period from Eastern Europe, from a
region then called Transylvania. His paternal grandfather
opened a barbershop, where Magnavita’s father and uncle
also worked. His maternal grandparents’ dream was to own
a farm, to which end they purchased 40 acres in Bucks
County, Pennsylvania. As a child, Magnavita was fortunate
880
to be able to experience the contrast of living in the city of
Philadelphia and visiting his grandparents’ farm in the
country on weekends. These weekend visits gave him a
profound appreciation for the physical labor required to
manage a farm and for the beauty of the natural world.
It was during World War II that his parents were mar-
ried, and soon thereafter his father was drafted. He fought
in the Battle of the Bulge and received the Purple Heart
after being hit with shrapnel above the eye. When the war
ended, just like many GIs returning from World War II
and their wives, the couple was eager to make up for lost
time and start a family. Magnavita was the middle of three
boys, part of the baby boom generation that followed the
war. Growing up in a combined Italian and Germanic fam-
ily offered a rich cultural experience. The large, extended
family gave him the opportunity to observe the complexi-
ties of the relational world and to develop an interest in the
variations of personality styles.
Inspired by courses in the social and biological sciences
in high school, Magnavita attended Temple University and
majored in psychology. He was initially attracted to the
idea of becoming an experimental psychologist, as he was
captivated by the empiricism of learning theory and en-
joyed conducting conditioning experiments with rats. He
became interested in clinical work when he experienced the
thrill of immersion in counseling and clinical psychology
labs and experiential training groups. His enthusiasm was
further stirred when he read Joseph F. Rychlak’s pioneer-
ing work on personality, psychopathology, and psychother-
apy. Rychlak tackled the challenging conundrum of at-
tempting to make sense out of the disparate approaches to
clinical science. It was not until many decades after this
introduction to Rychlak’s seminal texts, Introduction to
Personality and Psychopathology (1973) and A Philosophy
of Science for Personality Theory (1968), that Magnavita
understood the enormity of the theoretical and conceptual
challenges that were tackled in these groundbreaking texts.
Over two decades later, when writing his volume Theories
of Personality: Contemporary Approaches to the Science of
Personality (Magnavita, 2002b), he found his original text-
books from his undergraduate years and reread them with a
new level of understanding.
After graduating from Temple University, he pursued
graduate studies in counseling and psychology at Villanova
University, where he was awarded an assistantship and was
assigned to overseeing the audiovisual needs of his depart-
ment. After graduating with a master’s degree, he was ac-
cepted to a one-year post-master’s-degree training program
in child therapy at the Irving Schwartz Institute, a division
of the Philadelphia Psychiatric Center. The Irving Schwartz
Institute primarily treated inner-city children from single-
parent families. It was here that Magnavita developed a
keen appreciation for the strong influence that dysfunc-
tional social and community systems exert on families,
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/06/$12.00
Vol. 61, No. 8, 880 – 892 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.880
which results in the development of psychopathology in
young children. During his tenure, he received intensive
training in the traditional child guidance approach, which
entailed the child being seen in play psychotherapy and the
mother being seen by a separate therapist for supportive
treatment.
At the Philadelphia Psychiatric Center, Magnavita was
able to attend intellectually invigorating and clinically chal-
lenging seminars with doctoral-level interns, which reaf-
firmed his desire to pursue a doctorate himself. He applied
to a number of programs, and after serving six months of
his training program, he was accepted into a doctoral pro-
gram at the University of Connecticut. With the generous
support and encouragement of Irving Schulman, the direc-
tor of the Philadelphia Psychiatric Center and Magnavita’s
primary supervisor, he was encouraged to take advantage
of his opportunity, and so he left the Philadelphia Psychiat-
ric Center.
At the University of Connecticut, he was awarded a
graduate assistantship, which included coteaching courses
and making field visits to master’s-level students in practi-
cum settings. His program permitted considerable flexibil-
ity, with a combination of studies including counseling,
school, and clinical psychology. In lieu of a foreign lan-
guage requirement, he was able to substitute a specializa-
tion in family therapy. These studies confirmed his interest
in systems theory. After completing his course work, he
was accepted as an intern at an APA-approved program in
clinical psychology at Elmcrest Psychiatric Institute in
Portland, Connecticut. While serving as an intern, he en-
tered a two-year family therapy training program, which
emphasized audiovisual recording of family psychotherapy
sessions of the families of hospitalized patients. He was
awarded a certificate of completion and became a licensed
marriage and family therapist. After completing his intern-
ship, he served as a staff psychologist in an inpatient ado-
lescent unit, where he was supervised for his postdoctoral
year. He received his license as a psychologist in 1982. He
served two more years in inpatient psychiatry; in his final
year, he served as program director for a newly established
child unit.
Magnavita left the hospital in 1984 to open a group
practice offering multimodal treatment in Glastonbury,
Connecticut. He also began work as a consultant for an
inpatient unit at Manchester Memorial Hospital, where he
served as a team consultant and psychodiagnostician.
While in practice, he attended a three-year intensive week-
end training program in short-term dynamic psychotherapy
in Montreal, Canada. In 1997, his first volume, entitled
Restructuring Personality Disorders: A Short-Term Dy-
namic Approach (Magnavita, 1997), was published. This
book integrated the work of leading pioneers in short-term
psychotherapy with the work of major historical figures,
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
using the conceptualization of triangular configurations de-
veloped by David Malan.
His next book required that he expand his theoretical
system; incorporating systemic and Bowenian theory, he
published Relational Therapy for Personality Disorders
(Magnavita, 2000b), which was featured in the Behavioral
Science Book Club. In this volume, he presented a typol-
ogy of dysfunctional families, which he considered to be
the first step toward creating a relational diagnostic system
for personality dysfunction. Under the editorship of Florence
Kaslow, he was the volume editor for the Comprehensive
Handbook of Psychotherapy: Vol. 1. Psychodynamic/Object
Relations (Magnavita, 2002a) and was the editor for the
Handbook of Personality Disorders: Theory and Practice (see
Magnavita, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c), which was the main selec-
tion for a month in the Behavioral Science Book Club.
