Learning
RFT
An Inroducion Inroducion o Relaional Frame Frame Teory Teory and Is Clinical Applicaion
NIKLA NIKL AS ÖRNEKE, ÖRNEKE, MD Foreword by Dermo Barnes-Holmes, Ph.D. Foreword Aferword Afer word by Seven C. Hayes, Ph.D Ph. D.
“ere is no beter place o sar learning abou F han his excellen book. örneke eaches he principles o F simply and eleganly, using a wealh o clinical examples o make i accessible and simulaing. I wish a book like his had exised when I firs learned abou F; i would have saved me many hours o hard work, rusraion, and conusion.” �uss Harris, auhor o Te Happiness rap and and AC AC Made Ma de Simple “On rare occasions, he skills o wrier, herapis, and heoris combine o give he field a sophisicaed ye highly pracical book. is much-awaied ranslaion shows relaional rame heory as an accessible, powerul ool or all who use alk herapy. A mus-read or hose ineresed in conemporary behaviorism behav iorism.” .” �Kelly Koerner, Ph.D., creaive direcor a Evidence Based Pracice Insiue in Seatle, WA “Since F firs appeared in he experimenal lieraure, i has been hailed as a breakhrough in our scienific undersanding o language and cogniion wihh di wi direc rec and impor imporan an impl implicaion icaionss or cli clinica nicall psycholog psychological ical prac pracice. ice. Ye, descripions o F, writen largely or echnical audiences, have been, a bes, curiously baffling, and a wors, maddeningly incomprehensible. In his book, örneke has solved he puzzle o F! He summarizes he hisory o F, is key eaures, and is clinical implicaions wih language ha is user-riendly and easily undersandable. I believe his book will make a huge difference or clinicians who wish o undersand F and is implicaions or clinical pracice. I also may be a useul learning ool or researchers and F expers hemselves who wish o learn and see a beauiul example o how F can be presened clearly and comprehensively.” � Jonah Jonahan an Ka Kaner, ner, associ a ssociae ae proessor a he Univer Universi siyy o Wisconsin-Milwaukee and direcor o is Depression reamen Specialy Clinic “For years, clinicians have asked me or recommendaions abou wha hey should read o learn F. ere was really no good advice I could give excep ‘be persisen.’ Finally, I have a beter answer. I you wan o undersand relaional rame heory, his is he place o sar. örneke’s F primer is boh maserul and accessible.” �Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D., associae proessor o psychology a he Universiy o Mississippi, coauhor o Acce o Accepance pance and Commimen Terapy and Terapy and auhor o Mind o Mindulnes ulnesss or wo
“ere is no beter place o sar learning abou F han his excellen book. örneke eaches he principles o F simply and eleganly, using a wealh o clinical examples o make i accessible and simulaing. I wish a book like his had exised when I firs learned abou F; i would have saved me many hours o hard work, rusraion, and conusion.” �uss Harris, auhor o Te Happiness rap and and AC AC Made Ma de Simple “On rare occasions, he skills o wrier, herapis, and heoris combine o give he field a sophisicaed ye highly pracical book. is much-awaied ranslaion shows relaional rame heory as an accessible, powerul ool or all who use alk herapy. A mus-read or hose ineresed in conemporary behaviorism behav iorism.” .” �Kelly Koerner, Ph.D., creaive direcor a Evidence Based Pracice Insiue in Seatle, WA “Since F firs appeared in he experimenal lieraure, i has been hailed as a breakhrough in our scienific undersanding o language and cogniion wihh di wi direc rec and impor imporan an impl implicaion icaionss or cli clinica nicall psycholog psychological ical prac pracice. ice. Ye, descripions o F, writen largely or echnical audiences, have been, a bes, curiously baffling, and a wors, maddeningly incomprehensible. In his book, örneke has solved he puzzle o F! He summarizes he hisory o F, is key eaures, and is clinical implicaions wih language ha is user-riendly and easily undersandable. I believe his book will make a huge difference or clinicians who wish o undersand F and is implicaions or clinical pracice. I also may be a useul learning ool or researchers and F expers hemselves who wish o learn and see a beauiul example o how F can be presened clearly and comprehensively.” � Jonah Jonahan an Ka Kaner, ner, associ a ssociae ae proessor a he Univer Universi siyy o Wisconsin-Milwaukee and direcor o is Depression reamen Specialy Clinic “For years, clinicians have asked me or recommendaions abou wha hey should read o learn F. ere was really no good advice I could give excep ‘be persisen.’ Finally, I have a beter answer. I you wan o undersand relaional rame heory, his is he place o sar. örneke’s F primer is boh maserul and accessible.” �Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D., associae proessor o psychology a he Universiy o Mississippi, coauhor o Acce o Accepance pance and Commimen Terapy and Terapy and auhor o Mind o Mindulnes ulnesss or wo
“A imes, while reading örneke’s book, I have el as hough I were in he middle o a hriller abou he psychopahological behaviors o humans. Clues o unraveling he mysery embedded in complex conceps like ‘arbirarily applicable relaional responding’ have alered me, as he reader, o wha is coming up nex. Our abiliy or relaional raming and or rule-governed behavior may a firs glance seem abulous�a gif rom he gods�bu darkness lurks around he corner. Our abiliy o problem-solve is he villain. is book helps me make sense o i all.” �Maria Midbøe, M.Sc., candidae in psychology a Sockholm Universiy in Sockholm, Sweden “Unil now, explanaions o relaional rame heory have remained largely esoeric and even impenerable o all bu he mos specialized scholars. For he firs ime, his exraordinary book provides a highly accessible accoun o relaional rame heory, including is larger conex wihin psychology, he curren research in he field, and is many poenial applicaions. örneke srikes a fine balance beween doing jusice o relaional rame heory and making he heory, research, and is implicaions readily comprehensible o he non-exper. is unique book is a mus-read or scholars o human cogniion, as well as clinicians, educaors, ohers seeking o harness he power o basic psychological principles in heir applied work, and anyone ineresed in he renaissance o modern behavior analysis.” � James D. Herber Her ber,, Ph. Ph.D., D., proessor o psycholog psychologyy a Drexel Universiy in Philadelphia, PA, and direcor o Ann xie A xieyy reamen and ese esearch arch
Learning
RFT An Inroducion Inroducion o elaional Frame Frame eory eor y and Is Clinical Applicaion
NIKLA NIKL AS ÖNEKE, ÖNEKE, MD CONTEXT PRESS An Imprint of New Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Publisher’s Note
Tis publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering psychological, financial, financial , legal, or other professional services. If expert assistance or counseling is needed, the services of a competent professional professional should be sought. Distributed in Canada by Raincoast Books Copyright © 2010 by by Niklas örneke New Harbinger Publications, Inc. 5674 5674 Shattuck Shat tuck Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 ww w.newharbinger.com w.newharbing er.com All Al l Rights Ri ghts Reserved Rese rved Acquired Acquir ed by Catharine Catha rine Sutker; Sutke r; Cover design desig n by Amy Shoup; Edited by Jasmine Jasm ine Star PDF ISBN: 978-1-57224-908 978-1-57224-908-0 -0
Te Library of Congress has cataloged c ataloged the print edition as: örneke, Niklas. [Relational frame theory. English] Learning Lear ning RF : an introduction introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical applications / Niklas örneke ; foreword by Dermot Barnes-Holmes Barnes-Holmes ; af terword by Steven C. Hayes. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-57 978-1-57224-90 224-9066-6 6 1. Cognitive Cognit ive therapy. 2. Acceptance Accept ance and commitment commit ment therapy. I. itle. RC489.C631367 201 2 010 0 616.89’1425--dc22 2010024048
In remembrance o my aher, David
Conens
Foreword o he U.S. Ediion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix Foreword o he Swedish Ediion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii Acknowledgmens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii A Personal Word o Inroducion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART 1 Background CHAPTER 1 adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles . . . . 9 CHAPTER 2 inking and Human Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CHAPTER 3 Is he Power o inking a Clinically elevan Issue? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 PART 2 elaional Learning CHAPTER 4 Derived elaional esponding as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Learning F
CHAPTER 5 Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 CHAPTER 6 elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 CHAPTER 7 e Dark Side o Human Languaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 PART 3 Clinical Implicaions CHAPTER 8 Learning eory and Psychological erapies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 CHAPTER 9 General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 CHAPTER 10 Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 CHAPTER 11 Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Aferword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 eerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
vi
Clariy, simpliciy, deph. is is wha I seek o achieve and unie. Excluding none o he hree. Hence he difficuly. �Pär Lagerkvis (ranslaed by Elizabeh Ask de Lamber)
Foreword o he U.S. Ediion
A PRGMAIC HEOY OF HUMAN LANGUAGE AND COGNIION Behavior analysis is an exremely unusual approach o psychological science. In sark conras o mainsream psychology, he behavioral radiion reuses o appeal o mediaing menal represenaions and processes as he basis or explaining human behavior. Insead, i adheres o a horoughgoing uncional analyic approach in which he sysemaic analysis o he ineracions beween an organism and is pas and curren environmenal conexs provides he ramework or explaining all psychological evens. Somewha surprisingly, perhaps, his unusual approach yielded considerable success in he early years, paricularly in improving he lives o indi viduals diagnosed wih various learning disabiliies. However, he same level o success was no observed when behavior analysis urned is atenion o human language and cogniion. Noam Chomsky’s damning review o B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is well known, and is someimes offered as “proo” ha he nonmediaional approach o behavior analysis could no srech o he more advanced or sophisicaed aspecs o human psychology (such as language and hough). In ac, Skinner’s work did go on o provide he basis or a number o language raining programs, bu once again success was limied largely o learning-disabled populaions. e key problem wih Verbal Behavior , and one ha Chomsky highlighed, is ha i ails o address he highly generaive naure o human language. Alhough he book does no leave his issue compleely unouched, i ails
Learning F
o provide a well-developed echnical accoun o he almos infinie novely ha language can generae. Furhermore, is reamen o advanced language phenomena such as meaphor and analogy is unconvincing. For example, in providing uncional analyic inerpreaions o hese verbal behaviors, i inerweaves lay erms wih echnical erms, and he resuling analyses hus lack he required precision. Bu o course Skinner wroe he book almos wo decades beore Murray Sidman’s firs sudy on equivalence class ormaion was conduced, wih all o he implicaions or he behavioral sudy o human language ha emerged rom ha seminal research. Skinner was clearly a a serious disadvanage in no having access o his equivalence daa se and he concepual work ha ollowed. We now know ha derived relaional responding appears quie early in he behavioral reperoires o young children, and modern behavioral reamens o human language and cogniion have emerged rom his work. Unorunaely or Skinner’s Verbal Behavior , his research was lacking in he book. For he mos par, hereore, Verbal Behavior was a direc coningency accoun o human language ha made only passing reerence o he mos imporan defining eaure o verbal behavior: derived relaional responding. e firs book on relaional rame heory, Relaional Frame Teory: A Pos-Skinnerian Accoun o Human Language and Cogniion (Hayes, BarnesHolmes, & oche, 2001), published over hiry years afer Skinner’s work, aimed o presen a modern behavior analyic accoun o human language and cogniion. e heory embraced derived relaions and indeed pu hem a he very hear o he accoun. Neverheless, F remained a naural exension o earlier concepual and empirical research wihin behavior analysis. e core concep in he book, arbirarily applicable relaional responding, was based solidly on Skinner’s concep o he operan and drew heavily on Sidman’s seminal work on equivalence classes. Specifically, equivalence class ormaion was seen as he resul o a hisory o operan condiioning (a learned response class), and based on his argumen, he possibiliy o muliple orms o such response classes (relaional rames) was prediced. e 2001 F book explains how he basic analyic unis o human verbal behavior�relaional rames�may be combined ino more complex unis, giving rise o he relaing o relaional rames, increasingly complex relaional neworks, and he relaing o enire relaional neworks o oher relaional neworks. ese ypes o highly absrac conceps are used in he book o provide a nonmediaional and purely uncional analyic accoun o he ull range o human verbal abiliies, including naming, soryelling, humor, absrac logic, he verbal consrucion o sel, and spiriualiy. e primary purpose behind he 2001 F book involved providing more han a modern behavioral inerpreaion o human language and x
cogniion. Is purpose was inensely pragmaic. Among oher objecives, he book aimed o simulae boh basic and applied research on human language and cogniion, and o provide a se o uncional analyic erms ha would aciliae communicaion among researchers and praciioners. I appears o have been relaively successul in achieving he firs goal, bu he later objecive, I believe, requires anoher book: he one you are currenly reading. Relaional Frame Teory: A Pos-Skinnerian Accoun o Human Language and Cogniion is inensely academic, ull o jargon, and litered wih highly absrac conceps. Learning RF conains many o hose conceps and some o he jargon, bu i presens he maerial in a very accessible manner and, criically, does complee jusice o he subjec mater. e firs secion o Learning RF sars wih a succinc bu well-worked inroducion o he philosophical and concepual underpinnings o behavior analysis, an undersanding o which is essenial in grappling wih wha is o ollow. e opics o hinking and human language are hen inroduced, and he radiional Skinnerian perspecive on hese opics is explained and conrased wih ha o radiional cogniive herapy. In his examinaion i is proposed ha neiher approach has ully deal wih he role o hinking and language, a leas in he clinical domain. e firs secion o he book will serve as a srong moivaor or he reader, and paricularly he clinician, o delve ino he nex and perhaps mos challenging secion. In he second par o Learning RF , he heory isel is presened, bu in a highly accessible way. e chapers in his secion srike a perec balance beween providing an appropriae level o echnical deail and keeping he wriing lively, ligh, and a pleasure o read. Furhermore, alhough he earlier chapers in his secion ocus necessarily on he more absrac eaures o F, he wriing progresses rapidly and wih relaive ease o issues ha will be o more ineres o he pracicing clinician, dealing wih opics such as sel and perspecive aking. e final chaper in his secion, “e Dark Side o Human Languaging,” will be paricularly relevan o clinicians in ha i explains how F means ha human language and cogniion may be he source o much human suffering. e hird and final secion o he book ocuses on he clinical implicaions o F. e secion begins wih radiional behavior herapy and how i relaes o oher herapeuic approaches, hen i explains how F makes a unique conribuion o our undersanding o psychoherapy isel. e reader is now prepared or he final chapers o he book, which work sysemaically hrough he applicaion o modern behavior analysis o clinical psychology. is maerial provides a powerul review o clinical behavior analysis and in paricular explains how F supplemens and exends he radiional behavior herapeuic approach. I is only in his final par o he book ha xi
Learning F
he inensely pragmaic naure o F is ully revealed. is highly absrac and arcane heory allows he praciioner o concepualize human language and hough as composed o behavioral unis ha may be subjeced o uncional analyses and behavioral inervenion sraegies. In shor, Learning RF clearly illusraes in a very powerul way how F can conribue oward he concepualizaion and reamen o human suffering. In ruh, his is a book I would love o have writen. �Dermo Barnes-Holmes Naional Universiy o Ireland, Maynooh
Dermo Barnes-Holmes is oundaion Proessor o Psychology a he Naional Universiy o Ireland, Maynooh. He has published approximaely wo hundred scienific aricles, book chapers, and books, he vas majoriy o which have ocused on he sudy o human language and cogniion rom a behavior analyic perspecive.
xii
Foreword o he Swedish Ediion
Is here a need or a book devoed o relaional rame heory? Can we learn anyhing abou language by endorsing he principles o learning? Honesly, is i no he case ha cogniive psychologiss do a much beter job a explaining how we hink? My answers o he firs wo quesions are affirmaive, and Learning RF is an imporan conribuion, giving a horough descripion o how a behavioris ramework can help us undersand cogniion and language. While some readers migh no find his opic atracive a firs sigh, perhaps because hey have a clinical ocus, my convicion is ha his book can be helpul or clinicians as well as researchers and ha he principles described are pu orward in a reader-riendly manner, aciliaing comprehension o he someimes difficul-o-grasp conceps in relaional rame heory. I received my raining as a clinical psychologis in he mid-1980s, and mos o he exbooks I read saed ha behaviorism was dead and ha he cogniive revoluion had aken over afer he “dark years” under he rule o B. F. Skinner. However, no all my eachers shared ha opinion, and a he deparmen o psychology in Uppsala, Sweden, I go he basics o applied behavior analysis and developed an ineres in behaviorism. I guess I can say I acquired wha migh bes be called a “behavioris ramework,” which influenced my clinical work and research, by ha ime ocused on hearing loss in he elderly. In my work I ound operan psychology very useul and ended up wih a hesis eniled Hearing as Behavior . However, I was also painully aware o he airly low saus o operan psychology in mainsream psychology, and while I ound he work by Skinner useul, I could no ully appreciae his book Verbal Behavior . On he oher hand, he work by Seven Hayes and his
Learning F
colleagues on rule-governed behavior was in my awareness, bu I never saw i menioned in he cogniive psychology lieraure. While I could undersand he objecions o Skinner’s analysis o language, I hough Chomsky’s review rom 1959 was overly negaivisic. All o ha said, he psychology o learning and behavior sill makes a difference, and he developmen o relaional rame heory (F) clearly indicaes ha i was premaure o dismiss behaviorism as a ramework or he undersanding o language and cogniion. When many researchers and sudens o psychology believed behaviorism was long gone, ineresing aciviies coninued o occur in his field. Learning RF provides an excellen summary o wha happened afer Skinner, and also does jusice o wha Skinner probably mean wih his analysis o verbal behavior. Wha does F add, hen? I am no oo convinced ha F is necessary or how we provide effecive psychological reamens, bu I do believe we can benefi rom a good heory, and in addiion o waning o be good clinicians, we also wan o be able o undersand and explain human behavior. Since language and hinking are inegral pars o how we undersand each oher in lay erms, i makes sense ha behavior herapiss were atraced o cogniive herapy, in which houghs and belies were prioriized. However, no all behavior herapiss were convinced. In clinical psychology, and in paricular in he field o psychoherapy, i could be argued ha basic psychological science, such as cogniive psychology, is used o inorm clinical pracice while no really being par o clinical science. For example, clinicians someimes regard Aaron Beck’s cogniive herapy as par o cogniive psychology, bu in realiy, basic cogniive psychology on consrucs such as working memory has only more recenly been applied in clinical research wihin he psychoherapy field. Mos o wha has been writen abou cogniive herapy has very litle in common wih basic cogniive psychology. Wihin he behavior herapy communiy, his has someimes led o a negaive atiude oward wha cogniive psychology can conribue, as we someimes alsely assume ha cogniive herapy equals cogniive psychology. is migh be a misake, as overviews o he scienific saus o differen subfields in psychology clearly show ha cogniive psychology is he leading branch o psychology when i comes o research unding, publicaions, and ciaions. Bu perhaps he emergence o F will change he siuaion or behavior herapiss wih an ineres in language and cogniion. I is probably air o say ha behavioriss had no finished heir work on language and cogniion in he lab, and I hope he work on F will inspire herapiss o look more closely a basic research in language and cogniion. Even i knowledge o F isn’ necessary o do a good job as a clinician, good explanaions o human behavior definiely are. Also, because o our background in psychology, we need daa o be convinced ha
xiv
somehing is likely o be rue. Wih F, we now have more ools o explain he verbal behavior we conron in our clinical work. You may wonder abou he hird quesion I raised: Is i no rue ha cogniive psychologiss are doing a beter job a explaining cogniion? Learning RF is excellen in his respec, as he auhor does no ignore he subsanial lieraure on he cogniive psychology o language; raher, he relaes i o F. For me, and mos likely or many oher psychologiss, his makes i easier o undersand F and ake i seriously as a major conribuion o psychology. So here’s he answer o my las quesion: o dae, cogniive psychology is, i no he bes, a leas he mos producive when i comes o language and cogniion. Bu F need no be seen as in opposiion o he res o psychology, and i can provide us wih imporan clues o urher our undersanding o language and cogniion. I is possible ha a behavioris renaissance is on he horizon. Niklas örneke’s book is one o he building blocks in ha venure. �Gerhard Andersson, Ph.D., proessor o clinical psychology in he Deparmen o Behavioral Sciences and Learning a Linköping Universiy, in Linköping, Sweden
xv
Acknowledgmens
In 1998 I wen o an inernaional conerence in Ireland and or he firs ime heard wo people speak who, more han any ohers, are behind he ideas and he research his book is based on: Seven Hayes and Dermo Barnes-Holmes. From ha ime, boh o hem have generously answered my quesions and helped me become amiliar wih an oulook and research radiion ha, up unil hen, had been essenially unknown o me. Many hanks o boh! e person who firs old me I should wrie a book like his is Kelly Wilson. He is also he person I have mainly learned AC rom in pracice. I owe him warm hanks, as well. A ourh person who has mean a lo o me in he process leading o his book is Carmen Luciano. She oo is a leading figure in he inernaional nework o researchers and clinicians bound ogeher by a common ineres in F and AC. In recen years she has been a never-ending source o knowledge and inspiraion o me. Several individuals in Sweden have also been o paricular help o me. Firs and oremos, Jonas amnerö. Ever since we me a a conerence in Dresden in 1999, we have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue on he role o behavioral psychology in psychoherapy. is dialogue has made a decisive conribuion o my wriing his book. Jonas has also helped me by reading and commening on he Swedish manuscrip, as have Jonas Bjärehed, Marin Cernvall, and Billy Larsson. As or he English version, Kelly Koerner, ainer Sonnag, and Ian Sewar have all read pars o an earlier version o he manuscrip and made many valuable suggesions. All deficiencies remain, o course, my own responsibiliy. Elizabeh Ask de Lamber did mos o he work ranslaing he book
Learning F
ino English, and Jasmine Sar made he ediing process exremely helpul and smooh. Görel Gunnarsson and her colleagues in he medical library a he couny hospial in Kalmar, Sweden, have been o invaluable help in obaining aricles and oher lieraure. My hearel and sinceres hanks o one and all!
xviii
A Personal Word o Inroducion
As a psychoherapis, I am a child o my ime. I grew up in a psychodynamic world dominaed by a srong emphasis on undersanding, bu no�as ar as I could see�well anchored in scienific research. I also lacked concree guidance regarding workable herapeuic inervenions. My encouner wih cogniive herapy a he end o he 1980s was hereore a liberaing experience. Scienific oundaion was paramoun, and he herapeuic sraegies were applicable in my everyday work wihin psychiary. Cogniive heory as a basis o psychoherapy has since been vicorious�no only in my world, bu in he world o psychoherapy a large. Cogniive herapy has gradually been inegraed wih behavior herapy under he designaion o “cogniive behavioral herapies” (CB), bu he differen hybrids are dominaed by he heories underlying he cogniive model. During he 1990s, I progressively ound wha I saw as shorcomings in cogniive heory. I was difficul o ge a clear idea o wha he basic erminology was and wha scienific suppor i had. Differen cogniive heoriss liberally used heir differen erms o describe wha was aking place in he “psyche,” and his obscuriy and lack o consensus became all he more rou blesome due o he assumpion ha he core o psychological problems was locaed somewhere inside his unknown realm. In he mid-1990s, I was sill largely unaware o any vigorous alernaive. I did, however, run ino some works ha aroused my ineres, noably Marsha Linehan’s 1993 book on
Learning F
dialecical behavior herapy (DB), which revealed a srong influence rom classical behavior herapy. rough my ineres in affec heory and he use o meaphors, I came ino conac wih accepance and commimen herapy (AC), a herapy model relaed o DB in many respecs, bu wih a much more elaborae heoreical and experimenal oundaion. Once again I was provided wih new, useul ools. In addiion, I ound mysel in more exensive conac wih he new heoreical approach AC had been buil on, as well as wih classical learning heory as a basis or psychological herapy. I realized ha one canno really undersand AC, much less is heoreical oundaion, relaional rame heory (F), wihou an undersanding o basic behavioral principles�ha is, operan and responden condiioning. Once I gradually became amiliar wih hese principles, I discovered wha I have come o regard as he mos promising psychological model available when i comes o undersanding human behavior in a way ha also conribues direcly o he herapeuic work or change. is led o an inspiring dialogue wih my good riend Jonas amnerö, who’d had a somewha longer hisory wih behavioral psychology han I had. is dialogue resuled in our wriing a book ogeher: Te ABCs o Human Behavior: Behavioral Principles or he Pracicing Clinician (amnerö & örneke, 2008). ecen years have seen a growing ineres in behavioral principles, no leas among psychoherapiss wih cogniive raining. is new ineres has given me a reason o work more horoughly on he issue ha has engaged me or quie a ew years by now: he issue o he power o hinking in relaion o oher human behavior and he role his plays in he problems ha make people seek help in psychoherapy. My purpose in his book is o elucidae he behavioral perspecive on his quesion. You migh say ha his book atemps o respond o he quesions raised by cogniive heory and herapy, alhough he answers are given rom a differen poin o deparure han hose common o cogniive approaches. Insead, he saring poin here is he oundaion laid down years ago in he shape o operan and responden condiioning. Behavioral psychology has long had problems in applying is basic agenda o predicion and influence in his area. I hink hese problems are coming o an end. e increasing basic research perormed o describe relaional condiioning and he heoreical srucure ha has evolved around his phenomenon (F) provides new answers and opens he door o new inervenions in respec o cogniion and human language. All his is done rom he agenda o classical behavioral herapy, wih new inervenions being ounded upon daa rom experimenal research. For me o begin his book by conrasing is conen wih psychodynamic and cogniive models may seem provocaive and deprecaing. is is no my 2
A Personal Word o Inroducion
inenion. I am aware ha he psychodynamic and cogniive heories ha I earlier ound unsaisacory have no sayed unchanged since my poin o deparure; hey have been developing in heir own way. Moreover, I believe ha a behavioral perspecive is inegraive in naure. Behavioral psychology is no abou one specific model o herapy; i describes undamenal, universal principles o behavior. I is legiimae o approach anyhing and everyhing a person does rom his perspecive. Behavioral psychology is no limied in scope o phenomena ha are easy o observe and define, like when someone avoids air ravel or washes her hands obsessively. I also applies o behaviors in he close ineracions beween people ha are harder o capure, like esablishing and mainaining close relaionships or behaving oward he herapis much like one earlier behaved oward a paren. Even behavior ha in many ways seems concealed o anyone oher han he person who is doing i, like dwelling on pas grudges or sruggling wih eelings o dejecion, can be approached rom his perspecive. e same goes or behaviors ha are rarely he ocus in psychoherapy, like playing he flue or wriing poery. us, nohing human is alien o behavioral psychology. All human phenomena ha ake place in ime and space and ha can be he subjec o atenion in psychodynamic or cogniive herapy can also be approached rom his perspecive, hence is inegraive naure. Bu he saring poin o his analysis is a given heoreical posiion: he one which, since he days o Skinner, has been designaed “radical behaviorism.” Some o his is novel, bu he oundaion was laid quie a ew years back.
A WOD ON EMINOLOGY Skinner called he science o behavior ha he developed behavior analysis. However, his erm is used in slighly differen ways. Wihin behavior herapy in Europe, i is someimes used synonymously wih he word “concepualizaion.” In his usage, a behavior analysis is undersood as an iniial phase o behavior herapy. I will be using he erm in he way Skinner did, which is how i is sill used in he Unied Saes. Used in his way, “behavior analysis” is a designaion o he science, as a whole, ha aims a predicing and influencing behavior, along wih he pracical work involved in doing his. ere is usually a disincion made beween wo branches wihin behavior analysis: experimenal behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis. Experimenal analysis o behavior is he ype o experimenal aciviy usually conneced wih Skinner: Under careully moniored condiions, differen acors are varied o deermine wheher an organism’s behavior can be prediced and influenced. In applied behavior analysis , he basic principles ha can be 3
Learning F
described ollowing he experimenal work are applied o differen ypes o problems “ou here, in real lie.” A branch o applied behavior analysis is clinical behavior analysis. is is behavior analysis in he field commonly reerred o as psychoherapy. Consequenly, in our book Te ABCs o Human Behavior: Behavioral Principles or he Pracicing Clinician (2008), Jonas amnerö and I called his field o applicaion “behavioral psychoherapy.” In his book, however, I will mainly be using he erm “clinical behavior analysis.”
OULINE is book is divided ino hree pars. Par 1 provides some imporan background. Chaper 1 offers a shor accoun o basic and well-known principles o learning rom he viewpoin o radical behaviorism, wih a paricular emphasis on conceps ha mus be undersood in order o become amiliar wih F. Chaper 2 provides a survey o how behavior analysis had ried o ackle “he power o hinking” beore he experimenal daa on which F is based were available. e bulk o his chaper consiss o an overview o Skinner’s analysis o verbal behavior. Alhough his analysis has limiaions (described here as well), i remains imporan as a backdrop o F. In chaper 3, argumens or renewed inquiry ino human cogniion and language conclude par 1 o he book. Par 2 o he book is is core; his is where F is described. Chaper 4 presens and defines F’s basic erminology and describes he ype o experimens he heory is based on. In essence, chaper 4 describes he undamenal elemens in human language. In chapers 5 and 6, I have atemped o show how hese building blocks are combined wih an increasing degree o complexiy, and how hey cas new ligh on complex human behavior. In chaper 7, par 2 concludes wih an accoun o he problems ha verbal (cogniive) behavior creaes or human beings, or he side effecs o human language. Par 3 o he book describes clinical applicaions. Chaper 8 akes a look a psychological herapies in general rom a behavioral perspecive. e remaining hree chapers ocus on clinical behavior analysis, wih paricular emphasis on sraegies and echniques based in F.
HE CHARCE OF HE BOOK e number o scienific exs presening F and is experimenal base is growing rapidly. e same is rue or books presening AC. is book has he characer o being in beween hese wo caegories o exs. Alhough he 4
A Personal Word o Inroducion
purpose is o give an overall inroducion o F, he book has is limiaions. e main limiaion lies in mainaining boh a heoreical and a clinical perspecive. ough F is based on experimenal research, his book does no presen he experimenal work in deail; i simply gives an ouline o he experimenal work and devoes more atenion o he conclusions drawn rom ha work. is book is more ocused on conceps han daa and deails, parly o give a general inroducion, and parly o give an undersanding ha aciliaes clinical work. e book does no include more deailed presenaions o he experimens in heir enirey, such as how hey are arranged and perormed. I have ried, however, o requenly reer o lieraure ha conains such presenaions so ha he ineresed reader can find more in-deph maerial. ere is also a paradox involved in his limiaion. ere is a degree o learning F ha can be achieved only by engaging in experimenal work. Ye his is a book by someone who has never done ha, writen primarily or ohers in he same siuaion. Experimenal psychologiss will probably find lack o precision and echnical deail. e same migh be rue o ohers who are very well acquained wih he exising scienific lieraure. A he same ime, some readers will probably find pars o he book oo echnical and absrac. Sill, his kind o book, “in beween,” is wha I wished o read when I firs encounered F. Hopeully i will be helpul o ohers who are now in he siuaion I was in hen. AC has a cenral posiion in par 3 o he book, on clinical applicaions. is is only naural, as his herapeuic model has evolved ogeher wih F. Alongside AC, oher orms o clinical behavior analysis, especially uncional analyical psychoherapy and behavioral acivaion, have heir place. I has no been my goal, however, o presen any o hese individual models in heir enirey, or o carry ou an in-deph comparison. I wan o pursue he agenda oulined in Te ABCs o Human Behavior (amnerö & örneke, 2008): o describe psychological herapy rom he broad perspecive o radical behaviorism, and o describe he herapeuic radiion ha can be called behavior herapy, behavioral psychoherapy, or clinical behavior analysis. I wan o do his wih a special emphasis on how an undersanding o F adds some new elemens o his radiion.
5
PART 1 Background
CHAPTER 1 adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
adical behaviorism is he philosophical basis on which B. F. Skinner buil his psychology (1953). is erm has caused a lo o debae over he years. I has also requenly been misundersood, someimes o such a degree ha one migh wonder i he erm is useul a all or i i has acually become an obsacle o inroducing he psychology isel. I is common o see Skinner’s views described as superficial and coarsely mechanisic, even in psychology exbooks (Power & Dalgleish, 1997, pp. 35-36; Solso, MacLin, & MacLin, 2005, p. 329). is is in sark conras o my own impression rom reading Skinner, and I have ofen wondered i wriers who porray his posiions in his way have acually read his works. Be ha as i may, his posiions, and he erms he uses o describe hem, are conroversial, and he erm “radical behaviorism” is a clear example o ha. An alernaive and more modern erm is uncional conexualism (Gifford & Hayes, 1999). is alernaive erm may beter convey in wha way his paricular philosophy o science relaes o oher modern approaches. I pus Skinner’s posiion in relaion o alernaive ypes o conexualism, such as social consrucivism or cerain ypes o eminism (oche & Barnes-Holmes, 2003; Gifford & Hayes, 1999). e erm “uncional conexualism” emphasizes wo essenial elemens in radical behaviorism: e firs is ha behavior mus always be undersood in relaion o he seting, or conex, in which i akes place. e second is ha in order
Learning F
o undersand and influence behavior, we need o sudy is uncion�ha is, wha i is aimed a. My reason or using he erm “radical behaviorism” o sar ou wih, despie he above discussion, is ha his is he erm ha has survived and is widely acceped among hose who ollow in Skinner’s ooseps in heir work. I is linguisically correc, and i also brings ou some essenial elemens o he posiion on which his book is based.
