Disclosure and acknowledgment
The author is the developer of Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment, which is discussed in this article. The evidence presented is drawn from published, peer‑reviewed studies, and the author has attempted to present it fairly. During the writing process, he selected the main points for discussion, formulated the arguments, and discussed them with two AI language models (Deepseek and Claude). The AIs also helped with literature search and offered suggestions for the content, structure, and wording of the manuscript, all of which were carefully reviewed by the author and revised as necessary. All conclusions are the author’s own, based on the evidence.
Abstract
For over four decades, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has maintained an uncontested hegemony within global mental health care, positioned by clinical guidelines as the undisputed “gold standard.” However, a rigorous deconstruction of clinical outcomes data reveals substantial limitations: high long‑term relapse rates, a failure to outperform stripped‑down behavioral treatments in dismantling studies, and an over‑reliance on a “top‑down” prefrontal cognitive architecture that contradicts the subcortical neurobiology of emotional distress, whether arising from trauma, anxiety, depression, or other common psychological conditions. This article analyzes the socio‑political, economic, and institutional forces that manufactured CBT’s dominance. It argues that CBT’s popularity is not a reflection of superior biological or clinical truth, but rather a perfect alignment with the transition to managed corporate healthcare, the commodification demands of modern psychiatry, the hyper‑individualistic imperatives of neoliberal economics, and the structure of the academic “publishing factory.” Finally, it presents Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment – a fundamentally different alternative that abandons cognitive mediation in favor of direct behavioral control and naturalistic recovery mechanisms – and explores its far‑reaching social, political, and philosophical implications for psychotherapy and social change.
Keywords: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, CBT, Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment, CFBT, political economy of psychotherapy, anxiety reduction, resilience, learned helplessness, fear as social control, collective action, empowerment, natural recovery, neoliberalism, third‑wave therapies, pragmatism, mental health hegemony, trauma treatment, decolonization of psychotherapy
Introduction: The disconnect between efficacy and hegemony
In the philosophy of science, the dominant adoption of a paradigm is rarely a pure reflection of objective empirical superiority; instead, it is often driven by institutional power and structural utility (Kuhn, 1962). Within clinical psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) enjoys an unprecedented monopoly. It dictates university curricula, dominates state‑funded healthcare blueprints (such as the UK’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies program), and commands the vast majority of insurance reimbursements globally (Layard, 2012).
Yet, a deep rift exists between this institutional status and the empirical reality of CBT’s performance. The clinical and theoretical shortcomings of CBT and its derivatives – including the failure of cognitive restructuring to add incremental benefit over purely behavioral treatments, high relapse rates, and the neurobiological mismatch of top‑down cognitive interventions – have been extensively detailed in a previous analysis (Başoğlu, 2026). The present paper will focus on the political economy, socio‑political, and philosophical implications of the anxiety‑reduction paradigm, and offer an alternative framework based on Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment (CFBT).
From an evolutionary and neurobiological standpoint, CBT’s core reliance on a “top‑down” intervention – using logical prefrontal reasoning to control subcortical amygdala‑brainstem fear circuits – is highly inefficient during states of intense emotional arousal, whether triggered by trauma, anxiety, panic, or other automatic fear responses, when noradrenergic surges actively take the rational prefrontal cortex offline (Başoğlu et al., 2011). Fear responses are primarily conditioned subcortically, and they are not easily overridden by rational reappraisal (Mineka & Zinbarg, 2006). Why, then, has an intervention that is structurally cumbersome, heavily intellectualized, and biologically mismatched to the non‑cognitive roots of emotional suffering remained the undisputed global gold standard? The answer lies outside the laboratory, embedded in the corporate, economic, and ideological shifts of late‑twentieth‑century society.
The economics of managed care: The insurance‑driven commodification of therapy
The foundational engine of CBT’s rapid ascent was the sweeping structural transformation of the Western medical industry during the late 1970s and 1980s, known as the Managed Care Revolution (Starr, 1982). Prior to this shift, the psychotherapeutic landscape was heavily dominated by psychodynamic, psychoanalytic, and existential‑humanistic models. These paradigms viewed human suffering through a holistic, developmental, and often lifelong lens. Session volumes were open‑ended, treatments routinely lasted for years, and outcomes were qualitative rather than strictly quantitative.
To the rising corporate insurance industry and managed behavioral healthcare organizations, this open‑ended model represented an unpredictable, uncontrollable financial risk (Grob, 1994). Insurance adjusters demanded that mental health care fit into the exact same standardized, predictable, finite cost containers as physical medicine: a specific diagnosis, a fixed dose, and a pre‑determined termination date.
CBT was uniquely optimized to satisfy this corporate appetite. By manualizing treatment into highly structured, time‑limited blocks—typically 8 to 16 weekly sessions—CBT transformed therapy from an intangible, relational art into a predictable, standardized commodity (Beck, 1976). A 12‑session CBT manual for panic disorder functioned precisely like a course of antibiotics: it possessed a clear start date, an automated session‑by‑session agenda, measurable weekly homework sheets, and a definitive end date.
Insurance companies systematically favored CBT because it allowed them to strictly ration mental health care, cap financial liabilities, and mathematically predict expenditures per insured life (Kiesler, 1992). Alternative models were aggressively phased out of reimbursement lists not because they were clinically inferior, but because their open‑ended, relational, and non‑manualized structures were inherently incompatible with corporate accounting models.
