Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) uses the ABC model to illustrate the process of self-disturbance. With this helpful technique, people can better understand how they upset themselves. Moreover, they can learn how to stop causing unnecessary suffering in their lives.
REBT theory posits that when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
Therefore, from a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As well, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs. If there were a mathematical formula for the ABC model, it would be something like: Action + Belief = Consequence ÷ Disputation = Effective new belief.
Herein, I’ll briefly discuss the process of disputing. Disputation involves calling into question or casting doubt upon a belief, attitude, or position through use of rational and reasonable processes. For clarity, consider the following example.
Client X unproductively believes that he’s an utter failure, because he can’t stop making mistakes at his job. Rather than disputing the actual event regarding mistakes, or the consequential effects of his unhelpful assumption, I would dispute client X’s belief about work that causes suffering.
This is because it would be pointless to dispute an activating event. After all, people make mistakes all the time. Thus, I wouldn’t choose to promote the process of denial by disputing whether or not client X actually made mistakes. He’s a fallible human being, so of course he’ll commit errors.
Similarly, it would be senseless to engage in disputation of a consequence of one’s unproductive belief. If client X is miserable due to his unfavorable belief, I wouldn’t want to challenge the veracity of his unpleasant emotional or behavioral experience.
Therefore, I’d engage in disputing client X’s irrational global evaluation of his self-worth (i.e., I’m an utter failure, because I can’t stop making mistakes at my job). After all, it’s this belief about his work that forms a B-C connection which results in a miserable outcome.
Regarding disputation, page 120 The REBT Therapist’s Pocket Companion (“Pocket Companion”) invites REBT practitioners to adequately prepare clients for challenges to irrational beliefs and to assure that clients understand why disputation is necessary.
I would inform client X that if left undisputed, his unproductive beliefs would likely continue causing unpleasant consequences. As well, page 121 of the Pocket Companion encourages practitioners to use tact and sensitivity when conducting the disputation process.
Although the Pocket Companion also suggests the use of empathy, I disagree. Rather, I practice rational compassion when working with clients. This is because I maintain that it’s virtually impossible to feel exactly what another person feels. Thus, I can imagine what a person feels and commiserate accordingly.
Page 122 of the Pocket Companion suggests the disputation of demands and irrational belief derivatives. An example would be if client X unhelpfully believed, “I shouldn’t err at this stage in my career and I’m an utter failure, because I can’t stop making mistakes at my job.”
A should, must, or ought-type demand is prescriptive (demanding) and the “utter failure” portion of client X’s belief is descriptive (derivative). Thus, I’d assist client X with disputing his prescriptive and descriptive attitude.
Helpfully, page 123 of the Pocket Companion invites practitioners to develop skills in Socratic and didactic disputing. The former involves asking a series of questions until a person arrives at a conclusion while the latter involves explanation of a matter before asking questions.
Likewise, page 124 of the Pocket Companion urges use of empirical, logical, and pragmatic arguments while disputing irrational beliefs. An empirical approach would involve assessing the truthfulness of a belief (e.g., is it true that you’re an utter failure?).
A logical dispute could make use of a syllogism. For instance: Client X, are you saying that if you make mistakes, then that means you – as a complete human being – are a failure? I mean, you make mistakes. Therefore, you – as a complete human being – are a failure, right?
A pragmatic dispute involves assessment of the utility regarding one’s unfavorable belief. Here are two examples: Client X, what do you get out of rigidly holding yourself to notions of unachievable perfection? How is behaving in this manner serving your interests and goals?
Page 125 of the Pocket Companion invites REBT practitioners to consider being ordered in the implementation of disputing strategies, as haphazard disputing may promote confusion for clients. This is something I wish I’d better understood early on in my mental health care career.
Now, when disputing irrational beliefs, I find it helpful to allow clients an opportunity to answer posed questions before asking follow-up questions. Also, shifting between different disputing techniques is helpful, especially if a specific technique bewilders an individual.
Noteworthy, page 126 of the Pocket Companion encourages practitioners to openly debate with clients rather than defensively arguing with them. In addition to this advice, I’ve learned not to interrogate clients, as I left that form of questioning in my past career of military police.
Page 127 of the Pocket Companion advises practitioners to be watchful for misinterpretation of disputing techniques. If such misunderstanding occurs, REBT practitioners are encouraged to constructively correct these misconceptions.
Additionally, page 128 of the Pocket Companion invites practitioners not to dispute distorted inferences when disputing irrational beliefs. Rather, it’s important that practitioners maintain a “let’s assume temporarily that A is true” position. This technique is known as the elegant solution.
Ultimately, disputing techniques used by ancient philosophers significantly enhance the REBT process. Thus, use of the ABC model allows clients to learn how to question or cast doubt upon unhelpful attitudes so that more effective new beliefs may be utilized.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Dryden, W. and Neenan, M. (2003). The REBT Therapist’s Pocket Companion. Albert Ellis Institute. ISBN 0-917476-26-3. Library of Congress Control Number: 20031044378
Freepik. (n.d.). Ancient greek deity philosopher statue [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/ancient-greek-deity-philosopher-statue_94953844.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=39&uuid=7567101b-65a9-440d-907f-efe19c48a2eb
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Blog – Categories: Disputation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/blog/categories/disputation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Denial. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/denial
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, October 22). On empathy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-empathy
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, September 19). The elegant solution. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-elegant-solution