Psychological Reports, 2010, 107, 2, 647-658. © Psychological Reports 2010

DOI 10.2466/17.PR0.107.5.647-658 ISSN 0033-2941

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PRESCOTT LECKY’S THEORY OF SELF-CONSISTENCY AND CARL ROGERS’ SELF-THEORY1, 2

PETER F. MERENDA

University of Rhode Island

Summary.—The teachings of Prescott Lecky on the self-concept at Columbia University in the 1920s and 1930s and the posthumous publications of his book on self-consistency beginning in 1945 are compared with the many publications of Carl Rogers on the self-concept beginning in the early 1940s. Given that Rogers was a graduate student at Columbia in the 1920s and 1930s, the striking similarities between these two theorists, as well as claims attributed to Rogers by Rogers’ biog-raphers and writers who have quoted Rogers on his works relating to self-theory, strongly suggest that Rogers borrowed from Lecky without giving him the proper credit. Much of Rogers’ writings on the self-concept included not only terms and concepts which were original with Lecky, but at times these were actually identical.

In 2007, Merenda chaired and presented in a session on psychothera-py, a paper discussing relationships among Carl Rogers, Frederick Thorne, Victor Raimy, and Arthur Combs, among others. The title of his paper was “Did Carl Rogers intentionally fail to credit Prescott Lecky and Victor Raimy in his published works on the self-concept?” (Merenda, 2007). In that presentation, he challenged the claim made by Rogers.

Rogers’ biographer, Kirschenbaum (2004, p. 120), wrote that Rogers was the developer of “a self-theory of personality” without any mention of or reference to Prescott Lecky (1945, 1951). In his presentation, Merenda (2007) cited several passages in chapters (pp. 224-267) written by Freder-ick Thorne in the second edition of Lecky’s book (1951), as well as several statements in published works by recognized authorities attesting to the fact that Lecky was the first personality theorist to expound on the self-concept as a unitary and self-consistent phenomenon. The present paper is focused on the similarity of published statements about the self-concept in personality theory by Rogers and those by Lecky prior to his premature death in 1941 and in his posthumous public works. Background

Before a discussion of the issues underlying the discussion, the reader deserves to be made aware of the role of some of the principal psycholo-gists involved besides this author (these are in alphabetical order). 1Address correspondence to Peter F. Merenda, Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881.2This paper, presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in Pittsburgh, PA, March 13–15, 2009, is a modified version of the presentation at the 78th An-nual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, PA, March 22–25, 2007.

P. F. MERENDA648

Heinz L. Ansbacher was a graduate student in psychology at Colum-bia University in the early 1930s and delivered the first Clarke–Lecky Lec-ture at the University of Rhode Island in March 1980. In his published article based primarily on the lecture (Ansbacher, 1981), he wrote a brief biographical sketch of Prescott Lecky and expounded on Lecky’s general theory of self-consistency and his relationship with Lecky as well as his own relationship with Alfred Adler (pp. 791-792).

Walter V. Clarke and the present author were close collaborators in re-search with personality assessment systems based in large part on Lecky’s theory. It was Clarke who introduced Merenda to the theory of self-con-sistency in 1957 and presented him a copy of Self-consistency: a Theory of Personality (Lecky, 1951).

Arthur Combs was one of Rogers’ graduate students at Ohio State University in the 1940s and delivered the fifth Clarke–Lecky Lecture in Providence, Rhode Island.

Howard Kirschenbaum is the most prominent biographer of Carl Rogers, beginning 30 years ago (Kirschenbaum, 1979) and including a vo-luminous book (Kirschenbaum, 2007). An article by Kirschenbaum (2004) stimulated the author, who was a student of Rogers at the University of Wisconsin in 1957, to contemplate the issues discussed there. Merenda and Kirschenbaum continued correspondence from 2004 to 2007.

Victor C. Raimy was Rogers’ first doctoral student at Ohio State Uni-versity and defended his dissertation in 1943, just before reporting to ac-tive duty in World War II. His dissertation synthesized for the first time self-concept theories, including Lecky’s, and applied them to counseling and personality organization. Raimy delivered the fourth Clarke–Lecky Lecture.

