Humanistic Perspective Approach in Their Therapeutic and Research Practices to Understand the Lived Experiences of Andrew M

Humanistic Perspective approach in their therapeutic and research practices to understand the lived experiences of Andrew M. Bland1 and Eugene M. DeRobertis2,3 individuals as active participants in their life- 1Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA world – i.e., situated in sociocultural and eco- 2Brookdale College, Lincroft, NJ, USA psycho-spiritual contexts. 3Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA From its inception, humanistic psychology has been “a diverse amalgam of secular, theistic, individualistic, and communalistic strands” Synonyms (Schneider et al. 2015, pp. xviii–xix) in both its range of influences and its proponents. It is best Constructivist; Existential; Holistic; Humanistic understood as a broad-based yet theoretically- psychology; Person-centered; Phenomenological; delineated movement rather than a highly special- Self-actualization; Third Force; Transpersonal ized school. Humanistic psychologists share a vision of psychology as a holistic, phenomenological exploration of the processes that organi- Introduction cally promote psychological health and growth in accordance with people’s innate nature and poten- The humanistic perspective on personality tials. Such an intentionally non-exclusive emphasizes the individualized qualities of optimal approach has been preferred in order “to keep well-being and the use of creative potential to things open and flexible” (Bühler 1971, p. 378), benefit others, as well as the relational conditions with the deliberate goal of continuous revision that promote those qualities as the outcomes of and elaboration in order to “establish itself anew healthy development. The humanistic perspective for each generation” (Criswell 2003, p. 43). Con- serves as an alternative to mechanistic and/or temporary humanistic psychology is a “concerted reductionistic explanations of personality based brew” of three ontologies: on isolated, static elements of observable behavior (e.g., traits) or self-concept. Humanistic psychol- • Existential psychology – which emphasizes ogists contend that personality formation is an freedom, experiential reflection, and ongoing process motivated by the need for rela- responsibility. tive integration, guided by intentionality, choice, • Transpersonal psychology – which stresses the hierarchical ordering of values, and an ever- spirituality, transcendence, and compassionate expanding conscious awareness. Humanistic psy- social action. chologists employ an intersubjective, empathic

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017 V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1484-1 2 Humanistic Perspective

• Constructivist psychology – which accents cul- explore how different values/belief systems influ- ture, political consciousness, and personal ence commonalities and diversity in individuals’ meaning. (Schneider et al. 2015, p. xviii/xxiii) lived experience. Thus, humanistic psychologists “pose two Taken together, these provide the foundation overarching challenges to the study of conscious for a human science and clinical outlook that and nonconscious processes: (1) what does it values the whole person in context and that, by mean to be [a] fully experiencing human and its methods, serves to reconcile the dualities of (2) how does that understanding illuminate the objective/subjective, individual/species, disposi- fulfilled or vital life?” (Schneider et al. 2015, tional/situational, nature/nurture, art/science, sci- p. xvii). Humanistic psychologists believe that ence/spiritual, mind/body, Eastern/Western, focusing on life stories or narratives – sometimes aesthetic/pragmatic, etc. in conjunction with objective data – is the ideal Rather than view the healthy personality as the means of understanding where individuals have absence of pathology and/or the achievement of been and who they are becoming. In addition, “happiness” as understood on an egoic basis, humanistic psychologists address societal/ecolog- humanistic psychologists highlight maturity and ical conditions that promote or impede the devel- the roles of meaning-making and of values – e.g., opment of social intimacy and personal identity autonomy and commitment, freedom and respon- within a community as principal components of sibility, personal decision and worldly adaptabil- healthy personality development. ity, and self-awareness and the awareness of Taking these assumptions together, the human- others. Humanistic personality theory emphasizes istic perspective is summarized by five basic individuals’ motivation to continually progress postulates that lead off each issue of the peer- toward higher levels of interactive functioning reviewed Journal of Humanistic Psychology. and their present capacities for growth and change Human beings: irrespective of past limitations and future uncertainties. • As human, supersede the sum of their parts. Humanistic psychologists also contend that the- They cannot be reduced to components. ory or method should not univocally precede sub- • Have their existence in a uniquely human con- ject matter. They believe that the technocratic text, as well as in a cosmic ecology. assumptions and practices of the natural science • Are aware and are aware of being aware – i.e., approach conventionally adopted by psychologists they are conscious. Human consciousness in the interest of prediction, manipulation, and always includes an awareness of oneself in control of behavior are insufficient to appropriately the context of other people. capture and contextualize the nuances of human • Have the ability to make choices and, with that, experience, of which behavior is a by-product. responsibility. They question the placement of the observer and • Are intentional, aim at goals, are aware that the observed in passive roles in the interest of they cause future events, and seek meaning, certainty and generalizability at the expense of value, and creativity. contextually-situated perspectives gleaned from meaningful empathic interaction. Likewise, at the The “common denominator of these concepts,” clinical level, the employment of monolithic theo- said Bühler (1971), “is that all humanistic psy- ries and the preoccupation with technique in psychologists see the goal of life as using [one’s] life chotherapy are considered inadequate to to accomplish something [one] believes in” and to appropriately understand and address human suf- create something that outlives oneself (p. 381). fering. Rather, a more flexible, process-oriented, Following is a brief overview of the evolution descriptive approach is favored to promote individ- of the humanistic perspective on personality. It uals’ self-awareness and self-regulation and to begins with an assessment of the historical context Humanistic Perspective 3 in which the humanistic perspective arose as the conformity, compartmentalization of experience, Third Force in American psychology, followed by and disempowerment of the individual in society a summary of the influences that inspired the (Arons 1999; Wertz 1998). They cautioned that humanistic movement. It then provides a brief the “limited and limiting images” (Frick 1971, outline of the progression of the humanistic per- p. 10) propagated by “low-ceiling psychology” spective on personality from its Third Force con- (Maslow, quoted in DeCarvalho 1991) would ceptualization through three subsequent seep into the greater culture and lower ordinary interrelated movements – existential, transper- people’s expectations of themselves and their sonal, and constructivist. Note that the eras during potential. At best, the prevailing schools offered which each ontology gained prominence greatly images of personality that were comparable to overlapped; thus the outline is more thematic than “pages torn from a book, only parts that contribute chronological. Finally, examples are given of how to a greater whole” (Frick 1971, p. 10). these movements coalesced into contemporary Several of the psychologists who affiliated humanistic constructs and of the interdependence themselves with the humanistic movement had between developments in humanistic and conven- been trained as experimentalists/behaviorists tional positivistic psychologies. Schneider et al.’s and/or psychoanalysts, and many had developed (2015) Handbook of Humanistic Psychology is respected reputations in the field during the 1930s recommended for additional perspective on con- and 1940s. However, by the 1950s, their own temporary conceptualization in and practical experiences as both people and professionals pro- applications of humanistic psychology in therapy, mpted them to question the conventional thinking research, and society and for a listing of current in psychology and to note its limitations. It should participants in the humanistic movement. be clarified that humanistic psychologists did not deny the contributions of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. They incorporated the insights of the Historical Account of Theoretical/ existing schools into a broader phenomenological Philosophical Foundations and Key orientation that emphasized the validity of human Principles experience and meaning. Humanistic psychologists thus referred to themselves as the Third Humanistic psychology began as a revolution Force – i.e., a third option – in psychology that within the field in response to a concern that sought to consolidate the best of the prevailing prior to the mid-twentieth century “none of the schools while also drawing from additional tradi- available psychological theories did justice to the tions both within and outside of psychology. ‘healthy human being’s functioning’ and ‘modes Humanistic psychologists incorporated these of living’ or to the healthy human being’s ‘goals traditions with the intent of exploring areas of of life’” (Bühler 1971, p. 378). The founding human experience that otherwise had been either humanistic psychologists believed that experi- ignored by the field (due to the attitude that they mentalism/behaviorism and Freudian psychoanal- were not easily operationalized and measured) or ysis, the disparately prevailing schools in corrupted by incomplete theories and/or myopi- American psychology at that time, had each mar- cally limited observational techniques (Allport ginalized consciousness and reduced the fuller 1955; Arons 1999; May 1983). They believed range of human nature and its creative and spiri- that “a complete psychology should include issues tual achievements to the study of conditioned of freedom and creativity, choice and responsibil- responses in laboratory rats and of neurotic ity, and values and fulfillment” (Resnick et al. patients’ unconscious drives and conflicts. 2001, p. 79), as they had noted that these themes Humanistic psychologists believed that the were common among individuals whom both they prevailing schools served to uphold a societal and the larger culture/society deemed healthy per- status quo characterized by mechanization, mate- sonalities. They called for studying these themes rialism, bureaucratization, authoritarianism, from a more viable and comprehensive vantage 4 Humanistic Perspective point for psychology insofar as “the conscious false sense of security. They emphasized the experience of creative, healthy persons should be empowerment of each individual via transforma- at the center of psychological investigation” tion of values that affirm existence and that (Resnick et al. 2001, p. 79). encourage openness and flexible responsiveness to the world of which the individual is considered The Roots of the Humanistic Perspective part (and therefore part-author of). Similarly, the To restore a fuller vision of human experience and early twentieth-century phenomenological philos- potential, rekindle the greater possibilities of psy- ophy/psychology (e.g., Dilthey, Heidegger, Hus- chological science, and promote the science of serl, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, Spranger, etc.) healthy personality, humanistic psychologists emphasized the intentionality of human mental drew from an array of sources both within and activity and the roles of the relationship between outside of psychology for inspiration: consciousness and objects of perception in experiencing phenomena and of situational con- The Humanities text in understanding the structure of behavior In response to the problems of psychology in the (the third and fourth postulates). modern era – which values certainty and progress, is skeptical of the past, and often strives to con- Eastern Wisdom Traditions quer and transform nature rather than understand The founding humanistic psychologists referred and accommodate itself to it (May 1983) – several to Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism in their writ- of the founders of humanistic psychology inten- ings. For example, May (1983) noted the similar- tionally revived concepts from the humanities to ities between existential and Zen philosophies in introduce relevant human problems and questions their focus on ontology and their emphasis that that had been ignored or distorted by the pre- Western desire for power over nature had resulted vailing schools. For example, Greek dramatists not only in individuals’ estrangement from nature had created images of human life as a quest and but also from themselves. Later, transpersonal of the person as a hero struggling powerfully psychologists (e.g., Wilber 2000) more openly against fates during a journey of psycho-spiritual embraced and adopted Eastern ways of knowing integration. Greek philosophers valued dialogue in their conceptualizations of psycho-spiritual as a means of seeking deeper truths from everyday development and processes (the second situations: knowledge as prophylaxis against postulate) – more below. Mindfulness-based prac- wrongdoing and self-examination, self-discipline, tices have been part of the humanistic therapeutic self-determination, and self-challenging as tools repertoire since its beginning. for living. (Thus the Greeks influenced the third, fourth, and fifth postulates of humanistic Holistic Philosophy in the Natural and Applied psychology – see above.) Humanistic psycholo- Social Sciences (Including Systems Theory, Gestalt gists also drew from literature (e.g., Dostoyevsky, Psychology, and Organismic Psychology) Goethe, Hesse, Kafka, Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Biologist/neurologist-philosophers Coghill, Jack- Tolstoy, etc.) as a means of providing familiar son, Meyer, and Smuts proposed holistic, evolu- narratives to support their principles. tionary conceptualizations of the nervous system, memory, consciousness, and behavior. Frick European Existential and Phenomenological (1971) summarized their contributions to human- Philosophies istic thinking, as well as the process and func- The nineteenth- and twentieth-century existential tional views of applied philosophers Dewey and philosophers (e.g., Camus, de Beauvoir, Heideg- Whitehead, the open systems theory of von ger, Jaspers, Kierkegaard, Marcel, Nietzsche, Til- Bertalanffy, and the focus on irreducible, interre- lich, etc.) were critical of societal norms that lated patterns and the uniqueness of the ongoing promoted the fragmentation and compartmentali- interaction between organism and environment by zation of experience and/or complacency via a Gestalt psychologists like Lewin. Taken together, Humanistic Perspective 5 these influences “vigorously fought artificiality, Personality Psychology oversimplification, and the unnecessary abridge- “Historically, humanistic psychology was closer ment of human nature” in favor of models that to personality theory than to any other current in prized “the essential nature and integrity of the psychology” (DeCarvalho 1991, p. 76). Personal- organism found in [people’s] capacity for unity, ity psychologists including Allport, Kelly, Mur- organization, and integration” (Frick 1971, phy, and Murray aligned themselves with p. 135) (the first and third postulates). humanistic psychology when it formalized during Goldstein, an organismic psychologist, was the early 1960s. Allport focused on functionally- also highly influential. His term self-actualization autonomous, intentional, teleological dispositions referenced the pattern of resilient reorganization of personality that involve continuous maturation/ of a person’s capacities following an injury. It was transformation and that include attributes like adapted by humanistic psychologists to describe interpersonal warmth, realistic perceptions of the process of living authentically despite one’s one’s environment, proactive behavior, work and personal, environmental, and historical shortcom- responsibility as meaningful, and conscience and ings and of overcoming obstacles (real and per- values as essential to a unifying philosophy of life ceived) notwithstanding inherent risks (the first (the fourth and fifth postulates). Kelly’s personal and fifth postulates). construct theory focused on meaning-making, the dialectic exploration of how events are construed William James (vs. focusing on the events themselves), and James regarded personality as integrally related to developing the courage to step out of the security both environment and consciousness (i.e., the of one’s present world into the unknown (the self) as a result of pure embodied experience in fourth and fifth postulates). Murphy emphasized continuous formation (the first, second, and third how curiosity, social feeling, openness to experi- postulates). As both psychologist and philosopher ence, and commitment to an experiential orienta- of science, James viewed subjective reality as tion to life all stimulate heightened identification essential to understanding human possibility, and with the cosmos (the second postulate). Murray he discouraged psychologists from limiting the provided a taxonomy of human needs, stressed the field to “quantification of data restricted to the primacy of emotion, criticized the problems of senses” (Taylor 1991, p. 59). James thus assumed differentiating between scientific facts and the proto-phenomenological position of radical human values, and cautioned that focusing on empiricism, in which experience is favored as a superficialities both stunts the creative imagina- starting point over a priori theories, thereby facil- tion and impedes healthy personality develop- itating the assumption that nothing within the ment (the fourth and fifth postulates). realm of experience could be de facto excluded from the domain of scientific psychology. Post-Freudian Psychodynamic Psychology Maslow’s interest in a humanistic approach to Founding humanistic psychologists (e.g., Jourard psychology was sparked in the 1940s as he com- 1974; Maslow 1999) openly acknowledged the piled notes for a textbook designed to explore influence of dynamic psychologists and consid- psychology’s developments in the half-century ered them part of the humanistic movement. Adler since James’ seminal Principles of Psychology. emphasized that human behavior is purposeful Maslow noted that while remarkable discoveries and goal-oriented, that humans are socially had been made in some areas (e.g., animal behav- embedded, and that social interest and dialogue ior, learning theory, testing), others (e.g., aes- both are crucial for human development (the third thetics, altruism, religious experience) had and fifth postulates). Jung explored the narrative mostly been passed over. He thus decided to role of myths and symbols in the process of abandon the James project and devote his career psycho-spiritual development (the second and to filling in what he referred to as psychology’s fifth postulates). Rank regarded human life as a “huge big gaping hole.” process of self-creation and distinguished 6 Humanistic Perspective between neurotic tranquilizing/people-pleasing (Allport 1955); an embodied pattern of ongoing and heroic living wherein individuals coura- gradual movement toward optimal functioning, geously reach for unfamiliar horizons (the fourth wisdom, and fulfillment relative to one’s current and fifth postulates). Erikson proposed a dialecti- identity and circumstances (Maslow 1999; Rogers cal process of forging an autonomous identity in 1961/1995); and the integrative character of the order to love and to make a contribution to one’s whole developing individual embedded within a greater community (the third and fifth postulates). life-world context (i.e., being-in-the-world-with- Reich explored the physical embodiment of char- others, May 1983). Personality development is acter defenses against unacceptable feelings and assumed to be an ongoing process and the out- impulses (the first postulate). Horney and Fromm come of healthy growth, not a functionalistic goal emphasized self-realization and aspiration toward or moral injunction: “It should be supposed that and fulfillment of goals as an alternative to total fulfillment is never reached” (Combs 1999, Freud’s focus on homeostasis as the objective of p. 164). Taken together, humanistic personality human life (the fifth postulate). They, like Jung, theory emphasizes: also differentiated between self and ego/persona in their conceptualizations of developmental • The dialectical relationship between process maturation. (the personality is always in flux, evolving toward higher levels of consciousness) and The First Wave of Humanistic Psychology organization (the personality seeks to create (1940s to 1960s): The Third Force self-consistency and to bring completion to As noted above, American psychology during the incomplete structure) – i.e., transcending and early twentieth century had departed from James’ including (Wilber 2000) and chaos and form call for psychology to “address the problems of (Frankl 1978). everyday experience in terms of [individuals’] • Sovereign motivation (the personality is potential for growth” (Taylor 1991, p. 69) and guided, energized, and integrated by the instead rigidly adhered to the natural science motive of self-realization/self-actualization in approach which eliminated mind, consciousness, relation with one’s culture/environment). and agency from both its theory and its clinical • Potentiality (conceptual focus on healthy per- and research methods. Beginning with Allport, sonality rather than pathology). (Frick 1971) who introduced the phrase humanistic psychology to the study of personality during the 1930s, the Key constructs, terminology, and foci vary founders of humanistic psychology – including from one humanistic personality theorist to Bugental, Bühler, Combs, Frankl, Fromm, another. However, they share several common Gendlin, Goodman, Jourard, Kelly, Klee, Laing, tenets with regard to the outcomes of healthy Maslow, May, Moustakas, Murphy, Murray, Rog- personality development, as summarized by ers, Snygg, Sutich, etc. – shared in common the Jourard (1974): goal of reintroducing the self into psychology’s purview during the mid-twentieth century (see • Able to gratify basic needs through acceptable DeCarvalho’s(1991) account of the rich history behavior and relative absence of anxious self- of the humanistic movement’s development as consciousness. Freedom to attentively partici- psychology’s Third Force). pate in the world outside oneself. Lively inter- The Third Force founders sought to bypass est in and pursuit of goals beyond one’s own notions of self as a fixed, static, impermeable needs for security, love, status, or recognition. structure inside the human organism (e.g., the • Efficient contact with reality (perception and psychoanalytic ego or cognitivists’ notion of cognition not distorted by emotion and mind as homunculus executor) or merely as self- unfulfilled needs). concept. Instead, they emphasized self as an Iam experience of being in the process of becoming Humanistic Perspective 7

• Capacity for aesthetic cognition (perception In sum, “healthy personality is a way for [peo- and thinking that is receptive, contemplative, ple] to act, guided by intelligence and respect for free to play/enjoy versus selectively choosing life, so that [their] needs are satisfied and [they] experiences based on their relevance to one’s will grow in awareness, competence, and capacity immediate personal needs). for love” (Jourard 1974, p. 28). • Freedom to experience the full range of feel- When conditions are appropriately conducive ings. Appropriate emotional responses to situ- to healthy personality development, individuals ations and capacity to control their expression are more capable of becoming fully versus repression or uncontrollable outbursts. functioning –“[making] choices that express • Valid knowledge about the structure, func- [their] authentic values and [having] available tions, and limits of the body. Healthy accep- the undistorted full range of [their] life possibili- tance of one’s body and control over its ties” (Polkinghorne 2015, p. 90). They gradually functions and movement. Doing one’s best to become more accepting of themselves, as well as foster optimum bodily functioning. increasingly open to experience, more apprecia- • Self-structure is fairly congruent with the real tive of ambiguity and complexity, and more self (i.e., the process/flow of spontaneous expe- appropriately trusting of themselves and others. rience) versus self-alienation (driven by pride, In addition, they become better able to shake off impulses, hyper-conscience, external author- others’ destructive or inhibiting expectations, to ity, others’ wishes). Behavior reflects respon- view themselves more positively, and to assume a sible real self-direction versus defensive greater sense of autonomy, striving to create and responses to threats (actual or perceived) to act on healthy challenges for themselves and to one’s ideal/public self or façades/social roles. take healthy risks (vs. remaining homeostatically • Conscience fosters the individual’s fullest fixated in their comfort zones) that result in further development (vs. blind obedience or compul- growth/development. They become more capable sive rebellion) and permits guilt-free gratifica- of self-reflection, spontaneity, creativity, self- tion of various personal needs. determination, and a greater sense of fulfillment. • Interpersonal behavior is compatible with Furthermore, there is a greater sense of oneness one’s conscience and the demands of the and identification with humanity and therefore social/cultural system. One can enact a variety compassion and altruism akin to Adler’s notion of interpersonal roles in ways that are accept- of social interest – i.e., individuals are able to able to others. devote themselves to socially-relevant concerns • The power to give and receive love. Interper- beyond their own self-interest and/or need sonal relationships are characterized by con- gratification. cern for the other’s happiness and growth, While such terms had not yet been popularized respect for the other’s autonomy and individu- in the mid-twentieth-century psychology, the ality, having an accurate concept of the other’s founders of humanistic psychology believed that idiosyncrasies, self-disclosure, and having a secure attachment relationship, authoritative realistic and feasible demands and expecta- parenting, and other attributes of a supportive, tions of the other. accepting, and enriching but also appropriately • Meaningful work balanced with absorbing lei- challenging family, school, and community envi- sure pursuits. ronment are requisite for the likelihood of the • The abilities to live decisively and to face death creative self-expansion to occur. Otherwise, “the with courage; to produce happiness for oneself press of social conformity produces self-concepts and others despite some degree of tragedy, that distort and hide aspects of people’s true selves failure, and suffering; and to have peace of ...[and people become] directed by socially pre- mind despite adversity because one is not sented distortions of who they are” (Polkinghorne plagued by doubt/conflict over what he/she 2015, p. 91). should be doing. 8 Humanistic Perspective