BEHAVIOISM AND IS PEMISES Le’s begin wih a discussion o he more general erm “behaviorism.” is is a broad erm ha encompasses many parly differing approaches (O’Donohue & Kichener, 1998). Ye hese approaches have cerain premises in common, making he concep o behaviorism appropriae. e mos undamenal premise was made clear by Wason, who came up wih he erm “behaviorism.” In his approach, wha is in ocus is behavior (Wason, 1929); ha is, somehing a person�or any oher organism�is doing. e acions, or responses, o he whole organism are in ocus. Anoher premise ha he differen approaches have in common is he mehod o seeking knowledge: e science is o be buil rom he botom up. e ques is or undamenal, universally valid principles or undersanding behavior. is means ha laboraory experimens have a srong posiion. When carrying ou experimens, a key concep is o ry o minimize nonconrollable variables as much as possible beore going on o ideniy and sysemaically manipulae hose variables ha are essenial. In many ways his resembles how psychoanalyss are sric abou he seting or heir sessions, so as o eliminae irrelevan disurbances and observe relevan, governing phenomena in he ineracion aking place. e mos well-known, classical examples o his mehod wihin behaviorism are perhaps Skinner’s experimens wih pigeons and ras. e environmen is sripped (here is only a box), and he relevan variables are ew (he box conains a bar ha enables he animal o ac in order o receive ood, and a ligh ha is urned on and off). Wha is imporan here is no he laboraory experimens as such, or even he acions o pigeons or ras; raher, he aim in using his mehod is o be able o ideniy principles underlying he behavior o organisms�principles ha can hen be used o undersand more complex processes ha perhaps canno be sudied in laboraories. is reveals anoher premise o behaviorism: ha o an assumed coninuiy across differen organisms. esearch on pigeons, or example, is used o draw conclusions abou human beings, a leas in cerain respecs. is has someimes been a poin o conroversy, especially among psychoherapiss. 10
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
Is i possible o undersand humans based on an undersanding o animals? is was he opic o heaed discussion during he 1960s and 1970s, bu a lo o waer has flowed under he bridge since hen. oday, i is unconroversial o say ha evoluionary psychology and neuropsychology, as well as ehology, hold firm posiions in shaping various heories wihin psychoherapy, regardless o he specific camp. Based on an evoluionary perspecive, researchers who have grealy influenced differen psychoherapy radiions, such as John Bowlby (atachmen heory) and Joseph LeDoux (affec heory), ake he same view as wha Skinner once mainained: simply saed, ha evoluion coninuously builds on wha is already a hand. Funcions ha work are no removed; hey become building blocks in uure developmens. is is why we can learn a lo abou human beings by sudying how gorillas relae o heir offspring (atachmen heory) or by sudying basic cerebral uncions in animals (affec heory). Now, i behavior is wha is o be sudied, he quesion is how we define his erm. Wha should be couned as behavior? e answer o his quesion can be expressed in somewha differen ways wihin behaviorism, and in order o accoun or wha is mean by behavior in his book, I will now urn o Skinner’s view on his, as encapsulaed in he erm “radical behaviorism.”
WHA IS RDICAL ABOU RDICAL BEHAVIOISM? Being radical can be aken as being exreme. is is no wha Skinner had in mind, hough, when he chose he erm “radical.” In his conex, “radical” implies no “exreme” bu “consisen.” adical behaviorism enails no a deparure rom undamenal behaviorisic principles bu he applicaion o hem in an all-inclusive way. is has some consequences. For example, ake he principle ha Skinner used o describe operan condiioning (more on his below). is principle implies ha our acions are influenced by he consequences we have previously encounered ollowing a paricular acion. e probabiliy ha a pigeon will peck a a cerain poin increases i i has earlier received ood afer pecking a ha paricular poin. Bu i his is o be applied in a consisen way, in keeping wih Skinner’s posiion, hen his principle also holds or me as a scienis. I do wha I do (in my experimen wih he pigeon) as a consequence o oucomes o similar experimenaion earlier. As a scienis, I do no hold any objecive or exclusive posiion. I am no ouside or above he principles I sudy. I his undersanding is applied consisenly, all claims o represening he onological ruh have o be dropped. Based on
11
Learning F
his posiion, we canno mainain ha “his is he way i really is.” adical behavioriss repudiae he noion ha he scienis operaes rom an objecive and neural posiion. As menioned earlier, rom he perspecive o radical behaviorism you canno undersand behavior wihou sudying is conex. All behavior akes place wihin a conex. Bu neiher can he conex be sudied independen o behavior. is is because he scienis’s atemp o sudy somehing is a behavior as well. Afer all, he objec o our sudy is somehing ha we are acing upon, jus by sudying i. So jus as we canno undersand behavior wihou conex, here is no conex available or he organism wihou behavior. is poin abou he behavior o he scienis is also rue in a more general sense. Simulus and response (behavior) are codependen and should be considered ogeher. ey make up a single uniy (Kanor, 1970). We can separae hem or pracical reasons, wih a cerain aim in mind. And he behavioral science ha Skinner waned o creae has an aim: o predic and influence behavior. adical behavioriss are no claiming o be “uncovering realiy”; raher, we mainain ha his mehod, he scienific projec o radical behaviorism, is a mehod ha works or wha we wan o do. e pigeon in Skinner’s experimen could say somehing similar: “Pecking his spo works when i comes o geting Skinner o give me ood.” When we radically apply he undamenal principles o behavior ha we have idenified, his leads o anoher imporan resul, one involving he definiion o he erm “behavior.” In everyday speech, he word “behavior” normally reers only o exernal acions, which can be observed by anyone else who is presen. So how should we regard he hings a person does bu ha no one excep he person himsel can observe, hings like eeling, remem bering, and hinking? radiionally, hese phenomena have been assigned o anoher sphere�he psyche�as i hey were o a differen naure han he hings we can observe. Here oo, Skinner called or consisency, mainaining ha here is nohing o indicae ha he same principles are no valid or hese phenomena as well (Skinner, 1953, 1974). is means hese phenomena are also behavior, and ha hey can and should be analyzed according o he same principles as behavior ha is observable by ohers.
FUNDAMENAL BEHAVIO ANALYIC PINCIPLES Wha, hen, are he undamenal principles demonsraed by and sudied hrough experimenal research ha we can use o undersand and influence
12
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
behavior? For a more deailed answer o his quesion, he reader is reerred o oher publicaions (Caania, 2007; amnerö & örneke, 2008). Sill, I will provide a shor summary here, beore urning o his book’s main ques, which is o poin ou how hese principles should be used o shed ligh upon he uncion o human hinking. e wo undamenal principles or behavior analysis are operan and responden condiioning. e later has been described since Pavlov’s wellknown experimen wih dogs a he beginning o he wenieh cenury, including how heir naural reacion o salivaion can be influenced hrough condiioning. Operan condiioning is he principle o learning ha Skinner invesigaed and demonsraed via his experimens, so ha is where I will begin.
Operan Condiioning: Learning Trough Consequences Human acions never ake place in a vacuum. ere is somehing preceding and somehing ollowing each acion. I is among hese conexual acors�hose ha precede and hose ha ollow�ha he behavioral analys looks or answers o quesions abou wha governs behavior. I someone, in a cerain conex, urns his eyes o me wih a specific expression on his ace, I migh address him by saying somehing like “Can I help you?” My uterance is ollowed by a new occurrence: e person replies. So my acion is ollowed by a consequence, in his case ha someone answers me. e core principle in operan condiioning is ha he consequences ollowing a behavior (a response) influence he probabiliy o he behavior being repeaed. Le’s speculae a bi using wo raher differen consequences in he everyday example above. Imagine ha wha ollows upon my uterance “Can I help you?” is ha he person gives me a riendly smile and ells me wha he wans. An alernaive would be he response “Mind your own business, you jerk!” I is hard o say exacly how each o hese consequences migh influence he probabiliy o me asking i I could help i someone else were o look a me wih his specific acial expression in he uure. Wha is essenial is ha earlier consequences do have an influence. “A burned child shuns he fire” is an old saying in Swedish, corresponding o “Once biten, wice shy” in English. A well-known auhor has urned his “ruh” around in a book eniled Burned Child Seeks he Fire (Edvardson, 1997). I is no always easy o deermine wha kind o behavior o expec based on previous consequences. Bu he saying and he auhor agree on one hing: Previous consequences have an influence. is is he core o operan learning. 13
Learning F
In operan psychology, he differen influences o consequences are caegorized based on wheher hey increase or reduce he probabiliy o an earlier behavior being repeaed. I I ge riendly responses o uterances like he one above and hereafer more ofen address people who exhibi he same ype o acial expression in similar siuaions, he riendly responses would be said o have had a reinorcing effec on his specific behavior o mine. A consequence ha increases he probabiliy o he preceding behavior being repeaed is hus ermed reinorcing . In his case he reinorcing consequence is ha I receive somehing: a riendly response. Somehing is added. is kind o process is called posiive reinorcemen . A behavior can also be reinorced hrough a consequence consising o somehing being removed. is is illusraed by he behavior o he person who responded o my quesion by saying, “Mind your own business, you jerk!” Le’s assume ha when his is utered, I become quie and urn my atenion away rom he speaker. I do wha I am old o do. is consequence could increase he probabiliy o he oher person repeaing he uterance “Mind your own business” in similar siuaions in he uure. e consequence� ha I became quie and urned away�has in his case become reinorcing o his person’s behavior o elling off jerks. is ime, hough, he reinorcemen consiss o somehing being removed, namely, he atenion rom a jerk. When a behavior increases because somehing is removed, i is ermed negaive reinorcemen . Disinguishing beween posiive and negaive reinorcemen (which are boh processes ha increase he probabiliy o a cerain behavior) is no always essenial. ese wo conceps can be said o describe wo differen sides o he same hing (Michael, 1975). I he behavior o elling off jerks was reinorced by me becoming quie, hen one acor is ha my annoying quesions came o an end. is is negaive reinorcemen. Bu anoher way o describing he same hing is o noe he condiion ha resuled: silence, or example, or anyhing else ha was added. a would be posiive reinorcemen. I is ofen convenien o disinguish beween posiive and negaive reinorcemen, even hough he difference may no be clear-cu rom a heoreical perspecive. I may someimes be more obvious ha somehing is removed han ha somehing is added. By speaking abou his as negaive reinorcemen, we clariy he process. e disincion is ofen pracical in clinical siuaions, a subjec I will reurn o in par 3 o he book. When a consequence reduces he probabiliy o a cerain behavior being repeaed, i is known as punishmen . I I receive an unriendly response in he example above and I subsequenly rerain rom addressing people in
14
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
ha specific social conex or do so less ofen, hen he earlier consequence has been punishing. Punishmen, oo, can be separaed ino posiive punishmen �in which somehing has been added�and negaive punishmen �in which somehing has been removed. emember, however, ha here is no way o deermining wha is reinorcing versus punishing based on any inrinsic qualiy ha signifies he consequence as such. O course, i is rue ha some consequences more ofen uncion as reinorcing o people, or example, cerain ypes o social atenion. Bu his is no always he case. o be recognized and addressed in a kind way is usually reinorcing or human behavior, bu we can all hink o siuaions when his is somehing we wan o avoid. Likewise, cerain consequences usually uncion in a punishing way, like being hi, ye his is no always he case. ere are siuaions when being hi reinorces he behavior ha preceded his consequence. A child who encouners only indifference, despie several acions mean o atrac atenion, may repea a behavior ha leads o geting smacked, simply because he smack involves atenion. I is he uncion o he consequence ha provides he definiion. When he consequences increase he probabiliy o a cerain behavior, his is reinorcemen; and when he consequences reduce he probabiliy o a behavior, i is punishmen. o recap:
DIFFE EN YPES OF CONSEQUENCES Reinforcement: A consequence ha increases he likelihood ha a
cerain behavior will be repeaed.
Positive reinforcement is when he consequence is
somehing ha is added.
Negative reinforcement is when he consequence is
somehing ha is aken away. Punishment: A consequence ha decreases he likelihood ha a
cerain behavior will be repeaed.
Positive punishment is when he consequence is some-
hing ha is added.
Negative punishment is when he consequence is some-
hing ha is aken away.
15
Learning F
Beore I go on o describe how we can analyze a specific behavior, I mus clariy wha i is ha we are analyzing. wo behaviors are rarely, i ever, idenical; even i hey seem o be, hey differ in deail. I can raise my coffee cup in a number o differen ways, and I can address anoher person in many differen ways. In behavior analysis, behaviors ha are alike in he sense ha hey have he same uncion are said o belong o he same uncional class. is caegorizaion is essenial i we are o analyze behavior. When you analyze a given, hisorically defined behavior, i is o course his paricular behavior ha you are analyzing�or insance, he way I addressed someone in he above example. A he same ime, his is only o ineres i i is useul when analyzing a similar behavior in he uure�a behavior ha is similar enough o have he same or almos he same uncion. Over ime, we are primarily ineresed in uncional classes or caegories o behavior. Some such classes o behavior are narrow or very specific, such as he behavior o a biahlon compeior in erec shooing posiion when he aims o score a bull’s-eye. Oher classes are broad or conain a wide range o behavior, such as wha people do o avoid painul memories. ABC In behavioral analysis, a common way o describing an operan sequence o evens is ABC, and analyzing such a sequence is reerred o as carrying ou a uncional analysis. e core is B, which sands or “behavior”: Somehing is being done. is behavior or response is wha we inend o predic and influence. C sands or “consequence”; we have jus seen he significan role i plays in an operan analysis. Finally, here is A, which sands or “aneceden,” or “ha which precedes.” Even he consequences ha govern a cerain behavior acually precede he behavior hey govern, because hey have ollowed an earlier, similar behavior. I speaking o anoher person has previously been ollowed by receiving kind atenion, he likelihood o his behavior being repeaed may increase. However, he anecedens reerred o as A in ABC are hose condiions ha are presen when a behavior occurs. Wihin behavioral analysis, we hink o A as having a leas wo differen ypes o uncion: discriminaive uncion and moivaional uncion. I will begin by describing discriminaive uncion. e ac ha my quesion (“Can I help you?”) was reinorced earlier does no mean ha rom hen on I will always be asking he same quesion. is behavior has been reinorced in a specific conex, and i is in his conex�or raher, in similar conexs�ha he likelihood o my asking he quesion again
16
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
increases. Aneceden reers o precisely his conex: he condiions under which my behavior previously pu me in conac wih cerain consequences ha have become governing. I was under he condiion o having a person look a me wih a cerain acial expression (A) ha I spoke o he person (B) and as a resul o his behavior encounered differen consequences (C). is means ha A now has a uncion esablished by a cerain connecion in my hisory�a connecion beween a condiion, a behavior, and a consequence. Now, when I mee a new condiion ha is similar enough o he one I encounered earlier, he previous consequence influences my curren behavior. is uncion o A is ermed discriminaive , and when his is he uncion we have in mind, we speak o he aneceden as a discriminaive simulus. A discriminaive simulus signals a hisorical connecion beween a behavior and a cerain consequence. A specific ype o behavior in anoher person�a glance or a acial expression, or example�signals o an individual a hisorical connecion beween a cerain behavior, like asking a quesion, and a cerain consequence. You migh say ha a discriminaive aneceden in he presen signals he availabiliy o a cerain consequence, simply based on his hisorical coniguiy. is connecion is called a coningency in behavior analyic language. We also say ha a cerain consequence needs o be coningen on a cerain behavior in order o exer is uncion. Wha we mean is ha here mus be a direc connecion beween he behavior and he consequence. In order or discriminaive anecedens and reinorcing or punishing consequences o have heir respecive uncions in relaion o a specific behavior, hey mus occur in coniguiy wih ha behavior. A grea deal o research has been carried ou in he field o experimenal analysis o behavior o ry o describe hese connecions more explicily, as well as how hey may vary (Caania, 2007). e prevailing circumsances (A) can affec he probabiliy o a cerain behavior in anoher way oo. ere are circumsances ha are no discriminaive; ha is, hey don’ signal any hisorical connecion beween a behavior and a cerain consequence. Alhough hey don’ signal an increased availabiliy o a specific consequence, hey influence he likelihood o a cerain behavior. A classic example is ood deprivaion (hunger). I my daugher walks pas he kichen, where I am cooking a meal, and I say, “Dinner is ready,” his migh uncion as a discriminaive simulus or her. I so, she sops walking oward he V room and sis down a he kichen able. ere could be differen ypes o learning hisory behind his, bu one possibiliy is ha my words signal o my daugher a hisorical connecion beween he curren condiions and he availabiliy o a cerain consequence: ha o being served ood. is
17
Learning F
is a descripion o a discriminaive uncion. 1 Alongside his, however, he ac ha my daugher is eiher ull (afer jus eaing a couple o sandwiches) or hungry (because she has no eaen since breakas) may influence wheher she sis down a he able o ea. Her being ull versus being hungry does no indicae he availabiliy o ood. e meal is equally available regardless o wheher she is hungry or no. Her hunger is represenaive o a differen uncion o condiions ha may precede and influence a behavior. is uncion is usually called an esablishing operaion or moivaional operaion (Michael, 1993). I is a uncion o A, bu no a discriminaive uncion. ese are aneceden condiions ha influence he reinorcing or punishing effeciveness o a consequence. In his example, he dinner will be more or less reinorcing o my daugher depending on her recen hisory wih ood�ha is, wheher she is hungry or no. Le’s ake a look a he earlier example o asking “Can I help you?” wih his aspec in mind. We could assume ha I have a hisory in which a cerain behavior by anoher person (acial expression, or example) uncions as a discriminaive aneceden or asking a quesion. Le’s imagine wo possible scenarios: I could be unusually ired because I didn’ sleep well he nigh beore; or, on he oher hand, I may have been missing social conac wih ohers or some ime. Boh o hese condiions could influence wheher I ask my quesion or no, i I indeed encouner a discriminaive simulus or his behavior. And his is despie he ac ha neiher my iredness nor my desire or human conac indicaes any availabiliy o he governing consequence. Insead, he issue here is ha hese condiions influence he degree o which he governing consequence is moivaing o me, or how much influencing power he consequence has in his paricular siuaion.
1 As I will go on o describe laer, his is a simplificaion ha does no ake ino accoun he difference beween verbal and nonverbal discriminaive uncions. e example works or he inended poin in his case, hough. ere are quie a ew o hese ypes o simplified examples in his chaper. e alernaive would have been o only use examples rom organisms wihou human language, bu his would have affeced he ex in a negaive way and would hardly have helped he reader’s undersanding. e problem wih hese ypes o simplificaions, which have been necessary wihin he area o behavioral analysis due o is difficuly in handling phenomena like language and cogniion, will be deal wih in deail laer in his book. I is also imporan o remember ha wihin behavior analysis we are aiming a useulness, no necessarily a covering all possible aspecs o an even (see amnerö & örneke, 2008). 18
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
BASIC FUNCIONS OF HE DIFFEEN PAS IN AN ABC ANALYSIS
A
B
C
Antecedent
Behavior
Consequence
Discriminaive uncion
einorcing uncion
Somehing an individual does Moivaional uncion
Punishing uncion
I is ofen useul o disinguish beween he discriminaive and moivaional uncions o he condiions ha precede and influence operan behavior. Bu again, i is he degree o useulness ha deermines how essenial his disincion is. In pracice, i is no always possible o make he disincion, and oher imes i may no be imporan o do so even i he possibiliy is here. is leads me o an imporan poin abou wha ABC is no. A NOE ON WHA ABC IS NO When we describe a behavioral sequence in he way I have above and assign differen erms o he differen uncions, i is easy o be misled in hinking ha we’ve discovered a mechanical chain o evens “ou here in realiy.” Bu, as menioned earlier, his is no wha is inended. is ype o discussion is simply a way o speaking and wriing abou behavior�a way ha is useul or gaining boh undersanding and influence. In he consan flow o evens we ace, we can disinguish beween differen processes because i is useul o us o do so. is applies o all humans a all imes, even hose engaged in scienific sudy. Disinguishing beween differen processes, principles, anecedens and consequences, reinorcemen and punishmen, and so on is a behavior perormed by he behavior analys. Wihin his rame o reerence, knowledge is seen as a skill or doing cerain hings; i is no an objec ha you discover or find yoursel in possession o. Analyzing behavior rom he perspecive o radical behaviorism is no uncovering a hidden realiy. Everyhing we do is acing on realiy, or behaving. is means ha our aciviy o perorming ABC analyses is operan behavior, as well, governed by he consequences ha he behavior analys has previously me when doing his
19
Learning F
very aciviy. We do wha we do because we have a hisory o connecions beween differen anecedens, earlier behaviors, and consequences. We do i because i helps us reach cerain goals. From his posiion, making claims regarding discovering or undersanding “he naure o realiy” is a sel-conradicion. Being based in uncional conexualism means we rerain rom such claims o discovering or knowing he “ruh.” Insead, we adop a pragmaic ruh crierion wherein wha is rue is wha is serviceable oward a cerain aim or goal. is also means ha a science needs o clariy is aims. Nohing works “in general.” I i works, i works or somehing specific, or wha we are aiming a. e behavior analys has a woold aim or purpose: predicion and influence.
Responden Condiioning: Learning by Associaion Whereas he power o consequences over behavior is he main poin in wha we call operan condiioning, responden condiioning describes he power o cerain anecedens o rigger a reflexive behavior. Pu simply, under a cerain circumsance we will reac. I he same circumsance, or one much like i, reoccurs, i provokes he same reacion based enirely on he aneceden. e behavior occurs regardless o earlier consequences ollowing his reacion. Again, i is imporan o remember ha his does no uncover mechanical processes ha are acually ou here “in realiy,” as phenomena in heir own righ. e erminology o behaviorism is simply a way o speaking abou his issue, and we employ i because i is useul. I serves our purpose o disinguish beween operan and responden in his way. Alhough hese processes coexis in he web o evens we are rying o undersand and influence (more on his below), or he sake o clariy I will isolae wha we hink o as responden processes. ere are cerain basic reacions ha we do no need o learn. ey are already here rom he sar. Loud noises, a physical blow, rapidly approaching movemen oward our eyes, conac wih srong hea, and so on�all o hese rigger sponaneous movemens in humans, as well as in oher animals. Consequences o our behavior do no seem o affec his subsanially. I we make sure ha hese sponaneous movemens are ollowed by specific consequences ha would ypically affec operan behavior, his does no cause he corresponding change in behavior we migh expec. I I encouner a cerain consequence because o puting somehing in my mouh, his consequence will probably ake on a governing uncion. Wheher wha I pu in my mouh ases good or bad will influence my endency o pu he same hing in my
20
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
mouh in he uure. is is operan behavior, governed by consequences. Bu i we were somehow able o make my salivaion resul in a bad ase, and hen we did somehing ha normally makes me salivae, his would no affec my salivaion o any appreciable degree. Salivaion is responden behavior; i is a resul o anecedens and is no significanly conrolled by consequences. A response ha has no been learned is called an uncondiioned response , and a simulus2 (in his case an aneceden) ha riggers such a response is called an uncondiioned simulus. ypically, salivaion is an uncondiioned response, and ood is an uncondiioned simulus ha riggers i. Some affecive reacions, like ear, are also examples o uncondiioned responses. ese are all innae reacions ha have evolved because o heir survival value. e ac ha responden learning occurs means ha experience neverheless influences boh hese reacions and heir occurrences. is is rue o boh salivaion and affecive reacions, among ohers. Some exernal siuaions rigger ear wihou he individual having o learn his (Öhman, 2002). Bu in a siuaion where I eel araid, oher simuli ha are also presen may ake on or acquire he same riggering uncion as he simulus ha originally riggered ear. I I ge assauled while srolling in he main square o he own where I live, we can assume ha I’d eel some kind o ear during he even. Bu i I laer ake anoher walk in he square, simuli ha had previously been neural�or ha had perhaps even riggered posiive emoions in me�migh insead provoke ear. e simuli ha have been condiioned in his way could be he square isel, he aroma ouside he resauran near where I was assauled, or any o a number o oher deails, in hemselves irrelevan, such as he saue sanding in he square. As a resul o hese simuli being presen a he ime o he assaul, hey are now associaed wih i. is ype o learned response, called a condiioned response , is an example o how responden reacions can propagae when neural simuli become associaed wih simuli ha
2 e erm “simulus” is common wihin behavioral psychology. I denoes a qualiy or a phenomenon in he conex or environmen surrounding a behavior (Caania, 2007). us, boh anecedens and consequences can be called simuli. A problem wih his erm is, perhaps due o he experimenal hisory o he behavioral posiion, ha i can easily be associaed wih somehing small and very clearly defined. is is no a requisie meaning. I can reer o somehing very complex and composie and be synonymous wih wha, in ordinary erms, we call an even. For his reason, in his book boh words are used, wih he later (“even”) ofen used o reer o he more composie meaning. 21
Learning F
rigger uncondiioned responses. In his way, ormerly neural simuli become condiioned simuli. In responden learning, he direc connecion beween evens is imporan. A condiioned simulus acquires is uncion by occurring in direc connecion wih an uncondiioned simulus and is atendan response. ese connecions and heir variaions make up anoher area ha has been he ocus o a lo o research (Caania, 2007).
ESPONDEN LEANING Unconditioned stimulus
Unconditioned response
Assaul
Fear
Neutral stimulus
Te main square in my own Afer he above experience his migh ollow:
Conditioned stimulus
Conditioned response
Te main square in my own
Fear
Operan and Responden Learning Inerac In many cases, i can be useul o disinguish beween operan and responden learning. Some processes are more easily undersood or influenced based on operan principles, while or ohers responden principles are more useul. However, learning ofen akes place under he influence o boh principles simulaneously, and hrough ineracion beween hem. I my son lives in a differen ciy and I like alking o him on he phone, I may call him up once in a while. I i urns ou ha i’s easier o ge ahold o him on uesday nighs, when I realize i is uesday nigh, I migh call him. So ar his is operan learning hrough posiive reinorcemen or calling, where uesday nigh becomes a discriminaive simulus, indicaing he increased availabiliy o a cerain consequence: ha my son will be here o answer he phone. Now, le’s say ha when I call my son on he phone, a specific melody is played
22
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
while I wai or him o pick up. Afer I have encounered his on several occasions o calling, one day I hear he same melody on he radio. I sar hinking abou my son, and maybe some emoional reacions, originally occurring due o my ineracion wih him, also surace. How did his happen? e answer is responden learning. e melody has become a condiioned simulus, and houghs and eelings conneced wih my son are a condiioned response. I is easy o see how hese reacions can in urn uncion as anecedens or more operan behavior. I migh, or example, call my son earlier han I would have i I hadn’ heard his melody on he radio. Anoher way in which responden and operan learning inerac is in how reinorcers and punishers are esablished. Simuli ha have no previously uncioned as reinorcers can acquire his uncion by being associaed wih hings ha already uncion as reinorcers. Saus symbols, designer clohes, a phoo o a loved one, or a avorie V program can all have reinorcing uncions. ese simuli have acquired heir uncion by being associaed wih oher reinorcers; or example, receiving inerpersonal atenion because o saus symbols. einorcers ha have heir uncion wihou being learned� such as inerpersonal atenion, ood when you are hungry, and warmh when you are cold�are called uncondiioned or primary reinorcers. einorcers ha have acquired heir uncion by way o learning are called condiioned or secondary reinorcers. e corresponding erminology also applies o punishers: ey can be uncondiioned or primary punishers , or hey can acquire heir uncions hrough associaion wih oher punishers and hereore be called condiioned or secondary punishers.
Exincion Behavior ha has been learned does no necessarily las orever. Wheher governed by consequences or by associaions, behavior can cease or decrease ollowing he removal o paricular coningencies. We ofen use he erm exincion or his; operan exincion or responden exincion , respecively. Operan exincion occurs when a cerain behavior no longer provides ha which has been a reinorcing consequence. I my uesday calls o my son begin o go unanswered, I will probably coninue o call him on uesdays or a while. Bu i I encouner ha he never answers on uesdays anymore, I’ll sop calling him on ha day. uesday is no longer a discriminaive simulus or he consequence ha was previously reinorcing. uesday nigh no longer signals a hisorical connecion beween a specific behavior (calling my son) and a cerain consequence (he answers he phone).
23
Learning F
esponden exincion also involves crucial changes or a disconinuaion o he relaions beween he differen simuli ha lay behind he learning. I, despie he respondenly aroused ear I experience afer being assauled in my own square, I coninue o regularly visi he square, my ear will decrease, provided ha he even (he assaul) ha originally caused my reacion is no repeaed. New associaions beween my emoional reacions and he square, he aroma rom he resauran, and he saue are esablished. I may experience oher evens in he square ha awaken posiive emoions, so new responden learning akes place. a his happens when I walk in he square (operan), even hough I eel araid iniially (responden), is ye anoher example o how operan and responden learning ac ogeher. a a paricular behavior is exinguished does no mean i has been unlearned. Once I have become araid in connecion wih he assaul in he square in my homeown, his ear will mos likely be more easily riggered han i would have been i I had never experienced he assaul in he firs place. I my son’s phone does no play he special melody any longer, hen he melody isel may no bring up houghs o him i I hear i on he radio. And ye we’ve all experienced how associaions like hese can suddenly reemerge afer being gone or years. e same is rue or operan exincion. Acions we once learned ofen lie wihin reach, even i we have long since ceased o ac in ha way. Alhough I once learned o ride a bike, his behavior migh have been exinguished many years back i he reinorcing consequences ceased. I I ge on a bike again, I migh noice ha I canno ride i as well as beore; neverheless, his behavior is no unlearned. e ac ha learning has hese kinds o lasing effecs ells us somehing imporan abou working or change. I will reurn o his poin when discussing his book’s main issue: he power o hinking. Wha we can esablish a his juncure is ha he key is o learn new hings, raher han rying o exinguish wha we have already learned.
Generalizaion e ac ha, in an operan sequence o evens, a cerain simulus uncions as a discriminaive or moivaional aneceden, or as a reinorcing or punishing consequence, does no mean ha a new even mus be idenical o have he same uncion. I ha were he case, learning would pracically be impossible, since wo evens are, in ac, never exacly he same. Insead, wo simuli or wo evens need only be “similar enough.” I a cerain social behavior rom my side, like addressing someone wih a quesion, has aken place under he condiion o his person looking a me wih a cerain expression on
24
adical Behaviorism and Fundamenal Behavior Analyic Principles
his ace, and i my asking he quesion has led o posiive reinorcing consequences, hen his increases he likelihood ha I will speak o someone again when he condiions are similar; he siuaion need no be idenical. How similar he condiions mus be in order o uncion in a discriminaive way depends on he individual’s specific learning hisory. A young child iniially may have learned o say somehing in an ineracion wih a paren. is is he condiion under which he behavior has been reinorced. A glance, a acial expression, or an uterance by a differen person does no a his sage consiue an aneceden or he child o inerac in a similar way. is aneceden uncion will, however, gradually spread, becoming generalized. As ime passes, a much broader caegory o condiions (differen people, differen environmens, differen uterances, and slighly differen acial expressions) migh uncion as anecedens or a cerain social behavior. is does no apply only o anecedens. Evens ha uncion as reinorcing or punishing consequences are generalized, as well. Friendly behavior may be encounered in many differen orms, bu regardless o he differences i can sill have he same reinorcing uncion. e same goes or he hings ha ofen uncion as punishers, like being criicized, or example. Anoher example o a reinorcing uncion ha can be generalized involves money. Money is a condiioned or secondary reinorcer. In our experience, i has been associaed wih oher hings ha have been reinorcing, giving hese pieces o meal and paper reinorcing uncions in hemselves. Money has acquired his uncion by associaion wih such a large number o oher reinorcing uncions ha i becomes a generalized reinorcer. For mos children, atenion rom aduls also uncions as a generalized reinorcer. In cerain conexs, however, he same atenion can have a punishing uncion. is shows us, again, ha wheher a given simulus is reinorcing or punishing is no an inrinsic qualiy o ha simulus; raher, i can only be undersood in conex, in he ineracion beween an organism and is environmen. Generalizaion is relevan in connecion wih responden learning, as well. e ac ha I was assauled in he main square o my homeown can make me eel his ear in a similar square locaed in a differen own i ha oher square is similar enough. Or his ear can emerge in a oally differen siuaion rom being in a square; or example, seeing someone in he subway who is somehow similar enough o he person who assauled me. Likewise, hearing ha amiliar melody on he radio can make me hink o my son even i i is perormed by a differen singer and in a differen version han he one on his phone.
25
Learning F
Discriminaion Discriminaion can be said o be he opposie o generalizaion. Jus as he uncion o an even can be spread o oher evens because hey are in some way similar, a uncion can be resriced o a more specific even in siuaions where a similar even doesn’ have his uncion. Anoher person’s acial expression can be an aneceden or a cerain social behavior on my par, and we migh assume ha generalizaion has aken place in my learning hisory since my firs atemps a ineracing wih oher people years ago. ere are quie a ew slighly differen acial expressions o oher people ha lead o more or less he same ype o social behavior rom me. Bu wha happens i I wan o play poker? In ha case, he very small variaions ha I migh be able o deec in he oher players’ expressions become anecedens or quie differen behaviors rom my side. A cerain glance may make me raise my sakes, and i anoher player looks a me in a slighly differen way, his can be an aneceden or my decision o old. e differences could even be so small ha I’m unable o describe hem, ye I sill ac on hem. e ac ha some people are so much beter han ohers a playing poker can parly be assumed o be conneced o a highly rained abiliy o discriminae when i comes o oher people’s behavior. Generalizaion and discriminaion, and he balance beween hem, is an imporan par o all kinds o learning, boh operan and responden. Someimes we need o cach one very specific signal in a noisy surrounding, while a oher imes i is imporan o ac on anyhing ha moves.
WHE E WE GO FOM HE E is concludes my run-hrough o imporan oundaions o he psychology o learning. Le me once again encourage ineresed readers o seek more deailed knowledge rom oher sources. In chaper 2, we will move on o he issue o how hese principles have been used and are used in order o undersand hinking and he power o hinking. We will also ake a look a some difficulies in relaion o his�wha can be described as inadequacies in he behavior analyic atemps o deal wih his proound ype o human behavior.
