RFT & the Self: Theory, Research, and Applications

Overview of Workshop z Behavior Analysis z Relational Frame Theory z Empirical Models z Perspective Taking z The Three Selves BehaviorBehavior AnalysisAnalysis && SelfSelf The Self in BA

z The RFT approach to self is rooted in a pragmatic, bottom up behavioral account z Skinner provided a more basic behavioral account before the advent of derived relational approaches to language z He suggested the concept of the self is based on the discrimination of one’s own behavior Verbal versus Nonverbal Self-Knowledge

z Animals ‘know’ (non-verbally) what they experience z Non-verbal knowledge is acquired based on direct experience with contingencies z Animals can be trained to report their own experience, thus demonstrating non verbal self-knowledge LATTAL (1975)

No response

DRO schedule

DRL schedule

Response

Reinforcer Further examples

z Inter-response times z Reynolds (1966) z Temporal Intervals z Reynolds & Catania (1962) z Different fixed ratio values z Pliskoff & Goldiamond (1966) z Run lengths z Shimp (1982) Non-Verbal Self-Knowledge

z Non-verbal self-awareness z Responding to one’s own behavior z Non-verbal self z The physical organism RelationalRelational FrameFrame TheoryTheory && SelfSelf Verbal Self-Knowledge z Humans don’t simply behave with regard to their own behavior - they respond verbally with regard to their own behavior RFT & Verbal Behavior

z According to RFT, the core of human language is the ability to arbitrarily relate objects and events, thus changing the psychological functions of those events z This is referred to as arbitrarily applicable relational responding or relational framing z To explain this concept, we first distinguish between non arbitrary and arbitrarily applicable relations Non Arbitrary & Arbitrarily Applicable Relations CONTEXTUAL CUE

NON-ARBITRARY ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE (PHYSICAL) RELATIONS RELATIONS

‘APPLE’ ‘SAME’‘IS’

10c 5c ‘MORE THAN’

Better Worse ‘OPPOSITE’ RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY

PROPERTIES OF ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE RELATIONAL RESPONDING

1.1. MutualMutual EntailmentEntailment salivation sweet

smooth red Apple

Ull 3.3. TransformationTransformation ofof FunctionsFunctions 2. Combinatorial 2. Combinatorial salivation EntailmentEntailment sweet ull smooth red RFT & Verbal Behavior

z Any object in a relational frame is a verbal object z Our own responding can be part of a relational frame and hence it can be verbal z In less technical language, we can talk about our own behavior I wandered lonely as a cloud… EmpiricalEmpirical ModelsModels ofof SelfSelf z We can compare our behavior either to a different example of our own behavior z (e.g., “I used to know that but I’ve forgotten”) z Or to someone else’s behavior z (e.g., “She swam faster than me”) Transformation of self-discrimination response functions via comparative relations

Dymond and Barnes (1995)

Train 1 Response Test 0 Response Function Function B1 Less B2 Same Less

Same A1 More

Same More C1 C2 Test 1 Response Test 2 Response Function Function Verbal Self-Discrimination

z Verbal reports of one’s own behavior, or of the contingencies controlling it, can alter the functions of both z This can be for the good… z …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 PerspectivePerspective TakingTaking Development of Perspective-Taking

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

Deictic Frames z Most relational frames are based on formal or non- arbitrary counterparts z This chair is bigger than that chair < z Steve has less hair than Homer z 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 Development of Perspective-Taking

z The verbal community trains deictic relations by asking questions such as z What am I doing over here? z What are you doing now? z Perspective is the invariant that is abstracted from these discriminations z I-YOU, HERE-THERE, NOW-THEN z It is (verbal) responding to responding from a particular locus Development of Perspective-Taking

z Abstraction of one’s perspective requires z Sufficiently well developed relational repertoire z Extensive history of multiple exemplars that take advantage of that repertoire z Deictic frames are supported by simpler relations that are true relative to a given perspective z Which is your left hand? z Which way is left? I am abadgood husbanddoctor I think of lunchtimeyourmy fatherwork pain I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I touch themyinto hotfacescreen the pan water

I see ayouand brightdesk cominghear future a dog

I hear birdsmusicmya driving mother singing car calling

I eat breadchocolateaice steak cream I am abadgood husbanddoctor I think of lunchtimeyourmy fatherwork pain I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I touch themyinto hotfacescreen the pan water

I see ayouand brightdesk cominghear future a dog

I heareat breadchocolateaice birdsmusicmyasteak drivingcream mother singing car calling I am abadgood husbanddoctor I think of lunchtimeyourmy fatherwork pain I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I touch themyinto hotfacescreen the pan water

I hearseeeat ayouandbreadchocolateice birdsmusicmyabrightdesksteak drivingcream cominghear mother singing future a cardog calling I am abadgood husbanddoctor I think of lunchtimeyourmy fatherwork pain I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I heartouchseeeat ayouandbreadchocolateice birdsmusicmyabrightdesksteak themyinto drivingcream cominghear mother hotfacescreen thesinging future a pan watercardog calling I think of lunchtimeyourmy fatherwork pain I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I hearamtouchseeeat ayouandbreadchocolateiceabadgood birdsmusicmyabrightdesksteakhusbanddoctor themyinto drivingcream cominghear mother hotfacescreen thesinging future a pan watercardog calling I go homeintobackto my the to office schooldark

