4. Behavioral Approaches
(This is an excerpt from a University Of Metaphysical Sciences course at www.umsonline.org,
please feel free to visit the school website)
Every behavioral approach must include a cognitive element and vice versa. Behavior can’t be changed without some element of cognition, realization or understanding. Certainly no amount of recognition or understanding of a problem will evoke a change if there is not some consequent behavioral adjustment based upon the cognition. The difference between behaviorists and cognists is most like the Method vs. Technique actor training. One begins with the internal feeling and moves outward to physical manifestation (cognitive), and the other (behavioral) begins by adjusting the behavior and then reflects on the feelings and emotions involved.
While many would initially argue for the cognitive approach, the point of fact is that the types of beliefs involved in people with anger problems involves at least some impairment of the rational cognitive functions due to the high level of emotions involved. Many, if not most, people benefit greatly from “doing” rather than simply talking or reflecting, for they are often quite rational until the anger is triggered. The behavioral approach aims to develop and establish behaviors in advance of an actual mastery of the emotions involved, and potentially before the lengthy process of uncovering of deep-seated beliefs.
Rational-Emotive Behavioral Therapy.
Dr. Albert Ellis founded the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy, which has branches around the world. He is probably the most widely written and widely respected in the area of behavioral approaches to anger management. His Rational-Emotive Therapy focuses more on the behavioral aspects but manages to blend and integrate many techniques into his approach. He states there is no single panacea or cure-all. Most effective is working both individually and collaboratively with various methods and philosophies.
The premise of REBT is that, “…by changing the thoughts, feelings and behaviors that underlie and accompany your rage, you can greatly reduce it.” (Ellis, 1977). Though anger is agreed as necessary, we must learn how to manage the anger—the internal—so that we can rationally and creatively act on the external causes to create change. To do this, we must learn the ABC’s of REBT.
A: look for “A,” the Adversity or Activating event that triggers the anger.
B: examine “B,” the Belief system in place.
C: locate “C,” the emotional/behavioral Consequences of your anger.
“A” exerts on “C,” but “B” defines the parameters and qualities of “C.” We must look for “A” to determine if it is in fact a negative, hurtful experience. It may be a matter of perspective. “B,” the Belief System is, in essence, the true defining factor of how “C” evolves. According to Ellis, our Belief System (as it defines anger events) is either, Rational—does not lead to destructiveness through anger/rage, but promotes constructive growth.
- Irrational—anger/rage ensues, usually marked by unequivocal imperatives like, “should,” “should not,” “must/not,” “can’t stand” as well as excessive emotionalisms like “horror,” “horrible,” “terrible,” “awful,” etc… that fail to distinguish the difference between the action and the person, essentially equating the person with “horror,” “terror” and the like.
- REBT asserts that “horror” or “terror” can only truly be applied to something like the Holocaust, and that even the casual and emotional assertions of these words or of the unequivocal imperatives suggests an underlying and unyielding intolerance that is “irrational.” To use a vivid and current example: “B,” the Belief System, is what would prompt one party to protest and negotiate terms and conditions, while prompting another to take a terrorist action.
Here’s a simple scenario to serve as an example. Assume that two people have an appointment for lunch, David and James. David arrives on time or before. James is ten minutes late, and for those ten minutes, David is stewing about the unfair, inconsiderate action James has taken. By the time James arrives, David is furious. He “should not” have to put up with this behavior. He “can’t stand” people who are rude, and James is a “terrible” or “horrible” person/client/friend/spouse. Now let’s look at the scene through the REBT lens.
Precisely because this is such a simple example we can look both at the event as well as behind the event itself. It could just as easily have been a situation of being cut-off by an inconsiderate driver, or treated rudely by a clerk or any of dozens of simple things where we have all found ourselves filled with unaccountable and extreme anger or rage.
A: The Activating Event was James’ late arrival. (Sometimes, when anger has been repressed repeatedly, the Activating Event is merely a “Trigger” for the eruption of anger, a flashpoint of a threshold much lowered from a series of unmanaged anger events).
