Download Co-Actualization

Co-Actualization:
A New Construct in
Understanding WellFunctioning Relationships
Journal of Humanistic Psychology
50(3) 374­–398
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022167809348017
http://jhp.sagepub.com
Renate Motschnig-Pitrik1 and
Godfrey Barrett-Lennard2
Abstract
The person-centered approach, positive psychology, and also neuroscience
contribute evidence of a tendency toward actualization inherent in living
organisms. In this article, the authors build on the observation that
actualization in humans tends particularly to be promoted by being in wellfunctioning relationships with others. Each such fruitful relationship has a selfdeveloping quality as well as being enhancing to the relationship partners.The
resulting process is referred to as co-actualization. The postulated tendency
toward engagement in that process is called the co-actualizing tendency.
The article characterizes co-actualization especially from a relationally
oriented person-centered perspective on psychology, education, systems
thinking, psychotherapy, conceptual modeling, and neuroscience.The authors
cite evidence from various sources, identify questions for further research,
include phenomenological considerations, and discuss potentials of the coactualizing process in close and larger scale relationships.
Keywords
actualizing tendency, formative tendency, co-actualization, interpersonal
relationship, well-functioning relationships, person-centered approach,
neuroscience, conceptual modeling
1
University of Vienna,Vienna, Austria
Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
2
Corresponding Author:
Renate Motschnig-Pitrik, University of Vienna, Rathausstrasse 19/9, 1010 V
ienna, Austria
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
375
Introduction
In developing the construct of co-actualization, we begin with prior paths of
thought, particularly including concepts developed in the person-centered
approach of Carl Rogers (1959, 1961) and more recently evolved with an
equal focus on relationship (see Barrett-Lennard, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2009).
Rogers (1959) discriminated an “inherent tendency of the organism to
develop all its capacities in ways which serve to maintain or enhance the
organism” (p. 196). This actualizing tendency was viewed as accounting for
individual self-preservation and (especially) developmental growth. In his
most relevant contribution, Maslow (1970) viewed self-actualization (he did
not speak of a general actualizing tendency) as the pinnacle expression of
growth motivation in humans. In the hierarchy of needs he posited, belongingness and love fall only in the midrange. When these and other maintenance
needs are met, persons are “freed . . . for the fulfillment and actualization of
their highest individual and species nature” (p. 198). For both Rogers (1959)
and Maslow (1970) it was persons or organisms that could manifest an actualizing process; the same principle was not extended to relationships.
We see that humans are inherently social beings who live in a world of connection and relationships and develop their distinctive identity mainly through
experiences in relation. In this respect, Buber (1970) wrote in similar vein,
arguing that relation precedes separation, as in the mother–infant relation, and
that personhood develops from relation. More specifically, such relation entails
confirmation of the other through a dialogical I–thou engagement process that
brings forth the other’s present and becoming being (see also Friedman, 2002).
Also in related thought, but writing from a contemporary analytic and attachment perspective, Mitchell (2000, p. xi) speaks of the “basic interpenetrability
of minds that makes individual mindedness possible in the first place.” These
and the more classical views by Bowlby (1980), Sullivan (1953), and others
have broad resonance with our perspective, though we are more directly concerned (leading on to our main focus) with the basic nature of the phenomenon
of human relationship itself. In a word, we see
the forming of relationship as an emergent process in which a new
entity is born, one that is distinct in kind from an individual personality
and [that] also has life and influence. Its life is intricately intertwined
with those of participant members but is of another order. (BarrettLennard, 2009, p. 82)
But, how does this emergent process work?
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
376
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
A principal way that relationships begin is by two (or more) people coming
into each other’s experienced presence. As and when this recurs the relationship develops. This can evolve with communication at a distance as well as
face-to-face. Because mutual experience of the presence of the other is not
all-or-nothing but occurs with varying degree or depth, the emergent relationships differ in strength and salience. Although most personal relationships
have a developmental and/or self-generating potential, not all of them flower
into a co-actualizing process. This is understandable in that relationship
development—like actualization—tends not to be a smooth and linear process but one with peaks and valleys and sometimes plateaus of repetition or
sameness. Not all relationships survive this evolutionary, selective process.
The ingredient origins of those that do evolve include predominantly congruent, regardful, empathic attunement of participants to each other that
“fertilize” and help to grow the relationship and are in turn supported by it.
A co-actualizing process has a self-perpetuating quality that both draws
from and fosters the actualizing processes in each person. It also tends to
attract and provide resources that engage others. Among varied examples,
consider a well-functioning relationship between parent-partners and its
influence on their children or a set of constructive relationships among a
group of colleagues or friends and the attraction of that ambience to others
who may join them. A more prominent near example is the relationship
between Carl Rogers and Rollo May, as revealed, for instance, in their
authentic and yet highly regardful dialogical interactions (see Kirschenbaum
& Henderson, 1989; Rogers, 1982). More formally, co-actualization develops from the interdependent actualization processes of the persons in relation
and is reflected in the dynamic forming process of their relationship. A
relationship has its own inner possibilities and order and a self-organizing
quality (Kriz, 2006, 2007, 2008). All this leads us to further hypothesize a
co-actualizing tendency as the relational counterpart to the actualizing tendency and the motivational source for co-actualizing processes.
To explore co-actualization in several conceptual and process dimensions,
we walk the path of person-relationship-centered thought that has led us to
propose co-actualization as a useful construct. From there, we look for further evidence and backing in neuroscience, attending to the relational nature
of consciousness and the mirror neuron mechanism that appears to support
mutual understanding. Subsequently we use the visualization tools of conceptual modeling and associated structuring and explanatory resources, with
a brief excursion into systems science. Then we turn to Rogers’s (1982) later
thought and to a more detailed portrayal of our present understanding of
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
377
relationship and co-actualization—and to questions for further exploration.
