|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Psychology and Psychotechnics
Reference:
Kachay I.S., Fedorenko P.A.
Algorithm of conceptualization in rational-emotional-behavioral therapy by A. Ellis
// Psychology and Psychotechnics.
2024. ¹ 1.
P. 24-41.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0722.2024.1.69133 EDN: SEPOBV URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=69133
Algorithm of conceptualization in rational-emotional-behavioral therapy by A. Ellis
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0722.2024.1.69133EDN: SEPOBVReceived: 27-11-2023Published: 15-12-2023Abstract: The object of this research is the practical principles of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy (REBT) by A. Ellis. The subject of the research is the specifics of the formation of the conceptualization of the client within the framework of a rational-emotional-behavioral approach. The aim of this research is to develop an algorithm for compiling client conceptualization in the therapeutic direction under consideration based on the systematization of activating events, irrational beliefs, key contesting counterarguments and rational statements. The conceptualization developed in this research also allows the client to form abstract ideas about problematic areas of life, to discover common cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemes") peculiar to him, to derive abstract irrational beliefs and rational statements (a new effective philosophy) and behaviorally reinforce the latter in order to realize significant (including global) life goals and values. The methodological basis of the work is the research of the founders and representatives of rational-emotional-behavioral and cognitive psychotherapy. The main result of the conducted research is the developed REBT conceptualization, which until now was absent in rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, but is actively used in a related psychotherapeutic approach – A. Beck's cognitive therapy. The presented conceptualization and the described algorithm of its compilation contribute to eliminating the risks associated with an insufficiently systematic understanding by the client of the abstract structure of his emotional and behavioral disorders during the passage of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, known for its deep philosophical approach to solving specific problems, mainly due to philosophical disputation of specific irrational beliefs of the client. The scientific novelty of the work also lies in the description of cognitive-behavioral patterns ("schemes") characteristic of the majority of clients suffering from affective disorders, formulated on the basis of twelve typical irrational beliefs identified by A. Ellis in 1956. Keywords: rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, conceptualization, irrational belief, rational statement, cognitive behavioral pattern, schema, emotional disorder, therapeutic interventionThis article is automatically translated. Introduction
The most fundamental and developed areas of cognitive behavioral psychotherapy are cognitive therapy by A. Beck and rational-emotional-behavioral therapy by A. Ellis. In both approaches, the diagnostic and therapeutic stages of working with the client can be distinguished. In cognitive therapy, diagnosis is carried out by analyzing the client's diary of thoughts of SMER (events – thoughts – emotions – reactions), and therapeutic changes are realized on the basis of the form of EMU-UME (dysfunctional emotions – thoughts – beliefs; functional beliefs – thoughts – emotions) (the described forms are Protocols of the Association of Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy, developed by D.V. With a bucket). In rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, the diagnostic tool is the ABC model, reflecting the genesis of maladaptive reactions, while the continuation of this formula – DEFG– illustrates therapeutic interventions to overcome these dysfunctional reactions.
ABC model of reaction formation
According to the ABC model of formation of dysfunctional reactions proposed by the founder of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy (RAPT) A. Ellis (where A is an activating (unfavorable, undesirable) event, B is an irrational belief (about the event), and C is the consequences (emotional and behavioral) of irrational beliefs), namely irrational belief (In) appears to be the main cause of a specific unhealthy negative emotion (C) and a specific dysfunctional behavior (C) of a person in the context of a particular activating event (A). Thus, people are upset (C) not by the events themselves (A), but by their attitude (C) to them, in connection with which only people themselves are the creators of their sufferings (C), which arise not because of unfavorable circumstances (A), but because of irrational beliefs (C). However, as A. Ellis and K. McLaren note, "since "C" often comes immediately after "A", they do not see that "B" (beliefs) also contribute a lot to "C"" [1, p. 48]. Of course, activating events (A) have some effect on the emotional and behavioral reactions of a person (C) (especially in objectively stressful situations such as physical violence, natural disasters, etc.), however, these events do not create these reactions directly. As E.A. Romek notes, "unlike other living beings, man is a talking animal. This means that all his behavioral reactions are mediated by artificial stimuli, or speech" [2, p. 281]. It is not for nothing that R. Digiuseppe emphasizes that "disturbed emotions are not imposed on us, do not magically appear in us, are not caused by external events, but are the result of our active actions" [3, p. 97]. At the same time, it should be emphasized that "the cause of emotional and behavioral disorders (C) is a product (and not a simple sum) A and B, because when undesirable events occur (A), people do not just “add” their attitude to them (B), but “multiply” them A and B, resulting in reactions (C) that are disproportionate and inadequate to the events (A), which can be expressed in the form of the formula A x B = C" [4, p. 121]. In addition, people may suffer from secondary disorders, experiencing, say, "anxiety due to anxiety, anger due to unpleasant symptoms, shame due to aggressive behavior, as well as criticizing themselves about thoughts that cause initial (primary) emotional, bodily and behavioral reactions" [5, p. 325].
Functional and dysfunctional reactions
Thus, if the functional emotional and behavioral consequences (C) are the result of the interaction of the activating event (A) and the rational representations (C) of a person about this undesirable event (A), then the dysfunctional emotional and behavioral consequences (C) follow from the interaction of the activating event (A) and the irrational beliefs (C) of the subject according to about a particular trigger situation (A). Dysfunctional (unhealthy, excessive, neurotic) emotions (C) representatives of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy include anxiety, anger, resentment, depression, guilt, shame, dysfunctional jealousy and dysfunctional envy, while functional (healthy, appropriate, justified) analogues of these emotions (C) are, respectively, excitement, irritation, annoyance, sadness, remorse, regret, functional jealousy and functional envy. In turn, functional (adaptive, constructive) behavioral reactions (C) can include, for example, such as problem solving, an active lifestyle, open expression of emotions and desires, reasonable pursuit of pleasure, confident behavior, support for oneself and other people, etc.), while dysfunctional (maladaptive, problematic) behaviors are, for example, hypercontrol, perfectionism, conformity, aggression, alcohol dependence, compulsive overeating, procrastination, passivity, seeking reassurance, phobic avoidance, etc. Thus, a person independently creates emotional and behavioral barriers (C) to the realization of their goals, adhering to irrational beliefs (C) in relation to undesirable and unfavorable activating events (A). In this regard, dysfunctional emotions and actions (C) are called dysfunctional, if only because they hinder the realization of goals and values that are significant to a person.
Cognitive sources of dysfunctional reactions
So, according to the theory of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, the main source of almost all emotional and behavioral disorders (C) are irrational views (C) of a person on activating events (A). At the same time, the central irrational attitude, from the point of view of A. Ellis, is duty, which reveals itself in three interrelated spheres – as a person's demands on himself, other people and the world as a whole. In turn, the ideology of duty leads to three possible cognitive consequences in each of these areas (in case of dissatisfaction with these requirements) – catastrophization, low tolerance to frustration and global assessment (of oneself, others and/or the world), which causes various dysfunctional human reactions. So, the requirements for myself ("I have to succeed!") They contribute to the emergence of three derivatives of irrational beliefs – catastrophization ("It's terrible if I don't succeed!"), low tolerance to frustration ("If I don't succeed, I can't stand it!") and global assessment ("If I don't succeed, then I'm worthless!"). Demands on others ("He must not deceive me!")They also provoke the appearance of these three derivative attitudes ("It's terrible if he cheats on me!"; "If he cheats on me, I won't survive this!"; "If he cheats on me, then he's a scoundrel!"). Finally, demands on the world ("The plane should not be delayed!") equally contribute to the emergence of a triad of dysfunctional beliefs ("It's terrible if the plane is delayed!", "If the plane is delayed, it will be simply unbearable!", "If the plane is delayed, then this world is a terrible place!").
A multimodal approach
Emphasizing the mutual influence of A, B and C, A. Ellis and W. Dryden notes: "People almost never experience "A" without "B" and "C", but they also rarely experience "B" and "C" in the absence of "A"", since "A", "B" and "C" are closely related, and neither none of these elements can exist without the others" [6, p. 32]. Indeed, thoughts affect emotions, emotions affect behavior, but at the same time emotions and behavior also affect thoughts and affect each other. Since almost any human experience is a kind of trinity of thinking, emotion and behavior, improving the quality of life requires addressing all these modalities of human existence, in other words, using cognitive, emotional and behavioral therapeutic methods. In this regard, rational-emotional-behavioral therapy is a multimodal approach that takes into account the inextricable (including feedback) relationship of cognitive, affective and behavioral (as well as situational) spheres. As A. Lazarus notes, "the multimodal model offers an integrated approach that makes it possible to focus on the main problems that need to be solved. By separating sensations from emotions, distinguishing representations and cognitions, exploring individual and interpersonal behavior and noting the biological component, multimodal orientation is the most promising" [7, p. 8]. Therefore, a RAP therapist, as W. emphasizes. Dryden, "is interested in helping the client change his attitudes, feelings, behavior, images, interpersonal relationships and unpleasant events in his life" [8, p. 121].
