Person-Centred Theory

Idea in A Nutshell

Our worth and value comes from being human, and not from who we are, what we do or what we own.

The Idea in Summary

By accepting people as they are, in all the complexity and messiness of human experience, and by consistently and actively demonstrating this acceptance through your behaviour, you create the conditions necessary for people to become the person they have always had the capacity to become.

The Idea in More Depth

Person-centred theory (sometimes known as Humanistic Theory) states that human nature is essentially good. It believes that when people are accepted for who they are and are valued as a unique individual in their own right they will naturally seek to be the best they can be and will respect, love and value others. Although many writers, theorists and practitioners have influenced the theory it is still most closely associated with the main originator of the theory – Carl Rogers.

For those who believe and practice Person-Centred Theory there is a view that this innate, goodness and value is the natural state of humanity. However, as people grow from babies, to children, to adults, they are often offered only conditional love, not the unconditional love that the theory says is essential to reach our fullest potential. Parents, carers, friends, lovers, family, peers and neighbours give us the message that in order to be accepted and loved we must be something other than what we are. As a result of this we come to believe that we are not good enough. We then begin to put an act; to present an acceptable face to the world in order to be loved and accepted. This however, creates feelings of anxiety, inferiority and a lack of authenticity and integrity. The self literally “dis-integrates” as we present false selves to the world, and even to ourselves. Instead of having a core sense of value and worth as an individual we judge ourselves in terms of how we perform on many different scales. The sense of integration, of being a person in our own right, is lost as we try and earn respect from others.

But person-centred theory also notes that not only do we lose a sense of our own uniqueness and worth, but we also see others as less than fully human. Instead of being able to fully relate to others as a genuine meeting of equals we seek to judge relationships in terms of what people can do for us, or in terms of who is superior and who is inferior. So not only are we as individuals “dis-integrated” but we are also separated from integrated human encounters with others by the roles we play and the roles we ascribe to others.

One of the key ways in which we can see this “dis-integration” is by our tendency to see others as defined by their behaviour. When someone bullies another person we call them “a bully”. When someone lets people take advantage of them we call them “a doormat.” In both cases, we identify the person with their behaviour. Person Centred theory explicitly rejects this idea. A person who kills another person is not a murderer, they are a person who has committed murder. A person who has sexually abused a child is a person who has abused a child, and not an abuser.

The same goes for any single aspect of our experience as a human. A person diagnosed with schizophrenia is not “a schizophrenic.” When we called someone a dyslexic or a quadriplegic we are defining the person based on one part of their total experience as a human being. Once a person is labelled by their disorder something of their unique value and worth as a human being is lost.

Rogers’ theory is often presented in a very neat and simplistic way – if you listen to people they will get better. However, this does not do justice to what is a complex and integrated theory of human experience. Rogers presented nineteen propositions that he believed underpinned all his work. I have tried to summarise them below. The numbers in brackets relate to the number of the proposition in Rogers’ original list.

People are actively constructing their understanding of the world by seeing and hearing what happens around them, and then trying to make sense of it. (1-3) A core part of this sense-making is aimed at addressing the question ‘who am I?’ (4) Not only does the person think about who they are, they also form an opinion about how good they are, based on the reactions they get from others. (5) This also builds on an inbuilt drive to be the best they can possibly be, and also to survive in a changing and challenging environment. (6) As a result of this, you cannot really understand another person’s experience or their behaviour until you can see it from their own internal model of the world and of themselves.

