H

Humanistic Perspective psychologists employ an intersubjective, empathic

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

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

V. Zeigler-Hill, T. K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1484-2
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 psy- chologists 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 Humanistic psychologists believed that the
Third Force in American psychology, followed by prevailing schools served to uphold a societal
a summary of the influences that inspired the status quo characterized by mechanization, mate-
humanistic movement. It then provides a brief rialism, bureaucratization, authoritarianism, con-
outline of the progression of the humanistic per- formity, compartmentalization of experience, and
spective on personality from its Third Force con- disempowerment of the individual in society
ceptualization through three subsequent interrelated (Arons 1999; Wertz 1998). They cautioned that
movements – existential, transpersonal, and con- the “limited and limiting images” (Frick 1971,
structivist. Note that the eras during which each p. 10) propagated by “low-ceiling psychology”
ontology gained prominence greatly overlapped; (Maslow, quoted in DeCarvalho 1991) would
thus, the outline is more thematic than chronologi- seep into the greater culture and lower ordinary
cal. Finally, examples are given of how these move- people’s expectations of themselves and their
ments coalesced into contemporary humanistic potential. At best, the prevailing schools offered
constructs and of the interdependence between images of personality that were comparable to
developments in humanistic and conventional pos- “pages torn from a book, only parts that contribute
itivistic psychologies. Schneider et al.’s (2015) to a greater whole” (Frick 1971, p. 10).
Handbook of Humanistic Psychology is Several of the psychologists who affiliated
recommended for additional perspective on con- themselves with the humanistic movement had
temporary conceptualization in and practical appli- been trained as experimentalists/behaviorists
cations of humanistic psychology in therapy, and/or psychoanalysts, and many had developed
research, and society and for a listing of current respected reputations in the field during the 1930s
participants in the humanistic movement. In addi- and 1940s. However, by the 1950s, their own
tion, Bland and DeRobertis (2018) provide a experiences as both people and professionals pro-
comprehensive annotated bibliography of classic mpted them to question the conventional thinking
and contemporary readings and other resources in in psychology and to note its limitations. It should
humanistic psychology. be clarified that humanistic psychologists did not
deny the contributions of behaviorism and psy-
choanalysis. 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 psycholo-
gists 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
4 Humanistic Perspective

were common among individuals whom both they Heidegger, Jaspers, Kierkegaard, Marcel, Nietz-
and the larger culture/society deemed healthy per- sche, Tillich, etc.) were critical of societal norms
sonalities. They called for studying these themes that promoted the fragmentation and compart-
from a more viable and comprehensive vantage mentalization of experience and/or complacency
point for psychology insofar as “the conscious via a 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, Whitehead, the open systems theory of von
Humanistic Perspective 5

Bertalanffy, and the focus on irreducible, interre- mostly been passed over. He thus decided to
lated patterns and the uniqueness of the ongoing abandon the James project and devote his career
interaction between organism and environment by to filling in what he referred to as psychology’s
Gestalt psychologists like Lewin. Taken together, “huge big gaping hole.”
these influences “vigorously fought artificiality,
oversimplification, and the unnecessary abridge- Personality Psychology
ment of human nature” in favor of models that “Historically, humanistic psychology was closer
prized “the essential nature and integrity of the to personality theory than to any other current in
organism found in [people’s] capacity for unity, psychology” (DeCarvalho 1991, p. 76). Personal-
organization, and integration” (Frick 1971, ity psychologists including Allport, Kelly, Mur-
p. 135) (the first and third postulates). phy, and Murray aligned themselves with
Goldstein, an organismic psychologist, was humanistic psychology when it formalized during
also highly influential. His term self-actualization the early 1960s. Allport focused on functionally-
referenced the pattern of resilient reorganization autonomous, intentional, teleological dispositions
of a person’s capacities following an injury. It was of personality that involve continuous maturation/
adapted by humanistic psychologists to describe transformation and that include attributes like
the process of living resiliently despite one’s per- interpersonal warmth, realistic perceptions of
sonal, environmental, and historical shortcomings one’s environment, proactive behavior, work and
and of overcoming obstacles (real and perceived) responsibility as meaningful, and conscience and
notwithstanding inherent risks (the first and fifth values as essential to a unifying philosophy of life
postulates). (the fourth and fifth postulates). Kelly’s personal
construct theory focused on meaning-making,
William James dialectically exploring how events are construed
James regarded personality as integrally related to (vs. focusing on the events themselves), and
both environment and consciousness (i.e., the developing the courage to step out of the security
self) as a result of pure embodied experience in of one’s present world into the unknown (the
continuous formation (the first, second, and third fourth and fifth postulates). Murphy emphasized
postulates). As both psychologist and philosopher how curiosity, social feeling, openness to experi-
of science, James viewed subjective reality as ence, and commitment to an experiential orienta-
essential to understanding human possibility, and tion to life all stimulate heightened identification
he discouraged psychologists from limiting the with the cosmos (the second postulate). Murray
field to “quantification of data restricted to the provided a taxonomy of human needs, stressed the
senses” (Taylor 1991, p. 59). James thus assumed primacy of emotion, criticized the problems of
the proto-phenomenological position of radical differentiating between scientific facts and
empiricism, in which experience is favored as a human values, and cautioned that focusing on
starting point over a priori theories, thereby facil- superficialities both stunts the creative imagina-
itating the assumption that nothing within the tion and impedes healthy personality develop-
realm of experience could be de facto excluded ment (the fourth and fifth postulates).
from the domain of scientific psychology.
Maslow’s interest in a humanistic approach to Post-Freudian Psychodynamic Psychology
psychology was sparked in the 1940s as he com- Founding humanistic psychologists (e.g., Jourard
piled notes for a textbook designed to explore 1974; Maslow 1999) openly acknowledged the
psychology’s developments in the half-century influence of dynamic psychologists and consid-
since James’ seminal Principles of Psychology. ered them part of the humanistic movement. Adler
Maslow noted that while remarkable discoveries emphasized that human behavior is purposeful
had been made in some areas (e.g., animal behav- and goal-oriented, that humans are socially
ior, learning theory, testing), others (e.g., aes- embedded, and that social interest and dialogue
thetics, altruism, religious experience) had both are crucial for human development (the third
6 Humanistic Perspective

