Case Application Imagine Self In The Role As Counselor And Apply Techniques Commonly Used In CBT To A Specific Case. (Application)

/in /by

Directions: Assume the perspective of a CBT therapist, and show how you would proceed with Carol by answering the questions that follow the case description.

CAROL: “I’m to blame for all the problems in my family”

As the oldest of three children, Carol (who is 29) berates herself for her family’s tension and dissension. Her father is depressed most of the time (which Carol feels responsible for); her mother feels overburdened and ineffectual (Carol feels she contributes to this); and both her sisters are doing poorly in school and having other personal problems (Carol also assumes responsibility for this). Somehow she is convinced that if she were different and did what she should do, most of these problems would greatly diminish. Assume, as you listen to her, that you hear her saying some of the following things:

  • “My father looks to me to be the strong one in the family. I must be strong if I’m to gain his approval, which I feel I must ”
  • “Since my mother is overworked, I should take on more of the responsibility for taking care of my younger sisters. I ought to be able to talk with them and help them with their problems.”
  • “My sisters both expect me to do their chores for them, to help them at school, and to live up to the image they have of me. I ought to meet their ideals, and it would be absolutely horrible of me to fail in this regard. Then if they grow up with problems, I’ll have only myself to blame for the rest of my life.”

Answer the following questions related to the case study:

(1) What are the ABCs in this case?

Activating Events:

Beliefs:

Consequences:

(2) One of the things a rational emotive behavior therapist would do is teach Carol that her thinking and her evaluation of events are causing her problems (feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and insecurity). What do you hear her saying to herself that is irrational?

(3) List some other procedures you would be inclined to use in her case and explain why you would use them.

Source: Corey, G., & Muratori, M. (2017). Instructor’s Resource Manual to accompany Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

number responses make it personal

  • Margins – 1 Inch
  • Font – Times New Roman, Arial or (12pt)
  • Spacing – Double
  • Length – No Page Length (Questions must be answered thoroughly)
  • Number your responses
  • Include Separate Title Page – Name, PID, Title of Essay

Evaluate the credibility of scholarly articles.

/in /by

Stability and change in the first 10 years of marriage: Does commitment confer benefits beyond the effects of satisfaction?

Authors:

Schoebi, Dominik, ORCID 0000-0003-3991-2712 . Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch  Karney, Benjamin R.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US Bradbury, Thomas N.. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US

Address:

Schoebi, Dominik, Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Rue de Faucigny 2, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland, dominik.schoebi@unifr.ch

Source:

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 102(4), Apr, 2012. pp. 729-742.

NLM Title Abbreviation:

J Pers Soc Psychol

Publisher:

US : American Psychological Association

ISSN:

0022-3514 (Print) 1939-1315 (Electronic)

Language:

English

Keywords:

commitment, maintenance, marital interaction, relationships, satisfaction

Abstract:

Although commitment is theoretically distinct from relationship satisfaction, empirical associations between the concepts are high. After drawing from classic definitions of commitment to distinguish between commitment as the desire for a relationship to persist versus the behavioral inclination to maintain the relationship, we predicted that the former component would function much like satisfaction, whereas the latter component would operate independently of satisfaction to stabilize couple relationships. Using satisfaction and commitment data collected over the first 4 years of marriage (N = 172 couples), we demonstrate that only behavioral inclinations to maintain the marriage are related to observed marital interaction behaviors, to reported steps taken toward dissolution, and to 11-year divorce rates, independent of satisfaction. Consistent with dyadic ‘weak-link” conceptions of commitment, likelihood of divorce was found to increase as a function of the lower of the 2 partners’ inclination to maintain the relationship. Commitment may stabilize declining intimate partnerships, particularly when it is conceptualized as the inclination to maintain the relationship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Document Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

*Commitment; *Interpersonal Interaction; *Marriage; *Relationship Satisfaction

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH):

Adult;  Divorce;  Family Conflict;  Female;  Follow-Up Studies;  Humans;  Interpersonal Relations;  Male;  Marriage;  Models, Psychological;  Personal Satisfaction;  Probability;  Problem Solving;  Surveys and Questionnaires;  Time Factors

PsycINFO Classification:

Marriage & Family (2950)

Population:

Human Male Female

Location:

US

Age Group:

Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Tests & Measures:

Quality of Marriage Inventory Marital Status Inventory   DOI: 10.1037/t17909-000

Grant Sponsorship:

Sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number: Grant MH48674 Recipients: Bradbury, Thomas N. Sponsor: Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland Grant Number: Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616 Recipients: Schoebi, Dominik

Methodology:

Empirical Study; Quantitative Study

Format Covered:

Electronic

Publication Type:

Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal

Publication History:

First Posted: Nov 21, 2011; Accepted: Oct 14, 2011; Revised: Oct 11, 2011; First Submitted: Feb 1, 2011

Release Date:

20111121

Correction Date:

20140414

Copyright:

American Psychological Association. 2011

Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/a0026290

PMID:

22103577

PsycARTICLES Identifier:

psp-102-4-729

Accession Number:

2011-26987-001

Number of Citations in Source:

90

Library Chat

 

Stability and Change in the First 10 Years of Marriage: Does Commitment Confer Benefits Beyond the Effects of Satisfaction?

Contents

1. The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

2. Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

3. Does Commitment Stabilize Marriages? Evidence From Longitudinal Studies

4. Goals of the Present Study

5. Method

6. Participants

7. Procedure

8. Measures

9. Analytic Strategy

10. Results

11. Preliminary Analyses

12. How Are Fluctuations in Commitment Related to Changes in Relationship Satisfaction?

13. Are the Dimensions of Commitment Differentially Associated With Problem-Solving Behavior?

14. Does Commitment Predict Relationship Stability?

15. Discussion

16. Footnotes

17. References

Full Text

By: Dominik Schoebi Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland; Benjamin R. Karney Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles Thomas N. Bradbury Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH48674 to Thomas N. Bradbury. Dominik Schoebi’s work was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation Grants PA001-10899 and PZ00P1_121616.

Arguably the simplest explanation for why a marriage dissolves is that one or both spouses become increasingly dissatisfied, diminishing the quality of couple interaction and prompting a separation or divorce in turn. Meta-analytic findings confirm the link between relationship distress and dissolution, but the magnitude of the association is modest (r ~ .3–.4; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), in part because many unhappy couples remain married. The concept of commitment is often invoked to explain the persistence of these unhappy marriages, under the assumption that relatively committed partners are motivated to continue their relationship for reasons other than their immediate emotional appraisals of the partnership (e.g., Kelley, 1983). A rich literature sheds light on the stabilizing role of commitment in dating relationships (e.g., Arriaga & Agnew, 2001), but the possibility that commitment operates differently in longer term partnerships has led some to call specifically for research on commitment in marriage and on the marital maintenance behaviors that commitment might motivate (e.g., Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). This article responds to this call, using observational and 11-year longitudinal data from newlywed spouses to address two questions that are largely unaddressed in the marital commitment literature: First, does commitment stabilize marriage? Second, does commitment motivate interpersonal behaviors? Because lowered relationship satisfaction provides a more parsimonious explanation for why spouses neglect relationship maintenance and contemplate divorce, we tested whether any effects of commitment on relationship outcomes and processes remain after controlling for spouses’ relationship satisfaction judgments.

The Concept of Commitment: Strengths and Limitations

 

In an early analysis of marital stability, Levinger (1965, 1976) proposed that the power of commitment derives from its ability to explain why two comparably satisfied or unsatisfied relationships might evolve in different ways: With otherwise equal forces of attraction in material, symbolic, and affectional domains, partners with more barriers to dissolution will be more committed and therefore will be more motivated to communicate better and to invest more energy in getting the relationship back on track when satisfaction dips, thereby experiencing a reduced risk of relationship dissolution (Berscheid, 1998; Lewis & Spanier, 1979). To the extent that the intense, passionate emotions enjoyed by partners early in their relationship give way to companionate love and perhaps disenchantment as a marriage unfolds (Aron, Fisher, & Strong, 2006), understanding how forces other than attractions and satisfaction operate to stabilize intimate relationships emerges as a crucial task.

