← Library

Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy

CBASP
«Your actions affect the world. Let's see that.»
Definition

JAMES McCULLOUGH (b.

Founder(s) and history

CBASP is the only psychotherapeutic approach created specifically for chronic depression. Not an adaptation of CBT, not a modification of IPT — a fully original system.

TIMELINE

  • 1984: McCullough begins developing CBASP
  • 2000: Keller et al. — landmark trial in NEJM: CBASP + nefazodone = 85% response
  • 2000: The book Treatment for Chronic Depression: CBASP — the first manual
  • 2003: Adaptation for group therapy
  • 2006: 2nd edition of the manual
  • 2010s: Spread across Europe (especially Germany), adaptations
  • 2015: Schramm et al. — CBASP vs IPT in chronic depression: CBASP superior
Key concepts

JAMES McCULLOUGH (b. 1939)

James McCullough is an American clinical psychologist, professor at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Working with chronically depressed patients, he discovered that standard approaches (CBT, IPT, psychodynamic therapy) work markedly less well in chronic depression than in episodic depression.

McCullough observed: chronically depressed patients function as though cut off from the environment. They do not see the link between their behavior and its consequences. Using Piaget's model of cognitive development, he described this as being "stuck" at the preoperational stage — in the interpersonal sphere.

Key concepts

Chronic depression

CBASP works with:

  • Persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia)
  • Chronic major depression (>2 years)
  • Double depression (dysthymia + major depressive episodes)
  • Recurrent depression without full remission

30-35% of all depressions are chronic. It is not just "long depression" — it is a different disorder, with different mechanisms and a different response to treatment.

PREOPERATIONAL THINKING (per Piaget)

A central concept of CBASP. The chronically depressed person functions like a child at the preoperational stage (2-7 years of age in Piaget) — in the interpersonal sphere:

  • Egocentrism: unable to see the situation through the other's eyes
  • Prealgorithmic thinking: does not trace the chain "my action → consequence"
  • Global attributions: "everything is bad, always was, always will be"
  • Disconnection from the environment: "nothing depends on me"

STAMP (Causal Theory Closure)

A deep conclusion about self / world formed in relationships with significant others. Not an "automatic thought" (as in CBT), but a causal theory: "since mother criticized me → I'm not good enough → everyone will criticize me".

Situational Analysis (SA)

A structured breakdown of a concrete situation: situation → interpretations → behavior → actual outcome (AO) → desired outcome (DO). If AO ≠ DO — find which interpretations and which behavior got in the way.

Disciplined Personal Involvement (DPI)

A unique technique: the therapist uses their authentic reactions as an instrument. "When you go silent — I feel sad. Is that the effect you want?" Not classic self-disclosure, but contingent reinforcement.

Interpersonal Discrimination Exercise (IDE)

Helping the client discriminate past from present: the therapist ≠ the significant other. "I am not your mother. How are we different?"

INDICATIONS (specific)

  • Persistent depressive disorder
  • Chronic major depression (>2 years)
  • Double depression
  • Recurrent depression without remission
  • Early-onset depression (particularly responsive to CBASP)

Therapy structure

PhaseSessionsContent
Assessment1-3Significant-other list, stamps, transference hypothesis
SA training4-6Situation analysis in session, learning the format
Active work7-16SA + DPI + IDE, transfer of skills
Closing17-20Updating stamps, relapse prevention

CBASP vs other approaches to depression

Comparison
ParameterCBTIPTCBASP
For whomEpisodic depressionEpisodic depressionChronic depression
FocusThoughts and behaviorInterpersonal rolesLink between behavior and consequences
TherapistTeachingSupportivePersonally involved (DPI)
Key techniqueCognitive restructuringRole analysisSituational Analysis
PastAutomatic thoughtsInterpersonal eventsSignificant others and stamps

Standard CBT works less well in chronic depression because it relies on the client's ability to link thoughts and consequences. But that is precisely what the chronically depressed person cannot do. CBASP first TEACHES that link.

