id: "6d199a26-577a-5f14-978d-0f96e5a36e38" name: "ABC Theory Psychoeducation Scaffold" description: "A concise, reusable psychoeducational explanation of Ellis's ABC model for clients, mapping A (activating event), B (belief), and C (consequence) using a concrete, de-identified client example." version: "0.1.0" tags:

• "ABC"
• "REBT"
• "cognitive mediation"
• "psychoeducation"
• "CBT foundation"
• "认知行为疗法"
• "profile:psychology::认知行为疗法"
• "axis:疗法"
• "class:认知行为疗法"
• "kind:child"
• "document_merge_state:active"
• "canonical:true" triggers:
• "client attributes distress to external events"
• "client lacks metacognitive awareness of belief-emotion link" examples:
• input: "Client says: 'My mom yelled at me, so I shut down and cried.'" output: "Therapist: 'So A was her yelling — something you heard. C was shutting down and crying — how you felt and acted. What went through your mind right when she started yelling? That’s the B.'" notes: "Uses client’s language ('yelled', 'shut down') to anchor A and C before inviting B."
• input: "Client: 'I failed the test, so I’m worthless.'" output: "Therapist: 'A is the test result — a fact. C is feeling worthless — an emotional consequence. The 'so' part — 'I’m worthless' — that’s the B. It’s not the only possible B about that A. Does that make sense?'" notes: "Highlights the logical connector ('so') as a cue for B; normalizes B as common, not pathological."

ABC Theory Psychoeducation Scaffold

A concise, reusable psychoeducational explanation of Ellis's ABC model for clients, mapping A (activating event), B (belief), and C (consequence) using a concrete, de-identified client example.

Prompt

Introduce the ABC model clearly and non-judgmentally: define A as the observable event, B as the person's automatic thought or interpretation (not 'irrational' but 'unexamined'), and C as the resulting emotion/behavior. Use a neutral, relatable example (e.g., 'Someone cancels plans' → 'They don’t value me' → sadness/withdrawal). Then invite the client to co-identify their own recent A and C, and gently explore their B with open-ended questions ('What went through your mind just then?'). Emphasize that B is where change is possible — not by denying A or suppressing C, but by noticing and testing beliefs.

Objective

teach client the core logic of cognitive mediation

Applicable Signals

• Client says 'It’s because X happened that I feel this way'
• Client uses absolute language ('always', 'never', 'should') when describing triggers
• Client expresses helplessness about emotions without referencing thoughts

Contraindications

• client is in acute crisis or suicidal ideation
• client has severe cognitive impairment limiting abstract reasoning

Workflow Steps

• 1. Name the model: 'This is called the ABC model — a simple way to understand how our thoughts connect events to feelings.'
• 1. Define A, B, C with parallel, concrete phrasing: 'A is what happened — something you can see or hear. B is what you told yourself about it — a quick thought or image. C is how you felt or acted afterward.'
• 1. Illustrate with de-identified, developmentally appropriate example (e.g., 'A: Teacher gave critical feedback. B: "I’m a failure." C: Shame + avoiding class.')
• 1. Guide client to generate their own A-C pair from recent experience.
• 1. Gently elicit B using curiosity: 'In that moment, what popped into your head? What did that situation mean to you?'
• 1. Confirm understanding: Ask client to restate ABC in their own words using their example.

Constraints

• Must avoid labeling beliefs as 'irrational' or 'wrong'; use 'helpful/unhelpful', 'accurate/inaccurate', or 'testable' instead
• Must not proceed to belief disputation until client demonstrates basic ABC recognition and ownership of their B

Cautions

• Do not introduce D (disputing) or E (new effect) in this scaffold — this is strictly psychoeducation, not intervention
• Avoid clinical jargon (e.g., 'cognitive mediation'); use plain language ('how your thoughts shape your feelings')

Output Contract

• Client verbally restates ABC structure with personal example and identifies their own B as modifiable

Example Therapist Responses

Example 1

• Client/Input: Client says: 'My mom yelled at me, so I shut down and cried.'
• Therapist/Output: Therapist: 'So A was her yelling — something you heard. C was shutting down and crying — how you felt and acted. What went through your mind right when she started yelling? That’s the B.'
• Notes: Uses client’s language ('yelled', 'shut down') to anchor A and C before inviting B.

Example 2

• Client/Input: Client: 'I failed the test, so I’m worthless.'
• Therapist/Output: Therapist: 'A is the test result — a fact. C is feeling worthless — an emotional consequence. The 'so' part — 'I’m worthless' — that’s the B. It’s not the only possible B about that A. Does that make sense?'
• Notes: Highlights the logical connector ('so') as a cue for B; normalizes B as common, not pathological.

Files

• references/evidence.md
• references/evidence_manifest.json

Triggers

• client attributes distress to external events
• client lacks metacognitive awareness of belief-emotion link

Examples

Example 1

Input:

Client says: 'My mom yelled at me, so I shut down and cried.'

Output:

Therapist: 'So A was her yelling — something you heard. C was shutting down and crying — how you felt and acted. What went through your mind right when she started yelling? That’s the B.'

Notes:

Uses client’s language ('yelled', 'shut down') to anchor A and C before inviting B.

Example 2

Input:

Client: 'I failed the test, so I’m worthless.'

Output:

Therapist: 'A is the test result — a fact. C is feeling worthless — an emotional consequence. The 'so' part — 'I’m worthless' — that’s the B. It’s not the only possible B about that A. Does that make sense?'

Notes:

Highlights the logical connector ('so') as a cue for B; normalizes B as common, not pathological.