Running Head: Personal Theory of Counseling

Personal Theory of Counseling: Reality Therapy

Chelsey Thomas
Seattle University

Abstract

Personal Theory of Counseling

The author provides an in-depth analysis of William Glassers Reality Therapy approach
to counseling and gives an explanation of its foundational base, Choice Theory.
Multicultural and social justice considerations are addressed as well as Glassers
controversial ideas surrounding his definition of mental illness. The author concludes the
analysis with a personal reflection in which she points out the merits of pursuing Reality
Therapy as her personal theory of counseling.

Personal Theory of Counseling: Reality Therapy

Personal Theory of Counseling

William Glasser first developed Reality Therapy in 1960 as an alternative to
therapy based on Freudian concepts of mental health. Glasser did not believe that a
persons problems stemmed from repressed issues in their unconscious mind, but from a
failure for the conscious mind to choose appropriate and healthy behavior in the here and
now. (Palmatier, 1998, as cited in Howatt, 2001). Glasser clearly defined the theoretical
framework behind Reality Therapy as Control Theory in 1984 and reframed it as Choice
Theory by 1998. The core ideas in Choice Theory are that people are fully in control of
their mental health, that they alone choose their happiness or unhappiness and are
responsible for making better choices to improve their lives (Glasser, 1998). Though he
outlines 5 basic human needs in his work, he places a great deal of emphasis on peoples
need for connectedness and belonging. He asserts that if people are engaged in healthy
and rewarding relationships, they will ultimately lead more successful lives (Glasser,
1998).
I chose to examine this theory because I completely identify with Glassers notion
that people are the engineers of their own happiness. The choices we make each and
every day, determine the direction our lives will take and we alone are responsible for
those choices. Even when faced with environmental and societal factors that may limit
the choices available to us, we are still in charge of how we react to those factors and are
capable of making decisions that will positively benefit us. I do take issue with Glassers
opinion on psychotic disorders and depression, in that I believe certain mental illnesses
are aided by medication in addition to therapy. If I mean to practice Reality therapy in
the future, it is important for me to understand the reasoning behind Glassers ideas in
this regard in order to reconcile them with my own.

Personal Theory of Counseling

Reality Therapy
Health and Dysfunction
The definition of a healthy person according to Reality Therapy, is one who has
been able to successfully meet their five basic needs, which are belonging,
power/achievement, fun/enjoyment, freedom/independence and survival (Seligman &
Reichenberg, 2010). These needs are inherent in peoples genes, vary in degree of
strength from person to person, and are integral in shaping personality. (Glasser, 1998).
Glasser frames the process in which people meet their needs through what he calls their
quality world. In it, people have a unique and ideal picture of what they want out of life
and believe that realizing this picture, will allow them to meet their needs (Howatt,
2001). Healthy people are able to recognize the wants and needs that are beneficial to
them and others and pursue them accordingly, in appropriate ways.
However, where people often go wrong, is when they attempt to meet a particular
need and it leads them to inappropriate or destructive behavior. Howatt (2001) uses the
example of a hungry person who sees food in a store, and lacking money, chooses to steal
in order to satisfy that basic need. Here, the persons need is met, but the behavior does
not allow for the needs of others in society (aka the store owner) to successfully meet
their needs (receiving payment for the food). The individual who chooses to behave
inappropriately is not the only one who may experience the negative consequences of that
behavior therefore the action is dysfunctional and ineffective on two levels (Schoo &
Schoo, 2008). Ultimately a person achieves a healthy and functional life by choosing
behavior that effectively satisfies their own needs and does not keep others from doing
the same (Glasser, 1998).

