personality theory of Freud and Rogers

1. Running head: FREUD V. ROGERS 1
Freud vs. Rogers
Myrna Davis-Washington
University of the Rockies

2. FREUD V. ROGERS 2
Abstract
This paper explains the main principles of Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis and Carl
Rogers’ client-centered theory, compares and contrasts the two theories, and analyzes their
strengths and weaknesses. In addition, empirical support is provided for the theory chosen as
being the most beneficial in the treatment of psychological disorders.

3. FREUD V. ROGERS 3
Freud vs. Rogers
It has been said that psychological theory, like all scientific theories, cannot be separated
from the theorist and the culture and social context in which he theorized (Rutherford, 2000). If
this is so, then the personality and psychotherapy theories of Sigmund Freud, the “Father of
Psychoanalysis”, and Carl Rogers, the “Father of Psychotherapy”, have continued to spark
controversy within the field of psychology since their inception, not because of their content, but
because they reflect the culture and social context in which they were produced and received
(Rutherford, 2000). An analysis of each theory’s strengths and weaknesses may support this
contention. However, before comparing and contrasting the main tenets and components of each
theory, it may be prudent to examine how the backgrounds of Freud and Rogers reflected the
culture and the social context in which these two theorists produced their debatably-
revolutionary and influential theories.
Background Information
Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) was born in 1856 in Freiberg, Moravia
(a town in the Nazi-occupied Czech Republic), the oldest of eight children born to a forty-year-
old Jewish father, whom he described as “more distant and grandfatherly than fatherly” (Kramer,
as cited in Goodwin, 2008, p. 415), and a twenty-year-old mother for whom he developed an
intense and unnatural emotional attachment. Evidence of Freud’s family dynamics, the
“pervasive anti-Semitism” (Goodwin, 2008, p. 415) of his time period, and the awareness of “his
status as a Jew existing in a setting dominated by non-Jews” (p. 415) can be seen in his “tripartite
structure of personality” (p. 423), his seduction hypothesis (especially, his Oedipal complex), his
theories on defense mechanisms, and his insistence on unwavering loyalty from his followers.

4. FREUD V. ROGERS 4
Carl Rogers. In contrast to Freud, Carl Rogers (1902 – 1987) was born the fourth child
in a mid-Western suburb to a close-knit, extremely-religious family (Nystul, 2006; Goodwin,
2008). Evidence of Rogers’ desire to escape from the restrictions of his “highly-controlled
environment” (Goodwin, 2008, p. 450) and his “middle child” need to be heard and warmly
regarded “as a person of unconditional worth – of value no matter what his condition, his
behavior, or his feelings” (p. 452) can also be seen is his humanistically-oriented theory of
personality and his client-centered therapy. An examination of the tenets and components of
these theories provides profound insight into how succinctly each theory mirrored the context in
which it was created and reflected the perspectives of its theorists.
Freud’s Psychoanalysis
Seduction Theory. After obtaining a medical degree from the University of Vienna in
1881, Freud briefly studied hypnosis in the treatment of hysteria with Jean-Martin Charcot in
Paris, after which he returned to Vienna, married, and began a private practice in which he first
specialized in nervous diseases, but later branched off into psychiatry (Nystul, 2006). Freud
based his theory of seduction on a deterministic view in which he posited that behavior was
determined by the unconscious, instinctive, and biological drives of sex and aggression
originating in early childhood psychosexual experiences (Goodwin, 2008; Nystul, 2006).
Freud became interested in Breuer’s “talking cure” and synthesized it into structured
techniques he called free association and dream analysis, in which patients were placed in
relaxed positions (i.e., prone on a couch) and encouraged to talk freely about anything that came
to mind, including their dreams (Goodwin, 2008; Summers, 2006). What Freud observed was
that patients often exhibited resistance (an unwillingness to talk, which he welcomed) or defense
mechanisms, (i.e., projection, reaction formation, fixation, regression, and repression) resulting

5. FREUD V. ROGERS 5
from the repression of real or imagined trauma(s) into their conscious/ unconscious psyches
(Goodwin, 2008). The purpose of Freud’s psychoanalysis was to coax these repressed memories
to the surface so that they could be analyzed by the therapist to provide insight into the etiology
of the patient’s problems. Ultimately, Freud’s ‘revolutionary’ theory provided information about
his personal background by asserting that behavior manifests itself in terms of several key
components, including the structure of the personality, endopsychic conflicts, the conscious-
unconscious continuum, defense mechanisms, and psychosexual stages of development
(Goodwin, 2008; Nystul, 2006; Tabin, 2006).
Components. Freud believed that there were three autonomous, competitive, and
interdependent branches of the personality (the id, ego, and superego) and that conflicts between
these three structures over control of the personality could lead to what he termed endopsychic
conflicts that created anxiety or tension (Goodwin, 2008; Nystul, 2006). The id (from the Latin
id, meaning “the same”) was the “hedonistic branch” (Nystul, 2006) from which the ego,
superego, instinctive sexual and aggressive urges, and psychic energy originated (Goodwin,
2008; Nystul, 2006). The ego (from the Latin ego, meaning “I”) was the “executive branch”
which mediated conflicts between the other two branches by directing id-based needs in more
reality-based directions and inhibiting the free expression of innate sexual and aggressive urges
(Goodwin, 2008; Nystul, 2006). The responsibility of the superego (from the Latin super
meaning “above” + ego, meaning “I”), Freud asserted, was to serve as the “judicial branch”
(Nystul, 2006, p. 177) of the personality by inhibiting the impulses of the id, altering the ego
from reality to learned moral values, and encouraging the patient to strive for perfection
(Goodwin, 2008; Nystul, 2006). Freud’s belief that personality was determined in early
childhood ultimately led to the development of a stage theory in which personality development

6. FREUD V. ROGERS 6
purportedly occurred in five stages (i.e., oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital); all of which
were indicative of a preoccupation with sex resulting from dysfunctional family dynamics and
the culture and social context in which Freud developed.
Strengths and Weaknesses. The weaknesses of Freud’s “talking cure” far outweigh the
strengths and are responsible for the speculation, criticism, accusations, and controversy with
which it has historically been associated. This is evidenced by the fact that Freud’s theories have
been criticized for their over-emphasis on sex, lack of scientific validity, plagiarism, use of too
small a sample for generalization, loosely-defined terms, excessive bias, self-serving
manipulation of data, and for their emphasis on the therapist as the center of the therapeutic
alliance (Goodwin, 2008). These weaknesses combine with Freud’s insistence that his followers
exhibit unwavering loyalty and his obvious Victorian male view of women as second-class
citizens with penis envy and undeveloped superegos, to provide additional impetus to the
contention that psychological theory cannot be separated from the internal and external contexts
of the theorist and his environment. However, although the weaknesses outnumber them, the
strengths of Freud’s work are that it popularized the concept of unconscious thoughts, stimulated
dialogue about the role of human nature in behavior, increased awareness of “the malleability of
the young mind” (Goodwin, 2008, p. 429), provided evidence for the use of psychologically-
based methodologies in the treatment of mental disorders, and raised awareness of the need to
study motivation (Goodwin, 2008).
Roger’s Person-Centered Theory
Main Principles. After years of unsuccessful clinical experiences with neuroses-driven
methodologies, Rogers developed a non-directive approach to psychotherapy that has been
described as an “if-then” approach; if certain conditions (i.e., exist in the therapeutic

7. FREUD V. ROGERS 7
environment, then the client will gravitate toward self-actualization (Nystul, 2006, p. 208;
Rogers, 2007). As might be surmised from Rogers’ childhood, the main purpose of his Client-
Centered Theory (CCT), which is also known as Person-Centered Theory, was to take a more
humanistic approach to therapy by abandoning Freud’s authoritative, controlling therapist-
centered approach and replacing it with a more positive, trusting therapeutic process in which the
‘client’ (rather than ‘patient’) and the ‘counselor’ (rather than ‘therapist’) shared equally in the
creation of the therapeutic alliance; the client ultimately being responsible for making his own
behavioral changes toward innate self-actualization and the therapist being responsible for
creating the ideal environment in which change could occur (Rogers, 2007). Notwithstanding,
the focus of Rogers’ CCT shifted from the attitude of the client to the attitude of the therapist and
the most fundamental aspect of what is now considered to be one of psychology’s most
influential contributions became trust; the counselor trusts that all individuals tend toward self-
actualization, trusts the client to establish and monitor progress toward self-defined goals, and
creates an environment of trust composed of three fundamental components: empathy, counselor
congruence, and unconditional positive regard (Goodwin, 2008). Could it be that Rogers saw
himself as the client and his parents as the therapists?
Three Components. In addition to taking a phenomenological approach based on the
client’s internal frame of reference, Rogers posited that there were three core conditions that
were necessary for the client to become a fully-functioning individual who is open to experience,
self-trusting, and in possession of an internal locus of control (Nystul, 2006). The first, empathy,
concerned the counselor’s genuine desire to understand what the client thought, felt, and
experienced, and the counselor’s communication of this understanding to the client (Goodwin,
2008; Nystul, 2006). The second, counselor congruence, involved counselors being genuine,

8. FREUD V. ROGERS 8
honest, and authentic with clients in terms of their own experiences and communications
(Goodwin, 2008; Nystul; 2006). The third, unconditional positive regard, involved the counselor
communicating a sense of unconditional acceptance and respect to the client, which meant
avoiding labels and accepting the client as “having value by virtue of simply being a human
being” (Goodwin, 2008, p. 452; Nystul, 2006). These bespeak of Rogers’ familial position as a
‘middle child’, the highly-controlled environment in which he was raised, and his observation
that all human beings (including him) need to be heard and valued. Hence, Rogers’ CCT was
more about the counselor listening attentively to the client’s reflections, rather than the
therapist’s analysis of the patient talking about any and everything that came to mind.
Strengths and Weaknesses. The strengths of Rogers’ CCT lie in its reliance on the
therapist’s attitude rather than on techniques (Rogers, 2007), its phenomenological view of the
client, its ability to positively motivate the client away from the presenting problem(s) toward
“constructive personality change” (Rogers, 2007, para. 3) and natural self-actualization, which
not only contains Freud’s emphasis on reality and morality in a “talking cure”, but includes
independence, creativity, spontaneity, organization, and the ultimate development of a “listening
cure” in which the therapist, not the client, is charged with creating an ideal environment for the
client’s personal growth based upon “trust, freedom, and deep connection” (S. Hickman,
personal communication, September 27, 2011). Although Rogers’ CCT has been accused of
being unstructured, overly-optimistic, and a simple parroting the client, it is, nevertheless, a
starting point for healing; one that has come to embody many of the ethical principles that have
governed the evolution of many (if not most) of America’s business, educational, and
psychological disciplines. From this perspective, the theory that resonates with this writer’s
espousal of contextual, strength-based, solution-focused therapies as the most beneficial in the

9. FREUD V. ROGERS 9
treatment of psychological disorders is Carl Rogers’ Client-Centered Therapy. The following
section provides empirical support by citing evidence for Rogers and against Freud.
Empirical Evidence
Evidence For Rogers. Evidence for the support of Rogers’ Client-Centered Therapy
(CCT) as the most beneficial theory for the treatment of psychological disorders can be seen in
Jerold D. Bozarth’s 1997 examination of empathy as the central tenet of Rogers’ CCT and the
basis for Rogers’ hypotheses defining empathy as: 1) a central therapeutic construct (rather than
a precondition to other forms of treatment); 2) a therapist’s attitude toward and experiencing of
the client (rather than a particular therapist behavior); 3) an interpersonal process ground in a
nondirective attitude; and 4) a part of a whole attitude in which empathic understanding is
intertwined with counselor congruence and unconditional positive regard of the client (Bozarth,
1997). The most supportive evidence for Rogers’ CCT, however, comes from Rogers himself in
a reprint of his 1957 article in the Journal of Consulting Psychology (cited as Rogers, 2007).
Here, Rogers (2007) presents empirical evidence from Kirtner’s 1955 research on the success
and failure in client-centered therapy as a function of personality variables, Brown’s 1957
investigation of therapeutic relationship, Chodorkoff’s 1954 research on self-perception,
perceptual defense, and adjustment, Fiedler’s studies on the comparison of therapeutic
relationships in psychoanalytic, non-directive and Adlerian therapy (1950) and the role of
therapists’ feelings toward their patients (1953), and Standal’s 1954 study on the need for
positive regard. In contrast to Freud’s dubious “scientific status” (Goodwin, 2008, p. 427),
Rogers’ CCT provides “tentative criterion against which to measure programs (i.e., educational,
correctional, military, or industrial) aimed toward constructive changes in the personality
structure and behavior of the individual and stimulates critical analysis and the formulation of

10. FREUD V. ROGERS 10
alternative conditions and alternative hypotheses” (Rogers, 2007, para. 49); offerings for modern
psychology’s emphasis on evidence-based theories and approaches (Rogers, 2007).
Evidence Against Freud. Although the goal of Frank Summer’s (2006) exploration of
Freud’s influence on contemporary psychoanalytic “technique” (para. 1) was to provide support
for Freud’s theory, for this writer it succeeded only in providing evidence against it by stating
that psychoanalysis used technique to analyze patients’ presenting problems, rather than focusing
on solution by motivating clients toward their natural, inherent tendency to self-actualize.
Freud’s focus on neuroses took a negative approach that focused on the therapist as the center of
the therapeutic relationship and directed the therapist to analyze the patient at an unconscious
level (Summers, 2006). The problem here is that, although the terms treatment and mental illness
were alien to Rogers’ CCT, Freud’s emphasis on unconscious motivations neglected the impact
that conscious motivations can have on behavior and provided, instead, solid evidence for
Rogerian psychotherapy’s superiority in the treatment of psychological disorders. Additionally,
although it was presented as a series of neurological “guesses” that were summarily dismissed
because of Freud’s archaic neurological ideal, evidence for Freud can be extrapolated to support
Rogers by resonating with modern neurology’s evidence base (Tabin, 2006). The question is:
“Which is more effective, a neuroses-based technique that analyzes clients’ presenting problems
or a solution-focused process that inspires the client toward personal growth?
Conclusion
The most obvious difference between Freud’s and Rogers’ theories is that one is time-
consuming, costly, and problem-focused and the other, Rogers, is brief, cost-effective, and
solution-focused. Where Freud saw a therapist and his patient, Rogers saw a counselor and his
client. Where Freud analyzed and interpreted the free association and dreams of his clients

11. FREUD V. ROGERS 11
‘talking”, Rogers “listened” attentively and inspired his clients to accept responsibility for their
behaviors, feelings, and, ultimately, their inherent self-actualization. As this writer sees it, the
difference between these two monumental theories is that Freud’s psychoanalysis focused on
treating mental illness, while Rogers’ CCT focused on inspiring mental wellness. In the end, it
was Freud’s psychoanalysis that systematically analyzed free-expression and motivations to
control behavior as a means of achieving perfection and it was Rogers’ CCT that focused upon
liberating free-expression to create the ideal individual and environmental conditions to inspire
self-actualization. For Freud, behavior was determined and manifested itself as neuroses; for
Rogers behavior was accepted and understood as a means toward self-actualization. Where
Freud emphasized cold, systematic analysis and treatment, Rogers focused on warm,
unconditional, empathic understanding and communication. This was nothing revolutionary for
either theory, but did, nevertheless, exact a profound influence on Western culture and the way
psychotherapy is practiced in America today.
While the question posed herein is “which theory is most appropriate for the treatment of
psychological disorders?” the real question is “which theory motivates toward fully-functioning
self-actualization, the ideal goal of all therapy?” For this writer, Freud’s psychoanalysis is “part
of the problem” and Rogers’ is “part of the solution.” Despite their differences, both remain as
mainstays in modern psychology that have paved the way for today’s cognitive-behavioral
theories, experiential therapies and approaches, child and adolescent counseling, and the new
Positive Psychology; solid proof that psychological theories cannot be separated from their
creators and the internal and external contexts in which they exist, produce, and are received.

12. FREUD V. ROGERS 12
References
Bozarth, J.D. (1997). Empathy from the framework of Client-Centered theory and the
Rogerian hypothesis. In A.C. Bohart & L.S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered:
New directions in psychotherapy (pp.81-102). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association. Retrieved from PsycBooks (DOI: 10.1037/10226-003).
Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ/ Wiley & Sons.
Rogers, C.R. (2007). The necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic personality
change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, & Practice, 44(3), 240-248. Retrieved from
PsycArticles (DOI: 10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.240).
Rutherford, A. (2000). Radical behaviorism and psychology’s public: B.F. Skinner in the
popular press, 1934-1990. History of Psychology, 3(4), 371-395. Retrieved from
PsycArticles (DOI: 10.1037//1093-4510.3.4.371).
Summers, F. (2006). Freud’s relevance for contemporary psychoanalytic technique.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(2), 327-338. Retrieved from PsycArticles (DOI:
10.1037/0736-9735.23.2.327).
Tabin, J.K. (2006). What Freud called the “psychology for neurologists” and the many questions
it raises. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(2), 383-407. Retrieved from PsycArticles (DOI:
10.1037/0736-9735.23.2.383).

13. FREUD V. ROGERS 13