Finally, we will briefly address the impact that a searching understanding of
relationship and co-actualization might have on personal mind-sets and relations within group cultures. However, before we proceed with this agenda,
we want to acknowledge some of the personal experience (especially on
Renate’s part) related to the phenomenon of co-actualization and the development of our ideas.1 We emphasize that the account that follows reflects a
particular journey toward the thought we are unfolding here. Readers will
have their distinctive personal-relational journeys that may nevertheless
overlap sufficiently in underlying process for this brief story to be helpful in
recognizing the conceptual destination we have come to.
Experiential Background to the Idea
of Co-Actualization
Though the direction had been in Renate’s mind for some time, the “coactualization” sense started to become more distinctly conscious through her
own firsthand experiences in relationships with, among others, her
colleagues-friends at the Research Lab for Educational Technologies and
special colleagues and friends from the person-centered community. In particular, mutual, empathically regardful listening evidently brought us (both
the other person and myself) creative ideas and also could remove strain from
navigating challenging situations. The honestly open, yet respectful, expression of feelings and meaning was experienced not only as personally freeing
but as connecting us more meaningfully than before, such that we actively
wanted to share meaning and insight. In other words, a shared bond having
and generating strong and distinctly felt motivation had been created.
However, the final crystallization and added clarity of the “co-actualization”
idea and label happened for Renate through one relationship, different to the
others in its subjectively perceived significance. To build this relationship—
between the two authors—after meeting at a conference in 2003, we
communicated in ways as diverse as mutually reading articles and books,
e-mailing and, after 3 years, spending another conference period together sharing formal as well as personal concerns regarding experiences in relationship
and our mutual interest in the person-centered approach. We later spent time, at
the home base of one of us, in intensive and collaborative dialogue with each
other and with Godfrey’s immediate colleagues and students. Godfrey’s—in
Renate’s perception—rare quality of interpersonal presence and attentive,
attuned listening, as well as his original idea of relationship as an emergent life
entity with its own properties and influence (Barrett-Lennard, 2007a), helped
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
378
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
form the construct of co-actualization. Thus, this construct emerged from the
direct experiencing of a fertile and energizing process that invited conceptual
understanding.
With our different experiences, styles, mother tongues, personal/family
histories, and professional education and contexts, we did face some differences in the specific working out and expression of this conceptualization.
From the whole sharing/interchange process and draftings we learned much
and finally arrived at a version that we consider to be an advance on what
either one of us alone could have contributed on our topic.2
Development of theory is a vital aim of this article. A good theory also has
practical potentials, we believe in this case, of helping to focus possibilities
and approaches to the enhancement of relationship life.
The Person-Centered Approach and Neuroscience,
With a Relationship Focus
From the point of view of an individual organism, Rogers (1951) stated in
Proposition IV of his originally formulated Theory of Personality and Behavior: “The organism has one basic tendency and striving—to actualize,
maintain and expand the experiencing organism.” The actualizing tendency
that he postulated was reflected in more specific attributes, including the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
development towards the differentiation of organs and functions,
expansion in terms of growth,
expansion of effectiveness through the use of tools,
expansion and enhancement through reproduction [and]
development toward autonomy, and away from heteronomy, or control by external forces. (Rogers, 1959, p. 196)
The last attribute does not accord with the viewpoint elaborated in this article
and omits mention of any balancing developmental push toward belonging
and combining with others—called homonomy (as distinct from autonomy)
by Angyal (1941) and Tudor and Worrall (2006). Rogers’s (1959) view does
imply that relationships can be of a kind that control or imprison the participants as opposed to relationships that allow participants to “be themselves”
or actualize. Where the latter is true and the members do flower, it (in our
terms) may lead into a co-actualizing process.
In addition to the attributes distinguished above, we argue that the actualizing principle motivates exposure to and experience in relationship for the
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
379
self to form and develop. Hence, we propose to add a further attribute to
Rogers’s list, namely, development toward forming constructive relationships. Rogers (1951) broadly acknowledges this direction in writing: “Finally,
the self-actualization of the organism appears to be in the direction of socialization, broadly defined” (p. 488). From there it appears to be just a short step
to the question: Is the growth of the relational self not naturally motivated by
a tendency toward actualization in and of relationship or, in our terminology,
a tendency toward co-actualization?
For Rogers, the actualizing tendency focuses on the perspective of the
organism itself. However, Proposition IX of his Theory of Personality and
Behavior (1951) places the organism in his or her interaction with the environment and also implies a relational view of self-formation. Rogers (1951)
writes the following:
As a result of the interaction with the environment, and particularly as
a result of evaluational interaction with others, the structure of self is
formed—an organized, fluid, but consistent conceptual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the “I” or the “me,”
together with the values attached to these concepts. (p. 498)
Given that the self is formed through interaction with the environment, in
particular with others, we infer, with Schmid (2001) and others, that the self
is relational in its formation and function. In other words, the self is
symbolized through relationships that influence its forming configurations:
relationships imbued with life and dynamically developing. For example, the
close parent will have his or her “voice” in the self-structure of a child or the
empathically understanding responses of a friend will gradually enable more
self-empathy.
Turning to a neuroscience perspective (see, e.g., Damasio, 2000;
Motschnig-Pitrik & Lux, 2008; Motschnig-Pitrik & Nykl, 2003), the impact
of our interaction with “objects”—subsuming any thinkable entity, but especially a person or a situation, external or internal in thought—can be
appreciated from the very way consciousness flows and develops through
interaction and engagement. Damasio (2000) is broadly concordant with
propositions advanced here, by stating,
The organism, as a unit, is mapped in the organism’s brain . . . [and an]
object is also mapped within the brain, in the sensory and motor structures activated by the interaction of the organism with the object [. . .].
