RESEARCH

An Analysis of How Carl Rogers Enacted Client-Centered

Conversation With Gloria

Scott A. Wickman and Cynthia Campbell

This study analyzed Carl Rogers’s session with Gloria in Three Approaches to Psychotherapy (E. L. Shostrom, 1965a) to
determine how Rogers’s conversational style functioned to enact his core conditions of empathy, genuineness, and uncondi-
tional positive regard. Rogers’s conversational style was found to be congruent with his espoused theory as well as a catalyst for
client-centered counseling. The authors suggest that despite the film’s popularity, the “client-centeredness” of the therapeutic
interaction between Carl Rogers and Gloria has been previously underrecognized.

C
arl 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 contin-
ues 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, pre-
sented 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 mean-
ingful 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 corre-
spondence 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, writ-
ing “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, genuineness, and unconditional
positive regard. This theoretical framework provides the in-
structional 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 “reflec-
tion of feeling” (p. 375). Moreover, Rogers and Wood (1974)
criticized the way in which client-centered counseling was be-
ing 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 posi-
tion 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 edu-
cators’ 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

Scott A. Wickman, Department of Counseling, Adult and Health Education; Cynthia Campbell, Department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment;
Northern Illinois University. Both authors contributed equally to the research and writing of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Scott A. Wickman, Department of Counseling, Adult and Health Education, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115 (e-mail: swickman@niu.edu).

© 2003 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 178–184

178 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81


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 util-
ity 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 acknowledg-
ments 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 spe-
cifically asked what she should do. Problem reformulation re-
ferred 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 afore-
mentioned 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 stu-
dents, 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
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
Analysis of a Client-Centered Conversation
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 in-
volved three steps. First, we grouped together previously
identified examples of Rogers’s conversational devices. Sec-
ond, we looked for a common function within each conversa-
tional 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.
Nonexpert Language: Communicating Genuineness and
Unconditional Positive Regard
Rogers’s nonexpert language throughout the session paral-
leled that of constructivist theories popularized decades later
(e.g., Anderson & Goolishian, 1988; Cecchin, 1987; Daniels
“First-Person Quotes” Externalizing Client’s Internal Dialogue
Affiliative Negative Assessments of the Difficulty of the Process
Empathy
Invitations for Problem
Repair Reformulation
Client-Centered
Counseling
Unconditional
Genuineness Positive Regard
Meta-Statements “Nonexpert” Language Withholding Direct
Responses to
Requests for Advice
FIGURE 1
Rogers’s Therapeutic Triangle: A Model for Client-
Centered Conversation
179
Wickman and Campbell
& 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,” “some-
thing,” and “whatever,” all of which intentionally conveyed
uncertainty and curiosity. Rogers’s nonexpert language made
evident and owned (genuineness) his inability to be an ex-
pert 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 tran-
script of the counseling session, we have added italics to high-
light 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 com-
ments 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 awk-
ward. 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.
180 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
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 assess-
ments 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 demon-
strated through conversation Rogers’s ability to compre-
hend 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 think-
ing 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 dia-
logue quotes may have been evidenced by how the process
became a collaborative activity toward the end of the ses-
sion. 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 conversa-
tion deviated somewhat from that of ordinary talk was in
the area of “repair.” In conversation-analytic terms, this phe-
nomenon 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 re-
pair to clarify and refine his understanding of Gloria’s situ-
ation. 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
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
Analysis of a Client-Centered Conversation
“message sent.” Second, they again called attention to his
not being the expert on Gloria. Third, invitations for re-
pair 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. Prototypi-
cal examples of Rogers inviting repair and Gloria respond-
ing 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 con-
versation, 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 directly to her
request for advice, he used nonexpert language, negatively
assessed the difficulty of the process, invited repair, and made
empathic meta-statements that displayed his understanding
of what she was experiencing. In short, he honored her
expertise in arriving at her own meaningful outcome. In
responding to Rogers’s withholding of advice, Gloria seemed
to revisit the topic about which she was seeking advice at a
more complex level.
Examples of withholding advice.
Example 1
Gloria: And I—I—I have a feeling like, you’re just going to sit there and let me
stew in it and I—I want more. 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. I
don’t know whether that makes any sense to you, but I mean it.
181
Wickman and Campbell
Example 2
Gloria: But when things—do seem so wrong for me and I have an
impulse to do them how can I accept that?
Rogers: What you’d like to do is to feel more accepting toward yourself
when you do things that you feel are wrong. Is that right?
Gloria: Right
Example 3
Gloria: I, ah, I do feel like you’ve been saying to me, you’re not put—,
giving me advice, but I feel like you’re saying, “You really wanna you
know what pattern you wanna follow, Gloria, and go ‘head and
follow it.” I’m sort of feel a backing up from you.
Rogers: (extended pause) I guess the way I sense it is, ah, you’ve been
telling me that you know what you want t’do and yes I do believe in