Personal Theory of Counseling

Mental Illness
Glassers basic definition of dysfunction as a choice extends to his concept of
mental and in some cases even physiological illnesses. He doesnt see medication as a
permanent or even preferred method of treatment for psychoses, neuroses, or PTSD, but
does acknowledge that it may be necessary for some clients (Glasser, 1998). Instead he
asserts that people choose their symptoms and illnesses as a way of coping with highly
frustrating and unsatisfactory relationships in their lives. These relationships are often
coupled with a sense of loss of control and as a result people look to their creative
systems to offer them coping mechanisms (Glasser, 1998). According to Glasser,
everyone has a creative system in his or her brain, which offers up ways of coping that,
may be either helpful or harmful and it is up to the individual to choose the most
beneficial mechanism. He acknowledges that this can be difficult to do, but that if a
person is supported and has any sense of inner strength, it is more than possible to
accomplish (Glasser, 1998).
Glasser does not cite empirical evidence to back up his method of using primarily
counseling and behavioral interventions in lieu of medication to treat mental illnesses,
therefore counselors should use caution when following his model. He does offer his
own experience and success in using this method and counselors may find it effective
with their own clients, but should probably consult with a psychiatrist if deemed
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. The message behind Glassers perception of mental
illness is an empowering one however. In framing the illness as a choice and as
something that a client can actively choose not to do, it places control over that illness in
the clients hands (Glasser, 1998). Still, counselors should exercise caution here and

Personal Theory of Counseling

make sure that a client does not blame themselves for their illness when framing it as
their own choice.
Multicultural Considerations
Though Glasser does not explicitly address multicultural issues in defining health
and dysfunction, Robert Wubbolding points out that this definition is universally
applicable. People choose their behavior and everybody chooses it.it doesnt matter if
youre Asian, or youre African, or youre European, or Western or South American
(Robey, 2011). He goes on to say that people are not always in complete control of their
lives, but they still have the ability to choose and to change certain elements that are
within their control (Robey, 2011). In accepting the limitations placed on them, people
are giving up that element of personal control and can end up leading unsatisfactory and
unhealthy lives.
An example of the application of Reality Therapy in empowering marginalized
populations, can be seen in the William Glasser Institutes training of a group of women
in Albania, whose abilities to pursue education, employment and basic lifestyle choices
were very limited due to the patriarchal and religious values of Albanian culture (Tham,
2001). The trainer, Elizabeth Tham, recounted her experience with a young woman who
wished to go to secondary school, but was unable because her parents would not allow
her to attend school with boys. Using the WDEP intervention, Tham asked the young
woman if being upset or angry with her parents would get her what she wanted in the
end. She replied no, that she would instead attend a tailoring course for women that
would satisfy her academic desires and not upset her parents (Tham, 2001). To a Western
observer, this might seem unfair or unacceptable, but this is the reality in which the

Personal Theory of Counseling

young girl lives and she chose to work within that reality in order to satisfy a need she
placed in her quality world.
Process of Change
In order for change to occur through Reality Therapy, people must be aware of the
nature of their total behavior and choose to make positive changes in the present moment,
rather than focus on past issues and problems, which they cannot change (Glasser, 1998).
Glasser asserts that all behaviors are connected and inseparable, but people only have
direct control over their actions and thoughts, and indirect control over their feelings and
physiology. (Glasser, 1998). He uses the metaphor of a car to explain this idea further,
placing thoughts and actions in the front two wheels and emotions and physiology in the
back two wheels. The front wheels move first and steer where the vehicle goes, while
the rear wheels follow. By changing the action or behavior, the total behavior is
changed (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). According to Wubbolding, because people
are in direct control of their actions, they are the easiest to change. Therefore actions
should be the focus of treatment, and change in the remaining behaviors will follow suit
(Wubbolding, 1991, as cited in Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010).
Another important component for change in Reality Therapy is accepting new
language surrounding a persons issues; for example, expressing that one is depressing
rather than depressed. Changing the noun to a verb, demonstrates that people are not
victims of mental illness but either the beneficiary of (their) own good choices or the
victim of (their) own bad choices (Glasser, 1998). Finally, Glasser insists that in order
to make lasting change, people must examine the relative health or dysfunction of the

Personal Theory of Counseling

important relationships in their lives and address problems in these relationships where
necessary (Glasser, 1998).
Goals
The overarching goal of Reality Therapy is to help people understand that they are
in complete control of their lives and that they choose everything (they) do, including
the misery (they) feel (Glasser, 1998). Specific goals include helping people meet their
needs and wants in healthy and beneficial ways, make responsible and realistic choices in
their daily lives, and maintain healthy relationships (Seligman & Reichenburg, 2010).
Another important goal is to make people aware of how their total behavior functions and
understand that the easiest way to achieve change is to not dwell on thoughts and
feelings, but take direct actions to solve their problems (Robey, 2011).
Therapeutic Alliance
Echoing, Glasser, Wubbolding asserts that the essential tool in encouraging
change in Reality Therapy is the relationship between counselor and client (Robey, 2011).
Just as engaging in healthy relationships based on mutual respect in ones daily life is
essential, only the same type of relationship makes sense for the therapeutic alliance in
Reality Therapy. This relationship is collaborative in nature and client and clinician work
together to discuss mutually agreed upon goals and solidify commitment to those goals
through contracts (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). Both parties are actively engaged in
the healing process and work together to explore, evaluate, and revise (client) choices
(Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010).
Role of Counselor & Client

Personal Theory of Counseling

Reality therapists are personable, caring, genuine practitioners who are relatable
and self-disclose in professional ways, but are also reliable sources of knowledge for their
clients. They take considerable responsibility for the direction and success of
treatment, (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010) but encourage and help clients to evaluate
their behaviors and choices themselves through a variety of interventions. Clinicians also
teach clients the Choice Theory concepts, especially about needs, quality world, and
total behavior (Peterson, 2000) Though clients should be heard when discussing past
events and their thoughts and feelings validated in relation to those events, the goal of the
clinician is to bring the clients focus to their present lives and help them determine how
they will take action to address the problems they face today. (Peterson, 2000).
In order to be successful in Reality Therapy, the client must accept that while they
may receive help, guidance, and support from their clinician, ultimately the responsibility
for their healing is in their own hands. As Glasser points out, a teacher can give a
student information and help him or her use the information, but the teacher cant do the
work for the student (Glasser, 1998). The role of the client then is to commit to change,
work with their clinician in forming a viable plan of action to achieve it and actively
pursue it in their daily lives (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010).
Techniques and Approaches
Reality Therapists take advantage of a number of different interventions and adapt
them to each client and their specific needs. Strategies include the use of metaphors,
intentional questioning, encouraging positive addictions, utilizing reasonable rather than
punitive consequences, renegotiating unsuccessful therapeutic contracts/plans,
paradoxical interventions and skill development (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010).

Personal Theory of Counseling

A specific intervention developed by Robert Wubbolding, is the WDEP system, in
which the therapist addresses a clients wants, their direction and doing, and evaluation
and planning, through a variety of questions (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). In
addressing a clients wants, the therapist seeks to help the client determine if the
perceptions in their quality world are negative or positive and then help them choose the
most beneficial path from there. Looking at a clients direction and doing, means helping
them assess their total behavior and the positive or negative consequences of that
behavior. The evaluation aspect helps clients to determine whether their current
perceptions and behavior are realistic and helpful. Finally, in the planning portion, the
clinician and client work together and develop an action plan to make necessary
behavioral changes (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010).
Though the WDEP is a four step process, it is not regimented or expected to be
accomplished in a particular order, rather the clinician determines where to start based on
what makes sense for each individual client (Robey, 2011). Wubbolding asserts that in
the beginning, its fine for a therapist to start with the step by step process but once they
have gained more experience applying the intervention, it will become more fluid and
better reflect their personality and therapeutic style (Robey, 2011). Since its
development, the WDEP has helped to organize the core ideas and goals of Reality
Therapy into a comprehensive and effective approach for clinicians and can be applied to
a wide variety of clients and systems (Robey, 2011).

Critique
Multicultural Considerations

10

Personal Theory of Counseling

There is a great deal of focus on the individual and taking responsibility for ones
own mental health and happiness in Reality Therapy, but because this theory also
acknowledges the importance of a persons unique worldview and that these perceptions
are not developed in a vacuum, but within a specific culture, it is an appropriate theory
for a diverse range of clients and problems (Peterson, 2000). As with the case of the
Albanian women, sometimes it is difficult for people to meet their basic needs in
culturally appropriate ways. Reality Therapy provides clients with the tools to work
within their own unique realities and formulate action plans that will allow them to meet
their needs while respecting cultural norms.
Furthermore, Reality Therapy emphasizes the importance of relationships in our
lives, which would likely appeal to clients from cultures that are more communal in
nature (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). In addition, because this theory is action based
and does not focus on in-depth analysis of feelings or background as the psychodynamic
approach does, it is appropriate to clients from cultures that may consider that method to
be too uncomfortable or inappropriate (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). Some experts
argue that Reality therapists should exercise caution when working with clients who
believe in a higher power, predestination and predetermination, and the value of an
external locus of control (Sanchez & Garriga, 1996 as cited in Seligman & Reichenberg,
2010), as the notion that they are in complete control of their lives might be contradictory
to those beliefs. However, this need not exclude them from treatment because it is the
job of Reality therapists to adapt the theory to each clients specific needs and worldview.
In cases such as these a clinician might ask the client to identify areas of their life where
they feel they have no control and offer ideas of how to work within that reality, then

11

Personal Theory of Counseling

focus on strengthening those areas in which the client feels they can enact positive
change.
Social Justice Considerations
Inherent in Choice Theory is the idea that all human beings are connected and that
helping one another is healthy and beneficial behavior (Glasser, 1998). It also
emphasizes self -empowerment and respect for ones own needs and the needs of others.
Because these beliefs help make up the foundation of Reality Therapy, clinicians
practicing this theory are very well suited to social justice advocacy. Those who suffer
from poverty and oppression are probably not entirely successful in meeting the 5 basic
needs outlined by Glasser. A single mother who works two jobs and cant find affordable
child care, will probably find it difficult to consider what needs of hers arent being met
aside from assuring her children are fed, clothed and cared for. A young gay man who is
bullied by his peers in the school halls probably does not feel a great sense of belonging,
enjoyment or safety in his daily life. These kinds of circumstances are good examples of
when a Reality therapist can double as a client advocate, connecting them to relevant
community programs and resources, acting as a source of support and a voice of
tolerance in the community/systems where clients may face discrimination, and teach
effective coping skills to work within ostensibly unfair and limiting realities.
Mental Illness Considerations
In assessing a clients mental illness, Glasser does not accept that there may be
biological and genetic factors at work that may contribute to psychotic or neurotic
disorders. Instead he sees these illnesses as symptoms that manifest from a life that has
spun out of control and one that lacks healthy, beneficial relationships (Glasser, 1998) He

12

Personal Theory of Counseling

even extends this assessment to some physiological illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis
and believes that counseling can be much more powerful than medication in treating
these diseases (Glasser, 1998). Many experts disagree with his ideas in this regard, but
Wubbolding asserts that clinicians need not ascribe to them in order to practice Reality
Therapy. (Robey, 2011) He goes on to say that Glassers opinions on mental illness are
more peripheral and that the essential core tenets of Reality Therapy are Choice Theory
and WDEP, which can be applied to anyone (Robey, 2011).
As with any theory, clinicians must decide how to best utilize their theoretical
framework in conjunction with their unique personality, experience and beliefs and
develop their own therapeutic style. Furthermore, because the therapeutic relationship in
Reality therapy is collaborative in nature and because the client is ultimately responsible
for the success or failure of their own treatment, clinicians must take into account the
form of treatment the client believes will help them most.

For example, a client who is

depressive and arthritic and has been on medication for years to deal with their symptoms
may be dependent on that medication and fearful to try an approach that dismisses them
outright. Here a Reality therapist could explain the use of medication as one of many
choices the client can make in treating their illness and help them evaluate if its use has
been beneficial. The clinician need not advocate that the client discontinue medication if
they truly believe it is helpful, but offer alternatives through Choice Theory and explain
how addressing issues in their lives like unsatisfactory relationships or destructive
behavioral patterns may also provide symptomatic relief.
Overall Strengths and Limitations

13

Personal Theory of Counseling

Criticism surrounding Reality therapy includes the aforementioned disregard for
the biological and genetic component of mental disorders, minimization of the
importance of psychotropic medication, as well as a general disregard for diagnosis
(which) is inconsistent with current professional guidelines (Seligman & Reichenberg,
2010). However, if clinicians who practice Reality therapy are aware of these limitations
and reconcile them with their own therapeutic style and the specific needs of clients on a
case by- case basis, they need not be detrimental to effective treatment.
Further criticism concerns the lack of attention paid to a clients past and the
environmental factors that may contribute to a clients health and dysfunction (Seligman
& Reichenberg, 2010). Wubbolding asserts that though the past is not the focus of
treatment, if people need to discuss it and view it as integral to their problems today, then
let them do so. (Robey, 2011) Let them get it out and while they do, listen very carefully
to what they did that workedand inquire about that directly (Robey, 2011). In this
way a Reality therapist can help their client determine positive behavioral patterns and
focus on replicating that behavior in the present moment.
As far as environmental factors are concerned, current therapists, educators and
researchers involved in Reality Therapy seem to focus on helping clients work to meet
their needs as best they can in a given environment, rather than attempting to understand
that environment. Whether or not this is ultimately helpful is a matter of professional
opinion. Focusing on why environmental factors contribute to the relative health or
dysfunction of individuals is certainly important when pushing for change in oppressive
and discriminatory systems, however taking immediate and direct action to solve ones

14

Personal Theory of Counseling

problems is the overall goal of Reality therapy and in this framework, focusing on
understanding why, may muddle and slow down that process.
Cited strengths of Reality Therapy include its respectful, empowering, and
encouraging (Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010) nature and its focus on addressing the
fundamental issues in peoples lives such as motivation, need satisfaction, and control
(Seligman & Reichenberg, 2010). The effectiveness of Reality Therapy with individual
clients, groups, in rehabilitation programs and in schools is substantiated by research and
therefore a viable option for a variety of clients and problems (Seligiman & Reichenberg,
2010). Finally, Reality Therapy puts the ultimate responsibility for change in the clients
hands, and in doing so it provides them with the tools necessary to enact change after
therapy has concluded and heightens their belief in themselves and their ability to
continue self-work in the long term.
Personal Reflection
I think the most important thing I learned while researching this paper, was the
practical ways in which Reality therapists can ascribe to Choice Theory and use it as their
foundational base, but adapt the peripheral ideas to their own beliefs, values, and
experience. In examining Robert Wubboldings opinions on the theorys practical
applications today, I was able to reconcile my doubts regarding Glassers take on mental
illness. Although I do believe that medication can be a necessary adjunct to counseling
for some patients, I also think presenting this as one choice out of many and offering a
client alternatives through counseling is a powerful approach. Though issues of chemical
dependence are an important concern, ultimately the therapist and client must come to a

15

Personal Theory of Counseling

decision together and determine if medication is a necessary component in helping them
get their needs met.
In addition, although I knew that engaging in healthy relationships was a central
tenet of Reality therapy, I did not realize that for Glasser, this is the core tenet. According
to Choice Theory, everything we choose to do or not do in our lives is influenced in some
way by our relationships and all of our problems are partly born out of the dysfunction in
these relationships (Glasser, 1998). I think this is a very interesting idea, especially in
regard to his opinion that the painful symptoms of diseases like rheumatoid arthritis are
likely onset by unresolved issues in the sufferers relationships. While this is not
substantiated by research, I think giving arthritic patients an alternative explanation for
their pain can help give them hope and something to focus and work on other than their
physical pain.
The overall experience in writing this paper has served to solidify my belief that
Reality Therapy is the theory that suits me best and one that I seek to continue to explore
and employ as a professional clinician. Though I do relate to many ideas in the Adlerian
and Person-Centered approaches, ultimately the focus of Reality Therapy on choice,
actions and personal responsibility speaks to me the most. Because I intend to become a
school counselor, Im particularly interested in examining how Reality Therapy and
Choice Theory is applied in the American school system today.
Even when people are aware that change is necessary, committing to that change
and following through can be frightening and difficult to do. I believe Reality Therapy is
an empowering approach that can provide people with the necessary support and life

16

Personal Theory of Counseling

skills to effectively confront their problems and take direct action to lead a healthier and
happier life.

17

Personal Theory of Counseling

References
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal
freedom. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Howatt, W. (2001). The evolution of reality therapy to choice
theory. The International Journal of Reality Therapy,
XXI(1), 7.
Peterson, A. (2000). Choice theory and reality therapy. TCA
Journal, 28(1), 41-49.
Robey, P. (2011). Reality therapy and choice theory: An interview
with robert wubbolding. The Family Journal, 19(231), DOI:
10.1177/1066480710397129
Schoo, A., & Schoo, M. (2008). Internal control psychology in
chronic disease management: Using choice theory and counseling. International
Journal of Reality Therapy, XXVIII(1), 21.
Seligman, L., & Reichenberg, L. (2010). Theories of counseling
and psychotherapy. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Tham, E. (2001). The meaning of choice theory for the women of
albania. International Journal of Reality Therapy, XXI(1), 4-6.

18