Topic 1: Social Learning & Cognitive Theories {by 9/6}

There were multiple readings due last week (Bandura) and this week (Ellis & Harper; Meichenbaum; Lazarus & Folkman).  For this discussion, share at least three thoughts: (1) In your own words, explain your understanding of Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy?  How are these constructs related to CBT?  (2) What are a couple examples of how Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) is both similar to CBT and different from CBT?  Explain each thought.  (I realize you are still learning the basics of CBT – give it your best shot based on what you do know.)  (3) Share your understanding of Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” and its relevance to modern CBT.  Your original post should be posted by the beginning of class 9/6.  Have your two replies posted no later than 9/8.  *Please remember to click the “reply” button when posting a reply.  This makes it easier for the reader to follow the blog postings.   *Note: If this is your first post to my website there may be a delay of a few hours to a day until your post is viewable.  This will only be the case for your first post if you use the same email address and user name.

33 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Alyce Almeida
    Sep 03, 2018 @ 16:12:25

    I thought Bandura’s thoughts on self-efficacy and reciprocal determinism was simple in the sense that he believed that individuals have control on what promotes their behavior. In better words, whatever the expectation may be for individuals, determines the motivation to achieve the behavior expected through repetition; “through cognitive representation of future outcomes individuals can generate current motivators of behavior” (Bandura, Self-Efficacy Theory, p.193). In regards to reciprocal determinism, Bandura believed that multiple factors influenced behavior which included an individuals environment, what the behavior is they are trying to achieve, and the person themselves as an individual. This all ties back to motivation, and a person’s cognitive appraisal which therefore promotes the individual to produce the expected behavior they are attempting to achieve in the first place which is ultimately what CBT is focused on: achieving an individuals goals by identifying methods that suit them, and understanding to find strategies to help promote the motivation to achieve such behaviors and goals.

    Reply

    • Amanda Russo-Folco
      Sep 05, 2018 @ 19:37:31

      I agree with your understanding of Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy because it does make sense that we have control over what promotes our behavior. It is also important to recognize that our environment has an impact on our behavior as well. I also liked how you stated that everything ties back to motivation, and a person’s cognitive appraisal and how this relates to CBT. It is very important to understand the client’s goals and make it client-centered. Thank you for helping me receive a better understanding of reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy.

      Reply

    • Nicole Plona
      Sep 09, 2018 @ 10:34:57

      I think this was a great job a summarizing Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy. I agree that there is a big connection between self-efficacy and motivation in a person. If a person has the mindset that they are good at something along with the drive to continue trying/practicing the activity it only betters them in that aspect of their life. Along with that thought I found that the person’s interests determine whether or not the lack of self-efficacy in something will affect them negatively. As mentioned in class, if I have no interest in cars and I have low self-efficacy at a mechanic, that really isn’t going to negatively affect my life. On the other hand, if I’m interested in being a therapist but I have low self-efficacy when it comes to working with other people then that could cause me a lot of distress in my life.

      Reply

  2. Alyce Almeida
    Sep 03, 2018 @ 16:12:37

    For Ellis, I thought his ideas were quite quirky. REBT seemed like the first attempt to what we call CBT now so his ideas were similar in that his goals were to help individuals to resolve emotional/behavioral issues within their lives. However, Ellis’ idea supported that individuals who adjust these behaviors would live a more “happy” life whereas therapy now focuses on managing such behaviors by coping to help adjust to life. Ellis’ ideas were more spiritual and focused a lot of repetition, and self-analysis. And when I mean spiritual I mean more that the individuals were following this idea on what their behaviors “should” be and dwelled a lot on the potential negative experience to come. Ellis’ argues that if individuals had more of a positive outlook, more positive behaviors will follow. I think CBT is similar in that repetition and focus on improvement is necessary, but is also different in being realistically honest in that life will not always be happy but its finding ways to adjust to help alter this idea of finding happiness. I guess what i’m saying is Ellis’ put a lot of attention on “discipling” ones thinking, where I think CBT is more on finding ways to understand ones thinking to therefore understand their behaviors that aren’t working for them in a collaborate way with the therapists guidance.

    Reply

    • Deanna Tortora
      Sep 06, 2018 @ 20:18:01

      Alyce, you mentioned how Ellis argues on changing client behaviors that they (the client) think they should change. I really feel like this stood out to me in Ellis’ theory. This seems to me like a major flaw in the self-help theory. A client could in theory change a behavior they think is bad, but is this realistic? That is, is the behavior they think they need to change, the one they should be changing? Or even how they should change it? I think that Ellis’ theory doesn’t take enough into account the need for therapist guidance in client treatment. Not to be crude but there is a reason we all still have (or will have!) a job in clinical psychology. Clients need help! Self-help isn’t enough.

      Reply

    • Jayson Hidalgo
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 11:47:24

      I do agree with your statement about the difference between CBT and REBT. I did not think that CBT simply helps the individual simply adjust to life by modifying their behaviors and thoughts so he or she can live a more functional life and does not focus not making the individual live a happier life like what REBT tries to do. CBT allows behaviors and thoughts to change, but CBT does not seek to make the individual reach the happiest point of their life. Consequently, CBT may change the individual, but it may only be to a certain degree that allows him or her to live a more stable life while REBT tries to have the individual seek happiness.

      Reply

  3. Alyce Almeida
    Sep 04, 2018 @ 14:18:56

    When reading Meichenbaum’s ideas on internal dialogue, it was easy enough to say it’s practically self talk and how self-talk could positive affect behavior change. Meaning, an individuals capability to have inner speech can benefit their responses and reactions to various situations. Similar to the other readings, this idea touches base on motivators for positive behavior. Internal dialogue is like that in a sense that it provides individuals with problem solving by these “interpersonal instructions” which help with response to stress and how to react (p. 203). With CBT, therapist use multiple aspects to provide individuals with understanding around their own thoughts, and managing these thoughts to find ways to cope. Inner speech could easily be seen in CBT today as a source to help tackle issues like negative self-talk, fears and phobias, and even so far as threats of harm. I think internal dialogue relates heavily to CBT since it deals with individuals cognitive appraisals, and as stated in the reading could provide instructions for individuals next choices and behaviors when reacting and/or responding to an issue.

