Psychology should list empirically supported principles of change (ESPs) and not credential trademarked therapies or other treatment packages.

Eugenia Gras et al. (2003) wrote a position paper. They said psychology should stop giving gold stars to brand-name therapies.

Instead, they want us to list the small, proven building blocks that make any therapy work. They call these Empirically Supported Principles, or ESPs.

The paper does not give new data. It argues that naming packages like “Brand-X CBT” hides the real active pieces.

Those pieces are things like reinforcement, shaping, and extinction. The authors say we should test and approve those pieces, not the wrappers.

Najdowski et al. (2003) extends the same idea. They tell grad schools to teach students how to spot mechanisms, cost, and harm, not just the EST list.

Malott (2018) is a later successor. That paper shows a training model that makes students reach for JABA and basic principles first, exactly what M et al. asked for.

DiGennaro Reed et al. (2016) give numbers. They counted OBM articles and found only half name a basic principle. The gap shows the field still likes packages more than parts.

If you write treatment plans, stop copying a manual because it has a famous logo. List the principle you will use—reinforcement, prompt fading, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior—and show data for that piece. Your notes will be clearer, your supervision tighter, and your funding easier to defend.