how do we measure rational and irrational beliefs? the development of rational and irrational...

Articles Section

Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale 529

Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies,

Vol. 13, No. 2a, November 2013, 529-546.

HOW DO WE MEASURE RATIONAL AND

IRRATIONAL BELIEFS?

THE DEVELOPMENT OF RATIONAL AND

IRRATIONAL BELIEFS SCALE (RAIBS) -

A NEW THEORY-DRIVEN MEASURE

Cristina MOGOAŞE*1, Simona ȘTEFAN

1, Daniel DAVID

1,2

1 Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

2 Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

Abstract

Rational and irrational beliefs are key constructs in the field of clinical

psychology and psychotherapy, being the central tenet of Rational Emotive

Behavior Therapy (REBT). Particularly, when facing a negative event,

rational beliefs are considered to trigger functional emotions (e.g., sadness,

concern), while irrational beliefs are generative mechanisms of

dysfunctional emotions representing (sub)clinical problems (e.g.,

depression, anxiety). The role of irrational beliefs in association with

emotional and behavioral problems has been extensively documented;

however, the role of rational beliefs is still unclear despite their high

relevance in relation to the distinction between functional and dysfunctional

distress (i.e., according to the binary model of distress, rational beliefs are

expected to be negatively related to dysfunctional emotions and positively

or nonrelated to functional negative emotions, while irrational beliefs are

expected to be positively related to both functional and dysfunctional

negative emotions). As the inconsistencies in the available data may be due

to measurement issues, we developed a new, theory-driven measure of

rational and irrational beliefs, and tested its psychometric properties in both

an unselected student sample and a subclinical sample. The scale was

shown to have good psychometric properties and to better reflect the REBT

theory in relation to measures of functional and dysfunctional distress.

Keywords: REBT, rational and irrational beliefs, functional and dysfunctional

emotions, binary model of distress

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:

E-mail: [email protected]

Articles Section

Cristina Mogoaşe, Simona Ștefan, Daniel David 530

Introduction

Rational and Irrational Beliefs: the Issue of Measurement

Rational and irrational beliefs, as conceptualized in the framework of

Rational Emotive and Behavior Therapy (REBT), are considered central

mechanisms in psychopathology and sanity. In this sense, rational beliefs (RBs)

are associated with functional emotions1, either positive (e.g., joy) or negative

(e.g., sadness), while irrational beliefs (IBs) are associated with dysfunctional

emotions, both positive (e.g., excessive pride) and negative (e.g., depression).

Dysfunctional emotions express themselves as clinical or subclinical problems.

IBs (Ellis, 1962, 1994) are defined as evaluative beliefs with no logical,

empirical, or pragmatic support, meaning they are illogical, not grounded in

reality, and not serving the purposes of the individual. RBs on the other hand, are

beliefs that are logical, have empirical support, and/or are pragmatic.

Within the REBT framework, core IBs consist of four main processes,

expressed in relation with different contents (Ellis, 1994). These critical processes

involved in the onset and maintenance of psychopathology are: demandingness

(DEM), awfulizing (AWF), low frustration tolerance (LFT), and global evaluation

(GE) of self and/or others; they can relate to different content areas/themes, like

achievement, comfort, affiliation, etc. (Ellis, 1994; Walen, DiGiuseppe, &

Dryden, 1992), in such a way that each irrational belief includes both a process

and a them. The rational counterparts of IBs are RBs, consisting of

adaptive/flexible processes (i.e., preference, non-awfulizing, frustration tolerance,

and contextual evaluation of the self, others, and the world) expressed in relation

to different contents. Demandingness for example, which is considered the

primary irrational belief2, refers to absolutistic requirements in the form of

“musts”, “shoulds”, “oughts” with reference to oneself, others, and the world

(e.g., “I must succeed, and I cannot accept it if it doesn’t happen”). Its rational

counterpart refers to formulating one’s goals and desires in preferential terms

(e.g., “I very much want to succeed, and I do my best, but I can accept that

sometimes things do not happen as I want them to”).

The role of IBs in relation to distress and psychopathology has been

strongly supported by research data. For example, studies have shown that IBs are

associated with a high level of distress in academic settings (DiLorenzo, David, &

Montgomery, 2007; Montgomery, David, DiLorenzo, & Schnur, 2007), with

negative automatic thoughts in stressful situations, (Bond & Dryden, 1996), trait

anxiety, trait anger, and trait depression (Bernard, 1998), generalized anxiety

1 The distinction between functional and dysfunctional emotions is outlined in the next

subsection 2 For empirical support of this assertion, see DiLorenzo, David, & Montgomery, 2007;

Hyland, Shevlin, Adamson, & Boduszek, 2013

Articles Section


(Jones, 1968), social anxiety, speech anxiety, and test anxiety (Goldfried &

Sobocinski, 1975), etc.

However, the RBs have been far less investigated in relation to distress.