The medical model symbiosis: CBT as big pharma’s psychological partner
The rise of CBT perfectly coincided with the “biological revolution” in psychiatry, which marked the rapid ascent of modern psychopharmacology and the mass marketing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac (Healy, 1997). Psychiatry as an institution was undergoing an epistemological shift, re‑classifying complex human existential and relational distress as discrete, biological brain disorders or chemical imbalances requiring medical stabilization (Kirk & Kutchins, 1992).
This medicalization of distress created a massive systemic conflict with traditional talk therapies. Psychoanalysis or radical behaviorism viewed symptoms as deeply rooted symbols of developmental conflict or environmental conditioning, explicitly challenging the reductionist “broken brain” narrative of biological psychiatry. CBT, conversely, formed a highly profitable, symbiotic alliance with the pharmaceutical‑psychiatric complex. It accepted the premise of discrete DSM diagnostic categories without question. It did not treat a symptom as a profound systemic adaptation to environment or history; instead, it classified it as a localized “maladaptive cognitive mechanism” or a “faulty information‑processing error” that required targeted technical correction (Ellis, 1962).
This allowed for the creation of the “Combined Treatment” blueprint—the gold‑standard economic driver of modern clinical psychiatry (Klerman et al., 1994). A patient could be rapidly diagnosed with a discrete DSM label, handed an antidepressant prescription by a psychiatrist to handle their neurochemistry, and simultaneously referred to a short‑term CBT technician to fix their “irrational thoughts.”
CBT did not challenge the medicalization of human suffering; it provided a matching, technical, and manualized psychological mechanism that legitimized it. This institutional alignment gave CBT access to the vast financial, marketing, and educational funding apparatuses of psychiatric university departments and pharmaceutical‑sponsored healthcare boards, effectively squeezing alternative paradigms out of institutional existence.
The ideological fit: Neoliberalism and the individualization of systemic trauma
Psychotherapy paradigms do not develop in an ideological vacuum; they inevitably mirror and reinforce the political and economic systems that host them (Foucault, 2008). The meteoric rise of CBT in the late twentieth century directly paralleled the global ascent of neoliberal capitalism, championed by political regimes that prioritized hyper‑individualism, deregulation, and the systematic erosion of social safety nets (Harvey, 2005).
The core philosophical axiom of neoliberalism is that the individual is entirely responsible for their own economic, social, and physical destiny. Failure, poverty, or displacement are not viewed as systemic injustices, but as failures of personal willpower, adaptability, and human capital optimization (Rose, 1999). Traditional CBT provides the perfect psychological translation of this political ideology. By asserting that an individual’s emotional suffering is dictated not by their material conditions, socioeconomic environment, or structural trauma, but by their internal cognitive distortions and irrational interpretations, CBT effectively internalizes and individualizes systemic pain (Smail, 2005). This framing has been extensively criticized for shifting blame onto victims of oppression, poverty, and violence (Harris, 2002; Dalal, 2019).
For corporate employers, state welfare agencies, and neo‑liberal governments, CBT functions as an exceptional tool for social pacification and cost‑containment. If a displaced worker faces profound situational depression, or a citizen faces chronic anxiety due to systemic economic instability, CBT instructs them to stop “catastrophizing,” reframe their interpretations, fill out thought records, and behaviorally adapt to the status quo. By treating structural suffering as a personal information‑processing error, CBT protects the socio‑political system from critique, shifting the entire burden of well‑being onto the isolated individual.
The academic publishing factory: Confirmation bias and the illusion of rigor
The final pillar sustaining CBT’s institutional monopoly is the structural design of the modern university system and academic publishing boards. Within contemporary clinical psychology research, a powerful methodological confirmation bias has mistaken ease of manualization for absolute empirical truth (Wampold et al., 2017). Because CBT is highly manualized, linear, and explicitly oriented around short‑term, itemized symptom checklists (such as the Beck Depression Inventory), it is perfectly optimized for the university research ecosystem. It is incredibly easy for a graduate student or university researcher to secure a small grant for a rigid 12‑week intervention, select a tightly controlled, homogeneous sample of patients, train undergraduate research assistants to mechanically follow a session manual, administer a pre‑and‑post symptom checklist, and run standard linear statistical equations.
This structure allows for a rapid, automated assembly line of academic publishing. Consequently, the sheer volume of CBT publications grew exponentially compared to any other modality. Global public health bodies (such as NICE guidelines in the United Kingdom) operate on aggregate publication volume metrics; they inevitably crown CBT as the “most evidence‑based” therapy simply because its linear, manualized structure allows it to be the most easily researched and published therapy. Quantity was mistaken for quality, creating a self‑perpetuating cycle where CBT continues to win the vast majority of research funding, academic chairs, and clinical guidelines based on an illusion of empirical superiority manufactured by its own structural compatibility with academic publishing pipelines.
What is missing? The neglect of natural recovery and behavioral control
Notably absent from the CBT research agenda is any serious engagement with the phenomenon of natural recovery – the fact that a substantial proportion of individuals with common psychological disorders, including anxiety, depression, and trauma‑related conditions, recover spontaneously without any formal intervention (Başoğlu et al., 2011). Natural recovery typically involves self‑directed exposure to feared situations and the gradual rebuilding of a sense of control. CBT, by contrast, substitutes this innate, evolutionarily conserved process with a labor‑intensive cognitive apparatus that often adds little to outcome.
