Rediscovering and Preserving Individual Psychology: A Mission to Be Continued
Rediscovering and Preserving Individual Psychology: A Mission to Be Continued
The Journal of Individual Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 1, Spring 2023
Alfred Adler, the founder of Individual Psychology, created a holistic psychological system that has influenced the development of many other theories as well as counseling practice. This article presents a call to rediscover and preserve Individual Psychology by dis.cussing its educational, social, and practical relevance in counseling and drawing attention to its current challenges. This article also provides implications for counseling and counselor training in light of rediscovering and preserving Individual Psychology.
Keywords: Individual Psychology, counseling, counselor education, professional identity, theoretical orientation
Alfred Adler (1870–1937) developed a holistic theory of psychology, pedagogy, and philosophy of living that is widely referred to as Individual Psychology. Many of Adler’s ideas were revolutionary and far ahead of his time (e.g., Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2018; Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). In 1937, Adler remarked,
“Those of you who really understand Individual Psychology and have learned to apply it, carry a heavy responsibility” (de Vries, 2014, p. 277). Alexander Mueller, first a student and later a close colleague of Adler who contributed to Individual Psychology in Holland after World War II, concluded and predicted in 1955: “Adler has not yet been fully understood. He will have to be rediscovered from the roots up, by a future generation” (de Vries, 2014, p. 278). Maslow (1970) noted: “The times have not yet caught up with Adler” (p. 39). De Vries (2014) further expressed that “certain aspects of what goes under the name of Individual Psychology would not readily be recognized by their originator” (p. 277). Similarly, Stein (2014) addressed the importance of understanding Adler in his original expression to authentically represent Individual Psychology. Despite the long-standing influences of Individual Psychology, Sperry (2020) warned of the demise of Adler’s theory and practice. These scholars have seemed to express a shared concern that Individual Psychology has been either insufficiently or inappropriately applied for decades. With a humble yet heavy sense of responsibility, we would like to call for a rediscovery and preservation of Individual Psychology in the broader counseling community, following de Vries (2014).
OUR RATIONALE
The rationale of our call to rediscover and preserve Individual Psychology is multifold. Epistemologically, McAdams (1994) credited Adler with “a very eclectic and original theory . . . which draws on, and has had a major influence on, a number of diverse approaches” (p. 688), including those of Allport, Erikson, Bandura, Rogers, and Maslow. To different degrees, Adler’s vision can be seen as having carried over to later theories including neo-Freudianism, existentialism-humanism, cognitive/ rational-emotive, and postmodernism (Sperry, 2020; Watts & Pietrzak, 2000). Ansbacher (1995) pointed out that “as ‘eclectic,’ we should remember that, chronologically, Adler comes first” (p. 767). Many of Adler’s ideas, however, have quietly permeated modern psychological thinking, often without full recognition (Prochaska & Norcross, 2010), possibly because of the conceptual synergy shared across theories. Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and Victor Frankl are among the few theorists who acknowledged a debt to Adler’s thought (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020).
Conceptually, Individual Psychology has been misrepresented in the literature and counselor training since the passing of its founder (Stein, 2014; Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). For example, goals of misbehavior (Dreikurs & Soltz, 1964) and personality priorities (Kfir, 1981) are two concepts deemed to be Adlerian, yet Adler did not coin those terms or develop their operational definitions. It is important to credit originators while addressing the differences, if any, in theoretical underpinnings and therapeutic styles. Such awareness is fundamental to trainees who are developing their theoretical leanings and counselors who strive for theoretical allegiance.
