Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy: A Socratic Clinical Practice

Abstract

Research findings have systematically pointed out the importance of addressing meaning in life in several mental health disorders and, therefore, in clinical practice. The growing interest in Meaning-centered interventions has allowed for the consolidation of a strong theoretical model of clinical practice suitable to the needs of today’s clinicians. This document elaborates on a logotherapeutic model of psychotherapy. Meaning-centered therapy and logotherapy (meaning therapy or therapy through meaning) are used interchangeably throughout the paper. The article reviews the basic tenets underlying Meaning-centered psychotherapy, summarizes the working model for clinical practice, and expands on the application of the Socratic dialogue technique in individual therapy as well as in group logotherapy. Final comments emphasize the importance of research for the advancement of logotherapy.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy: A Socratic Clinical Practice
Efre
´n Y. Martı
´nez •Ivonne A. Flo
´rez
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Research findings have systematically pointed
out the importance of addressing meaning in life in several
mental health disorders and, therefore, in clinical practice.
The growing interest in Meaning-centered interventions
has allowed for the consolidation of a strong theoretical
model of clinical practice suitable to the needs of today’s
clinicians. This document elaborates on a logotherapeutic
model of psychotherapy. Meaning-centered therapy and
logotherapy (meaning therapy or therapy through meaning)
are used interchangeably throughout the paper. The article
reviews the basic tenets underlying Meaning-centered
psychotherapy, summarizes the working model for clinical
practice, and expands on the application of the Socratic
dialogue technique in individual therapy as well as in group
logotherapy. Final comments emphasize the importance of
research for the advancement of logotherapy.
Keywords Logotherapy Meaning-centered
psychotherapy Treatment Therapeutic process 
Techniques Clinical practice
Introduction
Meaning-centered psychotherapy, or logotherapy, is a
theory of psychotherapy based on Viktor Frankl’s theory of
meaning and psychopathology (Frankl 1992). It focuses on
the clinical problems of the individuals, but also has a
special emphasis in difficulties associated with meaning-
lessness, with the ultimate goal of helping individuals
discover meaning (Frankl 1992). Research findings in the
area of meaning have systematically indicated that the
absence of meaning is associated with symptoms of psy-
chopathology such as depression, anxiety, substance use,
negative affect, general risk factors for suicidal ideation,
and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
after a traumatic experience (Martı
´nez et al. 2013). In
addition, studies on the importance of meaning have
established meaning in life as a factor related to general
well-being, life satisfaction, and positive personal resour-
ces such as resilience, self-esteem, and positive affect
(Debats 1996; DeWitz et al. 2009; Drescher et al. 2012;
Halama 2003; Schulenberg et al. 2008; Steger et al. 2008;
Zika & Chamberlain 1992).
During the last two decades Meaning-centered therapy
has had important developments that have consolidated a
strong framework of knowledge capable of meeting the
needs of today’s clinicians (Martı
´nez et al. 2013). Pres-
ently, several logotherapeutic treatment models have been
developed to address a wide range of psychological dis-
orders and symptoms (Henrion 2004; Martı
´nez 2011; Ro-
gina & Quilitch 2006,2010). For instance, logotherapeutic
interventions have been developed for the treatment of
depression (Henrion 2004; Ungar 2002), substance use
disorders (Crumbaugh et al. 1980; Duque 1998; Henrion
2002; Hutzell 1984; Martı
´nez 2002,2003; Oscariz 2000;
Somov 2007), eating disorders (Lukas 2004), anxiety dis-
orders (Frankl 1992,1995a; Lukas 1992,2004; Rogina
2002), and PTSD (Southwick et al. 2006), among others.
Specific logotherapeutic approaches for the treatment of
narcissistic personality disorder (Martı
´nez 2011; Rogina
2004), borderline personality disorder (Rodrı
´guez 2004),
E. Y. Martı
´nez (&)
Society for the Advancement of the Meaning Centered
Psychotherapy, Cr. 14a N. 101-11 of.403, Bogota
´, Colombia
e-mail: yortizo@hotmail.com
I. A. Flo
´rez
University of Mississippi, 303 Private Road 1107, Oxford,
Mississippi 38655, USA
123
J Contemp Psychother
DOI 10.1007/s10879-014-9281-0

avoidant personality disorder (Martı
´nez 2011), obsessive–
compulsive personality disorder (Dı
´az del Castillo 2011),
dependent personality disorder (Martı
´nez 2011; Rogina &
Quilitch 2006), and histrionic personality disorder (Frankl
1995b; Lukas 1995,2004; Martı
´nez 2011) have also been
designed. Furthermore, logotherapeutic treatments to
enhance psychological adjustment associated with terminal
illnesses such as cancer (Breitbart & Heller 2003; Breitbart
et al. 2012; Greenstein 2000), disabilities (Julom & de
Guzma
´n2013), grief (Rogina & Quilitch 2006), and care-
giving in rehabilitation and palliative care (Leung et al.
2012) have been shown to be promising interventions in
alleviating suffering and helping clients find meaning.
Due to logotherapy’s ongoing growth in previous
decades, several researchers and clinicians have advo-
cated for a greater visibility of logotherapy in mental
health practice (Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Fabry et al.
2007; Schulenberg & Florez 2013, Schulenberg et al.
2008). Schulenberg et al. (2008) indicated the potential
contributions of a Meaning-centered psychotherapy for
the treatment of mental health problems and elaborated
on several practical guidelines to conduct logotherapy
(See also Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Benware 2003; Fabry
et al. 2007; Schulenberg et al. 2008; Sharp et al. 2004).
In their paper, Schulenberg and colleagues summarize
Frankl’s’ conceptualization of existential vacuum, mental
health, as well as well-known logotherapeutic techniques
of clinical practice. In addition, a number of other
authors have addressed the potential contribution of
logotherapy to other well-established treatments such as
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Sharp et al.
2004), cognitive behavior therapy (CBT Fabry et al.
2007), Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT;
Hutchinson & Chapman 2005), and Cognitive therapies
(Benware 2003). These authors emphasize Frankl’s initial
conceptualization of logotherapy as a clinical model that
can be integrated with other forms of psychotherapy.
Moreover, they identify areas in which logotherapy can
complement and enhance the efficacy of treatment (See
Fabry et al. 2007).
In spite of the growth of Meaning-centered interven-
tions, among mental health professionals there is still a lack
of familiarity with logotherapy’s working model in clinical
practice. Moreover, there remain several misconceptions of
the scope and depth of Frankl’s theory of psychotherapy as
well as a lack of dissemination of concrete guidelines
regarding the practical applications of logotherapy.
Expanding on the overview presented in (Schulenberg et al.
2008), the present article aims to complement the theo-
retical framework of logotherapy for clinical practice as
well as to provide some concrete guidelines of the thera-
peutic process. Additionally, the present paper introduces
Socratic dialogue as a fundamental technique in Meaning-
centered psychotherapy and illustrates the use of this
technique as a means to facilitate change in the client in
both individual and group processes.
