Search

The importance of linking applied psychotherapeutic techniques and strategies to basic experimental science is discussed, both as an independent ideal and in light of non-specific factors research suggesting that atheoretical global factors are responsible for the vast majority of clinical change. As an example of how such basic-applied linkage can occur, principles from Relational Frame Theory and other relevant experimental data are used to analyze and explain the potential utility of two specific strategies often employed in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy to remediate “awfulizing” and low frustration tolerance, respectively. The preliminary nature of this analysis is highlighted to allow a realistic view of the tremendous task at hand for clinical psychologists seeking a stronger basic science foundation for applied technologies.

Eight experts in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) provided personal examples of their own successes and failures in applying REBT to themselves. The experts actively talked to themselves both rationally and irrationally. Understandably, there were far more shoulds, oughts, musts, and have to's in the narratives in which the experts described when they failed to use REBT than when they succeeded in using REBT. Rational self-talk was more prevalent in the examples of how REBT was successfully used by the experts.

The 9 members of the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy’s International Training Standards and Review Committee (of which Albert Ellis is currently one) predict the status of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) after the death of Albert Ellis, its progenitor. Most respondents addressed whether REBT will exist in its own right or be subsumed under the broad umbrella of Cognitive Behavior Therapy.

Important aspects of Kabat-Zinn’s mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) are compared, point-by-point, with Albert Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). There are some significant differences, since REBT does not advocate meditation as part of the therapy, and MBSR does not include disputing of irrational beliefs. But the similarities are even more striking, especially in the stress on self-acceptance, and in not judging people overall.

Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) is a pioneering form of Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is part of the new wave of CBTs. In this article, I discuss the papers of Ciarrochi, Robb, and Godsell, and of Ciarrochi and Robb, who propose that REBT and ACT can be quite suitably integrated, and the paper of Steven Hayes, the originator of ACT and of Relational Frame Theory, who is skeptical about the feasibility of Ciarrochi, Robb, and Godsell’s proposals. My own view is that ACT and REBT significantly overlap in their theory and practice and that they can be successfully integrated if both therapies make some changes.

Albert Ellis, PhD Albert Ellis Institute, New York, NY The author largely agrees with Christine A. Padesky and Aaron T. Beck's (2003) article, "Science and Philosophy: Comparison of Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy," disagrees with several of its statements about REBT, and particularly objects to Padesky and Beck's view that the fundamental difference between CT and REBT is that the former therapy is empirically based and the latter is philosophically based. Keywords: cognitive therapy; cognitive behavior therapy; psychotherapy; rational behavior therapy Christine A. Padesky and Aaron T. Beck (2003), together with myself (Ellis, 2003), have recently published papers in this journal on the similarities and differences between Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). I think that these articles clarify our positions and agree with their views. Although I agree with many of the points that Padesky and Beck (2003) make about the essence of REBT, I disagree with some of their description of its theory and practice. In particular, they state in their first paragraph, "A fundamental difference between the two [CT and REBT] in that REBT is a philosophically based psychotherapy and CT is an empirically based psychotherapy." I shall discuss this point a little later. Meanwhile, let me discuss several of my other disagreements with statements that Padesky and Beck make about REBT. "Research on REBT has not been as extensive [as that on CT] and only a small number of outcome studies are published, most of them using waitlist controls rather than the active treatment controls typically used in CT outcome research" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 212). Actually, over 200 outcome studies on REBT have been published, but many of them have not been as rigorously done as CT studies. "The REBT philosophy asserts that certain types of thoughts (dysfunctional shoulds, musts, and other imperatives) inherently lead to problems and are always present when humans are troubled no matter what type of trouble is experienced" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 212). No, REBT says that this is usually the case, but by no means always. Endogenous factors are very important in the creation of human trouble, as well as biological tendencies to make oneself disturbed which are emphasized even more in CT. When psychological factors are at issue, they almost always, but not necessarily always, include overt or covert shoulds, musts, and other demands. "Beck is more concerned with how dysfunctional a belief is than with its irrationality" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 215). REBT has always held that "irrational" basically means dysfunctional and does not mean only illogical or antiempirical beliefs. "In CT the goal is to teach clients skills that enable them to investigate their own beliefs" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 215). In REBT, a similar goal is sought; and skills and behaviors that specifically dispute clients' irrational beliefs are also almost always sought. Clients are also specifically taught several cognitive and emotional methods of investigating and changing their dysfunctional beliefs. A depressed client "was able to recognize how her depressive thinking distorted her view of these experiences through processes of overgeneralization, arbitrary influence, and self-blame" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 215). Yes, she would also be shown how to recognize her negative automatic thoughts in REBT, but would additionally be shown that her automatic thoughts largely stem from her underlying shoulds, oughts, and musts. CT often stops at her automatic thoughts. "Beck advocates formulating client beliefs in the client's own words" (Padesky & Beck, 2003, p. 216). So does REBT, but when the clients have difficulty doing so, which is often, REBT shows them musts likely lie behind their words, helps them see that they unconsciously hold these musts, and puts their automatic thoughts and their musts in their own words. …

This is a discussion and evaluation of the views of the authors of the article “Post-september 11th perspectives on religion, spirituality, and philosophy in the personal and professional lives of selected REBT cognoscenti.” Several of the authors are shown to endorse most of the main principles and practices of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) but also to hold some of its important views on unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional other-acceptance lightly and inconsistently.

