Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

Theoretical Developments

Windy Dryden

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• eBook ISBN: 9781135452285
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: Theoretical Developments is a cutting edge examination of the theory behind this popular approach within the cognitive-behavioural tradition. Distinguished practitioners and authors discuss the relevance of:
· cross-disciplinary factors affecting REBT
· REBT as an intentional therapy
· differentiating preferential from exaggerated and musturbatory beliefs in REBT
· irrational beliefs as schemata.
Thought-provoking presentation of case studies and the latest theory revision give Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: Theoretical Developments a distinctive slant: a challenging discussion of the approach's openness to revision from within and outside the ranks of REBT, and its implications for the future.

Chapter 1

---

‘The cream cake made me eat it’: an introduction to the ABC theory of REBT

Windy Dryden

---

I remember the moment as if it were yesterday. My client, Mrs Jones, was telling me how hard it was for her to keep to her diabetic diet.

‘I know intellectually that I shouldn’t eat cakes, but I’ve got no will power’, she said.

‘Well’, I replied, ‘let’s see if you’re right. Give a recent example where you broke your diet.’

‘That’s easy’, continued Mrs Jones, ‘that was this morning.’

‘Tell me about it’, I urged.

‘Well, I was out shopping for kitchenware. I knew exactly what I wanted and where I could go to get it, but blow me if they were all sold out of what I wanted. Well, to cheer myself up I thought I would have a cup of coffee. I know that I have weakness for cakes so I resolved only to buy the coffee. But when I saw that cream cake, perched there with lovely vanilla butter-cream; well, this is going to sound funny, but the cream cake made me eat it.’

While listening to Mrs Jones’s account I had a most peculiar image. I pictured in my mind’s eye Mrs Jones sitting in the cafe with mouth resolutely closed, but her lips were being prised apart by the cream cake that had levitated itself and flown through the air of its own accord towards the hapless Mrs Jones. Then, having prised Mrs Jones’s lips apart, it rammed itself into her mouth and forced itself down her gullet.

‘A causes C’

The image of a cream cake making Mrs Jones eat it, while amusing, illustrates a way of looking at psychological events that is widespread in our culture and is part of the way we employ language. Consider the following phrases that you might hear every day:

‘He made me so angry.’

‘It really depressed me.’

‘I hurt her feelings.’

‘My mother has the knack of making me guilty.’

‘He made me do it.’

And, less frequently,

‘The cream cake made me eat it.’

What do all these statements have in common? They all share the idea that another person or life event can directly cause your feelings and behaviour. In Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT), the therapeutic approach upon which this book is based, this is known as the ‘A causes C’ phenomenon, where ‘A’ refers to activating events and ‘C’ refers to our emotional and behavioural responses to these events (‘C’ actually stands for consequences, for reasons that will become clear).

This can be shown as:

A → C

In contrast, however, REBT theory states that at the core of our emotional and behavioural responses (C) to events lie our beliefs (B) about these events (A). Thus, C arises out of the interaction between A and B.

This can be shown as:

A × B → C

What does this mean for Mrs Jones? It means that she needs to acknowledge that the cream cake did not make her eat it, but that she ate the cake largely because she held a set of beliefs about the cake that led her to pick up the cake, put it into her mouth and actively chew and swallow it.

In the ‘A → C’ version of the cake-eating episode, the cake is responsible for Mrs Jones eating it, while in the ‘A × B → C’ version, Mrs Jones is responsible for eating the cake. This concept of responsibility is central to our understanding of psychological disturbance and health and to our understanding of personal change. Let us now consider the concept of responsibility as it pertains to your thoughts, feelings and behaviour.

Responsibility

The present British Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, once said that we are responsible for that which falls within our sphere of influence. This, in my view, captures the essence of the concept of responsibility. As it is so important, let me reiterate it:

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT WHICH FALLS

WITHIN OUR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

Returning to the case of Mrs Jones, according to this view, since cream cakes have no power to influence anything or anybody (being inanimate objects they cannot speak or act) they clearly are not responsible for anything. Just because Mrs Jones gave the cream cake, in the above example, responsibility over her behaviour, it does not follow that the cream cake actually has this responsibility. You do not become responsible for something that is outside your power of influence because someone assigns you such responsibility.

Clearly then, Mrs Jones is responsible for eating the cream cake since the following actions are within her sphere of influence: buying the cream cake, picking up the cream cake, putting the cream cake into her mouth, chewing the cream cake and swallowing it. Equally clearly, the cream cake has no power over any of these actions. Until we invent cream cakes that do have the power to make us buy them, pick them up, put them into our mouths, chew and swallow them, cream cakes can be said to fall outside the realm of responsibility. To think otherwise is to think magically.

You may be thinking: ‘Well, that’s fine when it comes to cream cakes, but what about when another person is involved? Surely if someone acts nastily to me and I become angry, then that person is responsible for making me feel angry?’

If you think that other people can make you angry, then you are not alone. I would say that most people would agree with you. Certainly, you will hear phrases like ‘What he did made me angry’ and ‘She made me really mad by what she said’, far more frequently then phrases like ‘I made myself angry about what he did’ and ‘I made myself really mad about what she said’. But these two latter statements are more accurate than the previous two statements. In order for you to understand why, I need to explain more about the role of beliefs in psychological functioning.

The legacy of Epictetus

Epictetus was a Roman philosopher who was a representative of what is known as the Stoic school of philosophy. He is perhaps most widely known for the following phrase:

PEOPLE ARE DISTURBED NOT BY THINGS, BUT BY

THEIR VIEWS OF THINGS

I will consider the concept of ‘views’ a little later, but for now these ‘views’ can broadly encompass such phenomena as thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, philosophies and assumptions. The field of psychology is currently preoccupied with cognition, which can be broadly understood as the way people think and process information and would include their beliefs, attitudes, philosophies and assumptions. So Epictetus’s famous dictum is currently bang up-to-date.

The Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) version of this dictum is as follows:

PEOPLE ARE DISTURBED NOT BY THINGS, BUT BY

THEIR IRRATIONAL BELIEFS ABOUT THINGS

Again, I will have more to say about this REBT dictum later, but for now I want you to focus on the idea that our beliefs lie at the core of the way we feel and act. Hence the relation that I introduced to you earlier:

A × B → C

Stated in words, this means that lying at the core of our emotional and behavioural reactions at C are a set of beliefs (B) that we hold about the events to which we attend (A).

Now, according to REBT theory, if we hold a set of rational beliefs (rB) about a negative event (A) we will experience a set of healthy negative emotions (hne), constructive thoughts (ct) and productive behaviours (pb) at C. This can be shown in the following relation:

A × rB → C (hne + ct + pb)

And if we hold a set of irrational beliefs (iB) about the same event (A) we will experience a set of unhealthy negative emotions (une), biased thoughts (bt) and detrimental behaviours (db) at C. This can be shown in the following relation:

A × rB → C (une + bt + db)

‘She made me really mad by what she said’

Let me apply the foregoing analysis to a situation where in response to what his colleague, Mary, said in a meeting, John experienced unhealthy anger towards her, had thoughts of revenge and acted on these thoughts by spreading malicious rumours as a way of getting back at her. What determined his feelings of unhealthy anger, his thoughts of revenge and his spreading malicious rumours against her? Using the relation A x iB → C (une + bt + db) we have the following:

What Mary said [A] × John’s irrational beliefs [iB] →

Unhealthy anger [C (une)] + Thoughts of revenge [C (bt)] +

Spreading malicious rumours [C (db)]

Now who is responsible for what here? Clearly, Mary is responsible for what she said in the meeting since this was within her sphere of influence. John, on the other hand, is responsible for his unhealthy beliefs about what she said. He has this responsibility whether or not he assumes such responsibility and whether or not he knows what his unhealthy beliefs are. Just as in law where ignorance is not a legitimate defence, in psychological matters ignorance does not absolve a person from their responsibility.

If John held a healthy set of beliefs about what Mary said, he would have experienced healthy anger, had more constructive thoughts centring on resolving the situation and would have directly asserted himself with her rather than indirectly spreading malicious rumours against her. Using the relation A × rB → C (hne + ct + pb) we have the following:

What Mary said [A] × John’s rational beliefs [rB] →

Healthy anger [C (hne)] + Thoughts of resolving situation [C (ct)]

+ Direct assertion [C (pb)]

In this scenario, Mary is again responsible for what she said and John is responsible for his healthy beliefs about what she said.

Drawing upon these two scenarios we can say the following:

(i) Mary is responsible for her behaviour.

(ii) John is responsible for his beliefs.

(iii) John’s beliefs about what Mary said lie at the core of his emotions and behaviours toward Mary. Remember that John can experience healthy anger or unhealthy anger about the same event (what Mary said).

(iv) John is therefore responsible for the way that he feels and the way that he subsequently thinks and acts through the responsibility that he...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Advancing Theory in Therapy
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series preface
• List of contributors
• Preface
• 1 'The cream cake made me eat it': an introduction to the ABC theory of REBT
• 2 Differentiating preferential from exaggerated and musturbatory beliefs in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
• 3 REBT: thinking it through once more
• 4 REBT as an intentional therapy
• 5 How deep can we go? How deep should we go? Irrational beliefs as schemata
• 6 Notes on self and values in REBT
• 7 Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT): the view of a cognitive psychologist
• 8 The contribution of social psychology to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
• 9 Contributions of General Semantics to REBT theory
• 10 Evolutionary psychology and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
• 11 Theoretical developments in REBT as applied to schizophrenia
• Index