RESEARCH: Acceptance of Self and Others among Children: Implications for Bullying in Schools

This soon to be published research paper by Dr. Ken Rigby and Giulio Bortolozzo explores the attitudes of 212 middle school students towards themselves and others. As hypothesised, acceptance of self was significantly correlated with low levels of victimization and acceptance of others with low levels of bullying.

The intention of this post is to explore the implications of these findings for schools and teaching practice and suggest strategies (Rational Emotive Behaviour Education) to address bullying in our schools. But before that, a cautionary note!

A study by Dr Ken Rigby (Uni SA) and Peter Smith (Goldsmith College, London) reveal that 75 per cent of reports obtained from 27 countries (between 1990 and 2009) indicate a significant drop in student reported bullying and only 11 per cent reported an increase in occasional bullying.

In a recent article (Bullying going down, not up, Adelaide Advertiser, June 10th) Rigby reminds us that whilst the public perception may be that bullying is on the rise, the evidence suggests otherwise. Rigby believes that this perception:

‘… is due to the considerable raising of alarm about bullying and its effects over the past 15 years or so, and the increase in the reporting of serious incidents."

He goes on to say that:

"Stressing the serious effects of bullying is one understandable way of getting attention to the problem. Unfortunately doing so distorts the picture and takes attention from the many positive things that can be done, and are being done around the world, to address the problem more effectively."

Habits of Thinking and Victim Behaviour

# Unconditional Self-acceptance (USA) is the belief that self worth is not given to or bestowed on us by someone or something. It is given that a person is worthwhile because she exists and not because someone deems her so! This healthy (self helpful, rational) belief enables us to deal effectively with difficult situations (emotionally and behaviourally).

Insight 1 for students: Self-acceptance is a (healthy) belief. It is deeply held and is expressed in the way we behave and feel in day-to-day life. It is not connected to how well we do at something or how others view us. The belief that when we do good/bad we are not good/bad is an important insight to have. Doing and being are different ideas! This healthy belief is a protective factor against bullying.

As Jonas Salk (creator of the polio vaccine) replied to Martin Seligman (psychologist/author) when asked what he would do if he were a young scientist today:

‘I'd do immunisation. But instead of doing it physically, I'd do it psychologically.'

Dr. Albert Ellis (creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) would say that teaching unconditional self-acceptance, ‘psychologically immunises’ students against the scourge of undue anxiety, depression and other emotional disturbance.

# Conditional Self-Acceptance is the belief that self worth is given to or bestowed on us by someone. It is a belief that a person is worthwhile only when someone deems her so! This unhealthy (self defeating, irrational) belief stops us from dealing effectively with difficult situations (emotionally and behaviourally) and may put us at risk of being bullied.

Insight 2 for students: Conditional self-acceptance is an unhealthy belief. It is a deeply held belief that gives rise to depression and anxiety because of the individuals need for the approval of others. Because we believe we are only worthwhile when others ‘tell’ us so we are at great risk because there is the reality that others we may like, may not like us.

Conditional acceptance of self is the belief that that we are only worthwhile when significant others deem us so or when we do well at something. This, Ellis reminds us, is self-esteem the ‘worst sickness known to man or woman!’ (See previous posts)

Our research says that many students who have constructed the irrational belief that their worth depends on others (Serious Approval Dependence SAD) may be prone to bullying. Why? They may believe that they deserve it and signal that they are not confident through their behaviour: e.g. withdrawn, passive. These behaviours will be accompanied by e.g. fear, anxiety, and depression.

Habits of Thinking and Bully Behaviour

# Unconditional acceptance of others equates with respect and tolerance. This is a healthy habit of thinking/behaving, which accommodates a range of qualities and characteristics observed in other people. When we hold this belief we accept that others are worthwhile irrespective of how they behave. Whilst having such an attitude we retain the right to choose whom we would like to associate with. We can for instance decide not to associate with a particular other for a disagreeable quality she may have but we do not then decide she is totally bad and treat her disrespectfully!