Rogers (1961/1995) referred to these distor- Third Force psychologists tended to focus most tions and denials of certain experiences (and on the constructive aspects of human nature, therefore parts of the self and their humanity) as regarding them as a biological disposition toward the result of internalized conditions of worth. fulfillment. In addition, in the spirit of their Amer- Individuals assume façades/social roles that they ican worldview steeped in expansiveness and believe they must enact based on the problematic unlimited horizons (Yalom 1980), they explored learning from their formative experiences/envi- the farther reaches of human possibility as an ronments. The corresponding incongruence with alternative to the reductionism of the extant the real self and void of personally meaningful models espoused in the field. In contrast, existen- existence forms the core of psychological suffer- tial psychologists like Binswanger, Boss, Frankl, ing. Efforts to evade the freedom and responsibil- May, Yalom, etc. suggested that personality is ity of independent thinking and action lead to better understood as founded upon diverse poten- rigidity; fear of uncertainty and the future; resis- tials for worldly involvement in the form of gen- tance to change and clinging to outmoded, inef- eral growth parameters rather than a sovereign fective behaviors/beliefs; need for approval; and instinct-like tendency toward self-actualization. guilt/regret when facing the discrepancy between Drawing more directly from European one’s self-concept and the ideal of who one wants existential-phenomenological traditions, which to be. Thus, humanistic psychology accounts for emphasized human limitations and the tragic psychopathology and problematic behavior as the aspects of human nature over a preordained pat- result of social conditioning away from one’s tern of goodness, they proposed that human nature inherent self which results in the frustration of is both constructive and destructive and that the human needs for security, love/belonging, and conscious, active process of grappling with and self-esteem as prerequisite for self-actualizing integrating these potentials within oneself results (Maslow 1987). in creative expression and growth. For instance, Humanistic psychologists believe that individ- Yalom (1980) proposed that the ongoing negotia- uals have the freedom to change and to create/ tion of four dialectics – death/existence, freedom/ recreate aspects of their personality as they learn destiny, isolation/connectedness, and meaning/ new information about themselves based on life meaninglessness – is essential for healthy person- experiences and social encounters, especially ality. The influence of existential- those which challenge their ordinary ways of phenomenological psychology served to deepen thinking, being, and relating and which liberate the humanistic perspective, and the Third Force and integrate their intellect, emotions, and body. psychologists (e.g., Maslow 1987) revised their This paves the way for both self-transcendence theories to better account for the psychology and transcendence of one’s environment. They of evil. become better able to regard healthy challenges At the same time that existential psychologists as opportunities for growth (vs. threats) and also deepened the focus of humanistic psychology, the to intentionally rise above the “imperfections of transpersonal psychology movement “[emerged] [their] culture with greater or lesser effort at as a reaction to the de-sacralization of everyday improving it” (Maslow 1999, p. 201) by living life in modern Western technological society and according to an intrinsic sense of ethics. to despiritualized religion” (Arons 1999, p. 191). It served to widen the map of human potential The Second Wave (Late 1960s–1970s to beyond the ego structures ordinarily assumed to 1980s–1990s): Beyond the Third be the personality by conventional Western Force – Existential-Phenomenological and psychology – including the greater conceptualiza- Transpersonal Psychologies tion of self proposed by the Third Force – to also Seemingly as a pendulum swing away from the include humans’ psycho-spiritual dimensions, mechanization of the experimentalists/behavior- particularly those espoused by wisdom traditions ists and the pessimism of Freud, many of the including Buddhism, Sufism, Christian and Humanistic Perspective 9

Jewish mysticism, etc. For transpersonal psychol- grammar and cognitive schemes which do not ogists, the self is “more of a witness (active voice) inhere cross-culturally. Instead, postmodern psy- than an entity” (Hoffman et al. 2015, p. 124). As chologists insisted upon the possibility of multiple such, transpersonal psychologists explored states truths and the supposition that reality is socially of awareness that transcend self-actualization and constructed. They suggested that “personal emphasized that ordinary human suffering is not essence is based on social context, and a multi- overcome until the illusion of separate selfhood is plicity of relationships means that the self is under realized. The transpersonal (or Fourth Force constant construction and reconstruction without movement, as Maslow termed it) began as an opportunity for introspection” (Hoffman et al. extension of the Third Force and was extrapolated 2015, p. 114). As such, postmodern psychologists by the likes of Assagioli, Frager, Walsh, argued that there is “no universal ground for Washburn, Welwood, Wilber, etc. The trans- ethics” insofar as “all is subject to context” and personalists were influential in having spiritual “language, culture, and [history] predispose crises added as a category of clinical concern in meanings which precede [individuals] and ines- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental capably guide and limit [their] individual mean- Disorders (DSM). ings and values” (Arons 1999, pp. 198–199). Hence, postmodern psychologists attempted to The Third Wave (1970s to Early 2000s): The place subjective experience within the context of Relationship Between Postmodernism/ ongoing relations among people, meaning in peo- Constructivism and Humanistic Psychology ple’s efforts to coordinate action within various By the last quarter of the twentieth century, some communities, and responsibility within a humanistic psychologists turned to postmodern culture – all in the interest of deconstructing the philosophy as its next ontology. This was partly problems of individualism and of promoting new out of concern that implementation of the Third forms of interdependent discourse. Force, existentialist, and transpersonal views pro- While postmodernists questioned the singular- moted the continuation of an individualistic ity of truth and ushered in the possibility of mul- Western worldview and its problematic implica- tiple truths in psychology, its “heyday of tions – i.e., colonialism and endangerment of relativistic skepticism is drawing to a close”;in indigenous worldviews – in a globalizing society. lieu of continuing to dichotomize between certain Postmodern philosophy had emerged in truth and no truth, post-postmodernists have the humanities and social sciences during the “turned to the idea of ‘good enough’ knowledge” 1970s–1980s out of disillusionment with the (Polkinghorne 2015, p. 94). Accordingly, human- failure of modern positivist science to deliver on istic psychologists have begun reexamining the its promises of utopia built on natural order as an role of the self in human existence insofar as alternative to blind religious faith. Accordingly, “the myth of self sustains many people, helping the postmodern worldview shifted focus from them survive what otherwise would be an “what we believe to how we believe” (Hoffman unlivable life” (Hoffman et al. 2015, p. 125). et al. 2015, p. 109), employing deconstruction of Polkinghorne’s(2015) review of contemporary narratives (a) as a coup against the tendency self-theorizing and narrative-based therapeutic within positivist science to assume natural lawful- modalities summarizes many contributions from ness as its object of discovery and (b) as a means Third Force and existential founders as well as of revealing inherent political/power structures their phenomenological influences while that underlie the language employed by scientists assessing advances in cognition, consciousness, in their quest for objective truth. and mind/body science within a vision of “a more With regard to personality, postmodern psy- holistic, complex, nuanced, and adaptive self that chologists like Gergen, O’Hara, etc. questioned is actively engaged in the world” (Hoffman et al. the humanistic idea of a permanent, autonomous 2015, p. 111). self conceived as a fictional creation of Western 10 Humanistic Perspective

