An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory for Clinicians

An Introduction to Relational

Frame Theory for Clinicians

ACBS Annual World Conference VIIIReno, Nevada

JT Blackledge, Ph. D.Morehead State University, Kentucky, USA

Niklas Törneke, M. D.NT Psykiatri, Kalmar, Sweden

Structure for the workshop

Introduction Functional contextualism Basic behavioral principles RFT in the lab Main concepts in RFT and their general

implications RFT and clinical work (ACT)

Blackledge/Törneke 2

Blackledge/Törneke

Behavioral tradition Skinner and verbal behavior: An interpretative analysis based on animal research and general knowledgeTwo problems:

Noam Chomsky A lack of an extensive research program

3

Blackledge/Törneke

Cognitive tradition Hopythetical constructs as the answer: Mental representations, schemaTwo problems:

Central phenomena cannot be manipulated Analysis of talking dissappeared when

thinking was made the central issue

4

Clinical impact

Is everybody as good as everybody? Does verbal behavior (cognition) matter? What about going back to basic science for

some answers?


Background Information

for ACT & RFT A full appreciation of what RFT has to do

with ACT requires: An understanding of functional contextualism An understanding of basic behavioral

principles Including the continuity between the nature and

purpose of these principles and the nature and purpose of RFT & ACT.


Functional Contextualism:The Philosophical Foundation for

ACT & RFT

Described “relatively adequate” pre-analytic philosophical assumptions people make about (1) the goals of science and (2) the nature of knowledge. Cast them as untestable assumptions

Matters of subjective opinion Can’t run an empirical study to see whose

opinions about the goals of science and the nature of knowledge are “wrong” and whose are “right”

Stephen Pepper’s “World Hypotheses”

Pre-Analytic Assumptions about Science

1. What is the goal of science? Science is simply a systematic method for

answering questions The questions that “should” be asked are a

matter of subjective opinion.Example: Griefo (A) “We should discover the various stages of

grief people go through”o (B) “We should discover the best ways to help

those in grief cope more effectively”o (C) “We should discover the neurological

substrates of grief”


Metaphorical example: “What should people do with their time on Earth?”

Help others? Make money? Raise a family? Contribute to their community/country? Follow a religion?

As with the question, “What is the goal of science?”, there are no purely objective, absolutely true answers to this question. It’s a matter of opinion—of philosophical assumption.


2. What is the nature of knowledge? What is the nature of reality? Can we come to know what “reality” is in an

objective, complete, “T”ruth sense. Or, can we only come to know relative or partial

“t”ruths


In other words, can human beings use science to discover absolute truth?

Or, might things like the following work to prevent this from happening: Human perceptual errors & limitations Measurement error Errors in data interpretation The effects that observation have on what is

being observed Failure to observe a phenomenon in multiple

contexts

Pepper described 4 “relatively adequate” world views: Contextualism Formism Mechanism Organicism Not the only possible world views….

We’ll discuss mechanism and contextualism

What kinds of ‘pre-analytic philosophical assumptions’ are

there?

Dominant set of philosophical assumptions held by scientist Indeed, some would say there is no other

approach to scienceCore assumption: Human beings are like

machines They are made up of a variety of parts,

each with its own task. Various environmental or other forces

move through the machine and exert an effect.

Mechanism

Mechanisms = “elemental realism”The goal of science is to: Determine what these parts are & how they interact Determine how various forces (variables) impact the

functioning of the machine. Once we know exactly how the machine works and

how various forces affect it, we’ll be able to fix the machine when it breaks, or help keep it working, but……

Building comprehensive & accurate causal models that describe the machine’s functioning takes precedence.

Mechanism

Truth Criterion = How do we know when a theory is correct?

Mechanism = Truth by Correspondence• i.e., correspondence to “Reality”• Determined primarily by building causal

models (theories) that perfectly predict what will happen in increasingly complex experiments.

Examples?

Mechanism

Human behavior can only be understood in context.

You must be able to understand an organism’s learning history and the current context surrounding the behavior of interest in order to understand why the behavior is occurring and what can be done to change or maintain it.

Contextualism

Because behavior can only be “understood” in context, all knowledge is relative.

Truth Criterion = Certainly not correspondence—Context issue makes “truth” relative.

1. Prediction & Control (Functional Contextualism)

2. Description (Descriptive Contextualism)

Contextualism

Assumptions behind contextualism:The “Real” world probably cannot be

accurately & completely captured by any theory• Too complex• Humans too limited in perceptual & analytic

abilities• Humans systematically biased

Contextualism

Assumptions behind contextualism: There is “One world”.

Theories and their “causal” models are simply tentative ways of talking about human behavior that should be held lightly & that do not accurately describe “reality”

Theories are useful to the extent that they facilitate achievement of the theorizer’s explicit goals

Prediction & control; description

Contextualism

Descriptive Contextualism Archaeology History Kantor’s “Interbehaviorism”

Functional Contextualism Relational Frame Theory (Acceptance &

Commitment Therapy) Conventional behaviorism, from some

perspectives Some modern feminist, sociological theories

Contextualism

“Prediction & control” softened to “prediction and influence.

What do you think of the ethical implications of making science be about “prediction & control/influence?

Consider also: Since contextualism does not subscribe to the notion of ‘absolute truth’, there is no ‘absolute grounding’ for any ethical principles one might attach to it. Does this complicate its ethical implications? Can these complications be circumvented? E.g., ACT & Values

Contextualism

What misgivings do you have about contextualism & its implications?

Contextualism

Is Contextualism “Fishy” compared to Mechanism? “Every theory ever invented by man is

wrong. The theories that we currently subscribe to—we just don’t know how they’re wrong yet” (K. G. Wilson)

Example:Ptolemy’s model of the solar system

(100 AD)

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm

Used for 1500 yearsIt was “wrong”—but you could predict the position of the stars and navigate by it!