Insight 3 for students: Unconditional acceptance of others is a healthy habit of thinking. It means we are made up of an infinite number of qualities and characteristics and we cannot be defined according to any particular one of them e.g. if we do a ‘bad’ thing (steal a pencil) we are not totally bad. Conversely if we do something ‘good’ (feed the cat) we are not totally good. We can dislike an aspect of another’s personality or behaviour and choose not to associate with them but we respect them as fellow human beings of intrinsic worth.

# Conditional other acceptance equates with disrespect for others. This is an unhealthy habit of thinking. It drives intolerance towards others behaviours and qualities which we may find different, disagreeable, quirky etc. It allows some people in some situations to hurt others because they are ‘different’ ‘not normal’ etc who ‘deserve to be punished.’

Insight 4 for students: Conditional acceptance of others is an unhealthy habit of thinking. When we think like this we act inappropriately towards others because we tend to judge someone’s total being according to a behaviour or characteristic we may not like or approve of. It is quite ok to judge the behaviour as ‘bad’ but not the person.

A whole school approach to teaching these concepts through Rational Emotive Behaviour Education will do the following:

• Reinforce healthy attitudes and beliefs already held by resilient students
• Begin to challenge the unhealthy attitudes and beliefs held by vulnerable students and to help them build new healthy habits of thinking
• Help students understand that what they believe is connected to how they feel and behave

If students accept themselves unconditionally, they will understand that what people think of them is not as important as what they think/believe about themselves. They will tend not to depend on the approval of others and will therefore be less affected by any unfair and hurtful attention. They will be more self assured and assertive.

The research (Bortolozzo, Rigby) strongly supports the teaching of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy/Education as an effective anti bullying strategy especially in regard to helping those students who may be at risk of being bullied.

There are many REBT based resources available to teachers. I have written two resources People and Emotions for primary and secondary students and Have a Go Spaghettio! for early childhood learners. Anyone who would wish to purchase a copy can contact me via this blog site. You can visit www.rebtnetwork.org for additional information and resources.

These are some of the latest publications by Dr. Ken Rigby, which can be sourced at http://www.kenrigby.net/

Ken Rigby (2010) Bullying Interventions: Six basic approaches. Camberwell: ACER Press
Ken Rigby (2009) Bullying in Schools: Six Methods of Intervention (the DVD): Loggerheads.
Ken Rigby (2010) Addressing School bullying: Education Queensland
Australian Government report on the Method of Shared Concern by Rigby and Griffiths
Responding to school bullying: a resource for teachers

Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy- a new book by Dr. Albert Ellis and Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis

Dr Ellis’ latest work is a book called Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. Co authored by his wife Dr Debbie Joffe Ellis, it is part of the Theories of Psychotherapy Series, edited by Jon Carlson and Matt Englar-Carlson and published by the American Psychological Association.

This gem comes hot on the heels of Dr Ellis' autobiography All Out! which was published in 2010, with contributions by Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis.

Ellis created REBT and developed it, promoted it and practiced it until his death in 2007. REBT is often said to be an offshoot or subsidiary of CBT but as this publication reminds us, REBT is the original cognitive therapy. Indeed Ellis is regarded as the father of REBT and the grandfather of CBT by those in the know.

Dr. Ellis’ motivation was to provide useful information to the general public on issues relating to mental health, offer a model (ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance) that could explain why people feel and behave as they do and suggest strategies that they could use and practice in their lives.

Of course the ABC model is used the world over by mental health practitioners to support people in their desire to address their behavioural and emotional disturbance and to attain positive mental health.

Ellis challenged the psychoanalytic establishment and weathered the criticism and ostracism of those who wanted to preserve the elite status of the role of therapist. Ellis in time understood that psychoanalysis was a long and drawn out process, much too focused on past events and though the client may have felt better it didn’t necessarily mean she got better in the longer term.

As Ellis said:

‘Many psychoanalysts refused to let me speak at their meetings. They were exceptionally vigorous because I had previously been an analyst and they were very angry at my flying the coop.’