and fifth postulates). Jung explored the narrative structure inside the human organism (e.g., the
role of myths and symbols in the process of psychoanalytic ego or cognitivists’ notion of
psycho-spiritual development (the second and mind as homunculus executor) or merely as self-
fifth postulates). Rank regarded human life as a concept. Instead, they emphasized self as an I am
process of self-creation and distinguished experience of being in the process of becoming
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
The Third Force founders sought to bypass
notions of self as a fixed, static, impermeable
Humanistic Perspective 7

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

challenging family, school, and community envi- The Second Wave (Late 1960s–1970s to
ronment are requisite for the likelihood of the 1980s–1990s): Beyond the Third
creative self-expansion to occur. Otherwise, “the Force – Existential-Phenomenological and
press of social conformity produces self-concepts Transpersonal Psychologies
that distort and hide aspects of people’s true selves Seemingly as a pendulum swing away from the
. . . [and people become] directed by socially pre- mechanization of the experimentalists/behavior-
sented distortions of who they are” (Polkinghorne ists and the pessimism of Freud, many of the
2015, p. 91). Third Force psychologists tended to focus most
Rogers (1961/1995) referred to these distor- on the constructive aspects of human nature,
tions and denials of certain experiences (and regarding them as a biological disposition toward
therefore parts of the self and their humanity) as fulfillment. In addition, in the spirit of their Amer-
the result of internalized conditions of worth. ican worldview steeped in expansiveness and
Individuals assume façades/social roles that they unlimited horizons (Yalom 1980), they explored
believe they must enact based on the problematic the farther reaches of human possibility as an
learning from their formative experiences/envi- alternative to the reductionism of the extant
ronments. The corresponding incongruence with models espoused in the field. In contrast, existen-
the real self and void of personally meaningful tial psychologists like Binswanger, Boss, Frankl,
existence forms the core of psychological suffer- May, Yalom, etc. suggested that personality is
ing. Efforts to evade the freedom and responsibil- better understood as founded upon diverse poten-
ity of independent thinking and action lead to tials for worldly involvement in the form of gen-
rigidity; fear of uncertainty and the future; resis- eral growth parameters rather than a sovereign
tance to change and clinging to outmoded, inef- instinct-like tendency toward self-actualization.
fective behaviors/beliefs; need for approval; and Drawing more directly from European
guilt/regret when facing the discrepancy between existential-phenomenological traditions, which
one’s self-concept and the ideal of who one wants emphasized human limitations and the tragic
to be. Thus, humanistic psychology accounts for aspects of human nature over a preordained pat-
psychopathology and problematic behavior as the tern of goodness, they proposed that human nature
result of social conditioning away from one’s is both constructive and destructive and that the
inherent self which results in the frustration of conscious, active process of grappling with and
human needs for security, love/belonging, and integrating these potentials within oneself results
self-esteem as prerequisite for self-actualizing in creative expression and growth. For instance,
(Maslow 1987). Yalom (1980) proposed that the ongoing negotia-
Humanistic psychologists believe that individ- tion of four dialectics – death/existence, freedom/
uals have the freedom to change and to create/ destiny, isolation/connectedness, and meaning/
recreate aspects of their personality as they learn meaninglessness – is essential for healthy person-
new information about themselves based on life ality. The influence of existential-
experiences and social encounters, especially phenomenological psychology served to deepen
those which challenge their ordinary ways of the humanistic perspective, and the Third Force
thinking, being, and relating and which liberate psychologists (e.g., Maslow 1987) revised their
and integrate their intellect, emotions, and body. theories to better account for the psychology
This paves the way for both self-transcendence of evil.
and transcendence of one’s environment. They At the same time that existential psychologists
become better able to regard healthy challenges deepened the focus of humanistic psychology, the
as opportunities for growth (vs. threats) and also transpersonal psychology movement “[emerged]
to intentionally rise above the “imperfections of as a reaction to the de-sacralization of everyday
[their] culture with greater or lesser effort at life in modern Western technological society and
improving it” (Maslow 1999, p. 201) by living to despiritualized religion” (Arons 1999, p. 191).
according to an intrinsic sense of ethics. It served to widen the map of human potential
Humanistic Perspective 9

