Running head: CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW

Carl Rogers: Truly a Person of Tomorrow Christopher Freeman December 10, 2010 PSYC 341 Psychology of Personality LUO D07 201040

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW Abstract This paper reviews the life and work of Carl Rogers, well-known psychotherapist of the twentieth century and founder of the client-centered approach to therapy. Among his many contributions to the field of psychology, including the popularizing of the term client, Carl

Rogers also contributed to the growth of the humanistic approach to psychology. Rogers and his theory of personality have made significant contributions to the field of psychotherapy and psychology in general. The paper includes a comprehensive biography of Rogerss life, followed by an analysis of how his client or person-centered theory was developed. In addition to this, the paper intends to provide an inclusive look at what his theory entailed beginning with his necessary conditions for psychological growth: counselor congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic listening. Also examined will be Rogerss philosophy of science and concept of humanity; as well as how his theory has been critiqued by others and its use in the contemporary world of psychology.

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW Carl Rogers: Truly a Person of Tomorrow There have been many explanations and theories of personality since the study of

personality began. One such theory of personality has been in the forefront since its inception in the early twentieth century. It is the person-centered or client-centered approach to psychotherapy. Its founder, Carl Rogersworld-renowned psychologist, humanist, and personality theoristpostulated that the focus should be on helping the individual and not so much on the how and why of the persons behavior and feelings. According to Howard Kirshenbaum of the University of Rochester, Carl Rogers (1902-2002) was Americas most influential counselor and psychotherapistand one of its most prominent psychologists (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 116). The Man Carl Rogers was born January 8, 1902 in Oak Park, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, the fourth of six children. His father, Walter, was a successful civil engineer and his mother, Julia, was a housewife. Both of Carls parents were deeply religious and devout Christians. According to Feist and Feist, very early on in his life Carl became interested in the Bible, reading from it and other books even as a preschool child (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 310). A general overview of Rogerss life is given in Feist and Feists Theories of Personality: [Rogers] shared his elementary school days in Oak Park, Illinois, with Ernest Hemingway and the children of Frank Lloyd Wright, but he had no aspirations for either literature or for architecture. Instead, he wanted to be a farmer, a scientific farmer who cared about plants and animals and how they grew and developed. Although he was from a large family, he was quite shy and lacking in social skills. A sensitive boy, he was easily hurt by the teasing he received from classmates and siblings.

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW At the beginning of his high school years, his parentshoping for a more

wholesome and religious atmospheremoved their family to a farm about 45 miles west of ChicagoIn this environment, the young man developed a scientific attitude toward farming, taking detailed notes on his observations. These notes taught him about the necessary and sufficient conditions for the optimal growth of plants and animals. Throughout his high school years and into his college days, he retained a passionate interest in scientific agriculture. However, he never did become a farmer. After two years of college, he changed his life goal from agriculture to the ministry and later to psychology. But devotion to the scientific method was to remain with Carl Rogers for a lifetime, and his research on the necessary and sufficient conditions for human psychological growth was at least partially responsible for his winning the first Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award granted by the American Psychological Association (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 309). Rogers had initially desired to be a farmer. Therefore, he enrolled in the University of Wisconsin to major in agriculture. However, he soon became less interested in farming and more devoted to religion (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 310) and his plans changed in his junior year after a six month trip to China which was taken in order to attend a student religious conference. According to Feist and Feist, this trip made a lasting impression on Rogers (Theories of Personailty, 2009, p. 310). Kirschenbaum adds the trip to China, helped broaden his religious and social philosophy (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 116). After his return, Rogers applied to Union Theological Seminary in New York City and after college graduation, married Helen Elliot, his college sweetheart.

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW The Career

His studies at the seminary were to be short lived however; and, Rogers left the seminary in the fall of 1926 to study clinical and educational psychology at the Teachers College at Columbia University (Feist & Feist, 2009). In 1931, Rogers received a PhD from Columbia and had already began work with the Rochester Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. According to Kirschenbaum, Rogerss years in Rochester provided a laboratory in which he worked with thousands of troubled children and adults and gradually developed his own ideas about counseling and psychotherapy (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 117). He spent 12 years at Rochester, and during these early years of his career, he drew heavily from the influences of Otto Rank, one of Freuds inner circle whom Rogers met while at Rochester. According to deCarvalho, although one does not find Rank's psychoanalytical understanding of the interdependency of biology and personality in the works of Rogers, he nevertheless acknowledged that one important source of inspiration in the formulation of his views was the thinking of Otto Rank (deCarvalho, 1999, p. 138). After Rochester, Rogers took a position as full professor at Ohio State University. Rogers had a fondness for teaching (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 311) which led him in 1940 to move to Columbus to begin this new career. It is while here at Ohio State, Rogers put his thoughts into words in his book, Counseling and Psychotherapy, which was published in 1942. There were many changes in the field of psychotherapy as a result of this book. These changes are so significant that they bear repeating here. According to Kirschenbaum, although Rogers was not the first author to use the term client for the recipient of therapy, with Counseling and Psychotherapy, Rogers popularized it (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 117). Also noted by Kirschenbaum, this was more than just a word change or semantic distinction, the word

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW connotes a departure from the medical model of illness, emphasizing that a person seeking help

should not be treated as a dependent patient but as a responsible client (2004, p. 117). The word client also implies that those in psychological distress were not necessarily sick, therefore requiring treatment by medical specialists. Brown reiterates, He [Rogers] moved the field of psychotherapy from a view of our clients as ill patients who required our expert ministrations to seeing them as whole persons in states of incongruence, possessed of innate capacities for growth and change (Brown, 2007, p. 257). Rogers demonstrated that all people could be helped by the growth-producing process of counseling (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 117). Rogers believed that professionals from different fields could be trained to provide this helpcounselors, social workers, clergy, medical workers, youth and family workers, and other helping professionals could use counseling methods (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 117). In fact, Snodgrass attributes Rogerss client-centered therapy to be a formative influence on both Howard Clinebells growth counseling and the modern advent of pastoral counseling (Snodgrass, 2007, p. 513). She goes on to state that, the influences of both Rogerss and Clinebells approaches are still experienced today, and continue to contribute to the theory, and the application, of pastoral psychology (2007, p. 524). After a short stint in 1944 working with returning soldiers through the United Services Organization as part of the war effort (Feist & Feist, 2009), Rogers moved his family to Chicago to take a position at the University of Chicago where according to Feist and Feist, he established a counseling center and was allowed more freedom to do research on the process and outcome of psychotherapy (2009, p. 311). According to Feist and Feist the years 1945-1957 at Chicago were the most productive and creative of his career. His therapy evolved from one that

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW

emphasized methodology, or what in the 1940s was called the nondirective technique, to one in which the sole emphasis was on the client-centered relationship (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 311). The Theory It is while at the University of Chicago that Rogers began to postulate about the necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change (Rogers, 1957). These conditions were laid out in an article he wrote for the Journal of Counseling Psychology in 1957 in which he stated, I have drawn out several conditions which seem to me to be necessary to initiate constructive personality change, and which taken together, appear to be sufficient to inaugurate that process (Rogers, 1957, p. 95). Rogers had previously asked the question, Is it possible to state, in terms which are clearly definable and measurable, the psychological conditions which are both necessary and sufficient to bring about constructive personality change? (1957, p. 95). This question he then attempted to clarify by asking yet another question, What is meant by such phrases as psychotherapeutic change, constructive personality change? (1957, p. 95). Many have misinterpreted Rogerss theory and have thus come to the wrong conclusions about what Rogers meant. Alvin Mahrer of the University of Ottawa, in a 2007 article, concluded on the basis of a new look at Rogerss classic 1957 article, the case is that the field missed and misinterpreted the main points. In other words, the field got it wrong (Mahrer, 2007, p. 274). In order to understand what Rogers meant by therapeutic personality change, one must take Rogers at his word: By these phrases is meant: change in the personality structure of the individual, at both surface and deeper levels, in a direction which clinicians would agree means greater integration, less internal conflict, more energy utilizable for effective living; (Rogers, 1957, p. 95).

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW So what were Rogerss conditions for constructive personality change to occur? He lists

six in his 1957 article. First, two persons are in psychological contact (Rogers, 1957, p. 96). He later clarifies that what he means by this statement is that the two people are to some degree in contact, that each makes some perceived difference in the experiential field of the other (Rogers, 1957, p. 96). Rogers states that this first conditionis such a simple one that perhaps it should be labeled an assumption or a precondition in order to set it apart from those that follow. Without it, however, the remaining items would have no meaning (1957, p. 96). Rogers defines the first of these two people as client and states that this person would ordinarily be in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious (1957, p. 96). Incongruence as defined by Rogers is a discrepancy between the actual experience of the organism and the self-picture of the individual insofar as it represents that experience (1957, p. 96). Rogers continues by stating, the incongruence need not be sharply perceived. It is enough that it is subceivedthat is, discriminated as threatening to the self without any such awareness of the content of that threat (Rogers, 1957). In contrast to the client, the second personthe therapistmust possess congruence. By definition, congruence exists when a persons organismic experiences are matched by an awareness of them and by an ability and willingness to openly express these feelings (Rogers, 1980) (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 321). Rogers explained it as follows: In place of the term realness I have sometimes used the word congruence. By this I mean that when my experiencing of this moment is present in my awareness and when what is present in my awareness is present in my communication, then each of these three levels matches or is congruent. At such moments I am integrated or whole, I am completely in one piece. Most of the time, of course, I, like everyone else, exhibit some

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW degree of incongruence. I have learned, however, that realness, or genuineness, or congruencewhatever term you wish to give itis a fundamental basis for the best of communication (Rogers, 1980, p. 15). Feist and Feist conclude that, a congruent counselor, then, is not simply a kind and friendly person but rather a complete human being with feelings of joy, anger, frustration, confusion, and so on (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 322) and when these feelings are experienced, they are neither denied nor distorted but flow easily into awareness and are freely expressed (2009, p. 322). Kirschenbaum notes, Rogerss appreciation of congruence was advanced by his own struggle in 1949-1951, when a difficult relationship with a schizophrenic client caused Rogers to become confused about his own sense of self (Kirschenbaum, 2004, p. 120). Kirschenbaum continues by adding, this led to a near breakdown[but] through counseling, Rogers developed a newfound self-esteem, capacity to experience more of his feelings, and ability to be increasingly congruent in personal and professional relationships (2004, p. 120). The second of Rogers conditions for therapeutic change is unconditional positive regard. Feist and Feist summarize Rogerss view of this condition as a non-possessive warmth and acceptance of the client (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 323). Rogers stated, to the extent that the therapist finds himself experiencing a warm acceptance of each aspect of the clients experience as being a part of that client, he is experiencing unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1957, p. 98).

The third condition is empathic listening, and it is defined as the accurate sensing of the feelings of another and the communication of these perceptions (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. G4). Rogers gives the following example of empathy: to sense the clients anger, fear, or confusion

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW as if it were your own, yet without your own anger, fear, or confusion getting bound up in it (Rogers, 1957, p. 99).

10

All of these conditions taken together make up the therapeutic relationship as it came to be called and focused completely on the subjective experiences of the client, seeking to be a companion to the client and to avoid imposing an agenda on or guiding the client in any way (Kahn & Rachman, 2000, p. 296). Overholser writes, throughout his career, Carl Rogers emphasized the importance of the therapeutic relationship (Overholser, 2007, p. 71). In discussing Rogerss philosophy of science, it is noted by Feist and Feist that Rogers was first a scientist; second, a therapist; and third, a personality theorist (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 329). Of course, this scientific attitude stems back from his adolescent years on the family farm. According to Feist and Feist, Rogers (1968) believed that scientists should be completely involved in the phenomena being studied (2009, p. 330). This attitude permeated all of Carl Rogerss writings and had become simply a way of life for him. Although Rogers knew that humans possessed the capacity to be both good and evil, according to Feist and Feist, Rogerss concept of humanity is realistically optimistic...he believed that people are essentially forward moving and that, under proper conditions, they will grow toward self-actualization (Feist & Feist, 2009, p. 338). Conclusion There have been many critics of Rogerss theories since he first presented them; far too many to give reference to here. However, it cannot be underestimated the impact that Rogers has had on the fields of psychology and psychotherapy. One recent critique of Rogers theory by Farber states, Twenty-five years ago, APA members were asked which psychotherapist they believed was the most influential figure in the field (Smith, 1982). Recently, in 2006, this

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW

11

assessment was repeated in the Psychotherapy Networker. In both surveys, Carl Rogers was the landslide choice (Farber, 2007, p. 293).

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW References:

12

Brown, L. S. (2007). Empathy, genuineness--and the dynamics of power: a feminist responds to Rogers. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(3), 257-259. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.257 deCarvalho, R. J. (1999). Otto Rank, the Rankian Circle in Philadelphia, and the origins of Carl Rogers' Person-Centered psychotherapy. History of Psychology, 2(2), 132-148. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.2.2.132 Farber, B. A. (2007). On the enduring and substantial influence of Carl Rogers' not-quite necessary nor suffiicient conditions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(3), 289-294. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.289 Feist, J., & Feist, G. J. (2009). Theories of Personailty (Seventh ed.). New York, New York, Unites States: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Kahn, E., & Rachman, A. W. (2000). Carl Rogers and Heinz Kohut: A historical perspective. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17(2), 294-312. doi: 10.1037//0736-9735.17.2.294 Kirschenbaum, H. (2004). Carl Rogers' Life and Work: An Assessment on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(1), 116-124. Retrieved November 12, 2010, from ProQuest Psychology Journals. (Document ID: 569870471). Mahrer, A. R. (2007). To a large extent, the field got it wrong: new learnings from a new look at an old classic. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(3), 274-278. doi: 10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.274

CARL ROGERS: PERSON OF TOMORROW Overholser, J. C. (2007). The Central Role of the Therapeutic Alliance: A Similated Interview with Carl Rogers. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37(2), 71-78. doi: 10.1007/s10879-006-9038-5 Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21(2), 95-103. doi: 10.1037/h0045357. Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Snodgrass, J. (2007). From Rogers to Clinebell: exploring the history of pastoral psychology. Pastoral Psychology, 54, 513-525. doi: 10.1007/s11089-007-0066-1

13