UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.2 Free with a free account
Assessing the Humanistic-Existential Framework
Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 7: Humanistic and Existential PerspectivesSection 7.2 · lesson 28 of 9711 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Abnormal Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Abnormal Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Sociocultural Approach, Social Labels, and Role Expectations →← Core Ideas of the Humanistic-Existential ApproachNext lesson: The Sociocultural Approach, Social Labels, and Role Expectations →
In this lesson
The thinnest trial evidence of the four, and the field's single most robust finding.
- State each strength in its strongest form
- State each limitation with equal seriousness
- Explain why scope and safety is the gravest limitation
- Describe the framework's influence on current practice
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,512 words). Read along, or search it.
Humanistic and Existential Perspectives
Assessing the Humanistic-Existential Framework
This is an evaluation, and it is written to be two-sided. It does not end in a verdict, and that is deliberate. Here is why the balance is unusually hard to hold in this case. This framework has the weakest controlled outcome evidence of the four in this course. It also produced the single most robust finding in psychotherapy research. Both of those are true at once. Letting either one settle the assessment would misrepresent the framework. We will take five strengths, each in its strongest form. Then six limitations, with the same seriousness. And one of those limitations is a safety matter, so it comes first.
How To Read This
Two-Sided, and Ending in No Verdict
Start with the safety point, because it should not wait. A purely non-directive stance is inadequate where there is acute risk. The same holds for psychosis, and for a severe presentation. Risk assessment and active clinical management are responsibilities. No theoretical commitment removes them. None. That is treated here as the framework's most serious limitation. The rest of the evaluation is deliberately even-handed. Each claim gets its strongest form, then the best response to it. Then what genuinely remains unsettled, which is usually the interesting part. One note before we start. This material is educational, and is not a basis for diagnosis. Both of the cases at the end are composites, constructed for instruction.
Strength One
The Account Itself Is the Datum
First strength. Attention to subjective experience, and to meaning. The three earlier models all translate a person's account into something else. Into unconscious conflict, or learned contingencies, or cognitive structure. And each one sets the account itself aside. This framework treats what the situation is like from inside it as the primary datum. Questions about meaning and purpose become legitimate clinical material. That matters, because people bring those questions constantly. In serious illness, in bereavement, in later life, and after major loss. Now the response, and it is a real cost. Taking subjective experience as primary makes it very hard to check anything. If only the person has access to the datum, there is no external standard.
Strength Two
The Relationship, and What Earned the Credit
Second strength, and this is the framework's strongest claim. The quality of the therapeutic relationship predicts outcome across orientations. That finding is among the most robust in psychotherapy research. The credit is for precision. Rogers specified what about the relationship matters. In terms concrete enough for independent observers to rate. Now the response. The evidence supports the conditions as important. It does not support the stronger claim that they are sufficient. Treatments that add specific techniques outperform the relationship alone for several presentations. There is also a direction-of-causation problem worth holding onto. People who are improving may simply form better relationships with their therapists.
Strengths Three And Four
Not a Defect in the Person, and Not Off-Limits
Third strength. The non-pathologizing stance. Difficulty is framed as blocked growth, rather than a defect residing in the person. People who expect to be assessed and categorized frequently disclose less. Fourth strength. Ethical seriousness. Freedom, responsibility and mortality are treated as legitimate clinical subject matter. So the framework has something to offer where nothing can be changed. Now the responses, and each one is a genuine risk. Non-pathologizing can shade into under-recognizing. A person with a treatable presentation, offered a growth-oriented account of it, has been failed. And emphasizing responsibility risks a person hearing that their situation is their own doing. Naming bad faith is close in form to calling someone's difficulty self-inflicted.
Strength Five
Absorbed So Completely It Lost Its Name
Fifth strength. Influence well beyond therapy, and mostly unattributed. Person-centered principles shaped education, and communication training in healthcare. They shaped palliative care, where meaning-focused work is now standard. Motivational approaches to behavior change rest on a person-centered foundation. And positive psychology studies well-being and flourishing rather than difficulty. That is the humanistic complaint pursued directly, with rigor the earlier tradition lacked. Clinicians attend to the state of the relationship as clinical information. Goals are set collaboratively, in cognitive-behavioral work as much as anywhere. Empathic reflection opens almost every assessment. But hold the obvious objection. Influence is not evidence. A framework can spread because its ideas are attractive and humane.
Limitation One
What Cannot Be Measured Cannot Be Tested
First limitation. Vagueness, and the measurement problem that follows from it. The actualizing tendency is the clearest case. It is invoked to explain growth wherever growth occurs. And where growth does not occur, the conditions are said not to have been met. So no observation could ever count against it. That is the falsifiability objection. Self-actualization has no agreed operational definition. Now here is the strongest response, and it is a good one. The core conditions were operationalized successfully, and produced a robust finding. What was measured successfully concerns what happens between two people. What resisted measurement concerns what a person is, or is becoming. And you cannot specify that without deciding in advance what a good life looks like.
Limitations Two And Three
An Assumption, and a Thin Trial Record
Second limitation. The optimistic premise. An inbuilt tendency toward constructive growth is an assumption, not a finding. People are also reliably capable of cruelty, exploitation, and sustained self-destruction. The reply, that conditions were not met, has the same unfalsifiable shape as before. Third limitation. The outcome evidence. There are randomized trials of person-centered and related therapies. They are fewer, more variable in result, and concentrated on milder presentations. On a straightforward reading, this is the weakest-evidenced of the four frameworks. The defense is more serious than it first sounds. If the goal is congruence, or living honestly with something that cannot be changed. Then a questionnaire counting symptoms over two weeks is measuring something else. Decline to be judged by the available measures, and supply none, and you sit beyond evaluation. Judge a framework only by a rival's measures, and you have assessed it unfairly.
The Gravest Limitation
Scope and Safety, Not Effectiveness
Fourth limitation, and this is the most serious one in the section. It is a matter of safety, not of effectiveness. First, acute risk. Where a person may be in danger, assessment is a clinical responsibility. A stance committed to following wherever the person leads does not meet it. Risk must be asked about directly, and responded to, whatever the orientation. Second, psychosis. Entering someone's frame and reflecting it back has obvious limits. Third, severe presentations that require active management. A person who is severely unwell and being followed rather than treated is not receiving care. The response is that practitioners do not behave the way the strict theory describes. So the criticism lands on a purist reading rather than on how the work is practiced. If directing is right when risk is present, then directing is sometimes right. Which makes the non-directive commitment a preference, not a principle.
Limitation Five
Whose Idea of a Good Life
Fifth limitation. Cultural specificity, taken at full strength. Self-actualization assumes the realization of individual potential is the highest human aim. Authenticity assumes there is a true self that social roles obscure. Congruence assumes the gap between inner experience and outward conduct is a problem. None of those is culturally neutral. A divergence between private feeling and public conduct may be a competence. Maintaining social harmony, without expressing every inner state, is a skill in many settings. So a therapy aiming at becoming more fully yourself, independently of others' expectations, may be recommending one culture's ideal. The core conditions are far less culture-bound than the growth constructs. Second, working phenomenologically should lead a therapist to the person's own idea of a good life. What is unresolved is whether that corrective holds when the theory names the direction of growth.
Two Arguments
Duration, and the Argument That Would Vindicate It
Relational therapies are longer and less structured, with no defined endpoint in the purist form. Where provision is limited, that means fewer people treated. The counter is that this is a criticism of health economics, not of the framework. And it embeds an assumption worth examining. That a treatment's value equals its measured symptom change per session. Now the common-factors argument, which is where this gets interesting. It holds that most established therapies produce broadly similar outcomes. And that what they share accounts for much of the effect. If it is correct, it is a vindication rather than a criticism. The conditions this framework specified would be doing work in every therapy. The evidence, though, supports a moderate version rather than a strong one. Specific-technique effects have been demonstrated, most clearly exposure for anxiety presentations.
Two Composites
Fit Is Not Decided by Severity
Two composite cases, side by side, because the contrast is the exercise. Grace is sixty-seven, referred after the death of her husband fourteen months ago. They were married forty-one years. And she says that everyone keeps telling her she is doing well. What she wants is not to feel better, which she says would be premature. She wants to say what this is actually like, without being reassured or redirected. There is no distorted appraisal to correct. Her life has fundamentally changed. Lewis is twenty-four, referred by his general practitioner. He has not left his flat for three weeks, and has lost considerable weight. He says he sometimes feels there is no point in continuing. That statement requires direct assessment. It has to be asked about specifically. Now name what separates the two, because it is not the severity. What separates them is whether active clinical management is required. Grace needs to be accompanied. Lewis needs to be assessed and treated.
About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Assessing the Humanistic-Existential Framework
What are the strengths of the humanistic-existential approach?
What are the main criticisms of humanistic psychology?
Why is a purely non-directive approach a problem when someone is at risk?
How has humanistic psychology influenced modern therapy?
About the Abnormal Psychology course
How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.
97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →