Humanistic‐Experiential Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The most central characteristics of humanistic approaches to psychotherapy are defined. These are their focus on promoting in‐therapy experiencing, a commitment to a phenomenological approach, a belief in the uniquely human capacity for reflective consciousness, a positive view of human functioning, and the operation of some form of growth tendency. These approaches adopt a consistently person‐centered view that involves concern and real respect for each person. In this chapter the major approaches within this orientation, Person‐centered, Gestalt, and Existential are discussed. The emergence of contemporary experiential therapy, based on a neo‐humanistic reformulation of the above classic humanistic values, is presented. The traditional humanistic assumptions have been expanded to incorporate moder views on emotion, dynamic systems, constructivism, and the importance of a process view of functioning to help clarify the humanistic views of growth and self‐determination. Neo‐humanistic‐experiential therapy is based on the importance of the relationship as a stubborn attempt by two human beings to meet each other in a genuine manner and as involving the intention to promote the deepening of the client's experience. This is seen as leading to integrative self‐reorganization. Research results on the effectiveness of experiential therapy are reviewed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".