Person Centred Counselling - Evaluate the criticisms of Person Centered therapy - Essay Example

PERSON CENTRED COUNSELLING - EVALUATE THE CRITICISMS OF PERSON CENTERED THERAPY By and Institutional Affiliation Department Date Carl Rodgers’ approach to psychotherapy through a client-centred therapy today remains a viable approach. Contrary to other theories of the time, patient therapists rarely ask questions, offer interpretations, make a diagnosis, or provide advice. Instead, Rodgers’ introduction of the client-centred therapy allowed clients to offer their own stories, while using therapeutic associations in their own definition (Joseph & Linley, 2005, p. 262). According to Joseph and Linely (2005, p. 262) this means that therapists do not have to disagree or agree with clients, blame or offer reassurance, or point out contradictions. Instead, therapists listen without any attempts to offer solutions, and making all efforts to define an environment where clients can speak out their feelings, while being certain that they are not judged but understood (Joseph, 2004, p. 102). Joseph (2004, p. 104) argues that this focus of therapy shifted from an emphasis on therapy technique to that of the relationship. In this case, therapy relationship involved client and therapists and not a patient. Through the therapist’s provision of a given type of relationship, the client discovers within self the capability to use the relationship for change, growth, and personal development as clients have the opportunity to reflect on their experience (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004, p. 24). By adapting a non-judgmental acceptance and listening, Deco and Vanteenkiste (2004, p. 24) reveal that therapists manage to promote change. However, trusting that the client will establish their own solutions to their problems introduces lots of criticism that refers to client-centred therapy as dependent on very little theory. This paper evaluates the criticisms against client-centred therapy. While Rodgers established an approach that focused on clients as human beings that can take full control of their lives, critics such as behaviourists argued that humans are organism that only respond to stimuli and whose habits are only learnt from experiences. Rodgers contradicted this approach to argue that humans are not helpless, but are responsible for their own conduct and behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 228). One psychoanalyst contradicted by Rodgers was Freud, who viewed humans as always being captives of primitive passions that commence from fixations experienced during childhood only to become powerful biological drives. Unlike Rodgers, Freud’s emphasis was on humans’ dark side that constituted of damaging instincts that beyond human control. On the contrary, Deco and Ryan (2000, p. 228) viewed Rogers’ approach as wrong because humans have choices, and control over themselves, thus they are not just characteristically weak and easily broken. Furthermore, humans do not always require assistance from counsellors and experts to enable them amend their weakened lives (Cramer, 2003, p. 86). Rogers, therefore, strongly refuted the belief that counsellors’ main role was to evaluate and diagnose that which was wrong with the client and identify the healing objectives to be achieved. Additionally, Rogers did criticize the belief that the counsellors would then issue the directive on how the proposed objectives would be achieved by proposing the right strategies to enable the client to resolve their issues. In order to support his criticism of other counselling approaches, Rogers took the stand that he, as a counsellor was not anticipated to command what the client should do to experience change. On the contrary, he viewed the human nature as able to define its own requirements for any counselling experience. Therapists used a directive-approach to describe therapy to patients and this became globally renowned as characterized by counsellors choosing to offer guidance to the patient in a specified direction. This approach considered the non-directive approach by Rogers as biased given that the counsellor did not use a series of questions, interpretations, and advice during their relationship with the client. Furthermore, the client required assistance to overcome their situation unlike leaving them to choose the solutions to their own problems. Rogers was, however, uncomfortable with the responsibility of being the expert to decide what the client was expected to do to resolve their situation, as dictated by the directive approach. In his non-directive approach, Rogers permits and encourages the client to be on the centre-stage in articulating their emotions and thoughts concerning a given subject. Here, the therapist does not act as an analytical and judgment figure, but as a sounding board and a listener who may provide a response in the form of paraphrasing the most crucial statements by the client. Under such guidance, the client then engages in self-analysis that causes them to examine their own thoughts, while attaining potential self-realization and appropriate accomplishments. This way, the client takes full control of their therapy while the therapist only acts as an assistance who offers assurance and creates a favourable environment characterized by empathy, positive regard, and congruence. To achieve this role, the therapist’s key role is to offer encouragement to the client such that they end up finding their own way towards their individual healing and growth. The establishment of three conditions, empathy, congruence, and positive regard, is, however criticized for lack of scientific study to establish their effectiveness. Consequently, the argument that these three tenets are the core conditions that should be provided by all therapists is wrong as it subjects counsellors to conditional progression of a client’s relationship to the next stage. For the counsellors, the absence of the three elements of a relationship environment stalls the process of having the client’s problems solved because each succeeding stage depends on the outcome of the preceding stage. Furthermore, the counsellor’s adoption of the three elements of a successful client relationship environment is a pre-requisite whether or not the therapist chooses to use person-centred therapy or not. Despite their argument that it is difficult to maintain a person-centred therapy that meets these core conditions, the theory stands out as advocating that only where the patient is provided with access to congruent, empathetic, and non-judgmental self, then healing is guaranteed. However, introducing other aspects such as the knowledge and expertise of the therapists, then it becomes evident that person-centred therapy experts with insufficient knowledge would hinder the attainment of successful patient results. This proves that it is not only the environmental conditions the client is subject to that matter, but also the competence and understanding of the expert. Furthermore, assisting clients to get solutions to their situations does not only depend on the aspect of self. On the contrary, the role of the expert or therapist is not negligible. Person-centred therapy is also under criticism from researchers with proof that the theory is not applicable to some samples under test. For instance, when used with a sample population hospitalized for schizophrenia, the approach was not necessarily effective (Assor, et al., 2004). Furthermore, when used with patients living alone or ‘lost in their own private world’ the theory demonstrates ineffective results (Assor, et al., 2004, p. 50). As a result, person-centred therapy is criticized as lacking adaptability when working with some sections of the society. For instance, while evaluating person centred theory in Japan, the society is highly westernized but the society’s psychological outlook, and not ‘self’ is predominant. Furthermore, the application of person-centred approach is criticized as being in applicable in situations where a supervising adult or parent offers unconditional support with behaviours that they deem as inappropriate in their children (Assor, et al., 2004, p. 49). The evaluation of the application of Rogers’ theory is crucial given that it is today applicable in numerous problem-solving areas. In addition, Rogers’ person-centred approach is criticized for its inability to emphasize the supportive role of the practitioner or therapist. Unlike the directive approaches that over prioritizes and emphasizes the role therapist as supportive, Rogers emphasizes the provision of unconditional understanding and support, given the human tendency to incline towards beneficial goals (Sheldon, et al., 2003, p. 837). Consequently, the person-centred therapy weighs too heavily on the helper’s role of ensuring that the patient finds their way out of a difficult situation while only listening to them and unconditionally supporting them to exploit the potential in them. Critics argue that this approach makes the therapist to lose sight of their need to challenge the patient to identify the solution that best resolves their difficult situation. Furthermore, Sheldon et al (2003, p. 838) highlight that critics argue that the focus of this approach is too much on present therapeutic approach or ‘conscious’ as perceived by the Freudian perspective. Despite the counter criticism that person-centred approach uses the conscious because the unconscious is positive, the therapy has contribute in the development of a small scope for digging into the past life of the client. Such delving into patients past experiences offers an opportunity to ascertain factors and circumstances that could be useful in the recognition of the present status of the client. Furthermore, the therapist does not just delve into offering therapeutic conditions, but respectively hopes that the client will utilize them. Compared to other therapists, Rogers emphasized the fact that the therapist has to enter into the client’s unique phenomenological world to mirror that world. This does not mean that the therapist points out contradictions or disagrees openly with the client (Patterson & Joseph, 2007, p. 118). It does also not mean delving into the client’s consciousness. While Rogers views this approach as a great way of eliminating obstacles and freeing the patient, critiques view his approach as naïve and one that is an obstacle itself since the client is responsible for identifying the best way to resolve their problems. Consequently, Patterson & Joseph (2007, p. 120) reveal criticism against Rogers for deviating from the rigidity experienced in the course of the therapy to taking the client to self-perception and fluidity. Furthermore, not all patients have a positive self-perception of themselves and this means that they could easily get discouraged for being left to search for their own solutions (Joseph & Murphy, 2013). In this case, Joseph and Murphy (2013, p. 27) reveal that the therapist easily losses control of their role by anticipating that the process is only possible under conditions such as congruency, positive regard, and empathy. During moments of client’s difficulty establishing their own solutions, the therapist’s congruency or complete genuine nature may cause more harm, especially if perceived as a requirement for the patient to be perfect. Additionally, this theory is not applicable in cases of patients with schizophrenia that today has a strong biological element, or other disorders like obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, or depression (Joseph & Murphy, 2013, p. 28). For these disorders the nondirective nature of the therapist does not foster growth or empowerment of the client, hence considered as not being valuable. Critiques argue that the therapist’s decision to adapt a different approach to facilitate growth marks the inefficiency of Rogerian perspective in therapy particularly where growth should be promoted. Additionally, some human conditions are senseless when approached using this approach. Such conditions include psychopaths who apparently feels no guilt, remorse, or discomfort for their actions. Psychopaths apparently experiences no anxiety, and incongruence is not apparent despite the fact that the theory suggests it would be substantial. The person-centred approach is also inappropriate for persons with limited potentialities or those that are not fully functioning, thus unable to fulfil their full potential, despite the fact that they have little potential. On the part of the therapist, the conditions required for the therapy process leave room for infinite interpretations. Consequently, it becomes difficult to clearly state which therapists, despite their confession, truly uses Rogerian therapy concepts of congruency, empathy, and unlimited positive regard (Quinn, 2011). With such a wide room for interpretation, it is impossible to distinguish Rogers’s therapy from any other therapist self-interpreted therapies, even though Rogers most likely possessed these qualities. Despite his efforts to record his sessions to prove his argument, Rogers’ person-centred approach overstepped the boundaries of having a private domain of therapy