Theoretical Fundamentals
To understand Frankl’s conception of the origin of mental
health issues and the consequent treatment to address
psychopathology, it is important to review some of
Frankl’s theoretical assumptions. Logotherapy relies on the
presumption that the individual is composed of three
dimensions: the biological dimension (the physical organ-
ism), the psychological dimension (basic processes such as
attention, memory, and learning capacity), and the spiritual
dimension (Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Frankl Frankl 1994a,b,
c,d; Schulenberg et al. 2008). Without disregarding the
importance of the psychological and physical dimensions,
logotherapy places special emphasis on the spiritual
dimension of the human being. The spiritual dimension is
defined as the individual’s potentiality of reflecting upon
himself or herself, and the human capacity to intentionally
have an encounter with others as well as to discover
meaning (Frankl 1986,1994a,b,c,d). For Frankl, the
spiritual dimension is not equivalent to a religious dimen-
sion or as spirituality. Although being religious and spiri-
tual are potentialities of the spiritual dimension, the
spiritual dimension does not only relate to these areas, but
it is a broader category that represents what is uniquely
human (Frankl 1994a). The spiritual dimension is the core
of the individual that remains healthy in spite of biological
and psychological conditions. It possesses unique charac-
teristics that enable the individual to face the limitations
imposed by the biological and psychological dimensions
(Frankl 1994a).
Specifically, the spiritual dimension includes the spiri-
tual resources of self-distancing and self-transcendence
(Frankl 1992,1999; Martı
´nez 2013). Self-distancing
encompasses the ability of self-comprehension (the ability
to objectively see oneself and assume a healthy stance upon
such observation), self-regulation (the ability of monitoring
and regulating emotional and cognitive processes and
oppose oneself to the need of fighting against discomfort or
of avoiding suffering), and self-projection (the ability of
perceiving oneself differently in the future) (Frankl 1992,
1999; Martı
´nez 2013). On the other hand, self-transcen-
dence refers to the human capacity to intentionally direct
attention and efforts to reach something or someone sig-
nificant other than themselves (Frankl 1988). It encom-
passes the capacity of differentiation (the ability of
interacting with the environment while maintaining indi-
viduality and recognizing that others might hold different
beliefs and emotionality), affectation (the ability of being
J Contemp Psychother
123

emotionally and motivationally moved by the presence of
values and meaning), and commitment (the ability of giving
oneself to a cause or a higher power that brings a sense of
meaning) (Frankl 1994b,c,d,1988,1999; Martı
´nez 2007,
2013). The importance of these abilities underlies the
assumption that psychotherapy is possible thanks to the
spiritual resources that allow individuals to take a different
attitude towards their symptoms and engage in behaviors
that are in opposition to internal (e.g., urges to drink) and
external demands (e.g., parents suffering from alcoholism).
Another important concept in logotherapy refers to the
distinction between an authentic personality and an inau-
thentic personality. According to Frankl, an authentic per-
sonality occurs when the biological and psychological
development are aligned with the spiritual dimension, and
accurately mirror the person reflecting his or her individu-
ality and potentiality (Frankl 1992). The authentic person-
ality is the one that is open to the external world and is
willing to be affected and moved by experience. An inau-
thentic personality, conversely, represents a person that is
restricted by his or her psychological and biological
dimensions and is not able to mirror through his or her
personality his or her spiritual resources, and thus, the
person that he or she truly aims to be (e.g., a person
restricted by the urges of drinking is not capable of super-
imposing his or her spiritual resources) (Frankl 1992). An
inauthentic personality is closed to the external world and
unwilling to be affected by others. In the presence of an
inauthentic personality, the individual is more vulnerable to
develop rigid response patterns and endorse problematic
coping strategies to constantly experience pleasure or avoid
distress and suffering (Martı
´nez 2007,2011). From this
perspective, mental health problems occur when the spiri-
tual dimension has been restricted by the psychological and
biological dispositions and the person becomes inflexible in
the coping strategies used to face difficulties, underusing his
or her spiritual resources (Martı
´nez 2007,2011). Moreover,
this rigidity and the harmful use of coping strategies per-
petuates the same psychological problems the individual is
trying to avoid, and further makes the individual more
susceptible to experience discomfort and the maintenance
of symptoms (Martı
´nez 2007,2011).
In this model, coping strategies are classified in four
levels (Frankl 1992; Martı
´nez 2007,2011,2013). The first
two levels of coping strategies represent maladaptive
coping strategies (e.g., self-injurious behavior, self-medi-
cation, avoidance, and escape) and the third and fourth
level represent adaptive coping strategies (Martı
´nez 2007,
2011,2013). The first two levels of maladaptive strategies
have in common the extreme urge of eliminating any
experience of discomfort when facing a threat to one’s
identity. The difference between the first level strategies
and second level strategies is that in the first level strategies
the individual attempts to fight the discomfort via means
that involve a direct alteration of the physical organism
(self-medicating, purging, self-injury), while in the second
the attempts to eliminate discomfort involve changing the
individual’s environment (escaping and avoiding). On the
other hand, the third and fourth levels of coping strategies
represent the use of self-distancing and self-transcendence,
respectively, to deal with such threats (Martı
´nez 2007,
2011,2013). The strategies related to the first and second
level of coping strategies are associated with the expression
of an inauthentic personality. Conversely, an authentic
personality engages in coping strategies at the third and
fourth levels and allows the person to transcend beyond
difficulties and assume a healthy attitude in the face of
potential threats to identity (Frankl 1992,1994a,2001;
Lukas 2004; Martı
´nez 2007,2009b,2011).
In terms of treatment, to promote change in the client
the therapist has to mobilize healthy coping strategies of
self-distancing and self-transcendence. Self-distancing is
mobilized to promote change in coping strategies and self-
transcendence is used to promote meaning-oriented
behavior and alleviate difficulties related with loss of
purpose in life and existential issues (Martı
´nez 2007,
2013). Therefore, in the Meaning-centered psychotherapy,
or logotherapy, change occurs when the individual is
capable of accepting discomfort and instead of trying to
eliminate it or to change his or her environment in an
unhealthy way, tries to replace maladaptive coping strate-
gies with the use of existential resources (Frankl 1992,
1994b,c,d,2001; Lukas 2003; Martı
´nez 2007,2011,
2013). The ultimate goal of psychotherapy is to facilitate in
the individual psychological flexibility, malleability to
situations, and an authentic personality open to the world
and others (Martı
´nez 2007,2011,2013). This in turn will
widen the phenomenological field of the individual, enable
him or her to perceive different alternatives and realities of
his or her existence, and allow the individual to engage in
the alternatives that bring more meaning to his or her life
(Martı
´nez 2007,2011,2013).
In summary, logotherapy is a Meaning-centered psy-
chotherapy that focuses on the personal spiritual/existential
resources of the individual, it is person and personality-
centered, it highlights the role of maladaptive coping
strategies on the development of psychopathology, and it
promotes change by implementing adaptive coping strate-
gies (Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Martı
´nez 2002,2003,2007,
2009a,2011).