The prevalence of individuals and families in his prac-
tice suffering from personality dysfunction sparked his in-
terest in developing effective treatment strategies. On the
basis of extensive audiovisual reviews of hundreds of hours
of psychotherapy and a review of major systems of psy-
chotherapy, he began to evolve an increasingly unified the-
oretical framework for treating personality dysfunction and
related clinical syndromes with a multimodal psychother-
apy approach. Influenced by the theoretical work of Theo-
dore Millon, he began to emphasize the centrality of the
personality system as a way of organizing the complexity
of human functioning and explaining maladaptive pro-
cesses, calling this personality systematics. He presented
his evolving theoretical framework in his latest volume,
Personality-Guided Relational Psychotherapy: A Unified
Approach (Magnavita, 2005a). Recently, Magnavita has
been pursuing his interest in identifying the overarching
unifying principles of psychotherapy; he takes the view
that the field has evolved from a single-school approach
to an integrative approach and predicts that the next stages
will be approaching unification. Most recently, he collaborated
with Jack Anchin on developing a unification paradigm. To-
gether, they coedited a special issue of the Journal of Psy-
chotherapy Integration on the topic of unification.
Magnavita is an affiliate professor in clinical psychology
at the University of Hartford, where he teaches courses in
psychotherapy and serves on dissertation committees. He is
a fellow of APA and recently completed an APA video
series on treating personality disorders (Magnavita & Carl-
son, 2006). He serves on the editorial board of Clinical
Psychology/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice and Psy-
chotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training.
Magnavita is an avid reader of history, biography, and
science. He enjoys skiing, bicycling, kayaking, and vaca-
tioning with his family in Wellfleet on Cape Cod. Mag-
navita resides in South Glastonbury, Connecticut, with his
wife Anne, his three daughters—Elizabeth, Emily, and
Caroline—a cairn terrier, and a guinea pig.
881

Selected Bibliography
Magnavita, J. J. (1993a). The evolution of short-term dy-
namic psychotherapy: Treatment of the future? Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 360 –365.
Magnavita, J. J. (1993b). The treatment of passive–aggres-
sive personality disorder. Part I. International Journal of
Short-Term Psychotherapy, 8(1), 29 – 41.
Magnavita, J. J. (1994). Premature termination of short-
term dynamic psychotherapy. International Journal of
Short-Term Psychotherapy, 9(4), 213–228.
Magnavita, J. J. (1997). Restructuring personality disorders: A
short-term dynamic approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Magnavita, J. J. (1998). Challenges in the treatment of per-
sonality disorders: When the disorder demands comprehen-
sive integration. In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice,
4(4), 5–17.
Magnavita, J. J. (2000a). Integrative relational therapy of
complex clinical syndromes: Ending the multigenerational
transmission process. Journal of Clinical Psychology/In
Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 1051–1064.
Magnavita, J. J. (2000b). Relational therapy for personality
disorders. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002a). Psychodynamic approaches to
psychotherapy: A century of innovation. In F. Kaslow (Se-
ries Ed.) & J. Magnavita (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive hand-
book of psychotherapy: Vol. 1. Psychodynamic/object rela-
tions (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002b). Theories of personality: Contem-
porary approaches to the science of personality. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2004a). Classification, prevalence, and etiol-
ogy of personality disorders: Related issues and controversy.
In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.), Handbook of personality disorders:
Theory and practice (pp. 3–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2004b). The relevance of theory in treat-
ing personality dysfunction. In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.),
Handbook of personality disorders: Theory and practice
(pp. 56 –77). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2004c). Toward a unified model of treat-
ment for personality dysfunction. In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.),
882
Handbook of personality disorders: Theory and practice
(pp. 528 –553). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2005a). Personality-guided relational psy-
chotherapy: A unified approach. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Magnavita, J. J. (2005b). Systems theory foundations of
personality disorders: Components of a unification para-
digm. In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and
psychopathology (pp. 140 –163). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2005c). Using the MCMI-III for treatment
planning and to enhance clinical efficacy. In R. J. Craig (Ed.),
New directions in interpreting the Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory–III (MCM-III) (pp. 165–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2006). The centrality of emotion in unify-
ing and accelerating psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 62, 585–596.
Magnavita, J. J. (in press-a). A systemic family perspective
to child and adolescent personality disorders. In A. Free-
man & M. Reinecke (Eds.), Personality disorders in chil-
dren and adolescents. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (in press-b). Towards unification of clini-
cal science: The next wave in the evolution of psychother-
apy? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Magnavita, J. J., & Carlson, J. (Producers). (2006). Person-
ality disorders [Video series]. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Magnavita, J. J., & MacFarlane, M. M. (2004). Family
treatment of personality disorders: Historical overview and
current perspectives. In M. M. MacFarlane (Ed.), Family
treatment of personality disorders: Interpersonal ap-
proaches to relationship change (pp. 3–39). Binghamton,
NY: Haworth Press.
In Search of the Unifying Principles of
Psychotherapy: Conceptual, Empirical, and
Clinical Convergence
Jeffrey J. Magnavita
Glastonbury Psychological Associates
and University of Hartford
The search for the principles of unified psychotherapy is
an important stage in the advancement of the field.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Converging evidence from various streams of clinical
science allows the identification of some of the major
domains of human functioning, adaptation, and
dysfunction. These principles, supported by animal
modeling, neuroscience, and developmental
psychopathology, along with new theoretical constructs,
are demonstrating that human functioning is best
conceptualized as holistic and highly interrelated at all
domain levels of the total ecological system. Incorporating
these findings with evidence accrued over the past century
of psychotherapy practice and study allows psychologists
to begin to explore the development of a unified system of
psychotherapy that is rooted in the clinical sciences. One
such attempt to develop a unified framework is presented
as a starting point.
Keywords: unifying psychotherapy, personality systematics,
unified clinical science, relational psychotherapy, affective
convergence in psychotherapy
The development of psychotherapy is one of the many re-
markable advances witnessed during the 20th century. Psy-
chotherapy is well established and accepted as a treatment
for a spectrum of psychological and relational disturbances.
More people than ever before seek out psychotherapy for
psychological distress and relational difficulties. Help-seek-
ing behavior for emotional and relational disturbances does
not carry the same stigma for most people that was com-
monplace a few decades ago. Characters in TV shows and
movies are depicted in psychotherapy sessions, which has
contributed to the public’s acceptance of psychological sci-
ence as an aid to coping with the demands and stress of
living in modern societies. A recent poll by Newsweek
(Adler, 2006) showed that nearly 20% of Americans have
seen a psychotherapist. There are estimated to be over 400
schools of psychotherapy, each offering a different flavor
of psychotherapy. Within this smorgasbord of approaches,
there are about a half dozen schools of psychotherapy that
predominate. Many in the field observe that these previ-
ously distinctive models are melding; their differences are
increasingly minor, and the models show evidence of con-
Editor’s Note
Jeffrey J. Magnavita received the Award for Distinguished
Professional Contributions to Independent or Institutional
Practice in the Private Sector. Award winners are invited
to deliver an award address at the APA’s annual conven-
tion. A version of this award address was delivered at the
114th annual meeting, held August 10 –13, 2006, in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Articles based on award addresses are
reviewed, but they differ from unsolicited articles in that
they are expressions of the winners’ reflections on their
work and their views of the field.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
vergence. Now, at the beginning of the second century of
the evolution of psychotherapy, converging streams of evi-
dence suggest that psychologists are entering a new phase
of unification, which has major implications for the field of
psychotherapy and clinical science.
