ABSTRACT
The unconditional positive regard (UPR) of the therapist for the client is a necessary condition for constructive change. Some writers (for example Bozarth 1998: 88; Wilkins 2000: 33-34) indicate that it is the active facilitator of constructive change and Freire (2001: 152) describes it as ‘the revolutionary feature of the person-centered approach’. However, UPR presents real personal, ethical and professional challenges to therapists. This is partly because, however accepting of others we believe ourselves to be, it is likely that at least to some extent we carry prejudice and fear. Masson (1992: 234) in his critique of person-centred therapy asks: ‘Faced with a brutal rapist who murders children, why should any therapist have unconditional regard for him?’ Of course there is no reason at all why any therapist should but without being able to offer UPR the therapeutic endeavour will be pointless. The hypothesis of the necessary and sufficient conditions asserts that if a person, regardless how ‘bad’, consistently experiences the
unconditional positive regard of another then change will occur. However, it may very well be that this is a big ‘if’. In such cases, it is important to realise that this does not prove that the hypothesis is correct or that some people are beyond redemption but rather that the limitation is in the therapist. Luckily, although human beings share a tendency to be unaccepting of some things, these are not necessarily the same things. Thus a client to whom, for whatever reason, one therapist finds it difficult to offer UPR may find the qualities of acceptance, warmth and prizing easily extended by another. Also, it seems that by addressing our own fears and unresolved issues so increasing our unconditional positive self-regard we can increase our ability to offer UPR to others (see Wilkins 2003: 73-74). Herein lies some of the personal, ethical and professional challenges referred to above. For example, these challenges lead to an ethical requirement to reach some assessment as to the likelihood of the therapist being able to offer enough UPR to facilitate change and a professional responsibility to ‘refer on’ or decline the contract if not and a personal and professional responsibility for the therapist to continually address anything that limits the ability to practise.
