Articles Section

Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies,

Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2013, 1-11.

E-PRIME/R-PRIME AND EMOTION REGULATION

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE BINARY MODEL OF
DISTRESS: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
BASED ON THE GENERAL SEMANTICS
FRAMEWORK
Daniel DAVID*
Babe-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Abstract
E-Prime refers to a linguistic tool developed from the General Semantics
framework in order to increase the clarity of thoughts and communication.
Compared to E-Standard (i.e., standard and/or classic English), E-Prime
argues that the verb to be in the forms of is of identity and is of
predication has structural problems, confusing the map (e.g., mental
representations) and territory (i.e., physical and/or psychological
environment). Therefore, compared to E-Standard (i.e., E-Classic), E-Prime
eliminates all the forms of the verb to be. R-Prime incorporates the same
philosophy, but it refers to Romanian (R), rather than English (E). In this
study we investigated the role of R-Prime versus R-Standard (i.e., R-
Classic) in inducing anger, in the context of the binary model of distress:
functional negative (i.e., annoyance) versus dysfunctional negative (anger)
feelings. R-Prime condition displayed a higher level of annoyance at post-
test as compared to the R-Standard condition. The level of anger increased
(from baseline to post-test) similarly in both R-Prime and R-Standard
conditions. Thus, R-Prime induced (from baseline to post-test) both
functional (annoyance) and dysfunctional negative feelings (anger), while
R-Standard induced (from baseline to post-test) only dysfunctional negative
feelings (anger). In the end, we discuss implications for theory, practice,
and future developments.

Keywords: rational and irrational beliefs, rational emotive behavior therapy,

E-Prime/R-Prime, anger and annoyance, emotion regulation

Generals semantics and E-Prime; Fundamentals

General Semantics refers to a program initiated by Alfred Korzybski. The

book Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and
General Semantics (Korzybski, 1933) presented the foundations of the program.
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
E-mail: [email protected]; The author wrote this article in E-Prime.

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 1

Articles Section

Alfred Korzybski introduced General Semantics as a branch of natural sciences

and/or as applied analytical philosophy aiming to improve the ways people
interact with their environment and with one another, especially through training
in the critical use of human mind symbols (e.g., words, concepts). Indeed,
Korzybski often mentioned influential philosophers as his original sources, like
the (neo)positivistic philosophers of the Vienna Circle, analytic philosopher
Ludwig Wittgenstein, and the pragmatist Charles Pierce.
A key foundational idea of General Semantics refers to the fact that the
Map is not the Territory. This means that our symbols (e.g., words) create a
map (e.g., mental representations) of our territory (e.g., external and private
environment) and then impact our psychological responses (e.g., feelings,
behaviors). However, sometimes the map of a territory does not reflect
correctly and/or precisely the territory and thus, it can generate psychological
problems when we face and navigate in the territory. This idea looks very
similar to Albert Elliss ABC model (1962), which argues that our psychological
outcomes (C: feelings, behaviors, other cognitions) do not stem from the
activating events (A), but from how we process them (B; beliefs). Indeed, Albert
Ellis recognized the influence of General Semantics when he formulated his
rational-emotive and cognitive-behavioral therapy (REBT/CBT; Ellis, 1962).
General Semantics has generated many academic and lay publications,
controversial outcomes, and debates. For example, Trainor (1930) presented
controversial results showing that by using the exercises described in Chapter 29
of Science and Sanity, the level of intelligence increased. The field attracted the
attention and support of famous scientists (e.g., the Nobel Prize winner physicist
P.W. Bridgman) and impacted (more or less) several major fields and authors
(e.g., the development of algorithmic probability Solomonoff, 1997; the
psychotherapy field Ellis, 1962; psycholinguistic theory through the Sapir-
Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis see Smith, 1966). Chase (1966) introduced
General Semantics in his famous book The Tyranny of the Words and
semanticist Hayakawa (1978) popularized General Semantics in the academic
field. However, few experimental studies existed and thus the field moved quickly
into philosophical debates and/or untestable claims. The claims of the field in the
absence of empirical support made Martin Gardner say that General Semantics
looks like pseudoscience (Gardner, 1957).
Today the field seems an active one, although not mainstream, and more
and more evidence-based oriented. It tries not to make claims beyond the data
anymore and to develop by critical thinking and scientific debates. The Institute
for General Semantics (see here http://www.generalsemantics.org/) nicely
summarized most of the studies and the state of the art of General Semantics.
One of the rigorous and high-impact outcomes of the General Semantics
field relates to E-Prime (i.e., English-Prime). E-Prime refers to a prescriptive
version of the standard/classic English (i.e., E-Standard or E-Classic) proposed by
Bourland (1965). The main idea of E-Prime refers to the fact that in E-Standard