I thinkamheartouchseeeat ayouandbreadchocolateiceabadgood birdsmusicmya brightdesksteakdoctorhusband ofthemyinto drivingcream coming hear lunchtimeyourmymother hotfacescreen thesinging fatherworkfuture a painpan watercardog calling I thinkhearamtouchseegoeat homeintobackto ayouandbreadchocolateiceabadgood birdsmusicmya brightdesksteakhusbanddoctormy ofthemyinto drivingcream the coming hear tolunchtimeyourmy motheroffice hotfacescreen theschoolsingingdark fatherworkfuture a painpan watercardog calling Perspective-Taking z A person is always speaking from the perspective of I-HERE-NOW about events that happen THERE and THEN z Words like I and YOU do not define perspective-taking frames; they are

Crels that often control perspective-taking frames z Responding in accordance with deictic frames allows us to evaluate, compare, contrast, and judge events from a constant perspective Empirical Work

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

50 Errors 40 30

0 Adults Adoles. Late Mid Early C/hood C/hood C/hood Age Range

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

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

(2004)

OTHER have a red brick have? have? you you I Which brick do Which brick do have a white brick and I

A Single Relation Task A Reversed Relation Task

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

Here: There:

If HERE was THERE & THERE was HERE Where would I be sitting?

Where would you be sitting? A Double Reversed Relation Task Yesterday I was sitting there on the black chair, today I am sitting here on the blue chair Here: There: Now: Then:

If HERENOW waswas THERETHEN and and THEN THERE was was NOW HERE and

Where would I be sitting now?

Where would you be sitting then? Further Research on Deictics

z 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) z Deictic relations are generalized operants (Weil, 2007) z 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) SupportiveSupportive DataData fromfrom AlternativeAlternative PerspectivesPerspectives , 329-338 to one’s own rbitrary similarity rbitrary similarity arguing that they were American Psychologist, 32 In Gallup (1977), chimps first reacted to mirror images fright / aggression with After 10 days exposure they responded in accordance with a correspondence between themselves and the mirror image Gallup were ‘self-aware’ claimed the chimps but Povinelli (1998) disagreed, This is a combination of non-a simply responding to a correspondence between their own behavior and that of the image responding and non-verbal behavior

GALLUP (1977) – Self Recognition z z z z Self recognition in primates, Self recognition in primates, , 67, 72-75 video from minutes earlier the child in video as head to remove the sticker ng a sticker on their head consistent sense of self American Psychologist Presents, 9(4) Three year olds who saw a Four year olds + referred to Results indicate that ‘a of an experimenter putti of an experimenter seemed to recognize themselves but described the child in the video third person and, crucially, failed to reach up their ‘me’ and removed the sticker appears to emerge between 3.5 and 4 years old’ z z z Povinelli (1998)

POVINELLI (1998) z Maybe not, , 67, 72-75 n future self or the sires that can conflict American Psychologist Presents, 9(4) Three year olds can deal with self and other in the present, but cannot make decisions about a ‘future self’ or other’ No ‘empathy for their ow Not yet conscious of the self or other as extended in time, with de future self of the other’ (p.7) between selves from different times

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

BARRESI (1998) Maybe not, 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 cortices Experiential 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 TheThe ThreeThree SensesSenses ofof SelfSelf The Three Senses of Self

z Object of verbal knowledge z The conceptualized self z Self as content z Process of verbal knowledge z The knowing self z Self as process z Locus of verbal knowledge z Transcendent self z Self as context or perspective Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)

z Elaborate descriptive and evaluative relational networks z Constructed HERE and NOW z About me (or my behaviors) THERE and THEN

z Organized into relational networks coherent across time and situations z Well-elaborated z Multi-layered Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)

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

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

z Appear to be True, historical, and thus, unchangeable z Basis for reason-giving z Can become rigid and ossified z Ignore contradictory evidence z Amplify confirmatory evidence z Act in ways that avoid disconfirmation z Clinical Implications z Depression, 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. Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)

z Relevant ACT techniques z Defusion exercises z Identifying programming z Rewriting your autobiography z The documentary of you z Who would be made wrong? z Corpus delecti z Self-as-context exercises z Box full of stuff z Chessboard Metaphor Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)

