An analysis of how Carl Rogers enacted client-centered conversation with Gloria. (Research).Publication: Journal of Counseling and DevelopmentPublication Date: 22-MAR-03

Format: Online - approximately 5073 words Delivery: Immediate Online Access

Full Article Title: An analysis of how Carl Rogers enacted client-centered conversation with Gloria. (Research).(counseling research) Article ExcerptCarl Rogers's session with Gloria in the training film titled Three Approaches to Psychotherapy (Shostrom, 1965a) is among the most written about in the history of counseling and continues to be used as an instructional model for the helping professions (Glauser & Bozarth, 2001). In this session, Gloria, a 30-year-old recently divorced woman, presented an initial problem about "having men to the house," wondering "how it affects the children." Specifically, Gloria wanted to know if she should be truthful with her daughter about having sex since the divorce or if such honesty would cause her daughter emotional harm. Through the course of their 30-minute conversation, this issue evolved into Gloria accepting herself and feeling "whole."

There were several indicators that this session was meaningful and life changing for Gloria despite its short duration. She later wrote that

Something happened in those few short minutes which has stayed with me ever since. He simply helped me to recognize my own potential--my value as a human being. All the words couldn't possibly express the importance of that for me. (Dolliver, Williams, & Gold, 1980, p. 141)

Moreover, Gloria attended a weekend conference in 1965 featuring the film's debut and maintained a written correspondence with Rogers and his wife Helen until Gloria's death in 1979 (Rogers, 1984; Weinrach; 1990). Rogers (1984) described himself as "awed" by the session's significance, writing "We truly met as persons. It is good to know that even one half hour can make a difference in a life" (p. 425).

In his theory of client-centered counseling, Rogers (1951, 1957) proposed three conditions as "necessary and sufficient" for therapeutic change: empathy, genuinenes and unconditional positive regard. This theoretical framework provides the instructional foundation for many counselor education programs. However, Rogers (1967) expressed considerable frustration at how his theory was taught, stating that "such training has very little to do with an effective therapeutic relationship" and that he had "become more and more allergic" to terms like "reflection of feeling" (p. 375). Moreover, Rogers and Wood (1974) criticized the way in which client-centered counseling was being taught through reductionist means such as microskills. When a student asked why Rogers did not always

adhere to the rules of "Rogerian" counseling, he replied, "I'm in the fortunate position of not having to be a Rogerian" (Farber, Brink, & Raskin, 1996, p. 11). Clearly, there was a discrepancy between how Rogers conceptualized what he did and how his theory was being taught. For that reason, a greater understanding of Rogers's enacted therapeutic style is needed to increase counselor educators' teaching effectiveness in the classroom.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There have been numerous publications (Bohart, 1991; Dolliver et al., 1980; Ellis, 1986; Essig & Russell, 1990; Hill, Thames, & Rardin, 1979; Kiesler & Goldston, 1988; Meara, Shannon, & Pepinsky, 1979; Mercier & Johnson, 1984; Rogers & Wood, 1974; Rosenzweig, 1996; Shostrom & Riley, 1968; Stoten & Goos, 1974; Weinrach, 1986, 1990, 1991; Zimmer & Cowles, 1972) examining one or more of the counseling sessions depicted in Three Approaches to Psychotherapy (Shostrom, 1965a). These authors generally agree that Rogers practiced the theory of counseling for which he is famous (for a disagreement with that notion, see Weinrach, 1990, 1991) and most authors used transcripts provided by Shostrom (1965b) or Rogers and Wood (1974) as raw data. However, a casual reading of either transcript concurrent with a viewing of the film reveals that the actual dialogue spoken has been somewhat normalized when transcribed, putting the language more in line with written English and easing readability. Although it has been the most widely studied and scrutinized session in the history of counseling, all studies that have been done to date have been based on imperfect transcripts and most did not offer practical utility to the field of counseling (see Essig & Russell, 1990, and Rogers & Wood, 1974, for exceptions).

To correct the transcript flaws of prior analyses, the first author (Wickman, 1999) improved on existing transcripts by more accurately reflecting the session, including exact words used, lengths of pauses, and changes in volume, tone, or pitch. A conversation analysis of the new transcript found the following devices to be among the key elements of Rogers's conversational style. Nonexpert language referred to Rogers intentionally using "not knowing" language that displayed his inability to decide for Gloria what was best for her. Meta-statements referred to both Rogers's and Gloria's explicit here-and-now talk about their ongoing interaction. Affiliative negative assessments were Rogers's acknowledgments of the difficulty of Gloria's situation. First-person quotes externalized Gloria's hypothetical internal dialogue, stating out loud Rogers's understanding of what Gloria was saying to herself. Invitations for repair involved explicit and implicit requests by Rogers for Gloria to correct him if he misunderstood what she was saying or implying. Withholding direct responses to requests for advice referred to Rogers's not providing an immediate solution or answer when Gloria specifically asked what she should do. Problem reformulation referred to Rogers's highlighting what Gloria said that was both within her control and manageable in a counseling session.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine how the aforementioned conversational devices brought about Rogers's core conditions of client-centered counseling. In other words, how did Rogers's conversational devices function to enact empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard? By answering this question, our goal was to provide students, counselors, and educators with a more informed lens for viewing this popular training film through illustrative examples of Rogers's espoused theory in action.

METHOD

In this study, transcribed examples (Wickman, 1999) of Rogers's therapeutic interaction with Gloria in the film Three Approaches to Psychotherapy were analyzed and interpreted to explore the extent to which each device supported one or more core condition(s) of client-centered counseling. That is, we wanted to find out what Rogers was doing conversationally when he was being "Rogerian." This involved three steps. First, we grouped together previously identified examples of Rogers's conversational devices. Second, we looked for a common function within each conversational device by comparing examples of a single device to each other (e.g., all transcribed examples of first-person quotes were reviewed). Patterns and themes of what Rogers seemed to accomplish conversationally were noted. Third, the function(s) of each device was interpreted within Rogers's theory of client-centered counseling to ascertain which, if any, core conditions were being facilitated. In this way, the relationship between theory and practice was examined.

RESULTS

Each conversational device was interpreted and discussed as applicable to Rogers's theoretical framework for client-centered counseling. Figure 1 illustrates these relationships.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Nonexpert Language: Communicating Genuineness and Unconditional Positive Regard

Rogers's nonexpert language throughout the session paralleled that of constructivist theories popularized decades later (e.g., Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Cecchin, 1987; Daniels & White, 1994). For example, as part of his therapy-opening statement Rogers took a "not knowing" position by using phrases like "I don't know," "I hope," "I'm not sure," "something," and "whatever," all of which intentionally conveyed uncertainty and curiosity. Rogers's nonexpert language made evident and owned (genuineness) his inability to be an expert on Gloria, a woman he had known for less than 30 minutes. By acknowledging his inability to know Gloria's "truth," Rogers also conveyed unconditional positive regard by respecting Gloria's ability to be an expert on herself.

Examples of nonexpert language.

(Note. Here and in all of the examples quoted from the transcript of the counseling session, we have added italics to highlight the examples of conversational devices used by Rogers.)

Example 1

Rogers: We have half an hour together an' I really don't know what we will be able to make of it but, uh, I hope we can make something of it. I'd be glad to know whatever concerns you ...

Example 2

Rogers: I sure wish I could give you the answer.

Example 3

Rogers: And I guess ... this is the kind of very private thing that I couldn't possibly answer for you.

Meta-Statements: Communicating Genuineness

Meta-statements comment about the conversation even as it occurs (i.e., "talk about the talk that we're having right now"). In addition, meta-statements put the speaker's comments in a "one-step-removed" frame. One of the functions of meta-statements in everyday conversation is to enable speakers to present slightly risky ideas or put softened frames around ideas that might otherwise be conversationally awkward. Rogers and Gloria often began their conversational turns with meta-statements such as "I guess I'd like to say" and "what I wanna ask now is." Rogers's frequent meta-statements seemed to promote genuineness, because they allowed him to make authentic comments about his role as a "nonexpert" counselor within the session. Rogers's meta-statements also modeled genuineness for Gloria through the ownership of self that is inherent in "I" messages.

Examples of meta-statements.

Example 1

Rogers: I sure wish I could give you the answer as to what you should tell 'er.

Gloria: Aw, I was afraid you were going to say that.

Rogers: Mm hmm. 'Cause what you really want is an answer.

Gloria: I want to especially know if it would affect her if I was completely honest and open with her or if it would affect her because I lied. I feel like it's bound to make a strain

because I lied to her.

Example 2

Gloria: And I--I--I have a feeling like you're just going to sit there and let me stew in it and I (heh) I (heh, heh) want more. (one second pause)

Gloria: I want you to help me get rid of my guilt feeling. If I can get rid of my guilt feeling about lying, or going to bed with a single man any of that, just so I can feel more comfortable.

Rogers: Mm hm. And I guess I'd like to say, "No, I don't want to let you just 'stew' in your feelings," but on the other hand, I--I also feel that, this is the kind of, very private thing that I couldn't possibly answer for you. But I sure as anything will try to help you work toward your own answer.

Example 3

Rogers: One thing I might ask, "What is it you wish I would say to you?"

Gloria: I wish you would say to me ... I want you to say, to go ahead and be honest.

Affiliative Negative Assessment of the Difficulty of the Process: Communicating Empathy

In contrast to everyday conversation, Rogers's interaction with Gloria contained only one recurring type of evaluative statement. He consistently made affiliative negative assessments of the difficulty of the process that Gloria was going through. In fact, the words "damn" and "hell," statements such as "life is risky," and calling self-acceptance "a tough assignment" all displayed empathy for Gloria's struggle. In other words, negative assessments of the process demonstrated through conversation Rogers's ability to comprehend Gloria's predicament.

Examples of affiliative negative assessment statements.

Example 1

Rogers: Life is risky. To take the responsibility for being the person you would like to be with her is a hell of a responsibility.

Example 2

Rogers: It's so damn hard to really choose something on your own.

Example 3

Rogers: Sounds like a tough assignment, doesn't it?

Gloria: Yeah!

First-Person Quotes Externalizing Gloria's Internal Dialogue: Communicating Empathy

Another hallmark of Rogers's conversational style seemed to be that of making first-person quotes that externalized Gloria's hypothetical internal dialogue. That is, Rogers spoke from the "I" perspective about Gloria's unspoken thoughts, phrasing his language as if it were hers. Gloria mirrored Rogers in this way, also making first-person quotes from the perspective of her own internal dialogue. For example, Rogers used a first-person quote from Gloria's perspective during a particularly frustrating moment for Gloria, stating "I feel this is the conflict, and it's just, insoluble and therefore it's hopeless." By verbalizing what Gloria may have been thinking using her language as if he were her--and thereby again modeling "I" messages--Rogers's quotes displayed advanced empathy by explicitly stating a view of the situation through Gloria's eyes.

Examples of quoting internal dialogue.

Example 1

Rogers: But something in you says, "But I don't like it that way, not unless it is really right."

Gloria: Right.

Example 2

Rogers: You sort of feel, "I want them to have just as nice a picture of me as they have of their dad."

Gloria: Thank you. Right.

Rogers: "And if his is a little phony, then maybe mine'll have to be too."

The accuracy and effectiveness of empathic internal dialogue quotes may have been evidenced by how the process became a collaborative activity toward the end of the session. Specifically, Rogers initiated two quotes from Gloria's perspective, which she then completed.

Examples of collaborative quoting.

Example 1

Rogers: You can really listen to yourself sometimes and realize, "This isn't the right feeling. This isn't--

Gloria: Mm hm

Rogers: This isn't the way I would feel, if I was doing what I really wanted to do."

Gloria: But yet many times I'll go on and do it anyway

Rogers: Mm hm

Gloria: An' say, "Oh well, I'm in the situation now, I'll just remember next time."

Example 2

Rogers: So you slap at him and say, "This is what I am now, see?"

Gloria: Yeah. "You raised me. How do you like it?"

Invitations for Repair: Communicating Empathy and Genuineness

Another way in which Rogers's client-centered conversation deviated somewhat from that of ordinary talk was in the area of "repair." In conversation-analytic terms, this phenomenon refers to a "correction" of a prior interactional turn. In everyday conversation, speakers generally correct themselves in order to avoid being corrected by another (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Rogers's style deviated from this pattern, however, in that he explicitly invited repair to clarify and refine his understanding of Gloria's situation. Rogers's invitations for repair functioned to highlight genuineness in at least three ways. First, they demonstrated his interest and investment in the relationship by checking to make sure that "message received" was consistent with "message sent." Second, they again called attention to his not being the expert on Gloria. Third, invitations for repair also facilitate transparency on his part, making his outer presentation of self consistent with what he was thinking internally. Moreover, such invitations for Gloria to correct what Rogers has said increased his ability to display empathy. Rogers's invitations for repair generally resulted in Gloria agreeing with the proposed empathic statement in question. In other words, the act of inviting repair seemed to make agreement more likely. Prototypical examples of Rogers inviting repair and Gloria responding affirmatively are presented below.

Examples of invitation for repair.

Example 1

Rogers: Is that right?

Gloria: Right.

Example 2

Rogers: Is that what you're saying?

Gloria: Yeah, that's what I mean, yeah.

Example 3

Rogers: I think that's putting it a little too strongly.

Gloria: But that's close. That is what I mean.

Withholding Direct Responses to Requests for Advice: Unconditional Positive Regard

Gloria frequently requested direct advice from Rogers, often prefacing her requests with meta-statements such as "I know you can't give me a direct answer, but ..." In everyday conversation, the natural response to a request for advice is to give advice. In contrast, Rogers demonstrated unconditional positive regard for Gloria by respecting her ability to come to her own decision. Rather than responding...