Socratic Questioning

Definition and Objective of the Method

Socratic questioning is the cornerstone of cognitive therapy for modifying dysfunctional automatic thoughts.

Unlike a debate where the therapist imposes his truth, this technique guides the patient through a series of curious and inquisitive questions so that he himself discovers the lack of logic, evidence or usefulness of his thoughts.

The goal is to turn the patient into a "detective" of his own psyche, leading him to eva luate the accuracy of his ideas through a careful review of the data available in his reality, thus achieving a profound and non-imposed cognitive restructuring.

Evidence and Validity Questions

The first block of questions focuses on the validity of the thinking. The therapist invites you to examine the evidence as if you were in a courtroom.

You ask, "What is the evidence to support this idea?" and, crucially, "Is there any evidence against this thought?"

For example, if a college student believes "I'm going to fail the final exam," he or she is asked to list specific facts (previous grades, hours of study) that support or refute that prediction.

Often, the patient discovers that he or she is relying on an emotional feeling ("I feel I will fail") rather than on objective facts, which undermines the credibility of the automatic thought.

Perspective and Descatastrophizing Questions

The second block seeks to broaden the view and reduce drama. Questions such as "What is the worst thing that could happen and, if it did happen, how would you cope?", "What is the best thing that could happen?" and "What is the most realistic outcome?" are used here.

This helps to place the patient in a middle ground, steering them away from catastrophic extremes.

Additionally, the distancing technique is used by asking, "What would you say to a close friend if he or she were in this same situation?"

Since we tend to be more rational and compassionate with others than with ourselves, this question allows the patient to access a more adaptive and logical response that he already possesses, but was not applying to himself.

Summary

This technique guides the patient through inquisitive questions to discover the lack of logic in his thoughts. It does not impose a truth, but promotes thoughtful and deep self-discovery.

The validity of ideas is examined as in a court of law, looking for evidence for and against. This undermines automatic thoughts based only on emotional sensations and not on objective facts.

It seeks to reduce drama by asking for the worst and best possible scenario. It also uses distancing, imagining what would be said to a friend, to access more compassionate and rational logic.