Limitations Of Rogerian Approach To Therapy

In writing this essay I wanted to answer the question as to the limitations of the Rogerian approach in balanced and fair way. The limitations I discuss are in no way discrediting the doctrine but instead set out in ways to also present the positives as Personally, i see the Rogerian approach as a remarkably useful tool to obtain in a therapist's repertoire.

The person centred method of therapy was pioneered by American psychologist Carl Rogers (1902 - 1987) and is becoming one of the very most commonly used methods of remedy today. Rogers presumed that creating a strong therapeutic alliance with your client in a congruent and unconditional way, motivated the client to eventually develop his / her own conclusions about the next phase in resolving their problems. The main element to this approach is active listening, the therapist carefully consumes all the client's statements about his or her presented condition and selectively and emotively repeats back to the client key elements of those statements in that manner concerning reinforce and underpin the ideas shaped by the client and helps emphasise the therapists capability to understand the client's problems. Rogers challenged the idea that the therapist should play a prescriptive role in the therapeutic bond between consumer and therapist, and disdains the idea that the therapist may use a hypodermic way of delivering clear, unequivocal truths that your client should undertake board about his / her condition; rather, the Rogerian strategy views the therapist playing the part of a facilitator aiding the client work through their own problems and reach their own alternatives, which frequently are manifestations of deep-seated wants that the client has had all along. Rogers presumed that the best expert on your client was the client him/herself. However, regardless of the level of popularity of the Rogerian method of remedy, it is by no means the only healing doctrine practiced by psychotherapists today.

Carl Rogers got the individual at the main of any constantly shifting field of experience, with the ego being developed as he/she goes through continual adjustment of the relationship with the recognized 'extraordinary field' (i. e. a notion of the world is gained through the client's experience). Rogers thought that the idea of the 'optimum do it yourself', which is obtained when "the individual is continually open to new activities, lives each point in time fully (within an existential manner), and identified total freedom of choice to be a viable method of his or her particular existence" (Rogers, 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed. , p. 104). During this time of the analysis, Rogers defined a difference between being congruent and incongruent in terms of the personality. A congruous personality is that based on the full experiences and opportunities that are available to the individual, while an incongruous personality is defensive and hindered by restrictive burdens made by those in the immediate environment. Barry A. Farber argues that "Rogers' approach to congruence and incongruence was one of the main element factors on the introduction of popular twentieth century notion of 'truthfulness' and 'actuality' being viewed as the most keenly desired personality attributes" (Farber, 1998. p. 26). Although this idea was accepted a long time before Rogers started his work, it was only his theory regarding such factors that led to the coalescence of the idea that there is something fundamentally pejorative about untruthfulness. Some critics labelled this development as negative in the field of modern psychotherapy, but Rogers argued that "truthfulness is subjective and, whatever the actual, cold truth of any subject, the individual's discomfort of truthfulness may very well be of considerable profit" (Rogers, 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed. , p. 106). What Rogers is proclaiming here is the idea of truthfulness is a vibrant, constantly shifting component of the psychotherapeutic environment.

The Rogerian way highlights six important conditions that must definitely be met for restorative change that occurs. First of all, is the strong relationship created between your therapist and your client, this bond helps both get-togethers play an integral role during the therapy. Secondly, the client must be in a state of incongruence. Thirdly, the therapist must empathise and relate with the problems shown by the client and be able to react equally with an emotional and specialized medical level. Fourth, the therapist must show unconditional positive respect to the client, without any judgement and ensure that the client never seems judged or indeed blamed. Fifth, the therapist must have an empathetic understanding of the presented issue. Finally, these positive aspects of the therapists procedure must be express and must be identified by the client (Rogers, 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed. , p. 110). However there are critics who have argued that there need only be two core values somewhat than Rogers' six provided above (Glassman & Hadad, 2007), but Rogers himself contacted this area based on the delineation of these six distinct regions of therapy. Clearly in this function of therapy the client and therapist's relationship is paramount, it's the therapists job to nurture this and also to also keep an eye on how his or her behaviour is identified by your client. This is why the Rogerian approach is described as a supportive approach to therapy.