Moreover, the insistence on cognitive mediation ignores a vast literature from ethology and evolutionary psychology showing that avoidance behaviors are extinguished through direct action, not through rational reappraisal (Kavaliers & Choleris, 2001; Lima, 1998). Treatments that focus purely on behavioral activation or exposure without cognitive restructuring have been shown to be equally effective, if not more so, for anxiety and trauma‑related disorders (Foa et al., 1999; Livanou et al., 2002). This has led a growing number of researchers to question whether the cognitive component is anything more than a post‑hoc rationalization of behavioral change (Longmore & Worrell, 2007; Teachman et al., 2019).
The political economy of anxiety reduction: Resilience as a force for socio‑political change
The emphasis on anxiety reduction as the central aim of therapy reflects a puritanical mindset dominant in Western cultures, where anxiety is viewed as an emotion that must be eradicated to attain human ‘happiness.’ This outlook has become deeply embedded in Western mental healthcare systems, fueling a multi‑billion‑dollar pharmaceutical industry and a multitude of psychotherapy practices, most of which prioritize reducing anxiety through diverse methods rather than building resilience to cope with it.
Anxiety reduction does not necessarily mean increased resilience. Moreover, the pursuit of anxiety reduction can serve a quiet political function: it helps maintain a specific social order by keeping the potentially transformative nature of anxiety in check. Historically, anxiety or fear has been a catalyst for significant social and political reforms and progress. At the same time, it has been wielded by ruling elites as a tool to subjugate populations. The mass prescription of anxiolytics in contemporary Western societies parallels the function of opium in 19th‑century China: a chemical pacification that dampens distress, reduces the likelihood of collective action, and helps preserve the status quo (Robin, 2004; Horwitz & Wakefield, 2007).
CBT, by prioritizing anxiety reduction through cognitive reappraisal, implicitly encourages individuals to adapt to the status quo. It teaches that the problem is not the threatening environment but one’s “irrational” interpretation of it. In contrast, a therapy that restores a sense of control and resilience – without demanding cognitive compliance – could become an instrument of liberation rather than adaptation. If the goal of therapy is not anxiety reduction but something else – something that does not pacify but empowers – then a fundamentally different approach is needed. The following section presents such an approach.
Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment: Theoretical basis and distinctive features
CFBT is grounded in a learning theory that identifies exposure to unpredictable and uncontrollable stressors as the primary cause of traumatic stress responses (Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992). Research has consistently shown that stressor unpredictability and uncontrollability – not merely severity – produce the most profound behavioral and neurochemical changes. Consequently, treatment must focus on restoring controllability. CFBT is designed to enhance the sense of control over anxiety and fear, a capacity termed resilience. Resilience is defined here as “the capacity to exert sufficient control over stressful events by employing cognitive and/or behavioral strategies to either prevent the stressor, or, if unavoidable, take reasonable steps to protect oneself from its harmful effects, use strategies to reduce associated distress, or simply endure or tolerate it without losing control” (Başoğlu & Mineka, 1992). This definition has been validated in torture survivors, where psychological preparedness – measured by political commitment, prior knowledge, and stoic training – was the strongest predictor of low PTSD rates despite massive trauma exposure (Başoğlu et al., 1997).
CFBT focuses exclusively on avoidance behaviors using only live (in‑vivo) exposure, with no cognitive restructuring, imaginal exposure, relaxation training, or any other anxiety‑reduction technique. The goal of exposure is to enhance the sense of control, not to achieve habituation; therefore, exposure need not continue until anxiety subsides, and it is recommended as often as possible. Unlike most psychotherapies, CFBT does not require a safe environment and can be applied under ongoing threat (e.g., war, aftershocks). Indeed, such conditions offer opportunities to build resilience through exposure to unconditioned anxiety stimuli, which produce stronger effects than conditioned stimuli (e.g., trauma reminders). In safe settings, simulated unconditioned stimuli (e.g., earthquake tremors) can be used. The treatment is highly cross‑culturally applicable, suitable for individuals with low education, and very brief – typically 1‑2 sessions for earthquake survivors and an average of 6 sessions for war and torture survivors (which can be reduced to 1-3 sessions for most cases if treatment is terminated after 1 to 3 sessions). Importantly, exposure is only one of many possible procedures under CFBT; any intervention that effectively enhances the sense of control – over specific stressors or over life in general – can be incorporated. Thus, CFBT has a far broader range of tools than traditional exposure treatments, with the sense of control as its unifying core concept.
Meta‑analytic comparison (see Başoğlu, 2022) shows that CFBT achieves improvement rates of 80‑90% in just 1‑2 sessions, whereas other evidence‑based treatments (including CBT and its derivatives) typically achieve 40‑50% after 8‑20 sessions. These findings come from randomized controlled trials and open studies with earthquake, war, and torture survivors (Başoğlu et al., 2003a, 2003b, 2005, 2007; Başoğlu, 2022). No direct head‑to‑head trial has yet been conducted, but the magnitude of the difference is substantial and strongly suggestive of clinically meaningful superiority. Such a difference is not explainable by patient populations, treatment settings, or pre‑treatment illness severity; it likely reflects a fundamentally different therapeutic mechanism.
The principles underlying CFBT are not new; they have been employed across cultures and institutions for centuries. Resilience‑building through exposure to fear can be observed in military training to overcome fear of death, in the SERE program of the US military, in Buddhist ascetic practices, in the 40‑day solitary confinement of Sufi dervishes (“çile doldurmak”), in the psychological preparation of political activists facing arrest and torture, and in the training of “suicide bombers” (Başoğlu, 2026). In each case, the core mechanism is identical: gradually confronting feared or distressing situations teaches individuals to regain a sense of control and act despite danger. CFBT simply systematizes what already happens in these time‑honored practices.
