The psychoanalytic and Adlerian theories are valuable components of psychoanalytical methods. Unlike the psychoanalytic model, the Adlerian value meaning, actions with a certain goal, and significant existence. Therefore, the latter theory studies adult or childhood behavior in cases of full conscience (Corey, 2017). On the other hand, psychoanalytic focus on personality development and, therefore, commonly prioritize unconscious factors to understand certain behavior (Corey, 2017). One significant similarity between the two theories is their practicality in helping psychoanalysts explain complex human feelings and motives, typically in adulthood.
The strengths and limitations of each theory are generally related to their therapeutic methodologies and success rates among psychoanalysts. In this way, a key strength of the psychoanalytic approach is its universal application, as its elements can be slightly modified to fit diverse cultural standards (Corey, 2017). At the same time, the theory may seem problematic in some environments due to its ambiguous nature and a limitation to its practical value (Corey, 2017). Moreover, the Adlerian approach is strongly recommended for engaging in any social context and realistic methods (Corey, 2017). Yet its methods are also difficult to comprehend for people who do not wish to relive their past experiences.
Each theory contains elements that could prove to be compatible or incompatible with Christian concepts. For example, religious issues such as doubt and guilt may be contradictory regarding the methodology of either approach (Tan, 2011). Specifically, this is relevant for the Adlerian theory, which involves the exploration of past experiences. Still, by noting ways Christian concepts could be integrated into modern theories, the author highlights their compatibility. The mentioned Christian virtues go well with the psychoanalytical model’s levels of consciousness. Any measurable outcomes for clients may be limited due to the abstract concepts of psychoanalytical therapy; to create measurable outcomes, the therapist must restrict the dominance of unconscious impulses (Schwitzer & Rubin, 2014). One major factor that could limit the effectiveness of Adlerian therapy is improper group work, and individual stress (Schwitzer & Rubin, 2014). Therefore, psychopathologists must consider such limitations to improve the measurable outcomes of their practices.
References
Corey, G. (2017). Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy. International Thomson Publishing.
Schwitzer, A. M. & Rubin, L. C. (2014). Diagnosis and treatment planning skills: A popular culture casebook approach (DSM-5 update). SAGE Publications.
Tan, S-Y. (2011). Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian perspective. Baker Academic.