The sensorimotor maps pertaining to the object cause changes in the
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
380
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
maps pertaining to the organism. The changes [. . .] can be re-represented
in yet other maps (second-order maps) which thus represent the relationship of object and organism. Because of the body-related nature of
both organism maps and second order maps, the mental images that
describe the relationship are feelings. (p. 169)
In further broadly convergent thought, Damasio (2003) observes, in the
context of biological life regulation, a natural life-supporting tendency in the
sense of actualization: “[In biological terms] it is the aggregate of dispositions
laid down in brain circuitry that, once engaged by internal or environmental
conditions, seek both survival and well-being” (pp. 35-36). Later, Damasio
acknowledges the social dimension. He writes, “It is reasonable to hypothesize
that the tendency to seek social agreement has itself been incorporated in
biological mandates, at least in part, due to the evolutionary success of
populations whose brains expressed cooperative behaviours to a high
degree” (p. 173).
Further confirmation of our intrinsic need for relationship also can be
found in Social Determination Theory. The authors of this theory (Deci &
Ryan, 1991, 2000) propose (among other features) that one of the primary
psychological needs essential for growth and well-being is relatedness, the
urge to be in relationship with others, caring for others, and being cared for
by others (cf. Tudor & Worrall, 2006).
So far we have emphasized reciprocity and mutual influence in relationships. However, a relationship could still be considered as a bridge and
passageway between separate individuals rather than as an emergent lifeimbued whole with its own dynamism and influence. Emphasizing the
emergent whole perspective, one of the present authors wrote,
Human selves are the founded echoes and consequences of relationship.
It is not that the human organism is a passive receptacle but that it has
active potential for self-formation that is nurtured and realized within
and through relationship. Without relationship, an individual (if s/he
were to survive) could scarcely know who they are as a person or learn
how to know others. The becoming of persons, in this view, centres on
inherent connective and relational processes in human living.
Relationships have their own transpersonal properties as process entities
imbued with life and influence. (Barrett-Lennard, 2007a, p. 190)
Interestingly, mirror neurons, an anatomical mechanism found in the brains
of higher creatures (Damasio, 2003), evidently support connective processes
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
381
between individuals (see also Iacoboni, 2008). The term mirror fits evidence
that under certain conditions of immediate close contact the same neuronal
activity pattern (Schulte-Rüther, Markowitsch, Fink, & Piefke, 2007) occurs
in the same specific areas of a receiver’s brain as in the brain of a closely
observed and felt other person whereas in other brain areas the activity patterns still differ. Mirror-like “mechanisms” in brain function can be conceived
as helping to provide the conditions for co-actualization in so far as they
allow one person to build aspects of the inner state of another person inside
himself or herself, in a first person perspective. She or he is thus able to
understand or know aspects of the other person’s inner world even prior to
articulating these on an explicit level. Thus, mirror neurons can be viewed as
physiologically supporting empathic understanding, that is, taking in and
“knowing,” or resonating to vital features of the experience of the relationship partner.
Moving now from this wider focus, we will briefly draw on a visual way
of depicting constituent processes of co-actualization to provide a complementary way of throwing light on the structural features.
A Graphical Conceptual Model of Key Features of
Relationship and Co-actualization
In conceptual modeling (Rumbaugh, Jacobson, & Booch, 1999), envisaging
a simple connecting link between the entities is a potential starting point.
However, to represent properties of relationships, we turn first to a more
encompassing model that focuses on specific associative entities, such as
“Partnership” in the example depicted in Figure 1.
Looking at Figure 1, consider a partnership that exists between a Person A
and a Person B modeled by an association entity, also referred to as a relator
entity in the foundational ontology named UFO (Unified Foundational
Ontology; Guizzardi, Wagner, Guarino, & van Sinderen, 2004). Some properties of the partnership entity are, for example, its duration or when it began,
the quality of “we” perceived by the partners, their shared interest, the quality
and style of their attachment, their investment in doing things together, the
phenomenon and level of their mutual understanding, and the emergence and
nature of their conflict and collaboration.3
The properties of each of the individual and partnership entities will be
influenced by their larger context (not shown in Figure 1) and will also act in
return to influence that context. Note that the model shown in Figure 1 is an
abstract representation and there will be myriad properties that are not represented. Thus, it is necessarily incomplete and needs to be understood as a
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
382
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
influences start
Partnership
A~B
shared interest in
unfolding of ‘we’
quality
Person A
name
interests
significant events
personality
influences
Person B
is-partner-of
name
interests
significant events
personality
Figure 1. Relationship modeled as an entity with emergent properties and with
bidirectional relationships to the “person” entities
coarse approximation designed to capture certain broad features of a subtle
real-world phenomenon.
To conceptualize aspects of co-actualization itself, Figure 2 shows an
open system that encompasses three entities. Two of them denote the actualization processes in two persons who are reciprocally interconnected.
“Forming Relationship” is an associative process entity denoting the unfolding relationship with its own emergent properties. This associative process,
in turn, influences (and is influenced by) the participants’ actualization processes, as modeled by the “influences” links. The two block arrows on the top
of Figure 2 informally denote the interaction of the open system (depicted as
dashed rectangle) with its environment. A typical contextual process would
be the dynamic social network surrounding the open, co-actualizing system.
In terms of a systems perspective, actualization (e.g., Rogers’ concept)
proceeds in dynamic relation to the process of co-actualization in a forming
and ongoing relationship process. The construct of co-actualization is
designed to make explicit:
• The reciprocal influence between a forming relationship (A ~ B)
and both (or all) actualizing relationship partners (A, B), that is,
persons participating in the relationship.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
383
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
Environment
co-actualization
influences
Actualization
Person A
Forming
Relationship A~B
reciprocates
influences
Actualization
Person B
Figure 2. Conceptual model of co-actualization as an open system including three
bidirectionally linked processes: the actualization of each individual and of the forming relationship
• The emergent relationship (A ~ B) itself in terms of its self-organizing,
unfolding qualities.
