Where the method comes from
It began not with a treatment but with an observation. In the 1950s a research group around the anthropologist Gregory Bateson in Palo Alto, California, studied how people talk to one another. Out of that work came the 1967 book that founded family therapy: Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin and Don Jackson described communication as behavior and behavior as communication. Their best-known sentence — one cannot not communicate — has an uncomfortable consequence: a symptom, too, is a message, and it is addressed to somebody.1
From this followed a reversal of the customary line of sight. It is not the conspicuous member who is ill but the pattern in which he becomes conspicuous. In 1974 Salvador Minuchin gave that view a structure: families have boundaries, alliances and hierarchies, and a symptom can stabilize this order rather than disturb it.2 Shortly afterward the Milan group around Mara Selvini Palazzoli developed the tool for which systemic therapy is known to this day: circular questioning, together with the principles of hypothesizing and neutrality.3
A second turn came in the 1980s. Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg stopped asking about the problem and asked instead about the exceptions to it: when does it fail to appear, and what is different then?4 The solution-focused brief therapy that grew out of this shapes the procedure to this day, and it explains why systemic therapy manages with comparatively few sessions.
The change of name from family therapy to systemic therapy is not cosmetic. It records that the approach has left the family room: systemic work is done today with couples, with groups, and with individuals whose relatives are not present at all.
How a course of systemic therapy proceeds
The most conspicuous difference lies in who is sitting in the room. Often it is not only the patient but the family, the couple, or some other section of his surroundings. The person who first counted as ill is then called, in the technical vocabulary, not the patient but the identified patient — a term that records that he points to the problem without owning it.
The questioning is circular. Not “How do you feel about that?” but “What do you think your daughter believes your husband makes of it?” The question obliges everyone in the room to describe the situation once from someone else's point of view — and it lets all present hear how they figure in the minds of the others.3
To this are added reframing, which places a behavior in a different frame and thereby gives it a meaning that permits change; the search for exceptions, which strips the problem of its inevitability4; and assignments for the interval between sessions, by which the pattern is tested or deliberately interrupted.
What the therapist does not do is take sides. The stance required of him is called neutrality, or multipartiality: he holds with everyone at once, because otherwise he would himself become part of the pattern he means to describe.3
An example
The following account is an anonymized composite of typical cases.
A fifteen-year-old has not gone to school for weeks. In the morning he stays in bed. His mother stays home, negotiates, comforts, excuses him to the school office. His father comes home in the evening, raises his voice and threatens consequences that nobody enforces. The more the mother comforts, the louder the father becomes; the louder the father becomes, the more the mother comforts. The boy lies between them.
The therapist asks all three to come in. She asks the father what he supposes his wife thinks when he leaves for work in the morning. She asks the mother what her son probably imagines his parents talk about in the evening. She asks the boy who in the family would gain most if he went back to school. The answers surprise all three.
Then comes the reframing: as long as the boy stays in bed in the morning, his parents have a reason to talk to each other every day. The father objects. The mother does not.
The assignment for the coming week is small and precise: the parents agree on one single joint response, and the mother drives to work in the morning. After the fourth session the boy goes back to school.
That is no small thing, and it happened quickly. About what the boy thinks — about school, about his failure, about himself — nothing was said. The pattern was the problem, and the pattern has been repaired. Whether the thoughts that kept him in bed in the morning are still there, nobody knows. He himself least of all.
Where is systemic therapy effective?
Systemic therapy is the most thoroughly examined form of psychotherapy in Germany. The Scientific Advisory Board on Psychotherapy granted it scientific recognition in 2008.5 The Federal Joint Committee thereupon commissioned the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care to carry out a benefit assessment — the first ever conducted for a form of psychotherapy. The final report of 2017 runs to more than eight hundred pages; over three thousand studies were screened in full text.6
The Institute graded the certainty of its conclusions. The highest grade is “proof”, below it come “indication” and “hint”. Decisive, however, is a second question that is almost always lost in the reporting: compared with what? Whether a procedure performs better than no treatment at all, better than a plain counseling conversation, or better than another form of psychotherapy are three different statements. They also came out differently.
