RENAISSANCE
ossuhption ihdt fosiershddrnurn trust in the individ-0ol !
self-deter|ninolion and
(2) The [email protected] of accepda(Uncondidonal Positive Regard)is a
highly posilive psychologcalcondition ror nulm beings.
More thon thot,.lt is 'th. c!m-tive foctor in CIie
l-cehter.dThe.opy. It coh be no otherwly given Rogefs theory
ofpothology. r is ho.e cohpldthon rhot since the
therdPistconditions ore 50 highly iniegfdldnd overlop @ch oihe.. I
thinkthdt ot a lnatd-level, lhey ofe
(3) A g@d thdapy will involvethe thdrpist in developirg r
hishlevcl cnpabiliry for orering ulRio mmy difeEnt indili&als
mda venatility in melhods/Nays ofElaling to cliors so that dEE is
ohigh prcbabiuty of r client erpdi-encing a consistenl UPR when
inelation to thar rhepGi
-rhis doan t quite hdrch..... bliclose ...mo.e specificolly, ii
involv* the th.opisr hdvinghigh Unconditionol Positive
slf Rego.d in the iheropltic
(4) Enpdhy, s D expsierce oI b.ing undsrood dd ae.pi.4 is offena
pdkng. rhar lnc clicnt expridces - & &e mphris on rhe e-cpd
(JPR) 6pcL This hlppecsh.n the theBpi' ha experi.ncolsome kind of
accephr dd .mparhjccomecrion vilh $. clieni dmshhis/hcr anempt ro
enrer into th. cli-e'ls vodd md fouos rhe client 6the cli.n! r.ld
ro the de.ipis( dd/or, perh.ps, eryaga in othcr bchlv-i6 rhat ihe
rhdaptst cu obsewe.
I keep rading thi5 .n....I findRoge.s somewhof conflsing onihis
in 1959 sinc he refers ioenpdthy c rhe plfist way tocomnuiicst UPR]
and onotherpldce o3 fhe ort way to conhu-nicdte UPR.....I con t
find thde.ef ..encs dt the fi1ohPii.
To this poi.t, I beiieve thdt Iom g.ounded in the
cli.nt-Centered th.ory of 1959, which! rhink is still the
formdltheorysiotemnt of Rogers, never
I begin to be l6s firriy tied toihe theo.y hae becolse I
thinkthe hpothic exp4ience dndUPA dfe oie. The emporhic q-pe.i.nce
dnd enpdthic octioNgenerate f.oh receivinq oll d-pecis of ihe
client wiJh uncd-dilionol positive regdrd. Theclient s felings,
thouqhts, q-periencd dnd fron. of refa-ehc. of rhe monent or
@cepted with fhis condition....Ii
is rhen ihot the theropist be-geis the qperience of the client s
f.ane at ..leren e -whot is the world like to thepddiculor client?
whot is iheclients mohenidry experiencs2I oh dev.loping rhis oJ the
mment 3o I dri d bit tehtd'live,but it solnds .ight for ne tosoy:
It is inaing with rhe fu-.iiy of UPR thor rhe theraPistb egets an
4periehce of the cli-hr'5 momeniory fem of .efernce perhoPs even oi
!n'dersrdnding of the brodder
(5) h. rhenpis cxpdemtne acceFbr .nplthic undecbding (as
aconsequence of ftending fully ro theclieni lnd ro rhe clie'fs
ahempt roco|miane to tne rhaapis,
Lisining wirh Unconditionol
dd $. rhedpisr ma*ing le$ingcspons.s os Rog.6 egesed meybe
cdled. or "e'rparhic undsGand-ing ftspoBed. s lnry bave bedcdled
for awhnF phs orhei follaking Hpon*: is oner . dcsieblen.rhod of
i!..Fcti'g wiih self-dGclcins, expEsivc clion6 who mable md willing
b relrE to tne thd.-
Ii is in here sonewhre thdt Idisagr wth yo! ond others....dbout
ihe th@ryll I do t.t
RENAISSANCE Spr iDg, z00lthink thot it i5 the client s
peFceprion of the theropist 3 6pothic unde.5rdndinq of the cli-eni
s frome of ref4eice. It isthdt the clienl .eintegrdfa becoGe sh fls
'th. ao.st of ha(in ha pefceptioa) k accePtedby th. th4dpisr. Ihis
w6 rfuearlia d sunhdized by Notl
h \tas n'js nandirediN relontthot . ao..liU d??pd,en inb
o.ani.tid' that pcopb nt nentu|.tr-noil ne.d no tture tttuh t. b.