This is at least partially due to some measurement difficulties. Initial measures of

IBs/RBs have been criticized for conflating cognition and emotion or behavioral

consequences (see, for example, Macavei & McMahon, 2010; Robb & Warren,

1990; Terjesen, Salhany, & Sciutto, 2009). Although this limitation has been

overcome by more recent measures, a number of IBs/RBs measurement issues

still persist in the literature. A recent review (Terjesen et al., 2009) summarized

several limitations of the available self-report instruments, suggesting that they

should be currently used with caution as a basis for assessment, considering the

available evidence supporting their psychometric properties. Based on their

analysis, Terjesen et al. (2009) highlighted the need for a better quantitative and

qualitative assessment of IBs/RBs and offered several recommendations for future

scale development. First, they suggest that items of IBs/RBs measurements

should reflect exclusively beliefs and not emotional contents or behavioral

consequences (as previous criticism has outlined, see Smith, 1989). Second, the

IBs/RBs measures should include separate items for evaluating IBs and RBs, as

some measures already do (e.g., ABS-II). This recommendation is congruent with

theoretical assumptions, highlighting the fact that IBs and RBs are not bipolar

constructs (Bernard, 1998). Thus, agreement/disagreement with IBs does not

necessarily imply agreement/disagreement with RBs. Related to this, David,

Lynn, and Ellis (2010) and Terjesen et al. (2009) emphasized the need to improve

psychometric properties of the IBs/RBs measurements, building on theoretical

assumptions. Indeed, the available instruments assessing IBs/RBs do not fully

reflect the REBT theory, obviously limiting their validity. For example, although

REBT theory clearly states that IBs and RBs are distinct, but not bipolar

constructs, most of the available instruments either do not assess IBs and RBs

separately (e.g., The Belief Scale; Malouff & Schutte, 1986) or promote the use of

composite scores for irrationality, including the reversed score of items assessing

RBs (e.g., Attitudes and Beliefs Scale – II; DiGiussepe, Leaf, Exener, & Robin,

1988). Even when RBs and IBs are assessed by separate items, the form in which

the items are presented allows for conceptual confusions, thus preventing accurate

measurement of IBs/RBs. For instance, when presented rationally and irrationally

phrased items, people may not naturally make the difference between IBs and

RBs, as they are not acquainted to this distinction (which is explicitly highlighted

in therapy). Therefore, they may become confused and, especially when the

length of the questionnaire is considerable, they can provide inconsistent answers,

i.e., reporting that they hold both IBs and RBs, equally intense, and related to the

same content. As people tend to choose a middle value on the scale (see Kline,

2000), this is not unexpected. However, it seriously limits the clinical utility of

the data, as it leads logical inconsistencies: one cannot hold both IRs and RBs

Articles Section


about the same content, at the same time and under identical conditions (see also

Dryden, 1999).

In clinical practice, patients are asked to choose and clarify their option

towards rational or irrational beliefs in a given situation. In a similar manner, we

aim to design an instrument which resembles the clinical context, thus providing a

more accurate and more ecologically valid assessment of IBs and RBs.

Third, Terjesen et al. (2009) recommend to evaluate IBs/RBs on multiple

dimensions, i.e., intensity, frequency, and duration, arguing that such an approach

could better inform clinical practice (i.e., clinical change could be monitored more

precisely), and could deepen our understanding of different IBs/RBs (e.g., the

primacy of certain IBs/RBs could be more clearly evidenced). To our knowledge,

there is no available instrument providing a multidimensional assessment of

IBs/RBs. Last, Terjesen et al. (2009) advocate for using more diversified samples

when testing measures of IBs/RBs.

Based on recommendations formulated by Terjesen et al. (2009) and

David et al. (2010), we aimed to design an improved, theoretically-driven

measure of IBs/RBs. In addition to the already mentioned concerns related to

IBs/RBs measurement, we considered also another key problematic aspect,

namely the personal relevance of certain item content for the person who rates the

item. Although IBs and RBs are conceptualized as evaluative cognitions, growing

from motivational relevance and motivational congruence (see, for example,

David et al., 2002), none of the available instruments explicitly considers the

personal relevance of items’ content for the respondent. In developing our new

Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale (RAIBS), we explicitly aimed to consider the

personal relevance of the evaluated content as reflected in every item.

After developing RAIBS, we wanted to see whether it can provide a

better testing of the REBT theory, more specifically in relation to the binary

model of distress, which is briefly described below.

Measurement of IBs/RBs in Context: How Better Instruments Could Contribute

to a More Adequate Testing of the REBT Model of Distress

Within the REBT framework, emotions have been conceptualized by two

alternative models: the unitary and the binary model of distress. The unitary

model of distress was Ellis’ original hypothesis on distress (Ellis & Harper,

1961), and stated that functional and dysfunctional emotions are distinguished by

quantity (e.g., depression is more sadness). In this line, studies have found that

IBs are associated with both functional and dysfunctional emotions (Cramer,

1985; David, Schnur, & Birk, 2004), or that rehearsing IBs in stressful situations

primes both functional and dysfunctional feelings (e.g., Cramer, 2004, 2005;

Cramer & Buckland, 1996; Cramer & Fong, 1991).

