The Theory and Practice of the Person Centred Approach - Essay Example

Running Head: Person Centred Model Person Centred Model of the of the Introduction This model was first developed by the late Dr Carl Rogers (1902 - 1987). Person-centred model, which is also known as client-centred, non-directive, or Rogerian therapy, is a model to counselling and psychotherapy that places much of the responsibility for the treatment process on the client, taking a nondirective role (Rogers, 1980). Specifically, the person-centred model was developed from the concepts of humanistic psychology. The humanistic model "views people as capable and autonomous, with the ability to resolve their difficulties, realize their potential, and change their lives in positive ways" (Seligman, 2006). Carl Rogers (a major contributor of the person centred model) emphasized the humanistic perspective as well as ensuring healing relationships with clients promote self-esteem, authenticity and actualization in their life, and help them to use their strengths (Seligman, 2006). Person-centred model has two primary goals, which are increased self-esteem and greater openness to experience. Attempts are made to facilitate related changes and seek to promote in clients the following: closer agreement between the clients idealized and actual selves; better self-understanding; lower levels of defensiveness, guilt, and insecurity; more positive and comfortable relationships with others; and an increased capacity to experience and express feelings at the moment they occur (Rogers, 1980). Historic Development Person-centred model here means research that focuses on the person as a core of the study. The person then becomes the main conceptual unit and also often the main analytical unit. Person-centred model can be contrasted to variable-centred model where the focus is on the variable as the main conceptual and analytical unit. Variable- centred model is far more common but is not the topic of this article. For example training can be classified into variable-centred approach where the main focus is on the content of course which is being trained while coaching is person centred where the main focus is the person being trained not the content of the training. Person-centred model does not need to be quantitative and can in certain situations be carried out by case-oriented model and by using a qualitative model. Obviously, the study of the single individual, studied quantitatively using the technique, is in one way person-centred, but is not normally so according to the definition given above (since the focus is usually then on relationships between variables within the individual). The perspective given in this paper is of carrying out quantitative person-centred model on a sample of persons aiming at explaining and understanding inter-individual and/or intra-individual differences. A very short historical overview is given of the emergence of person-centred model, followed by a presentation of the theoretical foundation of the modern person-model. Finally an overview of common methods for carrying out person-centred model is presented. A major type of person-centred model is the typological model by which individuals are categorized into different types. It has ancient roots and is already reflected in the classical categorization of individuals into four basic temperaments: sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic, and choleric. The typological view can be regarded as a reflection of a view that people are functioning wholes and that there are only a limited number of distinctive ways in which a functioning system can be organized. From this perspective, finding and understanding these types are important scientific goals. The typological model has been, and is still, stronger in the life sciences (especially taxonomy in biology and diagnosis in medicine) than it is in the social and behavioural sciences (for an historical overview, see Misiak and Sexton 1966). Gangestad and Snyder (1985) discussed the importance of a categorical model in personality research and pointed to the emergence of types, each sharing a common influence (like an infectious disease caused by a specific germ). The typologies presented by Jung, Kretschmer, Sheldon, and others are still of interest today and psychiatric diagnoses in the Kraepelin tradition are influential in clinical practice. There is also a concern with typological research in sociology, including, for instance, the search for ‘ideal types’ (Bailey 1994). One of the first proponents of a comparatively modern person-centred model strategy was William Stern who already in the beginning of the twentieth century discussed a model in which individual patterns in many traits were the units of analysis. Other early proponents of the importance of considering persons as functioning wholes were Kurt Lewin and Gordon Allport. A systematic model to the person-centred study of personality development was undertaken by Jack Block based on longitudinal data. He presented an empirically based typology of longitudinal personality types and was, as far as we know, the first one to use the term ‘person-model’ (Block 1971). Principles of the Person Centred model Perhaps the most forceful modern development of person-centred model has taken place within the new developmental science (Cairns et al. 1996). There, a holistic-interactional paradigm has grown strong and a new type of person-centred model has emerged. It is focused on the study of individual development and has been called ‘ person-model ’. Its theoretical and research strategic fundaments are described in Sect. 3. 