• The environment or surrounding system that (transitively) influences the open-relationship system and potentially is modulated by
it. The dynamic, top-down, and bottom-up influence between the
environment and the open-relationship system is depicted by the
double-sided arrows in Figure 2. This double-sided flow is characteristic for open complex systems in general and social systems in
particular.
As already implied, the posited co-actualizing tendency is just that—a
tendency, not an imperative. Co-actualization is a potential realized in some
relationships4 and not in others. Thus, we view co-actualizing relationships
as a particular (and vitally important) class. We also recognize that
relationships do not flow evenly, so a co-actualizing quality might be
reached but not evident all the time. When it is reached and evident then the
partners value and feel enriched by their relationship. It is a live phenomenal
reality in their minds and feeling, a “we” and “us” that they also experience
as having strengths and resources that complement and extend their capacities
one by one. Their relation enriches their sense of meaningful connection in
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
384
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
their world. If none of these characteristics apply then the relationship is not
co-actualizing in our terms. Factors that work against this quality include
conditions of worth in participants, social rivalry, competitive attitudes or
need to dominate, devaluing in communication, external danger or
deprivation, and, in general, a lack of time, trust, interest, engagement,
congruence, unconditionality, regard, and empathic understanding.
Further Steps in Anchoring and
Refining Our Thought
In his later writing, Rogers (1980) observed a tendency toward complexity
and wholeness in the universe, a direction that complements the tendency
toward deterioration reflected in the phenomenon of entropy. He stated,
“There appears to be a formative tendency at work in the universe, which can
be observed at any level” (p. 124). As examples of this formative tendency,
consider the increasing complexity of organisms through evolution or the
forming of order out of chaos, such as in the Bénard-instability where myriad
molecules “cooperate” in forming a directional flow (Kriz, 1998). Expressed
for our own species, in Rogers’s words (1980):
It seems that the human organism has been moving toward the more
complete development of awareness. It is at this level that new forms
are invented, perhaps even new directions for the human species. It is
here that the reciprocal relationship between cause and effect is most
demonstrably evident. It is here that choices are made, spontaneous
forms created. (p. 127)
Given that new forms are invented as an effect of the motivational resources
inherent in the formative tendency, this provides a further basis to focus on
the ever present form of persons in relationship, such as partnerships,
friendships, families, and communities.
Based on the above, we see a tripartite system of actualizing directions in
which the co-actualizing tendency is a crucial, yet interconnected, level
between the actualizing tendency inherent in each organism and the formative tendency operational in the universe. Viewed in this perspective, the
co-actualizing tendency represents the essential motivational and creatively
forming aspect of human coexistence.
The three tendencies can be characterized in comparative view by their
level of expression and directions of focus.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
385
• Actualizing tendency (Rogers, 1951; 1959):
 level of expression: organism
 direction/focus: maintenance and enhancement of the person
• Co-actualizing tendency
 level of expression: the relationship system itself (emergent from
persons in relation)
 direction/focus: maintenance and enhancement of the relationship system as a continually unfolding process in interdependent
relationship with its environment
• Formative tendency (Cornelius-White, 2007b; Rogers, 1980):
 level of expression: the universe and interconnection of its
components
 direction/focus:
wholeness, greater complexity, greater
interconnectedness
Dynamic Systems
We view human relationships as a distinctive expression of the more encompassing forming principle also observable in molecular movement,
phylogenesis, evolution, and generally in dynamic systems (Kriz, 1998):
They are distinctive in involving conscious formation. Our engagement with
others is, to a significant degree, our mutual conscious choice. Typically,
across cultures, we at least participate in the choice of our relationship partners and influence the quality and intensity of engagement in family,
friendship and communal relationships (Barrett-Lennard, 2005). Also, relationship systems are already well represented in natural language, both by
distinctive nouns (“family,” “team,” “group,” “community,” “state”) as well
as verbal phrases such as “valuing” or “investing time in” the relationship.
Interestingly, although the level of expression and the direction and focus of
the three identified tendencies—actualizing, co-actualizing, and formative—
differ, common characteristics exist at the more general system level (Kriz,
1998). Dynamic systems “actualize” inherent potentialities in a selforganized way. The respective processes also proceed in interaction or
relationship with the environment of other people and circumstances.
Actualization and the Person-Centered “Core Conditions”
Research in the person-centered approach, lasting for more than half a century, has supported predictions that presume an inherent actualizing tendency,
conceived as a generic source of motivation for change and of our inclination
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
386
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
toward making beneficial goal choices (Sheldon, Arndt, & Houser-Marji,
2003). The actualizing tendency can unfold itself best in a climate of congruence, positive and unconditional regard, and empathic understanding
(Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Rogers, 1959, 1961). Where mutually supported,
this climate is most conducive to fruition of personal and relationship being
(Nykl, 2005). A climate of trust tends to pervade such relationships. The
mutual enrichment produces still more motivation and flow-between in a
warmth of engagement both at the individual level and in the relationship
itself and is likely to be gainfully perceived by others. However, the resulting
co-actualization, like actualization (Rogers, 1959), is not expected to be a
smooth continuous process but, more typically, one with peaks of strong
presence and valleys where it is not apparent. Thus, naturally, challenges
need to be met regarding social environmental “nutrients” for the forming of
such relationships (see Barrett-Lennard, 2005, e.g., chap. 5).
Relationship Challenges
Various kinds of challenge to relationships can flow in from the environment,
such as family of origin pressures, stressful job conditions or loss of employment, loss of support systems through relocation, and social upheaval or
natural disasters, to name a few. Resulting anxiety or other effects may work
against the formation of co-actualizing relationships or, in some cases, undermine ones that exist. A human life entails a network of relationships, which
effectively influence each other (Barrett-Lennard, 2005, 2007b). Confrontation and conflict occurring within a relationship is not always adverse in its
effects and may even be developmental, depending on the broader bond and
pattern of the relationship itself and/or the presence of other safe and facilitative relationships that work to support partners in turning a crisis into a
growth opportunity. A co-actualizing relationship is a dynamic living open
system that, by its nature, does not simply repeat itself on an even and steady
course. It may on occasion be jolted aside from the pattern most familiar to
participants but remains self-maintaining, vitally alive, and with a guidance
system that both draws from the participants and has its own momentum.
Supportive Human Capacities
Given the great enrichment that can result from engaging in co-actualizing
processes, what human capacities are supportive of such processes? We have
mentioned our inference that the person-centered conditions are basic, especially in active mutual expression. Resourceful, open sharing and listening in
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
387
a truly complementary dialogue (Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Bohm, 2003;
Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Motschnig & Nykl, 2009) and keeping the relationship sufficiently open toward influences from the environment are supportive
of the process and its continuation. In broader related thought, one of the
authors has worked elsewhere to describe “well” relationships; ones that
would (in our present terms) have a co-actualizing quality. These, he proposed, would be marked by
a fluidity of communication, a freely varying intensity and vibrancy,
energy in the engagement process, and a distinct sense of joint as well
as individual identity reflected, for example, in an easy shifting of
attention from self to other to We and also to Us engaged with others.
In more conceptual terms, the relation is a living, open and adaptive system,
“self-regulating and growthful in quality, aware of itself through the consciousness of participants, and in dynamic motion through its internal
processes and external feedback” (Barrett-Lennard, 2007a, p. 192).
A complementary characterization coming out of another context of
research and thought can be found in Johnson and Johnson (1975/2006)
regarding their social judgment theory:
The process of acceptance is based on the individuals promoting
mutual goal accomplishment as a result of their perceived positive
interdependence. The promotive interaction tends to result in frequent, accurate, and open communication; accurate understanding of
one another’s perspective; inducibility; differentiated, dynamic, and
realistic views of one another; high self-esteem; success and productivity; and expectations for positive and productive future interaction.
(p. 100)
Such attitudes and capacities naturally can lead on to recognition of relationship as a core manifestation of human life, not merely an avenue through
which to satisfy individual wants. The ability to experience relationship in
this way is very much in keeping with placing high value on human association, as has been expressed, for example, by Hanley and Abell (2002) who
move from Maslow’s more individualistic view to a truly interpersonal model
of self-actualization.
Still, further research is needed to provide encompassing responses to
questions such as: What is the full range of circumstance for co-actualizing
relationships to develop? How can they evolve or be facilitated in various
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
388
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
contexts and cultures? What tend to be obstacles and how they can be overcome? To throw more light on the nature and scope of such questions, the
next subsection offers an intercultural view on the attachment aspect of relationship. It illustrates that the co-actualizing tendency needs to accommodate
a dynamic variety of patterns of attachment.
Co-Actualization, Attachment, and Culture
Interestingly, although looking through the lens of one feature only, attachment
theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1980) strongly supports the tendency toward forming
relationships. Arguably, attachment bonds between humans are established in
any known culture (Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 2002). In particular, in Western
societies most infants are deemed securely attached (Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi,
2002), tending toward developing trusting, lasting relationships. However, this
does not predict that any particular attachment pattern is universally normative.
Evolution may not have equipped human beings with rigid behavioral strategies because these would have made it difficult for them to adapt to changing
environments. In particular, if a cultural niche requires the suppression of negative emotions, arguably infants could develop an avoidant attachment pattern
that is more adaptive in those circumstances but which may later adapt to
changing circumstances. This implies that the manner and degree of unfolding
of the co-actualizing tendency depends on the broader social environmental
context. Even if the process we have described is at first inhibited by environmental influences, a relationship with co-actualizing features—one in which
the reciprocal qualities described previously are experienced at least to some
degree—might still develop. The journey by which this happened would of
course be influenced by the culture.
Research Evidence From Three Selected Fields
In everyday life, several phenomena can be observed or (better) experienced
that can host co-actualization processes. Among them consider, for example,
close and confident friendships, well-functioning teams and partnerships,
fruitful encounter and self-help groups, easy, trusting, and valued collegial
relationships, learning and professional communities at their best, and, not
least, well-functioning families and communities. Hence, the proposed construct can be viewed as a generic process concept that denotes a class of
relationship systems distinguished by the co-actualizing quality. In the following we select three settings for which research evidence of broadly
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
389
relevant nature is both available and foreshadowed: client-centered therapy,
the group process, and person-centered education.
The extensive past research in client-centred therapy has been closely
reviewed by one of the authors (Barrett-Lennard, 1998, Part 4) and includes
features that helped to lay the foundation for the fresh ideas advanced in this
article. Looking to new work with direct linkage, this author lately has
observed that
All such study would be informed by an understanding of the therapistclient relationship as something that goes beyond dialogue (of a special
kind) to a process that has its own nature and individual dynamism
emergent from the interplay of the participants. The resulting
relationship depends utterly on both (or all) partners; at first, on how
each plays on the other, the responses this brings forth and how these
subtly interweave, unfold and flow in the becoming of their twosome,
a twosome (in ‘individual’ therapy) distinctive in its directionality and
potential. (Barrett-Lennard, 2009, p. 84)
The dyad “needs in this view to be healthy and health-giving, and thus one
that contributes to the quality of other relationships in the client’s life, both
self-relations and outer relationships” (Barrett-Lennard, 2009, p. 84).
The group process in well-functioning person-centered or similar encounter groups (Barrett-Lennard, 1975, 1998, 2003; Lago & McMillan, 1999;
Natiello, 2001; Rogers, 1970) has a tendency to move through stages toward
an atmosphere with increasing trust, constructive openness, mutual regard,
and understanding. The majority of persons indicate that, as a result of their
participation in groups, their interpersonal relationships with friends, colleagues, and family members tend to improve. As one particular example of
a reaction from a participant in an international encounter group in Brno,
Czech Republic (2007), we quote,
Through your attentive listening to me and staying with me in my troubles I could clarify a lot in me. However, the most significant thing I
take with me from this group—and something that will stay with me
for a long, long time—is the way we listened to each other and behaved
with respect to each other.
This self-searching participant experienced relational qualities such as
genuine interest in each other and mutually supportive interactions even
more strongly than the aspect of individual gain.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
390
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
In the context of person-centered education, the personal relationship
between the facilitator and the learner is viewed as the most pivotal factor in
significant learning (Rogers, 1983). In fact, numerous studies provide evidence (Barrett-Lennard, 1998; Cornelius-White, 2007a; Cornelius-White,
Hoey, Cornelius-White, Motschnig-Pitrik, & Figl, 2004; Motschnig-Pitrik,
2005; Motschnig-Pitrik & Mallich, 2004; Rogers, 1969) that a climate based
on realness, respect, and deep understanding communicated by the facilitator
and perceived by students allows for multilevel learning and development.
For example, the majority of students who perceive this constructive climate
in class report that it is easier for them to establish interpersonal relationships
with other students (Motschnig-Pitrik & Figl, 2007), and they also tend to
feel more respect, caring, trust, connectedness, and shared initiative and
responsibility in the course-community. Interestingly, the majority of students also report improved interpersonal relationships outside the immediate
context, such as in their family or the workplace (Motschnig-Pitrik, 2008).
The changes are in the direction of establishing potential for the development
of co-actualizing relationships.
Having illustrated settings that invite or enhance potential for co-actualizing
processes, we next consider some of the further implications of relationships
that have this quality.
On Further Characterizing Co-Actualization, Its
Implications, and Adverse Conditions
The Lifetime of Co-Actualizing Processes
Emergent properties of a relationship result from the blend of qualities and
patterns of interplay of the participants. The lifetime of a co-actualizing process may start as early as when a new relationship flows of its own momentum
toward a mutual depth of sharing connection, and it may last through the
overlapping lifetime of the participants or be cut off at an earlier stage. Generally, the life of a significant relationship tends to continue for longer than
the period of active engagement—both within the consciousness of the original participants and as influences on other relationships (Barrett-Lennard,
2009). When a significant other lives on in a person’s inner life only, that
relationship could not be co-actualizing, though a cherished memory of this
quality may be present in the remaining person’s consciousness and be carried into other relationships.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
391
Alternatives in Approaching a Relationship
In each new situation with another person or group there are implicit options
as to the kind of relationship desired or possible. The participants might want
to engage in a way that could, in effect, bring a co-actualizing quality about.
As alternatives, they or one of them can “decide” between scarcely engaging
at all or engaging in a direction that may preserve or enhance their own organism irrespective of the cost to a receptive other and thus also to the potential
of their relationship. The latter direction is expected to occur with persons
characterized by a dismissing attachment style who tend to derive their selfesteem from (among others) a sense of autonomy (Park, Crocker, & Mickelson,
2004). The “decision” on which level to actualize—organism or relationship
system—we assume, will be best informed if based on a congruent, fluent
inner state, aligning thought, feeling, and awareness of context in leading to
action. We acknowledge that threats, competition leading to social rivalry
(Schapiro, Schneider, Shore, Margison, & Udvari, 2009; Sullivan, 1953), feelings of helplessness or uselessness, and incongruence of any kind may
interfere with a co-actualizing process and turn on defensive, hostile reactions. However, regardless of every person’s “capacity for evil behavior”
(Rogers, 1982, in Kirschenbaum & Henderson, 1989, p. 254), an environment
that includes distinctly co-actualizing relationships would, according to our
construct and experience, strengthen or bring out a person’s—on some occasions concealed—tendency for co-actualizing associations.
Extended Perspective
At the outset, we need to acknowledge our inherent need to be in relationship
as already implied by the actualizing tendency. As little as just being present
for another person may be facilitative for his or her or our development. Perhaps the value of presence comes from its enabling function for any kind of
contact, sharing, and consciousness-advance. Carried further, if we can form
a relationship that is motivating for both or all of us, personal enhancement
will happen naturally and is likely to spread as well as to “come back”
through others. Thus, a co-actualization option may inspire a fresh, reciprocal, contextual, and, in any case, more encompassing view on the function of
presence, genuineness, empathic understanding, openness to experience in
relationship and organismic or holistic valuing.
As a further implication, in a co-actualizing process there is always the
possibility of attributing phenomena such as feelings, issues, and problems to
the particular relationship or context rather than seeing them exclusively as a
part or expression of one person-self. This may turn out to be both less
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
392
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
threatening and more free of distortion and actually provide more room for
exploring and discovering the contribution of each person. Not to be misunderstood: We do not argue in favor of pushing away responsibility, we rather
argue to keep feeling genuinely co-responsible within the frame of a relationship and its context. This is also expected to improve “team learning” and
“systems thinking” as core disciplines of a “learning organization” (Senge,
2006) and as the basis of self-managed teams (Ryback, 1998).
Conclusions and Questions for Further Research
In this article, we have advanced consideration of co-actualization as an
extension of the actualizing principle to the level of relationship systems,
based on our person–relationship centered approach and continually evolving constellation of ideas. We see a natural tendency at work that is directed
toward forming constructive relationships, given that the proper conditions
exist or can be developed. Real-world phenomena such as personal friendships and well-functioning families, teams, or other close groups can be said
in our terms to involve potentially co-actualizing relationships. This justifies
the study of the properties of co-actualizing processes and their dynamics to
find out under exactly what circumstances they come into being, maintain
and enhance themselves, and what the reasons for disintegration are. Whereas
in this article we have worked from a relationally oriented person-centered
viewpoint, further work might well address the phenomenon from complementary orientations. The resulting knowledge could have far reaching
interpersonal as well as political and strategic consequences. It might, for
example, bring us closer to being able to influence relationship systems such
as communities and organizations to move forward in terms of approaching
psychologically “healthy” conditions for the accomplishment of common
goals. It even has the potential to envision processes that can contribute to
preventing wars on the one hand or enforced, dictated, and unsatisfactory
integration policies on the other hand.
In any case, when environmental forces are not overwhelming, we as
humans appear to have alternatives: Our interactive behavior might be either
reflective of the co-actualizing tendency or solely the expression of a tendency to maintain and enhance individual organisms. What can guide our
choice between these paths? As beings equipped with consciousness we
seem to face a decision. We propose that the answer lies in congruence and
regardful, empathic attunement to the whole situation. It encompasses the
active inclusion of the other(s) and the environment, expressed through interest in and sharing with them.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
393
Co-actualizing processes will also act back to influence self-being toward
increased congruence between feeling, awareness, and expression and enhance
recognition of its differentiated, flexibly organized relational subconfigurations or subselves. In such a fluent configuration, a relationship may extend to
influence the whole self. One may perceive oneself as more and more connected to another and freely align some of one’s directions and meanings with
the other as a joined “gestalt”. Yet, co-actualization applies to a relationship as
a “forming species”, which develops its own life and influence whether or not
this is fully in the consciousness of the participants. A strongly co-actualizing
process may let each of us feel more capacity, perhaps even more responsibility. We may each feel more whole, energized, and alive, with a sense of
diminished boundary between self and other. In contrast to a simple crossing of
separate journeys, we would be aware that a larger confluent flow is involved.
Summarizing, this article has offered perspectives on the tendency toward
forming constructive relationships, particularly from a neo-person-centered
standpoint considering fields such as psychology, education, systems thinking, psychotherapy, conceptual modeling, and neuroscience. This conceptual
understanding could be a step toward further sensitizing ourselves to the
huge impact relationships have at various levels, starting from intimate relationships with close partners and stretching to large-scale political and
intercultural affairs. Rather than closing up the construct of co-actualization,
this article aims to inspire research from a range of perspectives and encourage further thought and experience along the lines opened up by our initial
forming of the new construct.
Acknowledgements
We thank the editor and the reviewer for their comments, both confirming and critical,
on earlier versions of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
Notes
1. We are encouraged by Rogers’s (1961, p. 217) view that “the initial phase of science, probably its most important phase, [. . .] has been minimized and ignored.” As
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
394
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
he also put it, “Science exists only in people. Each scientific project has its creative
inception, its process, its tentative conclusion in a person or persons” (p. 216).
2. As one example of our thought connection, the quotations from Godfrey’s writing
were all initiated by Renate. As an impression on the amount of communication between us, let us share that there were 6 full rounds of manuscript exchanges before
initial submission and 4 rounds before the submission of the revised version, with
about 40 e-mails sent and the same number received. This may reflect that each of
us really cared to express one’s thought and equally was eager to understand and
construct meaning from what the other thought, in a reciprocal process.
3. Note that in conceptual models, traditionally, each property of an entity, such
as a person’s name, is assigned one or more values (Rumbaugh et al., 1999).
Typically, these values are assigned from an external frame of reference. In our
application (psychosocial phenomena), however, it equally makes sense to assign
values from an internal frame of reference, such as my current perception of the
quality of our partnership.
4. More precisely, co-actualization has been specified for relationship systems.
However, for brevity, we often use the imprecise term relationship.
References
Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1975). Process, effects and structure in intensive groups: A
theoretical-descriptive analysis. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 59-86). London: Wiley.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system, journey and substance.
London: Sage.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2003). Steps on a mindful journey: Person-centred expressions. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2005). Relationship at the centre, healing in a troubled world.
London: Wiley.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2007a). Human relationship: Linkage or life form? PersonCentred and Experiential Psychotherapies, 6, 183-195.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2007b). The relational foundations of person-centred practice.
In M. Cooper, P. F. Schmid, M. O’Hara, & G. Wyatt (Eds.), The handbook of personcentred psychotherapy and counselling (pp. 127-139). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (2009). From personality to relationship: Path of thought and
practice. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 8(2), 79-93.
Bohm, D. (2003). On dialogue (L. Nichol, Ed.). London: Routledge.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
395
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner.
Cornelius-White, J. H. D. (2007a). Teachers who care are more effective: A metaanalysis of learner-centered relationships. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
1-31.
Cornelius-White, J. H. D. (2007b). The actualizing and formative tendencies: Prioritizing the motivational constructs of the person-centered approach. PersonCentered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 6(2), 129-140.
Cornelius-White, J. H. D., Hoey, A., Cornelius-White, C. F., Motschnig-Pitrik, R., &
Figl, K. (2004). Teachers who care are more effective: A meta-analysis in progress. Journal of Border Educational Research, 3, 81-96.
Damasio, A. R. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making
of consciousness. London: Vintage.
Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Ellinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of
conversation. New York: John Wiley.
Friedman, M. (2002). Martin Buber and dialogical psychotherapy. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(4), 7-36.
Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G., Guarino, N., & van Sinderen, M. (2004). An ontologically well-founded profile for UML conceptual models. In A. Persson & J. Stirna
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Advanced Information
Systems Engineering (CAISE’04), Riga, Latvia (pp. 112-126). Berlin, Germany:
Springer Verlag.
Hanley, S. J., & Abell, S. C. (2002). Maslow and relatedness: Creating an interpersonal model of self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(4), 37-57.
Iacoboni, M. (2008). Mirroring people. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2006). Joining together, group theory and group
skills. Boston: Pearson Education. (Original work published 1975)
Kirschenbaum, H., & Henderson, V. L. (Eds.). (1989). Carl Rogers dialogues. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kriz, J. (1998). Systemtheorie für psychotherapeuten, psychologen und mediziner.
Eine einführung [System theory for psychotherapists, psychologists, and medical
experts. An introduction]. Vienna, Austria: UFB/Facultas.
Kriz, J. (2006). Self-actualization. Norderstedt, Germany: BoD.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
396
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
Kriz, J. (2007). Actualizing tendency: The link between person-centered and experiential psychotherapy and interdisciplinary systems theory. Person-Centered and
Experiential Psychotherapies, 6, 30-44.
Kriz, J. (2008). Self-actualization: Person-centred approach and systems theory.
Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Lago, C., & McMillan, M. (1999). Experiences in relatedness: Groupwork in the
person centered approach. Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper &
Row.
Mitchell, S. A. (2000). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. Hillsdale,
NJ: Analytic Press.
Motschnig, R., & Nykl, L. (2009). Konstruktive kommunikation [Constructive communication]. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). Person-centered e-learning in action: Can technology
help to manifest person-centered values in academic environments? Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 45, 503-530.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2008). Can person centered encounter groups contribute to
improve relationships and learning in academic environments? In M. Behr &
J. Cornelius-White (Eds.), Development and interpersonal relation: Personcentered work (pp. 198-216). Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Figl, K. (2007). Developing team competence as part of a
person centered learning course on communication and soft skills in project management. In Proceedings of 37th Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Milwaukee, WI (F2G-15-F2G-21). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Lux, M. (2008). The person centered approach meets neuroscience: Mutual support for C. R. Rogers’s and A. Damasio’s theories. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 48, 287-319.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Mallich, K. (2004). Effects of person-centered attitudes on
professional and social competence in a blended learning paradigm. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 7, 176-192.
Motschnig-Pitrik, R., & Nykl, L. (2003). Towards a cognitive-emotional model of
Rogers’ person-centered approach. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 43(4),
8-45.
Natiello, P. (2001). The person-centered approach: A passionate presence. Ross-onWye, UK: PCCS Books.
Nykl, L. (2005). Beziehung im mittelpunkt der persönlichkeitsentwicklung [Relationship at the center of personality development]. Münster, Germany: LIT Verlag.
Park, L. E., Crocker, J., & Mickelson, K. D. (2004). Attachment styles and contingencies of self-worth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1243-1254.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
Motschnig-Pitrik and Barrett-Lennard
397
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships,
as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A
study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184-256). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A psychotherapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rogers, C. R. (1970). Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.
Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1982). Reply to Rollo May’s letter to Carl Rogers by Carl Rogers. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 22(4), 85-89. Reprinted in Kirschenbaum, H., &
Henderson, V. L. (Eds.). (1989). Carl Rogers dialogues. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (1999). The unified modeling language
reference manual. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ryback, D. (1998). Putting emotional intelligence to work. Boston: ButterworthHeinemann.
Schapiro, M., Schneider, B. H., Shore, B. M., Margison, J. A., & Udvari, S. J. (2009).
Competitive goal orientations, quality, and stability in gifted and other adolescents’ friendships: A test of Sullivan’s theory about the harm caused by rivalry.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 71-88.
Schmid, P. F. (2001). Authenticity: The person as his or her own author: Dialogical
and ethical perspectives on therapy as an encounter relationship. And beyond. In
G. Wyatt (Ed.), Rogers’ therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory, and practice:
Vol. 1. Congruence (pp. 213-228). Ross-on-Wye, UK: PCCS Books.
Schulte-Rüther, M., Markowitsch, H. J., Fink, G. R., & Piefke, M. (2007). Mirror
neuron and theory of mind mechanisms involved in face-to-face interactions: A
functional magnetic resonance imaging approach to empathy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1354-1372.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline, the art & practice of the learning organization. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Sheldon, K. M., Arndt, J., & Houser-Marji, L. (2003). In search of the organismic
valuing process: The human tendency to move towards beneficial goal choices.
Journal of Personality, 71, 835-869.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (2006). Person-centred therapy: A clinical philosophy.
London: Routledge.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (2002). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical applications. New York: Guilford.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
398
Journal of Humanistic Psychology 50(3)
Bios
Renate Motschnig is head of the Research Lab for Educational Technologies at the University of Vienna, Austria and held positions at the
University of Technology, Vienna, the RWTH Aachen in Germany, the
University of Toronto, Canada, and the Masaryk University in Brno,
Czech Republic. Since her studies of computer science in the 80’s
she participated in encounter groups and several events based on the
Person-Centered Approach. She is deeply interested in the multiple ways in which
understanding and whole-person learning happen and is determined to foster a style
in higher education that is based on person-centered attitudes, our co-actualizing
potential, and thoughtful support by web-based technology. She appreciates synergies
between presence and distance, cognition and feeling/meaning, and a multitude of
(scientific) disciplines and cultures.
In “retirement’ Godfrey (Goff) Barrett-Lennard is Honorary Fellow
in Psychology at Murdoch University in Western Australia, is actively
connected with colleagues internationally and absorbed in further
writing and research. At Murdoch he is informal mentor to the
Godfrey Barrett-Lennard Counsellor Training Centre, and is honorary
Doctor of the University. He studied with Carl Rogers, pioneered research on the
therapist-client relationship with his Relationship Inventory, and graduated (PhD,
1959) from the University of Chicago. He is a Fellow of APA and its Australian
counterpart. He taught in Eastern Australia and North America before finally settling
again in Perth. His publication topics include self-process and psychotherapy, empathy and listening, group, family and community processes, and broader inquiry into
human relations systems. Author of Carl Rogers’ Helping System: Journey and Substance (Sage, 1998), his later writing includes the works mentioned in this article. He
sees his own growth as coming mainly through relationships.
Downloaded from jhp.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016