View/Open - UZSpace Home

The confrontational and too direct manner in which logotherapists implement modi­
fication ofattitudes certainlywill be criticisedby followers ofCarl Rogers. Roge­
rians prefer a non-directive approachwhere the client/patient themselvesmust
discoverwhat their capacities,talents, and/or potentials are (Rogers 1961). In
logotherapeutic circlesit is nothing strange that the therapists will actuallytell the
client/patient what these capacities, talents and/or potentials are: It also seems that
while both Rogeriansand logotherapistswill give directionto a patient/client, the
last-mentioned will go even further and point out the "destination."
Itis open to debate iflogotherapists really seriouslytake into account the contempo­
raneityofhumanmotives(comp Allport 1961:220). From a dispositional
perspectiveAllport and other personologistsbelieve that personalityis a dynamic and
....
motivatedgrowingsystemwhere differenthumanmotives play an importantrole in
bringinginto existencethe present state ofa person. One gets the impressionthat
logotherapists do not "analyse" and/or "diagnose" their patients/clientsthoroughly
enoughto see iftheir "solution" to the problematicattitudelbehavior is really the
"correct/best" one. However, Allport's concept of"functional autonomy"(where
adult motivesare not related to past motives) does function strongly in the logo­
therapeutic environment.
From a cognitive point ofview, especiallywhen it comes to rational-emotive therapy,
the Iogotherapeutic emphasison the "right" cognitiveattitude is important. Negative
attitudes are very oftenregarded as resultingfrom cognitivedistortions(Ellis 1962) ­
something which logotherapists try to address inthe therapeutic setting. Rational­
emotivetherapists willfocus on changingpervasive patterns ofirrationalthinking,
rather than on targetingsymptoms(Ellis 1971:20; Lipsky, Kassinove & Miller
57