The broadly influential investment model was developed by Rusbult and colleagues (Rusbult, 1980, 1983) specifically to address the “unjustified persistence” problem, or why people remain involved in relationships that are not particularly satisfying. Building upon Levinger’s ideas and the principles of interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), the investment model proposes that an individual depends upon a relationship—that is, an individual comes to need or rely upon a relationship as a source of desired experiences and outcomes—to the extent that he or she derives satisfaction from the relationship, has relatively few alternatives to the relationship, and has invested many resources in the relationship. With growing dependence comes a sense of commitment to the partner and to the relationship, according to the investment model, where commitment is understood to be “the sense of allegiance that is established to the source of one’s dependence” (Rusbult, Coolsen, Kirchner, & Clarke, 2006, p. 618). Note, however, that the investment model characterizes commitment as more than mere dependence upon a relationship, encompassing as well the special bond or attachment that one forms to the partner and the partnership. Dependence and commitment do go hand in hand in the investment model, but whereas dependence is theorized to be a structural property of dyads, commitment is viewed as a psychological state that captures more directly the experience of being in the relationship and being joined to another person within it (Rusbult et al., 2006). In turn, commitment is hypothesized to have two related but crucial downstream effects, first directly influencing how an individual behaves toward his or her partner and second influencing decisions to persist in the relationship. Conceptualized in this way, commitment is assumed to play a pivotal role in relationships, not only reflecting the dependence that arises between two people but also mediating links between the three bases that combine to determine dependence, on the one hand, and key actions likely to promote or curtail relationship development on the other (e.g., Rusbult, Wieselquist, Foster, & Witcher, 1999). The unjustified persistence problem is therefore resolved by the investment model, in that commitment is rooted in experiences and judgments that extend beyond mere satisfaction; fluctuations in satisfaction therefore can occur without necessarily threatening relationship maintenance behaviors or relationship stability.

This theoretical representation of commitment, particularly the notion that commitment can be understood as the sense of allegiance one feels toward a unique and valued intimate bond, affords the concept a reasonable degree of precision as well as substantial explanatory power in relationship science. At the same time, the investment model provides more specificity with regard to hypothesized antecedents of dependence and commitment than to the means by which commitment affects interpersonal processes and decisions to persist. Although commitment level is assumed to influence a range of relationship maintenance mechanisms (e.g., accommodative behavior, willingness to sacrifice, derogation of alternative partners), the specific nature of these links is acknowledged to be underdeveloped, such that “future research should seek to further explicate the precise processes by which interdependent partners achieve long-term, well functioning relationships” (Rusbult et al., 1999, p. 446). This is an especially important challenge in that partners’ perceptions of pro-relationship maintenance behaviors are assumed to provide the foundation for trust and deepening dependence, a process that has been described as mutual cyclical growth (Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999).

A central premise of the current research is that while the breadth of commitment as a concept within the investment model is an obvious asset, its heterogeneity as a concept must be addressed before it can enable fruitful hypotheses linking commitment as a psychological state to particular forms of interpersonal transactions. To the extent that commitment is understood as allegiance to one’s partner and relationship, we believe it is important to note that allegiance (and related concepts such as loyalty, faithfulness, and adherence) does not necessarily carry with it any behavioral efforts toward relationship maintenance. (Indeed, many people legitimately claim true allegiance to a democratic nation, to public broadcasting, to a religious faith, or even to an intimate partner without necessarily engaging in actions such as voting, donating money, praying, or apologizing for misdeeds.) We therefore propose that the concept of commitment can be profitably refined to include one element reflecting a desire for the relationship to persist and a related but distinct element reflecting the inclination to maintain the relationship. Early conceptualizations of the investment model alluded to this sort of distinction—Rusbult (1983, p. 102), for example, observed that “the definition of commitment includes two categories of definition advanced by other authors: behavioral intent and psychological attachment”—but these two elements have been subsumed and conflated in most conceptualizations of commitment. Formalizing a distinction between commitment as an inclination to engage in maintenance behaviors (which we refer to here as IM) and commitment as a longer term orientation (the desire for persistence, or DP) may be particularly important for understanding stability in marriage, as it combines a future-oriented goal or desire with the means by which that goal might be achieved. Three more specific implications of such a distinction are outlined next.