Evaluation and Diagnoses in Clinical Practice
Logotherapy, as a Meaning-centered psychotherapy, has
specific principles and technical procedures regarding the
J Contemp Psychother
123

nature of the therapeutic relationship (Frankl 1992,1994b),
the process of evaluation and diagnoses, and the inter-
vention techniques used in clinical practice (Martı
´nez
2011,2013; Schulenberg et al. 2008). In this model of
logotherapy, the evaluation process is targeted to the
assessment of the individual’s biological, psychological,
and spiritual resources and restrictions as well as the
individuals’ values and areas of meaning (see Winters &
Schulenberg 2006). The ultimate goal of the process of
evaluation is to arrive at a clear conceptualization of the
client’s individuality, and of how he or she perceives the
world (Martı
´nez 2011). To meet these goals the therapist
makes use of assessment procedures that include the clin-
ical interview and administration of self-report measures
(see Melton & Schulenberg 2008; Winters & Schulenberg
2006). During the assessment phase the therapist explores
psychological symptoms (related to specific psychological
disorders), physiological restrictions (medical conditions),
coping strategies, spiritual resources, and motivation to
change (Martı
´nez 2009a,2009b,2009c,2009d). The
interview allows the clinician to identify areas of meaning,
have a comprehensive view of the client’s problem, and
explore in depth the client’s healthy and unhealthy coping
strategies (Martı
´nez 2009b,c,d; Schulenberg et al. 2008;
Winters & Schulenberg 2006).
Regarding self-report measures, as of today there are
more than 50 instruments developed to assess different
areas of meaning (See also Brandsta
¨tter et al. 2012; Melton
& Schulenberg 2008; Park & George 2013). Although the
majority of these instruments have been used mainly in
research contexts, some of these measures such as the Life
Regard Index (Battista & Almond 1973), the Personal
Meaning Index (Reker 1992), and the Schedule for
Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMILE; Fegg et al. 2008),
could inform the clinician on the processes of meaning that
are present within the client and offer a systematic way of
monitoring changes in several areas of meaning in life. In
Latin America, the Scale of Noological Resources
(Martı
´nez et al. 2010) and the Vital Meaning Scale
(Martı
´nez et al. 2011) have been developed and validated
in Spanish-speaking populations to assess perception of
meaning and level of spiritual resources within clients.
With respect to the diagnosis of psychological symp-
toms and medical conditions, logotherapy recognizes the
importance of a comprehensive evaluation that includes
assessment of clinical disorders and a coherent and com-
prehensive case formulation that assesses symptomatology
in depth (Martı
´nez 2007,2009b,2011; Winters & Schu-
lenberg 2006). Thus, it is important for the clinician to be
familiar with current diagnostic procedures of psychopa-
thology as well as with the administration of psychomet-
rically sound assessment instruments that target specific
disorders (Winters & Schulenberg 2006). The process of
evaluation and diagnosis determines the route of treatment
and the techniques that are going to be used thorough the
process. The clinician must prioritize the urgency of
symptoms, evaluate their own competence to treat such
symptoms, and respect the different moments of the ther-
apeutic process, as indicated in the following section.
The Therapeutic Process
The process of psychotherapy requires a general delimita-
tion of the different moments of intervention of the thera-
peutic process (Martı
´nez 2007,2009b,2009c,2009d,
2011). In logotherapy or Meaning-centered psychotherapy,
three fundamental phases of the therapeutic process are
recognized.
In the first phase of treatment, the Meaning-centered
therapist should develop a clear case formulation and engage
in an on-going facilitation of spiritual resources. Specifically,
Self-distancing (self-comprehension, self-regulation, and
self-projection) is mobilized during this first stage. In this
phase the client starts to self-comprehend his maladaptive
coping strategies as well as monitor and regulate his or her
symptoms (Martı
´nez 2011). During the first phase of therapy
there are six special areas that the therapist should address
(Martı
´nez 2011): the therapeutic frame (e.g., the cost, time,
place, and rules), a safe environment (e.g., evaluate self-
injury behavior, suicidal ideations), the assessment and
diagnosis (case conceptualization), the consolidation of the
therapeutic relationship, the client’s motivation to change,
and the reduction of symptoms that generate significant
distress in the client (see Lukas 2003). Once these areas have
been successfully addressed the therapist and the client can
move to the second phase of therapy.
In the second phase, three special aspects are consid-
ered. The first aspect refers to the maintenance of the
therapeutic relationship and the on-going use of the rela-
tionship as a tool to promote change. The second aspect
involves promoting a new understanding of the psycho-
biological restrictions that limit the individual’s freedom
(e.g., a disability, a mental illness, a difficult situation) to
broaden the perspective and the field of choices and pos-
sibilities for the individual. The third aspect involves the
replacement of second level maladaptive strategies with
third level adaptive strategies (e.g., instead of avoiding
feared situations, using self-distancing to relate differently
with symptoms). Once the symptoms have been signifi-
cantly reduced and the client is able to recognize the use of
harmful coping strategies, self-regulating techniques are
implemented and the client starts to give a new functional
order to his or her inauthentic personality and learns new
ways to cope with difficulties (e.g., perceiving feared sit-
uations as events that can lead to the attainment of
J Contemp Psychother
123

meaningful goals). The therapist helps the client to become
less rigid and to let go of the closeness of the psychological
dimension. In this phase, willingness to be open to uncer-
tainty and discomfort associated with change is promoted
as well as adaptive and authentic behavior.
The last and final stage of therapy involves change
consolidation, relapse prevention, and the discovery of a
meaningful life (Martı
´nez 2007,2011). In change consol-
idation, the progress is normalized by the client and change
is integrated into his or her life. In this phase of therapy,
changes are maintained and the individual expresses sat-
isfaction with the new way of approaching the world. To
assure further maintenance of change, relapse prevention is
implemented. The therapist and the client anticipate pos-
sible obstacles to maintain progress as well as possible
setbacks that could trigger previous maladaptive coping
strategies. Spiritual unfolding and meaning in life then is
further promoted. The therapist focuses in guiding the
client to experience the spiritual resources of affectation
(the ability of being moved by the presence of values and
meaning) and commitment (the ability of giving oneself to
a cause or a higher power that brings a sense of meaning)
(Frankl 1988,1994b,c,d,1999; Martı
´nez 2007,2013). At
the end of successful treatment, the client displays self-
transcendence and engages in a meaningful life (Martı
´nez
2007,2009a,2011; Schulenberg et al. 2008).
Methods of Intervention
The therapeutic relationship, or the existential encounter
between the individual and the therapist, is the principal
technique in the therapeutic process (Frankl 1992,1994b).
An authentic therapeutic relationship facilitates an
encounter in which the client is able to display an authentic
personality and is willing to experience the unavoidable
anxiety of life. In terms of specific techniques to target
symptoms and enhance meaning in life, the most well-
known techniques in logotherapy are paradoxical intention
(Bazzi & Fizzotti 1989; Broomfield & Espie 2003; Frankl
1994d, Frankl 1995a; Michelson and Asher 1984), dere-
flection (Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Frankl 1975; Lukas 2003),
and attitude modification (Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Lukas
2006; Martı
´nez 2009d). These techniques are useful in
enhancing meaning, promoting self-distancing, and
decreasing symptoms (see Ameli & Dattilio 2013; Bazzi
and Fizzotti 1989; Frankl 1994d, Frankl 1995a; Schulen-
berg et al. 2008). Because these techniques have been well
documented in the literature of logotherapy (for a revision
see Schulenberg et al. 2008), the present article elaborates
specifically on the technique of Socratic dialogue as used in
Meaning-centered psychotherapy or logotherapy (Fabry
1994; Guttman 1998).
