Existential criticisms of mainstream psychology

Mainstream psychology is shaped by epistemological commitments that define legitimate psychological knowledge, in terms of objectivity, measurability and generalizability. These commitments influence not only the conceptualization of psychological phenomena, but also the methodological frameworks through which they are investigated. Existential psychology offers an alternative approach, grounded in existential philosophy and phenomenology, that conceptualizes psychological phenomena through the analysis of lived experience rather than operationalized constructs. This dissertation aims to examine the epistemological differences between these two frameworks through the lens of existential psychology’s criticisms across three domains: the conceptualization of the human subject, the operationalization of constructs, and the methodology of clinical research. Through the analysis of trait theory and the Big Five personality model, the Holmes and Rahe’s Social Readjustment Rating Scale, and the Lazarus and Folkman's Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, and the relationship between the DSM and randomized controlled trials, this dissertation evaluates these criticisms from an epistemological standpoint and explores a possible integration between the two frameworks.