Does Clinical Psychology Dismiss New Treatments Too Easily?
I’ve noticed that some clinical psychologists dismiss certain therapies outright due to a “lack of evidence,” but what actually counts as evidence seems pretty arbitrary. The replication crisis has shown that even many “gold standard” psychological treatments - like CBT - aren’t as empirically solid as once thought. Yet, some treatments (like EMDR, somatic therapy, or psychedelic-assisted therapy) get dismissed outright, even when replicated studies and real-world effectiveness suggest they work.
Psychology’s Evidence Problem
The replication crisis showed that many foundational psychology studies don’t hold up, yet clinical psychology continues relying on them.
CBT is still widely accepted despite research showing its effect sizes have declined over time (possibly due to inflated early results).
RCTs (randomized controlled trials) dominate treatment approval, even though they don’t always reflect real-world clinical practice.
Are Some Therapies Dismissed Due to Bias?
Many psychologists dismiss EMDR as “just exposure therapy plus distraction,” even though neuroimaging and memory reconsolidation research suggest it may function differently.
Psychedelic-assisted therapy was ignored for decades due to its countercultural associations, yet recent rigorous studies show profound efficacy for PTSD and depression.
Somatic and trauma-focused approaches are often called “woowoo,” despite growing evidence that the body plays a key role in processing trauma.
The Politics of “Evidence-Based” Treatments - “Evidence-based” often means “fits our current model” rather than “what actually helps patients.”
The medical and insurance model favors CBT and exposure therapy because they are structured, brief, and easy to study - not necessarily because they are the most effective for all patients.
Therapies that challenge traditional cognitive models (like IFS, somatic therapy, or EMDR) face resistance even when they show equal or better clinical outcomes.
The Field Needs More Open-Mindedness
If we accept that CBT and exposure therapy aren’t perfect, shouldn’t we also give newer approaches a fair evaluation?
The resistance to new models seems less about science and more about ideology, career incentives, and institutional power.
Psychologists should be pluralistic - supporting multiple treatment modalities as long as they are effective, instead of rigidly defending existing paradigms.
I’m curious - how do you think clinical psychology should balance skepticism with openness to new treatments? Is the field too quick to dismiss approaches that don’t fit the traditional cognitive-behavioral framework?