Psychodynamic vs. Humanistic Personality Theory Compared

Introduction: Therapist Personality and Theoretical Orientation

A seminal study on personality trait differences among therapists practicing under different theoretical orientations provides an interesting starting point for this comparison. Tremblay et al. (1986) administered the Personality Orientation Inventory to 90 male and 90 female psychotherapists who self-designated and were equally distributed across three groups: behavioral (BEH), psychodynamic (PSY), and humanistic (HUM). The study suggested that a core therapist personality exists, and that further distinction can be achieved by examining patterns of personality associated with theoretical orientation. The caveat was that those patterns were characterized more by overlapping traits than by unique ones.

Of the three theoretical categories, the HUM group exhibited the most distinctive traits: its members were more flexible, more accepting of personal aggression and the expression of feelings in action, and differed in their development of intimate relationships. Therapists in the HUM group were also more affirming of the values of self-actualization, more inner-directed, and more sensitive to their own feelings. Therapists in the BEH group resembled those in the PSY group more than those in the HUM group, while therapists in the PSY group were most similar to those in the HUM group. Notably, therapists in the BEH group showed personality traits of limited flexibility and limited acceptance of their own feelings.

These findings raise the question of how therapist personality and theoretical orientation affect the therapeutic relationship between the psychotherapist or counselor and the client. This brings us to the conceptualization of personality across the two orientations of humanism and psychodynamics. But first: what is personality?

Personality can be defined as "an individual's unique pattern of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that persist over time and across situations" (Boreman, 2010). When the general public discusses personality, they tend to think in general terms associated with the popularized trait theory, the basis of which is not necessarily psychodynamic or humanistic. Trait theory does, however, use a more commonly recognized vocabulary than either psychodynamic or humanistic theories, making it a useful entry point for this discussion.

Trait Theory as a Foundation

Trait theory is a foundational framework in psychology that has endured over many decades and is embedded, in one way or another, in many theoretical orientations. Traits are characteristic patterns of behavior that reflect the way people interact with others and their overall outlook on life. Cattell originally established trait theory through factor analysis, identifying 16 traits thought to constitute human personality. Eysenck later reduced Cattell's constellation of traits to three dimensions: emotional stability, introversion–extraversion, and psychoticism.

As trait theory evolved, these basic dimensions coalesced into five traits that still form the core of the theory today. The "Big Five" traits consist of: Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Culture, Emotional Stability, and Extraversion. Notably, the Big Five appear consistently in cross-cultural studies and are found in both Western and non-Western societies, suggesting a broad applicability across human populations.

Personality in Humanistic Theory

Humanistic personality theory is based on the belief that people are fundamentally good and that they generally engage in behaviors that help them strive toward higher levels of functioning. The primary theorists of humanistic psychology are Alfred Adler, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. Of these, Maslow is the most widely known to the general public, because his concepts of self-actualization and the hierarchy of needs have been adopted by the business community and self-improvement advocates, bringing broad public exposure to his theories.

Rogers expanded on Maslow's work, postulating that people whose ideal — that is, actualized — selves differed substantially from their real, current selves were likely to experience unhappiness. This incongruence between the real self and the ideal self became a central clinical concern within the humanistic tradition, and Rogers developed client-centered therapy in part to help individuals close this gap through unconditional positive regard and empathic understanding.

Conclusion

From Jonathan Shedler of the University School of Medicine comes this nearly scathing remark: "The perception that psychodynamic approaches lack empirical support does not accord with available scientific evidence and may reflect selective dissemination of research findings" (2010, p. 1). Shedler argues that therapies labeled "nonpsychodynamic" — a term that implies its own brand of bias — may be effective precisely because the therapists who employ them are sufficiently skilled to make use of techniques that "have long been central to psychodynamic theory and practice" (Shedler, 2010, p. 1).

From this, we may infer that the fundamental theoretical orientations of therapists may have less to do with client and patient outcomes than is commonly assumed, and more to do — as Shedler suggests — with a mismatch between what various therapies aim to accomplish and what the outcome indicators actually measure. The comparison between humanistic and psychodynamic theories, then, may be less a competition between rival frameworks and more a reflection of complementary approaches to understanding the complexity of human personality.

References

Boreman, D. (2010, November). The science of psychology. Chapter 10: Personality. Retrieved from http://www.mesacc.edu/~edmny04781/psy101_oc/Chapter_10.pdf

Leichsenring, F., & Leibing, E. (2003). The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: A meta-analysis. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(7), 1223–1232. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.7.1223

Shedler, J. (2010, February–March). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65(2), 98–109. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-65-2-98.pdf

Tremblay, J. M., Herron, W. G., & Schultz, C. L. (1986). Relation between therapeutic orientation and personality in psychotherapists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(2), 106–110. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.17.2.106