26
CHAPTER 2 inking and Human Language
e phenomenon we commonly call “hinking” is obscure o mos o us. ere is, o course, always an observer, bu only one: he person hinking her houghs. inking, hen, is a phenomenon ha is privae and canno be observed direcly by anyone else. oughs are included in he phenomena Skinner ermed privae evens (Skinner, 1953). However, we migh criically remark ha houghs are neverheless ofen accessible, like when somehing is said and hen heard, or is writen and hen read. I we hink abou i careully, hough, we find ha wha is accessible isn’ he hough isel; i is wha is said or writen. ese expressions are ofen relaed o he original hough, bu hey are hardly idenical o i. e experience o houghs in hemselves is direcly available only o he person who is hinking hose houghs. e same ruh applies o recollecions, inernal bodily sensaions, and a leas pars o wha we call emoions, all encompassed in Skinner’s erm “privae evens.” I is imporan o emphasize ha o Skinner, his did no imply ha “inernal” phenomena are o a differen naure han wha we can plainly observe joinly, or publicly. ese phenomena are no enaced in a menal world ha is somehow differen rom he exernal world. e disincion is purely in heir degree o accessibiliy o public observaion. We humans devoe a lo o atenion o hese privae evens. We alk abou hem and assume ha hey are presen in ohers, even hough we are unable o observe hem in anyone bu ourselves. We atach grea imporance o hem in a number o differen ways. Wha is jus now aking place is ha I, as an auhor, am wriing a book abou some pars o his phenomenon. You,
Learning F
as a reader, are devoing your ime and atenion o undersanding wha I am wriing, and you may be hinking (i I may dare guess) somehing along he lines o “I will be ineresing o find ou wha his houghs (!) are on his.” is phenomenon o hinking is also given a prominen posiion wihin modern science’s undersanding o human beings, usually under he heading o “cogniion.” In his ineres in privae evens, Skinner again showed his consisen, or radical, sance, quesioning why we alk abou hese privae evens. is is definiely a very essenial quesion o ask. I we undersand why we alk abou his, we will know somehing abou he uncion hese phenomena have or us. In addiion, i we did no learn o alk abou hings ha only he indi vidual can noe, hese phenomena would hardly urn ino wha hey gradually become o an adul person. e ac ha we do hings joinly in connecion wih hese inernal phenomena gives hem a uncion or us. In ac, hese phenomena atain a cener-sage place in human behavior precisely hrough known principles o learning. We learn o alk abou privae evens, and he way we learn o alk abou hem, in urn, influences how hey evolve. (Wha I discuss as “alk” is no limied o producing sounds; or example, a mue person can learn he same hing hrough sign language.) Why would i be imporan o humans o learn o alk abou eelings, memories, physical sensaions, and houghs? Because his kind o sharing is valuable o he social communiy. In Skinner’s words, “I is only when a person’s privae world becomes imporan o ohers ha i is made imporan o him” (Skinner, 1974, p. 35). Expressed in a slighly more echnical way, we learn o alk abou he hings each o us can observe in only ourselves because our social environmen reinorces ha ype o behavior. e social communiy reinorces children or speaking based on heir own privae evens. Sep by-sep, hese phenomena�which he social communiy canno observe in a direc way�become imporan o he child, as well, based on he coningencies o reinorcemen.
VEBAL BEHAVIO Beore we ake a closer look a how speaking abou privae evens evolves, we need o reflec on speaking in a more general sense: wha Skinner called verbal behavior . From very early in language raining, humans learn o use combinaions o sounds in a way ha successively becomes very imporan or how we inerac. Wha is uncionally crucial in his behavior, according o Skinner, is he possibiliy o behavior being reinorced in an indirec way, by how oher individuals ac, raher han as a direc resul o he speaker’s 28
inking and Human Language
acions. is makes i possible or me o be given a desired objec wihou having o direc my acions oward physically obaining he objec mysel. I can ask or somehing and receive i by way o anoher person’s acions. Using sounds in his way is primarily a social abiliy, and i is carried ou according o he same undamenal principles or learning ha apply o oher behavior. Skinner called his kind o acion by a speaker “verbal behavior” and defined i as a behavior ha acquires is effec hrough he mediaion o a lisener’s behavior, he lisener having been augh such ha her behavior precisely uncions as reinorcing or he behavior o he speaker (Skinner, 1957). I I reach or an objec, he consequence o managing o reach i is reinorcing or ha behavior. Asking o be given he same objec is only reinorcing i i is ollowed by he lisener’s behavior in he orm o giving me he objec I waned. Someone speaks, and based on his speaking, anoher individual acs in a way ha makes differen reinorcing consequences accessible o he person who spoke. is also allows he social conex o govern he speaker’s behavior in urn, based specifically on he coningencies o reinorcemen ha are esablished. I he lisener, when she hears me, gives me wha I asked or, he probabiliy o my repeaing his behavior increases. I he lisener acs in a differen way, his oo will influence my uure behavior.
SKINNE’S DESCIPION OF VEBAL OPERNS Skinner divided verbal behavior ino several primary ypes: acs, mands, echoic behavior, inraverbal behavior, and auocliic behavior (Skinner, 1957). When we regard verbal behavior as operan responses, we see i as conrolled by anecedens and consequences, jus like any oher operan behavior. ese differen responses (B in an ABC analysis) are disinguished by he differen relaions beween he orm (wha is said or writen) and he variable (A and/ or C) ha governs he response. e shape he response akes and is relaion o anecedens and consequences is wha orms he basis or classificaion.
ac A ac is governed by a preceding simulus: he simulus ha is being aced. An example would be saying “chair” when a chair is presen. is response, he uterance, is a direc resul o seeing he chair. When we say “She is running,” i is governed by he ac ha someone (she) is moving her 29
Learning F
body in a cerain way. We ac our environmen in his way because we have a solid learning hisory in which acing has been reinorced. From an early age, we have experienced reinorcing consequences when, or example, in he presence o a cow, we have utered precisely “cow.” I we said “kity” in he presence o a cow, here were oher consequences. e governing consequences are primarily o a general and social naure; ha is, acing is ollowed by generalized reinorcers. I is acing we have in mind when in everyday speech we speak o “describing,” “elling,” “reerring o,” and he like. All o hese conceps, however, are highly imperec or scienific purposes, and hus he use o he neologism “ac.” An ideal ac is compleely conrolled by he simulus preceding i. In an everyday conex, we would say he saemen is objecive or corresponds o he objec reerred o. is is he ype o “pure” ac ha we seek in scienific linguisic inquiry. acs rarely have his characer in normal lie, and you could probably quesion wheher a pure ac is acually possible as anyhing oher han an ideal, even in scienific setings. Skinner wroe abou disored or impure acs (1957), by which he mean acs ha are conrolled by oher acors, such as who is lisening and how liseners ac as a resul o a given ac. Wha we normally speak o as exaggeraion is an example o a disored ac. e verbal operan is conrolled by ha which precedes i, bu he size, or example, is exaggeraed, so he ac is disored. When he “Grea Fisherman” alks abou he size o he fish he has caugh, his descripions are governed no solely by he size o he fish. I hey were, he descripions would be pure acs. Insead, hey are probably governed by oher elemens, as well. I a saemen is porrayed as a ac when i acually is governed no a all by wha precedes i, bu raher by somehing compleely differen, in everyday language we would call i a lie.
Mand A mand is verbal behavior conrolled by a specific reinorcer, and i specifies his same reinorcer. For example, your saying o a person “Go away!” is reinorced by earlier experiences o having a person leave afer you said his. Saying “Look a me” specifies is own reinorcer�ha is, he lisener looks a he speaker. e ypical aneceden (A) o a mand is he presence o a lisener (a discriminaive uncion) and a moivaional operaion (an esablishing operaion) ha makes he consequence in quesion desirable o he speaker. e moivaional operaion ha precedes “Go away!” is mos likely ha he lisener’s presence is aversive o he speaker a he momen, whereas wih “Look a me,” somehing else is going on in he ineracion beween speaker
30
inking and Human Language
and lisener. Examples o mands are differen ypes o requess and demands, asking quesions, and raising your hand o obain permission o speak. I is imporan o undersand ha boh acs and mands are defined by heir uncion, no by sheer opography. e very same word or expression can have several differen uncions. is means ha opographically idenical linguisic expressions can uncion boh as acs and as mands, depending on he relaion o anecedens and consequences in he specific siuaion. When someone says “he newspaper,” i could be a ac i he governing variable is an acual newspaper and he uterance is an answer o he quesion “Wha is ha on he able?” Bu “he newspaper” could also be a mand i i serves as a reques ha someone hand he newspaper o he speaker. e relaion beween wha is said and he governing variables deermines wha ype o verbal behavior is a hand. A saemen such as “ose apples are nice” can seem like a ac bu in ac be a mand, i his saemen is reinorced by he ac ha he consequence ha previously ollowed upon a similar saemen was ha he speaker was given an apple.
Echoic Behavior In echoic behavior , verbal behavior has an aneceden ha is opographically idenical o he response. I is a verbal response ha ollows a preceding verbal response, echoing or repeaing somehing ha has been utered. Again, ypical reinorcers are generalized social consequences like atenion and oher inerpersonal processes. Echoic behavior is a core par o early language learning. e paren, or example, uters a word and hen reinorces every endency in he child o repea i. Bu echoic behavior coninues o exis as an imporan verbal behavior hroughou lie, like when we silenly repea somehing we have jus heard. Skinner gave a ew more examples o verbal responses ha resemble echoic behavior insoar as hey all involve a response ha is somehow a reieraion o he aneceden. He described exual behavior, as well as ranscripion and aking dicaion. I describe all o hese ogeher wih echoic behavior based on his similariy. exual behavior is saying somehing ha is conrolled by a preceding simulus in he orm o a writen ex, where a ormal correspondence exiss beween wha is writen and wha is said. exual behavior, hen, is he response we would normally reer o as reading aloud. aking dicaion is an inverse process: wriing down somehing ha is in ormal correspondence wih wha has been utered, like when you wrie down a elephone number someone jus old you. ranscripion is wriing somehing wherein he conrolling aneceden is opographically idenical wih he response. In
31
Learning F
everyday language, his is called copying. All o hese verbal behaviors are reinorced by generalized social reinorcers.
Inraverbal Behavior Inraverbal behavior is also verbal behavior ha has oher verbal behavior as is aneceden, jus as echoic behavior; bu in his case here isn’ any ormal correspondence beween aneceden and response. In his case, he relaion beween he verbal aneceden and inraverbal behavior is arbirary, esablished by social whim. I I say “one, wo, hree,” and you say “our,” hen your response is inraverbal behavior. I I say “Wha is casa in English?” and you say “house,” hen his response, oo, is inraverbal. Jus as or all oher verbal operans excep he mand, he imporan, governing consequences or inraverbal responses are generalized social reinorcers. Once again, noe ha he definiions o hese differen ypes o verbal behavior are uncional. Wha is crucial is he relaion beween he response and he anecedens and consequences. Above, I said ha he expression “he newspaper” can be eiher a ac or a mand. Bu i could, o course, also be echoic behavior i i were governed by someone else saying “he newspaper” and he response is a reieraion o his. I could also be inraverbal behavior. is would be he case i i were governed by someone else jus having said, “Wha is anoher word or ‘he local rag’?”
Auocliic Behavior Skinner described one more ype o verbal behavior: auocliic behavior . is is verbal behavior, or pars o verbal behavior, governed by oher verbal behavior by he speaker and modiying his oher behavior. An example o auocliic behavior is he word “maybe” in he response “Maybe i’s he newspaper” when someone asks, “Wha is ha on he able?” e word “maybe” uncions as an auocliic because i modifies he oaliy and les he lisener know somehing abou he posiion rom which he speaker is speaking, in his case a posiion o uncerainy. Oher auocliic behavior, which would modiy he ac in a differen way, would be a word like “no,” as in answering he quesion abou wha is lying on he able wih “no he newspaper.” Auocliic behavior can be whole words, as in he examples above, bu i can also be modificaion o a word, such as adding an “s” o he end when he answer is “newspapers.” Puncuaion, grammaical srucure, and synax are all orms
32
inking and Human Language
o verbal behavior in he caegory auocliic behavior�verbal behavior ha is dependen on or modifies oher verbal behavior by he speaker.
Te Use o Skinner’s Analysis in Tis Book Skinner’s sysem or analysis o verbal behavior is airly complex, and my inenion has no been o describe i in deail here. Wih respec o he preceding ouline o he analysis o verbal behavior, wo poins are imporan rom he perspecive o his book. e firs is ha his ouline shows us ha a uncional analysis o verbal behavior is a easible ask. Verbal behavior is a human behavior ha is governed by anecedens and consequences. e second poin is ha his analysis allows me o reurn o a consideraion o privae evens. In his, I will primarily use one par o Skinner’s analysis�his descripion o he behavior o acing�o aid in undersanding how privae evens atain such a cenral uncion or us humans.
LEANING O AC PIVAE EVENS Wha does all o his mean in erms o our iniial quesion abou how we learn o alk abou inernal phenomena? One hing i shows us is ha we learn his rom our social environmen, which reinorces cerain behavior. For he child, his environmen is iniially made up o parens, oher guardians, or oher amily members. Hence, rom a Skinnerian perspecive, hese members o our social environmen are he ones who rain us o appropriaely ac evens in our environmen. However, hese people (and ohers) do no have direc access o a child’s privae evens. When people in he child’s social environmen reinorce acing and wha is o be aced is an exernal phenomenon, like an objec, a person, or an exernal acion, he social environmen does have access o whaever is o be aced. e connecion beween simulus and ac is obvious. Esablishing a connecion o a reinorcer is raher easy in his case. e child who is learning o ac a eddy bear can see he eddy bear in ron o her eyes, and he same goes or he paren. When he child says “eddy” or somehing similar, he paren can reinorce he behavior. Wha he child observes inernally, however, is no accessible o he social environmen in he same way. is will make i more difficul or he environmen o reinorce her acing o such inernal phenomena. Skinner described several ways in which people in he social seting can reinorce acing o privae evens, despie his difficuly (Skinner, 1945).
33
Learning F
One way we learn o ac privae evens is when ohers are able o observe phenomena ha are parallel o wha is being aced. I ohers are able o observe a flush or a swelling in a child’s skin, hey can assume ha he child experiences pain. In such a siuaion, he paren can reinorce verbal behavior ha acs he assumed pain, such as i he child says “ouch” or “hurs.” e child’s verbal behavior is ollowed by reinorcing consequences, esablished by he surrounding social environmen. Oher common, and commonly accessible, phenomena are evens ha we know normally produce eelings. One example would be when someone in he child’s environmen behaves in an aggressive manner, and we aferward ask he child, “Did ha make you eel scared?” Having learned o ac our own privae world, we use our own experiences and assume ha he child experiences somehing similar o wha we experience. However, a paren’s emoions may no always correspond wih hose o her child, which leaves open he possibiliy o problemaic acing o emoions on he par o he child. A similar ype o learning occurs when observable responses by he indi vidual are parallel o he privae phenomenon ha is aced. Sounds, acial expressions, and cerain movemens are observable responses ha commonly parallel an individual’s privae evens. Experiences o pain, anger, ineres, and joy are ofen accompanied by oher behavior. Children shy away, draw closer, cas glances, and ac in a number o differen ways ha are visible o ohers in heir social environmen. e ac ha hese differen orms o observable behavior vary in accordance wih privae evens makes i possible or he environmen o esablish coningencies o reinorcemen ha, rom hen on, influence he child’s growing abiliy o alk abou he hings ha only she can observe. Anoher way o learning o alk abou privae evens occurs when he child firs learns o alk abou he hings she does ha are observable boh o hersel and o ohers around her. She hen gradually goes on o learn o alk abou similar acions o her own ha are observable only o hersel. is is especially relevan o wha we commonly call houghs or hinking, and he same learning pah is also relevan o wha we normally call memories. A child carries ou a number o acions ha she gradually learns o alk abou. She walks, waves, eas, waches he dog, sands sill, plays, ges dressed, and so on. No child can ac her own acion wihou firs having perormed i. (She can, however, uter a word ha ohers use o describe somehing ha is perormed wihou perorming i hersel. In his case, she’s echoing somehing she heard someone else uter.) In order o ac her own acions, he ollowing sequence is required: e child does somehing ha is observable o he child hersel and o her social environmen. When his acion is carried
34
inking and Human Language
ou, or immediaely hereafer, he environmen reinorces a cerain verbal behavior by he child. Mos likely, he child firs repeas afer ohers (echoes), hen gradually ransiions o acing. e child’s own acion hen becomes a discriminaive simulus or he verbal behavior. Here’s an example: Pera is kicking a ball. When she does his, her aher says, “Kick! Look, you’re kicking he ball!” e word “kick” is repeaed, and i Pera says somehing ha resembles “kick,” her aher reinorces his uterance. In ime, he very acion o kicking becomes a discriminaive simulus or Pera o say “kick.” Pera has learned o ac her own kicking. Over ime, similar learning occurs or oher acions: waving, running, playing, and so on. Alongside his process, he child will, o course, experience aspecs o hese behaviors ha are privae, ha is, only accessible o he child hersel; or example, wha her arm eels like when she waves o someone. is will conribue o an increase in her abiliy o ac privae evens. She learns o ac her own acions, and because hese acions vary in accordance wih privae evens, her abiliy o discriminae privae evens gradually grows, along wih her abiliy o ac hem. Skinner described ye anoher way in which we learn o ac privae evens, bu beore we go on o ha, le’s firs ake a closer look a acing o he ype o privae evens ha are especially imporan as ar as his book is concerned. is has o do wih how we learn o hink, how we learn o alk abou our hinking, and how, in ime, we learn o hink abou our hinking.
Learning o ac Toughs An acion ha is iniially accessible boh o he person who perorms i and o he social environmen can gradually change (Skinner used he erm “weaken”) so ha i is no longer accessible o ohers, alhough i says accessible o he person perorming i. One simple example is how we go abou learning o coun. Firs, children coun aloud. a is he only way his behavior can be reinorced by he environmen. As ime passes, he child begins o experience ha couning aloud isn’ reinorced in all siuaions; in ac, someimes i is punished. People may find i annoying o have a child couning ou loud, so he reinorcemen ceases. e child hen sars o coun more quiely and realizes ha she can coun quiely enough ha no one else can hear i. She may sill be moving her lips bu no be making sounds. A child who is siting quiely wih a couning book and moving her lips in a concenraed way may also receive reinorcing social consequences or his behavior,
35
Learning F
and�preso!�she has learned o coun silenly, o “coun in her mind.” Provided ha his behavior resuls in consequences ha are uncionally reinorcing, he behavior will coninue. Since he abiliy o coun silenly is very useul o atain a number o hings ha people wan, his remains a human abiliy. e same sequence is easy o see in he process ha leads o our abiliy o read. Firs we do i aloud, and afer a while we begin o do i silenly. Sill, a person who has been able o read silenly or many years will ofen read aloud again i wha she is reading is paricularly difficul, like a complicaed, unamiliar word, even i she is speaking only o hersel. And when we wan our houghs o be paricularly effecive, like when perorming a demanding ask, i is common o “hink aloud”: “Go or i, Niklas. You can do i!” e preceding examples show how verbal behavior, such as couning or reading, sars ou as a public even, where i is accessible o a social environmen ha can reinorce i, and hen gradually urns privae. A very large par o wha we normally call “hinking” develops similarly. Firs we learn o alk abou our own behavior based on he coningencies o reinorcemen ha have been esablished hrough he social seting; hen, gradually, he public pars o he behavior wane while he privae aspecs remain. I should perhaps poin ou ha his is no a complee descripion o everyhing included in he erms “houghs” and “hinking.” I would be impossible o give such a descripion, or many reasons, including he ambiguiy surrounding wha should acually be included in he erms. ey can be defined in differen ways, and hey are everyday conceps, no scienific erms. Wha I am mainaining, however, is ha he process described above is undamenal o wha we usually call hinking and houghs. Also, his descripion is relevan o he aims o behavior analysis, ha is, o predicing and influencing wha we as human beings do, or how we behave. Several acors conribue o he persisence o privae verbal behavior, and o i becoming increasingly independen o hose exernal acions in which i originaed. inking abou running is, in some ways, similar o acually running. I involves a number o inernal simuli idenical o hose ha exis when you are in ac running. is is paricularly eviden when i comes o he kind o hinking ha we call imagining, visualizing, or hinking o. When I hink o my moher, I see somehing in my mind’s eye ha is very much like wha I see when she is sanding in ron o me. e realiy o such a connecion beween hinking and exernal behavior corresponds well wih wha we now know abou he uncions in he human body, and paricularly he nervous sysem. inking abou looking a someone is done largely wih he same pars o he brain as acually looking a someone. I you firs learn o play a piece o music and hen hear his music played, moor neurons are acive
36
inking and Human Language
while you simply lisen (Lahav, Salzman, & Schlaug, 2007). inking abou running involves he same moor ceners o he brain as running (Jeannerod, 1994; Kosslyn, Ganis, & ompson, 2001). is means ha hinking abou doing somehing is an acion ha in many respecs resembles acually doing wha we are hinking abou. A he same ime, his privae acion has grea advanages. We can perorm an acion in he concealed seting o our imaginaion wihou acing many o he consequences ha he exernal acion would involve. Doing hings privaely�hinking o doing hem�can hus be a way o esing and pracicing. As we all know, his ype o behavior plays a significan role in wha we ofen call problem solving. We ry hings in our houghs, and hen we perorm hem more enirely, or else we rerain rom doing hem. I is easy o see ha his possibiliy is likely o have increased our species’ abiliy o survive. e pah o learning I have jus described is hus: 1. We do somehing. 2. We learn o alk abou wha we are doing, which in he above erminology means we are acing our own behavior. 3. We learn o speak wihou utering any words; ha is, we hink. Once we are doing his, his very behavior becomes somehing we can ac. Perhaps you, as a reader, jus noiced ha you were hinking abou somehing oher han wha his ex says. In ha case, you have somehing new o ac: “I was jus hinking…” ereore, when we alk abou he ac ha we are hinking, his can lead o hinking abou he ac ha we are hinking. (In cogniive heory, his is ofen reerred o as meacogniion.) us ar, I have described wo main ways in which we learn o alk abou privae evens. e firs way is when people in he environmen observe phenomena ha are parallel wih privae evens in he individual, and hey use hese parallel phenomena o reinorce he verbal behavior or which he privae evens gradually become discriminaive simuli. e second way is when behavior ha is iniially accessible o he social environmen gradually becomes privae, hrough his behavior as a whole being punished or exinguished in cerain conexs, while a he same ime a par o he behavior� doing he same hing, only silenly�leads o reinorcing consequences. e behavior as such can hereafer be aced by he individual, jus as oher privae evens are. Beore we urn o he quesion o why he social environmen places such imporance upon eaching each new individual his ype o skill, le’s look a a hird possible way o learning he abiliy o ac privae evens.
37
Learning F
Learning o ac Privae Evens Trough Generalizaion Once acing o privae evens becomes an esablished abiliy, generalizaion allows us o urher develop his kind o verbal behavior. A privae simulus can have cerain eaures ha resemble oher phenomena, eiher exernal or inernal. acing somehing ha is available only o he individual in quesion by using a resemblance o somehing ha is accessible o ohers is a behavior ha is ofen reinorced. One example is a child who has been siting on he oile or a long ime and hen ges up and says, “My legs are prickly like soda pop.” e child has discriminaed some sor o resemblance beween he experience o drinking a carbonaed drink and wha she experiences in her legs in connecion wih having spen a long ime siting on he oile. She uses wha we could call a meaphor or an analogy o ac he similariy she experiences. e ac ha a grea deal o he language we use o describe privae evens consiss o meaphors aken rom evens in our exernal environmen illusraes his pah or learning. When we use meaphors, we are making use o he similariy beween differen phenomena; hus, meaphors can conribue o generalizaion. Language like “simmering wih anger,” “eeling low,” “being filled wih peace,” or “being overwhelmed” are all ypical examples.
WHY IS HIS BEHAVIO EINFOCED? In he inroducion o his chaper, I quoed Skinner, who wroe, “I is only when a person’s privae world becomes imporan o ohers ha i is made imporan o him” (Skinner, 1974, p. 35). Why, hen, is a person’s privae world imporan o he social environmen, and wha is he poin in eaching a new individual o alk abou his privae world? e answer is ha an indi vidual’s privae world conains hings ha are useul in social ineracion. We are social animals, and social ineracion is undamenal o our survival. Wha an individual eels in a cerain siuaion communicaes a lo abou her hisory in connecion wih similar siuaions. For example, i someone says she is hungry, his is a brie way o describing her hisory in regard o he availabiliy o ood. I also les us know somehing abou her sae a presen and wha is essenial o her in he curren siuaion, and i le us know somehing abou her inclinaion o ac in he near uure. I communicaes ha soon she will probably ea somehing or ac in some oher way in relaion o ood. e same goes or verbal behavior ha describes anger, weariness, joy, and so on. I someone says she is depressed, ohers receive a condensed descripion ha
38
inking and Human Language
may be highly relevan o heir own acions and o heir abiliy o anicipae ha person’s urher acions. e poin is no ha hese inernal phenomena are some kind o auonomous orce; raher, he significance o such expressions lies in how he privae evens hey describe are relaed o he individual ’s learning hisory. Once he abiliy o ac privae behavior is esablished, his abiliy also becomes valuable o he individual. o quoe Skinner once more, “A person who has been ‘made aware o himsel’ by he quesions he has been asked is in a beter posiion o predic and conrol his own behavior” (Skinner, 1974, p. 35). Being able o oresee and conrol one’s own behavior naurally implies an increased abiliy o achieve hings ha are desirable o onesel. Beore I conclude his passage abou he relaionship beween hinking and verbal behavior, I wan o underscore, once again, ha his is no a descripion o every aspec ha could be included in he conceps o “hinking” and “houghs.” I could be argued ha even beore his learned abiliy o silen verbal behavior is esablished, as described above, here is some sor o rudimenary behavior in he child ha migh be called “hinking” (Vygosky, 1986). I migh also be argued ha somehing like his is presen in oher animals besides humans, in one way or anoher. How we view his argumen depends on wha we include in he concep o “hinking.” In any case, we know very litle abou his possible rudimenary capaciy and wha uncion i has. And regardless o his, somehing novel and revoluionary happens as he child’s verbal behavior shifs rom being solely public o also becoming privae.
HE OBSCUIY OF HE INENAL WOLD SILL EMAINS Despie he ac ha we learn o alk abou privae evens, i remains more dificul or us o alk abou hese evens han abou phenomena ha are observable by ohers. All hrough lie, i will be easier o describe o ohers how we go abou driving a car or paining a picure han i will be o describe how we do our hinking or how we eel when we are sad. All o his is logical as seen rom he preceding analysis. In siuaions where we have learned o alk abou our pain, anger, or ascinaion, a leas pars o our behavior haven’ been observable o anyone bu ourselves. is means we’ve had relaively limied suppor rom he environmen in learning o alk abou hese hings compared o phenomena ha ohers can more easily observe. ereore, our abiliy o discriminae and speak abou hese privae phenomena will orever
39
Learning F
be less developed and less precise han i is or oher, more observable areas in our field o experience.
A SPEAKE AND A LISENE An imporan aspec o verbal behavior is ha when i occurs, here is always a speaker and a lisener. is is paricularly obvious when he verbal behavior occurs wih anoher person presen, bu here is a lisener even when someone is hinking; i’s jus ha in his case he speaker and he lisener are he same person. e later siuaion is o special ineres in his book, bu we will commence wih wha comes firs in every person’s hisory: he speaker as one person, and he lisener as anoher. Skinner resriced he concep “verbal behavior” o he speaker. In his definiion, i is he speaker who behaves verbally. e lisener reinorces his behavior, bu according o Skinner, his acion should be undersood as cohering wih he same principles ha apply o oher orms o reinorcemen. Skinner saw no reason o deem he lisener’s behavior verbal (Skinner, 1957). e lisener can, o course, also speak in her urn, and ha would be a verbal ac, bu he lisening isel is somehing Skinner mosly lef ou o his analysis o verbal behavior (S. C. Hayes, 1991; Schlinger, 2008). Sill, i is quie apparen ha, in many cases, wha Skinner called verbal behavior has complex effecs on he lisener. When someone says, “Please wai ouside, and I’ll be righ wih you,” his is a ypical example o wha Skinner called verbal behavior. e poin, o course, is o influence he lisener, making her go ouside o wai. I privae evens in he orm o houghs are powerul, hey mus be exercised in relaion o a lisener, even hough in his case he lisener and he speaker are one and he same. All o his gives us good reason o invesigae Skinner’s houghs on he lisener’s behavior. He discussed lisening as a separae caegory o behavior and reerred o i as rule-governed behavior.
ULE�GOVENED BEHAVIO “Please wai ouside, and I’ll be righ wih you” is a verbal saemen ha is easy o analyze using operan psychology’s basic ormula, ABC. I, as a resul o his saemen, he lisener goes ouside o wai or he person who made he saemen o join her, we could analyze i as ollows: e saemen uncions as an aneceden (A) or he behavior o going ouside (B) in order or he speaker o join he lisener ouside (C). According o Skinner, he aneceden
40
inking and Human Language
is uncioning as a rule because i specifies a behavior and a consequence (Skinner, 1966, 1974). He emphasized he difference beween behavior ha is governed by such rules and behavior ha is governed by direc experiences o consequences ha have occurred, which he called coningency-shaped behavior. Here is a classical example o hese wo ypes o behavior, se orh by Skinner: e difference beween rule-ollowing and coningency-shaped behavior is obvious when insances are prety clearly one or he oher. e behavior o a baseball oufielder caching a fly ball bears cerain resemblances o he behavior o he commander o a ship aking par in he recovery o a reenering saellie. Boh move abou on a surace in a direcion and wih a speed designed o bring hem, i possible, under a alling objec a he momen i reaches he surace. Boh respond o recen simulaion rom he posiion, direcion, and speed o he objec, and hey boh ake ino accoun effecs o graviy and ricion. e behavior o he baseball player, however, has been almos enirely shaped by coningencies o reinorcemen, whereas he commander is simply obeying rules derived rom he available inormaion and rom analogous siuaions. (Skinner, 1966, pp. 241242) Skinner wen on o noe ha he sea capain can, by collecing many saellies, possibly sep away rom some o he rules, so ha, in ime, his behavior may gradually also become more shaped by coningencies. Bu rule-governed behavior has advanages, including ha he capain does no necessarily need personal experience in order o succeed in his ask. I is easy o see ha a grea deal o human behavior is, in ac, rulegoverned. “Don’ drive hrough a red ligh.” “Don’ kick a man who’s down.” “Work hard on your sudies, and you’ll have a beter chance o geting a good job.” Some o he rules speciy behavior and consequences ha he individual probably has direc experiences o, as well, like “Pu more clohes on, or you’ll be cold.” Oher rules speciy boh behavior and consequences ha he indi vidual hasn’ experienced, like “Sop abusing alcohol, or you’ll die.” When we’re learning o ollow rules, hey are given o us by people in our environmen. Bu gradually we also learn o se up rules or ourselves wherein we become boh he speaker and he lisener: “ry again, and you’ll do beter!” “Leave i or now, and ry again laer.” “Don’ say a hing; ha will jus make i worse.” Mos o us have heard ohers say hings like hese o us, and we have also direced hese sors o saemens o ourselves so ha we migh ollow our own rules. And in precisely his ormulaing and ollowing
41
Learning F
o sel-direced rules lies much o wha we commonly reer o as he power o hinking, which is he main heme o his book.
A DIFFICUL QUESION o uter a rule or an insrucion is, by Skinner’s definiion, verbal behavior. However, as menioned above, rule-governed behavior�ollowing a rule�is no necessarily verbal behavior. I someone says, “Wai ouside, and I’ll be righ wih you,” and I reply in urn, ha would be verbal behavior. Bu i I simply go ouside o wai, hen, according o Skinner, i is no. aher, i would be a resul o previously experienced consequences and should be undersood in he same way we undersand coningency-shaped behavior. Bu his raises a difficul quesion: How is i, hen, ha we humans ac wih a view oward he uure, oward hings we haven’ previously experienced, and ha we do his as a resul o somehing ha has been said or hough? How can we undersand he effec verbal behavior has on liseners in everyday siuaions like he ollowing? Le’s assume someone ells you, “omorrow, when you hear someone honk five imes, go ouside and I’ll be here.” en, he nex day, you go ouside when you hear someone honk five imes, even hough you have never previously encounered any reinorcing consequences or doing so in ha kind o siuaion. Or, or a slighly longer-erm example, i a colleague behaves disagreeably, you may hink, “e nex ime she acs like ha, I’m going o give her a piece o my mind.” en, hree weeks laer when your colleague does somehing similar, you do exacly ha. e mechanisms a work become even more ineresing in he exreme long erm, when we humans do hings in he presen ha seem o be governed by how we hink hings are going o be afer we’re dead, wheher i has o do wih prospecs o going o heaven, our children’s financial uure, or he desire o “finally find peace.” A more echnical way o expressing he same quesion is o base i on Skinner’s definiion o verbal behavior ha uncions as rules or insrucions. He wroe ha his behavior specifies behavior and consequences (Skinner, 1966). a leaves us wih he quesion o how a verbal behavior now can speciy behavior and consequences ha are no aking place in he presen and ha he individual has no earlier experienced. And how are we able o carry ou new acions in order o achieve such consequences? How do we manage o sop smoking based on he asserion “Sop smoking, or you’ll have a high risk o geting lung cancer,” when he consequences we ace in doing his are primarily o a punishing ype? e consequences ha resul could include shor-erm effecs like wihdrawal sympoms or he loss o pleasan
42
inking and Human Language
company during smoke breaks, whereas “no geting cancer” is very absrac and emporally disan. How does his work? Skinner answered his quesion by reerring o “a long hisory o verbal condiioning” (Skinner, 1957, p. 360), bu he never pinpoined how o describe such a poenial learning hisory. emember ha a undamenal principle or how boh anecedens and consequences acquire heir governing uncions or behavior is ha hey are coningen on he behavior hey influence. Experimenal behavior analysis sees he direc coniguiy beween simuli as absoluely crucial, or operan as well as responden condiioning. Skinner disinguished beween his and rule-governed behavior, mainaining ha a complex learning hisory in one way or anoher bridges his dividing line. Bu wha would such a hisory look like? a is a quesion he never answered. Early on, he menioned he possibiliy o human language involving somehing more han he principles o operan and responden condiioning, which he had accouned or (Skinner, 1938), bu he laer abandoned his alernaive. Several leading behavioral analyss, like Michael (1986), Parrot (1987), and Schlinger (1990), have brough his issue up, along wih he observaion ha a convincing answer has long been overdue wihin behavior analysis.
HE COGNIIVE ANSWE AND IS POBLEM, AS SEEN FOM WIHIN BEHAVIO ANALYSIS A common answer o he above problem abou how people go abou relaing o hings and evens ha are no presen is wha could be summarized as cogniive heories or inormaion processing heory. ere are many varians on his approach, which has hisorical roos exending back millennia (Ellis, 1989). In heir modern orm, hese approaches have in common he assumpion ha humans are equipped wih some ype o inernal srucure or carrying inormaion. Common designaions or hese inernal srucures are “schemas” and “menal represenaions.” ese srucures are influenced and ransormed by exernal evens and are credied wih playing a crucial role in governing human behavior. Exernal simuli or evens give rise o an inernal processing aciviy in humans, and his inernal processing helps explain our behavior in a way ha isn’ possible by means o analyzing he exernal evens in hemselves. Causes o human behavior, especially more complex human behavior, are hereore primarily sough in hese inernal processes.
