As a clinical psychologist, I've been an integrationist. Depending on my clients' problems/issues, needs and strengths, I've applied systems theories (e.g., Cybernetics of Cybernetics) plus the humanistic theories of Carl Rogers, Virginia Satir, and Viktor Frankl, cognitive-behavioral skills, and James Masterson's object-relations therapy to conceptualize cases and plan and implement treatment.

Over the past decade, I've realized the importance of integrating the client's spirituality/religion with his/her psychotherapy; with my client's informed consent, I have incorporated spirituality/religion into treatment.

There are a number of psychological theories and concepts that if followed help us to look within and lead us towards a path of self-satisfaction. Theories such as those of Frankl, Rogers, Maslow, Deci and Ryan, and concepts like delay of gratification and self awareness are the ones that are very helpful in guiding us to move on the path of self-satisfaction. It these theories that I try to apply to myself in my day to day life. I have found them to be very useful, which led me to write about it on my blog called "Life And Psychology". I have posted a link of that article right here.

http://www.lifeandpsychology.com/2010/06/self-satisfaction-ultimate-goal-of-life.html

Biological psychological theories related to open-field research and motor activity, health psychology theories and existentialists' theories and those from medical science as well as those we came up with during our research.

Developmental theories 

Hi John,

You ask the following:

What psychological theory do you most often apply? And what additional theory or theories, if any, do you use along with it?

First of all, let me say that answers to your questions greatly depend on the type of psychologist we are. For example, if you are a social psychologist, then you  can apply  attribution theory, for instance, a theory concerned with the attribution of causes (e.g., internal vs external; stable vs unstable; controllable vs uncontrollable) to your own and others’ behaviors.

If you are a neuroscientist, then you can appeal to eliminative materialism, a theory according to which the belief that everyday mental concepts, such as one’s beliefs, feelings, and desires, are part of, say, a "folk psychology" of theoretical constructs without coherent definition, and destined to simply be obviated by a thoroughly scientific understanding of human nature, our brain in particularly.

If you are a cognitive developmentalist, then you can appeal to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, a theory according to which one’s cognitive development is a process of successive and progressive differentiations and integrations of various and different perspectives, dimensions, and the like. You can also appeal to Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, a theory according to which any psychological phenomenon occurs, first, at an interpersonal, social, level, and second, at a personal, individual, level, through a process of internalization and appropriation.

 If you are a moral psychologist, then you can appeal, for instance, to Kohlberg’s theory of deontic justice and moral stages, a theory whose main injunction is that we should not treat others unfairly, but rather with justice and respect. You can also apply Gilligan’s theory of an ethic of care and responsibility, a theory whose main injunction is that we should not turn away from someone in need. In other words, Gilligan claims that the basic moral principle is not Kohlberg’s principle of justice, but the principle of benevolence, care, and responsibility.

 As psychology could be considered, as it were, the queen of sciences in terms of the number of existing psychological theories, psychologists could appeal to other examples of theoretical framework in their otherwise efforts to understand one’s psychological functioning, such as one’s learning and development.

I give a last example. If, for example, you are a learning psychologist, then you can appeal, for instance, to Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning, a theory according to which our behaviors are acquired, maintained and modified as a function of their consequences on our psychical and social worlds, through psychological mechanisms, such as positive and negative reinforcement, punishment, stimuli’s discrimination, and the like

As a developmental psychologist, I often appeal to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, not to its frequent distorted and misunderstood interpretation (e.g., to think of Piagetian cognitive stages as explanatory rather than descriptive concepts and entities). As I see it, more than other theory of cognitive development, Piaget’s theory deals quite well with what I call the four Hs of development, something that I think to be essential in any comprehensive view of development (and learning): The “what” of development, or what develops as development occurs. As you certainly know, according to Piaget, what develops in our cognitive development is our capacity or intelligence to actively deal with, and adapt to, our physical and social milieu.  Thus, at the sensorimotor stage (from birth to 2 years approximately), children relate to others and the world through senses and movement, and are capable of what Piaget called practical intelligence; for example, at the end of this stage, they can look for a desired object which disappeared from their vision because it was hidden under several covers (i.e. object permanence). At the preoperational stage (from roughly 2 to 7 years), children are capable of mental actions, for example, playing with a doll as if it were a cat (i.e., pretend or symbolic play), but not capable, for instance, of understanding that a cat is a cat, but also a cat and an animal at the same time. Thus, children at this stage are not yet capable of what Piaget called operations, or actions that are mental, reversible, and governed by rules of transformation -- for instance, children are not yet able to understand that in a set of 10 flowers, 8 being roses and 2 daffodils, there are more flowers than roses because daffodils are flowers too (i.e., class-inclusion), or that the arithmetical operation of adding, 2 + 8 = 10, for instance, can be nullified through the arithmetical operation of subtracting, 10 – 8 = 2 (i.e., number conservation). As preoperational children are figurative or perceptually-oriented, when asked, in this class-inclusion task, if there are more flowers or more roses, they answer that there are more roses, because there are a lot of roses and only few daffodils. As roses and daffodils can be seen --  which is not the case of  the abstract class “flowers” --   preoperational children compare roses with daffodils instead of thinking of both as subclasses of a broad class or concept -- flowers. At the concrete operational stage (from ages 7 to 12 on average), the child is capable of operating or thinking logically, but always with basis on concrete or material things that can be subject to seriation, class-inclusion, conservation, transitivity, and so forth. A child who is capable of operating in the intellectual domain, is also capable of cooperating with others in the social domain, and of disputing or argumentation in the verbal domain. This solidarity among operation, cooperation, and argumentation is a token of Piaget’s structural perspective and lies at the heart of his epistemology and developmental psychology, and has implications for his views on education and development.  At the formal operational stage (from ages 12/13 to16, on average), individuals are capable of verbal, abstract reasoning. For example, they can understand the following: “If p, then q; Not p is the case. Hence, nothing can be concluded about q”. The type of thinking implied in this conditional reasoning is called Affirmation of the Antecedent.  The “why” of development, that is, what are the factors, antecedents, or conditions that bring about one’s cognitive development. Accepting the influence of what he called the three traditional factors of development (i.e., maturation, physical experience, and social experience, including language), Piaget always considered subject’s actions upon objects and subjects’ interactions with others, and the coordination of these actions and interactions, the main responsible for the individual’s development (and learning). This does mean that Piaget’s theory espouses a constructivist (not to confound with a constructionist) perspective. The “how” of development, that is, the psychological and neural processes that, for instance, are at issue when one’s cognitive development occurs. According to Piaget, equilibration or self-regulation, a kind of balance between assimilation (i.e., to incorporate the unknown into one’s existent cognitive structures or forms of knowing) and accommodation (i.e., to enrich such structures as they actively adapt to the novelties coming from outside), is the main psychological process of one’s cognitive development. More importantly, the equilibration process coordinates and interrelates the three traditional factors of development (see above), and, in so doing, gives rise to an ever-increasing active adaptation of the individual to his/her physical and social environment, that is, to more advanced cognitive stages and their underlying cognitive structures. It is in this sense that Piaget speaks of structural discontinuity as development goes on, and of functional continuity among all forms of intelligence. Actually, all of them are mediated through an assimilation/accommodation process. This means that this Piagetian psychological process is somehow similar to Vygotsky’s internalization/interiorization process).  This also means that I often appeal to Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development.  Note that Vygotsky’s notion of zone of proximal development (i.e., the distance between the child’s actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and his/her level of potential development as determined by problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers) goes well with Piaget’s notion of operational learning, a form of learning in which a given individual has to cope with another one who contradicts the answers of that individual in a certain cognitive task, giving then rise to what is known as a socio-cognitive conflict. This conflict, by provoking disequilibrium on the individual’s level of operational understanding, gives rise to re-equilibration and, hence, to a more advanced level of such understanding.  Finally, the “when” of development, that is, at what age a certain level or stage of development whatever is more likely to occur. As mentioned above, Piagetian stages are associated with, not determined by, a certain age. Accordingly, it would be highly unusual, for example, to expect a 4-year-old child to be able to solve a proportionality or probability problem.