Counselor training per se, a solid theoretical orientation, is foundational to professional counselors’ conceptualization and treatment of clients (Werries, 2015) and is emphasized from the beginning of counseling programs (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs, CACREP, 2015). Theoretical orientation is essential to counselors’ professional identity (Calley & Hawley, 2008; Strope, 2019; Weber, 2020), a construct that involves “self-labeling as a professional, integration of skills and attitudes as a professional, and a perception of context in a professional community” (Gibson et al., 2010, p. 21). In cultivating trainees’ theoretical orientation and professional identity development, counselor educators are charged with introducing theories with fidelity and accuracy. A review of numerous theory textbooks for master’s level counselors-in-training (e.g., Corey, 2017; Fall et al., 2017; Neukrug, 2017; Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2018; Wedding & Corsini, 2018) revealed that students may be introduced to a range of 11 to 14 theories and Individual Psychology is typically one of them. Noteworthily, many students and counseling practitioners identify Individual Psychology as “most compatible with their beliefs and values and therefore [they] want to practice it” (Sperry, 2020, p. 79).
To rediscover Individual Psychology ourselves, we engaged in a refreshing examination of the theory from the roots up. Specifically, we approached the epistemological roots of Individual Psychology. We then scrutinized the challenges facing Individual Psychology in contemporary counseling practice. To gain an authentic and holistic understanding of Individual Psychology, we deemed it necessary to be acquainted with historical and cultural contexts concerning the development of Individual Psychology. Such contexts are retrievable from key sources (e.g., Adler, 1927/2002; Furtmüller, 1964; Griffith & Maybell, 2020; Hoffman, 1994; Manaster et al., 1977). The rationale for our call should be situated in the educational, social, and practical relevance of the theory in counselor practice and education. It is beyond the scope of this article to compare Individual Psychology with other theories.
EPISTEMOLOGICAL ROOTS
Over the years of developing and refining his theory, Adler acknowledged individuals who had influenced his theory development. The epistemological roots of Individual Psychology are found, for example, in the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), the socialism of Karl Marx (1818–1883), the will to power of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), the holism of Jan Smuts (1870–1950), Socrates’s questioning (470–399 B.C.E.), the feminism of Mathilde Vaerting (1884–1977), and the fictional finalism of Hans Vaihinger (1852–1933) (Adler, 1927/2002, 1956; Ellenberger, 1970; Watts, 2000). Admittedly, the listed examples are not comprehensive.
Two examples are provided here. First, Individual Psychology takes a holistic approach. Contrary to Freud’s tripartite understanding of human beings—id, ego, superego—Adler (1930/1947) understood humans as wholes and that their thoughts, feelings, actions, dreams, memories, and physiology, all leading in the same direction, are expressive of the totality of the person. Note that holism is also reflected in the name Individual Psychology. Individual, with the Latin root individuus, means “indivisible.” Second, Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy have been understood as constructivist. Constructivists (e.g., Neimeyer, 1995) believe that what we know is influenced by the frames through which we view events, and that everything we know depends on how we interpret and assign meanings. Adler’s views on personality development reflect social constructionism in which human development is constructed by sociocultural development and environment and can be understood only in such context (Griffith & Maybell, 2020; Watts, 2003).
Moreover, Adler’s view resonates with cognitive constructivism in that humans are active, creative agents in co-constructing their development (Watts, 2003). Thus, Adler’s theory and philosophy account for both the socially embedded nature of knowledge and the personal agency of creative individuals within a web of relationships (Carlson & Sperry, 1998; Watts, 2003). In particular, Watts (2003) asserted that Individual Psychology reflects a relational constructivist approach, between the cognitive constructivist and social constructivist approaches, affirming that individuals must be understood contextually because it is in relationship that we understand ourselves, others, and the world around us. Indeed, Michael Mahoney and Robert Neimeyer willingly acknowledged that Adler’s Individual Psychology is a proto-constructivist theory (Watts, 2000).
