◦ Home

◦ About
◦ Forum Archive

Search this website... GO

• Cape Cod Institute

• Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy
• Cognitive Therapy
• Ericksonian Therapy
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Gestalt Therapy
• Law, Ethics & Therapy
• Neuropsychology
• Soapbox

You are here: Home / General / Schemas, Assumptions, and Beliefs, Oh My!

Schemas, Assumptions, and Beliefs, Oh My!

by James Pretzer

4 Comments

The term “schema” has been popular in cognitive-behavioral circles in recent

years with theorists discussing the role of schemas in a range of disorders, researchers studying schemas, and
clinicians proposing a range of interventions for modifying problematic schemas. The terms “schema”, “core
belief”, “irrational belief”, “underlying assumption”, “dysfunctional belief”, etc. have sometimes been used
interchangeably and at other times, distinctions have been drawn between these closely related terms. In the hopes
of making this a bit less confusing, here’s the way I’d propose defining these terms:

Core Beliefs – Unconditional beliefs that serve as a basis for screening, categorizing, and interpreting experiences.
For example, “I’m no good.” “Others can’t be trusted.” “Effort does not pay off.” These often operate outside of the
individual’s awareness and often are not clearly verbalized.

Underlying Assumptions (or Dysfunctional Beliefs) – Conditional beliefs that shape one’s response to experiences
and situations. For example, “If someone gets close to me, they will discover the ‘real me’ and reject me.” These
may operate outside of the individual’s awareness and may not be clearly verbalized or the individual may be aware
of these assumptions.

Interpersonal Strategies – Underlying assumptions that focus specifically on ways of influencing others. For
example, “The way to get children to be good is to punish them for being bad.” “If I want someone to like me, I
must be nice to them.” Often the individual is aware of these assumptions or finds them fairly easy to recognize.

Irrational Beliefs – This is a term popularized by Rational Emotive Therapy (now Rational Emotive Behavior
Therapy), not Cognitive Therapy. Our view is that the important thing is the effect that the belief has in the
individual’s life (i.e. is it functional or dysfunctional), not whether the belief is rational or not. For example, many
people see the interpersonal strategy “If I want someone to like me, I should be nice to them” as rational. However,
this strategy can prove to be dysfunctional unless it is paired with beliefs that support appropriate assertion and
limit-setting.

Automatic Thoughts – The cognitions that spontaneously flow through one’s mind in the moment. For example,
“Oh My God! Now I’m in big trouble.” Individuals may or may not be aware of their automatic thoughts but most
people can learn to be aware of their automatic thoughts fairly easily.

You may notice that the list above doesn’t include “schema.” There is a problem with the way “schema” is used in
CBT. Often the term “schema” is used as though it is synonymous with “core belief”. However, “schema” had an
established meaning in psychology long before it became popular in cognitive-behavioral circles. Beck (1967) gives
Piaget (1948) credit for introducing the concept of schema to psychology and Piaget defined a schema as a set of
linked mental representations of the world, which we use both to understand and to respond to situations. A good
contemporary definition of schema can be found in Wikipedia “In psychology and cognitive science, a schema
(plural schemata or schemas), describes an organized pattern of thought or behavior. It can also be described as a
mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of
organizing and perceiving new information. Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge:
people are more likely to notice things that fit into their schema, while re-interpreting contradictions to the schema
as exceptions or distorting them to fit. Schemata have a tendency to remain unchanged, even in the face of
contradictory information. Schemas can help in understanding the world. Most situations do not require effortful
thought when using schema, since automatic thought is all that is required. People can organize new perceptions
into schemas quickly.”
Note that “schema” is not the same as “core belief.” Aaron Beck and I tried to explain the concept in this way:

Many misperceptions and misinterpretations result from the effects of schemas, cognitive structures
containing the individual’s basic beliefs and assumptions, which shape the individuals’ perceptions of
events and their responses to them. Humans do not “start from scratch” in perceiving and interpreting
each event or situation they encounter. For example, when an individual encounters a large quadruped
covered with shaggy hair, he or she can easily classify it as a dog and interpret its wagging tail as
indicative of benign intentions even if he or she has not previously encountered a Briard (a French
breed of sheep dog) and has never seen a dog which looks quite like this one. This is because the
individual has retained a set of related concepts regarding the characteristics which characterize dogs,
important aspects of canine behavior, and human-canine interaction. These concepts are automatically
used in interpreting a relevant stimulus. This set of related concepts, termed a “schema”, is based on the
individual’s previous experience with dogs, his or her observations of other persons’ experience with
dogs, verbal and non-verbal communications from others regarding dogs, etc.

A given individual will have an assortment of schemas which are relevant to hairy quadrupeds but these
are not simply applied randomly in perceiving our Briard. The context automatically influences the
selection of schemas so that those which seem most likely to be relevant to the situation are tried first
and a series of schemas are tried until a “good fit” is achieved. Thus, if the Briard is encountered at a
dog show, the individual’s “dog schema” is likely to be applied first and the Briard is likely to be
perceived correctly at once. If the Briard is encountered in a cage at the zoo, more exotic schemas are
likely to be applied first and it is likely to take longer for the individual to correctly perceive it as a dog.
If the Briard is encountered among a collection of rare breeds of sheep and goats, its size, shaggy coat,
etc. may well result in its being misperceived as an unusual type of goat until it emits some behavior,
such as barking, which is incompatible with the individual’s “goat schema.” As soon as the animal is
 correctly identified as an unfamiliar breed of dog, the individual automatically uses an assortment of
generalizations about canine behavior to interpret the dog’s current behavior and to anticipate what the
dog is likely to do in the future.

A schema is a stable network of core beliefs (“I’m no good”), conditional beliefs (“If people get close to me they’ll
discover the “real me” and reject me”), interpersonal strategies (“I’ll put on a charming façade and hide all my faults
and shortcomings”), as well as less obvious assumptions (Someone who loves me will know what I want and do it
without my having to ask them” and “If he’s upset with with me, he’s rejecting me”). A core belief is just one
component of a schema. Also, note that the core belief is not the only component of a schema that can be
dysfunctional. At various points over the course of CBT with a particular client, we may work to modify core
beliefs, conditional beliefs, interpersonal strategies, and/or other beliefs and assumptions. These are all aspects of
schema change.

Unfortunately, when “schema” is treated as though it means the same thing as “core belief”, this is unnecessarily
confusing. If CBT consistently used “core belief” to refer to specific core beliefs and used “schema” to refer to a
relatively stable network of core beliefs, conditional assumptions, interpersonal strategies, and related cognitions, it
would be easier for us to communicate clearly about this complex topic. Until then, when reading or talking about
“schemas” it will be important to pay attention to whether the other party really means schema, belief, or something
else.

References

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical Aspects. New York: Harper & Row.
(Republished as Depressions: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia: University or Pennsylvania Press, 1972.)
Piaget, J. (1948). The Moral Judgment of the Child. (M. Gabain, Trans.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pretzer, J.L. and Beck, A.T., A cognitive theory of personality disorders, In: Lenzenweger, M. F. & Clarkin, J. F.
(Eds.), (2005), Major Theories of Personality Disorder, Second Edition, New York: Guilford.
Brain image available from Shutterstock.

James Pretzer, Ph.D. is the Director of the Cleveland Center for Cognitive Therapy and is Assistant Clinical
Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the Case Western Reserve University School of
Medicine. He received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from Michigan State University and completed a post-
doctoral fellowship at the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania where he worked closely
with Aaron T. Beck, M.D., David Burns, M.D., and other leading cognitive therapists. Jim and his wife, Barbara
Fleming, Ph.D., have been actively involved in applying Cognitive Therapy in areas such as the treatment of
personality disorders and marital problems. They have also been providing advanced training in Cognitive Therapy
for mental health professionals for over thirty years (see
http://www.behavioralhealthassoc.com/educationalPrograms.php). Jim is a co-author, with Art Freeman, Barbara
Fleming, and Karen Simon, of Clinical Applications of Cognitive Therapy (second edition, 2004) and he is a co-
author, with Aaron T. Beck and colleagues, of Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders (second edition, 2004).
He has also authored and co-authored a number of papers and book chapters on a range of topics in Cognitive
Therapy. Jim has presented his work at conventions of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
the World Congress of Behavior Therapy, and the American Psychological Association, as well as in workshops
locally, regionally, and internationally. His work has been translated and published in a number of languages
including German, Japanese, and Swedish.

Like this author? Catch up on other posts by James Pretzer (or subscribe to their feed).

Published on February 5, 2014 Filed under General

Comments

4 Responses to “Schemas, Assumptions, and Beliefs, Oh My!”

 1. Chris says:
February 5, 2014 at 2:50 pm

oh my! Thank you so much Dr. Pretzer!! I am a PsyD student and in the CBT class there was a lot of
confusion on these concepts! I will give the link to all my classmates!

Chris Tugnoli

Reply

2. Mat Chirman says:

February 5, 2014 at 2:52 pm

Thank you for the great clarification of the differences! We work with CBT and Schema therapy treating
personality disorders, primarily, and I have been searching for this kind of a clarification. It’s going out to all
of our clinicians.

Reply

3. John Naas, LCSW says:

July 7, 2015 at 11:08 am

Thank you for a clear distinction between Core Beliefs and Schema.

Please clarify your apparent assertion that Underlying Assumptions and Dysfunctional Beliefs are the same. I
have always thought that Underlying Assumptions can be both dysfunction and functional depending on the
Core Belief from which the are base. That is, “I’m lovable” VS “I’m unlovable” will result in different
Conditional Beliefs. The first, adaptive and functional while the second, will be maladaptive and
dysfunctional.

I frequently tell my pts that we are not trying to get rid of all negative thought/emotions because negative
thoughts/emotions may warn against behaviors that will result engaging in dangerous or inappropriate
behaviors.

Thank, John

Reply

◦ James Pretzer says:

July 7, 2015 at 2:01 pm

Yes, both Core Beliefs and Underlying Assumptions can be either functional or dysfunctional. In
therapy, we’re only going to try to modify beliefs and assumptions that are dysfunctional (i.e. that cause
problems for the client). I’d agree that a belief of “I’m unlovable” is likely to turn out to be
dysfunctional, but I’d recommend noticing whether it actually causes problems for the client rather than
assuming that it will.

Reply

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...

and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
 Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Submit Comment

• eNews & Updates

Sign up to receive breaking news

as well as receive other site updates!

Enter your email address GO

• Recently Added

◦ The New Behavior Online

◦ Insight on Demand
◦ Utilization: Concept #1
◦ The Most Important Skill in Therapy
◦ The Trans-Mental and Trans-Temporal Problem Solver

• Recent Discussions

◦ Laura Macdonald on A Conversation with Warren Bennis

◦ Deloris L. Jerman on A Conversation with Warren Bennis
◦ Ann Marie Brennan on A Conversation with Warren Bennis
◦ Shay Jackson on A Conversation with Warren Bennis
◦ Viginia Luther on The Trans-Mental and Trans-Temporal Problem Solver

• Cape Cod Institute

Cape Cod Institute

A summer-long series of week-long courses taught by leading contributors to knowledge and practice.

• Archives

◦ July 2018
 ◦ July 2017
◦ March 2017
◦ December 2016
◦ October 2016
◦ June 2016
◦ April 2016
◦ February 2016
◦ September 2015
◦ August 2015
◦ November 2014
◦ July 2014
◦ June 2014
◦ May 2014
◦ April 2014
◦ March 2014
◦ February 2014
◦ December 2013
◦ September 2013
◦ August 2013
◦ July 2013
◦ June 2013
◦ May 2013
◦ April 2013
◦ March 2013
◦ January 2013
◦ March 2011
◦ February 2011
◦ January 2011
◦ March 2008
◦ July 2004
◦ March 2000
◦ February 2000
◦ May 1999
◦ January 1999
◦ November 1998
◦ October 1998
◦ April 1998
◦ March 1998
◦ November 1997
◦ September 1997
◦ July 1997

• Categories

◦ Announcements
◦ Cape Cod Institute
◦ Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy
◦ Cognitive Therapy
◦ Conversations
◦ Ericksonian Therapy
◦ Evolutionary Psychology
◦ General
◦ Gestalt Therapy
◦ Law, Ethics & Therapy
◦ Neuropsychology
◦ Soapbox
A Conversation with Warren Bennis
by Gil Levin

BOL: I hope our conversation will focus on the how-to

of intervening in order to enhance the performance of organizations. You are a master of that art, but your most
important work has focussed elsewhere: on understanding the nature of the organization, and how those... Read
More →

A Conversation with Henry Stein

by Gil Levin

BOL: Alfred Adler’s name is better known to today’s

therapists than are his ideas and methods. Your
dedication to this body of work must be based on the
belief that contemporary practice is diminished because
Adler’s contributions are not fully enough
understood... Read More →

Home
About Us
Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
Contact Us

Copyright © 1995-2014 Behavior Online, Inc.

All rights reserved.
The material on this site is for informational purposes
only, and is not a substitute for medical advice,
diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified health
care provider. Always consult your doctor or mental
health professional before trying anything you read
here.