Carl Rogers - Chapter 6

Rogers was trained as a psychoanalyst, then worked as a therapist for children - found analytic techniques unsatisfying in both WHAT and WHAT

Rogers was trained as a psychoanalyst then worked as a therapist for children - found analytic techniques unsatisfying in both GOALS and RESULTS

Built the distinctly WHAT alternative = WHAT

Built the distinctly HUMANISTIC alternative = CLIENT-CENTRED THERAPY

Unlike psychoanalysis (uncover the WHAT) or behaviour therapy (identify and fix problem WHAT), the aim was simply to help clients move WHAT in their lives

Unlike psychoanalysis (uncover the PAST) or behaviour therapy (identify and fix problem BEHAVIOURS), the aim was simply to help clients move FORWARD in their lives

Each of us lives in a constantly changing WHAT world: the WHAT

Each of us lives in a constantly changing PRIVATE world: the EXPERIENTIAL FIELD

You exist at the WHAT of your own field - and it can only be fully understood from your WHAT

You exist at the CENTRE of your own field - and it can only be fully understood from your PERSPECTIVE

Behaviour must be understood as a WHAT to the field as the person perceives it - they react to it as an WHAT whole, and it is their WHAT

Behaviour must be understood as a REACTION to the field as the person perceives it - they react to it as an ORGANIZED whole, and it is their REALITY

The therapist's problem: WHAT

The therapist's problem: only the client can really UNDERSTAND their own field

Direct contrast with Freud: no objective analyst breaking through defences to a WHAT the patient WHAT see

Direct contrast with Freud: no objective analyst breaking through defences to a TRUTH the patient CANNOT see

The one basic striving: to WHAT, WHAT, and WHAT the experiencing person - the WHAT

The one basic striving: to ACTUALIZE, MAINTAIN, and ENHANCE the experiencing person - the ACTUALIZING TENDENCY

Rogers borrowed self-actualization from Kurt Goldstein: movement toward WHAT, WHAT, WHAT

Rogers borrowed self-actualization from Kurt Goldstein: movement toward MATURITY, INDEPENDENCE, SELF-RESPONSIBILITY

Personal power: WHAT

Personal power: the ability to make the choices needed to ACTUALIZE the self, and to FUFILL them

Client-centred therapy operationalizes this: the therapist consciously renounces all WHAT over and WHAT for, the client

Client-centred therapy operationalizes this: the therapist consciously renounces all CONTROL over and DECISION-MAKING for, the client

Rogers claimed no one can really WHAT your WHAT

Rogers claimed no one can really UNDERSTAND your EXPERIENTIAL FIELD

The parent-child relationship is central: WHAT

The parent-child relationship is central: it either fosters self-actualization or impedes growth

A child begins life with an WHAT tendency; with WHATcomes a need for WHAT regard

A child begins life with an ACTUALIZING tendency; with SELF-AWARENESS comes a need for POSITIVE regard

Unconditional positive regard: WHAT

Unconditional positive regard: the child is supported in all things → healthy, well-adjusted

Conditional positive regard: support only when behaviour complies with the parents' WHAT and WHAT → the child develops WHAT

Conditional positive regard: support only when behaviour complies with the parents' DESIRES and RULES → the child develops CONDITIONS OF WORTH

congruence = WHAT

congruence = alignment between the IDEAL SELF (who I would like to be) and ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR (self-image)

Congruence: sense of WHAT and lived WHAT fit together - WHAT-regard and WHAT regard closely matched → relatively happy and well-adjusted

Congruence: sense of SELF and lived EXPERIENCE fit together - SLEF-regard and POSITIVE regard closely matched → relatively happy and well-adjusted

Incongruence: WHAT

Incongruence: the sense of self and the ability to obtain positive regard do NOT match

Incongruence is threatening → activates WHAT

Incongruence is threatening → activates DEFENCE MECHANISM

Incongruence can break down and disorganize the WHAT, producing psychological WHAT that may continue throughout life (Rogers, 1959/1989)

Incongruence can break down and disorganize the SELF-STRUCTURE, producing psychological DISTRESS that may continue throughout life (Rogers, 1959/1989)

The outcome of congruence - through WHAT development or successful WHAT: the WHAT functioning person (Rogers, 1961), living the WHAT life

The outcome of congruence - through HEALTHY development or successful THERAPY: the FULLY functioning person (Rogers, 1961), living the GOOD life

The good life is a WHAT, not a WHAT of being - a direction, not a destination

The good life is a PROCESS, not a STATE of being - a direction, not a destination

It requires, and flows from, WHAT

It requires, and flows from, PSYCHOLOGICAL FREEDOM

Characteristics:

• increasingly open to WHAT

• Lives WHAT in each moment

• WHAT themselves more and more, willing to experience all their WHAT

• creative

• trusts WHAT nature

• experiences the WHAT of life

Characteristics:

• increasingly open to NEW EXPERIENCE

• Lives FULLY in each moment

• TRUSTS themselves more and more, willing to experience all their FEELINGS

• creative

• trusts HUMAN nature

• experiences the RICHNESS of life

Not simply content or happy - WHAT

Not simply content or happy - ALIVE

Starts with a parent-child relationship

• WHAT positive regard

• WHAT positive regard

Starts with a parent-child relationship

• UNCONDITIONAL positive regard

• CONDITIONAL positive regard

Unconditional positive regard

• WHAT and WHAT align

• WHAT

• WHAT functioning person

Unconditional positive regard

• SELF and EXPERIENCE align

• CONGRUENCE

• FULLY functioning person

Conditional positive regard

• WHAT of worth

• WHAT

• Psychological WHAT

Conditional positive regard

• CONDITIONS of worth

• INCONGRUENCE

• Psychological DISTRESS