C: The Emotional/Behavioral Consequences. At the very least, the appointment is ruined, and perhaps the association, too. Most likely neither David nor James is feeling particularly calm or at ease. David has definitely experienced the untoward, negative physical symptoms of anger and perhaps James has as well. There has been no positive outcome.
B: The Belief System. Is this the first time James has been late, or is it a repeated offense? Do they know each other well, or slightly? Though the answers might regulate the appropriate course of action, there is no question that REBT considers this to be an Irrational Belief System. David has firstly failed to distinguish between the person and the act, and secondly given an emotional equating of the act with “horror,” failing, in rage, to maintain a rational distinction of true “horror” or “terror.”
REBT employs three primary techniques for correction. As expected, there must be a causal preliminary and emotional distance from the event itself preliminarily. Eventually, the exercises may be performed in the moment as one becomes more familiar with them and more alert to the onset of anger. They are; 1) Thinking Your Way Out, 2) Feeling Your Way Out, and 3) Acting Your Way Out. First and foremost, you must agree and accept that you have the ability to change your thinking.
“Thinking Your Way Out” means to use the debating and disputing techniques of asking yourself questions. “Why is this ‘terrible?” “How is this ‘just too much?’” After all, these are just exaggerations, for we are really never truly at that point. Also, we must accept fallibility in ourselves, and thus be able to see it in others. This will help us to stop saying (or thinking) that others “should” or “must” act in a certain way. In a sense, we must get rid of the concepts of bad or good: something is either rational, positive and giving, or it is not. Finally we must concentrate on ourselves and our own self-reactions rather than on others or on external situations.
“Feeling Your Way Out” directs you to focus on the more emotional aspects of the anger problem. First, you must work to accept yourself completely, with all the bad behaviors. (This assumes there is a recognition and acceptance of behaviors that are negative, unproductive or destructive with a desire to eliminate these behaviors). This acceptance encourages you to feel more complete, as opposed to flawed or weak, and thus in control (as opposed to being subject to, or a victim of uncontrollable behavior). This self acceptance encourages the natural acceptance of others as they are, completely.
Second, REBT encourages you to really push yourself, in a controlled situation to feel the “complete anger” that you experience, and then push yourself equally as hard to feel it only as a “keen disappointment” and “irritation.” Note that this is different from and is expressly not expressing anger, only feeling it. You are encouraged to repeat this process again and again until the feelings are recognizable and different. This practice sets up an ability for the anger patient to 1) recognize the symptoms and signs of anger, 2) to differentiate the difference between an “anger” event and keen disappointment, and 3) to be able to emotionally move oneself from one to the other, thereby establishing a physical control over the emotional feeling as opposed to being controlled by it. This technique is not unlike that used by “method” actors, who, through practice, are able to conjure very realistic emotional experiences through an imaginative, physical exercise. Michael Checkhov, Constantin Stanislavski and others who discovered and promoted the Method Acting technique found that the physical body can store and reproduce a sense memory and emotional feelings that can be consciously recalled for an actor’s use. The REBT technique works to establish this conscious control over such “sense feelings.”
In conjunction with “Feeling Your Way Out,” Ellis encourages use of Gestalt therapy or supervised role playing to re-enact and play out the scenario without the emotionally charged tension of the original situation. The subject can then practice making behavior/response changes in the course of the anger event. Also, the subject may choose to watch others re-enact the scenario to learn from choices and changes they may make in the situation. The cautionary note, again, is that the physical expression of anger itself will only serve to confirm the irrational response and reinforce the neural conditioning in the body and mind that the subject is attempting to eradicate.
The third principle technique is called “Acting Your Way Out,” and is probably the most difficult to comprehend without being coached through the actual practice. Also, it is recommended either for a more advanced (rational and “in-control”) student, or for those already exhibiting a good deal of self-awareness and control of the anger expression.
“Acting Your Way Out,” in Ellis’ terms, is almost inevitably tied to deep emotional issues of shame or inferiority tied to and/or stemming from long-term, usually childhood, situations. For instance, a person may have been treated unfairly in a situation for a long period of time as a child. At some point the individual determines, usually through comparison of behaviors by other people in an outside situation, that “they must not treat me unfairly” and lashes out. Over a period of time this “practiced” behavior becomes a belief, and the individual begins to automatically assume a philosophy that they must only be treated fairly by others. This becomes an immediate, reflexive and habitual response.
In REBT, the irrationality is reflected by the “must” or “should” attitude. Rationally we can understand that of course we are not always dealt with fairly. However, we can usually assume that people try their best, as they have no real motive for doing otherwise. Not only is this “must” or “should” irrationality operating, but also in play is the fact that this type of belief system plays a defining role in shaping our attitude going into any situation, and thereby will almost certainly be triggered.
The rational approach would assume (as stated) that we usually are treated fairly, or at least there is no personal intent behind most incidental unfair treatment. Therefore, “Acting Your Way Out” would be to consciously adopt this attitude and, no matter what feelings evolve, to “Act” out a scenario of rational behavior in everyday life. In adopting an “I want to do well and will try my best” attitude, the individual avoids all the “shoulds” and “musts” of their own and others’ behavior. Again, this is easier coached and practiced than explained, but the basic premise is to determine how you are going to act, and literally be an actor if you have to, setting the emotions and challenges aside for review at a calmer point.
Ellis likens this approach to playing tennis. One persists by practicing, by forcing oneself, in spite of frustrations and attitudes, to continue to practice instead of quitting or adopting a self-deprecating attitude. In fact, using a metaphor of tennis or some other non-emotional activity as an overlay to examine and plan actions can be quite helpful.
All of the exercises are primarily directed at specific interpersonal relationships. Their advantage is that they encourage maintaining the relationships while “…continuing to work to change ideas about people while you contrive to participate with them,” according to Ellis.
Ellis also encourages that the subject practice self-reward and self-penalty in the practice of the new behaviors. Predetermined rewards such as a movie, dessert or some other are self-rewarded for success and withheld for penalty. For all three exercises, the following is advised:
To take specific risks (targeted to the beliefs being challenged)
To risk rejection by asking for something
To risk saying “No” or refusing something
To do something ridiculous or even “shameful” in public
To deliberately fail at an important task, or act as though you had
These advisements should be put into proper context of the individual and the particular belief being challenged. Most are centered on Ellis’ premise that the causes of anger are rooted deeply in childhood, and principally a factor of the extreme “should” or “must” belief system. Thus, to intentionally strike out during a company softball game is a great step for someone who “must” always be the best athlete, or “must never” fail. Or to tell a joke in mixed company can be equally freeing to one who “should” always be professional. These are the sorts of things that Ellis uses as scenarios for the individual to practice. Each must be carefully targeted to the specific belief system being challenged.
Finally, Ellis offers the following questions as a means of self-determination, to be used frequently throughout the process in order to identify irrational belief systems and dismantle them.
- What irrational belief do I want to dispute and surrender?
- Can I rationally support this belief?
- What is the evidence for the falseness of this belief?
These and similar questions can be used for bringing irrational beliefs to light and systematically challenging and changing them. Additional activities include using silly songs to disrupt the reflexive anger process. As one becomes aware of a certain behavior, songs poking fun at the beliefs can be used. Examples: (sung to the tune of the Whiffenpoof Song): “I cannot have all my wishes filled. Whine…whine…whine.” (Under the Sea) “Look at me, getting angry. But I know better, I won’t let it get the better of me.” (Smile, Smile, Smile) “Look at my anger trying to trick me so I’ll Smile, Smile, Smile.” The subject’s participation in writing these songs is valuable threefold: first, it means there is self recognition of the belief system; second, it allows the subject to take an active analytical part in dismantling his or her own reflexive and irrational beliefs, and; third, it provides a valuable and useful behavior that both overcomes the reflexive anger through substitution and offers opportunity for reflection as it is being used. The effect and feeling is, of course, silly. And that is the point. Most anger-addicted people have difficulty poking fun at themselves, and the songs pretty effectively override any posturing or pretense.