COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/
M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved
from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date).
 1H b{~. &'i llf~o q,,~
Rft~e-

A CASE STUDY OF ROMANTIC DISAPPOINTMENT:

BETRAYAL, REJECTION AND IRRATIONAL

BELIEFS

by

MAROPENG RALENALA

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS
in
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
in the
FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
at the
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Supervisor: Dr Prevan Moodley

2010

•
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writing and completion of this dissertation has been a psychological adventure, both
personally and academically. I offer my sincere gratitude to all who embarked on the journey
with me, either through personal or academic support. In particular, I thank:

The National Research Foundation. This research was financially supported by a research
grant from the National Research Fouridation. Thank you for your contribution and
investment in my academic research.

My supervisor, Dr Prevan Moodley, whose diligence, expertise and dedication to

psychological research has been an inspiration. I thank you for giving me room to express my
topic of interest creatively, whilst guiding me towards a product of sound scientific research.

Dr Melanie Lake, for embracing my initial research topic ideas and sharing my passion for
relationship science.

My parents: Mommy, for your immovable faith in me. Your strength and love are my sure
foundation. Daddy, for your never-ending passion for knowledge. Your diligent support and
praise is my fuel. You are both admirable examples of perseverance and dedication to self-
.
empowerment through education. This has taught me the virtue and reward of hard work.

My sisters: Nolo, for supporting me every challenging step of the way, and for celebrating
wholeheartedly with me at times of achievement. Thato, for never ever failing to offer
support & joy when needed. Lebo, thank you for lending an ear & celebrating the hope of a
future of success.

My dear friends, who provided much needed support, comic relief and encouragement.
Thank you for being excited with me about my work and passion for the human condition.

And finally, the study's participants, who willingly shared your personal experiences for the
sake of science. Thank you for allowing me into those private and hidden places.

ii
 Abstract

Disappointments in romantic relationships can have distressing and prolonged cognitive,

emotional and behavioural effects. This study explored such disappointments in the form of
betrayal, rejection and the accompanying beliefs, emotions and behaviours using the Rational
Emotive Behaviour Therapy theoretical framework. A theory-building positivistic case study
design was implemented. Five participants completed a quantitative measure of REBT
beliefs, the Shortened General Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, and participated in a semi-
structured interview. The experience of a romantic betrayal or rejection elicited greater
irrational than rational beliefs, and more dysfunctional than functional outcomes (emotions
and behaviours) for each participant. The implications for clinical practice are discussed
using the REBT theoretical framework.

iii
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT: iii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Rationale for the study

1.2 Research aims

1.3 Structure of the study 2

CHAPTER 2: ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS AND

DISAPPOINTMENT 3

2.1 Relationship science 3

2.2 Defining relationships 5

2.3 Romantic relationships and romantic love 5

2.4 Explanations of love 7

2.5 The phases of a relationship 8

2.5.1 Attraction and initiation of relationships 8

2.5.2 Developing relationships 9

2.5.3 Maintaining relationships 10

2.5.4 Deteriorating relationships 10

2.6 The present study: Romantic disappointment II

2.6.1 Romantic disappointment: Rejection II

2.6. ).l Theories of rejection )2

2.6.2 Romantic disappointment: Betrayal 13

2.6.2.1 Understanding betrayal and clinical implications 14

2.7 Conclusion 16

CHAPTER 3: THEORY OF RATIONAL EMOTIVE 17

BEHAVIOUR THERAPY
17
3.1 Introduction
iv
3.2 Development of cognitive psychology 17

3.3 Principles of cognitive therapy 18

3.4 Theoretical influences of cognitive psychology 20

3.5 Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy 21

3.5.1 Philosophical viewpoints ofREBT 21

3.5.2 REBT model and theory of personality 22

3.5.2.1 Irrational belief categories 24

3.5.2.2 Rational belief responses 24

3.5.2.3 Consequences! outcomes of beliefs 25

3.5.3 Relationship between activating events, beliefs arid

consequences! outcomes 26
3.5.3.1 Irrational beliefs and stressful (adverse activating)
events 28

3.5.4 REBT assessment principles 30

3.5.4.1 The quantitative assessment of rational and

irrational beliefs 31

3.6 REBT and romantic relationships: The present study 32

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY 33
4.1 Introduction 33

4.2 The case study design 33

4.2.1 General characteristics 33

4.2.2 Role of context 35

4.2.3 Types of case studies 35

4.2.4 Science and the role of theory 38

4.2.4.1 Initial definition of research questions 41

4.2.4.2 A priori specification of constructs 41

4.3 Partieipants 42

4.4 Entering the field: Data collection procedures 44

v
4.4.1 The semi-structured interview 44

4.4.2 The standardized questionnaire: Quantitative data 46

4.5 Data analysis 46

4.5.1 Early steps in data analysis 47

4.5.2 Within-case data analysis 47

4.5.3 Cross-case synthesis 48

4.6 Establishing quality 49

4.6.1 Construct validity 49

4.6.2 Internal validity 49

4.6.3 External validity 50

4.6.4 Reliability 51

4.7 Ethics 51

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 52

5.1 Introduction 52

5.2 Results: Romantic disappointment case narratives 52

5.3 Results: Within-case analysis 56

5.3.1 Step One: Development ofa case study database for

the Case of Maryke 57

5.3.2 Step Two: Development of a logical chain of

evidence for the Case of Maryke 60

5.4 Results and discussion: Cross-case synthesis 62

5.4.1 Irrationality 66

5.4.1.1 Self-downing category (SD) 66

5.4.1.2 Need for Achievement category (NAC) 67

5.4.1.3 Need for Approval category (NAP) 68

5.4.1.4 Need for Comfort category (NC) 69

5.4.1.5 Demand for Fairness category (DF) 70

vi
5.4.1.6 Other Downing category (OD) 71

5.4.1.7 Integrated discussion of irrationality with literature 71

5.4.2 Rationality 74
5.4.2.1 Preferences (PR) 75
5.4.2.2 Hopes (HP) 75

5.4.2.3 Wishes (WS) 76

5.4.2.4 And/ Also Responses (AAR) 76
5.4.2.5 Yes/ But Responses (YBR) 76

5.4.2.6 Integrated discussion of rationality with literature 77

5.4.3 Outcomes/ Consequences 78
5.4.3.1 Functional Negative Emotions and Functional

Behaviours (FEB) 78
5.4.3.2 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and

Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB 79

5.4.3.3 Integrated discussion of outcomes/consequences

with literature 80
5.5 Enfolding literature about romantic
disappointments: Betrayal, rejection and REBT
theory 82

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND 86

RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions 86
6.2 Implications for clinical practice 88
6.3 Evaluation of the study 88
6.3.1 Strengths ofthe study 88
6.3.2 Limitations ofthe study 89
6.3.3 Quality ofthe study 90
6.4 Recommendations for future research 90
6.5 Final commentary 91
vii
REFERENCES 92

LIST OF FIGURES
23
Figure 1: The basic A-B-C model ofREBT

Figure 2: The interactional and reciprocal nature of the 26

A-B-C model ofREBT

Figure 3: Binary Model of Distress for Stressful 28

Situations

APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 100

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 101

APPENDIX C: SGABS 103

APPENDIX D: SCORING FOR SGABS 107
APPENDIX E: CODING SCHEME 108

APPENDIX F: WITHIN-CASE SYNTHESIS 110

viii
 1

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 Rationale for the study

Human beings have a powerful yearning to be in a committed relationship to feel whole and
fulfilled (Hendrix, 1995). Close others exert a powerful effect on psychological and physical
well-being (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). In a close relationship, two individuals exert strong and
diverse effects on one another. This determines whether the partners will feel happy or
unhappy, and whether they will enjoy good or poor outcomes (Reis & Rusbult, 2004).
Relationship difficulties are the most common presenting problem of psychotherapy cases
(Berscheid, 2004; Borcherdt, 1996). Reis and Rusbult (2004) explain that to better understand
distress in relationships, relationship scientists study betrayal, deception, violence, rejection,
unrequited love, loneliness and bereavement.

This study explores two examples of dilemmas within a close romantic relationship:
Rejection and betrayal. Falling in love need not result in reciprocation, leading to the
disappointment of rejection (unrequited love). Rejection can ellicit strong organization as
well as disorganization of thoughts, emotions and behaviours in an individual (Aron, Fisher,
& Strong, 2006). The second form of disappointment involves a serious threat to a
relationship: the experience of betrayal through the violation of an implicitly or explicitly
defined norm within a relationship (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Individuals can retain the essence
of an experience, such as a disappointment, for a long time (Safer, Breslin, & Boesch, 2007).
Hurst (1999) adds that the inferences about what negative events mean in terms of causes and
consequences may result in hopelessness and depression as psychological outcomes. To teach
healthy and joyful relationships in couples therapy, Borcherdt (1996) applies the principles of
Rational Emotive Behavioural Therapy (REBT). Therefore the cognitive-behavioural theory
ofREBT (Ellis, 1996) is used as a suitable framework.

1.2 Research aims

This study explores the phenomenon of a romantic disappointment and the associated beliefs
and outcomes through the following research questions: (l) How does an individual
experience the phenomenon of a romantic rejection or betrayal?; (2) What are the REBT
 2

beliefs that an individual expresses about the romantic betrayal or rejection"; (3) What is the
quantitative assessment of an individual's general non event-related REBT beliefs"; and (4)
What are the REBT consequences/ outcomes of the romantic rejection or betrayal? This study
contributes to psychological science by building onto extant theory and adding to clinical
knowledge and implications for addressing romantic relationship disappointments.

1.3 Structure of the study

This chapter states the rationale, aims and questions relating to the research topic. A review
of extant literature on romantic disappointments (rejection and betrayal) is presented in
Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents a review of REBT theory, as well as its application to romantic
disappointments. The case study research design and methodology implemented in this study
are described in Chapter 4. The results of the data collection and analysis procedures are
presented in Chapter 5, in combination with the discussion of the findings. The concluding
chapter, Chapter 6, offers a summary of major findings, clinical implications of the results, an
evaluation of the study's quality standards, limitations of the study and recommendations for
future research.
 3

Chapter Two

Romantic Relationships and Disappointment

2.1 Relationship science

"No attempt to understand behaviour, in the individual case or in the collective. will be
wholly successful until we understand the close relationships that form the foundation and
theme ofthe human condition" (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983, p. 19). The exceptional sociability
of human life colours nearly every phenomenon studied in the social and behavioural
sciences. Human beings spend about two-thirds of their waking hours in the presence of other
humans; the majority of that time is spent with romantic partners (Berscheid, 2004). The
desire and need to form and maintain strong interpersonal bonds are fundamental human
motives (Gable & Reis, 2001). Close others, moreover, exert a powerful effect on
psychological and physical well-being (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Cognitive and affective
experiences are based on interpersonal relations. Values, dispositions and behavioural
inclinations are moulded by relations and interactions with close others. Berscheid (2004)
claims that virtually every study investigating human happiness reveals that fulfilling close
relationships constitute the most important factor of happiness. People consider their close
relationships with significant others to be the most meaningful and essential factor of their
holistic well-being (Berscheid, 2004). Therefore, according to Reis and Rusbult (2004),
relationships became a topic to be further investigated, developing into the field of
"relationship science" (p. 3).

In the history of relationship science, romantic relationships have been an ever-present theme
throughout human history, as represented in literature, music, Biblical tales and precepts,
anthropological studies of human societies and the chronicles of kings, queens, emperors,
emirs, chiefs and their nation-states and alliances (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Several early
theories of personality emphasized the importance of interpersonal relationships, including
the theories of Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson and Harry Stack Sullivan (Reis & Rusbult,
2004). Unfortunately, these theorists' claims were based on casual observation, rather than
stemming from empirical evidence. These early claims were later found to be valid when
tested through rigorous scientific research. Various authors then built on the recordings of
early interests in relationships (Reis & Rusbult, 2004).
 4

In the past, matters ofthe heart were seen fit for the expressive arts including literature, song,
poetry, painting, sculpture and dance, but the perspective on matters of the heart is now
different (Lewis, Amini, & Lannon, 2000). The close relationship, which includes friendship,
kinship and erotic love, is not a new phenomenon, but social science examined this universal
phenomenon only recently. When psychology began to investigate the close relationship, it
centred exclusively on the person as an individual. Individual processes, namely cognition,
perception, socialisation or learning, were the exclusive interest. In the first half of the
twentieth century, only a few social scientists were interested in the interpersonal aspect of
the close relationship. Some psychologists and sociologists began to study heterosexual
attraction and marital stability, but the focus remained on the individual. This meant that the
individual was assigned an interior life and the interpersonal relationship was simply treated
as a dependent variable (Levinger & Raush, 1977). In the late seventies the new discipline of
relationship science emerged giving relationships the long awaited and deserved recognition.
As it currently exists, the social psychological perspective on understanding relationships
focuses on underlying processes, broad theoretical analysis and rigorous empirical scrutiny.

The three common theoretical orientations within relationship science are:

• Evolutionary orientation: This lens emphasises the role of inherited biological factors in
determining contemporary behaviour. If a particular tendency enhances an individual's
survival potentials, then that tendency will become more prominent over the course of
generations (Kenrick & Trost, 2000; Reis & Rusbult, 2004);

• Attachment orientation: Childhood experiences take priority for scientists looking

through this lens. Attachment theory proposes that humans are born with genetically
based tendencies that regulate attachment and caregiving (Zeifman & Hazan, 2000; Reis
& Rusbult, 2004);

• Inter-dependence orientation: This emphasizes the nature of relationships between people

and thus defines what the two individuals are likely to experience in interactions.
specifying the particular traits and norms that guide the interactions (Rusbult & Arriaga,
2000).
 5

2.2 Defining relationships

Defining a relationship is difficult. It is easier to identify than to define. The most commonly
accepted definition is that a close relationship exists when two individuals exert strong effects
on one another over an extended period of time, and each person's behaviour and well-being
affects that of the other (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Therefore, each person's actions influence
the other and determine whether each one will feel happy or unhappy, enjoy good or poor
outcomes, or experience either pleasure or pain (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Interpersonal
relationships can also be described as "face-to-face relationships between whole persons that
are affectively loaded, particularistic and non-normative. Role relations are partial, less
affective, universalistic and governed by norms, by shared expectations about the rights and
obligations of role occupants" (Douvan, 1977, p. 17). Interpersonal closeness is multi-
dimensional, including the factors of intimacy, understanding and commitment. Facets of the
close relationship include: (a) frequent interaction, (b) between spatially near partners, (c)
who share common goals, (d) exchange personal disclosures, and (e) care about one another
(Levinger, 1977). Lay individuals, when asked to define closeness, define it in terms of
approaching another, finding a response from another, and go even as far as losing oneself in
the other (Levinger, 1977). However, Benokraitis (2004) believes that love defies a single
definition because it varies in degree and intensity across social contexts and can only be said
to, at the very least, include caring, intimacy and commitment as essential qualities.

2.3 Romantic relationships and romantic love

In romantic love relationships, which are a specific category of close relationships, a major
factor enters, that of romantic love. To understand this better, individuals can contrast
friendship and love relationships. Davis (as cited in Benokraitis, 2004) describes eight
important qualities in friendship relationships: 1) Enjoyment: Friends enjoy being with each
other and feel at ease with one another despite occasional disagreements; 2) Acceptance:
Friends tolerate faults and shortcomings of one another and accept each other as they are; 3)
Trust: Friends look out for each other's best interests and look to one another during trying
times; 4) Respect: Friends may not always agree with each other's choices but they honour
the other's decisions; 5) Mutual support: Friends help each other through good and bad times
without expecting anything in return; 6) Confiding: Friends self-disclose and share feelings
and experiences with one another without betraying each other's confidence;
 6

7) Understanding: Friends show sympathy towards each other's feelings and thoughts and
can often read each other without having to say much; 8) Honesty: Friends feel free to be
who they are and can be honest and open as a result.

Love relationships include the above characteristics, but with three additional qualities:
Sexual desire, priority over other relationships and the characteristic of caring to the point of
self-sacrifice (Davis, as cited in Benokraitis, 2004). A love relationship can start as a
friendship and develop into love (Lewis et at, 2000). Various texts, for example, Benokraitis
(2004) investigate how this love develops and what attracts lovers to each other. Love
remains, however, an elusive concept and locating love's precepts is a daunting task (Lewis
et at, 2000). Characteristics of love include:

• Love is multifaceted. The many dimensions of love include romance, excitement,

obsession and irrationality. These dimensions are often characteristic of a new love
relationship in its early stages. Love can also be platonic, calming, altruistic and sensible
when given the chance to mature (Benokraitis, 2004).

• Respect. Respect is important in love, more so than passionate yearning. Should respect
be amiss from a love relationship, it will not be based on love but rather on unhealthy or
possessive feelings or behaviours that lead to the stunted growth of one or both persons'
social, emotional and intellectual growth (Benokraitis, 2004).

• Love is often demanding. Love that has matured over the long term, in particular, has little
in common with the images of the initial, infatuous stages of love perpetuated by the
media. These misrepresentations help create the unrealistic expectations, stereotypes and
disillusionment that befalls the unsuspecting (Benokraitis, 2004). This 'in-loveness' has
been called the purest form of insanity, because individuals find themselves doing things
they would otherwise not be doing (Davies, 2000). This contrasts the more mature state of
loving, which is a more comfortable and companionable state, with a sense of deep
enduring devotion, affection, care, trust, support and respect. Boundaries are healthy and
those involved have no illusions about who they are as individuals (Davies, 2000). Real
love is closer to what is called "stirring-the-oatmeal" love (Johnson, as cited in
Benokraitis, 2004, p. 144). This depicts a type of love that is neither exciting nor thrilling,
but rather mundane and unromantic. Everyday realities such as having to pay bills or
attend to a sick baby through the night need attention.
 7

• Caring. This involves wanting to help the other person by providing aid and emotional
support. Caring means responding to the other person's needs. This, however, does not
mean that a partner must be submissive. Instead, when people care about each other, they
build each other's self-esteem (Amodeo, Griffin, Fassler, Clay, & Ellis, 2007) and offer
encouragement when difficulties are encountered. By being sensitive to a partner's needs,
the relationship will flourish and become more intimate.

• Intimacy. Definitons of intimacy vary. However, most emphasise feelings of closeness. A

mutual emotional interest, self-disclosure and trust can manifest and exist between
individuals (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). This refers to one person revealing his or her
inner-most thoughts and feelings to another with the expectation that truly open
communication will follow. In healthy love relationships, as intimacy increases, the
individuals learn to let down their defences and they can enjoy reciprocal support. Caring
and intimacy, in turn, lead to commitment within a love relationship (Mirgain & Cordova,
2007).

• Commitment. This refers to a person's intention to remain in a relationship, despite the

circumstances. It is a conscious decision to maintain a love relationship (Louw, van Ede,
& Louw, 1998). Many people may end their relationships, even though they still love
each other, if they feel that commitment is not increasing. This demonstrates the
importance and value of commitment in a love relationship, the loss of which may have
detrimental emotional consequences for one or both romantic partners. Commitment has
many positive effects such as affection, companionship and trust (Wilcox & Nock, 2006).

• Passion. This is usually characterised by an intense physical, cognitive and emotional

attraction to another person (Baron & Byrne, 2004). Excitement, euphoria and ecstasy are
often created by passion. Passion can also be accompanied by a sense of uncertainty if it
is not accompanied by intimacy (Louw et aI., 1998).

2.4 Explanations of love

Various theories about love and loving exist, varying from the biological explanations about
the 'why' of love, to the psychological, anthropological and sociological explanations that
approach the 'how' as well as the 'why' of love and loving (Baron & Byrne, 2004). Included
in these theories are the functions of love and loving. Love fulfills many purposes such as
 8

ensuring human survival, prolonging life, enhancing physical health, improving the quality of
lives and providing fun (Benokraitis, 2004).

The triangular model of love (Sternberg, 1986) states that love consists of different
components, namely passion, intimacy and commitment. Different combinations of these
three components can develop different types of love, namely, (I) Liking = Intimacy alone,
(2) Infatuation = Passion alone, (3) Empty love = Commitment alone, (4) Romantic love =
Intimacy + Passion, (5) Fatuous love = Passion + Commitment, (6) Companionate love =
Intimacy + Commitment and (7) the ideal form of love, Consummate love = Intimacy +
Passion + Commitment. As the ideal form oflove, consummate love will survive individuals'
development-related changes (Sternberg, 1986). Relationships which are based on only one
or two ofthe three triangular aspects of love are at risk of deterioration (Sternberg, 1986).

2.5 The phases of a relationship

The multiplicities and complexities of relationships can be divided into the four generally
agreed upon 'phases' of close relationships: The attraction and initiation of relationships; the
development of relationships; the maintenance of relationships; and the deterioration of
relationships.

2.5.1 Attraction and initiation of relationships

With the early years of relationship science, much of what was known about relationships
concerned the initial encounters between individuals. In other words, the first impressions,
further affiliation and the end result of feeling attracted to one another (Reis & Rusbult,
2004). First impressions examine how initial information about another person helps shape
the views of a person. Social scientists have investigated the effects of various factors
involved in first impressions, for example, appearance characteristics such as height, race,
age, attractiveness, ethnicity and hidden information about a person's values, attitudes and
personality (Baron & Byrne, 2004). The subsequent step of affiliation, which is the
inclination to seek the company of specific others, was then investigated. Studies have
demonstrated that strong emotions promote affiliation (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). The drive
behind affiliation is that people seek the company of others with the goal of coming to better
understand themselves. As an example, individuals may set out to understand whether or not
their beliefs and opinions are socially acceptable by comparing them to other people's beliefs
 9

and opinions. Thus, affiliation is explained by the presence of others being comforting; these
others helping individuals gain a better understanding of themselves, feeling better about
themselves and helping give directions for improving themselves (Sedikides & Strube, 1997).

Another inquiry concerns who is attracted to whom and why. One prominent focus addresses
the similarity versus complementarity question. In other words, this exploration ascertains
whether people are attracted to those who are similar to themselves or to those who are
different from themselves. An example is Sprecher's (1998) study which examined the
relative importance of various predictors of attraction from the insiders' perspective and how
these perceived reasons for attraction depended first, on the stage of the attraction (initial
attraction versus the maintenance of current attraction) and second, on the relational context
(friendship versus romantic relationship). In summary, the statistically significant findings
were that, in romantic relationships, physical attractiveness was the most important factor,
followed by intelligence and competence. Low reports of money earning potential as an
important factor were found. Also, similarity of interests and leisure activities was not found
to be important for romantic relationships; they were only found to be important variables for
same-gender friendships (Sprecher, 1998).

2.5.2 Developing relationships

Relationships involve much more than initial interactions, which may be the simplest part for
the people involved. Although some initial encounters grow to become lasting relationships,
many more do not follow suit (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). The processes that have received the
most attention are communication, intimacy and love. As Reis and Rusbult (2004) explain,
communication is important in developing relationships. Verbal and non-verbal
communication patterns are implicated. Intimacy also comes into focus at this stage of the
relationship. Communication serves to regulate intimacy, either bringing two people together
or keeping them apart. The love component is particularly significant in this explanation of
the development of romantic relationships; at this stage of a developing relationship, some
types of love will fare better as predictors of relationship success than others.
 10

2.5.3 Maintaining relationships

In early relationship science, little attention was given to factors surrounding the maintenance
of relationships, yet this stage is the most important in a relationship (Reis & Rusbult, 2004).
Research about relationship maintenance includes inter-dependence, commitment, trust and
sustaining established relationships (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). The latter involves
strategically enacting guided behaviours that are intended to promote the well-being of the
partner or relationship.

2.5.4 Deteriorating relationships

This entails the final stage of the process of a relationship. The unproblematic stages often
remain unquestioned and uninvestigated. Issues are often brought to the attention of
researchers when there is change, a puzzle, or conflict as is the case with the deterioration
phase ofa relationship. This stage of romantic relationships is the focus of this study.

Many romantic relationships, despite pleasant and promising beginnings, end (Karney,
McNulty, & Frye, 2001). For many, romantic relationships are volatile and what starts off
amicably ends up in animosity (Davies, 2000). Involvement with a romantic partner may
often be simple and enjoyable. When romantic partners' goals and preferences are compatible
and correspond, partners can achieve desirable outcomes such as security, companionship
and fulfillment (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, & Hannon, 2001). Dilemmas arise, however, when
romantic partners encounter conflicted interaction, incompatible preferences, extra-
relationship temptation or the experience of betrayal. Partners suddenly no longer feel certain
of relationship qualities such as intimacy, love or closeness. The boundaries, which once
seemed to define such concepts, become a blur. On the one hand, human beings witness a
quest for closeness that most people exhibit, yet on the other, they witness what seems to be
an irrepressible distancing and separation. Also most notably, reciprocity and stability of
closeness are not valued by everyone (Levinger, 1977). Levinger and Raush (1977) describe
the intimate relationship as a sanctuary amongst the pressures of life and society, yet it is not
indestructable (Levinger & Raush, 1977).

Many relationships may deteriorate over time and others end. Interactions between two
people can even become bitterly distasteful. People often expect certain behaviours from
those with whom they share interpersonal relationships. However, the unexpected is an
 11

inevitable aspect of a romantic relationship and can be a positive source of excitement and
affect. In romantic relationships, each person's role within the relationship has been
delineated and the unexpected may also represent violation of shared moral expectations
(Douvan, 1977). The effects of deteriorating relationships are profound. "A troubled
relationship... is the most common presenting problem of those seeking psychotherapy"
(Berscheid, 2004, p. 26). When a relationship is healthy, it can be a source of great
fulfillment and joy. When a relationship is dysfunctional, however, it often leads to great
distress and disappointment (Reis & Rusbult, 2004).

2.6 The present study: Romantic disappointment

People live in an environment that is physical, social, and in which they pursue various goals,
such as special intimate relationships with unique others, as well as a desire to rate oneself as
competent and lovable (Ellis, 1991). Throughout life, however, people may encounter
adversities or failures that result in rejection or discomfort (Ellis, 1996). This study focusses
particularly on the subjective experience of a disappointment within a romantic relationship,
in the form of a rejection and/or betrayal by a significant close other (romantic partner).
These are two specific examples of various possible dilemmas that may (or may not) end a
close romantic relationship. Craib (1994) describes disappointment as what happens (what is
felt) when something that is expected, intended, hoped for or desired does not surface or
materialise. Desire is central to this understanding and carries with it connotations of not
simply wanting something, but needing it so urgently that, without it, life seems unbearable
(Craib, 1994). Many individuals have experienced such feelings and many eventually survive
the disappointment of desire, but not without distress. Moreover, individuals can retain the
effects ofan experience, such as a disappointment, for a long time (Safer et aI., 2007).

2.6.1 Romantic disappointment: Rejection

Falling in love need not result in reciprocation, but can lead to disappointment in the form of
rejection (unrequited love). Unrequited love is the most prominent form of romantic
rejection. It is experienced when a person does not reciprocate another's romantic interests.
Rejection can iJJicit strong organization as well as disorganization of thoughts, emotions and
behaviours and it has long been recognized that interpersonal loss plays a role in the initiation
of depression (Aron et aI., 2006). This affects the person's belief system too.
 12

2.6.1.1 Theories of rejection

The theory of rejection-sensitivity suggests that a personality variable predisposes certain

individuals to be more prone to perceive romantic partners' ambiguous actions as signs of
possible rejection. Such behaviour may become a self-fulfilling prophecy as it plays a role in
eliciting what is feared most by the suspicious partner: actual rejection by the other (Downey,
Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 2004). A longitudinal field study revealed that individuals with
a high rejection-sensitivity were more likely to encounter dissolution of their relationships
than were those with a low rejection-sensitivity (Downey et al., 2004).

Previous research (Coyne & Whiffen, 1995) based on the cognitive-interpersonal and
diathesis-stress models of depression has traditionally based its foundation on a general,
nonspecific definition of 'interpersonal stress'. Here, events and phenomena with potentially
different psychological meanings would be combined. For example, relationship break-ups
initiated by the self and those initiated by the romantic partner would be treated as
functionally equivalent examples of interpersonal stress. In a study by Ayduk, Downey, and
Minji (2001), however, differentiation is made between negative interpersonal events that
communicate rejection and those that do not convey rejection. Interpersonal loss triggers
depression to the extent that it communicates rejection because messages of rejection
undermine people's ability to view themselves as worthy of love and acceptance (Brown &
Harris, as cited in Ayduk et al., 200 I). Brown and Harris (as cited in Ayduk et al., 200 I) thus
proposed that, romantic interpersonal losses that convey rejection (such as a partner-initiated
break-up) elicit depressive reactions, but those that do not convey rejection (such as a self-
initiated break-up) would not increase the risk for depressive reactions.

