Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Author correspondence to Albert Ellis, Ph.D., Albert Ellis Institute, 45 East 65th Street, New
York, NY 10021, USA; e-mail: aiellis@aol.com.
caps for the rest of your life (Ellis, 1962, 2002). No rest for the weary!
Then you look for many creative enjoyments!’’ (Ellis, 1962, 1994).
From what I have just said, it should be reasonably obvious that
the critics of REBT, including Steve Hayes (2005) often wrongly per-
ceive it as almost obsessed with irrational and illogical Beliefs. Some
sloppy followers of REBT and some practitioners of forms of CBT
may be in that camp. But hardly up-to-date REBTers. They fre-
quently show clients how to find and Dispute (D) their IBs and to ar-
rive at Effective New Philosophies (E), otherwise known as Rational
Coping Beliefs. Fine. That, as many empirical studies and an im-
mense amount of clinical evidence have shown, is enormously effec-
tive in helping people (Lyons & Woods, 1991). REBT can frequently
be effective in from 1 to 10 sessions. It also works with practically all
kinds of severe personality disorders, and with people with psychotic
disorders. Of course, REBT doesn’t significantly help all disturbed
people; but it does remarkably well with most of them—if their thera-
pists induce them to commit themselves to working at it. It therefore
requires a dedicated, committed therapist who uses good relating
skills—just as ACT does.
However! competent REBT practitioners do much more than teach
people how to find and Dispute their destructive thinking. They also
try to persuade their clients, in several cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral ways, to consciously take and profoundly imbibe a philoso-
phy of both acceptance and commitment. They strongly present these
important therapeutic goals to their clients. To accomplish this, they
frequently take on several roles and can serve as teachers, preachers,
propagandists, persuaders, and encouragers. As far as I can see, ACT
practitioners do something similar. For example, they often teach
Mindfulness to clients; give them metaphors, analogies and fables,
stories, puzzles, and other presentations just as REBT practitioners
do; and even, though they deny using direct cognitive methods, use
more active-directive teaching than many other therapists—such as
Rogerian, Reichian, and Gestalt therapists.
REBT also stresses teaching clients to focus on their goals and val-
ues—as pointed by several reviewers. And it uses evaluation—which
is a cognitive technique that involves language—not only to assess
whether a therapeutic method works; but it also explores clients’
evaluations of their goals and their demands about these goals. Thus,
clients usually have the goal of succeeding in an important endeavor,
and their rational evaluation is something like, ‘‘I really wish to suc-
ceed and gain approval. That would be good.’’ But their irrational
160 Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
evaluation of this goal may be, ‘‘I must succeed or else it is terrible
and I’m worthless!’’ Their irrational or musturbatory evaluations are
radically different from their functional evaluations of their goals. So
REBT practitioners point out this difference, and show clients how
one kind of goal evaluation is helpful and another kind of goal evalu-
ation is unrealistic and unhelpful. In this way, REBT is probably
more focused on evaluation of goals than is ACT.
Hayes (2005) cites several studies where, without addressing the
content of dysfunctional thinking, ACT gets excellent therapeutic re-
sults. What he seems to mean is that ACT doesn’t directly address
the clients’ dysfunctional Beliefs, such as, ‘‘Because I failed at this
important project, that is awful and my failing makes me an incom-
petent person, a failure.’’ But in several ways, it indirectly contradicts
them. It shows, by stories, metaphors, coping statements, in vivo
desensitization, and other cognitive behavioral techniques that your
therapist accepts you with your failings; that your friends and loved
ones do so, too; that many people don’t consider you a total failure;
that people who fail (like Lincoln for example) can finally succeed;
that you can accept yourself no matter how many times you fail; that
it isn’t the end of the world to fail; that you can relax and not focus
on your failures; that you can enjoy many other things, etc.
In other words, ACT both explicitly and implicitly presents several
philosophies of acceptance that help you to believe that failing doesn’t
make you a worm and is not catastrophic and awful.
Now the interesting thing is that REBT uses a number of cogni-
tive, emotive, and behavioral techniques that ACT also uses to help
change your self-downing and awfulizing outlooks, but it consciously
teaches them directly and indirectly with everyday language and
with stories and metaphors. It analyzes the language of clients (as
Korzybski’s general semantics does) and does so quite openly and
didactically; but it also uses realistic and logical Disputing of your
IBs.
Why does REBT logically and realistically Dispute your dysfunc-
tional ideas, feelings, and actions? Because REBT (and some other
CBTs) have found, in contradiction to ACT, that Disputing the con-
tent of what you think not only works, but works remarkably well in
most (though hardly all) cases. It is effective, very often, in from 1 to
10 sessions. What is more, active Disputing of IBs is effective in self-
help form, through books, handouts, cassettes, lectures, workshops,
intensives, courses, etc. REBT direct teaching has helped millions of
people prophylactically and therapeutically.
Albert Ellis 161
change, such as, ‘‘I no longer have to give into and follow my wor-
risome thoughts. I am able to let go of them.’’
Steven Hayes notes that ACT was more effective with halluci-
nated psychotic clients when compared to treatment as usual
(TAU). I can well believe it was, because it used acceptance meth-
ods to help these clients accept themselves with their hallucina-
tions—meaning, accept themselves without blame. This is exactly
what REBT does with clients with psychosis. It assumes that their
hallucinations (and other bizarre behavior) are partly biologically
caused and are not like the IBs of clients with neurosis. It therefore
often does not try to change the hallucination—which may not stem
from their making their preferential desires into demands—but it
stresses teaching hallucinating people USA—unconditional self-
acceptance. They may then retain or even increase their psychotic
thoughts or perceptions, and still not damn themselves for having
them. Good ACT—but also good REBT!