ABC DEFG-a model of psychological health
However, the key therapeutic target for changing dysfunctional emotions and actions (C) is irrational thinking (C), replacing which with a more realistic, logical and useful one, it is possible to improve disturbed emotions and actions (C). The continuation of the ABC model developed by A. Ellis shows the necessary therapeutic steps to overcome these dysfunctional reactions: "D (disputations) – disputing (challenging) an irrational belief (creating dysfunctional emotional and behavioral reactions); E (effective beliefs) – a rational statement, or a new effective philosophy formulated as a result of challenging an irrational belief; F (functional feelings) – functional reactions (resulting from a rational statement); G (goals) – significant for a person, goals, values and desired results (achieved on the basis of rational affirmation and functional reactions)" [4, p. 120]. Thus, the most important therapeutic tool in the context of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy is the discussion of irrational beliefs (D) and the formation of a new effective philosophy of life (E). In this regard, A. Joshi and K. Phadke emphasize that "changes only in feelings or actions ... may not give significant or long-term improvements", in particular while "a change in ... irrational beliefs leads to profound changes in philosophy, and these changes are not limited to a specific or current symptom, but extend to other areas of life that help the client significantly improve his mental health" [9, p. 52]. However, given the inter–determinism of thoughts, emotions and behavior, it should be noted that cognitive techniques contain elements of emotional and behavioral exercises, emotional techniques contain cognitive and behavioral components, and behavioral exercises contain cognitive and emotional elements (however, one or another aspect within a certain technique is predominant).
The specifics of conceptualization in A. Beck's cognitive therapy
If in A. Beck's cognitive therapy, based on the analysis of (at least) three situations in which a person demonstrated dysfunctional emotional, physiological and behavioral reactions, a cognitive conceptualization can be built according to J. Beck [10, p. 228], which allows us to detect patterns of dysfunctional thinking and behavior relevant to many situations, as well as to identify the targets of tactical and strategic therapeutic interventions, then in A. Ellis's rational-emotional-behavioral therapy we can rather talk about the conceptualization of a specific human event (problem), in the context of during the therapeutic session, there is a deep philosophical challenge (D) to a specific irrational belief (C) that causes dysfunctional emotions and actions (C) of the client. In this regard, the conceptualization used in A. Beck's cognitive therapy has an abstract character and, according to A.I. Murtazin and D.V. Kovpak, is a "formalized description of the case (therapy case), which includes interrelated significant data of the client's life, beliefs, behavior strategies" [11, p. 237]. Indeed, the cognitive conceptualization compiled in the course of therapy "allows us to identify systemic connections between significant (including traumatic) early life experiences, deep beliefs, intermediate beliefs, compensatory strategies, automatic thoughts, as well as emotional and behavioral reactions of the client manifested in specific trigger situations, as well as to get an idea of the causes and mechanisms of occurrence maintaining the client's current problems in various spheres of life" [12, p. 317]. Cognitive conceptualization allows both the therapist and the client to understand the causes of the current dysfunctional reactions of the latter, as well as identify key cognitions and behaviors that need to be changed first of all. In this regard, S. Waltman points out that the most important goal of conceptualization is "to identify how basic beliefs influence current thoughts and behavior and how current cognitive styles and behaviors reinforce and confirm firmly rooted beliefs and assumptions" [13, p. 47]. Being a cognitive behavioral map of the client, conceptualization helps the therapeutic dyad (therapist-client) to understand the structure of the client's subjective reality, select the correct therapeutic interventions and build an appropriate therapy plan. Indeed, as J. P. emphasizes. Beck, "it is useful to consider therapy as a kind of journey, and cognitive conceptualization as a map" [10, p. 61], in connection with which J. Overholzer writes: "If the therapist becomes an experienced guide, the map will help you follow the planned route. The client enters the destination, and the guide applies the optimal route to get to the right place" [14, p. 269]. Similarly, S. Hollon notes that cognitive conceptualization provides clients with a "roadmap" with which they can test the beliefs that underlie their problematic behavior, and gives the therapist the opportunity to use the session to test these deep beliefs" [15, p. 83]. In this regard, A. Freeman identified three questions by which the therapist can assess how useful the conceptualization formulated by him (together with the client) is: does it explain the client's past behavior? does it make sense of the client's current behavior? does it help to predict the future behavior of the client? [16].
Problem formulation instead of client case formulation
Thus, if in A. Beck's cognitive therapy client conceptualization has a high degree of theoretical and practical elaboration and even some of its modifications [17-24], then in the context of A. Ellis's rational-emotional-behavioral therapy, which is also one of the directions of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy, conceptualization is currently absent. This is partly due to the specifics of rational-emotional behavioral therapy itself, in the context of which the place of cognitive conceptualization and, more broadly, the formulation of the client's (clinical) case is occupied by the formulation of the problem, since, as V. Backes writes, the RAP therapist "relatively quickly begins to solve one of the problems, collecting information related to this problem" [25, p. 164]. Therefore, despite the deep philosophical study of each individual emotional and/or behavioral problem of the client carried out in the RAPT approach (often on the principle of "one session, one problem"), there remains a risk that during and as a result of therapy the client will not be able to see the systemic connections between his distorted ideas (irrational beliefs) and to reach a more abstract level of understanding your emotional problems and behavioral disorders.
The algorithm for composing RAPT conceptualization
To mitigate the above-mentioned risk, the client can, together with the therapist, systematize the irrational beliefs (C) identified and discussed during therapy (as well as alternative rational statements (E)) by filling in the RAPT conceptualization developed by the authors. The following is a step-by-step algorithm for compiling a "cognitive map" of the client by step-by-step filling out the RAPT conceptualization form, for the formation of which (as in the case of cognitive conceptualization according to J. Beck) at least three examples of activating events from the ABCDEFG psychological health diary used in the RAPT approach are needed. Step 1. Indicate the activating events (A) in which the client manifested dysfunctional emotions and maladaptive actions (C) caused by irrational beliefs (C). Compiling a list of activating (unfavorable and undesirable) events will allow the client to better understand his individual set of "provoking" factors, in other words, the "types" of activating events in which he most often experiences dysfunctional emotions and behaves maladaptively. Step 2. Opposite each activating event (A), irrational beliefs (B) are indicated, which manifested themselves in the client in each situation (A), creating dysfunctional emotional and behavioral reactions (C). Step 3. For each activating event (A) and irrational belief (C), the sphere of life (abs) is designated, to which each activating event (A) and the irrational belief (C) provoked by it can be attributed. Examples of areas of life may include the following: personal health; health of relatives and friends; personal safety; safety of relatives and friends; work and career; study, education and self-development; financial issues; legal issues; household and economic issues; personal and family relations; relationships with other people; intimate relationships; creativity and self-realization; spiritual issues; global global problems and others . Step 4. For each irrational belief (C) manifested in each activating event (A), the theme of experiences is revealed, i.e. the cognitive behavioral pattern ("scheme") underlying each irrational belief (C). The identification of these abstract "schemes" allows us to identify the "types" of psychological difficulties characteristic of the client, in other words, basic non-adaptive worldview positions (C) in relation to activating events (A) (for example, dependence on approval, belief in the usefulness of anxiety, etc.). The methodological foundation of the following twelve common cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemes") formulated by the authors are twelve typical irrational beliefs, which were identified by A. Ellis in 1956. The following are both the "schemes" themselves and the irrational beliefs identified by the founder of RAPT, which condone the emergence and maintenance of various emotional disorders (irrational beliefs are presented in an adapted format): 1. Dependence on achievements (demands on oneself to be the best): "I must achieve success at all costs and have achievements in all important things for me, do everything perfectly and be competent (I must not make mistakes, blunders and failures), otherwise it will be terrible, unbearable and indicate that I am inferior, inadequate, mediocre." 2. Dependence on approval and love (demands from oneself to be good for others and for a partner): "I must by all means seek the approval and love of people who are important to me (and they should approve, accept and should not criticize me), and if they criticize or reject me, then this is terrible, unbearable and suggests that I am a worthless person, unworthy of respect and love." 3. Demands from others (recognition, respect, approval, love, justice): "People should behave reasonably, respectfully and fairly, give me what I want from them, respect, approve and love me, and if they behave differently, then it's terrible, and these people themselves are disgusting, vile and vile and deserve contempt, condemnation and punishment." 4. Demands from the world (assistance in the realization of personal goals): "Circumstances should be the way I want them to be, and if things don't go the way I deserve (I won't be loved and approved, I won't succeed or fail, I'll be treated unfairly), then it will be terrible and I can't stand it." 5. Demands from the world (comfort, justice, security): "There should be no bad people, troubles, difficulties and injustice in the world (in my life), and if I have to face all this, then I will not be able to bear it and will never be able to be happy." 6. Belief in the inevitability of suffering (blaming other people and circumstances): "In difficult life circumstances, I have to get upset, suffer and interpret what is happening as horror and disaster, because these adverse events are the cause of my suffering, and I cannot control my emotions and behavior." 7. Belief in the usefulness of anxiety (anxiety as a strategy to "prevent" disasters): "If something is or could be dangerous, I have to constantly worry about it, imagining the worst possible scenarios, and then things will turn out better." 8. Accusations of the past (belief in the influence of the "traumas" of the past on current problems): "My current emotions and actions are determined by the bad events of my past, which continue to constantly have a total impact on my life." 9. Avoiding responsibility (avoiding risks, difficulties and problem solving): "I must not take risks and take responsibility (and must avoid difficult life situations and problem solving), otherwise I will not be able to be happy and live a full life." 10. The need for an ideal solution: "For any problem, there must be an ideal, correct solution that I must discover as quickly as possible, and if I fail to find it, it's terrible." 11. The need for prompt encouragement: "I should receive immediate encouragement for all my efforts, and if this does not happen, I should feel unhappy." 12. Learned helplessness: "I am completely dependent on others and without their help I will not be able to cope and manage my life on my own." Step 5. For each irrational belief (C), two or three key counterarguments (D) are identified (arguments against irrational beliefs formulated during therapeutic sessions). Step 6. For each irrational belief (C), the rational statements formulated (as a result of the discussion (D)) (a new effective philosophy) (E) are indicated. Step 7. By identifying the problematic areas of life characteristic of the client (abs), in which irrational beliefs (C) are most often activated, generating dysfunctional reactions (C) in specific activating events (A), as well as identifying cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemes") typical for the client, reflecting the general themes of his irrational beliefs (C), it is extremely important to formulate the abstract irrational beliefs inherent in the client (abs-B), which underlie his specific beliefs (C), written out in this form of RAP conceptualization. Step 8. Having identified a number of abstract irrational beliefs (abs-C), which are the cognitive foundation of specific beliefs (C) that create dysfunctional reactions of the client (C) in specific activating events (A), it is necessary to formulate (together with the client) and fix abstract rational statements (a new effective philosophy) (abs-E) for each abstract irrational belief (abs-C) (the client will be able to apply this philosophy in a variety of situations). Step 9. At this stage, the life goals (G) of the client and (if desired) the underlying values (G) that the client would like to realize in the near and/or distant future are communicated and recorded. Step 10. The final stage of drawing up a RAPT conceptualization is the development of behavioral experiments (F), through which the client will be able to consolidate concrete and abstract rational statements (a new effective philosophy) (E) in practice, which will make it more likely to realize meaningful goals and values (G).
An example of composing a RAPT conceptualization
Generalization of a new effective philosophy
Each time revealing new irrational beliefs (C), manifested in specific activating events (A) and leading to various dysfunctional emotions and maladaptive actions (C), the client may notice common themes (cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemes)) in his irrational beliefs (C) and apply the counterarguments (D) and rational statements (concrete and abstract) already formulated by him (E) as a "cognitive antidote" for these irrational beliefs (C) and the dysfunctional reactions they create (C). For example, having identified a specific irrational belief (C), manifested in the context of a specific activating event (A) ("I have to woo my boss"), the client may discover its similarity to another specific belief (C) from another trigger situation (A) ("I have to like this girl"), as well as identify a cognitive behavioral pattern ("scheme") – dependence on approval, and use counterarguments (D) and rational statements (E) (developed for a previous belief (C)) in relation to the current irrational belief (C). In other words, if one or more irrational beliefs (C) are detected, which are often activated in different situations (A) and have a common theme (for example, dependence on achievements), the client can identify the underlying (C) more abstract (basic) belief (abs-C) in order to challenging and formulating an abstract rational statement (abs), which he will be able to use in a wider range of activating events (A), thereby extending the new effective philosophy (abs) to a variety of situations (A). At the same time, it is important not only to notice these general abstract irrational beliefs (abs-C) and cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemas"), but also to realize how they create more specific (specific) irrational beliefs (C) that lead to dysfunctional emotional and behavioral reactions (C) in the context of specific activating events (A). Without changing abstract irrational beliefs (abs-C) (primarily by challenging (D) the specific irrational beliefs that grow from them (C)), the former (abs-C) will continue to cause emotional stress and behavioral disorders (C) in many different situations (A). When formulating abstract rational statements (a new effective philosophy) (abs), it is important for the client to clarify for himself how his life will change (F+G) if he regularly uses these new worldview positions (abs) and acts in accordance with them (F). In this regard, A. Ellis and W. Dryden urges clients and their therapists to "see the connections between problems, especially those characterized by common dysfunctional views," and constantly apply skills that have been effectively applied "in solving problem No. 1 and that could be used to solve problem No. 2" [6, p. 118].In the future, the client will be able to better detect and challenge not only specific irrational beliefs (C) that are the source of his dysfunctional emotions and maladaptive behavior (C) in specific situations (A), but also identify and change abstract irrational beliefs (abs-C) underlying specific beliefs (C), as well as to use abstract rational statements (new effective philosophy) (abs) in a variety of different situations (A) and, moreover, in a variety of different areas of your life (abs). Thus, a deep, long-term philosophical change (D) of irrational beliefs (C) is carried out both at the private level, when the client challenges (D) specific irrational beliefs (B) in a specific situation (A), and at the general level, when the client generalizes and includes formulated rational statements (E) in a system of new flexible attitude (abs) to life events in general (abs).
Conclusion
Thus, the RAPT conceptualization presented in this study and the step-by-step algorithm for its compilation, which the therapist and the client can jointly implement at a certain stage of therapy, fill a certain gap that existed in the methodology of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy. Indeed, if within the framework of A. Beck's cognitive therapy conceptualization, which is, in the words of D.V. Kovpak, the "peak of diagnosis", is actively used by cognitive therapists, then RAP therapists are focused mainly on conceptualizing a specific emotional and/or behavioral problem of the client. Session after session, moving forward in solving the client's problems by identifying and challenging specific irrational beliefs that are the source of the client's dysfunctional reactions, RAP therapists, despite their elegant and philosophical approach to solving client difficulties, risk losing sight of the complex picture of the client's inner reality. In order to disavow this risk, practitioners in the field of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy can rely on the RAPT conceptualization developed by the authors, which allows them to reach a more abstract level of understanding the client's problems and their interrelationships, but at the same time maintain an active, directive and problem-oriented style characteristic of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy. Thus, the formulation of RAPT conceptualization helps to detect behind specific activating events (A) common problematic areas of the client's life (abs-A), behind specific irrational beliefs (C) – abstract irrational beliefs (abs-B) and cognitive behavioral patterns ("schemes"), which are the foundation of various unreasonable representations of the client, which he He uses it in a variety of situations, turning the latter into "stressful" ones. At the same time, RAPT conceptualization also performs a therapeutic function, allowing you to systematize key counterarguments (D), which, in the words of E.A. Romek, are "a powerful psychological tool", as well as formulate abstract rational statements and a new effective philosophy of life (abs), increasing the likelihood of realizing goals and values that are significant to a person (G). Such an integrated approach, involving both the private (concrete) and general (abstract) level of the client's emotional and behavioral problems, contributes not only to a situational sense of improvement, but also to long–term real changes - deep transformations of thinking, emotion, feeling and behavior in many areas of life. References
1. Ellis, A., & McLaren, K. (2008). Rational-emotional behavioral therapy. Rostov N./D.: Phoenix.
2. Romek, E.A. (2010). Logic of emotions. Analysis of cultural studies, 1(16), 281–285. 3. Digiuseppe, R., Doyle, K., Dryden, U., & Baks, U. (2021). Rational-emotive-behavioral therapy. St. Petersburg: Piter. 4. Kachai, I.S., & Fedorenko, P.A. (2023). Distinctive features of the approaches of rational-emotional-behavioral therapy by A. Ellis and cognitive therapy by A. Beck in clinical practice and psychotherapy of emotional disorders. Psychology and Psychotechnics, 4, 118–136. doi:10.7256/2454-0722.2023.4.69064 5. Fedorenko, P.A., & Kachai, I.S. (2023). Method «from symptom to personality». IX International Forum of the Association of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapy CBTFORUM. SPb.: Lema, 309-335. 6. Ellis, A., & Dryden, U. (2002). The practice of rational-emotional behavioral therapy. St. Petersburg: Publishing house «Speech». 7. Lazarus, A. (2022). Short-term multimodal psychotherapy. Practical guide. Moscow: Publisher Bazenkov I.L. 8. Dryden, U., & Ninan, M. (2023). Rational-emotive-behavioral therapy. 100 key features. St. Petersburg: Dialectics LLC. 9. Joshi, A., & Phadke, K. (2021). Rational-emotive-behavioral therapy. H.: Publishing house «Humanitarian Center». 10. Beck, J. (2018). Cognitive behavioral therapy. From basics to directions. St. Petersburg: Piter. 11. Murtazin, A.I., & Kovpak, D.V. (2023). Work with positive beliefs and the use of conceptualization of strengths in cognitive behavioral therapy. IX International Forum of the Association of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapy CBTFORUM, 237-246. SPb.: Lema. 12. Kachai, I.S., & Fedorenko, P.A. (2023). Cognitive behavioral therapy. Practical manual for specialists. Yekaterinburg: Publishing Solutions. 13. Waltman, S., Codd, R., Mcfarr, L., & Moore, B. (2023). Socratic issues in psychotherapy and counseling. St. Petersburg: Piter. 14. Overholzer J. (2021). The Socrates Method in Psychotherapó. St. Petersburg: Dialectics LLC. 15. Hollon, S. (2022). Case formulation in standard cognitive therapy. In: J. Ruggiero, G. Caselli, S. Sassaroli (Eds.). Case formulation in CBT as a therapeutic process (pp. 79–86). Kiev: «Dialectics». 16. Beck, A., & Freeman, A. (2017). Cognitive psychotherapy of personality disorders. St. Petersburg: Piter. 17. Crum, Ja. E. (2019). A Clinical Strategy to Strengthen the Connection Between Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior: From Philosophical Principles to Psychotherapy Practice. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 37(3), 241–250. doi:10.1007/s10942-018-0308-4 18. Heidenreich, T., Noyon, A., Worrell, M., Menzies, R. (2021). Existential Approaches and Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Challenges and Potential. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 14(1), 209–234. doi:10.1007/s41811-020-00096-1 19. Bartucz, M.B., & David, D.O. (2019). Irrational beliefs at country level functioning: A cross-cultural extension of the cognitive-behavioral model. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 19(1), 1–26. doi:10.24193/jebp.2019.1.1 20. Alfonsson, S., Karvelas, G., Linde, J., & Beckman, M. (2022). A new short version of the Cognitive Therapy Scale Revised (CTSR-4): preliminary psychometric evaluation. BMC Psychology, 10(1), 1–7. doi:10.1186/s40359-022-00730-x 21. Blackwell, S.E., & Heidenreich, T. (2021). Cognitive Behavior Therapy at the Crossroads. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 14(1), 1–22. doi:10.1007/s41811-021-00104-y 22. Fishman, J., Yang, C., & Mandell, D. (2021). Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement. Implementation Science, 16(1), 1–10. doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01153-9 23. Feinstein, R.E. (2021). Descriptions and Reflections on the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model of Psychotherapy Training & Supervision. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 51(2), 155–164. doi:10.1007/s10879-020-09480-6 24. Sassaroli, S., Caselli, G., & Mansueto, G. (2022). Validating the Diathesis-Stress Model Based Case Conceptualization Procedure in Cognitive Behavioral Therapies: The LIBET (Life Themes and Semi-Adaptive Plans – Implications of Biased Beliefs, Elicitation and Treatment) Procedure. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 40(3), 527–565. doi:10.1007/s10942-021-00421-3 25. Baks, V. (2022). REBT – a solid basis for the formulation of a case with the help of a permanent, implicit and hypothetical-deductive form of data collection in a fully open, collaborative and equal relationship with the client. In: J. Ruggiero, G. Caselli, S. Sassaroli (Eds.). Case formulation in CBT as a therapeutic process (pp. 159–168). Kiev: «Dialectics».
First Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
Second Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