Frederick C. Thorne was introduced to Merenda by Walter Clarke in 1957, after it was realized that Rogers had not mentioned to his stu-dents the influence of Lecky on the development of his “self-theory.” Both Clarke and Thorne informed Merenda that Rogers had been in the same class with them when Lecky first introduced his students to his “new the-ory of personality” (self-consistency) after he returned from a year’s study (1927–28) with Alfred Adler in Vienna (see Merenda, 1978; Ansbacher, 1981).

Beyond an intensive study of the 2nd edition of Lecky’s book, Mer-enda was tutored personally on the theory of self-consistency by Freder-ick Thorne, who in Chapter 1 of Lecky’s second edition, “A Biographical Sketch,” wrote, “Lecky was an admirer of Dr. Adler and integrated many of his concepts into the new self-consistency of the theory of personality. He was particularly impressed by the Adlerian insistence that factors re-lated to ego development could be more important than sexuality in many

SIMILARITIES OF LECKY’S AND ROGERS’ THEORIES 649

personalities. From the Adlerian theory of style of life, Mr. Lecky elaborat-ed his own ideas of the importance of discovering the person’s conception of himself” (p. l3). Also see Adler (1924). Comparison of What Two Biographers of Carl Rogers Said About the Origins of

Self-theory of PersonalityFour decades prior to the publications of the two major biographies

by Kirschenbaum (2004, 2007), Constantine “Gus” Dallas submitted a Ph.D. dissertation, “A Biography of Rogers,” at the University of Wiscon-sin, Madison. In the Dallas biography, Rogers’ theory of personality was compared with Lecky’s theory of self-consistency (Dallas, 1964, pp. 114-124). These pages contain many direct quotes from Lecky (1945, 1951). In Kirschenbaum (2004) there is no mention of Lecky, but later in his book (Kirschenbaum, 2007), Lecky is cited on six pages after Kirschenbaum was alerted by Merenda of Lecky’s work at Columbia during the period Rog-ers was a graduate student there (see Kirschenbaum, 2007, pp. 234-240). Kirschenbaum’s book of 720 pages covers the life and works of Rogers from the time of his birth in 1902 to his death in 1987 and included an Epi-logue beyond his death. However, Dallas’ dissertation ends with the de-parture of Rogers from Madison to La Jolla, California, in 1963. Several points of comparison can be made.

Comments on Rogers’ self-theory by Kirschenbaum (2007).—One finds these comments on Rogers in Kirschenbaum (2004), “Building on the Ge-stalt and the phenomological movement of psychology and on the works of his students, Victor Raimy (1943, 1948) and Donald Snygg and Arthur Combs (1949), he developed a ‘self-theory’ of personality.  .  .  . the theory describes how an individual’s concept of self emerges, how the process of socialization causes individuals to distrust their feelings and sense of self, how experiences that are inconsistent with the concept become denied and distorted causing personal distress and psychological problems, and how the therapeutic relationship can help the individual restructure the sense of self, allowing previously denied and distorted experiences into aware-ness leading to reduction in stress and openness to new experiences” (p. 120). In the later biography, Kirschenbaum (2007) wrote, “Rogers’ theory was also a ‘self-theory’, the self being one important part of a person’s phe-nomenal field. Here, he followed a recent tradition of psychology, a rela-tively new school of thought which regarded the self as the ‘organizing and creative and adaptive core of personality which was most influential in determining a person’s behavior’” (p. 230). “The concept of self grows out of the interaction between the child and his environment.  .  .  . Once the concept of self is formed, it is difficult to change, and it governs a person’s behavior” (p. 231). At this point, the reader is referred to Merenda’s ex-position (1987, 1989, 1991) in which he expounded on Lecky’s theory of

P. F. MERENDA650

self-consistency. Rogers presented his theory in Client-centered Therapy: It’s Current Practice, Implications, and Theory (1951a) as a series of 19 proposi-tions, including IX, which states: “As a result of interaction with the envi-ronment, and particularly as a result of evaluation interaction with others, the structure of self is formed—an organized fluid, but consistent concep-tual pattern of perceptions of characteristics and relationships of the ‘I’ or ‘me’ together with values attached to these concepts” (p. 232).