43
Learning F
Wihin behavior analysis, on he oher hand, he guiding principle is ha he causes o differen behaviors are hings ha occur in he conex o hese behaviors. Causes are processes ouside he acual behavior, and hereore hey are accessible o direc influence, a leas in principle. is is a pragmaic approach, adoped because i suppors he aim o behavior analysis, which is no jus o achieve predicion, bu also o achieve influence. In his ligh, assumed inernal srucures, like schemas, are problemaic. Afer all, such srucures are no accessible o direc influence. ey are merely assumed, and hey are no available or conac in ime and space. All we can conac is heir effecs: he phenomena hey are assumed o cause. I somehing canno be conaced in ime and space, hen i also canno be influenced in a direc way. In behavior analysis, hese heories based on assumed inernal srucures and menal represenaions are seen as a hisorical remnan o prescienific discussions ha included he soul or he psyche (Skinner, 1963). Argumens or inernal srucures as causes o behavior ollow he same patern as everyday expressions we use when, or example, we say ha someone is eaing “because she is hungry.” How do we acually know ha someone is hungry? is is simply a conclusion arrived a based on he person’s behavior, which is wha we can observe. She is acing in a cerain way in relaion o ood. e expression “being hungry” only summarizes a number o behaviors and phenomena ha we can observe or conac in some oher way. Some o hese phenomena can be conaced by everyone presen, such as seeing he person eaing ood or hearing her alk abou i. Oher phenomena are available or conac only o he person who experiences hem, like he eeling in her somach. Bu he assessmen “She is hungry” is nohing more han hese phenomena aken ogeher. I hese phenomena are no presen, hen “hunger” as an inernal objec disappears. O course, his way o expressing ourselves is ofen linguisically convenien. I is, o use one o he erms I have accouned or in his chaper, an example o how we ac our own or someone else’s behavior. Bu he ac ha “she is hungry” does no suffice as a scienific explanaion or why ha person is eaing�a leas no in behavior analysis. e expression “she is hungry” is simply a summary o he behavior one wishes o explain. In order o answer he quesion o why someone is eaing, i is necessary o examine he conex o he behavior. You have o search among he anecedens and consequences surrounding he behavior o eaing. e causes mus be sough boh in he presen and in he hisorical conex. Many modern cogniive heories or inormaion processing heories use neurobiology in heir explanaory models (Siegel, 1999) and see differen brain srucures and he aciviy aking place wihin hem as causes o behavior. Alhough seemingly more scienific, his is much he same as he 44
inking and Human Language
assumpions underlying hypoheical srucures like schemas. And even hough brain srucures are obviously available or conac in ime and space, he basic, pragmaic objecion remains: Brain srucures, or wha occurs in hem, are no exernal o he behavior hey are said o cause. ey are, in ac, a par o he same behavior. I I lif my hand, evens are aking place in my arm, my shoulder, my aora, my brain, and more. Bu all o hese phenomena are a par o my acion o lifing my hand. In behavior analysis, behavior is defined as an acion perormed by he organism as a whole, and a par o he acion canno explain he acion in is enirey. e behavior o “lifing my hand” is an acion perormed by me as an enire organism, and wha akes place in my brain canno suffice as he cause or my acion, any more han wha happens in my arm, my shoulder, or my aora. All o hese are conribuing elemens and hereore are pars o he acion. And in he behavior analyic approach, he cause o he ac canno be a componen o he acion isel; causes mus be sough in evens ha precede and/or ollow he acion. ey are o be ound in he acion’s conex. Again, his is because behavior analysis seeks causes ha are accessible o direc inervenion, based on our undamenal goal o influencing behavior. is means ha o a behavior analys, cogniive heories, wih heir explanaions based on inernal srucures or menal represenaions, are a dead-end sree. (For a more horough accoun o he scienific-heoreical approaches wihin behavior analysis, see Moore, 2008, and Wilson, 2001.) I menally “represening” is an imporan par o a sequence o human behavior, he behavior analyic quesion would be How are we o undersand his presumed human aciviy o “represening”? is gives us even more human behavior o explain, which is hen done by perorming analyses o evens in he acion’s conex. eerring o menal represenaions does no, as seen rom he behavior analyic perspecive, presen us wih any useul answers o quesions concerning he causes o human behavior. is is, a bes, only a descripion o more human behavior ha hen needs o be explained. A wors, his model places he causes o behavior in an assumed inernal world ha is no accessible o scienific psychological analysis. a said, neurobiological research�and is differen heories abou how wha akes place in he brain plays a role in he acions o human beings�is o course an imporan field o research in is own righ. Bu such research canno answer he quesions wihin behavior analysis abou how we can undersand and influence behavior using psychological inervenions. Cogniive heories are muliaceed, and hey vary among hemselves. My inenion here has no been o do an exhausive comparison beween behavior analysis and any o hese approaches, or o accoun or how such approaches could succeed in solving he behavior analys’s dilemma, explained above. 45
Learning F
ere is exensive lieraure on his opic available or ineresed readers (e.g., Andersson, 2005; Solso e al., 2005). My purpose has simply been o poin ou, rom a behavior analyic perspecive, wha unies hese oher perspecives, and wha makes hem unaccepable as alernaives. e ac ha cogniive and behavior analyic approaches are very differen rom each oher does no eliminae heir poins o conac in connecion wih he phenomena described. (I will reurn o his opic laer in his book.) Neiher do he differences imply ha a dialogue beween hese approaches is useless. On he conrary, here are wriers who argue ha we are currenly a a poin where such a dialogue could be producive (Overskeid, 2008).
BEHAVIO ANALYSIS AND HUMAN HINKING�A BIEF SUMMAY An examinaion, rom a behavior analyic perspecive, o wha we normally call houghs or hinking sars ou rom he ac ha we do indeed speak abou his phenomenon, which means ha we have learned o speak in his way. is has aken place in accordance wih he same principles ha govern oher human behavior, ha is, hrough operan and responden condiioning. e way we have learned o speak�aloud o begin wih, and hen silenly�has shaped he phenomenon we are o analyze. Large pars o his phenomenon� pars ha are crucial o our purpose�are, hen, wha Skinner called verbal behavior. is means he behavior o hinking is a par o a greaer class o behavior; i is one par o verbal behavior. Verbal behavior is primarily a social acion. I occurs as a resul o a lisener being presen, and i is reinorced by he lisener’s acions. A he same ime, his behavior can have dramaic effecs on he lisener’s behavior. Verbal behavior can have immediae consequences when i is utered, as when someone gives me somehing I have asked or. Bu is effecs can also be grealy delayed, as when I ravel abroad o visi a cerain place because o somehing my parens old me weny years earlier. e later has been called rule-governed behavior in behavior analysis ever since Skinner firs used he erm. When we firs learn his ype o behavior, we are liseners and someone else is he speaker. Someone else supplies he rule, and he lisener learns o ac on i. Bu he same behavior can occur afer we become boh speaker (silenly) and lisener, wihin ourselves. We learn o ormulae rules, which we hen ollow. Human behavior is ofen influenced by sel-generaed rules. Behavior analysis has aced significan problems in explaining he effecs o verbal behavior on he lisener’s behavior, and no only in regard o effecs
46
inking and Human Language
ha are delayed in ime. A verbal saemen can have shor-erm consequences ha are hard o explain based on he classic principles. e saemen “Hide behind he saue; he wo guys in brown jackes are ou o ge you” can have a rapid effec on he lisener’s behavior. is is rue even i he lisener has never had any unpleasan experiences conneced wih people in brown jackes, and even i she has never been assauled or hidden behind a saue when hreaened. Similar effecs can ollow upon sel-generaed rules: rules ha can only be apprehended by he person ollowing hem. ere have been proposals or an explanaion o hese effecs hrough responden-like associaive learning o some kind (Parrot, 1984). However, hese explanaions seem ar-eched when i comes o more complex linguisic behavior, and hey haven’ led o any research-relaed progress conneced o behavior analysis’s second objecive: influencing behavior (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001).
A EDUNDAN QUESION? My main ques in wriing his book is o describe heoreical conclusions based on new experimenal findings concerning human language and cogniion. I also wan o show how we can use hose conclusions o solve behavior analysis’s dilemma concerning verbal and rule-governed behavior. And all o his is done wih he purpose o increasing our undersanding o complex human behavior and our abiliy o influence i. is knowledge can hen be applied o he ypes o problems ha make people seek psychological help, and hereore can help provide clinical ools in working or change. Bu beore exploring his imporan issue, le me bring your atenion o he quesion o wheher working o undersand and influence he uncion hinking has or humans is, in ac, clinically relevan. In chaper 3, I’ll examine wheher his has any significance in working or change.
47
CHAPTER 3 Is he Power o inking a Clinically elevan Issue?
I may seem ar-eched o quesion wheher he role o houghs is crucial in working or psychological change. Is i no absoluely obvious ha people’s ways o hinking are decisive or how hey ac, and ha i we wan o influence his, houghs and hinking need o be in ocus? We assume ha his is so in mos o our daily discussions and atemps o influence one anoher. You migh even say ha his is also he basis or my wriing wha I am jus now wriing. Is i no my inenion o influence he way you, as a reader, hink? Sill, here are a leas wo reasons why I wan o bring some atenion o his issue. e firs is behavior analysis’s own hisory, including quesions concerning he power o hinking. e second is an ongoing debae wihin empirical psychoherapy research regarding wheher sraegies specifically or changing ways o hinking are an essenial elemen in herapy. I will begin wih behavior analysis and is quesions regarding he power o hinking.
PIVAE EVENS AND HEI INERCION WIH OHE BEHAVIO Par o he behavioris radiion compleely rejecs he possibiliy o scienifically sudying wha Skinner reerred o as privae evens. Wason, he aher o behaviorism, advocaed his posiion (Morris & odd, 1998). o him he essenial issue was ha o objeciviy. Anyhing scienific had o be observable
Learning F
o several independen observers. As he previous chapers have made clear, Skinner rejeced his posiion, mainaining ha jus because an observaion is joinly agreed upon does no necessarily make i scienific and, urher, ha a scienifically valid observaion can be made by a single individual. According o Skinner, he scienific validiy o a saemen is deermined by whaever conrols he saemen. I a person says, “I have a pain in my lef leg,” and he saemen is conrolled by simuli ha he person conacs in his lef leg, hen he saemen is scienifically valid. I is wha Skinner called a pure ac. Wha is being aced in his case is no differen in kind rom phenomena ha migh be observable o more han one person, such as someone moving his lef leg. More specifically, i is no he case ha he ormer is “menal” in naure and hus differen in kind rom he “physical” naure o he later. Wha is being aced is a phenomenon inside he person’s own body, such as pain, or he person’s own behavior (Skinner, 1953). I someone says, “I hough he pain would soon go away,” he individual is also acing his own behavior�in his case, silen verbal behavior. Behavior analysis has hus always held ha we can undersand privae evens in he same way we undersand oher ypes o behavior. e quesion o how his undersanding impacs our work o influence behavior has no, however, been quie as clearly answered. Behavior analysis’s ocus on exernal variables o explain behavior has ofen led o viewing phenomena such as houghs and eelings as a kind o by-produc, wihou any decisive significance or working oward changing behavior. ere is an inrinsic ension wihin behavior analysis beween is affirmaion o he validiy o privae evens, on one hand, and he endency o disregard hem in pracice, on he oher. is ension is eviden in a number o Skinner’s exs (Schnaiter, 1978). One example is his asserion ha he analysis o privae evens ofen does no significanly impac our effors o influence human behavior (Skinner, 1953). Bu how are we hen o undersand his inenion when wriing abou he imporance o being aware o onesel and one’s behavior in order o influence i (Skinner, 1974)? In he same way, Skinner’s analysis o rule-governed behavior indicaes ha privae evens play a crucial role in conrolling he res o our behavior. Even hough rule ollowing does no originae in he privae sphere, privae evens do seem o play a role in how his behavior evolves. is is paricularly eviden in behavior influenced by sel-generaed rules; ha is, siuaions in which he speaker and he lisener are one and he same. Anoher sign o he divide in behavior analysis in his regard involves he issue o how privae evens can uncion as governing consequences. In analyses o clinical problems, i is raher common o assign governing uncions o emoional condiions like anxiey and dysphoria; hey may, or example, be seen as he basis or avoidance. And ye hese condiions are, a 50
Is he Power o inking a Clinically elevan Issue?
leas largely, privae evens. Leading researchers and heoriss have poined ou his inconsisency (Dougher & Hackber, 2000; Kaner, Busch, Weeks, & Landes, 2008). Clearly, behavior analysis has long conained his unsolved dilemma concerning privae evens and heir influence on human behavior as a whole. An imporan aspec here is he possible power o hinking, and i i is real, how ha power uncions. In many respecs, his is essenially he same dilemma as he one I described in he previous chaper; ha is, he quesion o how we are o undersand and influence rule-governed behavior.
HE DOMINAING POSIION OF COGNIIVE HERPY MODELS In clinical psychology and psychoherapy ouside he behavior analyic radiion, he power o hinking is cener sage, and his has been he case a leas since he 1970s. e rise o cogniive herapy and is riumphal progress hroughou he world o psychoherapy have brough orh an oulook requenly summed up in a well-known quoe rom he Greek philosopher Epiceus, and cied also by Aaron Beck, he mos prominen figure in cogniive herapy: “Men are no moved by hings bu by he views which hey ake o hem” (Beck, 1976, p. 47). is oulook largely corresponds wih how mos o us view he circumsances o our everyday lives, assuming ha he way we hink abou hings influences our oher behavior a grea deal. Cogniive herapy is a herapy package wih several differen componens and a variey o orms. A he cener o he model, however, we find he human being as an inormaion-processing eniy. Wha is crucial is he power o hinking. e undamenal sraegy in herapy is hereore o help he clien reconsider he very way he regards wha happens o him. e ask o he herapis is, hrough reasoning and differen ypes o experimens, o help he clien reach a more adequae noion o himsel and his siuaion and hereby enable him o ac in a more adequae way. Cogniive disorions and misinerpreaions o processes and evens are seen as a very imporan par o people’s psychological problems, and hereore a more realisic way o hinking is seen as he soluion. Work in herapy is dominaed by atemps o correc disored inerpreaions o realiy. is approach is clearly described in Beck’s early exs on cogniive herapy (1963, 1964, 1967), and i remains essenially inac in more recen exs, boh by Beck himsel (1991) and by oher prominen cogniive herapiss (e.g., Freeman, Prezer, Flemming, & Simon, 2004; Leahy & Dowd, 2002; Salkovskis, 1996).
51
Learning F
Cogniive herapy models have demonsraed avorable reamen efficiency or he mos common clinical diagnoses (depression and anxiey) as well as or a number o oher condiions (Beck, 2005; Dobson, 1989). is seems o suppor he idea ha he quesion o wheher i is imporan in psychological herapy o change houghs and ways o hinking is unnecessary. We all have he impression ha our way o hinking plays a crucial role in how we ac, and mos o he well-subsaniaed orms o psychological herapy basically agree on his undamenal oulook. Sill, clinical psychology as a whole conains a ension and a dilemma ha acually corresponds o ha o behavior analysis. While behavior analysis has a hisory o skepicism wih regard o he power o hinking, he dominaing cogniive herapy models have a hisory o confidence. e basis o his confidence has neverheless been called ino quesion hese las ew years.
COGNIIVE HERPY MODELS ALSO SUGGLE WIH HE POWE OF HINKING e ac ha a cerain herapeuic model shows posiive effecs does no necessarily mean he heory underlying he model offers he correc explanaion o hese effecs. Le’s say I recommend a specific vegearian die based on he convicion ha mea-eaing is wha brings abou an increase in weigh. Le’s also say his die leads o a reducion in weigh. is does no necessarily mean ha my explanaion is correc. e die’s effec could be explained by acors oher han is being vegearian. Comparing his example wih modern psychological herapies and heories abou how hey achieve heir effecs is, o course, a simplificaion, ye here are similariies. How do we know ha he core assumpion o he cogniive herapy model, abou he undamenal power o hinking, is correc? We know ha a number o cogniive herapy approaches, as whole packages, demonsrae avorable effecs. Bu why is his so, and o wha exen is i due o he core assumpion? Cogniive herapy is a composie herapy consising o many differen componens. In addiion o echniques mean o influence people’s ways o hinking, i includes, or example, behavioral acivaion and encouragemen o approach previously avoided siuaions (radiionally called “exposure” in behavior herapy). Maybe hese eaures have a leas as much o do wih he efficacy o he herapeuic packages as he assumpions concerning he power o hough.
52
Is he Power o inking a Clinically elevan Issue?
In recen years, several differen sudies have atemped o answer hese ypes o quesions by disinguishing he differen componens in cogniive herapy and comparing heir effecs separaely. e researchers who have el compelled o quesion he heoreical side o he cogniive model have ried o separae he echniques in herapy ha are aimed a influencing a person’s way o hinking (cogniive echniques) rom he behavior herapy echniques ha are a par o he cogniive package, such as behavioral acivaion and exposure. A well-known sudy compared depression herapies in his way (Jacobson e al., 1996). A group o depressed paiens (150 alogeher) was divided ino hree groups. All o he paiens were given herapies ha consised o weny sessions. One group was given only he behavioral acivaion componen o cogniive herapy; all herapy sraegies aimed a influencing heir ways o hinking were excluded. e second group was augh ways o finding alernaives or negaive auomaic houghs, in addiion o receiving he behavioral acivaion componen. e hird group was given complee cogniive herapy, including work aimed a correcing underlying belies. e resuls showed he same level o reamen efficiency in all hree groups. e sudy included independen observers o ensure ha he differen herapies were delivered in accordance wih he crieria or each group. Follow-ups were carried ou afer one and wo years and sill showed no differences beween he groups (Gorner, Gollan, Dobson, & Jacobson, 1998). A subsequen sudy has since reurned similar resuls (Dimidjian e al., 2006). In his laer sudy, he behavior-based herapy model was modified o make i more consisen wih esablished behavior analyic principles peraining o depression (as oulined in Ferser, 1973). For he more serious depressive condiions, his sudy acually showed a more posiive effec rom he behavior-based inervenion model han he cogniive model. For less severe depressive condiions, he effecs were equivalen. Anxiey problems have also been he ocus o sudies in which herapeuic packages including versus excluding specific cogniive echniques were compared. e resuls have been mixed (Marks & Dar, 2000; Ös, ulin, & amnerö, 2004). Mos sudies have no poined o any significan differences. However, some sudies o social phobias have shown more avorable resuls ollowing herapy based on a consisen cogniive model compared wih herapy ha didn’ include he cogniive elemen (Clark e al., 2006). e alernaive herapy model in his sudy was classical exposure. I is a very delicae and difficul ask o ry o discuss he resuls o indi vidual herapy sudies, how he sudies were carried ou, wha migh explain he differences, and so on. esearchers ofen have differing opinions abou how o inerpre he deails and wha conclusions o draw. Individual sudies
53
Learning F
o his kind canno be held o be conclusive one way or he oher. A recenly published review did, however, reach he conclusion ha “here is litle empirical suppor or he role o cogniive change as causal in he sympomaic improvemens achieved in CB” (Longmore & Worrel, 2007). Even leading researchers who hemselves clearly adhere o he cogniive model say ha he research siuaion oday is such ha we canno make any decisive conclusions abou wha exacly mediaes he changes in cogniive herapy (Homann & Asmundson, 2008). And his is said abou a herapy model ha has dominaed he scene or more han hiry years! During his same period, resuls wihin he empirically suppored herapies more generally haven’ seemed o improve as cogniive models have come o predominae (Ös, 2008). is means ha even ouside o behavior analysis, he quesion concerning he power o hinking is in many ways unanswered. ere is sill no clear scienific suppor or he noion ha a specific ocus on houghs and he power o hinking is essenial o clinical herapy work. Such a ocus is definiely a par o exising, uncioning herapies. Bu we do no know wha he significance o such a herapeuic sraegy is, and even i an emphasis on houghs and hinking was proven o be essenial, we sill wouldn’ know how his ocus should bes be implemened in pracice.
HE NEED O PUSUE HE ISSUE OF HE POWE OF HINKING Clearly, behavior analysis and cogniive herapy models have an issue in common o sruggle wih. How are we o undersand verbal behavior or cogniive processes, and how could a poenial undersanding in his area be used in herapy? e wo radiions approach his quesion rom very differen saring poins. Behavior analysis has a hisory o having in large par negleced he quesion, a leas in pracice. e differen cogniive models have a hisory o confidence ha now seems premaure. I believe ha here are wo main consideraions ha call or a renewed atemp o answer his quesion. Firs, here is a grea deal o knowledge, besides clinical herapy sudies, o back up he power o hinking and he essenial uncion i has or humans. I is very difficul o seriously argue ha people’s abiliy o imagine hings, make plans, solve problems “in heir minds,” and so on is somehing irrelevan. I i were irrelevan, why would we spend so much ime and effor engaged in hese ypes o aciviies? In addiion, i we view hem as irrelevan, hen how can we explain he phenomenon o rule-governed behavior, discussed in chaper 2? How do people go abou relaing o hings and evens ha are no presen?
54
Is he Power o inking a Clinically elevan Issue?
Is i possible ha hese phenomena could be imporan o people in oher areas in heir lives, bu ha hey migh be irrelevan o psychological problems and wha we call psychopahology? a seems unlikely, and difficul o deend, as well. Our knowledge o differen kinds o psychological problems indicaes ha wha we commonly call houghs and hinking ofen do have an impac. We know, or example, ha people who are depressed have a ypical way o recalling memories (Williams, 1992). We also know ha verbal behavior ends o affec mood, and a depressed mood is, by definiion, a par o depressive condiions (Dougher & Hackber, 2000). We find characerisic paterns o hinking, and wha wihin cogniive science is called cogniive bias, in connecion wih oher psychological problems, as well (Wray, Freund, & Dougher, 2009). Is i reasonable o argue ha all o hese observaions are irrelevan and ha hinking is neverheless sill only some orm o secondary phenomenon ha lacks significance or he ype o influence ha psychological herapy seeks o achieve? Is i no more reasonable o assume ha we do no ye know enough abou he way hese phenomena operae or us o achieve his influence? Perhaps our knowledge is simply oo limied and in need o greaer deph. e second argumen or inensiying our research effors in his area can be ound in precisely hose sudies ha quesion his ocus on cogniive phenomena in herapy. e reason is ha even i we exclude specific cogniive echniques rom he herapy proocol, his does no mean we are excluding verbal behavior as a whole. is is, o course, obvious. Any psychological herapy where a herapis mees wih he clien o work wih he clien’s dificulies is accomplished hrough conversaion, by alking. And even when somehing like a concree phobia, say a spider phobia, is reaed using exposure, a large par o he herapy consiss o alking abou he differen seps o he reamen, when hey will ake place, and wha will happen when hey do. All ypes o psychoherapy, regardless o he underlying model, are largely alk herapy. Le’s ake a closer look a one o he models ha, in more recen years, could be seen as a good example o a herapy ha excludes cogniive componens; namely, behavioral acivaion, which is used in reaing depression (Marell, Addis, & Jacobson, 2001). In behavioral acivaion, he herapis rerains rom deepening conversaion ha deals wih he conen o houghs and does no ener ino dialogue o quesion he clien’s way o hinking. ere is a complee absence o atemps o map ou underlying belies in order o replace hem wih oher belies. Insead, he herapis pus a lo o effor ino explaining o he clien boh how o undersand depression as a condiion and how he herapy is expeced o work. is herapy employs a specific quesioning echnique ha is aimed a helping he clien observe and describe 55
Learning F
his own behavior. In he erminology used earlier, he clien learns o ac his own behavior. Homework assignmens are planned, and he herapis encourages he clien o describe his experiences aferward. In shor, he herapy is, o course, ull o verbal behavior, boh in he orm o acions by he herapis and in he orm o skills ha are encouraged in he clien. Indeed, no advocae o his herapeuic model would mainain anyhing else.
A SREGIC SEP BACK aken ogeher, he issues discussed in his chaper mean ha we have cause o deepen and develop our analysis o verbal behavior in hopes o being able o develop beter herapy models. Could i be ha a beter undersanding o how we humans influence each oher and ourselves hrough verbal behavior, wheher silen or spoken aloud, is exacly wha is needed? is book is writen rom he sance ha he answer is yes, and ou o a convicion ha, in recen years, basic research in behavior analysis has provided new findings ha can conribue o his end. o reach his undersanding, i is necessary o ake a sraegic sep back rom research ha ocuses on herapy models and comparisons beween hem and insead conduc basic experimenal research ha atemps o clariy how verbal behavior is bes described and how is role in conrolling human behavior is bes undersood. is research may help answer such quesions as “Wha is a cogniion?” and “How do we manage o say somehing o someone (or o ourselves) in a way ha influences heir (or our own) behavior?” and “How are hese phenomena conneced o psychological problems?” In par 2 o his book, I’ll ake his sep back o basic research and is conclusions in order o find he answers a modern behavior analysis o human language and cogniion can give o hese quesions. e descripions are brough ogeher under he concep o relaional rame heory, and describing F is he main ques o his book. Simply pu, I mainain ha o undersand, predic, and influence human behavior, we need a heory o human language based on experimenal research. F is such a heory.
56
PART 2 elaional Learning
CHAPTER 4 Derived elaional esponding as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
I he human behavior underlying language and cogniion is differen rom oher human behavior in any significan way, in wha way migh i be dieren? I has always been imporan wihin behavior analysis o define he conceps ha are used, such as operan and responden learning, in an exac manner. Anyone who mainains ha verbal behavior deviaes rom oher behavior mus be able o describe exacly how i does so. In my atemp o ouline an analysis o verbal behavior using relaional rame heory , I will begin an exploraion o hree quesions:
Wha kind o behavior do we reer o when we speak o “verbal behavior”? How does his behavior inerac wih human behavior as a whole? Wha are he acors ha govern verbal behavior?
In order o answer he firs quesion, we mus describe verbal behavior somehow. Bu where should we begin? e behavior we loosely reer o as verbal appears o be common, and behavior analyss have atemped o pinpoin
Learning F
is core phenomena by mapping ou linguisic ineracions; however, earlier effors didn’ resul in any decisive progress (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001, pp. 10-11). e field o research ha opened a gaeway o somehing new was work carried ou by Murray Sidman and colleagues o help children wih specific difficulies in learning language (Sidman, 1971; Sidman & Cresson, 1973). Sidman described how children wih learning dificulies, while pracicing heir reading skills, could learn o relae simuli o each oher in a way ha was hard o undersand based on known principles o operan and responden condiioning. e sudy paricipans relaed cerain simuli even hough he experimens did no esablish coningencies beween he simuli in ways hough o have been necessary or hose ypes o relaions o occur, according o conemporary hinking on he principles o operan and responden learning.
DEIVED SIMULUS ELAIONS Human language shows a very high degree o complexiy. Criics o behavior analysis have mainained ha his complexiy canno be explained by operan and responden learning and have challenged behavior analyic researchers o show how behavior o such complexiy can be learned; or example, how new linguisic saemens can be produced wihou having been specifically reinorced in he individual’s hisory (Chomsky, 1959, 2006). I has long been known ha relaions beween simuli can be esablished in ways ha are hard o undersand based on he undamenal principles o learning heory, bu he phenomenon was no clearly described unil Sidman’s experimens a he beginning o he 1970s (Sidman & ailby, 1982). Le’s ake a closer look a his phenomenon, known as derived simulus relaions , ha is, relaions beween simuli ha appear wihou having been learned or rained specifically. Since Sidman’s firs experimens, similar experimens have been perormed many imes and have confirmed and urher developed his original findings. Here is a descripion o he procedure or a ypical experimen o his ype. A group o sudy paricipans are augh o choose a cerain arbirary simulus, which we can call D, when hey are presened wih anoher arbirary simulus, which we can call E. All o he simuli used in he experimens are meaningless o he paricipans a he ouse. ey usually consis o figures wih no meaning or leters in a nonsense combinaion.
60
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
Examples of typical stimuli used in experiments demonstrating derived stimulus relations
URD
OXQ
TGG
GCF
EWT
RKO
AFD
HFU
e paricipan is shown E and given he opion o choosing eiher D or anoher simulus, which we can call F. I D is chosen, his is reinorced. is is repeaed wih differen opions involved, bu choosing D when E is presened is consisenly reinorced. us ar, E → D has been specifically rained via operan learning. E now uncions as a discriminaive simulus or choosing D. I E is shown wih D as a possible opion, he probabiliy is high ha he paricipan will choose D. is procedure is called maching o sample. In his case, E is he sample and he ask is o mach anoher o several possible simuli (D or F). Le’s move on o he phenomenon we wan o ake a closer look a, wherein new relaions arise wihou being specifically rained: e condiions are now changed by presening D, afer which paricipans can choose beween several differen meaningless simuli, one o which is E. In his case, paricipans are likely o choose E, even hough D hasn’ previously been presened as sample and here is no learning hisory where choosing E has been reinorced. e later is ensured by using only meaningless simuli in he experimen; hey are made up purely or he experimen and here is hus no prior relaion among hem. Afer raining E → D, anoher relaion has been esablished beween he
61
Learning F
simuli wihou specific raining: D → E. is is known as a derived simulus relaion , as i is no rained direcly bu is derived by he sudy paricipans in a siuaion o his ype. We rain one relaion (E → D) beween simuli, and anoher one (D → E) is enailed.
A typical experiment
rained wih eedback UD
UD
UD
GG KO AFD HFU AFD OXQ
IGJ
AFD
LYF
esed wihou eedback AFD UD
OXQ
AFD IGJ
KO
HFU
UD
Mos people may eel ha his is sel-eviden. Bu he ac ha i appears sel-eviden is probably due o he ac ha his is somehing we are consanly doing. is behavior is universal among humans, which makes i seem naural o us. Bu i we are o explain verbal behavior, one o he difficulies lies precisely in ha wha we wan o explain is somehing naural or obvious o us. And ye, how obvious is his rom a larger perspecive? From repeaed sudies involving differen animal species, we know ha his abiliy has no been convincingly shown in any oher species1 (S. C. Hayes, 1989), no even
1 e ac ha here has been no demonsraion o oher animal species showing derived simulus relaions does no mean we should view his skill as somehing exclusively human. Fuure sudies, perhaps o higher qualiy, could change our undersanding in his respec. I seems clear, however, ha i oher species do have some degree o his abiliy, i is o a much lesser exen han humans do. 62
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
chimpanzees ha have had many years o “language” raining wih humans (Dugdale & Lowe, 2000). Humans, in conras, show his behavior rom a leas wo years o age (Devany, Hayes, & Nelson, 1986). a a rained relaion (E → D) enails an addiional relaion (D → E) is jus one aspec o derived simulus relaions. I is possible or wo or more rained relaions o lead o he emergence o one or more oher relaions based on a combinaion o he rained relaions. Le’s say ha we perorm raining o anoher relaion: I D is presen, choose Z, and do no choose any oher available simuli. is, hrough direc raining, provides us wih he relaion D → Z. I his is rained, an addiional relaion will be derived: Z → D. is akes place in he same way ha he relaion beween D and E occurred. We have rained wo relaions, and wo more have been derived: E → D and D → Z have been rained, and D → E and Z → D have been derived. Bu since D is a par o boh relaions, hese wo can be combined. Now, i Z is presened as an iniial simulus and E is a possible opion, he likelihood is high ha sudy paricipans will choose E, provided ha no oher simuli ha are rained direcly or ha are in a derived relaion o Z are among he possible opions. e same goes or E as an iniial simulus wih Z as one o he possible opions. And his is despie he ac ha E and Z are no in any direcly rained muual relaion. e relaions ha have been rained display combinaorial muual enailmen . 2 Alhough paricipans were rained in only wo relaions, hey derived our oher relaions.
2 e erms “muual enailmen” and “combinaorial muual enailmen” or he phenomena described are used here as in he heory described in his book: relaional rame heory (F). However, oher erms or hese phenomena can be ound in he lieraure. Sidman uses he erm “symmery” or he ormer and “ransiiviy” or he later. e erm “simulus equivalence” is ofen used or he phenomenon as a whole. egarding combinaorial muual enailmen, his erm is ofen shorened o “combinaorial enailmen”; however, I will consisenly use he ull erm hroughou, as i more clearly shows ha we are reerring o muual enailmen ha is combined. 63
Learning F
Mutual entailment and combinatorial mutual entailment
E
D
Z
Direcly rained Muual enailmen Combinaorial muual enailmen
e experimens I have described may seem raher absrac. Bu hey show us ha humans can do somehing ha oher animals eiher canno do a all or possibly can do, bu only o a much lesser exen. ese experimens also demonsrae a ype o learning ha does no seem o ollow he principles we know as operan and responden learning. In hese experimens, he raining is aimed a making E uncion as a discriminaive simulus or choosing D. However, D also acquires a discriminaive uncion or choosing E. How does his happen? In addiion, E and Z each acquire discriminaive uncions or choosing he oher wihou he wo being in any direcly rained relaion wih each oher. In his case, hey acquire heir uncions via combinaion o he uncions rained o occur beween E and D (i E is given, choose D) and beween D and Z (i D is given, choose Z). I we were o carry ou such experimens wih animals oher han human beings, he animal (say, a dog or a monkey) will ac in accordance wih he rained relaions afer receiving he same ype o raining. ere is a high probabiliy ha he dog will choose D i E is presened, and Z i D is presened. Bu as ar as he remaining opions are concerned, i will simply choose randomly. ere do no seem o be any derived simulus relaions presen o he animal. e same hing is rue or mos children up o almos wo years o age.