Social, Political, and Philosophical Implications of CFBT
The Politics of Fear
The most effective instrument of social control is not brute force, but fear. Throughout history, rulers have understood that a fearful population is a compliant one. Fear paralyzes judgment, disrupts rational decision-making, and creates a psychological state in which people become more reliant on authority figures for protection (Kavaliers & Choleris, 2001). This insight is not new: Machiavelli advised princes that it is better to be feared than loved, precisely because fear is more reliable in securing obedience. More systematically, authoritarian regimes deliberately cultivate fear—of state violence, of economic retaliation, of social ostracism—to suppress dissent and maintain power (Young, 2019). The “culture of fear” (Furedi, 2005) is a political technology, not merely a by‑product of repression.
Contemporary Western societies have refined this technology. The mass prescription of anxiolytics and the dominance of anxiety‑reduction as the goal of psychotherapy serve a similar political function, albeit less overtly. A population whose members are taught to manage their distress individually, through medication or cognitive reappraisal, is less likely to recognize that their suffering has systemic causes—and therefore less likely to demand systemic change. The history of opium in 19th‑century China offers a parallel: a chemical pacification that dampened collective resistance to foreign domination (Robin, 2004; Horwitz & Wakefield, 2007). The modern pharmacopoeia, combined with psychotherapies that individualize distress, performs a comparable function. The problem with anxiety, from the perspective of power, is not that it makes people uncomfortable. It is that unmanaged anxiety can become fuel for collective action.
“Learned Helplessness” and Political Apathy
The psychological mechanism through which fear maintains the status quo is well‑established in the literature on “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975; Maier & Seligman, 1976). When individuals repeatedly experience uncontrollable events, they learn that their actions do not affect outcomes. They become passive, reduce their efforts to change their circumstances, and fail to act even when opportunities for change later become available. This phenomenon is not confined to the laboratory; it operates in the political sphere. Studies have shown that helplessness correlates with political apathy, making citizens unwilling to challenge the systems that oppress them (Papadatou‑Pastou, 2005). When people feel they cannot influence what their government does, they stop trying. Helplessness is not merely an individual deficit; it can become collective. Exposure to collective trauma, chronic inequality, or state repression can induce a form of “collective learned helplessness” that paralyzes social movements and entrenches the status quo (Uzbay & Erdoğan, 2025).
Overcoming Fear as a Precondition for Collective Action
If fear and helplessness are the psychological weapons of social control, then overcoming them is the psychological precondition for resistance. Research on democratic movements in repressive states has identified “fear abatement” as a necessary mechanism in the development of oppositional mobilization (Johnston, 2012). Accounts of the democracy movements in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria consistently describe a process of “losing your fear” and “fear being dispelled” as a prerequisite for mass participation. The French Revolution offers a vivid historical example. The “Great Fear” of 1789 – a wave of peasant panic about an alleged aristocratic conspiracy – was a critical catalyst. But fear alone did not produce revolution. The decisive shift occurred when ordinary people began to overcome that fear: they gathered in the streets, stormed the Bastille, marched on Versailles, and refused to submit. The psychological transition from terrified subject to empowered citizen was a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for political transformation.
From Individual Resilience to Collective Agency
The restoration of perceived control is the antidote to helplessness. Research on group‑based control demonstrates that when people feel a threat to their personal agency, they actively seek to restore it. One powerful route is collective action. Economic crises, for example, threaten personal control, but this threat can be converted into social class identification and protest behavior (Fritsche et al., 2017). A key experimental study found that reminding people of low personal control leads them to reject traditional political parties – precisely because those parties are seen as representing a “non‑agentic” political system that offers no real influence (Fritsche et al., 2022). In other words, restoring or threatening control directly affects whether people accept or reject the existing political order.
Crucially, the process is not linear; it is circular. Psychological empowerment is both a cause and a consequence of collective action. Studies of crowd behavior have shown that participation in protest and social movements empowers individuals, creating a positive feedback loop where action increases agency, and increased agency fuels further action (Drury & Reicher, 1999, 2009). When campaigners perceive state forces as acting illegitimately and indiscriminately, their identity shifts from “law‑abiding citizen” to “oppositional actor,” and this transformed self‑conception endures beyond the immediate conflict, influencing future action tendencies (Drury & Reicher, 2000). Social change is not something that happens to people; it is something that people make happen, and the capacity to make it happen depends on a shared sense of control. From the perspective of group‑based control theory, social change can serve as a means to restore people’s sense of control through their social self – on a collective identity level (Fritsche et al., 2025). People increase support for ingroup‑initiated change when they lack personal control, using collective action as a form of extended primary control.
The Ethics of Restoring Agency
If a therapy can help individuals overcome paralyzing fear, restore a sense of control, and thereby facilitate the psychological conditions for collective action, is it politically neutral? The answer is no – but not in the way that critics might assume. CFBT is directive, but its direction is toward empowerment and away from helplessness. This direction is not only guided by empirical findings but also dictated by universal moral values and internationally accepted basic human rights. A therapy that remains neutral in the face of helplessness – especially helplessness caused by human cruelty – is not neutral; it is complicit. The belief that therapy must be completely non‑directive is itself a particular ideological stance, not a universal ethical truth. In contexts of systemic oppression, where fear is deliberately cultivated to maintain control, a therapy that restores agency is not merely a clinical intervention; it is an act of solidarity with the human capacity for freedom. This is not to say that CFBT prescribes any particular political outcome. It does not instruct patients to protest, to organize, or to revolt. It simply returns the capacity to act. What people do with that agency is their own choice. But in doing so, it aligns with the universal biological capacity to overcome fear – a capacity that, when exercised, tends to empower individuals and communities.