However, the unitary model of distress has been challenged by an

alternative approach introduced later by Ellis and Harper (1975), namely the

binary model of distress (David, Szentagotai, Kallay, & Macavei, 2005). This

Articles Section


model states that functional and dysfunctional emotions are qualitatively different

(i.e., as opposed to only quantitatively), in terms of subjective experience,

underlying beliefs (RBs or IBs), and consequences (adaptive or maladaptive). In

this sense, depression, for example, is not just more intense sadness (as a

quantitative distinction would suggest) but it is also characterized by a particular

subjective experience, it is triggered by IBs (while sadness would be triggered by

RBs), and leads to maladaptive consequences (while sadness alone, albeit a

negative emotion, is likely to lead to adaptive consequences) (David & Cramer,

2010; Ellis & DiGiusepee, 1993). Within the binary model of distress, the

quantitative distinction remains, in the sense that, for example, depression is more

than sadness (i.e., one cannot be depressed without being sad, while he/she can be

sad without being depressed) but the two are still qualitatively different

experiences. In support of this model, studies showed that high levels of IBs

generate dysfunctional emotions, whereas functional emotions are not generally

significantly related to irrational beliefs (D. David, A. David, Ghinea, Macavei, &

Kallay, 2005; David, Schnur, & Belloiu, 2002). Moreover, high levels of IBs

were found to be positively associated with both functional and dysfunctional

emotions whereas low levels of IBs were associated with low levels of

dysfunctional emotions and high levels of functional ones (David, Montgomery,

Macavei, & Bovbjerg, 2005). Also, data showed that priming IBs in real-life

stressful situations generates high levels of anxiety and a higher systolic blood

pressure, while priming RBs only generates increased levels of concern and a

decreased systolic blood pressure (Harris, Davies, & Dryden, 2006). However,

arousal alone was found to not differentiate between functional and dysfunctional

emotions (David, Schnur, & Birk, 2004).

Given the ongoing debate in the literature concerning the empirical

support for the two models of distress (see David & Cramer, 2010), research still

needs to clarify the nature of functional and dysfunctional emotions and the role

of rational and irrational beliefs. Notably, the investigation of RBs (as an

independent construct, not conceptualized as a reverse score of IBs; see David &

Cramer, 2010) and their relation to functional and dysfunctional emotions has

been scarce, even if it could bring important information on the binary model of

distress. Several studies found an association between IBs and functional and

dysfunctional emotions without mentioning the relation between RBs and

functional/dysfunctional emotions (e.g., A. David, et al., 2005; D. David, et al.,

2002). Other studies (e.g., Dilorenzo, David, & Montgomery, 2011) found

negative correlations between RBs and both functional and dysfunctional

emotions. The fact that IBs are related to both functional and dysfunctional

emotions does not contradict the theory since experiencing a dysfunctional

emotion involves experiencing its functional counterpart as well (e.g., depression

includes sadness). However, if measured according to the theory, we would

expect for RBs to be negatively related to dysfunctional emotions, and not

Articles Section


negatively related (implying that they can be positively related) to functional

distress.

The Overview of the Present Research

As briefly reviewed above, the binary model of distress has so far proven

difficult to test. We believe that this is due, at least partly, to how the target

constructs (i.e., RBs/IBs, and functional/dysfunctional emotions, respectively) are

measured, as many inconsistencies between theoretical models and research data

may be due to measurement issues. In an attempt to overcome the limitations of

the available instruments evaluating IBs/RBs, we aimed to devise an improved

IBs/RBs measurement. To test its utility, we investigated its psychometric

properties in two samples: (1) a sample of unselected undergraduate students in

psychology (Study 1), and (2) a subclinical sample of moderately depressed

individuals looking for psychological treatment (Study 2). Our endeavor has been

carried out in the REBT framework. Given the discrepancies in the literature

regarding the relationship between RBs and functional/dysfunctional emotions,

we investigated specifically the relationship of RBs and functional/dysfunctional

emotions, beyond the relationship between IBs and these constructs. We did that

to verify the extent to which the new instrument we designed (i.e., RAIBS) fits

better the REBT theory. We further present the two studies.

Study 1

Method

In this study we administered RAIBS and several other measures of

cognitions and emotions in a large sample of students (see below). We used a

cross-sectional design and tested the psychometrical properties of RAIBS, as well

as the relationship between RBs/IBs and functional/dysfunctional emotions.

Participants

Participants were 215 second year Psychology undergraduate students (24

men), who completed the measures in exchange for course credits. Their age

ranged from 19 to 49, with a mean of 23.12, and a standard deviation of 5.76.

Measures

Cognitive measures. We used the following measures: the newly-

developed Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale, the Attitude and Beliefs Scale-II

(DiGiuseppe et al., 1988), and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (Hollon &

Kendall, 2007). Each of them is described below.

Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale (RAIBS) was designed to (1) reflect

specifically RBs/IBs and not emotional or behavioral responses; (2) to measure

agreement/disagreement to both RBs and IBs; and (3) to evaluate the intensity,

Articles Section


frequency, and duration of RBs/IBs (see Terjesen et al., 2009). In addition, we

considered the personal relevance of a given item for participants by providing

neutral alternatives for each item (in addition to rational and irrational

alternatives). We also aimed to help respondents distinguish between RBs and IBs

in a manner similar to psychotherapy settings, where clients are explicitly

introduced to this distinction. In order to do this, we chose an item format

involving the simultaneous presentation of the rational and irrational belief, along

with an assertion expressing neutrality towards certain contents (i.e., lack of

personal relevance). We instructed participants to read carefully every item and

choose the variant that best suits their response. For every item, only one choice

was permitted (i.e., the rational sentence, the irrational, or the neutral one).

Following the choice of a response, participants had to rate that response in terms

of intensity, frequency, and duration.

RAIBS comprises 44 items, referring to the main categories of irrational

beliefs: demandingness (DEM) – 10 items, awfulizing (AWF) – 11 items, low

frustration tolerance (LFT) – 9 items, and global evaluation (GE), in the form of

self-downing/global evaluation of self – 11 items, and other downing/global

evaluation of others – 3 items. The items are phrased to refer to different content

areas: achievement, approval, comfort, justice, and control. In terms of content,

the items are adapted after the ABS-II (DiGiuseppe et al., 1988), as this

instrument was found to be emotionally uncontaminated and firmly rooted in the

Ellis’s theory (see Terjesen et al., 2009). Each RAIBS item referred

simultaneously to a particular process (e.g., DEM, LFT) and a particular content

area (e.g., comfort achievement). More specifically, for a certain content area

(e.g., comfort), the responder had to choose between the rational belief (e.g., “I

don’t want fight in my life and I do everything in my power to prevent it, but if it

happens, I can still tolerate it” – frustration tolerance), the irrational belief (e.g., “I

cannot stand fight in my life” - LFT), and a neutral option expressing lack of

personal relevance (e.g., “For me it’s irrelevant if there is fight in my life or not”).

Participants were instructed to read carefully every option and choose only one

among the three (i.e., rational, irrational, or neutral). Therefore, on the same

specific content, participants had to choose between the rational and the irrational

belief, as one cannot select both. Then, when choosing either the rational or

irrational option (i.e., not the neutral one), the participants were also asked to rate

on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very little; 5 = very much) how much they believe in

the statement, how frequent they think like that, and, when having the thought,

how long it persists in their mind. When the neutral response was chosen,

participants did not rate the intensity, frequency, or duration of the belief (since

there was none), and both the rational and the irrational alternatives were

automatically coded as 0. For example, if one participant chose the rational

alternative and rated its intensity as 3 (i.e., moderate), its frequency as 4 (i.e.,

quite frequent), and its duration as 1 (i.e., very little), then this participant would

get the following scores for the rational belief: 3 for intensity, 4 for frequency,

Articles Section


and 1 for duration, together with a score of 0 for the irrational alternative. If the

participant chose the neutral statement, he/she would get a score of 0 for the

intensity, frequency, and duration of rational and the irrational alternative alike.

Scores can be derived for different content areas as well as for different RBs/IBs.

Separate scores are derived for RBs and IBs, with RBs not being reversed in order

to compute a single IBs index.

Attitude and Belief Scale-II (ABS-II, DiGiuseppe et al., 1988) is a 72-

item measure of RBs and IBs related to three important life domains: comfort,

approval, and achievement. Half of the items are rationally phrased (e.g., “I will

not be a worthless person if I keep failing at work, school, or other important

activities.”), and half are irrationally phrased (e.g., “I would be a worthless person

if I failed at important tasks.”). The scale includes the four major types of

irrational beliefs (DEM, AWF, LFT, and GE), and their rational counterparts

(preference, non-awfulizing, high frustration tolerance, and contextual

evaluation). The participants have to express their agreement with the rational and

irrational statements on a 5-point Likert scale (0 – strongly disagree; 4 – strongly

agree). Separate scores are derived for RBs and IBs. However, in computing the

overall IBs index, RBs items are reversed. The ABS-II has proven to be a reliable

instrument when used on both American (subscale reliability coefficients ranging

from .92 to .86, DiGiuseppe et al., 1988) and Romanian population (subscale

reliability coefficients ranging from .87 to .67, Macavei, 2002).

Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ, Hollon & Kendall, 2007) is a

widely used 15-item measure of negative automatic thoughts usually associated

with depression. The items refer to different types of negative thoughts (e.g., “I

am worthless”) and completers are asked to rate their frequency on a 5-point

Likert scale (1 – never; 5 – almost always). The ATQ has shown a high internal

consistency (α = .92) and high construct and criterion-related validity (Hollon &

Kendall, 1980).

Emotion measures. We used the following measures: Profile of

Affective Distress, a revised version of the Profile of Emotional Distress (Opris &

Macavei, 2007), and Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale

(Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013). Each of them are shortly described below.

Profile of Affective Distress (PAD) includes 39 items describing

functional and dysfunctional negative emotions, as well as positive emotions.

Responders indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (0 – not at all; 4 – a lot) how

frequently they have experienced different emotions during the last two weeks.

Total scores can be derived for negative functional and dysfunctional emotions,

and for positive emotions. In addition, a general index of distress can be

computed, by summing up all the negative items and the reversed positive items.

PAD has proven to have adequately psychometric qualities in previous research

(Cristea, Szentagotai Tatar, Nagy, & David, 2012; Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013).

Articles Section


Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale (FADNES;

Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013) is a scale developed to differentially measure functional

and dysfunctional emotions, using a coding system similar to the RAIBS. The

FADNES includes 10 items, referring to emotions from the following categories:

sadness/depression (3 items), concern/anxiety (4 items), annoyance/anger (2

items), and regret/guilt (one item). The items were adapted from the Profile of

Affective Distress (PAD; see above). Each of the FADNES items targets a

certain category of emotions (for example, concern/anxiety) and consists of a set

of four response alternatives: one functional emotion (e.g., concern), its

dysfunctional counterpart (e.g., anxiety), a combination of the functional and the

dysfunctional emotion (e.g., concern and anxiety), and a neutral response

alternative stating that neither the functional, nor the dysfunctional emotion was

experienced (i.e., “I haven’t been feeling this way”). Initial piloting of the scale

indicated it adequately serves its purpose, with adequate psychometric properties

(Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013).

Procedure

All the questionnaires were administered online. Initially, participants

filled in the informed consent form and provided essential demographic

information (i.e., age, gender). Then, the program introduced the questionnaires in

turn.

Results

To test the psychometric properties of the newly-developed instrument, in

terms of reliability, we computed the internal consistency index, in order to check

whether the instrument measures rational and irrational beliefs as unitary

concepts. In terms of content validity, all the items included in the RAIBS were

theoretically-derived based on the items included in an established measure of

rationality/irrationality (i.e., ABS-II). In terms of construct validity, we

investigated the association between RBs and IBs as measured by the newly-

developed scale on the one hand, and certain related concepts, like RBs and IBs

measured with established instruments (i.e., ABS-II), general distress, and

functional/dysfunctional emotions, on the other hand. The specific investigation

of the relationship between RB and functional/dysfunctional emotions has been

subsumed to the construct validity analysis.

Descriptive data for the instruments we used to measure cognitions and

emotions are provided in Table 1. Because ratings regarding the intensity,

frequency, and duration of RBs/IBs were very similar, we focused only on

intensity, and, for ease of reading, we did not report data on frequency or

duration3.

3 These data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Articles Section


Table 1. Means and standard deviations for the ABS-II, ATQ, PAD, FADNES, and

RAIBS (sub)scales (n = 215).

(Sub)scale Mean SD

ABS-II.r 113.27 18.49

ABS-II.ir 75.54 39.01

ATQ 29.11 12.74

PAD 62.96 14.21

FADNES.f 6.28 4.11

FADNES.d 3.28 5.16

RAIBS.r 143.93 38.59

RAIBS.ir 23.81 23.27

Notes: ABS-II.r = Rationality subscale from Attitudes and Beliefs Scale - II (DiGiusepee

et al., 1988); ABS-II.ir = Irrationality subscale from Attitudes and Beliefs Scale - II

(DiGiusepee et al., 1988); ATQ = Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (Hollon & Kendall,

1980); PAD = Profile of Affective Distress; FADNES.f = Negative functional emotions

subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe &

Ștefan, 2013); FADNES.d = Negative dysfunctional emotions subscale of the Functional

and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); RAIBS.r =

Rationality subscale of the Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale; RAIBS.ir = Irrationality

subscale of the Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale.

Internal consistency. We computed internal consistency indicators for

rationality and irrationality RAIBS subscales. Both subscales proved adequate to

excellent reliability (for rationality subscale, α = .946; for irrationality subscale, α

= .879).

Construct validity. The correlation matrix of the variables considered in

this study is shown in Table 2. As shown, RAIBS proved good construct validity,

as the RAIBS rationality subscale correlated negatively and significantly with

negative dysfunctional emotions, while the correlation between RAIBS rationality

subscale and negative functional emotions as measured with FADNES was

almost inexistent. In addition, RAIBS irrationality subscale did not correlated

with negative functional emotions, but correlated positively and significantly with

dysfunctional emotions, in line with theoretical assumptions. When the PAD was

considered, the RAIBS rationality subscale correlated inversely and significantly

with general distress (including functional and dysfunctional negative emotions).

As negative dysfunctional emotions conceptually include functional ones, this

was not unexpected. Indeed, PAD scores correlated positively and significantly to

both functional and dysfunctional emotions as measured with FADNES. The two

RAIBS subscales were negatively correlated, while the RAIBS rationality

subscale correlated positively with the ABS-II rationality subscale, and the

RAIBS irrationality subscale correlated positively with the ABS-II irrationality

Articles Section


subscale. The relationships between the RAIBS subscales and ATQ were also in

the expected directions, strengthening the evidence for RAIBS’ construct validity.

Notably, IBs as measured with ABS-II correlated significantly with functional

negative emotions (contrary to the theory). However, this was not the case when

IBs were measured with RAIBS, suggesting that RAIBS could fit the theory

better.

Table 2. Correlations between RAIBS subscales and measures of related constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. ABS-II.r -.857** -.281** -.330** -.043 -.238** .491** -.373**

2. ABS-II.ir .479** .488** .129* .367** -.596** .601**

3. ATQ .737** .368** .583** -.325** .419**

4. PAD .430** .620** -.269** .366**

5. FADNES.f .093 -.056 .048

6. FADNES.d -.290** .366**

7. RAIBS.r -.502**

8. RAIBS.ir

*p < .05; **p < .01

Notes: ABS-II.r = Rationality subscale from Attitudes and Beliefs Scale - II (DiGiusepee

et al., 1988); ABS-II.ir = Irrationality subscale from Attitudes and Beliefs Scale - II

(DiGiusepee et al., 1988); ATQ = Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (Hollon & Kendall,

1980); PAD = Profile of Affective Distress; FADNES.f = Negative functional emotions

subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe &

Ștefan, 2013); FADNES.d = Negative dysfunctional emotions subscale of the Functional

and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); RAIBS.r =

Rationality subscale of the Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale; RAIBS.ir = Irrationality

subscale of the Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale.

