Key REBT Principles and Concepts

[Daniel E.]

Key REBT principles and concepts
CBTRecovery.org

Some ideas and concepts of Albert Ellis and REBT, adapted and compiled by a SMART Recovery member.

The following suggestions for Profound Rational Philosophies are for you to experiment with, to see how they work for you. These are not etched in stone -- they are for consideration.

Freedom of Choice and Willpower

I have little choice over my heredity and many of the things that happen to me during my lifetime. I can influence but rarely control others. But I can, with hard work and practice, largely control my own thoughts, feelings and behaviours and thereby control much of my own emotional destiny. I can decide on my own goals and purposes, give meaning to my life, and achieve much of what I want and avoid much of what I don’t want.

To change and control myself I require not only will but willpower.

Willpower consists of my

1) deciding to do (or not do) something
2) making myself determined to do it
3) acquiring suitable knowledge of how to do it
4) acting on my determination and knowledge
5) continuing to decide, to determine, to acquire suitable knowledge and especially, to act.

My actions speak louder than words of will. No action, no willpower.

Flexible Thinking

I can largely control and limit my emotional and behavioural disturbances - especially my feelings of severe anxiety, depression, rage, worthlessness and self pity - by thinking in terms of preferences and desires, including strong preferences and desires, instead of absolutistic demands - especially insistent shoulds, oughts, musts, ‘have tos’ and ‘got tos’.

I’d better take many things seriously, but not too seriously and make many projects important but not sacred. I can live comfortably without certainty or perfection.

I will watch my tendencies to over generalize, carelessly label and stereotype and strive to be open-minded and less severely prejudiced.

Unconditional Self Acceptance

I will always accept myself as a fallible human being who will make many errors and mistakes. I will mainly choose my own goals and purposes and will only rate or evaluate my thoughts, feelings and actions as "good" when they aid and as "bad" when they sabotage my individual and social goals.

I shall not globally rate myself, my essence, my personhood or my being.

By achieving USA, whether or not I perform well or whether or not I am approved by others, I shall still try to perform better and to get along with other people -- not to prove my worth as a person, but to enhance my efficiency and enjoyment.

Unconditional Other Acceptance

I will accept other people unconditionally, even when I deplore their behaviours with myself and with others. I will accept their human fallibility and never damn them as persons. As with myself, I shall “accept the sinners but not condone their sins.” I shall try to help people change their poor behaviours, and may stay away from them if they don’t, but I will not insist that they absolutely must change and will not be vindictive or revengeful if they don’t. I shall try to help people act fairly and justly, but not command that they absolutely have to be fair.

High Frustration Tolerance

I will acknowledge that human life is full of many troubles, difficulties, misfortunes and injustices and that they will often continue to prevail. I will do my best to change what I can about these troubles, to accept (but not like!) what I cannot change and to have the wisdom to know the difference.

Anti-Awfulizing

I will not define the very bad things in my life as awful, terrible, or horrible. When I insist that something is awful, I may correctly see it as unusually bad or even catastrophic - as are hurricanes, earthquakes or devastating wars.

But by awfulizing, I also tend to whine about poor conditions, to think that they are so bad that they absolutely must not exist, and to think that they are totally ruinous and bad as they could be. These are all exaggerations which will not help me cope with very unfortunate events. So I’d better stop whining and help myself cope better with even the worst adversaries and adversities.

Similarly, when I insist that I can’t stand adversities, I imply that I will die of them, or be unable to be happy at all because of them. But I won’t die, and I can still find some kind of happiness. If I stop my awfulizing, my whining and my ‘i-cant-stand-its’, I will stop making my frustrations worse than they actually are and will raise my frustration tolerance and more effectively cope with the unfortunate Activating Events of my life.

Accepting the Challenge of Less Disturbability

Because I have my own limitations and fallibilities, because other people are also far from perfect, and because life has constant dangers and misfortunes, I will never be completely undisturbed or undisturbable. Even when I do my best to cope with adversities, I will still tend to fall back at times to needlessly upsetting myself.

So this is my greatest challenge: to keep working at establishing and maintaining Profound Rational Philosophies such as these and to forcefully use and revise them when adversity strikes—and when ever I bring it on myself. No matter what!

Let unfortunate things happen. Let people and things plague me. Let me grow old and be more afflicted with physical pains and ills. Let me suffer real losses and sorrows. Whatever may be, I am still largely the creator and ruler of my emotional destiny. My head and body may be bloodied, but I am still determined to be unbowed. In spite of life’s storms, I shall seek and find some decent shelter. But occasionally when I don’t, I shall refuse to throw my hands up and whine and whimper.

My goals are to live and let live. This is the only life that I am sure I will ever have. I am delighted to be alive. I am determined to stay alive and find some kind of happiness. No matter what, no matter what! This is the greatest challenge that I can take. I fully and enthusiastically accept it.

Adapted from A Guide To Rational Living By Ellis and Harper

 

[Daniel E.]

Albert Ellis - New World Encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org

Development of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT)​

After the completion of his doctorate, Ellis sought additional training in psychoanalysis. Like most psychologists of that time, he was interested in the theories of Sigmund Freud.

Shortly after receiving his Ph.D. in 1947, Ellis began a personal analysis and program of supervision with Richard Hulbeck (whose own analyst had been Hermann Rorschach, a leading training analyst at the Karen Horney Institute.) Karen Horney would be the single greatest influence in Ellis' thinking, although the writings of Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm and Harry Stack Sullivan also played a role in shaping his psychological models. Ellis credits Alfred Korzybski and his book, Science and Sanity, for starting him on the philosophical path for founding rational-emotive therapy.

By January 1953, his break with psychoanalysis was complete, and he began calling himself a rational therapist. Ellis was now advocating a new more active and directive type of psychotherapy. By 1955 he dubbed his new approach Rational Therapy (RT). RT required that the therapist help the client understand—and act on the understanding—that his personal philosophy contains beliefs that lead to his own emotional pain. This new approach stressed actively working to change a client's self-defeating beliefs and behaviors by demonstrating their irrationality and rigidity. Ellis related everything to these core irrational beliefs such as "I must be perfect" and "I must be loved by everyone." Ellis believed that through rational analysis, people can understand their errors in light of the core irrational beliefs and then construct a more rational position.

In 1954 Ellis began teaching his new technique to other therapists, and by 1957 he formally set forth the first cognitive behavior therapy by proposing that therapists help people adjust their thinking and behavior as the treatment for neuroses. Two years later Ellis published How to Live with a Neurotic,which elaborated on his new method. In 1960 Ellis presented a paper on his new approach at the American Psychological Association convention in Chicago. There was mild interest, but few recognized that the paradigm set forth would become the zeitgeist within a generation.

At that time the prevailing interest in experimental psychology was behaviorism, while in clinical psychology it was the psychoanalytic schools of notables such as Freud, Jung, Adler, and Perls. Despite the fact that Ellis' approach emphasized cognitive, emotive, and behavioral methods, his strong cognitive emphasis provoked almost everyone with the possible exception of the followers of Alfred Adler. Consequently, he was often received with hostility at professional conferences and in print.[3]

 

[Daniel E.]

Karen Horney would be the single greatest influence in Ellis' thinking

For example, Horney sees "shoulds" as self-alienating:

Your Career and the Tyranny of the Shoulds

Five steps to remove guilt and bring more joy to your work.

www.psychologytoday.com

German psychoanalyst Karen Horney (1885-1952) had a phrase for this: “the tyranny of the should.” She viewed shoulds as dividing our personalities into two selves: an ideal self and a real self. When we don't live up to the ideal self, we are split and our inner critic comes out.