TARDY BUT INCOMPLETE RECOGNITION
The value of Individual Psychology has been discovered and recognized by numerous scholars—Adlerians and non-Adlerians—who have recognized Adler as ahead of his time in many contemporary ways (e.g., Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2018; Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). However, many of Adler’s ideas have quietly permeated modern psychological thinking, often without full recognition (Prochaska & Norcross, 2010). Ellenberger (1970) noted:
There is a puzzling phenomenon of a collective denial of Adler’s work in the systemic attribution of anything coined by him to other authors. . . . It would not be easy to find another author from which so much has been borrowed from all sides without acknowledgement of Alfred Adler. His teaching has become, to use a French idiom, an “open quarry” (une carrière publique), that is, a place where anyone and all may come and draw anything without compunction. (p. 645)
The possibility of widespread plagiarism, as indicated in Ellenberger’s quote, might explain this puzzling phenomenon. Second, one of the reasons behind the claim that Adler was ahead of his time is that Adler developed a holistic, phenomenological, and socially constructivist theory, which was incongruent with the determinism of the late 1890s and early 1900s (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). Notably, Freudians perceived Adler as a dissident (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). Similarly, behaviorists falsely portrayed Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy as unscientific (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). Therefore, “most of the creators of many contemporary approaches . . . may not have been properly introduced or attended to the pioneering work of Adler” (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020, p. 104). As such, it might not be so puzzling that after Adler died in 1937, theorists who discovered ideas similar to Adler’s but used different nomenclature gave him little or no acknowledgment (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020).
In addition to Adler’s popular publications (e.g., Adler, 1927/1954, 1931, 1956), his articles from 1898 through 1937 were not widely accessible in multiple languages until the early 2000s (Wolf, 2015). In the 1990s, Kurt Adler, Sophia de Vries, Gerald Liebenau, Cohen Koen, and others took on the mission of translating Adler’s clinical works from the original German to English under the editorship of Henry Stein (Qu, 2022; Mansager, 2014). This eventually led to the publication of The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler (Adler, 2002–2006). Comparably, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud was translated and published initially from 1953 through 1974, and The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, from 1953 through 1980. The inaccessibility of Adler’s original works for a substantial time attributed to Adler’s absence in literature and may have compromised recognition of Individual Psychology.
CHALLENGES IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF COUNSELING
This article calls for counselors and counselor educators to rediscover and preserve Individual Psychology. This call is rooted in the theory’s lack of recognition and the several challenges it faces in contemporary counseling, including misrepresentations of Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy in academic textbooks, training programs, and journal articles (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). For example, Individual Psychology is described as neo-Freudian or hardly recognized as humanistic psychology (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020). Simplifications of Adler’s theory of personality, philosophy of living, and strategies for treatment are widespread (Mansager & Griffith, 2019). Birth order, for example, is placed in the public spotlight almost as equivalent to Adler’s theory, yet it is only one branch of influence on an individual’s personality development.
The second challenge concerns counseling practice and education at large. That is, among Adlerian scholars, there are different interpretations of Individual Psychology (Mansager & Griffith, 2019). These different interpretations constitute the theoretical foundations from which counselors practice and educators teach. For example, human beings’ primary motivation has been one central debatable point. Adler (1956) held that the primary motivation is striving for superiority: “a striving from a felt minus position towards a plus situation” (p. 1). Adlerians who follow Adler’s theory and philosophy practice and teach Individual Psychology accordingly. Rudolf Dreikurs (1971), one of Adler’s well-known students and expositors, had a different interpretation that “the basic social motivation of each human being is the desire to belong” (p. 116). Adlerians who agree with the latter, practice and teach accordingly. Concerningly, whether a self-identified Adlerian is aware of these theoretical differences remains unknown and requires exploration. What is more, these fundamental differences are not commonly known outside the Adlerian community.
Notably, these theoretical differences are marked, as they raise questions about theoretical application and operationalization across counseling, supervision, and education. One example is how treatment is carried out and how changes occur. The four-stage treatment (Carlson et al., 2006; Dreikurs, 1969) widely disseminated in academic textbooks (e.g., Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2018) offers one interpretation of Adler’s theory and practice. The 12-stage Adlerian treatment (Stein, 2013) offers another lesser-known approach in practice and academia. Such disparity prompts questions such as the following: Which actions have been taken to learn to adopt Adler’s original principles and therapeutic style? How close do the proposed Adlerian models reflect Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy? What justice issue will need to be addressed when the proposed Adlerian models embrace different theoretical underpinnings from Adler’s but have labeled them “Adlerian”? Seeing Adlerian psychology as an inclusive term, it might be important to note that the -ian suffix does not necessarily mean that something belonged to Adler. Instead, it implies that something is derived—in part or whole—or influenced by Adler. That is, “Adlerian” means “of, like, or influenced by Adler’s thought” not “Adler’s ideas.”