The same thing goes for people with addictions, severe personal-
ity disorders, and practically all the difficult clients that seem to
be successfully treated with ACT. It is not absence of Disputing of
the content of their dysfunctional beliefs that ACT used with them.
It is mainly ACT’s helping them to fully accept themselves with
their dysfunctional perceptions, emotions, and actions. This is pre-
cisely what happens in REBT practice in addition to sometimes
Disputing the content of their IBs. Hayes lightly acknowledges
REBT’s very strong philosophy of unconditional acceptance. But
then he implies that it is not a crucial REBT concept and practice.
It damned well is!
Hayes, in answering Ciarrochi and Robb, says, ‘‘It is not clear to me
why we must be attached to logical–empirical challenging.’’ He forgets
that REBT challenges IBs in cognitive, emotive, and behavioral ways,
and that logical–empirical challenging is only one of these several
ways. REBT also says that it is preferable to challenge IB’s—not that
we must.
Hayes doubts that REBT would target the thought, ‘‘life is wonder-
ful’’ along with the thought, ‘‘life is awful.’’ How wrong he is! Both
thoughts, according to REBT (and to Alfred Korzybski) are irrational
overgeneralizations, are unrealistic, and may easily be harmful to
people.
Hayes is unaware of studies showing that REBT in a few hours is
effective. Actually, there are over 200 outcome studies of REBT, most
164 Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
(1) Realistic Disputing (D): ‘‘Why must you succeed? Where is it writ-
ten that you have to? Would a strong preference to succeed be bet-
ter than your must?’’ Answer or Effective New Philosophy (E): ‘‘I
clearly don’t have to succeed, though it would be preferable. My
need to succeed is only written in my nutty head. Of course, a
strong preference to succeed would be more sensible than my
demanding that I do so.’’
(2) Logical Disputing (D): ‘‘Does it logically follow that if I don’t suc-
ceed, my failing will make me an incompetent, worthless person?
Does my failing make me be or become a total failure?’’ Answer or
Effective New Philosophy (E): ‘‘No, failing makes me a person who
failed this time, not an incompetent or worthless person who will
always fail. No, I (and anyone else) can’t become a total failure be-
cause I would then have to fail at everything all the time.’’
(3) Functional Disputing (D): ‘‘Where will it get me if I think in this
unrealistic and illogical way?’’ Answer or Effective New Philosophy
(E): ‘‘It will get me nowhere, except anxious and self-downing.’’ Dis-
puting: ‘‘Will it help me or make me happier?’’ Answer or Effective
New Philosophy (E): ‘‘It damned well won’t.’’
REBT employs this kind of Disputing to help clients see: (1) That
they create their thinking errors. (2) That they can choose to think
Albert Ellis 165
with its own comprehensive research program into the nature of hu-
man language and cognition.’’ I agree with his point and congratulate
ACT devotees for doing this. They can teach REBT and all cognitive-
stressing therapists some important points.
However, Hayes and his associates often imply that it is common
language itself that people use to upset themselves and that by
avoiding it and by using metaphorical language, therapists reach
people better. I doubt this. Yes, the kind of language used in ACT
definitely can work—and Hayes has listed several studies where it
quickly works. But language itself doesn’t seem to ‘‘cause’’ distur-
bance while some kinds of internal language—which REBT special-
izes in investigating, much more than ACT does—have been shown
in hundreds of studies to be significantly more prevalent in emotion-
ally anguished than in nonanguished people. Before REBT was in-
vented, personality inventories like the MMPI were shown to fairly
accurately diagnose various kinds of psychological functioning, and
they still do. Some of these scales, like the famous Beck Depression
Inventory, are part of the regular CBT movement that Hayes thinks
ACT is mightily different from. Other personality inventories, such
as the MMPI, show that the content of people’s dysfunctional Beliefs
are often highly correlated with their thinking, emotional, and behav-
ioral disorders and can be usefully analyzed by therapists who use
CBT and other forms of therapy. These personality inventories seem
to have been used in several of the outcome studies of ACT and help
make these studies more effective.
Why Hayes is allergic to consciously finding and Disputing dys-
functional Beliefs in addition to his indirect ACT methods is still
something of a mystery to me. Yes, language helps people improperly
create disturbances. But language, in the form of consciously think-
ing about thinking and thinking about thinking about thinking
(meta-thinking), may be one of the most effective antidotes to emo-
tional and behavioral disturbances (Ellis, 2001b, 2002). I think that
ACT indirectly uses powerful persuasive language similar to REBT.
But instead of directly challenging clients to think differently by Dis-
puting their IBs, it indirectly teaches them to adopt an Effective New
Philosophy in a number of ways. Thus, it teaches clients to evaluate
how effective is their thinking, emoting, and behaving. It highlights
and explains why conventional thought is often dysfunctional. It pro-
vides clients with what REBT calls rational coping statements. It
shows clients how to be more purposive. It encourages them to have
a spiritual attitude meaning, to question their self-centeredness and
Albert Ellis 167
REFERENCES