Hank Robb, PH.D., ABPP Acknowledgments The ACT/ RFT community was very supportive and helpful to this presentation. Special acknowledgement to D.J. Moran, Ph.D. Definition: Relational Frame Theory is a comprehensive functional contextual program of basic behavioral research on human language and cognition (Hayes, Strosahl, Bunting, Twohig, Wilson, 2004, p. 21) What does this functional contextual behavioral research add to what we know about language and cognition? RFT brings to light an analysis of a generalized operant behavior that is rarely analyzed: RELATING! Also called Relational Responding What is Relating? (Relational Responding) Responding in accordance to the properties of two or more stimuli Conditioned discrimination Derived relational responding = Pick taller = Pick shorter Conditioned Discrimination AB Extinction Schedule AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food After counterbalanced, multiple exemplar trainings, the subject reliably selects the object that is physically taller. This is a nonarbitrary relation. Arbitrary: Based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something Nonarbitrary: NOT based on or determined by individual preference or convenience but rather by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something Think about what happens in discrimination Think about what a discrimnator is AB Extinction Schedule = Pick shorter AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food AB Reinforcement Schedule $$ Food AGAIN - After counterbalanced, multiple exemplar trainings, the subject reliably selects the object that is physically shorter. This is a nonarbitrary relation. AB Nonverbal organisms are capable of this kind of relating because the relating is based on physical nonarbitrary properties AB Nonverbal organisms are capable of this kind of relating because the relating is based on physical nonarbitrary properties A monkey can do this! AB Thats called derived relating, baby! and its simpler than you think derivesIn this demonstration, the boy is taught that A=B, and derives that B=A This type of deriving is only available in this sense to verbally adroit human beings, and it is called: Derived Relational Responding Derive means to obtain or draw from When the boy is taught A=B, he has a history of also being reinforced for B=A relationships. Infra-human subjects do not demonstrate this. A few examples of Derived Relational Responding CUG WOLYABVEK Extinction Schedule CUG YABVEKWOL $$ Reinforcement Schedule CUG VEKWOLYAB $$ Reinforcement Schedule CUG DAXNALZET Extinction Schedule CUG DAXNALZET Extinction Schedule CUG DAXNALZET $$ Reinforcement Schedule CUG ZETNALDAX Reinforcement Schedule $$ CUG DAXZETNAL $$ Reinforcement Schedule What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained So far, its just conditioned discrimination S D : R S R+ present CUG select VEK reinforced with money : ZET CUGLIFRAL Heres where things get funky. VEK LIFCUGRAL What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained Derived Trained Derived Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, OHora, 2001 What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained Derived Trained Derived In the absence of previous reinforcement, a new response is demonstrated. Mutual entailment Bidirectional relating: If A is related to B, B is related to A ZET VEKLIFRAL ZET LIFVEKRAL VEK LIFRALZET VEK ZETLIFRAL What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained Derived Trained Derived Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, OHora, 2001 What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained Derived Trained Derived In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK Trained Derived Trained Derived In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C Just for fun notice how these relations are ARBITRARY Derived Relational Responding We trained 2 stimulus relations The subject derived 4 more What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK SAME In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C Basic Principles in RFT Mutual entailment If A=B, then B=A Combinatorial entailment If A=B and B=C, then A=C Transformation of Stimulus Functions Environmental events will have an altered effect on behavior due to the environmental events participation in relations with other stimulus events Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK RALZET Punishment Schedule Same research participant in the last training Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK RALZET Negative Reinforcement Schedule Same research participant in the last training Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK LIFZET Negative Reinforcement Schedule Same research participant in the last training Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK LIFCUG Same research participant in the last training Negative Reinforcement Schedule Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK RAL Same research participant in the last training Negative Reinforcement Schedule What was demonstrated? CUG ZETVEK SAME Trained Punishing Function CUG ZETVEK SAME Trained Punishing Functions Derived/ Punishing Functions Punishing Functions / Derived Derived Punishing Functions/ There are interesting things going on. You are changing your behavior due to derived relations: Transformation of Stimulus Functions Who would win a foot race? Burrhus is slower than Albert Ziggy is slower than Burrhus A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Burrhus is slower than Albert Ziggy is slower than Burrhus A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Slower than Burrhus is slower than Albert Ziggy is slower than Burrhus A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Slower than Faster than Slower than Look what gets DERIVED! Burrhus is slower than Albert Ziggy is slower than Burrhus A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Slower than Faster than Slower than Look what gets DERIVED! Finish Line Who would win a foot race? Finish Line Who would win a foot race? Albert won. You werent told he would win, you derived it from the two stimulus relations on which you were trained. Given two stimulus relations, you could derive four more and two them were that Al is faster than Ziggy and faster than Burrhus. And, even more importantly, certain betting behavior becomes more likely, i.e. there was a transformation of stimulus functions. You were given two relations, derived the rest, AND THAT ALTERED YOUR BEHAVIOR. Finish Line Who would win a foot race? Remember when you said that number 2 would win? Why did you say 2 if you were only given: Burrhus is slower than Albert Ziggy is slower than Burrhus A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Slower than Faster than Slower than Als picture isnt in this information!! There are no numbers in this informational slide!! The guy in lane #2! A lbert B urrhus Z iggy Slower than Faster than Slower than Bidirectional Spatial Relations Same What is this adding? An empirically verifiable theory regarding how all the stimuli a person comes in contact with can begin to transform the way the person behaves, and also how we can generate new responses in the absence of previous consequences. It all happens through relational frames A relational frame is a specific class of responding that shows the contextually controlled qualities of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and transformation of stimulus functions - (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001, p. 33) Tall - short Coordination Albert - CUG VEK Opposition Comparison Burrhus - Ziggy same as opposite of faster than bigger than less than worse than Spatial - on top - under in out in front behind next to Types of Relational Frames Hierarchical Temporal Conditional Deictic Distinction class membership past - present if - then I you / here-there / left-right (perspective of the speaker) x is not y More Relational Frames A BIG THANK YOU for the previous slides to D.J. Moran, Ph.D. Break Click Once to Start Timer Second and Third Wave Similarities & Differences Both Second and Third Wave approaches seek to change the relations between relata with the aim of changing the stimulus functions of the relata. Alex is way nicer than Dale unless Alex is in a bad mood. Both would like to meet you now. Which one would you rather meet? But before you answer, any more information youd like to have? OK, they are both in a good mood. And by the way, I got the names backwards. So now, would you rather meet Alex or Dale? And by the way, what gender was Alex? What gender was Dale? Second and Third Wave Similarities & Differences While they differ in a number of ways, the way we are most interested in today is their two approaches to truth. Second Wave typically uses a Correspondence Theory of Truth There is a real world and truth is an accurate correspondence between words and reality. ACT uses a Pragmatic Theory of Truth What works for the purposes you have in view. Pragmatic Theory of Truth A pragmatic theory of truth requires that you be up to something in the first place in order to judge whether what you did got you what you were aiming for. Pragmatic Theory of Truth A pragmatic theory of truth allows you to use a correspondence theroy of truth so long as it works. Pragmatic Theory of Truth Thus, think this thought, I am sitting in a chair. Can you notice that there is a difference between your thought and the actual experience of sitting in the chair? Pragmatic Theory of Truth I could say this worked BECAUSE you distinguished reality from your thoughts about it. Pragmatic Theory of Truth I also could say that, as a way of helping you make a discrimination, this way of talking worked. YESNOYESNO Common Cognitive Distortions By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D. References: Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapies and emotional disorders. New York: New American Library. Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. New York: New American Library. Whats a cognitive distortion and why do so many people have them? Cognitive distortions are simply ways that our mind convinces us of something that isnt really true. For instance, a person might tell themselves, I always fail when I try to do something new; I therefore fail at everything I try. This is an example of black or white (or polarized) thinking. The person is only seeing things in absolutes that if they fail at one thing, they must fail at all things. If they added, I must be a complete loser and failure to their thinking, that would also be an example of overgeneralization taking a failure at one specific task and generalizing it their very self and identity. Cognitive distortions are at the core of what many cognitive-behavioral and other kinds of therapists try and help a person learn to change in psychotherapy. By learning to correctly identify this kind of stinkin thinkin, a person can then answer the negative thinking back, and refute it. By refuting the negative thinking over and over again, it will slowly diminish overtime and be automatically replaced by more rational, balanced thinking.cognitive-behavioralpsychotherapy Fixing Cognitive Distortions By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D. Cognitive distortionsCognitive distortions have a way of playing havoc with our lives. If we let them. This kind of stinkin thinkin can be undone, but it takes effort and lots of practice every day. If you want to stop the irrational thinking, you can start by trying out the exercises below. 1. Identify Our Cognitive Distortion.Cognitive Distortion We need to create a list of our troublesome thoughts and examine them later for matches with a list of cognitive distortions. 2. Examine the Evidence. If we are quite self-critical, then, we should identify a number of experiences and situations where we had success. 3. Double Standard Method. Talk to ourselves in the same compassionate and caring way that we would talk with a friend in a similar situation. 4. Thinking in Shades of Gray. When a plan or goal is not fully realized, think about and evaluate the experience as a partial success, again, on a scale of 5. Survey Method. We need to seek the opinions of others regarding whether our thoughts and attitudes are realistic. 6. Definitions. Defining ourselves as inferior, a loser, a fool, or abnormal when an examination likely will reveal that they more closely represent specific behaviors, or an identifiable behavior pattern. 7. Re-attribution. Regardless of the degree of responsibility we assume, our energy is best utilized in the pursuit of resolutions to problems or identifying ways to cope with predicaments. 8. Cost-Benefit Analysis. It is helpful to list the advantages and disadvantages of feelings, thoughts, or behaviors. A cost-benefit analysis will help us to ascertain what we are gaining from feeling bad, distorted thinking, and inappropriate behavior. Note: 1) clinical concept of secondary gain; and 2) refer to cost-benefit analysis. So, how about we switch from a correspondence theory of truth to a pragmatic one? Where shall we start? One useful place to start is recognizing talk as talk or thoughts as thoughts. THEN Rather than focus on whether or not the talk, thoughts, or rules are true, we focus on how they are working for the groups or individuals purposes. A second useful place to start is recognizing behavior as consistent with a rule. The world should be more fair to me! First, recognize this as words, thoughts, or a rule. Second, rather than focus on whether or not the talk, thoughts, or rules are true, we focus on how they are working for the groups or individuals purposes. So, when you take that seriously, does it help you get what you want? OK! LETS PRACTICE! THANKS! THATS IT! Hank Robb, Ph.D., ABPP