Ellis met this petulance with his usual wit and intellect and forged ahead anyway! He practiced what he taught and as he unconditionally accepted himself he declared:

‘By not caring too much about what people think, I'm able to think for myself and propagate ideas, which are very often unpopular. And I succeed.’

Ellis surely put the ‘REBT cat’ amongst the ‘psychoanalytic pigeons’ and the field of psychotherapy was challenged and transformed for good and for the better!

The book contains much for the layperson and the practitioner alike and remains true to the Ellis’ philosophy of helping people to help themselves. A DVD accompanies the book, which illustrates the therapeutic application of REBT.

Drs. Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis acknowledge early in the book those who give and have given due recognition to his influence on their work. For instance William Glasser has respectfully given Dr Ellis due regard. Unfortunately others who have benefitted greatly by his work have not been so considerate.

Drs Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis again reinforce the importance of teaching children in schools from a very early age the basic principles and practices of REBT. Students and teachers would benefit greatly by understanding the link between thinking, feeling and behaving. The ‘wisdom of the ages’ ring long and loud through Ellis’ work. Consider the words of Epictetus in around 100 AD:

‘Events don’t make us act and feel as we do but it is our interpretation (appraisal) of those events that cause us to do what we do and feel what we feel.’

Helping people explore and understand this philosophy and apply it in their lives through Ellis’ ABC Theory is achieved in seven clearly written and informative chapters, which cover the life and work of Dr Ellis. Dr Debbie Joffe Ellis as co author continues to help spread the 'gospel of St Albert' widely and most successfully! The book talks about:

REBT History
REBT Theory
The REBT process
Future Directions of REBT

This book is a great reference for teachers and mental health practitioners alike and will be enjoyed by anyone who is interested in their own personal development. Indeed, a book for everyone!

Well done Drs Albert Ellis and Debbie Joffe Ellis on this wonderful REBT resource!

The Quest for Power – manipulation in the workplace

If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is! How many spam emails have you received that say you have won a lottery? Just send your account details and presto you are an instant millionaire!

A schoolteacher (Y) tells the story of a colleague who at first appeared to be just that, too good to be true. She was very helpful and polite; a member of several committees, which would make decisions about school matters. As time progressed the schoolteacher began to take note of her colleagues behaviour and in the end she concluded that indeed her helpful co-worker was ‘too good to be true.’

In time her co-worker (X) would reveal her true intentions, to seek at all costs to get what she wanted by fair means or foul. How did she do this? What manipulative skills did she bring to bear to get the approval and power she needed? Read on.

X would be very generous and overly helpful to those who were new to the school. She would be pleasant and kind, always making sure they were tended to. Was all this a means in itself or a means to an end? Was she kind for kindness sake or was the teacher (Y) a mere pawn in her game, a target to be groomed for her own deceitful ends?

X had established a strong working relationship with the boss and other staff members would comment on the lengths she would go to please him e.g. make him coffee, get him cake and biscuits and volunteer to do things for him. The more she ministered to his needs the higher she was held in his esteem. Her sense of worth would continue to be bolstered as the boss grew to rely more on her readiness to help at any time.

X would recount how on so many occasions over time she had been victimised by others. At the netball club she would volunteer for various committees until she had a say in almost every area of club management and organization. She would do things so perfectly that others would comment on her exceptional talents. She was indispensible in her mind and achieved her desire to be the centre of attention. Others would grow to resent her influence and people left the club. When the club president suggested that changes be made to accommodate others X cried foul. What had she done? She only wanted what was best for the club! It just wasn’t fair!

X had claimed in the past that someone had rearranged personal items on her desk. For instance she said that someone had rearranged photographs, relocated paperwork and other things on her desk. She didn’t name anyone in particular but she left an impression that someone was treating her badly and unfairly. Had this actually happened or was it a strategy to focus attention again on her needy self? Others were left to consider which cruel staff member was the culprit making X’s life so difficult.