“Most (people) formed their understanding of Rogers’ self-theory from the substantial chapter in Client-centered Therapy in which Rogers de-scribed how the concept of self is formed, how it influences behavior, how problems arise and how change occurs in the development of a healthier personality in therapy” (see p. 233).

Comments made on Lecky’s and Rogers’ views of self-concepts by Dallas (1964).—(a) “The presentation of this unitary self concept may be thought of as good” (p. 114). (b) “We conceive the personality as an organization of values which are felt to be consistent with one another. Behavior ex-presses the effort to maintain the integrity and unity of the organization” (p. 114). (c) “To constantly change with each unexpected event would re-sult in a constantly changing perspective of the world. The organism does not operate in this manner, for if it did, it might be said that the indi-vidual would have no personality” (p. 116). (d) “The nucleus of the sys-tem, around which the rest of the system revolves, is the individual’s idea or conception of himself” (p. 116). (e) “Rogers’ theory of personality was derived from a view which fused self-concept with one’s field of experi-ence. From this viewpoint, it was necessary to develop those propositions which are consistent with an individual’s view of the world” (p. 117). (f) “Rogers’ view of the importance of self-consistency seems to have been drawn from the thinking of Lecky as well as his own experiences on the therapeutic setting” (p. 122).

Dallas summarized Rogers’ theory of personality by stating, “The fol-lowing Rogerian concepts seem to be related to those of Goldstein, Ang-yal, or Lecky” (p. 124). These concepts were summarized by Dallas (1964; p. 124) in his dissertation in which he claimed Rogers incorporated into his theory five concepts which were originally from three other psycholo-gists: (a) “The organization reacts in a holistic manner” (Goldstein, 1939; Angyal, 1941; Lecky, 1951); (b) “To understand man one studies human behavior” (Goldstein); (c) “The organism develops values in a manner which is consistent” (Lecky); (d) “The organism moves toward the auton-omy and away from heteronomy” (Angyal); and (e) “The self-actualiza-tion tendency exists in man” (Goldstein & Angyal).

Quotes from Lecky (1951) on the theory of self-consistency.—Perhaps the most significant passages from Lecky (1951) are those in Chapter XI, pp.

SIMILARITIES OF LECKY’S AND ROGERS’ THEORIES 651

219-236, which were added by Thorne to the first edition prepared by Lecky’s widow, Kathryn (Lecky, 1945). These are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Lecky on Self-consistency

(a) “A person’s nuclear ideas concerning meaning of himself and the world are con-stantly undergoing revision as new experiences are presented” (p. 227).

(b) “Neurotic behavior is a reflection of the fact that the individual strives to main-tain the nuclear composition acquired in childhood and early life, behaving in accordance with immature attitudes and resisting conflicting new experiences which would tend to force personality reorganization” (pp. 227-228).

(c) “The speed and extension of the reorganization process will be determined by the magnitude and urgency of presentation of new ideas which are presented for assimilation as well as the degree of inconsistency with existing organiza-tion (p. 229).

In Appendix I (pp. 245-255), Thorne inserted in the book a formal ad-dress given in 1938 by Lecky before the Mental Hygiene section of the New York Society for the Experimental Study of Education. Significant in that address is Lecky’s statement, “.  .  . all of the ideas that belong to the system must seem to be consistent with one another.” Also, “If a new idea seems to be consistent with ideas already in the system, and particularly with the individual’s conception of himself, it is accepted and assimilated easily. If it seems to be inconsistent, however, it meets with the resistance and is likely to be rejected” (p. 246).