When it comes to understanding behaviour this is best seen as an attempt to need the person’s needs, as they perceive them (8) and emotions are a result of the importance attached to the needs and the extent to which the person sees their needs as being met or blocked. (9)

Needs are both instinctive and essential and also socially constructed. This means that the value placed on different experiences, and on the self, will vary depending on the reactions of others. This sets the scene in which some needs are seen as ‘good’ (socially approved of) and others as ‘bad’ (socially disapproved of). As the individual continues to feel these needs, regardless of whether they are socially approved of or not, there is a tension set up between ‘the kind of person I am’ and the experience of needs. Where the two are aligned this creates little tension, and most behaviour will fall into this category (12). However where the two are experienced as in conflict tensions arise. These may be denied or experienced in a distorted form. It will perhaps be helpful to give an example of this. (10 and 11)

Imagine a person who has grown up in an environment where sexual activity is seen as shameful or bad. As they go through puberty and begin to become aware of their emerging sexuality this may create tension. The self-concept is that ‘I am a good person’ but the socially approved of belief is that ‘only bad people want to have sex’. This can then create an environment where the individual either completely denies their own sexual identity or one where the responsibility is projected onto someone else. In the latter case the problem is no longer that ‘I have sexual desires and feelings’ but that other people are ‘acting provocatively.’ (13-16)

When the threat of judgement is lifted the person is able to openly explore their own experience and their sense of self. They are able to take responsibility for their own behaviour and build a new, more accurate and healthier sense of the self. (17) This not only improves the well-being of the individual, but also makes them more able to be empathic towards others, recognising that others have needs and desires that are just as valid, no more, no less, than their own. (18)

The end result, according to Rogers, is that this will allow the individual to both grow and mature as an individual, but to also develop values which are not distorted by the conditions and limitations imposed on it by society and by others who did not accept the person as they were developing. (19)

Core to Rogers’ model of life was that each of us is born with a sense of our ‘real self’, an individual capable of doing and being unique and impacting the world in a powerful and meaningful way. When that ‘real self’ is met by carers and significant others who can offer ‘unconditional positive regard’, accurate empathy and who are congruent in themselves, then this real self will develop unfettered. However when the developing child is met with either a lack of positive regard, or regard that is conditional on meeting some kind of external judgement, or where they are met with a lack or inaccurate empathy, or encounter people who lack congruence, then the self will become hidden and a false-self will emerge, and this will harm later development. It is helpful to consider each of these three things in turn.

Unconditional Positive Regard is central to Person-Centred Theory. This means that regardless of who the person is or what the person has done they are seen and treated as a person of infinite value and worth. When this is experienced by a person, when they are met with an attitude that says ‘no matter who you are or what you’ve done, I will treat you as being of the same value as everyone else’ then the person can begin to accept themselves and take responsibility for their life and behaviour. It is important to note that this is regard for the person, not their behaviour. Person-Centred Theory suggests that we must accept and respect people, not their behaviour. So as a child is growing up there is a world of difference between saying ‘That was a silly thing you did’, which can be done with Unconditional Positive Regard, and ‘You are a silly person’, which cannot.

This leads directly to the non-judgemental attitude which is also central to Person-Centred Theory. This does not mean that the worker never passes judgement on behaviour. Behaviour can be judged on both its intentions and its consequences, but the person doing the behaviour is not judged. This leads to an important distinction between ‘punishment’ and ‘discipline’. Punishment is about making someone pay for the past, it is about judging them as a person. Punishment basically says ‘you are a bad person, you must suffer.’ Discipline is about helping someone do better in the future, it is about them learning from the consequences of their behaviour. In that respect, Person-Centred Theory is not soft. Rogers went so far as to say that a person centred life was not “for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one’s potentialities. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life.” (Rogers 1961)

The second feature seen as necessary for healthy development is accurate empathy. Babies and small children have powerful feelings and experiences. These are real and important to the child. When a parent or another significant person recognises and validates the importance of that experience to the child, the child grows in their sense of being able to experience and deal with a wide range of powerful feelings. This is, however, something that quite often adults simply ‘get wrong’. Consider seriously for a moment this dialogue from the movie ‘Love Actually’.

Daniel is Sam’s step-father. Sam is somewhere around 10 years old. Joanna, Sam’s mother and Daniel’s wife, has recently died and Daniel is raising Sam on his own. It is obvious to Daniel that something is wrong for Sam, but it takes him time to work out how to deal with it. Finally, they have a conversation, which goes like this.