Mysteriously files would go missing on Y’s computer only to be retrieved by guess who? No need for a second guess! When X wanted to ingratiate herself to someone what better way than to be the one that ‘saves the day.’ X was heard to say, ‘these aren’t my files but I feel as if they are my own. It’s just like I lost them.’ Was this yet another contrived situation to demonstrate how empathic she was, how concerned she was for others. It perhaps was also an opportunity to get a kick from having power and control over the situation. Consider the phenomenon of the ‘Firefighter arsonist’

‘There are cases of fire - fighters who have started a fire, reported it and attended the fire with their unit in the hope of being seen as the hero who saves the community. In other cases the motive may be to gain self-esteem through a demonstration of power and control.
’BushFIRE Arson Bulletin No. 16 Australian Institute of Criminology

X would claim that issues at home constantly challenged her – relationships with siblings, relationship with spouse, and serious health problems of family members. People initially would show care and concern but again was this yet another way to get peoples attention? Wouldn’t people regard such stoicism and resilience admirable? Some began to question the veracity of such claims. ‘It doesn’t only rain but it pours!’ ‘Don’t I have enough to deal with? Now this!’ This was the mantra, often accompanied by tears and claims of how unfair people and situations were.

It wasn’t unusual to observe X ministering to the needs of children demonstrating her compassion and desire to ‘be there’ for them. This was done in full view of others, her soothing words just loud enough for her ‘admiring’ colleagues to see her. How wonderful it appeared that X could be so caring and compassionate. What was the intention behind this? Were the children being used so that X could showcase her skills and compassion? This was perhaps yet another opportunity to be noticed, to be the centre of attention.

People began to wise up to X’s emotional blackmail and victim behaviour and they began to question her true intentions. Attention seekers need attention and some decided that they would not continue to fuel her need to be needed. If someone questioned her or asked for more information about something she would protest how affronted she was and that she was being unfairly treated. If people weren’t convinced she would become tearful. How could anyone think ill of someone who was so caring, compassionate, competent and hard working? Why should she be held to account like everyone else?

The professional victim is adept at deflecting blame, using hard luck stories to win sympathy, making herself ‘indispensible’ to influential others. This all feeds her need to be needed. She has low self worth and has such a poor opinion of herself that she relies on the approval of others to feel good about herself, an approval addiction/dependence. In previous posts we have discussed Serious Approval Dependence (SAD) where the individual needs to be noticed and esteemed by others. When this is taken away, the individual can be left with feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt and self-loathing. She may also resent those who don’t acknowledge her talents and capabilities (as they absolutely should! – see Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance). She is often left feeling angry, anxious and depressed.

X could do with some professional support to understand why she feels as she feels and behaves as she does. Albert Ellis’ REBT would help her tease out those irrational habits of thinking that she has constructed over the years. What self-sabotaging ‘musts, oughts and should’ type thinking underlie her unhelpful feelings and behaviours?

Person X above is worthy of understanding and respect but at the same time those around her would be wise to protect themselves from her manipulative behaviour.

1. Be aware of she who sits on every or most committees
2. Don’t feed her need to be needed – she needs your approval, don’t give it!
3. Be prepared to become a target of her anger/resentment if you are strong enough not to be drawn into her web of lies and deceit.
4. Tears and claims of victimhood will be the strategy of choice used when there is any sense that she has been caught out (‘My integrity is at stake here! This is so unfair.’)
5. She will put others down strategically when others who are ‘on side’ are around.
6. She will delegate difficult jobs to others (that she can’t do herself) and criticize them when they fail (as they will do).
7. She will withhold important information from colleagues.
8. She will deny professional learning opportunities to her 'underlings' and then criticize them when they don’t perform as well as they ‘should’.
9. She will tell her line manager that so and so is lazy, inefficient (who will believe her as she is his confidante at his disposal 24/7 and therefore must be right)
10. The above strategies will be used to her advantage e.g. engineer the employment of people she knows to positions on staff (to replace those inefficient others who ‘don’t do a good job’) who she can control.
11. She will tell lies to get what she wants.
12. She will be aided and abetted by line managers who wouldn’t want to get her offside as she is greatly needed (just as she likes to be).

