20. 挑战自我破坏性的信念

挑战自毁信念

阿尔伯特·埃利斯引入了挑战他所谓的非理性信念的想法，并发展了一种现在称为理性情绪行为疗法（Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, REBT）的咨询模型。我们将简要介绍理性情绪行为疗法的基础，然后讨论在整合咨询方法中挑战自毁信念的有用性。

理性情绪行为疗法 (REBT)

理性情绪行为疗法的核心是Dryden和Neenan（2004）描述的ABCDE模型。该模型的图示如图20.1所示。

该模型基于非理性信念的概念。假设如图20.1所示的一系列事件发生，导致一个人经历不舒服的情绪或从事适应不良的行为。字母ABCDE分别是描述这一序列的词的首字母。字母A代表序列的第一阶段，即激活事件。根据REBT理论，激活事件触发了一个由B代表的非理性信念。这一非理性信念的后果（C）是人的反应，涉及无益的情绪或行为。D代表咨询师质疑非理性信念的阶段，帮助人用更具建设性的信念取代非理性信念。最后，E代表质疑的效应，结果是人有望体验到更有益的情绪和行为。一旦非理性信念被质疑并被更有用的信念取代，预计未来的类似激活事件将导致更积极的后果，因为人在经过A、B和C阶段时会有更好的表现。

可以看出，REBT方法不鼓励人表达情绪，而是鼓励他们关注自己的信念和行为。

在整合咨询方法中挑战自毁信念

我们都有权拥有自己的态度、信念和思想。它们属于我们，没有人有权告诉我们应该改变它们。我们的态度本质上是我们的，我们有权选择相信和思考什么，以及不选择什么。因此，咨询师需要尊重寻求帮助的人的权利。然而，咨询师的一个重要角色是帮助人们改变，使他们感觉更好。正如第15章所讨论的，作为整合咨询师，我们认为如果同时解决情绪、思想和行为，就能实现最有效的长期改变。为了实现这一点，重要的是探索人的态度、信念和思想。虽然任何对态度、信念和思想的改变都必须由寻求帮助的人根据自己的选择来完成，但咨询师有合法的责任帮助他们认识到自己的态度、信念和思想可能是自毁的。如果寻求帮助的人的态度、信念和思想不一致或可能产生社会不良后果，咨询师可能会对其进行对峙（见第19章），有关伦理问题请参见第40章。虽然我们作为咨询师没有权利将自己的价值观强加给寻求帮助的人，但帮助他们认识到自己的选择显然是我们职责的一部分，也是我们的责任。通过帮助一个人将可用的选择带入焦点，他们可以有能力做出新的选择，如果这些选择适合他们并且适当，那么他们的情绪、思想和行为就可以发生积极的变化。

许多人都没有意识到，如果他们愿意，可以通过改变思维方式或持有的信念来帮助自己过上更满意的生活。许多人坚持一些对他们无益甚至可能是自毁的信念。

正如前所述，REBT的创始人埃利斯提出了挑战非理性或自毁信念的想法。我们认为，使用“自毁”这个词往往比“非理性”更有优势，因为有些自毁的信念并不一定是非理性的。我们发现，有时当我们使用“非理性”这个词时，寻求帮助的人会正确地争辩说他们的信念并不是非理性的。咨询师与寻求帮助的人争论显然是没有帮助的。另外，如果建议他们的信念是非理性的，有些人可能会感到冒犯，因为大多数人喜欢认为自己是理性的。相比之下，如果我们温和地建议他们的某些信念可能对他们无益，因此是自毁的，他们可能更愿意接受我们的建议。

自毁信念（SDBs）的分类

我们认为自毁信念（SDBs）可以分为两类：

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念
- 这类信念通常涉及对自身或他人的严格要求，可能导致不现实的期望和自我压力。例如，“我必须完美”或“每个人都应该喜欢我”。
涉及不切实际期望的信念
- 这类信念涉及对结果的不切实际预期，可能导致失望和挫败感。例如，“我每次考试都必须得满分”或“我必须在工作中得到所有人的认可”。

通过识别和挑战这些自毁信念，咨询师可以帮助求助者发展更健康、更现实的信念，从而改善他们的情绪和行为。

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念

人们经常使用“我应该”、“我必须”、“我应当”或“我不得不”这样的词语来表达观点。有时，这些词语是带着热情、坚定和意义说出来的，很明显，这个人对自己“应该做”、“必须做”、“应当做”或认为“不得不做”的事情感到满意——这是好的。但在其他时候，这些词语是以一种不令人信服的方式说出的，好像有另一个人在对他们说“你应该”、“你必须”、“你应当”或“你不得不”，而这个人则是勉强、不情愿且可能带有怨恨地接受了这一信息。当这种情况发生时，他们可能会感到困惑和情绪困扰。如果他们遵从“应该”信息，他们可能会像一个小孩子那样不情愿且痛苦地按照别人的指示行事。他们不会觉得自己完全掌控了自己的生活，也不会认为自己的行为是出于自己的选择。另一方面，如果他们忽视“应该”信息，他们可能会感到内疚，随之带来负面的结果。在这种情况下，咨询的目标是帮助人们对自己的决定感到更加舒适，以便他们在做出选择时能够心甘情愿，而不会有怨恨或内疚的感觉。只要潜在的问题得到正确和充分的解决，这一目标通常是可实现的。

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念来自哪里？

作为孩子，我们在一个没有经验的世界中成长。我们不知道对错之分，也无法区分好行为和坏行为。然而，我们最初从父母和近亲那里学习，然后从其他人如老师、朋友和社会或宗教领袖那里学习。我们从关心我们的人那里学习，通过他们口头告诉我们的内容以及通过观察和模仿他们的行为逐渐吸收了一套价值观、态度和信念。这样做是正确和恰当的。

随着我们从童年到青少年的成长，我们会开始挑战和反抗从他人那里吸收的一些信念。有趣的是，许多人到年轻成年时，仍然保留了大部分父母的价值观和信念，而拒绝了一些。作为孩子，我们显然应该学习和吸收父母和其他重要人物的信念。因为我们作为孩子经验有限，无法为自己做出成熟的判断。作为成年人，我们有经验，每个人都有权确定哪些信念适合自己，哪些不适合。我们可以保留适合的，拒绝不适合的，并用新的、更适合的信念来替代。

不符合的信念

有时，当一个人使用“应该”、“必须”、“应当”或“不得不”这样的词语时，他们是在陈述一个起源于童年的信念，他们仍然坚持这一信念，但这一信念现在对他们不再适用。如果他们真正接受了这一信念，他们更可能会说“我决定”、“我想”或“我选择”，而不是“我应该”、“我必须”、“我应当”或“我不得不”。当然，我们描述的是普遍情况，并非总是如此。重要的是我们要鼓励寻求帮助的人，让他们认为自己的选择在道德上是正确的，适合他们自己，而不是将决策归因于他人强加的外部道德规范或童年条件反射。

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”的问题

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”的问题是，这些词语在思维层面被相信，但在情感层面却不舒服。当思维层面和情感层面出现不一致时，人会感到困惑和情绪困扰。人类是整体性的存在，我们不能将情感感受、身体感觉、思维和精神体验分开成独立的部分。它们相互关联，只有和谐一致，我们才能感到整合和舒适。

挑战“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念

有时，一个人会使用“我应该”这样的陈述，然后表现出不愿意去做他们说应该做的事情。在这种情况下，提高他们对自己内部状态的意识是有用的，这样他们可以更全面地了解自己的选择。我们喜欢向他们解释很多“我应该”信息的来源，并询问他们认为这个特定的“我应该”信息来自哪里。然后我们鼓励他们检查这条信息是否让他们感到舒服。如果舒服，那很好；如果不舒服，他们可以选择挑战“我应该”信息，并可能用更舒服的东西替代它。或者，他们可能决定这条信息适合他们，并更乐意接受它。在帮助人们挑战“应当”、“必须”和“不得不”陈述时，也可以采用类似的方法。

涉及不切实际期望的信念

许多自毁信念涉及对自己、他人或世界的不切实际期望。其中一些信念会导致使用“应该”、“必须”或“应当”这样的词语，但其他则不会。像前面描述的自毁信念一样，这些信念通常是在童年时期从他人那里吸收的。一个涉及不切实际期望的好例子是认为生活将是公平和公正的信念。生活经验清楚地表明，生活往往是不公平和不公正的，因此假设生活将是公平和公正是没有帮助的，这会让人产生不切实际的期望。一个更有帮助的信念可能是：“不幸的是，生活并不总是公平和公正的。如果我能接受这一点，那么我可能能够做出明智的决定来应对那些不公平和不公正的事情。”