    Reply

  4. Shannon O'Brien
    Sep 04, 2018 @ 15:00:45

    Bandura describes psychological functioning as a mutual interaction between personal, behavioral, and environmental elements. Instead of viewing the environment as something that will only prompt a reaction, he emphasizes that people have the ability to create and refute environments as well. Additionally, people have the ability to influence future circumstances by regulating their own behavior. Bandura states that self-efficacy is based off of four primary foundations of information when judging their own personal ability: performance attainments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Furthermore, self-efficacy is related to whether coping behavior will be used, how much effort will be exhausted, and how long it will be continued during negative experiences. After briefly examining these two concepts, we can see that a CBT approach would work well in attempt to challenge unhealthy behaviors related to an individual’s personal, behavioral, or environmental constructs. If both the clinician and the client can recognize that these three factors all influence one another, a mutual effort can be made to promote and improve healthier behaviors and views of personal ability.
    It appears that REBT and CBT are similar in the sense that they both encourage the individual to view their thoughts and beliefs both influence and are influenced by their environment. Both models also appear to focus on encouraging clients to challenge negative or maladaptive thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes in order to foster and maintain healthier ways of thinking or feeling. “People and things do not upset us. Rather, we upset ourselves by believing that they can upset us” (Ellis, p.4), was a quote that I found really interesting. As I am writing this I am finding it hard to put into my own words exactly how I feel about this quote (I have deleted and retyped at least 10 times at this point). However, what I keep coming back to is my personal belief that feelings are never right nor wrong, but actions to those feelings are what can be handled poorly. Instead of focusing on regulating feelings or emotions like Ellis appears to have suggested in this chapter, I think CBT focuses more on regulating the actions or coping mechanisms towards those emotions. I’m curious about all of your thoughts in regards to this quote!
    Internal dialogues are the conversations we have within ourselves. Functional values include the work on interpersonal instructions, research on cognitive factors in stress responses, and the research on the effects of instructional sets on physiological reactions. Internal instructions are extremely applicable to problem-solving. When examining behavior change during stress, the structure of each individual’s inner dialogue can be analyzed in order to create plans for healthy change. Finally, operant, autonomic conditioning can be facilitated or inhibited due to the structure of internal dialogues. In addition, cognitive structure, or self-statements and images, is an essential part of internal dialogue. A CBT approach would assist clients in challenging the structure of their inner speech and cognitive structures they face daily. The example of test-anxiety Meichenbaum (p. 205) used outlines the potential use for CBT very well. By examining the initial structure of inner dialogue and self-statements and images, then clients and clinicians can work collaboratively to form goals and plans in order to challenge and change these views. Out-of-session homework seems feasible for clients in the sense that when they experience internal dialogues, they can actively examine their thoughts and attitudes in that moment and attempt to make an immediate change.

    Reply

    • Amanda Russo-Folco
      Sep 05, 2018 @ 19:46:10

      I liked how you put a lot of thought into your answers for this discussion. Also, going back to the quote that you mentioned, “People and things do not upset us. Rather, we upset ourselves by believing that they can upset us” (Ellis, p.4), I also find this quote to be interesting and yet true. I feel that us humans automatically pre-judge a situation without even knowing what is going to happen because we are constantly playing out scenarios in our head (at least I know I do a lot). But, it is also difficult for me to wrap my head around it. I also agree with your interpretation of this quote because our feelings are what makes us human and it is important to focus on our feelings because there is no right or wrong answer.

      Reply

    • Alyce
      Sep 06, 2018 @ 10:33:12

      I agree fully with your discussion on Bandura. Specifically, I liked how you mention that if the therapist helps the client first understand this concept, then they can assist in finding the expectations that help them lead to a better sense of self-efficacy. I also agree with your notion of internal dialogue, as it can help change the individuals perception on the stressors in their environment, the reactions they have to these stressors and the overall affect on their well being.

      Reply

    • Becca Green
      Sep 08, 2018 @ 18:03:50

      Hi Shannon! Your thoughts on our feelings being not right nor wrong really made me take a second to think about my own thoughts on that. You bring up a good point that it is the behaviors in relation to the feelings/emotions that CBT focuses on. Your point of feelings not being right/wrong reinforce the function of CBT and I think helps people recognize that the feelings/emotions that we all have are okay and can be worked on. I think of it as more of an acceptance of the emotion but then saying, “okay, how do we move forward from here?”

      Reply

    • Nicole Plona
      Sep 09, 2018 @ 10:22:04

      I thought your response was really well thought out. When looking at the quote you pulled out, “People and things do not upset us. Rather, we upset ourselves by believing that they can upset us” (Ellis, p.4), I also had a really hard time trying to figure out what that meant to me in my own words. This more I think about it I feel as though it’s like giving someone else the power over your emotions. That isn’t to mean that the person is actually going to do anything to cause you harm or distress, but because the idea and possibility is there in your head, you have already given them that power. (I’m not sure if that’s correct or not but it’s what I got out of it.)

      Reply

  5. Amanda Russo-Folco
    Sep 04, 2018 @ 20:19:37

    My understanding of Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy is that there is a continuous reciprocal interaction between personal, behavior, and environmental factors. This means that there are three important factors in Bandura’s model of reciprocal determinism that impacts the individual’s behavior. An individual’s behavior influences and is influenced by both the social world and personal characteristics. It is not only based off only personal, or only behavior, or only environmental. All three of these factors go hand in hand with one another because personal characteristics might affect the individual’s behavior and the behavior could affect how the individual behaves in their own social environment. For example, a child who does not like going to school may act out in class, which results in negative attention from their teachers and classmates. This leads to the teacher changing the child’s school environment to help the child like school. As it says in the article, “the environment is only a potentiality until actualized through appropriate actions; it is not a fixed property that inevitably impinges upon individuals. Lecturers do not influence students unless they attend their classes”. Reciprocal determinism is related to CBT by it will help change the individual’s thoughts, behaviors, and actions which could lead to how the individual will behave differently in their environment.
    Also, my understanding of Bandura’s thoughts on self-efficacy is that self-efficacy is based off the person’s beliefs about their own capabilities to execute behaviors necessary in their own lives. Each individual has their own self-efficacy, and this determines how they handle and cope with situations that occur in their life. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy the more active the person is with their efforts towards the situation because they feel as if they need to take on the challenge, rather than fear and avoid the situation. If the individual has doubt about their capabilities, then the individual tries to avoid the difficult situation because they tend to fear the situation as a personal threat. These constructs are related to CBT because self-efficacy affects the individuals thought patterns and actions. If people have low self-efficacy they could experience anxiety and CBT will help treat anxiety by helping the individual change their thought patterns. CBT would help the individual find it easier to “bounce back” rather than having it be more difficult for the individual.

    A couple examples of how Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is similar and different from CBT is that one similarity is that REBT and CBT both focus on the individual’s distortions with their thinking pattern. The goals are both the same for both therapy strategies. It is important to see how the individual thinks, so the therapist could address the problem. Another similarity is that both therapy strategies help the individual explore different strategies to change their behavior, so they can function better in their everyday life. It is important to explore different strategies to change the individual’s behavior, so they can function normally within their everyday social environment. Another important similarity is that both therapy strategies are cognitive, and emotion interrelated. It is important to focus on both cognition and emotion because one affects the other.
    An example of how REBT and CBT are different is that REBT induces individual and group therapy clients to do work in between sessions. With CBT, this occurs sometimes, not all the time because it depends on the client. Some clients would do homework, others would not. Using the REBT strategy, this approach integrates homework and is given to their clients. For example, it is used to teach their clients to change their thinking strategies in important ways. These types of therapies include self-work and self-analysis and make this kind of activity an integral part of the therapy process. Another way CBT and REBT differ is that REBT is based on a philosophical approach rather than a practical approach. CBT is evidence-based. In REBT, Ellis believes that the individual has the potential to be rational or irrational. REBT helps to discriminate between rational and irrational thinking. It shows that rational thinking normally leads to appropriate emotions and irrational thinking leads to inappropriate emotions. When feelings help to achieve our goals they are appropriate feelings, but when our feelings block our basic goals then they are inappropriate feelings. CBT focuses on identifying and evaluating the individual’s automatic thoughts. It is important to correct the individuals thinking so it resembles closer to reality. When this occurs, the individuals distress usually decreases and they can behave more functionally.

    My understanding of Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” is that inner speech plays an important role in influencing the client’s behaviors. There are three sources that have proved helpful in generating suggestions for the functional value of inner speech which is interpersonal instructions, cognitive factors in stress, and instructional sets and physiological effects. Interpersonal instructions are important because it guides the instructions for controlling behavior. Cognitive factors in stress are also very important because the role of internal dialogue in affecting behavior change is the social psychological work on coping with stress. Some individuals might have a good way of coping with stress, while others do not. Another important source is the client’s physiological effects. Changing the client’s style of self-instruction can have major physiological effects. For example, if an individual has anxiety and they are constantly focused on the future and the “what if’s”, then they could experience sweaty palms and increased heart rate. If the individual changes their internal dialogue, then these physiological effects could decrease. It is also important to consider cognitive structures. Cognitive structures according to Meichenbaum, is focused on organizing the aspect of thinking that monitors the route, strategy, and choice of thoughts. This is very relevant to modern CBT because CBT is focused on the thought process and it is important to see how the individual gets to the conclusions of their thoughts, so the therapist can help the individual change their thought process if need be.

    Reply

    • Alyce
      Sep 06, 2018 @ 10:41:21

      Rational thinking- I wish I touched base on this! Specifically on the appropriation and how that effects individuals identifying and evaluating their automatic thoughts. Which, like you said, works heavily with goal orientation and keeping the client focused on reality in order to be more successful with therapy.

      Reply

    • Melissa Pope
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 13:47:04

      I completely agree with your reponse to Meichenbaum’s Internal Dialogue. I really enjoyed how you stressed the importance of the physiological component in cognition. If you can change the structure and pattern of one’s thought process, you can alter physiological effects. I personally find it so facinating, the power our brains can have over the body. I also thought that your words, “organizing” one’s cognitions in route, strategy, and then choice, was very well put. I agree that it is this organization that allows therapists to understand how a client came to the conclusions they did, which in turn allows clinicans to intervene where they need to.

      Reply

  6. Becca Green
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 16:08:10

    It is my understanding that Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism is basically the give and take of interactions between persons and environment. More specifically, how persons influence the environment, perceive the environment, and anticipate events within the environment and how the environment in turn influences the persons. Bandura goes further on to say that this anticipation is likely where maladaptive coping skills may come from. The portion of reciprocal determinism that I find to be most related to CBT is the portion on autonomy and changing behaviors to influence environments. Bandura states, “people may be considered partially free insofar as they can influence future conditions by managing their own behavior” (Bandura, Reciprocal Determinism, p 205). Within this concept there is an element of both cognitive appraisal and behavior adaptations in order to have what seems to be the most successful outcome. This relates to CBT because the therapist and client work together to understand the cognitive appraisals and the maladaptive behaviors that come along with those appraisals in order to help the client change the way the situation is perceived and the maladaptive behaviors can be changed. Bandura’s thoughts on self-efficacy seem to bring together the other part of CBT that is important for change: motivation. Bandura states, “individuals can believe that a particular course of action will produce certain outcomes, but if they entertain serious doubts about whether they can perform the necessary activities such information does not influence their behavior” (Bandura, Self-Efficacy Theory, p 193). A client’s belief that they can or can not make the changes needed impacts the motivation they feel to put effort into making the change. Being motivated and willing to try to make changes, both cognitively and behaviorally, is an important aspect of CBT.

    I found that Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy seemed similar to CBT in the sense that the purpose was to help clients change behaviors and ways of thinking. Ellis mentions in an example that this therapy can help clients, “think and act more rationally” (p 3). This is similar to CBT as the core of CBT focuses on changing maladaptive ways of thinking and behaviors in order to help clients build healthy coping mechanisms to manage symptoms. Ellis mentions self-analysis and self-help, noting that these can be skewed into clients only seeing what they want to, rather than how things are. While this part is similar to CBT it seemed as though Ellis was pushing the idea that if he could influence people to just think more positively that change can occur. Ellis brings up the use of educating clients and giving clients work to do in between sessions, which is much like CBT. Working on what is discussed during therapy is important for understanding what works and doesn’t work in terms of coping strategies and other important tasks used to help change maladaptive ways of thinking and behaviors. The big difference I see within this, however, is that Ellis seems to elude that this can cure people of mental illness, rather than just managing and decreasing symptoms. I also recognize that this could be my interpretation from what he is saying, as I felt like his chapters were hard to follow and read in general.

    After reading Meichenbaum’s chapter on internal dialogue I understand internal dialogue to be the thoughts/conversations people have with themself throughout the day in response to stimuli. These thoughts can be maladaptive or adaptive, which can influence behavior and either help or hinder handle situations day-to-day. Internal dialogue can be beneficial in the sense that clients can self-motivate in tough situations or generally go over situations that have happened, are happening, or may happen in the future to gain a better understanding. This relates to CBT as negative automatic thoughts about the self and about situations can lead to unhealthy coping skills. CBT is aimed to help change those negative automatic thoughts to help clients think more rationally and gain healthy coping skills/behaviors, just as Meichenbaum describes in the positive cognitive appraisals of the self and of situations.

