Science, Proof, Efficacy, and Effectiveness of REBT
As Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) was formed by the late psychologist Albert Ellis, who reportedly developed the first cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) psychotherapeutic modality in 1955, this blog entry is part of an ongoing series regarding his book, Ask Albert Ellis?: Straight Answers and Sound Advice from America’s Best-Known Psychologist.
When providing psychoeducational lessons on mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”), I’m occasionally asked questions about the scientific proof, efficacy, and effectiveness (also “efficaciousness”) of REBT. Herein, I’ll address this matter.
Since having begun the informal practice of life coaching in 1991, and after having begun the formal practice of psychotherapy in 2011, I’ve continually been surprised by how little people know about science, which the American Psychological Association (APA) thusly defines:
[T]he systematic study of structure and behavior in the physical, natural, and social worlds, involving the generation, investigation, and testing of hypotheses, the accumulation of data, and the formulation of general laws and theories. There are several major branches, including the natural sciences (e.g., biology, physics) and the social sciences.
The subdisciplines of psychology are themselves divided among the different branches. For example, neuroscience and the study of the biological bases for behavior can be classed with the natural sciences, whereas social psychology and many aspects of clinical psychology can be seen as belonging to the social sciences. See scientific explanation; scientific method.
I earned a Master of Arts in Counseling degree in 2011, and a Master of Science in Social Work degree in 2014. Still, the field of both counseling and social work are classified as social science. Social science is referred to as “soft science,” and natural science is called “hard science.”
Regarding the matter of soft science (e.g., counseling) versus hard science (e.g., neuroscience), some people to whom I’ve provided professional mental health services treat the former like the latter. However, social science is largely subjective, as hard science is more objective.
For a meaningful distinction, consider the difference between your brain (the enlarged, anterior part of the central nervous system within the skull) and your mind (all intellectual and psychological phenomena of an organism, encompassing motivational, affective, behavioral, perceptual, and cognitive systems).
Your brain is a physical component of your body. You mind is an abstract function of what the brain does. A neurosurgeon may be able to open your scalp and view your brain (i.e., concrete thing). Yet, a social worker cannot observe the function of your mind (i.e., abstract process).
This is one distinction between hard and soft sciences, as they regard mental health. Given this difference, knowledge, wisdom, and understanding about abstract processes may be complicated by the undetectable nature of the mind. Thus, a lot of mental health function is mere guesswork.
Understandably, this admission serves as the premise for many critiques regarding soft science disciplines. Now shifting to an example in support of this claim, I invite you to consider that in Ask Albert Ellis?, Ellis unhelpfully proposed (page 4):
REBT is proven to help people deal with the difficulties in their lives by changing their thoughts, feelings, and behavior in response to [events], and to the way they respond – think, feel, and behave – toward the adversity.
Ellis, having worked in a soft science field—as do I, made the mistake of claiming that REBT is “proven” to help people. This is an inaccurate postulation. For context, the APA thusly defines proof:
[T]he establishment of a proposition or theory as true, or the method by which it is so established. There is much debate as to whether propositions or theories can ever be truly proven.
In logic and philosophy, even a valid argument can be untrue if its first premise is false. For example, it is a valid argument to say that All trees are pines: I have a tree in my garden: Therefore my tree is a pine.
In empirical sciences such as psychology, both logical and methodological problems make it impossible to prove a theory or hypothesis true. Disciplines that rely on empirical science must settle for some type of probabilism based on empirical support of its theories and hypotheses. See also falsifiability.
At this point in the blogpost, allow me to be as clear as possible. REBT hasn’t been scientifically, logically, methodologically, or empirically “proven” to do anything! For clarity, I encourage you to consider that one source states:
It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.”
In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.
The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. The reasons for that range from the philosophical to the practical, but if you really want to understand the nature of science, then it is very important that you understand the concept of proof. Therefore, I am going to go over some of the reasons why science doesn’t prove anything, then I am going to explain why that is actually a good thing and should not make you question the reliability of science.
As I will elaborate on, the best way to think about science is that it tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence. As such, it is an extremely useful tool, and it is far better than the alternatives, but it’s certainly not perfect.
I invite you to read the remainder of that source in its entirety, as I believe that the author makes a compelling argument against the concept of so-called scientific proof. As for now, it’s worth noting that the APA defines efficacy as “competence in behavioral performance, especially with reference to a person’s perception of their performance capabilities, or perceived self-efficacy.”
In common parlance, efficacy merely means the power to produce a result or effect—an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause. Rather than claiming that REBT is “proven” to do anything, one may instead assess the efficacy of the modality.
The APA defines efficacy research as “an empirical study, such as a randomized clinical trial, that examines whether a specific treatment or approach works when compared to outcomes in a placebo control group. Efficacy research is sometimes contrasted with effectiveness research, which uses naturalistic observation to assess whether an approach or treatment is working.”
In common parlance, effectiveness is defined as the quality or state of being effective. Per one source, “The distinction between efficacy (performance under ideal conditions) and effectiveness (performance in real-world settings) is well established.” Now, the APA defines effectiveness research as:
[R]eviewing past studies or conducting new studies to evaluate how well current and new treatments work, with the aim of improving the care and treatment of patients. The term is often used synonymously with clinical utility research, although some have suggested clinical utility research is a broader term that encompasses studies of additional health-related access to care.
Thus far, I’ve shared definitions of science, proof, efficacy, and effectiveness, as well as elaborating on different concepts related to these terms. Now, it may be of some use to note that the APA thusly defines REBT:
[A] form of [CBT] based on the concept that an individual’s self-defeating beliefs influence and cause negative feelings and undesirable behaviors. Specifically, a person’s problems are seen as the result of turning healthy desires for success, approval, and pleasure into demands (e.g., “I must achieve outstandingly well in one or more important respects or I am an inadequate person”).
Because of its emphasis on thinking, feeling, and acting as integrated and holistic processes, REBT uses a variety of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral techniques to directly and emphatically interrupt clients’ irrational beliefs and encourage them to think and act in more effective, self-enhancing (i.e., rational) ways.
As I argue that REBT isn’t “proven” to do anything, I simultaneously assert that evidence indicates the efficacy and/or effectiveness of this modality. For instance, one source reports on a systemic review of REBT by stating:
Our unique and insightful systematic review has determined the effectiveness and efficacy of REBT interventions on irrational and rational beliefs (i.e., mechanisms of change) as well as a range of additional outcomes including mental health.
When examining the efficacy or efficaciousness of any psychotherapeutic modality which is contained within the soft sciences, it’s reasonable to inquire about what the model is effective at. As an example, suppose that I have a hammer (i.e., a tool). What is the hammer effective for?
Although it’s a versatile hand tool used for delivering impact force to drive nails, shape metal, break materials, and assemble parts, a hammer isn’t a practical tool for cleaning glass, non-breastfeeding an infant, or scooping protein powder from a container. Thus, context matters.
Just as the efficacy or effectiveness of a hammer is dependent upon the job requiring this hand tool, the limit of REBT efficacy and efficaciousness depends on the task for which it’s used. For instance, one source reports on REBT as a tool used for outpatient programs:
To our knowledge, this was the first study to investigate the effectiveness of REBT delivered over 10 years in a world-class outpatient center such as the AEI [Albert Ellis Institute] in New York City.
Although controlled studies have shown that REBT is effective, it is essential to document whether REBT has similar effectiveness, compared with other forms of CBT, in naturalistic settings.
Our findings document that REBT can be effectively transported to clinical practice settings, supporting the use of REBT for a wide range of life problems in real clinical settings.
Did you detect how the source stated that “studies have shown that REBT is effective,” though it didn’t report that REBT has been “proven” to be effective? Herein, I’ve outlined the reason for this distinction. Lastly, one 50-year systematic review and meta-analysis source reports:
Overall, the current meta‐analysis indicates that REBT interventions (psychotherapy, educational, or counseling interventions) are efficacious/ effective for various conditions, regardless of clinical status, age of sample, and delivery format, though, as expected, ESs [effective sizes] are moderated by type of control condition. Also, REBT interventions are efficacious/ effective when analyzing their effect on alleged mechanisms of change.
Given everything outlined herein, you may’ve gathered by now that the title for this blogpost is intentionally subversive. As expressed herein, “science is inherently incapable of proving anything.” All the same, efficacy and effectiveness of REBT has been continually demonstrated.
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help 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 try 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 trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
Photo credit, Designed by Magnific, fair use
References:
AEI. (n.d.). About Albert Ellis, Ph.D. Albert Ellis Institute. Retrieved from https://albertellis.org/about-albert-ellis-phd/
AEI. (n.d.). Albert Ellis Institute [Official website]. Albert Ellis Institute. Retrieved from https://albertellis.org/
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Brain. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/brain
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Central nervous system (CNS). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/central-nervous-system
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Competence. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/competence
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Control condition. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/control-condition
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Counseling. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/counseling
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Data. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/data
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Effectiveness research. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/effectiveness-research
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Efficacy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/efficacy
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Efficacy research. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/efficacy-research
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Evaluation. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/evaluation
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Falsifiability. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/falsifiability
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Intervention. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/intervention
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Law. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/law
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Logic. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/logic
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Meta-analysis. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/meta-analysis
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Methodology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/methodology
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Mind. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/mind
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Naturalistic observation. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/naturalistic-observation
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Neurosurgery. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/neurosurgery
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Philosophy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/philosophy
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Placebo control group. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/placebo-control-group
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Probabilism. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/probabilism
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Proof. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/proof
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2026, March 6). Psychology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/psychology
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Neuroscience. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/neuroscience
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Randomized clinical trial (RCT). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/randomized-clinical-trial
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Reliability. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/reliability
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Science. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/science
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Scientific explanation. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/scientific-explanation
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Scientific method. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/scientific-method
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2023, November 15). Self-efficacy. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/self-efficacy
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Self-enhancement. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/self-enhancement
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Social work. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/social-work
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Study. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/study
David, D., Cotet, C., Matu, S., Mogoase, C., and Stefan, S. (2017, September 12). 50 years of rational‐emotive and cognitive‐behavioral therapy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836900/
David, O. A., Cîmpean, A., Costescu, C., DiGiuseppe, R., Doyle, K., Hickey, M., and David, D. (2021, July 30). Effectiveness of outpatient rational emotive behavior therapy over one decade. The American Journal of Psychotherapy. Retrieved from https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20200009
Ellis, A. (2003). Ask Albert Ellis?: Straight Answers and Sound Advice from America’s Best-Known Psychologist. Impact Publishers, Incorporated. Retrieved from https://www.welib.st/md5/acac369a25390ac87c98b93b00e3f33e
Fallacy Man. (2016, April 19). Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing. The Logic of Science. Retrieved from https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/
Halasz, G. (2004, December). In Conversation with Dr Albert Ellis. Australian Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.reasearchgate.net/publication/227984238_In_Conversation_with_Dr_Albert_Ellis
Hollings, D. (2025, December 1). A diagnosis is a form of hypothesis. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-diagnosis-is-a-form-of-hypothesis
Hollings, D. (2026, June 16). A fountain of goodness: Subjective and objective views. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-fountain-of-goodness-subjective-and-objective-views
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2026, February 8). Adaptive and maladaptive emotions and behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adaptive-and-maladaptive-emotions-and-behavior
Hollings, D. (2024, July 6). Addressing misconceptions with clients. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/addressing-misconceptions-with-clients
Hollings, D. (2026, April 30). Alternate reality: Negative and unhealthy delusional jealousy and envy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/alternate-reality-negative-and-unhealthy-delusional-jealousy-and-envy
Hollings, D. (2026, September 8). Attention: Changing the way you respond to a situation makes a difference. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/attention-changing-the-way-you-respond-to-a-situation-makes-a-difference
Hollings, D. (2025, September 6). Bringing meaning to the words. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/bringing-meaning-to-the-words
Hollings, D. (2024, May 19). Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-behavior-therapy-cbt
Hollings, D. (2026, July 9). Common sense: Does the proposition use sound judgment? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/common-sense-does-the-proposition-use-sound-judgment
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2026, February 1). Deal with it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/deal-with-it
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2024, January 10). Desire much, but need very little. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/desire-much-but-need-very-little
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2025, December 4). Empirical dispute. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-dispute
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1
Hollings, D. (2026, February 13). Five, four, three… beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-four-three-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2022, May 31). Holistic approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/holistic-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, February 20). I have a theory about that. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/i-have-a-theory-about-that
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, April 27). Ideal-world vs. real-world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-world-vs-real-world
Hollings, D. (2025, December 25). If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/if-at-first-you-don-t-succeed-try-try-again
Hollings, D. (2024, February 14). Insufferable vs. undesirable. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/insufferable-vs-undesirable
Hollings, D. (2024, May 27). Intellectual vs. emotional insight. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/intellectual-vs-emotional-insight
Hollings, D. (2026, July 6). It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact: Am I taking crazy pills? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/it-s-not-an-opinion-it-s-a-fact-am-i-taking-crazy-pills
Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2026, May 17). Listening to reason through argument: Is the rhetoric of whataboutism persuasive? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/listening-to-reason-through-argument-is-the-rhetoric-of-whataboutism-persuasive
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2025, November 16). Mental health, mental illness, and mental disorder. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-health-mental-illness-and-mental-disorder
Hollings, D. (2024, October 14). Mistakes. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mistakes
Hollings, D. (2026, September 9). Morals, ethics, law, justice, subjectivity, and objectivity: Can you reserve judgment? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-ethics-law-justice-subjectivity-and-objectivity-can-you-reserve-judgment
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). No need for approval. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/no-need-for-approval
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior
Hollings, D. (2026, April 4). Objective reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-reality
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2026, April 19). Outcome: Victim mentality and playing the victim. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/outcome-victim-mentality-and-playing-the-victim
Hollings, D. (2025, April 9). Perception, action, and will. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-action-and-will
Hollings, D. (2025, September 19). Power. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/power
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 13). Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/prevention-diagnosis-and-treatment
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
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. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Rational vs. irrational. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-vs-irrational
Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). Reasoning with the unreasonable. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reasoning-with-the-unreasonable
Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity
Hollings, D. (2025, January 15). Satisfaction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/satisfaction
Hollings, D. (2026, April 28). Self-motivation: Trying to motivate the unmotivated. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-motivation-trying-to-motivate-the-unmotivated
Hollings, D. (2026, August 1). Spider-Man: Brand New Day - subversion and consent. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/spider-man-brand-new-day-subversion-and-consent
Hollings, D. (2025, October 19). Surprise and embarrassment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/surprise-and-embarrassment
Hollings, D. (2026, April 12). The Cartesian crisis: What do I control? What do I influence? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ the-cartesian-crisis-what-do-i-control-what-do-i-influence
Hollings, D. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct
Hollings, D. (2026, April 23). The effect of affect. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-effect-of-affect
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2026, May 15). The speed of thoughts and beliefs: Flipping the bird. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-speed-of-thoughts-and-beliefs-flipping-the-bird
Hollings, D. (2026, April 23). The three traditionally identified components of the mind: Affect, cognition, and conation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-three-traditionally-identified-components-of-the-mind-affect-cognition-and-conation
Hollings, D. (2026, August 6). To philosophize is to learn how to die, because life is complex and complicated. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-philosophize-is-to-learn-how-to-die-because-life-is-complex-and-complicated
Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal
Hollings, D. (2025, September 1). Virtue makes adversity bearable. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/virtue-makes-adversity-bearable
Hollings, D. (2025, March 11). We live in an imperfect world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-live-in-an-imperfect-world
Hollings, D. (2024, September 26). We’ll start from that premise. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-ll-start-from-that-premise
Hollings, D. (2026, August 19). Wisdom and acting justly are one and the same. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/wisdom-and-acting-justly-are-one-and-the-same
Hollings, D. (2026, September 6). Words become works: A you problem, not a me problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/words-become-works-a-you-problem-not-a-me-problem
Hollings, D. (2025, October 20). Would there be enough evidence to convict you? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/would-there-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-you
King, A. M., Plateau, C. R., Turner, M. J., Young, P., and Barker, J. B. (2024, July 9). A systematic review of the nature and efficacy of rational emotive behaviour therapy interventions. PLoS. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11232995/
Nilsen, P., Kirk, J. W., Gunnarsson, K. U., and Thomas, K. (2025). Tempering implementation optimism: distinguishing between efficacy and effectiveness in implementation research. Implementation Science Communications. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s43058-025-00781-2.pdf
Saydulislam1632. (n.d.). Science and medical concept side of brain cancer detection mental illness research innovation development futuristic healthcare studies [Image]. Magnific. Retrieved from https://www.magnific.com/premium-ai-image/science-medical-concept-side-brain-cancer-detection-mental-illness-research-innovation-development-futuristic-healthcare-studies_277352334.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=32&uuid=5b002060-8f9e-45e7-bb21-3936d72238a1&track=ais_hybrid&query=science+brain
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Natural science. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Social science. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
