Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck are among the most influential figures in modern psychotherapy. Ellis’s Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT) and Beck’s Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) have helped shape the way mental health professionals understand and treat psychological distress. This article looks at the philosophical foundations of REBT and CBT and offers a detailed comparison of their implications on psychotherapy.
Background
In the mid-20th century, psychology was heavily influenced by the dominant paradigms of psychoanalysis and behaviourism. Societies around the world were going through profound cultural and social change. The post-war era brought a growing interest in personal freedom, individual responsibility, and scientific rigour. People were dealing with the rapid social changes of the time, including shifts in family structures, gender roles, and the rise of existentialism. This cultural environment, along with the rising influence of scientific thinking, gave rise to new approaches to understanding and treating emotional distress.
Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck were both trained in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis was the dominant clinical approach then. But they soon became disillusioned with its abstract, lengthy, and often untestable methods. Psychoanalysis focuses on uncovering unconscious drives and exploring early childhood experiences. It seemed to lack practical tools for immediate relief. The rise of behaviourism, which emphasised observable behaviour and scientific measurement, also failed to address the role of thought in shaping emotions.
Ellis was dissatisfied with psychoanalysis’s inefficiency. He introduced a new approach in 1955, which came to be called Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT). REBT drew from philosophical influences like Stoicism and humanism.
At the same time, Beck, who was also trained in psychoanalysis, began to notice patterns of distorted thinking in his research on depression. This led him to develop Cognitive Therapy (later CBT) in the 1960s. Beck’s approach was more scientific and empirical than Ellis’s, focusing on identifying and testing negative automatic thoughts through collaborative empiricism. CBT was more pragmatic, emphasising symptom relief and behaviour change rather than philosophical transformation.
Despite their differences, both REBT and CBT arose from a shared dissatisfaction with the limitations of psychoanalysis and behaviourism. They each sought to re-centre the individual as an active participant in their psychological change, moving away from the passivity of traditional psychoanalytic models and the mechanistic focus of behaviourism. This shift was in line with the post-war cultural context that valued personal autonomy, rational thinking, and scientific inquiry.
Philosophical Foundations
REBT and CBT both operate within the cognitive-behavioural framework. However, they are rooted in two fundamentally different philosophical traditions: rationalism and empiricism.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. It involves understanding the different ways we acquire knowledge. Rationalism and empiricism are two approaches to gaining knowledge.
Rationalism and Empiricism: Two Ways of Knowing Something
Rationalism is based on the idea that reliable knowledge comes from logic and reason. For example, you have a belief that “All people make mistakes”, and you made a mistake. With rationalism, you can logically conclude that it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.
It uses deductive thinking to derive truths from general principles. A rationalist values internal coherence. This means, if a belief is logically flawed, it must be corrected. Ellis leaned heavily into rationalist thinking.
Empiricism emphasises experience and observation. Truth is discovered through evidence gathered from the external world. For example, you believe that you’re bad at making friends. But then you notice that two people started conversations with you this week. From these experiences, you might change your beliefs based on what happened.
Empiricists rely on inductive reasoning, that is, drawing general conclusions from repeated observations. Beck’s work is grounded in this tradition. In the context of psychotherapy, these two distinct approaches guide how the therapist understands the client’s thinking and works with them.
REBT and Rationalism
Albert Ellis believed that people suffer not because of events, but because of the rigid and irrational beliefs they hold about those events. According to him, “People largely disturb themselves by believing strongly in absolutistic shoulds, oughts, and musts.” (Ellis, 1980) So, statements like “I must not fail” or “Others must always treat me fairly” are common targets in REBT.
In line with rationalist thinking, REBT challenges these beliefs using logic and philosophical reasoning. The therapist’s role is to dispute irrational “musts” and replace them with more flexible and realistic ideals. Ellis was influenced by Stoic philosophy, particularly the ideas of Epictetus, who wrote that people are disturbed not by events themselves, but by the views they take of them. REBT is, in many ways, an application of this Stoic principle to therapy.
The goal is to enable a shift in one’s philosophy. Clients are encouraged to adopt rational, non-extreme, and self-accepting beliefs to act as a foundation for long-term emotional health.
CBT and Empiricism
Beck also saw thoughts as central to emotional distress, but he approached them differently. Rather than assuming beliefs were irrational in a philosophical sense, Beck saw them as distorted or unhelpful. His focus was on whether a belief was accurate and functionally useful.
CBT encourages clients to test their beliefs against evidence. Thoughts are treated as hypotheses. Through techniques like thought records and behavioural experiments, clients learn to examine the validity of their thinking in real-world situations. CBT relies on “collaborative empiricism, where therapist and client work together to assess the truthfulness of the client’s thoughts.” (Nordlund, 2013)
This is very similar to the scientific method, where we observe, test, evaluate, and revise. While REBT looks for coherence with logic, CBT looks for evidence. CBT is more pragmatic and situation-specific. It addresses thoughts that lead to distress or dysfunction, regardless of whether they are logically valid.
Philosophical Similarities
Both REBT and CBT view thoughts as central to emotional well-being and that beliefs can be changed. They both view clients as active participants in their change process. Both aim to increase awareness of thinking patterns and promote more constructive ways of interpreting events. In practice, each of them occasionally also borrows from the other method. Ellis acknowledged the role of empirical testing. Beck recognised that deeper core beliefs function like philosophies. This overlap suggests that in real-world therapy, pure rationalism or empiricism is rarely applied on its own.
Philosophical Differences
Despite areas of overlap, the core philosophical differences between REBT and CBT remain clear. REBT is primarily concerned with whether a belief is logically valid and philosophically sound, while CBT focuses on whether a belief is accurate in practice and useful in outcome.
REBT challenges broader life philosophies. It encourages clients to adopt rational ways of thinking that promote emotional resilience. In contrast, CBT works with situation-specific thoughts. The aim here is to reduce distress and improve day-to-day functioning. It prioritises practical symptom relief and behavioural change.
Ellis vs. Beck: Approaches to Therapy
Understanding Psychological Distress
Ellis believed that emotional disturbance is caused by rigid, illogical, and absolutist beliefs. According to him, these beliefs are not just inaccurate, they’re logically flawed. He referred to this as “musturbatory thinking”. This refers to thinking where people insist that things must go a certain way.
Distress is explained by the ABC framework. Here, A is the Antecedent event (for example, failing an exam). B is the Belief about the event (“I must not fail or I’m worthless”). C is the Consequence (emotional reaction like shame or anxiety). The core problem lies in B. According to Ellis, beliefs like “I can’t stand discomfort” or “If I fail, I’m worthless” are irrational because they are extreme, unrealistic, and internally inconsistent. For him, changing these core philosophies is central to long-term emotional health.
Beck focused on how maladaptive thinking patterns, rather than illogical beliefs, lead to emotional distress. His clinical observations identified three cognitive components: (1) Negative automatic thoughts (for example, “I’m a failure”), (2) Cognitive distortions (such as catastrophizing, all-or-nothing thinking) and (3) Underlying schemas (which are deep beliefs about the self, often rooted in past experience).
These thoughts are often unconscious, fast, and emotionally charged. Unlike Ellis, Beck didn’t challenge them with logic but treated them as hypotheses to test.
Therapeutic Goals
REBT aims for philosophical change. The goal is to help clients adopt rational philosophies that promote long-term emotional strength, self-acceptance, and resilience. CBT, by contrast, is more problem-focused and practical. It aims to reduce distress and improve functioning by correcting specific cognitive distortions. While deeper schemas are addressed, the focus is on measurable and structured progress.
Therapy Techniques
Cognitive Techniques
REBT focuses on disputing irrational beliefs using logic and philosophy. Questions like “Where’s the evidence?” or “What does failure really mean?” are used to challenge core assumptions directly. CBT, on the other hand, uses thought records and cognitive restructuring to help clients test their thoughts collaboratively, treating them as hypotheses to be examined.
Behavioural Techniques
In REBT, clients engage in shame-attacking exercises, role-play, and rational-behavioural homework to practise new beliefs. CBT uses behavioural experiments, exposure, and activity scheduling to test and change unhelpful behaviours and beliefs through real-world, experience-based feedback.
Emotive Techniques
REBT incorporates humour, storytelling, and imagery to target emotional responses. CBT focuses less on emotive techniques and more on cognitive and behavioural work to bring about emotional change.
The Therapist’s Role
The therapist’s role differs significantly between the two approaches.
In REBT, therapists are often directive, didactic, and confrontational. They take an active role in challenging clients’ irrational beliefs while maintaining unconditional acceptance of the person. Ellis was known for using humour, bluntness, and provocation to push clients toward insight.
In CBT, therapists take a collaborative, curious, and structured role. They guide clients in identifying and testing thoughts without assuming what’s right or wrong. The process is closer to co-investigation than instruction.
Conclusion
The comparison of Ellis’s REBT and Beck’s CBT offers us two distinct perspectives about how humans change. They’re both cognitive-behavioural methods. However, they vary in how they view psychological distress and approach healing. REBT relies on logic and philosophical reasoning, while CBT relies on observation and evidence.
For practitioners, two points are especially relevant. First, therapeutic methods carry values. Choosing an approach means adopting a particular view of how people think, feel, and grow. Second, personal fit also matters. REBT may be suitable for clients drawn to confronting beliefs. CBT may be better suited for those who prefer structure and working together.
With the increasing awareness about the importance of psychotherapy, it becomes even more important to consider the values within the methods we use. Understanding the philosophical foundations of different approaches helps us practise with greater awareness and intention.
FAQs
1 . What are the main differences between REBT and CBT?
While both are cognitive-behavioural therapies, REBT focuses on changing irrational beliefs through logic and reasoning. Meanwhile, CBT targets distorted thinking patterns using evidence and real-world testing.
2. How are CBT’s ‘automatic thoughts’ different from REBT’s ‘irrational beliefs’?
Automatic thoughts in CBT are often unconscious, situational, and distorted, but not necessarily illogical. REBT’s irrational beliefs are more global and philosophically flawed.
3. What kind of client might benefit more from REBT and CBT?
Clients who enjoy direct challenges, value deep philosophical questioning, and are open to reframing their core beliefs may resonate more with REBT. Clients who prefer structured tasks, behavioural testing, and collaborative problem-solving may find CBT more helpful.
4. Is REBT more philosophical than CBT?
Yes. REBT is specifically grounded in rational philosophy and encourages clients to change their core life beliefs. CBT, while still cognitive, is more focused on practical symptom relief and evidence-based thinking.
References +
Ellis, A. (1980). Rational-emotive therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy: Similarities and differences. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01178210 Nordlund, F. K. (2013).
The difference is personal: A comparison of the theory and practice of Ellis and Beck. University of Alberta (Canada). https://doi.org/10.7939/R36W96M33
Leave feedback about this