Discussion and conclusions

This study aimed to create a new assessment instrument for RBs and IBs,

firmly grounded in the REBT theory and designed to aid respondents in offering

more accurate ratings of their RBs/IBs. We tested its psychometric properties in

an unselected sample of undergraduate psychology students, using the framework

of binary model of distress advanced by REBT theory. More specifically, we

investigated the role of RBs in relation to functional/dysfunctional emotions, as

the empirical evidence regarding RBs’ role in distress is rather scarce, with most

studies reporting findings with IBs only.

Our preliminary results supported the internal consistency and construct

validity of the Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale (RAIBS), the newly-

developed measurement of IBs/RBs. Theoretically, RBs are expected to positively

Articles Section


correlate with negative functional emotions in the context of an activating event,

or not be related at all with negative functional emotions (because these emotions

are not expected to occur in the absence of a stressor). Our data fit these

theoretical expectations. In addition, we expected RBs to be inversely related to

dysfunctional emotions, which was also the case. In line with theoretical

assumptions, IBs measured with RAIBS correlated positively and significantly

with dysfunctional emotions, but did not correlate with functional ones. However,

when IBs were measured with ABS-II, they correlated positively and significantly

with both functional and dysfunctional emotions. All in all, these results suggest

that RAIBS can capture more adequately the IBs and RBs, being a better

alternative to the classical instruments for measuring REBT key-constructs.

Our results suggested that respondents tend to report redundant data when

asked to evaluate at the same time the intensity, frequency, and duration of a

RB/IB. Future studies should identify better solutions for a differential assessment

of these aspects related to RBs/IBs.

Given that the practice of REBT relies on the ABC model (Ellis, 1994)

which states that people experience negative activating events (A), about which

they have either rational or irrational beliefs (B) further leading to emotional,

behavioral, and cognitive consequences (C), we have to note that IBs and RBs

respectively are only expected to be related to dysfunctional and functional

emotions when facing negative events (A). Our sample in this study consisted of

unselected undergraduate students, possibly without having experienced

important negative events. This could explain the lack of a significant relationship

between negative functional emotions and RBs. Thus, in order to provide a more

comprehensive picture of the construct validity of the RAIBS, we tested it in a

subclinical sample as well.

Study 2

Method

This study aimed to pilot the RAIBS and FADNES in a subclinical

sample, in order to further explore their potential of providing empirical support

for the binary model of distress. Similar to the previous study, we used a cross-

sectional design.

Participants

Participants were 33 individuals (11 men; mean age: 32.60, SD = 17.33)

recruited from community following an advertisement for a research grant

providing free psychological treatment services for depression.

Articles Section


Measures

We used the following self-report questionnaires: Rational and Irrational

Beliefs Scale (RAIBS), Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Scale

(FADNES), and Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd

version (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, &

Brown, 1996). Both RAIBS and FADNES have been already described. For

RAIBS, participants reported only the intensity of a given RB/IB. We choose to

do this as our previous results suggested that information provided for the three

dimensions (i.e., intensity, frequency, and duration) seemed to be redundant.

BDI-II is a 21-item self-report measure of depressive symptoms, one of

the most widely used in the field. The items refer to psychological (e.g., feeling

sad, guilty) and physical (e.g., agitated, changes in appetite) symptoms of

depression, and are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3. The BDI-II is

scored by summing the highest ratings for all the 21 items; the total score can

range from 0 to 63.

Procedure

Participants contacted the Psytech Psychology Clinic of Babeș-Bolyai

University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. They were scheduled to meet a clinical

psychologist at the Clinic for eligibility assessment. At their first meeting with the

clinician, they were offered information about the research project and told they

should first undergo a comprehensive psychological assessment in order to verify

their eligibility for the research project. Next, they signed an Informed Consent

form for the psychological assessment, and started a general discussion with the

psychologist about their current problem. At the end of this first meeting, they

were required to fill in paper-and-pen versions of the BDI-II, RAIBS, and

FADNES, as part of their psychological evaluation.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the variables considered in this study

are shown in Table 3. The correlation matrix is shown in Table 4.

In line with REBT theory, IBs and RBs measured with RAIBS were

inversely inter-related, and correlated as expected with IBs and RBs measured

with ABS-II (RAIBS IBs correlated positively and significantly with ABS-II IBs,

and were negatively and significantly related to ABS-II RBs, while RAIBS RBs

correlated positively and significantly with ABS-II RBs, and were negatively and

significantly related to ABS-II IBs). Functional distress correlated negatively

(albeit non-significantly) with depressive symptoms, and with dysfunctional

distress, while negative dysfunctional emotions correlated strongly with

depressive symptoms. A similar pattern of results was evident for RBs and IBs,

with RBs correlating negatively and significantly with depressive symptoms and

dysfunctional distress, but positively (yet not significantly) with functional

Articles Section


distress, while IBs were found to be strongly and positively associated with

depressive symptoms and dysfunctional distress, but roughly unrelated to

functional distress.

Table 3. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) (n = 33).

Variable M SD

BDI-II 25.63 11.67

FADNES.f 9.00 3.93

FADNES.d 11.42 9.77

RAIBS.r 98.94 42.92

RAIBS.ir 53.63 37.56

Notes: BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd version (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996);

FADNES.f = Negative functional emotions subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional

Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); FADNES.d = Negative

dysfunctional emotions subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions

Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); RAIBS.r = Rationality subscale of the Rational and

Irrational Beliefs Scale; RAIBS.ir = Irrationality subscale of the Rational and Irrational

Beliefs Scale.

Table 4. Correlations between BDI-II, FADNES, and RAIBS.

BDI-II FADNES.f FADNES.d RAIBS.r RAIBS.ir

BDI-II -.303 .724** -.616** .568**

FADNES.f -.226 .178 -.030

FADNES.d -.572** .521**

RAIBS.r -.623**

RAIBS.ir

*p < .05; **p < .01

Notes: BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd version (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996);

FADNES.f = Negative functional emotions subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional

Negative Emotions Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); FADNES.d = Negative

dysfunctional emotions subscale of the Functional and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions

Scale (Mogoașe & Ștefan, 2013); RAIBS.r = Rationality subscale of the Rational and

Irrational Beliefs Scale; RAIBS.ir = Irrationality subscale of the Rational and Irrational

Beliefs Scale.

Discussion and conclusions

This study was aimed to pilot the RAIBS in a subclinical sample of

patients, in order to further investigate its psychometric properties, respectively to

explore the relationship between RBs and functional/dysfunctional emotions. In

Articles Section


line with our expectations and results obtained in the previous study, RAIBS

proved good psychometric properties.

We found the relationship between RBs and functional/dysfunctional

emotions to be in line with theory. Unlike the results from our previous study,

here results showed a positive (yet statistically non-significant4) relationship

between RBs and negative functional emotions. The positive relationship between

RBs and negative functional emotions was expected, as participants in this study

were actively looking for psychological assistance (i.e., most of them were facing

current stressors; therefore the occurrence of negative emotions was likely).

Therefore, the positive relationship between RBs and negative functional

emotions evidenced in this small sample, in addition to the negative relationships

between RBs and depressive symptoms as well as negative dysfunctional

emotions further strengthens the content validity of RAIBS. Moreover, in line

with theoretical assumptions, IBs did not correlate with negative functional

emotions, but did strongly and positively correlate with dysfunctional emotions

and depressive symptoms.

General conclusions

This paper presented two cross-sectional studies designed to develop and

test a new measure of RBs and IBs. Considering the limitations of the existing

instruments, and building on a theoretical and practical background, we

developed the RAIBS. Our preliminary results obtained in an unselected sample

of psychology students and in a moderately depressed sample of patients looking

for psychological assistance indicated good psychometric properties for the scale.

In addition, RAIBS seemed to be more in line with the theoretical assumptions of

REBT regarding the functional/dysfunctional emotions. This is the main strength

of RAIBS. In addition, when compared with the ABS-II (the other reasonably

well–designed and frequently used instrument; see Tarjesen et al., 2009), RAIBS

is a shorter instrument that evaluates RBs/IBs. The length of a measure may be

crucially important when one works with emotionally disturbed patients, who can

hardly focus, when that measure is being given repeatedly to measure changes in

symptoms, or when it is administered together with other instruments (see also

Tarjesen et al., 2009).

However, several limitations should be noted. First, the RAIBS version

presented here was a preliminary version, including unequal number of items

subsumed to the four main types of IBs (i.e., DEM, AWF, LFT, and GE). For

more balanced evaluations of IBs, RAIBS content could be refined in such a way

that equal numbers of items describing each of the four types of IBs are included.

Second, we did not manage to obtain additional clinical information by asking

participants to rate the frequency and duration of a given RB/IB, beyond its

4 Statistical non-significance could be a direct consequence of the small sample size.

Articles Section


intensity. Future studies should come up with more efficient solutions to reach

this aim, as the concomitant, adequate evaluation of intensity, frequency, and

duration of RBs/IBs may assist the clinician in evaluating change (Terjesen et al.,

2009). Third, our samples consisted mainly of females. Although we do not have

reasons to believe that RBs/IBs act differently in women compared to men, our

results should be warily interpreted keeping in mind that they were obtained

mostly in female samples. Fourth, our subclinical sample was small. Although the

results we obtained are quite encouraging, future studies should test RAIBS in

relation with functional/dysfunctional distress in larger (sub)clinical samples

before firm conclusions can be derived. Future studies should also investigate the

extent to which RAIBS is perceived by responders as being more user-friendly

and easier to fill in compared with other established instruments of measuring

IBs/RBs (e.g., ABS-II).

Overall, our results show promises for the development of more

theoretically and psychometrically sound instruments for measuring REBT key-

constructs. We hope our effort will stir more research aimed to advance our

understanding of cognitive and emotional functioning, in order to devise better

psychotherapeutic strategies and/or instruments designed to monitor clinical

change.

REFERENCES

Bernard, M. E. (1998). Validation of the general attitude and beliefs scale. Journal of

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 16, 183-196.

Bond, F. W., & Dryden, W. (1996). Testing an REBT theory: The effects of rational

beliefs, irrational beliefs, and their control or certainty contents on the functionality

of interference in a personal context. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 1,

55-77.

David, D., & Cramer, D. (2010). Rational and Irrational Beliefs in Human Feelings and

Psychophysiology. In D. David, S.J. Lynn & A. Ellis (Eds.), Rational and

Irrational Beliefs. Research, Theory, and Clinical Practice (pp. 96-112). New

York: Oxford University Press.

David, A., Ghinea, C., Macavei, B., & Kallay, E. (2005). A search for ‘‘hot’’ cognitions

in a clinical and non-clinical context: Appraisal, attributions, core relational

themes, irrational beliefs, and their relations to emotion. Journal of Cognitive and

Behavioral Psychotherapies, 5(1), 1-42.

David, D., Montgomery, G. H., Macavei, B., & Bovbjerg, D. (2005). An empirical

investigation of Albert Ellis’ binary model of distress. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 61(4), 499-516.

David, D., Schnur, J., & Belloiu, A. (2002). Another search for the ‘‘hot’’ cognition:

Appraisal irrational beliefs, attribution, and their relation to emotion. Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 20, 93-131.

David, D., Schnur, J., & Birk, J. (2004). Functional and dysfunctional emotions in Ellis’

cognitive theory: An empirical analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 869-880.

Articles Section


David, D., Szentagotai, A., Kallay, E., & Macavei, B. (2005). A synopsis of rational-

emotive behavioral therapy (REBT): Fundamental and applied research. Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23, 175-221.

DiGiusepee, R., Leaf, R., Exner, Y., & Robin, M.V. (1988). The development of a

measure of rational/irrational thinking. Paper presented at the World Congress of

Behavior Therapy, Edinburgh, Scotland.

DiLorenzo, T. A., David, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2007). The interrelations between

irrational cognitive processes and distress in stressful academic settings.

Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 765-776.

DiLorenzo, T. A., David, D., & Montgomery, G. H. (2011). The impact of general and

specific rational and irrational beliefs on exam distress; A further investigation of

the binary model of distress as an emotional regulation model. Journal of

Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 11(2), 121-142.

Dryden, W. (1999). Some reflections on rational beliefs. In Neenan, M., & Dryden, W.,

Rational emotive behavior therapy: advances in theory and practice. London:

Whurr

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.

Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Rev. ed.). Secaucus, NJ: Birscj

Lane.

Ellis, A., & DiGiusepee, R. (1993). Are inappropriate or dysfunctional feelings in

rational-emotive therapy qualitative or quantitative? Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 5, 471-477.

Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. (Eds.). (1975). A new guide to rational living. North

Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Book Company.

Goldfried, M. R., & Sobocinski, D. (1975). Effect of irrational beliefs on emotional

arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 504-510.

Jones, R. A. (1968). A factored measure of Ellis’ irrational beliefs system with personality

and maladjustment correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Technical

College.

Kline, P. (2000). The Handbook of Psychometric Testing (2nd ed.). London, UK:

Routledge.

Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., Adamson, G., & Boduszek, D. (2013). The organization of

irrational beliefs in posttraumatic stress symptomatology: testing the preditions of

REBT theory using structural equation modeling. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

00(0), 1-2. Lindner, H., Kirkby, R., Wertheim, E. & Birch, P. (1999). A Brief

Assessment of Irrational Thinking: The Shortened General Attitude and Belief

Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research , 23, 651-663.

Macavei, B., & McMahon, J. (2010). The assessment of rational and irrational beliefs.In

D. David, S. J. Lynn, & A. Ellis (Eds.), Rational and irrational beliefs: Research,

theory, and clinical practice (pp. 115-147). New York, NY: Oxford.

Malouff, J. M., & Schutte, N. S. (1986). Development and Validation of a Measure of

Irrational Belief. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(6), 860-62.

Mogoașe, C., & Ștefan, S. (2013). Is there a difference between functional and

dysfunctional negative emotions? The preliminary validation of the functional and

dysfunctional negative emotions scale. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral

Psychotherapies, 13(1), 13-32.

Montgomery, G., David, D., DiLorenzo, T., & Schnur, J. (2007). Response Expectancies

Articles Section


and Irrational Beliefs Predict Exam-Related Distress. Journal of Rational-Emotive

& Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25(1), 17-34.

Robb, H. B., & Warren, R. (1990). Irrational belief tests: New insights, new directions.

Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quaterly, 4, 303-311.

Smith, T. W. (1989). Assessment in rational-emotive therapy: Empirical access to the

ABCD model. In M. E. Bernard & R. DiGiuseppe (Eds.), Inside rational-emotive

therapy: A critical appraisal of the theory and therapy of Albert Ellis (pp. 135-

153). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Terjesen, M. D., Salhany, J., & Sciutto, M. J. (2009). A psychometric review of measures

of irrational beliefs: implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Rational-Emotive

& Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 27(2), 83-96.

Walen, S. R., DiGiuseppe, R., & Dryden, W. (1992). A practitioner‘s guide to rational-

emotive therapy (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

how do we measure rational and irrational beliefs? the development of rational and irrational...

Documents