{
  "abstract": "Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is widely regarded as the most scientifically grounded form of psychotherapy, owing to the extensive evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. This article argues that this reputation increasingly rests on borrowed credibility. CBT was originally founded on a coherent theoretical framework rooted in learning theory and experimental psychology. It has since become an umbrella label for a heterogeneous set of protocols and techniques, from Beck's cognitive therapy to mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches, schema therapy and EMDR, that share neither theoretical assumptions nor a common research base and that differ markedly in empirical support. Under this label, newer approaches inherit the scientific prestige earned by well-validated protocols without having to demonstrate their own connection to basic psychological research. I contend that CBT, as a unified framework, is no longer a scientific theory: individual protocols may be scientific, but only insofar as they combine empirical validation with theoretical coherence and a link to basic research. I examine the epistemological inconsistencies among the main strands of CBT, the limits of the trial evidence on which its status rests, and the conditions a psychotherapy must meet to be considered scientific. To prevent further fragmentation, I propose reconnecting psychotherapy with general psychology and learning theory, grounding new protocols in explicit theory, complementing randomized trials with modern single-case experimental designs, and ultimately moving toward a psychotherapy without adjectives.",
  "abstract_shown": true,
  "affiliations": [],
  "article_type": null,
  "arxiv": null,
  "author_total": 1,
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "Aristide Saggino"
    }
  ],
  "bibtex": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/19mshb5a1jtn2.bib",
  "cited_by": 0,
  "doi": "10.31234/osf.io/gbkxy_v1",
  "fulltext_url": null,
  "id": "19mshb5a1jtn2",
  "issns": [],
  "landing_url": "https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/gbkxy_v1/",
  "language": null,
  "licence": "CC-BY-4.0",
  "licence_label": "CC BY 4.0",
  "licence_source": "article",
  "licence_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "metadata_licence": null,
  "native_subjects": [
    [
      "bepress",
      "Clinical Psychology"
    ],
    [
      "bepress",
      "Social and Behavioral Sciences"
    ],
    [
      "openalex",
      "3203|Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications"
    ]
  ],
  "openalex": "W7223050189",
  "pdf_url": "https://osf.io/gbkxy/download",
  "pmcid": null,
  "pmid": null,
  "published": "2026-10-20",
  "publisher": null,
  "ris": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/19mshb5a1jtn2.ris",
  "sources": [
    {
      "first_seen": "2026-10-30T12:20:17Z",
      "native_id": "gbkxy",
      "source": "osf",
      "url": "https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/gbkxy_v1/"
    }
  ],
  "subjects": [
    {
      "field": "medicine",
      "origin": "bepress:Clinical Psychology",
      "subfield": "psychiatry"
    }
  ],
  "title": "From Learning Theory to Fragmentation: CBT and the Problem of Borrowed Scientific Credibility",
  "title_text": "From Learning Theory to Fragmentation: CBT and the Problem of Borrowed Scientific Credibility",
  "type": "preprint",
  "updated_at": "2026-10-30T12:20:17Z",
  "url": "https://research.draconitic.com/paper/19mshb5a1jtn2",
  "venue": "PsyArXiv",
  "versions": []
}