backing up people in what they want t’do. (extended pause) It’s just
a little different slant than the way it seems to you.
Gloria: Are you telling me—
Rogers: But you see, one thing that concerns me is it’s no damn good
your doing something that you haven’t really chosen to do. That’s
why I’m trying to help you find out what your own inner choices are.
Problem Reformulation: Empathy and Unconditional
Positive Regard
Davis (1984) described problem reformulation as a conversa-
tional device used by counselors and other psychotherapists to
formulate initial client problem descriptions into something
manageable within the parameters of talk therapy. In this ses-
sion, Rogers carefully selected which parts of Gloria’s state-
ments to attend to, phrasing his responses so that Gloria main-
tained agency for the problem and so that it was workable for
her within their “half an hour together.” Problem reformulation
seemed to accomplish two core conditions concurrently—em-
pathy and unconditional positive regard. Gloria’s topic intro-
ductions often began with fuzzy, ill-defined problem descrip-
tions not within her control to change. Rogers responded in a
way that captured the essence of what she said (empathy) while
converting the description into a better-defined and more work-
able problem. In this way, problem reformulation gave the power
of change and ownership of control for problem resolution
back to the client (unconditional positive regard). Through
problem reformulation, Gloria was the initiator both of the
problem and of its manageable resolution. Consequently, Gloria
not only felt heard, but also empowered, reinforcing her abil-
ity to change. After all, what Rogers had just said was her idea
in the first place. Rogers’s effectiveness at problem reformula-
tion illustrated his skill at approximating the client’s world:
There is a delicate balance between reformulating the problem
into a manageable therapeutic topic and reinterpreting it in a
way that seems to convey misunderstanding (i.e., demonstrates
lack of empathy). Rogers reformulated the problem in a way
that maintained Gloria as the originator of her idea. Examples
of problem reformulation are listed below.
Examples of problem reformulation.
Example 1
Rogers: So it’s quite clear it isn’t only her problem or the relationship
with her it’s in you as well.
182 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
Example 2
Rogers: But I guess I heard you saying too that it isn’t only the
children, that you don’t like it as well when it—
Example 3
Rogers: You sound as though your actions are kind of outside of you.
You want to approve of you but what you do somehow won’t let
you approve of yourself.
Example 4
Gloria: See it sounds like your—I’m picking up a contradiction. I’m
not und—, I’m not following—
Rogers: Sounds like you’re feeling a contradiction in yourself too?
DISCUSSION
This study finds support for Rogers being “Rogerian” through
elements of his conversational style that enacted the core
conditions of therapeutic change. These findings provide
specific examples from Rogers’s interaction with Gloria that
more clearly define what empathy, genuineness, and uncon-
ditional positive regard might look like in action. Gloria’s
consistent response to Rogers’s conversational devices was
to talk in more detail and at a more complex level about
her problem situation until it became no longer problem-
atic. That is, “having men to the house” while wondering
“how it affects the children” became a nonissue for Gloria as
she shifted her focus toward self-acceptance. As previously
mentioned, Gloria’s later statement that Rogers “helped me
to recognize my potential—my value as a human being”
(Dolliver et al., 1980, p. 141) supports this notion.
In contrast to well-structured problems for which both the
problem and the algorithm for solution are clearly known, ill-
structured problems are more abstract, making problem recog-
nition and cues for solution opaque. Research in educational
psychology generally suggests that ill-structured problems are
made more workable through problem recognition and prob-
lem representation (Snowman, Biehler, & Bonk, 2000). Rogers’s
empathic statements, genuineness, and unconditional positive
regard helped Gloria to better identify and represent her ill-
defined problem. These core conditions were enacted through
Rogers’s conversational devices and structured the interaction
so that Gloria could be her own agent of change. It is important
to note that no core condition stood in isolation from the oth-
ers. For example, Rogers demonstrated unconditional positive
regard by withholding direct responses to requests for advice
and honoring Gloria’s ability to come to her own decisions. The
potency of this intervention, however, was brought about through
concurrent displays of genuineness and empathy.
IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELOR EDUCATION
The film Three Approaches to Psychotherapy (Shostrom,
1965a)and Rogers’s session in particular are reported to be