The Fourth Wave (2000s to Present): attitudes of commitment, control/coping, and Revisiting and Reconciling the Roots of challenge that together provide the courage Humanistic Psychology and Dialoguing with needed to resiliently transform ongoing stressors Conventional Psychology from potential disasters into growth opportunities Despite their nuances, the Third Force, existential, and therefore to construct meaning rather than transpersonal, and constructivist movements cling to preconceived, familiar ways of knowing share a post-positivist critique of the limitations and understanding life. of the natural science model in psychology and a During the new millennium, humanistic psy- propensity for a phenomenological alternative. chologists also have embraced recently-emerged Since the new millennium, humanistic psycholo- parallel constructs from conventional psychology gists have called for rethinking their purpose and and psychiatry that demonstrate the validity of priorities to meet the needs and pressing concerns humanistic principles. For example, the humanis- of a new era which “inhibits freedom” in its “priz- tic emphasis on authenticity and autonomy con- ing sensationalism over sustained and reflective tributed to the expansion of the five-factor model inquiry, easy answers – be they military, religious, of personality to include an additional first factor or commercial – over discernment and struggle, of honesty-humility that encompasses truthful- and certitude over mindfulness and wonder” ness, positive values, honesty, sincerity, and recip- (Schneider 2015, p. 74). Some (e.g., Criswell rocal altruism (Maltby et al. 2012). In addition, it 2003; Taylor 1991; the current authors) have inspired Cloninger et al.’s(1993) seven-factor advocated for a return to the roots of humanistic model of personality, which involves the psychology in the phenomenological tradition of interdependent relationships among dimensions James and the personality psychologists like of temperament (novelty seeking, harm avoid- Allport, Murphy, and Murray. This has inspired ance, reward dependence, persistence) and char- updated constructs that reflect the Third Force acter (self-directedness, cooperativeness, self- founders’ basic ideas in conjunction with subse- transcendence) in the development of self- quent elaborations upon their principles by the identification both as autonomous and as an inte- existential, transpersonal, and constructivist gral part of humanity, society, and the universe/ movements. unity of all things. For instance, Schneider (2015) proposed a Furthermore, the recently-emerged positive model that builds upon the narrative conceptuali- psychology provides operationalization and quan- zation of self espoused by Third Force and exis- titative support that temporarily receded from tential paradigms (as an alternative to simplistic humanistic psychology during a litigious era. For reductionism as a defense against complexity and example, Patterson and Joseph (2007) suggested mystery in life) while also acknowledging and that research based on self-determination theory incorporating the psycho-spiritual aspects of supports Rogers’ ideas on the organismic valuing transpersonal psychology and socially process and self-concordant goals, autonomy ver- constructed aspects of postmodern/constructivist sus impersonal orientation, conditional regard psychology. Schneider suggested that the healthy from significant others leading to introjected con- personality embraces paradox and awe by nego- ditions of worth, increased congruence/openness tiating and creatively integrating the fluid center to experience and reduced defensiveness as out- (i.e., dialectic) between constriction (focusing, comes of therapy, and deeper relationships limiting, yielding) and expansion (seeing possi- marked by sensitivity to and acceptance of others bility, incorporating, asserting) by coming to as common among fully functioning people. Also, terms with and developing faith in the creative humanistic and positive psychologists share in energies of the cosmos and within oneself despite common interests like authenticity as a foundation the inherent uncertainty. In addition, the contem- for ethics, mindfulness, and self-awareness porary personality construct of hardiness (Maddi (Patterson and Joseph 2007; Resnick et al. et al. 2011) is a composite of the interrelated 2001). However, whereas humanistic psychology Humanistic Perspective 11 is inherently (though not exclusively) phenome- with a new, emotionally-validating interper- nological, positive psychology as a movement sonal experience. continues to cling dogmatically to the strictures • Tacit experiencing is an important guide to of positivism. Accordingly, humanistic psychol- conscious adaptive experience. An attuned, ogy offers a broader range of epistemologies and supportive therapeutic relationship serves to methodologies from which positive psychologists help clients develop comfort looking inward can draw to deepen their conceptualizations to not and therefore to render emotional pain more only focus on virtue, optimism, and positive self- bearable. appraisals but also on the constructive value of • Therapists’ responses/interventions are transforming struggle (Resnick et al. 2001; intended to stimulate and deepen the process Schneider 2015). of clients’ immediate experiencing and ongoing awareness throughout the course of therapy. This includes clients’ perceiving, sensing, Applications: Therapy feeling, thinking, and wanting/intending. • Emphasis is given to clients’ integrative, for- The founders of humanistic psychology believed mative tendencies toward survival, growth, that, while it is possible for personality develop- personal agency, and the creation of meaning ment to occur in most interpersonal contexts, it is through symbolization. The collaborative likely to occur most directly by way of a thera- nature of the therapeutic relationship is key to peutic encounter. Humanistic therapy is a phe- the unfolding process of therapy and to clients’ nomenologically-oriented approach intended to disclosure of narratives/personal stories which assist clients in living authentically in accordance further develops/maintains a shared under- with their values, aspirations, and limitations and standing and trust. in assuming an active role in their growth. • Clients are seen as unique individuals with complex arrays of emotions, behaviors, stories, Therapeutic Principles and capacities that can, at times, be viewed as Humanistic therapy assumes that clients are holis- representative of a particular clinical diagnostic/irreducible (i.e., not determined by their past or tic category but never reduced to one. Instead conditioning, capable of agentic change) and that of viewing clients through the lens of pathol- they are experts on their own experiences, their ogy/deficits, humanistic therapists understand potentials within themselves, and the social, com- them from the stance of thwarted potential and munity, and cultural contexts within which they truncated development and emphasize their forge their identities and senses of control, respon- strengths. (Angus et al. 2014) sibility, and teleological purpose. Thus, clients are granted an autonomous role in the therapy pro- Transformation Versus Tension Reduction cess, with therapists respecting their freedom and Rather than focus on first-order change processes potential to make choices about whether and how (i.e., symptom reduction and adjustment) that to change. offer temporary relief to clients but leave under- Contemporary humanistic psychotherapies lying/root problems relatively unaddressed and share several therapeutic evidence-based princi- prone to eventual return, humanistic therapists ples of practice, many of which are rooted in focus on second-order (transformative) change Rogers’ (1961/1995) person-centered therapy: processes. These involve a deep restructuring of self that results in long-term, core-level shifts in • An authentic therapeutic relationship is central and expansions of clients’ perspectives of their to effective practice. Therapists attempt to presenting concerns, of their world, and of them- enter empathetically into clients’ subjective selves, as they create and maintain new ways of experience – deemed an essential aspect of being. Humanistic therapists rely less on prescrip- their humanity – in a way that provides them tive techniques that uphold their role as expert and 12 Humanistic Perspective instead employ their presence and reflexive capac- Outcomes of Therapy ities as instruments for understanding clients’ The humanistic approach to therapy – specifically unique patterns of lived experience. Rogers’ (1961/1995) facilitative conditions in conjunction with the principles espoused by other founding humanistic therapists (e.g., Frankl Forging a New Self-Narrative 1978; May 1983) – anticipated the contemporary Humanistic therapists attend to clients’ narratives, outcome literature on common relational/experi- metaphors, nonverbal behaviors, responses to ential factors which account for the most substan- feedback, and other interaction patterns in order tial sustainable change (as opposed to isolated to help them explore how these may point toward techniques). Moreover, Angus et al.’s(2014) attachment histories and other relational patterns meta-analysis of empirical studies conducted dur- that contribute to defensive interpersonal/behav- ing the last quarter century suggests that human- ior patterns in an effort to uphold a false sense of istic approaches to therapy result in large effects in self. Therapists “reflect back aspects that are evi- pre-post client change and longitudinal mainte- dent but unnoticed – in effect, holding a mirror up nance (suggesting that clients continue to develop to the client” (Schneider and Krug 2010, p. 2/37). on their own after termination), as well as in Accordingly, clients’ resistance to growth demonstrated effectiveness in addressing interper- becomes exposed and challenged to promote sonal/relational issues, depression, psychosis, and disidentification – i.e., surrendering the need to chronic medical issues. defend their current position, having confused it for their greater self-identity. Rather than cling to Influence past knowledge and expectations of themselves, The humanistic approach stimulated a relation- others, and situations, clients become better able ally-oriented revision of psychoanalysis and the to realize and act on a sense of personal meaning advent of applied behavior analysis as an exten- in all their experience. The therapeutic relation- sion of behavior modification with increased ship offers a safe emergency that stimulates neural focus on interventions that address the underlying plasticity and therefore new learning. When the functions of behavior (vs. mere behaviors). In process goes well, “clients reclaim and re-own addition, humanistic approaches to therapy have their lives” (Schneider and Krug 2010, p. 1), been influential in the development of third-wave developing a worldview and behavior that authen- cognitive-behavioral (CBT) approaches (e.g., tically express their core values. acceptance and commitment therapy and dialecti- The therapeutic encounter serves to present cal behavior therapy with their emphases on clients with the choice between (a) becoming con- mindfulness and developing openness to experi- sumed by suffering to the point that they attempt ence), motivational interviewing (with its empha- to evade it (experiential avoidance) and thereby sis on promoting agency), and narrative therapies create even more suffering for themselves or (with their emphasis on meaning-making). others and (b) suffering well – i.e., accepting the aspects of their lives over which they have no control and committing their attention and energy Applications: Research to those which they do. This sense of intentionality enables a person to set goals and move forward As discussed, during the mid-twentieth century, instead of becoming mired in the face of adversity. humanistic psychologists became increasingly Accordingly, therapists employ role play, concerned that while modern science had rehearsal, visualization, mindfulness-based tech- attempted to explain the material structures and niques, etc. to help clients try out new experiences mechanisms of psychological phenomena (in the in the interest of incorporating them outside the case of personality, usually traits and pathological therapy relationship and thereby maintaining their behavior patterns), it was unable to describe the progress. natural dynamic interactions and interdependent Humanistic Perspective 13 structural relationships of meaning within and should be a human science, which employs a between phenomena. They argued that the “personal attitude” (Giorgi 1970, p. 317) and a detached attitude of science – which intentionally way of seeing the world as it is valid for everyday excluded individual subjectivity – lent itself to a people. They called for the development and precarious scientific ethic. The tendency within incorporation of both experiential and meaning- natural scientific psychology to treat phenomena oriented ways of knowing, and chose existential- as disconnected and compartmentalized lent itself phenomenological philosophy as the basis for a to the capacity for destructiveness insofar as it renewed human science approach. With its foun- served to control and conquer – instead of under- dational assumption that individuals are subjec- stand and cooperate with – nature in the interest of tive selves inextricably related to the world, the prudent and efficacious scientific progress. humanistic approach to research provides an alter- Applied to personality assessment, this meant native to probabilistic cause-and-effect explana- that psychologists were given power to employ tions, specifically in its focus on the nuanced positivistic concepts to measure, screen, classify, understanding of human experience via the reflec- and sometimes confine individuals based on pre- tive attitude, which treats perceptions, memories, defined constructs (e.g., those that undergird the emotions, etc. as moments within a continual pro- MMPI) without adequate reference to the context cess (i.e., the self as being in becoming)as behind their dispositions and/or situational behav- opposed to isolated, static elements (e.g., person- ior. As aforementioned, humanistic psychologists ality traits). questioned psychology’s conventional scientific values of prediction, manipulation, and control Phenomenology and Other Qualitative of behavior at the expense of adequate perspec- Research Methods tives, interpersonal relationships, cultural phe- The humanistic approach broadens the concepts nomena, creativity, and the complex nuances of of both science and objectivity and supplements developmental processes as they pertain to under- the range of available methods. For example, the standing personality. They believed that psychol- phenomenological method discerns the essential ogy needed to account for the whole person in features and structures of psychological phenom- context; otherwise, “exclusively explanatory psy- ena by asking what are its most revelatory, invari- chology leads to skepticism, superficiality, sterile ant meanings? The method involves thick empiricism, and an increasing separation of description drawn from direct observations knowledge from life” (Wertz 1998, p. 51). and/or reported events as primary data to arrive at an intersubjective perspective. Researchers are Toward a Human Science Approach expected to be mindful of their own experience Humanistic psychologists believed that if psy- and interactional processes as they inquire into the chology was to be a complete and relevant experiences of others. With its focus on phenom- human science, it was necessary to revisit its ena that are not readily conducive to operational philosophy of science. In the spirit of James, definitions and measurement but nonetheless humanistic psychologists (e.g., Giorgi 1970; assume a role in conscious human experiencing Maslow 1987; Rogers 1961/1995) argued that and are verifiable via intersubjective agreement, psychological science must remain an open pro- such a perspective provides an objective platform cess and not arbitrarily exclude anything of poten- for appropriately understanding subjectively tial interest and relevance to the greater human co-constituted meanings in human experience. species. They criticized psychologists’ disingen- The method thus remains rigorously empirical uous claim that they were value-free, as well as insofar as its fidelity to its topics of inquiry is their desire to limit themselves to generalizations arguably more comprehensive than that afforded based on spectator knowledge and technical by traditional positivistic empiricism. methods that benefited privileged groups or insti- In addition to phenomenology, humanistic tutions. They argued that psychology can and psychologists have developed and/or adapted a 14 Humanistic Perspective host of additional qualitative methods for psy- can complement each other in mixed-methods chology including hermeneutics, grounded the- designs. Furthermore, this approach to research ory, discourse and narrative analyses, and also underlies an individualized, humanistic intuitive methods of inquiry (see Barrell et al. approach to personality assessment – in which 1987; Wertz et al. 2011) that bridge the subjective reported and observed life experiences are treated and objective in the experiencing person to honor as primary data while test data, norms, and related and adequately address the richness of human research/theories are regarded as tools for collab- experience in its manifold levels: individual, orative dialogue and exploration. group, social, political, physiological, cognitive, affective, imaginal, artistic, spiritual, Influence etc. (Resnick et al. 2001). For an illustration as As a result of the efforts of humanistic psycholo- applied to personality, Maslow’s(1987) study on gists, psychology has moved beyond being the characteristics of self-actualizing people merely the science of behavior to also including entailed a qualitative analysis in which he extra- the study of the meanings of personal experience cted themes from interviews and biographies to and behavior. Qualitative inquiry has become develop a list of their common attributes. increasingly legitimized in conventional psychology, with training in qualitative methods now Not One-Sided included as a required component of graduate Although many humanistic psychologists gravi- training and increasing numbers of qualitative tate toward qualitative methods, it should be noted studies presented at psychology conferences and that they do not eschew quantification and that published in its peer-reviewed journals. Further- they encourage competence in multiple methods more, the research division of the APA has of inquiry. To illustrate, Rogers’ clinical research expanded to include a subsection devoted to qual- (see 1961/1995), the original empirically- itative inquiry, and APA’s policy on evidence- supported treatment, drew from statistical ana- based clinical practice has been expanded to lyses of observations of clients’ movement toward include the contributions of qualitative methods. self-congruence. Maslow’s(1987) needs hierar- Furthermore, research into creativity and con- chy was developed based on qualitative analysis sciousness has become embraced by conventional of extant theory and empirical research in con- psychologists – with a division of APA devoted to junction with quantitative studies he had the former – largely due to humanistic psycholo- conducted during his early career. It is crucial to gists’ emphasis on their place in the study of the note that both theories were developed as an out- healthy personality. come of research (not a priori to it), and Rogers and Maslow acknowledged the need for the theories to be further tested and revised as appropriate Critiques and Counter-Critiques (see Frick 1971). Thus, both qualitative and quantitative This section provides an overview of the strengths methods are considered necessary but incomplete and limitations of the humanistic perspective. The on their own, and