RATIONAL EMOTIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

INTRODUCTION
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy previously called rational therapy and rational
emotive therapy is a comprehensive, active, directive, philosophically and empirically based
psychotherapy which focuses on resolving emotional and behavioral problems and disturbances
and enabling people to lead happier and more fulfilling lives. Seen in the context of REBT, by
thinking, feeling, and acting in these irrational and inaccurate ways (and by refusing to accept
others and life unconditionally), people can often unhealthily defeat their goals and purposes.
They also needlessly create problems such as the unhealthy negative emotions of severe anxiety,
depression, and rage. By refusing to accept themselves unconditionally, people needlessly, again,
create guilt, shame, and self-loathing, in addition to any or all of the previously noted unhealthy
emotions (A. Ellis, 2005b). Constructivism holds that people have considerable power to
construct self-helping thoughts, feelings, and actions, as well as to construct self-defeating
behaviors. It is fortunate that despite this tendency to act destructively, people also have the
tendency to act constructively if they so choose. Similar to Kelly’s (1955) theory of personal
constructs, REBT hypothesizes that people have choice, to some degree, in how they conduct
their lives and, with some degree of effort, can change themselves considerably, despite any
biological or societal limitations. Consequently, REBT teaches many kinds of thinking, feeling,
and behavioral techniques to identify, investigate, and change dysfunctional behaviors. It is
holistic in approach. It is multimodal in its methods. It holds that steady work and practice is
usually required to change destructive tendencies and acts and to maintain desired changes.
REBT vigorously encourages insight, realistic perspective, reasoning, and logic but holds that
these rational elements alone without strong emotion, motivation, and action are not enough for
lasting change. REBT is highly educational. Direct didactic teaching of its theories and practices
often works, so it uses dialogue, arguing, and disputing of irrational beliefs with clients. REBT is
the founding cognitive, multimodal, and integrative therapy approach. Albert Ellis originated it
in the 1950s, and other cognitive approaches followed. From its start, the approach included
philosophical as well as experiential, emotional, and behavioral techniques.

One thing that distinguishes REBT from most other CBTs is its strong philosophical
emphasis. It is humanistic and existential. Unlike other cognitive approaches, it strongly and
vigorously emphasizes the importance of unconditional acceptance. It aims to help people
achieve the three basic REBT philosophies of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional
other-
acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance. It also reminds people of the benefit and power of
gratitude (D. J. Ellis, 2015)

HISTORY OF REBT

REBT was created and developed by the American psychologist Albert Ellis who was
inspired by many of the teachings of Asian, Greek, Roman and modern philosophers. The
cornerstone of REBT is stated by the Stoic philosopher, Epictetus: 'People are disturbed not by
things, but by the view they take of them. REBT teaches clients to look inward in order to
examine their view of events before turning their attention outward to seek ways of modifying
the adverse impact of these events, REBT is one form of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and
was first expounded by Ellis in the mid-1950s; development continued until his death in 2007.

The chronological development of REBT, following the activities of Ellis, can be resumed by the
following way:

1.​ The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes. In 1957 Albert Ellis published his
seminal article "Rational psychotherapy and individual psychology" on Rational therapy
RT, which simply believed if we want to change various dysfunctional psychological
outcomes (e.g., depressed mood), we have to change their main cognitive determinant,
namely irrational beliefs. Thus, Albert Ellis is generally considered one of the main
originators of the "cognitive revolution" in clinical psychology, paralleling the "cognitive
revolution" in psychology in general.
2.​ Ellis presented Rational-Therapy (RT) at a Conference in 1955. The emphasis lays on
cognitive-behavioural aspects.
3.​ Publication of his Rational-Emotive-Therapy (RET) in his book "Reason and Emotion in
Psychotherapy came in 1962. Formulation of the ABC-model and pointing out the
importance of emotions.
4.​ "Compulsion" as a characteristic of irrational thinking and formulation of the occidental
irrational beliefs in the 1970 ies.
5.​ Extension of his model in "Essence of RET" in 1984. Irrational thinking is non, logic.
non- objective, and absolutistic versus conditional compulsion.
 6.​ Publication of "Expanding ABC of RET" in 1985. Description of secondary disturbing
symptoms (emotional problems beyond emotional disturbances).
7.​ In 1993 Ellis proposes the new name "Rational Emotive-Behaviour Therapy (REBT).
Update of his book "Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy" in 1994, Emphasizing of
humanistic aspects of REBT (how to live a happy life and development of the human
potentials).

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF REBT

REBT is based on a set of assumptions that stress the complexity and fluidity of human beings.
Given this fundamental view of human nature, REBT uses the following theoretical concepts.

1.​ Responsible hedonism: Hedonism refers to the concept of seeking pleasure and avoiding
pain, responsible hedonism concerns maintaining pleasure over the long term by avoiding
short-term pleasures that lead to pain, such as drug abuse and alcohol addiction. Ellis believes
that people are often extremely hedonistic but need to focus on long-range rather than
short-range hedonism (Dryden & Ellis, 2001; Ellis, 1985, 1987a, 1988, 2001c, 2001d; Ellis &
Dryden, 1997; Walen, DiGiuseppe, & Wessler, 1980).

2.​ Humanism: Practitioners of REBT view human beings as holistic, goal-directed

organisms who are important because they are alive (Dryden, 1990). This position is consistent
with that of ethical humanism, which emphasizes human interests over the interests of a deity,
leading to misinterpretations that Ellis is against religion. He has stated, "It is not religion, but
religiosity, that is a cause of psychopathology. Religiosity is an absolutistic faith that is not based
on fact" (Ellis, 1986a). Ellis (1986b, 2000) believes that accepting absolute notions of right and
wrong, and of damnation if one acts wrongly, without thinking them through leads to guilt,
anxiety, depression, and other psychological dysfunctions. Ellis (Ellis, 2004b; Ziegler, 2003)
believes that individuals preferably should have unconditional self-acceptance (USA). They
should accept that they make mistakes that they have worth and that some of their own assets
and qualities are stronger than other assets that they or others possess.

Thus, Ellis believes that both the therapist and the client should rate or criticize their
deeds, acts, or performances but not their essence or themselves. Acceptance of the client while
not liking aspects of his behaviors is consistent with the philosophy of REBT.
3.​ Rationality: Rationality refers to people using efficient, flexible, logical, and scientific
ways of attempting to achieve their values and goals (Dryden & Neenan, 2004; Ellis, 1962, 1973,
Wilson, 2010), not to the absence of feelings or emotions. Therapy with REBT shows individuals
how they can get more of what they want from life by being rational (efficient, logical, and
flexible). This means that they may reexamine early parental or religious teachings or beliefs
they had previously accepted. As this is done, they develop a new philosophy of life that leads to
increased long- range happiness (responsible hedonism).

These philosophies, which have been abbreviated here, are communicated to clients to
help them not only alleviate current problems but also develop a philosophy of life that will help
them deal with problems as they present themselves.

4.​Two Basic Biological Tendencies:

●​ Unlike most other theories of therapy, which stress the impact of significant life events on
the development of psychological disturbance, REBT theory hypothesizes that the
biological tendency of humans to think irrationally and dysfunctionally has a notable
impact on such disturbance. Its view that irrational and dysfunctional thinking is heavily
determined by biological factors (always interacting with influential environmental
conditions) rests on the seeming ease with which humans think crookedly and the
prevalence of such thinking even among people who have been "rationally" raised (Ellis,
1976a). While I (AE) have acknowledged that there are social influences operating here, I
have also noted that even if everybody had the most rational upbringing, virtually all
humans would often irrationally change their individual and social preferences into
absolutistic demands on (a) themselves, (b) other people, and (c) the universe around
them (Ellis, 1988,1994c).
●​ REBT holds that humans have a second constructivist biological tendency, namely, to
exercise the power of human choice and to work toward changing their dysfunctional
thinking and acting. Thus, they have (1) the ability to see that they make themselves
disturbed by the irrational views they bring to situations, (2) the ability to see that they
can change their thinking, and, most important, (3) the ability to actively and continually
work
 toward changing this thinking and behaving by the application of cognitive, emotive, and
behavioral methods.

While REBT theory asserts that humans have a strong biological tendency to think
dysfunctionally (as well as functionally), it holds that they are by no means slaves to this
tendency and can transcend (although not fully) its effects. In the final analysis, then, the REBT
image of the person is quite an optimistic one (Dryden, 1994a, 199Sb, 1995c; Ellis, 1973,1994c,
1996a; Ellis & Bernard, 1983, 1985; Kelly, 1955; Mahoney, 1991).

5.​Two Fundamental Human Disturbances:

According to REBT, humans easily make absolute demands on themselves, other people, and the
world. However, if these demands are more closely investigated, they can be seen to fall into two
major categories of psychological disturbance: ego disturbance and discomfort disturbance
(Ellis, 1979a, 1980а, 1994, 1996a).

●​ Ego disturbance: In ego disturbance a person makes demands on self, others, and the
world; and if these demands are not met in the past, present, or future, the person
becomes disturbed by damning "self." self-damnation involves (1) the process of giving
my "self" a global negative rating and (2) "devilifying" my "self as being bad or less
worthy (Dryden, 1984b). The rational and healthy alternative to self-damnation is
unconditional self- acceptance (USA), which involves refusing to give one's "self a single
rating (because it is an impossible task due to one's complexity and fluidity and because it
normally interferes with attaining one's basic goals and purposes) and acknowledging
one's fallibility.
●​ Discomfort disturbance or low frustration tolerance (LFT), the person again makes
demands on self, others, and the world that are related to dogmatic commands that
comfort and comfortable life conditions must exist. When these demands are not met in
the past, present, or future, the person feels disturbed and tends to awfulize and create
I-can't-stand- it-itis. Tolerating discomfort in order to aid goal attainment and long-range
happiness is the healthy and rational alternative to demands for immediate gratification.

Thus, self-acceptance and a high level of frustration tolerance are two of the main cornerstones
of the rational-emotive image of the psychologically healthy human being (Ellis, 1979, 1994,
1996a).
Irrational ideas:

Ellis identified 11 irrational ideas (respective beliefs) of the occidental civilisation that
can cause emotional disturbances

Irrational Idea No. 1: It is essential that a person be loved or approved by virtually everyone in
the community.

Irrational Idea No. 2: A person must be perfectly competent, adequate and achieving to be
considered worthwhile.

Irrational Idea No. 3: Some people are bad, wicked, or villainous and therefore should be
blamed and punished.

Irrational Idea No. 4: The idea that it is awful and terrible when things are not the way one
would very much like them to be.

Irrational Idea No. 5: The idea that Unhappiness is caused by outside circumstances, and a
person has no control over it.

Irrational Idea No. 6: The Belief that if something is or may be dangerous or fearsome one
should be constantly and excessively concerned about it and should keep dwelling on the
possibility of its occurring.

Irrational Idea No. 7: The Belief that one cannot and must not face life's responsibilities and
difficulties and that it is easier to avoid them.

Irrational Idea No. 8: The idea that you must be quite dependent on others and need them and
cannot mainly run your own life.

Irrational Idea No. 9: The idea that Past experiences and events are the determinants of present
behaviour, the influence of the past cannot be eradicated.

Irrational Idea No. 10: The idea that person should be quite upset over other people's problems
and disturbances.

Irrational Idea No. 11: The Belief that there is invariably a right, precise, and perfect solution to
human problems and that it is awful if this perfect solution is not found.
 The origins of the irrational ideas got two sources: One correlates with biologistic-
evolutive factors (natural and innate tendency to irrationality located in precortical sectors in a
human’s brain that facilitates the appearing of irrational tendencies in its behaviour). The other
source is generated by sociologic, educative, cultural factors (direct experiences of infantile
socialisation or certain socio- familiar irrational ideas).

THEORY OF REBT

The goals of REBT are simple, the primary one being to help as many people as possible
to suffer less and to enjoy life more.1 REBT also aims to provide people with the knowledge and
tools to make this main goal possible in clear and easy-to-understand language. It can be more
than simply an effective evidence-based approach—it can also be a way of life for those people
who apply it as such.

THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF REBT

1.​ It is not what happens that creates our emotions and actions, but what we tell ourselves
about what happens. In other words, people do not upset themselves merely because of
unfortunate adversities (A) that occur in their lives, but also with beliefs, feelings, and behaviors
(B) that they add to these adversities. Therefore, A plus B equals their disturbed (or
nondisturbed) consequences
(C). They partly construct their disturbed (and nondisturbed) feelings by reacting (B) to
undesirable As. They create and control their emotional and behavioral destiny by the way they
think.

2.​ REBT takes a holistic view of the interconnectedness and interrelatedness among our
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—that is, people’s contributions at B to C consist of thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors, all of which collectively lead to their healthy and unhealthy
consequences. When As are viewed as “bad,” people have rational or sensible beliefs
feelings–behaviors at B, such as, “I don’t like As and wish they didn’t exist. But they do exist
and I can cope with them.” They then feel what REBT calls healthy reactions, such as sorrow,
disappointment, and frustration. These healthy reactions enable them to cope with adversities
(As). When people view their adversities as “terrible” and “awful” and think they “can’t stand
them,” they have irrational beliefs–feelings behaviors and instead react at C with depressed,
angry, and anxious reactions. They feel disturbed and cope poorly with adversities (As).
 For example, let’s say that at A someone verbally abused you or falsely accused you of
some heinous action, and at C you felt unhealthily enraged. It would not have been the abuse or
accusations at A that caused your C, but your beliefs at B. In all likelihood you would have
thought something such as, “He should not have spoken to me like that, damnable creature that
he is. People should treat me nicely all the time, and with respect, and never falsely accuse me. It
is awful he did that, and I just can’t stand him.” If at B, you had told yourself, “There he goes
again— it’s a pity he talks to me in that way. I don’t like it, but it’s not the end of the world, and I
can stand it. Even though what he said is wrong in my opinion, we are fallible humans who have
the right to be wrong—I too am not always right—and I choose to not take what he said too
seriously,” then in all probability you would have felt disappointed and perhaps some mild
frustration. These are healthy responses to an unpleasant event, unlike the unhealthy and
dysfunctional response of rage.

REBT acknowledges the influence of biological and environmentally learned aspects.

3.​ Humans are born and reared with the capacity to think in both rational and irrational
ways. With awareness, people have a choice about how they believe–feel–act (at B), and if they
make dysfunctional choices (which many often do), they can reconstruct them and make more
functional choices. People can learn (especially with the help of psychotherapy) to see the
difference between their functional and dysfunctional choices at B, can learn to correct their
dysfunctional beliefs– feelings–behaviors, and, with practice, can habitually come to prefer
rational to irrational choices and thereby make themselves less disturbed. It is their biological
and learned nature, however, for people to keep falling back to dysfunctional Bs throughout their
lives and not to be completely rational or functional. The human condition, as the Buddhists said
2,500 years ago, is to be unenlightened and enlightened, never thoroughly and perpetually
enlightened.

4.​There is a clear difference between rational thinking and irrational thinking.

Rational thinking

●​ is based on empirical reality;

●​ keeps things in perspective;
●​ prefers—as opposed to demands—that things be the way we want them to be;
●​ is nondamning of self, others, and life; and
●​ contains high frustration tolerance and creates appropriate and healthy emotions.
Irrational thinking

●​ exaggerates, awfulizes, and catastrophizes;

●​ demands (with shoulds, musts, and oughts) that things be the way one wants them to be;
●​ judges and damns;
●​ has low frustration tolerance; and
●​ creates debilitating and unhealthy negative emotions.

UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

According to REBT principles and practices, one can maintain emotional stability and
well-being in life (D. J. Ellis, 2015) and what Buddhists call considerable enlightenment (Dalai
Lama & Cutler, 1998; Sogyal Rinpoche, 1993) when one consistently not always acquires the
following three important basic philosophies:

1.​ Unconditional self-acceptance (USA). You always- yes, always accept yourself with
your failings. You refuse to do what notable philosopher Alfred Korzybski (1933) urged
against your doing that is, damning your self, your entire being, for your mistakes. You
may make many mistakes, of course, which humans do. However, you remember that
you always have other chances and never damn the entire you for any errors.
2.​ Unconditional other-acceptance (UOA). Just as you refuse to damn yourself for your
stupidities, you stubbornly refuse to damn other people for theirs. We are all fallible
humans. You see how they screw up but do not condemn them as total screw-ups
(Korzybski, 1933). You strive to feel compassion for wrongdoers.
3.​ Unconditional life-acceptance (ULA). You see what is wrong, unjust, and immoral in
life and whenever possible work to improve it. However, you don’t conclude that life
itself is hopeless and unchangeable. You accept it, when you temporarily can’t improve it,
as “bad” or “inconvenient” but not as “horrible” and “awful.” You optimistically see that
it can improve and do your best to improve it, but not desperately or hopelessly.

THE ABC (OR ABCDE) THEORY

The ABC (or ABCDE) theory of REBT clarifies the connection between an activating
event and its consequences by identifying the beliefs involved, and it provides the means for
replacing irrational beliefs with rational ones through disputation and the emergence of effective
new
philosophies. It simplifies the process of illuminating how we self-disturb and shows the way to
un-self-disturb. Clients benefit when their therapists teach them the procedure by doing it with
them, and individuals benefit from doing it on their own, particularly through writing, in the
early days of learning the REBT technique.

A (Activating)- A stands for activating events or adversities. A person clearly identifies what
happened.

C (Consequences)- C stands for consequences. They may be both emotional and behavioral.
Although the Bs precede the Cs, when doing the procedure, it is helpful to identify the Cs first
and to notice which of the emotional ones are unhealthy negative emotions, such as anxiety,
depression, rage, shame, guilt, jealousy, and hurt. REBT does not seek to change healthy
negative emotions, such as concern, sadness, disappointment, annoyance, frustration, and regret,
because these are often appropriate responses to difficult circumstances and do not debilitate a
person as the unhealthy ones can frequently do. In fact, they can be beneficial and motivate a
person.

B (Beliefs)- B stands for beliefs or belief system. People’s belief systems include functional or
rational beliefs (RBs) and dysfunctional or irrational beliefs (IBs) and include them strongly
(emotionally) and behaviorally (activity-wise). Their RBs, as noted earlier, tend to be preferences
and wishes (e.g., “I want to perform well and be approved of by significant others”), and IBs
tend to include absolutistic musts, shoulds, and demands (e.g., “I should/must/ought to/have to
perform well and be approved by significant others”). It is important to remember that when
people want to change their IBs (which lead to self-defeating consequences) to RBs (which lead
to self-helping consequences), they had better work on their believing–emoting–behaving and
not merely on their believing. This means, more specifically, that they had better vigorously and
forcefully (that is, emotively) change their dysfunctional Bs and, at the same time, forcefully and
persistently feel and act against them. Why? Because, as already noted, their believing invariably
includes their emoting and their behaving and is integrally related to these.

D (Disputing)- D stands for disputing. After distinguishing rational from irrational beliefs, one
keeps one’s preferences and forms effective and healthy new philosophies. People achieve this
by changing their demands through questioning, arguing with, and vigorously disputing them.
There are three main forms of disputing and rational questioning:
 ●​ Realistic disputing. In this form of disputing, the IBs are challenged by investigating the
truth or factual reality behind them. Typical questions that are asked include the
following: Why must I perform well? Where is the evidence that I must be approved by
significant others? Where is it written? Is it really awful, terrible, and as bad as it could
be? Can I really not stand it?
●​ Logical disputing. In this form of disputing, the logic underlying the IBs is investigated.
Typical questions include the following: Are my beliefs logical? Do they follow from my
preferences? Does it follow that if I perform badly and lose approval of others, then that
makes me an inadequate person?
●​ Pragmatic disputing. In this form of disputing, one investigates the pragmatic outcome of
holding the IBs. Typical questions include the following: Will holding this belief help me
or hurt me? What results will I get if I believe that I absolutely must perform well and
always be approved of by significant others? Do I want these results?

Strategies of disputing or debating irrational

●​ Lecture: In lecture approach (or, better, mini-lecture), the therapist gives the client an
explanation of why her irrational belief is self-defeating. Obtaining feedback from the
client that she understands what has been explained is important. A simple "yes" or "no"
from the client is insufficient.
●​ Socratic debate: the therapist points out the lack of logic and the inconsistencies in the
client's belief, encouraging argument from the client, so that the client does not just
accept the therapist's point of view and instead thinks for herself.
●​ Humor and creative approaches: Individuals should understand that humor is directed
at their irrationality, not at them, By using humor and creative approaches, such as stories
and metaphors, the therapist can maintain a relationship in which the client is open to
change and not argumentative.
●​ Self-disclosure: Therapists' self-disclosure about how they themselves have used the
A-B- C method to deal with their own irrational beliefs can also be helpful. Increased
familiarity with disputing the irrational beliefs of clients can lead to the development of
new strategies.

E (Effective)- When people persistently dispute their IBs and retain their RBs, the outcome is E,
which stands for effective new philosophies. These are healthy, functional, and realistic positions
from which to perceive oneself, others, and one’s world. Examples of effective new philosophies
are the following: “No matter how badly I acted, I am not a bad person—just a person who acted
badly that time” and “Although some circumstances in my life are difficult and unfortunate at
present, that does not mean that the world is all bad or that my whole life is rotten. Nor will these
circumstances last forever.” At this point, people can create additional and appropriate coping
statements.