2 Daniel David
 Articles Section

the verb to be in the forms of is of identity and is of predication has

structural problems, confusing the map and territory. Bourland sees the
"identity" and "predication" functions as specifically problematic, but advocates
eliminating all forms (e.g., class membership, auxiliary, location, existence) for
the sake of simplicity.

EXAMPLE
E-Standard
Is of identity: The electron is a wave. (Wilson, 1989).
o It suggests that the situation: The electron is a particle challenges
the situation that The electron is a wave. (see Wilson, 1989).
Is of predication: He is a bad person.
o It involves the logical fallacy of overgeneralization (generalized
inference).
E-Prime
The electron behaves as a wave.
o This formulation avoids the identity between the map (i.e., the
wave) and territory (i.e., the electron). Thus, in different
experimental conditions, the electron behaves as a particle.
He behaves badly.
o This formulation provides us with a nuanced description focused on a
particular behavior, implying the unconditional acceptance of the
person (not of the behavior).

Its proponents advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and

strengthen writing (see Kellogg, 1978). As General Semantics, E-prime too
generated several hot debates in the field. Several important authors started to
write their scientific contribution in E-Prime, for grater clarity. For example, in
psychology, Albert Ellis re-wrote some of his books in E-Prime (see the
Appendix). Additionally, although less prominent, E-Prime influenced non-
scientific fields (e.g., science fiction, historical novels, poetry, and theater; see the
work of Robert Anton Wilson). Indeed, a cultural debate about E-Prime started in
the field. In culture, the clarity (i.e., the similarity between the map and the
territory) does not represent the main aim. Culture defines its main standards in
relationship to esthetic values, rather than values of truth. However, many artists
argue that E-Prime could generate both clarity and esthetic values. Bourland
summarized the data and debates about E-Prime in several anthologies (e.g.,
Bourland & Johnston, 1991; 1997; Johnston, Bourland, & Klein, 1994).
I myself think that E-Prime should not force itself as the only legitimate
language, as compared to E-Standard. Indeed, the field should not formulate the
problem in terms of E-Prime or E-Standard. The problem should contain the
issue: when to use E-Prime and/or E-Standard? This way we move into an E-

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 3

Articles Section

Choice flexible language paradigm (see Menefee, 1991) that seems pretty
consistent with the basic principles of General Semantics (sic!). For example, in
this article I argue, and then test this idea, that the use of E-Prime might fit better
than E-Standard in the field of psychotherapy, more precisely as part of the
cognitive restructuring techniques.

Anger and annoyance; Fundamentals

Based on the ABC model of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavior

theory (REBT/CBT), anger refers to an emotion arising when we process a
negative activating event irrationally (David, 2003).

EXAMPLE
Activating event (A)
A life event that has motivational relevance and incongruence: My boss does
not respect me.
Irrational Beliefs (B)
Primary appraisal
o Rigid/absolutistic/inflexible thinking - Demandigness (DEM): He
must respect me and I cannot conceive otherwise.
Secondary appraisal
o Frustration intolerance (FI): I cannot stand when I am not treated
fairly, as I should be.
o Global evaluation (GE)/Other-downing (OD): My boss is a bad
person.
Consequences (C)
Emotion: Anger oriented toward the boss; if global evaluation appears in the
form of self-downing (SD: I am stupid) or life-downing (LD: Life is
unfair), rather than other-downing (OD), anger focuses on ourselves or
life/situation respectively.

According to REBT/CBT, a functional negative feeling will arise if we

process a negative activating event rationally.

