I agree with the statement that the ABC model of crisis intervention tends to have more structure than long-term therapy. My position can be supported with both my personal experiences and scholarly resources. To begin with, it is necessary to define each method and compare their structures. According to Kanel (2019), the ABC model of crisis intervention is a three-stage process that includes the following steps: “A, achieving rapport; B, boiling the problem down to basics; and C, coping” (p. 38). As can be seen, these components must be structured in an efficient way to stabilize the client and restore pre-crisis functioning. In turn, long-term therapy refers to the type of treatment that is more open-ended and less structured (Kanel, 2019). As reported by Eppel (2018), “a criticism of long-term psychotherapy is its tendency to linger and to lose focus” (p. 162). In contrast to the ABC crisis intervention model that deals with emergencies and requires an immediate response, long-term counseling is a broader and less structured approach that addresses complex issues.
Furthermore, I would like to discuss my personal experiences that illustrate my point. In particular, I know a person who went into long-term therapy for anxiety disorder. The treatment was characterized by a flexible approach and a lack of rigid structure. At the same time, I can name a situation where I applied the ABC model myself to put my life back together after experiencing a relationship crisis. The three-staged structure of this method allowed me to address the problem over a short period and resolve the issue. Overall, it can be seen that the ABC model of crisis intervention appears to have more structure than long-term therapy.
References
Eppel, A. (2018). A manual for short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. In A. Eppel (Ed.), Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (pp. 133-168). Springer.
Kanel, K. (2019). A guide to crisis intervention (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.