Is Contextualism “Fishy” compared to Mechanism?

Let’s harken back to a brief list of factors that can prevent a theory from ‘mapping onto reality’ before looking at what went wrong with Ptolemy’s theory:

Human perceptual errors & limitations Measurement error Errors in data interpretation The effects that observation have on what is

being observed Failure to observe a phenomenon in multiple

contexts

Is Contextualism “Fishy” compared to Mechanism? Why was Ptolemy’s model of the solar system accepted

as absolute truth for so long? It was a perfectly predictive model! Accepted [Church; astronomers; navigators]

dogma It works and fits with “known” beliefs—therefore it must

be absolute truth Errors in data interpretation (model predicts the

“movement” of the stars….when they apparently do not move)

Failure to study phenomena in multiple contexts (i.e., what would it look like if one had a ‘galaxy-eye view’?)

Is Contextualism “Fishy” compared to Mechanism? Why was Ptolemy’s model of the solar system

accepted as absolute truth for so long? It was a perfectly predictive model! Measurement error: The stars weren’t exactly

where the model predicted them to be (i.e., in terms of astronomical units), but there was not an accurate enough way of measuring this then.

Human perceptual errors & limitations: It looks like the stars are moving, so the model must be True!

Could it be that some of the same sources of error might confound the Absolute basis of virtually any theory?

Stephen Pepper’s “World Hypotheses”

Why is clarity about one’s philosophical assumptions about science & the nature of knowledge important?

Lack of clarity regarding one’s philosophical assumptions can lead to:

Unproductive (& unpleasant) arguments with other professionals regarding their methods, findings, & goals.

Incoherent focus in your professional work Research that doesn’t satisfy your curiosity or further

the development & testing of your theory Therapy that is unfocused

Functional Contextualism &

ACT The nature of FC assumptions shine brightly

in ACT: What we think is just a way of describing or

evaluating events---not the way. Words don’t capture reality (or the ‘richness

of experience’) When one’s ‘theory’ (thoughts) helps you

move toward your goals (values), listen to it; when it doesn’t, defuse.

Hold your theories (thoughts) lightly……. Theories as metaphors…….and the risk of frozen

metaphors

Functional Contextualism &

RFT And, as you’ll see, FC assumptions also

shine brightly in RFT: Just as a theory is a nonbinding way of talking

about a set of phenomena, what we think--how we relationally frame our experiences--is simply a way of verbally conceptualizing those experiences. It is not a reflection of absolute Truth.

The usefulness of RFT as a theory depends on its ability to predict how people will think (relationally frame) under specific circumstances, and influence the impact those thoughts have on subsequent behavior.

The Nature & Goals of Behaviorism


Goals are highly pragmatic Find ways of conceptualizing/speaking about

human behavior that maximize or ability to predict & influence human behavior.

“Functional Contextualism” Theory is “true” to the extent that it

facilitates reliable prediction & control of behavior.

Assumption that human behavior is too complex (and the nature of human scientific inquiry too limited) to discover “Absolute Truth”.


Parsimony is King The simplest explanation for human behavior

is best. Use an absolute minimum of

principles/processes to predict and influence behavior If these principles are proven insufficient,

conservatively add new principles that do prove sufficient.


Theoretical principles should rely only on directly observable & directly manipulable behavior/stimuli The introduction of unobservable “intervening

variables” compromise parsimony. You can’t directly manipulate an intervening

variable Compromises the “influence” part of “prediction

and influence: A good functional contextual theory should be able to directly tell you exactly what to manipulate under various directly observable conditions.

Basic Behavioral Principles:

Operant & Respondent Conditioning


What’s a Stimulus? Anything you can perceive

Thought Feelings Sound, smell, sight, taste, physical sensation Something said to you The look on someone’s face Memory IF YOU RESPOND TO IT, IT’S A STIMULUS

What’s a [stimulus] function?

Typically used to refer to the type of consequence you receive for behaving in a certain way If yelling serves an “attention function”, it

means someone pays attention to you after you yell

If hiding serves an “avoidance function”, it means you avoid some type of aversive consequence by doing so

Can refer simply to what a stimulus “makes” you do Automatic (conditioned) response: Food

makes you salivate, a moving car makes you move out of the way…..a picture of G. W. Bush makes you wince.

Respondent (Classical)Conditioning

Respondent Conditioning:Basic Idea

Many stimuli naturally elicit (produce) an automatic response Sight of food elicits a salivation response An object moving toward your head elicits a

‘flinching’ or ‘ducking’ response A physical attack during a war elicits anxiety Sugar elicits the release of insulin into your

bloodstream

Respondent Conditioning:Basic Idea

If you repeatedly pair a neutral stimulus with an “unconditioned” stimulus, the “neutral” stimulus can come to elicit the same response Pavlov’s dogs: An audio tone can come to

elicit salivation The spoken word “duck” can come to elicit a

“flinching” or “ducking” response The sight of a soldier or loud sound can come

to elicit anxiety The sweet taste of a diet (or “light”) soda can

come to elicit the release of insulin

TerminologyUnconditioned stimulus (US):

◦ natural stimulus producing responseUnconditioned response (UR):

◦ Unlearned or automatic responseConditioned stimulus (CS):

◦ originally a neutral stimulus--now elicits response that looks like an UR

Conditioned response (CR): ◦ Response occurring to a CS that looks like an

UR

Principle of Respondent Conditioning

A neutral stimulus followed closely in time by a US, which elicits a UR, then the previously neutral stimulus will also tend to elicit the same response

Factors Influencing Respondent Conditioning1. The greater the number of pairings of a

CS with a US, the greater is the ability of the CS to elicit the CR

2. Stronger conditioning occurs if the CS precedes the US by about half a second, rather than by a longer time or rather than following the US Conditioned taste aversion – exception to the rule

3. A CS acquires greater ability to elicit a CR if the CS is always paired with a given US than if it is only occasionally paired with the US.

Factors Influencing Respondent Conditioning

4. When several neutral stimuli precede a US, the stimulus that is most consistently associated with the US is the one most likely to become a strong CS

5. Respondent conditioning will develop more quickly and strongly when the CS or US or both are intense rather than weak

Higher Order Conditioning

1st order Pair NS and US to produce UR CS will produce CR EX: Pair bell and food to produce salivation;

bell will produce salivation after conditioning 2nd order

Pair NS and CS to produce CR Produce a new CS which elicits the CR EX: Pair light with bell to produce salivation;

light will produce salivation after conditioning

Factors affecting conditioning

Stimulus generalization Similar stimuli elicit CR

Stimulus discrimination Respond to specific stimuli, but not similar

ones

Operant Conditioning


Basic principle #1: Any behavior that is reinforced will occur more frequently.

Anything that increases the frequency of a behavior is a reinforcer.

Three term contingency: StimulusResponseReinforcerOr, AntecedentBehaviorConsequence(ABC)


Basic principle #2: Any behavior that is punished will occur less frequently.

Anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior is a punisher.

Three term contingency: StimulusResponsePunisherOr, AntecedentBehaviorConsequence(ABC)

Operant Conditioning: Reinforcement

Many things can reinforce behavior: Things you say and do, food or other things you give them, attention, verbal or nonverbal approval, escape from demanding or unpleasant tasks, actions or activities and so on.


Something functions as a reinforcer if it increases the frequency of any behavior that immediately precedes it.

Reinforcers typically fall into one of four functional classes: (1) escape from demanding or unpleasant tasks, (2) attention from others, (3) acquisition of preferred items or privileges, and/or (4) self-stimulation.

Operant Conditioning: Function vs. topography

It doesn’t matter what it looks like or what you think it should do. It’s only a reinforcer if it increases the frequency of the given (target) behavior. Sometimes “desirable” things aren’t reinforcers, sometimes “undesirable” things are.

For example, negative attention can be reinforcing for a child; compliments can be punishing; things a child says he wants may not be reinforcing;

Operant Conditioning: Function vs. topography

Things are more or less reinforcing depending on what other reinforcers are currently available (e.g., verbal approval from one person vs. simple attention from another).

Things that serve as a reinforcer for a given person’s behavior in one context may not work in other contexts or at other times.

General principles of reinforcement:

Reinforcement works best when delivered immediately (e.g., less than 15 seconds) after the target behavior.

Reinforcement works best when the behavior being reinforced is specified.

Reinforcement principles can & should be used to teach appropriate replacement behaviors as well as to reinforce “naturally” occurring appropriate behaviors.

Operant Conditioning: Punishment

Anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior that immediately precedes it is a punisher.

Punishment can involve the introduction of something unpleasant or aversive (e.g., being yelled at, hit, called names, being told what you’re doing is unwise, etc.), or the removal of something pleasant or reinforcing (e.g., losing privileges, being forced to take a time out, withdrawing attention, etc.).

Operant Conditioning: Punishment

Punishment is very often used in our culture for several reasons: (1) It tends to work immediately; (2) it requires relatively little effort; (3) it is often reinforcing to the person applying the punishment; (4) it’s often modeled by our government, TV, movies, and friends and family.

Punishment:Function vs. topography

Same as with reinforcement: Sometimes “undesirable” things aren’t punishers; sometimes “desirable” things are.

Types ofReinforcement & Punishment

Positive Negative

Reinforcement Appetitive Consequence added

Aversive Consequence taken away

Punishment Aversive Consequenceadded

Appetitive Consequence taken away

Operant & Respondent Conditioning:Applications

Common Clinically Relevant Respondently Conditioned Responses Post traumatic reactions Phobic responses Panic attacks CC plays a role in virtually every DSM/ICD

diagnosis

Anxiety-based Responses and the Interaction of Operant & Classical Conditioning

Classically conditioned stimuli very often lead to avoidance behavior Avoidance behavior is negatively reinforced Example: PTSD soldier (presence of crowds

has become classically conditioned to an attack) Soldier may likely avoid or escape peacetime

crowds in the future…..and thus not learn that there is no risk of attack

An increasingly wide variety of neutral stimuli can come to evoke avoidance/escape over time due to the interaction of classical & operant conditioning.

Exposure Classical (respondent) extinction Repeatedly present the CS without the

occurrence of the US Make sure the client doesn’t

avoid/escape or he will not learn that no US follows the CS That is, make sure the

avoidance/escape response is not negatively reinforced

Frontline treatment component for a variety of anxiety disorders

Respondent Extinction (Exposure)

Respondent Conditioning:

A Fundamental Symmetry When respondent conditioning causes a

problem….. You use respondent [extinction] procedures

to cause the problem


Operant Conditioning:

A Fundamental Symmetry OC leads to a great variety of problems:

Problematic behaviors with a sufficient history of reinforcement will continue to occur

Desirable behaviors with a sufficient history of punishment will not occur

Desirable/effective behaviors that have never been learned will not occur

To rectify these OC problems, you use operant conditioning: Increased reinforcement of desirable behaviors……

decreased reinforcement for undesirable ones……shaping/modeling of unlearned behaviors


Applications ofOperant Conditioning Skills training

Anger management skills Coping skills Problem solving skills Communication skills Parenting skills Operant principles essentially used for

anything you teach your client directly, and any lessons/skills your client learns “on his own”.

Applications ofOperant Conditioning Applied behavior analysis

Language training, skills training, problem behavior management for people diagnosed with: Autism Developmental disabilities Traumatic Brain Injury Dementia

Operant Conditioning & ACT:An Example

Teaching clients how to use various defusion, self as context, commitment & acceptance techniques involves repeated reinforcement: Therapist verbal & nonverbal behavior

that reinforces client’s use of these strategies in session

Reinforcement the client receives via: More successful movement toward

values Alleviation of distress

Learning &“Transformation of Function”

Every stimulus has a “function”. Learning processes explicitly indicate how

these functions are changed or “transformed”: Classical conditioning Operant conditioning

If you want to change a problematic stimulus function (i.e., change a problematic behavior), you use identified learning processes.

Learning &“Transformation of Function” Classical conditioning:

Change problematic functions through new pairings or through classical extinction.

Operant conditioning: Change problematic functions through

differential reinforcement or punishment

A Process for Every Problem?

Operant & classical conditioning work great for changing behaviors that arise solely through these processes. These processes (along with a few embellishments

like stimulus generalization & discrimination) arguably account for animal behavior.

But what if an additional learning process is needed to account for human behavior? In other words, what if there’s another learning

process that transforms stimulus functions in a different way than OC & RC?

Evidence for an ‘Exclusively’ Human Learning Process?

Hundreds of “Stimulus Equivalence” studies (since 1971)—Murray Sidman & colleagues

180 +Relational Frame Theory studies (since 1991)—Steve Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes & colleagues

These studies point to human language as the source (or the expression) of a uniquely verbal learning process Nonverbal humans haven’t demonstrated it

yet Animals haven’t demonstrated it yet (with the

possible exception of a single California Sea Lion)

Stimulus Equivalence



[Board examples] Process by which stimuli enter into classes of

equivalence or non-equivalence Cannot account for with classical or operant

conditioning Animals can be taught to do this with formal

stimulus properties Humans can be taught to do it with non-formal

(abstract) stimulus properties Sidman considered this ability to be a “primitive” Can also think in terms of establishing a relation of

equivalence or nonequivalence between two stimuli


Foundation of language use: “Apple” actual apple

“Apple” doesn’t formally resemble an actual apple, or a picture of an apple.

In other words, stimulus equivalence is an additional process that allows individual words to have meaning--and one that speeds up the learning process “cat” actual cat “el gato” “le chat”


Also, allows combinations of words to carry additional meaning: I am a bad person. (I bad). I am not hungry. (I < - > hungry) Though accounting for the meanings

conveyed by a sentence solely in terms of equivalence/nonequivalence is theoretically possible, the analysis is EXTREMELY cumbersome—and thus extremely impractical.

How does RFT “improve” on Stimulus Equivalence

Allows for multiple relations between stimuli (not just relations of equivalence or nonequivalence) Bigger than, smaller than, better than, worse than,

smarter than, before, after—virtually any way you can imagine relating two stimuli

Also, doesn’t view this kind of “verbal relating” as a “primitive”, but rather “higher order operant behavior” “Relating stimuli” as an operant behavior E.g., generalized imitation; generalized rule-following Once you learn how to relate stimuli, you can bring this

relational ability to bear on any stimuli you encounter = “generalized” relational responding

Wait a minute…..How can you think of language as relations

between stimuli? Sentences establish relations between

words…….words are stimuli……..sentences establish relations between stimuli.

“Relational Game” PDF

Pick one word from each column. How are they the

equivalent? Success Pride Happiness Loyalty Hard work Love

Good Bad Selfish Generous Pointless Important


Relational Frame Theory

Forming relationships between stimuli changes their functions in accordance with the relation Playing “Dungeons and Dragons” as a 12-year

old: Functions: Fun, felt good about it, talked about it, proud of

it Told “D&D is………geeky, dumb, etc.

“People who play D&D are…..losers, geeks, etc.”

• New functions of playing: Felt embarrassed, worried more, didn’t talk about it.


One can “derive” additional relationships between stimuli given limited information People who play D&D are geeks. Geeks

don’t get dates Two relations “trained”; four relations

“derived”: Geeks play D&D People who don’t date must be geeks. People who play D&D don’t get dates People who don’t get dates must play D&D

Deriving these additional relations can result in additional ‘transformations of function’


Relational responding (the act of forming relationships between stimuli) is operant behavior We think the way we do because we have

been reinforced for thinking that way in the past (or punished or not reinforced enough for thinking in other ways.

We derive relations the way that we do because we’ve been reinforced for deriving that way in the past.


Relational responding (the act of forming relationships between stimuli) is a special kind of operant behavior Differences: Given the way operant conditioning (as

opposed to derived relational responding) is defined & operationalized, it does not account for: (Loosely speaking) abstract relations between stimuli

being responsible for changing stimulus functions In OC, reinforcement/punishment responsible for changing

function of the Sd—there are no ‘relational dimensions’ in play

Derived responding along abstract stimulus dimensions Animals can generalize along formal stimulus dimensions,

but cannot respond along abstract dimensions.


Forming relationships between stimuli changes their functions in accordance with the relation

Relations between stimuli can occur along abstract or arbtrary dimensions

One can “derive” additional relationships between stimuli given limited information Simple logic: A > B; B = C

A & B are reciprocally related—they are complementary

A & C are reciprocally related by virtue of how these stimuli relate to an intermediary stimulus (B)

Relational Responding

RFT distinguishes between two main types: Non-arbitrary relations

Involves formal, physical dimensions

Arbitrary relations Typically involves abstract concepts & dimensions

Beauty, love, honor, justice, intelligence, fairness, worth/value, good/bad, etc.

If you can’t see it, smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, it’s an arbitrary (abstract) stimulus property

Can also involve “improper” or arbitrary use of formal properties E.g., “Less is more”; “smaller cars are better”

NON-ARBITRARY (FORMAL) RELATIONS

ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE RELATIONS

‘SAME’

‘MORE THAN’

“APPLE”

5c10c

Non-Arbitrary & Arbitrary Relations

“better”‘OPPOSITE’

“worse”


The Core Verbal ProcessTraining Relational Frames

Limoo

Betrang

Bervil

Norna

Limoo


The Core Verbal ProcessSome Derived Relations

Limoo

Betrang

Limoo

Patar

Husko

HuskoPatar

Relational Frame TheoryDefining Properties of Relational

Frames

Betrangsoursalivation

citrus

bumpy

lemonade yellow

Limoo

Betrang

1. Mutual Entailment

2. Combinatorial Entailment

3. Transformationof Functions

soursalivation

citrus

bumpy

lemonade yellow

On Terms (and fancy equations)

Mutual entailment If A is larger than B, then B is smaller than A

Crel {A rx B ||| B ry A} Combinatorial entailment

If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A and C are in some way related

Crel {A rx B and B ry C ||| A rp C and C rq A}

Transformation of function When a stimulus has a certain psychological function,

the functions of other, related, stimuli may be altered or transformed in accordance with the relation

Cfunc [Crel A rx B and B ry C{Af1 ||| Bf2rpand Cf rq}]

Relational FramesRelational frames are particular patterns

of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (ways of relating stimuli along abstract dimensions) that show the properties of mutual and combinatorial entailment, and transformation of functions.

Kinds of relational framesCoordination (i.e., sameness; loose-tight

equivalence)OppositionDistinctionComparisonHierarchical relationsDeictic relations (specify a relation in terms of the

perspective of the speaker such as left-right, I-you, here-there, now-then)

Temporal relations

Relational Frames You learn how to “mutually entail” because of a

direct history of reinforcement for mutually entailing.

Same goes for combinatorial entailment Thus, you learn to (a) relate stimuli and (b)

derive relations between stimuli due to a history of direct reinforcement for these behaviors Once you’ve received repeated reinforcement

across exemplars, you emit these “relating” and “deriving” responses automatically when you encounter new stimuli.

Relational FramingDiscussion of relational frames can imply

we’re talking about a static way of thinking about something that is stored somewhere in the brain.

Relational Framing“Relational Framing” is a more accurate term

A person responds as if he were framing, in a given moment, relevant stimuli in a particular way.

In an experimental capacity, the “particular way” of framing can be determined through observing a pattern of responses to the relevant stimuliRelational Framing as a pattern of responding

observed to come about through a history of reinforcement for relational and derived relational responding

In an experimental capacity, you know it’s relational framing if your experimental method precludes the operation of direct operant or respondent processes


Relational FramingThus, the account is based on entirely

observable responsesA stimulus is presented—a behavior is emittedOf course, you need to know the person’s

learning history with respect to these stimuli to know if relational framing is responsible for the response…… Just like you’d need to know an organism’s

relevant history to know if OC or CC were responsible for an observed response

Relational FramingSo far, experimental data has

indicated that:Relational framing can override or

alter the effects of classical and direct operant conditioning

Relational framing may be (by far) the dominant force in determining how verbal humans behave.


Relational Frames: The Foundation of Language and Cognition?

Try this exercise: Learn four relations and see what happens. . .

LISA

OLDER THAN

HOMER

RELATION 1:


RELATION 2:

LISA MAGGIE

OLDER THAN


RELATION 3:

HOMER

YOUNGER THAN

ABE


RELATION 4:

YOUNGER THAN

ABE MONTY BURNS

From 4 Trained Relations. . .

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

OLDER

YOUNGER

YOUNGER

YOUNGER

YOUNGER

YOUNGERYOUNGER

OLDER

OLDE

R

YOUNGER

YOUNGER

Relational Framing Remarkably generative learning process

Learn 4 things, get 16 for free Learn X things, get X2 for free In operant conditioning, learn 1 thing, get 1

thing Exception: Stimulus generalization (along formal

dimensions only!)

Addresses Chomsky’s main criticism of Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior”

And…………

Relational Framing Explains why it takes a chimpanzee (for

example) 18 years of training to learn signs for 200-250 words, in contrast to learning rate for a human child: Starting by age 2 or 3, a normally

developing child learns about 3,500 new words a year

By age 18, we know approximately 60,000 words.

First, we establish non-arbitrary contextual control. That is, we usephysically similar stimuli and reinforce choices of some, but notothers, in the presence of our contextual cues.Imagine we wish to establish Same and Opposite relational frames..

CONTEXTUAL CUE

Once the contextual cues are functioning as Same & Opposite,we use them with arbitrary (physically dissimilar) stimuli..

If someone has a fear of dogs, and they are told that ‘jumjaw’ is another word for dog, then fear may be elicited upon hearing ‘here comes a jumjaw!’

‘DOG’ : FEARWHEN is a

The Concept of the Transformation of Functions: Why is it Important?

‘Jumjaw’is a

RFT: a conceptual overview

Blackledge/Törneke114

Three questions to answer

1. If languaging is behavior, what kind of behavior is it? Or: What are humans doing?

2. How does this kind of behavior interact with, or contribute to, our behavior as a whole? Or: Why is this important?

3. What controls this kind of behavior? Or: How do we influence this?

114

Blackledge/Törneke

Question 1: If languaging is behavior, what kind of

behavior is it?Languaging (verbal behavior) is the behavior of relating stimuli/events in a particular way.

@

# &

115

Liza, the parrot och pretty Sue

Blackledge/Törneke

”pretty Sue”

Mutual entailmentBidirectionality

116

Arbitrarily applicable relational responding

(AARR)

Blackledge/Törneke

Mutual entailment

Direct

Combinatorial mutual entailment

@

# &

117

Blackledge/Törneke

Different types of relations

Coordination, ”the same as”

Opposite

Comparison (more-less)

Hierarcial relations (one thing is part of another)

Spatial relations (in front of-behind)

Causal relations (if-then)

Temporal relations (before-after)

Perspective (here-there)

118

Some terminology Arbitrarily applicable relational

responding (AARR) Same as: relational framing, derived

relational responding Relational frames Relational networks


Question 2: How does this way of relating

affect human behavior as a whole?

AARR affects human behavior as a whole by transforming stimulus functions

Remember: Relations between stimuli influence behavior (= alter stimulus functions)

Blackledge/Törneke

Peter comes before Dick Dick is together with John

124

Blackledge/Törneke

Mutual entailment

Direct

Combinatorial mutual entailment

Temporal framing

Peter Dick JohnBefore Together

After Together

Before

After

125

The effect of different relational

frames Coordination: Cat under the table… Comparative: This one has better quality… Hierarchial: He is from the south … Opposition: He is not at all like Eric… Perspective: If you were standing here…


Question 3: What governs this kind of

behavior?This special way of relating is governed by contextual cues that specify the relation regardless of the properties of the stimuli that are being related

Blackledge/Törneke

#

& > >

@# is the same as 10000 US dollars# is the same as a hard punsch on

the noose

127

Niklas Törneke 128

@ # &

Direct

Mutual entailment

Combinatiorial mutual entailment

More than More than

Less than Less than

More than

Less than

Contextual cues

Combinations of sounds or signs (words) :…is the same.., ..behind.., …larger.., …there..,

…later.., …inside...GesturesDifferent features of the environment


Responding to relations

Contingencies Physical properties of stimuli (including

relations based on physical properties) Relational framing (based on specific

contextual cues) Direct and indirect (derived) stimulus

functions


Definition of relational framing

Mutual entailment Combinatorial mutual entailment Transformation of stimulus function in accordance with the

established relation

Blackledge/Törneke

Relating in a way which is characteristed by

Relating in this particular way is also, according to RFT, the definition ofverbal behavior and the basic process in human language and cognition

131

But not all functions are transformed

Argentina is better than Sweden


in soccer

The US is ahead of Sweden in nuclear science

Sweden is ahead of the US in providing health services to all its inhabitants

Some contextual cues controll the relation: Crel

Some contextual cues controll which functions are transformed according to a specified relation: Cfunc

Crel and Cfunc: further examples

Argentina is better than Sweden To argue with him is like to be run over

by a steamroller She is a lioness!


The birth of human language and the

explosion of ”meaning” Relating, and thus stimulus functions, can now be

controlled by social whim

What if small is big, before is after and here is there?

The generativity of human language AARR is the basis of ”speaking with meaning and

listening with understanding” ”Thinking” is doing the same thing, all by yourself


Two dramatic effects on human behavior

Our experience of selfRule-governed behavior


Three aspects of our experience of self

Self as perspective (context)Self as processSelf as story (content)


niklas törneke

Blackledge/Törneke

The most important effect of AARR: rule-governed

behavior Rule-governed behavior; behavior governed

by instructions Rule-governed behavior and contingency-

shaped behavior Rules given by others and self-rules Self-rules and cognitions

137

Blackledge/Törneke

RFT and rule-governed behavior

When relations are by social whim, words can have very flexible ”meaning” (function)

Then antecedents (A) can specify behavior (B) and consequence (C) regardless of whether this behavior has been done before and/or the consequence has ever been contacted directly

For this to take place you have to have at least coordinating, casual and temporal frames

”If you go to bed (B) I’ll give you a surprise tomorrow (C)”

”If you do that once more (B) I will leave and never come back (C)”

Self-rules: ”Study now (B) and you will pass the exam (C)”

”Do as you are told (B) otherwise you will be alone (C)”

138

Rule-governed behavior: the

blessing Sidestepping imidiate gratification Contacting long term consequences Contacting ”what could (should) have been” Planning and verbal problem-solving


Rule-governed behavior: the curse

The dominance of indirect stimulus functions has the risk of fusion

Rule-governed behavior has the risk of experiental avoidance


Clinical implications

RFT supplies a new understanding of psychotherapy generally

Clinical behavior analysis: Treatment starts by a functional analysis and focuses on two kinds of behavior; problematic and alternative

ACT asks two questions: 1. In what direction do you want to go? (motivation)2. What stands in your way? (private events as

hindrances)


Strategy and technique

Clarify desirable consequences Evaluate what kind of actions would carry

in that direction Undermine problematic verbal behavior

(defusion) Metaphors and experiental excercises


Relating your way through the Hexaflex:RFT and ACT’s Six Core Processes

Self asContext

Contact with the Present Moment

Defusion

Acceptance

Committed Action

Values

ACT is Thoroughly and Completely Grounded in RFT,

Right? Not exactly. To the extent that RFT has broad scope, it

should be able to be used to comprehensively conceptualize ACT.

ACT & RFT emerged together. Some points of correspondence between both

were explicit from the beginning, but many more have come to be fleshed out over time. E.g., no RFT-based analysis of self as context

until 15-20 years after ACT was born.

ACT is Thoroughly and Completely Grounded in RFT,

Right? Lab-based RFT experiments on ACT’s

processes have emerged in the last decade Defusion Self as context Values Acceptance

RFT & Acceptance

Acceptance Acceptance involves the active and aware

experiencing of private events occasioned by one’s history without attempts to change their frequency or form, especially when doing so would cause psychological harm.

“The act of approaching aversive stimuli, when that act is in an if-then frame with valued outcomes and/or a frame of coordination with valued actions.”Blackledge & Barnes-Holmes (2009). Core processes in acceptance and

commitment therapy.

Acceptance & If-Then relations

“If I’m willing to feel anxious, then I can stand up here and talk about things that matter to me.”

RFT & Cognitive Defusion

RFT & Defusion “Cognitive defusion techniques attempt to

alter the undesirable functions of thoughts and other private events, rather than trying to alter their form, frequency or situational sensitivity. Said another way, ACT attempts to change the way one interacts with or relates to thoughts by creating contexts in which their unhelpful functions are diminished.” Hayes, 2006

Crel and Cfunc

Crel = Relational context Contextual cues that establish what relations exists

between stimuli Virtually always refers to the relational words used in

a sentence—sometimes to other words that help qualify the relation

“He’s the same man is father was.” “She’s feeling a bit under the weather right now.”

Defusion techniques do not attempt to change the relational context—the relation(s) between stimuli Equates to ‘not trying to change a thought’

Crel and Cfunc

Cfunc = Functional context Contextual cues that qualify/quantify the

specifics of a relation between stimuli. Given that a specific relation has been

established (Crel ), what exact kinds of transformations of function does that relation result in?

“Struggling with anxiety is like struggling with quicksand.”

Crel and Cfunc

A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a relation transforms the functions of the relata. Historical variables (e.g., the learning history of the person

doing the relating) E.g., learning histories with respect to metaphors

Additional words that highlight specific aspects of a relation and attenuate others E.g., “You basically put a grill together the same (Crel) way you

would put a piece of furniture together. Take out all the parts, read the instructions, pull out the socket wrench and get to work”.

• Additional words that qualify when a relation holds E.g., “There is (Crel)a speed trap set up right by Exit 32”

Crel and Cfunc

A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a relation transforms the functions of the relata. Grammatical and syntactic rules play a big

role in setting the functional context. If you don’t use the right words strung together

in the proper way, the sentence doesn’t make sense and the attempted way of relating stimuli won’t transform the relata’s functions in the expected way.

Crel and Cfunc

A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a relation transforms the functions of the relata. Contextual cues like tone of voice & manner

of speaking can also moderate how a relation transforms the functions of its relata. “I’m an idiot”—spoken in a solemn, defeatist

tone. “I’m an idiot”– sung in sing-song operatic voice.

Crel and Cfunc

A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a relation transforms the functions of the relata. Even basic contextual features like speaking a

sentence too slowly or too quickly, or substituting a sillly/out of place word for an emotionally laden one, can dramatically change how a relation transforms functons. “That’s so………sunshine?”

So what does all this have to do with RFT and Defusion?

Defusion strategies violate key features of what can be called the “context of literality”-- a context in which words are taken literally--

such that the relational context isn’t changed, but the functional context is. The thoughts stay the same……..but they

start to function very differently.

In other words……

Defusion: Rationale What we think changes our experience of

ourselves and the world around us. But, what we think (or say) has to be

experienced under a certain set of conditions in order to change our experiences.

Defusion: Rationale Think of times when you experienced words as

just sounds or marks on paper: “Milk” exercise Unfamiliar foreign language Auctioneer Etc.

When language is experienced under normal conditions, it can change your experience accordingly

When it isn’t, words appear more as what they are: Simply scratches on paper, arbitrary symbols, weird sounds.

Defusion: Rationale Defusion strategies ‘break the rules’ of

language as usual to disrupt its ability to change your experience, to help undercut reliance on language as the final arbiter of “Truth”.

What are the rules of Language as Usual?

Think of all the conditions virtually always present when language is being spoken with meaning and listened to with understanding:

Parameters exist around how sentences are structured and how words are used.

Certain words refer to certain things.Certain minimal grammatical units must

be used.


Parameters exist around how quickly words can be spoken & how frequently a word can be repeated.

Parameters exist around what is attended to when thinking or speaking:

You attend to the content of what’s being thought or spoken about.

Once you focus exclusively on the process of thinking or speaking, you lose the flow—you begin to focus on the fact that words or thoughts are being formed, rather than on the content of what is being formed.


You focus on the more proximally distal & abstract stimulus products of thinking & speaking, rather than on concrete, formal stimulation that is occurring right now.


When the preceding functional context is in place, RFT predicts that language will be used with meaning and listened to with understanding—that language (relational responding) will have the ability to alter your experience (i.e., transform stimulus functions in ways that would be quite literally expected given one’s learning history).

When sufficient contextual cues that make up the aforementioned Cfunc are removed, the “expected” functional transformations are disrupted.

Defusion: An RFT-based Experimental Example

Roche, Dymond, Melia, Kanter, & Blackledge (under submission). Defusion/no defusion pre-training w/ arbitrary

symbols Arbitrary symbols (A1’s) placed in

equivalence classes with B1’s & C1’s C1’s repeatedly presented before aversive pic Defusion group showed significantly less

avoidance when presented with A1’s

RFT, Self as Context& Self as Content

Self as context Discriminating one’s ‘self’ as a distinct

observer of varying, transitory thoughts, feelings, sensations, sights, sounds, & experiences.

Development of a sense of self as context……

Wherever you go, there you are….. Whatever you feel, there you are Whatever you think, there you are……

Self as Context Requires the ability to relate stimuli in the

following ways: I—You (It; that) (deictic relation) Here—There (spatial relation) Now---Then (temporal relation) Adopting a sense of self as context involves

perceiving stimuli (“you’s” or “it’s”), out there, and (as can’t notice you’ve noticed something until after you’ve noticed it) then, from a perspective of I, Here, and Now.

Self as Context Why do you notice stimuli there and then

from a perspective of I Here Now? I am always the one doing the perceiving I am always Here, perceiving from the same

locus of perspective Perception always occurs in the present, Now

Though reflecting on what is perceived always happens after the perceptual fact

Self as Content Relating one’s “self” coordinatively to one’s

thoughts, feelings, and/or experiences. Framing one’s self as equivalent to the

content of one’s thoughts, feelings, etc.

Self as Content How does a sense of self as content

develop? Coordinative relations appear to be the most

basic relation, and thus the first one learned. So much of everyday language involves

relating people coordinatively to various other stimuli (typically in an evaluative fashion)…….

Additionally, so much of everyday language involves placing people’s actions in coordinative relations with other stimuli E.g., “that was a stupid/selfish/ignorant thing to

do”

Self as Content How does a sense of self as content

develop? In other words, we are so often reinforced for

placing various stimuli in frames of coordination, including placing I in a frame of coordination with evaluations There and Then, it becomes a default mode.

Thus, I comes to coordinatively related to thoughts & feelings there and then.

But if our learning histories shape up both a sense of self as context and content, why does a sense of self as content tend to dominate?

Why does Self as Content Dominate?

Ironically, perhaps because I am always right here, right now, perceiving things, a sense of self as context fades into the background E.g., how often do you think about breathing?

That which is always with us comes often to be ignored.

A sense of self as context is typically not explicitly taught, but rather implicitly derived No S+ for “I am distinct from my thoughts &

feelings” Much S+ for coordinatively categorizing and

evaluating things.

Why does Self as Content Dominate?

Sometimes, a person’s sense of self as context is underdeveloped E.g., in many diagnosed with BPD

RFT & Contact with the Present Moment

CwPM as a ‘Counter-Balance’

to Relational Framing Relational framing (thinking; speaking),

virtually by definition, involves a lack of contact with the present moment. “At this very moment, I am speaking about

‘right now’ “ Loosely, language describes/evaluates

stimulation that presents itself just before the words are formed

This often is not a bad thing (and can be a very good thing).

But…….Blackledge/Törneke 179

When Being ‘Stuck in your head’ isn’t such a

good thing….. Language is most helpful when it quickly &

effectively assists in adapting to changes in the environment. Behavior solely guided by verbal rules lacks

sufficient flexibility Transformations of function occurring

alongside negatively evaluative language can: Make pleasant/neutral ‘direct experiences’

unpleasant Make unpleasant situations worse


Why CwPM is a Good Thing

CwPM as ‘data gathering’. Present moment feedback about the ‘situation

on the ground’ and the effectiveness of one’s actions

Can be used to ‘feed back’ into relational framing and use language to facilitate more effective action


Why CwPM is a Good Thing

CwPM and vitality Vitality = “physical or intellectual vigor”

Vigor = “strong feeling; enthusiasm or intensity” Direct experiencing = multisensory; higher

salience Talking about experiences = more 2-

dimensional; lower salience


RFT & Values “Values are freely chosen, verbally

constructed consequences of ongoing, dynamic, evolving patterns of activity, which establish predominant reinforcers for that activity that are intrinsic in engagement in the valued behavioral pattern itself’ (Wilson & Dufrene, 2009)


Reinforcers? Values are essentially verbal descriptions of

personal actions and qualities of action that have received robust degrees of positive reinforcement in the past May include actions/qualities of action

demonstrated by others to receive highly desired positive reinforcers .

As with any reinforcers, values may be highly idiosyncratic


Values are Verbally Constructed?

For animals, reinforcers are either primary or conditioned, and distal reinforcers very rarely come to hold sway over current behavior.

Primary & conditioned reinforcers are important to humans, but DRR leads many other outcomes and actions to become reinforcing as well: Exercise (& example): What is one thing that

matters deeply to you? Explain why using only the principles of primary and/or conditioned short-term reinforcement.


Values are ongoing patterns of activity…….

Values refer to a potentially great variety of thematically or functionally related behaviors that are often instrumental in achieving desired consequences.

Topography vs. function New behaviors that fit the pattern can often

be verbally identified and implemented—without any direct history of reinforcement. DRR greatly expands the number of

“functionally” related behaviors that can be emitted.


…that are Actively Constructed, Dynamic &

Evolving Typical values statement = brief ‘mission statement’

Refers to several concise ‘qualities of action’ May not perfectly describe the precise essence of a way

of living (with respect to that domain) that brings vitality, meaning, purpose.

Simply provides the bullet points of an outline—doesn’t flesh out the life-long narrative.

On an ongoing basis, a great variety of behaviors can be chosen to implement this ‘mission statement’ Some actions are planned, many spontaneous ones are

tailor-made on the spot, some no-longer effective ones are abandoned, etc.


…that are Actively Constructed, Dynamic &

Evolving The topography of these values-consistent

behaviors may dramatically evolve over time Example: How do you live a value with

respect to a loved one whose passed away?


Values establish reinforcers that are intrinsic in

engagement in the valued behavioral pattern itself?

Typically, client-endorsed values are initially outcome-oriented

But, verbal processes can place actions that are consistent with such outcomes (or often lead to them) in a frame of coordination with these outcomes.

Verbal transformations of function may then transfer some of the reinforcing functions of those outcomes to the coordinated behaviors.

May even make previously aversive behaviors reinforcing


“Freely Chosen?” Behaviorism & Free Will vs. Determinism:

‘All behavior is determined’ “Freely” in the Skinnerian sense:

Free from aversive control A sense of free will, of choice, is thought to

emerge when the ‘have to’s’ fall away and one is focused largely on the ‘want to’s’.


Choice: Where do Values

Come From? Theoretically, values are ways of behaving

that are ‘determined’ by one’s learning history: that have received highly salient positive

reinforcement in the past modeled by others who received highly

desired forms of reinforcement that mirror behavior emitted toward you

which you found reinforcing resulting from verbal derivations regarding

behavior one believes may be instrumental in living a life that is meaningful, purposeful, and vitalBlackledge/Törneke 191

Values as Motivative

Augmentals “Behavior due to relational networks that

temporarily alter the degree to which previously established consequences function as reinforcers or punishers”

Example: “Your daughter could really use a hug from you right now”.

A verbal statement that makes an already reinforceable behavior more likely to occur.


Values as Formative

Augmentals “Establish some new event as an important

consequence”; “behavior due to relational networks that establish given consequences as reinforcers or punishers.”

Example: “Even though it’s frightening, doesn’t a big part of you really want to open up to your partner and tell her exactly how you’re feeling—to really connect with her, be close to her?”

Places neutral/aversive behavior in a frame of coordination (for example) with desired consequences.


RFT & Commitment Verbally committing to a value or values-

consistent action(s). Public commitments increase probability of

the stated behavior given a relatively consistent history of reinforcement for say-do correspondence (and/or punishment for the opposite)

Commitment may also act as a formative or motivative augmental.

Actually acting in a values-consistent manner.


An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory for Clinicians

Documents

Transcript of An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory for Clinicians