Daniel: So what’s the problem, Sammy-o? Is it just Mum, or is it something else? Maybe… school – are you being bullied? Or is it something worse? Can you give me any clues at all?

Sam: You really want to know?

Daniel: I really want to know.

Sam: Even though you won’t be able to do anything to help?

Daniel: Even if that’s the case, yeah.

Sam: Okay. Well, the truth is… actually… I’m in love.

Daniel: Sorry?

Sam: I know I should be thinking about Mum all the time, and I am. But the truth is, I’m in love and I was before she died, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

Daniel: [laughs] Aren’t you a bit young to be in love?

Sam: No.

Daniel: Oh, well, okay… right. Well, I mean, I’m a little relieved.

Sam: Why?

Daniel: Well, because I thought it would be something worse.

Sam: [incredulous] Worse than the total agony of being in love?

Daniel: Oh. No, you’re right. Yeah, total agony.

In this brief conversation there a several ways in which, quite unintentionally, Daniel fails to provide accurate empathy. Firstly, he laughs when Sam says he is in love. If you watch the scene Sam’s non-verbal communication alone makes it clear that for Sam this is not a laughing matter. Secondly, by stating that he is ‘a bit young’ he further dismisses Sam’s reality of being in love. Finally, by dismissing this as something that could have been ‘worse’ he minimises how bad this feels to Sam.

As the scene develops Daniel displays accurate empathy, but this exchange is very typical of the ways in which adults can, without any malice, fail to respond with accurate empathy to the experiential world of children. This builds up over time into a situation where children no longer feel able to trust or respect their own feelings and so hide their true selves, even from themselves.

Finally there is the importance of congruence. This in many ways is the mirror of accurate empathy. With accurate empathy the adult enters into the world of the child; with congruence, the adult allows the child honest entry into their own world, but in a contained way. If a child encounters adults who are able to openly and safely express a wide range of emotions they learn that emotions are safe and even useful. They learn that: when a loss happens it is fine to feel sad; when something good is going to happen it is fine to feel excited; when an important rule is broken, it is fine to feel angry; when something harmful might happen it is fine to feel scared; but above all they learn that these feelings do not overwhelm the person and they can feel them and carry on. This creates a strong, authentic sense of the self in the developing child.

However when a child is surrounded by adults who either do not express their emotions, or who express one emotion but either deny or mislabel it, then the child develops an anxious, insecure sense of self. When a child finds that no matter what they do, good or bad, the parent does not react, this undermines the self. When a child hears a parent scream ‘I’m not angry’, this undermines the self.

These three things, Unconditional Positive Regard, Accurate Empathy and Congruence form the basis of Person Centred Practice. Rogers further developed these from a view of human development to a set of ‘necessary and sufficient conditions’ for therapeutic change.

When it comes to using this theory in practice Rogers suggested that there were six conditions required for this model to bring about change.

Psychological contact between worker and service user
The service user to be in a state of incongruence (experienced as a sense of anxiety or distress)
The worker is congruent or integrated in the relationship.
The worker has unconditional positive regard for the service user.
The worker has an empathic understanding of the service user’s way of making sense of the world.
The worker achieves some degree of success in communicating their empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard to the service user. (Rogers, 1957)

Rogers argued that if a worker was able to be congruent (true to themselves and their core values) and could make psychological contact with a service user in distress; if they were able to fully value the service user as a person in their own right; if they could connect with the service user well enough to see life from the service user’s point view; and if they were able to communicate both the fact that they value the service user and can see things from their point of view then that alone will be enough to bring about positive change.

In practice, Person Centred theory is applied in its purest form in non-directive person centred counselling. Here the worker seeks to listen with acceptance to whatever the person brings. The worker seeks not to challenge or change anything about the person or how they see the world, but only to empathetically understand the person’s view of the world. Key to this is the belief that by doing this the innate, natural drive to fully express all that is best in us will be set free by being accepted and understood by another human being.

The reality of social work practice is that social workers rarely have the time or the responsibility to offer person centred counselling. Social workers use the person-centred approach in a more general way, as an underpinning principle rather than in its purest form.

The Theory in Social Work Practice

When a social worker encounters a service user, they have a fundamental choice of approach. A social worker can either choose to be person-centred, or they can choose not to be person-centred. When a person approaches a social worker the social worker may choose to see the person as a problem to be solved, a customer to be served, a target to be met. A social worker may listen very carefully to the service user in order to learn what they need to know to solve the problem, to give them what they want, or to meet the targets of the service. Each of these might lead to efficient and effective social work practice, but not to person-centred practice.

A social worker using person-centred theory will approach a service user first and foremost as a human being of infinite value, worth and potential. They will seek first not to fix them but to understand and accept them. In this context, a social worker will listen actively to what the service user says in order to see and feel what life is like for the service user.

One of the most powerful applications of person-centred theory to social work practice is the separation of the person from their behaviour. Person Centred theory does not mean that we have to accept what people do. We can still be clear that certain types of behaviour, behaviours that have a harmful effect upon others, are wrong or bad. The key point from the theory is that a person does not become bad because they have done bad things.

When applying person-centred theory in social work practice the start point is the equal value and worth of all human beings. The person who has abused a child is not of less value or worth than the child that they have abused. Both are equally in need of being met by a social worker who will treat them as a human being. This is far from easy to do in practice as it is normal to have strong feelings about behaviour that offends our sense of morality.

Rogers’ ‘necessary and sufficient conditions’ can be extremely helpful. When Rogers says that the worker must be congruent and integrated in the relationship this implies a high degree of honesty. This means that a social worker can express their feelings about a particular piece of behaviour, for example, to say, “I know what you have done, and I don’t agree with it and I do feel uncomfortable when I think about it.” However, they can then add something like, “However I think none of us should be judged by our behaviour and that what you did is not the whole story of who you are as a person.”

From a person-centred perspective this is not simply a technique, but a genuinely held belief. It can only be done well when you are sure you do separate people from their behaviour. If it is just words without belief then most service users will see the words as fake and react with due contempt for the worker who says them. However, if you believe all humans deserve equal worth and respect and communicate this with integrity and empathy most service users will be grateful for your honesty.

Some may object to this honesty; concerned that it will hurt the service user’s feelings. This, however, shows a lack of understanding of the person-centred theory. If you think you have to hide your feelings from the service user (and if you believe that most service users will not be aware of the fact that you are hiding them) you cannot have a genuine person centred encounter with a service user.

In many ways, the skill in using person centred theory is to know when and how to share your feelings, not whether to share them. A purposeful use of self to model respectful acceptance is a powerful person-centred tool. However, it is easy to share your feelings with a service user in ways that serve your needs, not the service user’s needs.

As stated earlier, Person-Centred Theory rejects the idea of identifying an individual with a single aspect of their experience. This means that words and phrases such as “the elderly”, “a bully” or “an anorexic” are not acceptable. This is not a case of being ‘politically correct’. It is simply that these words take a facet of the person, their age, their behaviour, their medical diagnosis and use this to label the person. According to the Person-Centred theory when working with someone diagnosed with schizophrenia or manic depression there is a huge difference between seeing them as a unique individual who experiences the world in their own way and seeing them as ‘a schizophrenic’ or ‘a manic-depressive.’

So a person-centred approach to social work practice means seeing the individual as a person of value and worth in their own right. It means accepting that whatever the person experiences is true and valid for them. It means actively seeking to place yourself in their place without losing sight of your own individuality and sense of the world.