In Appendix II, which was titled “Personal Counseling” (pp. 257-275), are the five statements presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2 Further Statements by Lecky on the Theory of Self-consistency (Lecky, 1951)

(a) “We conceive of the mind or personality as an organization of ideas which are felt to be consistent with one another. On the other hand, ideas whose inconsistency is recognized as personality develops must be expelled from the system.” (p. 263)

(b) “The nucleus of the system around which the rest of the system revolves is the in-dividual’s conception of himself. Any idea which is inconsistent which the indi-vidual’s conception of himself cannot be assimilated but instead gives rise to an in-consistency which must be removed as soon as possible” (pp. 263-264).

(c) “It is sometimes necessary to alter the opinion one holds of himself. This is difficult for the individual’s conception of himself and is the central action of his whole life history” (pp. 264-265).

(d) “Of special importance from the standpoint of education is the phenomenon of resistance. When one idea has been accepted, it opposes the acceptance of other ideas which are not consistent with it, the problem of resistance has received scant attention in educational psychology which conceives of learning as a process of habit formation through exercises” (pp. 266-276).

(e) “Psychology, on the other hand, although it recognizes resistance, regards it as a device to protect the neurosis and treats it as a phenomenon of abnormal psychol-ogy” (p. 267).

P. F. MERENDA652

To help the reader to detect close similarities between the writings of Lecky and of Rogers, Table 3 presents statements in the published works of Rogers which are related to his self-theory.

TABLE 3Statements by Rogers on Self-theory

(a) Rogers (1947) wrote, “It would appear that when all the ways in which the indi-vidual perceived himself all perceptions of the qualities, abilities, impulses, and at-titudes of the person, all perceptions of himself in relation to others, are accepted into the organized conscious concept of the self” (p. 360).

(b) A few years later, Rogers (1951a) wrote, “When one of us is able to permit all our attitudes and our experiences, conscious and accurate symbolization, or to ap-proach every opportunity freely and with an open mind, most of us are able to ex-perience considerable portions of our world and ourselves. Our defenses are nei-ther so extensive nor so invulnerable that our capacity to engage in and profit from experience is narrowly circumscribed” (p. 524).

(c) In the same year, Rogers (1951b) wrote in a book coedited by Blake and Raimy, Rogers’ first student at Ohio State University, “The S will not become anxious (and thus defensive) unless and until he becomes at least dimly adverse to the dispar-ity between his phenonomal self and the views others have of him” (p. 321). On the same page, Rogers wrote, “.  .  . some experiences which are inconsistent with the perception, but he either denies these experiences or symbolizes them in such a way that they are consistent with the general picture .  .  .” (p. 321).

(d) Rogers (1951a) had remarked, “The self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self .  .  . composed of such el-ements as the perceptions of one’s characteristics and abilities .  .  . the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and the environment” (p. 136). And also, “As long as the self-Gestalt is firmly organized and no contradictory material is even dimly perceived, then positive self-feelings may exist, the self may be seen as worthy and acceptable, and conscious tension is minimal. Behavior is consistent with the organized hypothesis and concepts of the self-structure” (p. 191).

CommentsAttesting to Lecky as the First Theorist to Expound on the Self-concept by Lead-

ing AuthoritiesHeinz Ansbacher.—In the article based on his Clarke–Lecky Lecture,

Ansbacher (1981) made reference to Lecky’s biographical obituary in the New York Times on 21 May, 1941. He wrote, “new in psychology .  .  . the the-ory of self-consistency which made the self the central concept and led to a new school of thought in direct opposition to the traditional concept of psychology. Mr. Lecky and his supporters contended that man must no longer be thought of as a complex mass of cells, molecules or atoms, but as a unit in himself, a system that operates as a whole” (pp. 791-792).

Robert E. Bills.—Bills (1981) wrote, “Lecky (1969) expressed the mat-ter as follows. ‘We propose to apprehend all psychological phenomena as illustrations of the single principle of unity and self-consistency. We con-ceive their personality as an organization of values which are felt to be consistent with one another. Behavior expresses the effort to maintain the

SIMILARITIES OF LECKY’S AND ROGERS’ THEORIES 653

integrity and unity of the organization. All of the individual’s values are organized into a single system, the preservation of whose integrity is es-sential’” (p. 109).3

James F. T. Bugental and Seymour L. Zelen.—In 1950, Bugental and Zelen credited Victor Raimy (1943) as presenting the “first formal view” of the self-concept theory of personality organization. They also refer to Lecky (1945), Murphy (1947), Rogers (1942), and Snygg and Combs (1949). To clarify this statement by the authors, the full paragraph is reproduced here.

“One of the newer candidates in the field of personality theory is the self-concept theory of personality organization. This newer one received its first formal statement by Raimy in 1943, although related thinkings are to be identified both previous to and since that time, as, for example, some of the discussions of Gordon Allport, Lecky’s Self-consistency Theory, and the writings of Gardner Murphy. This view holds that the behavior of the individual is primarily determined by and pertinent to his phenomenal field and, in particular, that aspect of the field which is in the individual’s concept of himself. Rogers, Snygg, and Combs, and others have given spe-cial support to this view in showing its value in explaining or describing the results achieved through nondirective counseling and psychothera-py” (p. 483).4

Arthur W. Combs.—In an edited book, Combs (1981) wrote, “The writ-ers who originally described the self-concept saw it in phenomenological terms. They used self-concept to refer to the individual’s personal experi-ence of self [see, for example, Allport (1955), James (1890), Lecky (1945), Maslow (1954), Mead (1934), Murphy (1947), Raimy(1943), and Snygg and Combs (1949)]” (p. 5).5

Louis McQuitty.—In 1950, McQuitty published a quote from Rogers (1947). “It would appear that when all of the ways in which the individual percieves of himself—all perceptions of the qualities, impulses, and atti-tudes of the person, all perceptions of himself in relation to others—are ac-cepted into the organized conscious concept of the self, then this achieve-ment is accomplished by feelings of comfort and freedom from tension which are experienced as psychological adjustment. The definition of ad-justment is thus made an internal affair, rather than dependent upon ex-ternal reality” (p. 471).6

3The 1969 publication is a representation of Lecky (1945) by Anchor Books with permission of the Shoe String Press, Inc., publishers of Self-consistency: a Theory of Personality (1961).4The first three authors cited made statements with respect to Lecky’s theory of self-consis-tency. The latter two were cited because they commented on Lecky’s theory of self-consisten-cy as related to nondirective counseling and psychotherapy.5Rogers is not mentioned, although Combs was one of his first students at Ohio State Uni-versity.6This statement by Rogers goes to the very core of self-consistency, which Lecky first intro-duced to his students in the 1920s and publicly discussed in the 1930s (Lecky, 1935).

P. F. MERENDA654

Donald Super.—Donald Super, who directed the Career Pattern Study at Teachers College, Columbia University, supported by grants from the College Entrance Examination Board, published a monograph of five es-says (Super, 1963). Three of these essays were authored by Super. In the first one, “Self-concepts in Vocational Development,” Super wrote “.  .  . from the survival of interest in self-theory which dates from Lecky’s (1945) treatise (first circulated in the mid thirties)” (p. 1). In the second essay, “To-ward Making Self-concept Theory Operational,” Super wrote, “Harmony of the self-concept might also be termed congruence or internal consis-tency of the self-concept system. Lecky (1945) made much use of this con-struct, as have the other later writers on the self-system” (p. 30).7

Michael Stevens.—This relatively recent disciple of Prescott Lecky has presented papers citing Lecky as the mentor of many early self-theo-rists. In his first presentation in Boston, he stated, “Though now obscure, Prescott Lecky taught many notable psychologists and influenced others.” He went on to say, “Rogers’ (1959) person-centered theory also incorpo-rated the self-structure and unity motive of self-consistency theory” (Ste-vens, 1990, pp. 6, 10).8