Contrast with Pacifying Therapies
This orientation stands in marked contrast to the pragmatist philosophy that underpins both traditional CBT and its “third‑wave” derivatives. As extensively critiqued elsewhere (Başoğlu, 2026), these approaches derive their rationale from a framework in which the truth of an idea is measured by its “workability.” More fundamentally, their central emphasis on “acceptance” (in the case of “third‑wave” therapies) or on cognitive reappraisal (in the case of CBT) already orients them toward pacification. They encourage individuals to adapt to the status quo rather than to challenge the external sources of their distress. Critics have long argued that mainstream therapeutic models individualize systemic distress, aligning with neoliberal ideology that shifts responsibility away from social structures (Smail, 2005; Dalal, 2019). Psychological practices have a vested interest in promoting neoliberal and neocolonial subjectivity, functioning as architects of a status quo (Morrill, 2021). By contrast, CFBT’s foundation is entirely empirical, grounded in learning theory and the observed reality of natural recovery. Its goal is not a “chosen value” but a scientifically established target: the restoration of perceived control over fear. A therapy rooted in the empirical reality of human resilience aligns with the universal biological capacity to overcome fear – a capacity that, when exercised, tends to empower individuals and communities.
Implications for Psychotherapy
The contrast between CFBT and conventional CBT is not merely a clinical difference; it is a philosophical and political one. Most psychotherapies aim to reduce distress – to make people feel better within an unchanged world. CFBT aims to restore agency – to help people act differently, so that they can change the world or their relation to it. This shift in aim has profound implications. If the goal of therapy is merely symptom reduction, then any intervention that reduces subjective distress qualifies as successful, regardless of whether it leaves the patient passive or disempowered. But if the goal is to restore the capacity to act – to face fear, to exercise control, to build resilience – then the measure of success is not symptom relief alone but the restoration of agency. This redefinition of the goal of psychotherapy is arguably radical. It challenges the core assumption shared by virtually all other schools, from psychoanalysis to third‑wave cognitive therapies. In Kuhnian terms, it amounts to a genuine shift in the field’s basic questions, goals, and core concepts. Whether such a shift will occur depends not on the evidence alone, but on whether the field is willing to abandon its comfortable accommodation to power in favor of a genuinely liberatory practice.
Implications for developing countries
A growing critical literature has questioned the uncritical export of Western psychotherapies, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), to developing countries. Scholars argue that this practice often constitutes a form of intellectual dependency or neocolonialism, imposing individualistic frameworks that conflict with collectivist values and indigenous healing traditions (Pacini & Shrestha, 2024; Bedi, 2025). As we have observed firsthand in Turkey after the 1999 earthquakes, the uncritical acceptance of Western‑derived interventions is a common problem in developing countries, often reflecting a cultural tendency to view anything coming from the West as inherently “good.” For example, psychological debriefing was widely used despite evidence of its ineffectiveness and even potential harm (Bisson et al., 1997; Hobbs et al., 1996). Survivors themselves have expressed anger at such practices, saying, “They opened our wounds and left without closing them” (Başoğlu et al., 2011). Mental health professionals in developing countries should recognize that Western “trauma experts” who rush to disaster scenes often have limited experience with the scale of such events and do not always have the answers local communities need (Başoğlu et al., 2011). Many psychosocial aid projects, even those guided by reputable international organizations, lack a sound theoretical basis and outcome evaluation. These experiences underscore that the uncritical importation of Western psychotherapies is not merely a matter of cultural insensitivity but can cause active harm. For example, in Indonesia, the direct challenging of “irrational” beliefs leads clients to disengage from therapy (Menaldi, 2025). Similarly, a culturally adapted internet‑based CBT for Arabic‑speaking youths in Sweden had such a high dropout rate and low feasibility that quantitative efficacy analysis was impossible (Lindner et al., 2023). These critiques call for decolonizing mental health by building on local practices rather than imposing manualized Western protocols.
Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment (CFBT) offers a fundamentally different model that is uniquely suited to the realities of developing countries. Data from a randomized controlled trial with earthquake survivors showed that individuals with lower education levels actually improved more in treatment than those with higher education, suggesting that the simplicity of CFBT makes it particularly effective for populations that find conventional cognitive therapies difficult to follow (Başoğlu et al., 2005). Field experience from Nepal after the 2015 earthquake supports this: a feasibility study training local non‑specialist volunteers to deliver a group‑based version of CFBT found that the approach was “more acceptable and affordable” compared to individual narrative exposure therapy, and survivors appreciated its simplicity and practicality (Jha et al., 2017). Moreover, CFBT can be delivered by minimally trained community health workers or through self‑help formats, bypassing the need for expensive, Western‑style professional infrastructures. In this sense, CFBT represents a genuine decolonization of psychotherapy – an approach that respects local agency, empowers communities, and offers a practical, evidence‑based alternative to the uncritical importation of Western manualized treatments.
Why Evidence Alone Is Not Enough: The Structural Barriers to Change
Given the evidence reviewed above, one might reasonably ask: If CFBT is so common-sense and effective, why has it not already transformed mental health care? I am indeed asked this question occasionally, especially by younger clinicians and researchers who are inspired by this approach and consider dedicating their careers to it. Honesty requires a direct answer. The obstacles are not scientific – the data speak for themselves – but structural, economic, and ideological. They are the same forces that manufactured CBT’s hegemony in the first place, and they now resist any paradigm that threatens the existing order. Naming them is not pessimism; it is a necessary reality check for anyone who wishes to be an agent of change rather than a victim of disillusionment.
