Ellis would likely doubt an animal study of psychotherapy because his theory emphasizes what human-specific process?

Ellis would likely doubt an animal study of psychotherapy because his theory emphasizes what human-specific process?

• A. Internal verbalizations are irrelevant
• B. It's unethical to study animals
• C. Only humans think in internal declarations
• D. Animals have the same internal dialogue

Answer: (C)

Inner speech is a distinctly human process that shapes how we think and guide our own change in psychotherapy. Ellis’s theory centers on internal verbalizations—the inner dialogue people have with themselves—as a key mechanism in human thought and therapeutic effect. If that inner conversation is central to how psychotherapy works, then studies using animals wouldn’t reveal how this process operates in humans, so relying on animal data would be questionable for understanding human psychotherapy. That’s why the idea that only humans engage in internal declarations fits best. It explains why animal studies wouldn’t capture the same inner-verbal dynamics Ellis believes drive therapeutic change. The other options clash with this emphasis: claiming internal verbalizations are irrelevant contradicts the central role of inner speech; arguing that it’s unethical to study animals shifts focus away from the cognitive mechanism; and saying animals have the same internal dialogue contradicts the premise that inner speech is uniquely human and thus not well modeled by animals.

Inner speech is a distinctly human process that shapes how we think and guide our own change in psychotherapy. Ellis’s theory centers on internal verbalizations—the inner dialogue people have with themselves—as a key mechanism in human thought and therapeutic effect. If that inner conversation is central to how psychotherapy works, then studies using animals wouldn’t reveal how this process operates in humans, so relying on animal data would be questionable for understanding human psychotherapy.

That’s why the idea that only humans engage in internal declarations fits best. It explains why animal studies wouldn’t capture the same inner-verbal dynamics Ellis believes drive therapeutic change. The other options clash with this emphasis: claiming internal verbalizations are irrelevant contradicts the central role of inner speech; arguing that it’s unethical to study animals shifts focus away from the cognitive mechanism; and saying animals have the same internal dialogue contradicts the premise that inner speech is uniquely human and thus not well modeled by animals.