Rogers 1959 in Koch

 Books - Non-fiction

 13 views
of 38
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Description
Rogers 1959 in Koch (ed.) A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships
Share
Tags
Transcript
  A THEORY OF THERAPY,PERSONALITY,AND INTERPERSONALRELATIONSHIPS,AS DEVELOPED IN THECLIENT-CENTEREDFRAMEWORK  CARL R. ROGERS From: Psychology: A Study of a Science . Study 1, Volume 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context  ,edited by Sigmund Koch. (McGraw-Hill, 1959, pages 184-256)Scanned and formatted to closely match the srcinal inappearance:-All page numbers and page breaks have been maintained. - Some hyphenation has changed due to the differences infonts available.-Page 220: spelling correction, srcinal reads “omittingconisderation of B”.NOTE:This document currently requires a final proof reading.  A THEORY OF THERAPY, PERSONALITY,AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS,AS DEVELOPED IN THECLIENT-CENTERED FRAMEWORK CARL R. ROGERS University of Wisconsin Introduction {1} ................................................................................................ 185  The soil of the theory ................................................................................... 185 Some basic attitudes.................................................................................... 188  The General Structure of Our Systematic Thinking {2 + , 3} ................................. 192 Definitions of constructs............................................................................... 194 A digression on the case history of a construct {3 +  } ..................................... 200 I. A Theory of Therapy and Personality Change {2 + , 6, 8, 9} ............................ 212 Conditions of the therapeutic process ......................................................... 213  The process of therapy ............................................................................... 216 Outcomes in personality and behavior ........................................................ 218 Comments on the theory of therapy ............................................................ 220 Specification of functional relationships ................................................... 220 Some conclusions regarding the nature of the individual .............................. 220 II. A Theory of Personality {2 + , 6, 9} ............................................................... 221 Postulated characteristics of the human infant ............................................ 222  The development of the self ........................................................................ 223  The need for positive regard ....................................................................... 223  The development of the need for self-regard ................................................. 224  The development of conditions of worth ....................................................... 224  The development of incongruence between self and experience ..................... 226  The development of discrepancies in behavior ............................................. 227  The experience of threat and the process of defense...................................... 227  The process of breakdown and disorganization ............................................ 228  The process of reintegration ....................................................................... 230 Specification of functional relationships in the theory of personality ………….. 231 Evidence ................................................................................................... 232 III. A Theory of the Fully Functioning   Person {2 + , 6}......................................... 234 184 Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships 185 IV. A Theory of Interpersonal Relationship {2 + , 6} ............................................ 235 V. Theories of Application {2 + , 6} .................................................................. 241 Family life ................................................................................................. 241 Education and learning............................................................................... 241 Group leadership ....................................................................................... 242 Group tension and conflict.......................................................................... 242 The Theoretical System in a Context of Research................................................ 244  The bases of stimulation of research {8} ....................................................... 245  The problem of measurement and quantification {5} ..................................... 246 Incompatible evidence {9, 7} ....................................................................... 247 A continuing program of theory and research {11, 7} .................................... 249 Immediate strategy of development {12} ....................................................... 250 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 252 References....................................................................................................... 252 INTRODUCTION Being one who has deprecated the use of compulsion as a means of altering personality and behavior, it is no doubt singularly appropriatethat I should be forced to acknowledge the value of the gentlecompulsion of a formal request. For some time I had recognized theneed of a more adequate and more up-to-date statement of the theorieswhich have been developing in the group associated with client-centered therapy. This might well have remained in the realm of goodintentions, had it not been for the formal request from the AmericanPsychological Association, in connection with its Study of the Status andDevelopment of Psychology in the United States, to prepare asystematic statement of this developing theory. To join with others whowere endeavoring to formulate their own theories and to use, so far as possible, a common outline—this seemed to be both an obligation and anopportunity which could not be refused. It is this softly voiced butinsistent pressure from my colleagues which has caused me to write thefollowing pages now, rather than at some later date. For this pressure I amgrateful. The soil of the theory.  