Rogers (1957) foreshadows the later development of the person-centered approach in North America and elsewhere. In this paper, the authors present contrasting perspectives on the legacy of this key paper. First, from the perspective of classical person-centered therapy, Freire describes the context for this key paper within the wider frame of Rogers' body of work and emphasizes its continuing importance and relevance. Second, Elliott offers a personal history from the point of view of a psychotherapy researcher and process-experiential therapist. These two perspectives represent two major and distinct views of Rogers' legacy from within his direct intellectual and therapeutic descendants

Elliott, Robert

Freire, Beth

English

Name not available

Classical person-centered and experiential perspectives on Rogers (1957)

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository

Strathprints Institutional RepositoryElliott, Robert and Freire, Beth (2007) Classical person-centered and experiential perspectives onRogers (1957). Psychotherapy, 44 (3). pp. 285-288. ISSN 0033-3204Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde.Copyright c© and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authorsand/or other copyright owners. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for anyprofitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or study, educational, ornot-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to Strathprints administrator:mailto:strathprints@strath.ac.ukhttp://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/APA PROOFSCLASSICAL PERSON-CENTERED AND EXPERIENTIALPERSPECTIVES ON ROGERS (1957)ROBERT ELLIOTT AND ELIZABETH FREIREUniversity of StrathclydeRogers (1957) foreshadows the laterdevelopment of the person-centeredapproach in North America and else-where. In this paper, the authorspresent contrasting perspectives on thelegacy of this key paper. First, from theperspective of classical person-centeredtherapy, Freire describes the contextfor this key paper within the widerframe of Rogers’s body of work andemphasizes its continuing importanceand relevance. Second, Elliott offers apersonal history from the point of viewof a psychotherapy researcher andprocess-experiential therapist. Thesetwo perspectives represent two majorand distinct views of Rogers’s legacyfrom within his direct intellectual andtherapeutic descendents.Keywords: ●●●According to the Web of Knowledge CitationIndex (retrieved May 7, 2007), Carl Rogers’sclassic 1957 article, has been cited at least 1009times since 1980 (the year citation indexing be-gan). Returning to this central paper in the historyof psychotherapy and psychotherapy research is asobering experience. In this 9-page paper, Rogersforeshadows most of the future history of Person-Centered approach:● The Process Equation, elaborated by Rogersand his colleagues over the next 10 years;● The research program that dominated the fieldfrom 1957 until the early 1970s;● The core curriculum for a generation of helpingskills training in variety of fields;● The rejection of a range of key academic andclinical standbys, including therapist techniqueand schools of therapy, client individual differ-ences and diagnosis, and professional training,presaging Rogers’s abandonment of academiain 1964;● The social agenda for the future expansion ofthe PCA; and● The bold claims that would be repeatedly at-tacked and discredited in the late 1970s.In short, the course of the Person-CenteredApproach (PCA) for the next 50 years is con-tained in this classic article, including, paradox-ically, the seeds of its eclipse in mainstreamNorth American 1980s psychology, of its con-tinuing appeal in the United Kingdom, Europeanand elsewhere, and of its revival and reformula-tion in 1990s and 2000s. In this paper, we willpresent two perspectives of the legacy of Rogers(1957), one classical person-centered (Freire) andone process-experiential (Elliott). These two per-spectives represent two major and distinct viewsof Rogers’s legacy from within his direct intel-lectual and therapeutic descendents.A Classical Person-CenteredPerspective (Freire)Although Rogers’s 1957 paper has been themost well-known and influential of Rogers’s re-search papers, it conveys just a small, yet crucial,fragment of his theory of personality change. Inthis paper, Rogers presented the conditions fortherapeutic change out of their original theoreti-cal context, very “briefly and factually,” andwithout any explanatory statements. In hindsight,it is apparent that this strategy was a two-sidedsword. On one hand, the 1957 paper functioned asan integrative or pan-theoretical statement (Bozarth,1998), presenting the conditions of empathy, un-conditional positive regard, and congruence as con-Robert Elliott and Elizabeth Freire, Counselling Unit, Uni-versity of Strathclyde.Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Robert Elliott or Elizabeth Freire, CounsellingUnit, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G13 1PP UnitedKingdom. E-mail: fac0029@gmail.comPsychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 44, No. 3, 000–000 0033-3204/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.01AQ: 1Fu99AQ: 2AQ: 3balt2/pst-pst/pst-pst/pst00307/pst2070d07z taylormp S!3 8/6/07 16:06 Art: pst.elli0456APA PROOFSstructive of personality change for any therapeuticsituation in which they were applied. Surely, thewide impact and influence of Rogers’s hypothesison the field of psychotherapy research were due toits integrative character. The large body of researchyielded by Rogers’s hypothesis was not meant toexamine client-centered therapy, but to investigatethe conditions as presented in any therapeutic ap-proach. On the other hand, due to its lack of ex-planatory material and theoretical context, the inte-grative statement was easy to interpret as a mere setof rules, or shallow principles, to be followed in amechanical way, and this interpretation was verydetrimental for the later development of person-centered therapy.In hindsight, in the current post-positivist zeit-geist, we can also regret Rogers’s reliance onnaı¨ve objectivism in formulating his hypothesis.Rogers’s remarkable efforts to present opera-tional definitions of the conditions for therapeuticchange were cast in the logical positivism of theCircle of Vienna. Moreover, the overall “if-then”framework of the hypothesis is nowadays recog-nizable as a determinist, reductionist account ofthe complexity, richness, and unpredictability ofthe therapeutic process. However, at the timewhen Rogers outlined his theory, the post-positivistic developments in epistemology andphilosophy of science were just beginning andunknown in North American psychology. It isnoteworthy, though, that despite Rogers’s sub-scription to the objectivist trappings of logicalpositivism, he became a advocate of qualitativeresearch and developed a truly phenomenologicaltheory of personality.Despite these controversial features, Rogers’shypothesis had a revolutionary impact on thefield of psychotherapy. The aspects of Rogers’swork that were revolutionary in his time, and thatcan be considered still revolutionary and radicalnowadays, can be summarized as follows:(1) The therapist’s endeavor is a “way ofrelating/being,” rather than a “way of do-ing.” In fact, Rogers’s statement conveys aradical departure from the medical modeland its “specificity” paradigm. No specifictechniques, no specific treatment is re-quired for client’s specific problems/disorders.(2) In an apparent paradox, acceptance bringsabout change. Rogers’s hypothesis statesthat if the therapist, instead of attemptingto change the client, strives to accept theclient unconditionally, change will follownaturally.(3) The condition of empathy challenges thegeneral assumption in the field that psy-chodiagnosis is essential for effective psy-chotherapy.The last paragraph of Rogers’s hypothesis isprobably the most controversial element of hisformulation: “No other conditions are necessary.If these six conditions exist, and continue over aperiod of time, this is sufficient. The process ofconstructive personality change will follow”(1996). The “sufficiency” of the three therapistattitudinal conditions (the so-called core condi-tions) and the correspondent principle of nondi-rectivity is today the pivotal point of dissensionwithin the person-centered community. However,the diversity of interpretations of Rogers’s hy-pothesis and the distinct ways of applying it topractice goes far beyond the issue of nondirec-tivity. In fact, person-centered therapy is todaygenerally seen as one “nation” with many distinct“tribes” (Sanders, 2004). It is interesting to notethat what seems to attract and to unite practitio-ners, academics, and scholars with such diverseviewpoints is the sheer revolutionary dimensionof Rogers’s work. His ideas were revolutionary in1957 and are perhaps even more revolutionarytoday. They are hard to fit into the system.Rogers’s postulate of the six necessary and suf-ficient conditions for therapeutic personalitychange defies the medical model, with its requi-sites of diagnosis, planning, and control of thetherapeutic process. The paradox is that while itsdefiant and revolutionary stance has kept person-centered therapy at the fringes of the mentalhealth system for decades, many of Rogers’sideas have at the same time been substantiallyassimilated (often without acknowledgment) bythe mainstream psychotherapeutic approaches.Elliott’s oral history below gives an account ofthis assimilation and the paradox it entails.An Oral History and Process-ExperientialPerspective (Elliott)In 1976, at my first meeting of the Society forPsychotherapy Research, I sat in the audience,electrified, as Michael Lambert presented a dev-Elliott and Freire2balt2/pst-pst/pst-pst/pst00307/pst2070d07z taylormp S!3 8/6/07 16:06 Art: pst.elli0456APA PROOFSastating critique of research (later published asLambert, DeJulio, & Stein, 1978) on the relation-ship between the Rogerian facilitative conditions(1957) and therapy outcome, debunking and dis-missing previous research reviews (in particular,Truax & Carkhuff, 1971). Although my majortherapeutic allegiance at that point was Person-Centered, it