Search

We outline a context-centered therapy approach to helping clients cope with the coronavirus pandemic. Context-centered therapy is a constructivist approach that emphasizes shifts in an individual’s contexts as the best way to generate therapeutic change. Contexts are defined as sets of presuppositions that shape a person’s experiences. We examine how two very common contexts, mind and self, can inform therapists’ understanding of how their clients are responding to the coronavirus pandemic. The mind consists of a person’s defensive and protective postures in the face of perceived threat, whereas the self takes a broader perspective and emphasizes human connections and interrelatedness. Therapists can use several mind/self contrasts—blame versus responsibility, insufficiency versus sufficiency, being at effect versus being at cause, and avoidance versus mastery—to assist people who are struggling in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.

Held (2020) portrays critical and Indigenous psychologists as subscribing to an epistemological “anti-objectivism” that inhibits their ability to combat oppression. She believes that their anti-objectivism yields a troublesome relativism in which truth is overly context-dependent; what counts as true knowledge for one Indigenous group may not count for another. This commentary explores whether critical and Indigenous psychologists are strict “anti-objectivists,” as Held contends. It also challenges the need for epistemological consistency, while encouraging a shift from “objectivism” and “subjectivism” as essentialized states to “objecting” and “subjecting” as complementary ways to explore and study the world.

The Diagnostic Manual and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is a lot like the cyborg villains in the The Terminator films. Just when you think you have killed them, they spring back to...

In George Kelly’s (1955/1991a, 1955/1991b) personal construct psychology (PCP), hostility involves extorting evidence to confirm a social prediction that has already failed. Those behaving hostilel...

Recent research suggests that psychologists and counselors are dissatisfied with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, and open to seeing the development of alternatives to it. Any alternative suitable for psychotherapists must meet certain requirements. A successful alternative must (a) place psychosocial factors on equal footing with biological factors; (b) categorize problems, not people; (c) be scientifically grounded; (d) be collaboratively developed; and (e) be usable across orientations, professions, and constituencies.

A constructivist model of ethical meaning making is developed. The effort begins by distinguishing three versions of constructivist theory—personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and...

Five responses to Raskin and Debany's (this issue) original target article on a constructivist model of ethical meaning making are discussed. The authors responding to the article raise many important issues about constructivist approaches to ethics. Differences between social constructionism and constructivism, the importance of multiple modalities of knowing, and a continuing hope for rapprochement between constructivist and realist perspectives are briefly explored.

The results of a survey exploring counselor attitudes toward the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-5) are presented. The survey revealed that counselors have mixed attitudes toward the DSM. They view DSM positively and see it as both beneficial to their profession and important in determining treatment. They also believe that DSM-5 revisions reflect the best science available. Counselors worry that the DSM prioritizes diagnosis over treatment, have concerns about proposed DSM-5 revisions, and support developing alternatives to the DSM.

Only two published studies, both from the early 1980s, have specifically examined psychologist attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM). The current article rectifies this by presenting the results of a recent survey of attitudes toward the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5. Though the DSM has changed over the years, psychologist attitudes toward it have remained remarkably consistent. Although more than 90% of psychologists report using the DSM, they are dissatisfied with numerous aspects of it and support developing alternatives to it—something that psychologists over 30 years ago supported, as well. The finding that almost all psychologists use the DSM despite serious concerns about it raises ethical issues because professionals are ethically bound to only use instruments in which they are scientifically confident.

Recent research has found support for a reverse golden section hypothesis, whereby people rate stigmatized identities negatively 61.8% of the time and positively 38.2% of the time. Two golden section studies were undertaken. The first replicated a previous study in which a reverse golden section pattern was found for people rating homeless and mental patient identities. The second investigated whether the reverse golden section pattern held when mental health practitioners and trainees rated these same identities. The first study confirmed use of a reverse golden section pattern by nonprofessionals in rating homeless and mental patient identities, whereas the second study found that mental health practitioners and trainees did not use such a pattern.

This article presents a dialogue about personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. The dialogue is based on a symposium conducted in July 2011 at the 19th International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology. Jay Efran, Sheila McNamee, and Bill Warren were the participants, with Jonathan Raskin as moderator. The dialogue addresses points of contact and divergence across these three theories, how these theories deal with the issue of relativism, and how theorists from these three perspectives might best “go on” together.

In his recent book, Being Human: Human Being, Rue Cromwell introduced valence tags into the lexicon of personal construct psychology. Doing so has interesting implications for the distinction between cognition and emotion. The personal construct psychology position, which challenges the division of experience into thinking and feeling, is noted. Three questions are posed for Cromwell's consideration. What is the relationship between valence tags and constructs? Is the thinking–feeling distinction worth retaining? How should emotion be defined?

Counselor education programs have a responsibility to ensure that individuals are competently trained, demonstrate understanding of ethical guidelines, and are free of observable psychological issues that may affect their ability to provide adequate counseling services. Counselor trainees who do not reach or maintain these professional standards may exhibit problems of professional competence (PPC). This position paper provides a review of the issues related to PPC among counselor trainees. It offers guidelines to counselor education programs for developing PPC policies and procedures. Future directions for research and training practice are discussed.

An evolutionary constructivist approach combining Donald Campbell’s selection theory (also known as evolutionary epistemology) with constructivist theories is discussed as it pertains to four issues typically associated with humanistic approaches to psychology: (a) embodiment, (b) agency, (c) human science, and (d) becoming. Ways in which selection theory informs these four issues by adding a naturalistic approach to the usual humanities-oriented emphasis of humanistic psychology are presented.

The notion of essence in psychology is examined from a constructivist viewpoint. The constructivist position is summarized and differentiated from social constructionism, after which constructs are distinguished from concepts in order to position ontology and epistemology as modes of construing. After situating constructivism in relation to philosophical approaches to essences, the distinction between essences and kinds is examined and the presumed constructivist critique of essences in psychology outlined. It is argued that criticizing constructivism as an “anything goes” form of antirealism fails to grasp how constructivist psychology, by emphasizing structure and viability, does indeed place limits on the constructions people may hold. In applying a constructivist understanding of essences in general to those fundamental to human psychology, people can be seen as having three essential psychological qualities: they are closed systems, active meaning-makers, and irreducibly social beings. Yet a constructivist view also maintains that these psychological essences only hold while operating within and committed to a constructivist perspective. In other words, what counts as an essence always depends on one’s assumptions, or how one construes events. Finally, a personal construct theory model of essentialist and nonessentialist construing is introduced based on the assumption that everyone construes in both essentialist and nonessentialist ways at different times because doing so is pragmatically viable.

Objectives. In order to examine whether persons belonging to stigmatized groups are evaluated more negatively than others, this study employed the golden section hypothesis, which predicts that people organize their evaluations in a ratio of roughly 62% positive to 38% negative. Method. Surveys were administered to 154 participants, with 143 surveys analysed. Participants rated nine different identities (business person, politician, lawyer, police officer, college professor, criminal, mental patient, homeless person, and self) along 12 different bipolar dimensions (generous–stingy, pleasant–unpleasant, true–false, fair–unfair, active–passive, energetic–lethargic, sharp–dull, excitable–calm, strong–weak, bold–timid, hard–soft, and rugged–delicate). These dimensions had well-established positive and negative poles. Results. Non-stigmatized identities were evaluated slightly more positively than the golden section hypothesis predicts, while stigmatized identities were rated in a ‘reverse’ golden section pattern. A criminal identity was rated more negatively than the golden section hypothesis predicts and the self more positively. Follow-up analyses suggested that the percentages of positive adjectives assigned to the self and non-stigmatized others were consistent with a model that expands upon the golden section hypothesis. Conclusion. Stigmatized identities are rated using a reverse golden section ratio. This has implications for understanding how people construe stigmatized people. While the golden section hypothesis did not hold for non-stigmatized identities, this may be because the data are better explained by a more refined model that is slightly different from the golden section.

In this article we outline a response to Mackay's (2003) critique of constructivism as anti-realist, anti-determinist and anti-scientific. We argue that Mackay and constructivists operate from very different theoretical premises. Whereas Mackay sees his philosophical bases as foundational absolutes, constructivists see theirs (as well as Mackay's) as postulated premises. Thus, Mackay's theoretical assumptions, in combination with his construction of a `straw figure' version of his opponents, lead him to see constructivism as incoherent. However, this tells us more about Mackay's point of view than it does about constructivism's coherence. In our view, constructivism is not hostile to scientific discourse, and, indeed, converges at important points with Mackay's own treatment of `experiential meaning'. Ultimately, however, constructivists attempt to stretch the boundaries of permissible scholarly discourse beyond the realist bases advocated by Mackay, in order to analyze and critique the social epistemology by which both psychotherapeutic and scientific processes are constructed.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, constructivist psychology has been criticized for its presumed “anything goes” relativism and passivity. This paper counters such a view, arguing that while constructivism does accept perspectivism, it rejects “anything goes.” Constructivist psychologists evaluate responses to terrorism in terms of meaningfulness and viability. They suggest that there are an unlimited number of possible responses to terrorism, none of which are precluded simply because constructivists are skeptical that human experience constitutes a mirror on external reality. Believing that human beings invent ways of understanding to guide them through their lives does not preclude constructivists from taking action. On the contrary, it provides the very basis for such action. The implications of this position are briefly outlined.

Renewed debate over the scientific status of Rorschach assessment has erupted in psychology. This paper outlines a somewhat different critique. The critics who attack the Rorschach's Comprehensive System on scientific grounds only have a strong argument if one accepts their narrow premises about what legitimizes an assessment device. Constructivist psychology's emphasis on the Rorschach as a meaning‐making task highlights and amplifies idiographic and meaning‐focused approaches to assessment and psychotherapy. Moving in a more meaning‐based and less norm‐obsessed direction can help the Rorschach reclaim its reputation, utility, and theoretical status.

Many scholars criticize constructivist approaches to psychology for culminating in a nihilistic relativism. This article reviews the problem of relativism within personal construct psychology and social constructionism. It argues that labeling constructivist approaches to psychology as essentially relativist or nonrelativist simplifies the debate by assigning indisputable characteristics to a family of theories. Both relativist and nonrelativist interpretations of personal constructivism and social constructionism are presented in suggesting that the current terms of the relativism debate often hinder constructivists, who are forced to defend themselves against charges of relativism using objectivist terminology. Some common arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of constructivist relativism are outlined and discussed. Further, the implications of relativism for constructivist ethics and action are contemplated, with particular attention paid to the roles of commitment and hermeneutic understand...

Constructivist perspectives on the Rorschach are outlined. I discuss ways in which constructivism complements and adds to existing Rorschach methodologies. It is suggested that the constructivist emphasis on personally and socially constructed meanings is very consistent with many of the ways the Rorschach has been used and resonates with recent emphases on the Rorschach as a representational task. Furthermore, constructivist perspectives on Rorschach also provide an opportunity to supplement Exner's (1993, 1995) efforts to standardize and norm the Rorschach in a way that maintains the instrument's historic and admirable attention to relational elements of assessment and psychotherapy. I present a variety of meaning-based techniques for conducting Rorschach assessment, incorporating both the constructivist and social constructionist perspective.

Constructivist and constructionist approaches to psychology and psychotherapy are applied in examining what it means to function creatively as a psychotherapist. Four constructivist metaphors for psychotherapy-therapy as personal science, selfhood development, narrative reconstruction, and conversational elaboration-are briefly discussed in reference to therapist creativity. Relevant case examples in which these metaphors for therapy-enhanced practitioner creativity are provided. It is argued that current movement toward psychotherapy manualization runs counter to a constructivist emphasis on the centrality of therapist creativity.

Seventy counseling centers with APA approved internship training programs were sent surveys about variables that influenced their decision to refer a student client for services elsewhere. Forty-two of these 70 institutions (60%) responded, with 152 staff at these 42 centers completing the survey. Eighteen of the items included in the survey were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis. Three well-defined factors, accounting for 44% of the total variance emerged and one correlated significantly, but only moderately (r = .41) with reported rates of referral. The top ranking consideration for staff referring outside the center was the client's request for such a referral, followed by severity of client's concerns. The least prominent considerations were training needs and the clients ability to form a therapeutic relationship.