EXAMPLE
Activating event (A)
A life event that has motivational relevance and incongruence: My boss does
not respect me.
Rational Beliefs (B)
Primary appraisal
o Preference/acceptance (PRE) that involves formulation of our
desires/goals in terms of flexible preference, motivational intensity,

4 Daniel David
 Articles Section

and acceptance: I would very much like him to respect, me and I do

my best in this regard, but I can accept that sometimes the things do
not happen the way I want.
Secondary appraisal
o Frustration tolerance (FT) that involves high frustration tolerance,
recognition of the difficulty, and hope for the future: I can stand it
when my boss does not treat me the way I would like, even if I do not
like it; I do my best to look for positive outcomes otherwise.
o Unconditional acceptance (UA) that involves unconditional-other
acceptance, motivation for change, and nuanced and contextualized
evaluations (e.g., specific behaviors): I can accept my boss as a
person, although he has behaved badly, and I will do my best to make
him change his behavior.
Consequences (C)
Emotion: Annoyance (healthy anger) oriented toward the boss.

While annoyance has functional consequences (e.g., motivates us to look

for solutions), anger has dysfunctional consequences (e.g., creates more problems
at work). According to the binary model of distress (see David et al., 2005), if one
feels anger (i.e., dysfunctional negative feeling), her/she will also feel annoyance;
however, one can feel annoyance (i.e., functional negative feeling) and no anger.
Therefore, anger does not simply mean more annoyance. Anger and annoyance
seem qualitatively different and both can vary from low to high levels (see David
et al., 2005).
In REBT/CBT a key therapeutic process involves the cognitive
restructuring of irrational beliefs into their correspondent rational beliefs.
Obviously, one can also work directly on the A (e.g., by using communication
and problems solving techniques) and/or on the C (e.g., by using various coping
and self-control strategies), but these represent examples of feeling better (e.g.,
symptomatic treatments), rather than getting better and staying better (Ellis,
2001). A focus on A or C, instead of B, seems appropriate in crisis situations,
rather than in a natural therapeutic process, where cognitive restructuring
represents the key etiopathogenetically-oriented therapeutic strategy.
As one can see in the above examples, global evaluation in the form of
self-, other-, and life-downing involves is of identity and/or prediction.
Therefore, one could argue that if we change this appraisal mechanism, we will
not experience anger. Thus, E-Prime appears as an appealing and a potential tool
for cognitive restructuring, particularly focused on changing global evaluation
and promoting unconditional self-, other-, and life-acceptance.

Overview of this study

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 5

Articles Section

Velten (1968) devised procedures for mood induction (e.g., depression,

elation). Engebretson, Sirota, Niauara, Edwards, and Brown (1999) used this
procedure and extended it for anger induction. The procedure asks participants to
read several anger-inducing phrases (i.e., propositions). These propositions come
formulated in E-Standard and/or in E-Prime. In this study we investigated the
effect of these anger-inducting phrases formulated in R-Standard (i.e., R-Classic)
versus R-Prime, in the context of the binary model of distress. More precisely, we
used R-Prime (Romanian-Prime). R-Prime reflects the same principles as E-
Prime, and R-Standard has the same structural problems as concerning
Generals Semantics as E-Standard. David (2010) first formulated and
introduced R-Prime in an article written in R-Prime.
We did not specifically aim to test and/or investigate the binary model of
distress, but to use it as a context for exploring the role of R-Prime and R-
Standard in emotional regulation. Based on the above analysis, we advanced the
following specific hypotheses:
(1) We expect a higher level of anger at post-test in the R-Standard group
compared to the R-Prime group, due the fact that global evaluation
(involving is of identity and/or prediction) impacts anger as a key
secondary appraisal mechanism.
(2) We expect an increased level of annoyance at post-test in the R-Prime
group compared to the R-Standard group due to the fact that R-Prime
eliminates global evaluation (that involves is of identity and/or
prediction) and provides nuanced evaluations and unconditional
acceptance, as a key secondary appraisal mechanism.
Aposteriori/Posthoc analyses will also explore the changes from baseline
to post-test in the case of annoyances and anger.

Method

Participants
The sample consisted of 64 participant, 56 females and 8 males (mean
age = 22.96; standard deviation = 3.54). The author randomly distributed the
participants into two groups: (1) the R-Standard group and (2) the R-Prime group.
Power calculation showed appropriateness of the sample to detect a
medium effect size (Cohens d = .50), for an alpha power of .80 at p < .05.
Indeed, a d = .50 suggests that about 69% of participants in the control group
would score below the average participant in the experimental group; such an
effect could have an ecological relevance. In a pilot testing (Ples & David, 2012)
the impact (from baseline to post-test) of R-Standard on anger surpassed the
impact of R-Prime on anger by 50% (Cohens ds: -0.83, respectively -0.46).

