Abstract

This commentary serves as a reply to Hoffart and Johnson’s article contending that psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDT) models cannot be examined with regard to mechanism of change or represent within-person causal relationships. Hoffart and Johnson cite purportedly paradigmatic examples of PDT and cognitive therapy and examine them with respect to Kazdin’s requirements for investigation of mechanisms of change. We highlight inaccuracies in Hoffart and Johnson’s representation of PDT and, in doing so, provide reasoning in support of the empirical examinability of PDT. We conclude by recommending a metatheoretical system (i.e., functionalism) and empirical methodologies that clinical scientists may consider when investigating mechanisms of PDT in the future.