I started to create Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) in 1953, after I stopped using psychoanalysis and was doing two monographs summarizing the 200 or so existing psychotherapies. I stopped calling myself a psychoanalyst because I found that, instead of being more intensive than other therapies, it intensively investigated innumerable irrelevancies and failed to uncover the real reasons why people were disturbed and what they could effectively do to make themselves less dysfunctional. It was especially deficient in behavioral homework assignments that I found essential for helping clients feel better, get better, and stay better. It also lacked emotional-experiential exercises, which I started using when my clients were stuck with whining about the “horrors” of their early childhood and were resisting my efforts to help them by my using role playing and other dramatic-evocative methods. I therefore started using my newly devised REBT on January 1, 1955, and gave it the name of “Rational Therapy” (Ellis, 1958, 1962). With cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) practically nonexistent, I promoted it very vigorously and began training other therapists to use it in the 1950s; I gave many talks and workshops on it and made it into the first popular CBT by 1962. After that, the cognitively behavioral therapies of Aaron Beck, Albert Bandura, Donald Meichenbaum, and other innovators also began to be often practiced. Today, CBT has immensely flourished and may well be the most popular form of psychological treatment. But in 1955, only the pioneering cognitive behavior therapies of Alexander Hertzberg, Andrew Salter, and a few other therapists existed and were rarely used by professional practitioners. Of course there is no real behavior therapy, so let us have no nonsense about that. First of all, all therapy includes strong behavioral as well as

This article describes how the author really became a therapist and worked on his own social and performance anxiety. He was at first a follower of liberal psychoanalysis, but, in successfully using in vivo desensitization on himself, he overcame his anxiety and became highly constructivist. He finally created rational emotive behavior therapy, the pioneering cognitive-behavior therapy; integrated it with emotional-evocative and experiential methods; and used it to cope with much criticism he received about his active-directive techniques.

In this article I address three main questions: (a) how psychotherapy has changed the modern world of psychology, (b) how it has changed the modern world in general, and (c) how my special form of psychotherapy, rational emotive behavior therapy, and its derivative, cognitive behavior therapy, have changed the recent theory and practice of psychotherapy.

The main theoretical and practical applications of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and Cognitive Therapy (CT) are examined and found to be similar to each other in most respects, but REBT bases its concepts of improved treatment of neurotic disorders and of severe personality dysfunctioning largely on philosophical, existential, and humanistic bases, while CT tends to align them with empirical results of outcome studies. Both REBT and CT, however, use philosophic and empirical outcome studies to construct and validate their theories.

Therapists are human-and, believe it or not, fallible humans. Ideally, they are supremely well infored, highly confident, minimally disturbed, extremely ethical and rarely under- or overinvolved with their clients/Actually, they are hardly ideal. If you, as a therapist, find yourself seriously blocked in your work, look for the same kind of irrational beliefs, inappropriate feelings, and dysfunctional behaviors that you would investigate in your underachieving clints. When you ferret out the absolutistic philosophies and perfectionist demads that seem to underlie your difficulties, ask yoursell—yes,strongly ask yourself—these trenchant questions: (a) Why do Ihave to be an indubitably great and unconditionally lowed therapist?; (b) Where is it written that my clientsmust follow my teachings and absolutelyshould do what I advise?; (c) Where is the evidence that therapymust be easy and that Ihave to enjoy every minute of it?

Although rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) has been the pioneering cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) of the twentieth century, and although its main methods are very popular among practicing clinicians as well as members of the public, it has been relatively neglected in the professional and scientific literature. Reasons for this neglect are discussed and some steps are suggested to make REBT more effective and more scientifically accepted.

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) includes several main theories and practices, especially the hypotheses that people are both constructivists and destructivists. It holds that they have powerful innate and socially acquired tendencies to often be self-helping and “rational” but also self-defeating and “irrational.” REBT largely derives its method of therapy from many clients seen by the author, from hundreds of therapy studies, and from the social psychology literature. This article shows how REBT formulations overlap with some of the findings of social psychology, how these findings can appreciably be used to improve REBT practice, how some of the unique theories and methods of REBT may contribute to the field of social psychology, and how social psychologists can help to research some of the main REBT principles.

This is a study of the responses of 100 selected subjects who gave their reactions to experiencing a live session of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) with Albert Ellis in front of a public audience. Ninety-seven of the respondents found their session helpful; only 13 felt uncomfortable discussing their problems in public; 99 of them felt that Dr. Ellis focused on their main problem; 94 of them reported that they somewhat or very much used Dr. Ellis's suggestions; 90 of them felt that the members of the audience suggestions were helpful; and 93 of them said that they would like to work with Dr. Ellis again at a public therapy session. Limitations of this study are discussed.

This paper reviews and discusses the results of five cross-cultural studies in Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Spain, and USA, using 2 (college students vs. their parents) × 2 (males vs. females) MANOVA match group designs with the Attitudes and Beliefs Inventory subscales as dependent variables, two multicultural studies investigating the relationship between some demographic variables (Pan American Health Organization's Index of Violence, and Acculturation) and people's Irrationality, and two multidisciplinary studies on the relationship between some medical conditions (skin diseases, and severity of symptoms during menopause) and Irrational Beliefs.

Countertransference in therapy stems from biological tendencies and social learning influences that involve mild or heavy prejudiced thinking, feeling, and behaving. Several reasons are given why it is almost inevitable and has both beneficial and destructive aspects-not either/or but both/and. It is hypothesized that therapists can well make good use of countertransference if they strive to employ it in a preferential, experimental rather than an absolutist musturbating manner.