Humanistic Perspective on Personality
Humanistic psychology emerged as a reaction against both psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Humanists argued that the pessimism of psychoanalysis (with its focus on dysfunction and unconscious conflict) and the determinism of behaviorism (with its focus on environmental control) both failed to recognize something essential: the human capacity for self-directed growth and positive change.
Rather than studying what goes wrong, humanistic psychologists focused on how healthy people develop and reach their potential.
Maslow and Self-Actualization
Abraham Maslow took a different approach than most psychologists of his time. Instead of studying people with psychological problems, he studied people he considered healthy, creative, and productive—including Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. Maslow (1950, 1970) found that these individuals shared common characteristics: they were open, creative, loving, spontaneous, compassionate, concerned for others, and accepting of themselves.
At the top of this hierarchy is self-actualization—the achievement of our fullest potential.
Maslow distinguished between deficiency needs (which motivate us to fill something that’s missing) and growth needs (which inspire us to develop and expand). He believed that many emotional and behavioral problems arise when these hierarchical needs go unmet.
Example: A student who is food-insecure and worried about housing (unmet physiological and safety needs) will have difficulty focusing on academic achievement or creative pursuits. Once basic needs are met, higher motivations can emerge.
Rogers and Self-Concept
Carl Rogers, another influential humanist, focused on how people perceive themselves and their experiences. Rogers believed that each person exists at the center of a constantly changing world of experiences—what he called the phenomenal field. This includes everything a person is aware of: external objects and people, as well as internal thoughts and emotions.
Rogers believed that all behavior is motivated by self-actualizing tendencies, which drive a person to achieve at their highest level. As a result of their interactions with the environment and others, an individual forms a structure of the self or self-concept.
self-concept
The self-concept is an organized, fluid, conceptual pattern of concepts and values related to the self.
How would you respond to the question, “Who am I?” Your answer can show how you see yourself. If your response is primarily positive, then you tend to feel good about who you are, and you see the world as a safe and positive place. If your response is mainly negative, then you may feel unhappy with who you are.
Rogers further divided the self into two categories: the ideal self and the real self.
- The ideal self is the person that you would like to be; the real self is the person you actually are.
Rogers focused on the idea that we need to achieve consistency between these two selves. We experience congruence when our thoughts about our real self and ideal self are very similar—in other words, when our self-concept is accurate.
Psychological health depends on the relationship between these two selves:
- Congruence occurs when your real self and ideal self are closely aligned—when your self-concept is accurate and you’re living authentically.
- Incongruence occurs when there’s a significant gap between who you are and who you think you should be, leading to anxiety, defensiveness, and dissatisfaction.
Unconditional Positive Regard
How does congruence develop? Rogers believed that early relationships—especially with parents—play a crucial role.
Unconditional positive regard means being accepted and valued without conditions. When children receive unconditional love—when they know they are valued regardless of their behavior or achievements—they can develop authentically, exploring who they really are without fear of rejection.
Conditional positive regard, by contrast, means love and acceptance are given only when certain conditions are met: “I love you when you get good grades,” “I’m proud of you when you behave well.” Children raised this way learn that their worth depends on meeting others’ expectations. They develop conditions of worth—internalized standards they must meet to feel valuable.
Achieving “The Good Life”
Rogers described life in terms of principles rather than stages of development. He claimed that a fully functioning person would continually aim to fulfill their potential in each of these processes, achieving what he called “the good life.” These people would allow personality and self-concept to emanate from experience. He found that fully functioning individuals had several traits or tendencies in common:
- A growing openness to experience–they move away from defensiveness.
- An increasingly existential lifestyle–living each moment fully, rather than distorting the moment to fit personality or self-concept.
- Increasing organismic trust–they trust their own judgment and their ability to choose behavior that is appropriate for each moment.
- Freedom of choice–they are not restricted by incongruence and are able to make a wide range of choices more fluently. They believe that they play a role in determining their own behavior and so feel responsible for their own behavior.
- Higher levels of creativity–they will be more creative in the way they adapt to their own circumstances without feeling a need to conform.
- Reliability and constructiveness–they can be trusted to act constructively. Even aggressive needs will be matched and balanced by intrinsic goodness in congruent individuals.
- A rich full life–they will experience joy and pain, love and heartbreak, fear and courage more intensely.
Criticisms of Rogers’ Theories
Like Maslow’s theories, Rogers’ were criticized for their lack of empirical evidence used in research. The holistic approach of humanism allows for a great deal of variation but does not identify enough constant variables to be researched with true accuracy. Psychologists also worry that such an extreme focus on the subjective experience of the individual does little to explain or appreciate the impact of society on personality development.