Response to Ellis' Discussion of “Science and Philosophy: Comparison of Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy”

The author largely agrees with Christine A. Padesky and Aaron T. Beck’s (2003) article, “Science and Philosophy: Comparison of Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy,” disagrees with several of its statements about REBT, and particularly objects to Padesky and Beck’s view that the fundamental difference between CT and REBT is that the former therapy is empirically based and the latter is philosophically based.

Download Full-text

Similarities and Differences Between Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and Cognitive Therapy

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy ◽

10.1891/jcop.17.3.225.52535 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 225-240 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Albert Ellis

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Therapy ◽

Behavior Therapy ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy ◽

Outcome Studies ◽

Emotive Behavior ◽

Practical Applications ◽

Neurotic Disorders ◽

Rational Emotive ◽

Similarities And Differences ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior

The main theoretical and practical applications of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) and Cognitive Therapy (CT) are examined and found to be similar to each other in most respects, but REBT bases its concepts of improved treatment of neurotic disorders and of severe personality dysfunctioning largely on philosophical, existential, and humanistic bases, while CT tends to align them with empirical results of outcome studies. Both REBT and CT, however, use philosophic and empirical outcome studies to construct and validate their theories.

Download Full-text

Science and Philosophy: Comparison of Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy ◽

10.1891/jcop.17.3.211.52536 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 211-224 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Christine A. Padesky ◽

Aaron T. Beck

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Therapy ◽

Behavior Therapy ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy ◽

Subsequent Development ◽

Emotive Behavior ◽

Albert Ellis ◽

Treatment Protocols ◽

Guided Discovery ◽

Rational Emotive ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior

Aaron T. Beck’s Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Albert Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) are compared. A major difference between these therapies is that CT is an empirically based therapy and REBT is philosophically based. The origins and subsequent development of the therapies are reviewed with this difference highlighted. Comparisons between CT and REBT practice are made regarding attitudes toward client beliefs, use of guided discovery, types of cognition addressed, and the nature of the client-therapist relationship. The scientific foundations of CT are summarized in terms of the specificity of its conceptual models, the construction of targeted treatment protocols, and empirical findings that support both CT conceptualizations and treatments.

Download Full-text

Response to Ellis’ Discussion of “Science and Philosophy: Comparison of Cognitive Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy”

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy ◽

10.1891/jcop.19.2.187.66795 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 187-189

Author(s):

Christine A. Padesky ◽

Aaron T. Beck

Keyword(s):

Treatment Outcome ◽

Cognitive Therapy ◽

Empirical Analysis ◽

Behavior Therapy ◽

Relapse Prevention ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy ◽

Emotive Behavior ◽

Rational Emotive ◽

Rational Emotive Behavior ◽

Treatment Manuals

These authors appreciate Ellis’ clarification that he encourages REBT therapists to use many of the same principles and methods used by CT therapists. His assertions that many of these elements are done more frequently or thoroughly in REBT than in CT are best evaluated by objective observers via empirical analysis of therapy transcripts, session videotapes, and treatment manuals. Such research would have particular value if it linked therapy methods with treatment outcome and relapse prevention for particular problems. In this regard, Ellis’ recommendation that REBT become more empirical is welcome. Also, these authors clarify the distinction they make between the terms philosophical and philosophically-based; empirically responsive and empirically-based. Finally, the authors applaud Ellis’ major contributions to the field.

Download Full-text