Humanistic psychology/psychotherapy?

[DrGachet]

What do you guys think of humanistic psych? I know a few therapists and all of them, though eclectic, use humanistic psych as the overall framework, specially when it comes to values within therapy.

But there is no real empirical basis for lots of idea in humanistic therapy. I call it religion without the messy stuff. I do not mean to offend the religious people or trivialize religious concepts, and when I talk about messy stuff, I'm really talking about the politics and historical details. I think humanistic psychology borrows certain spiritual/religious ideals, and a certain romantic conception of human nature, and more recently, certain ideas from Buddhism as well. Which is fine, and I have nothing against the particular values that humanistic psychology champions, and grounding a sense of sacredness in our common humanity. In fact, I think this is necessary and given our postmodern approach to so many intellectual fields these days and the fragmentation of life in so many ways, the iconoclasm, the confusion of values, and the weakening of social institutions, we do need a new way of finding common ground and values that we can all respect.

But more than once I have had to debate my friends over their inconsistencies, in requiring such high level of evidence for effectiveness of certain kind of therapy vs their wholehearted acceptance of a number of Rogerian concepts as though they were proven fact.

/End of Rant

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

as soon as someone can manualize a treatment and come up with some acronyms, humanistic psychology will take off.

 

[G Costanza]

as soon as someone can manualize a treatment and come up with some acronyms, humanistic psychology will take off.

How do you manualize being nice?

 

[SingingCow]

How do you manualize being nice?

Is humanistic psychology about being nice?

 

[FadedC]

Is humanistic psychology about being nice?

Well it's an oversimplification, but I'd certainly say that Rogerian therapy is about being "nice". I'm pretty sure that Perhaps was being sarcastic though.

With all that being said, having worked for a suicide hotline with Rogerian principles and extremely strict rules about every single sentance you said to make it more befriending, I can tell you that a manualized version may not be as far fetched as you'd think. Though how evidence based it would be would be another question entirely.

 

[KillerDiller]

Though how evidence based it would be would be another question entirely.

I don't know a lot about humanistic psychology. I'm basically just familiar with the Rogerian principles, and a little bit of existential therapy . It seems to me, though, that there are evidence-based techniques that borrow heavily from Roger's ideas. Take Motivational Interviewing for example. MI has a significant empirical basis, and quite a bit of the technique focuses on reflections, alignment, and rolling with resistance. Perhaps this is erroneous, but I've also always considered the "common factors" of the therapies to be Roger's ideas of unconditional positive regard and genuineness. In this case, you could argue that there is a quite a bit of evidence for humanistic treatment, as the therapeutic relationship always accounts for at least some of the variability in outcome.

 

[FadedC]

I don't know a lot about humanistic psychology. I'm basically just familiar with the Rogerian principles, and a little bit of existential therapy . It seems to me, though, that there are evidence-based techniques that borrow heavily from Roger's ideas. Take Motivational Interviewing for example. MI has a significant empirical basis, and quite a bit of the technique focuses on reflections, alignment, and rolling with resistance. Perhaps this is erroneous, but I've also always considered the "common factors" of the therapies to be Roger's ideas of unconditional positive regard and genuineness. In this case, you could argue that there is a quite a bit of evidence for humanistic treatment, as the therapeutic relationship always accounts for at least some of the variability in outcome.

Well my question was more about how evidence based a manualized Rogerian treatment would be if such a thing ever existed. In terms of more normal use of Rogerian principles, my understanding is that they are probably empirically supproted but not evidence based. But there are probably people with more knowledge of counseling who can say more then me.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

Do you think humanistic therapy works especially well with certain disorders?

 

[The Everglow]

When developing Person Centered Therapy, Rogers was very much against technique per-se. He outlines six conditions that are necessary in the therapeutic relationship, and claims that if those conditions can be established, the client would be able to "heal" or "solve" their own problems. This is, of course, an overgeneralized and indeed naive description of person centered therapy. The point being that person-centered therapy isn't overly conducive to being manualized.

 

[PsychBA]

humanistic psychology is philosophy, religion. Not science.

 

[erg923]

humanistic psychology is philosophy, religion. Not science.

And what does that mean to you?

 

[The Everglow]

humanistic psychology is philosophy, religion. Not science.

Pretty brutal, inaccurate, and arrogant.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Pretty brutal, inaccurate, and arrogant.

Indeed, science or perhaps to be more accurate scientism is a quasi-religious approach also. It too is based on a set of philosophic assumptions, provides a framework through which reality may be understood through a system of symbols. Science has its apostles, preachers, rituals, hierarchies, and excommunications. It has its clergy (the professoriate) and its laity (the unwashed masses). It also has the smugness once associated with organized religion. Humanistic psychology has its roots in philosophy and humanism as well as science. Rogers was one of the first in the field to investigate treatment outcomes. Everyone here should remember that.

as far as manualized treatment, the very concept is an abomination. The manualized treatment protocols are intended for research in which client variability is reduced so the research program can establish efficacy. In the *real* world manualized treatment fails because clients are vastly more complex than the people you see in the lab. Manualization is an insult to the humanity and complexity of our clients and to the professional skills of the psychologist. The human brain is the most complex thing known to science and we would reduce treatment to a *manual* ??? Even brain physiology varies enormously from one person to the next and we would develop a one size fits all *manual.* The very concept is unscientific. Sorry about the rant but the idea that humanistic therapy could be manualized just ..just .. just gives me the vapours 😱.