Third, the survival of Individual Psychology has been challenged by the evidence-based practice movement (Sperry, 2020; Travis, 2021). Currently, Individual Psychology is not recognized as an empirically supported treatment. The provision of holistic treatment, a core feature of Individual Psychology, is not emphasized in the evidence-based practice movement (Brown et al., 2020; Travis, 2021). One of the reasons scholars are critical of this movement and the direction it is heading is the reductionist stance that focuses on symptom reduction (Shedler, 2010). With the evidence-based approach dominating mental health, the incompatible epistemological stances are further marginalizing Individual Psychology and moving it more deeply into a place of obscurity (Brown et al., 2020).
Moreover, in predicting the future of psychotherapy practice in the year 2022, 70 psychotherapy experts warned of the demise of Adlerian therapy (Norcross et al., 2013). Watkins and Guarnaccia (1999) noted that establishing Adlerian counseling and therapy as an evidence-based approach was absolutely essential to its survival. In 2020, Sperry reiterated that “unless it becomes evidence-based, the Adlerian approach will join the many other non-evidence-based approaches that have not survived or will not survive” (p. 81). However, many Adlerian practitioners are wary of embracing an evidence-based approach to mental health treatment (Sperry, 2020). This wariness joins practitioners and scholars from other schools of theory (e.g., Shedler, 2010).
A consequential and fourth challenge is reimbursement (Sperry, 2020). Only evidence-based approaches qualify for third-party reimbursement; Adlerian counseling thus is not reimbursable. Given its essential practicality, counseling trainees face external factors when choosing a preferred theoretical orientation in training. Glenn (2015) indicates that students are more interested in the Adlerian approach than other theoretical approaches; however, they opt to practice cognitive behavioral therapy because it is evidence-based and reimbursable. Although a small clientele is willing to self-pay, the challenges that the Individual Psychology community is facing cannot be overlooked.
HOW RELEVANT IS INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY TO OUR WORLD?
The challenges discussed here require effective and immediate tackling, especially given their high relevance to the counseling field and larger society. As a positive and holistic theory, Individual Psychology emphasizes prevention, growth, competence, creativity, and social usefulness. Practitioners of Individual Psychology have addressed social equality issues and the sociocultural context of understanding humankind long before multiculturalism became chic in counseling and psychotherapy (Brown et al., 2020; Watts, 2003).
Despite being a passionate proponent of gender equality, Adler’s ideas about gender and gender equality were restricted by his time (Mansager, 2008). Families comprising non-heterosexual partnerships would likely not have presented in Adler’s time (Brown et al., 2020). Adler (1978) perceived individuals who identified as gay and lesbian as lacking appropriate social interest. These viewpoints are discriminatory and entail correction (Brown et al., 2020; Mansager, 2008). Mansager (2008) called for a continuing “self-critical, healing process” to ensure that the theory “continues to be responsive to current psychological situations” (pp. 132–133). Despite the rigid cultural leanings of his time, Adler was optimistic about the uniqueness of each relationship while invariably stressing the social meaning of a family, the social nature of difficulties and challenges, and the social key to solving them (Brown et al., 2020).
Adler’s holistic approach is highly relevant to interdisciplinary research devoted to understanding human nature and change. For instance, Adler understood the unity of mind and body. He described this unity as organ jargon, indicating that physical symptoms are expressions of psychological distress (Adler, 1908/2002). Empirical evidence to support Adler’s claims can be derived from interdisciplinary research, such as psycho-neuroimmunology, which studies the relationship between the central nervous system and the immune system (Griffith & Maybell, 2020).
Adler believed that the ultimate purpose of counseling is to help individuals contribute to the social evolution of humanity. However, Adler advised that individuals should not be content only to treat mental health issues; instead, individuals should make every effort to prevent them (Manaster et al., 1977). As such, Adler’s practical wisdom embraces preventive education as the primary frontier for social improvement (Hoffman, 2020), the knowledge of which is highly relevant to raising socially conscientious and contributing individuals.
In his time, Adler taught parents, educators, and health-care professionals that virtually all children could overcome their problems to lead successful adult lives. A medical doctor by training, Adler was aware of the many ways that children’s emotional and physical development can go awry (Hoffman, 2020). Parent education and teacher education— joined with individual counseling, couple counseling, child and family therapy, group counseling, career guidance and counseling, and organizational consulting—present a full mental health service to the community under the umbrella of a single, unified model (Stein & Edwards, 1998/2012). This optimistic and holistic approach remains to be enacted fully in contemporary society. The teachings of Individual Psychology— the feeling of community, social equality, cooperation, and contribution to the common welfare of all—are desperately needed in counseling and beyond (Watts & Bluvshtein, 2020).
WHERE DOES INDIVIDUAL PSYCHOLOGY TAKE US FROM HERE?
For various scholars, Adler’s most important contribution to the field of counseling is his influence on other theoretical systems. To rediscover and preserve the influence of Individual Psychology, we make several bold suggestions. With regard to counselor training, Individual Psychology can be incorporated into various CACREP (2015) counseling curricula, such as professional counseling orientation and ethical practice (2.F.1),
social and cultural diversity (2.F.2), human growth and development (2.F.3), counseling and helping relationships (2.F.5), and group counseling and group work (2.F.6).
Adler’s holistic conceptualization of personality development can offer a distinct perspective to counselor practice and training. Adler (1956) referred to “the child as both the canvas and the artist” (p. 177). As such, the development of an individual is influenced by both heredity and environment, inclusive of social and cultural diversity; furthermore, human development is influenced by individuals’ interpretation of external reality and their relation to it (Adler, 1956). Adler (1956) further noted, “An educator’s most important task . . . is to see to it that no child is discouraged at school, and that a child who enters school already discouraged, regains his self-confidence through his school and his teacher” (p. 399). Counselors practicing in schools are charged with not only providing reactive services but also cultivating personality development of students on the socially useful side of life regardless of their prior experiences.
Individual Psychology provides effective ways to identify discouragement and to conceptualize it as a mistaken conclusion developed by the child that impedes their confidence and self-esteem (Bettner, 2020). Adler’s teachings on child guidance and parent and teacher education (e.g., Adler, 1929, 1930/1947) may be a valuable resource for counselors’ preventive services. From an Individual Psychology lens, counseling train.ees can gain knowledge and skills postulated in CACREP (2015) pertaining to practicing in schools, such as family consultation (5.G.2.b), risk factors and signs (5.G.2.g), factors related to academic achievement (5.G.3.h), and strategies for implementing and coordinating peer intervention programs (5.G.3.m). For example, accepting the premise that every movement of the person is motivated by a striving to overcome feelings of inadequacy, the counselor can assist stakeholders with understanding purposes behind a child’s manifested behavior and to evaluate its social usefulness. The counselor then may work with the stakeholders to explore possibilities to reach the goal of being and feeling socially useful. This allows the counselor and stakeholders to focus on what can be done and educate the child in a socially conscious and responsible direction.
That said, the inclusion of Individual Psychology begets authentic representation of the theory itself. The widespread simplifications of Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy in textbooks, training programs, and journal articles deserve close attention and action. To this end, self-identified Adlerians may collaborate with authors of interest to reach an authentic representation of the theory. Models derived from Adler’s original teachings should be introduced with their integration of additional elements, and authors who integrated additional elements with Individual Psychology should be credited. In addition, counselor educators embrace equal responsibility for disseminating authentic teaching on Individual Psychology. Misrepresentations of the theory pose injustice to the theory itself, pushing it further to the margins. In considering theoretical fidelity, we recommend that instructors consider incorporating theorists’ original writings, without exception of Adler’s.
For individuals who embrace Adlerian psychology in their professional identity, by thoroughly embedding oneself in Adler’s theory and philosophy, time and effort will allow them to understand and apply Adler’s clinical methodology, just like any other. Adler’s popular books, such as Understanding Human Nature (Adler, 1927/1954), What Life Should Mean to You (Adler, 1931), and Social Interest (Adler, 1933/1938), provide a robust introduction to his theory and philosophy for students and the general public. However, they are insufficient for practitioners. The twelve-volume Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler (2002–2006) contains a full range of Adler’s theoretical constructs, which Adler repeatedly applies to diverse difficult cases. Albeit a formidable reading challenge, reading and digesting Adler’s authentic theory, practice, and philosophy will allow students, practitioners, and educators to absorb Adler’s full knowledge of human behavior.
Equipping oneself with Adler’s original writings contributes to professional identity development as an Adlerian and corresponding theoretical application in counseling. Client welfare is on the receiving end, influenced by the actions of practitioners, educators, and systemic factors (Halbur & Halbur, 2015). When responsibility of Adlerian practitioners is not ensured, it poses concerns in theoretical application, treatment, and ultimately client welfare. Counselors and educators acknowledge each client as a unique cultural and social being. As such, each client’s uniqueness speaks to the creativity in the client’s personality development, which is influenced by heredity and environment. Similarly, the personality of each practitioner makes that practitioner’s therapeutic approach inimitable. Adler demonstrated that the practitioner’s personality must be congruent with the philosophy of the therapy (Hoffman, 1994; Stein, 2013). Hence, self-identified Adlerian practitioners and educators embrace the responsibilities of rediscovering and preserving Individual Psychology.
CONCLUSION
For counselors, having a theory to rely on is foundational to their conceptualization and treatment of clients, as well as their professional identity. We risk losing Adler’s legacy if fewer and fewer educators, practitioners, and students learn (or are provided with) his theory and philosophy. Counselors and scholars have voiced concerns about this crisis for more than half a century (e.g., de Vries, 2014; Stein, 2014). Adler’s theory and philosophy have not received justice; they deserve attention from the broader counseling community. His unique synthesis of counseling, pedagogy, and philosophy guides practitioners toward socially just and cooperative living by building socially useful characters; as Stein (2014) says, “Adler deserves no less” (p. 275). Similarly, Hoffman (2020) noted, “In so many areas of the human psyche, Adler was a bold and inspiring explorer” (p. 151). Adler’s theory, practice, and philosophy are by our side, within reach, inspiring generations, present and future. To achieve that by action, the mission to rediscover and preserve Individual Psychology needs to be continued.
REFERENCES
Adler, A. (1929). The science of living. Lowe and Brydone. Adler, A. (1931). What life should mean to you (A. Porter, Ed.). Little Brown. Adler, A. (1938). Social interest: A challenge to mankind (J. Linton, & R.
Vaughn, Trans.). Faber and Faber. (Original work published 1933) Adler, A. (1947). The education of children (E. Jensen & F. Jensen, Trans.). George Allen & Unwin. (Original work published 1930) Adler, A. (1954). Understanding human nature: A key to self-knowledge
(W. B. Wolfe, Trans.). Fawcett. (Original work published 1927)
Adler, A. (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his writings (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.). Basic Books.
Adler, A. (1978). Cooperation between the sexes: Writings on women, love and marriage, sexuality and its disorders (H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds. and Trans.). Doubleday.
Adler, A. (2002–2006). The collected clinical works of Alfred Adler: Volumes 1–12 (H. T. Stein, Ed., & C. Koen & G. L. Liebenau, Trans.). Classical Adlerian Translation Project.
