Hi. I’m Greg. I can be wordy.
For example, I am an impact-regarding, social-and-emotional, trauma-informed, and person-centered aspiring human.
However, here you are reading this now and none of that means much, right? I know. It’s just that I’m tired. Existentially exhausted, and I didn’t do any of the things to ensure that my work remained in an accessible and organized fashion. One blog long gone and the original pieces jumbled together on a hard drive that is nearly indecipherable because I’m multiply neurodivergent and, as I just mentioned, exhausted. One penniless podcast suspended and largely lost because of copyright infringement and a nervous system that never knew anything but keep treading water at all costs. Just keep treading.
All of that requires unpacking, which I have done in both podcast and blog formats as well as a long, long run on TWFKAT, the website formerly known as twitter.
So tread I will.
This post isn’t actually about me, so let me get to the thing. (I get off on tangents as well. Lots. Often.)
My interest, today, is unraveling a bit of Carl Rogers’ person-centered therapy, which has informed my practice (as both a speech/language therapist and coach for Autistic, neurodivergent, and intellectually and Developmentally Disabled folks) for almost 3 decades. Plenty exists on the internet regarding Rogers, his ideas and work, so I’ll not pre-belabor (prelabor?!) points that I will eventually belabor.
Carl Rogers, then.
Person-centered therapy (P-CT).
And a fundamental framing from Rogers regarding P-CT.
There are six necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, as communicated by Carl Rogers, in 1957. Which is 66 long years ago. Still, I promise you Rogers was saying something incredibly important.
These six conditions, in Rogers’ own words, require that…
1. Two persons are in psychological contact.
2. The first, whom we shall term the client, is in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious.
3. The second person, whom we shall term the therapist, is congruent or integrated in the relationship.
4. The therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client.
5. The therapist experiences an empathic understanding of the client’s internal frame of reference and endeavors to communicate this experience to the client.
6. The communication to the client of the therapist’s empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal degree achieved.
One existential condition, two focused upon “the client,” and three illuminating “the therapist.” All necessary. And, all sufficient. To provide an environment in which therapeutic personality change is likely to happen.
Let’s unpack and explore these conditions, starting with the most critical, without which no additional conditions can otherwise occur. Which is, that, “Two persons are in psychological contact.”
Rogers goes on to define “psychological contact” as a minimal relationship. That two people are interacting. That’s it. Minimum and sufficient.[1]
Next, Rogers zooms in on “the client,” indicating that they are, “…in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious.” This term, “incongruence,” presents a challenging construct that Rogers would go on, throughout his career, to modify. Here, in this piece from 1956, he explains that incongruence “…refers to a discrepancy between the actual experience of the organism and the self-picture of the individual insofar as it represents that experience.”[2]
The third condition shifts the interpersonal focus. Rogers says, “The second person, whom we shall term the therapist, is congruent or integrated in the relationship.” He goes on to say, “…the therapist should be, within the confines of this relationship, a congruent, genuine, integrated person. It means that within the relationship he is freely and deeply himself, with his actual experience accurately represented by his awareness of himself. It is the opposite of presenting a facade, either knowingly or unknowingly.” A more common word that reasonably captures Rogers’ construct of congruence is authenticity. This might also include transparency, honesty, and genuineness.[3]
Fourth, the therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client. Rogers adds, “To the extent that the therapist finds himself experiencing a warm acceptance of each aspect of the client’s experience as being a part of that client, he is experiencing unconditional positive regard. It means that there are no conditions of acceptance, no feeling of ‘I like you only if you are thus and so.’ It means a ‘prizing’ of the person. It is at the opposite pole from a selective evaluating attitude—‘You are bad in these ways, good in those’.”[4]
The fifth condition, like the third and fourth, focuses on the perceived expert, indicating that, “The therapist experiences an empathic understanding of the client’s internal frame of reference and endeavors to communicate this experience to the client.” Rogers says more. “To sense the client’s private world as if it were your own, but without ever losing the ‘as if’ quality—this is empathy, and this seems essential to therapy. To sense the client’s anger, fear, or confusion as if it were your own, yet without your own anger, fear, or confusion getting bound up in it, is the condition we are endeavoring to describe.” Empathy, similar to unconditional positive regard, communicates a shared human experience and brings the therapist and client into deeper relationship wherein any perceived or absolute power dynamics are dissipated to the extent essential to allow the client to experience the sixth condition. Which is that, “The communication to the client of the therapist’s empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal degree achieved.” Further, “…therapist behaviors and words are perceived by the client as meaning that to some degree the therapist accepts and understands him.”
That’s a whole lot. All of it. I know.
Having now unpacked and elaborated a bit, let’s now repack the six conditions which, according to Carl Rogers and any therapist or expert endeavoring toward person-centered practice, are necessary and sufficient for therapeutic personality change, reviewing them in order and consecutively, without interruption.
1. Two persons are in psychological contact.
2. The first, whom we shall term the client, is in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious.
3. The second person, whom we shall term the therapist, is congruent or integrated in the relationship.
4. The therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client.
5. The therapist experiences an empathic understanding of the client’s internal frame of reference and endeavors to communicate this experience to the client.
6. The communication to the client of the therapist’s empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal degree achieved.
What do you think?
I will share what immediately occurs to me.
Do I believe that these six conditions are, in fact, sufficient and necessary for therapeutic personality change? Considering that “therapeutic” implies that the changes are desired and/or accepted by the client, beneficial to the client, and directly influenced by the relationship between the therapist and the client? In a word? Yes.
However, “sufficient” is not my goal. To me, “sufficient” implies a minimum-necessary. A bare minimum, even. I’m not interested in merely necessary and sufficient. This is where I’ve integrated trauma-informed care into a therapeutic and pedagogical endeavor that I call: Impact Regarding, Social and Emotional (IRSE) praxis.[5] I think it is critical that we, as perceived experts, who Rogers calls, “therapists,” remain vigilant and aware of the impacts our behavior has on perceived novices, who Rogers calls, “clients.” Certainly, congruence, if expanded, touches upon this. But, again, I want to travel beyond sufficiency and approach efficacy. Meaning our work is effective, efficient, and valid. That is, we do what we say we’re doing and what we’re doing has the impact desired by the perceived novices we influence.
Nevertheless, Rogers communicated a bare minimum that is perfectly acceptable to me…as a bare minimum. It is now my and our responsibility, as species siblings, to support both myself (always myself, as much as I inevitably forget/neglect) and those in my influence sphere to travel beyond that which is basic, sufficient, and minimally necessary. That’s my trip, at least. Perhaps we’re on similar trips and might consider resonating and building a culture of kind, mindful co-existence as species siblings on this home planet and universe that created us. If so, hang out. I love the company. You’re always welcome.
-G
Reference:
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103.
[1] I might argue for adding “at least two people” since therapeutic personality change can and does happen within group contexts.
[2] We can think of Rogers’ “Self-picture,” in language that is more common. Starting with ‘self-image,’ which aligns with other popular concepts like ‘self-esteem,’ ‘self-worth,’ and ‘self-identity.’ Incongruence aligns with a negative or critical self-picture, as congruence implies a neutral-to-positive satisfying, or acceptable self-picture.
[3] Rogers does not illuminate, here, the construct of therapist ‘congruence’ beyond it being a therapeutic tool to be used with or on a client. However, it seems important, if not critical, that therapists actually endeavor toward existing, ourselves, in states of existential congruence. That is, to work toward personal congruence outside of any immediate relationship. That we, the experts, actually spend time self-reflecting and, if necessary, seeking supports to shift away from incongruence ourselves, which would deleteriously influence the clients over whom we wield power/expertise.
[4] To me, there is an acknowledgement here of the shared human condition between two people, particularly within relationships wherein a definable power differential exists. To be regarded unconditionally and positively as a person is to be validated as an equal. A partner. A species sibling. A co-inhabitant on this planet hurtling through the solar system, galaxy, and universe.
[5] A comprehensive and aligning document illuminating Trauma Informed Care exists on the website of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration linked here. Additionally, I’ve self-published a piece illuminating my IRSE praxis, linked here.
Leave a Reply