The financial interest in maintaining the status quo
The global market for anxiety and depression treatments is estimated at over $150 billion annually. Pharmaceutical giants that dominate this market with SSRIs, benzodiazepines, and next‑generation psychiatric drugs have a powerful financial interest in maintaining a patient population that requires ongoing medication. An effective, drug‑free intervention that achieves recovery in 1‑2 sessions represents an existential threat to this revenue stream. Pharmaceutical companies have the resources to suppress, ignore, or marginalize inconvenient evidence, and they have a long history of doing so (Healy, 1997; Horwitz & Wakefield, 2007). However, their influence is weakest in low‑resource settings, where the profit margin is thin, and in self‑help dissemination, which bypasses the prescription channel.
The academic and professional infrastructure built on the old paradigm
Decades of institutional support have made CBT the global “gold standard,” shaping university curricula, insurance reimbursement lists, and clinical guidelines. Thousands of academic positions, training programs, and research careers are built on the cognitive‑behavioral paradigm. A therapy that renders much of this infrastructure obsolete threatens established professional interests. As one analysis notes, “professional guild interests, theoretical tribalism, institutional rivalries, and economic incentives” have repeatedly foiled efforts at therapeutic integration (Psychiatric Times, 2026). Innovation that shifts decision‑making power and threatens professional identity faces powerful resistance, often based on fear of identity change and the need to protect existing roles (Oss, 2025). Yet academic and professional resistance is most effective in high‑income countries; in the rest of the world, where trained professionals are scarce, such resistance has far less reach.
The economic model of manualized therapy
The mental health service market is valued at over $134 billion annually, with a business model built on manualized treatments requiring 8‑20 sessions. This structure generates steady revenue for providers, publishers, and insurers, and fits neatly into systems that require standardized, trackable, and billable interventions. CFBT’s ability to achieve high recovery rates in 1‑2 sessions and its suitability for self‑help dissemination directly undermine this entire economic model. Insurance companies, hospital systems, and private practitioners have no financial incentive to adopt a therapy that would drastically reduce the number of billable sessions per patient. But the model becomes irrelevant when treatment is delivered outside the insurance system – by NGOs, community health workers, or the patients themselves using self‑help materials.
The challenge to the status quo
Beyond the financial and institutional barriers lies a more profound obstacle. By enhancing individual agency and resilience, CFBT has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of fear‑based social control. Those who benefit from the current social order – where fear is used to suppress dissent and maintain power – would likely resist an approach that can equip people with the psychological tools to challenge injustice and act collectively. This is indeed why charismatic liberation leaders with a capacity to instill hope and courage among their followers are the ones feared most by the ruling elites in oppressive regimes. This is perhaps the most difficult barrier to name openly, but it is also the one that most clearly points to the transformative potential of CFBT’s basic principles.
Practical implementation barriers
Research on the dissemination of exposure‑based treatments has documented persistent barriers at the practitioner level, including negative beliefs about exposure, therapist distress, limited training, and concerns about patient dropout (Pittig et al., 2018). Even with established treatments, dissemination has been slow. For a novel therapy like CFBT – which lacks the institutional backing of major funding bodies, the endorsement of professional guilds, and a large literature of published studies – these barriers are magnified. Yet here again, the largely self‑help nature of CFBT offers a solution: patients do not need a highly trained therapist to follow a simple, intuitive set of instructions. Furthermore, even when administered by therapists, its exposure procedures are quite different from those of traditional exposure treatments – differences that avoid or minimize the above problems.
Future of CFBT
Having said all this about the prospects of CFBT, I should add a more optimistic note: there is a countervailing force that should not be underestimated. The global burden of anxiety, depression, and trauma‑related disorders is immense. Hundreds of millions of people suffer, and the demand for effective, accessible, and affordable treatment has never been greater. This desperate need can bypass the stranglehold of established institutions. Patients, community health workers, and even governments in resource‑limited settings are likely to adopt CFBT eventually simply because it works and is cheap. When implemented as part of the outreach dissemination model we have developed, the estimated cost of therapist time is less than half a US dollar per case. More importantly, it can also be disseminated to large survivor populations through mass media channels, the Internet, and social media at no cost to either providers or users. CFBT is uniquely well‑suited for such wide and cost‑effective dissemination. Thus, although it faces formidable barriers, its potential in addressing the needs of millions of people suffering from all sorts of trauma‑and anxiety‑related disorders around the world cannot be ignored forever. The failure of the current systems to meet global mental health needs, the rising demand from patients and communities, and the ability to disseminate CFBT outside traditional channels all point to a different future. The obstacles exist, but so does the real possibility of bypassing them.
On a more personal note, I have spent decades developing this treatment and have indeed personally faced many obstacles along the way. But I have no regrets. I chose this path knowing full well that my work would be met with resistance because of its challenging implications. The history of science is filled with similar stories of scientists, showing that truth eventually overcomes all barriers. It is only a matter of time. Despite all these difficulties, I have managed to bring CFBT this far, but admittedly it is far from complete, and a lot of work is still needed to develop it further, especially in applying its principles to ordinary, everyday anxiety and stress problems.
Conclusion: A Quiet Transformation in Waiting
When the history of clinical psychology is stripped of its corporate marketing, institutional alliances, and socio‑political utility, CBT is revealed not as the ultimate scientific evolution of therapy – a conclusion fully supported by the clinical critique detailed elsewhere (Başoğlu, 2026) – but as a highly profitable, politically convenient historical compromise. It traded away the raw, biological reality of animal learning, subcortical neurobiology, and evolutionary natural recovery mechanisms in exchange for an intellectualized, session‑by‑session product that insurance companies, pharmaceutical boards, and university publishing mills could easily commodify.
The genuine alternative – already developed and empirically validated – is Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment. CFBT offers a different path that, based on the evidence reviewed, appears to produce better outcomes for trauma survivors. It removes the cognitive middle‑man, respects the patient’s capacity for self‑directed change, and aligns with the values of human dignity and freedom.
CFBT’s journey into the future will not be a smooth ascent to dominance. It will likely be a quiet, persistent, and gradual movement. It will grow not because existing powers welcome it, but because it offers a genuinely superior and common-sense solution to a world in desperate need of healing, and because it can be delivered outside traditional institutional channels. Its ultimate impact will be determined not by the approval of the institutions it challenges, but by the courage of those who choose to disseminate it and the lives of those it heals.
The author welcomes thoughtful critique, alternative interpretations, and corrections. If you believe any evidence has been misrepresented or that the conclusions are overstated, please leave a comment with your specific concerns.
References
Baardseth, T. P., Goldberg, S. B., Pace, B. T., & Minami, T. (2018). A meta‑analysis of cognitive‑behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders: Relative efficacy and comparisons with other therapies. Clinical Psychology Review, 60, 1–12.
Başoğlu, M. (2022). Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment: A brief intervention for survivors of war and torture. Torture, 32(1-2), 251-263.
Başoğlu, M. (2026). A critical look at cognitive behavioral therapy and its “third wave” derivatives. DABATEM. https://dabatem.org/a-critical-look-at-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-and-its-third-wave-derivatives/
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2003a). A brief behavioural treatment of chronic post‑traumatic stress disorder in earthquake survivors: Results from an open clinical trial. Psychological Medicine, 33(4), 647-654.
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2003b). A single session with an earthquake simulator for traumatic stress in earthquake survivors. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(4), 788-790.
Başoğlu, M., Livanou, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2011). A mental healthcare model for mass trauma survivors: Control‑Focused Behavioral Treatment of earthquake, war, and torture trauma. Cambridge University Press.
Başoğlu, M., & Mineka, S. (1992). The role of uncontrollable and unpredictable stress in post‑traumatic stress responses in torture survivors. In M. Başoğlu (Ed.), Torture and its consequences: Current treatment approaches (pp. 123-145). Cambridge University Press.
Başoğlu, M., Mineka, S., Paker, M., Aker, T., Livanou, M., & Gök, S. (1997). Psychological preparedness for trauma as a protective factor in survivors of torture. Psychological Medicine, 27(6), 1421-1433.
Başoğlu, M., & Şalcıoğlu, E. (2011). A mental healthcare model for mass trauma survivors. In A mental healthcare model for mass trauma survivors (pp. 1‑25). Cambridge University Press.
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., Livanou, M., Kalender, D., & Acar, G. (2005). Single‑session behavioral treatment of earthquake‑related posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized waiting list controlled trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(1), 1-11.
Başoğlu, M., Şalcıoğlu, E., & Livanou, M. (2007). A randomized controlled study of single‑session behavioural treatment of earthquake‑related post‑traumatic stress disorder using an earthquake simulator. Psychological Medicine, 37(2), 203-213.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International Universities Press.
Bedi, R. P. (2025). The implicit ideology of Western superiority: culturally adapted psychotherapy as a colonial practice. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling. Advance online publication.
Bisson, J. I., Jenkins, P. L., Alexander, J., & Bannister, C. (1997). Randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of acute burn trauma. British Journal of Psychiatry, 171(1), 78-81.
Carlier, I. V. E., Voerman, A. E., & Gersons, B. P. R. (2000). The influence of occupational debriefing on posttraumatic stress symptomatology in traumatized police officers. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73, 87–98.
Conlon, L., Fahy, T. J., & Conroy, R. (1999). PTSD in ambulant RTA victims: a randomized controlled trial of debriefing. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46(1), 37-44.
Dalal, F. (2019). CBT: The Cognitive Behavioural Tsunami. Managerialism, politics and the corruptions of science. Routledge.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (1999). The intergroup dynamics of collective empowerment: Substantiating the social identity model of crowd behavior. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2(4), 381–402.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707-725.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Lyle Stuart.
Foa, E. B., Dancu, C. V., Hembree, E. A., Jaycox, L. H., Meadows, E. A., & Street, G. P. (1999). A comparison of exposure therapy, stress inoculation training, and their combination for reducing posttraumatic stress disorder in female assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 194-200.
Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. Palgrave Macmillan.
Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2017). The Great Recession and group‑based control: Converting personal helplessness into social class in‑group trust and collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 117-137.
Fritsche, I., Rodríguez-López, Á., de Lemus, S., Bukowski, M., & Potoczek, A. (2022). Political change as group‑based control: Threat to personal control reduces the support for traditional political parties. PLoS ONE, 17(12), e0278743.
Furedi, F. (2005). Culture of fear: Risk‑taking and the morality of low expectation (rev. ed.). Continuum.
Ganesan, M. (2006). Psychosocial response to disasters – some concerns. International Review of Psychiatry, 18(3), 241-247.
Grob, G. N. (1994). The Mad Among Us: A History of the Care of America’s Mentally Ill. Free Press.
Harris, L. (2002). Insurrectionist ethics: Advocacy, moral psychology, and pragmatism. In J. Howie (Ed.), Ethical issues for a new millennium (pp. 193-210). Southern Illinois University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
Healy, D. (1997). The Anti‑Depressant Era. Harvard University Press.
Hobbs, M., Mayou, R., Harrison, B., & Worlock, P. (1996). A randomised controlled trial of psychological debriefing for victims of road traffic accidents. British Medical Journal, 313(7070), 1438-1439.
Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. Oxford University Press.
Jha, A., Shakya, S., Zang, Y., et al. (2017). Identification and treatment of Nepal 2015 earthquake survivors with posttraumatic stress disorder by nonspecialist volunteers: an exploratory cross‑sectional study. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(3), 320-327.
Johnston, H. (2012). State violence and oppositional mobilization in authoritarian regimes. In K. T. Leicht & J. C. Jenkins (Eds.), Handbook of politics: State and civil society in global perspective (pp. 321-340). Springer.
Kavaliers, M., & Choleris, E. (2001). Antipredator responses and defensive behavior: Ecological and ethological approaches for the neurosciences. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 577-586.
Kiesler, C. A. (1992). US mental health policy: Doomed to fail. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1077-1082.
Kirk, S. A., & Kutchins, H. (1992). The Selling of DSM: The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry. Aldine de Gruyter.
Klerman, G. L., Weissman, M. M., Markowitz, J. C., Glick, I. D., Wilner, P. J., Mason, B., & Shear, M. K. (1994). Medication and psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (4th ed., pp. 734-782). John Wiley & Sons.
Kohrt, B. A., et al. (2017). Psychological treatments for the world: lessons from low‑ and middle‑income countries. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 149-181.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Layard, R. (2012). How mental health loses out in the National Health Service. National Institute Economic Review, 222(1), R26-R31.
Lefebvre, G. (1962). The Great Fear of 1789: Rural panic in revolutionary France. Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1932)
Lima, S. L. (1998). Stress and decision‑making under the risk of predation: Recent developments from behavioral, reproductive and ecological perspectives. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 27, 215-290.
Lindner, P., et al. (2023). Individually Tailored and Culturally Adapted Internet‑Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Arabic‑Speaking Youths With Mental Health Problems in Sweden: Qualitative Feasibility Study. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e46253.
Livanou, M., Başoğlu, M., Marks, I. M., De Silva, P., Noshirvani, H., Lovell, K., & Thrasher, S. (2002). Beliefs, sense of control and treatment outcome in post‑traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Medicine, 32(1), 157-165.
Longmore, R. J., & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 173-187.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105(1), 3–46.
Menaldi, A. (2025). When CBT doesn’t fit. The Psychologist, 2025-09-24.
Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders – It’s not what you thought it was. American Psychologist, 61(1), 10-26.
Morrill, R. L. (2021). Psychology as a neoliberal and neocolonial instrument: A critique of psychological practices. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(2), 456-472.
Oss, M. E. (2025). Closing the innovation gap in behavioral health: Overcoming organizational barriers. Community Mental Health Journal, advance online publication.
Öst, L. G. (2008). Efficacy of the third wave of behavioral therapies: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(3), 296-321.
Oxfam. (1998). Responding to mental distress in the Third World: cultural imperialism or the struggle for synthesis? Oxfam Discussion Paper.
Pacini, A., & Shrestha, P. (2024). Editorial Perspective: Adapting western psychological interventions for children and adolescents in LMICs: lessons from Nepal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65(1), 116-119.
Papadatou‑Pastou, M. (2005). Learned helplessness and the perception of democracy in Greek students. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 12(3), 35-49.
Pittig, A., van den Berg, L., & Vervliet, B. (2018). The struggle of behavioral therapists with exposure: Self‑reported practicability, negative beliefs, and therapist distress about exposure‑based interventions. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 54, 1-10.
Robin, C. (2004). Fear: The History of a Political Idea. Oxford University Press.
Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Rose, S., Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Kirk, M. (1999). A randomized controlled trial of individual psychological debriefing for victims of violent crime. Psychological Medicine, 29(4), 793-799.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. W. H. Freeman.
Smail, D. (2005). Power, Interest and Psychology: Elements of a Social Materialist Understanding of Distress. PCCS Books.
Starr, P. (1982). The Social Transformation of American Medicine. Basic Books.
Summerfield, D. (2004). Cross‑cultural perspectives on the medicalization of human suffering. In G. M. Rosen (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder: issues and controversies (pp. 233-245). John Wiley & Sons.
Summerfield, D. (2012). Afterword: against “global mental health”. In M. J. Friedman, T. M. Keane, & P. A. Resick (Eds.), Handbook of PTSD: science and practice (2nd ed., pp. 631-641). Guilford Press.
Teachman, B. A., McKay, D., & Olatunji, B. O. (2019). What is the appropriate role of cognition in cognitive‑behavioral therapy? Behavior Therapy, 50(3), 490–502.
Uzbay, T., & Erdoğan, B. (2025). Collective learned helplessness: A conceptional framework. Theory and Society, 54, 879–890.
Wampold, B. E., Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Yulish, N. E., Erdman, H., … & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2017). In pursuit of truth: A comprehensive response to CBT critiques. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 210-216.
Young, J. (2019). The culture of fear: Social control in the risk society. Routledge.
Zhou, Y. (2025). Ethical practice in the majority world: A framework for psychotherapists trained in the minority world. American Psychologist. Advance online publication.
Leave a Reply