Some myths about cognitive-behaviour modification

Author:

Marzillier John S.

Abstract

The integration of cognitive processes and behaviour change methods, generically known as cognitive-behaviour modification, has sparked off a series of heated arguments about the status of this hybrid (Greenspoon and Lamal, 1978; Ledwidge, 1978; 1979 (a); (b); Mahoney, 1974; 1977; Mahoney and Kazdin 1979; Meichenbaum 1977; 1979; Rachlin, 1977(a); (b); Wolpe, 1976; 1978). At the considerable risk of adding fuel to an already inflamed debate, I have drawn up a list of myths which the opposition to cognitive-behaviour modification has promulgated. Myths are, of course, a potent source of influence, and I am not at all sanguine that labelling the lines of opposition to cognitive-behaviour modification as ‘myths’ will change peoples' cognitions or behaviour. Nevertheless, in the interests of academic debate, and indeed in the pursuit of truth,* I have listed what seem to me to be the essential fallacies in the arguments against the cognitive-behavioural movement.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3