Psychology: Current Psychotherapies, Eating Disorders, Emotions, Abnormal Psychology, Human Development, Ethics, Personality, Positive Psychology

By Linda Bold

A wide array of current topics is included in this series of essays on psychology, psychotherapies, eating disorders, obesity, personality, emotions, abnormal psychology, human development, ethics, and positive psychology. An insightful and intriguing read.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu.com
• Release date: Apr 13, 2011
• ISBN: 9781257618927

Book preview

Inc.

Chapter 2

Jung & Rogers

Abstract

The similarities and differences of psychologists Carl Jung and Carl Rogers are discussed, including concepts such as good vs. evil, typologies, transference, locus of control, the self-concept, phenomenological world, empathetic relationships, and the self-actualizing tendency of humans.

Jung and Rogers had both similarities and differences in their psychotherapeutical philosophies. While Jung focused on analyzing dreams and educating clients, Rogers just empathized with patients and let them heal themselves. Jung was more focused on helping people squelch their potentially evil ways, while Rogers believed that most people were good and could solve their own problems with their own value systems in time (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

Carl Jung

Carl Jung (1875–1961) believed individuals had both positive and negative aspects to their personalities (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). He felt that thoughts and emotions could be conscious or unconscious. He saw good and evil in humans and feared that evil was increasing, but believed that people could make a choice as to whether to be evil or good. He was less deterministic than Freud in that he felt each person could work to inhibit negative thoughts and feelings and modulate the self exposed to the world. This was similar to Adler’s view.

In Jung’s world, the quality and empathy of the therapist was as important as the type of therapy, and this has been shown to be true in recent meta-analyses (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Any therapy is better than no therapy in most cases and the relationship between the therapist and the client is more important than the type of therapy conducted in many cases. Jung felt personally devoted to his patients and he considered them to be equals. He realized that therapeutic philosophies reflected the personality and history of the therapist and were therefore highly subjective vs. objective. Because of this, he felt that analysts should be personally analyzed, since their personalities, experiences and views would end up having such a great impact on the patient. Analytical therapy took the form of a dialogue, the purpose of which was healing and moving toward a higher level of functioning. The therapist and patient worked through problems to gain greater insight about one’s inner and outer worlds.

In Jung’s view, patients perceived their world through four mental functions: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Those four factors became the basis for the Myers-Briggs Personality test which was very popular in corporate American in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Human resource professionals attempted to help employees communicate better with others by educating team members on their own personality styles and those styles of their teammates. This author did not see great improvements in communication via just gaining this insight. More forced practice might have rendered improved relationships, but follow up practice was not part of the program at that time.

Jung also believed people fell into one of two categories: introversion or extroversion (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). He felt that introversion was natural and basic and meant that an individual would not change himself to adapt to the environment as does an extrovert. It seems as if he felt those introverted were healthier, whereas today, one could argue in Western societies that the extrovert is viewed to be healthier given the potential for a greater social support network.

Jung believed that people saw themselves as normal if their own self-assessment matched the assessment from others (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). He believed that the origin of psychopathology resulted from the home environment and specifically mother-child relationship issues. This view has Freudian overtones.

Jung believed that people strove to self-actualize, or live up to their full potential (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Self-actualization, or transformation, was the final part of therapy. The preceding phases he described as the confession, the elucidation or analysis of transferences, dreams and fantasies, and education phases. The confession is necessary because the evil side of man often results in actions of which one is ashamed. Jung believed in analyzing dreams for insights, and also felt that transference conveyed problematic interactions with others in the patient’s life.

During the education phase, Jung felt it necessary to teach people that their thoughts and feelings are their own. This is a concept which has been taught over the centuries in Buddhist philosophy. All one can control in life is one’s own mind, not any external happenings (Hopkins, 2002).

Jung believed in the value of group therapy also, during which an individual could work on social skills and see themselves through others’ eyes (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Jung believed that people can heal, even after tragedies, by finding meaning in the tragedy. He held an optimistic view that humans have a self-healing nature.

Jung believed that people strive to create a solidified self-image, which is similar to Rogers’ views about the importance of self-concept (Pervin, Cervone, & John, 2005). One strives to meld one’s outer image-or persona- to the world with one’s true inner feelings and sense of self. Jung also believed in a collective unconscious which he described as the universal aspect of personality. These are the truisms of human behavior which we all seem to have in common and which Jung believed were learned and passed along via an evolutionary-like process.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers (1902–1987) was the father of person-centered therapy (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Like Jung, he believed in a caring and empathetic relationship with patients. In fact, he concluded in a 1957 study that the most successful outcomes resulted from either clients who experienced the highest degree of genuine empathy, or from clients who felt best about the therapist-client relationship. He felt that people just wanted to be understood. He sought to be trustworthy, genuine and non-judgmental. The therapist is on the same level as the patient, and not elevated as a teacher or doctor might be, just as Jung felt. In addition, Rogers also believed that people naturally try to self-actualize. Both Jung and Rogers were optimistic about the ability of people to change (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

Rogers, however, specifically focused more than Jung on respecting the world and beliefs of the client (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). He believed that patients tend to be naturally goal-directed and he asked them to set their own goals. As a therapist, he took a very back-seat approach. No advice was given. No evaluation or interpretation was offered, which is very unlike Jung. Jung not only focused on dream and fantasy analysis, but believed in educating the client. Rogers did not believe in probing, and believed that patients would come around to their own, more positive conclusions in due time. He did not see himself as teacher, as Jung did. The therapist in Roger’s client-centered therapy must come increasingly closer to the patient’s world. The therapist does not have her own agenda and will listen without prejudice.

Also unlike Jung, since there is so little advice given by the therapist, the therapist does not become an object of attention or one to depend upon. Therefore, transference does not become an issue in Rogers’ therapy (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

Jung focused more on education and analysis, while Rogers was more concerned with feelings (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Rogers believed that emotions help to guide behavior. He acknowledged, paraphrased, and encouraged clients to feel. Jung focused much more on good vs. evil whereas Rogers felt that people tended to be unnecessarily critical of themselves. While Jung believed both inner and outer worlds affected people, Rogers believed that behavior was more the result of one’s inner world.

Similar to Jung, Rogers believed that a patient’s congruence between self and ideal was a goal (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). However, for Jung, people felt normal if their self-assessment matched other’s assessments. In Roger’s view, the other-assessment was not as important. In fact, Rogers stressed believing in one’s own values, and not those of others. Through psychotherapy the client becomes aware of what is most important from a personal standpoint. The client is given much more credence because only he or she can really know his or her own world completely. For anyone else to be giving advice is an ill-conceived notion in Rogers’ perspective (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

In Rogers’ world, psychological tension is not created by the mother-child relationship, but by denied experiences (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). A client must be able to fit all experiences into their accepted concept of self in order to feel well-adjusted. If an experience occurs which does not fit well into one’s self-concept, then one feels threatened. The world is constantly changing, so the more rigid one’s self-structure, the more dissonance one might feel.

Like Jung, Rogers believed that responsibility for oneself must shift from others to oneself (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Therefore, clients might find through therapy that the alleged problem is not the true problem at all. It is not the other person’s actions, but one’s own interpretation of those actions. Rogers spent no time with history-taking, because prior labels meant nothing to him. He treated all patients the same, whether or not they had serious psychopathologies, and just focused on feelings.

Jung believed that psychological theories and therapies are subjective and reflect the experiences and personalities of their founders (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). It is very interesting, then, that Rogers grew up in a very strict household, later becoming very focused on complete acceptance and empathy toward his patients (Pervin et al., 2005). This may indicate a rebellion toward his upbringing.

Rogers came to the conclusion that humans are largely positive in nature, and when functioning freely and without neurosis, we self-actualize, not self-destruct. Despite our ability to be inhumane, selfish, and antisocial, we also have the positive tendencies, and this was based, Rogers said, on 25 years of listening to people in psychotherapy (Pervin et al., 2005).

Carl Rogers was much more focused than Jung on the self-concept and the world of the patient which he termed the phenomenal field (Pervin et al., 2005). As mentioned, Rogers was concerned with the current self vs. the ideal self, while Jung focused on the good vs. evil self. Rogers’ entire theory was more positively skewed than was Jung’s. While Jung was focused on typologies, meaning the way patients experience the world- through thinking, sensing, feeling or intuition, Rogers believed that the better construct through which to view an individual was through whether their self-concept was coherent, stable and integrated (Pervin et al., 2005). In a way, Rogers was more focused on the inner world, while Jung was more focused on how people related outwardly.

While this author likes many aspects of both schools of therapy, I believe I would be frustrated as a patient with Roger’s non-directive stance. I am highly cognitive, and if I am stuck on something, I have already looked at it every which way. I need new insights or techniques to help make a decision, or homework to force behavioral change, not a passive, kind therapist who simply listens. While Rogers’ technique might be efficacious over a longer period, I am often impatient for improvements and forward progress.

Summary

Psychologists Carl Jung and Carl Rogers both believed in an empathetic stance toward patients, but Jung was more analytical, more focused on dreams and fantasies, and was more focused on the good vs. evil sides of humans. Rogers was more positively focused, took a very passive stance in therapy, and believed that the patients would come around to their own conclusions in good time. Both analysts contributed great ideas and concepts to the development of psychotherapy.

References

Corsini, R.J. & Wedding, D. (2008). Current psychotherapies (8th ed.). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

Hopkins, J. (Ed.) (2002). How to practice: The way to meaningful life. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D., & John, O.P. (2005). Personality theory and research (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chapter 3

REBT & BT

Abstract

Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) and Behavioral Therapy (BT) are discussed. In REBT, irrational beliefs and overly optimistic expectations about the world are believed to lead to misery and neurosis. REBT challenges the client’s overly-sensitive beliefs. BT assumes that behavior is maintained due to positive or negative consequences and operant conditioning. BT relies on action, homework, practice, exposure therapy, desensitization and role-playing to change habits. BT works especially well for children and those more severely ill or of lower IQ.

Rationale Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and Behavior Therapy (BT) intersect in certain ways, but differ in that BT is more purely mechanistic while REBT therapists focus on the cognitions which lead to negative emotions and behavior. Both therapies may use behavioral techniques to change unwanted behaviors or habits.

Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy

I like the theory behind rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), if not the style in which it is conducted. The core idea is that irrational beliefs are associated with unnecessary suffering. To alleviate the suffering, one may either identify and rectify the underlying false belief, or dive right into changing unwanted behaviors, which has also been proven to help change the underlying belief (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

Either way, the behaviors, beliefs and emotions are linked. When any given event or adversity A occurs, it is one’s beliefs B, which lead to C, the consequences. Any given event does not have meaning until one layers on the interpretation from the individual. This is an important notion, because it puts the responsibility for behavior back in the actor’s hands. One cannot blame another for one’s behavior. No one else can force one to think or act a certain way. No matter what occurs in our lives, we decide how to react based upon the belief system that we maintain.

Albert Ellis, the psychologist who developed REBT and who has an institute in NYC which still bears his name, believed that people are born with the capacity to be both rational and irrational (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). We are most impressionable during our youth during which time irrational beliefs often result in emotional distress. Because emotional upsets are usually unappealing to others, we feel rejection, which leads to more distress. We thus create our very own emotional hurricane. Moreover, even when we strive and learn to be rational, we may slip back to our more irrational ways, so continual work and diligence are necessary ongoing. We must always keep working toward rationality.

Irrational, invalidated thinking is associated with neurosis, as per the REBT school (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Blaming others and feeling one must do something because of what others think are two common irrational beliefs. Many of our goals are fictitious, said Ellis, because we’ve set them to please others or to prove ourselves to others. The objective of therapy is to identify and change these irrational beliefs, exaggerations and expectations, and to maximize our potential, as both Jung and Rogers advocated. Ellis was basically encouraging independent thinking. He urged clients to look clearly at their mistakes instead of rationalizing them or using defense mechanisms. He warned that behavior is highly habitual: Once one begins to act in a certain way, it is very difficult to act differently.

REBT is very cognitively active, since the therapist is probing for irrational beliefs that are imbedded in the client’s thought processes (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). This type of therapy is also very active in that role-playing might be involved, homework is assigned, desensitization techniques may be practiced, assertiveness training may be invoked, and humor might be used. Rogers’ person-centered therapy was much more passive and just empathetic, whereas REBT questions clients’ thoughts and prods the client to question their thoughts. It is more rationally-based vs. Jung’s focus on dreams. The REBT therapist may urge the client to gather data as homework to defend beliefs. It is educationally-oriented. While I do not care for trickery or paradoxical statements or cleverness on the part of the therapist, I adhere to the core idea that irrational beliefs cause undo misery.

REBT is a little harsher in stance than Rogers’ therapy. If your mother-in-law does not like you, the REBT therapist argues that you do not need to necessarily be distressed about that. You can’t please everyone, and you may not be in the wrong. Conversely, Buddhists would say that you only want others to be happy: If others criticize you, you must not get angry, but consider the criticism for any possible merit. You must act with compassion and love toward everyone (Hopkins, 2002). In REBT, one may decide that it’s okay if important people in one’s life do not like them. It’s really about being less sensitive, less self-critical, and less apt to worry about others’ feelings. In line with that hard-headedness, the therapist is less empathetic and thus avoids client feelings of dependency or transference (Corsini & Wedding, 2008).

The REBT therapist is the teacher who questions the client’s assumptions (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). The therapist would not dwell on childhood experiences, but might say, Is that a rational, necessary belief that since your father was weak you must necessarily be as well? What about your mother’s influence? Are all children exactly like their parents? Aren’t some children quite different from their parents? Didn’t I see some evidence of strength in you? Let’s not focus on your father’s behavior, but your behavior. Why are you worried about being weak? How do you define that? What does that mean? Is it rational? Are you just describing the reality of being human?

I find the insights behind REBT very enlightening, although perhaps a little too crass. For example, people do indeed get into trouble when they want to win others’ approval, but it can also keep us in line with social mores. Ellis says that we do not need others’ approval to succeed (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). This is a helpful notion in the case where a parent is perhaps limiting the potential of offspring. However, if an aggressive, ambitious person is storming ahead and running over people in the process, the lack of approval from others is an indication that one has done something to offend others. Oftentimes social feedback helps us to curb antisocial behavior.

Another typical erroneous assumption according to REBT therapists is assuming that others will act considerately and fairly (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). This is a valuable thought, because if we do not expect perfect treatment from other fallible human beings, then we won’t be disappointed and distressed when we don’t get it. Moreover, our happiness should not be placed in the hands of others. A third erroneous assumption according to REBT therapists is to expect our world to be gratifying and without frustrations. That is just not going to happen and we might as well realize it and accept it now.

Albert Ellis felt that humans want love, approval, success and pleasure so badly that we define them as needs instead of icing on the cake. Ellis’s view was to get real. Life is hard.

Don’t be so attuned to others’ opinions. Don’t be so focused on criticizing oneself, others’, and the world at large. That is childish thinking which is encouraged both by biology and by our environment. Since we live in a group-based society, we tend to put a lot of stock in what the group thinks of us. We exaggerate the importance of those opinions (Corsini & Wedding, 2008) Some people are far too worried about competing with others and impressing others. There is a happy-medium.

Ellis found people’s belief systems to be so firmly entrenched in their psyche that making lasting changes in beliefs and behavior was no easy task (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). The erroneous beliefs are not difficult to identify and tend to fall into a few, standard categories, but it takes more than a warm, supportive therapist to undo these deeply-rooted beliefs. An individual’s habitual, repetitive self-talk needs to be identified and questioned in order to reverse the self-defeating thoughts. Ellis believed that change could be made only with a very directive approach by the therapist. It is the therapists’ job to help the client by encouraging hard work, not to merely relate to the client or empathize with the client.

Even though behaviors are firmly entrenched, they are not unconscious, hard to identify, or so unique (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Ellis encouraged clients to become more realistic, more tolerant, and less demanding of others. He attempted to reduce anxiety, guilt and depression by encouraging people to accept themselves as they are; to reduce anger by being more tolerant, and to reduce frustration by realizing that the world is a frustrating place. People who are depressed get into an endless cycle of blaming themselves, getting mad at themselves for being depressed and then ruminating about it. REBT attempts to break this cycle.

In marital counseling Ellis taught compromise, communication, contracting with one another, and complaining without acting upset: Each partner can only make himself or herself happy (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). REBT is not applicable to those who are severely mentally ill, since it is a highly cognitive therapy. Behavioral Therapy

The foundation of behavior therapy (BT) is that all behavior is simply a function of positive or negative consequences: action- reaction, stimulus- response (Corsini & Wedding, 2008). Social-cognitive behavior therapy adds a cognitive factor onto stimulus-response. Behavioral therapists believe that people and their environments affect one another: They are not independently functioning entities. As with REBT, one’s interpretation of an event is more important than the event itself. Neurotic behavior is not viewed as a disease but as a simple problem in living and this problematic behavior can be unlearned, just as it was learned. REBT nor BT will cure those with organic brain disorders which produce schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, both therapies may help those individuals with handling aspects of their life and behavior.

In BT, the drivers behind problematic behaviors are assessed through