Common Factors: What Are They and What Do They Mean for Humanistic Psychology?

Although common factors have been widely discussed in the clinical literature, the two questions addressed in this article remain relevant: (a) What are the common factors? (b) What do they mean for humanistic psychology? The first question is important because there is no “definitive list” of common factors, and lists presented in the literature often differ dramatically. In response to this question, the article suggests that an evidence-based list of nine common factors by Wampold provides a useful and credible list. The second question is also important, particularly to humanistic psychologists. Among other answers, the article shows that research findings on common factors provide scientific support for humanistic psychology’s emphasis on the importance of the human and relational factors in psychotherapy.

The Paradigm Shift in Psychotherapy: Implications for the DSM

The thesis of this article is that understanding the current paradigm shift in psychotherapy, which is the movement from a medical to a nonmedical view of psychotherapy, can provide perspective and guidance as authors critique the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM) and explore alternative ways to describe patterns of emotional distress. After defining the paradigm shift, the article presents four implications of the shift for the DSM. The article’s conclusion emphasizes the importance of developing and publishing a nonmedical system to describe patterns of emotional distress as an alternative to the DSM and other medical diagnostic systems.

Where is the Dialogue? A Social Constructionist View of Empirically Supported Treatments

Since the publication of the list of empirically supported treatments by the American Psychological Association in 1995 a controversy has resulted between those who view positive psychotherapeutic outcome as resulting from the use of specific (listed) techniques and those who lean towards the so-called common or relationship factors rather than particular techniques as necessary for such outcomes. This paper examines the controversy and shows that both sides follow the same objectivist/empiricist and reductionist epistemology. In contrast, the paper adopts a social constructionist perspective and shows that the idea of therapeutic outcome as linearly determined by either technical or common factors or a combination of these is a misleading oversimplification which fails to account for the dialogue which is the core of psychotherapy. Rather, positive outcome is viewed as mutually constructed in a unique dialogue which encompasses both common and technical factors. This takes the form of the conversational development of a new understanding or reframe of the problem followed by action which is deemed appropriate to the new understanding. This view is illustrated by practical examples.

Humanistic Psychology’s Impact and Accomplishments

Humanistic psychology shone most brightly during the revolutionary 1960s and 1970s. Referred to as “the encounter culture,” with a “sensitivity to others’ needs” including emotional self-expression, it was characterized by Carl Rogers as hunger for close relationships with fully-expressed emotions. One of the contributions of humanistic psychology to our culture was Rogers’ approach to conflict resolution using his emotionally honest approach, involving casual interaction in private, confidential settings, and with no set agenda other than the overriding issue, allowing for “troubled moments,” no matter how intense. Even international conflict was influenced, as when President Carter used this “Track II diplomacy” in reaching the Camp David Accord between Israel and Egypt. No greater contribution can be made than to save countries from mortal conflict by having them become more humanistic in their political negotiations.

What works for patients in outpatient treatment for alcohol addiction? An explorative study into clients' evaluation of subjective factors and therapy satisfaction

This explorative survey investigated clients' evaluation of therapy elements and other supportive factors within a randomized controlled trial. The treatment of patients with alcohol dependence consisted of pharmacotherapy (acamprosate/naltrexone/placebo) and biweekly medical management (MM). Forty-nine study participants were surveyed with a questionnaire to measure both the patients' satisfaction with the therapy and the subjective assessment of treatment elements and supportive factors.Study participants were highly satisfied with the treatment. The supportive factors previously identified by Orford et al1 were confirmed. 'Pharmacotherapy' was rated significantly less effective than 'MM' and 'global study attendance' (P < 0.001). The significant differences in the evaluation of treatment elements point to a preference for regular low-key contacts rather than for medication. Such contacts based on MM could be a useful intervention in clinical care, and its effectivity should be examined more closely in further research.

Evidence-Based Psychological Practices and Therapist Training

Fundamentally, counseling and therapies of all species are intimate, humanistic encounters between sufferers and healers. A variety of societal impingements on practitioners (e.g., the need to contain burgeoning health care costs via “sustainable growth rates,” limitations on the number of treatment sessions authorized by managed care companies, increasing government regulations, ethical standards, hundreds of “schools” of psychotherapy espousing efficacy) and a growing body of supportive research have resulted in an increased attention to and demand for the use of evidence-based psychological practices that can potentially undermine the fundamental underpinnings of counseling and psychotherapy. This article proposes that care and caution need to be exercised in the rush to evidence-based psychological practices as a “solution” to the concerns noted. In turn, what is advocated in helping others to become effective and compassionate practitioners is a need for an organizing principle, that is, specifically teaching/learning to think in nonlinear ways in conjunction with already well-established empirically determined common factor principles of effective treatment.

Perceptions of the Long-Term Influence of Mindfulness Training on Counselors and Psychotherapists

Although self-care is often touted as being important to counselors and psychotherapists, historically little has been done within graduate school to provide future therapists with self-care strategies. This article proposes that mindfulness training offers a promising approach to therapist self-care and introduces qualitative research on the long-term impact of mindfulness training to substantiate this claim. Sixteen former students who are now practicing counselors were interviewed. Thirteen of them reported continuing to practice mindfulness techniques. Participants indicated that mindfulness continued to influence both their personal lives and self-care practices leading to positive influences in physical, emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal well-being. In their professional lives, participants described ways of incorporating mindfulness into their way of being a therapist, their interventions, and how they conceptualize their clients’ issues.

Humanistic Psychology and the Mental Health Worker

This article discusses the precarious relationship of humanistic psychology to the mental health worker in our current managed care, empirically based, behaviorally focused, excessively medication-oriented mental health system. Some of the challenges, frustrations, and potential successes of bringing real and nurturing human relationships in the context of humanistic psychology into the day-to-day involvements with clients for the mental health worker are described. Some of the particular ethical dilemmas of the mental health worker attempting to work in this context of humanistic psychology are discussed, inclusive of the enormous difficulties of bringing humanistic psychology into the all pervasive medical model that controls mental health practice in our society. Through a series of case descriptions, the author provides a narrative account of his own experiences in attempting to bring the authentic nurturing relationship context of humanistic psychology into his various mental health worker jobs. The author reaches the conclusion that this relationship context of humanistic psychology is in actuality being practiced by many mental health workers without knowing it by name. He further concludes that in spite of the challenges and frustrations of engaging in real and nurturing relationships with clients as part of the mental health worker’s job in our current society, the core ingredients of empathy, authenticity, and realness of bond between client and mental health worker, which are the hallmarks of humanistic psychology, are apparently being practiced with partial success through the cleverness, flexibility, and humane-ness of mental health workers despite the enormous obstacles against this kind of humanistic practice.

Why Humanistic Psychology Lost Its Power and Influence in American Psychology

Why did humanistic psychology lose its power and influence in American psychology? Previous answers have focused on the historical shortcomings of the humanistic movement, a perspective that essentially “blames the victim.” In contrast, this article suggests that two outside forces—mainstream American psychology and conservative forces in the larger culture—also played a role in undermining the humanistic vision. The article concludes that humanistic psychology lost its power and influence, in large measure, because it is inherently incompatible with the basic assumptions and values of contemporary mainstream psychology and with the conservative ideologies that have increasingly gained power in American culture since the 1960s. Implications of this analysis for the future of the humanistic movement are presented.