beyond the ego structures ordinarily assumed to of revealing inherent political/power structures
be the personality by conventional Western that underlie the language employed by scientists
psychology – including the greater conceptualiza- in their quest for objective truth.
tion of self as proposed by the Third Force – to With regard to personality, postmodern psy-
also include humans’ psycho-spiritual dimen- chologists like Gergen, O’Hara, etc. questioned
sions, particularly those espoused by wisdom tra- the humanistic idea of a permanent, autonomous
ditions including Buddhism, Sufism, Christian self conceived as a fictional creation of Western
and Jewish mysticism, etc. For transpersonal psy- grammar and cognitive schemes which do not
chologists, the self is “more of a witness (active inhere cross-culturally. Instead, postmodern psy-
voice) than an entity” (Hoffman et al. 2015, chologists insisted upon the possibility of multiple
p. 124). As such, transpersonal psychologists truths and the supposition that reality is socially
explored states of awareness that transcend self- constructed. They suggested that “personal
actualization and emphasized that ordinary essence is based on social context, and a multi-
human suffering is not overcome until the illusion plicity of relationships means that the self is under
of separate selfhood is realized. The transpersonal constant construction and reconstruction without
(or Fourth Force movement, as Maslow termed it) opportunity for introspection” (Hoffman et al.
began as an extension of the Third Force and was 2015, p. 114). As such, postmodern psychologists
extrapolated by the likes of Assagioli, Frager, argued that there is “no universal ground for
Walsh, Washburn, Welwood, Wilber, etc. The ethics” insofar as “all is subject to context” and
transpersonalists were influential in having spiri- “language, culture, and [history] predispose
tual crises added as a category of clinical concern meanings which precede [individuals] and ines-
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Men- capably guide and limit [their] individual mean-
tal 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
10 Humanistic Perspective

