Thoughts on Carl Rogers Theory

5 Commentsby   |  05.02.11  |  The Schools of Psychology (Part IV)

It has been great to hear about Carl Rogers over the past few classes because I was beginning to wonder if nearly all therapists felt that creating a better relationship with the client is not in either party’s best interest. I also have heard little to nothing about Carl Rogers in my previous classes. He is a breath of fresh air in a sea of deterministic psychological theories. I do not find much value in telling a client something like you have a subconscious that is extremely difficult to control/change, but I do see value in Rogers telling the client they have choice and a say in who they are. Not only does Rogers believe that clients and therapists have a stronger relationships but he also has things to say to encourage the further development of the relationship even after they start to open up. I love how Rogers uses lines/sounds like “hmm,” which I have always been told is rude and improper speech, to successfully bring out more from the client. Rogers’s style is as if he is trying to get down on the same level and learn what it is the client is experiencing, rather than lessening objectively, leaving himself almost venerable to the client. I do feel that Rogers’s method requires some kind of similar experience to your client to effectively work. There is some concern to me about how deep this client and therapist relationship goes especially the part where the therapy comes to an end one way or another. I do have to worry about the idea of centering therapy to the point that the client controls the direction and the method so much, but I can appreciate how not putting more consideration into their feelings can hurt rather than help.

Comment

5 Comments

  1. Sam Gibbs
    10:07 pm, 05.02.11

    I would agree with you that Rogers is kind of a nice breath of fresh air. He offers a different take that i feel like I have been looking for, but until this class had never heard of one in particular. Although, as you mentioned I certainly do not feel like it is the be all end all, but I do feel it is a very effective method when coupled with maybe one or two other methods.

  2. Brady Campbell
    10:55 pm, 05.02.11

    I was much more interested when we went over Rogers because he seems to not only be refreshing, but correct in his theory.(and if not, then at least more-so than Freud)

  3. Garrett Beach
    10:56 pm, 05.02.11

    Rogers is definitely different than most other psychologists that we have learned about in class. I really like that he puts himself on the same level as his clients because it makes the clients feel more comfortable and more likely to open up and talk about their problems.

  4. Derek Mar
    11:25 pm, 05.02.11

    I think that Rogers does a great job of breaking down therapy to something basic and straightforward. I like how he gets on the client’s level and just lets them be themselves. He let’s the client know that they are in control of themselves. I don’t really think that he holds up well when dealing with psychopathology though.

  5. Alison
    11:28 pm, 05.02.11

    I absolutely agree with you that Carl Rogers is a breath of fresh air in the way that he emphasizes relationship and de-emphasizes criticism and control. However, I’ve always been a little frustrated with the complete lack of direction in his sessions–I’ve watched the entire Gloria video and couldn’t help but think that although in general a non-directive approach can be extremely helpful in guiding clients to find their own answers, sometimes they need a little push, and direction can help this.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.