In addition to this, Ayduk et al. (2001) found that individuals must both expect rejection and
be highly concerned over its occurrence to become depressed should they perceive that they
are being rejected by the other. Without much concern about preventing rejection and gaining
acceptance, expecting rejection should not be a sufficient condition to elicit depressive
reactions to rejection. Similarly, concern over preventing rejection in the context of a
generalized expectation of being accepted (i.e., high concern but low rejection expectations)
should not lead to depression following a rejection. In such cases, a single rejection is
unlikely to trigger the global, catastrophic negative beliefs about oneself that underlie
depression (Ayduk et aI., 200 I).
 13

Fisher (2000) investigated the physiological anatomy of rejection. Humans and other
mammals are believed to have evolved three primary and interrelated emotion systems for
mating, reproduction and parenting. These systems are lust, which is characterized by the
drive to gratify sexual cravings; attraction, which is an increase in energy and focused
attention on one or more possible mates, exhilaration, intrusive thinking and the craving to be
emotionally merged; and attachment, characterized by close social contact and feelings of
calm, comfort and emotional union. Fisher (2000) supports the idea that, during the course of
hominid evolution, these three emotion systems became increasingly independent of one
another whereas originally they were in synchrony with one another. Disharmony of these
three primary emotion systems is hypothesized to cause contemporary patterns of marriage,
adultery and divorce; it also contributes to stalking, homicide, suicide and clinical depression
associated with rejection in love (Fisher, 2000). The statistics accompanying these
assumptions specify that, in any given year, about one million American women are stalked
by rejected lovers, a further indication of the powerful drive of the biology behind
experiences such as romantic rejection (Fisher, 2000).

2.6.2 Romantic disappointment: Betrayal

The second type of disappointment addressed in this study involves one of the most serious
threats to a relationship: the experience of betrayal through the violation of an implicitly or
explicitly defined norm within that relationship. Although betrayals vary in perceived
severity (telling a white lie versus sexual infidelity), such incidents yield characteristic
negative feelings, thoughts and behavioural tendencies (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). The research
on infidelity emphasizes sexual relations with someone other than the primary partner as the
primary acts of betrayal by a close other. This may be a major aspect of extra-dyadic
involvements, but it is important to consider that such relationships may also be defined in
terms of emotional involvement with another person (Whisman & Pittman, 2005). Such
relationship betrayals are often denoted as 'extra-marital affairs', but this term excludes
extra-dyadic involvement through other types of relationships such as cohabiting couples.
Because of the difficulties in the terms commonly used in the literature, the term relationship
betrayals in this study refers to violations of expectations for emotional and physical
exclusivity with a person's partner.
 14

2.6.2.1 Understanding betrayal and clinical implications

Individuals in romantic relationships often expect to have their needs met exclusively by a
romantic partner. Infidelity and other forms of sexual and emotional betrayal violate
expectations of exclusivity (Whisman & Pittman, 2005). Hurst (1999) adds that the
inferences about what these negative events mean in terms of causes and consequences may
lead to feelings of hopelessness and depression as psychological outcomes. Thus, an
understanding of individuals' experiences of betrayal are essential to knowledge about the
experience. Betrayal, often although not exclusively, points to infidelity. In any form, it
represents a breach of trust and a betrayal of a relationship, a breaking of an agreement to any
committed relationship (Benokraitis, 2004). A couples counselling expert describes a client's
discovery of his I her partner's affair as "the emotional equivalent ofhaving a limb amputated
without an anaesthetic" (Benokraitis, 2004, p. 193).

Understanding the dynamics of romantic betrayals has direct implications for therapy and
clinical application of the knowledge. Caution is to be exercised because clinicians should
bear in mind that people differ in terms of their relational expressions and expectations for
exclusivity. For example, one heterosexual couple may believe that a close, cross-sex
friendship is a violation of exclusivity, whereas another couple may entertain such
relationships. Similarly, although most people may assume that sexual relations with persons
other than the romantic partner are a given and obvious violation of exclusivity for any
couple, this may not violate expectations for exclusivity for a couple in a sexually open
relationship (Whisman & Pittman, 2005). Clinicians need to construct individualised
interventions for each couple. In modem day relationships romantic partners may have novel
definitions of what is acceptable within the parameters of their relationship. An indication
that a person is engaging in behaviour that he or she believes violates a partner's expectations
for exclusivity is when he or she makes an effort, often at lengths, to keep the dishonest
activity secret from the romantic partner. Thus, disclosure of betrayals involves being
deceived and results in disillusionment for the afflicted or both romantic partners and further
relationship problems.

Hurst (1999) found that women reported depressive episodes after having been 'betrayed',
which referred to being abused, disrespected and abandoned. These betrayals often resulted in
 15

feelings of being left out of the world and as though nobody cared, which also contributed to
feelings of demoralization. The experience of being demoralized involved thoughts of not
being worthy of love, of there being nothing to do to change things and of nothing going to
get better. Findings of Hurst's (1999) enquiry suggest that certain types of negative events,
such as betrayals, are by nature apt to be demoralizing. Through grounded theory research,
she describes how women became depressed as a result of profound betrayals. Her enquiry
was also grounded in a feminist research paradigm, and she adds that a person is foreseeably
left with little hope for oneself and the world after a betrayal by a significant other.

Psychotherapists working with couples can be assured that they will encounter relationship
betrayals, such as sexual infidelity, with some regularity in their clients. Unfortunately, data
on the prevalence of infidelity are difficult to obtain. However, several studies have found
that it is a common phenomenon to merit regular assessment by therapists (Whisman &
Pittman, 2005). Whisman and Pittman (2005) even go as far as to recommend that therapists
question couples about betrayals as routinely as they would about other matters such as
substance abuse or history of violence. Relationship infidelity is one of the most difficult
problems to address in couples therapy, because it involves a traumatic relationship event that
alters the ways in which couples process information about each other and about behavioural
patterns (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2005). In their article, Gordon and colleagues (2005)
present a three-stage treatment design to help clinicians address the cognitive, behavioural
and emotional sequelae of affairs.

Relationship betrayals, particularly those involving sexual relations with another person other
than the exclusive romantic partner, are considered by most people as socially undesirable.
Public opinion surveys have found that 70% to 80% of Americans report that extra-marital
sex is always wrong. Even in less exclusive romantic relationships, they will likely express at
least some disapproval of this behaviour (Smith, as cited in Whisman & Pittman, 2005).
Therefore, dishonour is inevitably attached to this activity and therapists should establish a
trusting therapeutic relationship before approaching this subject.

Johnson, Makinen, and Millikin (2001) identify and operationalise the newly defined
construct of 'attachment injury'. An attachment injury refers to the event of one partner,
within a romantic partnership, violating the expectation that he or she is and will be available
 16

to the romantic partner to offer comfort in times of distress. Such an incident, should it
become a clinically recurring theme, can create a deadlock that blocks relationship repair in
couples therapy. Attachment injury is marked by a betrayal of trust or abandonment during a
time of need (Johnson et aI., 2001). The injurious incident leads to the experience of a
relationship that is insecure for both parties involved, thus maintaining distress because it is
constantly used as the standard for the dependability of the offending partner. The couple's
journey to possible healing or 'moving forward' is therefore marked with many tribulations.

The effects of betrayal by sexual infidelity can have drastic consequences. Hirsch, Meneses,
Thompson, Negroni, Pelcastre and del Rio (2007) refer to an example of, what they call, a
'fatal' consequence of sexual infidelity, that is, married Mexican women's single greatest risk
of contracting HIV follows infidelity of their husbands. This is an example of the potential
impact of betrayal within romantic relationships.

2.7 Conclusion

People come to know that relationships are good when they work and bad when they do not.
Nevertheless, people may not know why exactly they work, what can prevent them going
wrong, how they develop, how they go wrong and the many effects and outcomes of these
events (Dragon & Duck, 2005). Therefore, instead of relying on individuals' innate
knowledge, friends' advice or comments in popular magazines, social scientists understand
personal relationships through research. The problem, however, is that good research is
challenging and rare. Common sense opinions are much more frequently used as the basis for
beliefs about relationships. More questions should be answered through empirical research so
that intuition is not used to create beliefs about relationships. Nonetheless, elements at the
core of the development of research on close relationships include: describing real-life
relationships and emphasizing process in close relationships (Hendrick, 1989).

This chapter reviewed literature and theory on close relationships. The current study's focus
is the experience of disappointments in romantic relationships. For purposes of this study,
disappointment refers specifically to the subjective experience of being rejected or betrayed
by a romantic partner within a love relationship. The focus is not on a particular type of love
relationship, gender or culture as these are not the constructs under focus in this study.
Rather, a general view of the experience of disappointments in romantic relationships will be
adopted.
 17

Chapter Three

Theory of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

3.1 Introduction

This chapter gives a synopsis of cognitive psychology, with a focus on Rational Emotive
Behavioural Therapy (REBT). For the purposes of this study, however, the focus is on the
theory of REBT. The theory of the assessment process of REBT is discussed, rather than the
implementation of the specific psychotherapeutic techniques of this model.

Cognitive-behavioural theories and their accompanying therapies represent hybrids of

behavioural and cognitive processes, with the goal of achieving behavioural and cognitive
change. There are various major therapeutic principles and procedures subsumed under the
general heading of cognitive-behavioural theories, which can be explained by differing
theoretical orientations (Dobson & Dozois, 2003). For example, Ellis and Beck, the founders
of REBT and cognitive therapy respectively, were psychoanalytically trained. On the polar
end, others such as Goldfried, Meichenbaum and Mahoney originate from the behaviour
modification training backgrounds (Dobson & Dozois, 2003).

3.2 Development of cognitive psychology

Cognitive therapy was developed by Aaron T. Beck at the University of Pennsylvania in the
early 1960s as a structured, short-term, present-oriented psychotherapy for depression (Beck,
1995; Sharf, 2008). It holds the rationale that an individual's cognitions are shaped by
attitudes and assumptions developed from previous experiences (Beck, Rush, Shaw, &
Emery, 1979). Beck theorised new ideas through clinical observations, systematic clinical
studies and experiments. He highlighted that a thinking disorder occurs at the core of certain
psychiatric syndromes such as depression and anxiety. This dysfunction manifests in a
systematic bias in the way individuals interpret or view particular experiences. Beck observed
this in the verbalisations and free associations of his patients. He realised that his patients
experienced thoughts they were barely aware of but did not report them as a part of their free
associations. These thoughts or cognitions appeared quickly and automatically and were not
under the patients' control. Often the patients were not aware of these automatic thoughts,
which were followed by unpleasant feelings, that, in contrast, they were well aware of. By
 18

asking patients about their current thoughts, Beck was able to identify negative thought
themes, for example, thoughts of inadequacy or defeat (Beck, 1964).

As a reflection of Beck's psychoanalytic training and practice, he made comparisons between

Freud's concept of the pre-conscious and his own observations of automatic thoughts (Sharf,
2008). From such internal communications within themselves, individuals formed sets of
beliefs, from which they formulated rules or standards for themselves. These were called
'schemas'. A schema is conceived as a structure used for screening, coding and evaluating
impinging stimuli and is also the mode by which an individual adapts to the external reality
(Beck, 1964). In depressed individuals these internal messages tended to communicate self-
blame and self-criticism. This cognitive-affective model led to the formulation of a central
concept in cognitive therapy, namely a negative cognitive shift, in which individuals ignored
positive information and focussed on the negative aspects of themselves and their
environments. Psychoanalysis and cognitive therapy therefore share the view that behaviour
is often affected by specific beliefs of which individuals have little, if any, awareness.
Whereas Freud focussed on unconscious thoughts, Beck focussed on automatic thoughts that
lead to distress within the individual (Sharf, 2008).

Beck (1964) found that the alleviation of symptoms occurred through means of pointing out
various alternatives to the existing systematic thoughts. Additional clinical trials further
supported the efficacy of this new approach. By the mid-1980s, cognitive therapy had
attained the status of a 'System of Psychotherapy' which was pillared by a theory of
personality, a model of psychotherapy (which integrated psychopathology) and empirical
findings based on outcome research. Cognitive theory has since developed a variety of
applications for various conditions and pathologies (Sharf, 2008).

3.3 Principles of cognitive therapy

Despite the multiple extensions of cognitive therapy, a few fundamental principles form the
foundation of cognitive theory. Beck's (1995) cognitive model proposes that distorted or
dysfunctional thinking (which influences an individual's mood and behaviour) is common in
all psychological disturbances. The aim of cognitive therapy is to create a realistic evaluation
and modification of thinking, which should produce improvement in mood and behaviour.
Cognitive therapy is unique through a unified theory of personality and psychopathology
supported by empirical evidence (Beck, 1995).
 19

Beck (1995) outlines ten principles ofthe cognitive approach:

• Principle I: Cognitive therapy is based on a formulation of the client and his or her
problems in cognitive terms. This includes identifying current thinking that maintains any
feelings of sadness and accompanying problematic behaviours. After this is established,
precipitating factors are identified. Hypotheses can be formulated about any key
developmental events and enduring patterns of interpreting these events.

• Principle 2: Cognitive therapy requires a sound therapeutic alliance. The therapist shows
regard for the client by making empathic statements, listening closely and carefully,
accurately summarising a client's thoughts and feelings, and displaying realistic optimism
and an "upbeat" attitude.

• Principle 3: Cognitive therapy emphasises collaboration and active participation. The

client is encouraged to view therapy as teamwork.

• Principle 4: Cognitive therapy is goal-oriented. In the first session, the client lists
problems and dysfunctions and sets specific goals.

• Principle 5: Cognitive therapy initially emphasises the present. Treatment involves a

strong focus on the current presenting problems.

• Principle 6: Cognitive therapy is educative, aiming to teach the client to be his or her own
therapist, and it emphasises relapse prevention. The therapist engages in psycho-
education with the client in relation to the nature and course of the disorder where
applicable, and about the cognitive model and accompanying processes of cognitive
therapy.

• Principle 7: Cognitive therapy aims to be time limited. An approximate aim for

uncomplicated depression and anxiety disorders are four to 14 treatment sessions.
However, individuals with rigid dysfunctional beliefs and patterns of behaviour may
require one to two years oftherapy.

• Principle 8: Cognitive therapy sessions are structured. Irrespective of the diagnosis or

treatment phase, the therapist adheres to a set structure in every session.

• Principle 9: Cognitive therapy teaches clients to identify, evaluate and respond to their
dysfunctional thoughts and beliefs. This is achieved through helping the client to focus on
 20

a specific problem, identify dysfunctional thinking, evaluate the validity of the thought
and devise a plan of action.

• Principle 10: Cognitive therapy uses many techniques to change thinking, mood and
behaviour. The cognitive framework includes strategies from other therapeutic
orientations, such as behaviour therapy and Gestalt therapy.

Arnkoff (1981) adds that flexibility in practicing cognitive therapy is both possible and
desirable. By integrating other approaches and techniques, a practitioner is then best able to
attend to a client's individual presenting needs.

3.4 Theoretical influences of cognitive psychology

Beck's theory of cognitive therapy was also influenced by other theories of psychotherapy,
cognitive psychology and cognitive science (Sharf, 2008). The work of Albert Ellis, Alfred
Adler, George Kelly and Piaget's development of cognition have contributed to cognitive
psychology. Although often described as a depth psychologist, Adler's therapeutic techniques
are not typical of depth psychology (Meyer, Moore, & Viljoen, 2003). He did not try to solve
deep, unconscious problems, but tried to appeal to the client's insight and social interest.
Adlerians have focussed on the development of beliefs and created strategies to bring about
the necessary changes in perceptions for therapeutic change. George Kelly's theory was
described by Fransella (1978) as a total psychology. Kelly's (1991) theory of personal
constructs explores the role of cognitions in personality development. Beck's schemas and
Kelly's personal constructs are alike in that they both describe ways of characterising an
individual's systems of beliefs, and both share an emphasis on the role of beliefs in current
behaviour and in changing behaviours (Sharf, 2008). Piaget conducted studies on children's
intellectual skills that can be applied to the matching of psychotherapeutic techniques to an
individual's stage of cognitive development.

Both Beck and Ellis aimed to alter their clients' beliefs through direct intervention. For Ellis,
this took place on a more confrontational level. Although there are both differences and
commonalities in Ellis and Beck's theories, their systems have served to strengthen the
impact of cognitive therapies on the practice of psychotherapy. Differences centre on the
philosophical approach that each takes toward psychological disturbances. Whereas Beck's
cognitive psychology helps clients to change beliefs into hypotheses that they can contest,
 21

REBT challenges irrational beliefs directly. Moreover, cognitive therapy identifies cognitive
schemas, distortions, feelings and behaviours that relate to a specific disorder or condition,
while REBT focuses on the methods to change irrational beliefs themselves, regardless of the
nature of the psychological disorder (Sharf, 2008). The concerned study used the principles
of REBT (outlined below in section 3.5) as a suitable framework for exploring the
phenomenon of a romantic disappointment, because of the important role of cognitions,
behaviours and emotions involved in the experience of romantic disappointments (see
Chapter 2). Further theoretical justification for the application of REBT theoretical principles
to the experience of a romantic disappointment is discussed in section 3.6.

3.5 Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

Ellis was the founder of REBT. He first developed Rational Therapy (RT) in 1955 and
changed this to Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) in 1961, then finally to Rational Emotive
Behaviour Therapy. Ellis stated that "Rational emotive behaviour therapy is a preferable and
more accurate term than RTor RET' (Ellis, 1999, p. 154). REBT is one of the original forms
of cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy (CBT). REBT constructs have been assimilated into
mainstream psychological thinking (David, 2003; Still, 200 I). Ellis found that many
philosophies had a central theme, that is, that an individual creates his or her misery
needlessly through irrational or dysfunctional thinking. Ellis' hypothesis was that positive
and negative thoughts contribute significantly to behavioural and emotive disturbances (Ellis,
1991). Therefore, a client can re-create emotional and behavioural fulfilment by changing
such detrimental thinking (Ellis, 1987, 1991, 1996).

3.5.1 Philosophical viewpoints of REBT

Ellis' theory of personality is a combination of psychological, biological, sociological and

philosophical data (Sharf, 2008). He was influenced by the Roman philosopher Epictetus,
who held that individuals are disturbed not by things, but by their view of things. From this
philosophical background, REBT came to be a form of cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy
that is directive, time-limited and structured. Ellis took on the challenge of creating a method
of psychotherapy that was intrinsically brief but also claimed to help people achieve an
intensive, profoundly philosophical and emotional change. It is used to treat a variety of
psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety.
 22

REST is based on a set of defined principles which guide its theory and practice:

• Reasonable hedonism: Hedonism refers to the concept of seeking pleasure and avoiding
pain. Humans, biologically and by social learning, are goal-seeking animals, and one of
their fundamental goals is to survive relatively free from pain (Ellis, 1991). Reasonable
hedonism refers to an individual's attempts to maintain pleasure over the long-term by
avoiding short-term pleasures that may indeed lead to pain (Sharf, 2008). Short-lived
pleasures include drug-abuse, alcohol addiction and sexual promiscuity. REBT posits that
enjoyment and pleasure are vital for optimal functioning, as long as these pursuits do not
lead to irresponsible behaviour from the lack or dismissal of the consequences of such
behaviours.

• Humanism: Ellis stresses the humanistic and existential elements of his theory, believing
that individuals should be accepted for who they are and not who they are 'supposed to
be' in light of others' expectations. He differentiates between accepting an individual and
not liking all aspects ofthat individual's behaviours (Ellis, 1991).

• Rationality: REBT views rationality as the use of efficient, flexible and logical ways to
achieve goals and maintain values (Ellis, 1996).

These philosophies are communicated to clients in the therapeutic setting to help them first to
alleviate current problems identified, and second to develop a philosophy to carry with them
throughout their lives after therapy is terminated. The present study's focus is on REBT
theory, which includes the theory of the model's therapy too.

3.5.2 REBT model and theory of personality

According to REBT, when individuals experience adverse or unfortunate Activating events

(A), they will go on to experience various emotional and behavioural Consequences (C)
(Ellis, 1991). These are either adaptive emotions (such as regret or frustration) or maladaptive
consequences (such as anxiety, rage, depression or self-pity). These consequences stem
directly from Beliefs (B) about the Activating event, creating the A-B-C model of
emotionallbehavioural disturbance (Ellis, 1991, 1996) (Figure 1).
 23

/ /
Activating Belief Consequence
......
Event (B) (C)

(A)
\.. ./

Figure 1 The basic A-B-C model ofREBT.

This model encompasses REBT's theory ofpersonality. Beliefs can be either rational, leading
to healthy functioning, or irrational when they encourage dysfunction and destructive feelings
and behaviours. Activating events, Beliefs and Consequences possibly always have cognitive,
emotive and behavioural aspects (Ellis, 1991). Ellis further clarified that an Activating Event
does not exclusively refer to external stimuli; it can be anything that the individual is
contemplating. This means that any situation (internal or external) activates Beliefs, resulting
in subsequent Consequences and therefore can be an Activating Event. Such an Activating
Event can also be anything from an individual's past that is (either realistically or distortedly)
stored in an individual's memory system (Ellis, 1991).

When a particular unfortunate Activating event (A) occurs, people may choose a healthy
Belief (B) which leads to a healthy Consequence (C), such as disappointment or frustration
(Ellis, 1996). If they embark on unhealthy (Bs), this may manifest as feelings of depression,
rage or self-pity which is then an emotionally disturbing (C). In addition to their selection of
a (B) about the (A), they consequently have a choice of acting in a constructive self-
beneficial manner or may do nothing about it (self-defeating). Such self-destructive
behaviours include excessive drinking or whining. The reactions are largely determined by
underlying Beliefs (B) that individuals have about (A). Two types of (B) are implicated
namely, rational Beliefs (rBs), which drive the individual towards functional feelings and
behaviours (Functional Cs), and irrational Beliefs (iBs), which are the unseen causes of
dysfunctional feelings and behaviours (Dysfunctional Cs) (Ellis, 1996). This classification of
rBs and iBs constitute the primary conceptual framework for the current study.
 24

3.5.2.1 Irrational belief categories

Ellis (1996) and Sharf (2008) describe the following REBT categories of irrational beliefs
(iBs) in response to an adverse activating event (A), such as the subjective experience of a
romantic disappointment:

Self-downing beliefs. Beliefs which present evidence of globally rating oneself and sense of
self-worth negatively.
Need for Achievement. Beliefs which reflect low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands
(musts, shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated/ or
absolutistic demands relating to the need to be competent, adequate and achieving to be
worthwhile.
Needfor Approval. Beliefs which reflect low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts,
shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated/ or absolutistic
demands for the need to be loved.
Needfor Comfort. Beliefs which reflect low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts,
shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated and absolutistic
demands with regards to the need to be free of hassles, discomfort or tension in their lives.
Demand for Fairness. Beliefs which reflect low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands
(musts, shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated and
absolutistic demands with regards to the need to be treated with respect and for consideration
from others.
Other Downing. Beliefs which present evidence of globally rating others and their worth
negatively.

3.5.2.2 Rational belief responses

Ellis (1996) and Sharf (2008) describe the following REBT categories of rational beliefs
(rBs) in response to an adverse activating event (A):

Preferences. Statements which describe non-dogmatic preferences which are efficient,

flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to
achieve one's values and goals.
 25

Hopes. Statements which describe non-dogmatic hopes which are efficient, flexible, logical
and scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve values
and goals.
Wishes. Statements which describe non-dogmatic wishes which are efficient, flexible, logical
and scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve values
and goals.
And! Also Responses. Statements which contain 'and/ also' segments reflecting a high
frustration tolerance.
Yes/ But Responses. Statements which contain 'yes/ but' segments reflecting a high
frustration tolerance.

3.5.2.3 Consequences/ outcomes

Ellis (1996) and Sharf (2008) describe two REBT categories as consequences/ outcomes (Cs)
of an individual's beliefs in response to an adverse activating event (A), such as the
subjective experience of a romantic disappointment:

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours. A segment which describes an

outcome of functional negative emotions such as disappointment, concern, annoyance,
sadness, regret and frustration as well as appropriate behaviours: acting efficiently and
effectively to achieve goals ofliving happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours. A segment which describes

an outcome of dysfunctional negative emotions such as anger, depression, anxiety,
hopelessness, despair, worthlessness, shame, embarrassment, rage, hurt, jealousy and guilt as
well as inappropriate behaviours: avoidance, attacking and self-defeating behaviours.

Dysfunctional feelings have been distinguished from functional feelings in REBT in two
ways: First, functional emotions differ from dysfunctional emotions in terms of
intensity, with very intense feelings being seen as mostly dysfunctional (Cramer, 2005).
Second, functional and dysfunctional feelings differ in both quality and quantity, although
their quality is most distinctive (David, Montgomery, Macavei, & Bovbjerg, 2005).
 26

3.5.3 Relationship between activating events, beliefs and consequences/ outcomes

The relationship between Activating events (A's), Beliefs (Bs) about these A's, and
Consequences (Cs) are often interactional and reciprocal (Figure 2.). A's significantly
influence Bs and Cs. In turn Bs and Cs also often significantly influence or even create
secondary A's. The kind, frequency and degree of the A's may easily influence or contribute
to Bs (Ellis, 1991).

Figure 2 The interactional and reciprocal nature of the A-B-C model. ofREBT.

According to REBT, irrational beliefs precipitate dysfunctional feelings, for example, feeling
depressed or angry. Cognitive-behavioural theories claim that depression is associated with
these irrational beliefs. Depressed individuals score higher than non-depressed people on
irrational beliefs (Bond & Dryden, 1997). The current study thus investigates the irrational
beliefs (iBs) that individuals may, unknowingly, hold about various Activating events (A).
Because (B) is easier to change than (A), it is primarily what needs to be identified and
disputed if further change is to be implemented through the REBT therapist.

The three resulting insights of REBT are that first, Activating events are adverse or
unfortunate goals that thwart an individual's goals and desires which guard his or her living.
These contribute to, but do not cause, neurotic Consequences. Second, when individuals
think, feel and act neurotically, they often first construct their irrational Beliefs about
unfortunate Activating events during their childhood, but they may not do so until later.
When they display neurotic symptoms, it may be from the source of early or previously
created dysfunctional beliefs and/or newly constructed ones as a result of the trigger event.
Finally, through practice and much work, with the guidance of a trained and insightful
therapist, a client can identify the specific irrational beliefs that accompany neurotic feelings
 27

and behaviours (Ellis, 1996). In addition to the above insights, Ellis (1996) has found that
individuals often in tum upset themselves about their serious 'upsetness'.

REBT focuses on an individual's rational and irrational beliefs about an activating event.
According to REBT, one of the following three conditions applies when an individual
experiences an activating event (Ellis, 1996):

• Rational belief in response to a pleasant activating event. When this happens for an
individual, the A-B-C model often goes unnoticed. Rational beliefs may be re-enforced
and emotional and behavioural consequences are pleasant.

• Rational belief in response to an unpleasant activating event. When an unfortunate

activating event occurs, many different beliefs and consequences can result. A rational
belief about an unpleasant event wiII lead to a healthy emotional consequence. This
would be an adaptive response. Such rational beliefs almost always consist of
preferences, hopes and wishes, which include flexible and adaptive meanings, such as
and/also and yes/but responses to the adverse events.

• Irrational belief in response to an unpleasant activating event. When individuals

experience activating events that are inconsistent with their belief systems they may
experience discomfort and emotional disturbance. This, according to REBT theory would
result from reacting with an irrational belief. This condition is the focus of the present
study.

People's irrational beliefs create disturbed feelings and actions that sabotage coping with
unpleasant A's and almost always consist of absolutistic shoulds, oughts and musts, which
Ellis (1991, p. 146) terms "negative musturbatory evaluations". Musturbating is the
insistence on irrational beliefs and leads to emotional disturbances. In addition, "destructive
awfulizing" accompanies these musts. Examples of must statements that characterise
irrational beliefs are (Ellis, 1991, p. 146):

• I must be loved by everyone.

• I must be competent, achieving and adequate in all respects to be worthwhile.

• Some people are wicked and must be severely blamed and punished for what they have
done.

• Things must go the way I want them to and it is awful when they don't.
 28

• I must worry about dangerous things that I cannot control.

• I must rely on someone stronger than myself.

• I must become worried about other people's problems.

• I must find the right solution to my problems.

