1. Ethics, Issues & Questions

2. View of human nature
That the basic nature of the human being, when
functioning freely, is constructive and trustworthy’
(Rogers, 1961, p.194), is implicit in person centred
philosophy. While oft-criticized as being overly optimistic
and naïve, such an image does not deny the capacity for
destructive thought or action, but rather, stresses the
potential of the person for growth (Merry, 2000). In
process, and moving toward actualizing their potential –
to the extent their environment permits – individuals are
viewed as capable of developing socially and emotionally
in ‘self-enhancing ways and in a manner which will
advance the common good’ (Thorne, 1991, p.97). In
(therapeutic) practice this means that the client has the
‘strength to devise, quite unguided, the steps which will
lead him to a more mature and more comfortable
relationship with his reality’ (Rogers, 1946, p.419, my
italics).

3. A belief in the trustworthiness, inherent goodness
and wisdom of the client is considered fundamental
to the therapeutic relationship, in which the client
(having experienced the counsellor’s attitudes to
some degree) is viewed as having the capacity for
perceptual and consequently behavioural
reorganization (Rogers, 1947). Operating on these
assumptions, the best way to ‘help’ the client is
through the provision of a relationship (imbued with
values/ attitudes inherent in the PCA) wherein
he may discover his strengths, move toward finding
his own answers and make personal sense of himself
and life.

4. Limitations: inherent in the approach or the individual counsellor?
 While maintaining that, ‘the limitations of person-centred therapy reside not
in the approach itself, but in the limitations of particular therapists and their
ability or lack of it to offer their clients the necessary conditions for change
and development’ (Thorne, 1991, p.36), Thorne, nevertheless, freely admits
that in his own experience, there are certain kinds of clients who are unlikely
to be much helped by the approach (ibid). Similarly, Rogers himself, was of
the opinion ‘that psychotherapy of any kind, including person-centred
therapy, is probably of the greatest help to people who are closest to a
reasonable adjustment to life’ (ibid).That is not to imply however, that the
approach – only applicable to neurotic individuals – is inappropriate for and
ineffective with more severely disturbed and/or psychotic clients. Research
has countered this myth (see Shlien, 2003; Joseph and Worsley, 2005);
including the problem laden Wisconsin research project, which provided
sufficient evidence to indicate that, the presence of Rogers’ conditions, had
some positive impact with (hospitalized psychotic) clients.
 Regarding the effectiveness of client-centred therapy, I was very struck by the
following words ofRogers (which also convey my experience of how colleagues
view the approach):
 Sometimes people feel that client-centered therapy is good for going only so
far, and when you really strike difficult problems you should probably be
more confronting or more this or more that. I think – and I feel quite strongly
from my experience – that that is really a mistaken line of thought. I think
that when the situation is most difficult, that’s when a client-centered
approach is most needed, and what is needed there is a deepening of the
conditions…not trying something more technique oriented. (Rogers and
Russell, 2002, pp. 258-9)

5. Principled non-directiveness: the nature of influence
A central attitude expressing trust in the client’s organismic self-
determination and authority is that of principled non-
directiveness. As the ‘very fibre of the core conditions’ (Levitt,
2005, p.6), and a consequence of living person-centred
philosophy, this (counsellor) posture offers the client a safe,
growth-promoting environment that serves to undermine
conditions of worth, enhance self-worth and facilitate
congruence and/or psychological adjustment. As ‘an active and
pro-active way of interaction’ (Mearns and Thorne, 2000, p.81),
non-directivity implies accepting the client’s subjective reality
and self-authority respecting his sense of direction (in terms of
process and content), and relying upon his capacity
(increasingly guided by his organismic valuing process) to
explore and resolve his issues. As a ‘facilitative responsiveness’
enabling clients to discover their strengths and become
directive of their own lives, the non-directive stance emphasizes
that the ‘changing factor’ in therapy, rather than particular
therapist skills, interventions, techniques, is in fact the client
(Schmid, 2000).

6. The counsellor’s conscious relinquishing of power –
‘surrender’ of control (Prouty, 2000), through congruence,
unconditional acceptance and sensitive empathic
understanding, follow from subscribing to a philosophy
that genuinely ‘identifies the client as his best expert about
his life’ (Bozarth, 1998, p.4). This logical mode of response,
serves to protect client autonomy, promote freedom and
trust within the relationship, and enable clients to explore,
reorganize and identify the value system and lifestyle that
they discern (through dialogue) as being important to them
(Merry, 2002). Further, since practitioners have an ethical
responsibility to strive to mitigate (even unintended) harm
to the client, non-directivity in limiting the ‘iatrogenic
influence’ (Witty, 2005, p.237) reflects a commitment to the
principle of non-maleficence (BACP 2001), thus serving
ethical and therapeutic aims.