The Rogerian methodology clearly has benefits. The person centred model strengthens the relationship between customer and the therapist, assisting your client feel convenient and for that reason more available to discuss their true emotions; a fundamental element of the therapist's role is to help the individual to feel known and accepted. Your client also plays an integral role during the therapy but it is up to the therapist to encourage your client to work through his / her own feelings, aiding the client to comprehend his / her own thoughts on their condition. Key to this is the theory that "the individual is aware his own personality and problems much better than the therapist ever before can, and it's really the therapists job to encourage the given individual to proceed on the self-determinative basis" (Farber, 1998, p. 115). This particular holistic methodology has been brand name "clinically speculative (In the sense that) it relies upon the willingness of the therapist to spend, quite often, a considerable period of time looking forward to a discovery to be made" (Glassman & Hadad, 2007, p. 320). A criticism here would be the potential prolonging of the very symptoms that your client has come to therapy for and the lack of discouraging these conditions by the therapist, only assists to validate this behavior and instil in the client a perception that the negative patterns of behaviour are in fact effective and viable responses. Although duration of time plays an important role in virtually any psychotherapeutic way, Glassman & Hadad emphasise that for a few clients this passage of time offers them an opportunity to stall, in that they can consider themselves to be making improvement, since they are undergoing therapy, but can also avoid any uneasy or upsetting areas up for discourse by inserting the therapy in some sort of holding pattern. For many critics of the Rogerian way, this encouragement of such behaviour is one of it's key failings, however, followers of this approach argue that lots of clients respond extremely well - over time - to a person centred model that accepts the importance of congruence and locates all the key elements of that congruence in the existing and current aspects of the clients personality; alternatively than getting close to it with pre-determined rules, on which the client must action.

If we could to compare the Rogerian method of other settings of therapy, in this instance cognitive behavioural therapy, it differs in a number of ways notably "the holistic development of the individual orientated psychotherapeutic powerful" (Merry & Brodley, 2002, p. 69). For most, the Rogerian method of growing holistically from each consumer sometimes appears as possibly one of it's vital elements and even if the widespread suitability is within question, it is accepted that there surely is product in Rogers' traveling to change the more clinical model of therapy towards attending completely to the clients' needs. This said, many critics (kahn, 2002; Bozarth 1998; among others) argue that this particular aspect to Rogerian therapy is favoured above all others and subsequently can create an unbalanced stance that can place your client in extended remedy beyond its natural restrictions. John Russon criticises the Rogerian procedure as too dependant after the creation of what he explains as "a comfort zone where the client is motivated to validate his or her own methodology (and) not enough attention, if any, is paid to the fundamental changes that need to be produced to the cognitive frame of mind of your client" (Russon, 2003, p. 78). Basically, the Rogerian procedure is one which validates alternatively than challenges, and also motivates the continuation of certain detrimental subconscious constructs within the clients' personality. Actually Rogers himself recognized this back 1959, but argued that particular strategy "allows for the fullest possible awareness of your client and as an individual, alternatively than as a sort, and any unwanted effects of this (which are in my circumstance debatable) must be establish up against the undoubtable benefits, that happen to be distinct and provable" (Rogers 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed. , p. 96). So it can be seen that Rogers is taking there are limitations to this methodology but conversely suggests that these restrictions should be put into framework within the entire benefits that person centred model offers to your client. It is clear that Rogers doesn't have confidence in the idea of a 'theory of everything' in psychotherapy, in other words, an approach that delivers complete help every client, somewhat he suggests an approach that offers the consumer the best environment for remedy. In Rogers' model the therapist effectively manages this whole process of the restorative treatment to make sure that the positives significantly outweigh the negatives. In other words, Rogers accepted that his particular healing approach will not cause absolutes.

It has been argued that the therapist's role within the healing alliance can be slightly retrograde as it tries to provide equalisation in the relationship and downplays the authority of the therapist. Almost every other models of psychotherapy derive from a hierarchy in conditions of the client-therapist romantic relationship, with the therapist suggested as the source of knowledge and experience. This is an integral feature in the cognitive behavioural strategy (Rogers, 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed). An authoritarian approach may have become progressively less popular but John Russon argues that there were studies that contain indicated that in certain cases, it is exactly the insufficient an authoritarian physique that causes mental health problems to begin with (Russon, 2003); while Russon's advice shouldn't indicate a complete need to hint the total amount in the client-therapist marriage in terms of your authoritarian approach, there may be clearly an instance to be produced that the therapist should at least be seen to seize control off the problem and steer the healing process. It ought to be known that Rogers' procedure doesn't reject the value of the therapist taking demand, it suggests that this control and steering be somewhat concealed beneath the feeling of equality, in case we go through the application of a cognitive methodology, this is seen as somewhat counter productive. Russon also argues that "a Rogerian approach to therapy risks confirming, or in extreme cases initiating, cyclical psychological responses that become self-serving and at most severe, self-perpetuating" (Russon, 2003, p. 51). Evidently this will depend on, to a great extent, upon the predisposition of the client and whether they are prone to such repetitive habits. Russon goes on to make reference to significant clinical proof that he remarks, "backs up the idea that Rogerian remedy can encourage the manifestations of insecurity and persistent negative emphasis that we might otherwise expect to work against" (Russon, 2003, p. 52). This particular debate regarding the specialist of the therapist can be very complicated, as it needs to be looked at from numerous interpretations of the clients' perspective: Russon, for example, seems to believe that the person centred procedure dismisses the natural and potent expert of the therapist, while Rogers himself, thought that the therapists power be masked and even more carefully applied within the restorative relationship. However, chances are that the best approach be judged on an individual, case by circumstance basis.

Another criticism of Rogerian remedy is it's obvious bias towards support in the 'here and now' facet of the clients identity and is less likely to focus, if at all, on the restorative or reconstructive way. As Barry A. Farber notes, "psychotherapy up up to now (1950's) had been focused on repairing the patients problems and going back him to circumstances of normality, but Rogerian remedy emphasised a far more palliative, almost pastoral kind of attention that emphasised the role of the therapist as a support system" (Farber, 1998, p. 119). Rogers thought that such a support system had great potential to put the average person in the right environment so they might begin a sort of self-repair, but he (Rogers) also assumed that if such self-repair failed to take place then at least the supportive model would prevent any further destruction and help re-establish the client's features. This process from Rogers offered the key difference between person centred remedy and virtually all the mainstream settings of psychotherapy in the mid twentieth century: Rogers thought it was important to work with a client in his / her current state and work from this toward a far more ideal state, while many psychotherapeutic methods, including hypnotherapy, favoured regressing your client back to a prior express when these were identified to be completely practical. Critics of Rogers preferred a model of therapy intended for specific outcomes rather than what some found as "an amorphous feeling of basic satisfaction based on self-appointed goals" (Glassman & Hadad, 2007, p. 330). This can be regarded as a restriction of Rogerian remedy in that the email address details are in a roundabout way measurable and the capability for incongruity is suffered somewhat than challenged. This resulted in a number of problems on the Rogerian theory for it's identified bias for support and mental reassurance rather than thorough and correct psychotherapeutic investigation. It is this idea of the Rogerian procedure, being supportive alternatively than reconstructive, that sits at the core of the question concerning the suitability and validity of Rogers' methods.

The controversy on Rogerian Vs Reconstructive remedy concentrates to some extent, on the amount to which a client should, and indeed can, be inspired to understand an idealised self applied. Inside the support of Rogerian way, such an idea would be perceived as incongruous, and can be deemed an acknowledgement of what Rogers explains as "accepted incongruence" (Rogers, 1959, in Koch, 2005 ed. , p. 119), quite simply, a clients willingness to accept a number of unwanted factors and also to believe, often incorrectly, that they have indeed conquered them. This self-confidence in simple fact, hides negative manifestations that bring about such incongruity. Many have criticised that Rogers' strategy seeks to "codify and legitimise the clients current state alternatively than to work at bringing him back again to a more desired position" (Farber, 1998, p. 120). Rogers is being accused here, on focusing on the acceptance and support of the individual's current state, as opposed to the real desired status. Here, the Rogerian methodology sees the moment of therapy much less a turning point that regresses then client back again towards a perfect state, but rather as an instant of representation that continuously steps forward, i. e. a drive ahead with regard to personal development. The characteristics of the incongruent personality can be utilized and disregarded, and some degree, reconfigured; this drives toward an examination of the problems that have lead the client to seek psychotherapy in the first place.