Such examples of must statements can be grouped into the three basic neurosis-inciting and
absolutistic musts, namely: Demands about self, such as "1 absolutely must at all times be
successful at important performances and relationships, or else 1, as a person, am inadequate
and worthless!"; Demands about other people, such as "Other people must always treat me
considerately, kindly, fairly or lovingly, or else they are no good and deserve no joy in their
existence!"; Demands about the world and/or life conditions, such as "Conditions under
which 1 live 111USt be comfortable, pleasurable and rewarding, or else it's awful, 1 can't stand
it and the world is then no good!" (Ellis, 1996, p. 13)

When one or all of these are strongly and consistently held, people tend to become
emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. REST holds that all individuals have biological
tendencies to construct rational wishes and preferences, but that they also have the choice of
holding their preferences to absolutistic demands (Ellis, 1999). The focus is thus on adverse
events which have the potential of eliciting irrational beliefs.

3.5.3.1 Irrational beliefs and stressful (adverse activating) events

According to REST, a unitary model of distress is not feasible. This would ascertain that, in
stressful situations, high distress levels produce high levels of negative affect, whereas low
distress levels produce low levels of negative affect. Rather, a binary model of distress
(Figure 3) has been hypothesized, whereby, in stressful situations, high distress is
accompanied by both high levels of functional and dysfunctional negative feelings, while low
distress is accompanied by high levels of functional negative feelings and low levels of
dysfunctional negative feelings (David et aI., 2005).

f Functional
i Distress Levels negative feelings

i Dysfunctional
negative feelings
 29

i Functional
! Distress Levels Negative feelings
! Dysfunctional
Negative feelings

Figure 3 Binary Model of Distress for Stressful Situations.

Similarly, research has documented that rational and irrational thoughts are not bi-polar
constructs; a high score on irrational beliefs does not necessarily mean a low score on rational
beliefs. A concrete example of findings to support this claim can be seen in the results of
David and colleagues' (2005) empirical investigation of Ellis's binary model of distress,
which showed that, in a stressful situation (which was an upcoming surgery for breast-cancer
candidates), individuals who had high levels of irrational beliefs were associated with high
levels of both functional and dysfunctional negative feelings. Individuals with low levels of
irrational beliefs, however, were associated with a low level of dysfunctional negative
feelings and a high level of functional negative feelings (David et aI., 2005).

Boelen, Kip, Voorsluijs and van den Bout (2004) note that the tendency to think irrationally
is likely to increase after a stressful life event. They note that the loss of a loved one triggers
changes in people's beliefs and assumptions, and these changes play a role in emotional
problems after loss. Individuals in this condition may exhibit a less positive view of the
meaningfulness of the world and the worthiness of the self when compared to their non-
distressed counterparts (Boelen et aI., 2004). Furthermore, in accord with the notion that the
tendency to think irrationally is likely to increase after a stressful life event, the distressed
individuals were found to have higher levels of irrational thinking. The degree to which
distressed individuals endorsed general, as well as distress-specific, irrational beliefs was
significantly associated with the intensity of symptoms of adversity (Boelen et aI., 2004).
Depressed individuals score higher than non-depressed people on irrational beliefs (Bond &
Dryden, 1997). Cognitive-behavioural theories propose that depression is associated with
these irrational beliefs. Low frustration tolerance and anxiety have also been found within
emotionally perturbed populations. Originally, Ellis believed that such irrational beliefs were
self-statements or sentences, but he came to realise that they may also be more unconscious
ideas, meanings, symbols and other cognitions (Ellis, 1996).
 30

Unconditional acceptance of oneself and of others is a key goal of living productively. Davies
(2006) investigated relationships between measures of irrational beliefs, unconditional self-
acceptance, self-esteem and other personality dimensions in a non-clinical adult sample
(n=J02). As predicted, unconditional self-acceptance was highly correlated with self-esteem.
In line with the key tenets and expectations of REBT, individuals who scored high on
unconditional self-acceptance, scored low on irrational beliefs, even after self-esteem had
been controlled for. Unconditional self-acceptance was significantly negatively correlated
with Neuroticism, while irrational beliefs were found to correlate positively with Neuroticism
and negatively with Openness as measured constructs (Davies, 2006).

Koffler's (2005) study further theorized that a two-dimensional solution was appropriate for
both beliefs of approval and beliefs of achievement (belief systems delineated in Ellis's RET).
The first dimension, Irrational versus Rational, differentiated between beliefs designated as
irrational and rational. Strong relationships between the Irrational versus Rational dimension
and the irrational and rational rating scales for approval beliefs were found. The second
dimension focused on beliefs of demands and preferences and was named Demands and
Preferences. Contrary to REBT theory, participants in the study did not perceive demands to
be irrational. Further analyses revealed that interventions for changing approval and
achievement beliefs were very similar to each other.

3.5.4 REBT assessment principles

In addition to the A's, Bs and Cs of REBT, Ellis further theorised D (Disputing) and E
(Effective new philosophy) in his theory of psychotherapy. He formulated these as the steps
to change and continue changing dysfunctional basic assumptions and beliefs. This is done
through a number of intellectual, affective and behavioural techniques that are often applied
in an active-directive manner in order to create a new set of healthy philosophies and
behaviours (Ellis, 1991, 1996). The current study does not focus on this ABCDE model of
psychotherapy which includes the implementation of REBT therapeutic interventions and
would involve the researcher in the role of therapist. Rather it applies the theoretical
constructs of the REBT assessment process to the participants' narratives. REBT assessment
has two overlapping types. First within a therapeutic setting, problematic cognitions and
behaviours are assessed and identified. Second, the use of the A-B-C model of personality
helps identify client problems. Both these strategies are used throughout the therapeutic
 31

assessment (Sharf, 2008). Using the A-B-C assessment model, therapists attend while clients
describe the feelings and behaviours (consequences) that result from specific experiences. As
the client describes his or her problems, the therapist then listens for the beliefs that the
individual has about the activating event (Bernard & Joyce, 1984). This study aims to do the
same with the specifically designated activating event of having experienced a romantic
disappointment (rejection or betrayal). The consequences of the negative event or experience
will also be investigated.

3.5.4.1 The quantitative assessment of rational and irrational beliefs

Many measures and scales of irrational beliefs have been described as outdated, for example,
the Irrational Beliefs Test (IBT) by Jones (1968). The reasons for the phasing out of tests
such as this one include that they were contaminated by affective items, and/or they reflected
Ellis's earlier theories of irrational thinking, rather than his newer conceptualisation that built
on and improved the theory (David et aI., 2005). Taking into account these criticisms, a new
generation of Irrational beliefs/Rational beliefs (lBs/RBs) assessment instruments has been
created. The new generation of IBs/RBs measures has been constructed to fulfil three major
characteristics: (l) the scales contain cognitive items that are not contaminated by affective
items; (2) the measures differentiate the thought process from the content of the thought; and
(3) the scales have different scores for rational and irrational thinking (David et aI., 2005).
This new generation of self-report measures has shown effective psychometric and diagnostic
properties (e.g., they can easily differentiate between clinical and non-clinical populations).

Thus, taking into account these new developments in the assessment of IBs/RBs, the
researcher should include only scales from the new generation measures that are not
contaminated by affective content and that can offer different scores for IBs and RBs (David
et aI., 2005). One such beliefs scale is the Shortened General Attitude and Beliefs Scale
(SGABS) constructed by Lindner, Kirkby, Wertheim, and Birch (1999), which is used for the
present study. The SGABS measures multi-dimensional aspects of irrationality and
rationality which are non-event specific, providing scores of overall irrationality, categories
ofirrational beliefs outlined in section 3.5.2.1, as well as overall rationality. This study uses
the SGABS for descriptive measurement rather than as a statistical measurement tool
(Appendix C).
 32

3.6 REBT and romantic relationships: The present study

The aim of this study is to examine disappointments in love relationships (rejection and
betrayal) through the framework ofREBT theory. To understand relationship dissatisfaction,
Cramer (2005) found that the four main features common in cognitive theories of therapy
were the tendencies to not exaggerate negative effects, not demand that one's wishes should
always be met, not globally rate individuals or relationships and not over-generalise negative
experiences. These four main aspects of rational thinking, when combined, significantly
decrease expected relationship dissatisfaction, as opposed to irrational beliefs which would
increase relationship dissatisfaction.

For betrayal as a romantic disappointment, infidelity within a romantic relationship is one of

the most difficult problems to address in couples therapy. Gordon et al. (2005) present a
three-stage treatment design to address the cognitive, behavioural and emotional sequelae of
extra-marital affairs that integrates cognitive-behavioural and insight-oriented strategies with
theories of traumatic response and forgiveness. Based on these theoretical justifications, the
present study explores romantic disappointments through the integration of the factors of
REBT: Cognitions, behaviours and emotions. Gordon et al. (2005) point out that these factors
are always involved when romantic failings are experienced (see section 2.6.2.1).

The current study does not adopt a unique approach in investigating cognitions as core factors
in research on romantic relationships. Epstein, Schlesinger, and Dryden (1988) recognised the
important role of cognitive factors in determining relationship distress. An additional
example is of the results of a study by Feeney (2004), which highlight the utility of
integrating emotional, cognitive, and behavioural responses in pursuing hurt as a research
topic. This study applies such an integrated view. This integrated view guided the study's
design, fieldwork and analysis methods which are discussed next in Chapter 4.
 33

Chapter Four

Methodology

4.1 Introduction

This study investigated the phenomenon of romantic disappointments (rejection or betrayal)

through the REBT framework, specifically the irrational beliefs, rationality and consequences
associated with various belief categories. Individual semi-structured interviews were
conducted and survey questionnaires were administered to the five selected cases
(participants). The design and analysis were chosen to enable theory-building case study
research.

4.2 The case study design

4.2.1 General characteristics

A case study research strategy was chosen for this study. Psychological case studies provide a
versatile approach to qualitative inquiry. This means that different kinds of studies can be
classified as case studies. The purpose of studying the case may be to inquire what is
common or what is particular about the case, but the result will more likely express what is
unique. To discover the particularity of the case, researchers may gather data on the nature of
the case, its historical background, its physical setting, other contexts related to the case,
other cases, and the informants that reveal the case (Stake, 2005). Therefore the case study
method enables researchers to retain the meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Yin,
2003).

The case study, as a research design, is defined by interest in an individual case and optimizes
understanding by undertaking academic research questions. The case study is a choice of
object or phenomenon to be studied as a particular unit of analysis, which may usc various
,
methods of data collection and analysis (Stake, 2005; Willig, 2008). Importantly, the case
study should not be mistakenly equated with 'qualitative research'; the case study
encompasses the research design, data collection procedures and specific techniques of data
analysis, qualifying it as a "comprehensive research strategy" (Yin, 2003, p. ]4). Case
studies can make use of qualitative, quantitative or mixed research methods and can
 34

incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data. The unit of analysis in a case study can be
an individual, a group of people, an organization, a city, an incident, situation or experience
(Willig, 2008). The unit of analysis in this study is the phenomenon of a disappointment in a
romantic relationship as described in Chapter 2.

To understand a case, an extensive examination of how things 'happen' is required. However,

the primary object of such an undertaking is the case, rather than how that case operates. The
case becomes its own functioning body as a bounded system (Stake, 2005). This is the chief
contribution of case study design (Diaz Andrade, 2009). Therefore the case study describes
cases as "natural occurrences with definable boundaries" (Willig, 2008, p. 74). It is a
focussed exploration of such an occurrence.

There are certain features within this occurrence and other features outside of it. Although the
researcher cannot understand a particular case without knowing about other cases, the
researcher's efforts concentrate on understanding the complexities ofa particular case (Stake,
2005). "A case study is both a process of inquiry about the case and the product of that
inquiry" (Stake, 2005, p. 444). This highlights the relevance of the case study (in clinical
settings) in the dual relationship that psychologists have as researchers and as practitioners
who apply their knowledge (Radley & Chamberlain, 200 I).

Case studies are concerned with generating the how and why of a complex human situation.
This provides in-depth information about a particular phenomenon. Case studies are realist in
orientation because they aim to answer the question of 'what's going on?' (Willig, 2008).
Participants' accounts provide access into their thoughts and feelings. Case studies
investigate cases to understand their internal dynamics, thus following an idiographic
approach (Willig, 2008). This means they focus on the particular rather than the group.
Therefore the case study is based on the belief that general trends are often expressed in
different ways. Each case is seen as unique, even though it may share characteristics with
other cases.

Radley and Chamberlain (2001) argue for the study of the case as a suitable approach to
understanding key features of psychological phenomena. The reasons include the ability to
focus on the particular, its use as a means of communication between researchers and
practitioners, and it being basic to procedures which require the collection of information
 35

about an individual's personal and social context. The idea that it is difficult to summarise a
specific case study into compact and systematic propositions is not valid (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

4.2.2 Role of context

Data is situated in contexts (Edwards, 1998). The case is situated in its individual context. A
holistic approach considers the case within its context (Willig, 2008). This context assists in
making phenomena and relationships understandable in their complexities. Much qualitative
research is based on the belief that social phenomena, human dilemmas and the nature of
cases reveal multiple experiential happenings in their situational existence. Although little
qualitative research is oriented towards a causal explanation of events, this view is simplistic
(Stake, 2005). Events are instead viewed as having multiple sequences and contexts, as well
as being coincidental. "Contexts need to be described, even if evidence of influence is not
found' (Stake, 2005, p. 452). An example of a practical conceptual framework of contextual
conditions is provided by Pare (2002). Stake (2005), however, adds that the execution of
case studies does not require an examination of contexts.

Flyvbjerg (2006) explores ideas which may be mistakenly associated with case study
research. One of these is the conventional view that context-independent theory is
scientifically superior to the concrete and practical knowledge of case studies. However, the
case study yields context-dependent information that provides an opportunity for human
learning, which Stake (2005) believes is superior to representativeness. The contextual
information appeals more closely to human experience.

4.2.3 Types of case studies

Stake (2005) and Willig (2008) have classified case studies along three different dimensions.
The first one is whether a case study is intrinsic versus instrumental. In the intrinsic type, the
interest in the case is ultimately to better understand a particular case. This may not be
primarily because that particular case is a representation of other cases, or because a
particular problem is under focus. Rather, it is the case itself that is of interest. Therefore such
a study would be undertaken because of an intrinsic interest (Radley & Chamberlain, 2001).
If a particular case is examined with the main purpose of providing insight into a matter or to
re-draw a generalization, it can be considered an instrumental case study. Here, the individual
case becomes the secondary interest of some other 'thing'. Whilst the case's context is
 36

included, this is only as an aid to better understand the interest external to the case. The
current study's design is instrumental because the external phenomenon of a romantic
disappointment of the chosen participants was of primary interest. When interest in one
particular case is even further extended beyond that particular case, a number of cases may be
collectively studied to investigate a particular phenomenon, population or condition. This
would be an instrumental type of case study extended to a number of cases, as used in this
study.

The second dimension relates to whether a case study is naturalistic or pragmatic. Naturalistic
case study research is done in real- world contexts and looks at a single case as its unit of
analysis. The researcher approaches the case without any preconceptions to allow new
patterns and formulations to emerge. Pragmatic case study research is more focused and has a
defined research question that guides the processes of data collection and analysis. It has pre-
determined propositions which function as hypotheses and which determine the choice of
data sources and relevant techniques. The goal here would be to generate a set of revised
propositions. This study conforms to a pragmatic case study because it used a focused and
defined perspective in determining its data sources and associated research techniques. The
researcher's choice of cases was thus determined by questions about the case or cases under
study.

The third dimension is whether case studies are single or multiple. Case studies can explore a
single case or can include comparison within a collection of cases. The single case study can
be a test for an existing theory or it can represent a unique or extreme case that is intrinsically
interesting to the researcher. Thus it provides some revelation as it would not have been
previously available. The multiple case study design which corresponds to this study on the
other hand, provides the researcher with the information to formulate new theories. With
each new case, the emerging theory is re-formulated to include all the instances associated
with the occurrence under study. Multiple case studies are therefore instrumental designs of
the case study extended to a number of cases, as has been applied to this study. Individual
cases mayor need not be known in advance as evident of some common characteristic. They
may be similar in various aspects or not. The choice of cases is made with the belief that an
understanding of them will lead to better understanding or theorizing about an even larger
collection of cases (Stake, 2005).
 37

Besides the distinctions amongst types of case studies as described by Stake (2005) and
Willig (2008), case studies may also be classified along the dimension of the role of theory.
Edwards (1991) states that the case study research method includes the testing of specific
propositions and the development of a differentiated conceptualisation and theory. Within
this framework, a case may consider one of many purposes. The case may lie along a
"continuum from description to rigorous theory testing" (p. 57). Therefore there are various
phases or levels that make a case neither completely descriptive nor completely exploratory
(Edwards, 1991).

Exploratory-descriptive case studies aim to produce a rich description of a specific case that
allows in-depth understanding. The goal is not to generalise to other cases or to develop
theory, but to produce a coherent presentation of the phenomenon (Edwards, 1991). Although
all case studies should include descriptions of the cases under investigation; some may be
purely descriptive, and some may be explanatory. Descriptive case studies provide a detailed
description of a phenomenon within its context. In this instance, the case is explored with the
goal of providing new insights into the nature of a phenomenon, rather than of existing
theory. For the researcher to create a persuasive report around this phenomenon, the different
perspectives of each participant should be included (Diaz Andrade, 2009). Explanatory case
studies aim to produce explanations for the phenomena under investigation.

The type of case study that corresponds best with this study is the descriptive-dialogic case
study (Edwards, 1991). Here the case embodies general principles which have already been
articulated in the relevant literature. The investigation is situated within extant theory, or else
it is used to deliberate on conflicting points in existing theory. This serves as an informal
form oftheory testing.

Pare (2002) labels it differently when the use of theory plays a central role. He classifies it as
a positivist case study design. This study is a positivist case study. A case study within the
positivist perspective is based within the natural sciences and on the stance that an objective
social world exists independent of humans (Pare, 2002). Researchers aim to uncover this
reality through the development of precise measures that will assess those dimensions of the
chosen phenomenon. Eisenhardt (1989) proposed that researchers can explore and explain the
dynamic nature of a phenomenon through building theory from intensive case study research
and deductive inquiry. In the positivist approach, the researcher is impartial to the
 38

phenomenon of interest. The positivist orientation requires the use of pre-defined research
questions as well as a priori measurable constructs for the development of theoretical
propositions (Pare, 2002). Implementation of established methodological guidelines are
necessary to ensure validity and reliability (Yin, 1994). In summary, the case study design in
this study is positivistic, multiple, instrumental, pragmatic and descriptive-dialogic.

4.2.4 Science and the role of theory

Science and theory play central roles in the present case study inquiry. This is included in the
positivist type of case study. Various social scientists have written about case study as though
intrinsic study of a particular case is not as valuable as those that produce generalizations
about a population to which that case belongs (Stake, 2005). In the case study, an in-depth
account is valuable in its revelation of richness, rather than a problem for scientific inquiry.
The goal of science should not be to strip phenomena of its ambiguity (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
Although quantitative methods of inquiry allow researchers to measure and control variables,
they have the disadvantage that the generated theory from the findings is often unable to
reflect on the case uniqueness (Edwards, 1998). Traditionally, the uniqueness of the case has
not been the preferred goal of scientific inquiry (Stake, 2005). The large scale research
method distances the researcher from the psychological phenomenon under study. However,
the balance is for group-centered strategies and individual-centered strategies to complement
one another in furthering the understanding of psychological phenomena (Edwards, 1998).

Edwards (1998) notes additional assumptions of the role of science: (I) The ultimate purpose
of science is not to map out human behaviour and experience as variables from which
predictions about human behaviour can be drawn, (2) although quantification is valuable in
its own purpose, it is not an end in itself, (3) the quality of scientific discovery depends on the
quality of scientific data, and (4) participants and their individual accounts are valued and
respected as worthy of scientific exploration. Flyvbjerg (2006) explores the false accusation
that the case study contains a subjective bias towards verification. Although the bias of
verification is a general concern in any scientific inquiry, the allegation that the case study as
a qualitative method increases this danger is misguided. This is because even the single case
is 'multiple' in that its ideas and evidence can be linked in multiple ways and viewed from a
number of perspectives.
 39

Insistence on theory building or the production of generalisations appears not to have

diminished in qualitative social science (Stake, 2005). An intrinsic study can be a small step
toward grand generalisations, but this should not be the emphasis in all research. Theory
development is essential when designing case study research. Whether the aim of the research
is to develop or test theory, it is a fundamental step in conducting case study research
(Kohlbacher, 2006). The goal is to have a blueprint for a study, which requires theoretical
propositions explicating a story about the reason that events, acts, thoughts and other
phenomena occur (Yin, 2003). Theory therefore has two prominent roles in case study
research. First, case studies are based on study propositions or initial theory which guides the
content of the study within a framework (Willig, 2008). The selection of cases and research
questions are theoretical because particular concepts are recognized as relevant to the study.
Therefore all case studies should be directed by statements of what is to be explored, so that
their theoretical bases can be made explicit. Second, case studies can be designed to test an
existing theory or to generate insight towards a new theory (Willig, 2008). This would be
done through the process of falsification or by providing conceptual refinement of emerging
theoretical formulations, respectively. Ultimately, the use of theory in case studies not only
assists in the design of a study, but is also the primary medium through which the
generalization of results can occur (Yin, 2003). Case studies can also lead to the discovery of
new insights and interpretations.

Edwards (1998) conceptualises the research process as having three major phases. Phase one
indicates the descriptive phase of case study work. This calls for a detailed report of the
phenomenon and makes the identification of basic concepts and particular characteristics
possible. This can take place through exploratory-descriptive study or focussed-descriptive
work. The present study undertakes this task of reporting its phenomenon of choice. Phase
two is the theory-development phase. The descriptions derived in the first phase are then used
as the foundation for the exploration or generation of theory. The product of a new theory
should emerge from the data (Diaz Andrade, 2009). A misconception exists when setting out
to build theories that it is not necessary to review the existing literature, but a literature
review helps the researcher to create a priming framework (Diaz Andrade, 2009). Phase three
entails the theory-testing phase of the research process. "A well-developed case law embodies
distinctions and generalisations that can be empirically tested against new cases" (Edwards,
 40

1998, p. 46). In order to test chosen propositions as this study undertakes, a suitable case
must be chosen that provides suitable conditions for the necessary testing of theory.

A multiple-case study design, through its instrumental design, allows for the development of
a conceptual framework that will account for the multiple cases as they relate to each other.
However, researchers using the case study design have the additional duty of convincing
others of the rightfulness of drawing such conceptual implications from their data (Diaz
Andrade, 2009). In case studies, it is often viable to work with more theoretical rigor and to
rely less upon interpretations and inferences, which may be poorly supported (Edwards,
1998). Linking emergent theoretical propositions to extant theory adds to internal validity and
generalizability of building theory (Pare, 2002).

Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1994) have proposed a roadmap for building theory from case
study research. Table 4.1 summarizes an adaptation of this roadmap as the methodological
framework for this study.

Table 4.1 Methodological road map

Step I: Getting started - Definition of research questions
- A priori constructs
Step 2: Selectingcases - Specified population
Step 3: Instruments - Multiple data collection methods
- Qualitative and quantitative methods combined
Step 4: Enteringthe field - Overall data collection and analysis
Step 5: Analyzing data - Within-case analysis
- Cross-case analysis
Step 6: Shaping research propositions - Search evidence of 'why' behind
relationships; replication logic across cases
(Chapters 5 and 6)
Step 7: Enfolding literature - Comparison with conflicting and similar
literature
(Chapter 5)

In this particular approach above, the sequence of the case study report follows a theory-
building logic (Yin, 2003). This study does so by beginning with stating its clear theoretical
assumptions within the literature review sections, proceeding to a step-by-step description of
methods employed to inquire into overt research questions, then concluding by incorporating
and relating data back to the initially stated theory, which motivates the study.
 41

4.2.4.1 Initial definition of research questions

It is easy to become overwhelmed by the volume of data in qualitative research when there is
no research focus (Yin, 1994). This study's research questions are: (I) How does an
individual experience the phenomenon of a romantic rejection or betrayal?; (2) What are the
REBT beliefs that an individual expresses about the romantic betrayal or rejection?; (3) What
is the quantitative assessment of an individual's general non event-related REST· beliefs";
and (4) What REBT consequences/ outcomes of the romantic rejection or betrayal are
experienced by the individual?

4.2.4.2 A priori specification of constructs

Pare's (2002) case study design made use of existing theoretical constructs to guide theory
building research. In that regard, there are two different approaches that can be used: (I) The
researcher makes explicit a conceptual framework consisting of a selection of theoretical
concepts which are grouped in such a way as to make clear the major concepts
simultaneously in relation to one another (Pare, 2002). This serves as the researcher's initial
sift in making various explicit theoretical statements; (2) The researcher is not bound by prior
theory as with the first instance, but rather has the goal of developing relevant theory,
hypotheses and concepts (Pare, 2002).

In the present study, a conceptual framework defines the topics to be explored, is made
explicit and guides the study's inquiry (see Appendix A; see section 3.5.2 for definitions of
concepts). This framework includes:

• Irrational beliefs about the romantic disappointment: Self-Downing; Need for

Achievement; Need for Approval; Need for Comfort; Demand for Fairness; Other
Downing.

• Rationality about the romantic disappointment: Preferences; Hopes; Wishes; And/also

responses; Yes/but responses.

• Consequences/ outcomes: Functional negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours;

Dysfunctional negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours.
 42

The conceptual framework ensures that issues of priority are not overlooked, helps make
sense of occurrances and provides the set of constructs to be investigated. This process also
extends to guide interpretation and focus of the results. Early identification of possible
constructs enabled the researcher to explicitly measure identified constructs (Pare, 2002).
This study's conceptual framework grouped constructs according to the standardized
questionnaire categories as related to the two broad categories of irrational and rational
beliefs about a romantic disappoinment. A third construct was included for purposes of
addressing the research questions, which relates to the consequences of beliefs about a
romantic disappointment. Eisenhardt (1989) stresses that this identification of constructs is
only tentative as new factors can be discovered during data collection and analysis. This
condition did not apply to this study as the pre-identified contructs guided the analysis.

4.3 Participants

The case study is an emphasis on what is to be studied. Instrumental and multiple-case

studies require cases to be chosen which are of primary importance before formal
investigation begins (Stake, 2005). The implication of this is that the selection of the unit of
analysis (the case) is important. In addition, there is a difference between the object ofstudy
and the case, terms which refer to the phenomenon of interest and the concrete manifestations
of it, respectively (Willig, 2008). Therefore the case needs to be selected with the aim of
being able to help the researcher to better understand the object of study (the subjective
experience of a romantic disappointment), particularly in accordance with the instrumental
case study design. Research aimed at building theory from case studies relies on theoretical
sampling where cases are chosen for theoretical, rather than statistical reasons (Pare, 2002). A
purposeful sample may be drawn, one which seems to offer the opportunity to learn about the
identified interest of the given phenomenon (Stake, 2005). The validity and meaningfulness
generated have more to do with the rich information of the cases selected than with the size
of the sample (Patton, 1990). Cases are required to hold good potential for providing
information on the phenomenon of a romantic disappointment as the identified interest of the
study and as self-reported by the participant. Therefore, given the study's purposes, the cases
were selected according to which cases were likely to lead to understandings, assertions or
even to modifying generalizations. The potential to learn is a superior criterion than
representativeness. This means that cases are to be selected according to, for example, how
accessible the case is or how much time the researcher is able to spend with it. In other
 43

words, the process of case selection would be led by decisions about which cases the
researcher can learn the most from (Stake, 2005).

Participants were selected on the basis of three pre-determined criteria that delineate the
explicit boundaries of the case: (l) The self-reported subjective experience of a romantic
disappointment, (2) within the last two years from the time of participation in this study, and
(3) occuring after the participant's chronological age of 18 years. Non-probability purposeful
sampling was used to select five individual cases that fit the stipulated criteria (Creswell,
2003). In addition, theoretical sampling was incorporated where conscious efforts were made
to select cases that replicate or extend theory (Pare, 2002). In a case study design a single
case may be used if the case represents a rare or unique circumstance (Yin, 2003). Multiple
cases are used for the purpose of replication logic rather than for sampling logic, as with the
present study. The number of cases then depends on the goal of replication logic; when rival
theories are used, which is not the goal for the present study, two or three cases are enough to
establish replication (Yin, 2003). However, the present study is designed to pursue patterns of
theoretical replication, where each case is selected to provide results with predictable reasons
(based on the specified theoretical propositions) (Yin, 2003). In this case a number of
theoretical replications is needed, such as four to six cases (Yin, 2003). This theoretical
justification led to the selection of 5 participants to pursue this study's aims.