    Reply

    • Melissa Pope
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 13:12:48

      In reguards to Ellis, I like how you mentioned that skewing of self help can have clients alter a realistic perspective on the situation. That if you think it, it will be, which as we all know is not reality. Very well put. I do agree that Ellis, although very similar to CBT has a more hardened approach and that you cant “cure” people just help them cope and manage.

      Reply

  7. Deanna Tortora
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 16:57:27

    (1) A. Reciprocal determinism refers to Bandura’s theory of psychological functioning as a constant reciprocal interaction between personal (thoughts and emotions), behavioral, and environmental determinants. In other words, the factors mutually interact with one another to impact psychological functioning and behavior. Bandura explained that one factor alone is not responsible for behavior or cognitions, but the factors all together that interact bidirectionally. That is, a child that is doing poorly in school can be the summation of: his emotional disturbances from academic struggles and parental stressors, not doing schoolwork because it is difficult to concentrate, and difficulty getting help from teachers as his environment (e.g. teachers, students, classroom) negatively interacts with or neglects him. The student’s personal determinants (i.e. emotions and thoughts of frustration, anxiety, stress, and self-worthlessness) and environmental determinants (i.e. poor home and school life) interact so that the student behaves in a specific way. In this case he struggles in school and exhibits challenging behaviors. But the student’s situation is not due to one single determinant, but the continuing interaction between the factors. Bandura’s theory also explains that behavior can be changed based on the understanding of reciprocal determinism. Meaning that, changing interactions between the factors can change behavior, personal factors, psychology, and even the environment. In the case of the student, the interaction between the student’s own personal factors and struggles are interacting with his school environment to further make his personal and environmental determinants maladaptive (e.g. student’s struggle with self-esteem and academics leads him to interact with his environment in a negative way that in turn makes the environment (e.g. teachers and students) also react negatively. The student’s experiences and behaviors also interact with the other factors and affect the behaviors that follow. In all, each of the factors interact with one another to lead to subsequent behaviors. The factors do not interact in one direction (i.e. personal determinants on environment) but bidirectionally (personal determinants on environment and environment on personal determinants), so that the experiences and response elicit behaviors. The student’s behavior elicits response from the teacher, and a social learning transaction or “reciprocal counteraction” can occur. But it can be very difficult to identify where the interactions begin and end. Some determinants can be stimuli, responses, and environmental reinforcers, depending on where in the sequence they are analyzed. Overall, Bandura explained that people are not “pawns” to their environment. Rather they are active and make contributions to their environment that impact the direction of their lives. With reciprocal determinism it is clear the relation to CBT. The idea of interactions and exchanges between factors in a person’s life, mirrors the idea in CBT that cognitions and behaviors interact to affect behaviors. Bandura and CBT agree that changes to specific factors can change both cognitions and behaviors. If a therapist is able to identify a client’s cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and environmental influences, changes in the factors (e.g. change in cognition) can change the client’s behavior.

    B. Bandura explains self-efficacy as an individual’s belief of being able to successfully execute a behavior called for by a certain situation. He explained that self-efficacy can be related to a person’s set goals and risks (i.e. self-efficacy impacts the goals a person sets and risks they are willing to takw), as well as the motivation for completing or engaging in behavior. That is, those with high self-efficacy are more likely to have higher goals and to be highly motivated to execute a behavior. The reward for completing/accomplishing the behavior and the negative appraisal of poor performance act as incentive for engaging in behavior. But before engaging in the behavior, an individual estimates if it can be expected that they can execute the behavior for the desired outcome (efficacy expectation), as well as what those outcomes will be (outcome expectation). If the rewards for completing the behavior are great, but the individual expects that they cannot complete the action necessary, they are not very likely to engage in the behavior (despite knowledge of the rewards). Bandura explained that self-efficacy is related to coping behavior, in that the individual’s expectations and outcomes impact the initiation and persistence of behavior and coping behavior. He explained that if an individual’s self-efficacy is enhanced (e.g. their expectations of efficacy), the individual will be able to engage in behaviors thought to be too challenging and/or cope with the situations that were deemed to difficult and threatening. Meaning that, if self-efficacy is improved individuals can experience a greater sense of effectiveness and possibility of success. This makes it more likely for the individual to try to cope with a situation. Self-efficacy relates to CBT in that if a client feels they have a high enough self-efficacy, they are more likely to cope with a challenging or threatening situation, rather than avoid it or give up. Bandura noted that research with treatments that involved modeling and “guided participation” (or “guided performance”) were quite successful at decreasing and eliminating maladaptive fears, avoidance, and inhibitions. He noted that modeling assists individuals to see that all different types of peoples with differing abilities can overcome specific situations, and that it is possible for them to as well. Bandura also explained that guided performance is an effective treatment. In this treatment the therapist assists the individual with successful coping techniques and skills for dealing with a situation, so that their self-efficacy can develop and they may overcome dysfunctional fears and inhibitions. Overall, Bandura’s self-efficacy research shows how important a client’s perceived efficacy is, along with what therapists can to do assist with developing adaptive efficacy and coping techniques.

    (2) Ellis’ REBT is similar to CBT in many ways:
    REBT focuses on working on behaviors and issues by self-monitoring/practice. Some CBT techniques involve self-monitoring when thoughts and behaviors occur, and the situations around them. REBT also encompasses this belief to a certain degree through monitoring thoughts, altering them, and practicing this process. Ellis also supported the importance of homework for some clients, a technique that is familiar to CBT.
    REBT like CBT, has a cognitive focus that includes reciprocal influences in cognitions, emotions and behaviors. Ellis explained, similar to Bandura, that certain situations, beliefs, cognitions, emotions and behaviors, interact. And how they interact can affect a person.
    Ellis also explained that in REBT cognitive distortions-rigid beliefs are responsible for emotional disturbance. To an extent CBT holds this belief as well, just not always cognitive distortions alone. CBT also deals with cognitive distortions (e.g. “all or none”, perfectionism, overgeneralization). But there is also a focus on behaviors in combination with cognitions. REBT supports that effective self-analysis of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and how to change them, can assist with emotional disturbance and thinking.
    Ellis did make a good point (one rather ahead of his time) about relaxation techniques and how they are not the long term answer for emotional distress and deeper seeded issues. He (redundantly) explained that self-analyses (as a cognitive intervention) give a more permanent treatment. CBT also follows this belief (rather it has perfected this philosophy).
    REBT differs a lot from CBT. Although it contains many similar practices to CBT, REBT is mostly “self-help”. It does not include much guidance from a therapist, nor a collaborative therapeutic relationship. REBT focuses too much on what the client thinks is the issue and the outcome of disturbances, rather than more realistic thinking and outcomes. For example, REBT focuses on irrational and rational thinking. But this can be tricky in the hands of an emotional disturbed person. They may not see what is truly rational and irrational. REBT is too much in the hands of a client. REBT techniques can go very wrong. It focuses too much on what the client thinks and not enough on trained outside views (therapist). Having the client observe and acknowledge their feelings is a two person tango. The client needs to be forthcoming, honest, and expressive, and the therapist needs to be supportive, help guide the client, and even push them when necessary. REBT has the client determine the appropriateness of changing thinking and behavior and what they feel will help them ‘get more of what [they] want out of life’ (p. 29). What the client sees as appropriate and what is actually appropriate, can be two different things. Hence the need for a trained therapist.
    REBT also focuses too much on perception. REBT supports that how we perceive an experience is what disturbs us and not the experience itself. While this can be and is true most of the time, it is not entirely true. How a woman perceives her rape is disturbing, but labeling the rape itself as not disturbing, is ignorant and inaccurate. Thus, another downfall in REBT.