2. Theoretical and Research Strategic Fundaments of the Person-model The person-model refers to a holistic view on individual functioning and development. Magnusson and Allen (1983) summarized the essence of a person-model in the following way: ‘The person oriented model to research (in contrast to the variable centred model) takes a holistic and dynamic view; the person is conceptualized as an integrated totality rather than as a summation of variables’ (p. 372). A basic proposition of a holistic perspective, with consequences for the application of a person-model, is that individual functioning and development can be described in terms of dynamic, complex, and adaptive processes in which mental, biological, and behavioural factors in the individual, and social, cultural, and physical factors in the environment are involved. The person-model is equally applicable to research on the current functioning of individuals and to research on individual development. Thus, it has implications for research in any field of psychological inquiry. Hitherto it has mainly been used in developmental and personality research. For a long time the holistic view was considered to be too vague and lacking of specific content to serve as the basis for strong theories for understanding and explaining individual functioning and development. However, since 1970 the holistic model has been filled with content to the extent that it now forms a scientific basis for planning, implementation, and interpretation of empirical studies on specific aspects of individual functioning and development. Substantively, contributions come from psychological research on mental factors and behaviour and from biological and medical research on the functioning of the brain and the role of physiological factors in the total functioning and development of individuals. New findings in these areas have helped to enrich the ‘black box’ in S-R models with substantive contents and have helped in closing the gap between different explanations of behaviour in terms of mental, biological, and environmental factors. Contributions to the effectiveness of a holistic model as a theoretical framework for empirical research on specific phenomena, also derive from the presentation of modern models for dynamic, complex processes, particularly the general systems theory. Three aspects of these models are important for the discussion here of a person-model. (a) From a holistic perspective, mental, behavioural and biological aspects of individual functioning, and social, cultural, and physical factors of the environment are incorporated into one integrated theoretical framework. Thus, the role of a single variable cannot be finally investigated and understood in isolation from its context. (b) A central principle in dynamic, complex processes is the principle of dynamic interaction (continuously ongoing reciprocal influences) as contrasted to statistical interactions in data. The new models for dynamic, complex processes provide a theoretical framework for investigating and understanding the dynamic processes of interaction of operating factors within the individual, and the continuous reciprocal interaction between the individual and the environment in the person -environment system. (c) For the relations among operating factors at the level of the individual, mutual dependencies characterized by dynamic interactions and non-linearities can be a characteristic feature. The same holds true for the interaction of a single individual with his/her environment. For instance, individuals psychological and physiological stress reactions to increasing stimulation from the environment are often nonlinear. In fact, most common variable-oriented model methods are not suited for handling nonlinear relations and dynamic interactions. This is exemplified by the fact that many such methods use the correlation matrix as the data to be analyzed, a matrix which mainly reflects linear relations, not nonlinear relations and interactions. The process of organization of current and developmental processes which takes its start at conception is guided by the principle of self-organization. Self-organizing ability is a characteristic of open systems and refers to a process by which structures emerge without ‘prescriptions from the outside.’ Within sub-systems, the operating components systematize themselves to maximize the functioning of that sub-system with regard to its purpose in the total system. At a higher level sub-systems organize themselves in order to fulfil their role in the functioning of the totality. Within a specific system, say the cardiovascular system, each of the operating factors (e.g., systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate) do not function and develop independently of the others. The particular responsibility of each operating factor is determined by the responsibility it plays in the system. From this perspective, the important individual differences are not to be found in differences in any single variable taken out of its context of other, simultaneously operating variables. Instead, they are to be found in differences in the patterning of operating variables in the system under investigation. This applies to all levels of organization. For the discussion of the implications of the person-model for an effective measurement model and methodological model, two aspects of the organization of mental, biological, and behavioural structures and processes are fundamental: (a) Within sub-systems individuals differ to some extent in the way in which operational factors are organized and function. (b) Only a limited number of states are functional for each sub-system and for the totality. The number of ways is restricted in which operating factors in a certain sub-system can be organized in patterns, in order to allow the sub-system to play its functional role in the totality, and the number of ways is also restricted in which sub-systems can be organized to form the total pattern for the total organism (Magnusson 1997). This view implies, among other things, that the studied complex systems have inherent restrictions which lead to (a) certain states being frequent or typical and (b) other states not occurring. The first aspect has been much studied and provides a motivation for the search for types. The second aspect has been much less studied but can also be of importance: What does not occur but, in principle, could occur contains information about how the system under study functions. Bozarth (1998) argues that the more a client actualizes, the more she or he is able to interface with the environment and others even when at odds with strictures of the norm group. The concluding point concerning societal adjustment, although not essentially societal agreement, with particular societal norms for people at higher levels in the actualizing process is significant with the intention of understanding part of Rogers’ position (1980). Bozarth (1998) also argued that focusing on how to do person-centred model is one of the more inhibiting factors to the creation of the freeing environment for the individual. The foundational principle of a universal as well as natural force is ignored as the fundamental principle One of the criticisms of person centred counselling is that we now live in a very diverse multicultural society. One where they are some people who enjoy more power than others. Person-Centred Counselling The person-centred counselling is based on a model rather than a theory. Rogers believed that people who were experiencing conflicts and difficulties had the resources within themselves to resolve these conflicts and difficulties. The counsellor’s role was simply to facilitate this process and help the client to become what he or she is capable of becoming. The following quote sums it up nicely. “The task of the counselling is to give the client an opportunity to explore, discover and calcify ways of living more satisfyingly and resourcefully”. (Merry1999) Rogers proposed six conditions that he felt were both necessary and sufficient for change to occur. However, most attention has been given to the three that have become known as the ‘core conditions’, that need to be offered by the counsellor, which are essential in a successful counsellor/ client relationship: 1. Empathy (the ability to understand another persons perceptions and feelings). 2. Unconditional positive regard (acceptance and caring given to a person as a human being, without imposing conditions on how a person behaves). 3. Genuineness or congruence. “Rogers took the view that the people who came to him for help were not sick like patients in hospital” (Merry,1999, pg 63) The first of the conditions Rogers believed was necessary is empathy. Empathy is to not only walk in the shoes of another person but to feel how they pinch, it is learning how to perceive the world the way the client perceives it, to feel what it is like to be in the clients skin. To be understood in this way for many people is very rare. This on it’s own could be therapeutic itself. (Misiak et al. 1966). Empathy is not only about having experiences similar to the clients but understanding that the client may have very different feelings and responses to a similar experience. The second condition is unconditional positive regard also called respect, warmth or acceptance. The counsellor fully accepts the client believing he is a unique and valued human being who he will not judge in any way. This environment will allow the client to explore his conflicts/ difficulties without fear of rejection or criticism. (Waller et al. 1998) However this does not mean the counsellor has to approve everything their client does or says it means the counsellor understands and accepts in a non- judgemental way. (Merry, 1999) “The counsellor who holds this attitude deeply values the humanity of her client and is not deflected in that valuing by any particular client behaviours. (Waller et al. 1998). It is crucial to point out that Rogers did only ever said “if” you can unconditionally accept your client. therapeutic change is likely to occur. He did not say it was possible to do so in all circumstances. The third and final core condition is congruence or genuineness as quoted by Mearns and Thorne. “Congruence is the state of being of the counsellor when her outward responses to her client consistently match the inner feelings and sensations which she has in relation to the client. (Waller et al. 1998) Congruence or genuineness is not easy to outline but in simplistic terms means the counsellor is true to himself and his feelings match his words. He is able to relate to the client from a place of self-awareness and self-acceptance, to be in touch with himself. The person centred model to counselling believes the counsellor has the skills and qualities to develop a relationship that allows the client the see the counsellor as a companion, who will create an environment which allows all the above to take place. Application I believe that the theoretical perspective included in the person-model presented above provides person-centred model with a useful meta-theoretical framework. But to reiterate: a person-model should not be confused with a methodological model using pattern analysis although such methods often are natural within a holistic orientation. Sometimes reality may not be continuous but may rather operate to produce more or less discrete types. Or put differently: only certain configurations of system states are in some way optimal and become stable and often observed. A discussion of this issue was given in Sect. 3. It can then be argued that in person-centred model, methods for pattern-based analysis are often more useful than standard variable-based methods. Many common variable-based methods do not handle interactions well and in many situations pattern-based methods are more naturally used for this purpose. In fact, taking interactions seriously, such a model, focusing on variables, tends to become very complicated. Lee Cronbach even made the metaphor of entering a hall of mirrors when one pursues such a goal. It has sometimes been claimed that results from many methods used in person-centred model, for instance cluster analysis, are untrustworthy. In order to evaluate the validity of results from such studies two aspects should be discussed separately: (a) the technical aspects of the methods applied and (b) the appropriateness of the application of these methods in different settings. There