David and Maureen – Maureen is a graduate student with some clear career ambitions who is stressed about a compulsory statistics course she is currently taking. Her grade on a minor assignment was lower than anticipated, and she is busy convincing herself that she is almost certain to fail, jeopardizing her longer-term career plans.

David and Jacques – Jacques is currently separated from his wife Ali. They have three children: Ellie, 9, and Phil, 10, and Max, 14. Jacques wants to review what he calls “negative patterns” in his relationship with Ali and to some extent the children with the hope of becoming reconciled. The focus of his talks with David here is a scenario that repeats itself when he is with his family: he is in the middle of telling a story or holding forth on some topic and they tune him out, turn to each other, pick up other conversation threads, and leave him stranded. He says he sometimes responds to this by withdrawing and becoming silent, quietly hurt and angry. At other times, he becomes indignant about “his right to be heard” and challenges them angrily, which alienates them rather than promoting intimacy, and has ended at times in him storming out of the room.

In this exchange, Maureen has identified that she is feeling stressed about a compulsory statistics course she's taking. She needs the course to accomplish your career objectives, and is afraid that she will fail. David helps Maureen paint a picture of what she “tells herself” and does, both in class and at home, in relation to the course. What questions does he ask? What are some of the key answers? Although mostly engage in gaining a general view of the situation, David does uncover a number of things that will be useful in challenging the unhelpful cognitions. These include “evidence” that is contrary to what Maureen tells herself when pessimistic, as well as exceptions in the form of related situations where Maureen succeeded with challenging tasks by applying herself and focusing down. Can you name the contrary evidence and the exceptions that David and Maureen uncover? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

As David explores Maureen's situation with her, it is not long before he uncovers “evidence” that her dire and pessimistic predictions about her prospects are likely exaggerated. However, he refrains from taking and argumentative an oppositional stance, instead maintaining a gentle curiosity that invites Maureen to evaluate alternate ways of looking at things. This conversation is somewhat preparatory to more focused work on revising unhelpful cognitions; nevertheless, it does uncover some fertile prospects. For one, David discovers that Maureen's grade on her first assignment is close to the class average and does not seem to indicate that her abilities are far out of line with course expectations. Secondly, he discovers that the assignment was only worth 10%, and she therefore has a significant opportunity ahead of her to boost her grades. Thirdly, David becomes curious about whether Maureen has previously succeeded at tasks that initially seemed daunting and unachievable. She recounts her successes in learning to play clarinet. This experience came with helpful cognitions, and David and Maureen consider ways in which she might apply this more productive self-talk to the situation at hand.

In this exchange, David and Jacques explore the sequence of activating event, belief, and consequence that has been problematic for Jacques in his relationship with his wife and children. How does David introduce the connection between activating event, belief, and consequence to Jacques? What does he ask to solicit a vivid picture of the activating event? How do David and Jacques move from the event, to the self-talk that accompanies it? What are the primary messages that take hold of Jacques in those moments? How does David help Jacques to name and clarify these? How does he introduce an examination of the consequences of these thoughts on Jacques? How would you describe the fallout of these thoughts as depicted by Jacques? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Jacques feels trapped by a pattern of interaction with his wife and children and is interested in responding differently in a familiar situation that often plays out poorly for their relationship. Note that this exchange is not about trying to determine the why of what feels for Jacques like automatic behavior, but more like laying out the what, so that he can make an active choice to respond in an alternate way more in line with his intentions. Notice also that the self-talk that arises in these situations has variations, but has a sort of thematic unity that leads to certain consequences. The consequences vary somewhat as well but share the quality of detracting from the relationship. Sometimes he goes silent; sometimes he storms out of the room. Both responses are associated with feeling hurt and angry, and neither helps to strengthen his connection to his wife and children. By the end of this exchange, Jacques is clearer on how this sequence unfolds, and David and Jacques are in a position to examine it in more detail in preparation for doing things differently.