    (3) Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” is the internal speech or self-talk that we have in our minds. Not unlike a child’s private speech. He explains that internal dialogue is useful for interpersonal instructions (using self-instructions to direct and control behavior), coping with stress (i.e. cognitive factors in stress) (e.g. how one perceives or appraises a given situation can impact how they cope with it), managing arousal (i.e. through appropriate internal and external attributions for certain situations) and cognitive structure (i.e. how one thinks, directs their thoughts, and whether these thoughts continue or cease). Positive changes in any of these phenomena of internal dialogue can be beneficial for clients that are struggling with anxiety and over arousal from negative or maladaptive thinking. That is, changing the internal dialogue of clients can be beneficial for their cognitions and consequential behaviors. Overall, internal dialogue appears to be one of the many important mechanisms in the way people think and how it can affect them (whether positively or negatively). It is clear how internal dialogue is relevant to modern CBT, as changing maladaptive cognitions can positively impact thinking as well as consequential behaviors. Therapists that help guide clients thinking (e.g. changing negative thoughts about self to more closely reflect reality) can assist with replacing more adaptive cognitions (e.g. “I’m not bad at everything, just this math problem”), and the following behaviors (e.g. not avoiding tasks out of fear of “inevitable” failure). Working on internal dialogue and replacing adaptive thinking, is related to the C in CBT! Internal dialogue is one of the things therapists need to work on with clients (and vice versa!), as how one thinks is powerful in life.

    Reply

    • Sam
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 13:54:32

      Deanna, I enjoyed reading your section on the differences between REBT and CBT. Specifically, your example regarding REBT’s theory that it is not the experience that disturbs us, but the way we perceive that experience. The example you provided perfectly depicts that in some situations, the experience itself can be equally, if not more disturbing than how we perceive it. This is something that I did not recognize when discussing differences in my post. Additionally, I like that you mentioned that REBT focuses a lot on what the client believes to be appropriate. Of course, in therapy, especially CBT, it is important that the therapist does not tell their clients what to do and should encourage them, however, therapy should be, like you mentioned, a “two person tango”. Both client and therapist should work together to identify the negative and treat unhelpful patterns of thinking in their client.

      Reply

  8. Melissa Pope
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 18:46:46

    According to Bandura, reciprocal determinism is the triad and understanding that a person’s behavior is influenced and influences personal factors and the environment. Self-efficacy in short is a person’s belief in their ability. This in turn effects how they perceive the world in terms of reciprocal determinism. An example could be a child with low self efficacy in their school performance, may act out in class, which affects how the teacher will respond to the child for acting out and the how the classroom environment in influenced by the acting out behavior. These events will reaffirm the child’s already low self-efficacy, and their ability to succeed in school. This is related to CBT, because a person’s beliefs, affect their developing cognitive biases, self-schemas and how they behave in the environment.

    Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior therapy is similar to CBT in that the way a client perceives a situation has a direct correlation with how they think about the situation and in turn effects their behavior. So a client must first be aware of, and understand that they have a problem in order to change and “fix” the problem. Usually this starts with placing the the importance of an individual rationally, self-analyzing and thinking for themselves, so that they can stop self-defeating thinking/ behavior. REBT and CBT differ in tactically how helping a client is approached. CBT approaches a client situation by considering the many different means for it existence before attempting to help the client “solve” the problem, whereas REBT is limited in its approach because of its simplification of therapy “the client has cognitive distortions and if we change these distortions we will solve the problem. “

    Meichenbaum’s “Internal dialogue” theory of thought explains how internal speech (thought processes) affect one’s cognitions, physiological reactions and their interpersonal experiences with others. The internal dialogue is the conversation a person has with themselves before making a decision and/or taking action. This is relevant to modern CBT because it is very closely related to what Beck (the father of modern CBT) referred to as “automatic thoughts”. Automatic thoughts are just what it states, they are thoughts that emerge automatically; that is, they come to the individual without any reflection, logical thinking, or reasoning. It could be argued that these “automatic thoughts”, create the cognitive structure that is required for an individual to have an internal dialogue.

    Reply

    • Sam
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 14:19:57

      Melissa, I liked how to related Meichenbaum’s internal dialogue theory to CBT’s automatic thoughts. This holds very true, because, for example, the internal dialogue of a person who has depression, such as “Therapy will never help me, I’m a lost cause” would deem similar when discussing their automatic thoughts in CBT–such that, a person struggling with depression may experience unrealistic and exaggerated automatic thoughts, especially when presented with an opportunity that, “This will never work, so why even bother”. Definitely a strong similarity between the two.

      Reply

    • Shannon O'Brien
      Sep 08, 2018 @ 08:45:27

      Melissa, I really like your example and elaboration of self-efficacy. Something that goes on outside of the home may then transfer into a school setting, then causing not only the child directly going through the situation to behave differently, but perhaps also the teacher and other students. This also is relatable to your comments on automatic thoughts…possibly on behalf of the teacher and other students as an immediate reaction to the child exhibiting new and potentially negative behaviors in the classroom. The example fits very well into your entire post and helps to tie in all of this weeks topics!