通过识别和挑战这些自毁信念，咨询师可以帮助求助者发展更健康、更现实的信念，从而改善他们的情绪和行为。

对他人抱有不切实际的期望

我们经常听到人们说：“她应该……”，“人们应该……”和“他们应当……”。通过说这样的话，说话者假设其他人会有与他们相同的价值观，并将自己的期望强加给他人。这样做是不现实的，因此也是没有帮助的。咨询师经常遇到由于他人未能达到他们的期望而感到沮丧的人。然而，当他们认识到自己的期望是不现实的，他们常常会感到一种失落感，需要被允许哀悼。例如，一个人可能会说：“我本以为我的哥哥会关心我，但他并没有。” 认识到这一点后，这个人会失去期望，并可能因这种失落而感到悲伤。

表20.1 常见的自毁信念及其有益的替代方案

自毁信念	有益的替代方案
我绝不能犯错误。	不犯错误的唯一方法是什么都不做。我是活跃的，所有活跃的人都会犯错误。
其他人不应该犯错误。	没有人是完美的。我可以接受其他人会犯错误。
其他人让我生气。	当我不接受其他人不符合我的期望时，我会让自己生气。
其他人应该符合我的期望。	其他人不需要符合我的期望。
我的幸福取决于他人的行为和态度。	我的幸福来自内心，不依赖于他人。
我必须符合他人的期望。	我不需要符合他人的期望才能过得好。
我必须赢。	按照平均法则，大多数人只有一半的时间会赢。我不需要赢才能感觉良好。
生活应该是公平和公正的。	生活不是公平和公正的。
如果他人没有与我相同的信念、态度和价值观，他们就是坏人。	并非所有好人都有相同的信念、态度和价值观。
我必须随心所欲。	我不需要随心所欲才能感觉良好，有时让别人随心所欲也能让我感到满足。
我需要他人的认可才能感觉良好。	得到他人的认可是好事，但我不需要他们的认可才能感觉良好。
我必须总是取悦他人。	期望我总能取悦他人是不现实的。
我永远不能生气。	有时候生气是可以的。
我应该总是快乐。	有快乐的时候，也有悲伤的时候。
我不能哭。	哭泣是可以的。
如果有人误解我，我就不能快乐。	有人会误解我，这是不可避免的。但我知道自己是好的，这才是重要的。

挑战涉及不切实际期望的信念

如果一个人表达了一个自毁信念，鼓励他们通过提问来质疑这个信念是有用的，比如问：“期望生活会公平和公正是否现实？”通过这样做，这个人很可能挑战自己关于生活应该公平和公正的自毁信念。如果他们这样做，你可以邀请他们提出一个更有用的替代方案。你可能希望向他们解释自毁信念和有益信念之间的区别。然后，你可以鼓励他们写下一份自毁信念清单，并用更有益的替代方案来替换它们。记住，一个人有权保留你认为无益的信念，如果他们愿意的话。这是他们的选择，所以不要试图说服他们改变。然而，你可以建议他们考虑继续持有这些信念的后果。

在挑战自毁信念时，技巧和细心是必不可少的。理想情况下，挑战应来自当事人，而不是咨询师。

结论

如前所述，本章中表达的观点源自REBT，尽管与这里描述的方法不同，理性情绪行为治疗师通常直接挑战和说服寻求帮助的人，并将自毁信念描述为非理性的。如果这种方法对你有吸引力，你可以在掌握了基本的咨询技能后进一步学习REBT（见“参考文献和进一步阅读”）。

学习总结

挑战自毁信念的想法源自REBT。
自毁信念包括涉及不切实际期望的“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念。
许多自毁信念来自童年时期吸收的信息。
自毁信念可以被挑战，以用建设性的信念替代。

参考文献和进一步阅读

Dryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2004, The Rational Emotive Behavioural Approach to Therapeutic Change, SAGE, London.
Dryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2014, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques, 2nd edn, Routledge, East Sussex.
Ellis, A. & Dryden, W. 2007, The Practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, 2nd edn, Springer, New York.

本章知识点阐述

挑战自毁信念

引言

理性情绪行为疗法 (REBT)

核心概念

理性情绪行为疗法的核心是Dryden和Neenan（2004）描述的ABCDE模型。该模型的图示如图20.1所示。

字母	描述
A	激活事件（Activating Event）
B	信念（Beliefs - 理性的或非理性的）
C	后果（Consequences - 情绪或行为上的）
D	质疑非理性信念（Disputing Irrational Beliefs）
E	质疑的效应（Effects of Disputing Irrational Beliefs）

应用

激活事件 (A)：某个事件触发了一系列反应。
信念 (B)：该事件触发了一个非理性信念。
后果 (C)：非理性信念导致了无益的情绪或行为。
质疑 (D)：咨询师帮助求助者质疑这些非理性信念，用更具建设性的信念替代。
效应 (E)：通过质疑，求助者有望体验到更有益的情绪和行为。