David becomes curious here about whether Jacques has ever been able to respond differently in situations like the one identified as an Activating Event—moments where he is interrupted while sharing a story with his family. Jacques is able to identify a recent incident with the children. What does David ask to help Jacques identify what is different about his self-talk in this instance? How would you describe this more helpful cognition? What is Jacques’ description of the consequences of this self-talk, both emotionally and behaviourally? How does David invite Jacques to consider exploiting this learning for improving his relationship with his children and wife? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

The exception that Jacques identifies here comes from a related, but not identical, situation. In his example, he is just with his children. While David and Jacques are able to identify the useful alternative self-talk in that situation, Jacques is less certain whether he could respond similarly with his wife present. This leads to a further exploration of what is unique about his relationship with his wife, and what might be the possible obstacles to replacing the negative self-talk with his wife. David remains curious about what makes the situation with his wife different, rather than pushing Jacques to defend his doubts about whether the exception they have identified would apply to his relationship with Ali. The exchange ends with Jacques reflecting on how totalizing claims about his wife’s lack of care may be overstated. These “cracks” in the negative cognition provide openings for further exploration.

This exchange is a follow-up to the conversation entitled "Identifying exceptions to unhelpful cognitions." David and Jacques pick up on Jacques’ observation that what goes on with his wife is different than the pattern that plays out with his kids. They review the self-talk that dominates in those exchanges. In doing so, Jacques is aware he is not sure the self-talk is “true”. This comment provides an opening to disputing the self-talk. How does David re-invite Jacques back into evaluating this pattern of relating with his wife in reference to the ABC sequence? David employs Socratic dialogue to invite Jacques to question the validity of the claims and to consider alternatives. What alternative self-talk emerges which appears to offer more helpful consequences in the moment? What questions does David ask to identify this helpful self-talk? How do David and Jacques deal with Jacques’ lingering doubts about whether this alternative self-talk will indeed be useful? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Unhelpful self talk is not generated out of thin air; it is grounded in life experience and not easily dislodged. While David and Jacques don't seem to have too much trouble disputing the belief that Ali simply wants to “shut out” Jacques, he is nevertheless not sure the alternative belief (“Ali is bubbly and social and easily distracted”) will be convincing in the moment. In the spirit of this critical inquiry into Jacques’ experience, David deliberately assumes a “devil's advocate” position here, pressing Jacques to anticipate what might come up for him in one of those moments that often goes off the rails. Jacques imagines that he might conclude that he is being “treated like a rug”, a belief that brings him back to feelings of anger, hurt, and righteous indignation. At the same time, Jacques labels this response as “childish”, which is a clear statement that he would prefer to respond differently in these situations. These reflections from Jacques provide a foundation he and David to try to respond differently in the coming days, aided by some alternative self-talk. As Jacques says towards the end of the exchange, it can’t hurt in that his experiment with shifting his beliefs will almost certainly lead to less conflict.

As David and Jacques continue to explore Jacques’ experience around his conflicts with his wife, it becomes apparent that a particular thought—that she doesn't care and wants to shut him out—has a strong grip on him, even though he is able to identify evidence to the contrary. In this exchange, David invites Jacques to reflect on the ebb and flow of this unhelpful cognition. What questions does he ask that support Jacques in noticing the variability of his self-talk with regard to his wife, Ali? What does Jacques discover? What suggestions does David offer about what Jacques might want to try out in the coming week? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

By now, Jacques has clearly described how this particular negative self-talk bullies its way to the foreground of his experience and blinds him to interactions with Ali that are contrary to the self-talk's claims. As David gently probes further along with Jacques, it becomes clear that this perception of Ali exists alongside others which promote more constructive responses in line with Jacques’ desire to attempt a reconciliation with his wife. This exchange is not about arguing about which of Jacques’ various perceptions/thoughts are “true”; on the contrary, the point is that Jacques’ thoughts vary throughout the day, and give rise to a variety of emotional and behavioral responses. On the basis of this inquiry, Jacques commits to stepping back and observing the parade of mental events over the coming week. He concludes that whether doing so is key to re-connecting with his wife, at the very least, it should diminish the negative interactions that have damaged the relationship.