Ellis vs. Beck, exhibit A

My understanding is this:

Beck's theory and similar theories look at distorted thought patterns as strong contributors to emotional distress. Much distress is caused by jumping to false conclusions, disqualifying the positive, and making similar cognitive errors.

Ellis's theory is similar, but he emphasizes a hierarchy of irrational thought. He postulates that Demandingness (shoulds, musts, oughts, etc.) is at the core of emotional disturbance. Other irrational thoughts, such as low frustration tolerance, awfulizing, and personal damnation are derivative of the demanding thought.

Example: a client complains that "my mother doesn't love me."

A Beck-trained cognitive therapist might ask, "where is the evidence that your mother doesn't love you?" or "How do you know this is the case?" or "What does that mean to you, if your mother doesn't love you?"

An Ellis-trained therapist would likely look at the core demand - "MY MOTHER MUST LOVE ME, OTHERWISE IT IS AWFUL AND UNBEARABLE," and confront it. This therapist may ask, "Why is it AWFUL if your mother does not love you," or "Does that take away your every chance at happiness and a fulfilling life if your mother does not love you," or "Why is it necessary for you to have your mother's love? Could you not survive without it?"

The Ellis scholars will tell you that Beck makes an error, in that the client may be right - perhaps the client's mother DOESN'T love him. Ellis claims that disputing the worst possible scenario and learning to cope with that is a much more effective solution. If the core assumption is wrong and the client's mother DOES love him, then all is well.

The Beck scholars will tell you that such assumptions are faulty more often than not, and looking for evidence of those assumptions can help the therapist determine whether it is even necessary to prepare for the worst possible scenario.

Anyway, I could be wrong or off-target with some of this. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting one is better than the other. I am also intrigued by Meichenbaum's idea of doing Narrative/Constructivist therapy with a cognitive agenda (or is it Cognitive therapy with a Narrative style?)

I believe the question is not, "which is better," but "which is better for the client sitting in front of me right now?" Some techniques work better for some folks, others work better for others. I suggest learning all you can about one theory (just choose one) and practicing until you get good at it; then learn all you can about the other. When you're adept at both, try integrating the two with your own style and intuition.

Sorry to ramble on for so long.
Willie

Replies:

Ellis vs. Beck, exhibit B, by Jim Pretzer, 8/18/99 Re: Ellis vs. Beck, exhibit C, by Wayne Froggatt, 12/31/99 Re: Ellis vs. Beck, exhibit C, by Quinto Emilio, 12/09/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.