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

z Feeds the conceptualized self z Necessary to contact transcendent self z Extremely useful in behavioral regulation Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)

z Threats to self-as-process z Inadequate training by verbal community z Experiential avoidance z Clinical implications z Weak self knowledge z Dominance of evaluative framing z Dominance of conceptualized past and future Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)

z Relevant ACT techniques z Any present-moment mindfulness techniques z Intero- and exteroceptive sensory focus z Body scan z Cubby-holing z Clean vs. dirty thoughts z Leaves on a stream z Soldiers on parade Self-as-Context (Transcendent Self)

z The sense of self as perspective z Locus of all psychological phenomena z The invariant in all self-discriminations z Experiential link between verbal and nonverbal knowledge (repertoires) z A product of relational responding z Not thing-like: no limits, unchanging, ever-present

z Not threatened by aversive content or process z Facilitates willingness, compassion, intimacy Self-as-Context Clinical Issues

z Clinical implications z No/unstable sense of self z Stigma, objectification of others z Social anhedonia z Lack of empathy and self-compassion z Difficulties with intimacy, connecting with others z Relevant ACT techniques z Observer, Eyes On z Shifting Perspectives (time, place, person) z Metaphors: sky and weather, ocean Self meets Other

z Conceptualized other z Stereotypes, characterizations, straw men z Idealizations and expectations z Knowing other z Basis for empathy and understanding z Awareness of speaker impact on listener z Transcendent other z Ontological/philosophical impasses z Transcendent other = transcendent self z Basis for compassion and intimacy

EXTRA MATERIAL Etc. Self as Process I am breathing quickly am breathing I sweating wonder if I’m I feel nervous I too fast speaking think I’m I want to escape I Etc. Self as Content I am interested in studying the the in studying interested am I self student a graduate am only I didn’t prepare well enough I speaker good not a very I’m

Perspective-Taking & the 3 Selves FUSION AND DEFUSION

I am having the thought that I am worthless

Hierarchical Hierarchical Relation Relation Self as Content Self as Process I am a worthless AND I feel so worthless person right now

I am having the feeling that I am worthless right now The Three Senses of Self

CONTENT: I am an environmentalist PROCESS: I feel pride in my environmentalism CONTEXT: Both content and process are a function of my unique perspective IDENTITY CRISIS IDENTITY CRISIS Self-as-Process Clinical Issues

z What ACT processes would you target in order to develop a sense of knowing self? z ACT Techniques z Leaves on stream, soldiers on parade z Cubby-holing (labeling) z Observing sensations, body scan z Any, 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 NEGATIVE SELF-CONTENT

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

Nonverbal Knowing z Nonverbal self z Locus of nonverbal knowledge z Ongoing behavioral stream z Biological organism z Nonverbal knowledge z Organism’s non-relational behavioral repertoire z Nature of knowing: direct behavioral processes z Operant and classical conditioning z Stimulus and response generalization based on formal properties of events in evolutionary sense Verbal Knowing

z Verbal self z Object of verbal knowledge z Process of verbal knowledge z Locus of verbal knowledge z Verbal knowledge z Behavioral functions established through networks of derived stimulus relations z Nature of verbal knowledge z Derived 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 Æ 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’

z Harre (1993) z 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 The Importance of ‘Coherence’

z Festinger (1954): Cognitive Dissonance z Experiment involved a boring task z Subjects were required to persuade someone else that the task was enjoyable and engaging z Those who got paid well afterwards rated the task negatively whereas those who got paid badly rated it positively Some RFT papers relevant to self

z Dymond & Barnes (1994, 1995, 1996) z Barnes, Lawlor, Smeets, Roche (1996) z McHugh et al. (2004 etc.) z IRAP and self (Vahey et al.) z Luciano et al. (Rehfeldt & Barnes- Holmes, 2009) z Villardaga et al. (Update needed) Simple Test 1 - 3 8/8; 8/8; 8/8

I-YOU HERE-THERE NOW-THEN Level of Relation Type Test/Training Session No. ReversedI-YOU Test 4 – 6 0/8;Results 0/8 Complexity Train (aids) 7 – 9 3/8; 7/8; 8/8 Train 10 - 11 6/8; 8/8 Test 12 – 13 8/8; 8/8 TRAINING Gen Test 14 – 15 8/8; 8/8 PERSPECTIVE HERE-THERE Test 16 - 17 0/12; 0/12 4 yrs. 1 mth. / Gen Test 22 - 23 12/12;Train 12/12 18 - 19 7/12; 12/12 63 sessions of training over 1/16;Test 0/16 20 - 21 12/12; 12/12 10 weeks 6/16; 12/ 16; NOW-THEN12/16; Test 16/16 24 - 25 16/16;Train 16/16 26 - 29

Test 30 - 31 Gen Test 32 - 34 16/16; 14/16; 16/16 Double Reversed I-YOU Test 35 - 36 0/6; 1/6 GEN 58HERE-THERE - 63 12/12; 11/12; 12/12; 11/12; 12/12;Train 12/12 37 - 38 2/6; 6/6 Test 39 - 41 5/6; 6/6; 6/6 Gen Test 42 - 45 5/6; 6/6; 6/6 HERE-THERE Test 46 - 47 0/12; 0/12 NOW-THEN Train 48 - 51 6/12; 8/12; 10/12; 12/12 Test 52 - 53 12/12; 12/12

Gen Test 54 - 57 12/12; 10/12; 12/12; 12/12

ALL ALL