Therapy format

SESSION FORMAT (after the training phase)

1. Mood check (5 min) 2. Homework: review of SA done at home (15 min) 3. Situational analysis of a new situation (25 min) 4. DPI / IDE when needed (5-10 min) 5. Homework + summary (5 min)

Evidence base

KEY STUDIES

  • Keller et al. (2000) — NEJM: 681 patients, CBASP + nefazodone = 85% response (monotherapy of each ~55%)
  • Schramm et al. (2011) — CBASP vs IPT in chronic depression: CBASP significantly better
  • Wiersma et al. (2014) — CBASP vs usual care: significant improvement
  • Schramm et al. (2015) — CBASP added to medication: better than medication alone
  • Furukawa et al. (2018) — meta-analysis: CBASP effective in chronic depression
Limitations

CONTRAINDICATIONS

  • Bipolar disorder
  • Psychotic symptoms
  • Active addiction
  • Acute suicidal risk (stabilize first)
Assessment and the list of significant othersFirst sessions: understanding the interpersonal history

You are working with a person who has lived in depression for years and lost the sense that their actions affect the world. CBASP is the only protocol created specifically for chronic depression. The goal is to restore the link between behavior and consequences.

"The chronically depressed patient functions as if disconnected from the environment. They do not see the link between what they do and what they receive." — James McCullough

CBASP (Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy) was developed by James McCullough specifically for chronic / persistent depression. It is the only approach created entirely for this population. The largest trial (Keller et al., 2000, NEJM): CBASP + antidepressant = 85% improvement.

The key idea: the chronically depressed person is stuck at the preoperational stage (per Piaget) — unable to mentally trace the link "my behavior → consequences for the other". CBASP helps the shift to operational thinking in the interpersonal sphere.

CBASP does not start with a standard anamnesis but with the list of significant others (Significant Other History). This is a unique procedure: to identify the people who shaped the client's basic views of self and world.

SIGNIFICANT OTHER HISTORY

"I want to ask you about the people who influenced you most — from childhood on. Who are those people?"
"How did [name] treat you? What did you feel around them?"
"What is the main lesson you took from the relationship with [name]?"

For each significant other (usually 4-6 people): 1. Name and role (mother, father, teacher, partner) 2. How they treated the client — concretely 3. What the client felt 4. "Stamp" (causal theory closure): what conclusion about self/world the client drew

Example list
Significant otherTreatmentStamp
MotherCriticized, devalued achievements"I'm not good enough, whatever I do"
FatherEmotionally absent"My feelings matter to no one"
First wifeLeft after 10 years"Closeness ends in loss"

Stamps are not simply "negative thoughts" (as in CBT). They are deep causal conclusions formed in real relationships. They determine how the client "reads" any interpersonal situation.

TRANSFERENCE HYPOTHESIS

Based on the stamps, formulate: "This client will expect from me…"

"Given your history, I assume you may be expecting criticism or rejection from me. Is that right?"
Situational Analysis (SA)The core of CBASP — the link between behavior and consequences

Situational Analysis is the central CBASP technique. A structured review of a concrete interpersonal situation: what happened → what was interpreted → what was done → what was received → what was wanted → what could have been done differently.

ELICITATION PHASE

"Tell me about a specific situation this week that did not go the way you wanted. Start with: what happened?"

1. Situation: description — concrete, one situation, 1-2 minutes 2. Interpretations: "What did you think?" (record 2-3 interpretations) 3. Behavior: "What did you do? How did you act?" (concretely) 4. Actual outcome (AO): "How did it all end?" 5. Desired outcome (DO): "What did you want? What outcome would have been good for you?"

Situational-analysis form
StepQuestionExample
SituationWhat happened?A colleague did not reply to my message
InterpretationWhat did I think?"He doesn't care about me" / "I'm annoying him"
BehaviorWhat did I do?Stopped writing, withdrew
AO (fact)How did it end?We stopped talking
DO (desired)What did I want?That he would reply and we'd continue

REMEDIATION PHASE

"Did AO and DO match?"