it is assumed as given among section begins with a summary of the critique of humanistic psychologists that phenomena and humanistic psychology typically provided by con- their associated research questions should drive ventional psychologists, followed by a dialogue the method. Quantitative methods are maximally with that critique. useful when there are clearly discernable categorical boundaries between phenomena and their Traditional Critique context and when standardization is necessary; A sampling of textbooks in introductory psychol- on the other hand, qualitative research is better ogy, personality theory, and critical thinking in suited to subtler and more complex phenomena psychology generally suggests that the strengths and contexts that require description. The two also of the humanistic perspective include its Humanistic Perspective 15 innovative approach which helped move psychol- self and environment impossible. Humanistic psy- ogy past the theoretical dogma of Freud and chology has been criticized as not having an which provided research-based explanations of explicit construct against selfishness (i.e., the therapy process and its outcomes (e.g., although social interest is included in the defini- increased self-congruence and creativity) that tion of self-actualization, it is not explicitly have been successfully replicated. In addition, referred to as such; consequently, it remains humanistic psychology has been acknowledged biased toward a Western worldview). This leads for its focus on prevention (vs. intervention), to criticisms of moral relativism and even of elit- which influenced not only psychology but also ism and colonialism. the fields of education, parenting, and business management and for popularizing psychological Responses principles in society at large. Humanistic psychologists have responded that With regard to its limitations, Schneider et al. many of these criticisms are based on “negative (2015) have grouped the criticisms of the human- stereotypes and misinformation” (Elkins 2009, istic perspective into three principal categories of p. 268). Indeed, many of the criticisms are gener- concern, all of which seem to stem from human- ally unfounded insofar as they reflect either istic psychology’s focus on the integrity of the (a) reliance on secondary sources (which are individual. First, some academics – typically prone to the problems of an academic “telephone operating from a natural science game”) without appropriately consulting the orig- perspective – regard humanistic psychology as inal writings of humanistic psychologists; undisciplined, impractical, and therefore worthy (b) incomplete readings of the original primary of obsolescence. They argue that, with its empha- texts without accounting for the progress/evolu- sis on subjectivity, the humanistic perspective tion in humanistic theorizing since the mid-1960s; provides only impressionistic descriptions with- or (c) focus on popular writings by humanistic out precision and specificity and that at the clinical psychologists but bypassing their more substan- level it does not offer standardized, stepwise tech- tial theoretical and research scholarship (Patterson niques/procedures. At the research level, it is seen and Joseph 2007). as overly philosophical with ambiguous con- More specifically, the criticism that humanistic structs not conducive to scientific verifiability psychology is unscientific tends to overlook via falsification. (a) the traditional natural scientific work of Second, others believe that humanistic founding humanistic psychologists like Maslow psychology’s focus on what is distinctively and Rogers and (b) the commitment of humanistic human and fulfilling is shortsighted and indul- psychologists to developing phenomenological gent. Humanistic psychology’s deliberate “open- methods out of a passion to be not less but ness to everything” (Arons 1999, p. 196) has left it “more empirical – that is, more respectful of vulnerable to stereotypes that associate it with actual human phenomena” (May 1983, p. 127). sloppy eclecticism and with the excesses of the Thus, the criticisms arguably reflect the pre/trans 1960s–1970s counterculture and therefore to fallacy (Wilber 2000), the tendency to confuse being criticized as promoting narcissism; as post-rational thinking for pre-rational because being simplistic, naïve, and overly optimistic; both are transrational/transpersonal. Several of and, at best, as more relevant for therapy than for the founders of humanistic psychology have hardnosed psychological research. been described as ahead of their time, and their Third, still others contend that humanistic contributions to psychology have subsequently psychology’s individualism is oppressive in a become embraced and regarded as given within multicultural, global society insofar as humanity psychology. For example, humanistic has come to be conceptualized as a social con- psychology’s emphasis on holistic, dialectical, struction and fulfillment as a relative value – thus and systemic thinking paved the way for develop- rendering the notion of global transcendence of mental psychology’s resolution of the nature/ 16 Humanistic Perspective nurture debate and for principles that are now cultural studies, and gender studies (Schneider standard fare in lifespan development (e.g., et al. 2015), which arose out of its constructivist attachment, parenting styles, Bronfenbrenner’s focus. bioecological model, Kohlberg’s/Gilligan’s Taking these arguments together, Wertz (1998) moral development models) as well as the observed that conventional psychologists who replacement of the categorical emphasis of the present humanistic psychology as a revival of twentieth-century psychology with dimensional the humanities in psychology with a sophisticated perspectives at the clinical level. alternative philosophy of science that integrates Next, regarding criticism of humanistic psy- traditional psychological theory/research with chology based upon mistaking the problematic new orientations/techniques for therapy and/or popular implementation of fragmentary principles new methods/topics for research tend to be more of humanistic psychology for the greater intellec- receptive to its contributions. In addition, those tual contributions of its founders, it is worth not- who look beyond the seminal but ultimately ing that several of the founding humanistic incomplete contributions of Maslow and psychologists (e.g., Maslow 1987) expressed con- Rogers – i.e., also acknowledge the contributions cern that their concepts had been misunderstood of the existential, transpersonal, and constructivist and inappropriately reified by the counterculture’s movements as part of humanistic shortsightedness. That said, the accusations of psychology – also tend to be more supportive. In humanistic perspective promoting narcissism contrast, those who associate humanistic psychol- overlook the founders’ emphasis on social interest ogy with the worst of the 1960s and with efforts to and self-sacrifice as aspects of self-actualization disrupt the status quo tend to be more antagonis- as well as humanistic psychologists’ focus on tic, minimizing humanistic psychology’s greater social justice (Schneider et al. 2015). Meantime, contributions and emphasizing negative evalua- the accusations of naivety and over-optimism tions. In addition, they tend to critique humanistic overlook the revisions of the humanistic perspec- theorizing as if it was a priori rather than appro- tive based on the existentialists’ input in order to priately treating it as phenomenological. better account for the psychology of evil and the social conditions that promote humans’ destructive behavior. Finally, the criticism that humanis- Summary tic psychology has more of a place in therapy than research ignores the rigor of Rogers’ empirical The humanistic perspective began as an alterna- studies, which not only demystified and legiti- tive to the limitations of and disparities between mized the effectiveness of psychotherapy during experimentalism/behaviorism and psychoanaly- the Eysenck era but also paved the way for today’s sis. It both subsumed the strengths and trans- evidence-based focus on the power of the thera- cended the limitations of those traditions by peutic relationship as a common factor across using intersubjective methods to develop a theoretical traditions. growth-/process-oriented conceptualization of Finally, concerning the criticism of humanistic personality that had been inadequately available psychology as being oppressive, primary-source in the field. It drew from classical and contempo- humanistic texts (e.g., Combs 1999; Maslow rary literature, existential-phenomenological phi- 1999) emphasize that individuals with healthy losophy, Eastern wisdom, systems theory, Gestalt personalities perceive themselves as competent psychology, Goldstein’s organismic theory, and effective in ways appropriate for their culture. James’ radical empiricism, and personality and In addition, humanistic psychologists emphasize post-Freudian psychodynamic psychologies to the often-unheeded adaptive qualities available develop a predominantly phenomenological within marginalized populations. Furthermore, approach to the science of personality. Following this criticism overlooks the wealth of humanistic its establishment as the Third Force in American literature involving multiculturalism, cross- psychology at the mid-twentieth century, it further Humanistic Perspective 17 evolved by way of elaborations on its principles humanistic texts as well as an antiquated view of by the existential, transpersonal, and constructiv- the humanistic perspective. ist movements in psychology. Today, the human- The humanistic perspective emphasizes the istic perspective has become further refined based individualized qualities of optimal well-being on an integration of these ontologies in conjunc- and the use of creative potential to benefit others, tion with dialogue with parallel constructs in con- as well as the relational conditions that promote ventional psychology. those qualities as the outcomes of healthy devel- The humanistic approach to therapy involves a opment. Rather than conceptualize personality as collaborative relationship between therapist and a fixed structure, set of traits, or self-concept, it client designed to promote transformative change holistically/systemically portrays the person qua by cutting through clients’ defenses and helping self as continually evolving and as uniquely situ- them forge a new worldview and behaviors that ated in sociocultural and eco-psycho-spiritual authentically express their core values. This contexts. It assumes that optimally functioning approach has been influential in its contribution people are consciously aware, responsibly free to of relational factors and experiential techniques make choices in accordance with their values, that are now considered the core ingredients of goal-directed, meaning-making, and creative in effective and sustainable therapy and of principles relation to their experience. of change and case conceptualization that have influenced other systems of therapy (e.g., relational psychoanalysis, applied behavior analysis, Conclusion third-wave CBT, narrative therapy, etc.). The humanistic approach to research draws The principal contributions of the humanistic per- from existential-phenomenological philosophy spective on personality are its (a) holistic model as its basis for descriptive qualitative methods for conceptualizing the person/self from the stand- that supplement the quantitative methods valued point of a unique, contextually-situated dynamic by the natural science model of psychology in process that transcends the limitations of static, order to broaden the foundation for psychology normative, categorical constructs and their risk of as a human science faithful to its subject matter. overgeneralizations; (b) inclusiveness – not Humanistic psychology has been influential in intended to replace existing systems and methods introducing and legitimizing qualitative methods of psychology and their theories of personality but and the study of creativity and consciousness in rather to complement and supplement them; psychology. This approach to research also forms (c) focus on conditions that are conducive to the basis of a humanistic approach to personality healthy personality (i.e., prevention) versus diag- assessment. nosis and treatment of pathology (i.e., interven- In general, the strengths of humanistic psy- tion); and (d) its aforementioned contributions chology include its innovativeness and its degree both to psychology (e.g., therapy, development, of influence on psychology and society. Its limi- research) and to society (e.g., focus on personal- tations involve its focus on individuality, which ism in an era of standardization and technocracy, renders it incompatible with the natural science Schneider et al. 2015). Accentuation of humanis- model valued by conventional psychologists as tic psychology’s connections with and contribu- well as prone to associations with its problematic tions to personality psychology – with their shared popular implementation by the 1960s–1970s conceptualizations of health and human counterculture and to accusations of Western fulfillment – provides a comprehensive frame of bias. However, these criticisms tend to reflect reference and meta-perspective for psychology as incomplete and/or inaccurate readings of primary a whole. 18 Humanistic Perspective

Cross-References existential response to the postmodern condition. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed., First-Wave (Third Force) Humanistic Psychology pp. 105–133). Los Angeles: Sage. Jourard, S. (1974). Healthy personality: An approach from • Maslow: the view of humanistic psychology. New York: ▶ B-Love Macmillan. ▶ Maddi, S. R., Khoshaba, D. M., Harvey, R. H., Fazel, M., & Hierarchy of Needs Resurreccion, N. (2011). The personality construct ▶ Peak Experience of hardiness, V: Relationships with the construction of ▶ Self-Actualization existential meaning in life. Journal of Humanistic ▶ Self-Actualizing Creativity Psychology, 51,369–388. doi:10.1177/ ▶ 0022167810388941. Values Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., & Pinto, D. (2012). The • Rogers: position of authenticity within extant models of person- ▶ Actual Self ality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, ▶ Congruence/Incongruence 269–273. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.014. ▶ Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2007). Person-centered per- Fully Functioning Person sonality theory: Support from self-determination theory ▶ Person-Centered Therapy and positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psy- ▶ Personal Growth chology, 47,117–139. doi:10.1177/0022167806293008. ▶ Self-Disclosure Polkinghorne, D. E. (2015). The self and humanistic psy- ▶ chology. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & Self-Discrepancies J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 87–104). Los Angeles: Sage. Second Wave (Existential) Resnick, S., Warmoth, A., & Serlin, I. A. (2001). The humanistic psychology and positive psychology con- ▶ nection: Implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Existential Approaches to Personality Humanistic Psychology, 41,73–101. doi:10.1177/ 0022167801411006. Schneider, K. J. (2015). Rediscovering awe: A new front in References humanistic psychology, psychotherapy, and society. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed., Angus, L., Watson, J. C., Elliott, R., Schneider, K., & pp. 73–81). Los Angeles: Sage. Timulak, L. (2014). Humanistic psychotherapy Taylor, E. (1991). William James and the humanistic tra- research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation dition. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31,56–74. to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond. doi:10.1177/0022167891311006. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 330–347. doi:10.1080/ Wertz, F. J. (1998). The role of the humanistic movement in 10503307.2014.989290. the history of psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psy- Arons, M. M. (1999). Self, multiple selves, and the illusion chology, 38,42–70. doi:10.1177/00221678980381006. of separate selfhood. The Humanistic Psychologist, 27, 187–211. doi:10.1080/08873267.1999.9986904. Bühler, C. (1971). Basic theoretical concepts of humanistic Recommended Reading – psychology. American Psychologist, 26, 378 386. Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for doi:10.1037/h0032049. a psychology of personality. New Haven: Yale. Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). Barrell, J. H., Aanstoos, A., Richards, A. C., & Arons, M. A psychobiological model of temperament and charac- (1987). Human science research methods. Journal of – ter. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975 990. Humanistic Psychology, 27, 424–457. doi:10.1177/ doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008. 0022167887274004. Criswell, E. (2003). A challenge to humanistic psychology Combs, A. W. (1999). Being and becoming: A ﬁeld in the 21st century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, approach to psychology. New York: Springer. – 43,42 52. doi:10.1177/0022167803043003004. DeCarvalho, R. J. (1991). The founders of humanistic Elkins, D. N. (2009). Why humanistic psychology lost its psychology. New York: Praeger. ﬂ power and in uence in American psychology: Impli- Frankl, V. E. (1978). The unheard cry for meaning: Psy- cations for advancing humanistic psychology. Journal chotherapy and humanism. New York: Washington – of Humanistic Psychology, 49, 267 291. doi:10.1177/ Square. 0022167808323575. Frick, W. (1971). Humanistic psychology: Interviews with Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D. M., & Meek, Maslow, Murphy, and Rogers. Columbus: Merill. L. (2015). Toward a sustainable myth of self: An Humanistic Perspective 19

Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science: Schneider, K. J., & Krug, O. T. (2010). Existential- A phenomenologically based approach. New York: humanistic therapy. Washington, DC: American Psy- Harper and Row. chological Association. Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality Schneider, K. J., Pierson, J. F., & Bugental, J. F. T. (Eds.). (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. (2015). Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed.). Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being Los Angeles: Sage. (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, May, R. (1983). The discovery of being. New York: spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala. Norton. Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Rogers, C. R. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist’s Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. doing qualitative analysis. New York: Guilford. (Original work published 1961). Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic.