A strength of the humanistic approach is that it is anti-reductionist.
For example, unlike Freud's concept of the personality having three parts or biological psychologists reducing behaviour to its basic physiologicalprocesses, humanistic psychologists reject any attempt to break up behaviour and experience into smaller components.
They advocate holism by considering the whole person (relationships, past, present and future) to thoroughly understand subjectiveexperience.
This strengthens both the validity and support for the humanistic approach in explaining human behaviour as it considers meaningful human behaviour within its real-lifecontext.
A limitation of the humanistic approach is that it includes a number of vague ideas that are abstract and difficult to test.
For example, concepts such as self-actualisation and congruence may be useful therapeutic tools but would prove problematic to assess under experimentalconditions.
Despite Rogers' attempt to introduce more rigour by developing an objectivemeasure of progress in therapy (Q-sort), the approach is short on empiricalevidence to support its claims.
This weakens both the reliability and support for the humanistic approach in explaining human behaviour as it describes as 'anti-scientific' and therefore lacks empiricalevidence.
Another limitation of the humanistic approach is that it may be guilty of a Westernculturalbias.
For example, many of the ideas central to humanisticpsychology, such as personalgrowth, would be more readily associated with individualisticcultures in the Western world (e.g. USA).
Whereas collectivistcultures (e.g. India), that emphasise the needs of the group and interdependence, may not identify so easily with the ideals and values of humanistic psychology.
This weakens both the populationvalidity and support for the humanistic approach in explaining human behaviour given that it's notconsidered a universaltheory as it is a product of the culturalcontext within which it was developed.