No theory can be adequately understoodwithout some knowledge of the cultural and personal soil from whichit springs. Consequently I am pleased that the first item of the suggestedoutline requests a thorough discussion of background factors. This means, Ifear, that I must take the reader through some autobiographicalmaterial since, although the client-centered orientation has becomevery much of a group enterprise in every respect, I, as an individual, carrya considerable responsibility for its initiation and for the beginningformulation of its theories. I shall, therefore, mention briefly somecultural influences and personal experiences which may or may not  186 CARL R. ROGERShave relevance to the theory itself. I shall not attempt to evaluate theseinfluences, since I am probably a poor judge of the part they have played.I lived my childhood as a middle child in a large, close-knit family,where hard work and a highly conservative (almost fundamentalist)Protestant Christianity were about equally revered. When the familymoved to a farm at the time I was twelve, I became deeply interestedand involved in scientific agriculture. The heavy research volumes I readon my own initiative in the next few years regarding feeds and feeding,soils, animal husbandry, and the like, instilled in me a deep and abidingrespect for the scientific method as a means of solving problems andcreating new advances in knowled g e. This respect was reinforced by myfirst years in college, where I was fond of the physical and biologicalsciences. In my work in history I also realized something of thesatisfactions of scholarly work.Having rejected the family views of religion, I became interested in amore modern religious viewpoint and spent two profitable years inUnion Theological Seminary, which at that time was deeply committedto a freedom of philosophical thought which respected any honest at-tempt to resolve significant problems, whether this led into or away fromthe church. My own thinking lead me in the latter direction, and Imoved across the street to Teachers College, Columbia University.Here I was exposed to the views of John Dewey, not directly, butthrough William H. Kilpatrick. I also had my first introduction toclinical psychology in the warmly human and common-sense approachof Leta Hollingworth. There followed a year of internship at theInstitute for Child Guidance, then in its chaotic but dynamic first year of existence. Here I gained much from the highly Freudian orientation of most of its psychiatric staff, which included David Levy and LawsonLowrey. My first attempts at therapy were carried on at the Institute.Because I was still completing my doctorate at Teachers College, thesharp incompatibility of the highly speculative Freudian thinking of theInstitute with the highly statistical and Thorndikean views at TeachersCollege was keenly felt.There followed twelve years in what was essentially a communitychild guidance clinic in Rochester, New York. This was a period of comparative isolation from the thinking of others. The psychologydepartment of the University of Rochester was uninterested in what wewere doing because our work was not, in its opinion, in the field of  psychology. Our colleagues in the social agencies, schools, and courtsknew little and cared less about psychological ideologies. The only elementwhich carried weight with them was the ability to get results in workingwith maladjusted individuals. The staff was eclectic, of diverse Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships 187  background, and our frequent and continuing discussion of treatmentmethods was based on our practical everyday working experience withthe children, adolescents, and adults who were our clients. It was the beginning of an effort, which has had meaning for me ever since, todiscover the order which exists in our experience of working with people.The volume on the Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child  was oneoutcome of this effort.During the second half of this period there were several individualswho brought into our group the controversial therapeutic views of OttoRank and the Philadelphia group of social workers and psychiatristswhom he had influenced. Personal contact with Rank was limited to athree-day institute we arranged; nevertheless his thinking had a verydecided impact on our staff and helped me to crystallize some of thetherapeutic methods we were groping toward. For by this time I was becoming more competent as a therapist, and beginning to sense adiscoverable orderliness in this experience, an orderliness which wasinherent in the experience, and (unlike some of the Freudian theorieswhich had grown so far from their srcinal soil) did not have to beimposed on the experience.Though I had carried on some part-time university teachingthroughout the Rochester years, the shift to a faculty position at OhioState University was a sharp one. I found that the emerging principles of therapy, which I had experienced largely on an implicit basis, were by no means clear to well-trained, critically mindedgraduate students. I began to sense that what I was doing and thinkingin the clinical field was perhaps more of a new pathway than I hadrecognized. The paper I presented to the Minnesota chapter of Psi Chiin December, 1940, (later chapter 2 of  Counseling and  Psychotherapy) was the first conscious attempt to develop a relativelynew line of thought. Up to that time I had felt that my writings wereessentially attempts to distill out more clearly the principles which allclinicians were using.The new influence at Ohio State, which continued to be felt in myyears at Chicago, was the impact of young men and women— intellectually curious, often theoretically oriented, eager to learn fromexperience and to contribute through research and theory to thedevelopment of a field of knowledge. Through their mistakes as well astheir successes in therapy, through their research studies, their criticalcontributions, and through our shared