Review
BibTex RIS Cite

Benlik Farklılıklarına Rogers’ın Danışan OdaklıTerapisi ile Yaklaşım: Vaka Çalışması

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 13 - 26, 01.03.2015
https://doi.org/10.31682/ayna.470648

Abstract

Bireylerin benlikleri arasında yaşadıkları fark uzun zamandır psikoloji biliminin gündeminde olmuştur. Carl Rogers’ın teorisi de dahil olmak üzere, teoriler genellikle gerçek benlik ile ideal benlik arasındaki farka odaklanmışlardır. Ancak Higgins, bireylerin üç farklı benlik kavramının olduğunu öne sürmüştür. Bunlar gerçek benlik, ideal benlik ve zaruri benliktir. Higgins, ayrıca kişinin kendi bakış açısının ya da kendisi için önemli birinin bakış açısının da benlik kavramının oluşumunda etkili olduğunu belirtmiştir. Higgins farklılıklar karşısında bireyin farklı olumsuz duygular yaşadığını öne sürmüştür. Rogers ise benlik farklılıklarının bireylerin çocuklukta koşulsuz olumlu kabul alamamaları sebebiyle oluştuğunu ve bireyin yaşadığı olumsuz duygularla savunma mekanizmaları yardımıyla başettiğini söylemiştir. Rogers benliğin gelişiminin çocukluk dönemi ile sınırlı olmadığına inandığı için, terapi ortamında danışan gerçek, samimi, empatik ve koşulsuz olumlu kabulü yaşayabildiği bir ilişki deneyimleyebilirse, benlik temsilleri arasındaki farkın azalacağını ve kişinin kendini gerçekleştirme yönünde ilerleyebileceğini belirtmiştir. Bu makalede, benlik farklılıkları ve Rogers’ın danışan odaklı teorisi derlenmiş, benlik farklılığı yaşayan bir danışan ile örneklendirilmiştir.

References

  • Barnett, M., D. ve Womack, P., M. (2015). Fearing, not loving, the reflection: Narcissism, self-esteem, and self-discrepancy theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 280-284.
  • Burger, J., M. (2011). Personality (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.
  • Cervone, D., ve Pervin, L., A. (2008). Personality: Theory and Research (10th ed.). Danvers,
  • MA, United States: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc. Feist, J., ve Feist, G., J. (2009). Theories of Personality (7th ed.). United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
  • Frager, R., ve Fadiman, J. (1998). Personality and Personal Growth (4th ed.). United States: Longman.
  • Friedman, H., S. ve Schustack, M.i W. (2012). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern
  • Research (5th ed.). Boston, MA : Allyn ve Bacon. Geiwitz, P., J. (1969). Non-Freudian Personality Theories: Basic Concepts in Psychology
  • Series. California: Brooks/Cole. Higgins, E., T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.
  • Monte, C., F. ve Sollod, R., N. (2003). Beneath The Mask: An Introduction to Theories of
  • Personality. Danvers, MA, United States: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc. Poyrazli, S. (2003). Validity of Rogerian Therapy in Turkish culture: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 42, 107-115.
  • Rogers, C., R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.
  • Rogers, C., R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Schultz, D., P. ve Schultz, S., E. (2005). Theories of Personality (8th ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth.
  • Stevens, M., J. (1992). Prescott Lecky: Pioneer in consistency theory and cognitive therapy.
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(6), 807-811. Stevens, E., N., Lovejoy, M., C. ve Pittman, L., D. (2014). Understanding the relationship between actual: ideal discrepancies and depressive symptoms: A developmental examination.
  • Journal of Adolescence, 37, 612-621. Strauman, T., J. ve Higgins, E., T. (1988). Self-Discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685- Summary:

A review of treatment of self discrepancy with Carl Rogers’ client centered therapy: An illustration of a case

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 13 - 26, 01.03.2015
https://doi.org/10.31682/ayna.470648

Abstract

Self Discrepancy between different selves has long been the issue of the discipline of psychology. Theories generally, including Carl Rogers’, mention that people experience discrepancy between actual self and ideal self. In addition, people who are experiencing discrepancy between actual and ideal selves, they experience negative emotions. Tory E. Higgins proposed that there are three different domains of self, which are actual, ideal and ought selves. In addition, he added the standpoint to these selves as from own self and others’. According to Higgins, people experience different kinds of negative emotions as dejection related emotions like dissatisfaction, disappointment and sadness, or agitation related emotions like fear, threat and edginess when they experience different kinds of discrepancies. Rogers proposed that people experience this discreapancy because of conditions of worth they encountered in childhood and they try to cope with these negative emotions with the help of defensive processes. Rogers claimed that the development of self is not limited to childhood years, so in therapy if the client experiences a relationship which is congruent, genuine, empathic and has unconditional positive regard, the client can narrow the gap between the different selves and strive towards self actualization. In this paper, self discrepancy from the Higgins’ point of view and Rogerian client centered therapy is reviewed. In addition, a case who experiences self discrepancy was approached with the Rogerian client centered therapy.

References

  • Barnett, M., D. ve Womack, P., M. (2015). Fearing, not loving, the reflection: Narcissism, self-esteem, and self-discrepancy theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 280-284.
  • Burger, J., M. (2011). Personality (8th ed.). California: Wadsworth.
  • Cervone, D., ve Pervin, L., A. (2008). Personality: Theory and Research (10th ed.). Danvers,
  • MA, United States: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc. Feist, J., ve Feist, G., J. (2009). Theories of Personality (7th ed.). United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
  • Frager, R., ve Fadiman, J. (1998). Personality and Personal Growth (4th ed.). United States: Longman.
  • Friedman, H., S. ve Schustack, M.i W. (2012). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern
  • Research (5th ed.). Boston, MA : Allyn ve Bacon. Geiwitz, P., J. (1969). Non-Freudian Personality Theories: Basic Concepts in Psychology
  • Series. California: Brooks/Cole. Higgins, E., T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340.
  • Monte, C., F. ve Sollod, R., N. (2003). Beneath The Mask: An Introduction to Theories of
  • Personality. Danvers, MA, United States: John Wiley ve Sons, Inc. Poyrazli, S. (2003). Validity of Rogerian Therapy in Turkish culture: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 42, 107-115.
  • Rogers, C., R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.
  • Rogers, C., R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Schultz, D., P. ve Schultz, S., E. (2005). Theories of Personality (8th ed.). California: Thomson Wadsworth.
  • Stevens, M., J. (1992). Prescott Lecky: Pioneer in consistency theory and cognitive therapy.
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(6), 807-811. Stevens, E., N., Lovejoy, M., C. ve Pittman, L., D. (2014). Understanding the relationship between actual: ideal discrepancies and depressive symptoms: A developmental examination.
  • Journal of Adolescence, 37, 612-621. Strauman, T., J. ve Higgins, E., T. (1988). Self-Discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 685- Summary:
There are 16 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Psychology
Other ID JA26DY64YS
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Derya Gürcan

Publication Date March 1, 2015
Submission Date September 10, 2014
Acceptance Date January 6, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 2 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Gürcan, D. (2015). Benlik Farklılıklarına Rogers’ın Danışan OdaklıTerapisi ile Yaklaşım: Vaka Çalışması. AYNA Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 2(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.31682/ayna.470648