Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy Volume 9, Number 2, Summer 1991

RET IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM N a o m i McCormick 1 W i l l i a m Tooke Shaloni Winston 2 Carole Kjellander 3 Department of Psychology, State University of New York-Plattsburgh

ABSTRACT: Thirty-five undergraduates participated in an outcome study which compared the results of enrollment in an RET seminar with enrollment in a seminar on another psychotherapy topic, Humanistic Psychology, and two seminars which lacked a psychotherapeutic orientation: Social Development and Extra Sensory Perception. RET instruction failed to decrease irrationality significantly. However, students who received RET instruction had significantly higher perceived self-efficacy than did those in the two nontherapy oriented seminars. There was a significant, inverse relationship between academic achievement (grade point average) and irrational beliefs about need for comfort, need for approval, awfulizing, and low frustration tolerance. Perceived self-efficacy was significantly and positively associated with high academic achievement. Superior students were significantly less likely than their peers to awfulize or exhibit low frustration tolerance; the poorest students were the least likely group to perceive themselves as effective. The implications of these findings for educators and counselors were addressed. A fellow in Rational-Emotive Therapy, Naomi McCormick, Ph.D. is a professor and William Tooke, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at the State University of New York-Plattsburgh. An earlier version of this article was presented at the World Congress on Mental Health Counseling: A 35th Anniversary Celebration of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Keystone, Colorado: June 13-16, 1990. The authors are grateful to H. Morlock for his methodological insights and thank G. Brannigan, N. Smith, and P. Jarvis for assisting in data collection. Special thanks go to H. Rock for providing information on students from the college's Office of Institutional Research. 'To whom correspondence should be addressed. 2Shaloni Winston, M.A., is presently a psychologist at Sunmount Developmental Center, Tupper Lake, NY 12986. 3Carole Kjellander, M.A., is presently a milieu therapist at the Bridge Counseling Center, Inc., #16433 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA 95037

95

Q 1991HumanSciencesPress, Inc.

96

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

The active, directive, and systematic nature of Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET) makes it ideal for classroom instruction (Maultsby, 1984, 1986; Maultsby, Knipping, & Carpenter, 1974; Watter, 1988). In addition to being an effective form of counseling, a course on RET may be an economical way of facilitating the psychological adjustment of college students (DiGiuseppe & Miller, 1977; Ricketts & Galloway, 1984; Vestre & Judge, 1989; Watkins, 1983). Previous research suggested that instruction in RET can be beneficial, even when students had not sought counseling explicitly (Kujoth & Topetzes, 1977a, 1977b; Leaf, Gross, Todres, & Marcus, 1986; Watter, 1988). To test this idea, we assessed whether enrollment in a semester-long, undergraduate seminar on the principles of RationalEmotive Therapy would contribute to better psychological adjustment than enrollment in comparable seminars which lacked RET content. Several previous studies found a moderate to strong relationship between psychopathology and self-reported irrationality with more adaptive cognitions and behavior fostered by RET training (cf. DiGiuseppe & Miller, 1977; Ellis, 1979; Hogg & Deffenbacher, 1986; Jones, 1969; Kassinove, 1986; Lipsky, Kassinove, & Miller, 1980; McGovern & Silverman, 1986; Newmark, Frerking, Cook, & Newmark, 1973; Newmark & Whitt, 1983; Vestre & Judge, 1989; Woods, 1984, 1987). Our first major hypothesis was guided by these findings. Specifically, we expected that compared with their thinking at the beginning of the course and in contrast with students from control group seminars, RET students would show a significantly greater reduction in irrational beliefs at the end of the semester. Self-efficacy is the expectation that personal effort can produce a desired outcome (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980). Research suggested that success and perceived self-efficacy are dynamically interrelated. Changes in self-efficacy may mediate behavior change, but mood and prior experience can also modify beliefs about personal self-efficacy and performance (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Schwartz & Fish, 1989). Our second major hypothesis was based on the assumption that the RET philosophy of increasing self-acceptance, risk-taking, taking responsibility for oneself, and frustration tolerance (cf. Ellis & Dryden, 1987) would have a favorable influence on students' perceived self-efficacy. Specifically, we predicted that students in the RET seminar would describe themselves as being more capable of achieving desirable academic and social outcomes through their own efforts than peers in the control-group seminars.

