Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Taylor, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Positive Psychology and Humanistic Psychology: A Reply to Seligman

Eugene Taylor

Arguments in the current debate between "positive psychology" and humanistic psychology are reviewed with particular emphasis on Martin Seligman’s comment that humanistic psychologists do not represent "positive psychology" because they have generated no research tradition, are narcissistic, and are antiscientific. Each one of these claims is dispelled with specific references to the larger humanistic tradition in American psychology, which includes the psychology of William James; the personality-social psychologists of the 1930s and 1940s, such as Allport, Murray, and Murphy; and the humanistic psychologists, per se, of the 1950s and 1960s. Additional examples of how mainstream cognitive-behaviorism has continued to preempt humanistic and transpersonal psychology are also given. The conclusion, however, is that Seligman may be rushing to exclude on a priori grounds the very tradition his own theory represents.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 13-29 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0022167801411003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Humanistic PsychologyHome page
J. Sugarman
Practical Rationality and the Questionable Promise of Positive Psychology
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, April 1, 2007; 47(2): 175 - 197.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Humanistic PsychologyHome page
Y. Rich and R. G. Cinamon
Conceptions of Spirituality among Israeli Arab and Jewish Late Adolescents
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, January 1, 2007; 47(1): 7 - 29.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Humanistic PsychologyHome page
B. S. Held
The Negative Side of Positive Psychology
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, January 1, 2004; 44(1): 9 - 46.
[Abstract] [PDF]