If not (and usually they don't):

"Let's see: did each of your interpretations help you get what you wanted?"

For each interpretation:

  • Accurate? Based on facts?
  • Useful? Did it help reach the DO?
  • If not — what interpretation would be more accurate and more useful?
"And your behavior — did it help reach the DO?"

If not — what could have been done differently?

Key insight for the client: "My interpretations and behavior LED to the outcome. I'm not a victim — I'm a participant. And if I'm a participant — I can change the outcome."

Disciplined Personal Involvement (DPI)The therapist as "hot stimulation"

A unique feature of CBASP: the therapist uses their authentic reactions — but disciplined and purposeful. This is not classic self-disclosure and not neutrality. It is "contingent reinforcement" from a real relationship.

WHEN TO USE DPI

"When you just looked away and went silent — I felt pushed away. I felt sad. Is that the effect you want to have on people?"
Forms of DPI
FormWhenExample
Positive reinforcementClient did something new"When you just looked at me and said what you feel — I felt warmth"
Negative reinforcementClient returned to the old pattern"When you go silent — I feel that you have left. It's hard for me to reach you"
Impact descriptionAlways"This is what I feel when you do that. Is that what you want?"

DPI works because the chronically depressed client does not see how their behavior affects others. The therapist is the first person who gives direct, honest feedback.

Interpersonal Discrimination Exercise (IDE)"I am not your mother"

IDE is a bridge between past and present. Help the client see: the therapist (and other people) is not their mother / father / ex. The stamp does not apply to everyone.

"You said you expect criticism from me — as from your mother. Let's check: have I ever criticized you here?"
"How do I differ from your mother? What do I do differently?"
"Could it be that what your mother taught you — 'I'm not good enough' — is not necessarily true in the relationship with me?"

1. Recall the stamp from the significant-other list 2. Compare: does the therapist behave the same way as the significant other? 3. Pick out concrete differences 4. Help the client "update" expectations

Transfer of skills into lifeFrom session to everyday life
"Let's take a situation at work and run a situational analysis right now. Then — you try doing the same at home when a similar situation comes up."

HOMEWORK

1. SA at home — 1-2 situations per week, in writing 2. Impact journal — notice how your behavior affects others 3. Stamp check — "Did the stamp get confirmed in this situation?" 4. Practice of new behavior — one concrete action from the remediation phase

ClosingUpdated stamps, new skills

CBASP usually lasts 16-20 sessions. The last sessions consolidate skills and update the stamps.

"Let's return to your stamps. Originally you believed 'I'm not good enough'. How would you formulate it now?"
"What new skills do you have? What can you now do differently?"
"When depression knocks again — and it may — what will you do?"
Significant Other HistorySignificant Other History

A structured elicitation of the people who most influenced the client, and of the "stamps" (causal conclusions) formed in those relationships.

  • Ask: "Who influenced you the most — from childhood on?" (usually 4-6 people)
  • For each: "How did [name] treat you? What did you feel?"
  • Identify the stamp: "What is the main lesson you took from this relationship about yourself / the world?"
  • Record the stamps: "I'm not good enough", "My feelings don't matter", "Closeness is dangerous"
  • Show the link: "See — these stamps shape how you read situations now"
  • Formulate the transference hypothesis: "What will the client expect from me?"

When to use:

  • In the first 2-3 sessions
  • Revisit as new information emerges

Key phrases:

I want to spend the next while asking about a handful of people who shaped how you meet the world — starting from childhood. Not a full biography — just the people who mattered most. We'll move from one to the next.

Follow-up questions:

How did this person treat you, concretely?
What did you feel around them?
What lesson did you draw about yourself from that relationship?
What rule about the world did you keep from that?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Stamps are not "negative thoughts". They are deep causal conclusions based on real experience.
  • ⚠️ Do not devalue them — they made sense in their context.

McCullough, 2000 — Treatment for Chronic Depression: CBASP

Situational Analysis: Elicitation PhaseSituational Analysis: Elicitation Phase

The first part of Situational Analysis — a structured gathering of information about a concrete situation: what happened, what was thought, what was done, what was received, what was wanted.