atcezten a! &.! art'lRoskid, lqA, p.
and in 1951, Rogers stot.hntrv.ols o sihilor but more de-fined
point. Rogers mintainedthor client prog.ees wd fundahentolly d! to
rhe the.opisr socceptdnce dnd rdpect of thep.rson, *hile ndeovofing
io ui-derstond ihe clienl's frame ofreferc .e (Pogeft. 1951. p.
40).
I oh now wonde.ing when ondwhere Rogas fiBt tdlked obouroc.urare
empaJhy. I don t thinkhe do4 ih the 1959 thory5Jorenent...r think
in 1975, perhops, in An Unopp.ecidred Wdyof Being Endeovoring to
un-derstond moy be 6 powe|fll doc.uroie unde8tanding. I knowwhae he
fiBr cotuidered itfrom John Shlins chdpter onenpothy, blt not whr.
Rogersincluded it nuch rn thetheory.
Although the clienr cxpdicn.es !n-deFhndings rhn n'ay in(;lue
bjs/hs
s.lf conpreh.nsibiliiy, ihe m* im-po@t n\inc $our rhe inuaclion
isrhlt ir cdsiscndy conveys the tnmpds acceptmce of rha cli.nr
rcsulr-ins in chdees in rhe clien.s sense olsell s.lfroncepr
disolvins co.di-rions of *oih vnh .he conse'tuntfrcing of rhe
p.non\ capabilides foreEars so*rh effec.iv.ncs. open-
Preny cbs., rent s distodions ond deniols drecrated bf
condifioMl positivefegdrd; the theropisr s UPR cor-reds rhese
intolected vdlu4.
(6) mtuver rhe thmpin k doing,he/$e is avoiding
comou'icahnscnricisn/judgnentrl dibdes. mdal$ arcidins i.nuene on
rhe cliento.hd lhm the influence dnt is dEnpeuncaly nciil,( dou8h
it h srcn-dipitos, bcaus. ft i! nor pat of rherhenpisrt inrentionJ
- rh. i lu.naof iinuhting self-accep@ce.
I thihk this is co..ect blt Ihove looked di it c aeorchingfor
the clint s f.ome of refer-ence...Tlat i3 ihe only thing fo.the
rherdpisr ro do...BLf I onnow thinking thot it fiJs bertefto soy:
Receiving the cliehtslrotn af ref.re ce qith uPe. Ithink it i3 nore
occuroie lo the
(7) The \rhole siturtion is nondirec-rivc b(ause orher thm lne
innuenceon tne pssn of rhe eceprance(LTPRI all rnitules or rctions
that
would diEcr rhc client m sinply notpd of the inhntion to
undestud md
Ri9h1, but nore occurcle lo so/:becduse the therdpist s ohly
inter4t i3 io receive the clienr s
(3) For the thempist ro .cbicve i$ul6in this UPR dEnpy, he/she
nusr hNer high level of uconditiond elf.Es.rdlself{cccpbc. md u
in.egtud shc that pemits hi.r4ier rornend fuly to the sdld of.nc
dientmd b corsis.endy exFnence mdcomunicft d undedmding ani-
Yd, the tem is Theropisr Un-condirionol Positive self
Reg{.d.
Jerord. hrve I givm a skerch of your$edy rhich h based on Roge^.
burgives m enphIh fid m*es it dextension oI Rog6 CCT?
Nope, no fedl dtehsion of thetheory....(Althouqh extension
It is o clarificotion of rhe rhe-ory thot hd beer
riisglidedsomehow ro focG on Enpdthyrothr thdn th. cenr.o
focer,Unconditiohdl Pditive Regord.
Thorks for youf sunndry,
