Overview of Workshop RFT and The Self.pdf · zFor RFT, deictic relational frames provide the basis...

Overview of WorkshopBehavior AnalysisRelational Frame TheoryEmpirical ModelsPerspective TakingThe Three Selves

RFT & the Self: Theory, Research, and Applications

Behavior Analysis & SelfBehavior Analysis & Self

The RFT approach to self is rooted in a pragmatic, bottom up behavioral accountSkinner provided a more basic behavioral account before the advent of derived relational approaches to languageHe suggested the concept of the self is based on the discrimination of one’s own behavior

The Self in BA

Verbal versus Nonverbal Self-Knowledge

Animals ‘know’ (non-verbally) what they experienceNon-verbal knowledge is acquired based on direct experience with contingenciesAnimals can be trained to report their own experience, thus demonstrating non verbal self-knowledge

DRO schedule

DRL schedule

Reinforcer

LATTAL (1975)

No response

Response

Further examples

Inter-response times Reynolds (1966)

Temporal Intervals Reynolds & Catania (1962)

Different fixed ratio values Pliskoff & Goldiamond (1966)

Run lengthsShimp (1982)

Non-Verbal Self-Knowledge

Non-verbal self-awareness Responding to one’s own behavior

Non-verbal selfThe physical organism

Relational Frame Theory & SelfRelational Frame Theory & Self

Verbal Self-Knowledge

Humans don’t simply behave with regard to their own behavior - they respond verbally with regard to their own behavior

According to RFT, the core of human language is the ability to arbitrarily relate objects and events, thus changing the psychological functions of those eventsThis is referred to as arbitrarily applicable relational responding or relational framingTo explain this concept, we first distinguish between non arbitrary and arbitrarily applicable relations

RFT & Verbal Behavior

NON-ARBITRARY (PHYSICAL) RELATIONS

ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE RELATIONS

‘SAME’

‘MORE THAN’

‘OPPOSITE’Better Worse

‘IS’‘APPLE’

5c10c

Non Arbitrary & Arbitrarily Applicable Relations

CONTEXTUAL CUE

RELATIONAL FRAME THEORYPROPERTIES OF ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE RELATIONAL RESPONDING

sweetsalivation

smooth red

sweetsalivation

smooth redull

2. Combinatorial 2. Combinatorial EntailmentEntailment

Ull

Apple

1. Mutual Entailment1. Mutual Entailment

3. Transformation3. Transformationof Functionsof Functions

Any object in a relational frame is a verbal objectOur own responding can be part of a relational frame and hence it can be verbalIn less technical language, we can talk about our own behavior

RFT & Verbal Behavior

I wandered lonely as a

cloud…

Empirical Models of SelfEmpirical Models of Self

We can compare our behavior either to a different example of our own behavior

(e.g., “I used to know that but I’ve forgotten”) Or to someone else’s behavior

(e.g., “She swam faster than me”)

Transformation of self-discrimination response functions via comparative relations

B1

C2C1

B2

A1

Same Less

Same More

Same

Less

More

Train 1 Response Train 1 Response FunctionFunction

Test 1 Response Function



Dymond and Barnes (1995)

Verbal Self-Discrimination Verbal reports of one’s own behavior, or of the contingencies controlling it, can alter the functions of both

This can be for the good… …as well as for the bad…

–Self-instructions can reduce the effects of temporal delays in reinforcement

–Self-knowledge of aversive events is itself aversive

Perspective TakingPerspective Taking

Being able to respond verbally to our environment allows the development of certain patterns of relational framingRFT refers to these frames as DEICTIC, which means that they depend on the perspective of the speakerFor RFT, deictic relational frames provide the basis of perspective taking

Development of Perspective-Taking

Deictic Frames

Most relational frames are based on formal or non-arbitrary counterparts

This chair is bigger than that chairSteve has less hair than Homer

<

DEICTIC frames belong to a special class of relations that have no non-arbitrary counterparts and thus demonstration and multiple exemplar training cannot rely on such features


The verbal community trains deictic relations by asking questions such as

What am I doing over here?What are you doing now?

Perspective is the invariant that is abstracted from these discriminations

I-YOU, HERE-THERE, NOW-THENIt is (verbal) responding to responding from a particular locus

Abstraction of one’s perspective requiresSufficiently well developed relational repertoireExtensive history of multiple exemplars that take advantage of that repertoire

Deictic frames are supported by simpler relations that are true relative to a given perspective

Which is your left hand?Which way is left?