The Obnoxious Child

According to my lap top thesaurus obnoxious means 'loathsome, hateful, insufferable and abhorrent' amongst many others. Students present with a range of developmental needs and it is teachers business to find out what those needs are and how best to address them. What do we do when we have concluded that a particular child is loathsome? What have we done when we have labelled a student so?

If you are an educator or someone who works with children you may have had moments of utter frustration where you have declared to yourself or to others that so and so is a total ‘shit’ and is ruining what is otherwise the ‘perfect’ class. What do you do when you think this way? What do you do when you feel this way? How do you act when you think and feel like this?

Your frustration may be fleeting as you talk to others and reflect on the situation and anger and frustration eventually gives way to concern as you again try to find another way to support this child.

On the other hand your anger may be sustained and your resentment towards this child may build to the point where you believe the only satisfactory outcome would be if this child could be removed from your class, the school, your life!

Interestingly the same obnoxious child we are talking about may not evoke the same sentiments in your colleague who works with this child. Why? We are talking about the same child are we not?

Let’s consider the above scenario from an REBT/REBE perspective in regard to the teacher and the student and perhaps suggest ways in which the teacher can manage a trying and challenging situation.

Ellis strongly recommends that we examine our core philosophical beliefs about others. He talks about unconditional acceptance of others, acknowledging that people will make mistakes and do inappropriate things, which don’t/can’t negate the positive aspects and qualities of the person. From this viewpoint we can say that the child may have done/does ‘obnoxious’ things but is herself not obnoxious. Having an attitude of acceptance of the person separates the person from the deed and whilst it may not be easy to do it is well worth cultivating such an attitude for the benefit of the child and the teacher.

If we believe that people can be totally bad or obnoxious we then may feel resentful and angry towards the ‘bad’ person. This feeling of anger and resentment will be sustained as we maintain the belief that this person is making us angry. Logically then it will follow that we can only be happy when the source of our unhappiness is removed (the obnoxious child is making us angry). REBT holds that this philosophical stance is self-defeating for the teacher (I only accept people who are ‘good’ and not ‘bad’) because it maintains the unhealthy feelings outlined above and leads to poor actions towards the child e.g. ignored, constantly criticised, put down. It is important to be clear about the source of our anger and resentment towards the obnoxious child (and any other person we decide is ‘bad’). Albert Ellis said, “We feel and act as we do because we believe as we do!” He calls this Conditional Acceptance of Others; we only accept others when they meet our demands to behave as we want them to behave when we want them to. When we don’t get what we must have we feel angry. WE MAKE OURSELVES ANGRY BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE THINK!

What are the consequences for the child? She is in a perilous position because a very significant person in her life (you) has decided that she is not worthy of your attention or respect. She is bad (not good) and bad people should be punished (ignored, put down). Not only does she do bad, she is bad! This will only reinforce her belief that she is bad (a shit, an arsehole, worthless) and this will manifest in longer-term behavioural and emotional problems. The Dalai Lama says:

“In our daily life a certain way of thinking makes us happy, and a certain way of thinking makes us unhappy.”

What can the teacher do to manage this situation effectively? How can she manage her feelings and behaviour? How can the child be supported in this challenging situation?

1. Understand that you determine how you feel and behave. Not others.
2. Examine your beliefs. Do you accept others only on certain conditions?
3. Cultivate an attitude of acceptance of others; understand the difference between behaviour and person.
4. Monitor your self-talk. Beware of shoulds, oughts and musts.
5. Accept yourself (look up Unconditional Self Acceptance).
6. Accept that things may not always work to plan.
7. Think in preferences not shoulds. ‘I would prefer she did as she was asked but I accept she doesn’t absolutely have to.’
8. ‘It takes a village to raise a child.’ Address the child’s needs from a whole school perspective. Enlist the help of others.
9. Believe that the child is not essentially bad. Damn the sin not the sinner!

Are you a bad person for believing that a student is bad? Absolutely not! You have many positive qualities and capabilities, which can never be taken away. You are always worthwhile no matter what. Is this not also true of the ‘obnoxious’ child?

“In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher." Dalai Lama

Dr Albert Ellis

RAGE!