7. The crux of non-directivity relates to the nature and extent of
the counsellor’s influence and its compatibility with Rogerian
philosophy. Perspectives such as those of Patterson and others
(mentioned throughout), view non-directivity as a central
distinguishing characteristic of the PCA (and a defining
criterion of their identity and way of relating with clients). In
their practice, there is no room for directivity; not even the
‘instrumental’ kind, which directive in intent, is used to effect
change (see Patterson, 2000). For Levitt (2005), it implies ‘only
one kind of intent: a shedding of power over the client and his
or her process, and letting go of the expert stance or role’ (p.8).
When a counsellor presumes to know what is wrong with and
best for the client, she has failed to maintain an
‘uncontaminated dedication’ (Bozarth, 1998, p.100) to the
client’s narrative and allow the locus of decision-making and
responsibility (i.e. internal locus of evaluation) to remain with
him. Consequently, ‘the potency of the approach can not be
fully realized if the trust of the client by the therapist is short-
circuited with interventions and with the therapist’s ideas of
what is ‘really’ best for the client’ (ibid, p.5).

8. In order to facilitate self-ownership and direction, then,
counsellors strive not to behave in ways likely to distract
the client from focusing on his own
experiencing. Nevertheless,
since ‘all psychotherapies may be analyzed as occasions of
social influence’ (Witty, 2005, p.228), it is generally
accepted that influence of some kind is an inevitable part
of the counselling process and consequence of ‘being in
relationship.’ In fact, as Merry (2000) and others have
noted, if this were not a reality, there would be little point,
let alone a demand for this type of ‘psychological
opportunity’. However, as a person-centred practitioner,
one hopes that the nature and extent of influence is
consistent with philosophy; that is, ‘the goal of this
influence is to free and foster the process of self-
actualization in the client. This goal is not chosen by
either the therapist or the client – it is given by the nature
of the client as a living organism’ (Patterson, 2000, p.182).

9. Experience as a person-centred counsellor
While I aim to create a collaborative, empowering
relationship which validates client’s feelings/needs,
enhances self-worth and agency, reduces the power
imbalance,etc, I am aware of my perceived expert
status (often in the initial stages of the relationship).
In my experience, however, clients soon learn,
through my non-directiveness, that I am not an
authority on them/their lives, can and will not ‘rescue’
them (in the sense of becoming a disempowering,
external locus of evaluation), and essentially, can not
alleviate the suffering that has prompted them to seek
help and occasioned our encounter.

10. Personal value system
Adopting a person centred way of being will reflect my personal
(including professional) values (and biases!); notions of trust, respect,
autonomy, assumptions regarding un/healthy functioning, growth-
promoting relationships, etc; and necessarily reveal something of my
own ‘moral visions’ (Christopher, 1996); as well as, affect how and
what I respond to. Regardless then of how non-directively I realize the
conditions, my engagement with clients will, in some way, impact on
the nature and direction of the therapeutic encounter.

The point, however, as Merry (2002) remarks, ‘is not to deny that
unintended influence and direction might result from the ways in
which we respond to clients but to acknowledge the intention to
maintain an attitude as free as possible of the desire to control or
direct people towards particular predetermined goals’
(p.91)Accordingly, remaining cognizant of how one’s internal process
affects one’s ability to attend to the client, including the fact that
one’s setting aside (bracketing) of theories, moral visions, will be
incomplete or partial (although hopefully, sufficient to be/remain
open to the client’s experiencing) is vital (Brazier, 1992).

11. A different way of being
 The person centred counsellor works on the understanding that:
 the constructive forces in the individual can be trusted, and relied upon…that
the client knows the areas of concern which he is ready to explore…is the best
judge as to the most desirable frequency of interviews…can lead the way more
efficiently than the therapist into deeper concerns…will protect himself from
panic by ceasing to explore an area which is becoming too painful…can
achieve for himself far truer and more sensitive and accurate insights into
constructive behaviour. (Rogers 1946, p.420)

 From this perspective the counsellor’s ‘response-ability’ (Schmid, 2000) to the
person of the client, her participation or ‘presence’ (Thorne, 1991) in the
relationship reflect the reality that ‘the client-centered therapist stands at an
opposite pole, both theoretically and practically’ (Rogers, 1946, p.420) (to
other/expert-oriented modalities). In offering a permissive and understanding
environment which can allow for ‘a process of communication and encounter
which moves towards mutuality and dialogue’, (Schmid, 2000, p.10) the
interpersonal relationship is essentially about equality, respect and trust; and
as Wilkins (2005) notes, about communicating to the client that he is capable
of making decisions about the process and content of his therapy.