Socratic Dialogue
The Socratic dialogue has been used in several other forms
of psychotherapy, in which it is used depending on the
therapeutic goals and theoretical fundamentals of each
form of therapy (Beck 2000,2007; Ellis 1999; Martı
´nez
2009d; Overholser 2010; Rudio 2001). In logotherapy or
Meaning-centered psychotherapy, the use of Socratic dia-
logue has gathered special attention as one of the most
important techniques to mobilize spiritual resources and
facilitate the discovery of meaning in clients through the
use of systematic questioning (Bellantoni 2010; Fabry
2001; Freire 2002; Guttman 1998; Lukas 2006; Scraper
2000). This technique was modeled by Viktor Frankl on
multiple occasions, in which through Socratic questioning,
Frankl helped clients find meaning in difficult situations
and discover alternative perspectives to their problems
(Frankl 1994c,2001). In the following section the appli-
cation of Socratic dialogue in logotherapy is illustrated. In
addition, guidelines on the application of Socratic dialogue
to enhance meaning perception in individual and group
therapy are provided.
Socratic Dialogue in Logotherapy
As mentioned previously, Socratic dialogue is used to
mobilize the spiritual resources of the client. In logother-
apy, the implementation of Socratic dialogue requires the
establishment of a safe environment, a genuine encounter
between the therapist and the client, and a caring disposi-
tion to listen and discover meaning in the dialogue (Bru-
zzone 2003; Frankl 1994c; Freire 2002). The therapist has
to establish a relationship of trust and give to the conver-
sation a tone of an adequate sense of humor far from a
judgmental, moralistic, or exhortative stance (Freire 2002).
The first instance of Socratic dialogue is characterized by a
naı
¨ve and ironic position assumed by the therapist; Frankl
recommended this stance constantly (Freire 2002). How-
ever, the use of these positions should be used with caution
to avoid coming across as disrespectful to the client (Lukas
1983,2006; Martı
´nez 2002,2003,2007,2009d).
Once a safe environment has been established, the
therapist listens in silence so the client can voice his or her
problems openly to the therapist (Lukas 1983). Then,
assuming a naı
¨ve stance, the logotherapist aims to broaden
the phenomenological field of the client through questions
that aim to define what it (client’s perceived problem)
really is. This means, that during the first part of Socratic
dialogue the therapist tries to refute the partial knowledge
narrated by the client to get closer to a more essential truth
and facilitate the existential resource of self-distancing.
Now, let’s take a look at some specific examples of how to
J Contemp Psychother
123

mobilize self-comprehension, self-regulation, and self-
projection in a client. The following vignettes do not
contain examples of real cases but rather they show an
approximation of examples of how Socratic dialogue is
applied in logotherapy (Martı
´nez 2009d).
Self-Comprehension: (T =therapist, C =client)
T: How do you react when you are in that situation?
C: I try to pretend I am not nervous
T: and, why do you do that? (Acting naı
¨ve)
C: so people don’t realize I am embarrassed
T: and why be ashamed about that?
C: well, my hands start sweating
T: are there any other circumstances when this also
happens?
C: whenever I am in meetings or when too many people
are around me
T: what’s going on in those situations that make you
have this sensation?
C: well, it happens when I feel observed
T: I understand, your hands sweat because you feel
observed, however I am curious to know, what is the
danger in that situation? I mean, what do you think these
people that are observing you are going to find out?
C: Well that my hands are sweating
T: of course, but if your hands are sweating what can
people think about you?
C: that I am a nervous person
T: and, why is it embarrassing to be nervous?
C: they are probably going to think that I am not good at
my job
Self-regulation
T: Interesting, I had not met an enterprise in which hand
sweating was an indicator of bad job performance
(ironically)
C: (laugh) that is not what I meant (laugh)
T: so, how did you get that you are not good at your job?
C: I just have always had that sensation
T: but why do you think that?
C: I guess I got the sensation because of my father; he
was so successful and judgmental…
T: and how have you managed to still hold such an
important job position for this long?
C: well, I guess they have not noticed…
T: what? So the people at your work are so negligent,
that they have not even realized how bad you are? (in a
naı
¨ve manner)
C: it is not that, there are very successful people there.
T: Sure. That is why you are also there.
Self-projection
T: What would be the best thing that would happen to
you if you could overcome your shyness?
C: I would be more successful with women (laugh).
T: if we pretend for a moment that this session is
happening two years from now, after you have overcome
your shyness, what would you be telling me?
C: maybe I would not even be here (laugh). Well, I
would be introducing you to my friends…
Socratic dialogue can also be use to promote differentiation.
For instance, the following dialogue illustrates an approxi-
mation of an example of a client that presents to therapy to
address relationship issues with his or her partner.
Differentiation
C: It’s just that I feel that he does not love me as much as
I love him.
T: what do you mean by that? Could you please be more
specific?
C: well, he is a priority to me. I would like to spend all
my time with him and be able to call him more
frequently, but it seems to me that he would rather do
other things.
T: so, if he would like to spend all his time with you and
call you as many times as you would like him to, then
you would feel really loved?
C: yes, exactly.
T: so, if he would stop being himself, and instead he
would be just like you are, then you would feel loved.
C: well, it is not that I would like for him to be just like
me.
T: why not?
C: there are some things that I have that I would not like
him to have.
T: for example?
C: for example, I tend to be always in a rush and stressed
out about several things
T: oh, ok. I understand. There are also some things about
you that do not have anything to do with him. What
would happen if he would not only love you as you wish
he would love you, but if he would also be always in a
rush and stress out about things?
C: I think we would have already broken up.
T: so it seems a relief that you both are different.
As it can be seen, through the use of Socratic questioning,
the therapist leads the client to identify fears and under-
lying beliefs, information that contradicts these beliefs,
client’s potentialities, and reasons to change. Table 1pro-
vides additional examples of questions that can be use to
promote each of these spiritual resources.
J Contemp Psychother
123

Table 1 Questions to promote in the client the spiritual resources of self-comprehension, self-regulation, self-projection, and differentiation
Self-comprehension Self-regulation Self-projection Differentiation
When you think about it what do you feel?
When you start feeling like that, what is going
through your head?
How does your body behave when you are feeling
like that?
What is going on in that situation that upsets you so
much?
In what other situations do you feel like that?
How would you describe that sensation in another
way?
How does this start to happen?
What is the price that you have to pay if you
continue like this?
When that situation occurs, what do you usually do?
When you react that way, how do other people
usually react?
From where did you get that things should be that
way?
Can you think of any metaphor to help me
understand what happens to you?
What do you tell yourself when this occurs?
If your life was a book, what would be the title of the
current chapter? What are those mistakes or errors
you would like to edit? What is the best part of the
book?
What is the price of changing?
When that situation occurs, what other
different things can you do?
How do you withhold yourself?
How do you force yourself to be able
to stop yourself in that situation?
How does the conversation that you
have with yourself to make that
decision go?
Where do you get the strength to
maintain that decision from?
What did you do to overcome that
situation?
What is stopping you?
Is there any way you can regulate your
excessive regulation?
I do not understand. Do you really
think you can force him or her to
change?
How do you cope with what you feel?