  • Ask for a description: "Tell me about a concrete situation this week. What happened?"
  • Record the interpretations: "What did you think?" (2-3 thoughts, in the client's own words)
  • Record the behavior: "What did you do? How did you act?" (concrete, observable)
  • Define the actual outcome (AO): "How did it all end?"
  • Define the desired outcome (DO): "What did you want? What outcome would have been good?"
  • Compare: "Did AO and DO match?"

When to use:

  • Every session — at least one SA
  • The central procedure of CBASP

Key phrases:

Let's look at one specific situation from this week — one, not many. Walk me through it: what happened, what went through your mind, what you did, how it ended, and what you had wanted instead. We'll take it step by step.

Follow-up questions:

Stay with one situation — not "always", not "usually".
What exactly went through your mind, in those words?
What did you actually do — not what you wished you had done?
How did it end? And what had you hoped for?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Hold the focus on ONE concrete situation. Do not let the client generalize: "always like this", "everything is bad".
  • ⚠️ Concreteness is the key.

McCullough, 2000; McCullough, 2006

Situational Analysis: Remediation PhaseSituational Analysis: Remediation Phase

The second part of SA — an analysis: which interpretations are accurate and useful for the DO? Which behavior would have helped? What could have been done differently?

  • For each interpretation: "Is this thought accurate? Is it based on facts?"
  • "Is this thought useful? Did it help you reach the DO?"
  • If not: "What thought would have been more accurate and more useful?"
  • For the behavior: "Did your behavior help reach the DO? Or get in the way?"
  • If it got in the way: "What could you have done differently? What would have brought you closer to the DO?"
  • Help formulate a concrete plan: "Next time I will…"

When to use:

  • Always after the elicitation phase, if AO ≠ DO
  • The core of learning in CBASP

Key phrases:

We have what happened and what you wanted. Now, very carefully: did each of those thoughts actually move you toward what you wanted? If not, what thought would have? Same question for what you did.

Follow-up questions:

Was that thought accurate?
Was it useful — did it serve the DO?
If not, what would a more useful thought have sounded like?
And the behavior — what would have moved you closer?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ The client must REACH the conclusions themselves — do not hand out the answers.
  • ⚠️ Use Socratic questions.

McCullough, 2000; McCullough, 2006

Disciplined Personal InvolvementDisciplined Personal Involvement

The therapist disciplinedly uses their authentic reactions as an instrument: showing the client how their behavior affects another person.

  • Notice your reaction: what are you feeling right now with this client?
  • Assess: is it informative? Will it help the client see their effect?
  • Share it disciplinedly: "When you looked away and went silent — I felt sad"
  • Connect to the purpose: "Is that the effect you want to have on people?"
  • Positive DPI: "When you just looked at me and said it directly — I felt warmth. That is a different effect"
  • Check: "How is it for you to hear that?"

When to use:

  • When the client's in-session behavior illustrates their pattern
  • With new adaptive behavior (reinforcement)

Key phrases:

I want to give you something you have been cut off from — real feedback about your effect on another person. Right now, when you went quiet, I felt further away from you. I am telling you that so you can see what happens for the person on the other side.

Follow-up questions:

Is that the effect you want to have on people?
What do you think happens for others in your life when you do this?
When you did the new thing a minute ago — I felt closer. Can you feel that difference?
How is it for you to hear me say this?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ DPI is not "say everything you think". It is a disciplined instrument.
  • ⚠️ Every disclosure is in the client's interest.

McCullough, 2006 — Treating Chronic Depression with Disciplined Personal Involvement

Interpersonal Discrimination ExerciseInterpersonal Discrimination Exercise

Helping the client discriminate the therapist (and other people in the present) from significant others of the past. "I am not your mother. How are we different?"