It is quite possible to do all of this whilst still challenging a person’s behaviour. It is possible to use a person centred theory base even when you are saying that someone cannot adequately care for their children or needs to be detained in hospital against their will. To be person-centred is not to deny that a person’s behaviour has consequences, or to fail to follow through on the consequences of a person’s choices. It does mean that even when doing so you never lose sight of the potential, worth, dignity and value of the person. You never treat them in a lesser way because of their behaviour.

In many ways, Person-Centred Theory is more about a statement of values then a specific scientific approach to our work. It is also an approach that is much more espoused in theory than delivered in practice.

What It’s Not

Person Centred theory is not the same as active listening. Whilst active listening can help you treat others with respect and can help you see the potential in them, it is also possible to actively listen without using a person centred approach. In fact, some of the best active listeners on the planet are expert sales staff. Being able to see the world from someone else’s point of view is incredibly helpful if you want to persuade them to do something that is in your interest, not theirs.

It is quite possible to actively listen in a Person-Centred way or in a self-centred way. It is possible to use the technique of active listening without having a genuine unconditional positive regard for the other person. It is, therefore, important when we claim to be using a Person-Centred Approach that we are using the core elements of the theory and not simply applying a few of the more superficial techniques that come from the theory.

Mearns and Thorne, leading writers in the field of Person Centred counselling, have identified how dangerous this lack of a solid understanding of Person-Centred theory is in practice. They comment that “many practitioners with inadequate or even minimal understanding were prepared to label themselves ‘person-centred’, bringing the approach into disrepute by their superficial, muddled or misguidedly anarchic practice, which had no solid foundation in genuine person-centred theory.” (Mearns and Thorne 2007, p2-3)

A second thing that can be confused with Person Centred theory is Person Centred Planning. This is defined as “a way of discovering what people want, the support they need and how they can get it. . . . . that assists people in leading an independent and inclusive life.” (DoH, 2010, p3) While this is consistent with Person Centred theory, it is not the same as Person Centred theory. It is possible to carry out Person Centred Planning in a managerial way. It is possible to engage in the process of Person Centred Planning without having a deep regard for the person. This does not necessarily mean it will be bad practice. Sometimes an effective and efficient response achieves goals more quickly than a more person-centred approach. Despite this, it is important to understand that just because an approach has ‘person-centred’ in the title does not mean that it will automatically use all, or even most, of the things from Person Centred theory.

Finally, being person-centred does not mean putting the person at the centre of the process. If you put the person at the centre of the process, but you fail to recognise the person as a unique person with a fully valid experience of life you will not be being person centred.

Theory Checklist

Do you believe that all people have an innate potential to be the best they can possibly be?

Do you believe that all people have the same inherent worth and value, without regard for their past behaviour or any other characteristic?

When talking with a service user do you seek to understand fully how they experience their life circumstances?

Do you actively seek to communicate the belief in people’s innate potential and worth, and your empathic understanding of their lived experience?

When you engage with service users are you conscious of being emotionally honest and genuine?

Unless you can say ‘yes’ to all these questions you are not using Person Centred theory, regardless of what other techniques and approaches you use.

Critique of the theory

Many people do not accept the idea of an inherently good human nature. Those who are influenced by evolutionary psychologists (such Steven Pinker) see human nature as being driven by competing demands. Whilst altruism, love, and integrity are part of human nature, so is selfishness, hate and lying. In general, how humans behave owes more to what will meet their self-interest (as they perceive it) than it does to any innate sense of goodness.

If a social worker sticks overly rigidly to a Person-Centred approach they may fail to challenge a person when challenge is required. Instead of seeing the person as inherently positive a worker may begin to see all aspects of the person’s behaviour as positive. This can lead to very serious poor practice. For example in a child protection role a social worker may strive so hard to understand and validate a parent’s experience that they fail to recognise that a parent’s behaviour or view of their child might pose serious risks to a child. Whilst it is true that most parents do love and care for and about their children a significant number do not. Of those, there are many who fail to do so in a way that actively harms their child’s well-being. A social worker must never allow a commitment to Person-Centred theory to lead to practice where they ignore the real harm one person can do to another.