OK in all seriousness, I know that the comment about manualization was tongue in cheek as was mine. But humanistic psychotherapy is predicated that some/most aspects of the human experience can not be readily quantified and that psychologist's penchant for operational definitions of our constructs is flimsy at best. Are our operational definitions of constructs valid scientific measures or game played with words that we call science?

 

[PsychBA]

Pretty brutal, inaccurate, and arrogant.

Yeah, I was brutal and inaccurate, quite black and white. It's some philosophy, some religion, and some science. As opposed to be behaviorism which is mostly empirical science and significantly fewer philosophical assumptions and also values to guide it.

But I was not arrogant. Calling it science is.

 

[The Everglow]

PsychBA.

There are aspects of the human condition that will never be objectively discernible by the scientific method. I am speaking of course, of qualia; the absolutely subjective nature of certain human experiences. I truly believe that any serious student of the human mind need study both the naturalistic and philosophical underpinnings of psychology. No doubt our discipline should operate within a 'scientific mindset' but certain aspects simply cannot be empirically tested or even understood as such.

PS: What is behaviorism? 😀

 

[haner2]

If we want to talk science and research, we should go back to common factors. It has been well researched and documented since the 70's and is upheld today that all forms of intervention can be effective. There are certainly some that may be more effective than others for certain issues, but overall they are all effective regardless of being manualized or not.

Plus, the term "humanistic" actually refers to an extremely wide range of therapeutic models, so we can't really base this thread on just that word. Some of those models could actually be manualized if you wanted and would still be effective, but typically they are focused on the therapeutic relationship (according to research, the most important common factor in outcome). No matter which theory fits for you, if you buy into it and truly believe in its effectiveness, then chances are you will have success (another one of the common factors). And to reply to an earlier comment, not all humanistic models involve being nice, some in fact are actually intensely confrontive about cognitions, emotions, and behaviors.

It may be obvious that I come from humanistic training (Rogerian and existential to be exact), so I am extremely familiar with the outcome research. As a model of intervention, it is as empirically valid for positive outcome as any other. My fear is someone interpreting this as a battle of who has the best intervention, so I want to say again that all are equally valid if they fit for you own philosophy on life and change. If you need a manual to feel comfortable and confident with your interventions, then I'm sure you are using it to do some great work, but that doesn't mean that those of us who don't use them are less effective.

 

[haner2]

Oh, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly dont mean to say that you can do whatever you want and be effective, because that definitely flies in the face of common factors. What I mean is that a therapist can be effective regardless of theory as long as the theory they follow attends to the common factors in some way. And by this I'm more focused on theories and philosophies of interventions rather than specific techniques.

At this point in the history of therapy research, many of the main psychotherapy theories have been shown to be effective, and no one theory or method reigns supreme over all. Plus, research has shown that as therapists become seasoned in the field, meaning like 15+ years, they all start to gravitate towards a surprisingly similar style that combines a lot of humanistic, interpersonal, existential, and CBT methodologies. I just love that there is no one right way to do this work, and yet therapists seem to find what personally makes them the most effective!

 

[haner2]

For many disorders, this is incorrect. The do-do bird is extinct.

Well sure, the do-do bird hypothesis is extinct because it was way overgeneralized. I'm not saying that absolutely everything works for everyone, but that there are more than just manualized treatments that are effective, including some of the humanistic theories, that have been shown in research to work quite well. I agree with you that there are some very specific disorders, people, and problems that benefit more from specific approaches, but that doesn't mean all others are ineffective (not implying you think that way)

 

[Neuropsych2be]

For many disorders, this is incorrect. The do-do bird is extinct.

Where are the outcome studies utilizing randomized assignment that examine direct comparisons between cog-b, psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches showing clear efficacy of one approach over the others? You know of any citations from the literature?? Last I heard, the Dodo bird was alive and well and pooping copiously all over the shredded David Barlow papers lining its cage.

 

[haner2]

No, but I would argue that it implies that there should be a hierarchy to treatment. For example, in the treatment of OCD, I would question the ethics of a therapist that offered a humanistic therapy before they offered exposure and response prevention. The most effective therapy should always be offered first, which means that clinicians just choosing what they like best doesn't really work in the best interest of patient care.

And this is where I feel a philosophical difference comes in that just can't be measured. For example, some may say that with this person, the issue is their obsessing thoughts and resulting compulsions; therefore using exposure and response prevention would be the choice. However, under another theory you might see a focus on how these thoughts/behaviors stem from anxiety, and that anxiety is triggered by feeling out of control in social situations, which developed from family dynamics (just an example); so focusing on the underlying emotional root of the issue results in behavioral change.

As a clinician, I have been very successful with this approach in OCD clinics, but also because I am very skilled in approaching therapy this way. Because of that, my likelihood of being effective with this method is much much higher than any other form of treatment (for me). So I see your point about a heirarchy of treatment, but if I am better skilled with a humanistic approach and I'm having success rates equal to the outcome literature, I would argue that it's more ethical for me to treat someone that way compared to exposure and response prevention. This of course would vary from clinician to clinician.

I'm glad that people study this stuff and have these discussions, but I feel there could never be a winner because therapy is way to personal and individualized, just like human nature, to be generalizable or manualized and still be effective for everyone. That doesn't mean manualized treatment is bad, it just means that I don't feel it's the only way to be as effective as other methods.