64
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
All o his is srikingly similar o wha we know rom daily lie. Le’s say ha we are raining a clever parro and a likewise clever hree- or our-yearold girl, Sue, o say “prety Carla” jus afer Carla seps ino he room. We do his by rewarding hem when hey repea afer us. e parro is given a couple o peanus when i produces a sequence o sounds ha gradually approximaes “prety Carla.” Sue receives encouragemen, probably by us saying, “a’s righ, ‘prety Carla.’ a’s good, Sue. Keep i up!” is ype o inerpersonal conac (ofen called uning or mirroring) has a reinorcing effec on Sue’s behavior bu litle o no effec on he parro’s. In his way, we rain boh o hem o say he desired words afer Carla has sepped ino he room. I his is a paricular ype o parro, i may sound raher like wha Sue sounds like. We say ha he parro has learned o speak. Sill, i is easy o show ha Sue has learned some hings ha he parro has no. I, a his poin, we were o say “prety Carla” when Carla canno be seen, nohing we know abou parros or heir way o behaving indicaes ha his has any meaning o he parro. Sue, on he oher hand, is likely o urn around, look oward he door, and so on. Neiher he parro nor Sue has been rained in accordance wih “I you hear ‘prety Carla,’ look or or expec Carla.” e relaion ha was rained was seeing Carla → produce he sound “prety Carla.” However, i is likely ha Sue will also ac on he derived relaion: he sound “prety Carla” → Carla. is relaion does no seem o exis or he parro. I could give many examples illusraing he abiliy o young humans o derive relaions ha don’ seem o exis or oher animals. We can each a dog o reac o he word “cookie” by repeaedly saying “cookie” jus beore we give he dog a real cookie. Afer he dog has had his repeaed experience o he word “cookie” → real cookie, we can expec o find ha when we say “cookie,” he dog will in various ways behave as hough a real cookie was on is way. I insead we rain he dog by firs giving i he cookie, and hen utering he word “cookie” afer i has eaen i, he dog will never learn o reac o he word, no mater how many imes we repea his procedure. e dog’s learning process ollows a cerain order. From he relaion real cookie → word “cookie” (which he dog experienced in he later example), he dog will no derive he relaion word “cookie” → real cookie. I we were o do he same hing wih a our-year-old child, he child’s abiliy o reac o a derived relaion will be eviden. e child will reac o he word “cookie,” even hough he relaion word “cookie” → real cookie has never been rained in a direc way. e word “cookie” has acquired is uncion by way o muual enailmen. On he surace, i looks like we can each parros and dogs pars o human language. Wha small children learn a an early age, however, is an addiional orm o responding. ey are learning he undamenal skills in human languaging. 65
Learning F
Derived Simulus Relaions as a Fundamenal Process in Human Language esearchers have long supposed ha his paricular way o relaing is essenial o human language. o illusrae he high probabiliy o his supposiion being correc, imagine he ollowing learning siuaion, illusraed wih a ficiious experimen. (Alhough i is ficiious, similar experimens have been carried ou a number o imes.) A seven years old, Kyle has learned o read, bu he has never been in conac wih any language oher han English. Now Kyle ges o ake par in an experimen along he lines described above, bu using real words. We show he word “chair,” and Kyle ges o choose beween several five-leter nonsense words, one o which is “silla” (Spanish or “chair”). e word “silla” is, o course, no a nonsense word o someone who knows Spanish, bu because Kyle has never been in conac wih any language oher han English, i is jus as void o meaning as any o he oher opional “words” he is presened wih (maybe “chorp,” “vari,” and so on). So Kyle makes guesses. I he chooses “vari,” he response is “Wrong.” I he chooses “silla,” which he firs only does a random, his is reinorced (“igh. a’s good, Kyle!”). I his is repeaed unil he chooses “silla” insead o oher words when “chair” is presened, hen Kyle learns ha “chair” → “silla.” As anyone who has ineraced wih children who are increasing heir vocabulary knows, Kyle will also derive he relaion “silla” → “chair” wihou having o be specifically rained o do his. And i he is rained in he same way o choose “sol” (Swedish or “chair”) when “silla” is shown, rom his rained relaion “silla” → “sol,” he will derive “sol” → “silla,” as well. Bu he will also be likely o choose “chair” when “sol” is shown, and “sol” when “chair” is shown. In oher words, he is acing in accordance wih derived relaions, and his behavior demonsraes boh muual enailmen and combinaorial muual enailmen.
Mutual entailment and combinatorial mutual entailment in Kyle’s language training
c air
66
si a
sto
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
Direcly rained Muual enailmen Combinaorial muual enailmen
Does his no seem very much like wha we can easily observe in he ordinary language raining ha consanly goes on in he dialogue beween children and heir parens or oher caregivers? elaions beween words� boh spoken and writen�and differen ypes o objecs, picures, and evens are naurally rained in his very way in our social environmens, and i seems obvious ha all o hese differen relaions are no specifically and separaely rained. e ac ha he phenomenon o derived simulus relaions, which can be demonsraed in moniored experimens, has such a srong similariy o wha we observe in human languaging skills has led researchers o he assumpion ha his is a undamenal process o human language. Oher findings ha convincingly poin in his direcion are rom sudies o individuals wih varying degrees o language difficuly. ese sudies have shown a correlaion beween proficiency in language and he abiliy o demonsrae derived relaional responding in laboraory experimens. Individuals wih very low language scores end o ail ess o derived relaional responding (Devany e al., 1986). e link beween language and derived relaions has also been suppored by a number o sudies using neurophysiological mehods o measuremen. In hese experimens, when people derive relaions in he way described above, he same ype o brain aciviy is observed as can be recorded during obvious language-relaed aciviies (D. Barnes-Holmes, Saunon, e al., 2004; Dickins e al., 2001; Horne & Lowe, 1996).
Derived Relaional Responding as Learned Behavior Exhibiing derived simulus relaions is a orm o behavior, a ype o responding. Bu wha kind o behavior is i, and how does i occur? One possible answer is ha his ype o behavior is here rom he sar. In ha case, i is no somehing we learn o do. Being able o learn associaions (responden condiioning) or being governed by consequences o one’s acions (operan condiioning) are no hings a person learns. e way in which specific operans and respondens develop and conribue o a person’s acions depends
67
Learning F
on ha person’s learning hisory, bu he capaciy o learn in hese ways is presen a he very ouse. I is a resul o evoluion. However, he evidence suggess ha derived relaional responding is no a prewired capaciy, like responden or operan condiioning, bu ha i is learned, and urher, ha even i responden learning is also in play (eheld & Hayes, 1998), derived relaional responding is somehing we mainly learn hrough operan condiioning. Wha is here o sugges his? 1.
Operan behavior evolves gradually, over ime. Sudies ha elucidae he developmen o derived simulus responding in young children demonsrae such gradual learning (Lipkens, Hayes, & Hayes, 1993; Luciano, Gómez, & odríguez, 2007).
2.
Operan behavior is flexible and can be influenced. is also characerizes derived relaional responding, boh in learning he reperoire in isel (Lipkens e al., 1993) and in learning new, individual responses (Healy, Barnes-Holmes, & Smees, 2000).
3.
Operan behavior is influenced by condiions ha precede he behavior�wha we call anecedens. is applies o derived relaional responding as well (Dymond & Barnes, 1995; oche, BarnesHolmes, Smees, Barnes-Holmes, & McGeady, 2000; Dougher, Hamilon, Fink, & Harringon, 2007).
4.
Operan behavior is influenced by is own consequences; in ac, his is he defining eaure o his orm o behavior. Our knowledge abou derived relaional responses conorms wih his (Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smees, Srand, & Friman, 2004; Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Smees, 2004; Heagle & eheld, 2006; Berens & Hayes, 2007).
is means we can ormulae an answer o he firs quesion I posed a he beginning o his chaper: Wihin F, wha kind o behavior do we reer o when we speak o “verbal behavior”? Verbal behavior is he behavior o relaing simuli or evens in a paricular way. As cerain relaions are direcly rained according o he principles o operan and responden learning, he verbally compeen human being derives addiional relaions�relaions ha need no be rained direcly. e abiliy o relae simuli in his way is in isel a learned abiliy, learned hrough operan condiioning. I his is correc�ha is, i he undamenal process in human language can be undersood as operan behavior�hen ineresing and imporan possibiliies arise. Operan behavior can be influenced. An undersanding o his process would mean here are prospecs or influencing human behavior in 68
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
all siuaions where “languaging” is a conribuing acor. I so, his applies o a very broad field. For example, we could help children wih difficulies conneced wih learning language, we could improve pedagogies in general, and we could help people when heir way o hinking creaes problems. In order o approach his quesion�how influencing o derived relaional responding can occur (or example, in psychological herapy)�we firs have o improve our undersanding o how hese responses, and hereby human language, inerac wih and influence oher human behavior. We also need o undersand wha conrols, or governs, his kind o relaing. So ar, I have simply described a phenomenon ha could be ineresing. Bu wherein lies is power o affec our acions? is is he second quesion I menioned a he beginning o his chaper. o answer i, we firs need o ake a closer look a he concep o simulus uncion.
SIMULUS FUNCIONS AND HEI ALERION HOUGH ESPONDEN AND OPERN LEANING A cerain simulus or even has a uncion or a cerain organism’s behavior when he behavior occurs in relaion o, or under he influence o, his simulus. When I see a car, his car has a uncion or my vision; i influences he ac ha I see wha I see. en, i I sar walking oward he car o ge closer o i, he car has an addiional uncion or my behavior: i influences me o approach i. Bu he car obviously does no have his uncion regardless o oher acors. e same car can acually have a uncion o avoidance or my behavior i conneced wih a differen se o acors. For example, i i is moving oward me a a cerain speed, i can make me sep aside when I see i. ese are known as simulus uncions. Wha kind o uncion a cerain even has in relaion o my behavior can be undersood only hrough analysis o a specific siuaion. Here is a simple example: e ligh is urned on when I am in a dark room. is can have differen simulus uncions or me, and only a closer accoun o he siuaion in quesion, and my responses o i, can help clariy wha hese simulus uncions are. e ligh can uncion as an uncondiioned simulus ha riggers my eyes o blink. I can also have a punishing uncion in relaion o he behavior I was engaged in, so ha I cease my aciviy when he ligh is urned on. I can uncion as an esablishing operaion, under which somehing else I can hen perceive becomes a discriminaive simulus or drawing closer, like i I were o approach a cupboard ha I didn’ see when he ligh was off. 69
Learning F
My poin here is o emphasize ha he uncion o a simulus is no an inherenly given qualiy o he simulus. Is uncion can be deermined only hrough an analysis o he wider siuaion (he conex) and he individual’s response. e same simulus can have differen simulus uncions. I can affec he behavior o an organism in differen ways. e effec depends firs on which organism is involved, as his specific organism’s learning hisory is included, and second on he conex in which he simulus occurs. When I see a red car in ron o me, wha I see is o course o a high degree governed by his car’s characerisics. A he same ime, we all know ha seeing he words “a red car” can make a leas some readers visualize a red car, alhough no such car is presen. e probabiliy o his “seeing in he absence o he hing seen” may be increased i anoher word is added: “Imagine a red car.” is phrase has a simulus uncion ha in some ways is similar o he simulus uncion o he acual presence o a red car. e words hardly have his uncion inherenly; hey have acquired such a uncion hrough he individual’s learning hisory. In his example, our differen hisories are ypically similar enough ha mos o us are able o visualize a red car in response o he phrase “Imagine a red car.” e consequences o our learning hisories are presen in he momen, and in he conex described he words have his simulus uncion or mos o us. Some simulus uncions are more direcly dependen on he naure o he objecs involved. is applies o wha we call percepual phenomena, such as when we see or hear hings. I also applies o he phenomena ha wihin behavior analysis are known as primary reinorcers. ese are simuli ha already uncion as reinorcing a he ouse o an organism’s lie. Examples o primary reinorcers are waer when we are hirsy, and ood when we are hungry. Bu even hese phenomena do no always have he same simulus uncion. Conexual acors can aler heir uncion. Somehing ha in mos circumsances uncions as a primary reinorcer�like ood when we are hungry�can, in cerain conexs, have a punishing simulus uncion. A dieer who has jus eaen somehing she regres migh avoid aking anoher look a a plae where here is more o he same emping ood, despie he ac ha she is sill hungry. And in a given siuaion or a cerain individual, percepual simulus uncions can be compleely differen rom wha we would generally expec; or example, in a cerain conex, a huner may see a moose in ron o him, while wha is acually here is a mushroom picker. In chaper 1, I described he undamenal principles or learning� operan and responden condiioning�and i is precisely hese principles ha describe how simulus uncions are alered. ake he example o being assauled in a own square, and how subsequenly he square isel can rigger ear. is is an example o how a simulus, in his case he own square, acquired a new uncion by way o responden condiioning. is occurs 70
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
because he simulus (he square, or a cerain par o i) was associaed wih an even ha provoked an uncondiioned ear response. In his case, he assaul is he uncondiioned simulus. In operan learning, evens also acquire new simulus uncions based on coniguiy wih oher evens. In chaper 1, I explained how a cerain acial expression in anoher person had a discriminaive uncion or my behavior in addressing he person in quesion. How did ha specific acial expression in ha ype o siuaion acquire his simulus uncion? is occurred as a resul o a process in which cerain acial expressions o oher people (A) preceded my acion o addressing hem (B), and cerain consequences (C) resuled rom my acion. Clearly, proximiy o evens in ime and space is crucial o learning or boh operan and responden condiioning. Anoher way o puting his is ha in boh ypes o learning, direc relaions beween simuli play a crucial role in wha simulus uncions are esablished. Cerain simuli have eiher a reinorcing or a punishing uncion or my behavior based on he direc relaions beween hese simuli in my hisory. Cerain simuli have a uncion o riggering anxiey in me a a cerain poin, based on heir direc relaions o oher simuli in my hisory. I someone raises her voice, his may provoke anxiey or ear, perhaps because o experiences I had wih my parens or wih a eacher in my early years a school. e direc relaion ha has exised beween evens influences which uncions are esablished. Behavior analysis uses he erm “coningencies” or hese relaions in ime and space (see chaper 1). e influence hese coningencies have on simulus uncions is applicable boh o responden uncions and o various uncions in operan behavior: discriminaive, moivaional, reinorcing, and punishing. An addiional acor plays a role in esablishing simulus uncions: wha I described earlier in connecion wih he erm “generalizaion.” Evens or simuli are relaed in erms o physical properies. e acial expression ha now has a discriminaive uncion or my addressing someone does no have o be exacly he same as wha I’ve encounered earlier; i only has o be similar enough. o ener an unamiliar own square can cause ear i i is similar enough o he square where I was assauled, even i i differs in some respecs.
DEIVED SIMULUS ESPONSES AND ALERION OF SIMULUS FUNCIONS Le’s reurn o he experimens discussed earlier, used o demonsrae derived relaional responding. In he experimen involving Kyle, operan condiioning
71
Learning F
was used o esablish relaions beween simuli so ha he word “chair” ook on a discriminaive uncion or Kyle choosing he word “silla.” In he same way, “silla” acquired a discriminaive uncion or choosing “sol.” Bu, a he same ime, he word “silla” acquired a discriminaive uncion or choosing he word “chair” (hrough muual enailmen) and “chair” acquired a discriminaive uncion or choosing “sol” (hrough combinaorial muual enailmen). is was esablished even hough Kyle had no operan or responden learning hisory ha could accoun or how hese words ook on hese uncions. Kyle encounered coningencies o reinorcemen ha explain whaever was rained direcly. Bu he also derived oher relaions, and hese derived relaions seem o govern he esablishmen o new simulus uncions. I alering simulus uncions is dependen on coningencies being esablished in he way described or operan and responden condiioning, each and every connecion mus be rained direcly or be esablished hrough generalizaion. Bu derived relaions seem o esablish simulus uncions wihou any such coningencies beween simuli. e experimens I’ve described hus ar have demonsraed ha discriminaive simulus uncions can arise hrough derived relaions, bu research has shown ha a number o oher simulus uncions can be esablished in he same way. One example is an experimen demonsraing ha responden uncions can also be esablished hrough derived simulus relaions (Dougher, Augusson, Markham, Greenway, & Wuler, 1994). is is especially relevan rom a clinical perspecive because responden uncions like ear and oher emoional reacions ofen play a cenral role in clinical problems. is experimen was perormed using he ype o absrac, meaningless visual simuli described earlier. e individuals who ook par in he sudy were firs rained as oulined a he beginning o his chaper. ree simuli in he raining sessions�le’s call hem B, C, and D�were used in a way ha pu hem in relaion solely hrough muual enailmen and/or combinaorial muual enailmen. No direc connecions (coningencies) according o he principles or operan or responden learning were esablished among hese hree simuli. e simuli were displayed on a compuer screen. Anoher group o simuli�le’s call hem F, G, and H�were relaed o each oher in a corresponding way, bu no relaed o he firs group. Following his, one o he simuli in he firs group (B) was given a responden uncion. is was done by repeaedly adminisering a ligh elecrical shock whenever B was displayed on he screen. rough his responden condiioning, B acquired a new simulus uncion. is was gauged hrough skin conducance, indicaing wha we migh reer o in everyday language as mild discomor or ear. Parallel wih his, paricipans were given a simple ask o perorm on he compuer, or which hey could earn a small amoun o money. e purpose o 72
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
his ask was simply o moivae he paricipans o say busy and aler in ron o he screen. As he paricipans worked, randomly seleced simuli (B, C, D, F, G, or H) were displayed on he screen. a B caused increased skin conducance would be expeced, based on responden condiioning. However, in his experimen, C and D also caused increased skin conducance, even hough neiher simulus had ever been ollowed by an elecrical shock, nor had hey been relaed o B based on coniguiy or ormal (physical) properies. However, when F, G, or H was displayed on he screen, paricipans did no show he corresponding increase in skin conducance. In a second experimen wih a new group o paricipans, derived relaions were once again esablished among a group o previously unrelaed simuli: B, C, and D. en, in his experimen, all o he simuli were given a responden uncion hrough a mild elecrical shock ha ollowed upon display o he dieren simuli on he screen. Afer his, an exincion coningency was esablished or one o he simuli: B was now displayed wihou being ollowed by a shock. As his was repeaed, paricipans showed a decreased level o skin conducance when B was displayed on he screen, somehing ha would be expeced as a resul o he exincion o a responden uncion. A he same ime, he experimen showed ha his exincion also ook place or he simuli ha were relaed o B hrough muual enailmen and combinaorial muual enailmen (C and D). e experimen also included a conrol group. ey were no given he raining ha would resul in he simuli being pu in a derived relaion, bu hey were rained or condiioning by receiving an elecrical shock afer all hree simuli (B, C, and D) and or exincion wih B in he same way as he firs group. In hese individuals, exincion ook place in connecion wih B, bu no in connecion wih C or D. e researchers concluded ha he experimens describe a process whereby simuli can acquire and lose a uncion o a responden naure wihou he long known condiions or responden learning being in effec. In oher words, simulus uncions were alered hrough derived relaions. In F, aleraion o simulus uncions based on derived relaions is called ransormaion o uncions. Oher, similar experimens have shown he same ype o ransormaion o oher simulus uncions, including reinorcing (S. C. Hayes, Kohlenberg, & Hayes, 1991), sel-discriminaing (Dymond & Barnes, 1994), mood (Y. Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Smees, & Luciano, 2004) and sexual uncions (oche e al., 2000). is indicaes ha simulus uncions can be alered in a leas wo separae ways: ey can change in he way long described wihin operan and responden condiioning, and hey can also be alered, or ransormed, hrough derived relaional responding. In he firs case, simulus uncions are esablished hrough coningencies: direc 73
Learning F
relaions beween simuli and/or physical similariy beween simuli (generalizaion). Wihin F, hese are usually called direc coningencies o disinguish hem rom derived relaions. Simulus uncions ha arise hrough direc coningencies are called direc simulus uncions , and hose ha are esablished hrough derived relaions beween simuli are called indirec or derived simulus uncions. is brings us o he answer o he second quesion posed a he beginning o his chaper, regarding how verbal behavior ineracs wih human behavior as a whole. Te effec ha derived relaional responding has on human behavior as a whole is a resul o he ac ha when derived simulus relaions are esablished, simulus uncions are alered. F reers o his as ransormaion o simulus uncions. In ordinary language, his means ha somehing ha has had a cerain meaning acquires a new one. For example, evens ha had been neural ake on he uncion o riggering anxiey, an even ha once uncioned as a discriminaive simulus or drawing closer now becomes discriminaive or avoidance, or a previously neural even becomes reinorcing or punishing, and all o his can occur in he absence o direc coningencies or such new learning. is means ha new and flexible pahs or learning have been opened. Bu i also raises he hird quesion posed a he beginning o his chaper: Wha governs his behavior? Based on he undamenals o behavior analysis, i is no enough o know ha his is an abiliy human beings learn and ha i has cerain consequences. We need o know how conexual acors influence his behavior.
HE ABILIY O ELAE EVENS AND SIMULI ABIRILY e behavior o mos organisms can be governed by a minor aspec o he conex hey are in. In an experimen wih pigeons, or example, he specific color o a key can govern he pigeon’s pecking a i. e pigeon learns o peck a key when i is li up in red, bu no when i is li up in green. is does no, however, imply ha oher aspecs o he conex are compleely insignifican. e color by isel does no necessarily exercise conrol. I somehing else in he pigeon’s environmen is red, he pigeon may no peck a i i i is oo dissimilar o he key in some oher respec. Bu i would be possible o rain he pigeon o peck a anyhing ha is red. e color red would hen be a compleely decisive conexual acor or conrolling wha he pigeon pecks a. We could say ha he pigeon has learned o absrac his paricular conexual acor and acs on or reacs o i. We also know ha many animals can learn
74
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
o respond o absraced relaions: relaions based on he physical properies o simuli. A monkey can, or example, learn o always choose he longes sick (Harmon, Srong, & Pasnak, 1982). I we consisenly reinorce a choice o he longes o several sicks, in ime he monkey will choose a sick ha i has never been rewarded or choosing simply because i is he longes sick. is could be he case even i here is an alernaive sick available and he choice o ha sick has previously been reinorced because i was ormerly he longes in a se o choices. e monkey is hus acing on an absraced relaion beween he sicks. We migh say i is acing on he relaion in isel. Noe, however, ha he monkey is sill acing based on he physical properies o he sicks�specifically, heir lengh. Human beings seem o be able o ake his abiliy o absracing eaures o he environmen a sep urher. A an early age, we learn o respond o relaions ha are no governed by he evens ha are being relaed. e evens ha are relaed need no be coningen wih each oher, eiher in he presen or earlier in our hisory. And hey need no be relaed according o physical properies eiher. Insead, he relaing is governed by oher acors in he specific conex. We learn early on o absrac oher conexual acors or cues ha govern how hings are relaed, independen o direc coningencies or physical properies o simuli. is skill o relaing based on specific conexual cues explains how relaions can occur indirecly�wihou any direc learning�as described above in connecion wih various experimens. is skill has ar-reaching implicaions or our behavior, since he relaions ha are esablished in his way ransorm simulus uncions and hereby give evens and simuli uncions ha hey do no inherenly have in hemselves. e ac ha relaions beween simuli can be governed by conexual cues oher han he simuli being relaed hus explains how derived simulus relaions arise. Here’s an example. Conemplae he wo figures # and @. Le’s sar by reflecing on wha direc relaions exis beween hese wo figures. e way you, as a reader, see hem in prin, here is a relaion o dissimilariy beween hem, based on heir physical properies. is is rue in several ways: For one, # is smaller han @. And since his ex is in English, we can assume ha readers do heir reading rom lef o righ, so he figures have a relaion o # preceding @. is is because all readers o English have a common learning hisory in his respec. Are here any addiional direc coningencies beween hese wo ha are a direc resul o he reader’s learning hisory? o an individual reader, here are a number o differen relaions ha migh apply, depending on he person’s specific learning hisory. Eiher o he figures could, in heory, be relaed o some kind o uneasiness because o a direc coningency in a specific reader’s hisory, while he oher figure could be conneced o somehing pleasan. 75
Learning F
I will now esablish a new relaion involving he figures # and @ , independen o he direc coningencies described above. I’ll do his by adding a ypical conexual cue ha all readers will respond o: # is larger han @. a his relaion can be esablished regardless o he physical properies o he simuli relaed is eviden, in his case by he ac ha he new relaion is in some ways conradicory, since readers acually perceive @ as he larger figure. Despie his, no reader has any problem in acing or reacing in accordance wih he newly esablished relaion. e ollowing shows his: Le’s give one o he figures a specific uncion by saying ha @ is a sum o money. I you could now choose beween # and @ , which one would you choose? A an early age, humans learn o relae simuli in a way ha is no necessarily governed by simuli being coniguous (in he presen or hisorically) or by physical properies o he simuli ha are relaed. is finally brings us o he answer o he hird quesion posed a he beginning o his chaper: Wha are he acors ha govern verbal behavior? Tis special way o relaing is governed by conexual cues ha speciy he relaion regardless o he properies o he simuli ha are being relaed. ere is an example o such a cue in he ex above: “is larger han.” e simuli ha are used in his way are mainly sound combinaions in he shape o wha we call words and senences (or visual combinaions in he case o writen ex), bu oher simuli, like differen gesures, can uncion in his way as well. Because he conexual cues ha govern which relaion is esablished can be independen o he simuli ha are relaed, he relaion becomes arbirarily applicable. Anyhing can be pu in relaion o anyhing else. Since derived relaions are esablished by arbirary simuli ha are agreed upon by he social conex, in F hese relaions are ofen called arbirary relaions. Correspondingly, relaions ha are based on coniguiy beween simuli or on ormal, physical properies o he simuli ha are being relaed (as is generalizaion) are called nonarbirary relaions. In everyday lie, arbirary and nonarbirary relaions are consanly com bining o affec simulus uncions and hus human behavior. ereore, in everyday examples i is ofen impossible o deermine wheher simulus uncions were esablished direcly or by derived relaional responding. However, rom experimenal work we do know ha verbally compeen individuals derive relaions in he way described, and ha such relaions occur in much larger numbers han direcly rained relaions do (Wilson, O’Donohue, & Hayes, 2001). I is hereore reasonable o argue ha he majoriy o he relaions ha arise in a cerain linguisic conex are derived relaions. A he same ime, ineracion o he wo kinds o relaions is an ongoing process. e example involving Kyle showed how he relaion “chair” → “sol” was esablished no by direc raining, bu hrough derived relaions. However, i Kyle learns o use his Swedish word as a varian o he English word “chair,” 76
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
a direc relaion will gradually be esablished, since he is using he words in connecion wih each oher. is is despie he ac ha he relaion originaed as a derived relaional response.
HOW DO WE LEAN O ELAE EVENS ABIRILY? We have only limied knowledge abou he learning hisory ha resuls in he behavioral reperoire discussed in his chaper. A grea deal o research is sill needed in order o elucidae he deails. e ollowing accoun o how we learn o relae evens arbirarily is based parly on he exising general knowledge abou how language learning occurs in a naural conex, and parly on sudies o children going hrough he specific raining ha I am abou o describe (McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes Holmes, 2004; Heagle & eheld, 2006; Luciano e al., 2007). I’ll sar wih he relaion ha has dominaed my descripion hus ar: coordinaion. is is a relaion o similariy, equivalence, or “same as.” is is he relaion beween simuli ha we reer o in everyday language as symbolizaion: One specific hing sands or anoher. is is he relaion described in Murray Sidman’s classic experimens, and he relaion ha is esablished in he example o Kyle, who learns o relae differen new words o “chair.” Coordinaion is he firs relaion we learn, and i is easy o see ha i is absoluely undamenal o human language (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001). A sound or a series o writen leters sands or somehing, reers o an objec or an even, and is in cerain respecs inerchangeable wih ha “somehing” reerred o. For example, he word “shoe” is in a relaion o coordinaion o an acual shoe. Early in children’s lives, ypical conexual cues used o each hem o relae hings by way o coordinaion are words like “is,” “same as,” “goes ogeher wih,” and “means.” And paricularly when i comes o children wih language difficulies, he raining is mos advisably begun using objecs ha have a ormal similariy o each oher�simuli ha have a nonarbirary relaion, such as a couple o oys, everyday objecs, or picures (Luciano, odriguez, e al., 2009). ese are presened o he child while he adul who is raining he child simulaneously brings in he conexual acors by saying, “is goes ogeher wih his,” “is is he same as ha,” and so on. When he child oriens oward one o he objecs based on he oher objec, in line wih he relaion he adul is rying o esablish, his is reinorced: “Good, hose are he same,” “a’s he righ one,” and so on. e raining is done in boh
77
Learning F
direcions and using he same conexual cues, in his case sound combinaions. I is imporan ha he raining be done in boh direcions�and i is also wha ypically akes place very early in children’s naural language raining. A seeing her aher, he child hears “Daddy�look, here’s Daddy,” and afer he quesion “Where is Daddy? Where’s Daddy?” he child’s behavior is reinorced i she oriens oward her aher. In his las example, here is no ormal similariy beween he word and he objec (he dad), bu he direc coningencies ha have been esablished by ongoing repeiion and associaion are used, and hey provide a direc relaion hrough responden learning. Afer he child has seen her aher a large number o imes while simulaneously hearing he word “Daddy,” his word�hrough responden condiioning�will rigger a percepual experience in he child similar o acually seeing her aher, jus like I described earlier in connecion wih seeing a red car. Skinner reerred o his as condiioned seeing, or seeing in he absence o he hing seen (Skinner, 1953, 1974). In ormal language raining, a number o differen simuli are used: “Where is he ball? Look, here’s he ball.” “Where’s he kity? ere’s he kity.” I he child oriens oward hese simuli or does any oher acion in relaion o hese simuli, his behavior is reinorced. e raining is perormed in boh direcions (word “ball” → acual ball; acual ball → word “ball”) while he conexual cues�sound combinaions as well as movemens and gesures�remain consisen. Alhough he objecs vary, cerain conexual cues say he same. Gradually, he child absracs hese conexual cues as decisive or he relaion beween differen simuli. is means he raining can move on, using new simuli ha lack physical similariies and also have no previously rained relaion in he child’s learning hisory. e same conexual cues (“is,” “goes ogeher wih,” “same as”) are sill used. I he child acs based on he objecs being he same or going ogeher, his is reinorced: “Yes, ha’s righ!” In his way, he child learns o relae simuli ha are new and ha lack ormal similariies. Once she does his based solely on he arbirarily esablished conexual cues he social environmen provides, we have an arbirarily esablished relaion o coordinaion. Suddenly, based on a cerain socially produced conex (mainly sound combinaions) being presen, one hing can mean anoher, regardless o he individual’s earlier hisory in connecion wih he simuli involved or he physical similariies beween hem. I a our-yearold boy has experienced riding in a small rowboa and has learned o call i a boa bu has never experienced going by erry, he word “erry” can ake on a number o uncions or him when he is old ha a erry is a large boa. Once his reperoire is in place, he child will also successively learn o do his silenly, according o he principles described in chaper 2.
78
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
In a similar way, he social environmen rains us in he abiliy o arbirarily pu evens or simuli ino oher ypes o relaions, such as comparaive relaions (more/less). is is he ype o relaion described above, using # and @. In naural environmens, here are pleny o possibiliies or leting children encouner nonarbirary comparaive relaions beween objecs ha naurally vary in regard o differen physical characerisics, and hese can be used as opporuniies or raining. For insance, some hings are bigger or smaller han ohers, heavier or ligher han ohers, or noisier or quieer han ohers. Noe ha comparaive relaions ofen include a relaion o opposiion. For example, i somehing is heavier han somehing else, you migh say ha his implies a orm o opposiion: One objec is heavy as opposed o he oher objec, which is ligh. is migh indicae ha he naural learning sequence involves learning he arbirary relaion o opposiion beore learning o pu simuli in a comparaive relaion. is is also why i is recommended ha deliberae raining be done in his order (Luciano, Valdivia-Salas, CabelloLuque, & Hernández, 2009). Much research is needed o undersand he process whereby learning a cerain ype o arbirary relaion is predicaed on having learned anoher arbirary relaion, o clariy boh wha he naurally occurring sequences are and how raining can be done mos opimally. However, here are some sequences ha seem obvious. For example, in order o be able o learn an arbirary hierarchical relaion, i is plausible ha he abiliy o relae simuli as boh similar and dissimilar is required. As wih raining in relaions o coordinaion, raining in comparaive relaions requires us o sar wih simuli ha are in a nonarbirary relaion based on physical properies. For example, i more/less is he relaion o be rained, we migh use wo boxes wih differen amouns o he same conens. In his case, he conexual cues would be phrases such as “Which one has more?” “Which one has less?” “Pick he one wih he mos,” and “Does his have more or less?” Again, i is imporan o rain in boh direcions and reinorce responses wherein he child acs in accordance wih he nonarbirary relaion. a is, a his poin he rainer should reinorce correc responses indicaing boh ha one has more and ha one has less. e raining is done using differen objecs where he nonarbirary relaion is he same, in his case maybe also wih greaer or smaller piles o marbles, and consisenly using he same conexual cues. When he child responds correcly�in line wih he conexual cues and he nonarbirary relaion beween he objecs�he raining shifs o arbirary simuli, ha is, o objecs ha are no, by physical characerisics, in he relaion ha is being rained. e child may be shown wo objecs o he same size and hen be asked, or example, “I boh o hese are swees and his one [indicaing one o he same-size objecs] is more han ha one [indicaing he oher objec], which one would you like?” e 79
Learning F
exercises are repeaed again, allowing he child o ac in relaion o objecs and evens based no on heir physical properies, bu on relaions ha are in line wih he arbirarily, socially esablished conexual cues; in his case, he words “more” and “less.” When he child responds in accordance wih he conexual cues, independen o he nonarbirary relaions beween simuli, his is reinorced. is same ype o raining akes place naurally when, or example, children learn he relaion beween coins.
MANY DIFFEEN ELAIONS BEWEEN SIMULI ere are many differen ypes o relaions beyond hose described hus ar (coordinaion and comparaive): difference (disincion), spaial relaions (behind/in ron o, above/below), emporal relaions (beore/afer), causal relaions (i-hen), hierarchical relaions (“a par o”), and “relaions o perspecive” (I/you, here/here). Mos o hese relaions correspond o nonarbirary relaions ha are presen beween simuli or evens in cerain siuaions. Some hings are larger han oher hings; one variey o rees is, or example, ypically larger han anoher ype o ree. A ree is no a sone (disincion). A book is placed on op o anoher book (spaial relaion). I ener he room beore you (emporal relaion), and i I sand up, i is easier or you o see me (causal relaion). e second floor is a par o he building (hierarchical relaion). All o hese are nonarbirary relaions ha we may encouner and ha variously influence he uncions hese simuli have or us�as well as he uncion hey will have or us when we conac hem, or similar simuli, in he uure. Bu people’s behavior is no governed simply by hese nonarbirary relaions beween simuli. As discussed previously, or us humans, relaions beween evens can be esablished arbirarily, by social whim. ese relaions can, in a given siuaion, be esablished in a way ha is independen o direc coningencies beween simuli or heir properies. Insead, hese relaions are governed by arbirary conexual cues esablished by he social communiy. Since relaions beween simuli govern simulus uncions, hese can become available o an individual in a much more flexible way han i nonarbirary relaions were required. In his way, simulus uncions become “movable” by he social communiy. We can rea cerain evens as i hey are more han oher evens and as i hey occur beore or afer oher evens. We can rea hem as i hey are a par o oher evens and as i hey cause oher evens. We can do his regardless o he direc coningencies beween hese differen evens.
80
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
I he relaion “X is greaer han Y” can be esablished or an individual regardless o he nonarbirary relaion beween X and Y in he specific siuaion or in he individual’s hisory, his opens up enirely new prospecs or humans o muually influence each oher’s behavior. For example, i he emporal relaion “Q precedes P” is esablished, an individual will be able o ac in relaion o Q and P according o his; perhaps she would choose o ocus on Q firs, even hough she has never encounered Q or P in any such relaion, or even hough she has acually encounered P beore Q in a previous conex. Having learned his reperoire, possibiliies are opened o he human species which, as ar as we know, are unavailable o oher animals.
Temporal and comparative relations
Direcly rained Muual enailmen Combinaorial muual enailmen A number o sudies have shown ha we are able o pu simuli or evens in arbirary relaions oher han coordinaion. ese sudies are perormed 81
Learning F
by creaing experimenal analogues o he ype o conexual cues ha�in a naural environmen�govern wha kind o relaion is esablished (ha is, words like “larger,” “in ron o,” “afer,” and so on). ese analogues are simuli (cues) ha, ouside o he experimen, lack he uncion esablished in he experimen. For example, a simulus o a cerain shape or color is given he uncion ha he phrase “more han” has in a naural environmen. I is hen possible o show ha hese simuli govern how paricipans pu oher arbirary simuli in paricular relaions. Le’s briefly look a one such experimen (Dougher e al., 2007). is is an exension o an experimen I described earlier, involving a mild elecric shock, which showed how responden uncions were ransormed when simuli were pu in a relaion o coordinaion. One simulus became equivalen o anoher by way o a derived relaion, and is uncion was ransormed according o his relaion. e experimen I am abou o describe shows ha he simulus uncions can also be ransormed according o a relaion o comparison. In he sudy’s firs phase, meaningless visual simuli were esablished as conexual cues or larger and smaller, respecively. is was done by alernaely displaying hree differen simuli o his kind o he paricipans on a compuer screen; le’s call he simuli D, E, and F. e paricipans were insruced o hen selec one o hree comparison simuli, which were simulaneously displayed in a lower par o he screen. ese comparison simuli were idenical in orm bu varied in size, along hese lines: %, % , % , and &, & , &. As he paricipans chose one o hese, hey were old wheher heir choice was “correc” or “wrong.” e experimen was designed in a way ha made i sysemaically correc o choose he smalles o he oherwise idenical figures i D was displayed a he op o he screen; he larges figure i F was displayed; and he middle-sized figure i E was displayed. is was carried ou in a consisen way hroughou a series o asks, wih he presenaion arranged so ha no qualiies oher han he differing sizes o he simuli affeced he paricipans’ choices. e experimen had creaed hree conexual cues ha could be said o have aken on he meaning D < E < F. Nex, several esing phases were carried ou, demonsraing ha he paricipans were acing in accordance wih he conexual cues displayed on he screen. In one o hese experimens, E was given a responden uncion by being ollowed by a mild elecrical shock, jus as in he earlier experimen (Dougher e al., 1994). Aferward, paricipans were asked o say in ron o he compuer and pay atenion o he differen figures displayed on he screen. e researchers gauged paricipans’ skin conducance. ere was a clear reacion when E was displayed, jus as would be expeced based on responden condiioning principles. When F 82
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
was displayed, he skin conducance was a a higher level han when E was displayed, even hough only E had been direcly conneced o an elecrical shock and F had never been direcly conneced o an elecrical shock or o oher simuli ha were. In ac, one o he paricipans pulled off he elecrode when F was presened on he screen. e severiy o he elecrical shock used in he experimen was calibraed o each individual paricipan o make i slighly unpleasan bu no painul. e person in quesion hus had his experience because o he abiliy o relae simuli and, specifically, he aspecs o “more han” and “less han.” e researchers came o he conclusion ha his once again demonsraed an aleraion o simulus uncions based on a derived relaion. ey also concluded ha his aleraion mean no only ha a simulus had acquired he uncion o anoher simulus (as in a relaion o coordinaion or equivalence), bu ha he ransormaion o simulus uncion involved was governed by he specific relaion o “more han,” which was esablished in he experimen. Oher relaions beween simuli have been sudied in a corresponding way and have been shown o influence simulus uncions as well. wo examples are opposiion (Dymond & Barnes, 1996; Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004a) and perspecive (McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2003).
ELAIONAL FRMING elaing in he paricular way described in his chaper is ermed relaional aming . A more echnical erm or his is arbirarily applicable relaional responding (AA). is behavior is a generalized operan. e erm “generalized” is ofen used o describe operan behavior when i is imporan o emphasize ha a paricular behavior can only be described in a uncional sense, and ha i compleely lacks opographical descripion. Oher examples o such behavior are “imiaion” or “doing somehing novel.” Any ype o acion could belong o hese caegories, regardless o is appearance or opography. elaional raming is also his ype o acion (generalized operan behavior). When we speak o raming hings in differen ypes o relaions (opposiion, comparison, spaial, emporal, and so on), he erm “relaional rames” is meaphoric. I reers o he way a rame can conain anyhing. is erm does no imply ha relaional rames exis as menal objecs. I is a way o saying ha people can pu hings in various ypes o relaions; ha is, we place hem inside rames. Obviously, he placing, oo, is meaphorical. is relaing is no based on any ormal or physical properies o he relaed simuli; raher, he relaions come abou as a resul o his specific orm o human behavior, which in urn is conrolled by conexual cues. elaional raming is a behavior ha 83
Learning F
humans learn early in lie, hrough operan condiioning, and is characerized by he hree phenomena I have already menioned:
Muual enailmen
Combinaorial muual enailmen
ransormaion o simulus uncions according o he esablished relaion
Combinaorial muual enailmen includes hree or more simuli, and I need o urher explain he reason why his is a necessary aspec o include in he definiion o relaional raming. As menioned earlier, one aspec o derived relaions is ha hey are muually enailing, so ha i “chair” → “silla,” hen “silla” → “chair.” In his case he enailed, derived relaion is idenical wih he relaion ha has been specifically rained. I “chair” is he same as “silla,” his enails “silla” being he same as “chair.” is is how a relaion o coordinaion works, and his also applies o relaions o opposiion. I Larry is Ben’s opposie in some respec, hen, in ha same respec, Ben is Larry’s opposie. Clearly, muually enailed relaions are no always idenical: I Larry is bigger han Ben, his obviously enails ha Ben is smaller han Larry, no ha he is bigger. I I arrive beore you do, his enails ha you arrive afer I do, no ha you also arrive in advance. A urher key poin is ha as long as we are describing muually enailed relaions, boh relaions have he same level o precision. When relaions are combined, however, he precision o he combinaorially enailed relaion may be unspecified. I Larry is unlike Ben and Peer is also unlike Ben, we have no way o knowing wha relaion exiss beween Larry and Peer. is lack o precision is a given, and he combinaorially enailed relaion is hereore defined as unclear. Combinaorial muual enailmen also illusraes how complex neworks o relaions are buil. I Larry is he opposie o Ben and Ben is he opposie o Peer in ha same regard, hen Peer is similar o Larry. en, i we learn ha Caleb, Vicor, Gran, and Sanley are similar o Ben and ha Peer is a disagreeable person, we suddenly know how o relae o all o hose involved. e reinorcing coningencies ha we encouner when learning relaional raming are o a general and social naure; ha is, hey are generalized reinorcers, as was described in regard o verbal operans in chaper 2. In addiion, relaional raming isel gradually esablishes a generalized reinorcer ha acquires is uncion precisely hrough his verbal learning process. A undamenal qualiy o human languaging is ha i mus be coheren. We canno swich words, meanings, or grammaical rules in an arbirary way. Alhough
84
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
he sysem is arbirary a is base, once i is esablished we have o play by he rules. You may be able o break he rules in moderaion, bu all in all he sysem’s olerance or his is negligible. e word “boa” canno firs mean one hing, hen anoher, and finally a hird. I does no work o firs mean one hing by placing “no” in a phrase and hen give i a uncion o “above” in he ollowing senence. I meaning is o be conveyed, he srucure o senences canno be changed in an arbirary way. Coherence is hus buil ino human language. Provided ha languaging (relaional raming) is reinorced rom an early age, coherence is hereby also reinorced. ere are many reasons or he social environmen o reinorce coherence specifically as par o language raining. As a resul, coherence, or he experience o hings being logically consisen, becomes a generalized reinorcer or verbally compeen human beings (Blackledge, Moran, & Ellis, 2008; Healy e al., 2000).
WO ASPECS OF CONEX HA GOVEN ELAIONAL FRMING In many o he experimens described in his chaper, he researchers used simuli ha were meaningless o he sudy paricipans a he ouse. e simuli had very ew simulus uncions, and hose hey had were resriced. When some new uncions, or example discriminaive or responden uncions, are rained, hey dominae compleely. is makes i easy o see ha hese are he uncions ha are esablished or oher simuli in he experimen hrough relaional raming. In real lie he siuaion is much more complex. Mos simuli have a number o differen poenial uncions, based on heir physical properies, he direc relaions esablished in he individual’s hisory, and he individual’s earlier hisory o relaional raming. When simuli are pu in relaion via he ype o conexual cues menioned above (“[…] is […],” “[…] is locaed behind […],” “[…] comes afer […],” and so on), he specific simulus uncions ha come ino play are seleced rom a wide array o possible uncions. o say his more echnically, given a paricular relaion, only cerain simulus uncions among he many possibiliies are ransormed. Here’s an example: I we were o alk abou an apple, I hink ha each and every reader would find ha he word “apple” is in a relaion o coordinaion wih a real apple. is specific ype o relaion (words sand or wha hey reer o) is so solidly learned ha all ha is needed o esablish his relaion is he conex o alking o one anoher. You could pu i like his: We presuppose ha people mean somehing by wha hey say. Bu we can sill vary which o he many possible simulus uncions o apples come ino play in our dialogue
85
Learning F
wihou alering he undamenal relaion o coordinaion beween he word “apple” and a real apple in he reader’s hisory. ead he ollowing senence, hen sop or a momen and make a noe o wha you experience: Imagine an apple. Now, compare ha experience wih wha you noice while reading his senence: Imagine eaing an apple. In boh examples, he conex (in his case he res o he senence) esablished around he word “apple” cues he same kind o relaion beween he word “apple” and he reader’s experience o a real apple: a relaion o coordinaion. Bu he uncions ha are brough o bear or he reader probably aren’ idenical or he wo senences. Your imaginary conac wih an apple shifed, meaning ha differen simulus uncions were conaced, even hough he same relaion was cued. e socially and arbirarily creaed conex no only cues a paricular relaion, bu also deermines which simulus uncions, ou o many poenial uncions, are ransormed by his relaion. e words “imagine” in he firs senence and “imagine eaing” in he second cued dieren ransormaions o uncions. e change in he conex ha he reader encounered (in his case, a senence) ransormed which uncions o a reallie apple were brough o he ore or he reader. Oher uncions o an apple would be conaced wih ye anoher conexual change: Imagine siting on op o an apple. elaional raming is always dependen on boh o hese aspecs. On one hand, a cerain relaion is esablished beween he simuli, and on he oher, cerain simulus uncions are seleced in accordance wih he esablished relaion. Boh aspecs are governed by conexual cues and can hereore be esablished arbirarily. In he above example, a number o acors�acors ha are more or less always presen when we read a ex in our own language� conrolled which relaion was esablished beween a real apple and he word “apple.” Words in prin are in a relaion o coordinaion wih he hings hey reer o. Ou o he many possible uncions ha were made available based on his relaion o coordinaion, differen uncions were seleced as a resul o he differences beween he senences. In F, a conexual cue ha governs which relaion is esablished beween simuli a a given momen is designaed Crel (rom conex and relaion). A cue ha governs which uncion is seleced based on his relaion is designaed C unc (rom conex and uncion). Here’s 86
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
anoher example: “Larry is beter han Peer a playing ennis.” e words “beter han” mos likely uncion as C rel here, as hey conrol which relaion is esablished beween Larry and Peer. e words “a playing ennis” uncion as Cunc by governing which uncion is brough o bear, in his case hrough a comparaive relaion. Crel and Cunc are uncional classes, so we canno say ha any given acor can always be designaed as one or he oher. o make his deerminaion, we have o analyze a given process or even, as is always he case or a uncional analysis. e disincion beween conexual cues ha govern he relaion and conexual cues ha govern which simulus uncions among he many possi biliies are ransormed is no always an essenial one, bu i can be. One siuaion where he disincion is imporan is in cerain clinical inervenions. is is somehing I’ll reurn o in par 3 o he book.
A NEW DEFINIION OF VEBAL BEHAVIO I have now answered he hree quesions wih which I opened his chaper� no alogeher exhausively, bu hopeully o he exen needed o provide a basic undersanding o key conceps in relaional rame heory. e descripion o derived relaional responding and he heory ha has developed based on his phenomenon provide a new definiion o verbal behavior�a definiion ha is more precise han wha Skinner offered (1957). o rame evens or simuli relaionally, according o he hree crieria menioned (muual enailmen, combinaorial muual enailmen, and ransormaion o simulus uncions) is he behavior ha F reers o as verbal (S. C. Hayes, Fox, e al., 2001). In a verbal ineracion, his is done by boh he speaker and he lisener. We can also do his silenly o ourselves, in which case he individual becomes boh speaker and lisener. Verbal simuli, according o F, are simuli ha have heir effecs because hey paricipae in relaional rames (S. C. Hayes, Fox, e al., 2001). e daa ha his definiion is based on were no available when Skinner wroe his exs abou verbal behavior. However, he phenomena he described are sill imporan even hough, according o F, hey are o be undersood rom his new perspecive. Skinner described he difference beween behavior ha is governed by direc coningencies and behavior ha is governed in oher ways. For he later he used he concep o “rule-governed behavior,” bu he never explained how such behavior akes shape. As discussed in chaper 2, here are some gaps in his analysis, and leading behavior analyss have poined
87
Learning F
his ou. ese gaps are filled by F by way o is new definiion o verbal behavior, which makes i possible o define rule-governed behavior precisely. (I will reurn o his in chaper 6.) I is imporan o noe ha, under his new definiion, a specific behavior ha is verbal according o Skinner’s definiion may or may no be verbal according o F. For example, a ac as defined by Skinner is no necessarily verbal rom he perspecive o F. I a child acs “a dog,” his response could be he resul o having seen a dog a an earlier poin and having utered “a dog” and hen receiving reinorcemen ha was coningen upon his response. Ye all o his can occur wihou he phrase “a dog” paricipaing in a relaional rame, in which case he ac is no verbal according o F’s definiion because i has been esablished solely hrough direc coningencies. Many imes, hough, when children use he phrase “a dog,” i is also in derived relaions wih real dogs (and oher hings), and he child’s response is hen verbal in he F sense, as well. A similar disincion beween he Skinnerian definiion o verbal behavior and he F definiion can be made or he oher verbal operans described by Skinner. (For a more deailed comparison o Skinner’s definiions and hose o F, see D. BarnesHolmes, Barnes-Holmes, & Cullinan, 2000.)
SUMMAY Verbal behavior, according o F, is o pu simuli (evens) in relaion and o ac on or reac o simuli based on he resuling relaions. is behavior is learned in early language raining and is a generalized operan. is paricular way o relaing is primarily conrolled no by he nonarbirary relaion beween he simuli being relaed, bu by oher conexual cues. e simuli ha uncion as such cues are mosly sound combinaions�wha we would normally call words. Bu oher conexual acors, such as gesures or even eaures o he nonsocial environmen, can also have his uncion. is means ha anyhing can be relaed o anyhing else, since he social environmen can manipulae he governing conexual cues. is behavior is called relaional raming, or, more echnically, arbirarily applicable relaional responding (AA). e later erm illusraes several o he consideraions discussed in his chaper. “esponding” makes clear ha his is a behavior. “elaional responding” les us know ha his behavior involves relaing evens o each oher. a hese relaional responses are arbirarily applicable ells us ha his relaional responding is no based on any nonarbirary or ormal (physical) relaions beween he simuli being relaed; raher, i is based on aspecs o he conex ha speciy he relaion such ha he relaional response can be brough o bear on any simuli or 88
D as he Fundamenal Elemen in Human Language
evens, regardless o heir nonarbirary properies (Sewar & McElwee, 2009). ese aspecs o he conex, or conexual cues, are esablished by social whim (hence arbirarily applicable). us anyhing can in principle be pu ino any rame. “Arbirarily applicable relaional responding” and “relaional raming” are synonymous. An addiional synonymous erm is he one used in his chaper’s ile: “derived relaional responding.” For humans, his behavior changes he possibiliies or learning in a crucial way, allowing us o manipulae simulus uncions in a way ha would no be possible i simulus uncions were solely dependen on nonarbirary relaions or coningencies beween simuli. Once derived relaional responding is learned and exhibied, simulus uncions can be changed in a momen hrough hese responses. Wha was punishing can become reinorcing, and vice versa. Somehing we have never encounered beore can uncion like a discriminaive simulus or a cerain behavior. An even can suddenly acquire responden-ype uncions ha i has never had beore and hus, or example, change one’s emoional sae. And all o his is based on socially invened cues, which, on one hand, govern he relaions ha are esablished and, on he oher, govern which specific uncions are seleced based on hese relaions. Beore I urn o some o he complex behaviors ha his oundaion makes possible, I would like o go back o he opic o his book: he power o hinking. From he viewpoin o radical behaviorism and F, wha we usually call hinking is no a behavior in a class by isel. inking is no seen as somehing ha akes place in a menal world. Neiher is i seen as somehing ha ollows principles oher han hose o any ouwardly observable behavior. As I described in chaper 2, hinking is simply verbal behavior perormed in such a way ha he only possible observer is he person who is perorming i�he person doing he hinking. a definiion sands. e power o hinking, hen, is in he power o relaional raming. Based on wha we firs learn rom our social environmen according o he principles described in chaper 2, i is possible or he individual o gradually perorm his same behavior silenly o hersel. e increased flexibiliy ha is added o human behavior in general by arbirarily applicable relaional responding also allows an increased flexibiliy in privae behavior. e power o hinking lies precisely in his abiliy o relae anyhing o jus abou anyhing else.
89
CHAPTER 5 Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
Chaper 4 oulined he undamenal principles o arbirarily applicable relaional responding. e essenials are acually raher sraighorward: We can relae evens by social whim, making i possible o change simulus uncions in a very flexible way and hereby change our own and oher people’s behavior. Our languaging can be likened o a social game we play ogeher. Mos people learn he basic aspecs and convenions o his game a an early age. I i were a board game, we could say our pieces (differen languages) vary a bi in color, bu he gis o he game is he same. I is buil on one undamenal principle: ha relaing evens in an arbirarily applicable way is isel a learned behavior. e principle is sraighorward, bu is consequences are dramaic or us humans. Once he basic skill is learned, an exponenial increase in complexiy opens up or us. Once we are capable o relaing words and oher evens a social whim (arbirarily) we can bring ogeher evens or experiences in a oally new way o influence behavior. For example, he word “language” is in coordinaion wih our direc experience o languaging, and he word “game” is in coordinaion wih our direc experience o playing games; so, jus by relaing hese words, we can pu wo differen experiences in relaion o each oher and influence urher behavior, perhaps by saying, “Language is a game we play.” is is a specific ype o analogy: a meaphor. In everyday language, we would say ha his process gives somehing a new meaning. In he scienific language used in his book, we would say ha by relaing evens, we are ransorming heir simulus uncion.
Learning F
Many researchers and heoriss a he inersecion o psychology, philosophy, and linguisics believe ha he abiliy o creae analogies and meaphors is a he roo o human language and ha i orms he very oundaion o our way o speaking wih each oher (Barclay, 1997). A leading researcher pu i his way: “All knowledge is ulimaely rooed in meaphorical (or analogical) modes o percepion and hough” (Leary, 1990, p. 2). is cross-disciplinary field is vas and embraces many heories, as well as conflicing poins o view. My goal here is o esablish ha here is a scienific consensus o opinion ha analogies and meaphors are significan in undersanding human language and cogniion, and ha F boh conribues o an undersanding o hese phenomena and shows us how hey arise and are influenced. e observan reader may have noed ha many o he relaions and uncions in he example “Language is a game we play” are no arbirary or esablished by social whim. Playing games is probably an acual experience o he reader, jus as he experience o languaging is. And here is a relaion beween hese experiences ha is no arbirarily esablished: a ype o similariy. a is wha he meaphor is making use o, wha i is poining o. is is an imporan observaion. e ac ha we have he abiliy o relae evens arbirarily, demonsraed in he laboraory experimens described earlier, does no mean ha we relae evens in a compleely arbirary way mos o he ime. We have he reperoire o do so, and his occurs in is mos pure orm in cerain ypes o mahemaics and absrac logic. Bu in mos siuaions we use arbirarily applicable relaions in combinaion wih relaions esablished hrough direc coningencies and ormal properies o simuli. is inerplay beween direc and derived relaions is wha gives verbal behavior is impac. Or, o express his more echnically, arbirarily applicable relaional responding ransorms simulus uncions, many o which were originally esablished hrough direc coningencies. is explains he enormous impac o verbal behavior. Imagine litle John, who has been righened by a mean dog. e concep o responden condiioning makes i easy o undersand his ear o similar dogs. Bu i John reuses o visi Aun Paty’s house (where he has never seen a dog, much less been righened by one) because someone said, “Her ca is like an old dog,” his is because relaional raming has brough him ino conac wih some o he simulus uncions o his earlier direc experience wih a mean dog. I relaional raming is he undamenal process in human language, i ollows ha i influences mos spheres o human experience, since language is basically omnipresen. I he claims o F are correc, he poenial applicaions are almos infinie. o give jus a ew examples, relaional raming should be relevan o fields as diverse as educaion, psychological developmen, he raining o children wih specific language difficulies, linguisic research, poliics, social processes, exisenial issues, and individual psychological 92
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
problems (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001; eheld & BarnesHolmes, 2009). However, his book resrics isel o applicaions in he field we normally call psychoherapy. Beore I can go on o he applicaions relaed o psychological problems and psychological herapy, I need o describe a ew more key conceps in F. e res o his chaper is dedicaed o wo o hese undamens: firs, as already ouched upon, he ac ha arbirarily applicable relaional responding can be used o relae relaions o oher relaions and hereby creae wha we call analogies and meaphors; and second, how his behavior creaes our experience o sel.
ANALOGIES As menioned above, he abiliy o hink analogically is widely seen as being o undamenal imporance o human language and cogniion. In an anhology on analogical reasoning writen by researchers wihin differen fields o applicaion (Vosniadou & Orony, 1989), several conribuors discuss how we are o undersand he differen ypes o comparison and “mapping” (a common erm in cogniive models o analogical hinking) ha are consiuen pars o analogies (Collins & Bursein, 1989; Genner, 1989). e core idea is ha knowledge is ranserred rom one field o experience (ofen called “base” or “vehicle”) o anoher (usually called “arge”). e base is he field o experience which is mos amiliar; he arge is hen he field where knowledge is o be expanded, which is done by relaing he wo fields. e well-known analogy beween he solar sysem and an aom is a classical example. When using his analogy, we assume ha he solar sysem is more amiliar, so i uncions as he base, wih he aom being he arge. is abiliy o ac on or reac o paerns and similariies is hough o be very undamenal o human cogniive abiliies and as such is currenly he subjec o many sudies wihin he wide field o research known as cogniive science. esearchers are rying o design compuer models o he phenomenon, searching or is biological bases, and sudying how people behave hrough psychological experimens (Genner, Holyoak, & Kokinov, 2001). e basic phenomenon is ofen described as he abiliy o relae boh objecs and he relaions beween objecs (Holyoak & agard, 1997; Genner, Bowdle, Wolff, & Borona, 2001). One problem ha arises in rying o amiliarize onesel wih his field o research is he lack o agreed-upon basic models. I may be an exaggeraion o say ha each wrier or researcher has his own model, bu even so, i would be an exaggeraion wih a poin. Many differen models are presened, and mos seem o lack common poins o deparure (Collins & Bursein, 1989; Kokinov & Perov, 2001). 93
Learning F
F allows us o describe he human behavior ha underlies our abiliy o creae analogies. We can do his using horoughly operaionalized conceps in he way ha has always been he disinguishing eaure o behavior analysis. Analogies originae in relaional raming�specifically, he relaional raming o relaions. elaional neworks ha are already esablished, and which in hemselves usually consis o boh arbirary and nonarbirary relaions, are relaed. is is no, in principle, anyhing novel as compared o wha I described in chaper 4. I differen simuli or evens can be relaed arbirarily, hen relaions can also be relaed arbirarily, ollowing he same principles. Le’s look a a raher uncomplicaed and ypical analogy: Volvo is o Saab as necarines are o peaches. Here we have a relaion ha is already esablished, he relaion we radiionally call he base. Necarines are in a known relaion o peaches. is is a relaion o similariy: Boh are edible, ase swee, have a similar shape, grow on rees, and so on. By puting his relaion in coordinaion wih he relaion beween Volvo and Saab�he arge o his analogy�simulus uncions are ranserred rom one relaional nework o he oher. Someone who had jus been asked o choose eiher Volvo or Saab and who hough he difference was quie large now has a new basis or his choice. rough a relaion o coordinaion beween wo differen relaions (he relaion beween necarines and peaches is in coordinaion wih he relaion beween Volvo and Saab), he simulus uncions are ransormed, which could have an impac on he lisener’s behavior. Noe ha boh arbirary and nonarbirary relaions are a par o he analogy. a he words used reer o cerain acual phenomena is arbirarily esablished. Cerain relaions in he respecive neworks are arbirarily esablished as well, like he ac ha boh necarines and peaches belong o he caegory we have learned o call ruis. Likewise, Volvo and Saab are in arbirarily esablished relaions; or example, boh are rademarks o moor vehicles. A he same ime, he analogy makes use o nonarbirary relaions o similariy. Necarines and peaches are similar in cerain respecs, and Volvo and Saab are also similar in cerain respecs; boh names reer o a car wih cerain qualiies. e analogy is based on an absracion o a similariy beween similariies. Wha is undamenal in an analogy, according o F, is ha a relaion o coordinaion is esablished beween wo neworks o relaions. e relaions wihin hese neworks are, however, no necessarily relaions o coordinaion. In he example o an aom and he solar sysem, he analogy poins o he spaial relaions in he respecive neworks: One way o envisioning an aom is ha cerain pars o he aom orbi around oher pars, jus as in he solar
94
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
sysem. is is an absracion o a similariy beween spaial relaions in wo neworks o relaions. Le me give you anoher example: Susan and Larry are like cas and dogs. Again, wo relaional neworks are pu in a relaion o coordinaion. is occurs hrough he conexual cue “are like.” is conexual cue is normally used o esablish a relaion o coordinaion beween evens. In his example, however, he relaion he analogy poins o wihin he respecive neworks is considerably more complicaed han pure coordinaion. You could perhaps say ha i is a relaion o opposiion, bu his, oo, is an oversimplificaion. e analogy poins o a relaion ha consiss o a number o differen ypes o ineracions ha we migh summarize as “always fighing,” “animosiy,” and he like. In his insance, he relaion beween cas and dogs is he base, and he relaion beween Susan and Larry is he arge. is is an example o wha we normally call a meaphor or possibly a simile. Mos o he ime, here is no clear disincion beween he conceps o analogy and meaphor, no even in scienific setings. Maybe i is a sign o he useulness o F ha he definiions i provides or hese wo conceps allow us o describe a key difference beween analogies and meaphors. I will reurn o his in he nex secion. Le me finish his secion on analogies wih a shor commenary on he exising experimenal suppor or an F analysis o his phenomenon o relaions beween neworks o relaions, which is highly essenial o human language and cogniion. For more deails, ineresed readers are reerred o he reerences cied. ere are several sudies ha illusrae he process described above. In design, hey are similar o he design o he experimens on derived relaional responding described in chaper 4. Again, hey make use o arbirary simuli, such as nonsense syllables or absrac shapes, and subjecs are rained and esed or developmen o derived relaional neworks, ypically coordinaion or equivalence and difference. e experimens hen es ha subjecs can derive relaions beween he previously esablished neworks o relaions. is is done by showing ha paricipans can relae pairs o simuli o oher pairs o simuli when he relaion beween he pairs is he same (or example, hey are boh equivalence relaions or hey are boh difference relaions). Using a more recenly developed mehodology, reerred o as he relaional evaluaion procedure (Sewar, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2004), paricipans assess he coherence o ses o analogical relaional neworks by using cues previously esablished o mean rue or alse. is ulimaely allows or much aser generaion o derived analogies han he radiional maching o sample proocol.
95
Learning F
ese sudies can poenially be used boh o develop an undersanding o how analogies work when hey impac us and o show how cerain conexual acors govern his behavior. e sudies perormed hus ar have confirmed ha analogies uncion as F assumes hey do; ha is, hrough a relaing o relaions beween simuli (Barnes, Hegary, & Smees, 1997; D. Barnes-Holmes & Sewar, 2004; Lipkens & Hayes, 2009; Sewar e al., 2004; Sewar, Barnes-Holmes, oche, & Smees, 2001, 2002). Several sudies also show ha, in young people, he abiliy o creae analogies develops in parallel wih he overall abiliies o relaional raming (Carpenier, Smees, & BarnesHolmes, 2002; Carpenier, Smees, Barnes-Holmes, & Sewar, 2004).
MEAPHOS Meaphors are a paricular ype o analogy, so hey also rely on differen relaional neworks being relaed muually in coordinaion. Here’s an example o a ypical meaphor: “o argue wih him is o be run over by a seamroller.” is example fis well wih he above descripion o analogies. We have described wo evens ha make up wo relaional neworks beween differen simuli. One consiss o a person who argues wih ohers, and he oher consiss o a person being run over by a seamroller. Boh neworks conain arbirary relaions (such as he relaion beween he words ha are used and he objecs hey reer o or how i eels o be run over by a seamroller, which mos liseners have never experienced and can conac only hrough verbal uncions) and nonarbirary relaions (such as he lisener’s experience o arguing wih ohers or he direc experience o having seen somehing being run over by a seamroller). ese wo are placed in an arbirary relaion o coordinaion by a conexual cue: “is.” Jus as wih he analogies discussed above, his relaion o coordinaion is neverheless no exclusively arbirary. I employs a nonar birary similariy beween he wo neworks in a leas one paricular sense: how i would be o ry o sop or influence his person or a seamroller. e wo relaional neworks conain differen ypes o relaions, bu he relaion ha exiss in boh and is relaed here is a causal relaion�ha o sanding in he way o someone or somehing on one hand, and he consequences o doing his on he oher. How, hen, do we disinguish beween a meaphor and an analogy? In he examples o analogies given earlier, here is symmery beween he nonarbirary relaions used in he analogy. In he analogy “An aom is like he solar sysem,” he aom is he arge and he solar sysem is he base, bu he analogy could work in he oher direcion. e nonarbirary spaial relaion applied in he analogy (one par orbis anoher) is he same or boh o he 96
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
relaional neworks. I an individual undersood an aom in his way (in he simplified sense illusraed by he analogy) bu did no know how he solar sysem works, we could say, “e solar sysem is like an aom,” using he aom as base and he solar sysem as arge. e same hing is rue o he example o differen cars and differen ruis, even hough i seems unnaural because i’s hard o imagine a siuaion where someone is unamiliar wih he relaion beween necarines and peaches and hereore finds an illusraion reerring o a known relaion beween cars helpul. Neverheless, he wo relaional neworks are also symmerical in his example; ha is, Volvo and Saab are roughly as similar o each oher as necarines and peaches are. e example “Susan and Larry are like cas and dogs” is a borderline case. I someone didn’ know in wha way cas and dogs relae o each oher bu had experienced he way in which Susan and Larry figh, he analogy could, a leas olerably, uncion in he opposie direcion, wih Susan and Larry as base, and cas and dogs as arge. Compare his o he meaphor “o argue wih him is o be run over by a seamroller.” e nonarbirary relaion ha is applied in his meaphor�he similariy beween wo evens involving sanding in he way o an irresisible orce�is no a symmerical relaion. One o he wo relaional neworks being relaed has more o he key qualiy han he oher nework does. e base (being run over by a seamroller) has his qualiy o a greaer exen han does he arge (arguing wih a cerain person). rue analogies can be used in boh direcions, as shown in he examples above. is is no he case wih meaphors. I we were o urn he described meaphor around and say, “o be run over by a seamroller is o argue wih him,” his meaphor probably won’ uncion well. e base and he arge canno swich places. In more echnical language, cerain simulus uncions o wha we migh call “he uiliy o resising” are more pronounced in one o he neworks. is is, o course, he one conaining he seamroller. is means he simulus uncions o he separae neworks are muually in a nonarbirary, hierarchical relaion. In plain words, hey are similar, bu he characerisic ha is similar is considerably more pronounced in one o he neworks. e preceding discussion may seem like an unnecessarily deailed survey. Bu his is an essenial issue, since his qualiy o he meaphor, according o F, is he very core o is useulness. Meaphors uncion by swifly ranserring a characerisic ha is highly eviden in one even o a differen even. emember ha, wihin F, an arbirary ransormaion o uncions o one simulus (even) by anoher is a he very core o human languaging. Meaphors are simply complex neworks o relaions ha achieve his ransormaion in an efficien way. e nonarbirary similariy beween he wo
97
Learning F
neworks in a meaphor may suppor ransormaion o uncions o an exen ha analogical similariy alone migh no. When someone ells me ha “sayyara” is he same hing as “car,” he simulus uncions o a real car (hrough he English word “car,” which we assume has already acquired some o hese simulus uncions) are ranserred o he word “sayyara” (an Arabic word or “car,” ranscribed in Lain characers). When I hear someone say, “rying o solve his problem by hinking abou i more is like rying o plow a field by illing he soil in your head,” his saemen has a undamenal similariy o he firs example. In each case, wo phenomena are relaed arbirarily hrough a conexual cue (“is he same as” and “is like”). However, here is also an imporan difference beween he saemens. In he firs case (“sayyara” and “car”), wo individual simuli are relaed, whereas in he second case he relaion is beween wo complex relaional neworks, each having cerain qualiies. Each o he wo neworks includes a cerain relaion ha is he same in boh neworks. Likewise, boh he aom and he solar sysem conain he spaial relaion “one par orbis around anoher par”; and boh Volvo and Saab, as well as necarines and peaches, have cerain similariies. ese relaions are no arbirary. I is hese nonarbirary relaions, inernal o each nework, ha are relaed o creae an analogy. A meaphor is an analogy where he qualiies in ocus are more pronounced in he base han hey are in he arge. In a good meaphor, he characerisic is ypically very obvious in is base and only scarcely noiceable in he arge; his suble characerisic is highlighed precisely hrough he meaphor. For example, hinking abou a problem is somehing mos o us see as a naurally good hing. We are accusomed o solving problems and difficulies in ha way. is can lead us o doing his ype o hinking in a compulsive way, even in siuaions where i doesn’ acually work. In a siuaion like his, we may have a ain eeling ha his hinking isn’ geting us any closer o he soluion, and ye i seems naural, like wha mus be done. When we hear someone say, “rying o solve his problem by hinking abou i more is like rying o plow a field by illing he soil in your head,” an experience is ranserred�somehing we ofen call an insigh�rom one relaional nework o he oher. e nonarbirary relaion beween hese wo neworks may influence our subsequen acions i i leads o he view ha coninued hinking abou he problem isn’ as necessary or effecive as we believed. e preceding analysis o meaphors based on F is no merely an inellecual consrucion or a concepual model. I has evolved gradually hrough experimenal sudies parallel wih sudies o analogies (Sewar & BarnesHolmes, 2001, 2008).
98
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
Meaphors Are Everywhere us ar, he examples o meaphors I’ve given are easy o ollow, and i is easy o ideniy hem as meaphors. However, he use o meaphors has a much wider scope. Meaphoric speech is no limied o clear examples like hese. Meaphors are everywhere; hey are even woven ino ways o speaking we do no immediaely ideniy as meaphoric. I see an example in he previous senence: woven ino. is is somehing you do when you are weaving. Bu wha I was wriing abou was how meaphors are insered everywhere in our way o speaking or wriing; I wasn’ wriing abou weaving. “Meaphors are relaed o our use o language in he same way ha yarn is relaed o a piece o woven abric” is probably wha he reader caches (did you noice ha?), and his is he relaing o relaions o each oher described above. e meaphor was embedded (did you noice ha?) wihou my paying (did you noice ha?) atenion o he meaphor when I wroe i. I may be possible o replace his meaphor�ha meaphors are woven ino language�wih somehing nonmeaphorical, like he word “inser”: Meaphors are insered in our language even when hey do no sand ou (did you noice ha?) o us. Saying ha hey are insered in language may seem like a drier (did you noice ha?) way o puting i (did you noice ha?) compared o saying ha hey are woven ino language. And we migh ponder wheher “insered” is no also meaphorical, i we ake a closer look. ese ypes o meaphors, which are an esablished par o our vocabulary, are usually called rozen meaphors. O course, he usage o he word “rozen” is ye anoher example o he phenomenon I have ried o illusrae. Meaphors are buil ino he oundaion o language. ere is scienific consensus abou his, and F shows us how his oundaion is buil. I seems like a fiting las example o poin o (!) he ac ha his secion’s heading� ha meaphors are everywhere�is meaphorical oo. As conceps, meaphors don’ exis anywhere in he physical world; hey are simply relaed o our languaging in he same way ha somehing angible can be everywhere around us.
Meaphors and he wo ypes o Conexual Cues In chaper 4 I described how he conexual cues ha govern relaional raming can be divided ino wo uncional classes: hose ha govern he relaion ha is derived (Crel) and hose ha govern which specific uncions will be ransormed in accordance wih ha relaion (Cunc). I menion his once
99
Learning F
again because meaphors are a good example o when he difference beween Crel and Cunc maters. Le’s reurn o he meaphor “o argue wih him is o be run over by a seamroller.” ere are several elemens in he conex where his is utered ha uncion as Crel , mos obviously “is.” is governs wha kind o relaion is esablished beween he wo evens: one o similariy. e real-lie similariy beween arguing and being run over could also uncion as C rel . e probabiliy o his is greaer i he person who hears he meaphor has some experience o arguing wih he person in quesion, meaning he has been in ouch wih his similariy independen o he meaphor. e person who hears he meaphor wihou having any previous experience o he person in quesion, however, will ge a clear idea o he similariy only afer having heard he meaphor, which means his acor is less obvious as Crel . e more general similariy beween being run over and being in an argumen could possibly come ino play, bu i probably has less significance. However, somehing mus govern which uncions in he meaphor’s arge are going o be influenced. A relaion o coordinaion is esablished beween he wo neworks (“is”), bu no all o he simulus uncions o he base are ranserred o he arge. Very ew people who hear his meaphor would come o he conclusion ha he person in quesion has a seering wheel, rolls orward, or weighs ons. ere is somehing in he conex ha governs which uncions are ransormed, ha is, somehing ha plays he role o Cunc. Here, oo, he nonarbirary similariy (or more precisely, he hierarchical relaion) beween arguing wih someone who is very obsinae, on one hand, and being run over, on he oher, comes ino play. Which uncions are brough o he ore can also be governed by oher elemens in he described siuaion, such as wha he person said. I he person who hears he meaphor has firs winessed a dispue wih he person described by he meaphor, acors in ha even will no doub also serve as C unc. Again, i is no essenial o accuraely map ou exacly wha is Crel and wha is Cunc. ough you could possibly do his in a resriced experimenal environmen, i’s hardly possible “ou here, in real lie.” Chances are exceedingly slim ha we can map ou in such a deailed way he evens and processes ha we experience or ha people ell us abou. Our knowledge is no sufficien, and in mos cases his ype o analysis becomes very speculaive. Wha is imporan is o undersand he principal difference beween hese wo ypes o conexual conrol. emember behavior analysis’s undamenal aims: predicion and influence. When i comes o influence, he disincion beween Crel and Cunc is imporan, because i can be easier o influence a process by alering he conexual cues ha govern uncion raher han by
100
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
changing hose ha govern relaion. is is relevan o clinical inervenions, and I will reurn o i in par 3 o his book.
BEHAVIO ANALYSIS AND HE CONCEP OF SELF e word “sel” has a well-esablished posiion in boh ordinary and scienific language. We alk abou sel-image, sel-conrol, sel-eseem, and selconfidence. I say and hink hings abou mysel. e concep is closely ied o our experience o being a person, an “I.” I is a core word in he world o psychoherapy, and one imporan school wihin psychoanalysis has he word in he name o is approach, namely sel psychology (Kohu, 1971, 1977). However, he word “sel” has varying meanings, and i has a commonsense background raher han a scienific one. Wihin behavior analysis, conceps wih such weak definiions are ofen criicized as unscienific. A he same ime, he word “sel” ofen occurs wihin he differen applicaions o behavior herapy, such as in he conceps o sel-conrol and sel-discriminaion. Skinner wroe abou how his word has ofen been used in a unscienific way, bu also said ha he word poins o an imporan par o human experience. In ac, he devoes enire chapers o he concep in some o his mos imporan books (Skinner, 1953, 1974, 1989). Because his experience seems o be universal among humans, we have reason o analyze i i human behavior is wha we wan o undersand. alking abou “sel” is, no doub, clearly a human behavior and Skinner was ineresed in discovering he background o his phenomenon. e ollowing simple example can be used as a saring poin o an analysis o his phenomenon (Skinner, 1953, p. 265): o say “I see a rainbow” is no he same hing as saying “ere is a rainbow.” In he firs case he individual has idenified his own seeing; ideniying a rainbow is ancillary. o make use o he erminology oulined in chaper 2, he is acing his own behavior. Skinner viewed his as he oundaion o he concep o “sel.” We learn very early in lie, rom our social environmen, o alk abou our own behavior because his is useul o hose around us; in ime i also becomes useul o he individual, as described in chaper 2. Pars o his behavior belong in he caegory Skinner reerred o as privae, ha is, behaviors ha can be observed only by he person doing hem. When a young child learns o speak, i is iniially hrough echoing (see chaper 2). Iniially, he child uses isolaed words when ineracing wih
101
Learning F
differen objecs, bu as ime passes unis emerge, such as “Me ge dolly,” “Me ge ball,” “Me happy,” “I wan…,” and so on. Cerain pars o hese unis are shifing and ohers are permanen. One hing ha is permanen is he link beween he child’s own behavior and he words “I” and “me.” e way he child acs in coherence wih his, like acually saying “I” or his own name in connecion wih his own acions, is coninuously reinorced by he people in his social environmen. Along wih his successive use o words ha are relaed o he child’s own acions, simuli ha are available only o he child himsel will also be correlaed boh wih he word “I” and wih oher words or himsel; words like names, nicknames, and he like. So alking abou “I” or “me” sars ou as a par o bigger unis o speech ha are learned hrough operan condiioning. Laer, he smaller uni “I” is seleced and coordinaed wih privae evens�simuli deecable only by he child himsel (Kohlenberg & sai, 1995). In his way, he child learns o ac his own behavior, including privae evens. Pars o he simuli presen or he child as his happens conrol he acing o “I.” Bu according o F, somehing urher is needed or he complex phenomenon o sel o emerge.
HE EXPEIENCE OF SELF: A ESUL OF PESPECIVE AKING F builds on he above analysis (S. C. Hayes, 1984; S. C. Hayes & Gregg, 2000; S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001) and akes is poin o deparure in derived relaional responding, as described in chaper 4 and in he ype o relaional raming ha esablishes a verbal perspecive. We uilize differen relaional rames and fi simuli ino hese. We fi evens ino comparaive rames: “Love is greaer han hae.” We fi hem ino emporal rames: “Larry will be here firs.” In he same way, we learn o relae evens rom a perspecive: “Wha i he sees…” According o F, his abiliy o ake a perspecive hrough relaional raming is wha makes he human experience o sel possible. In line wih wha I described jus above, a child can learn o ac “I” as a par o acing his own behavior, including privae evens. However, he complexiy o his behavior is considerably increased by relaional raming. Jus as a child is reinorced or using “I,” he will also be reinorced or using he word “here.” Bu he child is also reinorced or using words like “here” and “you.” And “here” is always somewhere oher han “here,” and “here” is always rom he poin o he view o he child. From his kind o raining, i seems ha a sense o a unique perspecive emerges, which we learn o disinguish
102
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
rom he perspecive o ohers. When we humans experience our own unique perspecive (I), we do so rom our experience ha an alernaive perspecive (you�or he, she, or i) is possible (Buber, 1970). e same dynamic applies o he wo oher relaions hough o be a par o perspecive aking: here/here and now/hen. “Here” is dependen on “here” or us o experience i he way we do, and “now” is similarly dependen on “hen.” I he conceps o “you,” “here,” and “hen” were o vanish (which is hardly even conceivable o any o us), hen “I,” “here,” and “now” would lose heir respecive qualiies. Wha we now experience or mean by hese expressions would cease o exis. e way I experience having a perspecive o my own, seeing hings rom precisely where I am siuaed, is suppored by he experience ha a differen perspecive, seeing rom where someone else is siuaed, is possible. is discussion is an atemp o describe pars o our experience ha are so naural and deeply ingrained ha hey are difficul o alk and wrie abou. According o F, his experience o perspecive evolves rom hree differen and ye inerdependen relaions ha we can describe as I/you, here/here, and now/hen. e wo firs are spaial relaions, and he hird is emporal. ese hree relaions are learned as a par o our ordinary language raining hrough an innumerable variey o everyday quesions such as hese:
Wha are you doing now?
Wha am I doing now?
Where are you going o be hen?
Where am I going o be hen?
Wha have you go here?
Wha do I have here?
Where are you now?
Where were you hen?
In his ype o learning, which includes boh quesions and answers, much o he conex will shif rom one occasion o he nex: wha someone does, wha someone has, who has or does somehing, where someone is, when somehing was done, and so on. All o his is consanly changing. Wha remains invariable or any paricular person is he perspecive isel. An individual always answers rom he perspecive o I-here-now. is is he only perspecive he individual experiences in a direc way. I you as a reader noe your own experience righ now, you do his rom he perspecive
103
Learning F
o I-here-now. Have you ever experienced anyhing�seen, heard, or done anyhing�rom a perspecive oher han I-here-now? Hardly, and ye we ac and reac as i here were anoher perspecive. We can never experience his oher perspecive direcly. e way we, as individuals, relae o a perspecive oher han our own has been learned. I is clear ha young children have no ye learned his and hereore make obvious misakes i we ask hem or such a perspecive. I we ask a young child wha someone else a he able is eaing, we migh ge an answer ha ells us wha he child himsel is eaing. I we ask wha someone who is siting across he able rom he child can see, he child migh no answer he quesion correcly. e abiliy o see perspecives oher han one’s own is verbally esablished; ha is, i is learned hrough arbirarily applicable relaional responding. e ypes o quesions lised above will be asked, and answered, on counless occasions. As he child learns o absrac he differen perspecives, hese perspecives will hen become arbirarily applicable hrough he conexual cues ha differen words become. Words like “here,” “you,” “he,” “she,” “hey,” “hen,” and “yeserday” will cue derived simulus uncions ha are brough in rom perspecives oher han ha o he child himsel. Nohing is lierally brough in, o course. All o his emerges as a resul o he ransormaion o uncions. As his happens, we appear o conac a perspecive oher han our own due o having learned o fi experiences ino relaions: I/you, here/here, and now/hen. is conac is illusory�we can never ake anoher person’s perspecive in he way ha we ake our own. A bes, we can imagine anoher person’s perspecive. We can also imagine ourselves as i we had anoher perspecive: I-here-hen. Bu wherever we go, no individual can ever acually ge o you, here, or hen. A verbally compeen person is always in he posiion o I, here, and now. I I see your perspecive, I do so rom my own. I can ry o imagine wha I would have done or wha I would do i I were in your siuaion. Bu i I did his in he pas or do his in he uure, i sill was, or i will be, now. We humans always live in a psychological now (L. J. Hayes, 1992). I I go over here, “here” will be “here” once I ge here. is is illusraed nicely in a song rom he popular Swedish kids’ V series Five Ans Are More Tan Four Elephans (somehing along he lines o Sesame Sree ). e lyrics go, “ere is where you are no, here is here, where you are, and here is always wih you.” And i is in his perspecive, here and now, ha our experience o sel, o being an “I,” originaes. is is because i is he perspecive ha always exiss or us, he perspecive rom which everyhing ha happens o us is experienced, and he perspecive rom which we learn o alk abou i as “I.” And because his perspecive is coninuous, i gives rise o our experience o coninuiy: he experience o always in some sense being he same person�“mysel.”
104
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
PESPECIVE AKING AND HEOY OF MIND e above discussion makes clear ha perspecive aking plays an essenial role in he shaping o “sel.” e abiliy o ake anoher’s perspecive is also an essenial abiliy in is own righ. In recen years i has been he ocal poin o exensive research based on cogniive heory, and paricularly research ino heory o mind (Baron-Cohen, ager-Flusberg, & Cohen, 2000). is research aims o develop a general undersanding o how humans uncion, how we develop he abiliy o atribue menal saes o ourselves and o ohers, and how empahy arises. More specifically, his research examines he problems seen in auisic individuals and has had direc and applicable consequences, allowing developmen o specific sraegies or helping children learn or develop perspecive aking (Howlin, Baron-Cohen, & Hadwin, 1999). Based on his work, researchers have also idenified wha are seen as differen seps in he abiliy o ake anoher person’s perspecive. ese seps sar rom he basic�being able o imagine wha an objec looks like rom a posiion oher han one’s own�and go all he way o such complex behavior as being able o anicipae anoher’s behavior rom assumpions abou heir rue versus alse concepions abou evens. In oher words, we can ac based on our assumpions abou wha anoher person believes o be rue, regardless o wha we ourselves believe o be rue. is requires ha we be able o ake he perspecive o he oher. Improving raining mehods or auisic children has occupied behavior analyss or decades. e experimenal suppor or undersanding perspecive aking as relaional raming opens up new possibiliies in his regard. e advanage o aking on his field o research rom a behavior analyic poin o view is, again, ha is science is buil rom he botom up. e conceps ha are used are precisely defined and described and have heir origins in basic experimenal work. On he oher hand, many view i as problemaic or cogniive-oriened models o define wha is inended by differen erms and wha he basic skills are (Y. Barnes-Holmes, McHugh, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). In he sudies based on F, he conceps and skills described in his book have been he saring poin. Perspecive aking is seen as a orm o generalized operan behavior ha involves having he child learn o relae simuli rom a cerain perspecive: I versus you, here versus here, and now versus hen (Y. Barnes-Holmes, McHugh, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). A specific proocol has been developed o rain his reperoire (Y. Barnes-Holmes, BarnesHolmes, & McHugh, 2004; McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2009). In shor, he raining is designed o presen he child wih quesions
105
Learning F
ha sysemaically rain differen degrees o complexiy in erms o perspecive aking. Feedback is given during he raining; ha is, he correc answer is ollowed by reinorcing consequences in he dialogue. e raining sars wih simple relaions, such as “Which ball do I have, and which ball do you have?” and “Who is here; who is here?” In he nex sep, relaions are reversed: “I I were you and you were me, which ball do you have, and which ball do I have?” and “You are siting over here in he small chair; I am siting over here in he big chair. [is describes he acual siuaion.] I here was here and here was here, in which chair am I siting, and in which chair are you siting?” You also rain double reversed relaions: “oday I am siting here in he big chair. Yeserday I sa over here, in he small one. I here was here and here was here, and now was hen and hen was now, where am I siting now? Where was I siting hen?” As you probably noiced, answering hese kinds o quesions is no alogeher easy, even or a verbally compeen adul. a his skill corresponds o he phenomena conained in he heory o mind concep is suppored by comparisons made beween how his ype o relaional raming is maniesed in groups o people o differen ages, on one hand, and wha is oherwise ound in curren research lieraure, on he oher (McHugh e al., 2004). I has also been demonsraed ha i is possible o influence his skill in preschool-aged children, hrough hese ypes o raining programs, and ha perspecive aking generalizes (Heagle & eheld, 2006). I has also been shown ha auisic children’s skills in perspecive aking can be improved using hese mehods (eheld, Dillen, Ziomek, & Kowalchuck, 2007; or an up-o-dae summary o his enire field, see eheld & Barnes-Holmes, 2009).
HEE ASPECS OF OU EXPEIENCE OF SELF I is now ime o reurn o wha is o core ineres in his book: he specific human behavior we call hinking, how i is conneced o our experience o sel, and how his can be undersood wihin an F approach. So ar I have described how F explains he origin o our experience o being an “I,” our experience o coninuiy o sel. You migh pu i his way: No only do I see a rainbow and see my seeing a rainbow, I also see ha I am he one seeing a rainbow; I see ha I am seeing i rom a specific perspecive, and ha a dieren perspecive is possible. is akes place hrough relaional raming as developed by our verbal raining.
106
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
Sel-as-Perspecive e perspecive o coninuiy o sel has a peculiariy. We canno observe his perspecive in isel. I can never become an objec or us o observe. We can alk or wrie abou i, jus as I am doing now, and we can observe he consequences o being able o ake his perspecive. We can make observaions rom a specific perspecive or locus, bu we can never observe his locus or perspecive as such. O course, his is raher obvious, because rom which perspecive would we observe i? All we have is I-here-now. And whaever we observe, i simply canno be his locus, as ha is he vanage rom which we observe i. Consequenly, our very own perspecive is void o conen. I is simply he poin rom which we observe, ac, and live our lives. a is why F reers o his aspec o our sel-experience as sel-as-perspecive , or sel-as-conex . is is he conex wihin or perspecive rom which we experience wha we experience. Bu he concep o sel goes beyond his. We do no experience ourselves as being consanly void o conen or as a reely floaing perspecive. When someone asks me abou mysel, I can usually describe mysel in various ways, and I can also observe aspecs o my experience ha I would call “mysel.” In our atemps o analyze he phenomenological area ha we describe when using he word “sel,” we hus need o do some more reasoning. Wihin F his is done by describing wo more aspecs o sel: sel-as-process and selas-sory. is is no o say ha hese hree cover all o he possibiliies or ha oher aspecs o sel aren’ valid or useul, bu or behavior analyic purposes we need hese hree aspecs.
Sel-as-Process Sel-as-process is similar o Skinner’s concep o privae evens, which we can learn o ac. I is he ongoing, observable process o ourselves: behavior ha is occurring in he momen and ha makes up par o wha each o us calls mysel�eelings, memories, bodily sensaions, and houghs. I always exiss here and now. is means ha boh hrough direc experiences and hrough language raining, i will be conneced o wha he individual hinks o as “I.” Noe, however, ha i is no consan in he way sel-as-perspecive is. We do no always hink or remember he same hing. Our bodies do no always eel he same, and our emoional sae varies. Being firmly in ouch wih sel-as-process is very useul. For example, wha we remember and eel in many ways consiues a summary o our hisory. And as described earlier, he ac ha his link is useul o he people
107
Learning F
in our surroundings explains why we have learned o alk abou i. How I eel righ now says somehing abou my endency o ac in differen ways, and i les people who have reason o relae o me know somehing abou me. I I am in ouch wih mysel as a process in he presen momen, my opions or acing flexibly in regard o he hings ha are imporan o me increase, and so do my opions or ineracing wih ohers. I I noice ha I am angry righ now, I can use my awareness o his sae o inorm my nex sep. I my hisory has predisposed me oward aggressive behavior in a cerain ype o siuaion and I am no in ouch wih my own process o moving oward hiting someone, his can have roublesome consequences. In he same way, a sligh affecive process can be useul o me as a signal o consider pursuing an acion. For example, noicing a sense o ineres or curiosiy in relaion o some even or objec can be a saring poin or finding ou more abou i. I I don’ noice his process, I run a higher risk o missing ou on evens ha migh have been valuable or me. “Knowing onesel” in he sense o sel-asprocess means being in ouch wih one’s own hisory, including pars ha were no originally verbal bu now are, as a resul o his very behavior. When we noice affecive saes and bodily sensaions in ourselves, wha we are observing is o a cerain exen biologically given reacion paterns (Ekman, 1992). In addiion, i is parly our hisory o responden learning and parly our hisory o relaional learning. o a verbally compeen person, nohing, eelings included, is simply wha i is in isel. A eeling is never simply “he eeling as such”; i is also “precisely wha i means o me.” I is always a resul o he individual’s abiliy o rame relaionally, and he indi vidual’s hisory in his respec pus is imprin on everyhing. Buterflies in your somach can mean eiher “Oh, his is wonderul” or “is isn’ going o end well.” is line o discussion brings us o he border beween sel-asprocess and he hird aspec o our experience o sel as described in F: sel-as-sory.
Sel-as-Sory, or he Concepualized Sel From he ime we ake our firs otering seps as verbal beings, words will designae and reer o everyhing we mee, including our own behavior. We learn o alk abou ourselves because his is useul o our social environmen, so i has reinorced such behavior. is also means ha, a an early age, we are given descripions o ourselves ha, ogeher wih our own descripions o ourselves, develop ino sories abou “who I am.” We learn o describe and relae his aloud, bu airly soon we also learn o do so silenly. is aspec o sel is ermed sel-as-sory or concepualized sel .
108
Analogies, Meaphors, and Our Experience o Sel
Words and houghs rapidly invade our experience or many reasons, among hem ha verbal behavior can occur simulaneously wih more or less any oher behavior (Parrot, 1984). In general, i is difficul o carry ou several nonverbal acions simulaneously wih he same objec, bu i is easy o hink o somehing while a he same ime carrying ou oher acions wih he same hing. I is easier o hink o a chair while paining i compared o sanding on i o reach he ceiling while simulaneously paining he chair. is is so obvious ha we normally do no hink abou i. Bu he very ac ha verbal behavior usually does no have a direc effec on our physical environmen makes i exremely common or verbal behavior o proceed simulaneously wih almos anyhing we do. Par o his verbal behavior describes and relaes our own acions. A sory or concepualizaion o ourselves is o course very useul. I conribues o coninuiy and supplies he individual wih a ype o summary o “who I am.” is sor o summary is essenial in our ineracions wih ohers. Because i can be presened, i can, o a cerain degree, sand in or direc experience o an individual by his social communiy. I can summarize his hisory, wha he hinks is imporan, wha he can be expeced o do, and so on. For his individual’s social communiy, his sory becomes a shorcu o knowledge abou him. is hearkens back o he above discussion o he uncion o learning o alk abou ourselves as processes. Sel-as-sory is, however, much more verbally elaborae han sel-as-process, while also possibly omiing a lo o wha is going on wih he individual in he momen. A ypically ormalized way o using sel-as-sory is he ype o summary we presen in a job inerview or when we inroduce ourselves in a new social environmen. ink o how much o our ineracion wih children involves eaching hem o creae his sory. We ask quesions and make saemens like hese: “Wha did you do hen?” “Wha did you hink abou ha?” “Are you a boy or a girl?” “You look so much like your aher.” “You are so cue.” ese quesions and saemens, along wih he dialogues ha ollow, help children orm a concepualized sel. An imporan par o his sory is ha i is coheren and a conneced whole. is becomes eviden when he individual does hings ha don’ seem o resonae wih he already exising sory o “me” in a cerain conex. For example, i someone whose sel-as-sory includes being kind and orhcoming loses his emper in a cerain siuaion and rejecs someone’s reques, his can lead o he person elling himsel and ohers hings like “I wasn’ mysel.” Somehing similar occurs i someone says somehing abou us ha doesn’ correspond o our own sory. We look or explanaions and ways o ormulaing he sory o make i coheren. We deend our sory abou ourselves, and i we do change i, we do so in a way ha makes i say logically consisen. 109
Learning F
is brings us back o wha I wroe earlier abou coherence as a generalized reinorcer. e concepualized sel, which has is origins in our ineracions wih our social environmen, soon becomes imporan o us. And beore long, pars o hese sories will be known only by he individual, since we learn o ell hem silenly and hus, or differen reasons, can wihhold pars o hem rom our environmen. ere are aspecs aspec s o sel-as-sory ha h a we don’ don’ relae in job inerviews. We probably ell a differen version o our sory o our riends and closes amily members, bu his inormaion is also selecive. Some aspecs o he sory we ell abou ourselves remain known only by he individual. In many ways, our sories abou ourselves have he same uncion or ourselves as hey do or our environmen. ey urn ino summaries ha, among oher hings, uncion as scrips or acion (omkins, 1987): “I am a person who does his or ha.” is leads us closer o he opic o he nex chaper: rule-governed behavior, and sel-rules in paricular. Sel-as-sory enails several obvious risks, jus like all summaries do. Firs o all, his sel-concepualizaion is, by necessiy, an exreme simplificaion. is is is very poin and a he same ime a limiaion. In ligh o everyhing ha has happened in my lie, my concepualized sel is jus one o many possible sories. Pars o he sory have been creaed as a resul o my own acing o sel-as-process: wha I have noiced abou my own behavior, eelings, memories, bodily sensaions, and houghs. A he same ime, i has come abou as a resul o my ineracion wih a social environmen ha, hrough is acing o my behavior, has also creaed pars o he sory. We can assume ha a leas some pars o his acing have been wha Skinner reerred o as impure, or disored (Skinner, 1957); in oher words, pars o my sory o mysel have been influenced by hings oher han my behavior. In more everyday language, versions o my sory o me have been creaed by ohers, and many imes hey have had purposes oher han simply describing me when elling he sory. A leading psychoanalys has expressed his very ellingly: You could be “knowing wha you are no supposed o know and eeling wha you are no supposed o eel” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 99). is ies in wih anoher imporan qualiy in our sel-concepualizaion. A core par o he sory consiss o comparaive, evaluaive raming. Sel-as-sory always conains wha is good and wha is bad wih me specifically. And here lurks he deepes ear or all o us: ha we are undamenally bad, aversive, and no he way we “should” be. I is easy o see ha when hese differen limiaions in sel-as-sory are combined wih our effors o keep ha sory whole and coheren, he sory can become a piall, raher han an asse. is is somehing I’ll reurn o in laer discussions on clinical issues, in boh chaper 7 and par 3 o he book.
1100 11
Analo A nalogies gies,, Meaphor Meaphors, s, and Ou Ourr Ex Experie perience nce o Sel Sel
HE ELAIONSHIP BEWEEN HE HEE ASPECS OF SELF e preceding survey o hree aspecs o sel reveals ha he disincions beween be ween hem are no al always ways clea clear. r. However, How ever, sha sharply rply deli delineaed neaed dis disi incion ncionss are no necessary. is is no an atemp o describe he hree pars o sel as i hey acually exised. is is jus a way o speaking abou our experience and relaing i o he scienific daa ha are summarized in F. e main poin is ha our capaciy or arbirarily applicable relaional responding is wha gives us he experience o hese differen aspecs o sel, and ha his is significan in he clinical applicaion o his knowledge. a said, here are a ew hings ha may be worh menioning abou he relaionship beween hese hree aspecs o sel. Firs a word on an imporan disincion beween sel-as-perspecive and he wo oher aspecs. Sel-asperspecive is he posiion here and now, rom which everyhing is observed, and is no isel open o direc observaion, whereas boh sel-as-process and sel-as-sory are aspecs we can observe direcly. is creaes a poenial experienial disance beween sel-as-perspecive, on one hand, and sel-as-process and sel-as-sory, on he oher. Ye Ye his hi s experience exper ience o disance is ofen missing. A person can easi easily ly coordi coordinae nae sel-a sel-as-process s-process and sel-a sel-as-sor s-soryy wi wihh I-herenow; ha is, ac as i hese aspecs define him. Bu we have he possibiliy o experiencing boh sel-as-process and sel-as-sory as being here and hen, as when he indi individu vidual al disc discri rimi minaes naes someh somehing ing he eel eelss or hi hink nkss as wha y ypipically urns up or him, or example. is also means i is possible o ake a dieren approach oward a resricing sory abou onesel. A direc experience o he experienial disance beween I-here-now and I-here-hen can lead he individual o he posiion o “a is a sory abou me ha lie has given me, and�being able o observe i�I am more han my sory abou mysel.” is, o course, brings ou a new sory, bu because he new sory will appear as a resul o new experiences, i could be more useul and less resricing. I will discuss his a greaer lengh in par 3 o he book. As impl implied ied above, sel-a sel-as-process s-process and a nd sel-as-sor sel -as-soryy are sim s imililar ar in i n he sense ha boh consiue “conen o sel,” which can be observed here-hen. Among A mong he regard regardss in whic whichh hey di differ ffer is ha sel sel-as-proces -as-processs is connec conneced ed o more direc, nonderived simulus uncions, while sel-as-sory is more dominaed by derived simulus uncions. o use an alernaive expression, sel-as-sory is more cogniive. Anoher way o describing he difference is ha sel-as-process ocuses more on he presen, while sel-as-sory is more absrac and saic and embraces he individual’s overall hisory o a higher
1111 11
Learning F
degree. Anoher way o describing hese wo aspecs is as sel-as-process and sel-as-produc, respecively.
SUMMAY is chaper described how basic relaional raming provides he building blocks or more complex relaion re laional al behaviors beh aviors such s uch as relai rel aing ng neworks ne works o relarel aions in analogy and meaphor. I also described how perspecive aking orms he oundaion o our experience o sel, which maniess in several ways. All o his is cenral cenra l o human behavior in general, and hereby also key o wha we ofen reer o as “psychopahology.” Nex we’ll urn o wha Skinner reerred o as rule-governed behavior. is is he area in which verbal behavior has is mos ar-reaching consequences or he condiions under which we humans live. I is also in connecion wih his abiliy ha he side effecs o language become mos ev eviden. iden. We wil w illl ge o hose side effec effecs s in chaper 7. Bu, fir firs, s, le’s ake a closer look a rule-governed behavior in isel.
112
CH A PTE PTER R6 elaional Frami elaional Framing ng and ule-Gove u le-Goverrne nedd Behavior
e erm “rule-governed behavior” was firs used by Skinner in a chaper on problem solving (1966). As menioned in chaper 2, since hen behavior analyss have sruggled o describe his ype o complex human behavior. My inenion in his chaper is o show how rule-governed behavior can be analyzed hrough F and how his opens up prospecs or a beter undersanding o his phenomenon. I will hen describe differen ypes o rule-governed behavior behav ior and discu d iscuss ss how hey hey develop deve lop and how ho w hey he y are impor imporan an o human hum an behavior. behav ior. e concep o rule-governed behavior is based on uncional analysis. A cer cerai ainn behav behavior ior is unders undersood ood and in influenced fluenced by ana analy lyzing zing conex conexua uall acors: wha precedes (aneceden) and wha ollows upon (consequence) ha behavior. In an atemp o describe rule-governed behavior based on his paradigm, Skinner discussed how cerain anecedens uncion as rules or insrucions. ey speciy behavior and consequence. You migh say hey uncion as i hey anicipae wha has no ye aken place. Anoher imporan aspec is ha hey prescribe behavior. A child is old, “Pu your jacke on and you’ll say warm,” and based on his saemen she pus her jacke on. Someone says, “I you wan o convince her o your love, you have o spend more ime wih her,” and he person who hears his makes some changes in his ime prioriies. We give hese kinds o insrucions o each oher and ourselves almos coninuously. We could sum summar marize ize he problem wi wihh rad radiiona iionall u uncion ncional al ana analys lysis is o his behavior, described in chaper 2, in his way: How can anecedens
Leariing F
acquire simulus uncions rom somehing ha, seemingly, is experienced as exising in he uure, or rom oher evens ha he individual has no been in conac wih? And how can an aneceden influence behavior ha occurs much laer�maybe laer�maybe years laer�alhough laer�al hough i did no have have his h is effec on behavior when he aneceden a neceden was presen? Here’ Here’s an exa example: mple: Someone Someone ells a raveler, “When you visi Sockholm, you should go o he Vasa Museum.” When he raveler finally visis Sockholm many years laer, wha makes her choose o go o his museum based on wha was said so long ago? I we place he reasons or his in an inernal world o menal represenaions, we migh eel ha he problem is solved. Bu, as oulined earlier, wihin behavior analysis his answer has never been good enough. We can ans answer wer hes hesee ques quesions ions h hrough rough rela relaional ional ra rame me heor heory, y, and we can do so wh while ile say saying ing r rue ue o he basic assu assumpions mpions o behav behavior ior ana analylysis. Early in lie, humans learn a generalized operan: arbirarily applicable relaional responding. is responding is governed by conexual cues ha speciy he relaion so ha he relaional response can be brough o bear on any simuli, regardless o heir ormal, physical properies. is relaing willll,, in u wi urn, rn, govern wh which ich si simulus mulus u uncion ncionss are cued in a gi given ven momen. Afer A fer someone el ells ls me h ha a many people in he neighborho neighborhood od are suff sufferi ering ng rom an upse somach because o eaing poorly prepared chicken, eaing he chicken on my plae will be in a relaion o coordinaion o somehing aversive: becoming sick. In his siuaion, he chicken acquires simulus uncions or me ha i did no have beore I heard his series o sounds (“…many people in he neighborhood…”). is response does no depend on my having previously become sick afer eaing chicken. I may never have experienced somach illness a all. Noe ha his does no occur because o some hidden process inside he person. O course here are hings occurring inside he person, jus as in any oher behavior. However, wha I have described here is a behavior perormed by he person as a whole. Humans relae hings in his way, in wha can perhaps be mos accuraely described as a social game. is is he key o undersanding rule-governed behavior.
