There’s two students in the yard (kids 1 and 2). They’re playing
one on one basketball.
 |
| A game of one on one |
Another person (3) approaches and asks to join in. He’s
told as it’s a one on one game so another player isn’t needed. He waits a while
and moves on. Another child comes by (4) and asks the same question and the basketball
players say it’s a one on one and another player is not required. This is said
respectfully and assertively to the third person. The news is not received well.
This student (4) goes into a rage and throws their basketball away which
ultimately comes to the notice of the teacher on yard duty. Student 4 is asked
to sit out and is talked to for his behaviour.
Something happened in the lives of Kid 3 and Kid 4. They
were both declined their request to join in the basketball game with 1 and 2.
This is called the activating event, situation A.
So A = they didn’t let me join in.
Person 3 Felt OK about this. It (A) probably rated a 2 on
the emotional thermometer. A little upset and disappointed perhaps, still in
control. No hard feelings. He moved on after a while. No big deal.
Person 4 felt angry. It (A) rated an 8 on the emotional
thermometer. It was a big deal. Catastrophic even. He made some average
behavioural choices and was taken to task for it.
Did the situation (A) make the children do and feel as they did?
If this was the case surely they would feel and act the same way? But we know
person 3 was calm and person 4 was angry so A didn’t make their feelings and
behaviours. We will call feelings and behaviours C i.e. the emotional and
behavioural Consequence of A.
Person 3 said to another student that they didn’t let him join in. They were playing one on one. Three would be too many and that’s OK. This
person accepted the situation calmly.
 |
| The emotional thermometer |
Person 4 said to another student the kids wouldn’t let him join in. They made him angry. It was their fault!
Why the difference? Kid 3 is OK and kid 4 spat the dummy! What’s
going on here?
According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) theory kids 3 and 4 have constructed contrasting
philosophical perspectives. They have different thinking rules. We will call
these thinking rules B for beliefs. What are they?
Kid 3 we would speculate has the following philosophical
rule:
I don’t always have to get my. It’s rarely a catastrophe
when I don’t. I can handle disappointments.
We would say that is a rational/reasonable/helpful/healthy
view.
Kid 4 we would suggest according to REBT theory has the following
philosophical rule:
I must always get my way. It’s a catastrophe
when I don’t. It’s not fair and I can’t stand it!
We would say that is an irrational/unreasonable/unhelpful/unhealthy
view.
Rational Emotive Behaviour
Education teaches students that thinking feeling and behaving are
interconnected and that people’s experience of a situation emotionally and
behaviourally is linked to their beliefs; their thinking rules.
According to REBT Kid 3 has the following
perspective on life:
A + B = C where he will account
for how he feels and behaves not solely as a consequence of A but my thinking B
(me) has a lot to do with it.
According to REBT Kid 4 has the following
perspective on life:
A=C When A happens IT (A) makes my
feelings and behaviours. It's is not my fault!
One kids way of looking at things is healthy and the others
is not so.
The ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance was created by Albert Ellis and is a very useful teaching tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment