Cognitive and Psychodynamic Approaches to Depression: Surprising Similarities, But Remaining Key Differences: Commentary on Aaron T. Beck, Emily A. P. Haigh, and Kari F. Baber's Paper

When it comes to the connections between models of depression and neurobiology—not to mention the similarities and contrasts between cognitive therapy and psychoanalysis—there is much to say! However, because space is limited here for these commentaries, I will focus briefly on just a few points.

This contribution by Beck, Haigh, and Baber (2012) provides a useful summary of some of the neurobiological findings on depression, as well as brain changes after cognitive therapy for depression. The authors argue that these findings support cognitive therapy's model of depression. Some of the points in their essay are well taken, including the need to operationalize what is specific about psychoanalytic treatment and to foster studies of the effects of psychodynamic treatment on brain processes, particularly in depression. Furthermore, their assertions of deep similarities between cognitive therapy and psychodynamic approaches are, indeed, interesting.

The authors' general description of cognitive therapy's approach includes a model in which some cognitions are represented at a deep level, sometimes operating out of awareness and able to be activated out of awareness, which is not surprising to psychodynamic clinicians. Moreover, their emphasis on the role of top-down and bottom-up dysregulation in depression is also reminiscent