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander

97

Additional a n a l y s e s were performed to e n h a n c e the study's relevance for faculty a n d college a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . E q u a t i n g grade point a v e r a g e w i t h academic a c h i e v e m e n t , we looked at the association bet w e e n students' academic a c h i e v e m e n t and both a d h e r e n c e to particul a r i r r a t i o n a l beliefs and perceived self-efficacy. METHOD

Participants and their Academic Backgrounds Thirty-five undergraduates, ages 21 to 32 (mean age = 22), participated in this study. All students were psychology majors enrolled in one of four junior seminars, offered by the Psychology Department of a public, four-year college to fulfill a mandatory, advanced writing requirement. Random assignment of students to seminars was not possible since undergraduates are free to register for the section of a required course that they prefer. However, it is likely that the seminars started out with comparable groups of students because departmental policies dictate the number and nature of assignments and all four instructors had a reputation for academic rigor. Information analyzed by the college's Office of Institutional Research suggested that students' academic abilities did not vary across seminars. Specifically, mean cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) of students enrolled in each seminar were between 2.9 (C + ) and 3.2 ( B - ) . Reflecting the fact that women outnumbered men in these courses, the sample consisted of substantially more women (26 or 74%) than men (9 or 26%). During the semester that this study was conducted, students were recruited from two seminars which lacked a psychotherapeutic orientation (Social Development and Extra Sensory Perception) and two psychotherapeutically-oriented seminars (Humanistic Psychology and Rational-Emotive Therapy). Each seminar was taught by a different instructor and followed strict departmental guidelines regarding the nature and number of written assignments and the importance of enhancing students' oral and written communication skills. With enrollment limited to 15 students, each seminar met for 75 minutes, twice a week, for a period of 15 weeks. Social Development examined the acquisition of social skills early in the lifespan, Extra Sensory Perception considered research in parapsychology, Humanistic Psychology covered existential and person-centered schools of counseling, and Rational-Emotive Therapy addressed research, theory, and practices associated with RET. Participation rates varied widely among seminars. Although 92% (n = 12; enrollment =- 13) of the RET students volunteered to be in the study, only 66% (n = 8; enrollment = 12) of the Social Development Students, 64% (n = 9; enrollment = 14) of the ESP students, and 40% (n = 6; enrollment = 15) of the Humanistic Psychology students participated. For the purpose of this study, volunteers from the RET seminar comprised the experimental group while those from the other three seminars served as control groups. Although all seminars had an active-learning component and encour-

98

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

aged critical t h i n k i n g , only s t u d e n t s from t h e R E T s e m i n a r (experim e n t a l group) w e r e t a u g h t h o w to d i s p u t e i r r a t i o n a l beliefs.

Measures In addition to providing demographic information about themselves, students completed the Attitudes and Belief Seale-II, which indicated the extent to which they held each of a variety of irrational beliefs, and the College Students" Self-Image Scale, which asked them about their general, social, and academic self-efficacy.

Attitudes and Belief Scale-II. The Attitudes and Belief Scale-II was used to assess the extent to which students held various irrational beliefs that would be relevant to Rational-Emotive therapists (Bernard, 1990; DiGiuseppe, Kassinove, Muran, & Robin, 1990; DiGiuseppe, Leaf, Exner, & Robin, 1988). This 72 item scale had been constructed to consider four irrational thought processes and three kinds of content. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each item, e.g. "If important people dislike me, it is because I am an unlikable, bad person," by using a 5-point Likert scale. Based on Albert Ellis' (1977) theoretical work, each item on the Attitudes and Belief Scale-II represented one of the following irrational thought processes: demandingness, awfulizing/catastrophizing, global self-rating, and low frustration tolerance. Items were constructed to reflect one of the following types of content: affiliation/approval, achievement/failure, and comfort/ frustration. Statistical analyses suggested that the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale-II has acceptable levels of internal consistency and concurrent validity for research purposes (Bernard, 1990; DiGiuseppe et al. 1988, 1990).

The College Students' Self-Image Scale. "Self efficacy measures have been tailored to the particular domain of psychological functioning being studied" (Schwartz & Fish, 1989, p. 223). The College Students' Self-Image Scale was developed for the present study by modifying the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs & Rogers, 1982). Sherer and his colleagues have found the Self-Efficacy Scale to be a reliable, self-report measure of general personal competence which has the capability of predicting academic and vocational success. In addition to considering general selfefficacy, the present study's College Students' Self-Image Scale examined perceptions of academic self-efficacy and self-described social characteristics that might be relevant for college adjustment. The College Students' Self-Image Scale consisted of 24 items that required students to describe themselves generally, e.g. "When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work," socially, e.g. "It is difficult for me to make new friends," and academically, e.g. "A bad grade or failure in a course just makes me try harder the next time." After each item, students were asked to use a 5-point Likert scale, in which 1 = extremely uncharacteristic and 5 = extremely characteristic, to indicate the extent to which they attributed a particular characteristic or belief to themselves.

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

99

The College Students' Self-Image Scale was administered to 47 students enrolled in a psychology lecture course given by the same instructor who taught the RET seminar. Despite being only 24 items long, the scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency (alpha coefficient = 0.69) for use in the present study. However, further research is required to determine the new scale's validity.

Procedure Instructors of the four junior seminars were asked to inform their students about an opportunity to participate in an outcome study of psychological growth that might be associated with course enrollment. To minimize response bias, neither instructors nor students were informed of the hypotheses. Although instructors were encouraged to administer questionnaires during class time, they were permitted to request that students complete questionnaires at home if they preferred. Confidentiality was safeguarded and participation in the study was completely voluntary. Questionnaires were administered at two points during the semester. During the first two weeks of the semester, students responded to some demographic items and completed the Attitude and Belief Scale-II. Initial administration of this measure indicated that students in the four seminars were comparable in their overall adherence to irrational beliefs before exposure to course content. Demographic items and the full Attitude and Belief Scale-II were re-administered during the last two weeks of the semester, during which students also completed the newly created College Students' Self-Image Scale. Students were instructed as to how to code their questionnaires so that the research team could identify particular participants and which seminars they were enrolled in while protecting their anonymity. RESULTS A one-way A N O V A was p e r f o r m e d to d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e type of j u n i o r s e m i n a r t a k e n a n d c h a n g e s in i r r a t i o n a l i t y on t h e A t t i t u d e s a n d B e l i e f Scale-II from t h e b e g i n n i n g to t h e e n d of t h e semester. As s h o w n in F i g u r e 1, s t u d e n t s who v o l u n t e e r e d from t h e R E T a n d H u m a n i s t i c Psychology s e m i n a r s were s l i g h t l y m o r e likely t h a n those from t h e two s e m i n a r s w h i c h lacked a psychot h e r a p e u t i c o r i e n t a t i o n to show a decrease in i r r a t i o n a l i t y after instruction. However, g r o u p differences were not statistically significant, t h e r e b y d i s c o n f i r m i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n in R E T w o u l d be s u p e r i o r for r e d u c i n g t h e i r r a t i o n a l beliefs t h a t s t u d e n t s h e l d a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s a n d others. It was expected t h a t t h e R E T p h i l o s o p h y would h a v e a favorable influence on s t u d e n t s ' collegiate self-efficacy. F i g u r e 2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t

100

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

30 C O .m

e-

~ 20 f-

e-

:~to

Grp I

Grp II Grp III Section of Junior Seminar

Grp IV

In this Figure: "Grp I" represents Social Development Seminar (n=8, 2=10.75). "Grp I1" represents RET seminar (n=12, X=27.25). "Grp II1" represents ESP seminar (n=9, X=14.56). "Grp IV" represents Humanistic Psychology seminar (n=6, X=22.17). Along Axis 'Y' is the mean difference between pre- and post-training scores on the Attitudes and Belief Scale II. All mean differences were found to be insignificant (D>.05).

Figure 1 M e a n D i f f e r e n c e in I r r a t i o n a l i t y as a F u n c t i o n of S e c t i o n of J u n i o r S e m i n a r

there was limited and mixed support for this hypothesis. A one-way ANOVA comparing type of junior seminar taken with scores on the College Students' Self Image Scale demonstrated no overall significant differences between groups. However, a posteriori tests, comparing the RET (experimental) group with the other three groups serving collectively as the control group, revealed a marginally significant superiority in perceived self-efficacy for the students who volunteered from the RET seminar, t (33) = 1.93, p = .06. Because both therapeutically-oriented seminars appeared to produce

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander 2

2+4 vs 1+3, #=.06" -

89-

101

; 1+3,12<.05

;1 +3, #>.05,ns

0

870 ~E

~

85-

e~ c

~

83

81

Grp I

Grp II Grp ~ll Section of Junior Seminar

Grp IV

In this Figure: "Grp I" represents Social Development Seminar (n=8, X=82.37). "Grp I1" represents RET seminar (n=12,_X=89.38). "Grp Ill" represents ESP seminar (n=9, X=81.50). "Grp IV" represents Humanistic Psychology seminar (n=6, X=84.33). * marginally significant

Figure 2 M e a n D i f f e r e n c e in P e r c e i v e d S e l f - E f f i c a c y as a F u n c t i o n of Section of Junior Seminar a quasi-therapeutic effect on self-efficacy, a series of contrasts were performed c o m p a r i n g each of the s e m i n a r groups. W h e n the RET group was contrasted with the Social Development and E S P groups combined, students in the RET group were found to have significantly h i g h e r m e a n self-efficacy scores, t (33) = 2.05, p<.05. Yet, w h e n a

102

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

similar comparison was made between the Humanistic Psychology group and the other two control seminars, no significant differences were found, t (33) = 0.51. Beyond its therapeutic orientation, the content of the RET seminar appeared to have influenced students' perceptions of self-efficacy. The research team was interested in examining the association between students' academic achievement (as defined by grade point average) and both adherence to particular irrational beliefs and perceived self-efficacy. Pearson product moment correlations were computed between the grade point average classifications of the participants, post-test scores on each of the seven major subscales of the Attitudes and Belief Scale-II, and the total score on the College Students' Self Image Scale. Several interesting findings were obtained. As shown in Table 1, there was a significant inverse relationship between grade point average classifications (academic achievement) and irrational beliefs about the following content areas: need for comfort, need for approval, awfuIizing, and low frustration tolerance. That is, the higher students' grades were, the less likely they were to: (1)

Table

1

Effect of Participants' Grade Point Average; Pearson Product-Moment Correlations

Subscales of the Attitudes and Belief Scale II Comfort Approval Achievement Awfulizing Demanding Self-rating Low Frustration Tolerance Perceived Self-Efficacy *p<.05 **p<.01

Grade Point Average Classifications 0.29* 0.28* -0.12 - 0.29* - 0.09 -0.21 -0.31" 0.46** -

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carele Kjellander

103

believe that they couldn't stand being uncomfortable, (2) have a desperate need to be liked, (3) think it was awful or catastrophic when things didn't go their way, and (4) indicate that they suffered from low-frustration tolerance. Consistent with this, Table 1 indicates that perceived self-efficacy (score on the College Students' Self Image Scale) was positively and significantly associated with high academic achievement (a higher grade point average classification). The more

I I I ~ ~

5009 O o~ ..Q u) tO

0 E r~

45-

I I

5 vs 1+3, p<.05 5 vs 1, p<.05 5 vs 3, 1~<.05 6 vs 2+4, p<.01 6 vs 2, j~<.05

~

4

6 vs 4, 13<.01

40353025J f

under 2.9 (n=14)

