Conference PaperPDF Available

Who Practices Humanistic Psychology? Clarifying Demographics

Authors:

Abstract

Humanistic psychology has been a force in psychology since the 1960s; however, the label of humanistic psychology has become increasingly complex and diffuse. Humanistic psychology is often used as an umbrella label including various psychological and therapeutic orientations such as client-centered, Gestalt, existential, transpersonal, focusing-oriented, and emotion focused therapy. Individuals identifying as humanistic psychology professionals seek a variety of career trajectories including work as therapists, educators, coaches, researchers, and administrators, among other roles. The current research project seeks to clarify who identifies as a humanistic psychology professional. A questionnaire was distributed internationally through humanistic universities, training programs, and organizations as well as listservs, Facebook, and other social networking platforms recruiting professionals who identify as humanistic. The questionnaire asked about professional roles and interests as well as questions about how one professionally identifies. Additionally, a range of demographic information was gathered to help clarified who is drawn to the humanistic label.
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2015
www.PosterPresentations.com
Humanistic psychology has been aforce in psychology since the 1960s; however, the label of humanistic psychology has
become increasingly complex and diffuse.Humanistic psychology is often used as an umbrella label including various
psychological and therapeutic orientations such as client-centered, Gestalt, existential, transpersonal, focusing-oriented,
and emotion focused therapy.Individuals identifying as humanistic psychology professionals seek avariety of career
trajectories including work as therapists, educators, coaches, researchers, and administrators, among other roles.The
current research project seeks to clarify who identifies as ahumanistic psychology professional. A questionnaire was
distributed internationally through humanistic universities, training programs, and organizations as well as listservs,
Facebook, and other social networking platforms recruiting professionals who identify as humanistic.The questionnaire
asked about professional roles and interests as well as questions about how one professionally identifies.Additionally, a
range of demographic information was gathered to help clarified who is drawn to the humanistic label.
Introduction
The survey gleaned 159 responses from individuals working in the field of humanistic psychology,with wide-ranging
professional roles, levels of experience, theoretical orientations, religious affiliations, and geographic locations, though
mainly from North America and Europe.Data analysis primarily consisted of tallying data and charting the results
visually.
Results
Results (cont.) Results (cont.)
Discussion
This research project sought to shed light on the demographics of humanistic psychologists and psychology
professionals. We received results from professionals of all levels of experience, including many just
entering the field and close to afifth who have been in the field of humanistic psychology for over three
decades. Results show a variety of vocations, including not only therapists and counselors, but also
educators, researchers, and consultants. 83.5% of respondents received formal training in humanistic
psychology, and 70.6% continue to be a member of at least one professional organization relevant to
humanistic psychology.
Humanistic psychology is a term that includes many subfields and orientations, and this is reflected in the
diversity of modalities with which survey respondents identify, including client-centered, existential and
existential-humanistic, gestalt, transpersonal, integral, Jungian, focusing, emotion-focused therapy,
psychoanalytic/psychodynamic psychology, and many more. Respondents also affiliated themselves with a
diversity of religious and spiritual affiliations, including the Judeo-Christian traditions and Eastern religions
as well as pagan, atheist, and agnostic orientations. A majority of respondents identified themselves as not
religious, but spiritual, including many who had identified themselves as agnostic.
Unfortunately, the survey data is limited both by geographic location and by ethnic identify of respondents,
with over 80% Caucasian, and over 90% from the United States or Europe. A more extensive distribution of
the survey would be necessary to achieve a full picture of the humanistic psychology profession.
Author Information
This research was conducted as a collaborative project within the Existential, Humanistic, and Transpersonal
Psychology Specialization at Saybrook University. After the lead author, co-authors were listed in
alphabetical order. For more information about the research project and future publications, you can follow
the project on ResearchGate.net. For question, please contact [lead author & email] or Dr. Louis Hoffman
(lhoffman@Saybrook.edu).
Jane Paige, Gayle Byock, Shawn Ellis, Julia Falk, Michaela Lewis Godsey, Louis Hoffman, Jennifer O’Neil, Jacqui Rathsack,
Danielle Silveria, Gwendolyn S. Sipes, Dominique Wamsley, Ashley Whitaker, & Tammi Vu
Saybrook University
Who Practices Humanistic Psychology? Clarifying Demographics
Other Responses:
Unaffiliated Spiritual, 14%
Nature-based, 2%
Unitarian, 1.3%
Philosophy-based, 1.3%
Eclectic, .1.3%
Mystical Traditions, 1.3%
Shamanic, .6%
Agnostic, .6%
Q3 What country do you reside in? (Organized by continent, and US residents organized by region)
Other Responses:
Clinical Leader or Manager, 4.5%
Psychologist, 2.5%
Healthcare Professional, 2.5%
Trainer/Coach, 2.5%
Writer/Author, 2.5%
.6% each for Assessor, Spiritual
Advisor, Mindfulness/Yoga
Instructor, Student
Other Responses:
Psychodynamic/Psychoanalytic: 5.7%
Cognitive/CBT: 2.5%
Integrative: 1.9%
Phenomenological: 1.9%
Critical Hermeneutic: 1.9%
Constructivist: 1.3%
Positive Psychotherapy: 1.3%
Systems: 1.3%
Hakomi: .6%
Imaginal: .6%
Mindfulness: .6%
Psychosynthesis: .6%
53.5%
43.9%
1.9%
31.6%
68.4% 88.4%
11.6%
76.9%
10.9%
12.2%
83.5%
16.5% 29.4%
70.6%
36.9%
24.8%
38.2%
8.4% 42.6% 1.3% 20.7% 2.6% 7.1% 9.0% 16.8%
52.9%
37.6%
33.8%
51.0%
12.1%
14.7%
7.0%
13.4%
7.6%
10.2%
26.11%
22.9%
18.47%
20.38% 19.1%
19.1%
26.9%
22.4%
19.2%
12.2%
19.2%
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.