I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolate

I hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother calling

I see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dog

I touch the screenI touch my faceI touch into the waterI touch the hot pan

I go to my officeI go homeI go into the darkI go back to school

I think of my workI think of your painI think of lunchtimeI think of my father

I am goodI am badI am a husbandI am a doctor

I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolateI hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother calling

I see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dog





I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolateI hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother callingI see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dog





I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolateI hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother callingI see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dogI touch the screenI touch my faceI touch into the waterI touch the hot pan




I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolateI hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother callingI see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dogI touch the screenI touch my faceI touch into the waterI touch the hot pan


I think of my workI think of your painI think of lunchtimeI think of my fatherI am goodI am badI am a husbandI am a doctor

I eat breadI eat ice creamI eat a steakI eat chocolateI hear musicI hear a driving carI hear birds singingI hear my mother callingI see a deskI see you comingI see a bright futureI see and hear a dogI touch the screenI touch my faceI touch into the waterI touch the hot panI go to my officeI go homeI go into the darkI go back to schoolI think of my workI think of your painI think of lunchtimeI think of my fatherI am goodI am badI am a husbandI am a doctor

Perspective-Taking

A person is always speaking from the perspective of I-HERE-NOW about events that happen THERE and THENWords like I and YOU do not define perspective-taking frames; they are Crels that often control perspective-taking framesResponding in accordance with deictic frames allows us to evaluate, compare, contrast, and judge events from a constant perspective

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Errors

Adults Adoles. Late C/hood

Mid C/hood

Early C/hood

Age Range

McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes (2004)

Empirical Work

Deictic relational framing (I-You, Here-There, Now-Then) ability correlates with data from Theory of Mind studies

Deictic relational frames produce ERPs patterns similar to those found in ToM research

McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes (2004)

SELF

OTHER

A Single Relation Task

I have a white brick and you have a red brick

Which brick do you have?

Which brick do I have?

I am sitting here on the blue chair and you are sitting there on the black chair

& THERE was HERE

Where would I be sitting?

Here: There:

A Reversed Relation Task

Where would you be sitting?

If HERE was THERE

Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today Iam sitting here on the blue chair

and NOW was THEN and THEN was NOW

Where would I be sitting now?

Now: Then:

A Double Reversed Relation Task

Where would you be sitting then?

If HERE was THERE and THERE was HERE

Here: There:

Further Research on Deictics

Relational repertoires required for perspective taking follow a distinct developmental profile and are comprised of functionally distinct relational components (McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes & Stewart, 2006)

Deictic relations are generalized operants (Weil, 2007)

Deictic relations can be trained (e.g., Heagle & Rehfeldt, 2006) including in children with autistic spectrum disorders with perspective-taking deficits (Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek & Kowalchuk, 2007)

Supportive Data from Alternative Supportive Data from Alternative PerspectivesPerspectives

GALLUP (1977) – Self RecognitionSelf recognition in primates, American Psychologist, 32, 329-338

In Gallup (1977), chimps first reacted to mirror images with fright / aggressionAfter 10 days exposure they responded in accordance with a correspondence between themselves and the mirror imageGallup claimed the chimps were ‘self-aware’ but Povinelli (1998) disagreed, arguing that they were simply responding to a correspondence between their own behavior and that of the imageThis is a combination of non-arbitrary similarity and non-verbal responding to one’s own behavior

POVINELLI (1998)Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75

Povinelli (1998)Three year olds who saw a video from minutes earlier of an experimenter putting a sticker on their head seemed to recognize themselves but described the child in the video in the third person and, crucially, failed to reach up to their head to remove the stickerFour year olds + referred to the child in the video as ‘me’ and removed the stickerResults indicate that ‘a consistent sense of self appears to emerge between 3.5 and 4 years old’

BARRESI (1998)Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75

Three year olds can deal with self and other in the present, but cannot make decisions about a ‘future self’ or ‘future other’No ‘empathy for their own future self or the future self of the other’ (p.7)Not yet conscious of the self or other as extended in time, with desires that can conflict between selves from different times

BARRESI (1998)Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75

Neuropsychological Perspectives

Two neurally distinct, but habitually integrated, forms of self-reference.

Narrative self-reference (self-as-content)•The self extended across time and space•Linguistic semantic network •Supported by activity in midline prefrontal corticesExperiential self-reference (self-as-process)•Moment by moment self awareness•Intero- and exteroceptive sensory processing•Supported by lateral PFC and insula

•Brain’s ‘default mode’ ≈ narrative self-reference

Farb, Segal…Anderson (2007)SCAN, 2, 313-322

•8 week course in mindful meditation resulted in•↓ mPFC activity•↑ right lateralized network activity•Decoupling of these two networks

•Mindfulness training may afford greater flexibility and access to present moment self awareness

•Viscerosomatic awareness without automatic evaluation

The Three Senses of SelfThe Three Senses of Self

Object of verbal knowledge The conceptualized selfSelf as content

Process of verbal knowledge The knowing selfSelf as process

Locus of verbal knowledge Transcendent selfSelf as context or perspective

The Three Senses of Self

Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)

Elaborate descriptive and evaluative relational networks

Constructed HERE and NOW About me (or my behaviors) THERE and THEN

Organized into relational networks coherent across time and situations

Well-elaboratedMulti-layered


The product of evaluative processes are defended while the process itself is rarely noticed

This is a good book vs. I evaluate this book as goodI am anxious vs. I feel my heart beating fast and I have the urge to run away from this situation.You are obnoxious vs. I think ‘you are obnoxious’


Appear to be True, historical, and thus, unchangeable

Basis for reason-givingCan become rigid and ossified

Ignore contradictory evidenceAmplify confirmatory evidenceAct in ways that avoid disconfirmation

Clinical ImplicationsDepression, identity crisis, stuck in dysfunctional relationships/jobs/behavioral patterns

The conceptualized self trap

I slept all day. I am a lazy person.

Result: The only way to change your future is to change your past. You’re Stuck!

The conceptualized self trap

Or worse…

You’ve been living in an imaginary cage.


Relevant ACT techniquesDefusion exercises

Identifying programmingRewriting your autobiographyThe documentary of youWho would be made wrong?Corpus delecti

Self-as-context exercisesBox full of stuffChessboard Metaphor

Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)

Ongoing, fluid self- awarenessI feel, I see, I think, I wonder, I like, I hear, I remember…

Feeds the conceptualized self Necessary to contact transcendent selfExtremely useful in behavioral regulation

Threats to self-as-process Inadequate training by verbal community Experiential avoidance

Clinical implicationsWeak self knowledgeDominance of evaluative framingDominance of conceptualized past and future


Relevant ACT techniquesAny present-moment mindfulness techniquesIntero- and exteroceptive sensory focusBody scanCubby-holingClean vs. dirty thoughtsLeaves on a streamSoldiers on parade


Self-as-Context (Transcendent Self)

The sense of self as perspective Locus of all psychological phenomenaThe invariant in all self-discriminations

Experiential link between verbal and nonverbal knowledge (repertoires)

A product of relational respondingNot thing-like: no limits, unchanging, ever-present

Not threatened by aversive content or processFacilitates willingness, compassion, intimacy

Self-as-Context Clinical Issues

Clinical implicationsNo/unstable sense of selfStigma, objectification of othersSocial anhedonia Lack of empathy and self-compassionDifficulties with intimacy, connecting with others

Relevant ACT techniquesObserver, Eyes OnShifting Perspectives (time, place, person)Metaphors: sky and weather, ocean

Self meets Other

Conceptualized otherStereotypes, characterizations, straw menIdealizations and expectations

Knowing otherBasis for empathy and understandingAwareness of speaker impact on listener

Transcendent otherOntological/philosophical impasses

Transcendent other = transcendent selfBasis for compassion and intimacy

EXTRA MATERIAL

Perspective-Taking & the 3 Selves

Self as ContentI am interested in studying the self

I am only a graduate student

I didn’t prepare well enough

I’m not a very good speaker

Etc.

Self as ProcessI am breathing quickly

I wonder if I’m sweating

I feel nervous

I think I’m speaking too fast

I want to escape

Etc.

Self as ContentI am a worthless

person

Self as ProcessI feel so worthless

right nowAND

I am having the thought that I am worthless

I am having the feeling that I am worthless right now

FUSION AND DEFUSION

Hierarchical

RelationHierarchical

Relation

The Three Senses of Self

CONTEXT: Both content and process are a function of my unique perspective

PROCESS: I feel pride in my environmentalism

CONTENT: I am an environmentalist

IDENTITY CRISIS

Self-as-Process Clinical Issues

What ACT processes would you target in order to develop a sense of knowing self?ACT Techniques

Leaves on stream, soldiers on paradeCubby-holing (labeling)Observing sensations, body scanAny, all mindfulness exercises

NEGATIVE SELF-CONTENT

• Most clients coming into therapy have a very negative self-concept

• Self evaluations are often seen as literally true, which can be very painful

• As a result, the ‘self’ needs to change

Barnes, Lawlor, Smeets & Roche (1996)

“Stimulus equivalence and academic self-concept among mildly mentally handicapped and non-handicapped children”

Developmentally disabled children were more likely than non-developmentally disabled children to fail an equivalence test by choosing SLOW rather than ABLE as a match for their own name in the critical test phase despite showing comparable levels of equivalence responding when non-loaded terms were used

NEGATIVE SELF-CONTENT

Nonverbal Knowing

Nonverbal selfLocus of nonverbal knowledgeOngoing behavioral streamBiological organism

Nonverbal knowledgeOrganism’s non-relational behavioral repertoire

Nature of knowing: direct behavioral processes

Operant and classical conditioningStimulus and response generalization based on formal properties of events in evolutionary sense

Verbal Knowing

Verbal selfObject of verbal knowledgeProcess of verbal knowledgeLocus of verbal knowledge

Verbal knowledgeBehavioral functions established through networks of derived stimulus relations

Nature of verbal knowledgeDerived and arbitrarily applicable relational responding

Training Self As Process

-Publically accessible stimuli or responses-Private stimuli correlated with publically trained verbal discriminations-Metaphorical extension

RFT amplifies this regulation-Bidirectional relational responding-Explains process of construction of verbal correlates and metaphorical extension

Self As Process Avoidance

I’m feeling good

Well, mostly good, except for those nagging doubts

Stop that! I must think positive…

Who am I kidding? - that’s not going to work. I’m just not good enough

I’m going back to bed

Allows Others to Predict Behavior

I feel very unsure about going

PROBABLY WON’T GO

The Importance of ‘Being Right’

Harre (1993)Young children spend considerably more time asserting their status within a group by demonstrating the correctness of their opinions than by using other more direct means

Festinger (1954): Cognitive DissonanceExperiment involved a boring task Subjects were required to persuade someone else that the task was enjoyable and engagingThose who got paid well afterwards rated the task negatively whereas those who got paid badly rated it positively

The Importance of ‘Coherence’

Some RFT papers relevant to self

Dymond & Barnes (1994, 1995, 1996)Barnes, Lawlor, Smeets, Roche (1996)McHugh et al. (2004 etc.)IRAP and self (Vahey et al.)Luciano et al. (Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, 2009)Villardaga et al. (Update needed)

GEN 58 - 63 12/12; 11/12; 12/12; 11/12; 12/12; 12/12

Results

Gen Test 22 - 23 12/12; 12/121/16; 0/166/16; 12/ 16; 12/16; 16/16

16/16; 16/16

Simple Test 1 - 3 8/8; 8/8; 8/8

Level of Complexity

Relation Type Test/Training Session No.

8/8; 8/8

I-YOU Test 4 – 6

Train 10 - 11

Gen Test 14 – 15

12/12; 12/12

Reversed 0/8; 0/8Train (aids) 7 – 9 3/8; 7/8; 8/8

6/8; 8/8Test 12 – 13 8/8; 8/8

0/12; 0/12Train 18 - 19 7/12; 12/12

HERE-THERE Test 16 - 17

Test 20 - 21

16/16; 14/16; 16/16

Double Reversed

Train 37 - 38 2/6; 6/6

Test

5/6; 6/6; 6/6

Gen Test 32 - 34

I-YOU HERE-THERE NOW-THEN

ALL ALL

52 - 53

Test 46 - 47Gen Test 42 - 45

Train 48 - 51

NOW-THEN Test

Test 39 - 41

Train 26 - 2924 - 25

Test 30 - 31

12/12; 10/12; 12/12; 12/12

0/6; 1/635 - 36Test

12/12; 12/12

0/12; 0/126/12; 8/12; 10/12; 12/12

5/6; 6/6; 6/6HERE-THERE NOW-THEN

I-YOU HERE-THERE

Gen Test 54 - 57

4 yrs. 1 mth. / 63 sessions of training over

10 weeks

TRAINING

PERSPECTIVE

Overview of Workshop RFT and The Self.pdf · zFor RFT, deictic relational frames provide the basis...

Documents

Transcript of Overview of Workshop RFT and The Self.pdf · zFor RFT, deictic relational frames provide the basis...