  • Notice: the client expects from you what they expected from a significant other (the stamp has activated)
  • Ask: "You are expecting criticism from me — as from your mother. Have I ever criticized you?"
  • Compare: "How do I differ from [significant other]?"
  • Be concrete: "Your mother said 'you'll never succeed'. Have I said that?"
  • Help generalize: "Could it be that not everyone is like your mother?"
  • Transfer into life: "And [colleague, friend]? Is that person like your mother — or different?"

When to use:

  • When the transference hypothesis activates
  • When the client reads a situation through the stamp

Key phrases:

You came in today expecting me to treat you the way your mother did. Let's check that out loud. Have I? And if not — what, specifically, is different? Not as theory. As facts from this room.

Follow-up questions:

Have I actually done the thing you expected?
What is one concrete difference between me and that person?
Could it be that the stamp does not fit here?
Who else in your current life might be "not them"?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Do not devalue the past experience. The stamp was based on reality.
  • ⚠️ But reality has changed — and that has to be shown.

McCullough, 2000; McCullough, 2006

Transference Hypothesis FormulationTransference Hypothesis Formulation

Based on the stamps from the significant-other list — a prediction of what the client will expect from the therapist. The hypothesis guides the use of DPI and IDE.

  • Analyze the stamps from the significant-other list
  • Pick out the pattern: what is shared? Which expectations repeat?
  • Formulate: "This client will expect me to be critical / rejecting / controlling"
  • Record it: a working hypothesis, not a diagnosis
  • Check on every session: is it confirmed?
  • Discuss with the client: "I noticed you expect [X] from me. Is that from the significant-other list?"

When to use:

  • After compiling the significant-other list
  • Update as the work develops

Key phrases:

Given the people on your list, my working hypothesis is that a part of you will expect me to be critical, as your mother was. That is not a diagnosis — it is a prediction we are going to test together, session by session.

Follow-up questions:

Does this prediction ring true in how you meet me?
When did you feel that expectation on me most strongly today?
Is there a different expectation I should add?
What would help us notice in real time when the hypothesis is active?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ A hypothesis is not the truth. Be ready to revise it.
  • ⚠️ The client is not their stamps.

McCullough, 2000

Impact MessageImpact Message

The therapist describes to the client the concrete effect their behavior has on the therapist. The goal is to help the client see: "My actions have consequences for others."

  • Notice a concrete behavior of the client and your reaction to it
  • Formulate: "When you [concrete behavior] — I feel [concrete emotion]"
  • Examples: "When you look at the floor — I feel as if you are leaving me"
  • Or: "When you smiled and told me that — I felt happy for you"
  • Ask: "Were you aware that this has that effect?"
  • Link: "Do you think others near you feel something similar?"

When to use:

  • Regularly throughout therapy
  • Especially when new adaptive behavior appears

Key phrases:

When you just did that thing with your voice — dropping it and looking down — I felt you pull away from me. I want you to have that data, because most people feel it and don't name it.

Follow-up questions:

Did you know this lands that way?
What do you imagine others feel when you do this?
What happens for you when I tell you?
Is this something you want to keep doing, or to change?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Impact messages are honest, not cruel. The goal is to teach, not to wound.

McCullough, 2006 — DPI

Preoperational to Formal Operations ShiftPreoperational to Formal Operations Shift

Helping the client move from preoperational thinking (global attributions, egocentrism, disconnection) toward formal operational thinking (cause-and-effect links).

  • Catch preoperational thinking: "Nothing helps", "I'm never lucky", "He doesn't care"
  • Do not argue — use SA: "Let's check: tell me a concrete situation"
  • Help see the concrete: "What EXACTLY happened? What EXACTLY did you think?"
  • Show the link: "Your thought 'he doesn't care' led to the behavior 'I went silent', and that led to…"
  • Help see the alternative: "And if you had thought 'he is busy' — what would you have done differently?"
  • Consolidate: "See — your thoughts and actions DO affect the outcome. You are not powerless"

When to use:

  • Continuously — as a background process through SA
  • Every SA moves the client toward operational thinking

Key phrases:

Notice that "nothing helps" hides the specific story. When we zoom into one scene — a single thought, a single action, a single reaction — the chain becomes visible. And where there is a chain, there is a place to step in.