Ruth C. Wylie.—Wylie is also a relatively recent author of books on the self-concept. In 1961 she wrote, “The domain to the surveyed is broad-ly conceived to include studies of pertinence to a wide variety of theories which accord an important or even central role to the self-concept (e.g., Adler, 1924; Angyal, 1941; .  .  . Lecky, 1945; .  .  . Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1951; .  .  . Rogers, 1951; and Snygg & Combs, 1949).9

Wylie continued by saying, “Some of these theorists (e.g., Lecky, Rog-ers, and Snygg and Combs) have been called phenomenological theorists because of the stress on the role of the conscious self-concept in determin-ing a person’s behavior” (p. 3).10 Wylie also quoted one of Rogers’ col-leagues in the Counseling Center at the University of Chicago, Desmond Cartright (1956), who referred to “self-consistency” as if the idea was orig-inal with Rogers (Wylie, 1961, p. 201). Wylie wrote, “Cartright was inter-ested in Rogers’ idea that experiences will be ignored or given distorted symbolization if they are inconsistent with the structure of self.” Some Further Comments/Statements on Rogers’ Self-theory by Other Authors

In a classic book on the self-concept coedited by Mervin D. Lynch, Ardyth A. Norem-Hebeisen, and Kenneth Gergen (1981), Epstein wrote, 7The later writers to whom Super refers correctly include Rogers and Snygg and Combs.8For the past two decades, Merenda advised Stevens on Lecky.9Rogers’ book on c1ient-centered therapy is listed as contemporary with McClelland’s Per-sonality (1951), several years after the first edition of Lecky’s book was published.10This implied reference is to Lecky’s central core of behavior analysis, “The nuclear composi-tion of the mind.” And, Lecky had no mentor who taught him this idea, although Adler had clearly influenced him. But Snygg and Combs were taught this idea by Rogers!

SIMILARITIES OF LECKY’S AND ROGERS’ THEORIES 655

“Rogers’ views are similar to those of Snygg and Combs. Rogers (1951) stated that the individual has one basic tendency to actualize, maintain, and enhance—the experiencing organism.  .  .. Unlike Snygg and Combs, Rogers refers to maintenance of the organism, although elsewhere he also refers to the maintenance of this phenomenal self. He regards an individ-ual’s self-concept, which is equivalent to be the nucleus of the individual’s conceptual system” (p. 29).

In that same volume (Lynch, Norem-Hebeisen, & Gergen, 1981), Jor-dan and Merrifield (1981) wrote, “Internal tensions result from perceived discrepancies (evaluations) between self-concept and actual performance, and human behavior has been viewed as a mechanism for reducing those discrepancies” (p. 89). They attributed this quoted statement to Rogers (1951a).

Regarding “defenses” of a person, Kirschenbaum (2007) attributed to Rogers the position that “not only is a person’s self-confidence difficult to change, the person also builds up ‘defenses’ to maintain it. This often means denying or distorting new evidence which would threaten the old self-concept” (p. 231). Conclusions

In light of the foregoing discussions and questions of major contri-butions to the literature, it is clear that Carl Rogers did not give Prescott Lecky the credit he justly deserved on the work done prior to Rogers’ thinking on the self. To this present writer, who was a student of Rogers and an avid reader of his works as well as those of his biographers, con-temporaries of Rogers, and other authors who have cited his works, it is inconceivable that Rogers was unaware of the details of Lecky’ s theory of self-consistency. Also, as discussed by Merenda (2007) in the presen-tation of his Eastern Psychological Association papers, Raimy’s disserta-tion (1943) greatly influenced Rogers’ formulation of his self-theory. One should note that Rogers in 1947 did duly credit Raimy, informally, for his influence on his thinking about the self-concept.

In his presidential address at the convention of the American Psycho-logical Association in Detroit, Rogers (1947), speaking to an interviewer as discussed by Kirschenbaum (2007), is quoted by Kirschenbaum on p. 234 as saying, “I don’t mind it at all stealing ideas. I steal them from ev-erybody, but if it comes to publication, I give people credit” .  .  . “One such time was in his APA address when he neglected to credit Victor Raimy for contributing significantly to his thinking about the self. He was terribly chagrined when he later recognized his omission: he said, ‘I was just dev-astated by it,’ and he made up for it in many future publications.” Rog-ers did credit Raimy in future publications. However, the present author, as well as Rogers’ biographers, contemporaries, and authors who have

P. F. MERENDA656

written on the works of Rogers have not located any disclosure by him of Lecky’s specific influence on his thinking about the self.

But Kirschenbaum (2007) wrote the following, “Psychologist Peter Merenda argued that Rogers was a student of Prescott Lecky at Colum-bia University and failed to acknowledge Lecky’s theory of self-consis-tency as a basis for his theory. Indeed, Rogers’ self-theory had a number of striking and important similarities to Lecky’s theory of self-consisten-cy, first shared in Lecky’s 1928–29 course at Columbia. However, Rogers had already moved to Rochester at that time and could not have taken the course with Lecky, nor is there any record of his even taking a class with Lecky or hearing him speak” (p. 234). What Kirschenbaum does not say, however, is that in 1928, when Rogers moved to Rochester, he had just re-ceived his M.A. degree, and it was not until 1931 that he received his Ph.D. degree from Columbia. Susan Cloninger has written extensively on theo-ries of personality since the first edition of her book was published in 1993. In the fourth edition, she presented an overview of Rogers’ theory. It is in-teresting and comforting to this author to note that she makes no mention of Rogers even being credited with developing a “self-theory” although it is credited to Rogers by several other authors of books, chapters, and ar-ticles. Cloninger (2004, p. 417) only credits Rogers’ “Client-centered thera-peutic techniques,” “person-centered approach,” and “persons’ changes in adulthood by becoming free.”

Finally, both Victor Raimy and Arthur Combs, respectively, at the time they delivered the fourth and fifth Clarke–Lecky Lectures, told Merenda that neither of them ever recalled that Rogers mentioned to them either as students or as professional psychologists that Lecky had any influence on his thinking on the self-concept or, more specifically, on self-consistency. These personal statements to Merenda verified his own convictions on the issue (see Merenda, 2007, pp. 7-8).

All the seven remaining lecturers recognized Lecky as an early self-theorist, prior to Rogers, and were very much aware of Lecky’s theory of self-consistency. Foremost among them was Chester C. Bennett, the 3rd lecturer, who had received his Ph.D. degree in Clinical Psychology at Co-lumbia in 1938, not long after Rogers had earned his doctorate in the same department. Bennett had served for many years on the Board of Directors of Walter V. Clarke Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (1924) The practice and theory of individual psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Allport, G. W. (1955) Pattern and growth in personality. (1st ed.) New York: Holt. Angyal, A. (1941) Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth

Fund.

SIMILARITIES OF LECKY’S AND ROGERS’ THEORIES 657

Ansbacher, H. L. (1981) Prescott Lecky’s concept of resistance and his personality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 791-795.

Bills, R. E. (1981) Dimensions of the dilemma. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: advances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Pp. 5-16.

Blake, R. R., & Raimy, V. C. (Eds.) (1951) Perception: an approach to personality. New York: Ronald.

Bugethal, J. F. T., & Zelen, S. L. (1950) Investigations into the self-concept: 1. The W-A-Y technique. Journal of Personality, 18, 483-498.

Cartwright, D. S. (1956) Self-consistency as a factor affecting immediate recall. Jour-nal of Abnormal Psychology, 52, 212-218.

Cloninger, S. C. (2004) Theories of personality: understanding persons. (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Combs, A. W. (1981) Some observations on self-concept research. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: advances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Pp. 5-16.

Dallas, C. (1964) A comprehensive survey of the life and work of Carol Rogers, 1902–1963. Unpublished dissertation, Univer. of Wisconsin–Madison.

Epstein, S. (1981) The unity principle versus the reality and pleasure principles or the tale of the scorpion and the frog. In M. D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: advances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Pp. 27-37.

Goldstein, D. (1939) The organism. New York: American Book. James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Jordan, T. J., & Merrifield, P. (1981) Self-concept: another aspect of aptitude. In M.

D. Lynch, A. A. Norem-Hebeisem, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self-concept: advances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Pp. 89-100.

Kirschenbaum, H. (1979) On becoming Carl Rogers. New York: Delacorte/Delta. Kirschenbaum, H. (2004) Carl Rogers’s life and work: an assessment on the 100th an-

niversary of his birth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 82, 116-124. Kirschenbaum, H. (2007) The life and work of Carl Rogers. Herefordshire, UK: PCCS

Books. Lecky, P. (1935) The theory of self-consistency in personal problems. Paper presented

at the American College Personnel Association Meeting, New York. Lecky, P. (1938) Presenting failure in removing resistance. Paper presented at the New

York Society for the Experimental Study of Education, New York. Lecky, P. (1945) Self-consistency: a theory of personality. (1st ed.) New York: Island Press. Lecky, P. (1951) Self-consistency: a theory of personality. (2nd ed.) New York: Island Press. Lecky, P. (1961) Self-consistency: a theory of personality. (3rd ed.) New York: The Shoe

String Press. Lecky, P. (1969) Self-consistency: a theory of personality. (4th ed.) Garden City, NY: An-

chor Books. Lynch, M. D., Norem-Hebeisem, A. A., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.) (1981) Self-concept: ad-

vances in theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.McClelland, D. C. (1951) Personality. New York: William Sloane.

P. F. MERENDA658

McQuitty, L. L. (1950) A measure of personality integration in relation to the concept of self. Journal of Personality, 18, 461-482.

Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, self, and society. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press. Merenda, P. F. (1978) Psychology and the scientist: XXXVII. Walter Vernon Clarke,

1905–1978. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 140-142.Merenda, P. F. (1987) Toward a four-factor theory of temperament of personality.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 367-374. Merenda, P. F. (1989) Four-factor models of personality assessment and Walter

Clarke’s Activity Vector Analysis. Tenth Clarke Memorial Lecture, Bryant Univer., Kingston, RI. (available from the author)

Merenda, P. F. (1991) Additional comments regarding the Myers–Briggs Type Indica-tor. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23, 179-181.

Merenda, P. F. (2007) Did Carl Rogers intentionally fail to credit Prescott Lecky and Victor Raimy in his published works on the self-concept? Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, March 22–25.

Murphy, G. (1947) Personality: a biosocial approach to origins and structure. New York: Harper.

Raimy, V. C. (1943) The self-concept as a factor in counseling and personality organi-zation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Univer.

Raimy, V. C. (1948) Self-reference in counseling interviews. Journal of Consulting Psy-chology, 12, 153-163.

Rogers, C. R. (1942) Counseling and psychotherapy: newer concepts in practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1947) Some observations on the organization of personality. American Psychologist, 2, 358-368.

Rogers, C. R. (1951a) Client-centered therapy: its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. R. (1951b) Perceptual organization in client-centered therapy. In R. R. Blake & V. C. Raimy (Eds.), Perception: an approach to personality. New York: Ron-ald. Pp. 307-327.

Rogers, C. R. (1959) A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: a study of science. Vol. III. Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 184-256.

Snygg, D., & Combs, A. W. (1949) Individual behavior. New York: Harper.Stevens, M. J. (1990) The neglected contributions of Prescott Lecky. Paper presented

at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, Au-gust.

Super, D. E. (1963) Self-concepts in vocational development. In D. E. Super, R. Stari-shevsky, N. Martin, & J. P. Jordan (Eds.), Career development: self-concept theory. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Thorne, F. C. (1951) A biographical sketch. In P. Lecky, Self-consistency: a theory of per-sonality. New York: Island Press. Pp. 13-14.

Wiley, R. C. (1961) The self-concept. Lincoln, NE: Univer. of Nebraska Press.

Accepted September 2, 2010.