Examining the Rogerian strategy further, there have been many suggestions that the model lacks a structure and can take a long time to reach any sort of goal or realization. This is mostly because as, William E. Glassman and Marilyn Hadad word, "the Rogerian approach encourages your client to just work at his or her own pace and therefore to feel no pressure - in simple fact, this insufficient pressure to attain an early image resolution is looked at by many followers of the Rogerian procedure as you of its key benefits" (Glassman & Hadad, 2007, p. 331). Proponents of the Rogerian methodology argue that this sense of framework is one of the problems in a more cognitive model of psychotherapy and criticise that these buildings can recreate the kind of judgemental controls that are incredibly often associated with the challenge that triggered the therapy in the first place. Therefore, the Rogerian strategy can be seen to be a means of liberating the topic from the constraints of prescriptive, more authoritarian based psychotherapy. However, whilst praising the removal of any prescriptive style of psychotherapy, Glassman & Hadad go on to dispute that Rogers might have gone too much in disregarding and structure beyond that of the basic therapeutic design, and claim that "a middle-ground, in

therapeutic milestones" (Glassman & Hadad, 2007, p. 332) may be in the same way effective and persuade have quicker results. Furthermore, critics of the Rogerian way dispute that it simply doesn't suit lots of the more common problems that clients face, and can actually be more damaging. In particular, the condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (often referred to as PTSD), for example, D. Fox and I. Prillettensky talk about the case a Rogerian strategy can lengthen the subjects anguish, and while a far more abrupt approach can happen to some to be a little more distressing, the benefits for the long-term mental health of the client are much more more suitable. (Fox & Prillentensky, 2005, p. 181). This unnecessary prolonging of the clients' symptoms within a therapeutic environment is most likely on of Rogerian therapy's biggest criticisms. Obviously, certain conditions reap the benefits of a more direct and prescriptive procedure, albeit being in the beginning, a little more distressing for the client; hypnotherapy for example, could regress your client in trance back to and prior to the actual injury (usually inducing an abreaction) and then work with your client from that point. It is not hard to see that the Rogerian methodology is not universally suitable and the argument on its suitability is complex and one that hasn't reached any solid resolution. Glassman & Hadad claim that "while it's natural for therapists to concentrate on their preferred method of treatment, it might be better for your client if each therapist were better able to judge the very best method and then use it, rather than wanting to fit their favoured approach to the specific details of each client" (Glassman & Hadad, 2007, p. 335). This approach maybe a little too idealistic, yet it might be better located to serve the entire total needs of the client and present them the perfect approach to treatment. Quite simply, the Rogerian procedure is seen as a very useful tool to obtain in a collective therapeutic toolbox, it is the therapist's job to select the best tool that fulfills the clients' needs.

In brief summary, it is clear that the Rogerian way has many restrictions and many critics but as Barry A. Farber notes, "there are limits to every psychotherapeutic methodology" (Farber, 1998, p. 156), it would be easy to presume, possibly incorrectly, that the lifestyle of these limitations is automatically a negative factor. The specific extent of the limitations is more challenging to judge: in the incorrect hands, the Rogerian approach may prove to be a bit more when compared to a palliative and restorative comfort without participating in to or evolving the clients' situation. However, it is also clear these very factors are an exceptionally important step in forming the bond between therapist and customer. Possibly the Rogerian approach is a necessary remedial to the more prevalent schools of requiring and resolute psychotherapy, that many critics now respect as using a somewhat negative influence on the client as they try to 'measure-up' to a predefined ideal. Rogers' methodology sought to abolish such an idea and some he went a little too far in doing this but this could be seen as a natural occurrence with such corrective steps. Plainly, the Rogerian methodology doesn't gratify every clinical requirement. None the less, there are numerous key ideas in this particular model, including the lack of judgement within the client-therapist romance and the holistic person centred approach have evident benefits for your client, although there will end up being many occasions in which a more immediate model of therapy, such as CBT, would be better suitable for the client's needs.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)