Once the prospective participants were identified, the researcher made telephonic contact to
briefly assess whether they satisfied the necessary criteria, and were willing to participate. A
brief explanation of the aim and purpose of the study was provided. Confidentiality and
anonymity were guaranteed along with this brief screening procedure. It was further
explained that the researcher would need to meet face-to-face with them on two separate
occasions two weeks apart beginning when it best suited them. Table 4.2 describes the
participants who are represented by pseudonyms throughout the text to ensure anonymity.
Table 4.2 Participants' Biographical Information
CaselParticipant Age Gender Race Marital Status,
Lucy 25 Female White Single
Maryke 32 Female White Divorced
Karabo 19 Female Black Single
Amy 24 Female White Single
Lerato 25 Female Black Single
 44

4.4 Entering the field: Data collection procedures

This study applied two modes of data collection: a semi-structured interview and a self-
administered standardized questionnaire. Theory building researchers typically combine
multiple data collection methods (Yin, 2003). The triangulation enabled by multiple data
collection methods provides firmer support of constructs and hypotheses (Pare, 2002; Yin,
2003). This may result in a fuller picture of a phenomenon under study than would have been
achieved otherwise. Similarly, by implementing a semi-structured interview and survey
method, Pare's (2002) study found that "the gathering of both quantitative and qualitative
data from multiple sources helped demonstrate the extent of congruity and consistency
between the researchers' and key informants' evaluations and to triangulate over given
facts" (p. 11).'

4.4.1 The semi-structured interview

Interviews are useful when ric~_~rjnform~tion is required, where the Sll~j~~Lmatter has a
potentially sensitive nature, and when the issues under study reql!ir~_~larift9!lQn (Hinds,
2000). They are necessary when the researcher cannot obsen'e_b.~haviQ!l!, emotions, or how
people understand the world around them. Interviews are also used when there is sYIiasity in
past events which cannot be replicated (Merriam, 1998, 2002). This study used the most
common type of interview, the person-to-person
-"-- ... _--_._
interview in which the researcher elicits
-.....-._~- ._-_._-- ... ..
".~--~--_ ..• _.-._-----_.~-

information as a conversation with a purpose (Merriam, 1998).

The i~s
-
were conducted at the location of choice for each of the five respondents. The
''''''~

participants were offered this opportunity given the sensitive topic. All interviews were
digitally audio-recorded. Three participants were interviewed within a private home
environment and two participants were interviewed in an occupational setting. In the semi-
structured interview structured questions are ~~~~ but are followed by the discovery of broad
themes related to those questions. This study applied the standardized open-ended interview
~
(Patton, 1990). In this variation, the ex~£!~vording and sequ~~of questions are de!~~jned
before the interview. Allparticipants are asked the same pre-determined questions in the
same order and topical questions are in an open-ended format. Op~nded questions are
heJpfulbecause they tend to elicit a more elaborate response (Stroh, 2000).
 45

When respondents answer the same questions, the researcher is able to m!1k~9mparisons

between responses to the topics addressed during the interview. The researcher's bias is also
reduced as a result. The standardized open-ended interview also facilitates the organization,
classification and analysis of the data (Patton, 1990). The questions need to be open-ended
but also need to sound natural and neutral as far as possible. For this reason, an interview
schedule lists prompts and themes for the interview (Stroh, 2000). Neutralquestions allow
respondents to answer without overt direction or pressure from the interviewer, whereas
leading questions greatly increase the potential for interviewer bias (Stewart & Cash, 2006).
Although this study's interview schedule (Appendix B) was designed to illicit specific
information, leading questions were avoided.

Ea.chj~ed-the-~two-step-process:""'(Stewart& Cash, 2006). The first step was to

establish rapport with the respondent and the second was to orient the respondent to the
purpose, duration (45 to 60 minutes) and nature of both the interview, and research. In
addition, confidentiality and anonymity were re-assured. The content of the interview
schedule revolved around the participant's experiences, feelings or emotions, and subjective
opinions about their experience (Patton, 1990). The interview schedule was based on
reviewed literature, theoretical constructs and research aims. This study applied a
'moderately scheduled interview' which contained all the major questions with possible
probing questions under each major topic (Stewart & Cash, 2006). This type of interview
schedule decreases the need for instant question creation. Questions were largely longer
open-ended questions with 'familiar wording' rather than the use of discipline-specific
terminology. This form of question structure has been found to obtain higher levels of
response than short, closed questions (Bradburn & Sudman, 1979).

The sequence of.the-qaestiens-asked was an 'inverted funnel sequence' where the interview
began with a few closed questions as an introduction, proceeding toward open auestions,
- -"f ~
which form the majority of the core of the interview schedule (Pare, 2002). This sequence of
questioning was ~to motivate the interviewee to respond about having been involved in
a particularly emotional situation.
""\ -...... questions in the form of informationaICii~bes:
Secondary ....
were posed where it was nec~r.tto obtain additional details or explanations. These were
also implemented when vague_Q~iguousresponses required further-clarification (Stewart
& Cash, 2006). In clasin~Spn<:l\l,~~w interyiews, the researcher verbally declared the
completion of the intended purpose of the meeting. This was followed by expressed
 46

appreciation for voluntary part.i£iJ?ation. Anonymity and confidentiality were also re-assured.
(1'"---'"", - -
~varrang~l1}e.Dt~orthe subs~.9.~~~~!!!.gJwo weeks later were confirmed (Stewart &

Cash, 2006). Participants were informed that they would need 10 to.l!LIDinutes to complete a
self-administered standardized questionnaire in the second meeting.

4.4.2 The standardized questionnaire: Quantitative data

The second data collection procedure took place through the self-administered Shortened
General Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (§9~BS) (Appendix C), administered two weeks after
the interview. Administering the survey questionnaires toward the end of data collection
~ ensure that the responses were valid (Pare, 2002). The participants were oriented to
the task and reminded it would take approximately 10-20 minutes to complete. Instructions
for completion were included in the questionnaire.

The SGABS is a pre-developed measurement scale which has been designed to illicit very
specific information (Lindner et aI., 1999). The closed questions of the SGABS require that
the re~I?ondent choose one response from a pre-defined category of answers for each
question. The SGABS t~s into categories of .irrational beliefs and consists of items
measuring need for achievement, need for approval, need for comfort, demand for fairness,
self-downing and other-downing (e.g. Item 6 measures need for approval: "It's awful to be
disliked by people who are important to me, and it is a catastrophe if they don't like me").
Lindner and colleagues (1999) report a test-@est reliability of .91 for total irrationality and
Cronbach alphas> .79 for the subscales. This mJ~,aSULtL!~entified the Beliefs held by
individuals in accordance with REBT theory's A-B-C model, therefore the SGABS survey
instruments were used to collect data that would either confirm or refute the interpretations of

-'-
the interview data (Pare, 2002). This measure was administered individually and
systematically with each participant. Afi~Lhavjng~comp!et~_d the questionnaire, participants
were thanked for their full participation. ~~nses to these closed questions were then
scored using the accompanying preset SGABS scoring procedures (Appendix D).
-
4.5 Data analysis

The content analysis criteria used for analyzing this case study evidence required a thorough
description of the data and the creation of categories (see Appendix E) in which to place
behaviours or process (Kohl bacher, 2006). Data analysis is at the core of building theory, yet
 47

is often the most difficult and least conventional part of the process (Eisenhardt, 1989). A
general analytic strategy of relying on the theoretical propositions was used in the current
case study (Yin, 2003). This study's propositions in tum reflected a set of research questions,
which shaped the data collection and analysis strategy. Therefore, this study's theoretical
orientation guided the analysis, helping to focus attention on certain data and to exclude other
data (Yin, 2003). Within-case analysis and cross-case analysis were used (Eisenhardt, ]989).
By looking 'within' individual cases, the researcher gained familiarity with the data and
investigating 'across' cases helped add to and enrich the initial impressions (Pare, 2002). The
researcher was then able to identify themes, develop categories and explore differences and
similarities in the data.

4.5.1 Early steps in data analysis

In case study research, overlap between data collection and data analysis is common and
frequent (Eisenhardt, 1989). The steps in data analysis began during the data collection: the
researcher compiled and recorded field notes. Field notes comprise of on-going commentaries
and a stream-of-consciousness about the data (Pare, 2002). After the interviews were
transcribed, the researcher's reflective remarks were directly entered into the transcripts
within an indented margin. These commentaries helped the researcher to think about and start
the process of making sense ofthe data.

4.5.2 Within-case data analysis

There is no standard format for analyzing a case's data. Eisenhardt (1989) explains that
within-case analysis usually involves detailed write-ups for each case which are often pure
descriptions central to generating insight. This was helpful in processing the volume of data.
Pare's (2002) two step procedure was adopted to analyze each case and is summarized in
Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Procedure followed to analyze each case

Step I: Development of a case study database
Ll Gather reflective remarks and observation notes from interviews
].2 Codify and extract data from the interview transcripts using a coding scheme
].3 Group extracted sections under categories (codes)
].4 Perform descriptive statistical analyses on SGABS data
Step 2: Development of a logical chain of evidence
 48

2.1 Evaluate irrational beliefs about the romantic belief

a) Perform a qualitative assessment
b) Perform a quantitative assessment
c) Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies
2.2 Evaluate rationality about the romantic belief
a) Perform a qualitative assessment
b) Perform a quantitative assessment
c) Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies
2.3 Evaluate consequences/ outcomes ofREBT beliefs from the romantic disappointment
a) Investigate functional negative emotions and behaviours
b) Investigate dysfunctional negative emotions and behaviours
c) Conduct comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences/ outcomes
2.4 Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rational beliefs and their
consequences
a) Identify the observed relationships between the beliefs and their consequences about
the experience of the romantic disappointment
b) Build a summary report

As Yin (1994, 2003) recommends, a case study database for each individual case was
developed. Each database organized the data and contained the following elements: (I) raw
material (including interview transcripts, researcher's field notes, and questionnaires); (2)
coded data; (3) coding scheme; (4) chronological log of data collection.

Coding involves separating the data into units and re-arranging them into categories that
enable insight, comparison and the development of theory. "Codes serve as retrieval and
organizing devices that allow the rapid retrieval and c1usterin~ ofall the segments related to
a particular question, concept or theme" (Pare, 2002, p. 14). To be consistent with the
conceptual framework (Appendix A), the coding scheme developed in this study was divided
into three broad categories: (I) Irrational Beliefs, (2) Rationality and (3) associated
Consequences, which were further broken down into individual constructs under each
category (see sections 3.5.2.1, 3.5.2.2 and 3.5.2.3). Appendix E displays this coding scheme
as it was developed and employed in this study.

4.5.3 Cross-case synthesis

Each individual case was treated as a 'separate study' during the within-case analysis phase.
Cross-case synthesis was then carried out which enacted the integration of findings across the
series of five 'individual studies'. This study made use of comparative tables as a tactic for
 49

cross-case analysis (Yin, 2003), which was directly derived from the study's coding scheme
(Appendix E). The overall patterns in the cross-case tables were then examined for each
process and outcome of interest. Where two or more cases were shown to support the same
theory, replication was claimed, therefore 'generalizations' were drawn using replication
logic (Yin, 1994, 2003). Argumentative interpretation, rather than numeric counts, enabled
cross-case conclusions about irrational beliefs about romantic disappointments, along with
their outcomes (Yin, 2003).

4.6 Establishing quality

Good accounts obtained in a case study are often irreducible and in this form are more
interesting for social theory. Imposing excessive reduction upon them causes them to lose
their contextual value. Another consideration is that the manner in which cases are portrayed
will be the manner in which they exemplify (Radley & Chamberlain, 200 I). The current
study employed various tactics to ensure quality of design as established by the following
logical tests of quality:

4.6.1 Construct validity

Prior specification of the significant concepts ensured that the events and concepts of this
case study genuinely reflected romantic disappointments, REST beliefs and the consequences
of these beliefs. The test of construct validity has been found to be challenging in case study
research when the researcher "fails to develop a sufficiently operational set of measures"
(Yin, 2003, p. 35). This study's a priori theoretical constructs eradicate this problem by
justifying the use of stated constructs as operational concepts. The tactics used to establish
construct validity were those of the use of multiple sources during data collection and the
establishment of a chain of evidence, which was implemented during the within-case analysis
phase. To gain the required confirmation, the researcher has several triangulation protocols
available. In relation to the use of multiple sources of evidence, data triangulation
corroborates the same phenomenon (Yin, 2003). The researcher applied data triangulation
through both a semi-structured interview and a self-administered questionnaire.

4.6.2 Internal validity

Internal validity addresses how the findings match reality and how they captured what is
really there. The meaning of a reality is thus the point of investigation. Assessing the
 50

relationship between the data collected and the 'reality' from which they were derived is a
determinant of internal validity (Merriam, 1998, 2002). This reality is holistic and multi-
dimensional rather than an objective phenomenon that can be discovered. The strategies used
to enhance internal validity were to make explicit the researcher's theoretical assumptions
and orientation, which were clarified at the outset of the study through an emphasis on the
role of theory to pursue theory-building research. This constituted the "researcher's biases"
(Merriam, 1998, p. 205), which was separate to the role of the researcher as a witness or
reporter (Willig, 2008). The researcher's participation in the inquiry was thus to provide an
accurate and detailed account of the case as evidence. The positivist approach required that
the researcher detach from the phenomenon of interest (Pare, 2002). An additional strategy to
ensure the study's internal validity was incorporated in the data analysis phase of the method
through comparing results to conflicting literature (Yin, 2003) included in Step seven of the
method.

4.6.3 External validity

Information and results must be internally valid before external validity can be assessed.
Whilst intrinsic case studies are based on their particularity, an instrumental case study
design, as with this study, strived towards a wider application of its findings. The multiple-
case study design aimed to further the understanding of a particular occurrence as evident
across multiple cases. This suggests that case study research has the capacity to generalize
from the particular to the population. A possible strategy was to use multiple cases in this
study (Merriam, 1998). In this instance pre-determined procedures for coding and analysis
increased the capacity for generalizability (Merriam, 1998). Case studies rely on analytic
generalization, rather than statistical generalization, through which the researcher endeavours
to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory (Yin, 2003), made explicit in
the literature review (Chapters 2 and 3), conceptual framework (Appendix A) and data
analysis coding scheme (Appendix E). Furthermore this study established external validity
through the positivistic case study and replication logic across multiple cases as stipulated in
Step 6. To add to the level of generalizability or transferability, biographical information of
participants was recorded, which made it viable for the results to be extended to other
applicable cases, rather than to general populations.
 51

4.6.4 Reliability

Reliability refers to a study's ability to yield the same results if it was to be replicated
(Merriam, 1998). This refers to the possibility of the replication of the same case study
yielding the same results and conclusions, rather than attempting to repeat the results of one
case by doing a different case study (Yin, 2003). The researcher aimed for outsiders to agree
that the results make sense and are dependable and consistent (Merriam, 1998). The aim of
the test of reliability is to ensure minimal errors and biases. For purposes of this study,
reliability was ensured through the use of case study protocols and databases which serve as
detailed records of the procedures in overt operational steps. This has been documented in
such a way that would hypothetically enable the researcher to repeat her own work, in a
consistent manner.

4.7 Ethics

This study exposes individuals' private thoughts and information for academic purposes. The
researcher thus ensured the implementation of ethical and respectful practices.
Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the research process and the
dissemination of results (Marczyk, De Matteo, & Festinger, 2005). This meant that alterations
needed to be made where material could lead to the identification of the participant's identity
(Willig, 2008). Participants were requested to give written consent to participate and
participation was voluntary, with the freedom to withdraw at any stage during the research
process. Feedback via e-mail about the study's findings was offered to the participants.
Finally, participants were informed that they would be referred for psychological services if
the researcher deemed it necessary or if the participants requested it; however, neither of
these circumstances transpired.
 52

Chapter Five

Results and Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter reports the results and discusses them with literature. The chapter is arranged
according to the study's methodological outline and procedures (Chapter 4). Thus in
accordance with the methodological framework, this chapter primarily responds to the four
research questions outlined in section 4.2.4.1.

The chapter's content lay-out follows the REBT A-B-C model (Chapter 3). It begins with the
five romantic disappointment case narratives, which represent the "A" of the REBT A-B-C
model. The discussion of the experience of romantic disappointments is, however, reserved
for the integrated discussion phase at the end of this chapter. This lay-out is chosen to fulfill
the study's aim of exploring romantic disappointments through the REBT conceptual
framework. Therefore the results of the REBT constructs (irrationality, rationality and
outcomes/ consequences) are reported and discussed first. The results and discussion of
rationality/ irrationality refer to the "B" of the REBT A-B-C model and the results and
discussion of the outcomes/ consequences represent the "C" of the REBT A-B-C model.
Finally an integrated analysis of the study's primary interest is discussed.

5.2 Results: Romantic disappointment case narratives

The first research question was "How does an individual experience the phenomenon of a
romantic rejection or betrayal?" The interview narratives obtained from the semi-structured
interviews are summarized:

1) Tile case ofMaryke: Maryke experienced a romantic rejection. Maryke had been involved
in a romantic relationship with Stefan for 2 years when he asked her to marry him. She
happily said yes, and they married 8 months later, and all was well between them according
to Maryke. Maryke says although there may have been the usual odd disagreement between
them in their marriage, she was very happy and believed that it would last forever. She had
no doubt that Stefan was as happy as she was in the marriage. Then early one Saturday
morning before sunrise, Maryke awoke suddenly to see Stefan packing his clothes and other
 53

belongings into suitcases. She did not know what was happening as there had been no
problems between them that she was aware of, and they had both enjoyed a night out together
with friends the previous night. She began panicking and asking him what was going on. He
did not respond to her and did not want to say anything. Meanwhile, Stefan was continuing to
pack and load his luggage into his car, along with Maryke's dog which she really loved.
Maryke tried to get the dog off of him in confusion but he persisted in trying to leave and
starting up his car. Maryke jumped into his car's passenger seat, begging him to tell her what
was going on. Maryke still had her sleepwear on and was shouting so loudly that their
neighbours had come out to investigate. As Stefan was about to drive off he forced Maryke
out of the car and drove off. Maryke had no idea what was going on and tried to phone him
every day for weeks, but he had turned his phone off Two weeks later Stefan sent her a text
message saying that he wanted a divorce and wanted to pursue a relationship with someone
else, though he added he had not been unfaithful to Maryke. Maryke moved out of their
house and into her parent's house, but not before destroying all of Stefan's belongings that he
had left behind at their house. She also began to engage in social binge-drinking, had
transient sexual encounters with other men, and became severely underweight from a loss of
appetite. Maryke did not hear from Stefan again until the formal divorce procedures. Maryke
felt as though he had destroyed her life and continues to sutTeremotionally from the rejection
by her then husband.

2) Tire case of Amy: Amy experienced a romantic rejection. Amy had been involved in a
romantic relationship with Brian for 9 months when he began becoming distant towards her.
Up until that time, Amy felt as though she and Brian were happy and in love with one another
and they were becoming closer to one another. She then felt him pulling away and becoming
unpredictable. However, these times alternated with good times which confused Amy, and
she began to sense that something was wrong. She began feeling uneasy in the relationship
and felt that he was not being himself, although she could not identify any problem between
them. She could not understand why he was behaving the way he was at the time, and she
resorted to confronting him. When she did, she told him that she had very strong feelings for
him and was fully invested in their relationship. She told him that she needed to know
whether they still shared mutual goals for their relationship and were still happy in their
relationship. After asking him about this, Brian stared blankly at her without emotion. He
then began to look uncomfortable and said to her that he finds it difficult to trust other people.
 54

but that he would like her to stay with him to see whether they could work it out. After that
conversation, things seemed to return to normal between them but soon thereafter, Amy felt
the same uneasiness that she had initially sensed. She confronted him a second time and told
him that she was unhappy with his emotional absence from the relationship and that she was
feeling as though she had to restrict her emotions around him for fear of doing or saying
anything that would jeopardize their relationship. He then responded to her that he did not
feel close to her and was unable to feel attached to her. Amy could not believe that he felt that
way and asked that they give it some time and let things settle between them which they tried.
She could not understand how the same person that used to shower her with gifts, phone her
many times in a day and showed so much physical affection to her could suddenly be
distancing himself from her. Then one evening Brian called her and asked her to come over
to talk. When she arrived, he told her that he did not want to be with her anymore and that he
was sorry. He said that there was no another woman in his life but that he wanted to end their
relationship. Amy was deeply hurt by his rejection as she was in love with him and initially
thought that he had felt the same. Amy reports that it was the worst thing that had ever
happened to her and that she took almost a year before she began healing from the rejection.

3) Tile case of Lerato: Lerato experienced a romantic betrayal. Lerato met Sipho at the
apartment complex where both of them lived. Initially she was not attracted to Sipho but after
spending time with him she gradually developed a strong romantic interest for him.
Eventually she fell in love with him and a mutual romantic interest developed. Although they
had not made their relationship official, they had a mutual understanding that they would not
see other people romantically. One Friday afternoon Lerato and Sipho planned to go to the
mall together. However, an hour before they had arranged to meet, Sipho texted Lerato
saying he had realized how much studying he needed to do and was therefore unable to go
shopping with her. Lerato found this strange because it was a Friday afternoon. Lerato
decided to go shopping on her own nonetheless. When she returned to their apartment
complex in the evening, she noticed that Sipho's car was parked outside his apartment. She
thought to herself that he must still be studying and thought it would be a good idea to go and
show him what she had bought at the shopping mall. Lerato walked towards Siphos
apartment. When she reached his front door, she realized that his security gate was locked
and so was his front door, which she found strange for someone who would be inside
studying. Confused, she reached out to knock on the door, but as she was about to, she heard
 55

him laughing inside and then heard a woman laughing too. Shocked and confused, Lerato
knocked on the door and this was followed by silence. Sipho shouted out asking who was at
the door. Lerato responded that it was she. More silence was followed from inside. Lerato
shouted through the door that she thought he would be busy studying rather than entertaining
a female visitor behind locked doors. There was no response from the inside, and Lerato
turned around and walked away. After this event, Lerato thought she loved Sipho too deeply
to end their relationship, and they continued their relationship thereafter. Lerato was
heartbroken and unhappy with him during that time. Although she still loved him, she also
could not forget that he had betrayed her trust. She told him almost 2 years after the betrayal
that she no longer wanted to have him in her life.

4) The case of Lucy: Lucy experienced a romantic betrayal. Lucy and her boyfriend Paul
broke up after 4 years. Although they were no longer officially in a relationship, Lucy and
Paul were still romantically involved and sexually exclusive partners for a year after having
ended their relationship. Lucy believed that they would return to being officially in a
relationship again. Lucy eventually met another partner who courted her, but she could not
separate herself from the strong connection that she had with Paul. One day after the
Christmas holidays, Lucy received a phone call from Paul who told her that he wanted to tell
her something that would upset her. He disclosed that he and Lucy's long-time best friend
had spent a lot of time together during the holidays, about which Lucy was unaware. Paul
continued to tell Lucy that he and Lucy's best friend had subsequently fallen in love with one
another and were going to pursue a romantic relationship. This was the first Lucy was hearing
of her best friend and Paul having spent private time together without Lucy. Lucy reported
feeling intensely betrayed both by Paul with whom she was still deeply in love, and by her
best friend who she trusted. Lucy added that she felt betrayed by her best friend who had
been supporting Lucy and Paul's relationship. She felt betrayed by Paul who had promised
that he would always be honest with Lucy, care for her and be there for her no matter what.
After this disappointment, Lucy decided to accept another man's advances. She began a new
romantic relationship, which she described as a rebound relationship to help her get over Paul
and his betrayal.

5) The case ofKarabo: Karabo experienced a romantic betrayal. Karabo had been involved
in a romantic relationship with Tshepo for 7 months. She was certain that their relationship
was going very well and that they were both happy and in love with one another. They were
 56

not experiencing any problems, and Karabo had never felt happier before in a relationship.
Karabo had also recently introduced Tshepo to her parents. One Friday Karabo went away to
visit her parents for the week. Throughout their relationship, Karabo and Tshepo had never
gone a day without contacting one another if they were apart; however, from the time that
Karabo left for her parents' house, he had turned his phone off and only made contact with
her 5 days later. Karabo had become worried that something terrible had happened to him.
When he eventually contacted her, she was very upset with him and asked him why he had
made no contact with her for all those days. He responded that he had been with his friends
and that he was safe. Upon returning from her parents' house, Karabo found out from their
mutual friends that Tshepo had been seen spending a lot of time with another woman and
sleeping over at the same woman's apartment. The woman was an acquaintance of Karabo' s
who had met Tshepo through her. Karabo immediately confronted Tshepo who denied the
allegations, saying that he still loved her and was not being unfaithful to her. Instead he
accused Karabo of being mistrustful of him. After the accusations from Karabo, Tshepo
began ignoring Karabo and distancing himself from her, to Karabo's confusion. The tension
continued until one evening when Tshepo failed to arrive for a date with Karabo, without an
excuse. She waited through the night for him and he only arrived at 5:00am the next morning.
He claimed that his friend had been taken in by the police for drunken driving the night
before, which was why he was unable to make their date. He then told Karabo he needed to
return to the police station to help his friend with bail. He left and Karabo found his
explanations difficult to believe. She went over to the other woman's apartment and found
him there, rather than at the police station as he had said. Although Karabo had been
suspicious of him for some time, she had no proof until that moment that he was being
unfaithful to her. Karabo felt deeply betrayed by him and ended their relationship
immediately. She reports having taken months to recover from the betrayal as she cared
deeply for Tshepo and had believed she had a future with him.

5.3 Results: Within-case analysis

The three remaining research questions ofthis study were (2) What are the REBT beliefs that
an individual expresses about the romantic betrayal or rejection?; (3) What is the quantitative
assessment of an individual's general non event-related REBT beliefs?; and (4) What REBT
consequences! outcomes of the romantic rejection or betrayal are experienced by the
individual? The data were reduced for each of the five cases to respond to the three research
 57

questions above. One exemplary case (the case ofMaryke) will be used to illustrate the data
analytic procedures. All the procedures demonstrated below for the Case of Maryke have
been applied to all remaining cases. The remaining cases' results have been completed and
are compiled in Appendix F.

Step 5 of the methodological framework stipulates that, first, within-case 'analysis be

conducted for each case. Table 4.3 (section 4.5.2) outlines the 2-Step procedure followed to
analyse each case. This process, as it was implemented to analyse Maryke's romantic
disappointment of rejection, follows as an illustration:

5.3.1 Step One: Development of a case study database for the Case of Maryke

• Examples ofreflective remarks gatheredfrom Maryke's interview transcripts:

Excerpts of transcripts: Case ofMaryke Reflective remarks

Maryke: "It was terrible! And 1 was going on [Statement representing a low frustration
about: please can you tell me what's going tolerance for tension.]
on? Can we talk about it?"

Maryke: "He's such a liar. He's been so [Other-downing beliefs evident- rating the
false. He's dishonest and unreliable and other negatively.]
yeah- more."

Maryke: "1 was so angry about the fact that 1 [Low frustration tolerance and dogmatic
felt like this major promise that had been beliefs for the need to receive consideration
made to me had been broken." from others.]

Maryke: "How 1 see it is maybe people don't [A stated preference of interactions-

want to be with the person that they 're with. rationality through being more flexible and
And 1 think, you know, that no-one should logical.]
stay with that somebody they don't want to be
with."

Maryke: "1 hoped he hadn't cheated, at least [Non-dogmatic hope reflecting efficient ways
not whilst we were still supposedly happy of thinking about an experience.]
together."

Maryke: "1 was so surprised because 1 really, [Functional negative emotion indicating
really thought 1 could trust him." some flexibility.]

Maryke: "1 became really depressed and I [Dysfunctional negative emotion and
stopped eating for like 2 months ... 1 went on behaviours indicating self-defeating
like a rampage of partying non-stop and patterns.]
drinking, meeting lots ofother boys."
 S8

Maryke: "I feel like I really hated him. I [Dysfunctional negative emotion.]
really, really hated him."

Maryke: "I actually became quite [Dysfunctional behaviours which are of self-
dysfunctional. I went into a rage shortly defeating and attacking natures.]
after- it was during the week after he left. I
smashed the entire house. "; HI broke
everything in the house including the
windows, all the pictures andfurniture"

• Codified and extracted datafrom Maryke's interview transcripts using a coding scheme
and extracted sections grouped under categories (codes)

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic Disappointment:

Self-downing fSD): Maryke did not express any irrational beliefs indicative of the category
ofthe self-downing irrational beliefs. She made no statements of having globally rated herself
or her sense of self-worth negatively.

Need for Achievement (NAC): Many beliefs were indicative of irrational beliefs of the
category of the need for achievement irrational beliefs. In her subjective report of her
thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her experience of a romantic disappointment
of betrayal, she made dogmatic statements evident of a low frustration tolerance with regards
to her need to be competent, adequate and achieving to be worthwhile. These were expressed
as intolerable feelings and strong insecurities about feeling inadequate and incompetent due
to her life goals not being realized or achieved.

Need for Approval (NAP): Maryke did not express any beliefs indicative of the category of
the need for approval irrational beliefs.

Need for Comfort (NO: Maryke expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category
of the need for comfort irrational beliefs. This was evident through awfulizing statements
reflecting low tolerance for hassles, discomfort and particularly, interpersonal tension in her
life.

Demand for Fairness fDF): Maryke expressed many beliefs indicative of the irrational beliefs
category of the demand for fairness in her subjective report of a romantic disappointment.
 59

Statements indicating low frustration tolerance and dogmatic demands illustrated feeling
disrespected and treated unfairly by others.

Other Downing (OD): Maryke expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
other downing beliefs. In her subjective report she made global statements where she rated
the other and his sense of worth negatively. This was expressed through offensive name-
calling towards the other and negative judgment ofthe other's morals and values.

Rationality about the Romantic Disappointment:

Preferences (pRJ: Maryke expressed some statements and beliefs reflecting rationality
through non-dogmatic preferences as attempts to 'achieve her values and goals. Some
efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about her experience of a romantic
disappointment of rejection in the form of preferences were evident. Flexibility was displayed
through the expression of her preferred manner of interactions with others, in contrast to the
actual interactions she expresses having experienced through her romantic rejection.

Hopes (HP): Maryke expressed some rationality indicative of non-dogmatic hopes. Efficient
hope statements indicated constructive attempts to achieve her values and future goals.

Wishes rwS): Maryke did not express rationality indicative of non-dogmatic wishes as
attempts to achieve her values and goals.

And/ Also Responses (AAR): Maryke did not express any rationality indicative of a high
frustration tolerance reflected in and/ also responses about her subjective report of her
thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of rejection.

Yes/ But Responses (fBR): Maryke expressed many statements of rationality indicative of a ,
high frustration tolerance reflected through yes/ but responses about her subjective report of
her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of rejection.
She expressed statements where two contrasting thoughts/ beliefs were critically considered
within the same statement or expression.

Consequences/ Outcomes ofBeliefs:

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB>: Maryke describes a

moderate show of outcomes of functional negative emotions and functional behaviours.
Functional negative emotions are evident in expressions of experiencing feelings of
 60

disappointment, surprise and rejection. Maryke reported some functional behaviour outcomes
such as attempting to move on, as well as investing more time in her academic studies as a
functional escape and distraction from her negative outcomes. The functional emotions and
behaviours evident in Maryke's report were indicative of acting logically and effectively to
achieve her goals of living happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB): Maryke described

many outcomes of dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviours. Multiple
dysfunctional negative emotions were evident in multiple expressions of anger, debilitating
shock, devastation, helplessness, hatred, intense rage and depression. Many dysfunctional
behaviours were evident including multiple attacking behaviours such as the destruction of
another's property and self-defeating behaviours of binge-drinking, brief and transient
encounters with other men and disordered eating. These were attempts to forget her
experience of a romantic rejection. These behaviours reflect ineffective ways of achieving her
goals. This was the overall most frequently expressed category of beliefs throughout
Maryke's report.

• Descriptive statistical analyses ofSGABS data

SGABS subscale results: Maryke's general quantitative assessment of REBT beliefs

independent of a specific activating event:

Total irrationality 49%

Self-downing 40%
Need for achievement 40%
Need for approval 26%
Need for comfort 40%
Demand for fairness 80%
Other-downing 66%
Rationality 75%

5.3.2 Step Two: Development of a logical chain of evidence for the Case of Maryke

Evaluation ofirrational beliefs about Maryke's romantic disappointment (rejection):

 61

Perfonn a qualitative assessment: Maryke's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects many Need for Achievement beliefs, many
Need for Comfort beliefs, many Demand for Fairness beliefs and many Other Downing
beliefs. Her most predominantly expressed irrational beliefs were those of the category of
Other Downing beliefs. There were no expressions of Self-Downing beliefs or Need for
Approval beliefs.

Perfonn a quantitative assessment: Maryke's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored low (49%) on overall and general (non-event specific) irrationality. With regards to
the individual irrational beliefs categories, Maryke's scores, in descending order, were as
follows: The highest score was found on the Demandfor Fairness beliefs (80%); second was
the category of Other Downing (66%), third were the categories of Self-Downing (40%),
Need for Achievement (40%), and Need for Comfort beliefs (40%)~ The lowest score is in the
category of beliefs ofNeed for Approval (26%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Maryke's low score of her SGABS general irrationality is
inconsistent with her high expression of irrationality about her romantic disappointment
(interview). Maryke's many Demand for Fairness, Other Downing, Need for Achievement
and Need for Comfort categories of irrational beliefs expressed about her specific experience
of a romantic disappointment in the interview are consistent with her four highest SGABS
quantitative general (non-event specific) beliefs assessment scores obtained in the same
categories. The Need for Approval beliefs which were not expressed in the subjective report
(interview) were consistent with the lowest score obtained on the SGABS quantitative
general beliefs assessment scores in the corresponding category. The event-specific Self-
Downing (SD) belief category about the romantic disappointment was not expressed in the
interview, and is therefore inconsistent with the quantitative general (non-event specific)
beliefs assessment score obtained in the same category on the SGABS, which in contrast was
the third highest category score on the SGABS.

Evaluation ofrationality about Maryke's romantic disappointment (rejection):

Penonn a qualitative assessment: Maryke's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects some Preferences, some Hopes, and many
Yes/ But responses. No rationality indicating Wishes or And/ Also responses were expressed.
 62

Perform a quantitative assessment: Maryke's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored high on overall and general (non-event specific) rationality (75%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Maryke's high SGABS quantitative score of her general (non-
event specific) and overall rationality is inconsistent with her moderate expression of
rationality in the interview about her romantic disappointment.

Evaluation of Maryke's consequences/ outcomes of REBT beliefs from the romantic

disappointment (rejection):

Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Maryke's subjective report about her
romantic disappointment reflects some Functional Negative Emotions and Functional
Behaviours.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Maryke's subjective report about her
romantic disappointment reflects many Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional
Behaviours of an attacking and self-defeating nature.

Comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences/ outcomes: Maryke's

subjective report reflects more Dysfunctional than Functional Negative Emotions and
Behaviours.

Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rationality and

consequences/ outcomes:

Maryke expressed more irrational than rational beliefs about her romantic disappointment,
and subsequently reported greater dysfunctional negative emotional and behavioural
consequences/ outcomes. Maryke's general non event-related rationality was assessed to be
higher than her general non-event related irrationality.

The above within-case analysis process that was implemented for Maryke's rejection have
been applied to the remaining four cases. These reports are compiled in Appendix F.

5.4 Results and discussion: Cross-case synthesis

This section responds to the research questions concerning REBT beliefs. Section 5.3
describes the results of the within-case analysis conducted on one illustrative case. The
 63

current section conducts a comparison of the REBT beliefs expressed across the cases, as
well as the outcomes! consequences of the romantic disappointments. This is in accordance
with the second part of Step 50f the methodological framework: Cross-case synthesis. The
results of this cross-case analysis are tabulated in two tables below (Table 5.1 and 5.2).
Following the display of the results, Steps 6 and 7 of the methodological framework are
conducted through the discussion and conclusions of the cross-case synthesis. This involves
the shaping of research propositions by searching for replication logic across cases, as well as
the enfolding of literature.
 64

Table 5.1 C ross-case analysis

Irrati on al Be liefs Rat io nality

Maryk e
(Rejection)
I I I
~
I ~
I ~
I ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ Many;
Attacking:
Highest Highest Moderate ScI f-Defcating
iIr s rBs

-
Amy
(Rejection)
I ~
I I I I
~ ~ ~ ~

Highest
iB" s
~
l lighest
rBs
~ ~ ~ ~

Mod e rate
~

Defeating
Many:
Avoidant: Self:'

Lerato
(Betraya l)
~
I ~
~ I" Highest
I.,
Hiuhcst
Mis I
~ ~ ~

Many
v
Defeating
Many:
Avoidant; Sell:'

iIr s
.
--
Lucy
(B etrayal) I"' ~

l l ighcst
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Highest
rBs
~

Moderate
~
Avoidant:
Attacking:
Many:

I
iB" s Self- De feating

Karabo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ Many:
(Betraya l)
Highest Avoidance:
l lighcst rBs Many Sel f- defeating
iB"s
-----
 65

Ta ble 5.2 Cross-case sy nthes is of SGA BS resul ts

Maryke I 49 IX, 1 40% I 40%, 1 26% I 40 1X, 180% 1 66% 175%

(Rej ection)

Amy 1 63% 1 25% 1 85 0ft, 1 66% 1 85% 1 80% 1 33% 1 80%

(Rejec tio n)

Lera to 1 74% 20 l Yo 100% 86% 60% 90% ~100% 1 55%

(Betrayal)

Lucy - I 38 c1., 1 25% 1 20% 1 53% 1 20% 1 75% 1 40% 1 95%

(Betraya l)

Kara b-o-f
(Bet raya l)
64% 140% 1 65% 1 53% 1 75% 1 90% 1 60% 1 70%
 66

The cross-case discussion below is structured to adhere to the REBT conceptual framework;
REBT theory focuses primarily on 1) irrationality, 2) rationality and 3) outcomes/
consequences. Within these three REBT constructs are separate and individual
'subcategories' of irrationality, rationality and outcomes. This section begins by discussing
the results of these individual 'subcategories', before discussing integrated- cross-case
synthesis of irrationality, rationality and outcomes/ consequences as three primary constructs
of the REBT conceptual framework.

5.4.1 Irrationality

The global assessment of irrationality as assessed by the SGABS reflects a range of overall
irrationality scores from 38% to 74%, with an average of 57% and a median of 63% across
the five cases; these SGABS scores reflect a wide range of irrationality, and on average, the
data indicate moderate irrationality. These scores reflect irrationality independent of a
specific activating event. Thus the sample's overall quantitative irrationality is lower
concerning multi-dimensional aspects compared to the high overall rationality expressed in
the narratives about the romantic disappointments. The SGABS measures global irrationality
of non-specific aspects, as well as the individual REBT theory irrationality categories. The
cross-case results and discussion of the individual irrational beliefs categories follow and
these categories include Self-Downing, Needfor Achievement. Needfor Approval, Need/ill'
Comfort, Demandfor Fairness and Other Downing beliefs.

5.4.1.1 Self-downing category (SD)

Three cases indicated REBT self-downing beliefs in their narratives about a romantic
disappointment. One case reflected self-downing as the highest irrational belief category. The
SGABS quantitative assessments of general self-downing beliefs for all five cases range
between 20% and 40%. with an average of 30% and a median of 25%. This suggests that the
romantic disappointments elicited greater self-downing irrationality than other general multi-
dimensional aspects.

An REBT self-downing belief presents evidence of globally rating oneself and sense of self-
worth negatively. Amy, Lucy and Karabo globally rated themselves negatively about their
romantic rejection and betrayals. Amy said: "J had been too pushy, too needy. J thought 'hal
there was something wrong with me,": "J 1ms anglJ' with myself. ..like totally blamed myself-
 67

completely." This demonstrates Amy's exaggerated negative rating of herself. Lucy's self-
downing statements include: "I'm not good enough. Maybe if 1 was blonder, thinner.
qualified, working, maybe things would be different."; "1 had been stupid, naive .,. if I'd been
blonder, bigger boobs, qualified, working-Tfelt anger at myselfabout that." Lucy frequently
expresses low rating of herself in the context of her romantic betrayal in her subjective report,
to the extent of scoring highest on her category of self-downing irrational beliefs, when
compared to other irrational beliefs categories. Her negative appraisal of her physical and
occupational attributes is inflexible and she displays a low frustration tolerance about what
she considers her negative qualities. Karabos negative rating of herself is based on
comparisons with other 'girls' throughout her narrative: "This girl seemed way better than
me, 1 wasn't good enough". This inflexible self-downing expression in the context of her
romantic betrayal is considered irrational by REBT principles.

Amy, Lucy and Karabos self-downing beliefs indicate a poor sense of self-worth which is
met with poor flexibility for deviation or variation. REBT states that individuals' beliefs
provide a context that affects how they understand their activating events; in this case Amy,
Lucy and Karabo's interpretation of their subjective experiences was affected by their
irrational self-downing beliefs. Any evaluation of the self on a global measure of self-worth
is unhealthy and irrational because there are no objective bases for making global evaluations
of the self. A 'high self-esteem' can be also be equally unhealthy as it lends the individual to
emotional vulnerability to criticism (Davies, 2006).

5.4.1.2 Need for Achievement category (NAC)

Four cases expressed REBT need for achievement beliefs. None expressed need for
achievement as the highest irrational belief category. The SGABS assessment of the
quantitative scores of all five cases' general non event-specific need for achievement beliefs
range between 20% and 100%, with an average of 62% and a median of 65%. This means
that romantic disappointments elicit greater need for achievement irrationality than other
general multi-dimensional aspects.

An REBT need for achievement belief illustrates low frustration tolerance, dogmatic
demands (musts, shoulds, absolutes). awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated/
or absolutistic demands with regards to the participant's need to be competent adequate and
 68

achieving in order to be worthwhile. Amy, Maryke, Lucy and Karabo expressed need for
achievement beliefs about their romantic rejections and betrayals. For example, Amy
expressed dogmatic beliefs about her relationship being an intolerable failure and
subsequently believing that her life was a failure too, which she awfulized. Maryke said the
following about her romantic rejection: "1 thought like 1 kind ofdid the best that I could have
in the relationship and it still wasn't working". This demonstrates Maryke's dogmatic
demands on herself to 'make things work' and to dogmatically achieve her goals of
preventing her relationship from failing, whereas Karabo's need for achievement beliefs
centered around the perceived pressures to make good decisions within her relationship,
which she believed in absolutistic terms. These examples are all viewed as irrational by
REBT principles.

Amy, Maryke, Lucy and Karabo's need for achievement beliefs vary in content but each
depict irrationality. Dogmatic demands and a low frustration tolerance are common to all 4
participants who reported beliefs of achievement and a need to be competent within their
relationships, particularly about 'saving' their deteriorating relationships. All four cases also
reported their shortcomings about their competence and adequacy as dogmatically
unacceptable. They thus (irrationally) interpreted these inadequacies as having strongly
contributed to the outcome and experience of their romantic disappointment. Thus their need
for achievement beliefs provided a context for how they understood their romantic
disappointments.

5.4.1.3 Need for Approval category (NAP)

Four cases illustrated REBT need for approval beliefs. Need for approval beliefs were not
found as the highest irrational beliefs category for any of these four cases. The SGABS
assessment of the quantitative scores of all five cases' general non event-specific need for
approval beliefs range between 26% and 86%, with an average of 56% and a median of 53%.
This indicates that the experience of a romantic disappointment elicited greater need for
approval irrationality than other general multi-dimensional aspects for the sample.

An REBT need for approval belief contains expressions of low frustration tolerance.
dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible. awful).
exaggerated/ or absolutistic demands about the participant's need to be loved. Amy. Lerato.
 69

Lucy and Karabo expressed need for approval beliefs about their romantic rejections and
betrayals. For example, Lerato stated the following: "I felt so unwanted, and so discarded
and done wrong". Lerato shows low frustration tolerance for not having her need to feel
loved fulfilled. She expressed awfulizing about these need for approval beliefs. Lucy shared
the same sentiments: "I felt discarded'. These examples demonstrate irrationality by REST
theoretical principles, as the statements indicate dogmatic and awfulizing segments.

Awfulizing and a low frustration tolerance, in particular, are common to Amy, Lerato, Lucy
and Karabo. These four cases report absolutistic beliefs about feeling loved, and their
experiences of not having these needs met were awfulized. These indications of REST
irrationality thus contributed to the outcome and experience of the romantic disappointments.

5.4.1.4 Need for Comfort category (NC)

All five cases reported REST need for comfort beliefs about the romantic disappointments. In
addition, the need for comfort beliefs category was found as the highest irrational beliefs
category for Karabo. The SGASS assessment of the quantitative scores for all 5 participants'
general non event-specific need for achievement beliefs range between 20% and 85%, with
an average of 56% and a median of 60%. This proposes that romantic disappointments draw
out greater need for comfort irrationality than other general multi-dimensional aspect.

An REST need for comfort belief is described as a segment containing low frustration
tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds, absolutes). awfulizing (it is terrible. horrible.
awful), exaggerated and absolutistic demands regarding the participants' need to be free of
hassles, discomfort or tension in their lives. For example, Amy called her experience of a
romantic rejection "suffering" indicating her low frustration tolerance towards the discomfort
she experienced in her romantic rejection. Lerato expressed: "[Romantic disappointments]
are terrible. I think they can turn a person's reality in life upside down and that is not
acceptable on any terms". Leratos low frustration tolerance is evident in her awfulizing
statements about her experience. Karabo, who reported need for comfort beliefs as her
highest category of irrational beliefs in her narrative, frequently expresses beliefs about
having 'had enough' of the unwanted stress, often referring to her romantic disappointment as
an inconvenience. This is evidence of Karabos absolutistic demands to be free of hassles in
her life. All the illustrations are irrational by REST theoretical principles.
 70

All five cases' need for comfort beliefs describe irrationality by REBT standards. Dogmatic
demands, awfulizing statements and especially a low frustration tolerance are common to all
five cases; beliefs and rigid goals to be free of tension and discomfort are thwarted by the
experience of a romantic disappointment. They constructed irrational interpretations about
their experiences in the context of these beliefs, which contributed to the outcome and
experience of their romantic disappointment.

5.4.1.5 Demand for Fairness category (DF)

Four cases (Amy, Lerato, Maryke and Lucy) indicated REBT demand for fairness beliefs. In
addition, the demand for fairness category was found as the highest irrational beliefs category
for Amy. The SGABS assessment of the quantitative scores of all five cases' general non
event-specific need for achievement beliefs range between 75% and 90%, with an average of
83% and a median of 80%. These quantitative scores suggest that the romantic
disappointments elicited evenly matched demand for fairness irrationality as other general
multi-dimensional aspects. This is the first category of irrationality that is equally reflected in
both the SGABS and the individual reports.

An REBT demand for fairness belief reflects a low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands
(musts, shoulds, absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated and
absolutistic demands regarding the participant's need to be treated with respect and for
consideration from others. Examples of such segments from the narratives include Leratos
dogmatic demands for fairness: "1 didn't askfor it...1 didn't deserve that treatmentfrom hint.
1 don 'I deserve him lying 10 me that way" Maryke expressed: "He switched his eel/phone of!
for four days so 1 didn't knoll' what lI'as going on". Amy, who reported this category as her
highest irrationality category frequently stated how "unfair' her situation was. These
examples illustrate the participants' irrational dogmatic demands for others to treat them with
respect and consideration.

The four cases' demand for fairness beliefs reflect REBT irrationality. Dogmatic demands
prevail whereby low frustration tolerance and absolutistic expectations are expressed through
various statements about being treated fairly by others. Awfulizing with the use of words
such as 'devastating', 'terrible' and 'horrible' were expressed in association with the failure
of goals to receive consideration from others. The participants (irrationally) viewed their
 71

experiences through these beliefs, which contributed to their interpretations and experience of
their romantic disappointments. Thus their demand for fairness beliefs provided a context for
how they understood their romantic disappointments.

5.4.1.6 Other Downing category (OD)

Three cases expressed REBT other downing beliefs. Other downing beliefs were found as the
highest irrational beliefs category for two cases (Lerato and Maryke). The SGABS
assessment of the quantitative scores of all five cases' general non event-specific other
downing beliefs range between 33% and 100%, with an average of 59% and a median of
60%. This indicates that other downing irrationality about the romantic disappointments was
evenly elicited by other general multi-dimensional aspects. This is thus the second category
of irrationality to reflect equal quantitative as well as reported other downing beliefs.
An REBT other downing belief is an illustration of globally rating others and their worth
negatively. Lerato, Maryke and Lucy express other downing beliefs in their narratives about
their romantic rejections and betrayals. For example, Lerato stated the following: "l thought
he was an absolute bastard'; similarly Maryke and Lucy engaged in defamation of the
romantic partner's character. This category of irrationality was the most frequently reported
for both Maryke and Lerato. Evidence of other downing beliefs is also found in Lerato.
Maryke and Lucy's frequent negative 'name calling' of the other. Inherent in the 'name
calling' of the other was the implication of globally rating the other's worth negatively.

5.4.1.7 Integrated discussion of irrationality with literature

Cognitive psychology and REBT posit that there is a 'thinking disorder' at the core of
psychological dysfunction in the form of distorted or dysfunctional thinking (Beck, 1995).
This dysfunctional thinking manifests due to a systematic bias in the way that individuals
interpret or view particular experiences, such as the romantic disappointments investigated in
the present study. For each of the five cases of this study, the REBT A-B-C model was
applied where 'B' refers to the beliefs that the participant holds about the romantic
disappointment (A), as well as to other multi-dimensional aspects (measured by the SGABS).
REBT focuses on these disordered thoughts and calls them irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1996). All
the cases in this study demonstrated irrational beliefs. Such dysfunctional thoughts occur
quickly and automatically often without the individual's control, as was observed during the
interviews. The participants were asked various eliciting questions about their experience of a
 72

romantic disappointment, in the same manner that the REBT assessment process would take
place. The REBT assessment process is structured so as to begin by asking individuals about
their current thoughts in order to identify irrational beliefs (Sharf, 2008). This was also
carried out in the interviews. The irrational beliefs discussed above were thus the product of
the assessment process of dysfunctional thoughts. The irrational beliefs were identified from
the narratives and irrationality about multi-dimensional aspects was investigated through the
SGABS quantitative measure. According to REBT, the participants may have constructed the
irrational beliefs about a romantic disappointment during their childhood, or they may have
done so later on in life (Ellis, 1991). These irrational beliefs are a particular focus of REBT
because they precipitate and create dysfunctional feelings and behaviours (Ellis, 1996).

Ellis (1991) terms irrational beliefs "negative musturbatory evaluations" (p. 146), which
were displayed in the participants' beliefs that consisted of shoulds, oughts, musts and other
insistences. These statements can be grouped into demands about the self, for example, "I
absolutely must at all times be successful at important performances and relationships, or
else I, as a person, am inadequate and worthless!" (Ellis, 1996, p. 13). Examples from the
study's narratives include Lucy's many self-downing beliefs and demands about other
people, Lerato's many other downing beliefs and demands about the world, and Karabos
many need for comfort beliefs. When one or all of these groups of demands are held. people
tend to become behaviourally and emotionally perturbed. All the cases illustrate all the three
groups of demands, showing an increased tendency to be psychologically perturbed (Ellis.
1996).

The tendency to think irrationally is likely to increase after a stressful life event, after which
individuals may exhibit a less positive view of the meaningfulness of the world, themselves
and others (Boelen et aI., 2004). The participants fulfilled the selection criterion of having
experienced a romantic disappointment that they considered a significant stressful life event.
Thus the high irrationality illustrated may have been promoted by the stressful event of a
romantic disappointment. The expected tendency to think irrationally after a stressful
romantic disappointment was followed by evidence of irrational beliefs. This is congruent
with the lower irrationality scores that the participants obtained on the SGABS quantitative
assessment of irrationality, as compared to the higher indications of irrationality about the
romantic disappointment. Lerato is the only participant with a high SGABS score of
irrationality and may appear to be the exception to this theoretical proposition; however.
 73

despite her high SGABS irrationality score, she still demonstrated a greater degree of
irrationality in her narrative about a romantic disappointment than her quantitative score of
irrationality. The SGABS measured irrationality about multi-dimensional aspects rather than
the irrational beliefs held by the participants about the specific event of a romantic
disappointment. This finding confirms REBT's notion that a stressful event elicits greater
irrationality.

The SGABS contains cognitive items that are not tainted by affective items, and differentiates
the thought processes from the content of the thought (David et aI., 2005). Regarding the
individual SGABS irrationality categories, the participants scored highest, on average, on the
demand for fairness category and lowest on the self-downing category. Thus the participants
most hold, on average, the demand for fairness irrational beliefs about multi-dimensional
aspects. This was consistent with the participants' frequent disclosure of demand for fairness
beliefs about the romantic disappointment. Thus the participants strongly hold demand for
fairness dysfunctional thinking for both multi-dimensional aspects and romantic
disappointments. The participants' low average SGABS scores on self-downing beliefs are in
contrast to the higher self-downing beliefs described about their romantic disappointment,
suggesting that romantic disappointments, in particular, are associated with more self-
downing beliefs.

In REBT, depression is associated with the degree to which individuals endorse irrational
beliefs (Bond & Dryden, 1997). In this instance, Lucy who endorsed the most number of
categories of irrational beliefs would exhibit the most symptoms of depression as compared
to the other participants. Depression is also particularly associated with internal messages of
an individual that communicate self-blame, self-criticism, inadequacy or defeat (Beck. 1964).
Thus self-downing irrational beliefs have particularly important implications in the REBT
assessment process: REBT has found that unconditional acceptance of oneself and of others
is a key goal of living productively, and that individuals who score high on irrationality score
low on self-acceptance, after self-esteem had been controlled for (Davies, 2006). For Amy.
Lucy and Karabo, this suggests that their self-downing beliefs further exacerbated their
irrationality. In addition, Lucy's self-downing category of irrational beliefs was her highest
reported category of irrationality, further putting her at risk for dysfunctional emotions and
behaviours. However, REBT also opposes the opposite extreme end of self-downing beliefs.
which are self berating beliefs, because "it involves rating oneself as a 'good person' 1I'hcII
 74

one acts properly and as a 'bad person' when one acts badly. Instead, [REBT] tries to help
people achieve what it calls 'unconditional self-acceptance'" (Ellis, 1987, p. 80).

Humanism, as a philosophical viewpoint of REBT, believes that functional living requires

that individuals accept others for who they are, rather than in light of their own expectations
of others (Ellis, 1991). Irrational other downing beliefs, as displayed by, for example,
Maryke, thus hinder her goals for functional living. According to REBT, a more functional
alternative to Maryke's other downing irrationality would be to accept an individual without
liking all aspects of that individual's behaviours (Ellis, 1991). Low frustration tolerance,
which was recurrently identified in all the participants' narratives, also indicates emotional
disturbances (Bond & Dryden, 1997).

Thus, according to REBT theory, the 5 participants demonstrated irrational thinking and
created their own misery needlessly by holding various irrational thoughts (Ellis, 1987, 1991,
1996). This posits that any distress experienced from their romantic disappointment is due to
the irrational belief systems held, which included self-downing, need for achievement, need
for approval, need for comfort, demand for fairness and other downing beliefs, which they
illustrated in their narratives about the romantic disappointment, as well as their SGABS
quantitative results. Their irrational beliefs sabotaged their ability to cope effectively with the
unpleasant activating event of a romantic disappointment and thus put them at greater risk for
depression and other psychological and behavioural disturbances (Ellis. 1991). Therefore.
according to REBT, it is not the participant's experience of a romantic disappointment that
put them at risk for dysfunctional functioning, instead it is the irrational thinking about the
romantic disappointment that does so.

5.4.2 Rationality

The global assessment of the participants' measures of rationality as assessed by the SGABS
reflects a range of overall rationality from 55% to 95%, with an average of75% and a median
of80% across the study's five cases; these SGABS scores reflect a range of rationality within
the upper half percentages, and on average, the participants scored high on rationality. Th is
suggests that the individual participants' rationality about multi-dimensional aspects varies
from moderate to high. These scores reflect their rationality independent of a specific
activating event. Thus the participants' overall rationality is higher concerning multi-
dimensional aspects as compared to the low overall rationality expressed in their narratives
 75

about their romantic disappointments. The SGABS measures global rationality of non-
specific aspects, but does not measure the individual REBT theory rationality categories.
Below follows the cross-case results and discussion of the individual rational beliefs
categories.

5.4.2.1 Preferences (PRJ

Four cases indicated REBT preferences about the romantic disappointments. Preferences
were found as the highest rationality category for three cases (Amy, Lerato and Karabo). An
REBT preference describes non-dogmatic preferences which are efficient, flexible, logical
and scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve one's
values and goals. Amy, Lerato, Maryke and Karabo expressed preferences in their narratives
about their romantic rejections and betrayals. For example, Amy, for whom preferences were
the most frequently expressed rationality category, stated: "J would rather the problem was
with him, because then he couldn't have a relationship with someone else." Karabo, for
whom preferences was also the most frequently expressed rationality category, articulated at
various points in her narrative how she would have preferred the sequence of events in the
deterioration stage of her relationship to have gone differently. These examples of
preferences from Amy, Lerato, Maryke and Karabos narratives demonstrate rationality by
REBT theoretical principles.

