Research on humanistic-experiential psychotherapies : updated review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review recent research on humanistic-experiential psychotherapies (HEPs), which include person-centered therapy (PCT), emotion-focused therapy (EFT), gestalt, and psychodrama approaches, along with generic relationship control conditions characterized as supportive or nondirective. A key part of this review is a meta-analysis of 91 studies of the effectiveness/efficacy of HEPs, published between 2009 and 2018, which produced the following results: (1) HEPs were associated with large pre-post client change (d = .86). (2) In controlled studies, clients in HEPs generally showed large gains relative to clients who received no therapy (.88). (3) In comparative outcome studies, HEPs in general were statistically and clinically equivalent in effectiveness to other therapies (-.08). (4) Overall, CBT appeared to have an equivocal advantage over HEPs (-.26). However, these studies were overwhelmingly delivered by CBT researchers in largely non-bona fide versions of HEPs as comparison conditions. Overall, the strongest results were found for EFT, followed by PCT; generic supportive-nondirective approaches were least effective, especially when compared to CBT. HEPs appeared to be most effective with relationship/interpersonal difficulties, self-damaging activities, coping with chronic medical conditions, and psychosis. Findings were more mixed for depression and anxiety. In addition, we offer an updated meta-synthesis of the qualitative outcomes of these therapies, which fell into three main categories: appreciating experiences of self; appreciating experience of self in relationship to others; and changed view of self/others. We also provide narrative reviews of recent qualitative research on helpful and unhelpful factors in HEPs, along with quantitative process-outcome research on HEPs including process-outcome research and work on mediating processes. In an integrative summary we identify a core set of interwoven client change processes involving emotional expression, deepening and transformation, the emergence of new client narratives, and the assimilation of problematic experiences. We conclude with a set of recommendations for research, practice and mental health guideline development.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".