id: "3477f418-3741-5bd7-aad8-de48a37d6138" name: "ABC Theory Psychoeducation Delivery" description: "A structured, client-centered micro-intervention introducing the ABC model (Activating event, Belief, Consequence) to teach that emotional/behavioral consequences stem not from events themselves but from interpretations—establishing foundational CBT metacognitive awareness early in treatment." version: "0.1.1" tags:

• "ABC"
• "psychoeducation"
• "CBT"
• "cognitive mediation"
• "exam anxiety"
• "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 anxiety solely to external triggers (e.g., 'my classmate's leg shaking makes me anxious')"
• "Client shows rigid, absolutist language ('if I fail, everything is ruined')" examples:
• input: "I get so anxious before exams — it’s because the exam is coming up." output: "So the exam is coming up (A), and you feel anxious (C). Between those, what goes through your mind right then? … Yes — 'If I fail, I’ll disappoint my parents' — that’s your B. That thought, not the exam itself, is what’s stirring the anxiety. And thoughts like that can shift." notes: "Uses client’s phrasing, avoids labeling B as 'irrational'"
• input: "I’m just a failure — I bombed that test." output: "The test result happened (A), and you’re calling yourself a failure (C). What thought connects them? … 'Bombing means I’m fundamentally inadequate' — that’s your B. It feels true, but it’s a belief — and beliefs can be examined, not just accepted." notes: "Normalizes belief strength while distinguishing it from fact"

ABC Theory Psychoeducation Delivery

A structured, client-centered micro-intervention introducing the ABC model (Activating event, Belief, Consequence) to teach that emotional/behavioral consequences stem not from events themselves but from interpretations—establishing foundational CBT metacognitive awareness early in treatment.

Prompt

Introduce the ABC model using clear, non-technical language: define A (activating event), B (belief/interpretation), and C (emotional/behavioral consequence); emphasize that B—not A—directly causes C; anchor the explanation in the client’s own example (e.g., exam fear → belief about worthiness → anxiety); invite client to label their own A, B, C; validate insight without over-interpreting.

Objective

Normalize emotional reactivity by attributing distress to beliefs rather than events

Applicable Signals

• Client says 'This situation made me feel...' without referencing thoughts
• Client equates outcome with identity ('If I fail, I'm worthless')
• Client shows low perceived agency over emotional response

Contraindications

• Client is in acute crisis or active suicidal ideation
• Client lacks cognitive capacity to track A-B-C distinctions (e.g., severe dissociation or psychosis)

Intervention Moves

• Labeling A/B/C in real time
• Reframing causality from A→C to A→B→C
• Linking B to modifiability ('Your belief is changeable; the event is not')

Workflow Steps

• Name the client’s reported emotion (C) and triggering context (A)
• Invite client to voice the thought(s) that arose between A and C
• Explicitly name that thought as B, and clarify its role as mediator
• Use client’s own words to co-construct an A-B-C statement
• Highlight that B is where change can begin

Constraints

• Must occur only after rapport is established and client is emotionally regulated enough to process conceptual content
• Avoid jargon (e.g., 'cognitive distortion', 'irrational belief'); use client's words

Cautions

• Do not rush to challenge B before client fully owns the distinction
• Do not imply blame or 'wrong thinking'; frame B as habitual, not defective

Output Contract

• Client verbally identifies their own A, B, and C in a concrete example and states, in their own words, that changing B can change C.

Example Therapist Responses

Example 1

• Client/Input: I get so anxious before exams — it’s because the exam is coming up.
• Therapist/Output: So the exam is coming up (A), and you feel anxious (C). Between those, what goes through your mind right then? … Yes — 'If I fail, I’ll disappoint my parents' — that’s your B. That thought, not the exam itself, is what’s stirring the anxiety. And thoughts like that can shift.
• Notes: Uses client’s phrasing, avoids labeling B as 'irrational'

Example 2

• Client/Input: I’m just a failure — I bombed that test.
• Therapist/Output: The test result happened (A), and you’re calling yourself a failure (C). What thought connects them? … 'Bombing means I’m fundamentally inadequate' — that’s your B. It feels true, but it’s a belief — and beliefs can be examined, not just accepted.
• Notes: Normalizes belief strength while distinguishing it from fact

Files

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

Triggers

• Client attributes anxiety solely to external triggers (e.g., 'my classmate's leg shaking makes me anxious')
• Client shows rigid, absolutist language ('if I fail, everything is ruined')

Examples

Example 1

Input:

I get so anxious before exams — it’s because the exam is coming up.

Output:

So the exam is coming up (A), and you feel anxious (C). Between those, what goes through your mind right then? … Yes — 'If I fail, I’ll disappoint my parents' — that’s your B. That thought, not the exam itself, is what’s stirring the anxiety. And thoughts like that can shift.

Notes:

Uses client’s phrasing, avoids labeling B as 'irrational'

Example 2

Input:

I’m just a failure — I bombed that test.

Output:

The test result happened (A), and you’re calling yourself a failure (C). What thought connects them? … 'Bombing means I’m fundamentally inadequate' — that’s your B. It feels true, but it’s a belief — and beliefs can be examined, not just accepted.

Notes:

Normalizes belief strength while distinguishing it from fact