Ansbacher, H. L. (1995). Giving psychology away: The life of Alfred Adler. Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews, 40(8), 767–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/003879
Archer, J., & McCarthy, C. J. (2007). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: Contemporary applications. Pearson. Bettner, B. L. (2020). Are Alfred Adler and Rudolf Dreikurs relevant for parents today? Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 70–78. Brown, K. S., Londergan, K., & Bluvshtein, M. (2020). And they lived happily ever after: An intimate closeness of systems and Adlerian theories
in the case of a transgender couple. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 128–140.
Calley, N. G., & Hawley, L. D. (2008). The professional identity of counselor educators. Clinical Supervisor, 27(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080 /07325220802221454
Carlson, J., & Sperry, L. (1998). Adlerian psychotherapy as a constructivist psychotherapy. In M. F. Hoyt (Ed.), The handbook of constructive therapies: Innovative approaches from leading practitioners (pp. 68–82). Jossey-Bass.
Carlson, J., Watts, R. E., & Maniacci, M. (2006). Adlerian therapy: Theory and practice. American Psychological Association.
Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10th ed.). Cengage.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP Standards.
de Vries, S. J. (2014). Striving for authenticity. Journal of Individual Psychology, 70(4), 277–279.
Dreikurs, R. (1969). Psychodynamics, psychotherapy, and counseling. Alfred Adler Institute.
Dreikurs, R. (1971). Social equality: The challenge of today. Adler School of Professional Psychology.
Dreikurs, R., & Soltz, V. (1964). Children: The challenge. Hawthorn Books.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The discovery of the unconscious: The history and evolution of dynamic psychiatry. Basic Books.
Fall, K. A., Holden, J. M., & Marquis, A. (2017). Theoretical models of counseling and psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.
Furtmüller, C. (1964). Alfred Adler: A biographical essay. In A. Adler, Superiority and social interest: A collection of later writings (3rd ed.,
H. L. Ansbacher & R. R. Ansbacher, Eds., pp. 310–394). Norton.
Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 21–38.
Gladding, S. T. (2004). Counseling: A comprehensive profession (5th ed.). Pearson.
Glenn, K. (2015). Can you relate? Counseling Today, 58(5), 48–52.
Griffith, G., & Maybell, S. A. (2020). Adler’s original contributions to psychology. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 21–30. Halbur, D. A., & Halbur, K. V. (2015). Developing your theoretical orientation in counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). Pearson. Hoffman, E. (1994). The drive for self: Alfred Adler and the founding of Individual Psychology. Addison-Wesley.
Hoffman, E. (2020). Alfred Adler: The man who understood superheroes. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 149–151.
Holm, J., Bevly, C., & Proseck, E. (2018). The relationship between counseling students’ theoretical orientation and treatment outcomes. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 11(2). https://re pository.wcsu.edu/jcps/v0111/iss2/4
Kfir, N. (1981). Impasse/priority therapy. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Handbook of innovative psychotherapies (pp.400–415). Wiley.
Kottler, J. A., & Balkin, R. S. (2017). Relationships in counseling and the counselor’s life. American Counseling Association.
Manaster, G. J., Painter, G., Deutsch, D., & Overholt, B. J. (Eds.). (1977). Alfred Adler: As we remember him. North American Society of Adlerian Psychology.
Mansager, E. (2008). Editor’s notes: Affirming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Journal of Individual Psychology, 64(2), 123–136.
Mansager, E. (2014). Editor’s notes: Classical Adlerian Depth Psychotherapy: The congruence of a theory. Journal of Individual Psychology, 70(4), 269–272.
Mansager, E., & Griffith, J. (2019). Respecting differences: Theoretical variance between Adler and Dreikurs. Journal of Individual Psychology, 75(3), 216–230.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
McAdams, D. P. (1994). The person. Harcourt Brace.
Neimeyer, R. A. (1995). Constructivist psychotherapies: Features, foundations, and future directions. In R. A. Neimeyer & M. J. Mahoney (Eds.), Constructivism in psychotherapy (pp. 11–38). American Psychological Association.
Neukrug, E. (2017). Counseling theory and practice (2nd ed.). Cognella Academic.
