For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
ROGERIAN & GESTALT PSYCHOLOGY.
Term Paper ID:26734
Essay Subject:
Compares ideas of Carl Rogers & Fritz Perls in theory & practice. Techniques, client-therapist relationship, goals, use of groups, authenticity.... More...
9 Pages / 2025 Words
4 sources, 10 Citations,
APA Format
$36.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Compares ideas of Carl Rogers & Fritz Perls in theory & practice. Techniques, client-therapist relationship, goals, use of groups, authenticity.
Paper Introduction:
Rogerian and Gestalt Psychology
Introduction:
These two approaches are very different in how they view the client and how they work with clients. Rogers was very non-directive, while holding the view that clients naturally moved toward health. Perls, on the other hand, was extremely directive, and felt that clients often became stuck in non-productive patterns and behaviors.
Gestalt and Rogerian theory and application:
Rogers termed his work the person-centered approach to psychotherapy. His ideas evolved over time. For Rogers, this was an evolutionary process, driven by his work with clients.
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Perls, on theother hand, was extremely directive, and felt that clients often becamestuck in non-productive patterns and behaviors.Gestalt and Rogerian theory and application: Rogers termed his work the person-centered approach to psychotherapy. Perls did begin as a psychoanalyst,but became extremely antagonistic to Freud and psychoanalytic techniques,which he felt led toward inauthenticity and truncation of the humanpersonality (Perls, 1969). For example,there is a dialogue in the Perls (1973, p. Still, even when the focus was on theclient, the real focus was often on the brilliance of Perls and hisinterpretations or interventions. His style was to allow the groupmembers themselves to call upon their resources for growth and learning,simply creating the environment in which they could thrive. Thismight require considerable effort and time as the individual worked throughone uncompleted gestalt after another until the person was able to becomeauthentic again. That's one thing. Rogers was more likely to assume that there were interferences imposed onthe personality, but that the personality was intact and the giftsavailable for the client to identify and use in discovering the right work.Dialogue: (in the Rogerian mode)Therapist: (After initial greeting and small talk). He was notinclined to draw attention to himself, although clearly he was recognizedfor his accomplishments, but to draw upon the strengths and gifts of thegroup members in order to create a healing process. He probablywould have used some restatement, such as in the third patient utterance.He might have restated that as: Therapist: So you were feeling very excitedas your boss was passing you and you could feel your heart pounding. Science and Behavior Books.Rogers, C. Where women always pick the wrong men.Therapist: I'd like to reframe that. Do people havethat?Therapist: That is possible. 88) book that looks at thepatient's feelings about a past experience. The gestalt approach and eyewitness to therapy. My latestrelationship, which we've already talked about, was even worse than my lastcouple of relationships. Really, I wantsomeone who is more like me, politically and morally. Perls was more opinionated--perhaps moretheoretically oriented--while Rogers was more philosophically andspiritually oriented. And become friends. The Rogerian approach has oftenbeen characterized as involving unconditional positive regard for theclient. In Rogers' case, the dialogue is likely to have been quite different. Sueand Sue (1999) noted that in some of the studies exploring Rogers' style,he was not given as much respect or considered having as much expertise asother therapists, such as Perls, because of his style. Lafayette, CA: People Press.Perls, F.S. Rogers was very non-directive, whileholding the view that clients naturally moved toward health. Or learn if we can be friends.I think that is the starting point. What else would you like?Client: I want someone who shares the same values I have. However,the way in which they accomplished that was quite different. It is important to remember thatRogers represented a break with the traditional Freudians and Jungians; heis the first true psychotherapist, rather than medically trainedpsychiatrist. There have been attempts to look at the application of Roger'sapproach in real-life. ReferencesPerls, F.S. Still, human beings possessed free willand they were fundamentally able to organize their own development in thedirection of wholeness. Sue and Sue (1999) reported on some of thosestudies, noting that Rogers' style can be clearly distinguished fromPerls', for example, and that it is correlated with his theoreticalorientation. Rather he focused on bringingfacilitative attitudes to the counseling environment. However, Perls was more likely to be directive, pointingthe client in the direction Perls believed was most fruitful. Many people have intimate, meaningfulrelationships that last for many years. Gestalt theory verbatim. In sayingthat you made some wrong choices, it seems to me you already know what agood choice for you would be.Client: Maybe I do. You may have made a mistake in yourlast relationship, but that does not mean that you always will. In other words, while Perls was a charismatic figure with adominating, authoritarian leadership style in his groups, Rogers was agroup leader who fit a more modern style, perhaps as a transformationalleader, or even a feminist leader. On the other hand, Rogers' groups were very different. (1973). In terms of application of Rogerian theory, the key is in hisorientation. I think that would make a difference.Therapist: I think those are very good ideas. They have learned how to createthat for themselves, and it is possible for you to do that too.Client: How?Therapist: What is it that you think you need to learn or do differently?Client: Well, I think that I need to take more time before I get involvedwith someone. Hemight also have offered some reflection at the end of the retelling of theincident, or he might not have done so, believing that the client himselfwould have been able to make any important connections about the reasonsfor his feelings in the situation. Rogers cannot besaid to have techniques, per se. I think that I need to meet people in adifferent environment, maybe not parties. What is it that hasbrought you here today? That made it seem asthough Perls represented the more significant break with the past, althoughRogers is really much more outside of the mainstream in his faith in humannature and positive ontology. Rogers' style emphasizes attending skills, with Rogers usingminimal encouragers 53 percent of the time, restatements 11 percent of thetime, interpretation, reflection, and information each 7 percent of thetime. Although Rogers' attempted early to understand human behaviorscientifically, he gradually moved more toward an applied science approach. I don't want a boyfriend or a playmate. Hethen interpreted the situation in terms of positive and negative cathexis.This is what he termed the shuttle technique devised to recover missingabstractions. What does that mean in terms of problem solving within the group orindividual session? I want to make better choices, I think, and I want to changewhat happens in the relationship itself.Therapist: It sounds like you think that the problem starts with yourchoices and then just gets worse during the process of the relationship.Client: I think that must be the case. I have some ideas anyway. I want to live with someone who is areal partner to me, someone who shares the most important parts of my life. For Perls, the focus was on making people self-supporting, letting goof blame. I want acompanion to go places with. (1969). There is quite a contrast in terms of technique. He was a self-effacing leader who was not often perceived as an authority figure. The therapist was to embody certain facilitative attitudes. Theessence of the approach is that clients have within them all that they needin order to heal and grow. He did not have the same values. Herequired people to speak with I-statements, rather than indirectreferences, and he also required them to act out conversations with thirdparties, rather than just talk about a third party (Perls, 1973). For Rogers, this was an evolutionaryprocess, driven by his work with clients. If we look at the two individuals, the differences are clear in theway they would apply their theories in specific situations. As noted above, he tended to be minimally interfering with the client'sexposition, so he probably would not have asked the leading questions thatPerls asked, preferring simply to offer minimal encouragers. I would like someonewho attends the same church, or at least someone who believes in God.Therapist: This is important to you.Client: This is very important to me. I think that's what it'scalled. Rogers wasmore inclined to be an elicitor, someone attempting to draw forth theanswer from within the client. His theory was very direct, confrontational,literally in-your-face, and group-oriented. In orderto do this, he held to three basic principles, or concepts, which includedtherapist congruence, therapist caring or acceptance, and the therapist'sempathic understanding (Rogers, 198 ). On the other hand,Perls emphasized completing the unfinished gestalts of human life. His basic interest became working with people and helping them to grow.In his first important discussion of his philosophy, he set forth hisbeliefs about the nature of human being and human growth (Rogers, 1961).To him, it was clear that people went through a natural process of becomingthemselves. He called his approach the client-centered or person-centeredapproach to indicate that it was the client's experience that was the focusand the center of the encounter, not the therapist's interpretations. Rogers was also more present-oriented, viewing the human being ascapable of change without revisiting past traumas. For example, in working in groups, Perls was very confrontational anddirective. For example, in dealing with a client with problemsfinding meaningful work, Perls was more likely to assume there were holesin the personality and unfinished gestalts getting in the way. His intent was to force each individual to become more aware ofwhat was hidden in their personality and in their emotional life. On becoming a person. Again, Perls was very directive,generally working in a group, but focusing on one individual at a time. Is that impossible? I'm not sure if I reallyam able to make good choices, though. He was not interested in the same things that I was interested in. It was an organic process that led to growth and fulldevelopment, except for the obstacles placed in the individuals way byfamily, society, and institutions. (1961). I want an intimate connection that just keepsgetting better as the years go by. A way of being. What would you like to work on?Client: I'm concerned with my history of failed relationships. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C. Perls, on the otherhand, developed many specific techniques to work with people, includingpsychodrama and gestalt work with dreams. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. What they require is a therapist who is able tofacilitate that growth in certain ways (Rogers, 198 ). I don't want a sex partner. I can understand that. When I look back at my parents'relationship, I think that I have tried to avoid the same patterns, but Iseem to have perpetuated them instead.Therapist: What did you see as the problem in your last relationship?Client: I think that I picked a man who was not able to give me what Iwanted. What he learned was that his clients seemed to make moreprogress when he listened to them, rather than when he made interpretationsof their experiences (Rogers, 198 ). I feel like one ofthose women in the book Women Who Love Too Much. (198 ). I'm not sure.Therapist: You need to meet a potential partner in an environment thatreflects some of your interests and values?Client: I think so. Perls asked the patient toreturn to that past experience in fantasy on two different occasions. The intent was to ensure that people acknowledged, andexpressed, the whole of their personalities, becoming very sensate,emotional, and self-directed people. So, essentially he felt his way along into his theory andpractice. His ideas evolved over time. Thestructure of his groups was very therapist-centered, although eachindividual within the group had the opportunity to become the center whendealing with a specific situation. The aim for Perls was to return to the now and becomefully present within it, but the pathway to the now was through the past(Perls, 1973). I know that doesn't sound very romantic.Therapist: It sounds enjoyable. Rogerian and Gestalt PsychologyIntroduction: These two approaches are very different in how they view the clientand how they work with clients. Both emphasized authenticity as a major goal of the therapy. I also hear that you have ideas aboutwhat kind of relationship you would like to have. We were so different, but not in a goodor interesting way.Therapist: Your differences were not growth producing.Client: Our differences were destructive, I think. Neither Perls nor Rogers were inclined to give answersto their clients. I'd like to hear some ofthose ideas.Client: I want a relationship with someone who is a good friend. Theywere interested in helping people become their whole, authentic selves, andeliminating the recrudescences that had been imposed by society. And learning more about the personbefore I give all my emotional attachment to that person.Therapist: Taking more time and being more deliberate.Client: Yes. On the other hand, Perls had a more traditional view of human beings,although his techniques were much more radical. Iwant a real marriage. I don't have much confidence inmyself anymore.Therapist: Your difficulties have created a crisis of confidence for youright now. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I want tochange it.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject