Skip to content
Back to skills

不合理信念现场验证实验

ASecurity

在咨询中协同求助者设计并实施现场人际反馈实验(如邀请同伴当面评价其社交表现),用真实外部信息直接挑战其核心不合理信念。

  • 2 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 27, 2026
businessrustexpressawsapi

Works with

  • cli
  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 3 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 27, 2026

npx -y skills add David-Li0406/meta-skill-evloving --skill '不合理信念现场验证实验' --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of 不合理信念现场验证实验?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for 不合理信念现场验证实验
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/david-li0406-meta-skill-evloving-50932671/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/david-li0406-meta-skill-evloving-50932671)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
id: "60354b62-601f-5456-8a6f-50b3e00e6fa6"
name: "不合理信念现场验证实验"
description: "在咨询中协同求助者设计并实施现场人际反馈实验(如邀请同伴当面评价其社交表现),用真实外部信息直接挑战其核心不合理信念。"
version: "0.1.0"
tags:
  - "CBT"
  - "cognitive restructuring"
  - "behavioral experiment"
  - "peer feedback"
  - "belief disconfirmation"
  - "心理动力学"
  - "profile:psychology::心理动力学"
  - "axis:疗法"
  - "class:心理动力学"
  - "kind:child"
  - "document_merge_state:active"
  - "canonical:true"
triggers:
  - "识别出具体、可验证的不合理信念(如‘他们会嘲笑我’)"
  - "求助者对信念真实性存疑但尚未动摇"
  - "有安全可控的同伴资源支持现场验证"
examples:
  - input: "求助者坚信:‘我说话时他们肯定觉得我很蠢,会背地里笑话我。’"
    output: "同伴回应:‘她说话挺清楚的,我们都没觉得奇怪,也没人笑话她。’ 求助者轻声说:‘哦……原来他们根本没注意这个。’"
    notes: "Focus on observable absence of expected negative behavior."
  - input: "求助者认为:‘我一开口,大家就会觉得我是个怪物。’"
    output: "同伴回应:‘她就是有点慢热,但聊起来挺正常的,不像怪物。’ 求助者低头停顿后说:‘啊……在别人眼里,我还没有这么糟。’"
    notes: "Direct quote from excerpt; marks early cognitive softening."
---

# 不合理信念现场验证实验

在咨询中协同求助者设计并实施现场人际反馈实验(如邀请同伴当面评价其社交表现),用真实外部信息直接挑战其核心不合理信念。

## Prompt

协同求助者共同选定1–2位可信、友善的同龄同伴(如同班/同宿舍同学);在安全、私密且可控的咨询室内,当着求助者面,向同伴提出结构化问题(如‘她和你们说话时,是否真的像她说的那样脸红发抖、显得怪异?’);引导求助者倾听、记录并即时复述他人反馈;随后与求助者一起对比其原有信念与实际反馈,标注差异,支持其表达认知松动(如‘原来没那么糟’)。

## Objective

修正核心自动思维
## Applicable Signals

- 求助者使用绝对化、以偏概全、灾难化语言描述他人反应(如‘他们一定会嘲笑我’)
- 求助者能识别该想法但无法自我反驳
- 求助者曾提及某位同伴态度友善或中立

## Contraindications

- 求助者当前极度羞耻或拒绝他人接触
- 缺乏可信同伴或环境不支持公开验证
- 信念内容涉及现实危险(如被伤害)而非认知扭曲

## Intervention Moves

- 共构验证问题(聚焦可观察行为,非主观评价)
- Third-party live testimony elicitation
- Real-time belief–evidence contrast mapping
- Cognitive softening reflection ('What felt different hearing that?')

## Workflow Steps

- Step 1: Collaboratively identify one concrete, observable belief (e.g., 'I look like a monster when speaking').
- Step 2: Select 1–2 trusted peers; obtain verbal consent for brief, respectful feedback.
- Step 3: Conduct in-session, face-to-face peer inquiry using behaviorally anchored questions (e.g., 'When she talks to you, do you notice her face turning red or hands shaking?').
- Step 4: Invite求助者 to paraphrase each response aloud; therapist mirrors and validates emotional impact.
- Step 5: Jointly note discrepancies between belief and observed evidence; elicit first-person cognitive shift statement.

## Constraints

- Must occur in-session with therapist present; never assigned as homework.
- Peer questions must target observable behaviors—not interpretations or feelings about the求助者.
- No more than two peers per session; total duration ≤12 minutes.

## Cautions

- Avoid leading questions or implying expectation of positive feedback.
- Monitor for shame escalation; pause and normalize if求助者 withdraws mid-process.
- Do not use peers who are authority figures or emotionally entangled with求助者.

## Output Contract

- 求助者 verbally articulates at least one objective peer observation (e.g., 'She said I didn’t shake or stutter'), and expresses emergent cognitive flexibility (e.g., 'Hmm… maybe it’s not as bad as I thought' or 'I didn’t realize they didn’t notice that').

## Example Therapist Responses

### Example 1

- Client/Input: 求助者坚信:‘我说话时他们肯定觉得我很蠢,会背地里笑话我。’
- Therapist/Output: 同伴回应:‘她说话挺清楚的,我们都没觉得奇怪,也没人笑话她。’ 求助者轻声说:‘哦……原来他们根本没注意这个。’
- Notes: Focus on observable absence of expected negative behavior.

### Example 2

- Client/Input: 求助者认为:‘我一开口,大家就会觉得我是个怪物。’
- Therapist/Output: 同伴回应:‘她就是有点慢热,但聊起来挺正常的,不像怪物。’ 求助者低头停顿后说:‘啊……在别人眼里,我还没有这么糟。’
- Notes: Direct quote from excerpt; marks early cognitive softening.

## Files

- `references/evidence.md`
- `references/evidence_manifest.json`

## Triggers

- 识别出具体、可验证的不合理信念(如‘他们会嘲笑我’)
- 求助者对信念真实性存疑但尚未动摇
- 有安全可控的同伴资源支持现场验证

## Examples

### Example 1

Input:

  求助者坚信:‘我说话时他们肯定觉得我很蠢,会背地里笑话我。’

Output:

  同伴回应:‘她说话挺清楚的,我们都没觉得奇怪,也没人笑话她。’ 求助者轻声说:‘哦……原来他们根本没注意这个。’

Notes:

  Focus on observable absence of expected negative behavior.

### Example 2

Input:

  求助者认为:‘我一开口,大家就会觉得我是个怪物。’

Output:

  同伴回应:‘她就是有点慢热,但聊起来挺正常的,不像怪物。’ 求助者低头停顿后说:‘啊……在别人眼里,我还没有这么糟。’

Notes:

  Direct quote from excerpt; marks early cognitive softening.

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • references/evidence.md3.2 KB
  • references/evidence_manifest.json5.3 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…