Challenging Hofmann's negative thoughts: A rebuttal

• Published in: Clinical psychology review Vol. 28; no. 1; pp. 71 - 74
• Main Authors: Worrell, Michael, Longmore, Richard J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 01.01.2008
• Subjects: Cognitive behavior therapy; Cognitive mediation; Component analyses; Empirical findings; Rapid response; Empirical findings; Component analyses; Cognitive mediation; Cognitive behavior therapy; Rapid response
• ISSN: 0272-7358; 1873-7811
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.004

In his commentary on Longmore and Worrell [Longmore, R., & Worrell, M. (2007) Do we need to challenge thoughts in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? Clinical Psychology review, 27, 173−187], Hofmann [Hofmann, S. G. (2008-this issue). Common misconceptions about cognitive mediation of treatment change: A commentary to Longmore and Worrell (2007). Clinical Psychology Review, doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.003] argues that the paper shows a range of errors, biases, and misconceptions that have led to incorrect interpretations of the literature and general conclusions. Hofmann discusses recent developments in the methodological criteria for mediation studies in support of his contentions. In this rebuttal it is demonstrated that Hofmann has in fact misrepresented the primary focus and arguments of Longmore and Worrell (2007). Additionally, it is shown that the arguments and research findings that Hofmann discusses do not constitute a significant challenge to the conclusions drawn as a result of the original review.