How do you resist that urge?
What do you tell yourself to withhold
from doing that?
How can you disagree with what
others expect from you?
How do you manage to contradict
what your thoughts are telling you to
do?
So why do you want that?
How would you like to live the rest of your
life?
If you decide to change, how would
everything look?
What is the version of yourself that you would
like to have?
Is it worth the effort to obtain that?
What obstacles are you going to face to obtain
what you want?
What you are going to lose if you chose to
live differently?
Are you willing to accept the price of
changing?
What is your goal in this process?
Why would you bet on it?
How do you imagine yourself when all of this
is in the past?
What is the best thing that could happen to
you if you overcome this?
In the future, how would you tell your
children or grandchildren that you overcame
this?
How can you continue changing, even if some
people would benefit more if you do not
change?
What have you kept doing as a result of past
relationships?
Where did you get that things should happen
this way and not any other way?
Why don’t you like others to think for
themselves?
What is it that you get by not allowing him or
her to feel that way?
How did you get to the conclusion that
everyone should behave the same way you
do?
So is there only one way to approach that
situation?
Would you be comfortable if he or she just
pretends to enjoy those places?
What would you lose if you just let him/her be
who they are?
What is so scary about his or her feelings?
What are some goals that are only yours?
Apart from discrediting what he/she says, in
what other way could you express that you
disagree?
J Contemp Psychother
123

Along the same lines, based on Socratic dialogue the lo-
gotherapist Elizabeth Lukas (1983,2000,2006) has devel-
oped the ironic and naı¨ve questioning technique. In this
technique the therapist, with some level of ingenuousness
and irony, pretends to accept the irrationality behind the
client’s beliefs. Paradoxically, when assuming this position,
as a defensive strategy the client tries to re-formulate his or
her problem getting closer to the real issues that bring him or
her to therapy (Martı
´nez 2002,2003; Restrepo 2001). In the
following vignette a brief approximation of an example of
the technique is provided (Martı
´nez 2002):
C: Actually, my problem is not as bad as it sounds, I can
control my drug use.
T: (in a naı
¨ve manner) what is the thing that you control
the most about your drug use?
C: well, I do not do it as frequently and I do not use
drugs so much.
T: (in a naı
¨ve manner) oh, that is good to know, for a
moment I thought that you were using drugs at least once
a week. So, how frequently do you use drugs?
C: well, sometimes I do use drugs frequently, but some
other times I can go for a while without using.
T: why did you decide to come to our institution?
C: my wife insisted that I should come.
T: (surprised) your wife asked you to come!!! She must
believe you are not doing very well then.
C: sometimes she exaggerates.
T: so it must be hard for you to live with a person that
does not get it is okay to use drugs once in a while. Have
you thought about finding a woman that is okay with you
using drugs once in a while?
C: well, she is right in some of the things she says. If I
would have to be by myself, I would probably use more
drugs.
T: (in a naı
¨ve way) so what is wrong with using drugs?
C: it does have a lot of bad things, you start becoming an
irresponsible person, and your relationship with your
family starts deteriorating.
T: (in a naı
¨ve way)…and do you think that being
irresponsible and losing your family and wife are enough
reasons for you to stop using drugs?
Therefore, through the use of questions and a naı
¨ve/ironic
stance the therapist can facilitate self-distancing ability.
Apart from mobilizing the spiritual resources of self-dis-
tancing, the Socratic questioning technique is also used to
guide the client to identify meaning across various situations.
Training in Meaning Perception Through Socratic
Dialogue
The training in meaning perception is Socratic in essence.
Through this method the client is trained to recognize
personal sources of meaning and to be aware of meaningful
moments in his or her life (Martı
´nez 2009a). This method
is developed through four instances that need to be
addressed when training in meaning perception in a spe-
cific situation:
1. The emotional perception: the first step is centered on
identifying the affectivity evoked by the presence of
meaning. It is a moment that intends to describe the
emotional resonance of meaning. For instance:
T: I can see that your face changes when you talk
about that, what exactly are you feeling?
C: I feel good about going back to college
T: what do you mean when you say ‘‘I feel good’’?
What is that?
C: well, I feel happy, satisfied.
T: and, what is feeling happy?
C: being content, I am excited about coming back.
T: could you describe the sensation?
C: I feel complete, calm, and relief.
2. The cognitive perception: this relates to the rationale
and the usefulness that is perceived in a particular
source of meaning. It involves the thoughts and
significance generated by the presence of a value or
a valuable person. For example:
T: What kind of thoughts do you have regarding this
situation you are experiencing?
C: it just makes me want to change even more.
T: and, why keep changing?
C: so I can get along with everyone as I have been
doing lately.
T: and, what is good about it?
C: it motivates me to keep making progress.
3. The values perception: within every perceived situation
there are values immersed. In this step the therapist guides
the client to perceive those values and find out what is
most important to him or her. Consider this example:
T: And, who benefits from your feelings of
satisfaction and motivation to change?
C: everyone
T: could you give me some examples?
C: my father seems calmer, my brothers are happy, I
am happy…
T: among all the alternatives that you have, is there
any other better option than what you are doing right
now?
C: at this moment, I don’t think so…
4. Value attraction: for a value to become meaningful it
has to be accompanied by an act. In this instance, the
J Contemp Psychother
123

client is invited to experience the value and act upon it.
For instance:
T: What is it that you find so appealing in that
option?
C: well, I am going to be able to return to my
previous life.
T: how do you notice that is what you want?
C: just thinking about it excites me.
T: so what specific acts do you have to do to get
what you want?
Therefore, with the training in meaning perception the
client is helped to recognize sources of meaning, personal
values, as well as the acts that allow him or her to attain
meaning and realize such values. Finally, Socratic dialogue
is not only limited to individual therapy, but can also be
applied in group therapy to empower clients and facilitate
group dialogue.
Group Logotherapy Through Socratic Dialogue
Group therapy has evidenced to benefit from the applica-
tion of logotherapy. Specifically, there have been important
developments for the group treatment of individuals with
cancer (Hoseinyan et al. 2009), for addictions and relapse
prevention (Crumbaugh et al. 1980; Martı
´nez 2002,
2009d), somatic disorders (Lukas 2006), grief therapy
(Berti & Schneider-Berti 1994), and war veterans (Martı
´-
nez 2009a). In group logotherapy, Socratic dialogue is also
a useful technique. Through this technique the facilitator
promotes an environment in which the participants are the
ones that discover the solutions to the problems, and
therefore are empowered. The use of Socratic questioning
can be systematically used in three distinct moments of
group therapy: the initial moment, the moment of refuta-
tion, and the moment of discovery (Martı
´nez 2009d).