was clear to me that some kind ofretrenchment was setting in.Over the next couple of years, other critiquesappeared. For example, Parloff, Waskow, andWolfe (1978) reviewed the failings of the exist-ing research and interpreted the existing researchas pointing to client perceptions, not objectivemeasures of the therapist conditions, as the clear-est predictors of outcome, but vulnerable to con-founding with outcome. At the same time, psy-chodynamic researchers (e.g., Gomes-Schwartz,1978) reported that process measures, includingclient contributions to therapy, were better pre-dictors of outcome than measures of therapistfacilitative conditions and began championing analternative concept, the therapeutic alliance.By the early 1980s, mainstream academic psy-chologists in North America had pretty muchdismissed Rogers’s formulation of the therapeu-tic relationship as characterized by therapist gen-uineness, accurate empathy, and unconditionalpositive regard, to the point that I found it diffi-cult to get research on therapist empathy pub-lished. In North America, at least, there was littleresearch and theory development, and Rogers’sideas and his approach to therapy were generallyin eclipse, maintained by a steadfast group offollowers, mostly outside of academia.However, during this period of eclipse, twothings were happening in parallel: First, Rogers’sapproach continued to quietly spread and buildstrength in the United Kingdom, Europe (espe-cially Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, andBelgium), Latin America, and elsewhere, astraining programs, institutes, and professional or-ganizations were formed and grew. Second, inNorth America, various followers and former stu-dents and colleagues of Rogers began to refor-mulate the basis of the approach, focusing on theclient’s experiencing and emotional processes.The first of these were Gendlin, Rice, Wexler,and Greenberg, but over time their ranks werejoined by Elliott, Paivio, Watson, and, in Europe,Sachse, Lietaer, Leijssen, and others. From theirwork eventually came Focusing-Oriented Ther-apy (Gendlin, 1996) and Process-Experiential orEmotion-Focused therapy (Greenberg, Rice, &Elliott, 1993).Rogers had always opposed professional orga-nizations and training institutes, but after hisdeath in 1987, more these began springing up,including a series of international scientific con-ferences on person-centered and experiential psy-chotherapies, leading in 1999 to the formation ofthe World Association for Person-Centered andExperiential Psychotherapy and Counseling(WAPCEPC). In 2001, Person-Centered and Ex-periential Psychotherapies began publishing,giving the field its first regularly published, inter-national, academic journal.At the same time, the past 15 years has seen anexplosion of research on person-centered and ex-periential psychotherapies, building on Rogers’slegacy as the first major psychotherapyresearcher. By 2004, Elliott, Greenberg, andLietaer were able to document 112 separate out-come studies, providing strong evidence frommultiple lines of evidence for the effectiveness oftherapies in the Rogerian tradition. Recently, theresearch evidence on the person-centered rela-tionship conditions received an overdue reexam-ination as part of the APA Division 29 TaskForce on Empirically-Supported Relationships,leading to the conclusion that two of Rogers’sthree conditions (empathy and warmth) were, infact, substantially and consistently associatedwith outcome (Norcross, 2002).Thus, after having been pronounced dead at the25-year mark, Rogers’s (1957) paper and, indeed,his whole legacy is very much alive 50 years on.This may not always be apparent in a NorthAmerican context, where his ideas have beenassimilated, often without acknowledgment, intomainstream applied psychology in the form ofrelational components in cognitive–behavioraltherapy (e.g., Safran & Segal, 1990), the newacceptance-based cognitive therapies (e.g.,Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999) and therapeuticalliance concepts and measures (e.g., Horvath &Greenberg, 1994). In the U.K. and Europe, thecontinuing influence of Rogers’s ideas is muchmore apparent, but even here the legacy is by nomeans assured, as major struggles between aca-demic cognitive-behaviorists (often allied witheconomy-minded government health ministers)and person-centered practitioners has arisen overthe past five years. In Germany, the Netherlands,the U.K., and elsewhere, conflicts are continuingover narrow definitions of evidence-based prac-●●●3AQ: 4balt2/pst-pst/pst-pst/pst00307/pst2070d07z taylormp S!3 8/6/07 16:06 Art: pst.elli0456APA PROOFStice, the recognition and regulation of person-centered therapy practice and training, and cov-erage under national and private health insuranceprograms.In these conflicts, the legacy of Rogers (1957)continues to be dual one: on the one hand, scien-tific research and its trappings of prediction, op-erational definitions, falsifiability, and careful ob-servation; on the other hand, a set of radicalstatements that some of his later followers haveused to justify lack of curiosity about therapisttechnique, rejection of politically useful quanti-tative outcome research, and even at times anti-intellectualism. In my view, today’s person-centered therapists must decide how to strike aproductive balance between preserving the mostvaluable aspects of the classic Rogerian formula-tion of the 1950s and following the growing edgeof the person-centered approach in the directionof more modern, experiential practice.ConclusionThe two coauthors of this article disagree onseveral important points regarding the contempo-rary impact and relevance of Rogers (1957), in-cluding the principle of nondirectivity, the suffi-ciency of the therapist facilitative conditions, theimportance of Rogers’s other theoretical writings,the role of diagnosis and the formulation of dif-ferent approaches for working with differenttypes of clients, the optimal management ofpower issues between client and therapist, and thevalue of specifying and teaching therapist tech-nique. These topics provide hours of interestingand challenging dialogue for our students and us.However, there is no disagreement between usthat the Rogers’s ideas continue to be the essen-tial foundation of our work as therapists andtrainers, that his intellectual legacy is alive andcontinues to develop in productive ways, thatcontinuing research on person-centered and ex-periential therapies is critical, and that our con-tinuing dialogue is useful and productive.ReferencesBOZARTH, J. D. (1998). Person-centered therapy: A revo-lutionary paradigm. Ross-on-Wye, England: PCCSBooks.ELLIOTT, R., GREENBERG, L. S., & LIETAER, G. (2004).Research on experiential psychotherapies. In M. J.Lambert (Ed.), Bergin & Garfield’s handbook of psy-chotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.; pp. 493–539),New York: Wiley.GENDLIN, E. T. (1996). Focusing-oriented psychotherapy:A manual of the experiential method. New York: Guil-ford Press.GOMES-SCHWARTZ, B. (1978). Effective ingredients inpsychotherapy: Prediction of outcome from processvariables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-ogy, 46, 1023–1035.GREENBERG, L. S., RICE, L., & ELLIOTT, R. (1993). Fa-cilitating emotional change: The moment-by-momentprocess. New York: Guilford Press.HAYES, S. C., STROSAHL, K. D., & WILSON, K. G. (1999).Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experientialapproach to behavior change. New York: GuilfordPress.HORVATH, A., & GREENBERG, L. (EDS.). (1994). Theworking alliance: Theory, research and practice. NewYork: Wiley.LAMBERT, M. J., DEJULIO, S. J., & STEIN, D. M. (1978).Therapist interpersonal skills: Process, outcome, meth-odological considerations, and recommendations forfuture research. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 467–489.NORCROSS, J. (ED.). (2002). Psychotherapy relationshipsthat work. New York: Oxford University Press.PARLOFF, M., WASKOW, I. E., & WOLFE, B. E. (1978).Research on therapist variables in relation to processand outcome. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (2nded., pp. 233–282). New York: Wiley.ROGERS, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient con-ditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.SAFRAN, J. D., & SEGAL, Z. V. (1990). Interpersonalprocess in cognitive therapy. New York: Basic.SANDERS, P. (EDS.). (2004). The tribes of the person-centred nation: An introduction to the schools of therapyrelated to the person-centred approach. Ross-on-Wye,England: PCCS Books.TRUAX, C. B., & MITCHELL, K. M. (1971). Research oncertain therapist interpersonal skills in relation to pro-cess and outcome. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garlfield(Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviorchange (pp. 299–344). New York: Wiley.Elliott and Freire4AQ: 5balt2/pst-pst/pst-pst/pst00307/pst2070d07z taylormp S!3 8/6/07 16:06 Art: pst.elli0456

Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change.

Effective ingredients in psychotherapy: Prediction of outcome from process variables.

Facilitating emotional change: The moment-by-moment process.

Focusing-oriented psychotherapy: A manual of the experiential method.

Interpersonal process in cognitive therapy.

Person-centered therapy: A revolutionary paradigm. Ross-on-Wye,

Psychotherapy relationships that work.

Research on certain therapist interpersonal skills in relation to process and outcome.

Research on experiential psychotherapies.

Research on therapist variables in relation to process and outcome.

The necessary and sufﬁcient conditions of therapeutic personality change.

The tribes of the personcentred nation: An introduction to the schools of therapy related to the person-centred approach. Ross-on-Wye,

The working alliance: Theory, research and practice.

Therapist interpersonal skills: Process, outcome, methodological considerations, and recommendations for future research.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.285

Classical person-centered and experiential perspectives on Rogers (1957)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

University of Strathclyde Institutional Repository