It is also possible to critique Person Centred theory from a more political activist stance. Whilst Person-Centred theory rejects the idea of identifying people according to an individual characteristic there are strong political reasons for doing this. Feminist theory is largely built upon a collective experience of being a woman. By individualising and personalising women’s experience, by seeing the problems faced by women as a problem of denial of self, the oppression of women as a group, by men, as a group, is downplayed or denied completely.

For groups who have been oppressed in society such as women, lesbian and gay men, members of ethnic minority populations, older adults, people with disabilities, working class people, it is worth asking if the problem is one of individual authenticity or collective oppression. Person-Centred may in effect deny this oppression. Radical action may be helped by identifying the self primarily in terms of a part of your experience as a member of a group, rather than solely in person-centred individual terms. Many consciousness raising approaches require a person to actively embrace a label instead of denying it.

In a similar way, Person-Centred theory may be critiqued for having a Euro-centric bias. The model is based upon the individual as a discrete and separate entity, complete and entire in itself. In many cultures in the world, this is not how a person is perceived. The concept of Ubuntu can be widely found in African cultures. This is often defined as something like “I am because of who we are.” In many African and Asian cultures, the self is seen as far more of a connected, interdependent entity. As a result, a worker using a Person-Centred approach cannot assume that someone will share the idea of a self-actualising individual as a universal model of human nature.

Although there is a danger of a Euro-centric bias it is important to remember that Ubuntu is itself described as a humanistic model. A person using a Person Centred approach may be able to validate and accept another individual’s worldview that includes an inter-connected, interdependent self rather than in isolated, independent self.

Despite these serious problems with Person-Centred theory, it remains probably the most significant theory underpinning social work practice. There is a solid body of evidence that workers who work in a Person-Centred way build stronger relationships with service users, and that the strength and quality of the relationship is a key factor determining the overall effectiveness of social work practice.

Whilst it may be true that Person-Centred theory has an overly positive view of human nature it seems likely that it is better to treat people in a positive light. The idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy is very powerful here. (Merton, 1968) If you consistently treat someone as a person of value and worth; as someone with many positive qualities, they will often respond to such treatment by becoming the person you believe them to be. The cynics may be right; human nature may be far from the positive thing posited by Person-Centred theory, but the paradox may be that by acting ‘as if’ that positive view of human nature is true individual humans may become much more positive in ways congruent with the goals and roles of social work.

In the same way a Person-Centred approach may be the first step on a journey of overcoming oppression. For example, a gay man from a religious background that strongly condemns homosexuality may find the acceptance and respect of a Person-Centred worker a useful first step that leads them to take a more strongly political position of identity politics.

On balance, it is likely that if a social worker fails to operate in a Person-Centred way; fails to respect the unique value and worth of each person, their practice is unlikely to be as effective as it could be. Equally a commitment to fight oppression that fails to be Person-Centred is likely, in the end, to dehumanise and therefore increase the level of discrimination and oppression. However to be so Person-Centred that we fail to see the level of oppression faced by some individuals as a result of their actual or perceived membership of a particular group or class is also likely to lead to us failing to confront oppression. This is why effective social work practice needs both a Person-Centred approach and an understanding of social systems. It is only by integrating both that social work can really live out its goals of “empowerment and liberation” based upon “principles of human rights and social justice”. (IAASW, 2001)

Reflections

How could you work with someone if you knew that they had raped or murdered a child?
Think of a time when you have been really psychologically connected to another person. How did it happen? What let you know you had that connection?
What barriers might you find that would stop you having a truly person-centred approach to your work?
Given the power imbalance, statutory duties and involuntary nature of much social work practice, what is the role of person-centred theory in social work?

Social Work Theories and Models

Mapping an uncertain territory