thinking, have come many of therecent developments in this orientation.In the past decade at the University of Chicago the new elementswhich stand out most sharply are the opportunity for and the encouragementof research, the inclusion of graduate students from education, theology,human development, sociology, industrial relations, as well as  188 CARL R. ROGERS psychology, in the ramified activities of the Counseling Center, and thecreative thinking of my faculty colleagues, especially those connectedwith the Center.The persistent influence which might not be fully recognized, becauseit is largely implicit in the preceding paragraphs, is the continuingclinical experience with individuals who perceive themselves, or are perceived by others to be, in need of personal help. Since 1928, for a period now approaching thirty years, I have spent probably an averageof 15 to 20 hr per week, except during vacation periods, in endeavoringto understand and be of therapeutic help to these individuals. To me,they seem to be the major stimulus to my psychological thinking. Fromthese hours, and from my relationships with these people, I have drawnmost of whatever insight I possess into the meaning of therapy, thedynamics of interpersonal relationships, and the structure andfunctioning of personality. Some basic attitudes . Out of this cultural and personal soil havegrown certain basic convictions and attitudes which have undoubtedlyinfluenced the theoretical formulation which will be presented. I willendeavor to list some of these views which seem to me relevant :1. I have come to see both research and theory as being aimedtoward the inward ordering of significant experience. Thus researchis not something esoteric, nor an activity in which one engages to gain professional kudos. It is the persistent, disciplined effort to make senseand order out of the phenomena of subjective experience. Such effort is justified because it is satisfying to perceive the world as having order and because rewarding results often ensue when one understands the orderlyrelationships which appear to exist in nature. One of these rewardingresults is that the ordering of one segment of experience in a theoryimmediately opens up new vistas of inquiry, research, and thought,thus leading one continually forward.Thus the primary reason for research and systematic theory in thefield of therapy is that it is personally dissatisfying to permit the cumulat-ing experiences of therapeutic hours to remain as a conglomeration of more or less isolated events. It feels as though there is an order in theseevents. What could it be? And of any hunch regarding the inherentorder, it is necessary to ask the question, is this really true, or am Ideceiving myself? Thus slowly there is assembled a body of facts, andsystematic constructs to explain those facts, which have as their basicfunction the satisfaction of a need for order which exists in me.(I have, at times, carried on research for purposes other than theabove to satisfy others, to convince opponents and sceptics, to gain prestige, and for other unsavory reasons. These errors in judgment andactivity have only deepened the above positive conviction. ) Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships 189 2.It is my opinion that the type of understanding which we callscience can begin anywhere, at any level of sophistication. To observeacutely, to think carefully and creatively—these activities, not theaccumulation of laboratory instruments, are the beginnings of science.To observe that a given crop grows better on the rocky hill than in thelush bottom land, and to think about this observation, is the start of science. To notice that most sailors get scurvy but not those who havestopped at islands to pick up fresh fruit is a similar start. To recognizethat, when a person's views of himself change, his behavior changesaccordingly, and to puzzle over this, is again the beginning of boththeory and science. I voice this conviction in protest against the attitude,which seems too common in American psychology, that science starts inthe laboratory or at the calculating machine.3.A closely related belief is that there is a natural history of science — that science, in any given field, goes through a patterned course of growth and development. For example, it seems to me right and naturalthat in any new field of scientific endeavor the observations are gross,the hypotheses speculative and full of errors, the measurements crude.More important, I hold the opinion that this is just as truly science as theuse of the most refined hypotheses and measurements in a more fullydeveloped field of study. The crucial question in either case is not thedegree of refinement but the direction of movement. If in either instancethe movement is toward more exact measurement, toward more clear-cut and rigorous theory and hypotheses, toward findings which havegreater validity and generality, then this is a healthy and growing science.If not, then it is a sterile pseudo science, no matter how exact itsmethods. Science is a developing  mode of inquiry, or it is of no particular importance.2.In the invitation to participate in the APA study, I have beenasked to cast our theoretical thinking in the terminology of theindependent-intervening-dependent variable, in so far as this is feasible.I regret that I find this terminology somehow uncongenial. I cannot justify my negative reaction very adequately, and perhaps it is anirrational one, for the logic behind these terms seems unassailable. Butto me the terms seem static—they seem to deny the restless, dynamic,searching, changing aspects of scientific movement. There is a tendencyto suppose that a variable thus labeled, remains so, which is certainlynot true. The terms also seem to me to smack too much of the laboratory,where one undertakes an experiment de novo, with everything under control, rather than of a science which is endeavoring to wrest fromthe phenomena of experience the inherent order which they contain.Such terms seem to be more applicable to the advanced stages of scientific endeavor than to the beginning stages.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks