In Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) literature, concerning the ABC model, core irrational beliefs are sometimes referred to as attitudes or philosophies. For context, it may be useful to describe how this psychotherapeutic modality functions.
The ABC model illustrates how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
From a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
As an example, if poisonous cake is served at your wedding reception (Action), people may die (Consequence). Still, if you rigidly Believe, “People should never die, because death is unbearable,” then you’ll likely disturb yourself into a sorrowful disposition (Consequence).
The personal philosophy an individual maintains about life doesn’t always comport with logic and reason (rationality). Some people may even argue that it’s the default nature of fallible human beings to use irrationally unrealistic philosophies rather than rationally realistic attitudes.
In a blogpost entitled On Truth, I stated that “reality’ may be described as the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” Fascinatingly, a number of people with whom I’ve spoken refuse to accept reality as it is.
For instance, I know individuals who propose that because inanimate humanoid robots may one day become conscious, people must treat this possibility as inevitability today. While I grant that unfalsifiable claims about the future may be entertaining, I live in reality of the current moment.
Therefore, I don’t place significant value in the unrealistic philosophies with which people use to disturb themselves regarding robots potentially one day taking over and subjugating all of humanity. Unsurprisingly, individuals who wed their irrational beliefs may disagree.
To further complicate matters, many of these people carry into their intimate partner relationships unrealistic philosophies which aren’t only self-disturbing, these attitudes become couple-disturbing. In Creative Marriage, five of these unrealistic philosophies are listed.
First, the authors address the supposed “dire need for love” (page 29). Under this category, people unhelpfully maintain that approval or love from others is the single most significant factor of one’s life.
Using this assumption, what others think about an individual becomes more important than one’s own self-respect. Using this flawed logic and reason, dependence upon others rates higher than self-dependence.
While I imagine that most people in the world live within societies, as interdependence is necessary to a degree, REBT serves as a humanistic approach to well-being that helps to disentangle some of the more unhelpful aspects of self-disturbance associated with societal living.
As an example, if your unrealistic philosophy of life is that you “must be loved and appreciated by others,” how likely is it that you will go against the grain and self-advocate in a romantic relationship if your partner decides to – without your input – engage in non-monogamy?
Against you, your loved one has joined with other members of society. “Well, I must be loved and appreciated,” you unproductively assume, “therefore, I ought not to disagree with my partner.” According to Creative Marriage (page 29):
When both marriage partners believe this nonsense—believe that they must be loved, respected, and catered to by the other—they are not only asking for what is rarely accorded an individual in this grimly realistic world, but are asking for unmitigated devotion from another individual who, precisely because he demands this kind of devotion himself, is the least likely candidate to give it.
Unrealistic demands of oneself and others may serve as a recipe for a disastrous intimate partner relationship. Worse still, when practicing this nonsensical method of living, we condition ourselves to self-disturb into miserable conditions when love or appreciation isn’t received.
Even regarding relatively simple matters such as what’s for dinner, a self-disturbing philosophy can plague romantic relationships. “What sounds good for dinner?” your partner asks.
“I don’t want to suggest something he doesn’t want, so I better not mention tacos,” you unhelpfully conclude. “I don’t know, whatever sounds good to you,” you respond.
An unrealistic philosophy about love, affection, or appreciation may not serve well your actual interests and goals. Idealistically, your decisions, emotions, or mannerisms won’t ever inconvenience anyone. However, you live in the real world, not an ideal world.
Approval-seeking has its limits. According to Creative Marriage, “This over-emphasis in our culture on being loved is a prime example of how realistic desires can be easily and insidiously translated into neurotic needs” (page 30).
Although you may want the approval of others, you truly don’t have to receive it. It isn’t a need. Doubtlessly, it may be preferable or pleasant to be loved and appreciated. Nevertheless, you won’t invariably perish without the approval of others. Per Creative Marriage (page 31):
The translation of the perfectly legitimate desire to be loved by one’s mate into the idiotic and quite illegitimate so-called need to be adored by him or her is probably the most fundamental irrationality of millions of married individuals.
In a blogpost entitled Want vs. Need, I addressed this very matter in relation to a conversation between a former friend and me. I say “former,” because the individual was so self-disturbed by his unrealistic philosophies that he chose to vacate our friendship rather than to challenge his unfavorable assumptions.
The second unrealistic philosophy listed in Creative Marriage is “perfectionism in achievement,” which is described by stating that “a human being should or must be perfectly competent, adequate, talented, and intelligent in all possible respects and is utterly worthless if he or she is incompetent in any way” (page 31).
Use of demandingness (i.e., “should or must”) and global evaluation (i.e., “utterly worthless”) sets the stage for unrealistic philosophical failure. In particular, the false dilemma of an either-or option discounts alternative possibilities and serves as an inflexible method of living.
Who among us is perfect? Who among our romantic interests is infallible? Who among the entire population of the Earth is capable of being flawless? Respectively, no one, nobody, and not a single individual.
The third unrealistic philosophy in Creative Marriage is a “philosophy of blame and punishment” (page 32). Here, an individual unproductively blames oneself or others for shortcomings while punishing oneself or others to prevent additional failings.
For instance, a husband who has thus far been unable to sexually satisfy is wife may blame himself for this perceived shortcoming. As a result of an unrealistic philosophy about emasculation, he may punish his wife with berating comments.
“I’m no longer attracted to you,” he may say while understanding that self-blame is truly the issue. Although punishing his partner temporarily relieves his self-disturbed tension, he then blames himself for contributing to his wife’s now self-disturbed reaction to his admission.
Eventually, the husband presumes that he’s prevented future failings in regard to a flawed perception about his manhood. However, in reality, he’s blamed and punished his way into a deeper experience of self-disturbance.
All the while, unfavorably believing that she’s unattractive, the wife seeks evidence to the contrary. Because of his self-blame about sexual function, the husband has contributed to an event whereby his wife has now begun an extramarital affair.
In my approach to REBT, personal responsibility and accountability (collectively “ownership”) are practiced as an antidote to blame. While it’s true that the wife in this scenario has personal agency for the affair, it’s the husband who can take ownership for his role in the matter.
Creative Marriage states that “criticized humans tend to focus compulsively on their wrongdoings rather than calmly facing the problem of how they may change their behavior,” and, “one partner’s blaming another for the other’s imperfections usually does immense harm” (page 33).
In the example of the aforementioned married couple, both the husband and wife focused on perceived wrongdoing while blame and punishment contributed to harm of the marriage. A healthier alternative to this harmful cycle would be to take ownership of one’s own issues.
The fourth item regarding unrealistic philosophies is “catastrophizing frustrations” (page 34), which relates to the irrational belief of awfulizing. When paired with demandingness, this unrealistic philosophy of life causes significant distress in a marriage.
For improved understanding about this wedded relationship of assumptions, consider the following two unrealistic philosophies:
Philosophy 1: It’s awful being stuck in a loveless marriage!
Philosophy 2: It’s awful being stuck in a loveless marriage, because my partner should be the source of my happiness – not the cause of my misery!
Do you see the impact of a wedded self-disturbing belief? While decidedly irrational and self-disturbing on its own, merely stating that one’s marriage is awful doesn’t have quite the same impact as pairing the philosophy with the inflexibility of demandingness.
Not always are catastrophizing frustrations accompanied by demandingness. For instance, consider the additional contributions to self-disturbance when using low frustration tolerance (philosophy 3) and a global evaluation (philosophy 4):
Philosophy 3: It’s awful being stuck in a loveless marriage and I can’t stand living this way any longer!
Philosophy 4: It’s awful being stuck in a loveless marriage, because living with a completely worthless person such as my spouse isn’t something for which I signed up!
Wedded unrealistic philosophies aren’t likely to contribute to the success of an intimate partner relationship. Authors of Creative Marriage state that such philosophies “can only lead to disappointment, disillusionment, and hostility toward others and toward fate for not giving one the easy living one thinks is one’s due” (page 34).
When working with clients, I invite people to consider unhealthy versus healthy negative emotions. For instance, I stated in a blogpost entitled Healthy vs. Unhealthy Frustration:
REBT practitioners are encouraged to help clients distinguish between healthy frustration (which may prompt creativity to overcome a block in one’s progress) and unhealthy frustration (which may prompt impulsivity and self-defeating behavior).
Not all frustration is unhelpful. Where catastrophizing frustrations are concerned, it’s likely clear at this juncture that they fall into the category of unhelpful philosophies.
If I can assist a client with moving from misery to frustration, as healthy frustration allows the individual to overcome a hindrance in one’s progress, then frustration may be the client’s expressed goal for treatment or management during the session. This occurs quite frequently.
In fact, not yet have I had someone request to seek unhealthy frustration as an REBT objective. Of course, there’s still time for some self-disturbed individual with unrealistic philosophies to invariably request to set a goal to become more disturbed beyond frustration.
Approaching the matter of frustration in marriage pragmatically, Creative Marriage states, “For marriage, of course, is an exceptionally frustrating situation in many instances, involving considerable boredom, sacrifice, pleasure postponement, doing what one’s mate wants to do, and so on” (page 34).
Years ago, I used to practice couples psychotherapy. Attempting to persuade some intimate partners to unconditionally accept healthy frustration as a common experience in romantic relationships was virtually pointless.
Be it due to cultural norms, societal messaging, unrealistic personal philosophies, or otherwise, some people simply refuse to settle for a good enough standard in their intimate partner relationships. Alas, I remain grateful for the shift from couples to individual practice.
The final unrealistic philosophy listed in Creative Marriage is the “belief that emotion is uncontrollable” (page 34). This is one of the most overly used claims I hear within Western society.
“I can’t control how I feel,” “It’s not me; my hormones cause me to feel this way,” “My feelings are valid, and I can’t control them,” and other iterations of victimhood to one’s own emotional experience are oft repeated. Unrealistic philosophies of this kind impute an A-C connection.
Conveniently, when in a romantic relationship, one can shift blame to another person when experiencing undesired emotions. Are you unhappy with work? Blame your partner. Are you annoyed by beliefs about politics? Your partner is to blame.
“How is this possible?” a logical and reasonable person may ask. Doesn’t matter. The intimate partner is always to blame. I feel like shit, so you’re to blame! Rationality doesn’t apply here, because I can’t control my emotions. (Sound familiar?) This is an ingredient for divorce.
Per Creative Marriage, “it is not the nagging, irresponsible, or depressed behavior of one marital partner that really causes the disturbance and negativism of the other partner. Rather, it is the attitude of the second partner toward the first—as well as, just as importantly, his attitude toward himself” (page 36).
Given this perspective, there’s no A-C connection which is responsible for how one marital partner feels. Rather, an unrealistic philosophy associated with the B-C connection causes couple-disturbance.
Noteworthy, unrealistic philosophies occur within an individual. Sitting here while writing this blogpost, I can self-disturb with a great number of unhelpful beliefs. To accomplish this, I don’t need a romantic partner.
All the same, introducing another person into the equation tends to complicate matters. Of course, this isn’t a castigation of intimate partner relationships. Rather, I’m using a realistic philosophy concerning romantic relationships. For clarity, consider the following syllogism:
Form (constructive dilemma) –
If p, then q; and if r, then s; but either p or r; therefore, either q or s.
Example –
If you’re single, then you can self-disturb all by yourself.
And if you’re in a romantic relationship, then you may self-disturb as well as couple-disturb.
But either you’re single or you’re in a romantic relationship.
Therefore, either you can self-disturb all by yourself or you may self-disturb as well as couple-disturb.
This constitutes a logical and reasonable argument. You can either self-disturb on your own or couple-disturb when with someone in an intimate partner relationship. Now whether or not it’s rational to self- or couple-disturb in the first place is another matter altogether.
Of course, for those who irrationally insist on believing in unrealistic scenarios of the here-and-now, self-disturbance isn’t a particularly difficult process to achieve. Such people wed themselves to irrationality like inanimate humanoid robots marrying one another in a sci-fi setting.
Ultimately, use of unrealistic philosophies may determine whether or not disturbance will occur. If you’ve found the content of the blogpost helpful, I invite you to read Creative Marriage for yourself. Also, if you’d like to know more about REBT, I’m here to help.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Ellis, A. and Harper, R. A. (1961). Creative Marriage. The Institute For Rational Living, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/creative-marriage-e184052310.html
Freepik. (n.d.). Fantasy creatures couple getting married [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/fantasy-creatures-couple-getting-married_133785964.htm#fromView=serie&position=40
Hollings, D. (2024, May 23). A humanistic approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-humanistic-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Blame. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/blame
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2024, June 12). Core irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/core-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2023, October 21). False dilemma. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/false-dilemma
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals
Hollings, D. (2023, December 26). Good enough is good enough. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/good-enough-is-good-enough
Hollings, D. (2024, September 24). Happy place. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/happy-place
Hollings, D. (2024, March 27). Healthy vs. unhealthy frustration. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/healthy-vs-unhealthy-frustration
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
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. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, August 31). Iss-me vs. iss-you. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/iss-me-vs-iss-you
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
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. (2023, June 3). Perfect is the enemy of good. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good
Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). Personal agency. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-agency
Hollings, D. (2022, November 7). Personal ownership. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/personal-ownership
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. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2024, June 19). Treatment vs. management. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/treatment-vs-management
Hollings, D. (2023, October 22). Unfalsifiability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unfalsifiability
Hollings, D. (2024, March 18). Unhealthy vs. healthy negative emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unhealthy-vs-healthy-negative-emotions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 25). Victimhood. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/victimhood
Hollings, D. (2023, May 3). Want vs. need. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/want-vs-need
Comments