Follow-up questions:

What was the one thought? What was the one action?
What did that action do to the other person, in the moment?
What would a different thought have produced?
So — is "nothing helps" still true, now that we see the chain?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Do not use the term "preoperational" with the client. It is your internal orientation, not a diagnosis.

McCullough, 2000 (based on Piaget)

Behavioral RehearsalBehavioral Rehearsal

Practicing new behavior in session before applying it in life. After the remediation phase of SA — "let's try out how this would look".

  • After the remediation phase of SA: "You identified what could have been done differently. Let's try it"
  • Enact the situation: "I'll be [colleague / friend]. Show me how you would say it the new way"
  • Give feedback: "When you said X — I felt Y. Is that closer to the DO?"
  • Try again with adjustments
  • Ask: "How was it? What was difficult?"
  • Assignment: "This week, try it in a real situation. Write down the SA"

When to use:

  • After the remediation phase of SA
  • When the client has identified an alternative behavior but is not sure of it

Key phrases:

You now have a better behavior on paper. Let's put it in the air. I will play the colleague. Try saying the line exactly the way you would like to — not perfectly, just closer to the DO.

Follow-up questions:

How was that to say out loud?
What part felt most unfamiliar?
What did my response tell you about the effect?
What would you tweak on the next try?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Do not demand perfection. The first attempt is already progress.
  • ⚠️ Build gradually.

McCullough, 2000

Hotspot IdentificationHotspot Identification

Identifying the situations in which the stamps activate most strongly — the "hotspots". Knowing them, the client can prepare in advance.

  • Review all SAs over several sessions: "In which situations does AO ≠ DO most often?"
  • Find the common thread: "Is there a kind of situation where you "get stuck"?"
  • Link to the stamps: "Criticism from the boss → the stamp 'I'm not good enough' → I withdraw"
  • Build a hotspot map: situation → stamp → typical reaction
  • Prepare a plan: "When I feel the stamp activating — I will pause and ask: what do I want?"
  • Practice: role-play a hotspot in session with the new behavior

When to use:

  • In the middle phase of therapy
  • When enough SAs have accumulated to analyze the pattern

Key phrases:

Looking across our last eight situations, I see a pattern: your stamp fires most when someone in authority gives you feedback. Let's give that zone a name and build a small plan for when you notice you are there.

Follow-up questions:

Do you recognize the shape of the hotspot?
What tells you that you are inside it — the first signal?
What is the one-sentence plan for when you notice it?
When is the next likely hotspot in your week?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Hotspots are not "weaknesses". They are zones where the old stamps are strongest.
  • ⚠️ Normalize this.

McCullough, 2006

CBASP Relapse PreventionCBASP Relapse Prevention

Preparing for the end of therapy: updated stamps, mastered SA skills, a plan in case of worsening. Chronic depression can return — the client must be ready.

  • Review the stamps: "You used to believe [old]. How do you see it now? Formulate the updated version"
  • Summarize the skills: "What can you now do? SA, discriminating people, new behavior"
  • Discuss the risks: "When might depression return? Which situations are hotspots?"
  • Build a plan: "First signs → what I do → who I reach out to"
  • Practice: "If the stamp activates in a month — run an SA by yourself"
  • Leave the door open: "Booster sessions are possible. That is not failure — it is support"

When to use:

  • The last 2-3 sessions
  • Before closing therapy

Key phrases:

Chronic depression often recurs — not because therapy failed, but because that is the nature of it. Let's build the plan you will want on the worst day: the first signs, the first action, the name of the person you will call.

Follow-up questions:

What will tell you the old stamp is firing again?
What is the first small action?
Who is the second person on the list, if the first is not available?
At what threshold do you come back for a booster?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Chronic depression is recurrent. Normalize: the return of symptoms does not mean therapy failed.