I also often appeal to Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning and stages. Actually, a careful examination of this theory easily shows that it also addresses satisfactorily the four “Hs” of one’s moral development. The “what” of one’s moral development or what forms of moral reasoning (e.g., Kohlberg’s three levels of moral reasoning, preconventional, conventional, and postconventional, or his six stages of moral reasoning) appear as moral development goes on.  The “why” of one’s moral reasoning, for example, one’s opportunities to take another’s view of the world, to live in a moral atmosphere, and the like. The “how” of one’s moral development, or what psychological processes mediate between the “what” and the “why” of one’s moral development. Like Piaget, Kohlberg also espoused a constructivist perspective, that is, when a certain type of moral thinking and developmental occurs, the underlying psychological processes are not in our brain, nor are they an induction of one’s past experiences, but they are rather developmental constructions  involving coordination of viewpoints, for example, in a situation of conflict of interests . And the “when of development”. Suffice it to say that Kohlberg maintained that his preconventional level is the level of children around 9 years and many criminal adolescents and adults; that his conventional level is the level of the majority of adolescents and adults, mainly of Western societies; and that his postconventional level is the level of a minority of individuals, generally above 25 years of age. As Kohlberg always appealed to hypothetical conflicts of welfare, I also appeal to Gilligan’s ethic of care and responsibility, which deals with real-life, not hypothetical, moral dilemmas.

If I were I neuroscientist, I certainly would be interested, for example, in knowing what happens in our brain (electrical firings, for instance), when our moral reasoning is described as preconventional, conventional, or postconventional. However, I would not dare say, as it were, that our brain is moral/immoral, preconventional, conventional, or postconventional, as is now much in vogue. Actually, if it makes good sense that say of a person that s/he thinks/behaves in moral/immoral terms, and the like, it is misleading and even nonsensical to say that our brain is moral/immoral, civilized and so forth. These predicates apply to persons as a whole, not to their brains/minds.

I hope that I have gotten your question, and that my answer is of help to you.

Best regards.    

As a clinical psychologist, I've been an integrationist. Depending on my clients' problems/issues, needs and strengths, I've applied systems theories (e.g., Cybernetics of Cybernetics) plus the humanistic theories of Carl Rogers, Virginia Satir, and Viktor Frankl, cognitive-behavioral skills, and James Masterson's object-relations therapy to conceptualize cases and plan and implement treatment.

Over the past decade, I've realized the importance of integrating the client's spirituality/religion with his/her psychotherapy; with my client's informed consent, I have incorporated spirituality/religion into treatment.

Hello,

As educational psychologist, the theories I use the most in my work are self-determination of Deci and Ryan, and social learning theory of Bandura. Also I work in the field of motivation to volunteer and in that context I use the theory of Omoto and Snyder named functionalist approach to volunteerism.  

Best regards

My work on reading motivation also focuses on Deci & Ryan, whereas when I look into reading development, reading difficulties and reading growth, I rely more on cognitive approaches to reading, particularly McKenna & Stahl's model, which in turn has a lot to do with the work of Spear-Swerling & Sternberg. 

I'd echo some of the other comments in saying that we are somewhat eclectic in our use of theory.  Sometimes, Frankl, sometimes Rogers, sometimes others, but often Lazarus and Folkman's theory of stress and coping works well for us.  But, really it depends on what we're interested in.

Family (Salvador Minuchin, Virginia Satir, Mara S. Palazzoli) and Narrative theories (Michael White).

=) 

as a lecturer, I'd like to synchronize between what he thought of what he was saying with the results of his work

I go with Human Givens it helps structure consultations and helps me analyse how a patient gets their innate needs met, their skillset and where they need encouragement and development

As a developmental psychologist I tend to look at Piagetian theory of development, although witha grain of salt: while most of his tenets are still correct, research showed that he was not always correct with the onset of certain processes.  But I cannot envision any development without Bronfenbrenner's theory, as it takes a holistic view on development,as well as social-interactionist view on development  (Vigotsky, Bruno)

It is important to consider evidence based practice for certain populations or diagnosis. In my work with children I have mostly used a behavioral approach. With adolescents, capable of more developed abstract thought, a CBT model might be more adequate. You must take into consideration the particular case of your client, his developmental stage (consulting developmental theories), and evidence based practice. Best wishes!  

I agree with the emphasis on evidence based practices, which offer more structure to clinicians and have measurable outcomes. Most of these practices use one form or another of cognitive behavior therapy. I've done the same in my parenting practice and found very good results. 

While most people would agree that it is important to rely on evidence when choosing psychological approaches to addressing problems, there is controversy about what constitutes evidence and how to appraise it.  See for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281679585_Improving_the_yield_of_psychotherapy_research

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13742944_Are_results_of_randomized_controlled_trials_useful_to_psychotherapists_Journal_of_Consulting_and_Clinical_Psychology_66_126-135

In psychotherapy there is solid evidence for a variety of approaches (e.g., psychodynamic therapy, emotion-focused therapy, among others).  It is important to avoid equating CBT with evidence-based and to avoid the implicit or explicit assumption that CBT has been shown to be superior to (more effective than) other forms of treatment.  The evidence shows that no one technique or school of therapy is consistently superior to others (Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: Research evidence for what works in psychotherapy (2

nd ed.). New York: Routledge.).

Article Improving the yield of psychotherapy research

Article Are results of randomized controlled trials useful to psycho...

Like Cheung I am also an integrationist. Depending on the organization level of the behavioral phenomena I apply Skinnerian psychology, Piaget's cognitive development theories, cognitive psychology, psychoanalytical ideas, existential psychology (with the ill-known German, Paul Helwig (1893-1963) as my great inspirator, cybernetics, and social psychology. My main thinking and investigating subject, the OCD puzzles, challenges all these approaches.

I agree also with the integrationist view. I work as a systemic therapist, so I use second order cybernetics, and along with this, solution focused approach, to which I integrated EMDR approach as the main tool. Integration of all this was possible through the theory of structural dissociation of the personality (Van der Hart et al., 2006)

As a developmental psychologist my central references go to the constructivist and socio-constructivist authors. The theories of Piaget and Vygotsky continue to demonstrate its adequacy and I believe that the contribution of Piaget in the comprehension of the child's thinking is significant. It is clear that his theory must also be analyzed in a critical perspective, including some aspects of the child's egocentrism.

Bruner and Bandura authors are relevant for the analysis of the learning process.

There is also the contribution of new perspectives on the socio-emotional development, positive psychology and Gardner's theory that are references in my practice and approach to develop the bachelor and master classes.

I tend to follow a person-directed, individualized approach based on the needs of the client, but with a strong bio-ecological/systemic and strength-based approach. The SPICC (Sequentially Planned Integrative Counselling) model described by Geldard, Geldard and Yin Foo (2013) makes a lot of sense to me

I find the question very interesting.I work as a counselling psychologist in prison and I work with children with disabilities as well. I use the humanistic approach of Carl Rogers and  along with it, I also use positive psychology. However, I do not disagree with the integrationist view. It depends on the specific population you work with.

Interesting question, nowadays I use positive psychology thus I work with teenagers and children with disabilities. Sometimes it is necesary to integrate some behaviour tecniques.

Interesting and informative answers. I can see that most of us are 'integrationists' to a certain degree. I used to work as primary mental health counselor from two medical centers in two small country towns when I was living in Australia. Depending on my clients' (all referred by their doctor) needs and issues, I used the Carl Rogers' person-centered humanistic approach and sometimes behavioral therapy (taught at the Flinders University of South Australia). More often than not, I integrated Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa) into my counseling work. Integration is done on several levels depending on the clients' needs. Sometimes, it could be just applying the principles of Truthfulness, compassion, and Tolerance (almost parallel to Rogers' concept of unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence), specific references to Falun Gong teachings. But often times, I would engage clients with the simple Falun Gong meditative exercises. The outcome of my integrative work was effective and spurred me to embark on my doctoral studies in order to do research on the effects of Falun Gong. My doctoral dissertation led me to publish my first book, The Mindful Practice of Falun Gong, Meditation for Health, Wellness, and Beyond. I'm currently working on publishing the second book as well as gearing up and collecting data for my longitudinal study (The Hearts Uplifted project) that explores the effects of the Falun Gong through the lived experiences of practitioners. 

What I wish to say is that the integrative approach—harmonious blending of theories—especially incorporating clients' spirituality/religion, can be extremely powerful and lead to lasting changes.