      Reply

    • Mikala Korbey
      Sep 08, 2018 @ 10:08:38

      Melissa, I liked your point about how automatic thoughts contribute to the cognitive structure required for internal dialogue. I did not think I thought about that while writing my discussion post and it is really something that made me think. I did not think about it in the way that these automatic thoughts make the way for internal dialogue until reading your post. But now that I think about it, someone’s internal dialogue is most likely directed by their automatic thoughts. Since automatic thoughts are quick and automatically, the individual uses these immediate reactions to situations to form their inner dialogue when trying to process situations.

      Reply

  9. Sam
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 19:19:46

    1. Banduras theory of reciprocal Determinism explores the concept that a person’s behavior both influences and can be influenced by three interlocking factors: behavior, personal characteristics and environment. By this I mean that, Bandura did not believe that there is only one determinant of behavior such as the environment or personal characteristics alone, rather, he theorized that all three factors mutually interact. In learning this theory, I found it best to be depicted in triangle form where behavior, environment and personal characteristics are labeled at each corner, and arrows are drawn to and from each word. This helps, visually, to explain that each of these components are influenced by each other and that people are shaped by their environment, but can also shape the environment itself.
    Further, Reciprocal determinism can be affected by what Bandura described as self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy, according to our class notes, are an individual’s beliefs that he or she is competent enough to successfully accomplish a task to produce a favorable outcome. From my understating, self-efficacy can be synonymous with a term we use quite often: confidence. Self-efficacy plays a major role in motivations for setting goals as well as determining our chances for success—such that, those with an optimistic sense of self are able to set high goals for themselves and have a stronger perseverance in pursuing them, whereas those with who perceive themselves as lacking self-efficacy are more vulnerable to having no goals, or goals that work against them. Bandura described four sources of self-efficacy beliefs that are listed in order of relative effectiveness: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal. I’ve learned that the greatest source of self-efficacy lies within mastery of experiences. It seems that there is nothing more powerful than having successfully mastered a controlling an environment. However, if a person experiences failure in a certain situation, it may undermine that efficacy belief. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that high self-efficacy requires experience in overcoming adversities with perseverance.
    Both constructs can be related to CBT as they relate to a person’s ability to view themselves optimistically and their belief in being able to deal with challenging situations as they occur. Our self-perceptions can in turn, affect our cognitions and emotional and physical states of arousal. Individuals with low self-efficacy, according to our class notes, become vulnerable to anxiety and hopelessness. Therefor, CBT can provide individuals with low self-efficacy certain interventions, such as changing dysfunctional thinking patterns and altering ineffective behaviors that can promote self-regulatory mechanisms for positive cognitive and behavioral change. CBT can help individuals identify unhelpful patterns of thinking when it comes to their self-confidence and abilities, can help to expose them to certain situation they avoid because of their beliefs and teach them how to be mindful of the present moment so they do not get caught up in their negative thoughts or worries.

    2. Although limited, similarities between Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) exist. REBT and CBT are both cognitive theories in which we find that a great focus is placed on an individual’s behaviors and how they correlate with their own attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts and how these affect their attitudes toward change. Additionally, both theories share the basic assumptions that our behaviors are influenced by our thoughts, emotions and environments—and that if our thoughts cause distorted emotions, then the thoughts should be changed.
    It seems to me that REBT has a simple structure compared to CBT. REBT is based on an ABC model (activating agent, beliefs, and consequences). Whereas in CBT, we find that the model can be more complex, but also more refined. Like REBT, CBT also contains a sort of ABC model that includes stressors (similar to the activating event), it has a reaction (similar to the consequence) and it also has beliefs. However, the CBT model of beliefs is further analyzed in terms of core beliefs, intermediate beliefs, and automatic thoughts. Still, one could argue that REBT is more complex in the sense that Albert Ellis stressed cognitive philosophical aspects in this model. By this I mean that, not only does REBT address distorted cognitions, it also focuses on the core of emotional disturbances. Therefore, when REBT analyzes and persons negative cognitions, it does not only focus on the evidence for their thoughts (CBT), but also focuses on why a person is having the thoughts in the first place—which I understand come from a deep demand or “dogmatic musts”. On the other hand, CBT is an evidence-based practice that’s focuses more so on the “evidence” in a person’s cognitions, and because of this, CBT can be favored by many treatment facilities because it has developed clear interventions as well as measurable solution-based outcomes. Finally, REBT highlights secondary irrational processes that are a result of “musts” or, in my own words, getting upset about being upset, whereas, CBT does not. In other words, if a person has an emotional or behavioral disturbance, the secondary process would be the person getting and disturbed about having a disturbance. REBT helps address and eliminate that secondary disturbance which makes it easier to address the core disturbance or actually eliminates the core disturbance all together. From my understanding, because individuals have these demands or “musts”, such as: “I must do well on this presentation”, and then develop these secondary thoughts “I must not be anxious about the presentation”, they become distracted by the thought that it is terrible to worry about something terrible. In this case, a difference between the two models is that REBT explains that having these negative thoughts and emotions should be accepted because humans are imperfect and all humans get anxious even when they prefer not to, whereas CBT would focus more on boosting a person’s self-esteem through self-rating (I’m not sure if this makes as much sense to you guys as it does in my head). So, if you feel that there is a better , less complicated way to explain the difference between REBT and CBT in terms of negative cognitions and self-acceptance please feel free to reply and share your thoughts!

    3. Donald Meichenbaum proposed the idea of internal dialogue that is central to the theory of behavior change. From my understanding, this phenomenon can be described as an inner commentary or voices in our head that help us to, in a sense, reflect on and change our thoughts and behaviors. This is different from simply having thoughts, because internal dialogue actually plays out as conversation between different parts of our self. Internal dialogue consists of three functions that serve to explain how internal dialogue can be successful in changing behaviors. These functions include: interpersonal instructions, cognitive factors in stress, along with instructional sets and physiological effects. Interpersonal instructions are effective in changing behavior as they can motivate and individual and also provide a set of rules and principles that can facilitate certain behaviors. Cognitive factors in stress promote behavior change as here, a person learns to cope with stressful situations, while instructional sets and physiological effects change behavior because once a person’s style of self-instruction is altered, they may no longer view physiological arousals as debilitating, rather, they learn that these arousals are a cue to put the coping strategies they have learned into effect. However, although these three factors promote behavior change, Meichenbaum explains another important concept in the structure of internal dialogue, that actually sounds similar and relates to cognitive reconstructing in CBT and even the philosophical elements of REBT. This concept involves a therapist working to change a client’s cognitive structure. Along with using the three factors previously mentioned, interpersonal dialogue also questions why a person has the self-statements they do and works to change them. Like CBT, in altering a person’s cognitive structures and internal dialogue influences positive behavior change.

    Reply

    • Jayson Hidalgo
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 12:13:53

      During your discussion about the differences between CBT and REBT, I wish i understood and wrote about how CBT and REBT varied about their focus on an individual’s cognitive process. CBT and REBT both focus on interpreting an individual’s cognition and how it affects his or her behavior, however, the point that I wish i thought of was when you mentioned how REBT focuses more on the origin of the thoughts, about where this thought came from. From my limited knowledge on CBT, I do not think CBT really focuses on the origin of thoughts, but rather just tends to modify the thoughts of the person.

      Reply

      • Sam
        Sep 07, 2018 @ 12:38:46

        Thanks, Jayson! I’m just realizing now that in that section I wrote that the similarities between both models are limited, but that actually is not accurate because they are very similar in many ways. Maybe I was thinking about something else!

        Reply

    • Becca Green
      Sep 08, 2018 @ 18:09:17

      Hi Sam! I had never thought of self-efficacy as confidence. You make a simple but important point that these two are very similar, even synonymous with one another. This makes me think of different ways you can present ideas to clients, using more common words to help explain or have a client understand something can make a huge difference in the therapeutic relationship and for the outcomes for the client.

      Reply

  10. Jayson Hidalgo
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 21:05:04

    Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism focuses on the individual, the individual’s behavior, and the environment. Bandura states that an individual’s internal personal factors, the individual’s behavior, and the environment influence one another. The internal personal factors consist of the individual’s personality and thoughts which can influence how he or she behaves, on the other hand, the individual’s behavior can influence how the individual’s thinks. Due to the internal personal factors affecting behavior, it will influence environment. The environment can influence behaviors because the environment can be set up to allow rewards or benefits to certain types of behaviors, thus the individual will perform those appropriate behaviors that will allow him or her to obtain such benefits from the environment. On the other hand, an individual’s behavior can influence his or her environment. For instance, a person’s social behavior can determine the mood of a conversation with someone (social environment). Consequently, an environment can alter an individual’s behavior and an individual’s behavior can alter their environment. Bandura’s thoughts on self-efficacy begins by stating that cognitive process is an important role in developing behaviors. If the individual does not have high self-efficacy then the individual will avoid threatening situations and not put in much effort in aversive experiences. Those with high self-efficacy will result in putting more effort and persist longer within threatening situations. Personal efficacy has four sources that are: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological stress. Performance accomplishments focuses on mastery experiences, in other words, every time a person accomplishes or finds success in something, their self-efficacy increases. Vicarious experience focuses on people’s self-efficacy increases by observing others perform behaviors that do not lead to aversive consequences and thus the individual thinks he or she can do it and experience a similar successful consequence by performing such a behavior. Verbal persuasion helps increase a person’s self-efficacy by having the individual be convinced that he or she can achieve such success with appropriate behaviors. Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy relate to CBT as the two concepts both focus on changing an individual’s behavior. Furthermore, self-efficacy seems to relate to CBT more than reciprocal determinism because self-efficacy involves more of trying to alter an individual’s cognitive activity or belief which can enhance their self-efficacy and their behavior. For instance, vicarious experience, an individual’s cognitive process is altered as their belief of performing such a behavior can lead to positive consequences by observing someone else perform the behavior with zero aversive consequences, thus it will make him or her perform the behavior.
    Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and CBT share similarities and differences. Focusing on similarities, REBT and CBT both involve a therapist repeatedly modifying an individual’s cognitive activity. The therapist tries to make the client understand their thoughts and hopefully since the client has a new understanding or awareness over their behavior, this cognitive change will lead to a change in their behavior. Another similarity is that the therapist tries to make the client become independent. In therapy, the therapist will help the client to think straight, however the therapist sets boundaries about what he or she can do for the client. For instance, the therapist cannot think for the client and the therapist tries to teach the client to rely on themselves rather than on the therapist. Thus, the client can learn to become less dependent on the therapist and function on their own. Another similarity is that clients perform work between sessions. For instance, the REBT and CBT therapist both give their clients homework assignments to practice their behavior change. A difference between CBT and REBT is that REBT focuses on how thoughts can create emotions and these emotions can be broken down into appropriate feelings or inappropriate emotions. REBT focuses on thoughts, emotions, and behavior while CBT seems to only focus on thoughts and behaviors. Ellis gives examples of how REBT works, for example, an individual thinks certain negative thoughts before going into an interview and tells himself or herself that he or she will make a fool out of himself or herself. These thoughts convert the person to feel horrible and thus alter their behaviors.
    Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” is a form of an individual’s cognition that can be used to affect behavior. Internal dialogue or inner speech is basically the individual providing self-statements or simply talking to himself or herself, but not verbally. This relates to CBT since a person’s thoughts affected their behavior. For instance, there were two people who gave a public speech and the two people differed by having different levels of anxiety. During the speech, the individuals performed inner speech during their speech whenever someone would leave the room during their speech. The two people’s inner speech differed, the high level anxiety person said things to himself like “that person must have had something else to do” and the low level anxiety person said things like “I must be boring”. The point to point out is that the two people differed in how they viewed the arousal (the person leaving the room during the speech) and had different inner speeches about themselves. These then led to the different performances or behaviors of the two during the speech. Overall, what Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” is trying to say is that it is not the event itself that makes the client change their behavior, but it is how the client perceives the event which causes him or her to say things to himself or herself which will thus affect their behavior. This follows a CBT approach, since the individual’s inner speech (cognitive) can affect their behavior by how he or she views the arousal or event.

    Reply

    • Shannon O'Brien
      Sep 08, 2018 @ 08:32:56

      You did a really nice job of highlighting main similarities and differences of REBT and CBT in a simple way. I like your comment on what you called “boundaries” that the therapist may set not only for the client, but for themselves in regards to promoting independence for the client. Additionally, I think your interpretation of internal dialogue was spot on and I wish I elaborated more on perceptions in my post. Perception varies greatly from one person to another, and that is so important for therapists to consider while working with clients in order to challenge and change maladaptive ones, and then maintain healthier ones.

      Reply

  11. Nicole Plona
    Sep 05, 2018 @ 22:48:39

    When it comes to Bandura’s thoughts on reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy, my understanding of it was that an individual person have control over their own behavior. The idea is that an environment is not always changing a person’s behavior, but instead there is a mutual rotation and interaction between different factors that all affect and change each other. In other words, an environment can help shape one’s behavior but a person’s behavior or other personal factors can change an environment as well. With this idea, Bandura believed that a person has the ability to imagine a potential future for themselves and then change their behaviors to potentially meet the imagined future outcome. A big component to that being possible is a person having motivation for change. These ideas go along with CBT because they are putting the theoretical power in the individual’s hands. During CBT a client must want to change whatever negative behaviors they have in order for the process to be successful. On top of that they have to have the motivation to make the changes in their lives, a counselor is only there to help guide and not make the actual changes. If a counselor acknowledges the idea that a client’s behavior is effected by and affects their surroundings, it may become easier for them to develop appropriate strategies to meet the goals set in place.

    After reading the Ellis article I could see that at a surface level REBT and CBT are similar. To start, they both focus in on the idea that the negative thoughts and behaviors people have need to be addressed and changed in order to better the quality of a person’s life. In both therapies a person has to work on changing these maladaptive behaviors but by very different means. REBT focuses heavily on a person acknowledging their negative behaviors but instead focusing of more positive thoughts instead. While thinking this idea over I continued to this of the line “look good feel good” but instead I think a better slogan would be “fake it until you make it”. I feel as though, for example, if a person is depressed, repeating to themselves that they are now happy won’t actually change how they feel deep down. It instead seems like more of a temporary fix. On the other hand, CBT works on both realizing what negative behaviors and thoughts are present and then getting to the root of their existence. This way a plan and goals can be set in place to properly fix the issues.

    To put it simply, Meichenbaum’s “internal dialogue” is when a person talks to themselves. Meichenbaum thoughts around the idea of internal dialogue was that it could positively affect a person’s behaviors. When I think about this type of self-talk in a person the idea of a mental filter pops into my head. It’s that little imaginary voice in your head that makes you slowdown to be able to stop and think about what the best action or response might be in any particular situation. Internal dialogue can lead to less awkward or inappropriate interactions with other people and environments by making a person think before they act. CBT can greatly benefit from internal dialogues because it’s where a person acknowledges their thoughts before acting on them. If a person has negative thought processes and they have set goals for themselves to reach, an internal dialogue could help them talk themselves down to a more rational interpretation of the situation at hand. This process can then lead to lower stress levels and a way to create a better environment.

    Reply

    • Mikala Korbey
      Sep 07, 2018 @ 19:37:44

      In your post you mentioned that Bandura believed a person has the ability to imagine future potential. I did not pick up on that while reading and that point made me think about it and that this idea could influence self-efficacy. This is because it affects an individual’s motivation to fulfill their future potential. If an individual does not believe they can meet their future potential. And like you said, this could be a topic of discussion during CBT treatment, just as you mentioned in your post.

      Reply

  12. Mikala Korbey
    Sep 06, 2018 @ 06:09:07

    According to Bandura, psychological functioning is repeated reciprocal interactions between personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. Reciprocal means mutual actions between events occur. The interactions between these factors each shape the individual’s experiences and how they view the world. Using CBT, a therapist can change how someone views interactions and this will in turn shape how their world works. If an the individual’s thoughts and behaviors can be changed, their experiences in their environment will be changed as well.
    Expectations about one’s efficacy, will determine how much effort and individual put in and how much time they spend facing obstacles. Additionally, perceived self efficacy affect how the individual copes. According to Bandura, there are four sources that contribute to an individual’s expectations of personal efficacy: the individuals performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Individual’s develop expectations for themselves, based on their previous personal mastery of experiences. They also develop expectations by seeing other do activities without any serious consequences, that they perceive as dangerous or anxiety provoking. For example, if an individual seems someone else overcome a phobia and did so with minimal consequences, they are more likely to be willing to work on their phobia because they know someone else did it. Additionally, if an individual is made to believe that they can cope with difficulties successfully, then they are more likely to be able to better cope in the future. Finally, individuals also somewhat rely on their arousal state when judging their anxiety about certain situations. In situations they are very aroused and alert in, they may see that as a situation that causes them anxiety. All of these factors help an individual create expectations they have for themselves, and about their beliefs in their ability to do things. Using CBT, a therapist could help the individual develop better and more appropriate expectations for themselves, therefore leading them to have better experiences which will in turn improve their self efficacy.
    REBT and CBT have some similarities such as using thoughts to change behavior and emotions. The example given in the Ellis article was about a man who changes his thinking about his wife, maybe not in the best way, but nonetheless, uses self talk to not let his wife take advantage of him. Additionally, they both involve the client doing work/homework outside of therapy, and both forms of therapy involve the client thinking for themselves. In Ellis’ theory about REBT, an individual can change their thoughts, which will change their behaviors and interactions with their environment. This concept holds true in CBT as well, changing the individual’s thoughts to eventually change their behavior and experiences in their environment. Some differences between the two are, CBT is very client based and the idea of it is to not need the therapist but with REBT, there is the notion of needing the therapist’s intervention. Also, CBT is centered around the client’s centered around automatic thoughts and changing negative thoughts to more positive ones. Finally, REBT is centered around self-analysis and irrational beliefs.
    According to Meichenbaum, there are three main functions of inner speech: interpersonal instructions, cognitive factors in stress response and effects of instructional sets on physiological reactions. Internal dialogue directs the individual’s attention to current and relevant stimuli, assists the individual in coming up with solutions during problem solving tasks and helps to keep current information in the short term memory. This inner speech is important in processing sensory input and aids in comprehension of stimuli in their current situation.
    Also, this internal dialogue affects coping skills, especially during times of high stress. An individual’s internal speech can either help or hurt them during times of stress. The individual may have a good, positive internal dialogue and may be able to help themselves create solutions and stay calm, or their internal dialogue may cause them to become anxious and stressed. Internal dialogue relates to CBT because therapists can teach their client to change their dialogue if it is negative and/or causes them to become anxious, for example. Working towards changing poor internal dialogue will change how the individual perceives stressors in their environment, how they react in potentially stressful situations, and will improve their psychological wellbeing.

    Reply

    • Deanna Tortora
      Sep 06, 2018 @ 22:55:03

      Mikala, I really like how you mentioned that inner speech and perceptions are connected. How true it is! How we perceive something can impact how we react to the environment and potential stressors. I also thought this aspect of internal dialogue was important. I like how you mentioned one of the methods of CBT where therapists work with clients to change their internal dialogues and how they think of something.You made me think of how all these writers that the class discussed, in one way or another, were trying to explain the importance of perceptions on our cognitions and consequential behaviors (and even vice versa). Well if so many people are writing about this “thinking” stuff and the “way” they think, it must be important!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Adam M. Volungis, PhD, LMHC

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 48 other followers

%d bloggers like this: