Humanistic Flashcards
(3 cards)
Roger’s contribution to counselling psychology has received praise and criticism.
E – One strength of humanistic counselling is that unlike other methods of psychotherapy (e.g., Freudian psychoanalysis) which only aims to treat people with mental illness, humanistic counselling offers support to everyone who wishes to grow and develop as a person, rather than just helping those who are “sick”. However, this approach has also been criticised in several ways. Firstly, it has been suggested that most therapists would find it impossible to offer unconditional positive regard for some clients (e.g., child molesters and serial killers), meaning Rogers’ approach to therapy isn’t always practical. Secondly, it has been suggested that the non-directive approach (in which the therapist avoids telling the client what to do) will not work for patients with more severe forms of mental illness, such as schizophrenia. Arguably such patients do require more guidance, and so will not benefit from person-centred therapy.
L – Therefore, although humanistic counselling has a broader focus that addressing mental illness, its therapeutic method may not be appropriate for all types of client.
The humanistic approach has been criticised for being unscientific.
E – For example, Maslow developed his ideas on self-actualization using a type of research called autobiographical analysis. This involved Maslow reading the biographies of various famous figures he believed had self-actualized, such as Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln, and giving his views on the characteristics they demonstrated.
E – Although Maslow’s research was clearly empirical (he collected evidence), it was also lacking in objectivity. Maslow’s analysis was highly subjective as it depended on his own interpretation of which famous people had self-actualized (and what characteristics they all shared e.g., peak experiences). Since objectivity is a key feature of the scientific method, Maslow and, the humanistic approach in general, could be criticised for being unscientific. Humanistic psychologists would challenge this criticism by pointing out they have no problem being regarded as unscientific. They have argued that scientific methods, which were developed by the physical sciences, are an inappropriate way to understand human experience.
L – Therefore, it’s appropriate to say that the humanistic approach lacks scientific credibility due to its subjectivity, but less clear whether this issue is a weakness or a strength of the approach.
Arguably a great strength of the humanistic approach is its recognition of the importance of free will.
E – This belief in free will is a unique strength of the approach. Other approaches present a deterministic account of human nature in which we are controlled (determined) by forces (e.g., the environment, our biology or our unconscious) outside of our control. In emphasising the strength of human agency, the humanistic approach offers a uniquely positive account of human nature.However, determinists argue that the humanistic belief in free will clashes with scientific materialism, which sees all thoughts and decisions as products of brain activity. From this view, every choice is the result of physical processes in the brain, following natural laws. This means there’s no room for true free will—decisions aren’t freely made, but are determined by the interactions of our environmental experiences and biology. So, the idea of people choosing freely, as the humanistic approach claims, doesn’t fit within this scientific framework.
L – Therefore, the emphasis on free will can be argued to be a strength or a limitation of the approach, depending on one’s views on the free will and determinism debate.