McCullough, 2000 — chronic depression relapse prevention

Causal Theory Closure RevisionCausal Theory Closure Revision

Helping the client revise the deep conclusions about self and world based on past experience. Not "replacing negative thoughts" but updating the causal theory.

  • Recall the stamp: "You used to believe — 'I'm not good enough'. Remember?"
  • Gather counter-evidence from SA: "In how many situations does AO = DO? What does that say?"
  • Gather data from IDE: "I am different from your mother. That colleague is different. What does that mean?"
  • Help formulate the updated stamp: "How would you say it now?"
  • Options: "Sometimes I am good enough. Some people value me"
  • Check: the updated stamp must be realistic, not idealized

When to use:

  • In the middle and closing phase
  • When enough successful SAs and IDE experiences have accumulated

Key phrases:

The sentence "I'm not good enough" was a conclusion you drew at eight. We have some new evidence now. How would an eight-year-old you, seeing our data, write the sentence today? Not perfect — just truer.

Follow-up questions:

What pieces of the old stamp still feel true?
What pieces do not fit the new evidence?
How would you write the updated version?
Is this wording honest, or too rosy?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Do not hurry. Stamps are formed over years. Their revision is a process, not an event.

McCullough, 2000

Generalization TrainingGeneralization Training

Helping the client transfer SA skills from therapy into everyday life. "I don't need a therapist to see the link — I can do it myself."

  • Home SA: the client fills in the form independently (1-2 situations per week)
  • Review in session: "What went well? Where were the sticking points?"
  • Mini-SA "in the head": "When the situation happens — stop and ask: what do I want (DO)?"
  • "What do I need to do to get the DO?"
  • Tracking: "How many times this week did you notice the link between your behavior and the outcome?"
  • Consolidation: "You are already running SA automatically. That is the goal"

When to use:

  • From the middle of therapy onward
  • Mandatory in the closing phase

Key phrases:

The point of SA is not that we do it here forever — it is that you start doing a short version inside your head in the real moment. Thirty seconds, five steps. Let's rehearse that compressed version.

Follow-up questions:

What are the five words you will use on yourself in real time?
Where will you most likely catch yourself running mini-SA this week?
What will make it harder?
What is the cue that tells you the pattern started?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Generalization is not automatic. It requires practice.
  • ⚠️ Do not drop homework too early.

McCullough, 2000

Successful Situation AnalysisSuccessful Situation Analysis

A Situational Analysis of a situation where AO = DO. Helping the client see: when they acted differently — the outcome was different. "My actions work."

  • Ask for a situation that went well: "When this week did you get what you wanted?"
  • Run the SA: situation → interpretations → behavior → AO → DO
  • Note: "AO = DO! What did you do to make this happen?"
  • Explore the interpretations: "What thoughts were present? Were they accurate? Useful?"
  • Underline: "Your actions led to this outcome. You did this"
  • Ask: "What do you feel, realizing that?"

When to use:

  • Regularly — at least 1 successful SA per 3-4 problem ones
  • For balance and reinforcement

Key phrases:

Not every SA has to start from a mess. Today let's do one on a moment where it worked. The goal is the same: see the chain. The difference is that this time the chain ends in "got what I wanted".

Follow-up questions:

What exact thought did you have this time?
What exact action followed?
What was different from the usual pattern?
What happens inside when you let yourself own this?

Warnings:

  • ⚠️ Chronically depressed clients often devalue success. Do not allow it — anchor it: "You did this. This is real".

McCullough, 2000

ALLIANCE

FOCUS

INTERVENTIONS

PRESENCE

CLOSING

📋 Structured diary
Situational Analysis

CBASP helps you see links between behavior, interpersonal consequences and the desired outcome.

By analyzing one concrete situation, you can notice interpretations, actions and their impact on others.

Write down the situation → thoughts → behavior → actual outcome (AO) → desired outcome (DO) → what could be different.

Materials are informational and educational and summarize publicly available scientific sources. They are not medical or psychological advice, are not intended for self-diagnosis or self-treatment, and do not replace consultation with a qualified professional.