Possible Advantages to Distinguishing Between Forms of Commitment

 

One possible advantage to distinguishing IM and DP elements of commitment is that doing so may help clarify recent findings that directly contradict investment model predictions, notably, a lack of association between commitment and marital maintenance behaviors. For example, Tran and Simpson (2009) used Rusbult’s five-item Commitment Scale to examine commitment in relation to 74 married couples’ observed constructive and destructive behaviors during a problem-solving interaction. This research design had the advantage of combining self-report and observational measurements, thus eliminating concerns of shared method variance. Although relatively committed partners would be expected on theoretical grounds to engage in more effective communication, Tran and Simpson found that commitment no longer predicted observed behaviors after controlling for relationship satisfaction. This might be interpreted as a strong challenge to the hypothesis that commitment contributes to relationship maintenance efforts, but distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment suggests an alternate view. Specifically, conceptualizing one dimension of commitment as an inclination to engage in behavioral efforts to maintain one’s relationship might result in commitment predicting relationship maintenance behaviors even after controlling for relationship satisfaction (cf. Finkel et al., 2002). Conceptualizing and assessing commitment in terms of one’s desire for the relationship to continue, in contrast, might overlap considerably with partners’ relationship satisfaction and therefore yield redundant effects.

This observation draws attention to a second possible benefit to distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment, which pertains to vexing measurement concerns. As noted earlier, the conceptual punch gained from the concept of commitment comes from it being distinct from relationship satisfaction. The investment model allows for covariation between satisfaction and commitment—for example, one would expect individuals to be more committed to relationships that are more fulfilling, all else being equal—yet there must be more to commitment than satisfaction if commitment is to operate by stabilizing a relationship that is not as satisfying as it once was. Unfortunately, although commitment is readily distinguished from satisfaction at a theoretical level (and even at an intuitive level: e.g., there are happy spouses who are uncommitted to their relationship and committed spouses who are unhappy with their relationship), measures of the two constructs correlate very highly. A meta-analysis of more than 50 studies and nearly 12,000 subjects found a correlation of .68 between satisfaction and commitment, with some correlations as high as .90 (Le & Agnew, 2003; also see Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Mutso, 2010). In the face of such correlations, predicting relationship stability from measures of satisfaction and commitment provides limited information about their relative and unique contributions in the underlying model; until this overlap is resolved, the more parsimonious interpretation is that commitment and satisfaction measures tap a single underlying concept.

Compounding this concern is the heterogeneous item content used in measures of commitment. With the widely used five-item Commitment Scale (Rusbult, 1983), participants are asked questions about their expectations for the future of the relationship (“How likely is it you will end your relationship in the near future?”) and about their preferred duration of the relationship (“For what length of time would you like your relationship to last?”). People might want to end their relationship not because they are uncommitted to it but rather because they find it unfulfilling, because the partner has treated them badly, or because they have learned that prior efforts at relationship maintenance have failed. As these alternative interpretations reflect global sentiments toward the relationship, inclusion of these items might account for at least part of the strong observed overlap between commitment and satisfaction. A later seven-item measure of commitment with revised item content again yielded very high correlations with satisfaction (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), suggesting that this problem extends beyond one particular instrument. Here, we adopt the view that testing investment model predictions regarding the relative contributions of satisfaction and commitment to relationship stability is likely to benefit from distinguishing between IM and DP elements of commitment.

Overreaching Questions

/in /by

For this task, you will expand the framework of your understanding of qualitative design, and then develop a set of questions intended for a grounded theory study.

Propose one overarching question (on your research topic: Effects of divorce on children’s education (academic performance)) and four sub-questions, which will result in open-ended responses that will address context, background, and motivations of your participants.

Then, write a brief conclusion of your thoughts on asking personal questions. For example, what ethical considerations must be addressed to have this type of relationship with a participant?

Length: 2 pages (Not including title and reference pages)

Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to the topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Ecological Footprints

/in /by

Week 1 – Discussion 1

11 unread reply.11 reply.

p>Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Ecological Footprints [WLO: 3] [CLOs: 3, 6]

The ecological footprint is a tool for helping us to visualize the impacts we make on the environment. For a brief overview of the concept, please watch this one-minute video The Ecological Footprint Explained (Links to an external site.) prior to beginning work on this discussion.

In this week’s class discussion, you will have the opportunity to learn more about how connected you are to the ecosystems and biosphere that you inhabit. Everyday choices can impact our environment; through those choices, we can either add to our environmental impact, or reduce it.

In a course-long project beginning this week, you will take on the challenge of lessening your impacts on the environment, through reducing the size of your ecological footprint. Specifically, you will identify possible lifestyle changes that would reduce the amount of resources you use and/or the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that you produce. In a course-long experiment, you will determine whether or not it is possible to make a measurable difference in your environmental impact through a few simple actions in your daily life. The first step, of course, is to determine your ecological footprint right now. To do that, you will calculate three footprints: an overall ecological footprint that takes most of our daily behaviors into consideration; a carbon footprint that focuses on our daily carbon emissions that are contributing to global climate change; and a water footprint that assesses daily water use.

Part A: Ecological Footprint

Use the footprint tool from the web page What Is Your Ecological Footprint? (Links to an external site.) to calculate your ecological footprint. At every opportunity, please select the “add details to improve accuracy” option. At the end of the footprint activity, make a note of how many earths would be required if everyone lived like you. Then click on “see details” to obtain the following information:

  • Your ecological footprint, in global hectares (a hectare is about two and a half acres).
  • Your top three consumption categories.
  • Finally, research some ways you might reduce your footprint, identifying a few specific ones that you might put into practice throughout the course.

Part B: Household Carbon Emissions Footprint

Next, use the Carbon Footprint Calculator (Links to an external site.) to calculate your household carbon emissions footprint. After answering all the questions:

  • Make a note of your carbon emissions footprint in pounds. Is that above or below the average household carbon footprint in the US?
  • Also, explore specific actions you might take to reduce your footprint. Which of them might be practical to undertake in the next five weeks?

Part C: Water Footprint

Finally, use Water Footprint Calculator (Links to an external site.) to calculate your daily water footprint. After answering all the questions:

  • Make a note of your gallons per day water footprint.
  • Record the top three contributors to it.
  • Scroll down the page to access a series of “Tips” buttons you can click on for advice on reducing your footprint. Again, make a note of some specific ideas you see that might be practical to implement over the next five weeks.

Discussion Post Requirements

Your discussion should include all the information you gathered about your consumption habits from your three footprint calculations, including all numbers with units.

Then, in a well-crafted post of at least 200 additional words, examine the numerical results of your three footprint calculations by answering the following questions:

  • What did you learn that surprised you about your consumption habits?
  • Propose a minimum of five lifestyle changes you could make that would reduce one or more of the three footprints. (These do not have to be the ones you use in this course-long project; over the course of the discussion, you may opt to select other ones based upon classmates’ recommendations. You will be recording your final choices for lifestyle changes in your Journal at the end of the week.)
  • For each lifestyle change, identify which footprint you would be lowering by doing it. Discuss potential obstacles to making those changes, and then suggest ways you might overcome those obstacles.

Note: You will not be able to view others’ posts until you have made your own.

Guided Response: Review several of your peers’ posts, responding to at least two classmates over the course of the week, comparing your footprints to theirs, and offering additional suggestions for ways they might lower their footprints, along with possible obstacles to doing so and ways of overcoming those obstacles. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. Continue to monitor the discussion forum until 11:59 p.m. on Day 7, and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post.

Note: If you encounter any difficulty accessing one or more of the three footprint calculators, you may need to try a different web browser. For instance, if you are using Google Chrome, you may need to use another option (Internet Explorer, Safari, Mozilla, etc.). If you are having difficulty accessing your usage data, contact me for an alternative.