5.4.2.2 Hopes (HPJ

Two cases revealed REBT hopes about a romantic disappointment. In particular those were
also the two cases (Amy and Maryke) of romantic rejection. An REBT hope reflects non-
dogmatic hopes which are efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about an
experience or ways of attempting to achieve values and goals. Amy hopes that her experience
of a romantic disappointment will not deter her from trusting someone else in a future
relationship. Maryke hopes that her husband had not been unfaithful prior to the deterioration
of their marriage, and adds that she can, however, not be certain of this. These examples of
hopes from Amy and Maryke's narratives demonstrate rationality according to REBT theory.
Both Amy engage in efficient ways of thinking about their goals of moving forward with
their lives despite the difficulties encountered with a romantic rejection. Although Amy and
Maryke's hopes reflect different ideas, they describe what REBT considers rationality Il1

terms of hopes.
 76

5.4.2.3 Wishes (WS)

Three participants express REBT wishes about a romantic disappointment. An REBT wish
describes non-dogmatic wishes which are efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of
thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve one's values and goals. Amy,
Lerato and Karabo expressed wishes in their narratives about their romantic rejections and
betrayals. For example, Lerato wished that her partner had explicitly expressed his
unwillingness to be in a mutually exclusive relationship with her instead of betraying their
relationship boundaries through infidelity. Karabo similarly states: "So why can't the other
party say, you know, 'this isn't what J want anymore, so can we just end it '. J wish he had
done that". Both these examples express wishes that romantic partners had maintained
honesty within relationship boundaries, rather than creating external relations without their
knowledge.

5.4.2.4 And/ Also Responses (AAR)

Two cases expressed REBT and/ also responses. This is a segment which reflects a high
frustration tolerance in the form of and/ also responses. Amy and Lucy express and/ also
responses about their romantic rejections. For example, when asked about how she
understood her experience, Amy wonders if the difficulties in her relationship had been due
to her behaviours or due to her partner's actions, and a/so if the difficulties lay with her. if it
meant that her partner would therefore be able to pursue a successful relationship with
someone else. Lucy also expresses an and/ also response: .. Vel)' much so and a/so J guess I've
thought about it." These responses show non-dogmatic ways of thinking about experiences
marked by a high frustration tolerance. In this manner both Amy and Lucy engage in flexible
and efficient ways of thinking.

5.4.2.5 Yes/ But Responses (YBR)

Four cases expressed REBT yes/ but responses. This response reflects a high frustration
tolerance in the form of yes/ but responses. For example. when asked about \\ hat thoughts
went through her mind after the event of her romantic disappointment, Lerato responded:
'~res J couldn 't accept it, but J think making sense of it was the big part," When asked about
her self blame which she expressed during the interview, Maryke expressed that. yes she had
wondered if she was to blame for the deterioration of her marriage, but had at the same time
 77

believed that she could not have anticipated events as they unfolded. These examples of yes!
but responses from narratives demonstrate REBT rationality. Lerato, Maryke, Lucy and
Karabo engaged in flexible and efficient ways of thinking about their experiences by
considering dual perspectives ofa thought or belief.

5.4.2.6 Integrated discussion of rationality with literature

In keeping with the application of the REBT A-B-C model, the second type of beliefs (B)
investigated was the rational beliefs about the romantic disappointment, as well as the overall
irrationality that was quantitatively assessed by the SGABS. All the cases illustrated rational
thinking. Four participants' overall SGABS quantitative assessments of rationality are higher
than their SGABS scores of irrationality. This was not displayed by Lerato, however, who
was the only participant to score higher on overall quantitative irrationality than quantitative
rationality. This indicates that Amy, Maryke, Lucy and Karabo's rationality about multi-
dimensional aspects is higher than their irrationality about multi-dimensional aspects.
Lerato's rationality about multi-dimensional aspects on the other hand, is lower than her
display of irrationality about multi-dimensional aspects. There is uniformity amongst the
participants, however, regarding irrationality and rationality. All the participants
demonstrated greater irrational than rational thinking about the romantic disappointments.
According to REBT, irrational beliefs drive an individual towards dysfunctional feelings and
behaviours, whereas rational beliefs drive an individual towards functional feelings and
behaviours (Ellis, 1996). This suggests that all the participants would experience more
dysfunctional than functional outcomes of their romantic disappointments, and more for
Lerato than for the other participants. This is addressed in detail in section 5.4.3.3.

When an adverse activating event occurs, rational thinking about the event will lead to
healthy emotional consequences (Ellis, 1996). Such rational beliefs consist of preferences.
hopes, wishes and flexible meanings such as and! also and yes! but responses (Sharf. 2008).
Despite having demonstrated greater irrationality than rationality about the romantic
disappointments, all the participants did display some rationality about the romantic
disappointments. REBT theory would therefore predict that the participants would experience
some functional outcomes (discussed below in section 5.4.3.3). REBT theory holds that
individuals have biological tendencies to construct rational wishes and preferences. but also
have the choice of changing their rational thinking to irrational demands (Ellis. 1999). This
 78

suggests that the participants followed their innate tendencies to think rationally to a lesser
degree, and more often chose to convert their rational beliefs to irrational ones such as those
described above in 5.4.1. However, research has documented that rational and irrational
thoughts are not bi-polar constructs (David et aI., 2005). Therefore a high score on one does
not necessarily mean a low score on the other. This explains Amy and Karabo's SGABS
scores, whose scores of total irrationality are not on the polar end of their scores of
rationality. Lerato, Maryke and Lucy's scores display the more predictable bi-polar structure
where the scores of rationality and irrationality differ substantially.

The four main features of rational thinking include the tendencies to not exaggerate negative
effects, not demand that one's wishes should always be met, not globally rate individuals or
relationships, and not over-generalise negative experiences (Cramer, 2005). All the
participants displayed some of these aspects through their display of preferences, hopes,
wishes, and/ also responses, and yes/ but responses. Only Amy and Maryke displayed rational
thinking in the form of hopes, and both experienced romantic rejections rather than betrayals.
None of the participants displayed all the four main features of rational thinking about the
romantic disappointment. REBT theory states that when the four main aspects of rational
thinking are combined, they significantly decrease relationship dissatisfaction (Cramer,
2005). None of the participants displayed the combined aspects of rational thinking; therefore
it is not an expected outcome for any of them to have experienced decreased relationship
dissatisfaction.

5.4.3 Outcomes/ consequences

5.4.3.1 Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB)

All participants report REBT functional negative emotions and functional behaviours as
outcomes/ consequences of their romantic disappointments. Three participants report two
moderate functional negative emotions and behaviours, whereas 2 participants report many
functional negative emotions and behaviours. A functional negative emotion and functional
behaviour describes an outcome of functional negative emotions such as disappointment.
concern, annoyance, sadness, regret and frustration as well as appropriate behaviours: acting
efficiently and effectively in achieving goals of living happily. Examples of functional
negative emotions include Maryke and Lerato's disappointment, Lucy, Karabo and Leratos
feelings of sadness, Amy, Karabo and Lerato's regret, and Karabo's frustration. The most
 79

commonly reported functional negative emotions were sadness, disappointment and

frustration. Amy reports a functional behaviour: "I became a lot closer with some of my
girlfriends and with my family ...] really value the closeness that I've gained with a couple of
my girlfriends." Maryke reported functional behaviour outcomes such as attempting to 'move
on', as well as investing more time in her studies. Lerato's functional behaviours included
seeking therapy, and Lucy's functional behaviours included distancing herself from Paul and
not allowing him to influence her new romantic relationship. These examples represent the
outcomes and consequences of the experience ofa romantic disappointment that contribute to
the goals of living happily.

5.4.3.2 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB)

All five cases show many REBT dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional
behaviours as outcomes/ consequences of romantic disappointments. A dysfunctional
negative emotion and dysfunctional behaviour describes an outcome of dysfunctional
negative emotions such as anger, depression, anxiety, hopelessness, despair, worthlessness,
shame, embarrassment, rage, hurt, jealousy and guilt as well as inappropriate behaviours:
avoidance, attacking and self-defeating behaviours. Examples of dysfunctional negative
emotions include Maryke's reports of outcomes/ consequences of debilitating shock,
devastation, helplessness, hatred and intense rage. Amy stated: "Sad doesn't begin to capture
it. Devastated. Heartbroken. Like sore, just sore all over." Lerato, Amy and Maryke reported
feeling depressed. The predominant dysfunctional negative emotions reported by all 5
participants were outcomes of anger and hurt. Inappropriate and dysfunctional behaviours in
the form of avoidant, self-defeating and attacking behaviours were identified. For example,
Lerato describes avoidant and self-defeating dysfunctional behaviours: "I was sleeping much
too much. ] was sleeping to get mv(Q' from the pain. ] started smoking again after having quit
cigarettes 18 months before." Karabo also began smoking cigarettes to cope. Lucy illustrates
an avoidant! self-defeating dysfunctional consequence of purposefully losing many good
friends because they were mutual friends of hers and her ex-partner. All participants reported
self-defeating behaviours in their narratives. Such behaviours include excessive drinking and
whining (Ellis, 1996). Four of the 5 participants reported avoidant behaviours, and 2
participants reported attacking dysfunctional behaviours. One participant (Lucy) reported all
three types of REBT dysfunctional behaviours. These examples of consequences/ outcomes
 80

are considered dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviours according to

REBT theoretical principles.

5.4.3.3 Integrated discussion of outcomes/ consequences with literature

The irrational and rational beliefs discussed above are automatic thoughts of .which the
individual is often not aware (Beck, 1964). These REBT beliefs (both rational and irrational
beliefs) are associated with the consequences of various feelings and behaviours of which, in
contrast, the individual is usually well aware (Ellis, 1991). This constitutes the 'C' of the A-
B-C model (Ellis, 1991, 1996). When the adverse event of a romantic disappointment is
experienced, two types of outcomes or consequences can follow: Functional negative
emotions and behaviours and/ or dysfunctional negative emotions and behaviours. These
reactions (C) are largely determined by the underlying beliefs (B) that individuals hold about
the event (A) (Ellis, 1991). The participants' outcomes/ consequences were investigated
through the interview method. (The SGABS only measures irrational and rational beliefs and
does not measure the consequences and outcomes of an event or experience.)

According to REBT, the nature of the outcomes/ consequences is determined by the nature of
the beliefs that the individual holds. The participants illustrated greater irrationality than
rationality about their romantic disappointments, which REBT states leads to more
~sfunctional outcomes and consequences. This suggests that all the participants would
experience more dysfunctional than functional outcomes from their romantic
disappointments, which was found for all the cases thus confirming the REST theory on
outcomes/ consequences of activating events. These dysfunctional outcomes may stem from
early or previously created dysfunctional beliefs, and/ or newly constructed beliefs as a result
of the trigger event of the romantic disappointment. However, in addition to this and despite
having demonstrated greater irrationality than rationality about the romantic disappointments,
all the participants also displayed some rationality about the romantic disappointments.
REBT theory would therefore predict that the participants would also experience some
functional outcomes associated with the rational thinking. This was also found to occur for all
the participants confirming REBT hypotheses.

The results show that all the participants indicated many dysfunctional negative emotions and
behaviours. "When people have emotional difficulties, they are largely (not completely)
disturbed because they are engaging in some kind of unrealistic, illogical, or irrational
 81

thinking" (Ellis, 1987, p. 75). The case of Lucy in particular, was discussed above (section
5.4.1.7) as the only case to indicate the self-downing irrational belief category as the highest
category of irrationality and was also the only case which indicated all six categories of
irrational beliefs. According to REBT theory, these conditions would put an individual at a
greater risk for dysfunctional emotions and behaviours. Now regarding these dysfunctional
outcomes/ consequences, Lucy is the only participant that indicated all three types of
dysfunctional outcomes/ consequences (avoidant, attacking and self-defeating). This is
congruent with REBT theory on the nature of the predispositions for dysfunctional outcomes/
consequences. REBT considers dysfunctional behaviours can be explicated by the REST
principle of reasonable hedonism: This refers to an individual's attempts to maintain pleasure
over the long term by avoiding "short-term pleasures that lead to pain, such as drug abuse
and alcohol addiction" (Sharf, 2008, p. 302). All the participants reported outcomes/
consequences of behaviours which described short-term pleasures such as alcohol abuse and
sexual promiscuity which lead to further dysfunctional consequences. REST also holds the
insight that individuals often upset themselves about their 'upsetness', turning this
'upsetness' into a new activating event (Ellis, 1996). Amy and Lerato indicated this
additional 'upsetness' about feeling upset about the romantic disappointments.

Two cases (Lerato and Karabo) reported many functional negative emotions and behaviours,
whilst three cases (Amy, Maryke and Lucy) reported some functional negative emotions and
behaviours. Functional emotions are distinguished from dysfunctional emotions in REST by
their intensity (Cramer, 2005), as well as their quality and quantity (David et aI., 2005). The
difference in their quality and content is most distinctive. The participants' indicated
functional emotions, such as regret, frustration and sadness are lower in intensity than the
reported dysfunctional emotions such as anger and hurt. The quality is more distinguishable
as the emotions experienced by the participants are identified as either functional or
dysfunctional based on their content, for example Amy's emotion of regret versus her
emotion of devastation. These two emotions experienced by Amy are thus classified as
functional and dysfunctional, respectively.

REBT adopts a binary model of distress, that is, in stressful situations, high distress is
accompanied by both high levels of functional and dysfunctional negative feelings, whilst
low distress is accompanied by high levels of functional negative emotions and low levels of
dysfunctional negative emotions (David et aI., 2005). Although all cases reported high
 82

distress about the romantic disappointment, this binary model of distress condition was only
found for two cases (Lerato and Karabo). They each experienced high distress about their
romantic disappointment, and subsequently displayed both high levels of functional negative
emotions and high levels of dysfunctional negative emotions. In addition to the distress levels
that an individual indicates, REBT posits that high levels of irrational beliefs are .associated
with high levels of both functional and dysfunctional negative emotions (David et aI., 2005).
Although all the cases illustrated high levels of irrationality about their romantic
disappointment, only the cases of Lerato and Karabo were associated with both functional
and dysfunctional negative emotions.

5.5 Enfolding literature about romantic disappointments: Betrayal, rejection and

REBTtheory

Romantic disappointments (rejection and betrayal) are the study's primary interest. The
secondary interest is the application of the REBT framework to the phenomenon of a
romantic disappointment. The REBT theoretical A-B-C model was applied to each case in
accordance with the positivistic case study design. The beliefs (B) and outcomes/
consequences (C) of the REBT A-B-C model have been discussed. This final discussion is
about the activating event (A) of the study's inquiry: romantic disappointments. The
phenomenon is also discussed through the REBT theoretical lens.

The important characteristics of love in a romantic relationship include respect and caring
(Benokraitis, 2004). Sternberg's (1986) model of love highlights intimacy, passion and
commitment as characteristics of love. Love is also multi-faceted and can be demanding
(Benokraitis, 2004). The five cases' relationship characteristics were not the focus of this
study. The narratives about romantic disappointments did, however, particularly indicate the
loss of commitment as a quality of a relationship, the loss of which can have detrimental
emotional consequences for one or both romantic partners. This occurs when reciprocity and
stability of closeness is no longer valued by both individuals within a relationship (Levinger,
1977).

There are various phases of a romantic relationship including initiation, development,

maintenance and deterioration (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). A romantic relationship may not
undergo all four phases, and the stages may not occur in a particular sequence. The five cases
of this study experienced the deterioration stage of a relationship due to a romantic rejection
 83

or betrayal. A romantic disappointment, however, need not result in the deterioration of a

relationship. Nonetheless for the cases investigated, a romantic disappointment initiated the
deterioration stage. The five cases' deterioration phases varied in length of time, from
Maryke's 2 week deterioration phase to Lerato's 2 year progressive deterioration. The
unproblematic initiation, development and maintenance stages of a relationship often
progress unnoticed; it is the deterioration stage that brings about significant change or
conflict that interested the researcher. Many romantic relationships end despite ideal and
promising beginnings (Karney et aI., 200 I), as in the cases of Amy, Lerato, Maryke, Lucy
and Karabo. They all report that their romantic partners exerted positive effects on them
within the relationship; but the deterioration of the relationship through a romantic rejection
or betrayal had powerful and distressing effects. Individuals retain the emotional effects of a
disappointment for a long period (Safer et aI., 2007), as the case of Lerato displays, indicating
that she continued to feel distressed about her experience of a romantic betrayal for two years
afterwards, even though she remained in the relationship during that time.

Two cases illustrate romantic rejections. Amy and Maryke's cases of romantic rejection can
be understood through interpersonal loss theory (Aron et aI., 2006) that states that rejection
can undermine individuals' abilities to view themselves as worthy of love and acceptance.
Interpersonal losses that convey rejection (such as a partner-initiated dissolution of a
relationship) elicit depressive reactions, whereas those that do not convey rejection (such as
self-initiated relationship dissolution) would not increase the risk for depressive reactions
(Ayduk et aI., 2001). Amy and Maryke experienced partner-initiated relationship break-ups,
which put them at risk for depressive reactions which involve global, catastrophic negative
beliefs about oneself that underlie depression (Ayduk et aI., 2001). Only Amy illustrated
global negative rating of herself, whereas Maryke engaged in global negative rating of the
other, however, both Amy and Maryke indicated depressive reactions about the rejections.
Strong biological reactions are also said to accompany the experience of a rejection due to the
disharmony of humans' primary emotion systems (lust, attraction and attachment) (Fisher,
2000). Rejection-sensitivity also plays a role in how Amy and Maryke experienced rejection,
whereby a high rejection-sensitivity would more likely lead to the dissolution of a
relationship due to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Downey et aI., 2004). Amy and Maryke's
rejection-sensitivity were not assessed for purposes of this study's aims, and may have had an
effect on the experience of rejection.
 84

Three cases illustrate romantic betrayals. This type of romantic disappointment involves a
serious threat to a relationship: The experience of betrayal through the violation of an
implicitly or explicitly defined norm within that relationship (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Three
cases reported the subjective experience of a romantic betrayal. For Lucy and Karabo, this
involved the violation of an explicit norm, whereas Lerato's case involved the violation of an
implicit norm. This definition of betrayal is based on the participants' subjective experience
rather than unspecified biases, values, morals or beliefs of the researcher or others. The three
cases experienced a breach of trust and a breaking of an agreement to a committed
relationship, characteristic of a betrayal (Benokraitis, 2004), resulting in a violation of
expectations for emotional and physical exclusivity with a person's partner. The three cases
of romantic betrayals vary in perceived in severity but all betrayals yield characteristic
negative feelings, thoughts and behavioural tendencies (Reis & Rusbult, 2004). Lerato, Lucy
and Karabo's betrayals involved sexual relations outside of the relationship boundary; it
cannot be assessed whether extra-dyadic emotional involvements were also committed.
Negative inferences about what a betrayal means in terms of causes and consequences may
lead to feelings of hopelessness and depression (Hurst, 1999). Lerato indicated feeling
depressed for a long period after the betrayal. Feelings of demoralization along with
hopelessness are often associated with betrayals creating feelings that there is nothing one
can do to change things and that nothing is going to get better. A feminist theory also asserts
that an individual is foreseeably left with little hope for oneself and the world after a betrayal
by a significant other. Lerato, Lucy and Karabo did not indicate hopes in their narratives
(whereas Amy and Maryke did). The disclosure of betrayals also often involves feelings of
being deceived and disillusionment (Hurst, 1999), which were reported by Lerato, Lucy and
Karabo.

An activating event in the REBT A-B-C model does not exclusively refer to external stimuli;
it can also be something that an individual contemplates (Ellis, 1991). The activating event
(A) for this study refers to the external stimuli of a romantic disappointment. According to
the A-B-C model, any event (external or internal) activates beliefs (B), resulting in
subsequent consequences (C) (Ellis, 1996). Therefore when a romantic disappointment
occurs, an individual can choose healthy beliefs which lead to healthy outcomes and
consequences, or they can embark on unhealthy beliefs which manifest in unhealthy
outcomes and consequences (Ellis, 1996). The five cases illustrated both irrational and
 85

rational beliefs about the romantic disappointment, but each displayed more irrationality than
rationality. Subsequently they demonstrated both functional and dysfunctional consequences,
but more dysfunctional consequences than functional ones. The relationship between the
romantic disappointment, beliefs and outcomes/ consequences is interactional and reciprocal
(Ellis, 1991), whereby the event of a romantic disappointment significantly influences the
beliefs and outcomes/ consequences. The beliefs and consequences also significantly
influence the romantic disappointment. "This natural or easy sequence tends to show how
important thinking is in creating emotional problems" (Ellis, 1987, p. 77). The relationship
between the romantic disappointment, beliefs and consequences is thus reciprocal rather than
causal. When individuals do not experience activating events in a way that is congruent with
their belief systems (B), they may react with irrational beliefs (lB's). Rather than saying 'It is
unfortunate it is too bad,' they may say, 'I ought to have, I must, I have to, have my goals
fulfilled.' It is these beliefs that contribute to emotional disturbance (Sharf, 2008, p. 305).

A romantic disappointment is an adverse activating event according to REBT as it inhibited

the goals and desires of the 5 participants and resulted in discomfort (Ellis, 1996). Two
resulting REBT conditions can apply in this instance: Rational beliefs in response to the
unpleasant activating event of a romantic disappointment, or irrational beliefs in response to
the unpleasant activating event of a romantic disappointment. These two conditions do not
have to function exclusively of one another. This was displayed by the five cases which each
fulfilled both conditions. Functional and dysfunctional consequences are also not a unitary
model (David et al., 2005). This too was demonstrated by the 5 participants who each
experienced both functional and dysfunctional consequences. The SGABS (Lindner et aI.,
1999) quantitative measure was used to compare the participants' irrationality and rationality
about multi-dimensional aspects to their irrationality and rationality about the specific event
of a romantic disappointment. The results show that a romantic disappointment elicited
greater overall irrationality than multi-dimensional aspects. This is consistent with REBT
theory which states that the experience of a stressful life event puts the individual at greater
risk of irrational thinking and subsequent dysfunctional consequences (Boelen et al., 2004).
Many theoretical propositions have emerged from the results and discussion thereof. The core
propositions are discussed in the concluding chapter that follows.
 86

Chapter Six

Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The first research question aimed at the description of the phenomenon of being on the
receiving end of a rejection or betrayal ina romantic relationship. Two cases illustrated a
romantic rejection and three illustrated a romantic betrayal. Loss of commitment as a
characteristic of love (Sternberg, 1986) was illustrated by all cases and the occurance of a
romantic rejection or betrayal exerted distressing outcomes. The five cases of this study
experienced the deterioration stage of a relationship. In the romantic rejection cases,
interpersonal loss dynamics (Aron et aI., 2006) following partner-initiated break-ups resulted
in depressive reactions which often involve global, catastrophic negative beliefs about
oneself, the future and the world that underlie depression (Ayduk et aI., 200 I). The two cases
of romantic rejection led to depressive reactions; specifically, one case indicated negative
beliefs about the self, and the other negative beliefs about others. However, none of the
rejection cases reflected negative beliefs about the future and instead expressed hope. The
cases of betrayals indicated that partners had violated implicitly or explicitly defined norms
of sexual (and perhaps emotional) exclusivity within the relationship. Hope found in rejection
was not found in the betrayal cases. Other than the isolated category of hope that
differentiates between the romantic rejections and betrayals in this study, romantic rejections
and betrayals appear to elicit similar patterns of psychological outcomes.

The second research question aimed for the identification and description of the REST
beliefs about a romantic disappointment as an activating event. Instances of all of Ellis'
(1996) theorized REBT beliefs were illustrated by the participants in differing combinations.
Each participant indicated both irrational and rational beliefs about a romantic
disappointment, but each participant displayed more irrationality than rationality about the
romantic disappointment. The participants all showed low frustration tolerance, dogmatic
demands, awfulizing and exaggerated demands about the romantic disappointment, as viewed
through the REBT framework (Sharf, 2008), but they did not view their beliefs as irrational.
One case showed all six categories of irrationality. Regarding rationality, none of the cases
indicated all five categories of rationality.
 87

The third research question aimed at obtaining a quantitative assessment of each case's
general non event-related (multi-dimensional aspects) REBT beliefs using the SGABS
(Lindner et al., 1999). Four cases scored higher on multi-dimensional total rationality than
irrationality whereas one case scored lower on rationality than irrationality. A comparison of
the SGABS scores with the beliefs demonstrated about the romantic disappointment indicates
that the romantic disappointments elicited greater overall irrationality than multi-dimensional
aspects. This indicates that, for the participants, the experience of a romantic disappo~ntment

increased overall irrational thinking.

The final research question sought to elicit REBT consequences/ outcomes of a romantic
rejection or betrayal. Even though all participants reported functional negative emotions and
functional negative behaviours, they were found to show more dysfunctional negative
emotions and behaviours than those that are functional. Although all the cases indicated high
distress levels about the romantic disappointment, only two cases fulfilled the binary model
of distress condition (David et aI., 2005).

Given the above four research questions, the following theoretical propositions about
romantic disappointments have emerged:

• Romantic disappointments are most associated with the need for comfort category of
irrational beliefs.
• Romantic rejections are associated with hope whereas romantic betrayals are not.
• Romantic disappointments are associated with a greater extent of dysfunctional than
functional outcomes.
• The greater the number of different irrational belief categories indicated about a romantic
disappointment, the greater the number of different categories of dysfunctional
consequences are displayed.
• Romantic disappointments do not increase demand for fairness and other downing
irrational beliefs; they are equally reflected about other multi-dimensional aspects.
• Self-downing beliefs, other downing beliefs, and absence of hope about romantic
disappointments indicate high risk for depressive reactions.
• Romantic disappointments are most associated with the dysfunctional self-defeating
behaviours category of outcomes.
• The experience ofa romantic disappointment increases overall irrationality.
 88

6.2 Implications for clinical practice

The findings show that REBT is a relevant and useful framework for assessing psychological
cognitions, emotions and behaviours about a romantic disappointment. The A-B-C model, in
particular, is implicated as a useful and accessible tool for assessing and planning therapeutic
treatment for an adverse activating event, with the example of a romantic disappointment.
The findings indicated that a specific event can elicit different beliefs compared to those held
about general unspecified aspects. Although rejection and betrayal are described as different
events in literature which occur with different severities, they appear to elicit similar
psychological outcomes. Therefore romantic disappointment cases can be expected to present
similarly in the therapeutic setting in terms of the general patterns of irrationality and
rationality. Positive hopes in particular, however, appear lacking as a functional belief in
betrayals and may need to be encouraged in cases of betrayal than in cases of rejection.

This study has shown that both types (functional and dysfunctional) of outcomes are
experienced in a high distress romantic disappointment. The implication is that the REBT
therapist should assess not only the expected dysfunctional outcomes, but also the functional
outcomes. This will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of an individual's
cognitions and beliefs patterns. The high irrationality displayed about romantic
disappointments suggests that REBT is a theoretically sound and applicable theoretical
framework. REBT is a confrontative cognitive therapy that seeks to identify and dispute
dysfunctional irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1987). Because beliefs are easier to change than the
occurrence of a romantic disappointment, they are primarily the focus of change implemented
by the therapist (Ellis, 1996). It is not certain, however, whether these findings will also apply
clinically to other demographics, for example male clients, which is different to the female
demographic found in this study.

6.3 Evaluation of the study

This study is evaluated according to the strengths of the study, the possible limitations or
shortcomings, and the research quality.

6.3.1 Strengths of the study

The topic of this study inherently seeked an in-depth inquiry about an individual's beliefs.
The smaller participant sample enabled a thorough investigation of these multi-dimensional
 89

and internal aspects of an individual's subjective experience, cognitions, emotions and

behaviours. Thus a strength of this study is depth, enabled by the smaller sample size.

The multiple data collection methods used in the methodology enabled the use of both
interpretative (semi-structured 45-60 minute interview) and objective quantitative (SGABS)
tools. This added to the ability to corroborate evidence and results obtained from one source
with the results obtained from another.

The positivistic research design required the researcher to make her theoretical bias explicit at
the onset of the inquiry which followed through into the analysis and discussion phases. The
explicit REBT theoretical framework guided the data collection, analysis and discussion
phases enabling transparency in the methodological process.

Extensive literature on romantic relationships, rejection, betrayal and REBT theory exists in
scientific psychological literature. The aim of this study was thus not to contribute to a new
field of literature, but to build valuably onto extant literature through a tailored 7-step
methodology process structured to enable theory-building. The study's innovation lies in
successfully bringing together two separate fields of interest in psychological science within
the same study.

6.3.2 Limitations of the study

This study did not have the goal of focussing on any particular participant demographics. The
selection criteria did not specify demographic requirements. Participation was voluntary; the
outcome of willing participants were all of the same gender (female). The results of the study
may thus be biased to a female gender. The outcome of the participants' gender occurred
despite the researcher having approached both male and female candidates. The greater
willingness of female candidates to participate as compared to the reluctance of male
candidates may be indicative of a link between gender and romantic relationships/
disappointments which was at play during participant selection. The current study did not
explore this.

The positivistic case study research design required that the researcher remain 'outside' of the
phenomenon being studied. However, the gender of the researcher is the same as the
participants' and this may have affected the objectivity of the data collection and analysis.
 90

The high-structure methodology process and explicit theoretical framework, however, aimed
to disable any gender bias.

There are various theoretical concepts mentioned in this study's literature review which have
been found to affect the variables under study, such as rejection sensitivity and depression.
Although this study acknowledges their theoretical relevance, these factors were not
controlled for during the investigation and may have skewed the results.

6.3.3 Quality of the study

The methodological framework (Table 4.1)· used built-in tactics to ensure that the study
fulfills all the logical tests of quality. An extensive discussion on how this study successfully
achieved construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability is presented in
section 4.6. Each test of quality was established through specific tactics and strategies
implemented at various points ofthe study to ensure quality of research design.

6.4 Recommendations for future research

This study undertook an in-depth inquiry into the REBT beliefs about a romantic rejection or
betrayal as the phenomenon of interest. Further research is recommended that can add value
to existing theory on relationship science. Further studies can also contribute to the
application of REBT principles in clinical practice. Some suggestions based on this study's
findings are as follows:

The current study did not focus on the experience of disappointment within a particular type
of romantic relationship. Further studies can direct their focus on the belief systems of
individuals who experience distressing disappointment in a specific variety of relationship,
for example, same sex relationships or married partnerships. The findings of these studies
will have valuable implications for the clinical setting. A focus on one specific group of
participants may be of similar value. The findings of such studies can provide insight into
how the different beliefs intersect with different demographic characteristics such as race,
gender or age.

Depression is mentioned as a common outcome for dysfunctional beliefs (Beck, 1995; Ellis,
1991, 1996). A study that aims to assess for depression in addition to beliefs may add
valuable insight into the interrelation dynamics between beliefs and their outcomes.
 91

The study's research questions can be addressed from a developmental perspective. Such a
study would have the focus of how individuals experience a romantic disappointment at
different stages across the lifespan; the associated beliefs and outcomes of the experience at
different developmental phases could be explored. Such a study could be of a longitudinal or
cross-sectional design depending on auxiliary research aims.

Finally, a recommended further study would be one that undertakes therapeutic research. The
current study's focus is on the theory of the REBT A-B-C assessment model; clinical
research that undertakes the A-B-C-D-E model of psychotherapy can go a step further to
implement and investigate the efficacy of the REBT A-B-C-D-E model in the treatment of
negative outcomes from the experience of a romantic disappointment. The A-B-C-D-E model
would be therapeutically implemented to identify and change an individual's dysfunctional
beliefs held about the experience ofa romantic disappointment.

6.5 Final commentary

Unfortunately there is a powerful stigma of helplessness associated with the experience of a

romantic rejection or betrayal. This study has shown how REBT theory and practice offer
effective tools and awareness which are necessary to avoid or overcome negative
consequences such as feelings of helplessness, which stem from the high irrationality elicited
by romantic disappointments. It is such irrationality that has led to popular (and misguided)
terms such as 'heartbreak', which unfortunately convey additional helplessness about
romantic disappointments. Instead, the clinical practitioner and client seeking therapy might
view the adverse experience with transcendence that is warranted. The title of this study
could have followed suit with popular love songs and tabloid headlines by being "A case
study of romantic tragedy/ heartbreak! catastrophe/ disaster/ despair/ heartache", this would
be irrational. Instead, in accordance with REBT principles, the title appropriately states: "A

\
case study of romantic disappointment"; this is rational and shows hope.
 92

References

Amodeo, M., Griffin, M. L., Fassler, I., Clay, c., & Ellis, M. A. (2007). Coping with stressful
events: Influence of parental alcoholism and race in a community sample of women. Health
and Social Work, 32(4),247-258.

Arnkoff, D. B. (1981). Flexibility in practicing cognitive therapy. In G. Emery, S. D. Hollon,

& R. C. Bedrosian (Eds.), New directions in cognitive therapy (pp. 203-223). New York:
Guilford Press.

Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Strong, G. (2006). Romantic love. In A. L. Vangelisti, & D.
Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 595-614). New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Ayduk, 0., Downey, G., & Minji, K. (2001). Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms
in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 868-877.

Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2004). Social psychology (loth ed.). New York: Pearson Allyn
and Bacon.

Beck, A. T. (1964). Thinking and depression. Psychiatric Research Laboratories, J0, 56-571.

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy ofdepression.
New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, 1. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.

Benokraitis, N. V. (2004). Marriages and families. Changes, choices and constraints o"
ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Bernard, M. E., & Joyce, M. R. (1984). Rational emotive behaviour therapy with children
and adolescents. New York: Wiley.

Berscheid, E. (2004). The greening of relationship science. In H. T. Reis, & C. E. Rusbult

(Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 25-34). New York: Psychology Press.

Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H. H.

Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger et al. (Eds.),
Close relationships (pp. I-19). New York: W. H. Freeman.
 93

Boelen, P. A., Kip, H. J., Voorsluijs, J. J., & van den Bout, J. (2004). Irrational beliefs and
basic assumptions in bereaved university students: A comparison study. Journal 0/ Rational-
Emotive and Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 22(2), 111-122.

Bond, F. W., & Dryden, W. (1997). Testing a REBT theory: The effects of rational beliefs,
irrational beliefs and their control or certainty contents on the functionality of inference: in a
social context. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(4),459-476.

Borcherdt, B. (1996). Head over heart: 25 guides to rational passion. Sarasota, FL:
Professional Resource Press.

Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S. (1979). Improving "interview method and questionnaire
design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: The
case of sociotropy-dependency and autonomy self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118,
358-378.

Craib, I. (1994). The importance 0/ disappointment. London: Routledge.

Cramer, D. (2005). Effect of four aspects of rational statements on expected satisfaction with
a close relationship. British Journal ofGuidance and Counselling, 33(2),229-238.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

David, D. (2003). Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT); The view of a cognitive

psychologist. In W. Dryden (Ed.), Theoretical developments in REBT. London:
BrunnerlRoutledge.

David, D., Montgomery, G. H., Macavei, B., & Bovbjerg, D. H. (2005). An empirical
investigation of Albert Ellis's binary model of distress. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 61(4),
499-516.

Davies, B. (2000). Affairs ofthe heart. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Davies, M. (2006). Irrational beliefs and unconditional self-acceptance. I. Correlational

evidence linking two key features ofREBT. Journal ofRational-Emotive and Cognitive-
Behaviour Therapy, 24(2), 113-124.
 94

De Vaus, D. (Ed.). (2006). Research design volume (Vol. III). London: Sage.

Diaz Andrade, A. (2009). Interpretive research aiming at theory building: Adopting and
adapting the case study design. The Qualitative Report, 14(1), 42-60. Retrieved April 18,
2009, from htlp://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QRI4-l/diaz-andrade.pdf

Dobson, K. S., & Dozois, D. J. (2003). Historical and philosophical bases of the cognitive-
behavioural therapies. In K. S. Dobson (Ed.), Handbook ofCognitive-Behavioural Therapies
(pp. 3-39). New York: Guilford Press.

Douvan, E. (1977). Interpersonal relationships: Some questions and observations. In G.

Levinger, & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships {pp, 17-32). Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.

Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, 8., & Khouri, H. (2004). The self-fulfilling prophecy
in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. In H. T. Reis,
& C. E. Rusbult, Close relationships (pp. 435-455). New York: Psychology Press.

Dragon, W., & Duck, S. (2005). Understanding research in personal relationships. London:
Sage.

Edwards, D. J. (1998). Types of case study work: A conceptual framework for case-based
research. The Journal ofHumanistic Psychology, 38(3), 34-69.

Edwards, J. A. (1991). Duquesne phenomenological research method as a special class of

case study research method. In K. Van Vuuren, & A. Van Vuuren (Eds.), Vinwent Beyond
Polemics (pp. 53-70). Pretoria: HSRC.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4),532-550.

Ellis, A. (1987). Rational-Emotive Therapy: Current appraisal and future directions. Journal
ofCognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 1(2), 73-86.

Ellis, A. (1991). The revised ABC's of Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET). Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 9(3), 139-172.

Ellis, A. (1996). Better, deeper and more enduring therapy: The rational emotive behaviour
therapy approach. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
 95

Ellis, A. (1999). Why Rational-Emotive Therapy to Rational Emotive-Behaviour Therapy?

Psychotherapy, 36(2), 154-159.

Epstein, N., Schlesinger, S. E., & Dryden, W. (Eds.). (1988). Cognitive-behavioural therapy
withfamilies. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards integrative models of the
negative effects of hurtful events. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 21(4),487-
508.

Fisher, H. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three primary
emotion systems for mating, reproduction and parenting. Journal of Sex Education and
Therapy, 25(1), 96-104.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,

12(2), 219-245. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/
12/2/219.pdf

Fransella, F. (Ed.). (1978). Personal construct psychology. London: Academic Press.

Gable, S. H., & Reis, H. T. (2001). Appetitive and aversive social interaction. In J. Harvey, &
A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships (pp. 169-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Gordon, K., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2005). Treating couples recovering from
infidelity: An integrative approach. Journal ofClinical Psychology. 6(1), 1393-1405.

Hendrick, C. (1989). Close relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hendrix, H. (1995). Keeping the love you find: A single person's guide to achieving lasting
love. London: Simon and Schuster UK.

Hinds, D. (2000). Research instruments. In D. Wilkinson, & D. Wilkinson (Eds.), The

researcher's toolkit (pp. 41-54). London: Routledge Falmer.

Hirsch, J. S., Meneses, S., Thompson, B., Negroni, M., Pelcastre, B., & del Rio, C. (2007).
Inevitability of infidelity: Sexual reputation, social geographies and marital HIV risk in rural
Mexico. American Journal ofPublic Health, 97(6), 986-996.
 96

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick, Close
relationships (pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hurst, S. A. (1999). Legacy of betrayal: A grounded theory of becoming demoralized from

the perspective of women who have been depresed. Canadian Psychology, 40(2), 179.

Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple
relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 27(2), 145-155.

Jones, R. G. (1968). A factored measure of Ellis' irrational belief system, with personality and
maladjustment correlates [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 29(11 B), 4379-
4380.

Karney, B. R., McNulty, J. K., & Frye, N. E. (2001). A social cognitive perspective on the
maintenance and deterioration of relationship satisfaction. In J. Harvey, & A. Wenzel (Eds.),
Close romantic relationships (pp. 195-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, G. A. (1991). The psychology ofpersonal constructs. London: Routledge.

Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (2000). An evolutionary perspective on human relationships.

In W. Ickes, & S. Duck, The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 9-35). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Komer, A. M. (2005). Perceptions ofbeliefs in rational emotive theory among college

students: A multi-dimensional scaling analysis. New York: Hofstra University.

Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), 1-23. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/.7/I/Art21.htmI

Levinger, G. (1977). Re-viewing the close relationship. In G. Levinger, & H. L. Raush (Eds.),
Close relationships (pp. 137-161). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Levinger, G., & Raush, H. L. (1977). Close relationships. Amherst: University of

Massachusetts Press.

Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A general theory of love. New York: Vintage
Books.
 97

Lindner, H., Kirkby, R., Wertheim, E., & Birch, P. (1999). A brief assessment of irrational
thinking: The shortened General Attitude and Beliefs Scale. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 23, 651-663.

Louw, D. A., Van Ede, D. M., & Louw, A. E. (1998). Human development (2 nd ed.). Cape
Town: Kagiso.

Marczyk, G., De Matteo, G., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and
methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &
Sons.

Meyer, W., Moore, c., & Viljoen, H. (Eds.). (2003). Personology: From individual to
rd
ecosystem (3 ed.). Johannesburg: Heinemann.

Mirgain, S. A., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Emotional skills and marital health: The association
between observed and self-reported emotion skills. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 26(9), 983-10 I O.

Murray, S. L. (2005). Regulating the risks of closeness: A relationship-specific sense of felt

security. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 74-78.

Pare, G. (2002). Enhancing the rigor of qualitative research: Application of a case

methodology to build theories of IT implementation. The Qualitative Report, 7(4). Retrieved
March 28, 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRlQR7-4/pare.html

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Radley, A., & Chamberlain, K. (2001). Health psychology and the study of the case: From
method to analytic concern. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 321-332.

Reis, H. T., & Rusbult, C. E. (2004). Close relationships. New York: Psychology Press.
 98

Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and
relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. Harvey, & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic
relationships (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rusbult, C., & Arriaga, X. B. (2000). Interdependence in personal relationships. In W. Ickes,

& S. Duck, The social psychology ofpersonal relationships (pp. 79-108). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Safer, M. A., Breslin, C. W., & Boesch, R. P. (2007). Long-term memory for the emotional
gist and the emotional essence of an experience. Memory, 15(8), 861-872.

Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine
own self he sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp~ 209-269). New York:
Academic Press.

Sharf, R. S. (2008). Theories ofpsychotherapy and counselling: Concepts and cases (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders' perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 61(4),287-301.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art ofcase study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The
Sage handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

Stewart, C. J., & Cash, W. B. (2006). Interviewing principles and practices (11 th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Still, A. (2001). Marginalisation is not unbearable. Is it even undesirable? Journal of

Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 19, 55-66.

Stroh, M. (2000). Qualitative interviewing. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research training for social
scientists (pp. 196-214). London: Sage.
 99

Whisman, M. A., & Pittman, W. T. (2005). Assessing relationship betrayals. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1383-1391.

Wilcox, W. B., & Nock, S. L. (2006). What's love got to do with it? Equality, equity,
commitment and women's marital quality. Social Forces, 84(3), 1321-1346.

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Berkshire: Open

University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

rd
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (2000). A process model of adult attachment formation. In W.
Ickes, & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology ofpersonal relationships (pp. 37-54). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
 100

Appendix A: Conceptual Framework

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic

Disappointment

Self-downing

Need for achievement

Need for approval

Need for comfort

Demand for fairness Consequences/ Outcomes

Other downing ..... Functional negative emotions

and functional behaviours
Ilo
........
Dysfunctional negative
,. emotions and dysfunctional
behaviours
Rationality about the Romantic
Disappointment

Preferences

Hopes

Wishes

And/ also responses

Yes/ but responses

 101

Appendix B: Interview Schedule

Case #: Interview #: Date: - -/- -/- - Time: - - - AM PM

Age: _ Gender: - - - - Race:- - - - - Marital Status: - - - - - - -

Introducti on

Purpose ofthe meeting: To learn more about an individual's experience ofa significant
romantic rejection or betrayal in terms of what they thought about the event, what they felt
about it, and what the outcomes ofthe experience were.

a. You have experienced what you consider a significant romantic (rejection or betrayal)
by a partner within a romantic relationship?

b. This was sometime in the past twelve months?

c. And the experience was contrary to your wishes, in other words was it a
disappointment?

d. Did you experience rejection or a betrayal specifically?

IRRATIONAL BELIEFS

Thoughts andfeelings about the event:

I. In terms of the actual event, please tell me what happened exactly?

II. What are your thoughts about romantic (rejections! betrayals) like the one you
experienced?

prompt: currently and generally speaking.

III. What were you thinking at the time that the event occurred in your own life?

prompt: what went through your mind at the time.

IV. (Consequence) How did youftel about the event after it occurred?

prompt: what emotions didyou experience about the (rejection! betrayal).

Thoughts andfeelings about the self

 102

V. What did you think about yourself in terms of what happened?

prompt: what went through your mind about yourself

VI. (Consequence) And how did these thoughts make you feel about yourself after you
were (rejected/ betrayed)?

prompt: what emotions did you experience towards yourself? How did you feel about
yourself?

Thoughts andfeelings about the other:

VII. What did you think of the (man/ woman) that (rejected/ betrayed) you?

prompt: what went through your mind about (him/ her) at the time?

VIII. (Consequence) What were your feelings towards (him/ her) after the (rejection/
betrayal)?

RATIONALITY

IX. In retrospect, how do you view the whole experience of your romantic
disappointment?

prompt: please elaborate on any of your thoughts or feelings that may have changed or
remained the same since the experience.

ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCES

X. What did you do after the actual event happened? In other words, how did you react?

prompt: what didyou say to him?

what did you say to others about the event?

what did you do, or what actions didyou take, ifany, after the event?
in what way did things change for you after your disappointing experience?

what didyou do with yourselfandyour life immediately after as well as after some time went
by after the experience?
 103

Appendix C: Shortened General Attitude and Belief Scale (SGABS)

Lindner, Kirkby, Wertheim, and Birch (1999)

(The GABS was developed through a series of investigations by Burgess, 1986; DiGiuseppe

et al., 1988; Bernard, 1990)

Name: _

Here are a set of statements which describe what some people think and believe. Read each
statement carefully and decide how much you agree or disagree with it.

If you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement circle number. . . . . . . . . . 5

If you AGREE. 4
If you are NEU'fRAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
If you DISAGREE '.. . . . . . . . 2
If you STRONGLY DISAGREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

There are no right or wrong answers. Only you can tell what you really believe so please
mark the way you really think. Circle the number which shows your agreement or
disagreement with each statement. Please try to answer each question.

Example: Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

People should never

break a promise 1 2 3 4 5

The person has shown that he/she agrees with the statement by circling number 4. If the
person had strongly agreed with the statement he/she would have circled number 5.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

1. It's unbearable to fail at important things,

and can't stand not succeeding at them.
1 2 3 4 5

2. I can't stand a lack of consideration from other people,

and I can't bear the possibility of their unfairness.
1 2 3 4 5
 104

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

3. It's unbearable being uncomfortable, tense

or nervous and I can't stand it when I am.
1 2 3 4 5

4. I have worth as a person even if I do not perform

well at tasks that are important to me.
I 2 3 4 5

5.1 can't stand being tense or nervous and lthink

tension is unbearable.
1 2 3 4 5

6.1t's awful to be disliked by people who are important to me,

and it is a catastrophe if they don't like me.
I 2 3 4 5

7.1f important people dislike me, it is because I am

an unlikable bad person.
1 2 3 4 5

8.When I am treated inconsiderately, I think it shows what

kind of bad and hopeless people there are in the world.
1 2 3 4 5

9.IfI am rejected by someone I like, I can accept myself

and still recognize my worth as a human being.
1 2 3 4 5

to.IfI do not perform well at tasks that are so important to

me, it is because I am a worthless bad person.
1 2 3 4 5

11.It's awful to do poorly at some important things, and I

think it is a catastrophe ifI do poorly.
1 2 3 4 5

12.1think it is terribly bad when people treat me with

disrespect.
1 2 3 4 5

13.When people I like reject me or dislike me, it is

because I am a bad or worthless person.
1 2 3 4 5
105
 106

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

25.When people who I want to like me, disapprove of me

or reject me, I can't bear their disliking me.
I 2 3 4 5

26.If people treat me without respect, it goes to show how

bad they really are.
I 2 3 4 5

PLEASE CHECK THAT ALL QUESTIONS HAVE

BEEN ANSWERED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
 107

Appendix D: SGABS Scoring

SHORTENED GENERAL ATTITUDE AND BELIEF SCALE

SCORING OF THE SGABS

Subscales Sum of questions

1. Rationality 4,9,19,24

2. Self-downing 7,10,13,22

3. Need for achievement 1,11,18,20

4. Need for approval 6,23,25

5. Need for comfort 3,5,17,16

6. Demand for fairness 2,12,14,21

7. Other downing 8,15,26

Total Irrationality Sum of subscales 2-7

 108

Appendix E: Coding Scheme

IRRATIONAL BELIEFS ABOUT THE ROMANTIC DISAPPOINTMENT

Self-downing (SD)

A segment which presents evidence of globally rating oneself and sense of self-worth
negatively.

Need for Achievement (NAC)

r
A segment which reflects low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds,
absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated! or absolutistic demands
with regards to the participant's need to be competent, adequate and achieving in order to be
worthwhile.

Need for Approval (NAP)

A segment which reflects low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds,
absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated! or absolutistic demands
with regards to the participant's need to be loved.

Need for Comfort (NC)

A segment which reflects low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds,
absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated and absolutistic demands
with regards to the participant's need to be free of hassles, discomfort or tension in their
lives.

Demand for Fairness (DF)

A segment which reflects low frustration tolerance, dogmatic demands (musts, shoulds,
absolutes), awfulizing (it is terrible, horrible, awful), exaggerated and absolutistic demands
with regards to the participant's need to be treated with respect and for consideration from
others.

Other Downing (OD)

A segment which presents evidence of globally rating others and their worth negatively.
 109

RATIONALITY ABOUT THE ROMANTIC DISAPPOINTMENT

Preferences (PR)

A segment which describes non-dogmatic preferences which are efficient, flexible, logical
and scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve one's
values and goals.

Hopes (HP)

A segment which describes non-dogmatic hopes which are efficient, flexible, logical and
scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve one"s values
and goals.

Wishes (WS)

A segment which describes non-dogmatic wishes which are efficient, flexible, logical and
scientific ways of thinking about an experience or ways of attempting to achieve one's values
and goals.

And! Also Responses (AAR)

A segment which reflects a high frustration tolerance.

Yesl But Responses (YBR)

A segment which reflects a high frustration tolerance.

CONSEQUENCES/OUTCOMES

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB)

A segment which describes an outcome of functional negative emotions such as

disappointment, concern, annoyance, sadness, regret and frustration as well as appropriate
behaviours: acting efficiently and effectively in achieving goals of living happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB)

A segment which describes an outcome of dysfunctional negative emotions such as anger,

depression, anxiety, hopelessness, despair, worthlessness, shame, embarrassment, rage, hurt,
jealousy and guilt as well as inappropriate behaviours: avoidance, attacking and self-
defeating behaviours.
 110

Appendix F: Within-Case Synthesis

Amy's Rejection

Step One: Development of a case study database for the Case of Amy

• Examples ofreflective remarks gatheredfrom Amy's interview transcripts:

Excerpts of transcripts: Case ofAmy Reflective remarks

Amy: "I thought that I had pushed him too [Statements reflecting Amy dogmatically
hard and that he had backed offbecause I'm rating herself negatively.]
clingy and needy."

Amy: "Like totally blamed myself

completely."

Amy: "I've never been able to have negative [Other-downing beliefs are not evident- such
feelings towards him." statements reveal the lack of any indication
of other downing beliefs.]
Amy: "Not like anger and not like blaming
him and hating him and thinking that he's an
arsehole. Like I've just never been able to do
it."

Amy: "Yeah, it sucks, it's horrible. It's like [Dogmatic belief and no frustration tolerance
people say it's supposed to be like a learning for hassles, discomfort or tension in her life.]
process. It feels like a kick in the .r**ing
teeth. That's what itfeels like."

Amy: "I'd rather not learn that." [A stated preference of sequence of events in
her life.]

Amy: "I became a lot closer with some ofmy [Functional behaviour- reflects scientific,
girlfriends and with my family. So then it logical and efficient ways of attempting to
became better you know." achieve her goals of living happily.]

Amy: "Numb and then devastated Like I felt [Multiple dysfunctional negative emotions
like my heart had been ripped out ofmy body expressed.]
and it was like, I wanted to curl in a ball and
die. That's what Iftlt."

Amy: "And we, I drank a lot, almost every [Evidence of dysfunctional self-defeating
night ofthe week probably." behaviours.]
 111

• Codified and extracted data/rom Amy's interview transcripts using a coding scheme
and extracted sections grouped under categories (codes)

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic Disappointment:

Self-downing (SD): Amy expressed some irrational beliefs indicative of the category of the
self-downing irrational beliefs. Throughout her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions
and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of rejection, she made statements of
having globally rated herself and her sense of self-worth negatively. She particularly
expressed beliefs that she caused her experience of being rejected through her own actions
and choices.

Need for Achievement (NAC): Amy expressed some beliefs that were indicative of irrational
beliefs of the category of the need for achievement irrational beliefs. In her subjective report
of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her experience of a romantic
disappointment of betrayal, she made dogmatic statements evident of a low frustration
tolerance with regards to her need to be competent, adequate and achieving in order to be
worthwhile.

Need for Approval (NAP): Amy's report reflected some statements indicative of the category
of the need for approval irrational beliefs. This occurred during her subjective report of her
thoughts, emotions and behaviours resultant from her experience of a romantic
disappointment of rejection. Amy's statements expression showed a low frustration tolerance
with regards to her feelings of being unlovable.

Need for Comfort (Ne): Amy expressed some irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
the need for comfort irrational beliefs in her subjective report. This was evident through
statements reflecting no tolerance for hassles, discomfort or tension in her life. Low
frustration tolerance was evident through dogmatic beliefs about being inconvenienced and
made to feel emotional discomfort by the other.

Demand for Fairness (DF): Amy expressed many beliefs indicative of the irrational beliefs
category of the demand for fairness in her subjective report of a romantic disappointment.
This was evident in her lack of tolerance for being treated unfairly by the other or receiving
inadequate consideration from others. This was her predominant category of irrational beliefs
that she expressed about her experience ofa romantic rejection.
 112

Other Downing (OD): Amy did not express any irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
other downing beliefs. In her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours
concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made no global statements where
she rated the other or his sense of worth negatively.

Rationality about the Romantic Disappointment:

Preferences (PR): Amy expressed statements and beliefs reflecting rationality through non-
dogmatic preferences as attempts to achieve her values and goals. Efficient, flexible, logical
and scientific ways of thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of
rejection in the form of preferences were evident. This type of rationality was displayed
through expressions about how she would have preferred the other and herself behaved in the
situation.

Hopes (HPJ: Amy expressed rational beliefs indicative of non-dogmatic hopes in her
subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic
disappointment of rejection. These were reflected through efficient, flexible, logical and
scientific ways of thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of rejection in
the form of hopes, which were expressed in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

Wishes (WS): Amy expressed rationality indicative of non-dogmatic wishes as attempts to

achieve her values and goals. Efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about
her experience of a romantic disappointment of rejection in the form of wishes were
expressed in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

And! Also Responses (AAR): Amy expressed a rational belief indicative of a high frustration
tolerance reflected in and! also responses about her subjective report of her thoughts,
emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of rejection where she
considered two polar outcomes of a situation within the same statement.

Yes! But Responses (YBR): Amy did not express any statements of rationality indicative of a
high frustration tolerance reflected through yes! but responses about her subjective report of
her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of rejection.

Consequences/ Outcomes ofBeliefs:

 113

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB): Amy described multiple
outcomes of functional negative emotions and functional behaviours in her subjective report
of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of
betrayal. Functional negative emotions were evident in expressions of experiencing feelings
of sadness, frustration and regret. Amy reported some functional behaviours such as investing
in other close relationships and trying to work through her emotions through journal writing.
These functional emotions and behaviours evident in Amy's report were indicative of acting
logically and effectively in order to achieve her goals ofliving happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB): Amy described

various and multiple outcomes of dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional
behaviours in her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her
romantic disappointment of rejection. Dysfunctional negative emotions were evident in
multiple expressions of despair, heartbreak and anger towards herself. Dysfunctional
behaviours were evident in Amy's report where multiple avoidant behaviours were relayed
such as withdrawing from her mother. Self-defeating behaviours of frequent binge-drinking
episodes were relayed by Amy as attempts to avoid the negative emotions she was
experiencing from her romantic disappointment.

• Descriptive statistical analyses ofSGABS data

SGABS subscale results: Amy's general quantitative assessment of REBT beliefs

independent of a specific activating event:

Total irrationality 63%

Self-downing 25%
Need for achievement 85%
Need for approval 66%
Need for comfort 85%
Demand for fairness 80%
Other-downing 33%
Rationality 80%
 114

Step Two: Development of a logical chain of evidence for the Case of Amy

Evaluation ofirrational beliefs about Amy's romantic disappointment (rejection):

PerronD. a qualitative assessment: Amy's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects many Self Downing beliefs, some Need for
Achievement beliefs, some Need for Approval beliefs, many Need for Comfort-beliefs and
many Demand for Fairness beliefs. Her most predominantly expressed irrational beliefs were
those of the category of Demand for Fairness beliefs. There were no expressions. of Other
Downing beliefs indicated in Amy's subjective report about her romantic rejection.

PerronD. a quantitative assessment: Amy's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored moderately (63%) on overall and general (non-event specific) irrationality. With
regards to the individual irrational beliefs categories, Amy's scores, in descending order,
were as follows: The highest scores were equally found on the Need for Comfort (85%) and
Need for Achievement beliefs (85%); second was the category of Demand for Fairness
(80%), third was the category of Need for Approval (66%), fourth was the category of Other
Downing (33%), and the lowest score was on the category of Self-Downing (25%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Amy's moderate score of her SGABS general irrationality is
inconsistent with her high expression of irrationality about her romantic disappointment
(interview). Amy's many Demand for Fairness and Need for Comfort categories of irrational
beliefs expressed about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment in the interview
are consistent with her high SGABS quantitative general (non-event specific) beliefs
assessment scores obtained in the same categories. The Need for Achievement, Need for
Approval and Other Downing categories about the specific experience of a romantic
disappointment, were moderately consistent with the SGABS quantitative general beliefs
assessment scores obtained in the same categories. The event-specific Self-Downing beliefs
about the romantic disappointment expressed in the interview are inconsistent with the
quantitative general (non-event specific) beliefs assessment score obtained in the same
category on the SGABS.
 115

Evaluation ofrationalityabout Amy's romantic disappointment (rejection):

Perform a qualitative assessment: Amy's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects Preferences, some Hopes, some Wishes, and
a And! Also response. No rationality indicating Yes/ But responses was expressed.

Perform a quantitative assessment: Amy's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored high on overall and general (non-event specific) rationality (80%).

Verify consistency between qualitative "and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Amy's high SGABS quantitative score of her general (non-event
specific) and overall rationality is inconsistent with her moderate expression of rationality in
the interview about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment.

Evaluation of Amy's consequences/ outcomes of REBT beliefs from the romantic

disappointment (rejection):

Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Amy's subjective report (interview) about her
romantic disappointment reflects a moderate extent of Functional Negative Emotions and
Functional Behaviours.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Amy's subjective report (interview) about
her romantic disappointment reflects many Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours ofan avoidant and self-defeating nature.

Comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences! outcomes: Amy's

subjective report (interview) reflects more Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours than those that were Functional.

Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rationality and

consequences!outcomes:

Amy expressed more irrational beliefs than rational beliefs about her romantic
disappointment, and subsequently reported greater dysfunctional negative emotions and
behaviours as outcomes of her romantic disappointment. Amy's general non-event related
rationality was assessed to be higher than her general non-event related irrationality.
 116

Lerato's Betrayal

Step One: Development of a case study database for the Case of Lerato

• Examples ofreflective remarks gatheredfrom Lerato's interview transcripts:

Excerpts of transcripts: Case ofLerato Reflective remarks

Lerato: "How could he do that to me? I [Statement reflecting irrational beliefs about
didn't ask for it- I really didn't ask for it- a dogmatic demand for fairness.]
were my thoughts. I didn't deserve that
treatment from him. I didn't deserve him
lying to me that way."

Lerato: "I thought he was a terrible, terrible [Negative global rating of the other = Other
person .... He was a coward and he was a downing statements.]
selfish bastard He really was."

Lerato: "Why didn't he instead say to me: [preference of how Lerato would have
Listen I'm not as interested or I'm not - you preferred for him to declare their relationship
know - this isn't exclusive between us. I like as non-exclusive between, shows flexibility
you but this isn't exclusive. " in her thinking.]

Lerato: "Yes the situation still makes me sad- [A yes! but response reflecting rationality.]
as you know what happened, but I'm not
depressed in myself. "

Lerato: "So I felt a lot ofregret. That's just to [Regret is indicated as a functional negative
explain the feeling of regret and the emotion.]
accompanying thoughts."

Lerato: "So I didn't actually confront him [Lerato's attempts to avoid the other as well
immediately. I actually pretended as if as the situation = avoidance IS a
nothing had happened because I felt so dysfunctional behaviour.]
stripped ofmyself."

Lerato: "I felt so angry. So hurt. I mean I [Feeling anger and depression versus feeling
keep saying this, but I couldn't believe it. And sad is indicative of dysfunctional negative
I just felt angry. I felt completely - sad is not emotions.]
the word Ifelt depressed andjust shaken."
 117

• Codified and extracted data from Lerata's interview transcripts using a coding scheme
and extracted sections grouped under categories (codes)

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic Disappointment:

Self-downing fSD): Lerato did not express any irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
the self-downing irrational beliefs. Throughout her subjective report concerning betrayal, she
made no statements of having globally rated herself or her sense of self-worth negatively.

Need for Achievement (NAC): Lerato did not express any irrational beliefs indicative of the
category of the need for achievement irrational beliefs. She made no dogmatic statements
evident of a low frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be competent, adequate and
achieving in order to be worthwhile.

Need for Approval (NAP): Lerato expressed an irrational belief indicative of the category of
the need for approval irrational beliefs. Lerato made a statement indicative of a low
frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be loved. She expressed that she felt unloved
and unwanted, which she was unable to tolerate or accept. Lerato did not show additional
evidence of this category of irrational beliefs.

Need for Comfort (Ne): Lerato expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
the need for comfort irrational beliefs. This occurred at multiple points in her subjective
report. This was evident through, for example, exaggerated beliefs about the need to be free
of hassles, discomfort or tension in her life. Low frustration tolerance was evident through,
for example, awfulizing statements and dogmatic beliefs about having been made to feel
discomfort both emotionally and behaviourally.

Demand for Fairness (DF): Lerato expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the
category of the demand for fairness beliefs. These were expressed most frequently in relation
to herself through a low frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be treated fairly,
respectfully and to receive consideration from the other. This irrational belief was frequently
expressed in her subjective report about betrayal: Lerato often stated dogmatically that she
did not deserve what happened to her (the romantic disappointment) and that this was
intolerable for her.
 118

Other Downing (OD): Lerato expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
other downing beliefs. Throughout her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and
behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made frequent
statements where she globally rated the other and his sense of worth negatively. This was
evident through negative name-calling of the other at various and multiple points throughout
her report. Further negative descriptions of the other, absolutistic and awfulizing beliefs about
the other were expressed. This was Lerato' s predominant category of expressed irrational
beliefs.

Rationality about the Romantic Disappointment:

Preferences (PR): Lerato expressed many rational 'Statements evident of non-dogmatic

preferences which were efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about her
experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal. Lerato expressed preferences of how
she would have liked events to have progressed for her in contrast to how they did occur.
Lerato's thinking reflected some logical processing of her experience of the romantic
disappointment where she considered alternative explanations and outcomes of her emotions
and behaviours in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

Hopes (HP): Lerato did not express rationality indicative of non-dogmatic hopes throughout
her subjective report of thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her betrayal. No
efficient, flexible, logical or scientific hopes as attempts to achieve her values and goals were
stated.

Wishes (8): Lerato expressed many rational statements indicative of efficient, flexible,
logical and scientific wishes in thinking about her experience ofa romantic disappointment of
betrayal, for example, Lerato described thoughts where she wished that negative events of her
romantic disappointment could have turned out differently and positively.

And! Also Responses (AAR): Lerato did not express any rationality indicative of a high
frustration tolerance reflected in and! also responses about her subjective report of her
thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal.

Yes! But Responses (fBR): Lerato expressed rationality indicative of a high frustration
tolerance reflected through yes! but responses. She expressed statements where two
contrasting thoughts! beliefs were compared within the same statement.
 119

Consequences/ Outcomes ofBeliefs:

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB): Lerato described many
outcomes of functional negative emotions and functional behaviours in her subjective report.
Functional negative emotions were evident in expressions of feeling disappointment, sadness
and most prevalent, regret. Lerato reported functional behaviours such as commencing
psychotherapy to work through her loss. The functional emotions and behaviours evident in
Lerato's report were indicative of acting efficiently and effectively in achieving goals of
living happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB): Lerato described

many outcomes of dysfunctional negative emotions' and dysfunctional behaviours in her
subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours about her romantic betrayal.
Dysfunctional negative emotions were evident in multiple expressions of predominantly
anger and hurt, along with depression and despair. Dysfunctional behaviours were evident in
Lerato's report of avoidant and self-defeating behaviours such as beginning to smoke again
after having quit 18 months before the relationship started, intentionally avoiding anybody
who reminded her ofthe other as well as failing to attend her university lectures.

• Descriptive statisticalanalyses ofSGABS data

SGABS subscale results: Lerato's general quantitative assessment of REBT beliefs

independent ofa specific activating event:

Total irrationality 74%

Self-downing 20%
Need for achievement 100%
Need for approval 86%
Need for comfort 60%
Demand for fairness 90%
Other-downing 1000,10
Rationality 55%
 120

Step Two: Development of a logical chain of evidence for the Case of Lerato

Evaluation ofirrational beliefs about Lerato's romantic disappointment (betrayal):

Perfonn a qualitative assessment: Lerato's subjective report about her specific experience of
a romantic disappointment reflects a Need for Approval belief, many Need for Comfort
beliefs, many Demand for Fairness beliefs and many Other Downing beliefs. Her most
predominantly expressed irrational beliefs were those of the category of Other Downing
beliefs. There were no expressions of Self-Downing beliefs or Need for Achievement beliefs
indicated in Lerato's subjective report about her romantic rejection.

Perfonn a quantitative assessment: Lerato's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored high (74%) on overall and general (non-event specific) irrationality. With regards to
the individual irrational beliefs categories, Lerato's scores, in descending order, were as
follows: The highest scores were found on the Need for Achievement (100%) and Other
Downing (100%) beliefs; second was the category of Demand for Fairness (90%), third was
the category of Need for Approval (86%), and fourth were the Need for Comfort (60%)
beliefs. The lowest score was found on the category of Self-Downing (20%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Lerato's high score of her SGABS general irrationality is
consistent with her high expression of irrationality about her romantic disappointment
(interview). Lerato's many Other Downing, Demand for Fairness and Need for Achievement
categories of irrational beliefs expressed about her specific experience of a romantic
disappointment are consistent with the three highest SGABS quantitative general (non-event
specific) beliefs assessment scores obtained in the same categories. The Self-Downing beliefs
which were not detected in her subjective report (interview) about the specific experience of a
romantic disappointment were consistent with the lowest score obtained on the SGABS
quantitative general beliefs assessment scores obtained in the corresponding category. The
event-specific Need for Approval and Need for Comfort beliefs about the romantic
disappointment expressed in the interview are inconsistent with the quantitative general (non-
event specific) beliefs assessment score obtained in the corresponding categories of the
SGABS.
 121

Evaluation ofrationalityabout Lerato's romantic disappointment (betrayal):

Perfonn a qualitative assessment: Lerato's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects many Preferences, many Wishes, and some
Yes/ But responses. No rationality indicating Hopes or And! Also responses were expressed.

Perfonn a quantitative assessment: Lerato's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored moderately on overall and general (non-event specific) rationality (55%).

Verify consistency between qualitative· and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Lerato's moderate quantitative score of her general (non-event
specific) and overall rationality is consistent with her moderate expression of rationality in
the interview about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment.

Evaluation of Lerato's consequences! outcomes of REBT beliefs from the romantic

disappointment (betrayal):

Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Lerato's subjective report (interview) about
her romantic disappointment reflects many Functional Negative Emotions and Functional
Behaviours.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Lerato's subjective report (interview)

about her romantic disappointment reflects many Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours of an avoidant and self-defeating nature.

Comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences! outcomes: Lerato's

subjective report (interview) reflects a greater extent of Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
and Dysfunctional Behaviours than those that were Functional.

Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rationality and

consequences!outcomes:

Lerato expressed a greater extent of irrational beliefs than rational beliefs about her romantic
disappointment, and subsequently reported greater outcomes of dysfunctional negative
emotions and behaviours. Lerato's general non-event related rationality was assessed to be
lower than her general non-event related irrationality.
 122

Lucy's Betrayal

Step One: Development of a case study database for the Case of Lucy

• Examples ofreflective remarks gatheredfrom Lucy's interviewtranscripts:

Excerpts of transcripts: Case ofLucy Reflective remarks

Lucy: "I'm not good enough, maybe if I was [Statements directed at the self rather than the
blonder, thinner, qualified, working, bigger other, reflecting negative self rating = self-
boobs...in all aspects, it was sort of difficult downing.]
to do anything with that dominant feeling of
I'm not good enough ... it evoked more
feelings about myselfthan it did about him"

Lucy: "I felt rotten. I felt I'd just been [Low frustration tolerance for feeling
discarded, pushed aside, that I was nothing." unloved = need for approval irrational
belief.]

Lucy: "He horrified me, the fact that he's the [A demand to receive consideration and
person that can do this- with so little regard fairness from others in the way that she
for other people's feelings." believes she would behave towards them.]

Lucy: "Well yes it's never nice to be rejected [A yes! but response reflecting rationality and
or betrayed, but they do happen." flexibility.]

Lucy: "People don't need to treat people like [Dogmatic belief and low frustration
that and friends don't really do that to each resolution to be free of hassles and tension in
other. So I'm not going to have people like her life.]
that in my life. "

Lucy: "Ijust confronted her." [An attack behaviour which is dysfunctional

and does not help to achieve her goals of
living happily.]

Lucy: "It's strange to say, that I almost went [Indicates avoidance, dysfunctional negative
blank with regards to feelings. I didn't want consequence.]
to feel anything. "
 123

• Codified and extracted data from Lucy's interview transcripts using a coding scheme
and extracted sections grouped under categories (codes)

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic Disappointment:

Self-downing (SD): Lucy expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category of the
self-downing irrational beliefs. Throughout her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions
and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made various
statements of having globally rated herself and her sense of self-worth negatively..This was
her predominant category of beliefs. She had negative beliefs about her self-worth by viewing
her personality traits and physical appearance in negative terms.

Need for Achievement (NAC): Lucy expressed beliefs that were indicative of irrational
beliefs of the category of the need for achievement irrational beliefs. She made dogmatic
statements evident of a low frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be competent,
adequate and achieving in order to be worthwhile. These statements were expressed as
intolerable feelings of inadequacy and uselessness within herself.

Need for Approval (NAP): Lucy's report reflected many irrational beliefs indicative of the
category of the need for approval irrational beliefs. Lucy made statements indicative of a low
frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be loved, for example, she expressed that she
felt unloved and discarded, which she was unable to tolerate.

Need for Comfort (NC): Lucy expressed some irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
the need for comfort irrational beliefs. This was evident through statements reflecting no
tolerance for hassles, discomfort or tension in her life. Low frustration tolerance was evident
through awfulizing statements and dogmatic beliefs about having been made to feel
discomfort both emotionally and behaviourally.

Demand for Fairness (DF): Lucy expressed some beliefs indicative of the irrational beliefs
category of the demand for fairness. These were expressed in relation to herself through a low
frustration tolerance with feeling disrespected, treated unfairly and not having others being
considerate of her feelings.

Other Downing (OD): Lucy expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category of
other downing beliefs. In her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours
 124

concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made global statements where she
rated the other and his sense of worth negatively. This was evident through dogmatic
negative assessments of the other's worth as an individual with expressions of his low worth.

Rationality about the Romantic Disappointment:

Preferences (PR): Lucy did not express any rationality evident of non-dogmatic- preferences
as attempts to achieve her values and goals. No efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways
of thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal in the form of
preferences were evident.

Hopes (HP): Lucy did not express any rationality indicative of non-dogmatic hopes
throughout her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her
romantic disappointment of betrayal. No efficient, flexible, logical or scientific ways of
thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal in the form of hopes
were expressed in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

Wishes (WS): Lucy did not express any rationality indicative of non-dogmatic wishes as
attempts to achieve her values and goals. No efficient, flexible, logical or scientific ways of
thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal in the form of wishes
were expressed in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

And! Also Responses (AAR): Lucy expressed a rational statement indicating a high frustration
tolerance reflected in and! also responses in her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions
and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal.

Yes! But Responses (YBR): Lucy expressed some rationality indicative of a high frustration
tolerance reflected through yes! but responses in her subjective report of her thoughts,
emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal. She expressed
statements where two contrasting thoughts! beliefs were considered within the same
statement

Consequences/ Outcomes ofBeliefs:

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB): Lucy described some
outcomes of functional negative emotions and functional behaviours in her subjective report
of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of
 125

betrayal. Functional negative emotions were evident in expressions of experiencing feelings

of sadness. Lucy reported some functional behaviours such as investing in fulfilling
friendships and relationships rather than remaining in problematic ones. These functional
emotions and behaviours evident in Lucy's report were indicative of acting efficiently and
effectively in order to achieve her goals ofliving happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB): Lucy described

many outcomes of dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviours.
Dysfunctional negative emotions were predominantly evident in multiple expressions of
anger, along with feelings of helplessness, disgust and depression. Dysfunctional behaviours
were evident in Lucy's report where multiple avoidant and attacking behaviours were relayed
such as confrontations and accusations made towards the other, as well as self-defeating
behavioural attempts to eliminate all negative emotions she was experiencing about the
romantic disappointment.

• DescriptivestatisticalanalysesofSGABS data

SGABS subscale results: Lucy's general quantitative assessment of REBT beliefs

independent of a specific activating event:

Total irrationality 38%

Self-downing 25%
Need for achievement 20%
Need for approval 53%
Need for comfort 20%
Demand for fairness 75%
Other-downing 40%
Rationality 95%

Step Two: Development of a logical chain of evidence for the Case of Lucy

Evaluation ofirrationalbeliefs about Lucy's romantic disappointment (betrayal):

Perform a qualitative assessment: Lucy's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects many Self-Downing beliefs, some Need for
 126

Achievement beliefs, many Need for Approval beliefs, some Need for Comfort beliefs, some
Demand for Fairness beliefs and many Other Downing beliefs. The most predominantly
expressed irrational beliefs were those of the category of Self-Downing beliefs.

Perform a quantitative assessment: Lucy's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored low (38%) on overall and general (non-event specific) irrationality. Within the
individual irrational beliefs categories, Lucy's scores, in descending order, were: The highest
score was found on the Demand for Fairness beliefs (75%), second was the category of Need
for Approval beliefs (53%), third was the category of Other Downing beliefs (40%) and
fourth was the category of Self-Downing beliefs (25%). The lowest scores were found
equally on the categories of Need for Achievement beliefs (20%) and Need for Comfort
beliefs (20%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Lucy's low score of her SGABS general irrationality is
inconsistent with her high expression of irrationality about her romantic disappointment
(interview). Lucy's many Need for Approval and Other Downing categories of irrational
beliefs expressed about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment in the interview
are consistent with her second and third highest SGABS quantitative general (non-event
specific) beliefs assessment scores obtained in the same categories. The expression of many
Self-Downing beliefs in the subjective report were inconsistent with the second lowest score
obtained on the SGABS quantitative general beliefs assessment scores obtained in the
corresponding category. Some Need for Achievement and some Need for Comfort beliefs
expressed in the interview were consistent with the SGABS quantitative general (non-event
specific) beliefs assessment scores obtained in the same categories. The Demand for Fairness
beliefs expressed about the romantic disappointment were inconsistent with the SGABS
quantitative general beliefs assessment scores in the corresponding category.

Evaluation ofrationality about Lucy's romantic disappointment (betrayal):

Perform a qualitative assessment: Lucy's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects an And! Also response and some Yes/ But
responses. No rationality indicating Preferences, Hopes or Wishes were expressed.
 127

FerronD a quantitative assessment: Lucy's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored high on overall and general (non-event specific) rationality (95%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Lucy's high SGABS quantitative score of her general (non-event
specific) and overall rationality is inconsistent with her low expression of rationality in the
interview about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment.

Evaluation of Lucy's consequences/ outcomes of REBT beliefs from the. romantic

disappointment (betrayal):

Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Lucy's subjective report (interview) about
her romantic disappointment reflects a moderate number of Functional Negative Emotions
and Functional Behaviours.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Lucy's subjective report (interview) about
her romantic disappointment reflects many Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours ofan avoidant and self-defeating nature.

Comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences! outcomes: Lucy's

subjective report (interview) reflects more Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours than Functional.

Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rationality and

consequences!outcomes:

Lucy expressed more irrational beliefs than rational beliefs about her romantic
disappointment, and subsequently reported greater dysfunctional negative emotions and
behaviours as outcomes of her romantic disappointment. Lucy's general non-event related
rationality was assessed to be higher than her general non-event related irrationality.
 128

Karabo's Betrayal

Step One: Development of a case study database for the Case of Karabo

• Examples ofreflective remarks gatheredfrom Karabo's interview transcripts:

Excerpts of transcripts: Case ofKarabo Reflective remarks .

Karabo: "This girl seemed better than me." [Statement reflecting negatively comparing
the self to others.]

Karabo: "I actually honestly didn't degrade [Other-downing beliefs are not evident- such
him in my mind, he was still on the pedestal." statements reveal the opposite of other
downing beliefs.]

Karabo: "I felt like all eyes were on me [Low frustration tolerance for being viewed
actually. Like what is she going to do next?" as incompetent by others.]

Karabo: "People don't need to treat people [Dogmatic belief and low frustration
like that and friends don't really do that to resolution to be free of hassles and tension in
each other. So I'm not going to have people her life.]
like that in my life."

Karabo: "So why can't the other say- you [A stated preference of interactions-
know this isn't what I want anymore. So we rationality through being more flexible.]
can just end it."

Karabo: "So there was a point where I was [Functional behaviour- reflects scientific,
like -you know what- I'm moving on. I'm not logical and efficient ways of attempting to
going into a new relationship, but I'm also achieve her goals of living happily.]
notjust going to sit and be like: oh I'm sac!'

Karabo: "I was really sad about if' [Functional negative emotion of sadness.]

Karabo: "I'm just going to stay away from [Dysfunctional behaviour of avoidance.]
guys, because the next guy is also going to be
like."
 129

• Codifiedand extracteddata from Karabo's interviewtranscripts using a coding scheme

and extractedsectionsgrouped under categories (codes)

Irrational Beliefs about the Romantic Disappointment:

Self-downing (SD): Karabo expressed some irrational beliefs indicative of the category of the
self-downing irrational beliefs. Throughout her subjective report of her thoughts, emotions
and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made statements of
having globally rated herself and her sense of self-worth negatively. She particularly
expressed beliefs that she was not worthy of being loved by the other in comparison to others
with better qualities than she possessed.

Need for Achievement (NAC): Karabo expressed many beliefs that were indicative of
irrational beliefs of the category of the need for achievement irrational beliefs. In her
subjective report about her experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal, she made
dogmatic statements evident of a low frustration tolerance with regards to her need to be
competent, adequate and achieving in order to be worthwhile. These were expressed as
intolerable feelings and strong insecurities about being viewed as inadequate and incompetent
by others. Self-pressures to do well in this regard were also found.

Need for Approval (NAP): Karabo's report reflected a statement indicative of the category of
the need for approval irrational beliefs. This occurred at one point during her subjective
report. Karabo's expression showed a low frustration tolerance with regards to her need to
feel loved, where she expressed that she felt worthless without love from the other, and this
was intolerable for her.

Need for Comfort (NC): Karabo expressed many irrational beliefs indicative of the category
of the need for comfort irrational beliefs. This occurred at various points in her subjective
report. This was evident through statements reflecting no tolerance for hassles, discomfort or
tension in her life. Low frustration tolerance was evident through dogmatic beliefs about
being inconvenienced and made to feel tension. This was Karabo's predominant category of
expressed irrational beliefs.

Demand for Fairness (DF): Karabo did not express any beliefs indicative of the irrational
beliefs category of the demand for fairness in her subjective report of a romantic
 130

disappointment. No low frustration tolerance or dogmatic demands were found with regards
to feeling disrespected, treated unfairly and not having others consider her feelings.

Other Downing (OD): Karabo did not express any irrational beliefs indicative of the category
of other downing beliefs. She made no global statements where she rated the other or his
sense of worth negatively.

Rationality about the Romantic Disappointment:

Preferences (PR): Karabo expressed many statements and beliefs reflecting 'rationality
through non-dogmatic preferences as attempts to achieve her values and goals. Multiple and
varied efficient, flexible, logical and scientific ways of thinking about her experience of a
romantic disappointment of betrayal in the form of preferences were evident. This was her
predominant category of beliefs found in her report where she expresses how she preferred
things to have worked out instead of the manner in which they occurred in reality, in order for
her to achieve her desired comfort. This type of rationality was consistently displayed
throughout her subjective report of her romantic disappointment of betrayal.

Hopes (HP): Karabo did not express rationality indicative of non-dogmatic hopes. No
efficient, flexible, logical or scientific ways of thinking about her experience of a romantic
disappointment of betrayal in the form of hopes were expressed in an attempt to achieve her
values and goals.

Wishes (WS): Karabo expressed some statements of rationality indicative of non-dogmatic

wishes as attempts to achieve her values and goals. Efficient, flexible, logical and scientific
ways of thinking about her experience of a romantic disappointment of betrayal in the form
of wishes were expressed in an attempt to achieve her values and goals.

And! Also Responses (AAR): Karabo did not express any rationality indicative of a high
frustration tolerance reflected in and! also responses.

Yes! But Responses (fBR): Karabo expressed many statements of rationality indicative of a
high frustration tolerance reflected through yes! but responses. She expressed statements
where two contrasting thoughts! beliefs were considered within the same statement. This type
of rationality was consistently displayed throughout her subjective report of her romantic
disappointment of betrayal.
 131

Consequences/ Outcomes ofBeliefs:

Functional Negative Emotions and Functional Behaviours (FEB): Karabo described many
outcomes of functional negative emotions and functional behaviours in her subjective report
of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic disappointment of
betrayal. Functional negative emotions were evident in expressions of experiencing feelings
of sadness and frustration. Karabo reported some functional behaviours such as investing in
herself and her needs as well as cultivating more nurturing relationships in her life. These
functional emotions and behaviours evident in Karabo's report were indicative of acting
logically and effectively in order to achieve her goals ofliving happily.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours (DEB): Karabo described

many outcomes of dysfunctional negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviours in her
subjective report of her thoughts, emotions and behaviours concerning her romantic
disappointment of betrayal. Dysfunctional negative emotions were evident in multiple
expressions of anger. Dysfunctional behaviours were evident in Karabo's report where
multiple avoidant behaviours were relayed such as socially 'writing off' all men as potential
disappointments and accusations made towards the other, as well as self-defeating behaviours
of binge-drinking, brief and transient encounters with other men, skipping university lectures
and beginning to smoke as attempts to eliminate the negative emotions she was experiencing
from her romantic disappointment.

• Descriptive statistical analyses ofSGABS data

SGABS subscale results: Karabo's general quantitative assessment of REBT beliefs

independent of a specific activating event:

Total irrationality 64%

Self-downing 40%
Need for achievement 65%
Need for approval 53%
Need for comfort 75%
Demand for fairness 90%
Other-downing 60%
Rationality 70%
 133

quantitative general (non-event specific) beliefs assessment scores obtained in the same
categories.

Evaluation ofrationalityabout Karabo's romantic disappointment (betrayal):

Perfonn a qualitative assessment: Karabo's subjective report (interview) about her specific
experience of a romantic disappointment reflects many Preferences, some Wishes and many
Yes/ But responses. No rationality indicating Hopes or And! Also responses were expressed.

Perfonn a quantitative assessment: Karabo's quantitative (SGABS) results indicate that she
scored high on overall and general (non-event specific) rationality (70%).

Verify consistency between qualitative and quantitative assessments and identify any
significant inconsistencies: Karabo's high SGABS quantitative score of her general (non-
event specific) and overall rationality supports her high expression of rationality in the
interview about her specific experience of a romantic disappointment.

Evaluation of Karabo's consequences! outcomes of REBT beliefs from the romantic

disappointment (rejection):

Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Karabo's subjective report (interview) about
her romantic disappointment reflects many Functional Negative Emotions and Functional
Behaviours.

Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Behaviours: Karabo's subjective report (interview)

about her romantic disappointment reflects many Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and
Dysfunctional Behaviours ofan avoidant and self-defeating nature.

Comparison between functional and dysfunctional consequences! outcomes: Karabo's

subjective report (interview) reflects a similar extent of both Functional Negative Emotions
and Behaviours and Dysfunctional Negative Emotions and Dysfunctional Behaviours.
However, more Dysfunctional rather than Functional Negative Emotions and Behaviours are
illustrated.
 134

Establish a logical chain of evidence between irrational beliefs, rationality and

consequences/outcomes:

Karabo equally expressed both irrational and rational beliefs about her romantic
disappointment, and subsequently reported evenly matched experiences of both functional
and dysfunctional negative emotions and behaviours as outcomes of her romantic
disappointment. Karabo's general non-event related rationality was assessed as higher than
her general non-event related irrationality.