一旦非理性信念被质疑并被更有用的信念取代，预计未来的类似激活事件将导致更积极的后果，因为人在经过A、B和C阶段时会有更好的表现。

在整合咨询方法中挑战自毁信念

尊重与责任

尊重个体：我们都有权拥有自己的态度、信念和思想。咨询师需要尊重寻求帮助的人的权利。
帮助改变：咨询师的重要角色是帮助人们改变，使他们感觉更好。
多方面解决：作为整合咨询师，我们认为同时解决情绪、思想和行为是最有效的长期改变方法。

探索与挑战

探索态度、信念和思想：重要的是探索人的态度、信念和思想。
温和建议：虽然任何改变都必须由求助者自己选择，但咨询师有责任帮助他们认识到自己的态度、信念和思想可能是自毁的。
对峙：如果求助者的信念和行为不一致或可能产生社会不良后果，咨询师可以进行对峙。

使用“自毁”而非“非理性”

避免争议：使用“自毁”这个词可以避免与求助者发生争议，因为有些人可能会争辩说他们的信念并非非理性。
更容易接受：与建议信念是非理性相比，温和地建议某些信念可能对他们无益，因此是自毁的，求助者可能更愿意接受。

自毁信念的分类

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念
- 例子：我必须成功，否则我就是一个失败者。
- 影响：这种信念可能导致过度压力和焦虑。
涉及不切实际期望的信念
- 例子：每个人都应该喜欢我。
- 影响：这种信念可能导致社交焦虑和自尊心受损。

结论

通过挑战自毁信念，咨询师可以帮助求助者认识到并改变那些不利于他们生活的信念，从而实现情绪、思想和行为的积极变化。这种方法不仅有助于个人的心理健康，还能提高他们的生活质量。

进一步阅读

Dryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2004, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: Theoretical Developments and Practical Applications, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
Ellis, A. 1962, Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy, Lyle Stuart, New York.

“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念

概述

人们经常使用“我应该”、“我必须”、“我应当”或“我不得不”这样的词语来表达观点。这些词语在不同情境下有不同的含义和影响。

信念的正面与负面影响

正面影响：当这些词语是带着热情、坚定和意义说出来的，表示个人对某事有强烈的内在动机，这种情况下这些信念是有益的。
负面影响：当这些词语是以不令人信服的方式说出的，表示个人可能是在外界压力下勉强接受这些信念，这种情况下这些信念可能导致情绪困扰和行为问题。

咨询目标

在这些情况下，咨询的目标是帮助人们对自己的决定感到更加舒适，使他们在做出选择时能够心甘情愿，而不会有怨恨或内疚的感觉。只要潜在的问题得到正确和充分的解决，这一目标通常是可实现的。

信念的来源

童年学习

初始学习：作为孩子，我们在一个没有经验的世界中成长。我们最初从父母和近亲那里学习，然后从其他人如老师、朋友和社会或宗教领袖那里学习。
吸收价值观：我们从关心我们的人那里学习，通过他们口头告诉我们的内容以及通过观察和模仿他们的行为逐渐吸收了一套价值观、态度和信念。

成长过程中的挑战

挑战与反抗：随着我们从童年到青少年的成长，我们会开始挑战和反抗从他人那里吸收的一些信念。
保留与拒绝：许多人到年轻成年时，仍然保留了大部分父母的价值观和信念，而拒绝了一些。

不符合的信念

有时，当一个人使用“应该”、“必须”、“应当”或“不得不”这样的词语时，他们是在陈述一个起源于童年的信念，他们仍然坚持这一信念，但这一信念现在对他们不再适用。如果他们真正接受了这一信念，他们更可能会说“我决定”、“我想”或“我选择”，而不是“我应该”、“我必须”、“我应当”或“我不得不”。

问题与解决

问题：这些词语在思维层面被相信，但在情感层面却不舒服。当思维层面和情感层面出现不一致时，人会感到困惑和情绪困扰。
解决：通过提高个人对自己内部状态的意识，帮助他们更全面地了解自己的选择，可以缓解这些问题。

挑战“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念

提高意识：有时，一个人会使用“我应该”这样的陈述，然后表现出不愿意去做他们说应该做的事情。在这种情况下，提高他们对自己内部状态的意识是有用的。
检查信念：我们喜欢向他们解释很多“我应该”信息的来源，并询问他们认为这个特定的“我应该”信息来自哪里。然后我们鼓励他们检查这条信息是否让他们感到舒服。
替换信念：如果信息让他们感到不舒服，他们可以选择挑战“我应该”信息，并可能用更舒服的东西替代它。或者，他们可能决定这条信息适合他们，并更乐意接受它。

涉及不切实际期望的信念

不切实际期望：许多自毁信念涉及对自己、他人或世界的不切实际期望。
例子：一个涉及不切实际期望的好例子是认为生活将是公平和公正的信念。生活经验清楚地表明，生活往往是不公平和不公正的，因此假设生活将是公平和公正是没有帮助的，这会让人产生不切实际的期望。
更有帮助的信念：一个更有帮助的信念可能是：“不幸的是，生活并不总是公平和公正的。如果我能接受这一点，那么我可能能够做出明智的决定来应对那些不公平和不公正的事情。”

结论

通过挑战这些自毁信念，咨询师可以帮助人们认识到并改变那些不利于他们生活的信念，从而实现情绪、思想和行为的积极变化。这种方法不仅有助于个人的心理健康，还能提高他们的生活质量。

对他人抱有不切实际的期望

概述

例子

例如，一个人可能会说：“我本以为我的哥哥会关心我，但他并没有。” 认识到这一点后，这个人会失去期望，并可能因这种失落而感到悲伤。

表20.1 常见的自毁信念及其有益的替代方案

自毁信念	有益的替代方案
我绝不能犯错误。	不犯错误的唯一方法是什么都不做。我是活跃的，所有活跃的人都会犯错误。
其他人不应该犯错误。	没有人是完美的。我可以接受其他人会犯错误。
其他人让我生气。	当我不接受其他人不符合我的期望时，我会让自己生气。
其他人应该符合我的期望。	其他人不需要符合我的期望。
我的幸福取决于他人的行为和态度。	我的幸福来自内心，不依赖于他人。
我必须符合他人的期望。	我不需要符合他人的期望才能过得好。
我必须赢。	按照平均法则，大多数人只有一半的时间会赢。我不需要赢才能感觉良好。
生活应该是公平和公正的。	生活不是公平和公正的。
如果他人没有与我相同的信念、态度和价值观，他们就是坏人。	并非所有好人都有相同的信念、态度和价值观。
我必须随心所欲。	我不需要随心所欲才能感觉良好，有时让别人随心所欲也能让我感到满足。
我需要他人的认可才能感觉良好。	得到他人的认可是好事，但我不需要他们的认可才能感觉良好。
我必须总是取悦他人。	期望我总能取悦他人是不现实的。
我永远不能生气。	有时候生气是可以的。
我应该总是快乐。	有快乐的时候，也有悲伤的时候。
我不能哭。	哭泣是可以的。
如果有人误解我，我就不能快乐。	有人会误解我，这是不可避免的。但我知道自己是好的，这才是重要的。

挑战涉及不切实际期望的信念

方法

提问法：如果一个人表达了一个自毁信念，鼓励他们通过提问来质疑这个信念。例如，问：“期望生活会公平和公正是否现实？”
解释法：向他们解释自毁信念和有益信念之间的区别。
记录法：鼓励他们写下一份自毁信念清单，并用更有益的替代方案来替换它们。
尊重选择：记住，一个人有权保留你认为无益的信念，如果他们愿意的话。这是他们的选择，所以不要试图说服他们改变。
考虑后果：建议他们考虑继续持有这些信念的后果。

技巧和细心

在挑战自毁信念时，技巧和细心是必不可少的。理想情况下，挑战应来自当事人，而不是咨询师。

结论

学习总结

挑战自毁信念的想法源自REBT。
自毁信念包括涉及不切实际期望的“应该”、“必须”、“应当”和“不得不”信念。
许多自毁信念来自童年时期吸收的信息。
自毁信念可以被挑战，以用建设性的信念替代。

参考文献和进一步阅读

Dryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2004, The Rational Emotive Behavioural Approach to Therapeutic Change, SAGE, London.
Dryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2014, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: 100 Key Points and Techniques, 2nd edn, Routledge, East Sussex.
Ellis, A. & Dryden, W. 2007, The Practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, 2nd edn, Springer, New York.

什么是自毁信念（SDBs）？如何评估自毁信念的后果？你能举个例子说明如何质疑非理性信念吗？这些自毁信念有哪些常见的例子？如何评估一个人的信念是否符合现实？这些信念如何影响人们的行动和情绪？

20 Challenging self-destructive beliefs Albert Ellis introduced the idea of challenging what he called irrational beliefs and developed a model of counselling that is now called Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. We will briefly describe the basis of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy and then discuss the usefulness of challenging self-destructive beliefs when using an integrative counselling approach. RATIONAL EMOTIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY (REBT) Central to Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) is the ABCDE model described by Dryden and Neenan (2004). A diagrammatic representation of this model is shown in Figure 20.1. This model is dependent on the notion of irrational beliefs. It is assumed that a sequence of events as described in Figure 20.1 occurs that leads a person to experience uncomfortable emotions or to engage in maladaptive behaviours. The letters ABCDE are the first letters of words that describe the sequence. The letter A represents the first stage of the sequence, which is an activating event. According to REBT theory the activating event triggers off an irrational belief represented by the B. The consequence (C) of this irrational belief is the person’s response, involving unhelpful emotions or behaviours. D represents the stage where the counsellor disputes the irrational belief, helping the person to replace the irrational belief with a more constructive belief. Finally, E represents the effects of disputing, as a result of which the person will hopefully experience more helpful emotions and behaviours. Once an irrational belief has been disputed and replaced by a more useful belief, it is expected that similar activating events in the future will result in more positive consequences as the person moves through the A, B and C stages. It can be seen that the REBT approach does not encourage the person to express emotions but instead encourages them to focus on their beliefs and behaviours. CHALLENGING SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BELIEFS WITHIN AN INTEGRATIVE COUNSELLING APPROACH We are all entitled to have our own attitudes, beliefs and thoughts. They are ours and no one has the right to tell us that we should change them. Our attitudes are intrinsically ours, and we have the right to choose what we will believe and think,

Figure 20.1 The ABCDE model AActivating event BBeliefs - rational or irrational CConsequences - emotional or behavioural DDisputing irrational beliefs EEffects of disputing irrational beliefs and what we won’t. Consequently, counsellors need to respect the rights of people seeking their help to do this. However, an important role for counsellors is to help people change so that they will feel better. As discussed in Chapter 15, as integrative counsellors we believe that the most effective long-term change is achieved if emotions, thoughts and behaviours are all addressed. In order for this to happen, it is important to explore the person’s attitudes, beliefs and thoughts. Although any changes to attitudes, beliefs and thoughts need to be made by the person seeking help as a result of their own choice, the counsellor has a legitimate responsibility to help them recognise when their attitudes, beliefs and thoughts may be self-destructive. Counsellors may confront a person who is seeking help, as discussed in Chapter 19, if their attitudes, beliefs and thoughts are incongruent or may have socially undesirable consequences (see Chapter 40 regarding ethical issues). Although, as we have said, as counsellors we do not have the right to impose our values on those who seek our help, it is most certainly a legitimate part of our role, and a responsibility, for us to raise their awareness of their choices. As a consequence of helping a person to bring into focus the choices that are available for them, they can be enabled to make new choices, if these fit for them and are appropriate, so that positive change can occur in their feelings, thoughts and behaviours. Many people do not seem to be aware of the possibility that they may, if they wish, change the way they are thinking, or the beliefs they have, in order to help them lead more satisfying lives. Many hold on to beliefs that are unhelpful for them, and indeed may be self-destructive. As explained previously, Ellis, the originator of REBT, introduced the idea of challenging irrational or self-destructive beliefs. We believe that there is often an advantage in using the word 'self-destructive’ rather than 'irrational’. This is because some beliefs which are self-destructive are not necessarily irrational. We have found that sometimes when we use the word 'irrational’, the person we are seeking to help will correctly argue that their belief is not irrational. It is clearly not helpful for counsellors to get into arguments with those they seek to help. Also, some people may feel offended if we suggest that their beliefs are irrational, as most individuals like to see themselves as rational beings. In comparison, if we gently suggest that what a person believes may be unhelpful for them and therefore self-destructive, they may be more willing to accept our suggestion. We consider that there are two categories of self-destructive beliefs, or SDBs for short. These are: 1 ‘should’, ‘must’, ‘ought’ and ‘have to’ beliefs 2 beliefs involving unrealistic expectations. 'SHOULD', 'MUST', 'OUGHT' AND 'HAVE TO' BELIEFS People often make statements using the words ‘1 should’, ‘1 must’, ‘1 ought’ or ‘1 have to’. Sometimes the words are spoken with enthusiasm, firmness and meaning, and it is clear that the person feels good about doing whatever it is that they ‘should do’, ‘must do’, ‘ought to do’, or think they ‘have to do’ — and that’s OK. At other times the words are spoken in an unconvincing way, as though some other person is saying to them ‘you should’, ‘you must’, ‘you ought’ or ‘you have to’, and the person is reluctantly, uncomfortably and maybe resentfully accepting that message. When this occurs, they are likely to feel confused and emotionally disturbed. If they conform with the ‘should’ message, they may feel like a small child reluctantly and miserably doing as they are told by others. 1 hey will not feel as though they are fully in control of their life, and will not recognise their behaviour as being of their own choosing. If, on the other hand, they disregard the ‘should’ message, they may feel guilty, with consequent negative results. The goal of counselling in such instances is to help the person to feel more comfortable with their decisions, so that when they make a choice they do it willingly, and without feelings of either resentment or guilt. Provided underlying issues are correctly and fully addressed, this goal is usually achievable. WHERE DO 'SHOULD', 'MUST, 'OUGHT AND 'HAVE TO' BELIEFS COME FROM? As children we grow up in a world in which we have no experience. We do not know the difference between right and wrong, and we cannot distinguish good behaviour from bad behaviour. However, we learn, initially from our parents and close family, and then from others such as teachers, friends and social or religious leaders. We learn from the people who care for us, from what they tell us verbally and by watching and copying their behaviour. Gradually we absorb a system of values, attitudes and beliefs. It is right and proper that we do so. As we grow through childhood and adolescence there comes a time when we start to challenge and rebel against some of the beliefs we have absorbed from others. Interestingly, though, many people, by the time they are young adults, hold on to most of the beliefs and values of their parents while having rejected some. As children it is clearly appropriate that we learn and absorb the beliefs of our parents and significant others. There is no other way for us to learn, because as children our experience is too limited for us to make mature judgements for ourselves. As adults, we do have experience and it is appropriate for each of us to determine for ourselves which beliefs fit and make sense for us as individuals and which beliefs do not fit. We can then keep what fits and reject what does not. We can replace what doesn’t fit with something new that does. BELIEFS THAT DON'T FIT Sometimes when a person uses the words ‘should’, ‘must’, ‘ought’ or "have to’, they are stating a belief that has its origins in their childhood, and which they are holding on to, but which does not fit for them now. If they really accepted the belief as their own they would be more likely to say ‘I’ve decided’, ‘I want to’ or ‘I choose to’, rather than ‘I should’, ‘I must’, ‘1 ought’ or 4 have to’. Of course we are describing the general case and this is not always true. What is important is for us to encourage the people who seek our help to own their choices as being morally right and fitting for them, rather than for them to attribute their decisions to an external moral code imposed on them by others or through childhood conditioning. The problem with ‘shoulds’, 'musts’, ‘oughts’ and ‘have tos’ is that often the words spoken are believed at a head or thinking level, but do not sit comfortably at a gut or feeling level. Where there is a mismatch between what is happening at a head level and what is being experienced at an emotional level, the person will be confused and emotionally distressed. Human beings are holistic beings, so we cannot separate our emotional feelings, our bodily sensations, our thoughts and our spiritual experiences into discrete compartments. They all interrelate and must be in harmony with each other if we are to feel integrated and comfortable. CHALLENGING 'SHOULD', 'MUST, 'OUGHT AND 'HAVE TO' BELIEFS Sometimes a person will use an '1 should’ statement and then express reluctance to do what they have said they ‘should’ do. In such a case it can be useful to raise their awareness of what is happening internally so that they become more fully aware of their options. We like to explain to the person where many ‘1 should’ messages come from, and to ask them where they think this particular ‘I should’ message has come from. We then encourage them to check out whether the message sits comfortably with them. If it does, that is great. If it doesn’t, they can, if they choose, challenge the ‘I should’ message and maybe replace it with something that fits more comfortably for them. Alternatively, they may decide that the message fits for them and accept it more willingly. A similar approach can be used when helping people to challenge 'ought’, ‘must’ and 'have to’ statements. BELIEFS INVOLVING UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS Many self-destructive beliefs involve unrealistic expectations of self, others or the world in general. Some of these beliefs will lead to use ot the words ‘should’, 'must’ or 'ought’, but others won't. Like the self-destructive beliefs described previously, these beliefs are often absorbed from others during childhood. A good example of a belief involving unrealistic expectations is the belief that life will be fair and just. Life experience clearly demonstrates that life is often unfair and unjust, it is therefore unhelpful to assume that it will be fair and just, as this sets a person up to have unrealistic expectations. A more helpful belief might be: 'Unfortunately life is not always fair and just. If I can accept that, then I may be able to make sensible decisions to deal with those things which are unjust and unfair.' HAVING UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS We frequently hear people say things like, ‘she should ...’, ‘people should ...’ and ‘they ought to ...' By saying such things the speaker is assuming that other people will have the same values as they do and is putting their own expectations onto other people. To do this is unrealistic and consequently unhelpful. Counsellors frequently encounter people who are distressed as a result of others failing to live up to their expectations. However, when they recognise that their expectations are unrealistic, they often experience a sense of loss and need to be allowed to grieve. For example, a person might say, ‘1 expected my brother to care about me, but he doesn’t’. Having recognised this, the person experiences a loss of expectations and is likely to be saddened by the loss. 1 able 20.1 gives some examples of common self-destructive beliefs and helpful alternatives. Notice how the self-destructive belief is certain to make the person feel bad, whereas the helpful alternative is likely to enable them to adjust and adapt to the reality of life so that they can feel better. CHALLENGING BELIEFS THAT INVOLVE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS If a person verbalises a self-destructive belief, it can be useful to encourage them to question the belief by asking a question such as, ‘Is it realistic to expect that life will be fair and just?' By doing this the person is very likely to challenge their own self-destructive belief, that life should be fair and just. If they do, you may invite them to suggest a more useful alternative. You may wish to explain the difference between self-destmctive and helpful beliefs to the person. You can then encourage them to write down a list of their self-destructive beliefs and replace them with more helpful alternatives. Remember that a person has the right to retain what you may believe are unhelpful beliefs if they wish. It is their choice, so do not attempt to persuade them to change. However, you might suggest that they consider the consequences for them of continuing to hold on to these beliefs. As when confronting, skill and care are essential when challenging self-destmctive beliefs. Ideally the challenge will come from the person rather than the counsellor.

Table 20.1 Common self-destructive beliefs and helpful alternatives SELF-DESTRUCTIVE BELIEFHELPFUL ALTERNATIVE 1 must never make mistakes.The only way not to make mistakes is to do nothing. I'm active, and all active people make mistakes. Other people should not make mistakes.No ones perfect. 1 can accept that other people will make mistakes. Other people make me angry.1 make myself angry when 1 don't accept that other people don't live up to my expectations. Other people should live up to my expectations.Other people don't need to live up to my expectations. My happiness depends on other people's behaviour and attitudes.My happiness comes from within me and does not depend on others. 1 must live up to other people's expectations.1 don't need to Live up to other people's expectations to be OK. 1 must win.According to the law of averages most people only win 50 per cent of the time. 1 don't need to win to feel OK. Life should be fair and just.L fe is not fair and just. Other people are bad if they do not have the same beliefs, attitudes and values as me.All good people do not think the same or necessarily have the same bei efs, attitudes and values. 1 must get my own way.1 do not need to get my own way to feel OK, and 1 can sometimes get satisfaction out of letting other people have their own way. 1 need other people's approval to feel OK.It's nice to get other people's approval, but 1 do not need their approval to feel OK. 1 must always please other people.It's unrealistic to expect that 1 can always please other people. 1 must never get angry.It's OK to be angry sometimes. 1 should always be happy.There is a time to be happy and a time to be sad. 1 must not cry.It's OK to cry. 1 can't be happy if people misjudge me.People sometimes will misjudge me. “hat's inevitable. But 1 know that I'm OK and that's what matters.

However, it can be helpful for a counsellor to explain the nature, origin and effects of self-destructive beliefs, so that the person is able to recognise and challenge them. IN CONCLUSION As explained, the ideas expressed in this chapter have their origins in REBT, although, in contrast to the approach described here, Rational Emotive Behaviour therapists are usually direct in their efforts to challenge and persuade the people who seek their help and describe self-destructive beliefs as irrational. If such an approach appeals to you then you may wish to learn more about REBT once you have mastered basic counselling skills (see ‘References and further reading’). Learning summary • • • • The idea of challenging self-destructive beliefs stems from REBT. Self-destructive beliefs include 'should', 'must', ought' and have to' beliefs involving unrealistic expectations. Many self-destructive beliefs come from messages absorbed during childhood. Self-destructive beliefs can be challenged so that they can be replaced with constructive beliefs. References and further reading Dry den. W. & Neenan, M. 2004, The Rational Emotive Behavioural Approach to Therapeutic Change, SAGE, London. ITryden, W. & Neenan, M. 2014, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy: 100 Key Points and 'Techniques, 2nd edn, Routledge, East Sussex. Ellis, A. & Efryden, W. 2007, The Practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, 2nd edn, Springer, New York.