Seamus is a competitive person who likes to win. He regards himself as an intelligent person who is ‘the best’ student in the class. He settles for nothing less than an ‘A’ in his work and has grand plans for his future education and career. He derides other student’s efforts and will declare to them that he is the ‘smartest in the class.’ He is known for the odd put down, telling others how ‘retarded’ they are.

His peers tolerate his conceit and suffer his company in playground activities. He doesn’t appear to be aware that others may not be comfortable around him at times as he continues to declare his superiority over all others.

The above is problematic for himself, his peers and the school community as Seamus has a severe anger management problem. He is moody at the best of times and becomes enraged too readily. Why?

According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he may have constructed a set of core beliefs (rules) that determine how he responds emotionally and behaviourally in certain situations. His rules are:

‘I must absolutely achieve my goals (or I am a failure).’
‘I must prove to everyone how competent I am.’
‘It is awful when others do better than me.’
‘I absolutely must have the approval of significant others.’

These rules are debilitating as Seamus strives for perfection and the approval of others. He is highly anxious about how he is perceived (‘the smartest’) by others and is badly aggrieved when he doesn’t get the attention he believes he must have.

How then can this student be supported in the school setting?

1. Introduce all students to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance – feelings, thinking and actions are all interconnected.
2. Teach that there are helpful rules and unhelpful rules that we have constructed over time, which determine the behavioural choices we make.
3. Teach words that represent the broad spectrum of emotions that we feel and explain that extreme unhealthy negative emotions are linked to irrational thinking (the unhelpful rules we construct) and that healthy negative emotions e.g. annoyed are linked to rational thinking (the helpful rules we construct). Use the Emotional Thermometer to illustrate this.
4. Teach students about the Catastrophe Scale to help them put into perspective the ‘badness’ of situations they encounter. Is losing a pencil as bad as breaking a leg for instance?
5. Invite children to discuss and suggest why a ‘must’ belief is self-defeating and a ‘preference’ rule is self-helpful.

As a class examine and deconstruct the validity or otherwise of ‘must’ statements and ‘preference’ statements. The following is an example of how this can be done.
- A year 6/7 class is introduced to the ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance and the emotional thermometer and catastrophe scale. Students talk about extreme unhealthy negative emotions like depressed, anxious, enraged and healthy negative emotions like disappointed, upset, and concerned. They talk about the kinds of thinking/beliefs that underpin such feelings and associated actions.
- Talk about feelings of rage and depression and their association with the core belief that ‘I must absolutely always achieve my goals and when I don’t it is a catastrophe and so awful I can’t stand it. I am a failure.’
- Students discuss why this ‘core rule’ is self -defeating (makes extreme negative feelings and poor behavioural choices).
- They then suggest reasons why this is so i.e. they challenge the veracity of this belief in the light of the evidence.
- They are invited to talk about helpful thinking e.g. ‘I would prefer to do well but it is hardly so awful that I can’t stand it and I am always worthwhile.’ They then explore why this is a rational belief and why the evidence supports this view.

Previous blogs have explored other important teaching items like Unconditional Self Acceptance, which helps the individual manage difficult situations like failure and rejection in a healthy way.

Seamus’ tendency to experience rage in situations where he does not achieve to his lofty standards and to harshly criticise those ‘lesser mortals’ who don’t measure up to his superior capabilities is cause for concern. This can be addressed as a whole school by introducing Rational Emotive Behaviour Education as follows:

1. All teachers and support staff are trained in Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy).
2. All staff is trained in the application of REBE through Giulio’s tried and tested SIX ESSENTIAL STEPS TO EMOTIONAL and BEHAVIOURAL WELL BEING.

If you are interested to find out more about Rational Emotive Behaviour Education contact Giulio on 0412668815 or by email borto1@chariot.net.au.

‘As a highly skilled exponent of Rational Emotive Behaviour Education, Giulio has repeatedly demonstrated the value of his work in helping school children to cope more effectively with interpersonal conflicts, including bullying and harassment. His work is well supported by research that he and I have undertaken with Australian schoolchildren and presented together at national conferences.’
Dr. Ken Rigby, Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia

Musturbating Ed and Cool Al!

Edwin had had an unsuccessful recess. He had been involved in an altercation with two others regarding a basketball game. The two other kids were playing one on one and had enough players. Edwin didn’t react too well when he was told he couldn’t join in.

Albert on the other hand had approached the two basketballers earlier and asked the same question as Edwin. When told he couldn’t join in he watched the game a while and then moved on.

When asked why he did what he did, Edwin protested that the two boys made him angry and it was their fault that he kicked the ball away because they didn’t let him join in.

According to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance Edwin believes that A, someone or something, makes him do and feel as he does. He is yet to understand the relationship B (what he believes) has with C (how he feels and behaves).

According to Edwin’s view of the world he is not responsible for his feelings and actions (they made me angry) and feels justified in what he did (kicked the ball away). He came to the attention of the supervising teacher and was reprimanded accordingly. What is his rule for living? What are his core beliefs about himself, others and the world in general?

Albert responded in a different way to the same scenario. Did he lose his temper and kick the ball away? No. He accepted that he couldn’t join in and moved on to other things. There were no reprimands as Albert’s actions were not hurtful to others as he dealt with the situation appropriately.

Edwin is known to react in challenging situations. He is quick to anger and blames others, things events for how he feels. The world and all its inhabitants are at fault - never he! Edwin would like all the hassles, people he doesn’t like, things he is responsible for to be removed from his life so he can be happy. Woe is he as the world conspires against him, rendering him a hapless victim of circumstance. How did this happen? (Refer to previous posts).

Edwin’s Lament

Anger holds sway

When I don’t get my way

And I despair

It’s just not fair!

Albert on the other hand rarely acts without forethought. He is generally calm and will healthily feel annoyed and disappointed when things don’t go his way. He doesn’t stew over things and tends to get on with others and seems to be happy in his own skin. He is doing well at school, meeting challenges with reasonable optimism and doesn’t take failure too much to heart. Others respect him and he has a circle of good friends.

Albert’s View

I may not always get my way

And that’s quite ok

No need to despair

Sometimes life’s not fair!

What are the rules that underpin the actions (behavioural choices) and emotions of these two young people? The situation is the same but the outcomes are different. How so?

Edwin and Albert have different views on life, different rules for living. Edwin finds himself battling to cope a lot of the time and Albert seems to navigate the tough times in a more reasonable manner.

Edwin’s rule:

‘I must get what I want. When I don’t, it’s so awful that I can’t stand it.’

His unrealistic expectations of himself, others and the world contrive against him. “IT”, (the world, things and others) are not driving his actions and emotions, he is! He thinks those kids should absolutely allow him to join in the game. They don’t and therefore it’s their fault he feels so bad and acts aggressively.

Albert’s rule:

‘I prefer to get my way but I don’t absolutely have to. I can handle difficult situations. I can stand it.’

Albert therefore is inclined to annoyance and disappointment (healthy negative emotions) rather than rage and extreme sadness (unhealthy negative emotions). He believes those kids don’t have to let him join in. He doesn’t turn a small problem into a catastrophe; it’s an inconvenience but not the end of the world.

Implications for teaching practice

• Teach students about the think feel do connection.
• Talk about ‘rules for living’ as discussed above – why is one helpful and the other not?
• Challenge the rationality of these rules – why is one rational and the other not?
• Remind students that when they act and feel in a way that causes self and/or other harm (e.g. petulant Edwin had to sit out because he disrupted the basketball game) an irrational rule is at work.
• Reinforce those behaviours in children that suggest preference thinking- the student who accepts that she can’t go on the computer as scheduled for instance.
• Talk about helpful and unhelpful personal rules in day-to-day interactions. Decide which rule is helpful e.g. ‘I must be chosen to be the library monitor.’ Or ‘I’d like to be library monitor, but there are others who would like to be also.’ What are the consequences for each (behaviorally and emotionally) if neither gets their wish?
• Remind students that their worth is not determined by how well or badly they do or how others view them (approval/disapproval).
• Pose questions for students to ponder such as: How does ‘it’ make you angry? What is ‘it’? Why does ‘it’ not make others angry?

Rational Emotive Behaviour Education will give schools the capacity to support students to manage their potentially destructive behaviours and emotions. It will reinforce those attitudes and beliefs that are self/other helpful (rational).

Strategies for Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)

You have Serious Approval Dependence (SAD) and you know how you got it! By dint of your biological inheritance and how you were socialised you have constructed the very debilitating core belief that your worth depends on how others view you or how well you perform in your work, study, sex etc. If you have concocted this warped and destructive belief then you can deconstruct it and replace it with USA, Unconditional Self Acceptance. How do you do this? By self-awareness, vigilance and hard work, that’s how!

1. Know how you are feeling.
2. Understand that your feelings and behaviour are connected to your thinking.
3. Identify your habits of believing.
4. Decide whether or not your thinking is helpful, rational.
5. Challenge your beliefs with vigour.
6. Be forever vigilant.

Activating event (A)

You are a member of a parent group at your child’s school and you are generally happy to sit and listen at meetings. There are times when you have been inclined to say something about an issue of interest to you but you always stop yourself from saying what you want to say. You notice how anxious you feel; your heart races and you begin to sweat a little. You stop yourself from commenting as the opportunity goes by, and you castigate yourself for wimping out. Typical you think.

Is this scenario a repeat of many over the years where opportunity has gone begging and been missed, when the nettle was there to be grasped and you chose to avoid it. Is this a case of Serious Approval Dependence (SAD)? You bet it is and it’s nigh time you had a one on one with your enemy YOU!

How do you feel and act (C)?

Strategy one: Identify how you were feeling around the time you wanted to say something and how strong? (8/10 anxious). Determine whether this is a healthy negative emotion or a helpful one – does it help or hinder you achieving what you want? Answer: Not healthy because you didn’t do what you wanted to do, share your ideas with the group.

What are you thinking (B)?

Strategy two: Identify your self-talk at the time, what were you saying to yourself? Answer: ‘if I make a mistake, what would they think of me? My views are not that important, they seem more knowledgeable than me. It would be awful if I sounded confused or hesitant. I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’ This is irrational as it is stopping you from doing what you want to do.

Challenge your thinking (D)

Strategy three: Identify a particular statement and challenge it’s veracity (start a diary and record how you thought, felt and acted in various situations). Lets consider the statement:

‘I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’

Q. If they disagreed with my views would that equate to them damning me as a person?

A. No. A particular viewpoint is not ‘me’. I am more than what I say.

Q. If they disagreed with me would it be ‘so awful that I couldn’t stand it!’

A. No. It would hardly be catastrophic that someone would disagree with me. Breaking my leg could possibly be worse but even that is not catastrophic or so awful that I couldn’t stand it.

Q. Must others always agree with me? Should they see things as I do for me to be worthwhile?

A. Of course not. My worth is not at question here; my ideas and views may be but they are not ‘me’.

Q. Do I need others to agree with me for me to be worthwhile?

A. No. My worth is not given to me and cannot be taken away. I can only be worth – less if I believe I absolutely must have the approval of others to be worthwhile. I am worthwhile because I exist not because someone else thinks I am!

Q. What benefits could I gain by risking the disapproval of others?

A. I will see that the sun will rise again and the birds will continue to twitter in the treetops. Those who care for me and approve of me unconditionally will continue to do so. Even if I stumble and stutter I will not drop dead. I can practice my public speaking skills if I choose to do so. I will accept that sometimes I will stuff up because I am human and that’s what humans do.

Q. What will happen if I continue not to risk the disapproval of others?

A. I will perpetuate the mythological belief that somehow others views of me determine my worth. I will continue to practice Serious Approval Dependence and remain a ‘wall flower’ at the ball, waiting for someone to pick me!

Eleanor Roosevelt said

No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.

Don’t give anyone or anything permission to determine whether you are worthwhile or not. You don’t need it, you exist and that’s that!