their phenomenological influences while yielding) and expansion (seeing possibility, incor-
assessing advances in cognition, consciousness, porating, asserting) by coming to terms with and
and mind/body science within a vision of “a more developing faith in the creative energies of the
holistic, complex, nuanced, and adaptive self that cosmos and within oneself despite the inherent
is actively engaged in the world” (Hoffman et al. uncertainty. In addition, the contemporary person-
2015, p. 111). ality construct of hardiness (Maddi et al. 2011) is a
composite of the interrelated attitudes of commit-
The Fourth Wave (2000s to Present): ment, control/coping, and challenge that together
Revisiting and Reconciling the Roots of provide the courage needed to resiliently transform
Humanistic Psychology and Dialoguing with ongoing stressors from potential disasters into
Conventional Psychology growth opportunities and therefore to construct
Despite their nuances, the Third Force, existential, meaning rather than cling to preconceived, familiar
transpersonal, and constructivist movements ways of knowing and understanding life.
share a post-positivist critique of the limitations During the new millennium, humanistic psy-
of the natural science model in psychology and a chologists also have embraced recently-emerged
propensity for a phenomenological alternative. parallel constructs from conventional psychology
Since the new millennium, humanistic psycholo- and psychiatry that demonstrate the validity of
gists have called for rethinking their purpose and humanistic principles. For example, the humanis-
priorities to meet the needs and pressing concerns tic emphasis on authenticity and autonomy con-
of a new era which “inhibits freedom” in its “priz- tributed to the expansion of the five-factor model
ing sensationalism over sustained and reflective of personality to include an additional first factor
inquiry, easy answers – be they military, religious, of honesty-humility that encompasses truthful-
or commercial – over discernment and struggle, ness, positive values, honesty, sincerity, and recip-
and certitude over mindfulness and wonder” rocal altruism (Maltby et al. 2012). In addition, it
(Schneider 2015, p. 74). Some (e.g., Criswell inspired Cloninger et al.’s (1993) seven-factor
2003; Taylor 1991; the current authors) have model of personality, which involves the
advocated for a return to the roots of humanistic interdependent relationships among dimensions
psychology in the phenomenological tradition of of temperament (novelty seeking, harm avoid-
James and the personality psychologists like ance, reward dependence, persistence) and char-
Allport, Murphy, and Murray. This has inspired acter (self-directedness, cooperativeness, self-
updated constructs that reflect the Third Force transcendence) in the development of self-
founders’ basic ideas in conjunction with subse- identification both as autonomous and as an inte-
quent elaborations upon their principles by the gral part of humanity, society, and the universe/
existential, transpersonal, and constructivist unity of all things.
movements. Furthermore, the recently-emerged positive
For instance, Schneider (2015) proposed a psychology provides operationalization and quan-
model that builds upon the narrative conceptuali- titative support that temporarily receded from
zation of self as espoused by Third Force and humanistic psychology during a litigious era. For
existential paradigms (as an alternative to simplis- example, Patterson and Joseph (2007) suggested
tic reductionism as a defense against complexity that research based on self-determination theory
and mystery in life) while also acknowledging and supports Rogers’ ideas on the organismic valuing
incorporating the psycho-spiritual aspects of trans- process and self-concordant goals, autonomy ver-
personal psychology and socially constructed sus impersonal orientation, conditional regard
aspects of postmodern/constructivist psychology. from significant others leading to introjected con-
Schneider suggested that the healthy personality ditions of worth, increased congruence/openness
embraces paradox and awe by negotiating and to experience and reduced defensiveness as out-
creatively integrating the fluid center (i.e., dialec- comes of therapy, and deeper relationships
tic) between constriction (focusing, limiting, marked by sensitivity to and acceptance of others
Humanistic Perspective 11

as common among fully functioning people. Also, • An authentic therapeutic relationship is central
humanistic and positive psychologists share in to effective practice. Therapists attempt to
common interests like authenticity as a foundation enter empathetically into clients’ subjective
for ethics, mindfulness, and self-awareness experience – deemed an essential aspect of
(Patterson and Joseph 2007; Resnick et al. their humanity – in a way that provides them
2001). However, whereas humanistic psychology with a new, emotionally-validating interper-
is inherently (though not exclusively) phenome- sonal experience.
nological, positive psychology as a movement • Tacit experiencing is an important guide to
continues to cling dogmatically to the strictures conscious adaptive experience. An attuned,
of positivism. Accordingly, humanistic psychol- supportive therapeutic relationship serves to
ogy offers a broader range of epistemologies and help clients develop comfort looking inward
methodologies from which positive psychologists and therefore to render emotional pain more
can draw to deepen their conceptualizations to not bearable.
only focus on virtue, optimism, and positive self- • Therapists’ responses/interventions are
appraisals but also on the constructive value of intended to stimulate and deepen the process
transforming struggle (Resnick et al. 2001; of clients’ immediate experiencing and ongo-
Schneider 2015). ing awareness throughout the course of ther-
apy. This includes clients’ perceiving, sensing,
feeling, thinking, and wanting/intending.
Applications: Therapy • Emphasis is given to clients’ integrative, for-
mative tendencies toward survival, growth,
The founders of humanistic psychology believed personal agency, and the creation of meaning
that, while it is possible for personality develop- through symbolization. The collaborative
ment to occur in most interpersonal contexts, it is nature of the therapeutic relationship is key to
likely to occur most directly by way of a thera- the unfolding process of therapy and to clients’
peutic encounter. Humanistic therapy is a phe- disclosure of narratives/personal stories which
nomenologically-oriented approach intended to further develops/maintains a shared under-
assist clients in living authentically in accordance standing and trust.
with their values, aspirations, and limitations and • Clients are seen as unique individuals with
in assuming an active role in their growth. complex arrays of emotions, behaviors, stories,
and capacities that can, at times, be viewed as
Therapeutic Principles representative of a particular clinical diagnos-
Humanistic therapy assumes that clients are holis- tic category but never reduced to one. Instead
tic/irreducible (i.e., not determined by their past or of viewing clients through the lens of pathol-
conditioning, capable of agentic change) and that ogy/deficits, humanistic therapists understand
they are experts on their own experiences, their them from the stance of thwarted potential and
potentials within themselves, and the social, com- truncated development and emphasize their
munity, and cultural contexts within which they strengths. (Angus et al. 2014)
forge their identities and senses of control, respon-
sibility, and teleological purpose. Thus, clients are Transformation Versus Tension Reduction
granted an autonomous role in the therapy pro- Rather than focus on first-order change processes
cess, with therapists respecting their freedom and (i.e., symptom reduction and adjustment) that
potential to make choices about whether and how offer temporary relief to clients but leave under-
to change. lying/root problems relatively unaddressed and
Contemporary humanistic psychotherapies prone to eventual return, humanistic therapists
share several therapeutic evidence-based princi- focus on second-order (transformative) change
ples of practice, many of which are rooted in processes. These involve a deep restructuring of
Rogers’ (1961/1995) person-centered therapy: self that results in long-term, core-level shifts in
12 Humanistic Perspective

and expansions of clients’ perspectives of their techniques, etc. to help clients try out new expe-
presenting concerns, of their world, and of them- riences in the interest of incorporating them out-
selves, as they create and maintain new ways of side the therapy relationship and thereby
being. Humanistic therapists rely less on prescrip- maintaining their progress.
tive techniques that uphold their role as expert and
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
Forging a New Self-Narrative other founding humanistic therapists (e.g., Frankl
Humanistic therapists attend to clients’ narratives, 1978; May 1983) – anticipated the contemporary
metaphors, nonverbal behaviors, responses to outcome literature on common relational/experi-
feedback, and other interaction patterns in order ential factors which account for the most substan-
to help them explore how these may point toward tial sustainable change (as opposed to isolated
attachment histories and other relational patterns techniques). Moreover, Angus et al.’s (2014)
that contribute to defensive interpersonal/behav- meta-analysis of empirical studies conducted dur-
ior patterns in an effort to uphold a false sense of ing the last quarter century suggests that human-
self. Therapists “reflect back aspects that are evi- istic approaches to therapy result in large effects in
dent but unnoticed – in effect, holding a mirror up pre-post client change and longitudinal mainte-
to the client” (Schneider and Krug 2010, p. 2/37). nance (suggesting that clients continue to develop
Accordingly, clients’ resistance to growth on their own after termination), as well as in
becomes exposed and challenged to promote demonstrated effectiveness in addressing interper-
disidentification – i.e., surrendering the need to sonal/relational issues, depression, psychosis, and
defend their current position, having confused it chronic medical issues.
for their greater self-identity. Rather than cling to
past knowledge and expectations of themselves, Influence
others, and situations, clients become better able The humanistic approach stimulated a relationally-
to realize and act on a sense of personal meaning oriented revision of psychoanalysis and the advent
in all their experience. The therapeutic relation- of applied behavior analysis as an extension of
ship offers a safe emergency that stimulates neural behavior modification with increased focus on
plasticity and therefore new learning. When the individualized interventions that address the under-
process goes well, “clients reclaim and re-own lying functions of behavior (vs. mere behaviors). In
their lives” (Schneider and Krug 2010, p. 1), addition, humanistic approaches to therapy have
developing a worldview and behavior that authen- been influential in the development of third-wave
tically express their core values. cognitive-behavioral (CBT) approaches (e.g.,
The therapeutic encounter serves to present acceptance and commitment therapy and dialecti-
clients with the choice between (a) becoming con- cal behavior therapy with their emphases on mind-
sumed by suffering to the point that they attempt fulness and developing openness to experience),
to evade it (experiential avoidance) and thereby motivational interviewing (with its emphasis on
create even more suffering for themselves or promoting agency), and narrative therapies (with
others and (b) suffering well – i.e., accepting the their emphasis on meaning-making).
aspects of their lives over which they have no
control and committing their attention and energy
to those which they do. This sense of intentional- Applications: Research
ity enables a person to set goals and move forward
instead of becoming mired in the face of adversity. As discussed, during the mid-twentieth century,
Accordingly, therapists employ role play, humanistic psychologists became increasingly
rehearsal, visualization, mindfulness-based concerned that while modern science had
Humanistic Perspective 13

attempted to explain the material structures and species. They criticized psychologists’ disingen-
mechanisms of psychological phenomena (in the uous claim that they were value-free, as well as
case of personality, usually traits and pathological their desire to limit themselves to generalizations
behavior patterns), it was unable to describe the based on spectator knowledge and technical
natural dynamic interactions and interdependent methods that benefited privileged groups or insti-
structural relationships of meaning within and tutions. They argued that psychology can and
between phenomena. They argued that the should be a human science, which employs a
detached attitude of science – which intentionally “personal attitude” (Giorgi 1970, p. 317) and a
excluded individual subjectivity – lent itself to a way of seeing the world as it is valid for everyday
precarious scientific ethic. The tendency within people. They called for the development and
natural scientific psychology to treat phenomena incorporation of both experiential and meaning-
as disconnected and compartmentalized lent itself oriented ways of knowing and chose existential-
to the capacity for destructiveness insofar as it phenomenological philosophy as the basis for a
served to control and conquer – instead of to renewed human science approach. With its foun-
understand and cooperate with – nature in the dational assumption that individuals are subjec-
interest of prudent and efficacious scientific tive selves inextricably related to the world, the
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.
14 Humanistic Perspective

The method thus remains rigorously empirical useful when there are clearly discernable categor-
insofar as its fidelity to its topics of inquiry is ical boundaries between phenomena and their
arguably more comprehensive than that afforded context and when standardization is necessary;
by traditional positivistic empiricism. on the other hand, qualitative research is better
In addition to phenomenology, humanistic psy- suited to subtler and more complex phenomena
chologists have developed and/or adapted a host of and contexts that require description. The two also
additional qualitative methods for psychology can complement each other in mixed-methods
including, to name only a few: hermeneutics, designs. Furthermore, this approach to research
grounded theory, discourse and narrative analyses, also underlies an individualized, humanistic
and 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, etc. (Resnick Influence
et al. 2001). For an illustration as applied to per- As a result of the efforts of humanistic psycholo-
sonality, Maslow’s (1987) study on the character- gists, psychology has moved beyond being
istics of self-actualizing people entailed a merely the science of behavior to also including
qualitative analysis in which he extracted themes the study of the meanings of personal experience
from interviews and biographies to develop a list of and behavior. Qualitative inquiry has become
their common attributes. increasingly legitimized in conventional psychol-
ogy, 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 theo-
ries 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.
Humanistic Perspective 15

Traditional Critique Third, still others contend that humanistic

A sampling of textbooks in introductory psychol- psychology’s individualism is oppressive in a
ogy, personality theory, and critical thinking in multicultural, global society insofar as humanity
psychology generally suggests that the strengths has come to be conceptualized as a social con-
of the humanistic perspective include its innova- struction and fulfillment as a relative value – thus
tive approach which helped move psychology rendering the notion of global transcendence of
past the theoretical dogma of Freud and which self and environment impossible. Humanistic psy-
provided research-based explanations of the chology has been criticized as not having an
therapy process and its outcomes (e.g., increased explicit construct against selfishness (i.e.,
self-congruence and creativity) that have been although social interest is included in the defini-
successfully replicated. In addition, humanistic tion of self-actualization, it is not explicitly
psychology has been acknowledged for its focus referred to as such; consequently, it remains
on prevention (vs. intervention), which influenced biased toward a Western worldview). This leads
not only psychology but also the fields of educa- to criticisms of moral relativism and even of elit-
tion, parenting, and business management and for ism and colonialism.
popularizing psychological principles in society
at large. Responses
With regard to its limitations, Schneider et al. Humanistic psychologists have responded that
(2015) have grouped the criticisms of the human- many of these criticisms are based on “negative
istic perspective into three principal categories of stereotypes and misinformation” (Elkins 2009,
concern, all of which seem to stem from human- p. 268). Indeed, many of the criticisms are gener-
istic psychology’s focus on the integrity of the ally unfounded insofar as they reflect either
individual. First, some academics – typically (a) reliance on secondary sources (which are
operating from a natural science prone to the problems of an academic “telephone
perspective – regard humanistic psychology as game”) without appropriately consulting the orig-
undisciplined, impractical, and therefore worthy inal writings of humanistic psychologists;
of obsolescence. They argue that, with its empha- (b) incomplete readings of the original primary
sis on subjectivity, the humanistic perspective texts without accounting for the progress/evolu-
provides only impressionistic descriptions with- tion in humanistic theorizing since the mid-1960s;
out precision and specificity and that at the clinical or (c) focus on popular writings by humanistic
level it does not offer standardized, stepwise tech- psychologists but bypassing their more substan-
niques/procedures. At the research level, it is seen tial theoretical and research scholarship (Patterson
as overly philosophical with ambiguous con- and Joseph 2007).
structs not conducive to scientific verifiability More specifically, the criticism that humanistic
via falsification. psychology is unscientific tends to overlook
Second, others believe that humanistic (a) the traditional natural scientific work of
psychology’s focus on what is distinctively founding humanistic psychologists like Maslow
human and fulfilling is shortsighted and indul- and Rogers and (b) the commitment of humanistic
gent. Humanistic psychology’s deliberate “open- psychologists to developing phenomenological
ness to everything” (Arons 1999, p. 196) has left it methods out of a passion to be not less but
vulnerable to stereotypes that associate it with “more empirical – that is, more respectful of
sloppy eclecticism and with the excesses of the actual human phenomena” (May 1983, p. 127).
1960s–1970s counterculture and therefore to Thus, the criticisms arguably reflect the pre/trans
being criticized as promoting narcissism; as fallacy (Wilber 2000), the tendency to confuse
being simplistic, naïve, and overly optimistic; post-rational thinking for pre-rational because
and, at best, as more relevant for therapy than for both are transrational/transpersonal. Several of
hardnosed psychological research. the founders of humanistic psychology have
been described as ahead of their time, and their
16 Humanistic Perspective

contributions to psychology have subsequently In addition, humanistic psychologists emphasize

become embraced and regarded as given within the often-unheeded adaptive qualities available
psychology. For example, humanistic psychology’s within marginalized populations. Furthermore,
emphasis on holistic, dialectical, and systemic this criticism overlooks the wealth of humanistic
thinking paved the way for developmental literature involving multiculturalism, cross-
psychology’s resolution of the nature/nurture cultural studies, and gender studies (Schneider
debate and for principles that are now standard et al. 2015), which arose out of its constructivist
fare in lifespan development (e.g., attachment, focus.
parenting styles, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological Taking these arguments together, Wertz (1998)
theory, Kohlberg’s/Gilligan’s moral development observed that conventional psychologists who
models) as well as the replacement of the categor- present humanistic psychology as a revival of
ical emphasis of the twentieth-century psychology the humanities in psychology with a sophisticated
with dimensional 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 who look beyond the seminal but ultimately
noting 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’ destruc-
tive 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
Humanistic Perspective 17

post-Freudian psychodynamic psychologies to popular implementation by the 1960s–1970s

develop a predominantly phenomenological counterculture and to accusations of Western
approach to the science of personality. Following bias. However, these criticisms tend to reflect
its establishment as the Third Force in American incomplete and/or inaccurate readings of primary
psychology at the mid-twentieth century, it further humanistic texts as well as an antiquated view of
evolved by way of elaborations on its principles the humanistic perspective.
by the existential, transpersonal, and constructiv- The humanistic perspective emphasizes the
ist movements in psychology. Today, the human- individualized qualities of optimal well-being
istic perspective has become further refined based and the use of creative potential to benefit others,
on an integration of these ontologies in conjunc- as well as the relational conditions that promote
tion with dialogue with parallel constructs in con- those qualities as the outcomes of healthy devel-
ventional psychology. opment. Rather than conceptualize personality as
The humanistic approach to therapy involves a a fixed structure, set of quantifiable traits, or self-
collaborative relationship between therapist and concept, it holistically/systemically portrays the
client designed to promote transformative change person qua self as continually evolving and as
by cutting through clients’ defenses and helping uniquely situated in sociocultural and eco-
them forge a new worldview and behaviors that psycho-spiritual contexts. It assumes that opti-
authentically express their core values. This mally functioning people are consciously aware,
approach has been influential in its contribution responsibly free to make choices in accordance
of relational factors and experiential techniques with their values, goal-directed, meaning-making,
that are now considered the core ingredients of and creative in relation to their experience.
effective and sustainable therapy and of principles
of change and case conceptualization that have
influenced other systems of therapy (e.g., rela- Conclusion
tional psychoanalysis, applied behavior analysis,
third-wave CBT, narrative therapy, etc.). The principal contributions of the humanistic per-
The humanistic approach to research draws spective on personality are its (a) holistic model
from existential-phenomenological philosophy for conceptualizing the person/self from the stand-
as its basis for descriptive qualitative methods point of a unique, contextually-situated dynamic
that supplement the quantitative methods valued process that transcends the limitations of static,
by the natural science model of psychology in normative, categorical constructs and their risk of
order to broaden the foundation for psychology overgeneralizations; (b) inclusiveness – not
as a human science faithful to its subject matter. intended to replace existing systems and methods
Humanistic psychology has been influential in of psychology and their theories of personality but
introducing and legitimizing qualitative methods rather to complement and supplement them;
and the study of creativity and consciousness in (c) focus on conditions that are conducive to
psychology. This approach to research also forms healthy personality (i.e., prevention) versus diag-
the basis of a humanistic approach to personality nosis and treatment of pathology (i.e., interven-
assessment. tion); and (d) its aforementioned contributions
In general, the strengths of humanistic psy- both to psychology (e.g., therapy, development,
chology include its innovativeness and its degree research) and to society (e.g., focus on personal-
of influence on psychology and society. Its limi- ism in an era of standardization and technocracy,
tations involve its focus on individuality, which Schneider et al. 2015). Accentuation of humanis-
renders it incompatible with the natural science tic psychology’s connections with and contribu-
model valued by conventional psychologists as tions to personality psychology – with their shared
well as prone to associations with its problematic conceptualizations of health and human
18 Humanistic Perspective

fulfillment – provides a comprehensive frame of Criswell, E. (2003). A challenge to humanistic psychology in

reference and meta-perspective for psychology as the 21st century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43,
42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167803043003004.
a whole. Elkins, D. N. (2009). Why humanistic psychology lost its
power and influence in American psychology: Impli-
cations for advancing humanistic psychology. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 49, 267–291. https://doi.
Cross-References org/10.1177/0022167808323575.
Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D. M., & Meek,
L. (2015). Toward a sustainable myth of self: An exis-
First-Wave (Third Force) Humanistic Psychology
tential response to the postmodern condition. In K. J.
Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.),
• Maslow: Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed.,
▶ B-Love pp. 105–133). Los Angeles: Sage.
Jourard, S. (1974). Healthy personality: An approach from
▶ Hierarchy of Needs
the view of humanistic psychology. New York:
▶ Peak Experience Macmillan.
▶ Self-Actualization Maddi, S. R., Khoshaba, D. M., Harvey, R. H., Fazel, M., &
▶ Self-Actualizing Creativity Resurreccion, N. (2011). The personality construct
of hardiness, V: Relationships with the construction of
▶ Values
existential meaning in life. Journal of Humanistic
• Rogers: Psychology, 51, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/
▶ Actual Self 0022167810388941.
▶ Congruence/Incongruence Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Day, L., & Pinto, D. (2012). The
position of authenticity within extant models of person-
▶ Fully Functioning Person
ality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,
▶ Person-Centered Therapy 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.014.
▶ Personal Growth Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2007). Person-centered per-
▶ Self-Disclosure sonality theory: Support from self-determination theory
and positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychol-
▶ Self-Discrepancies
ogy, 47, 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678
06293008.
Second Wave (Existential) Polkinghorne, D. E. (2015). The self and humanistic psy-
chology. In K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, &
J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.), Handbook of humanistic
▶ Existential Approaches to Personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 87–104). Los Angeles: Sage.
Resnick, S., Warmoth, A., & Serlin, I. A. (2001). The
humanistic psychology and positive psychology con-
nection: Implications for psychotherapy. Journal of
References Humanistic Psychology, 41, 73–101. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022167801411006.
Angus, L., Watson, J. C., Elliott, R., Schneider, K., & Schneider, K. J. (2015). Rediscovering awe: A new front in
Timulak, L. (2014). Humanistic psychotherapy humanistic psychology, psychotherapy, and society. In
research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation K. J. Schneider, J. F. Pierson, & J. F. T. Bugental (Eds.),
to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond. Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed.,
Psychotherapy Research, 25, 330–347. https://doi.org/ pp. 73–81). Los Angeles: Sage.
10.1080/10503307.2014.989290. Taylor, E. (1991). William James and the humanistic tra-
Arons, M. M. (1999). Self, multiple selves, and the illusion dition. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31, 56–74.
of separate selfhood. The Humanistic Psychologist, 27, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167891311006.
187–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.1999.998 Wertz, F. J. (1998). The role of the humanistic movement
6904. in the history of psychology. Journal of Humanistic
Bühler, C. (1971). Basic theoretical concepts of humanistic Psychology, 38, 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216
psychology. American Psychologist, 26, 378–386. 78980381006.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032049.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993).
A psychobiological model of temperament and charac- Recommended Reading
ter. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990. https:// Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for
doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820240059008. a psychology of personality. New Haven: Yale.
Barrell, J. H., Aanstoos, A., Richards, A. C., & Arons, M.
(1987). Human science research methods. Journal of
Humanistic Perspective 19

Humanistic Psychology, 27, 424–457. https://doi.org/ Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being
10.1177/0022167887274004. (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Bland, A. M., & DeRobertis, E. M. (2018). Humanistic May, R. (1983). The discovery of being. New York:
psychology. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies Norton.
in psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Rogers, C. R. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist’s
Press. view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Combs, A. W. (1999). Being and becoming: A field (Original work published 1961).
approach to psychology. New York: Springer. Schneider, K. J., & Krug, O. T. (2010). Existential-
DeCarvalho, R. J. (1991). The founders of humanistic humanistic therapy. Washington, DC: American Psy-
psychology. New York: Praeger. chological Association.
Frankl, V. E. (1978). The unheard cry for meaning: Psy- Schneider, K. J., Pierson, J. F., & Bugental, J. F. T. (Eds.).
chotherapy and humanism. New York: Washington (2015). Handbook of humanistic psychology (2nd ed.).
Square. Los Angeles: Sage.
Frick, W. (1971). Humanistic psychology: Interviews with Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness,
Maslow, Murphy, and Rogers. Columbus: Merill. spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston: Shambhala.
Giorgi, A. (1970). Psychology as a human science: Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R.,
A phenomenologically based approach. New York: Anderson, R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five ways of
Harper and Row. doing qualitative analysis. New York: Guilford.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York:
(3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Basic.