Kellys and Elliss Approaches to Cognitive Therapies - Essay Example

? Comparing and Contrasting Kelly’s and Ellis Approaches to Cognitive Therapies Comparing and Contrasting Kelly’s and Ellis Approaches to Cognitive Therapies Kelly and Ellis have contributed key and significant knowledge in the cognitive therapy area. As such, the two have conducted considerable researches and come up with theories to add up to the existing knowledge on this field. There are several identical and different views brought forward by each therapist concerning the field. The aim of this paper is to bring out the similarities as well as the differences that the approaches show in their theories. According to Robert et al. (2002), there are elements that seem common if the two approaches are to be considered. First, a common thing that the approaches seem to address is the attempt to give the client’s cognitive strategies, a different direction. In addition, the approaches tend to emphasize on a model on therapy attributable to science. Taking into Account the less cognitive approaches that are directive in nature, the two approaches consider the therapist as a directive, verbal and an active agent. Robert et al. (2002) put a similar observation on this similarity by saying that the two approaches underscore on the cognitive process. As such, they aim at putting emphasis on the desire of a person to have a control of his environment as well as the need to comprehend the cause and effect of relationships. Still, considering the two therapeutic approaches, an underscore on the analysis of elicitors of shyness that can be considered external, and, the fact that they emphasize on specify of situations as well as attending to affiliate cognition in an effort to service and maintain shyness. In addition to this, David (2004) asserted that the two approaches hold views that are similar concerning the will that cognitive factors have on the dysfunctional and behaviors that are self-defeating. The two approaches to therapy can be considered similar in the state that, they tend to put emphasis on the importance of beliefs. Again, Kelly’s personal construct theory asserts that developing cognition is important if cognitions in a personality are to be understood (David, 2004). They share the same view that beliefs, whether a person is aware of them or not, affect the behaviors of a person. Where Ellis hypothesized on thoughts that are unconscious, Kelly focused on thoughts that are automatic in nature, and which tend to cause a distress. Ellis and Kelly’s approaches to therapy have a similar primary objective. As such, they seem to attend elementarily to misconceptions of a client by rectifying them (David, 2004). They do so by assisting the client to achieve effectiveness in the way they behave and think. In addition, Ellis uses challenging as well as active approaches aimed at confronting beliefs, which are irrigational. Both Ellis and Kelly put their client’s belief system to a challenge through direct interaction. As such, they tend to believe that, if they change assumptions that are inaccurate, there is a notable change in a client towards overcoming psychological disorders. Today, there is rising trend with a direction to individualism, and the belief of people to control their own destiny. Cognitive therefore grew to be a theme centrally to psychological theory. As such, Kelly and Ellis try to impart an understanding in people on how client’s perceptions are more significant to an individual. This was made in reference to reality of the world. In reality, from their advances, client’s perceptions are changed. Consequently, individuals tend to adapt a different view of the world (Judith & Arthur, 2000). Despite these identifiable similarities, there are cases where these two differs significantly. This is clearly seen in their theoretical therapy base and their specific techniques. These sets of differences results to a therapist employment of one therapy approach and leaving the other in an effort to address a shyness problem, viewed from a different perspective, and using a set of different therapeutic techniques. For instance, in regards to Ellis’ advancements, there is a tendency by a therapist to assert that, there exist irritational beliefs that are specific in nature, which maintain the problem of shyness. In addition, these specific irrational beliefs are assumed by Ellis to continue maintaining the problem and will cease to do so when interpretations that are more rational replace them (Judith & Arthur, 2000). This is in contrast with Kelly’s perspective. He urges that, a therapist, while accepting the ineffectiveness of shyness, would ascertain that, other ways of response and thinking exist and, from doing experiments, more effective ways will be established by the client. In Ellis’ perspective, he sees a therapist as serving a role like that of a teacher. As such, a therapist applies persuasions and confrontations on the client primarily, while imparting knowledge to him on how to challenge and replace thoughts that are self-defeating as well as emotions and behaviors. Contrary, a scientist who holds and maintains his objectivity in acting as a collaborator assists in designing, implementing and interpretation of the client’s living experiments. Indeed, Judith & Arthur (2000) pinpoints a difference that is fundamental in the two approaches to therapy. According to them, Elli’s approach has attributes of being dogmatic as well as prescriptive. On the other hand, Kelly’s is more objectivity oriented and tends to be less judgmental. This disparity, which can be termed as a major difference, perhaps maybe exemplified in the views that the two approaches encounters disconfirmation value in psychotherapy. In Ellis’ approach, he fervidly and vigorously puts a disconfirmation to a client’s ideas that are irritating, assumptions, beliefs as well as conclusions. As such, he substitutes them what he regards as more logical and rational approaches towards difficulties resolutions. This is contrary to what Kelly views. He focuses on putting consideration on the alternatives instead of disabusing neurotic notions of the client (Theodore, 2011). In terms of philosophic emphasis, Kelly underscores on the processes of cognition but he does not entail a specific philosophic emphasis as Elis does. Cognitive Behavior therapies has a wide scope of techniques, but the most significant thing is that it does not include any stress on an outlook of distinct philosophy. On the other hand, Rational Emotive theory, underscores on the fact that humans are natural scientists in nature (Theodore, 2011). As such, a main goal of the RET is to assist patients towards making a profound change in their philosophy. Consequently, this change tends to affect the present and future emotions as well as behaviors. On differences regarding the outlook at humanistic, not only do Ellis philosophical, he includes the humanistic outlook that is specific and existential of some other schools, which are therapeutic. It can be inferred that, to some degree, RET incorporates views of Ellis as well as other theorists on humanist. He also favors humanism, which is ethical and as such, it tends to encourage individuals to live the on the rules that emphasize the interest of the human beings in comparison of inanimate interests (Theodore, 2011). On the other hand, though Kelly’s approach has an orientation to humanism, he is not intrinsic. Ellis shows a significant difference in regards to lack of therapy involving behavior, modification of the cognitive behavior as well as humanistic therapies that are existential. As such, Ellis holds out that harm of lack of self-esteem and self-downing (Benjamin, 2005). On the other hand, Kelly‘s numerous kinds of techniques tend to teach the statements that are self coping. He goes ahead to assert that it cannot be shown to patients without first doing an analysis and a Socratic dialogue indigenous to RET (Benjamin, 2005). Further, despite the fact that the two approaches are based on the same ideas, Kelly is more contemporary in respect to Ellis. In this sense, Kelly’s ideas have a great impact in most countries around the world. As such, Kelly’s ideas are modernized versions of what Ellis had expressed and due to modernity; the most recent ideas tend to be taken into account (Benjamin, 2005). Both Ellis and Kelly have made significant contributions to the field of cognitive therapy. They are similar in some aspects and still different in other aspects. Irrespective of these differences, their ideas are well conveyed. They tend to address the issues concerning therapies comprehensively. References Benjamin, B. W. (2005). Handbook of clinical psychology, Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. David, A.W. (2004). Construct psychology in clinical practice: theory and research. London, UK: Routledge. Judith, T., & Arthur, C.B. (2000). Foundations of clinical and counseling psychology. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Robert, L., Leahy, E., & Thomas. D. (2002). Clinical advances in cognitive psychotherapy: theory and application. London, UK: Springer Publishing Company. Theodore, M. (2011). Disorders of Personality: Introducing a DSM/ICD Spectrum from Normal to Abnormal. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Read More