Design

6 Daniel David
 Articles Section

We used a two by two experimental design. Time represents the first

variable, with two modalities: Baseline and Post-Test. Engebretson et al.s
procedure (1999) for anger induction represents the second variable, with two
modalities: R-Standard and R-Prime.

Measures
Anger and Annoyance. We measured both anger and annoyance by using
single numerical scales. First we asked the participants to choose between three
conditions: (1) anger; (2) annoyance; and (3) anger and annoyance, describing
their emotional state. Then within the chosen condition, participants evaluated (on
a scale from 0 to 100) their level of anger, annoyance, or both anger and
annoyance. If participants chose the anger or annoyance condition, we considered
the score of the other condition as 0. We used this procedure to force our
participants to choose the best term describing their feelings. Often, participants
use various emotional terms carelessly (see David et al., 2005), based on
linguistic habits, rather than reflecting important differences related to their
experienced feelings. For example, many people could report feeling depressed
(rather than sad) in minor negative situations, but when we confront them with
a choice between depressed and sad they would choose sad. Similarly, for
serious negative situations, people reformulate sad as depressed, when
educated and given time to decide for the best term describing their feelings.
R-Standard and R-Prime. We used Engebretson et al.s procedure (1999)
for anger induction, in the form of the R-Standard for one group and R-Prime for
the other group. The author (DD) and two Romanian supervisors in rational-
emotive & cognitive-behavioral therapy (REBT/CBT) made the translation (R-
Standard and R-Prime) and they agreed 100% upon their final versions (the
author can make the phrases available, upon request). Engebretson et al.s anger
induction procedure (1999) uses 50 anger-inducing phrases. 24 phrases (48%)
contained the verb to be and therefore, we reformulated into R-Prime only these
phrases (i.e., specific phrases); the other phrases remained the same (i.e., common
phrases) in both experimental procedures. It should be noted that of 24 phrases
(i.e., specific phrases) not all contained is of identity and/or of predication
(some of them use the verb to be as an auxiliary verb).

Procedure
We randomly distributed participants in two groups: R-Standard and R-
Prime. First we measured the levels of anger and annoyance at baseline. Then, we
used the Engebretson et al.s procedure (1999) for anger induction, in the form of
the R-Standard, for one group, and R-Prime, for the other group. Finally, we
measured both anger and annoyance again, at post-test.

Results

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 7

Articles Section

Descriptive analyses. Table 1 presents the descriptive analyses.

Table 1. Descriptive analyses

Baseline Post-Test
R-Prime - Anger 1.25 (7.07) 12.18 (22.85)
R-Standard - Anger 3.9 (12.61) 13.43 (23.77)
R-Prime -Annoyance 16.37 (18.32) 27.96 (23.20)
R-Standard - Annoyance 15.81 (21.07) 16.78 (15.14)
Legend: Means and (Standard Deviations)

Inferential analyses. We found no differences between the experimental

conditions (R-Standard versus R-Prime) at baseline, for neither anger nor
annoyance (all ps > 0.05).
ANGER: Apriori analyses Between Group Analyses. We obtained no
statistically significant differences in anger levels at post-tests, when we
compared the R-Standard and the R-Prime conditions [F(1, 62) = 0.04, p = 0.83].
ANGER: Aposteriori/Posthoc analyses Within group analyses. The
level of anger from baseline to post-test increased in both the R-Standard
condition [t (31) = 2.15, p = 0.03] and in the R-Prime condition [t (31) = 2.92, p
= 0.006].
ANNOYANCE: Apriori analyses Between group analyses. We obtained
a higher level of annoyance at post-test in the R-Prime condition compared to the
R-Standard condition [F(1, 62) = 4.29, p = 0.04]. As we obtained a medium
Cohens effects size (d = 0.57), it means that about 73% of the participants in the
R-Standard group score below the average participant in the R-Prime group on
annoyance at post-test.
ANNOYANCE: Aposteriori/Posthoc analyses With group analyses. The
level of annoyance increased from baseline to post-test in the R-Prime condition
[t (31) = 2.68, p = 0.01], but not in the R-Standard condition [t (31) = 0.31, p =
0.75].