3.0 - 3.4 (n=13)

over 3.5 (n=7)

Grade Point Average Classifications

Subscales of Attitudes & Belief Scale I1: Comfort Subscale Approval Subscale Awfulizing Subscale {_f(33)=.03, 12<.05} Low Frustration Tolerance Subscale {f(33)=.01, I~<.01}

Figure 3 M e a n S c o r e o n S u b s c a l e s o f A t t i t u d e s a n d B e l i e f S c a l e II as a Function of Grade Point Average Classifications

104

R a t i o n a l - E m o t i v e & Cognitive-Behavior Th er ap y

capable a student saw herself/himself as being, the better s/he performed. Additional data analysis was performed to gain insight into the statistically significant relationships between academic a c h i e v e m e n t and the content of irrational beliefs. A series of one-way analyses of variance e x a m i n e d the relationship between grade point classification (under 2.9 or C + and below; between 3.0 and 3.4 or B - ; over 3.5 or B and

92--

vs 2+3, p<.01 vs 2, 1~<.05 vs 3, 12<.05

90r~)

~_~ mo')

~g 0

0

86-

(~

OE ~ o N-o

8B-

8482-

t(1)

:~

8078

I

II

III

Grade Point Average Classifications Grade Point Average Classifications: I: under 2.9 I1:3.0 - 3.4 II1: over 3.5

Figure 4 M e a n P e r c e i v e d Self-Efficacy as a F u n c t i o n of Grade P o i n t Average Classifications

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander

105

higher) and each of the four significant content areas from the Attitudes and Belief Scale-II (e.g. comfort, approval, awfulizing, and low frustration tolerance subscales). As illustrated in Figure 3, only the superior students (those with a 3.5 or higher grade point average) were significantly less likely than their peers to awfulize, p<.05, or exhibit low frustration tolerance, p<.01. A one-way ANOVA was performed to further study the relationship between academic achievement (grade point average classifications) and perceived self-efficacy (mean score on the College Students' SelfImage Scale). Figure 4 indicates that the poorest students (those with a GPA under 2.9) were significantly less likely to perceive themselves as effective than both the moderately good (GPA between 3.0 and 3.4) and superior (GPA over 3.5) students, p<.01.

DISCUSSION

Irrational Beliefs Unexpectedly, students from the RET seminar failed to demonstrate a significantly greater reduction in irrational beliefs after instruction than those from the three control group seminars. There were three reasons to question this result, especially since it was inconsistent with so much previous research (DiGiuseppe & Miller, 1977; Ellis, 1979; Knapp, 1979; Kujoth & Topetzes, 1977a, 1977b; Maxwell & Wilkerson, 1982; McGovern & Silverman, 1986; Vestre & Judge, 1989; Watter, 1988). First, the sample size was so small that it would have been difficult to detect a significant effect of instruction, even if there had been one. Second, the Attitudes and Belief Scale-II is a new, relatively untested instrument (cf. Bernard, 1990; DiGiuseppe et al., 1988, 1990) which may not be comparable to the irrational beliefs scales used by prior researchers. Although recent research in Australia and the US suggests that the scale is a valid measure of irrationality that is consistent with RET theory, more research may be necessary to establish the scale's appropriateness as the dependent variable in an outcome study of Rational-Emotive Therapy education with a nonclinical population. Third, the quasi-experimental nature of the study made it vulnerable to a number of possible confounds. Because the study took place in a natural setting, it was not possible to exercise rigorous controls over instructors, students, and treatments

106

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

(course content). Thus, t h e i n t e r n a l validity of this s t u d y (and generalizability of results) was t h r e a t e n e d by four possible confounds (c.f. S h a u g h n e s s y & Z e c h m e i s t e r , 1990, pp. 172-173 a n d 316-318):

(i) Different instructors tested and worked with students in the four seminars. Therefore, the study may have confounded the possible effect due to the instructor with that of seminar content. (2) Any changes (or lack of changes) in irrationality could have been the result of maturation over the course of the semester as opposed to intervention. (3) It was not possible to completely randomize assignment of students to particular groups (seminars) since they have the right to register for a preferred section. It is possible that the humanistic psychology and RET seminars attracted students who were more concerned with improving their psychological adjustment than did the two seminars which lacked psychotherapeutic content. (4) Even if the four groups were equivalent to begin with, there was strong evidence of selective subject loss. Specifically, nearly all the RET students contributed data to the study but only around half the control group students did. It appears that students were lost differentially across conditions because of variability in their willingness to complete lengthy questionnaires. Apparently, only the most internally motivated (and probably emotionally mature) members of control group seminars were willing to participate in the present study whereas the enthusiastic instructor of the RET seminar (who was a member of the research team) succeeded in gaining compliance from the overwhelming majority of her students. As students received no remuneration or course credit for participation~ it is likely that those who volunteered from the control group seminars were an exceptionally well adjusted, clear-thinking group. The good performance on the irrationality measure evidenced by volunteers from the Humanistic Psychology seminar is particularly suspect since selective subject loss (60%) was highest from this group. In addition, the Humanistic Psychology seminar was the only group in which the instructor required students to complete questionnaires on their own time (instead of allocating class time for this purpose). T h r e a t s to i n t e r n a l validity aside, it is possible t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n in R E T was insufficient for c h a n g i n g s t u d e n t s ' i r r a t i o n a l beliefs m o r e t h a n e q u a l l y rigorous i n s t r u c t i o n in o t h e r topics. All four s e m i n a r s were s t r u c t u r e d to foster critical t h i n k i n g skills t h r o u g h active learni n g exercises a n d d e m a n d i n g w r i t t e n a n d oral a s s i g n m e n t s . It is possible t h a t academic t r a i n i n g alone a c c o u n t e d for a n y r e d u c t i o n in irra-

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander

107

tionality that was found. In addition, intellectual training in RET may be insufficient for inducing therapeutic changes; the therapeutic effects may have been greater had the instructor spent more time working with students on how to use RET to cope with personal emotional problems. Consistent with this, Leaf et al. (1986) found that undergraduates whose exposure to RET was limited to reading a self-help guide failed to show the improvements in mental health that were characteristic of those who were required to practice self-counseling procedures in their daily lives. Finally, because the students enrolled in the RET seminar largely to fulfill a course requirement, rather than to improve their coping abilities, it is possible that they lacked the motivation to change that is necessary for any therapeutic program to be successful (Zoints, 1983).

Self-Efficacy Although both therapeutically-oriented seminars appeared to produce a quasi-therapeutic effect on self-efficacy, there was limited support for the expectation that instruction in RET would contribute to higher self-efficacy than would instruction in other content areas. As discussed earlier, 40% of the Humanistic Psychology students but 92% of the RET students volunteered to be in the study. Less representative of their classmates than the RET volunteers, the students who volunteered from the Humanistic Psychology g~oup may also have been an especially self-motivated, high functioning group. In addition, statistical analyses indicated that the RET group, but not the Humanistic Psychology group, demonstrated significantly higher levels of self-efficacy than the two control-group seminars which lacked a psychotherapeutic orientation. As stated earlier, the content and not just the therapeutic focus of the RET seminar appeared to influence students' perceptions of self-efficacy favorably. Supporting the self-efficacy results, Maxwell and Wilkerson (1982) found that a group therapy program in RET increased undergraduates' ability to tolerate frustration, enhanced their self-confidence in problem solving, and decreased their anxiety about achievement--all outcomes that were suggestive of improved self-efficacy. Reviewing the literature on locus of control, Albert Ellis (1979) pointed out that people behave more adaptively when they "view situations, others' reactions, and their own behavior as within their own control . . ." (p.113). One of the goals of RET therapy and education is to foster an

108

Rational-Emotive& Cognitive-BehaviorTherapy

internal locus of control, a goal which is quite compatible with Bandura's (1982) concept of self-efficacy (here interpreted to mean faith in one's own competence to solve problems).

Academic Achievement Pooling data from all four seminars, a number of findings seem to be highly relevant to faculty and college administrators concerned with improving student retention and performance. Students with poorer academic records were more susceptible than superior students to irrational beliefs about their need to be comfortable and win approval. Consistent with their lower frustration tolerance, less capable students were more likely than superior students to believe that it was awful or catastrophic when life failed to go their way. It is possible that low frustration tolerance, not just limited abilities, account for the performance deficits of students with poorer grade point averages. By doing the easy, temporarily comfortable thing (e.g. procrastinating; completing assignments carelessly) instead of exercising self-discipline, such students would sabotage their own opportunities for academic and vocational success. Recent RET theoretical and research developments suggest that low frustration tolerance may be more destructive than other types of irrational thinking. RET contends that the major reason why people perpetuate their psychological problems is that they adhere to a philosophy of low frustration tolerance (LFT). . . . that they must be comfortable and thus do not work to effect change because such work involves experiencing discomfort. They are short-term hedonists in that they are motivated to avoid short-term discomfort even though accepting and working against their temporary uncomfortable feelings would probably help them to reach their long-term goals . . . . They prefer to remain with their "comfortable" discomfort rather than face the "change-related" discomfort that they believe they must not experience. (Ellis & Dryden, 1987, p. 23) Other researchers have noted that low frustration tolerance explained much of the variance of irrational thinking and was highly predictive of psychopathology, self-perceived distress, and even sexual difficulties (Kassinove, 1986; Jordan & McCormick, 1988). It was not surprising then, that perceived self-efficacy was positively associated with high academic achievement. The harder a student was willing to work, the more competent s/he felt; good frustration tolerance and high levels of self-efficacy could both account for superior academic

Naomi McCormick,William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander

109

achievement. Previous studies have found a moderately strong relationship between high perceived self-efficacy and both academic achievement and effort (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Schunk, 1981; Sherer et al., 1982; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989). The findings may have some important implications for those who counsel students or work in remedial academic programs. Emphasis on intellectual skills alone is likely to result in limited success. First and foremost, educators should help students improve their frustration tolerance and self-efficacy, persuading them that they have a greater chance of being successful if they stick with difficult tasks and that previous problem-solving competencies might help them in a new, challenging situation. As those who have studied undergraduates' reactions to instruction in challenging new areas such as computer science have learned, academic success is fostered by networking with others and devoting more time and effort to a project than had been expected (Sproull, Kiesler, & Zubrow, 1984).

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generalizability of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66. Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of preceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-21. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,586-598. Bernard, M. E. (1990, June). Validation of General Attitude and Belief Scale. In Factor analytic studies of irrational beliefs. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the World Congress on Mental Health Counseling: A 35th anniversary celebration of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Keystone, Colorado. DiGiuseppe, R., Kassinove, H., Muran, J. C., & Robin, M. W. (1990, June). New developments in Rational-Emotive assessment techniques. Symposium presented at the meeting of the World Congress on Mental Health Counseling: A 35th anniversary celebration of Rational-Emotive Therapy, Keystone, Colorado.

110

Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

DiGiuseppe, R., Leaf, R., Exner, T., & Robin, M. W. (1988, September). The development of a measure of irrational~rational thinking. Paper presented at the World Congress on Behavior Therapy, Edinburg, Scotland. DiGiuseppe, R. A., & Miller, N. J. (1977). A review of outcome studies on Rational-Emotive Therapy. In A. Ellis & R. Grieger (Eds.), Handbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy: Vol. 1 (pp. 72-95). New York: Springer. Ellis, A. (1977). The basic clinical theory of Rational-Emotive Therapy. In A. Ellis & R. Grieger (Eds.), Handbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy: Vol. 1 (pp. 3-34). New York: Springer. Ellia, A. (1979). Rational-Emotive Therapy: Research data that support the clinical and personality hypotheses of RET and other modes of cognitivebehavior therapy. In A. Ellis & J. M. Whiteley (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical foundations of Rational-Emotive Therapy (pp. 101-173). Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole. Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (1987). The practice of Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET). New York: Springer. Hogg, J. A., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1986). Irrational beliefs, depression, and anger among college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 349-353. Jones, R. (1969). A factored measure of Ellis' irrational belief system with personality and maladjustment correlates. Dissertation Abstracts International, 29(11-B), 4379-4380. (University Microfilms No. 69-6443). Jordan, T. J., & McCormick, N. B. (1988). Development of a measure of irrational beliefs about sex. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 14, 28-32. Kassinove, H. (1986). Self-reported affect and core irrational thinking: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy, 4, 119-130. Knapp, S. (1979). Life events, rationality and emotional disturbance. Psychological Reports, 45, 510. Kujoth, R. K., & Topetzes, N. J. (1977a). A Rational-Emotive approach to mental health for college students: Study I. College Student Journal, 11(3), 1-6. Kujoth, R. K., & Topetzes, N. J. (1977b). A Rational-Emotive approach to mental health for college students: Study II. College Student Journal, /1(3), 7-11. Leaf, R. C., Gross, P. H., Todres, A. K., & Marcus, S. (1986). Placebo-like effects of education about Rational-Emotive Therapy. Psychological Reports, 58, 351-370. Lispsky, M. J., Kassinove, H., & Miller, N. J. (1980). Effects of RationalEmotive Therapy, rational role reversal, and Rational-Emotive Imagery on the emotional adjustment of community mental health center patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 366-374. Maultsby, M. C. (1984). Rational behavior therapy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Maultsby, M. C. (1986). Teaching rational self-counseling to middle graders. School Counselor, 33(3), 207-219. Maultsby, M., Knipping, P., & Carpenter, L. (1974). Teaching self-help in the classroom with rational self-counseling. Journal of School Health, 44, 445-448.

Naomi McCormick, William Tooke, Shaloni Winston, and Carole Kjellander

111

Maxwell, J. W., & Wilkerson, J. (1982). Anxiety reduction through group instruction in Rational Therapy. Journal of Psychology, 112(1), 135-140. McGovern, T. E., & Silverman, M. (1986). A review of outcome studies of Rational-Emotive Therapy from 1977 to 1982. In A. Ellis & R. M. Grieger (Eds.), Handbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy: Vol. 2 (pp. 81-102). New York: Springer. Newmark, C. S., Frerking, R. A., Cook, L., & Newmark, L. (1973). Endorsement of Ellis' irrational beliefs as a function of psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 300-302. Newmark, C. S., & Whitt, J. K. (1983). Endorsement of Ellis' irrational beliefs as a function of DSM-III psychotic diagnoses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 820-823. Ricketts, M. S., & Galloway, R. E. (1984). Effects of three different one-hour single-session treatments for text anxiety. Psychological Reports, 54(1), 115-120. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105. Schwartz, J., & Fish, J. M. (1989). Self-efficacy and depressive affect in college students. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 7, 219-236. Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1990). Research methods in psychology, Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91-100. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51,663-671. Sproull, L, S., Kiesler, S., & Zubrow, D. (1984). Encountering an alien culture. Journal of Social Issues, 40(3), 31-48. Vestre, N. D., & Judge, T. J. (1989). Evaluation of self-administered Rational-Emotive Therapy programs for interpersonal anxiety. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 7, 141-154. Watkins, C. E. (1983). Combatting student burn-out: A structured group approach. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 8(4), 218-225. Watter, D. N. (1988). Rational-Emotive Education: A review of the literature. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 6, 139-145. Woods, P. J. (1984). Further indications on the validity and usefulness of the Jones Irrational Beliefs Test. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy, 2, 3-6. Woods, P. J. (1987). Reductions in Type A behavior, anxiety, anger, and physical illness as related to changes in irrational beliefs: Results of a demonstration project in industry. Journal of Rational-Emotive Therapy, 5, 213-237. Zoints, P. (1983). A strategy for understanding and correcting irrational beliefs in pupils. A Rational-Emotive approach. Pointer, 27(3), 13-17.