Emotional Responsibility and Dealing With Other People

By Dan Prendergast, M.A.

Much of the time in therapy we work with a client on distressing aspects of their experience that they identify as a target for treatment. Some of the time, however, a client’s stress or distress is associated with the expressed emotions or behaviors of another person with whom they have some sort of relationship. This could be a boss, a coworker, a friend or family member, or a significant other. Perhaps these other people “outside the therapy room” are experiencing their own distressing emotions, and perhaps they are acting badly or in self-defeating ways, and quite understandably a client would like to intervene such that the third person either feels less distress or behaves in a more preferable manner. There are several principles of REBT that are very pertinent to this situation.

I think that the best place to start is by recognizing that it is hard to change another person’s thoughts and beliefs, and even harder to change another person’s emotions. It is nearly impossible to cause these changes in a drastic or immediate fashion, and demanding that change occurs immediately is likely to lead to dysfunctional levels of emotions such as anger. In REBT and other forms of CBT, we focus on the ABC model, which features an Activating event, thoughts and Beliefs about the event, and emotional and behavioral Consequences. Because it is very hard to change the “C” directly, therapy focuses on changing the “C” by examining and changing the “B.” Quite frankly, if there was an easy, fast and direct way to change thoughts and emotions, therapists might be out of business. Even highly motivated individuals often put in a high degree of deliberate effort in therapy for change to occur, and to my knowledge a magical pharmacological fix for emotions or beliefs has not yet been developed.

Does recognizing that change is hard mean that we can do nothing to change another person, and should not try? Not exactly. It is possible to recommend or urge someone to seek treatment, avoid reinforcing another person’s irrational beliefs or negative behavior, or to challenge beliefs or behaviors directly. Of course, people are free to take attempts at intervention any way they choose to, and may react with irrational thinking or bad or self-defeating emotions or behaviors. The third person is after all a fallible human, who (if they are like the rest of us fallible humans) thinks and behaves in negative ways periodically. When dealing with another person’s difficulties I would advocate adopting a long-term perspective and managing expectations. It is relatively common for individuals to go through periods of weeks, months or years where they engage in unhelpful thinking or behavior before they find a pattern that serves them better and is less stressful for others around them. Perhaps the person in our lives will change soon, but it may be that change will only happen after a period of time. Furthermore, it may be that change will only happen after one or more negative outcomes or interpersonal problems that sometimes (but not always) serves to increase motivation to change.

It is important to recognize that the other person is free to choose not to change if they so desire. I think the healthiest perspective might be to choose to be a supportive voice of rationality in a person’s life, without the expectation or demand that another person can be changed drastically or immediately. It is probably best to use as little pressure as possible, recognizing that attempts to force change before a person is ready are rarely effective, and often prove to be counterproductive. Most importantly, it is important to avoid the common trap of criticizing the person, focusing instead on the beliefs and behaviors that do not serve them well. The person is as inherently acceptable and worthwhile as any of us. While another person’s difficulties are still present, self-care is important for the people living with them. This usually includes an examination the “B’s” and “C’s” that one voluntarily holds, which follow another person’s expressed emotions or behavior. I think that it is most helpful to realize that another person does not cause your set of negative beliefs, emotions or behaviors. Instead, they only have the power to serve as your Activating event. They do not have the power to control your thoughts or emotions directly, just like you don’t have the same power over theirs.

The term “emotional responsibility” recognizes that beliefs, feelings, and behaviors can only be controlled by the person experiencing them. Again, other people are only responsible for the Activating event itself. Other people can act badly if they choose to, and they can create a stressful or negative situation. REBT does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. However, each person is responsible for the level of emotional distress that results from another person’s bad behavior. From this perspective, the phrase, “they made me feel _______” is not exactly correct, as the other person actually created a negative situation where you made yourself feel an undue level of distress. Their bad behavior made stress and a functional negative emotion (e.g., sadness) highly probable, but your dysfunctional beliefs are necessary to create emotional disturbance (e.g., depression).

For example, let’s suppose that a friend borrows a large sum of money and decides to forget about repaying it. This “A” creates a negative and stressful situation, which the borrower is responsible for. The lender could choose to believe that the borrower absolutely must repay the money now as the rest of the people in the world surely have the courtesy to do so, and could also believe that if the sum is not repaid the lender will surely face financial ruin and wind up homeless and alone. On the other hand, the lender could recognize that the borrower acted badly as they are perfectly able to do in a world where not absolutely every debt is paid, and that the lender may have erred by lending more money than they could comfortably do without. By holding these “B’s,” the lender will probably be annoyed and concerned (functional negative emotions) instead of fuming mad and acutely anxious (dysfunctional levels of emotional disturbance). While the angry and anxious lender might scream at the borrower and give them an excuse to further avoid payment, the annoyed and concerned lender might find a better strategy and probably has a better chance of getting their money back and perhaps preserving the relationship.