Norcross, J. C., Pfund, R. A., & Prochaska, J. O. (2013). Psychotherapy in 2022: A Delphi poll on its future. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(5), 363–370.
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2010). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (7th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
Qu, X. (2022). Adlerian identity development from a Classical Adlerian perspective. Journal of Individual Psychology, 78(1), 145–151. https:// doi.org/10.1353/jip.2022.0020
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98–109.
Sommers-Flanagan, S., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2017). Counseling and psychotherapy theories in context and practice: Skills, strategies, and techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Sperry, L. (2020). Adlerian therapy yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 79–83.
Sperry, L., & Binensztok, V. (2018). Adlerian Pattern-Focused Therapy: A treatment manual. Journal of Individual Psychology, 74(3), 309–348. https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2018.0025
Spruill, D., & Benshoff, J. (2000). Helping beginning counselors develop a personal theory of counseling. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40(1), 70–80.
Stein, H. T. (2013). Classical Adlerian Depth Psychotherapy Volume I: Theory & practice: A Socratic approach to democratic living. Alfred Adler Institute of Northwestern Washington.
Stein, H. T. (2014). Rediscovering Adler. Journal of Individual Psychology, 70(4), 273–276.
Stein, H. T. (2020). An inspiring legacy: Sophia J. de Vries. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 43–45.
Stein, H. T., & Edwards, M. E. (2012). Appendix B: Classical Adlerian the.ory and practice. In H. T. Stein & L. J. Stein (Eds.), A clinician’s guide to “The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler”: A unified system of depth psychotherapy, philosophy, & pedagogy. Classical Adlerian Translation Project. (Originally published in 1998)
Strope, R. G. (2019). The lived experiences of counselors-in-training developing a theoretical orientation (Order No. 27603029). [Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Travis, S. P. (2021). A Delphi study: How, can, and should Individual Psychology demonstrate efficacy and effectiveness given evidence-based practice evaluation standards? Journal of Individual Psychology, 77(1), 4–23.
Vaihinger, H. (1925). The philosophy of “as if”: A system of the theoretical, practical and religious fictions of mankind. Harcourt, Brace.
Watkins, E., & Guarnaccia, C. (1999). The scientific study of Adlerian theory. In R. Watts & J. Carlson (Eds.), Interventions and strategies in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 207–230). Accelerated Development/Taylor & Francis.
Watts, R. E. (2000). Entering the new millennium: Is Individual Psychology still relevant? Journal of Individual Psychology, 56(1), 21–30.
Watts, R. E. (2003). Adlerian therapy as a relational constructivist approach. Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480702250169
Watts, R. E., & Bluvshtein, M. (2020). Adler’s theory and therapy as a river: A brief discussion of the profound influence of Alfred Adler. Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(1), 99–109.
Watts, R. E., & Pietrzak, D. R. (2000). Adlerian “encouragement” and the therapeutic process of solution-focus brief therapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1002 /j.1556-6676.2000.tb01927.x
Weber, B. W. (2020). Counselor viewpoints on the formation of theoretical orientation (Order No. 28154971). [Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Wedding, D., & Corsini, R. J. (Eds.). (2018). Current psychotherapies (11th ed.). Cengage.
Werries, J. R. (2015). Factors associated with the choice of a theoretical orientation for master’s level counselors-in-training (Order No. 10629202). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Cumberlands]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Wolf, J. J. (2015). Historical notes: Henry T. Stein’s development of Classical Adlerian Depth Psychotherapy training and the Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler. 2015 UK Adlerian Year Book, 167–189.
Xiaoxuan Qu is a doctoral student in counseling and counselor education at Syracuse University. Her research interests surround the theory and application of Individual Psychology, professional identity development, and mentorship.
Yanhong Liu is an associate professor and the doctoral counseling and counselor education program coordinator with Syracuse University. Her research covers marginalized youth, international faculty and students in counseling, and counselor education.
Copyright of Journal of Individual Psychology is the property of University of Texas Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
This article is shared with the generous permission of its author, Xiaoxuan Qu, Ph.D., NCC.