by exposing it to the public for assessment and empirical study. However, person-centred approach was identified as the least effective approach to patient healing in a meta-analysis of psychological effectiveness in 400 studies. Another common criticism of the person-centred therapy is the fact that it does not have any precision and specificity with respect to some concepts and terms. According to researchers, person-centred approach is rated as fairly logically consistent while they maintained that some connections were hardly clear (Bozarth, 2002, p. 78). Consequently, the theory is rarely used in addressing development stages since more emphasis is placed on conscious experience, and not on the unconscious experience as deemed by critics. Bozarth (2002, p. 79) also argues that despite the substantial contribution to psychotherapy, person-centred theory is constrained to the sections of the population where compatibility exists between therapy and cultural and intellectual backgrounds. Besides focusing more on human experience, people-centred theory extends concepts, though appropriate to therapy, could not be all-inclusive or specific to be implemented to all persons. Like other critics, Rogers acknowledges that his theory, person-centred approach, contains unknown extent of human interference and error. However, his admission to such errors does not mean his theory should be decried amidst accusations of ineffectiveness and imprecision (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The reality is that his theory is today renowned for its positive believe in human nature and proven capability to permit and support the client to get their own means to answer their questions. Additionally, Deco and Ryan (2000) argue that the approach encourages the client to identify and follow a route that drives them to fulfil their potential, and this has proven beneficial to thousands of patients in the globe. Furthermore, allowing the client to get to a conclusion on their own is often an empowering experience that promotes self-reliance. This approach, Rogers believed, that was a stimulus to encourage critical thinking as evident with the presented criticism against his theory. This is proof that Rogers managed in his intention to have critics think creatively to criticize the theory while acknowledging that it is a great alternative. Unlike other theorists, Rogers did not undermine freewill and agency will, as he considerably gave attention to the concept of self and suggested that we can all overcome indemnities imposed to us during childhood. In addition, Rogers did not assume that women were more inferior compared to men, nor used animals, instead of humans, thus making it more acceptable and readily applicable in most areas of life. This article evaluates the main criticisms in the contemporary person-centred field. Although there are many psychoanalytical therapists, Karl Rogers offers a fundamental alternative where the counsellor acts to frustrate the client’s avoidance of self-support. Furthermore, the therapist’s attitude is to support, kindness, compassion, and acceptance of validity of patient’s wishes, such that the client actively engages in the self-discovery process. However, critics feel that although empathy, positive regards, and congruence conditions are necessary, they are not sufficient. For instance, supporting the client without challenging them makes the process of change very difficult, and the therapist’s behaviours are limited within such sessions. For the therapists, such conditions limits them to listeners with very constrained guidance or teaching role. Furthermore, critics use meta-analysis findings to reveal that despite its application to multiple settings and cultures, the primary conditions are founded on culture and can be hardly be applied on other cultures. This is because when applied to some cultures, some clients feel that it is inefficient and request for more guidance or structure compared to what is provided by this approach. In addition, the fact that person centred therapy is characterized by less need for the therapists to have any qualifications or knowledge attracts further criticism, especially during diagnosis and background information collection. This is because all the therapist needs are techniques for effective listening, empathizing, responding, and understanding the client. This way, the process ceases to involve specific therapy stages to one that characterized by fluidity as it is all about the clients own change and growth process. For the process to be successful, therapists are expected to respect and trust their clients, and leave it to them to use their natural potential to recover. Bibliography Assor, A., Roth, G. & Deci, E., 2004. The Emotional Costs of Parents Conditional Regard: A Self-detemination theory Analysis. Journal of Personality, Volume 72, pp. 47-88. Bozarth, J., 2002. Nondirectivity in the person-centered approach: Critique of Kahns critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(2), pp. 78-83. Cramer, D., 2003. Facilitativeness, conflict, demand for approval, selfesteem, and Satisfaction with Romantic Relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 137(1), pp. 85-98. Deci, E. & Ryan, R., 2000. The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, Volume 11, pp. 227-268. Deci, E. & Vansteenkiste, M., 2004. Self-Determination Theory and Basic Need Satisfaction: Understanding Human Development in Positive Psychology. Recerchedi Di Psicologia: Special Issue in Positive Psychology, Volume 27, pp. 23-40. Joseph, S., 2004. Client-centred therapy, posttraumatic stress disorder and PostTraumatic Growth: Theory and Practice. Psychology and Psychotherapy, Volume 77, pp. 101-120. Joseph, S. & Linley, P., 2005. Positive Adjustment to Threatening Events: An Organismic Valueing Theory of Growth Through Adversity. Review of General Psychology, Volume 9, pp. 262-280. Joseph, S. & Murphy, D., 2013. Person-Centered Approach, Positive Psychology, and Relational Helping. Psychological Multidisciplinary, Volume 53, pp. 26-51. Patterson, T. & Joseph, S., 2007. Self-Determination Theory And Positive Psychology Self-Determination Theory And Positive Psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Volume 47, pp. 117-140. Quinn, A., 2011. A Person-Centered Approach to the Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Volume 51, pp. 465-491. Sheldon, K., Arndt, J. & Houser-Marko, L., 2003. In Search of the Organismic Valuing Process: The Human Tendency to move towards Beneficial Goal Choices. Journal of Personality, Volume 71, pp. 835-886. Read More