Elkins The humanistic and behavioral traditions …

1 COMMENTARYThe humanistic and behavioral traditions :Areas of Agreement and DisagreementDavid N. ElkinsPepperdine UniversityThis comment, a response to Steven Hayes s contribution, addresses areas of agreement and disagree-ment between the humanistic and behavioral traditions . Areas of agreement include a common interestin humanism, cognition, and contextualism. Areas of disagreement include Hayes s analysis of human-istic psychology s historical focus on human science and qualitative research as well as his view thathumanistic psychology is not scientifically based. In the interest of collaboration, the article concludeswith a request that behavioral clinicians be more cautious about extolling the specialness of behavioralapproaches in :humanism, behaviorism, cognition, contextualism, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychother-apy effectivenessMy comment will focus on only one of the articles in this specialsection because my recent work has critiqued behavioral ap-proaches to psychotherapy ( , Elkins , 2007, 2008, 2009a,2009b) and because Steven Hayes (2012) raised specific issues inhis article about humanistic psychology.

2 My tradition is humanis-tic psychology and Steven s is the behavioral tradition . I appreciateSteven s collaborative spirit and his straightforward style. In thisresponse to his article, I will address areas of agreement anddisagreement between our traditions . I hope my commentary helpsclarify areas for future discussion, collaboration, and integrationbetween the humanistic and behavioral of AgreementSteven is correct that humanistic psychology arose in the 1950sand 1960s, in large measure, as a reaction to behaviorism. AsSteven noted, Maslow and other founders of humanistic psychol-ogy believed behaviorism was based on a mechanistic model of thehuman being and they considered that model too limited to addresssuch important human phenomena as meaning, purpose, awe, lovevalues, choice, spirituality, and , as a young man, Maslow was enamored with behav-iorism.

3 He was trained in behaviorism and animal psychology atthe University of Wisconsin where he served as laboratory assis-tant to Harry Harlow (Goble, 1978). However, he became disillu-sioned with behaviorism. In an interview (see Hall, 1968), Maslowdescribed the event that changed him:Our first baby changed me as a psychologist. It made the behaviorismI had been so enthusiastic about look so foolish I could not stomachit any more. It was impossible. I looked at this tiny, mysterious thingand felt so stupid. I was stunned by the mystery and by the sense ofnot really being in control .. (p. 17).From that point on, Maslow began stressing the need for abroader, more inclusive psychology.

4 Eventually, he would helpfound the movement that would become known as humanisticpsychology. I am pleased that today, 40 years after Maslow sdeath, Steven and others in the behavioral tradition have embracedhumanistic ideas. Steven and I agree that humanism is very second area of agreement is the importance of cognition inpsychotherapy. When I was student in the early1970s, I wasshocked to learn that John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism,viewed the mind as nothing but an epiphenomenon of behavior. Inhis fanciful case of the psychopathological dog, Watson (1924/1967) chided those who believed the mind was involved in emo-tional difficulties by showing how a dog could be conditioned tohave problems and unconditioned and reconditioned so the prob-lems went away, all without the needlessness of introducing the conception of mind (p.)

5 298). As a student, I thought Watson sview was extreme and my opinion hasn t changed. However, inrecent decades, it has been gratifying to watch the growth ofcognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) with its emphasis on theclient s cognition. CBT helped bring the mind back into behav-ioral psychology. CBT therapists focus on the thoughts and feel-ings, along with the cognitive schemata, of clients. Humanistictherapists focus on the same inner, phenomenal world. Those whopractice from an existential perspective often use the phenome-nological method as a way to explore and understand the structureof the client s inner experience (see Yalom, 1980). Although CBTand humanistic therapists differ in their descriptions of, and ap-proaches to, cognition, they agree on the importance of the client sthoughts, feelings, and cognitive structures.

6 It would be excitingfor the two traditions to discuss their respective language, con-Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David , Graduate School of Education and Psychology, Pepperdine Uni-versity, 6100 Center Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045. 2012 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 49, No. 4, 465 4680033-3204/12/$ DOI: , and methods for exploring and understanding the phenom-enal world of clients. A third area of agreement is the importanceof contextualism. Steven is a leader in his tradition on contextualperspectives. humanistic psychology also emphasizes the impor-tance of contextualism in psychotherapy. Because Steven s articlecovers this well, I will not elaborate here except to say that this isanother area of , although Steven does not address this in his article,there is another area of historical, but not current, agreementbetween our traditions .

7 Originally, behaviorism eschewed themedical model in psychotherapy, saying that much of what hadbeen called pathology was the result of faulty learning experi-ences. humanistic psychology agreed with behaviorism that themedical model was problematic. Unfortunately, the clinical branchof behaviorism abandoned that original position and is now heav-ily involved with the medical model, perhaps more than any otherpsychology tradition . Clinical scientists in the behavioral traditionhave led the field in conducting specificity studies designed todiscover treatments for mental disorders. Thus, behaviorism isnow one of the major players on the medical model team. Thiscould be a historical mistake because increasing evidence suggeststhat the medical model with its emphasis on medical-like tech-niques as the primary determinants of effectiveness is wrong( Elkins , 2009b; Wampold, 2001).

8 Areas of DisagreementAuthentic collaboration means that we must not ignore differ-ences. Here are some areas where Steven and I disagree. One areaof disagreement has to do with Steven s view that humanisticpsychology emphasized human science and qualitative researchbecause the movement wanted to hold on to humanistic ideas butdidn t have experimental research tools at the time to prove theirscientific validity. Steven believes the emphasis on human scienceand qualitative research harmed the humanistic movement. Hesuggests that contemporary behaviorism can now provide thescientific tools needed to place humanistic ideas on a solid empir-ical base. I disagree with Steven s analysis.

9 It does not reflect thehistorical facts. humanistic psychologists did not focus on humanscience and qualitative research because of an inability to studyhumanistic ideas scientifically, as Steven suggests. Instead,Maslow (1966) and others ( , Giorgi, 1970, 1992) recognizedthe limitations of positivistic science and knew that the methods ofthe physical sciences were not always appropriate for the study ofpsychological phenomena. Thus, Maslow called for a broaderscience that would allow researchers to study human phenomenathat had been ignored by psychology due, in part, to the narrowepistemology that dominated the field at that time. Maslow wastrained in experimental research and knew both its benefits andlimitations.

10 He knew it was difficult, if not impossible, to forcesuch subtle human phenomena as love, awe, values, meaning, andspirituality into the physical sciences mold. To put this into con-temporary language, humanistic pioneers called for epistemolog-ical diversity and a recognition of the value of qualitative andmixed methods research. Once again, humanistic psychology wasahead of its time and the field now recognizes the value of diversescientific methods. Thus, humanistic psychologists historical in-terest in epistemological issues was not, as Steven suggested, amaneuver to hold onto humanistic ideas because they could not beproven scientifically. Instead, it was an important effort to expandscience beyond the narrow positivism that was limiting psycho-logical third area of disagreement, directly related to the above, isSteven s assumption that humanistic psychology does not have asolid scientific base.