12. Practising ‘client-centredly’: a personal challenge
Counsellors experiencing empathy and respectful of the client’s (self-
expertise) internal directive, ‘can not be up to other things, have other
intentions without violating the essence of person-centered therapy.
To be up to other things…whatever that might be – is a ‘yes, but’
reaction to the essence of the approach (Bozarth, 1998, p.11).

In the process of attempting to grasp the client’s inner experience,
there have been occasions when I have become a little distracted, and
possibly (probably!) been ‘up to other things.’ While my response may
spontaneously emerge from our interaction, I am aware of my
‘conditional’ trusting of the client’s ability to grow; a real sense that
their ‘getting in touch’ with their AT and movement toward ‘full
functionality’, is dependant on their willingness/readiness to explore
what ‘I’ conceive to be their ‘blocks to development’. Although a felt
sense, or (persistent) concern about some aspect of the client’s story
may be shared within the parameters of congruence ,I am also
conscious of my desire for clients, particularly at ‘stuck points’ to at
least try and look at the underling issues, gain a more accurate
perception of aspects of themselves, their current reality, as well as,
alternative, more healthy ways of responding/behaving.

13. Issues and Questions
The History of Client-Centered Therapy
 Carl Rogers was one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th-century. He was a
humanist thinker and believed that people are fundamentally good. He also believed
that people
 have an actualizing tendency, or a desire to fulfill their potential and become the best
people they can be.
 Rogers initially started out calling his technique non-directive therapy. While his goal
was to be as non-directive as possible, he eventually realized that therapists guide
clients even in subtle ways. He also found that clients often do look to their therapists
for some type of guidance or direction. Eventually, the technique came to be known as
client-centered therapy. Today, Rogers' approach to therapy is often referred to by
either of these two names, but it is also frequently known simply as Rogerian therapy.
 It is also important to note that Rogers was deliberate in his use of the term client rather
than patient. He believed that the term patient implied that the individual was sick and
seeking a cure from a therapist. By using the term client instead, Rogers emphasized the
importance of the individual in seeking assistance, controlling their destiny and
overcoming their difficulties. Self-direction plays a vital part of client-centered therapy.
 Much like psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, Rogers believed that the therapeutic
relationship could lead to insights and lasting changes in a client. While Freud focused
on offering interpretations of what he believed were the unconscious conflicts that led
to a client's troubles, Rogers believed that the therapist should remain non-directive.
That is to say, the therapist should not direct the client, should not pass judgments on
the client's feelings and should not offer suggestions or solutions. Instead, the client
should be the one in control.

14. How Does Client-Centered Therapy Work?
Mental health professionals who utilize this approach
strive to create a therapeutic environment that is
conformable, non-judgmental and empathetic. Two of
the key elements of client-centered therapy are that
it:
Is non-directive. Therapists allow clients to lead the
discussion and do not try to steer the client in a
particular direction.
Emphasizes unconditional positive regard. Therapists
show complete acceptance and support for their
clients.
According to Carl Rogers, a client-centered therapist
needs three key qualities:

15. Genuineness:
 The therapist needs to share his or her feelings honestly. By modeling this
behavior, the therapist can help teach the client to also develop this important
skill.
 Unconditional Positive Regard:
 The therapist must accept the client for who they are and display support and
care no matter what the client is facing or experiencing. Rogers believed that
people often develop problems because they are used to only receiving
conditional support; acceptance that is only offered if the person conforms to
certain expectations. By creating a climate of unconditional positive regard,
the client feels able to express his or her emotions without fear of rejection.
 Rogers explained:
 "Unconditional positive regard means that when the therapist is experiencing
a positive, acceptant attitude toward whatever the client is at that moment,
therapeutic movement or change is more likely. It involves the therapist's
willingness for the client to be whatever feeling is going on at that moment -
confusion, resentment, fear, anger, courage, love, or pride…The therapist
prizes the client in a total rather than a conditional way."
 Empathetic Understanding:
 The therapist needs to be reflective, acting as a mirror of the client's feelings,
thoughts. The goal of this is to allow the client to gain a clearer understanding
of their own inner thought, perceptions and emotions.
 By exhibiting these three characteristics, therapists can help clients grow
psychologically, become more self-aware and change their behavior via self-
direction. In this type of environment, a client feels safe and free from
judgment. Rogers believed that this type of atmosphere allows clients to
develop a healthier view of the world and a less distorted view of themselves.

16. How Effective Is Client-Centered Therapy?
Several large-scale studies have shown that the three
qualities that Rogers emphasized, genuineness,
unconditional positive regard and empathetic
understanding, are all beneficial. However, some
studies have found that these factors alone are not
necessarily enough to promote lasting change in
clients.