The manner in which psychotherapy is delivered, psy-
chotherapists are trained, and researchers investigate the
processes and mechanisms of change are all contingent on
coherent theoretical models that combine notions about
how development progresses, personality unfolds, psycho-
pathology is expressed, and psychotherapeutic change oc-
curs. These issues have traditionally been of concern to
clinical scientists and theorists. Rychlak (1973) wrote that
personality theory requires a “theory of illness, theory of
cure, and therapeutic techniques” (p. 21). There are signs
that clinical science is entering a phase of unification in
which a paradigmatic shift may be occurring toward a new
holism that challenges the way in which psychologists con-
ceptualize and treat psychological dysfunction in individu-
als, couples, families, and society. As Cappas, Andres-Hy-
man, and Davidson (2005) summarized, “Psychology faces
the challenge of understanding and treating the human be-
ing as a whole person with biological, psychological, so-
cial, and cultural, and spiritual dimensions” (p. 381). Clini-
cians require broader domain models that capture these
naturally occurring self-organizing systems.
The Trend Toward Unification Science
The evidence for unification can be seen in the trend
among many scientific disciplines toward converging in
support of the view that complex systems can be fully un-
derstood and studied only when they are conceptualized as
holistic. In ecology, the concepts of holism and intercon-
nectedness are the foundation of the environmental move-
ment. The entire ecosystem is an intricate set of interrela-
tionships among various domains and is not made up of
separable parts (Callenbach, 1998). In biological science,
systems biologists are trying to discover guiding principles
and embrace complexity (Stolovizky & Califano, 2006).
Wilson (1998) has also urged scientists to work toward
unification in his highly touted volume Consilience. Stern-
berg and Grigorenko (2001) have cogently argued for a
unified psychology that is multiparadigmatic, multidisci-
plinary, and uses a multiple perspective approach. Also in
psychology, earlier efforts were made by Staats (1983) in
his volume Psychology’s Crisis of Disunity: Philosophy
and Method for a Unified Science, which made the case
that disunity in the field was a hindrance to scientific and
theoretical advances. He warned that too much overspecial-
ization would lead to increasingly fragmented and discon-
nected knowledge sets. Millon, a leading personologist and
clinical theorist, encouraged clinicians to think in a unifica-
tion paradigm:
883
 Whether we work with “part functions” that focus on behav-
ior, cognitions, unconscious processes, biological defects, and
the like, or whether we address contextual systems that focus
on the larger environment, the family, the group, or the socio-
economic and political conditions of life, the crossover point,
the unit that links parts to contexts, is the person. (Millon,
Grossman, Meagher, Millon, & Everly, 1999, p. xi)
Mayer (2005) also endorsed an integrative framework in
which he encouraged the study of personality, as a system,
along a molecular–molar dimension from subatomic parti-
cles to the larger ecological system. Influenced by this
movement and inspired by these and many other individu-
als, I have been working toward developing a unified ap-
proach to psychopathology, personality theory, and psycho-
therapy (Magnavita, 2005a, 2005b). I have come to this
perspective after years of practicing psychotherapy and
psychodiagnostics, using audiovisual analysis of psycho-
therapy, and experimenting with a variety of psychothera-
peutic techniques and strategies.
Unification Phase of Psychotherapy: The Emergence of
a New Paradigm
Psychotherapy has many branches, which by and large
have their origins to one degree or another in psychoanaly-
sis. Originally psychoanalysis emerged slowly but became
the dominant form of conceptualization and treatment for
psychological disorders during the first half of the 20th
century (Magnavita, 2002a). Other models quickly flour-
ished and, in the early part of the 20th century, competed
with one another, often developing intense rivalries. One of
the most notable contentious struggles was between psy-
choanalysis and behavioral therapy. Most psychologists
have seen the tape of or have read about John Watson’s
(Watson & Rayner, 1920) challenge to psychoanalysis,
when he demonstrated that he could induce a “neurosis”
with the basic principles of classical conditioning.
Psychotherapy Integration
A new phase in the evolution of psychotherapy became
apparent in the middle of the 20th century. Often referred
to as the beginning of the psychotherapy integration move-
ment, rapprochement began when Dollard and Miller
(1950) wrote their landmark volume, Personality and Psy-
chotherapy, which translated psychoanalytic constructs into
the language of behaviorism. Constructs such as transfer-
ence and defenses could be understood using principles of
learning theory. Dollard and Miller clearly demonstrated
that the same clinical phenomenon was being mapped with
different languages. During this period, single school alle-
giance was still very common, often with limited interac-
tion among adherents of differing theories. The single
school stage in the evolution of psychotherapy was neces-
sary because new innovations had to be developed, tested,
and refined or discarded if they lacked support or consen-
884
sus (Magnavita, in press). In the 1980s, the psychotherapy
integration movement emerged when well-articulated mod-
els of therapy were available to study and practice (Stricker
& Gold, 1993). Many practitioners welcomed the opportu-
nity to try new models and to choose what worked for
their patients. They welcomed the integration movement,
which was less dogmatic, more conceptually fluid, and al-
lowed for much greater therapeutic flexibility than single
school models. Individual psychotherapists experimented
with couples, group, and marital modalities to increase
their range of effectiveness. The field was roiling with new
theories, methods, strategies, and claims of effectiveness
such as personal testimonials.
Toward Unification
Clinical science and psychotherapy are reaching a level of
sophistication that is fueling rapid conceptual, research, and
technical advances never before possible. Neuroscientific
investigations are beginning to verify some important te-
nets of psychotherapy, such as the nature of unconscious
processing (Hassin, Uleman, & Bargh, 2005). In addition,
converging neurobiological evidence is providing insight
about the basis of trauma, personality disorders, and the
action of psychotherapy (Gabbard, 2005). We are now able
to view the activation of brain networks as they are at
work with the tools of neuroscience, such as functional
magnetic resonance imaging, positron-emission tomography
scans, and electrophysiological measures. Interdisciplinary
collaboration is opening up new avenues of investigation
that are impacting how psychologists think about psycho-
therapy and psychopathology. Animal research is being
translated so that models can be developed for human be-
havior. Researchers studying infants are adopting methods
from affective science to examine the nature and process of
affective development and attachment, and they are collab-
orating with clinicians to help understand how to better
intervene when attachment fails (Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist,
& Target, 2002). The nature of nonverbal communicative
processes, so vital to relational capacities, and the develop-
ment of social communication are being investigated with
audiovisual technology and advanced nonlinear statistical
techniques, to capture the complexity of human function
and communication. For example, Ekman and Davidson’s
(1994) work in affective science on facial representation of
emotion has provided an empirical foundation for reading
nonverbal communication, and Gottman’s (1979) use of
multiple physiological measures, videotaping of couples’
interaction patterns, and nonlinear statistics has helped
identify the factors that predict marital stability. The devel-
opment of relatively inexpensive audiovisual equipment
has allowed clinical scientists to visually explore and ana-
lyze relationships among partners, infant–maternal dyads,
and therapist–patient dyads. Even psychotherapists in solo
practice can avail themselves of these technologies for ana-
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
lyzing and refining their therapeutic understanding and for
conducting patient follow-up studies documented by video-
taped interviews.
Rationale for Consideration of Unified Psychotherapy
It seems evident that some distinct principles of unification
science can be gleaned from the various areas of clinical
science, as well as other scientific disciplines (Anchin, in
press). As Rychlak (1973) pointed out a third of a century
ago, a substantive theory of psychotherapy must include
interrelated and consistent constructs about personality,
psychopathology, and the process and techniques of psy-
chotherapeutic change. To construct such a theory requires
a holistic framework and some understanding of the inter-
connectedness of domains. Thus, there must be unity in the
clinical sciences, or we risk a lack of coherence among
constructs. The danger is that researchers may toil without
knowing how their domain area is impacted and how it
impacts the larger system, potentially missing some vital
influence or process. Of course, studying smaller parts of
any system is valuable to the advancement of clinical sci-
ence, but especially for clinicians, there should always be
an emphasis on how these findings translate into the larger
systems within which they operate. Researchers should
seek to explain how their findings can be translated to clin-
ical issues.
Clinicians have been known to apply one approach to
each patient regardless of what is actually needed. There is
a danger of overreliance on treatment manuals without suf-
ficient grounding in clinical science. Theoretical frame-
works are critical tools for understanding any complex phe-
nomena. Theory shapes conceptualization by limiting the
ways in which psychologists know where to look, how
they bias clinical and empirical data, and how they orient
their interventions. I previously discussed the relevance of
integrative theory in treating personality dysfunction (Mag-
navita, 1997, 2000, 2002b). Personality disorders have only
recently been considered amenable to treatment. However,
even integrative theory falls short when psychologists at-
tempt to coherently identify the factors and solutions for
complex problems, such as personality dysfunction. Treat-
ing personality dysfunction, and to a lesser degree any
clinical syndrome, requires making sense out of the seem-
ing chaos of interrelated interactions among neurobiologi-
cal, individual, couple, family, social, and ecological sys-
tems (Magnavita, 2004). In previous volumes and chapters,
I have explored the levels and component domains of per-
sonality dysfunction and have suggested methods for inter-
vention drawing from a plethora of approaches. The reality
of working with those who suffer from personality dys-
function is that no single theory, method, or technique will
suffice. Rather, various perspectives, methods, and strate-
gies are required.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Patients who consult psychologists for treatment are en-
titled to the best explanation that science has to offer about
how their disorders developed and what psychologists
know from the empirical research and clinical literature
about how best to ameliorate their condition. Psychologists
need a theoretical framework with which to orient their
psychodiagnostic assessment, so that the necessary infor-
mation is gathered to formulate a coherent, multiperspec-
tive treatment plan that addresses the specific concerns that
are presented, as well others that unfold as additional infor-
mation is gathered. Single domain models of psychother-
apy and change are useful but insufficient to address the
spectrum of human dysfunction and maladaptation encoun-
tered by psychologists in a variety of settings. As psycho-
analysts have always averred as a rationale for depth ther-
apy, treating the symptoms is superficial and does not
address the root cause. There is some truth in this justifica-
tion. Most disorders do not have a single root cause (e.g.,
genetic, dynamic, developmental, or familial; Magnavita,
2006, in press). Rather, dysfunction exists when multiple
converging pathways interact in a manner and at various
developmental junctures to create dysfunction, such as
symptoms or chronic patterns of maladaptation. The com-
plexity of processes and subsystems that converge in vari-
ous forms of psychopathology and family dysfunction
make a systemic approach necessary. Many current clinical
theorists believe that personality is the major point of con-
vergence for human study and that examining the etiology,
developmental progression, and treatment are critical chal-
lenges for clinical scientists.
Organizing Principles of Clinical Unification Science
After an extensive review of the literature and various
stages in developing models of psychotherapy based on
findings from clinical science, the following principles are
offered as points of reference for others interested in pursu-
ing unified psychotherapy. These principles should be ap-
plicable to all valid therapeutic orientations.
The Domains of Human Functioning Exist as
Interconnected, Nested Ecological Systems, Which Can
Be Organized From the Molecular to the Molar Level
It is becoming apparent to most scientists and clinical theo-
rists that recent scientific advances in computer technology
and communications have increased the human level of
connectedness. Each domain subsystem, from the neuronal
to the sociopolitical, is made up of interconnected struc-
tures and processes, which relate to other networks in non-
linear ways. An ecological model requires psychologists to
take into account the context in which behavior occurs, as
well as the feedback systems that continually modify and
regulate a system. Even when operating within one level of
a system, it is vital to understand the impact on other lev-
els. For example, psychopharmacologists, who prescribe
885
medications that improve individual symptom expression
such as depression, anxiety, impotence and so forth, often
see their patients or their patients’ partner or family sabo-
tage medication compliance. Often the system is not com-
fortable with the implications of bottom-up change. An
understanding of other levels of the system will allow for
other options to be considered.
Part–Whole Relationships Characterize Human
Functioning, Incorporating Networks of Subdomain and
Larger Domain Systems
Parts do not exist as isolated elements but in the context in
which they are observed and in which they operate. When
dealing with complex phenomenon, it is unrealistic to sepa-
rate parts from their networks and not expect that there
will be a loss of explanatory power. Human beings are em-
bedded in multiple nested structures/networks that offer
differing perspectives of phenomena (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Using portions of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecologi-
cal model, along with theoretical elements from an exten-
sive review of the theories of psychotherapy, psychopathol-
ogy, developmental psychology, and personality theory, I
constructed a unified framework (Magnavita, 2005a). This
unified, component systems model attempts to account for
the major domains of human functioning that have been
identified during the era of contemporary clinical science.
Incorporating an ever-widening perspective, it is possible
to divide the total human ecosystem into the following four
nested matrices from the microlevel to the macrolevel.
Intrapsychic– biological matrix: Domains and pro-
cesses that operate inside the person. The intrapsychic–
biological matrix basically subsumes the processes and
structures that occur within an individual (intraindividual).
These include neurobiological processes–structures, affec-
tive– defensive functions, cognitive schemata, and tempera-
mental predispositions. On the basis of genetic, tempera-
mental, and neurobiological structures, each individual’s
intrapsychic structure is shaped by the attachment–rela-
tional system. Expanding on the work of Ezriel (1952) and
Malan (1979), using a triangular configuration, the bottom
corner of the triangle can be depicted as the cognitive sche-
mata (templates of self– other) and affective system engen-
dered by attachment and traumatic experiences. Feeling
that has not been processed (i.e., identified, experienced,
and contextualized in a narrative) is activated in later at-
tachment experiences and gives rise to anxiety, located on
the upper-right corner. This nonmetabolized affect is chan-
neled into anxiety, which is modulated by the defenses on
the upper-left side. Various constellations of defenses are
used at the intrapsychic level depending on developmental
stage and progression of personality development. The
more primitive the defenses, the more compromised the
system. When this subsystem lacks differentiation, emo-
tions are not experienced, resulting in unmanageable anxi-
886
ety, which requires the overutilization of defenses; this can
undermine adaptive functioning. The overarching goal of
psychotherapeutic action at this domain level is to regulate
emotional functioning so that emotion is used adaptively
and to restructure the dysfunctional cognitions to enhance
overall functioning.
Interpersonal– dyadic matrix: Domains and processes
that operate between self and other. The interpersonal–
dyadic matrix primarily accounts for processes that occur
between two people, in regulating the tension between inti-
macy and separateness. According to Berscheid (1999), we
are witnessing “the greening of a new science of interper-
sonal relationships” (p. 260). She wrote, “We are born into
relationships, we live our lives in relationships with others,
and when we die, the effects of our relationships survive in
the lives of the living, reverberating throughout the tissue
of their relationships” (Berscheid, 1999, pp. 261–262). The
primary attachment system is the maternal–infant dyad,
which is the foundational dyad that begins to shape the
emergent self (intrapsychic structures/processes) from the
genetic and temperamental substrate. Attachment systems
develop and are codified, in the rich nutrient of attunement,
regulation, and repair and then become a robust predictor
of adult interpersonal styles (Schore, 2003). The interper-
sonal matrix offers a window into the rich tapestry of at-
tachment experiences that are recreated in relationships
with others and in therapeutic relationships. Using a chaos
theory model, Butz, Chamberlain, and McCown (1997)
wrote, “The interplay of individual needs and the needs of
the relationship sometimes flows smoothly, and sometimes
is turbulent and chaotic” (p. 73).
Attachment experiences build the capacity for and inter-
est in developing intimacy as development progresses. “In-
timacy is not only important to family relationships, it is
the necessary, albeit not sufficient, ingredient for human
survival” (L’Abate, 1986, p. 227). “In the process of relat-
ing to another over time, we weave the fabric of separate-
ness and togetherness into the complex tapestry of inti-
macy” (Butz et al., 1997, p. 74). Expanding on the work of
Menninger (1958) and Malan (1979), this level can also be
depicted by a triangular configuration, which captures the
processes of dyadic interpersonal relationships. The lower
corner represents past relationships and the relational sche-
mas and attachment systems that are used to guide current
relationships (upper-right corner) and expected relation-
ships (i.e., therapeutic relationship) in the upper-left corner.
All relationships are based on internalized relational sche-
mata based on attachment experiences and family and ex-
trafamilial relationships.
Four main findings summarizing the research with im-
plications for psychotherapy and relational researchers are
presented by Anderson, Reznik, and Glassman (2005):
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
 1. Significant-other representations are activated auto-
matically in transference.
2. Affect arises relatively automatically in transference
when the significant-other representation is activated.
3. The relational self is activated relatively automati-
cally when the significant-other representation is
activated.
4. Some self-regulatory processes in the relational self
are evoked in the response to “threat” (e.g., negative
cues) in transference and may be automatic. (p. 423)
Relational–triadic matrix: Domains and processes that
operate in three-way relationships. The relational–triadic
matrix depicts what transpires in unstable dyads (Bowen,
1978), and “it is the instability of dyads that produces rela-
tionship triangles” (Guerin, Fogarty, Fay, & Kautto, 1996,
p. 8). Again, the processes can be depicted with a triangu-
lar configuration. At the bottom of the triangle is a third
(triangulated) person, and the top two corners represent
two people in a dyad. An unstable dyad is one in which
each member is relatively undifferentiated, which refers to
both emotional differentiation, or what has been termed
emotional intelligence, as well as self– other differentiation,
which refers to appropriate boundaries. Since this type of
dyad does not effectively maintain intimacy and closeness
in a regulated way—they tend to try to fuse or are overly
distant, or they fluctuate wildly between the two poles—
they tend to spill their emotions into third parties in an
attempt to stabilize the dyad. “When individuals are caught
in triangles, their freedom of movement is severely circum-
scribed” (Guerin et al., 1996, p. 24), and “a person emo-
tionally trapped in a triangle is likely, by virtue of being
trapped, to suffer some loss of function” (p. 31). In three-
somes, as opposed to triangles, there is a lack of emotional
reactivity. Triangles are in effect defenses, which can allow
a relationship to continue without change.
Sociocultural–familial matrix: Processes and domains
that operate among larger social systems. The sociocul-
tural–family matrix is the macrosystem in which the indi-
vidual, couples, families and groups, and culture operate
and have mutual influence. “The defining features of the
human species—such as using language and passing on
inventions and adaptations to subsequent generations—are
our cultural heritage” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 64). Cultural values
and memes, which are social units transmitted like genes
only socially (Dawkins, 1976), have a powerful impact on
the components and processes identified as occurring at
other levels of the personality system. Prager (1995) wrote,
“Cultural values with respect to intimacy likely affect the
importance individual dyad members place on intimacy in
their families” (p. 237). The value placed on intimacy var-
ies from culture to culture. “Especially apparent is the in-
terplay between partners’ personality characteristics, such
as private self-consciousness, need strengths, relationship
beliefs, and intimate relationships” (Prager, 1995, p. 238).
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Culture also confers identity and so is linked to all four
levels of the human personality system. Prager (1995) de-
scribed what she termed the cultural community:
A community involves generations that move through it, with
customary ways of handling the transitions of generations. To
continue to function, a community also adapts with changing
times, experimenting with and resisting new ideas in ways
that maintain core values while learning from changes that are
desired or required. (p. 81)
Complexity and Chaos Are Characteristics of the
Biopsychosocial System
Margaret Mead (1978) wrote, “Stated at its simplest, any
whole system—a single organism, an island ecosystem, our
planet, the solar system—is subject to imbalances within
itself” (p. 150). Ecological and human systems are complex
and subject to chaotic states. Gribbin (2004) described a
complex system as one “that is made up of several simpler
components interacting with one another” (p. 144). Human
systems also self-organize in a persistent drive for survival,
adaptation, and replication. Chaos theory has offered a new
conceptual tool for understanding complexity in systems
(Gleick, 1987). Chaos theory views the functioning of
complex systems as basically unpredictable and prone to
random fluctuations inherent in the system that can cause
destabilization and reordering. According to chaos theory,
small perturbations in the components of a system may
lead to cascading effects with enormous consequence.
Within complex systems there appear to be patterns that
replicate the order of each level. This is comparable to
what many clinicians call parallel process where, for exam-
ple, staff issues on an inpatient treatment unit are mirrored
in patient conflict. Psychotherapists often describe seeing
someone’s core issues played out in various, often chaotic-
appearing relational patterns.
Relationships Are the Central Process of Human
Adaptation, Function, and Dysfunction
The relational matrix is the ultimate unifying principle of
human development and of psychotherapy. It plays a cen-
tral role in shaping and influencing human function and
dysfunction. Human beings are essentially relational, con-
ceived and raised in a richly complex relational matrix,
which is shaped by evolutionary processes to ensure sur-
vival and transmission of the gene pool. Family units re-
main the main units of socialization within society and
transmit values and mores through memes (Dawkins, 1976)
just as genes transmit biological data. Humans are defined
by relationships and the attachment drive is necessary for
survival and the development of civilization.
The primacy of relationships. It has been well docu-
mented in primate studies (Harlow & Harlow, 1962) and
naturalistic observation of infant deprivation (Spitz, 1947),
that a lack of sufficient attachment can lead to a cata-
887
strophic breakdown of the developing infants’ survival ca-
pacity, which may not be reparable (Blum, 2002). It be-
came clear from Harlow and Harlow’s (1962) work that
primates require an affectionate attachment for optimal de-
velopment; food alone is not enough. Harlow and Harlow
were able to move beyond the conditioning paradigm of
their era, demonstrating the necessity of studying the
mother–infant relationship. The importance of part–whole
relationships was observed from a clinician’s perspective
by Winnicott (1964), who said “there is no such thing as
an infant, only a mother– child dyad” (p. 88). The process
of psychotherapy uses relational factors to stimulate heal-
ing and growth. The quality of the therapeutic relationship
is probably the most robust aspect of therapeutic outcome
(Norcross, 2002). Techniques and strategies are also impor-
tant, but it is through the quality of the psychotherapeutic
relationship that they can be delivered to and used by the
patient.
The basic building block of the relational matrix—The
attachment system. The primacy of the attachment sys-
tem in human development and psychopathology is well
documented (King, Ferris, & Lederhendler, 2003). When
the communicative elements of the infant–mother attach-
ment system are not optimal, emotional and self develop-
ment will most likely be disrupted. “Dysregulation of this
central integrating process will undermine successful self-
organization, which may produce various forms of distur-
bances in emotional regulation and lead to mental suffer-
ing” (Siegel, 1999, p. 87). Attachment experience is
retained cognitively, as relational schemata:
Specifically, as bundles of knowledge, significant-other repre-
sentations are used to interpret and respond to new people,
and in the process the chronic tendency to have particular
kinds of relationships as linked with these significant others
comes into play, much as relational schemas do. (Anderson et
al., 2005, p. 423)
Affective processes prime the relational system and acti-
vate neurobiological structures (i.e., pruning nonactivated
neuronal connections and networks), spawn language de-
velopment, and create a crucible for the emergent self.
Affect Is a Convergent Force for Human Development
and Function of Personality Systems
Ancient Greek philosophers were interested in the emo-
tions, but the first contemporary in-depth exploration of
emotion was Darwin’s (1872/1998) treatise, The Expres-
sion of the Emotions in Man and Animal, considered by
many the beginning of affective science. Since then, a
renewed interest in the scientific study of affect has
been experiencing an explosive growth spurt across dis-
ciplines. It is an exciting time for those who are inter-
ested in affective science (Davidson, 2000). Emotion
may play a crucial role in consciousness (Damasio,
888
1999) and is of great interest to relational scientists
(Synder, 1999). Emotions may be uniquely evolved ad-
aptation mechanisms, which have assured human sur-
vival, so far. Emotion orients our response system by
alerting us to what we need to pay attention to in our
stimulus field and what we need to respond to and how
quickly we need to do so. All psychopathology seems to
involve problems with emotional regulation and func-
tions. “Emotional disturbances are common to almost all
psychopathological conditions, ranging from eating dis-
orders to schizophrenia” (Berenbaum, Raghavan, Le,
Vernon, & Gomez, 2003, p. 206). Emotion is also a pri-
mary force in conceptualizing how personality is orga-
nized (Block, 2002; Magnavita, 2002a). Barlow (2000),
a major figure in cognitive– behavior treatment, wrote,
“The growing recognition of the necessity of focusing
on emotional experience and expression as a scientific
subject in its own right is highlighted by the appearance
of the new APA [American Psychological Association]
journal Emotion” (p. 1249). It is now commonly ac-
cepted that the study of cognition and emotion are in-
separable (Magnavita, in press). Researchers have sup-
ported what clinicians have observed: “The affect
associated with the representation emerges in facial ex-
pressions evoked rather immediately in transference”
(Anderson et al., 2005, p. 425).
The power of emotion to act as an attractor state can
be illustrated in the relationships among trauma, mem-
ory, affective experience, neurobiological structure–func-
tion, and personality dysfunction. Evidence from multi-
ple lines of research shows that trauma can induce a
state of overwhelming affect, releasing too much corti-
sol, which initiates cascading feedback loops, likely af-
fecting the volume of the hippocampus (Teicher, 2002),
which is in part responsible for emotional processing
(Davidson, 2000). The emotional circuit may become
stuck in positive feedback loops whereby the implicit
memory of the situation is activated without conscious
awareness when triggered by environmental or internal
stimuli. Conscious memory of the event is often lost and
only retained in the overactive emotional reaction pat-
terns. Emotion becomes a convergent point through
which the system expresses its dysfunction. Psychother-
apy can restore the system by dyadic emotional regula-
tion, reorganization, and restoring memory by reconsoli-
dating the experience cortically, thus transferring the
disconnected memory of traumatic incidents to long-
term narrative memory. Anderson et al. (2005) wrote,
“The simplest affective finding emerging from our work
is that the activation of significant-other representations
elicits the affect typically experienced in relation to the
significant other, as in the theory of schema-triggered
affect” (p. 438).
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
 Personality and Psychopathology Are Emergent
Phenomena That Can Be Depicted by a Holographic
Representation
Personality, psychopathology, mind, and consciousness
may be considered emergent phenomena of complex per-
sonality and relational systems. Schwartz and Begley
(2002) described this term: “An emergent phenomenon is
one whose characteristics or behaviors cannot be explained
in terms of the sum of its parts; if mind is emergent, then
it cannot be explained by the brain” (p. 350). Personality
and psychopathology are emergent phenomena that exist as
an expression of a complex system’s function and adapta-
tion. Although psychologists can describe and measure per-
sonality and psychopathology, they are not concrete entities
but expressions of a system viewed and understood in rela-
tional terms.
It is possible to view various levels of the system to
enhance the understanding of the factors and processes that
converge in particular constellations, but each perspective
is limited. There has been interest recently in using the
concept of a hologram to represent phenomena in physics
and neuroscience; the hologram has useful features for rep-
resenting personality and psychopathological expression as
well (Talbot, 1991). A hologram is a three-dimensional
representation, the perception of which changes depending
on the angle from which it is viewed. It is an image that
represents multiple part–whole relationships expressed in
unity. The view changes with each perspective taken. A
holonic assessment requires that many views of the person-
ality functioning and psychopathology are considered so
that a three-dimensional view can be held in consciousness.
Of course, this is never fully achievable. A holonic ap-
proach eschews single perspective views of complex emer-
gent phenomenon.
Complex Systems Are Self-Organizing and Tend to
Replicate Themselves at Different Domain Levels
In a previous publication, I explored the use of a combina-
tion of general system theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) and
chaos theory as a lens with which to view personality, psy-
chopathology, and psychotherapy (Magnavita, 2005b).
Other clinical theorists have been exploring and developing
similar frameworks to understand psychotherapy (Angyal,
1941; Butz et al., 1997).
Chaos theory basically views complex systems as self-
organizing entities, which are prone to states of random
fluctuations and disequilibrium, and therefore are nonlinear
in their dynamic process. Within a system are attractor
states where elements of the system are drawn together or
converge. Attractor states or patterns may be represented in
various ways by different theorists and can include early
maladaptive schema, reenactment patterns, kindling (net-
works that are activated together are more prone to being
activated again), transference, repetitive maladaptive
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
schema, core issues, and so forth. Thus, these are essential
organizational patterns in which a number of processes
converge and are replicated. Complex systems are prone to
random fluctuations or induced fluctuations, which can re-
sult in a major reorganization of the system. In fact, small
perturbations in systems can lead to a cascade of major
change. Developmental trajectories are a good example of
complex systems establishing steady states, experiencing
disorganization, and reorganizing at a higher level of
complexity.
Emotion primes the attachment system and ensures opti-
mal development for the neonate. This dyadic regulation is
conducted like a jazz riff: The infant expresses itself and
the mother responds; the infant reacts and the frame ex-
pands. Emotional dysregulation is a common feature of
many personality and affective disorders. On the basis of
his synthesis of neuroscientific findings, Cozolino (2002)
summarized the complexity of interactions and mutual
feedback systems:
Nowhere are these organizing principles more evident than in
psychotherapy. Clients continue to see themselves, the world,
and others as a function of their experiences in early relation-
ships, despite much evidence to the contrary. This anachronis-
tic world view is mediated through the power of negative
learning during the early development of the social brain, and
is resistant to change. Self-identity is an emotional and con-
ceptual spin-off of the self experienced in a relationship; in
other words, the individual emerges from the dyad. The core
sense of self, world, and others generated from negative early
experiences affects all domains of life, making the individual
vulnerable to deficits in social and occupational functioning,
physical illness, and psychopathology later in life. (p. 179)
Complex systems evolve, moving through various stages
by a dialect process between stable state and reorganiza-
tion. This process occurs by increasing the differentiation
of part–whole relationships, which can lead to destabiliza-
tion or chaos, which usually leads to self-organization at a
higher level of differentiation and a new level of integra-
tion. Thus, change, including positive change, is seldom
linear and more prone to disruption.
The Challenges for Psychotherapists
Psychotherapists are continually required to process enor-
mous amounts of data, organize the information, and
through a process of pattern recognition, make educated
judgments about the cause of psychopathology. They need
to figure out how to harness change processes and deter-
mine where in the ecological system the most efficient in-
tervention can occur to alleviate suffering and enhance ad-
aptation. The practice of psychotherapy requires extended
training to develop internal models of psychopathology,
family dysfunction, and developmental processes which
can be used to organize the massive amounts of informa-
tion that are communicated by individuals and families.
889
The use of a unified framework demands much of the psy-
chotherapist, as multiple domains of knowledge need to be
absorbed and organized. This requires more than technical
skill alone; a deep understanding of complex systems and
their domains is necessary.
Conclusions
The call from the National Institute of Mental Health to
enter a stage of translation research makes unification sci-
ence an urgent challenge to clinical scientists. Clinicians
who are inundated with massive amounts of information
from multiple sources need a framework with which to
organize this knowledge and apply it appropriately in their
treatment of individuals, couples, families, and social sys-
tems that are in states of chaos and dysfunction. A compo-
nent system model of unified psychotherapy allows various
vital subsystems of the total ecological biopsychosocial
sphere to be elaborated and corroborated using new tools
of clinical science such as those of neuroscience, nonlinear
statistics, and audiovisual and computer technology.
Author’s Note
Jeffrey J. Magnavita, Glastonbury Psychological Associ-
ates, Glastonbury, Connecticut, and Graduate Institute of
Professional Psychology, University of Hartford.
Correspondence concerning this address should be sent
to Jeffrey J. Magnavita, Glastonbury Medical Arts Center,
300 Hebron Avenue, Suite 215, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
E-mail: MagnaPsych@aol.com
References
Adler, J. (2006, March 27). Freud in our midst. Newsweek,
43– 49.
Anchin, J. C. (in press). Pursuing a unifying paradigm for
psychotherapy: Tasks, dialectical considerations, biopsy-
chosocial metatheory. Journal of Psychotherapy Integra-
tion.
Anderson, S. M., Reznik, I., & Glassman, N. S. (2005).
The unconscious relational self. In R. R. Hansen, J. S. Ule-
man, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 421–
481). New York: Oxford University Press.
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personal-
ity. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Barlow, D. H. (2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety
and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory.
American Psychologist, 55, 1247–1263.
Berenbaum, H., Raghavan, C., Le, H.-N., Vernon, L. L., &
Gomez, J. J. (2003). A taxonomy of emotional distur-
890
bances. Clinical Psychology: Practice and Science, 10,
206 –226.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science.
American Psychologist, 54, 260 –266.
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing sys-
tem: Toward an integrative theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and
the science of affection. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice.
New York: Aronson.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop-
ment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Butz, M. R., Chamberlain, L. L., & McCown, W. G.
(1997). Strange attractors: Chaos, complexity, and the art
of family therapy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Callenbach, E. (1998). Ecology: A pocket guide. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Cappas, N. M., Andres-Hyman, R., & Davidson, L. (2005).
What psychotherapists can begin to learn from neuro-
science: Seven principles of brain-based psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42,
374 –383.
Cozolino, L. J. (2002). The neuroscience of psychotherapy:
Building and rebuilding the human brain. New York: Nor-
ton.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body
and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York:
Harcourt.
Darwin, C. R. (1998). The expression of the emotions in
man and animal (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press. (Original work published in 1872).
Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology,
and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity. American
Psychologist, 55, 1196 –1214.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psy-
chotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of
emotion: Fundamental questions. New York: Oxford Press.
Ezriel, H. (1952). Notes on psychoanalytic group therapy:
Interpretation and research. Psychiatry, 15, 119 –126.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E., & Target, M. (2002).
Affect regulation, mentalization and the development of the
self. New York: Other Press.
Gabbard, G. O. (2005). Mind, brain, and personality disor-
ders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 648 – 655.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New
York: Viking/Penguin Books.
Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental
investigations. New York: Academic Press.
Gribbin, J. (2004). Deep simplicity: Bringing order to
chaos and complexity. New York: Random House.
Guerin, P. J., Fogarty, T. F., Fay, L. F., & Kautto, J. G.
(1996). Working with relational triangles: The one-two-
three of psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation
in monkeys. Scientific American, 203, 136 –146.
Hassin, R. R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005).
The new unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
King, J. A., Ferris, C. F., & Lederhendler, I. L. (Eds.).
(2003). Roots of mental illness in children. New York:
New York Academy of Science.
L’Abate, L. (1986). Systemic family therapy. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Magnavita, J. J. (1997). Restructuring personality disor-
ders: A short-term dynamic approach. New York: Guilford
Press.
Magnavita, J. J. (2000). Relational therapy for personality
disorders. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002a). Psychodynamic approaches to
psychotherapy: A century of innovations. In F. W. Kaslow
(Series Ed.) & J. J. Magnavita (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive
handbook of personality disorders: Psychodynamic/object
relations (Vol. 1, pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist
Magnavita, J. J. (2002b). Theories of personality: Contem-
porary approaches to the science of personality. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of personality
disorders: Theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2005a). Personality-guided relational psy-
chotherapy: A unified approach. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Magnavita, J. J. (2005b). Systems theory foundation of
personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. In S.
Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and psychopathol-
ogy (pp. 140 –163). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Magnavita, J. J. (2006). Emotion in short-term psychother-
apy: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In
Session, 62, 517–522.
Magnavita, J. J. (in press). Toward unification of clinical
science: The next wave in the evolution of psychotherapy?
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Malan, D. H. (1979). Individual psychotherapy and the
science of psychodynamics. London: Butterworth.
Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new
view of personality help integrate psychology? American
Psychologist, 60, 294 –307.
Mead, M. (1978). Culture and commitment: New relation-
ships between generations in the 1970⬘s. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press.
Menninger, K. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique.
New York: Basic Books.
Millon, T., Grossman, S., Meagher, S., Millon, C., & Ev-
erly, G. (1999). Personality-guided therapy. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Norcross, J. C. (Ed.). (2002). Psychotherapy relationships
that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to
patients. New York: Oxford University Press.
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New
York: Guilford Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human develop-
ment. New York: Oxford University Press.
891
Rychlak, J. F. (1973). Introduction to personality and psy-
chotherapy. A theory construction approach. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and the repair of
the self. New York: Norton.
Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the
brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New
York: HarperCollins.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neu-
robiology of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford
Press.
Spitz, R. (Producer). (1947). Grief: A peril in infancy
[Silent film]. (Available from the Archives of the His-
tory of Psychology, Penn State University, http://www
.mediasales.psu.edu)
Staats, A. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Phi-
losophy and method for a unified science. New York: Prae-
ger.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069 –1079.
Stolovizky, G., & Califano, A. (2006, March/April). Sys-
tems biology: Making sense of oceans of biological data.
Update: New York Academy of Sciences, 20 –33.
892
Stricker, G., & Gold, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Comprehensive
handbook of psychotherapy integration. New York: Plenum
Press.
Synder, D. K. (1999). Affective reconstruction in the con-
text of a pluralistic approach to couple therapy. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 348 –365.
Talbot, M. (1991). The holographic universe. New York:
Harper Perennial.
Teicher, M. H. (2002). Scars that won’t heal: The neurobi-
ology of child abuse. Scientific American, 286, 68 –75.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foun-
dations, development, applications. New York: Braziller.
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1– 4.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge.
New York: Knopf.
Winnicott, D. W. (1964). The child, the family and the out-
side world. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin.
November 2006 ● American Psychologist