Theory Of REBT
Underlying Theory of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy

Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) views human beings as “responsibly hedonistic” in the sense that they strive to remain alive and to achieve some degree of happiness. However, it also holds that humans are prone to adopting irrational beliefs and behaviors that stand in the way of their achieving their goals and purposes. Often, these irrational attitudes or philosophies take the form of extreme or dogmatic “musts,” “shoulds,” or “oughts”; they contrast with rational and flexible desires, wishes, preferences, and wants. The presence of extreme philosophies can make all the difference between healthy negative emotions (such as sadness or regret or concern) and unhealthy negative emotions (such as depression or guilt or anxiety). For example, one person’s philosophy after experiencing a loss might take the form: “It is unfortunate that this loss has occurred, although there is no actual reason why it should not have occurred. It is sad that it has happened, but it is not awful, and I can continue to function.” Another’s might take the form: “This absolutely should not have happened, and it is horrific that it did. These circumstances are now intolerable, and I cannot continue to function.” The first person’s response is apt to lead to sadness, while the second person may be well on his or her way to depression. Most importantly of all, REBT maintains that individuals have it within their power to change their beliefs and philosophies profoundly, and thereby to change radically their state of psychological health.
        REBT employs the “ABC framework” — depicted in the figure below — to clarify the relationship between activating events (A); our beliefs about them (B); and the cognitive, emotional or behavioral consequences of our beliefs (C). The ABC model is also used in some renditions of cognitive therapy or cognitive behavioral therapy, where it is also applied to clarify the role of mental activities or predispositions in mediating between experiences and emotional responses.

The figure below shows how the framework distinguishes between the effects of rational beliefs about negative events, which give rise to healthy negative emotions, and the effects of irrational beliefs about negative events, which lead to unhealthy negative emotions.

In addition to the ABC framework, REBT also employs three primary insights:

While external events are of undoubted influence, psychological disturbance is largely a matter of personal choice in the sense that individuals consciously or unconsciously select both rational beliefs and irrational beliefs at (B) when negative events occur at (A)

Past history and present life conditions strongly affect the person, but they do not, in and of themselves, disturb the person; rather, it is the individual’s responses which disturb them, and it is again a matter of individual choice whether to maintain the philosophies at (B) that cause disturbance.

Modifying the philosophies at (B) requires persistence and hard work, but it can be done.

Therapeutic Approach of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
The main purpose of REBT is to help students to replace absolutist philosophies, full of “musts” and “shoulds,” with more flexible ones; part of this includes learning to accept that all human beings (including themselves) are fallible and learning to increase their tolerance for frustration while aiming to achieve their goals. Although emphasizing the same “core conditions” as person-centered counseling — namely, empathy, unconditional positive regard, and counselor (teacher, educator) genuineness — in the counseling relationship, REBT views these conditions as neither necessary nor sufficient for therapeutic change to occur.
The basic process of change that REBT attempts to foster begins with the student acknowledging the existence of a problem and identifying any “meta-disturbances” about that problem (i.e., problems about the problem, such as feeling guilty about being depressed). The student then identifies the underlying irrational belief that caused the original problem and comes to understand both why it is irrational and why a rational alternative would be preferable. The student challenges his or her irrational belief and employs a variety of cognitive, behavioral, emotive, and imagery techniques to strengthen their conviction in a rational alternative. (For example, rational emotive imagery, or REI, helps students practice changing unhealthy negative emotions into healthy ones at (C) while imagining the negative event at (A), as a way of changing their underlying philosophy at (B); this is designed to help students move from an intellectual insight about which of their beliefs are rational and which irrational to a stronger “gut” instinct about the same.) They identify impediments to progress and overcome them, and they work continuously to consolidate their gains and to prevent relapse.
To further this process, REBT advocates “selective eclecticism,” which means that REBT counselors are encouraged to make use of techniques from other approaches while still working specifically within the theoretical framework of REBT. In other words, REBT maintains theoretical coherence while pragmatically employing techniques that work.
Throughout, the counselor may take a very directive role, actively disputing the student’s irrational beliefs, assigning homework assignments that help the student to overcome irrational beliefs, and in general “pushing” the student to challenge himself or herself and to accept the discomfort which may accompany the change process.

Criticisms of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy
As one leading proponent of REBT has indicated, REBT is easy to practice poorly, and it is from this that one immediate criticism is suggested from the perspective of someone who takes a philosophical approach to life anyway: inelegant REBT could be profoundly irritating! The kind of conceptual disputing favored by REBT could easily meander off track into minutiae relatively far removed from the student’s central concern, and the mental gymnastics required to keep students and therapists on the same track could easily eat up time better spent on more productive activities. The counselor’s and student’s estimations of relative importance could diverge profoundly, particularly if the student’s outlook really does embody significant irrationalities. Having said all that, each of the preceding sentences includes the qualifier “could,” and with a great deal of skill, each pitfall undoubtedly could be avoided.
Perhaps more importantly, it would appear that the need to match therapeutic approach with student preference is even more pressing with REBT than with many others. In other words, it seems very important to adopt the REBT approach only with students who truly are suitable, as it otherwise risks being strongly counterproductive. On this point, however, it is crucial to realize that some students specifically do appreciate exactly this kind of approach, and counselors who are unable or unwilling to provide the disputation required are probably not right for those students.

Best Fit With Students
REBT is much less well empirically supported than some other approaches: the requisite studies simply have not been completed yet, and the relevant data points for determining the best match with students are therefore undetermined. However, one may envision students responding particularly well who are both willing and able to conceptualize their problems within the ABC framework, and who are committed to active participation in the process of identifying and changing irrational beliefs (including performing homework assignments in support of the latter). Students will also need to be able to work collaboratively with a counselor who will challenge and dispute with them directly, and a scientific and at least somewhat logical outlook would seem a pre-requisite. REBT would be less suitable for students who do not meet one or more of the above. And as was hinted above in the section on Criticisms, one might also speculate that students who are already highly skilled in philosophical engagement could find the approach less useful. (Perhaps REBT-style self help could be of more benefit for such students?)