Carl Rogers Research Paper

1795 Words4 Pages

Being born and raised in the USA, Carl Roger’s was an All-American boy growing up, except for being raised in a strict, fundamentalist religious home. Consequently, he grew up with many conditions placed on his existence; he would only be as good as he acted or behaved and the love he received being determined by how others perceived his actions. Admittedly, he was a hardworking and faithful young man, his environment was his reality and was all he knew. As a result, he worked on his family’s farm and became interested in the science of agriculture. So then, while attending school he went on a Christian mission trip to China, which pulled at the strings of his early religious teachings. For this reason, Carl decided to change his educational …show more content…

During the years between, 1928-1940 Rogers worked with thousands of troubled youth referred by the courts it was at this point, when he began developing his ideas and theories of psychotherapy. During this period, Rogers had an opportunity to work with Otto Ranks, an Austrian psychoanalyst who worked with Freud for over two decades; where he gained notable insight in Ranks post-Freudian models of psychoanalysis. Rogers has always credited Rank for helping to shape his “client-centered” therapy and the impact it had on clinical counseling at the time. “I became infected with Rankian ideas”, said Rogers (Kramer, 1995). Otto Ranks theories were formed around the here and now: learning new and unlearning the old. This fit into Roger’s understanding and his own ideas that had been percolating, but Roger’s focal point was the responsibility the therapist has to the client. Similarly, Freud’s psychoanalysis is based on the patient being in control of the session with the therapist not in sight and the patient being able to just speak, allowing the thoughts to come as they may. Whereas, Roger’s took this …show more content…

Skinner, Rogers tendency was to look at the organism as a whole, he saw a total functioning human being, not just its behavior or an isolated event. The whole organism is the potential and the center of energy and will move it towards constant and continual growth. Skinner and behaviorism as a whole could not accept this holistic way of thinking that couldn’t be proven or for the most part tested, it seemed to be all in theory and not a true science. Whereas, Rogers felt strongly that behaviorism was to objective and in essence seeing humans as objects and ultimately training them as you would an animal. In contrast to the behaviorist, Roger’s goes to other extreme from purely physical to purely subjective with the emphasis being on a person’s experience or their perception of the experience. The concern here is that Skinner's theories could be tested through scientific experiments, whereas, Roger’s theories where limited to a person’s experience and left up to their perception of that experience (Leahey,

Open Document