ABSTRACT
As evaluation of negative thoughts proceeds, therapist and client gather more and more data to weigh the relative merits of thoughts and beliefs, and turn to this variety of methods to evaluate and change them. Padesky and Greenberger (1995) make the useful procedural suggestion that it is helpful to consider evidence that supports the negative thought under scrutiny ®rst. This counter-intuitive suggestion makes sense when we realise that it is often the overeager salesman who is the least convincing. The cognitive therapist does truly want the client to make up his own mind but also realises that overpresenting a case can induce resistance. This view coincides with Safran and Segal's (1990) idea that cognitive restructuring is often most effective when the client is `fully immersed' in his negative thoughts. When a client is in `two minds' about such thinking, therapist interventions may be unhelpfully embroiled in his internal debate. The testing of beliefs is `inductive' and Socratic because it proceeds from the theory inherent in the client's thought and then tests that thought against available evidence.