Against no treatment, systemic therapy performs well. For anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders and for schizophrenia there was an indication of benefit. For depressive disorders, eating disorders, substance use disorders, mixed disorders, and psychological burdens accompanying physical illness there were hints of benefit in at least one of the comparisons examined. In two further areas neither advantages nor disadvantages could be established. That the procedure works is thus supported across a broad spectrum.6
Against other forms of psychotherapy the picture is different. For anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders, systemic therapy performed worse in this comparison than the procedures it was tested against. The Federal Joint Committee stated this expressly in its summary documentation: a hint of a lesser benefit of systemic therapy.7
This finding deserves attention, because it appears almost nowhere in the reporting on the procedure's admission — and because it concerns precisely the area in which cognitive work on thoughts and convictions is essential to a successful treatment.
The Institute was unable to weigh benefit against harm overall: no usable data on adverse effects were available.6 That is no particular blemish on systemic therapy but a gap in psychotherapy research as a whole.
Why two evaluations reach different conclusions
The systemic professional societies assess the evidence differently. The working group around Kirsten von Sydow presented in 2007 an evaluation of the controlled randomized studies which concludes that systemic therapy is largely equivalent to the established procedures — cognitive behavioral therapy included — and superior for some conditions.8 This work accompanied the successful application to the Scientific Advisory Board.
Both evaluations examine largely the same literature and reach different conclusions. The reason lies not in anyone's honesty but in the method. A meta-content analysis counts how many studies found a significant difference. A benefit assessment conducted under the rules of evidence-based medicine asks in addition how susceptible each individual study is to bias, whether the findings agree across the endpoints, and how certain the overall statement becomes as a result. The first procedure counts results; the second weighs them.
Anyone reading effectiveness claims about any form of psychotherapy should therefore first ask who counted, and by what rules. The distinction between “effective” and “more effective than” is the most important of these — and the most frequently passed over.
Where it reaches its limits
The first limit is the system itself. The procedure presupposes that there is a pattern capable of being changed, and people willing to take part in changing it. If the family does not come, if the partner is unwilling, or if the patient lives alone, the system can only be called to mind in conversation. That is possible and it is practiced — but it is not the same thing.
The second limit was surveyed by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. For anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders, systemic therapy performs worse than other forms of psychotherapy.6 This is no marginal finding: anxiety disorders are among the most common psychological illnesses of all, and they are at the same time the disorders for which cognitive psychotherapy has the shortest documented treatment duration and the best documented prospect of success.
The third limit is the same one that appeared with the boy in the example. He goes back to school. Whether he still believes that a failure makes him worthless is not thereby settled — the question was never asked.
At this point a widespread misunderstanding needs clearing up. The systemic view is not the exclusive property of systemic therapy. That a self-defeating conviction was acquired within a fabric of relationships is not disputed by cognitive psychotherapy; it regards this as the normal case — and it examines the relational fabric of the individual learning history very closely. Whoever learns that a mistake makes him worthless has usually learned it from somebody.
What is disputed is something else: that one has to change the system in order to change the conviction. The difference has a practical side. The conviction sits inside the person and moves with him — to the next school, the next relationship, the next place of work. The system stays behind. Whoever corrects the self-defeating thinking thereby also changes how that person moves within any system; the reverse direction is not assured.
The road into the Guideline
No other procedure has so long and so precisely documented a road behind it.
2008 the Scientific Advisory Board on Psychotherapy granted systemic therapy scientific recognition.5
2017 the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care published its final report on the benefit assessment in adults.6
2018 the Federal Joint Committee determined benefit and medical necessity.7
2020 admission to the Psychotherapy Guideline took effect; systemic therapy has been the fourth guideline procedure for adults ever since.
2024 admission followed for children and adolescents; since July 1, 2024, it has been covered for them as well.9
Eleven years between scientific recognition and insurance coverage, and in between the first benefit assessment ever prepared for a form of psychotherapy. The three older guideline procedures have never had to travel this road. Anyone inclined to mock the evidence base of systemic therapy should know that it is the only one ever examined with this degree of rigor.
Its relation to the other procedures
Systemic therapy stands in no line of descent from behavior therapy or from psychoanalysis. It comes out of cybernetics and communication research, which makes it the only one of the four guideline procedures whose roots lie outside psychology and medicine.
One thing sets it apart from all the others: it is the only procedure in which several people are regularly treated at once. Therein lies its strength wherever the pattern is the problem — and its weakness wherever the thinking of the individual is the problem.
All the procedures side by side, with insurance status and hour allowances: What forms of psychotherapy are there?10
The opposing position in detail: What is cognitive psychotherapy?11
Frequently asked questions about systemic therapy
Does health insurance pay for systemic therapy?
Yes. In Germany it has been covered by the statutory health insurance system since 2020 for adults and since July 1, 2024, for children and adolescents as well.9 In Switzerland, since the physician-referral model of 2022, it is not the procedure that decides but the physician's referral.
Does the whole family have to come along?
No. The multi-person setting is common but not obligatory; systemic therapy is also conducted with individuals. The person's surroundings are then called to mind in conversation rather than invited into the room.
How long does systemic therapy take?
It has the smallest allowance of the four guideline procedures: up to 36 hours, and up to 48 at the second step.10 This is no accident but follows from the solution-focused origins of the procedure.
What is systemic therapy effective for?
That depends on what it is compared with. Against no treatment, the 2017 benefit assessment found an indication of benefit for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders and for schizophrenia; hints of benefit were found for depressive disorders, eating disorders, mixed disorders, physical illness and substance use disorders. Against other forms of psychotherapy, by contrast, systemic therapy performed worse for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders.6
What is the difference from cognitive psychotherapy?
Systemic therapy changes the pattern between people; cognitive psychotherapy changes the thinking of the individual person. The one works best where the surroundings play their part; the other where the conviction travels with the patient.
Written Cognitive Psychotherapy (WCP) by Dr. Dietmar Luchmann, LLC, provides assistance for self-help to enable the self-healing of psychological disorders:
1. Discover WCP
2. Take Suitability Assessment
3. Start Self-Therapy
1 Watzlawick, P.; Beavin, J. H.; Jackson, D. D.: Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton, 1967.
2 Minuchin, S.: Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.
3 Selvini Palazzoli, M.; Boscolo, L.; Cecchin, G.; Prata, G.: Hypothesizing — Circularity — Neutrality. Three Guidelines for the Conductor of the Session. Family Process, 19 (1980), no. 1, pp. 3-12.
4 de Shazer, S.: Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1985.
5 Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Psychotherapie (Scientific Advisory Board on Psychotherapy) under § 11 PsychThG: Report on the scientific recognition of systemic therapy, December 14, 2008. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, vol. 106, no. 5, January 30, 2009, pp. A208-A211.
6 Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care): Systemic therapy in adults as a psychotherapy procedure. Final report N14-02, IQWiG report no. 513, 2017.
7 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (Federal Joint Committee): Summary documentation on the determination of the benefit of systemic therapy in adults, November 22, 2018.
8 von Sydow, K.; Beher, S.; Retzlaff, R.; Schweitzer, J.: Die Wirksamkeit der Systemischen Therapie/Familientherapie. Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2007. Also: von Sydow, K.; Beher, S.; Retzlaff, R.; Schweitzer-Rothers, J.: Systemische Therapie bei Störungen des Erwachsenenalters. Eine Metainhaltsanalyse von 28 randomisierten Primärstudien. Psychotherapeut, 52 (2007), no. 3, pp. 187-211.
9 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss: Decision on the Psychotherapy Guideline — systemic therapy for children and adolescents, January 18, 2024; covered since July 1, 2024.
10 Luchmann, D.: What forms of psychotherapy are there? Psychotherapie, July 24, 2026.
11 Luchmann, D.: What is cognitive psychotherapy? Psychotherapie, July 22, 2026.
Your Comment
Do you have remarks, suggestions, or additions regarding this article? Do you have personal therapy experiences? We welcome substantial feedback.