The initial moment: the first moment of group Socratic
dialogue consists in the active and on-going listening of the
participant’s discourse to identify their phenomenological
field. The fundamental question in this moment is: what is
it that we are talking about? In other words, how is the
specific subject (cancer, addiction, death, war, symptoms)
defined by the group members? The Socratic facilitator
initiates the group conversation with a trigger question and
then listens to participant opinions and captures how they
perceive the subject being discussed and the beliefs
underlying the topic of conversation. Meanwhile, the
facilitator assumes a receptive attitude and refrains from
questioning participant beliefs. His or her role in this
moment is to occasionally summarize what is being said in
the group. Once the facilitator has summarized the
participant responses, he or she can either re-phrase the
original trigger question to obtain more information or ask
a new question to move to another area of interest. It is the
role of the facilitator to assure that all of the group mem-
bers have had the opportunity of participating. Some spe-
cific recommendations of the initial moment are to conduct
the group with approximately 12 participants (more than 12
can be difficult to manage and less than 12 can make the
group too tense), to provide feedback every four or five
responses without attempting to interpret or question par-
ticipant opinions, to focus on capturing the phenomeno-
nological field of each participant while also fostering a
genuine and trustworthy environment, and to place the
group members that participate the most to the right side
and left side of the facilitator, while placing the members
that talk the least in front of the facilitator (Martı
´nez 2002,
2009d).
The moment of refutation or contradiction: once the
facilitator has identified the phenomenological field of the
group members and has listened to their arguments and
beliefs, he or she begins asking questions that will chal-
lenge the participant beliefs. In this moment it is important
to also take into account the strategies used in the initial
moment. However, questions such as how so? To introduce
doubt in the group members (e.g., how is it that when
people get sad they have to drink alcohol?). What for? or
Why? to question the meaning attributed to a behavior
(e.g., Why is it that you have to escape when you encounter
a situation?) have more importance. By refuting or pro-
viding arguments against their beliefs in the form of
questions, the facilitator attempts to generate a process of
meaning incongruence that further leads them to doubt
their assumptions and the beliefs that underlie them. This is
the moment of Socratic irony and/or the naı
¨ve questions
that aim to facilitate in the group the discovery of incon-
sistencies and contradictions. In this moment, the facilitator
can also introduce facts from reliable sources that chal-
lenge their arguments, lectures, talks or conferences,
alternatives on how other people have perceived or
approached the same subject (e.g., stories of people that
have overcome cancer), and also present hypothetical sit-
uations that promote perspective taking and allow the
participants to be flexible in the way they approach a sit-
uation. It is recommended that the facilitator introduce the
material appearing objective, neutral, and without over-
emphasizing particular information (Martı
´nez 2002,
2009d).
Finally, the moment of discovery focuses on broadening
the phenomenological field of the group members. Once
the participants have doubt in their assumptions and
beliefs, the facilitator then guides them to discover new
conclusions and obtain new alternatives when facing a
particular situation. This process is conducted through
J Contemp Psychother
123

questions that promote the consideration of other possi-
bilities and that allow for the development of healthy
coping strategies. In this moment, the facilitator also guides
the group members to identify the meaning and the values
underlying the range of possibilities and to engage in the
solution that is most meaningful and valuable to them. The
ultimate goal is for their beliefs, values, and goals to be
aligned with what is meaningful for them (Martı
´nez 2002,
2009d).
To conclude, Socratic dialogue in a meaning-centered
psychotherapy is a valuable tool to promote spiritual
resources in the client, to generate meaning dissonance and
motivate change, and to guide the discovery of a mean-
ingful life in individuals. This approach is not only of
benefit to logotherapists clinicians but it is also useful
across a range of orientations and settings that emphasize
the need of facilitating value clarification, goal setting,
motivation to change, and the discovery of a life worth
living in clients (Ryan et al. 2011; Steffen 2013; Wollburg
& Braukhaus 2010). Thus, the described approach warrants
further exploration and validation as a technique used
within several therapeutic models and mental health
settings.
Final Comments
Logotherapy is considered one of the most sound and
useful therapies among existential treatments (Vos et al.
2014). The principles and fundamentals that underlie log-
otherapy have expanded beyond Meaning-centered ther-
apy, and have been addressed in other theories of
psychotherapy that recognize the role of meaning in
treatment (Duckworth et al. 2005; Martı
´nez 2013; Wong
2011). However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be
done to position logotherapy in a place that allows for
wider applicability and recognition (Schulenberg & Florez
2013). Specifically, a research agenda to validate the
techniques and potential effectiveness of the application of
a logotherapeutic model across various settings, popula-
tions, and disorders, continues to be a priority for the
Meaning-centered practitioner (Schulenberg & Florez
2013). The new demands and advances in the field of
mental health require treatments with empirical support
and data that validate the usefulness of the practices and
encourage researchers and clinicians to contribute to the
understanding of active components of therapy, mecha-
nisms of change, and treatment generalization within every
theory of psychotherapy (Spring 2007).
Therefore, it is important for researchers interested in
meaning to focus more on the empirical validation of this
paradigm and enhance efforts in dissemination of the clinical
model (see Schulenberg & Florez 2013). Specifically, efforts
to conduct rigorous randomized controlled trials to test the
effectiveness and efficacy of treatment protocols, to train
researchers interested in the advancement of logotherapy,
and to develop and describe parsimonious interventions,
techniques, and instruments that are testable and replicable,
are warrant. Among the same lines, it is recommended that
Meaning-centered psychotherapists work to attempt to make
logotherapy more visible and accessible to the academic
world that exists beyond logotherapy and existential thera-
pies (Schulenberg & Florez 2013; Vos et al. 2014).
Victor Frankl himself encouraged clinicians to conduct
research to strengthen a Meaning-centered psychotherapy
(Frankl 1995a). He developed a strong and promising theory
of psychotherapy that allowed the consolidation of a science
of meaning and of a growing body of research supporting
meaning’s clinical utility (Frankl 1994b). Frankl’s goal was
to disseminate a model of therapy that focus on facilitating
meaningful lives (Frankl 1995a). To attain this goal it is
necessary for logotherapists to engage in scientific efforts to
confirm the validity and utility of Meaning-centered psy-
chotherapy to then be recognized and tested against well-
known therapeutic models that are well known for their
strong research framework. The final objective is for logo-
therapy to hold the highest standards of clinical practice and
be open to rigorous scientific evaluation that leads to
research-oriented practices (Schulenberg & Florez 2013).
References
Ameli, M., & Dattilio, F. M. (2013). Enhancing cognitive behavior
therapy with logotherapy: Techniques for clinical practice.
Psychotherapy, 50, 387–391.
Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in
life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427.
Bazzi, T., & Fizzotti, E. (1989). Guı´a de la logoterapia. Barcelona:
Herder.
Beck, J. (2000). Terapia cognitiva. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Beck, J. (2007). Terapia cognitiva para la superacio´n de retos.
Barcelona: Gedisa.
Bellantoni, D. (2010). E possibile trattare la visione esistenziale e la
psicopatologı
´a?. Psicopatologia e significato della vita. Il
contributo dell Analisi esistenziale alla psicoterapia. En. A. Pac-
ciolla, F. Mancini (Eds.), Cognitivismo esistenziale. Dal signi-
ficato del sintomo al significato della vita. Milano:
FrancoAngeli.
Benware, J. M. (2003). On the compatibility of cognitive therapy and
logotherapy. The International Forum for Logotherapy, 26,
49–57.
Berti, G., & Schneider-Berti, A. (1994). When an offspring dies:
Logotherapy in bereavement groups. The International Forum
for Logotherapy, 17, 65–68.
Brandsta
¨tter, M., Baumann, U., Borasio, G. D., & Fegg, M. J. (2012).
Systematic review of meaning in life assessment instruments.
Psycho-Oncology, 21, 1034–1052.
Breitbart, W., & Heller, K. S. (2003). Refraining hope: Meaning-
centered care for patients near the end of life. Journal of
Palliative Medicine, 6, 979–988.
J Contemp Psychother
123

Breitbart, W., Poppito, S., Rosenfeld, B., Vickers, A., Li, Y., Abbey,
J., et al. (2012). Pilot randomized controlled trial of individual
meaning-centered psychotherapy for patients with advanced
cancer. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 1304–1309.
Broomfield, N. M., & Espie, C. A. (2003). Initial insomnia and
paradoxical intention: An experimental investigation of putative
mechanisms using subjective and actigraphic measurement of
sleep. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 313–324.
Bruzzone, D. (2003). Il metodo dialogico da Socrate a Frankl. Sulla
natura educativa del processo logoterapeutico. En: Ricersa Di
Senso. Vol. 1, N. 1. Trento: Edizione Erikson.
Crumbaugh, J. C., Wood, W. M., & Wood, C. W. (1980).
Logotherapy: New help for problem drinkers. Chicago, IL:
Nelson Hall.
Debats, D. L. (1996). Meaning in life: Clinical relevance and
predictive power. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 503–516.
DeWitz, J. S., Woolsey, L. M., & Walsh, B. W. (2009). College
student retention: An exploration of the relationship between
self-efficacy beliefs and purpose in life among college students.
Journal of College Student Development, 50, 19–34.
Dı
´az del Castillo, J. (2011). Abordaje logoterape´utico del modo de ser
obsesivo-compulsivo. Trabajo de grado: Universidad los
Libertadores.
Drescher, C. F., Baczwaski, B. J., Walters, A. B., Aiena, B. J.,
Schulenberg, S. E., & Johnson, L. R. (2012). Coping with an
ecological disaster: The role of perceived meaning in life and self-
efficacy following the Gulf Oil Spill. Ecopsychology, 4, 56–63.
Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Positive
psychology in clinical practice. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 629–651.
Duque, T. (1998). Intervencio
´n logoterape
´utica con drogodependien-
tes en prisio
´n. Boletı´n de Logoterapia y Ana´lisis Existencial, 2,
59–72.
Ellis, A. (1999). Una terapia breve ma´s profunda y duradera.
Enfoque teo´rico de la Terapia Racional Emotiva Conductual.
Madrid: Paidos Iberica.
Fabry, J. (2001). Sen˜ales del camino hacia el sentido.Me
´xico: LAG.
Fabry, D., Sheikh, A., & Selman, M. (2007). Logotherapy can enrich
cognitive behavioral therapy practice. The International Forum
for Logotherapy, 30, 100–106.
Fegg, M., Kramer, M., L
´hoste, S., & Borasio, G. (2008). The schedule
for meaning in life evaluation (SMILE): Validation of a new
instrument for meaning in life research. Journal of Pain and
Symptom Management, 35, 356–364.
Frankl, V. (1975). Paradoxical intention and dereflection. Psycho-
therapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 12, 226–237.
Frankl, V. (1986). Psicoana´lisis y existencialismo. (A
¨rztliche Seel-
sorge).Me
´xico D.C.: Fondo de Cultura Econo
´mica.
Frankl, V. (1988). Logos, paradoja y bu
´squeda de significado. In M.
Mahoney & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognicio´n y psicoterapia (pp.
132–133). Barcelona: Paidos.
Frankl, V. (1992). Teorı´a y terapia de las neurosis. Iniciacio´n a la
logoterapia y el ana´lisis existencial. Barcelona: Herder.
Frankl, V. (1994a). El hombre doliente. Fundamentos antropolo´gicos
de la psicoterapia. Barcelona: Herder.
Frankl, V. (1994b). Psicoterapia y humanismo. >Tiene un sentido la
vida?.Me
´xico D.C.: Fondo de Cultura Econo
´mica.
Frankl, V. (1994c). La voluntad de sentido. Barcelona: Herder.
Frankl, V. (1994d). Logoterapia y ana´lisis existencial. Barcelona:
Herder.
Frankl, V. (1995a). La psicoterapia en la pra´ctica me´dica. Buenos
Aires: San Pablo.
Frankl, V. (1995b). La presencia ignorada de Dios. Barcelona:
Herder.
Frankl, V. (1999). La idea psicolo´gica del hombre. Madrid: RIALP.
Frankl, V. (2001). Psicoterapia y existencialismo. Escritos selectos
sobre logoterapia. Barcelona: Herder.
Freire, J. B. (2002). El humanismo en la logoterapia de Vı´ktor Frankl.
Navarra: Editorial EUNSA.
Greenstein, M. (2000). The house that’s on fire: Meaning-centered
psychotherapy pilot group for cancer patients. American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 54, 501–511.
Guttman, D. (1998). Logoterapia para profesionales. Bilbao: DDB.
Halama, P. (2003). Meaning and hope: Two factors of positive
psychological functioning in late adulthood. Studia Psycholog-
ica, 45, 103–110.
Henrion, R. (2002). Alcohol use disorders: Alcohol dependence. The
International Forum for Logotherapy, 25, 30–38.
Henrion, R. (2004). Logoanalysis: For treatment of mood disorder
due to medical condition. The International Forum for Logo-
therapy, 27, 3–8.
Hoseinyan, E., Soudani, M., & Mehrabizadeh, M. H. (2009). Efficacy
of group logotherapy on cancer patient’s life expectation.
Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3, 287–292.
Hutchinson, G. T., & Chapman, B. P. (2005). Logotherapy-enhanced
REBT: An integration of discovery and reason. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 35, 145–155.
Hutzell, R. R. (1984). Logoanalysis for alcoholics. The International
Forum for Logotherapy, 7, 40–45.
Julom, A. M., & de Guzma
´n, R. (2013). The effectiveness of
logotherapy program in alleviating the sense of meaninglessness
of paralyzed in-patients. International Journal of Psychology
and Psychological Therapy, 13, 357–371.
Leung, D., Fillion, L., Ste
´phane, D., Brown, J., Rodin, G., & Howell,
D. (2012). Meaning in bone narrow transplant nurses’ work:
Experiences before and after a ‘‘meaning-centered’’ intervention.
Cancer Nursing,35, 374–381.
Lukas, E. (1983). Tu vida tiene sentido. Madrid: SM.
Lukas, E. (1992). Asistencia logoterape´utica. Petropolis: Editorial Voces.
Lukas, E. (1995). Psicoterapia en dignidad. Buenos Aires: San Pablo.
Lukas, E. (2000). Tambie´n tu sufrimiento tiene sentido.Me
´xico D.C:
LAG.
Lukas, E. (2003). Logoterapia. La bu´squeda de significado. Buenos
Aires: Paidos.
Lukas, E. (2004). Equilibrio y curacio´n a trave´s de la Logoterapia.
Barcelona: Paidos Iberica.
Lukas, E. (2006). Tambie´n tu sufrimiento tiene sentido. Alivio en la
crisis a trave´s de la logoterapia.Me
´xico D.C.: Editorial LAS.
Martı
´nez, E. (2002). Logoterapia. Una alternativa ante la frustracio´n
existencial y las adicciones. Bogota
´: Colectivo Aquı
´y Ahora.
Martı
´nez, E. (2003). Accio´n y eleccio´n. Logoterapia, logoterapia de
grupo y abordaje de las drogodependencias. Bogota
´: Colectivo
Aquı
´y Ahora.
Martı
´nez, E. (2007). Psicoterapia y sentido de vida. Psicologı´a
clı´nica de orientacio´n logoterapeutica. Bogota
´: Editorial Herder.
Martı
´nez, E. (2009a). La bu´squeda de sentido. Bogota
´: Colectivo
Aquı
´y Ahora.
Martı
´nez, E. (2009b). El psicodiagno
´stico en logoterapia. In S. Sa
´enz
(Ed.), Logoterapia en accio´n. Aplicaciones pra´cticas (pp.
82–108). San Pablo: Buenos Aires.
Martı
´nez, E. (2009c). Modelo Logoterape
´utico-ambulatorio en adic-
ciones. In S. Sa
´enz (Ed.), Logoterapia en accio´n. Aplicaciones
pra´cticas (pp. 435–450). San Pablo: Buenos Aires.
Martı
´nez, E. (2009d). El dialogo socra´tico en la psicoterapia. Bogota
´:
SAPS.
Martı
´nez, E. (2011). Los modos de ser inaute´nticos. Psicoterapia
Centrada en el sentido de los trastornos de la personalidad.
Bogota
´: Manual Moderno.
Martı
´nez, E. (2013). Los recursos noolo
´gicos en la psicoterapia
centrada en el sentido. In E. Martı
´nez (Ed.), Manual de
J Contemp Psychother
123

psicoterapia con enfoque logoterape´utico (pp. 107–128). Bo-
gota
´: Manual Moderno.
Martı
´nez, E., Dı
´az del Castillo, J., & Jaimes, J. (2010). Validacio
´nde
la Prueba ‘‘Escala De Recursos Noolo
´gicos Aquı
´Y Ahora’’ Para
Personas Mayores de 15 An
˜os. Revista Argentina de Clı´nica
Psicolo´gica, 3, 257–272.
Martı
´nez, E., Schulenberg, S., & Pacciolla, A. (2013). Introduccio
´na
la psicoterapia centrada en el sentido. In E. Martı
´nez (Ed.),
Manual de Psicoterapia con enfoque logoterape´utico (pp.
23–40). Bogota
´: Manual Moderno.
Martı
´nez, E., Trujillo, A., Dı
´az del Castillo, J., & Jaimes, J. (2011).
Desarrollo y estructura de la escala dimensional del sentido de
vida. Acta Colombiana de Psicologı´a, 14, 113–119.
Melton, A. M. A., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2008). On the measurement
of meaning: Logotherapy’s empirical contributions to Human-
istic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 36, 31–44.
Michelson, L., & Asher, M. (1984). Paradoxical intention: Theory,
research and clinical application with anxiety disorders. Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 15, 215–220.
Oscariz, A. (2000). Grupo de madres y padres de drogodependientes.
Una experiencia de bu
´squeda de sentido. Boletı´n de Logoterapia
y Ana´lisis Existencial, 4, 33–42.
Overholser, J. (2010). Psycotherapy according to the Socratic method:
Integrating ancient philosophy with contemporary Cognitive
Therapy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International
Quarterly, 24, 354–361.
Park, C. L., & George, L. S. (2013). Assessing meaning and meaning
making in the context of stressful life events: Measurement tools
and approaches. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 483–504.
Reker, G. T. (1992). Manual of the Life Attitude Profile-Revised
(LAP-R). Peterborough, ON: Student Psychologists Press.
Restrepo, A. (2001). Viktor Emil Frankl y la teorı´a logoterapeutica.
Medellı
´n: UPB.
Rodrı
´guez, R. (2004). Borderline personality disturbances and
logotherapeutic treatment approach. The International Forum
for Logotherapy, 27, 21–27.
Rogina, J. (2002). Logotherapeutic mastery of generalized anxiety
disorder. The International Forum for Logotherapy, 25, 60–67.
Rogina, J. (2004). Treatment and interventions for narcissistic
personality disorder. The International Forum for Logotherapy,
27, 28–33.
Rogina, J., & Quilitch, H. (2006). Treating dependent personality
disorders with logotherapy: A case study. The International
Forum for Logotherapy, 29, 54–61.
Rogina, J., & Quilitch, H. (2010). Logotherapy treatment of
complicated grief syndrome. The International Forum for
Logotherapy, 33, 30–41.
Rudio, F. (2001). Dialogo maieutico e psicoterapia existencial. Sao
Paulo: Novos horizontes.
Ryan, R. M., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2011).
Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and
behavior change: A look at theory and practice. The Counseling
Psychologist, 39, 193–260.
Schulenberg, S. E., & Florez, I. A. (2013). Advancing logotherapy as
a science: A research imperative—Part two. The International
Forum for Logotherapy, 36, 41–50.
Schulenberg, S. E., Hutzell, R. R., Nassif, C., & Rogina, J. M. (2008).
Logotherapy for clinical practice. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, Practice, Training, 45, 447–463.
Scraper, R. (2000). The art and science of maieutic questioning within
the Socratic method. The International Forum for Logotherapy,
23, 14–16.
Sharp, W., Schulenberg, S. E., Wilson, K. G., & Murrell, A. R.
(2004). Logotherapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
(ACT): An initial comparison of values-centered approaches.
The International Forum for Logotherapy, 27, 98–105.
Somov, P. G. (2007). Meaning of life group: Group application of
logotherapy for substance use treatment. Journal for Specialists
in Group Work, 32, 316–345.
Southwick, S., Gilmartin, R., McDonough, P., & Morrisey, P. (2006).
Logotherapy as an adjunctive treatment for chronic combat-
related PTSD: A meaning-based intervention. American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 60, 161–174.
Spring, B. (2007). Evidence based practice in clinical psychology:
What it is, why it matters, what you need to know. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 63, 611–631.
Steffen, E. (2013). Both ‘being with’ and ‘doing to’: Borderline
personality disorder and the integration of humanistic values in
contemporary therapy practice. Counselling Psychology Review,
28, 64–71.
Steger, M., Kashdan, T., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing
good: Eudaimonic activity and daily well-being correlates,
mediators, and temporal relations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 22–42.
Ungar, M. (2002). A logotherapy treatment protocol for major
depressive disorder. The International Forum for Logotherapy,
25, 3–10.
Vos, J., Craig, M. & Cooper, M. (2014). Existential therapies: A
meta-analysis of their effects on psychological outcomes.
Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, Advance online
publication.
Winters, M. R., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2006). Diagnosis in logother-
apy: Overview and suggestions for appropriate use. The Inter-
national Forum for Logotherapy, 29, 16–24.
Wollburg, E., & Braukhaus, C. (2010). Goal setting in psychotherapy:
The relevance of approach and avoidance goals for treatment
outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 20, 488–494.
Wong, P. T. (2011). Positive psychology 2.0: Towards a balanced
interactive model of the good life. Canadian Psychology/
Psychologie Canadienne, 52, 69–81.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning
in life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 83, 133–145.
J Contemp Psychother
123