Conceptual Validation Analysis of Ellis ' s Irrational Beliefs and Exploration of an Alternative Measurement Tool Framework

This study aimed to conduct a conceptual validation of Ellis's irrational beliefs, analyze the limitations of existing measurement tools, and propose a framework for a new measurement tool. First, an examination of the irrationality of 11 Ellis' irrational beliefs revealed that each belief violates "logical validity" by accepting propositions that cannot stand alone, "empirical verification" in that many incompatible facts actually occur, "flexibility" by keeping unidirectionality and rigidity, "practicality" by producing negative outcomes and "adaptive emotion" by triggering maladaptive emotions and behaviors. Additionally, a content analysis of three domestic irrational beliefs scales revealed several limitations: They fail to differentiate extreme responses for each item, do not conceptually focus on the relevant factor, reflect beliefs related to personal traits and situations rather than general objects, measure emotional and behavioral states instead of thoughts, and exhibit conceptual expressional overlapping. Finally, a framework for a new measurement tool was proposed to address these issues. This tool presents third-person scenarios including the core content of each Ellis's irrational belief and asks respondents to rate the similarity between their and the protagonist's thoughts. This self-reflective measurement framework is expected to reduce defensive responses commonly associated with self-report scales of irrational beliefs.