e page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Unconditional Positive Regard: Constituent Activities
155
UPR: CONSTITUENT ACTIVITIES
Unconditional Positive Regard:
Constituent Activities
James R. Iberg
10
In this chapter I consider Unconditional Positive Regard (UPR) first as it was
described by Carl R. Rogers and then examine how some subsequent theorists
and writers have studied and elaborated it. I then place my emphasis on activities
especially pertinent to the momentary enactment of Unconditional Positive
Regard, because as it is one of many possible modes of regarding, we need to
know how to enter this particular mode. In the end, I hope to have helped answer
questions a student therapist might have such as What can I do to develop my
capacity to have Unconditional Positive Regard for clients?
THEORY OF CARL R. ROGERS
Unconditional Positive Regard is a central concept in the theories of Carl R. Rogers,
both for psychotherapy and for interpersonal relations. A universal need for
positive regard by others appears at about the same time a person begins to
experience awareness of self (Rogers, 1959). In therapy, UPR is a quality of the
therapists experience toward the client (p. 239). Rogers writing sheds light on
various aspects of this construct:
Unconditional
One experiencing UPR holds no conditions of acceptance . . . It is at the opposite
pole from a selective evaluating attitude. (p. 225)
Positive
One offers warm acceptance . . . a prizing of the person, as Dewey has used
that term . . . It means a caring for the client . . . (p. 225).
Regard
One regards each aspect of the clients experience as being part of that client . . .
It means a caring for the client, but not in a possessive way or in such a way as
simply to satisfy the therapists own needs. It means caring for the client as a
separate person, with permission to have his [or her] own feelings, his [or her]
own experiences. (p. 225)
Rogers acknowledged an undesirable connotation of his term unconditional
positive regard (p. 225, footnote): it suggests an all-or-nothing condition.
However, for the effective therapist, Rogers said it probably occurs sometimes
(at many moments) and not at other times, and to varying degrees. UNCONDITIONAL POSITIVE REGARD
156
Theoretically, the importance of UPR lies in its power to build up or restore
the recipients unconditional positive self-regard. To understand this as Rogers
did, I will review a few other related terms: conditions of worth, self-concept,
organismic valuing, and incongruence.
Rogers postulated that the human infant equates organismic experiencing
with reality. Experiences perceived as enhancing or maintaining the organism
are valued positively, and those experiences perceived as negating maintenance
or failing to enhance the organism are valued negatively.
As the person develops, the further differentiation natural to the actualizing
tendency results in some parts of experiencing being symbolized in an awareness
of being, an awareness of functioning (pp. 2445). This partial awareness of
experiencing gets elaborated into a concept of self.
When significant others communicate to a person that his/her positive regard
depends on certain behaviors or certain experiences, the part of the person
identified with the self-concept has incentives to include some behaviors and
experiences and to resist, deny, or distort other behaviors and experiences. These
incentives are powerful because of the pervasive and persistent need for positive
regard from significant others. Rogers says the expression of positive regard by a
significant social other can become more compelling than the organismic valuing
process, and the individual becomes more [oriented] to the positive regard of
such others than toward experiences which are of positive value in actualizing
the organism (pp. 2456).
Rogers describes the development of incongruence between self and
experience as follows:
Experiences which run contrary to the conditions of worth are perceived
selectively and distortedly as if in accord with the condition of worth, or are in
part or whole denied to awareness Thus from the time of the first selective
perception in terms of conditions of worth, the states of incongruence between
self and experience, of psychological maladjustment and of vulnerability, exist
to some degree. (p. 247)
Moving toward less defensiveness and healthier adjustment requires a decrease
in conditions of worth and an increase in unconditional self-regard, and the
communicated UPR of a significant other is one way of achieving these things
(p. 249). This is a very interactional notion of how things intrapsychic
(incongruence, psychological maladjustment) can change. An environment of
empathy and UPR, when perceived by the person, weakens existing conditions
of worth, or dissolves them. Positive self-regard increases. Threat is reduced, and
the process of defense is reversed, so that experiences customarily threatening
can be accurately symbolized and integrated into the self-concept. (p. 249).
Thus, a central theoretical issue bearing on UPR is the self-concept and how
that can feel threatened by experiences inconsistent with conditions of worth.
There is a kind of resistance to or looking away from some parts of experience.
Conditions of worth foster a basic me / not-me division in experiencing and
reinforce a sense of self limited to parts acceptable to significant others. Rogers
argued that this problem resolves when one experiences empathy and UPR so
that the self-concept can be expanded or opened up to be more inclusive of all of 157
UPR: CONSTITUENT ACTIVITIES
ones diverse experiences and qualities of experiencing.
An example from a therapy client of the effects of conditions of worth, and
the struggle to undo their damage, may make these matters more tangible and
clear (names and certain facts have been changed to protect the clients identity).
After more than two years of therapy in which he has made good progress, Mr.
K. is now more aware of some of his tendencies, and he has changed many old
patterns. He has described how he was treated by his older siblings (their father
was absent): several of them would consistently get angry at and critical of
him if he presented a situation involving what they construed as a mess, or if
he required some special attention. He has often said tearfully the only safe
thing for me to do was to keep quiet and not make any trouble. He has made a
great deal of progress toward being more assertive and self expressive and is
building a sense that he has every right to have his needs attended to with
respect and caring. But he is not yet in a position where he can always operate
out of this new sense of more positive regard for himself.
A recent incident illustrates both his progress and the continuing struggle
to escape the constraints of conditions of worth: at a holiday gathering at his
sisters house, he went into the bathroom to find the toilet backed up and in
danger of overflowing if it were to be flushed again. He anticipated people
criticizing him and embarrassing him by saying Oh, what did you do, Pete? A
year ago, he probably would have just kept quiet about it. This time he told his
sister of the problem. As he was waiting for her to locate a plunger, he saw
someone else go into the bathroom. He felt anxious and became unsure if it
was his sister or someone else who went in there (he said to me that at some
level he knew it wasnt her it was a male friend of the family). In that moment,
he couldnt be sure. (He believes this perceptual distortion happened so that
he wouldnt have to draw attention to the situation and himself, risking mockery
and embarrassment, but he was extremely frustrated about allowing himself
to get confused like this.) Then his sister appeared, and he said Oh, someone
went in there. I thought it might be you. Before she finished saying tell him
not to flush, Pete was already yelling this to him.
This example shows how therapy enables living differently in a relevant life
situation. It also shows the very real limits in the extension of these benefits. At
this point in his therapy, when reflecting on a situation, Pete is readily aware of
much complexity and nuance in his emotional reactions and implicit thinking.
Many things he wouldnt have been able to admit to himself before, he easily
acknowledges now. Nevertheless, in the situation with the significant others who
were and still are sources of conditional regard, the same effects squelching certain
aspects of his experiencing (in this case confusing his perception of what he saw)
take hold and tend to dominate. He seems determined to eventually free himself
of such squelching effects even in this powerful family social context. We should
not minimize the importance of the change Pete has experienced already: within
this most challenging situation with the purveyors of conditions of worth, self-
assertive behavior is sprouting in