is nothing wrong technically with any of the major methods used to carry out person-centred analysis. The problem arises when a method is inappropriately applied. Inconsistent results are often caused by the use of a clustering procedure that does not match the combined requirements of the problem under study and the data available. Important considerations for obtaining useful results from a cluster analysis are: (a) That the variable profile under study adequately summarizes the information Gestalt of interest; (b) that the values in the different variables are comparable and an appropriate (dis)-similarity coefficient has been chosen; (c) that a sound clustering algorithm has been chosen; (d) that only variables are included in the value profile which have a reasonably high reliability and, if finding homogenous clusters is the focus of interest, the profile is constituted by only a limited number of variables; and (e) that in many cases not all subjects should be classified. A number of validation procedures are available for studying the results of a classification analysis. Two issues that are sometimes confused in person-centred model are the question about identifying generic classes (‘natural clusters’) and the question about ascribing the subjects in the sample to the appropriate class. It is a general experience that the second purpose tends to be more difficult to achieve. If the purpose is to identify typical value profiles that frequently emerge in different settings, one way of validating these typical profiles is to compare centroids between different samples/split-halves. Those that replicate might be regarded as types. These typical profiles need not, of course, together comprise a total classificatory system that encompasses everybody in a specific sample. On the contrary, the usefulness of a partial typology should be stressed since it can often be a more realistic goal. For instance, methods for determining how well the (dis)similarity matrix is represented by the classification solution are sometimes erroneously used for evaluating to what extent the first purpose has been achieved. Such methods are mainly relevant when the study of individual class membership is at focus. Applying variable-oriented methods it is often assumed that (the same) linear relations approximately hold over individuals and that the essential features of a multivariate data set are captured by, for instance, the correlation matrix. This enables the researcher to use modern powerful statistical methods to construct models of data that are testable within the confinements of these basic assumptions. However, as was pointed out in Sect. 3, in settings when these assumptions cannot be assumed to hold a person-centred model emerges as an alternative. It is natural that the recognition of multivariate complexity and higher-order interactions that follows with this perspective also makes it extremely difficult to formulate a coherent testable model of the data. Of course, this does not mean that person-centred model needs to be explorative in its methods. Theoretical considerations will lead to expectations about, for instance, types and antitypes and about typical developmental streams which are testable using various methods. Conclusion Finally, during the last decade person-centred model has received increased attention. For this we believe there are sound motives, as explicated in the section about the person-model. In some situations one can trace a disappointment in the meagre outcome in the understanding of a studied process given by even sophisticated variable-oriented methods. Applied with good judgment, person-centred model may then offer a deeper insight in how a system works. This applies to systems at the level of the individual as well as at other levels. References Bailey 1994 K D Bailey, Typologies and Taxonomies, Sage, New York (1994). Bergman 1988 L R Bergman, You cant classify all of the people all of the time, Multivariate Behavioral Research 23 (1988), pp. 425–441. Block 1971 J Block, Lives Through Time, Bancroft Books, Berkeley, CA (1971). Bozarth, J. (1998). Person-centered therapy: A revolutionary paradigm. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.personcentered.com/pcch1.htmlCorey, C. (2005). Theory and practice of counseling & psychotherapy (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning. Cairns et al. 1996 R B Cairns, G H Elder Jr, and E J Costello, Developmental Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996). Gangestad et al. 1985 S Gangestad and M Snyder, To carve nature at its joints: On the existence of discrete classes in personality, Psychological Review 92 (1985), pp. 317–349. Magnusson et al. 1983 D Magnusson and V L Allen, Implications and applications of an interactional perspective for human development. In: D Magnusson and V L Allen, Editors, Human Development: An Interactional Perspective, Academic Press, New York (1983), pp. 369–387. Morey et al. 1983 L C Morey, R K Blashfield and H A Skinner, A comparison of cluster analysis techniques within a sequential validation framework, Multivariate Behavioral Research 18 (1983), pp. 309–329. Misiak et al. 1966 H Misiak and V Sexton, History of Psychology, Grune & Stratton, New York (1966). Person Centered Therapy (2007). Retrieved 5 January 2010, http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Person-centered-therapy.htmlSeligman, L. (2006). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: Systems, strategies, and skills. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Ltd. Rogers, C.R. (1957) Dialogue between Martin Buber and Carl Rogers. University of Michigan. April 18. Rogers, C.R. (1980) A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Waller et al. 1998 N G Waller and P E Meehl, Multivariate Taxometric Procedures. Distinguishing Types from Continua, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1998). Young et al. 1986 T Y Young and K S Fu, Handbook of Pattern Recognition and Image Processing, Academic Press, Orlando, FL (1986). Read More