the most famous in the history of counseling and seen by
“three generations of graduate students” in a spectrum of
helping professions (Glauser & Bozarth, 2001, p. 143). We
contend that the film’s therapeutic interaction has been
largely underrecognized by students and counselor educa-
tors, perhaps because viewers are treated as passive recep-
tors of information who are expected to “learn” simply by
viewing experts on film. In contrast, we support a construc-
tionist approach whereby learners participate collaboratively
in making sense of what is presented. This epistemology
represents a paradigm shift away from the educational phi-
losophy that seemed to structure the mid-1960s production
of Three Approaches to Psychotherapy. Glauser and Bozarth
(2001) noted that this outdated philosophy continues to
structure how the film is generally used in counselor educa-
tion. The findings of this study can help counseling students,
counselors, and educators better define components of cli-
ent-centered counseling through behavioral examples.
In fact, Rogers (1967,1980, 1986) was critical of how coun-
selor training programs and textbooks misrepresented his
theory as a series of techniques to be mechanically imple-
mented. We believe that the examples found in this study
demonstrate Rogers’s active involvement in the session and
are in direct contrast to his sometimes watered-down por-
trayal as a passive head-nodder. Moreover, such a stereo-
type may be perpetuated by showing the film without pro-
viding students a means to recognize the rich detail and
subtle complexity of Rogers in action.
CONCLUSION
By analyzing the language of Carl Rogers and Gloria and relat-
ing Rogers’s most prevalent conversational devices with his
core conditions for therapeutic change, we found that there
was much more going on in the session than had been written
about previously. We found strong evidence of Rogers enacting
client-centered counseling and being “Rogerian” in this session.
Moreover, we also found that Rogers’s core conditions
were often subtle, making it difficult to isolate any conver-
sational turn as representing only one core condition. This
is in a way what delineated Rogers as “client-centered” in
that all of his interactions had a focus on being simulta-
neously empathic and genuine while displaying unconditional
positive regard. In other words, Rogers did not suddenly
think “Oh, this is a good time to be empathic” but instead
had automatized the conditions into his natural communi-
cation style. In contrast to Rogers’s real life therapeutic ap-
proach, textbooks generally do not mention the interplay
between core conditions but rather generally reduce and
isolate them into separate phenomena. Moreover, as Glauser
and Bozarth (2001) have pointed out, the manner in which
this film is generally shown portrays Rogers, along with Perls
and Ellis, as “experts.” Although Rogers was an expert of the
process, he went out of his way to let Gloria know he did
not have the answers for her. This portrayal of Rogers as an
expert is diametrically counter to his therapeutic style, es-
pecially as indicated by his deliberately “nonexpert” lan-
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
Analysis of a Client-Centered Conversation
guage. For these reasons, although the Rogers and Gloria
session is perhaps the most widely known in the history of
counseling, we believe that the quality of the interaction
therein has been underrecognized in previous writings and
underutilized in counselor education.
REFERENCES
Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems and linguistic
systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for
clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371–393.
Bohart, A. C. (1991). The missing 249 words: In search of objectivity.
Psychotherapy, 28, 497–506.
Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity and neutrality revisited:
An invitation to curiosity. Family Process, 26, 405–413.
Daniels, M. H., & White, L. J. (1994). Revisiting Auerswald’s conun-
drum—A response to Fong and Lease, and Lanning. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 16, 217–225.
Davis, K. (1984). The process of problem (re)formulation in psycho-
therapy. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8, 44–74.
Dolliver, R. H., Williams, E., & Gold, D. C. (1980). The art of Gestalt
therapy or: What are you doing with your feet now? Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 136–142.
Ellis, A. E. (1986). Comments on Gloria. Psychotherapy, 23, 647–648.
Essig, T. S., & Russell, R. L. (1990). Analyzing subjectivity in therapeutic
discourse: Rogers, Perls, Ellis, and Gloria revisited. Psychotherapy, 27,
271–281.
Farber, B. A., Brink, D. C., & Raskin, P. M. (1996). The psychology of Carl
Rogers: Cases and commentary. New York: Guilford Press.
Glauser, A. S., & Bozarth, J. D. (2001). Person-centered counseling: The
culture within. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 142–147.
Hill, C. E., Thames, T. B., & Rardin, D. K. (1979). Comparison of Rogers,
Perls, and Ellis on the Hill Counselor Verbal Response System. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 198–203.
Kiesler, D. J., & Goldston, C. S. (1988). Client-therapist complementarity:
An analysis of the Gloria films. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35,
127–133.
Meara, N. M., Shannon, J. W., & Pepinsky, H. B. (1979). Comparison of
the stylistic complexity of the language of counselor and client across
three theoretical orientations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26,
181–189.
Mercier, M. A., & Johnson, M. (1984). Representational system, predi-
cate use and convergence in counseling: Gloria revisited. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31, 161–169.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeu-
tic personality change. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2, 95–103.
Rogers, C. R. (1967). Autobiography. In E. G. Boring & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 5, pp. 343–384). New
York: Apple-Century-Crofts.
Rogers, C. R. (1980). A way of being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1984). Gloria—A historical note. In R. F. Levant & J. Shlien
(Eds.), Client-centered therapy and the person-centered approach: New di-
rections in theory, research, and practice (pp. 423–425). New York: Praeger.
Rogers, C. R. (1986). Client-centered therapy. In J. C. Kutash & A. Wolf
(Eds.), Psychotherapist’s casebook: Theory and technique in practice (pp.
197–208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers, C. R., & Wood, J. K. (1974). Client-centered theory: Carl R.
Rogers. In A. Burton (Ed.), Operational theories of personality (pp.
211–258). New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Rosenzweig, D. (1996). The case of Gloria. In B. A. Farber, D. C. Brink, &
P. M. Raskin (Eds.), The psychology of Carl Rogers: Cases and commen-
tary (pp. 57–64). New York: Guilford Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for
the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Shostrom, E. L. (Producer). (1965a). Three approaches to psychotherapy
[Film]. Orange, CA: Psychological Films.
183
Wickman and Campbell
Shostrom, E. L. (Producer). (1965b). Three approaches to psychotherapy
[Transcript]. Orange, CA: Psychological Films.
Shostrom, E. L., & Riley, C. M. D. (1968). Parametric analysis of psycho-
therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 628–632.
Snowman, J., Biehler, R., & Bonk, C. J. (2000). Psychology applied to
teaching (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Stoten, J., & Goos, W. (1974). Three psychotherapies examined: Ellis, Rogers,
Perls. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 20, 103–115.
Weinrach, S. G. (1986). Ellis and Gloria: Positive or negative model?
Psychotherapy, 23, 642–647.
184 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SPRING 2003 • VOLUME 81
Weinrach, S. G. (1990). Rogers and Gloria: The controversial film and
the enduring relationship. Psychotherapy, 27, 282–290.
Weinrach, S. G. (1991). Rogers’ encounter with Gloria: What did Rogers
know and when? Psychotherapy, 28, 504–506.
Wickman, S. A. (1999). “Making something of it”: An analysis of the
conversation and language of Carl Rogers and Gloria. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Zimmer, J. M., & Cowles, K. H. (1972). Content analysis using FOR-
TRAN: Applied to interviews conducted by C. Rogers, F. Perls, and A.
Ellis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 161–166.