The Humanist approach to psychology seemed the most closely related to my understanding of what coaching does and how it can be used to influence human behaviour.

Each approach to studying psychology uses a framework which is ultimately supported by underlying assumptions that psychologists make about the mind and or human behaviour. Some argue that only those approaches that are observable or validated through scientific or empirical analysis are worthy of study, (the Behaviourists). The Biological approach certainly falls into this category. Much of what is known about the physiology of the human brain and how it affects our behaviour is as a result of scientific experiment. Much of our understanding of the spinal cord and the discovery of DNA (in heredity studies) have come about through scientific experiment. MMR scanners for example tell researchers much about brain activity, in particular how different chemicals in the brain can affect mood, (dopamine, serotonin and hormones).

The ability of being able to validate research, whether through empirical or statistical analysis is a great advantage because it provides substance and credibility to science and indeed psychology. It is far easier to accept something as truth if it is observable or backed up by some kind of evidence. In contrast the Humanistic approach is far less scientific in this sense. This is not to say that validation of ideas about behaviour cannot be achieved in other ways.

One of the biggest perceived disadvantages of the biological approach and others but in different ways is that it is perceived as being too deterministic, that is, it fails to consider things such as free will, meaning (existentialism)or the effects that society and culture might have on human behaviour. In this respect the Biological approach could be considered pessimistic because the outcomes are more a product of set physiological processes rather than as a result of choice.

The Humanistic approach was borne to a large degree out of rebellion for other approaches that were perceived as too pessimistic or determinist. Pioneers of the humanist approach such as Carl Rogers (1946) and David Maslow 1943believed that human behaviour could only be explained by understanding the whole person and how it is subjectively perceived by the individual doing the thinking or behaving and not just by the objective viewpoint of an observer. Maslow for example believed that behaviour was shaped by a hierarchy of needs, the pinnacle of which was ‘self actualisation’. In essence, the Humanistic approach is far more optimistic than perhaps the biological approach that may suggest that behaviour is not a product of free will but rather a result of a genetic blueprint for example.

The humanistic approach is considered much less scientific than the Biological approach but claims of validity are instead referenced through qualitative research methods. These include interviews and questionnaires. The richness of the information that can be gained from these methods is considered by many more valuable than other more rigid quantitative methods that rely on hard evidence, statistical or otherwise. It is worth noting that both methods of validation could produce results that are equally deficient if those results are correlative. For example a correlation between using the internet a lot and levels of motivation (or serotonin) might not prove that one is dependent on the other or preclude that a third variable might be responsible for the link.

Of course I have much more to read, learn and think about but I can already see that the different approaches to psychology rely on different assumptions and use different methods of validation. In my mind it is both logical and reasonable to assume that no one approach is more qualified than another but that each aids our understanding of human behaviour in different ways and adds to the richness of how we perceive it.