For now over 100 years, there has been a major divide between the scientific approach to psychoanalysis and how psychoanalysis is typically structured. In recent years — mostly because of significant advances in neuroscience, neuropsychology, and biopsychology — psychoanalysis has been under heavy scrutiny. In short, because psychoanalysis often involves clinical sessions with a patient over a period of time — days, months, week, years — a major criticism of psychoanalysis is it is not rigorously measurable.
For example, a more traditional, scientific approach to psychoanalysis would be to have a patient complete proctored tests or other measurable experiments, individually and/or in a group setting, over a period of several clinical sessions, Then, the output could perhaps help better determine a session’s efficacy on helping a patient, and whether there is a measurable improvement with each session.
Otherwise, as the psychoanalysis skeptics have pointed out, it makes it more difficult to determine how well a patient improves. In fact, multiple studies conducted within the past 30 years have shown mixed results as to whether patients undergoing psychoanalysis improve remarkably, or whether psychoanalysis is really any more effective than being involved in a support group or other non-clinical setting.
This, of course, also affects psychoanalytic theories, as while some theories are developed from scientific investigation, how the theories are applied to diagnosing and treating patients can appear a bit subjective without scientific experimentation. For instance, some of Freud’s theories (though, in this case, I use the term “theory” a bit loosely, as Freud did not delve deeply into scientific experimentation, but instead focused more on free association) have been heavily questioned and modified throughout the past century.
Other famous psychologists and psychoanalytic theories have not received a free pass either: Another core complaint among psychoanalysis critics is that psychoanalytic theories deal more with forming hypotheses and conclusions, yet without a whole lot of empirical evidence to back up the assertions. Some critics have even called psychoanalytic theories “pseudoscience”.
Interestingly though, with the major advances in neuroscience and genetic research, some findings have been linked to Freud’s early interest in the relationship between our biological infrastructure and personality disorders. In other words, although some of Freud’s theories may have been off the mark, his ideas about biological factors in behavioral development weren’t too far off the grid.
In addition, there has been a rise in interdisciplinary programs across the scientific and medical communities. That is, let’s say a person is suffering from a behavioral disorder and also has occasional seizures: An interdisciplinary study on that person could involve a neurologist, a neuroscientist, a psychologist, a physical therapist, psychiatrist, and a geneticist, all of whom work together on a more holistic treatment plan, or at least a better understanding of the biological and environmental issues involved.
And that trend doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon. It doesn’t mean that psychoanalytic theories have no place in treating personality or behavioral disorders, but it does mean that if psychoanalysis is to remain a viable treatment option, it must find a way to meet science in the middle, or become more science based as a whole.
Paris, J. (2017). Is Psychoanalysis Still Relevant to Psychiatry?. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5459228/
Willemsen, J. (2017). Clinical Case Studies in Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Treatment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288375/
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2013). Personality: Theory and research (12th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.