Discussion and conclusions

Our data did not support our first hypothesis. Indeed, we obtained no
statistically significant difference in anger levels at post-tests, when comparing
the R-Standard and the R-Prime conditions. Posthoc analyses showed that anger
increased significantly from baseline to post-tests in both groups. However, our
data supported the second hypothesis. Indeed, we obtained a higher level of
annoyance at post-test in the R-Prime condition compared to the R-Standard
condition. Posthoc analyses showed that annoyance increased from baseline to
post-test only in case of the R-Prime condition.
Thus, our results appear as mixed. Based on them we can say that R-
Prime seems to induce (from baseline to post-test) both functional (annoyance)

8 Daniel David
 Articles Section

and dysfunctional negative feelings (anger), while R-Standard seems to induce

(from baseline to post-test) dysfunctional negative feelings (anger). We found
similar increases in anger levels (from baseline to post-test) in both R-Prime and
R-Standard condition.
One would expect based on the binary model of distress that an
increase in anger in the R-Standard condition (from baseline to post-test) would
also imply an increase in annoyance. While we found a very small trend in this
direction, the increase did not reach statistical significance. This might have
happened not because of power limitations (in fact the study has good statistical
power), but because anger dominated subjective feelings due to the experimental
condition (e.g., the use of the standard Engebretson et al. procedure for anger
induction with both specific and common phrases), and thus, the annoyance
accompanying the feeling of anger did not emerge subjectively and in the
evaluation instruments as strong as anger did. On the contrary, in the R-Prime
condition, anger dominated the subjective feelings due to the experimental
condition (e.g., common phrases), but annoyance also emerged strongly (e.g., due
to the specific phrases). Future studies should clarify these issues.
Indeed, the interpretation of our results should take into account the above
mentioned context: Engebretson et al.s anger induction procedure (1999) uses 50
anger-inducing phrases. However, only 24 phrases (48%) contained the verb to
be (i.e., specific phrases) and therefore, we reformulated into R-Prime only these
phrases; the other phrases remained the same (i.e., common phrases) in both
experimental procedures. Moreover, of these 24 phrases (i.e., specific phrases) not
all contained is of identity and/or of predication (some of them, for example,
use the verb to be as an auxiliary verb). Therefore, the fact that we had many
common phrases between the experimental conditions, masked the effect of R-
Prime in reducing anger compared to the R-Standard condition. Moreover, this
could explain why both R-Prime and R-Standard increased anger in a similar way
(and thus one of our hypotheses seems not supported by data).
We need future research to better understand the mechanisms of the
effects found here (e.g., does R-Prime generate its effects on anger and annoyance
by reducing global evaluation?) and to check for their stability and
generalizability (e.g., across various cultures and from laboratory to ecological
conditions).
Our procedure changing R-Standard into R-Prime did not exactly
mirror a classical cognitive restructuring process (e.g., targeting DEM, FI, and
GE, and change them into PRE, FT, and UA). Therefore, future research should
formulate the core beliefs involved in anger in R-Standard versus R-Prime.
Obviously, the primary candidate refers to global evaluation (GE) (a type of
irrational belief that clearly involves is of identity and/or predication). A GE in
the form of other-downing formulated in R-Classic (My wife is not listening to
me; therefore she is bad.) can appear in R-Prime (My wife does not follow
my advise; therefore she has her own choices.), thus promoting unconditional

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 9

Articles Section

other acceptance. But, we could also study (by using R-Standard versus R-Prime
paradigm) the other key irrational beliefs involved in anger, in two ways. First,
we can formulate each irrational belief (i.e., DEM, FI) in (1) R-Prime (e.g., DEM:
She must behave flexibly, and I cannot accept otherwise. and FI: I cannot
stand when she does not behave as she should.) or (2) R-Standard (e.g., DEM:
She must be flexible, and I cannot accept otherwise. and FI: I cannot stand it
when she is not the way she should be.). Second, we can formulate the
rational alternative (i.e., PRE, FT) in (1) R-Prime (e.g., PRE: I prefer she
behaves flexibly, but I can accept if this does not happen and she behaves
stubbornly. and FT: I can stand it when she does not behave appropriately.) or
(2) R-Standard (e.g., PRE: I would like her to be flexible, but I can accept if
she does not behave the way I want. and FT: I can stand it when she is not
compliant.). The results of such a design would give us extremely important
information because, indeed, R-Prime and rational beliefs do not represent exactly
the same thing. Therefore, we can start several new research areas. Do rational
beliefs, formulated in R-Prime, help us more (in terms of healthy psychological
consequences) than rational beliefs formulated in R-Standard? Do irrational
beliefs formulated in R-Standard generate stronger psychopathology than
irrational beliefs formulated in R-Prime? Which dimensions help us more in
generating healthy psychological consequences and avoiding psychopathology:
(1) rational versus irrational beliefs or (2) R-Standard versus R-Prime? These
questions open important and innovative lines of research.
The limitations of the study mainly relate to the use of the Engebretson et
al. anger induction procedure (1999) that did not allow pure R-Prime versus R-
Standard sets of mood induction phrases (a large segment of both sets represented
common phrases). Therefore, in order to better control the effect of R-Prime and
to understand its internal validity, we need pure R-Standard versus R-Prime
experimental conditions that should avoid common phrases.
Overall, our results showed that R-Prime looks like a promising line of
research with important theoretical and practical impact in the psychological field.

REFERENCES

Bourland, D. D. (1965). A linguistic note: Writing in e-prime. General Semantics Bulletin

32/33, 111-14.
Bourland, D. D., & Johnston, P. D. (eds. 1991). To be or not: An E-prime anthology. San
Francisco: International Society for General Semantics.
Chase, S (1966). The tyranny of words. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Bourland, D. D., & Johnston, P. D. (eds. 1997). E-Prime III! : A third anthology.
Concord, California: International Society for General Semantics.
David, D. (2003). Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT); The view of a cognitive
psychologist. In W. Dryden (Ed.), Theoretical developments in REBT, (pp. 130-
159). London: Brunner/Routledge.

10 Daniel David
 Articles Section

David, D. (2010). Despre limbajul R-Prime [About R-Prime]. A Blog article:

http://danieldavidubb.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/despre-limbajul-r-prime/.
David, D., Montgomery, G. H., Macavei, B., & Bovbjerg, D. (2005). An empirical
investigation of Albert Ellis binary model of distress. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 61, 499-516.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A. (2001). Feeling better, getting better, staying better: Profound self-help therapy
for your emotions. Atascadero, CA: Impact.
Engebretson, T. O., Sirota, A. D., Niaura, R. S., Edwards, K., & Brown, W. A. (1999). A
simple laboratory method for inducing anger: A preliminary investigation.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 47, 13-26.
Gardner, M. (1957). Fads & fallacies in the name of science. Dover Publications: New
York.
Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Language in thought and action. San Diego: Harcourt (4th Ed).
Johnston, P. D., Bourland, D. D., & Klein, J. (Eds., 1994). More E-Prime: To be or not II.
Concord, California: International Society for General Semantics.
Kellogg, E. W. (1987). Speaking in E-Prime: An experimental approach for integrating
General Semantics into daily life. Et cetera, 44, 118-28.
Korzybski, A. (1933) Science and sanity: An introduction to non-aristotelian systems and
General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics.
Menefee, E. (1991). E-Prime or E-Choice. Et cetera, 48, 136-140.
Ples, I., & David, D. (2012). Efectului limbajului standard versus R-Prime asupra
experientierii starii de manie: Un studiu preliminar [The effect of R-Standard
versus R-Prime on the experience of anger: A preliminary study]. Babes-Bolyai
University (Master Dissertation).
Smith, E. C. (1966). The status of the Sapir-Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis in
psycholinguistics literature. Department of Communication, Stanford University
(Dissertation).
Solomonoff, R. (1997). The discovery of algorithmic probability, Journal of Computer
and System Sciences, 55, 73-88.
Trainor, J. C. (1935). Experimental results of training in General Semantics upon
intelligence test scores. Paper presented before the First American Congress for
General Semantics.
Velten, E. A. (1968). A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 6, 473-482.
Wilson, R. A. (1989). Toward understanding E-Prime. Et cetera, 46, 316-319.

Appendix
(1) Albert Ellis and Robert Harper (1975): A New Guide to Rational Living, 2d ed. (North
Hollywood, Calif.: Wilshire Book Company);
(2) Albert Ellis (1975): How to Live with a Neurotic 2d ed. (North Hollywood, Calif.:
Wilshire Book Company, 1975);
(3) Albert Ellis (1976): Sex and the Liberated Man (Secaucus, NJ.: Lyle Stuart; 2d ed. of
Sex and the Single Man);
(4) Albert Ellis (1977): Anger: How to Live with and without It (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel
Press);
(5) Albert Ellis (1977): Overcoming Procrastination, 2d ed. (New York: Signet).

General semantics, R-Prime, and emotion regulation 11