(Falun Gong is an ancient Chinese spiritual meditation discipline that is highly popular and practiced by millions of people in China and around the world.)

www.falundafa.org

https://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Practice-Falun-Gong-Meditation/dp/0997228105

http://www.prolibraries.com/counseling/?select=session&sessionID=4170

My co-authors at UC-Berkeley and University of Minnesota and I have recently been advocating for merging aspects of Self-Determination Theory with Expectancy-Value Theory. See these two articles for examples: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305714160_Parental_autonomy_support_community_feeling_and_student_expectations_as_contributors_to_later_achievement_among_adolescents 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305893056_The_longitudinal_influences_of_peers_parents_motivation_and_mathematics_course-taking_on_high_school_math_achievement

I also have found David W. Johnson’s Social Interdependence Theory very useful in consulting or leading teams to be more productive, whether in schools or companies. Utlimately, it's a theory about how to develop effective cooperation among youth and adults. 

Here is a link to one of David’s books: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229067895_Joining_together_Group_theory_and_group_skills

Steven Reiss’ Theory of 16 Basic Desires also helps gain a very nuanced understanding of the multiple motives that may be operating in people’s lives. Here’s an article, which describes a study I helped conduct among youth in Finland that applies the 16 basic desires theory: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276830841_Motives_emanating_from_personality_associated_with_achievement_in_a_Finnish_senior_high_school_Physical_activity_curiosity_and_family_motives  We considered the results in light of self-determination theory as well.

Article Parental autonomy support, community feeling and student exp...

Article The longitudinal influences of peers, parents, motivation, a...

Book Joining together: Group theory and group skills

Article Motives emanating from personality associated with achieveme...

Always be a bridesmaid when it comes to theories - . not a bride! That is ,catch as many different , valuable bouquets as you can and  thus  gain insights  from different theorists into the ways you can best help  different client's with varied  difficulties  and gain insights from each theorist.  Fundamental to understand  are Freud's defense mechanisms of the ego, , Piaget's cognitive stages,Erickson's nuclear conflicts, Bronfenbrbenner's  conceptualization of the the nestedness of our relationships in families and in societies, as well as Vygotsky's wonderful valuing of the role of mentors to help[ us achieve , with their loving encouragement  and wisdom , just a bit more than we can achieve on our own. Bandura has given us insights into the power of models in our lives. . Kohblberg  and Eisenberg have taught us about the stages of prosocial and moral development. Thus we are enriched by a plethora of theorists ,  in a vairfety of areas, who can hep us gain more ability to understand human problems and to help ourselves as well as  others to heal and  gain  more of a sense of control and well- being in their lives. .

There is no current or psychological theory for this or that patient. Therefore, the therapist must have broad and deep knowledge of psychology, psychoanalysis, psychotherapies and general medicine and, know how to select the best of himself and his knowledge to invest in this or that patient individually.

I find Albert Bandura's social learning theory most applicable to my work. Additionally, Terry Moffet's lifecourse criminal/juvenile delinquency is extremely applicable.

Interesting question. In my opinion, it is impossible to control a lot of interventions from different psychological perspectives on hundred per cent. I always work with a systemic point of view but after working 15 years with drugs problems, severe mental disorders and doing my phd in psychogeriatric (dementias and health mental problems in elderly people) and after studying cognitive-conductual therapy, family therapy, neuropsychology, psychoanalysis and third generation therapies, I realized that the most important thing in therapy is the relationship with the patient. I do not mind cognitive therapy, humanistic therapy, mindfulness…, the power of the link, of the attachment patient-therapist, is the cornerstone in a therapeutic relationship and the therapeutic success

My theoretical orientation is an integration of coherence therapy, eidetic psychotherapy, psychophysiology, ego-state therapy, hypnosis and somatic experiencing.  However, my techniques are guided by a meta-strategy that I have evolved based on psychophysiology.  It is represented in a simple formula and is explained in the attached paper. 

I currently have my patients hooked up to a Nexalin trans-cranial electrical stimulation device while doing therapy.  It seems to turbo-charge the progress of my DID and compound trauma patients.

I am in the process of writing a more thorough and well-referenced paper about these techniques.  However, a summary of the meta-strategy is in the attached paper "Seeing the whole elephant."

In the field of education  psychology of motivation is important  but along side with other theories of knowledge or learning theories

very interesting, as an educational psychologist I find cognitive learning theories most suitable along side with the social learning approaches

For healing trauma our theoretical orientation is based on the neuroscience of memory reconsolidation and hypnotic resource grafting. You can search publications in Researchgate for "Hypnotic Resource Grafting" for the theory and method.