A clarification of seven logical fallacies that misrepresent person-centered therapy theory

Person-centered therapy theory is a robustly researched, rigorously evaluated, and widely practiced approach. The theory is a situated onto-ethics within an organismic psychology. Since its inception, the approach has challenged the dominant mainstream field of psychology and psychotherapy. It is a scientific theory of personality that is expressed through a phenomenological praxis. It is often misrepresented as dogmatic and rigid or, conversely, as an anything-goes approach. The internal consistency between the philosophical foundations, the theory of personality development and its practice often presents a challenge. This challenge comes from centering the client as the locus of change, the leveling of power in the relationship between client and therapist, and the removal of status from therapist as an expert clinician. It challenges the conventional Newtonian mechanistic models of cause and effect that permeate mainstream psychotherapy. Despite these progressive and radical premises, the approach is persistently critiqued and misunderstood. We argue that those critiques and the emerging discourse are misrepresenting person-centered therapy theory through ‘logical fallacies.’ In this paper, we highlight several fallacies and correct erroneous logic. We help clarify person-centered therapy theory for pluralistic therapists, students, trainees, and other person-centered therapists confused by fallacious critiques.