ELAIONAL FRMING AND HE RNSFOMAION OF SIMULUS FUNCIONS OF ANECEDENS elaional raming alers he radiional ABC sequence because i influences how he componens o he sequence acquire heir uncions. In a radiional 1144 11
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
sequence, he anecedens, or example, obain heir simulus uncions by direc coningencies in he earlier hisory o he organism or according o physical properies, as in generalizaion. I a dog is passing a cerain gae and anoher dog atacks i, i is likely ha his gae will acquire new simulus uncions or he dog ha was atacked. From ha poin on, he gae may have he simulus uncion o signaling danger, due o responden learning. Oher gaes could ake on similar uncions hrough generalizaion, provided ha hey are similar enough. Similar learning occurs in humans, bu we also have anoher possible pah o learning, hrough arbirarily applicable relaions beween simuli. A gae can acquire new simulus uncions or me wihou my having any direc experience o his gae or anyhing ha is similar o he gae in any way. All ha is required is or anoher person o uter a series o sounds ha are arbirarily agreed upon: “Don’ go in here, or you migh be atacked by a fierce dog.” A sign wih a series o black characers on a whie background spelling ou “Beware o dog” can have he same uncion or my behavior, even i I’ve never encounered a sign like ha beore�by his gae or anywhere else. a boh he sounds and he visual simuli are arbirary is easily illusraed by he ac ha hey probably wouldn’ have he same uncions or someone who is only amiliar wih he Japanese language, or example. For an aneceden o uncion as a rule in his way, a cerain skill is necessary in he lisener: being able o relae simuli in coordinaion, so ha he differen pars o he rule�he sounds and he words�sand or somehing. In his case, he words “fierce dog” are pu in a relaion o coordinaion wih an acual fierce dog. I he rule is o be meaningul and undersandable, i is also necessary or he lisener o relae simuli emporally and causally, o esablish he relaion beween he behavior and is consequences, which are eiher described or implici in he rule. In his example, he lisener needs o be able o pu he behavior o “going in here” in a emporal and causal relaion wih he consequence “migh be atacked.” Noe ha rules or pars o rules can be implici (D. Barnes-Holmes e al., 2006). In conras o he way we radiionally conceive o rules, no everyhing ha alers simulus uncions mus be explicily expressed in he rule. Here is a classical verbal aneceden uncioning as a rule: “Be careul and you’ll make i!” e rule specifies behavior (be careul) and consequence (you’ll make i). is could be ollowed by he lisener being exremely careul abou revealing personal inormaion in a paricular siuaion, or example. Bu simply utering “Be careul!” can be ollowed by he same rule-governed behavior, even hough his saemen doesn’ seem o speciy any consequences. e same rule-governed cauious behavior could also ollow upon simply seeing anoher person ac in a cerain way, wihou anyhing being utered. And he 115
Leariing F
person in quesion can ollow his rule as hough i is generally valid, ha is, valid essenially all he ime. is is an example o how rule-governed behavior can ollow implici rules, which, according o F, is easily explained: e rule ha is ollowed is no necessarily he rule ha was saed. e rule ha is ollowed is he rule ha was conaced. And which rule is conaced is deermined no only by wha was said, bu also by he lisener’s learning hisory, boh direc and derived. is learning hisory gives he circumsances ha are presen a specific uncion and hereby influences he individual’s acions. My hisory could be such ha merely being in he presence o oher human beings pus me in conac wih “Be careul and you’ll make i!” So he quesion o how a rule can speci y behavior and consequences ha are no curren and ha he person has no earlier experienced (Schlinger, 1990) is answered by invoking arbirarily applicable relaional responding (D. Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, & O’Hora, 2001; O’Hora, Barnes-Holmes, oche, & Smees, 2004). A rule pus he lisener in conac wih a relaional nework 1 ha ransorms he uncions o he simuli ha are relaed o he nework. A her acual visi o Sockholm many years afer he rule abou going o he museum was saed, he curren circumsances have cerain simulus uncions or he raveler�uncions hey wouldn’ have had i he rule had no been utered and he raveler had no relaed and did no now relae he presen Sockholm o a cerain museum. Going o he Vasa Museum while in Sockholm can, o course, be governed by compleely differen acors. Bu i, in his case, i is a resul o he rule ha was saed many years ago, hen his happens because presen condiions have acquired heir simulus uncions hrough he social game we learned o ake par in when we learned o relae evens arbirarily.
ULES CAN BE UNDESOOD WIHOU BEING FOLLOWED I is worh noing ha even i a rule is heard and undersood, i is no necessarily ollowed by rule-governed behavior. I can be undersood and ollowed,
1 e reader is once again reminded ha he use o he erm “relaional ne work” does no imply ha any such objecs exis. o alk abou relaional neworks is o say ha humans ac in a paricular way: relaing evens in a poenially complex way. is way o relaing affecs he simulus uncions o such evens. 116
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
or i can be undersood wihou being ollowed. Undersanding is simply he abiliy o relae simuli in he way discussed above. Several acors may influence wheher a rule is ollowed or no. For example, he specific behavioral reperoire needed o ollow he rule may be missing. You may compleely undersand he rule “Hi he dead cener o he bull’s-eye and you’ll win he shooing compeiion,” bu i you canno handle he gun you are o use, you will no ollow his rule. Anoher example o a acor ha influences wheher rule-governed behavior occurs is he credibiliy o he person utering he rule, as seen rom he lisener’s perspecive. Mos readers o his book probably wouldn’ ollow a rule on how o carry ou psychological reamen i i was utered by an acor reerring o he signs o he zodiac. However, i he same rule was delivered by a prominen psychoherapy researcher and she was reerring o new scienific findings, i is considerably more likely ha he rule would resul in rule-governed behavior. e speaker’s credibiliy can be based on he lisener’s acual experiences o ollowing rules utered by his speaker, or on derived simulus uncions. A n example o he ormer would be ollowing a piece o advice rom a lielong parner or close riend who has earlier given counsel ha was helpul. An example o he later is he way in which we normally ollow rules given by various expers or, or ha mater, when we do no ollow his ype o rule because we ollow he rule “So-called expers are usually wrong.” In cerain siuaions, we may also find ha coningencies o reinorcemen or rule-governed behavior are missing. Here’s an example: A child may ollow her parens’ rules bu no her siser’s, since all o he reinorcemen she’s received so ar or ollowing rules has been conneced wih her parens, no her siser. e same effec could also be he resul o wha was described above as lack o credibiliy. e only way o deermine which is he case is by analyzing he specific siuaion. Ye anoher reason why a rule may no be ollowed even hough i is undersood is i he rule is incoheren or conradicory in relaion o he lisener’s learning hisory. is is wha, in everyday language, we migh describe as obviously no correc. Here’s an example: “Say as sedenary as possible, smoke a leas weny cigaretes a day, and regularly use large amouns o alcohol, and you will increase your chances o a long lie and good healh.” Very ew o us, i any, would ac on a rule like his.
117
Leariing F
DIFFEEN YPES OF ULE�GOVENED BEHAVIO ere are wo basic orms o rule-governed behavior, disinguished by he ype o hisory o reinorcing coningencies associaed wih hem. 2 ese are called pliance and racking. A hird orm o rule-governed behavior, called augmening, works in combinaion wih eiher o he oher wo by influencing he degree o which he consequences specified in he rule uncion as reinorcing or punishing.
Pliance Pliance is “rule-governed behavior under he conrol o a hisory o socially mediaed reinorcemen or coordinaion beween behavior and he aneceden verbal simuli (i.e., he relaional nework or rule), in which ha reinorcemen is isel delivered based on a rame o coordinaion beween he rule and behavior” (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001, p. 108). I is similar o wha we mean by “doing as you are old,” as said in everyday language, because i implies having previously encounered reinorcing coningencies ha promoed doing precisely his. e behavior o ollowing he rule, in and o isel, is wha maters in pliance, since he consequences are conrolled by he rule giver and are dependen on ollowing he rule. ypical pliance is when one person yields o wha someone else says in order o obain ha person’s approval, provided ha his is done based on he consequences ha are specified in he rule. I I am sopped by he police and asked o show my driver’s license, doing so is probably an example o pliance. e rule ha precedes pliance is called a ply. When he rule is saed, his behavior by he speaker is an example o he ype o verbal operan ha Skinner called a mand (described in chaper 2). e governing consequences are, o course, only apparenly conaced hrough he rule�his being an aneceden. e subsequen behavior has no ye encounered is acual consequences. In rule-governed behavior he consequences specified in he rule need no have been conaced by he lisener a a previous poin, disinguishing his behavior rom ha governed by direc
2 is uncional disincion was described briefly by Skinner (1966), hough he did no use he more elaborae erminology used here. And as menioned earlier, he did no give a deailed analysis o any learning hisory ha makes his kind o behavior possible. 118
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
coningencies. However, he lisener has previously encounered he direc consequences o ollowing rules as such. A verbally compeen person can ollow a rule ha specifies a consequence like “or I’ll shoo you” wihou ever having encounered such a consequence beore. Wha is necessary is a reperoire o arbirarily applicable relaional responding, combined wih having previously encounered consequences o ollowing rules. By definiion, his applies o all orms o rule-governed behavior. How do we learn pliance? Imagine a small child doing somehing ha is conrolled by immediae consequences, like ouching somehing ineresing, say her moher’s new lapop. Her moher may wan his behavior o sop. is can, o course, be achieved by manipulaing direc consequences, such as by removing he lapop or aking he child o a differen room. When he child, hrough language raining, learns relaional raming, sounds may sar o uncion as verbal simuli. ese simuli, by heir presence, aler he uncion o he presen circumsances by relaing hese circumsances arbirarily. A child wih a paricular hisory o relaional raming will no ouch he lapop when she hears rules such as hese: “Don’ ouch Mommy’s lapop, or I’ll make you leave he room” or “I you don’ ouch Mommy’s lapop, I’ll give you a nice surprise laer.” In his conex, he lapop has been ransormed rom somehing o ouch ino somehing relaed o he consequence “leaving he room” or “a nice surprise laer.” ule-governed behavior is reinorced by similar rules being saed on a large number o occasions and being ollowed by socially mediaed consequences specified in he rule. I is easy o see he enormous advanages ha arise wih his ype o influence on human behavior. One advanage is ha new consequences can be added by he social environmen. Anoher is ha remoe consequences can be conaced, which may override more immediae consequences since boh behavior and consequences are specified in rules. And all o his can occur wihou he individual conacing he consequences direcly. A child can be made o rerain rom playing wih ineresing objecs by being pu in verbal conac wih aversive consequences o ha ype o playing, appeiive consequences o reraining, or boh. New members o he human herd coninuously learn o be influenced by remoe consequences ha are specified in rules issued by he res o he herd. O course, his requires he appropriae relaional raming o coordinaion, comparison, causaliy, condiionaliy, and so on. is is where he secre o our abiliy o respond o delayed coningencies and override immediae consequences lies. Pliance is he firs ype o rule-governed behavior ha we learn. en, based on his skill, we develop racking.
119
Leariing F
racking racking is “rule-governed behavior under he conrol o a hisory o coordinaion beween he rule and he way he environmen is arranged independenly o he delivery o he rule” (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001, p. 109). A ypical insance o racking would be he behavior o someone driving in a cerain direcion afer hearing, “Go sraigh ahead or abou hal a mile, hen make a righ urn when you see a gas saion, and wo hundred yards ahead is he spors field.” is example is valid provided ha he person drives as direced under he influence o he apparen correspondence beween he rule and he acual locaion o he spors field�apparen when hearing he rule utered, ha is. Afer all, in his case i is he rule ha governs he behavior, no he acual locaion o he spors field. I he rule is ollowed by he lisener, i uncions as a rack. As a verbal operan o he speaker, i is an example o a ac (see chaper 2). racking is augh by he social communiy afer a cerain degree o pliance is in place. Le’s go back o he example o he child and he lapop. When a young member o he human herd, hrough pliance, can override immediae consequences (like he rewarding effec o ouching her moher’s lapop), she will go on o conac oher available consequences. ese consequences are no necessarily socially mediaed; hey are a resul o how he environmen is arranged, and she would no have conaced hem i immediae consequences had sill been dominaing her behavior. In he learning siuaion, his may occur because he social communiy arranges or he child o conac he consequences his way, or simply because everyhing is consanly changing. I he child were o say close o he lapop wihou ouching i in an insance o pliance, hen a a minimum she will conac “he lapop when i is no ouched.” Le’s say ha he lapop was jus abou o display a sequence o ineresing picures. I she indeed does no ouch he lapop, she will encouner hese picures as a consequence o no ouching. ese consequences may now in urn be specified by he social communiy, provided ha he relevan raining o relaional raming has occurred. ules can now be ormulaed ha seemingly pu he child in conac wih hese consequences, and her behavior can hereby be influenced via hese very rules. is means he young member o he herd goes rom being able o ac on rules ha speciy consequences placed here by he social communiy o being able o ac on rules ha pu her in apparen or indirec conac wih all kinds o evens. Le me give you a perhaps more likely example o how he social communiy arranges or his learning o ake place. When a child has finished playing, her aher migh say, “Look how diry your hands are. Le’s go and wash hem o make hem clean again.” Le’s assume ha he child comes along 120
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
due o pliance. She ollows he rule based on a hisory o reinorcemen ha can be described as “You’re supposed o do wha Daddy ells you.” When he child’s hands are washed, her aher migh remark on how clean her hands are wihou adding any social consequences as a resul o he girl doing as she was old. A his poin, he aher can help his daugher discriminae he changes ha ake place and provide relevan relaional raining, like raming evens in erms o coordinae, emporal, and causal relaions. He could say, “Look, your hands are really diry. inse hem wih waer, and look�wha happened?” He could ask he child wha she did, wha happened hen, and why i happened. (For a more horough accoun o his kind o raining, see Luciano, Valdivia-Salas, e al., 2009.) e social communiy provides he child wih many samples o rules ha speciy behavior and acual consequences ha are reinorcing or punishing in hemselves, independen o he socially mediaed consequences ha are dependen on rule ollowing as such. is will gradually make i more likely ha he child racks urher rules. Iniial ly his will a leas apply o ineracions wih people who are imporan o he child. is is he saring poin o wha I described above as he speaker’s credibiliy.
Augmening Augmening is “rule-governed behavior due o relaional neworks ha aler he degree o which evens uncion as consequences” (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001, p. 109). Augmening occurs in conjuncion wih eiher pliance or racking. How augmening occurs is explained by F as ollows: A relaional nework is relaed o a consequence and hereby alers he srengh or uncion o his consequence. Le me reurn o he girl who has learned o wash her hands. “Use he green soap, Maria, and your hands will be clean.” is rule can be ollowed by he girl washing her hands wih he soap as an insance o pliance. In his case he behavior occurs because, or Maria, he rule implies consequences o ollowing rules as such. I could also be ha Maria has learned racking, and ha she uses he soap based on he specificaion ha her fingers will be clean. Bu i he rule she ollows is “I you use he soap, you’re a smar girl,” his migh be an example o augmening. is is he case i being “a smar girl” has a reinorcing uncion in isel. Augmenals are rules ha are no resriced o speciying a consequence ha has no been conaced bu will be (like he locaion o he spors field or clean hands); hey also allow us o conac consequences ha are absrac and can exer influence over behavior wihou ever being conaced direcly. For example, a person can ac on rules ha speciy consequences afer deah, which, by
121
Leariing F
definiion, no living person has conaced. Likewise, we can ac based on consequences ha are oo absrac o be available or direc conac, such as “an equiable inernaional economic order.” Noe ha his ype o rule-governed behavior is conneced o eiher pliance or racking. Augmening can be described as a separae uni, bu he way in which i exercises is uncion is by influencing racking and pliance hrough alering he reinorcing or punishing qualiies o he specified consequences. wo ypes o augmening are described in he lieraure: ormaive augmening and moivaive augmening. Formaive augmening is behavior due o a rule ha esablishes a given consequence as reinorcing or punishing. A ormaive augmenal, hen, gives reinorcing or punishing qualiies o some oucome ha previously did no have hese qualiies by relaing i o an already esablished reinorcer. A ormaive augmenal creaes a moivaor, so o speak. Le’s say someone sees a worn Donald Duck magazine in a flea marke bu doesn’ have any special ineres in old comic books. en someone else says, “Hey, ha’s he very firs issue o Donald Duck magazine. I’s a rariy.” For he lisener, his saemen can uncion as a ormaive augmenal ha makes i more likely ha she’ll buy he magazine. “Very firs issue” and “a rariy” are already verbally esablished reinorcers. By being relaed o hem, he worn magazine becomes a reinorcer as well. A rule (in his case a rack) like “Buy his and you will be he owner o a rariy” migh affec his person’s behavior. Anoher example occurs when a man is inroduced o someone who doesn’ srike him as paricularly ineresing�ha is, no unil someone ells him ha he man is he broher o a woman who does ineres him. e saemen may hen uncion as a ormaive augmenal or his urher acions in relaion o his person. His conac wih his person has acquired new worh, and wih i a higher probabiliy ha his acions will be influenced by a rack like “Say close o his guy, and you will be close o Barbara’s broher,” as he ormaive augmenal suddenly pus him in conac wih a previously esablished reinorcer. 3 Speaking o his unknown person has become reinorcing hrough a ormaive augmenal.
3 e observan reader probably noices he similariy beween he process described and generalizaion. Noe, however, ha generalizaion requires ha here exis a ormal similariy beween simuli, or ha he simulus ha acquires is uncion by generalizaion has been coningen wih a primary reinorcer. is is no he case here; he simulus uncions are alered hrough arbirarily applicable relaional responding. 122
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
Moivaive augmening is behavior due o a rule ha alers he probabiliy ha an already esablished reinorcer (or punisher) will uncion as reinorcing (or punishing) in a cerain siuaion. A moivaive augmenal highlighs a moivaor, so o speak. Le’s say ha someone is already ineresed in old comic books. He is a collecor. One day he is skimming hrough his daily paper and sees an ad or his local aniquarian bookshop: Copeland’s Aniquarian Bookshop�Books and Comic Books. He already knows abou he bookshop. In ac, he goes here regularly. He does no need he ad o become aware ha hey sell comic books. Bu he momen he reads he ad, he shop seems more imporan o him; he ad pus him in emoional and sensory conac wih an already esablished reinorcer, bringing i o he ore in he presen momen. is increases he probabiliy ha a rule like “ake a sroll over here oday and see i you find somehing ineresing” will become governing. I he acs on his because he saw he ad, i would be an example o moivaive augmening. Anoher example is a siuaion where a aher is loaded wih work one day and ha evening here is a paren-eacher meeing a he school his eigh-yearold son atends. When speaking o a coworker, he says ha he acually wans o go, bu he doesn’ have ime; here’s oo much o do a work. His colleague replies, “Well, you usually say i’s imporan o you o be a dad who’s here or your kids.” I his makes him go o he meeing afer all, based on he rule “Go o be here or your son,” despie he ac ha he had been prepared o give i up, hen his coworker’s reminder uncioned as a moivaive augmenal. Boh ypes o augmening influence wha we commonly call moivaion: how imporan hings seem o us. A ormaive augmenal esablishes somehing new as reinorcing, and a moivaive augmenal emporarily increases he reinorcing value o somehing ha is already reinorcing. In everyday language, you would say ha a ormaive augmenal makes somehing new imporan, and a moivaive augmenal makes somehing ha is already imporan even more imporan in he momen. is process can uncion in he opposie direcion, as well. Somehing ha uncions as a reinorcer can lose is srengh or enirely cease o be reinorcing hrough augmening. I an inrigued comic book collecor has jus ound a rariy and he hen hears someone say, “Bu i’s damaged; i’s missing he mos imporan page,” hen he likelihood ha he’ll buy i probably decreases. is is provided ha he person who said his was credible, in accordance wih he discussion earlier in his chaper. An analogous example would be i a ellow was on his way o see some people, one o hem being Barbara, he woman he’s ineresed in. en someone says, “Barbara is bringing her new boyriend, Seven.” I his makes him no go, he ge-ogeher has los some o is apparen reinorcing uncion hrough augmening. (Again, he poin o using he word “apparen” here is ha he acual ge-ogeher has no aken place. Is prospecive 123
Leariing F
reinorcing uncion is ye unknown. Here I am describing anecedens ha uncion as rules.) is dynamic can be likened o he phenomena reerred o as esablishing or moivaional operaions wihin behavior analysis (Michael, 1993). ese are anecedens ha influence he degree o which a given consequence uncions as reinorcing or punishing (see chaper 1). is corresponds o our everyday way o speaking abou i oo. e comic book collecor in he example above could very well describe his ineres in comic books in erms o a hunger or a hirs. For example, he could say somehing like “My appeie was wheted o check wheher hey had somehing new in he shop” as a way o explaining how he ad resuled in a visi o he bookshop. e relaional neworks or rules I have described using he erm “augmenal” hus uncion as verbal esablishing operaions (S. C. Hayes, Zetle, & osenarb, 1989). e ac ha augmening is conneced o wha we commonly call moi vaion makes i clear ha his orm o rule ollowing is cenral o human behavior as a whole. Wha moivaes us in lie is crucial o how we live and behave. Augmenals are he relaional neworks ha pu us ino conac wih he hings we value in lie, he hings ha are ruly imporan o us. In he example above, going o he paren-eacher meeing was moivaed based on “being a dad who is here or his kids.” We can assume ha, or his aher, his uncions as a moivaive augmenal or a number o differen decisions and acions. Many everyday evens or processes, in hemselves neural�or even boring or painul�obain heir reinorcing uncions based on verbal esablishing operaions. Siting in ron o he compuer o do my wriing when he sun is shining ouside and i is one o our firs warm summer days in over a monh�he way I am doing as I wrie his�is no very rewarding in isel. I am doing i based on augmenals�based on he bigger picure o he purpose o my acions. Wheher explicily or acily, our lives are based on cerain assumpions abou wha we wan our lives o sand or or be all abou. is is wha we commonly reer o as values. ese are verbally consruced consequences ha are globally desired by he individual and uncion o help us deermine overall direcions in lie. ey are creaed hrough relaional raming and, as a resul, can be presen and influence our acions in a large number o siuaions. One area where augmening is a he very core o behavior is in wha we commonly call moral or ehical behavior (S. C. Hayes, Gifford, & Hayes, 1998). e ac ha his ype o rule ollowing is o such significance in our lives also means ha i is highly relevan o clinical problems. is is hardly news. Values have long been he ocal poin o differen psychologies and philosophies (Leigland, 2005; Dahl, Plumb, Sewar, & Lundgren, 2009). Hopeully, an F-based scienific analysis o his area will urher conribue o he 124
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
developmen o helpul clinical inervenions. I will reurn o his in par 3 o he book.
Rule Following Is Defined Funcionally Le me finish his descripion o he differen ypes o rule-governed behavior by emphasizing, once again, ha hese are uncional unis. e ype o reinorcemen coningency ha governs he relevan behavior deermines which kind o rule-governed behavior is a hand in a given momen. e ormal opography o he rule is no decisive. Le’s reurn o he man who colleced comic books. Le’s say ha i was no he himsel, bu his wie, who caugh sigh o he ad. She ells him, “I you go down o he aniquarian bookshop oday, now ha you have a day off, you migh find some o he magazines you wan.” is can uncion as a rule ha influences his acions in he exac same way as i he had seen he ad himsel. In ha case, her words uncion as a rack combined wih an augmenal. Bu her words can uncion as somehing else, even i he rule is saed in exacly he same way. e husband migh go down o he bookshop because he wans o please his wie, as he hinks ha his is wha she wans him o do. I his is he siuaion�ha he wans her approval�and he goes o he bookshop because o earlier consequences o ollowing rules as such, hen wha his wie said uncions as a ply and his behavior is pliance. e uncion o he saemen or his wie is irrelevan o wha ype o rule ollowing his acions consiue.4 Wha deermines he ype o rule-governed behavior he engages in is he rule he is in conac wih and ha he acs on, nohing else. Pliance can, o course, be perormed simply based on he individual’s experience o ollowing rules�on he ac ha doing so has previously been reinorcing. is is he case early in our learning hisory, as described above. Bu pliance is also affeced by augmening. I he comic book collecor acs in order o obain his wie’s approval, he migh do so based on verbally consruced consequences beyond being approved o in he momen. He may do i based on his assumpions abou how a husband is supposed o behave, or 4 Formally her saemen is a ac; ha is, i is governed by wha precedes her saemen�he ad. I could, however, have been a alse ac and acually consiue a mand i she asks her husband o leave or a while and her saemen is governed by earlier consequences o asking him o do so. In ha case, i’s jus ha he opography she’s using makes i look like a ac. As a reminder, he speaker’s verbal behavior is also uncionally defined, as described in chaper 2. 125
Leariing F
possibly based on even more encompassing values concerning wha is imporan in ineracions wih oher people. is provides anoher example o how defining augmening is or human behavior in general. Le’s ake anoher look a somehing I wroe earlier: ha rules can be implici. Le’s assume ha he man in his example wen o visi Copeland’s Aniquarian Bookshop. He may have done his due o pliance: He aced based on he rule he conaced because o wha his wie said, a rule ha could be described as “I I leave he house or a while, she will be pleased.” In his case, he did wha he did in order o please his wie. Ye his is no wha his wie said, so how can we ideniy his rule? I we were o ask he husband, he migh ell us ha his was his rain o hough as he chose o go ou or a while. Bu ha need no be he case. He migh no have had he experience o hinking anyhing in paricular. Sill, o him, he rule or insrucion migh have been implied in wha his wie said, so his behavior was rule-governed; he aced on he rule he conaced. 5 Bu in ha case, where was he rule? A his poin, we are approaching he phenomenon ha in psychodynamic heory is explained using he concep o he subconscious. Wihin cogniive heory he reerence is usually o anoher posulaed inner phenomenon: schemas (Beck, 1964; Young, 1990). I we describe his ype o phenomenon as a ollowing o implici rules, we may ask ourselves, where is he rule isel? However, rom a uncional conexual perspecive, he rule need no exis as a concree phenomenon. I may, i i is saed or hough by someone. I i is no saed and is no in someone’s houghs, bu simply implici, you migh say i exiss in he ineracion o he momen, in he ineracion o conex and response (L. J. Hayes, 1992). Wha disinguishes he behavior as verbal raher han simply governed by direc coningencies is he way in which his ineracion akes place. I relaional raming is involved, hen as defined by F, he behavior is verbal. I he rule is subsequenly ormulaed, is conen is jus a verbal absracion o he behavior. is, hen, is ye anoher example o relaional raming. Experimenal suppor or he phenomenon o rule-governed behavior as undersood rom he perspecive o F is no as elaborae as suppor or he basic phenomenon o arbirarily applicable relaional responding. However, several relevan sudies are available rom recen years (O’Hora, Barnes-
5 I is also possible ha his behavior was governed by direc coningencies. Again, we are up agains he difficulies wih everyday examples. We would have o know he individual’s learning hisory o be cerain o wha exen a behavior is governed by direc coningencies versus rules. 126
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
Holmes, & oche, 2001; Whelan & Barnes-Holmes, 2004b; Whelan, BarnesHolmes, & Dymond, 2006; Ju & Hayes, 2008).
SELF�ULES Sel-rules are rules direced oward onesel ha influence one’s own acions. aking ino accoun he analysis hus ar in his book, sel-rules hereore require boh a cerain level o compeence in rule ollowing and an experience o sel along he lines o he aspecs o sel discussed in chaper 5. A core characerisic o he behavior o ollowing sel-rules is he same as or rules given by ohers: A cerain behavior ollows, conrolled by he apparen consequences specified by he rule, raher han by direc coningencies alone. As I’ve emphasized, his is he very oundaion o he human capabiliy ha migh be summed up as delayed responding. Sel-rules can be relaively simple, like “I I hurry, I’ll be able o cach he bus,” or more complex, like “I I can jus ge rid o my anxiey, I’ll be able o do wha I wan in lie.” e abiliy o lay down rules or onesel is consisen wih wha I’ve oulined abou a growing experience o sel and he abiliy o ollow rules given by ohers, and in principle here is no need o add anyhing o his. On he conrary, given hese abiliies you migh say ha developing sel-rules is ineviable (Luciano, Valdivia-Salas, e al., 2009). We could describe he sequence in he ollowing way. A child learns, hrough direc coningencies o reinorcemen, o ac her own behavior, including privae evens like houghs and eelings, as described in chaper 2. elaional raming increases he complexiy o his behavior, since dieren phenomena can be relaed arbirarily in line wih he raining he child receives rom he social communiy. Pars o his raining help he child develop increasingly complex acing o “me” and, in andem, gradually acquire he hree aspecs o sel described as sel-as-perspecive, sel-as-process, and sel-as-sory. e child can now observe hersel as an objec o oher people’s acions and her own acions. Alongside his, he child learns rule-governed behavior. e process sars wih rules provided by ohers: “Mary, ea your ood.” Early on, his uterance will probably be echoed by he child. Afer he firs basic abiliy o relaional raming (coordinaion) is in place, he echoic behavior o he child, “Mary ea ood,” can be ransormed o “I ea ood.” A nex sep is a rule such as “I you [Mary/I] ea he ood, we can wach V aferward.” Pliance is ollowed by racking and augmening. e differen words ha are a par o he 127
Leariing F
raining he child receives in relaing simuli arbirarily will gradually become a par o various relaional rames, and so he child’s behavioral flexibiliy increases. Whaever you can say aloud, you can also learn o say silenly. So sel-rules evolve alongside boh he abiliy o engage in rule-governed behavior in general and successively more complex experiences o differen aspecs o “me.” Imagine a preschool-age boy who has jus been old ha he person he has always called Moher is no his real moher, bu ha she is his younger siblings’ real moher. I “moher” is in a relaion o coordinaion o experiences like securiy, joy, and a number o oher hings ha are imporan o he boy, he migh suddenly�simply based on he negaion “is no”�derive houghs abou no having hese hings. He could derive houghs abou his moher leaving him, provided ha, or he boy, “moher” is in a relaion o coordinaion o he experience o he moher being here or him, and under he condiion ha he has he skill o raming emporally. He may also derive houghs abou his younger siblings and his relaionship o hem�maybe houghs abou being differen rom hem. is abiliy o relae evens, ogeher wih a number o hings ha are acually going on in he siuaion, can become a par o he sory abou who he is. I is easy o see some sel-rules ha may resul. Since wha he has been old has pu him in apparen conac wih a number o evens ha are painul o him, i is possible ha he will wan o avoid experiencing his again. is can lead o a sel-rule like “Don’ alk abou his,” since alking abou i will necessarily pu him back in conac wih his pain. Noe ha I am using he word “apparen” again. I is clear ha he boy can be experiencing considerable suffering. And ye he has no acually encounered any o he possibiliies he is deriving or ha scare him. All he has encounered is a series o his own responses, wha we call “hinking.” is may seem obvious o us, since we are all in he same social game, bu i is acually a remarkable hing. is discussion hins a some o he consequences o he capabiliy or arbirarily applicable relaional responding and rule-governed behavior ha are essenial o clinical problems and clinical work. (I will reurn o his in par 3 o he book.) Noneheless, we should no le his overshadow he ac ha he abiliy o ollow sel-rules firs and oremos increases our behavioral flexibiliy. We can ell ourselves o keep sudying, even when i is axing and anyhing bu rewarding, in order o pass our exams and be able o work in he field o our choice. We can alk o ourselves abou hings we have never experienced and direc our acions in a way ha increases he likelihood o acually achieving somehing previously unexperienced. We can hold on o our ideals and orien our acions and lives oward accomplishing long-erm goals ha serve boh ourselves and ohers. 128
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
ULE�GOVENED BEHAVIO AND POBLEM SOLVING As menioned a he beginning o his chaper, Skinner firs used he erm “rule-governed behavior” in a chaper on problem solving (Skinner, 1966). He had writen on he opic o problem solving earlier, as well: “We are concerned here wih he process o ‘finding he soluion.’ Problem solving may be defined as any behavior which, hrough he manipulaion o variables, makes he appearance o a soluion more probable” (Skinner, 1953, p. 247). According o his definiion, no all problem solving is verbal. I I ry o unlock a door and he key does no quie fi, I may ry o adjus i in differen ways and hereby manage o open he door. My behavior alers variables, in his case he key’s relaion o differen pars o he lock, and his is possible wihou rule-governed behavior. Bu rule ollowing may be involved�i I am elling mysel wha o do, i I hink back o wha I migh have done earlier in order o solve his problem, and so on. e later is he ype o problem solving o ineres in his book. e exac definiion is no imporan in his conex, as F does no deal wih problem solving as i i were a echnical erm wih sharp boundary lines. I is more o a commonsense erm ha roughly sakes ou an area we wan o undersand. And o his end, Skinner’s definiion works well. ule ollowing, as defined based on F and as described above, represens he core o verbal problem solving. In his behavior’s simples orm, i may be quesionable wheher he concep “rule” is adequae. In he example wih he key, le’s say ha I visualize an earlier occasion o unlocking he door and hen perorm an acion based on wha I recollec. is aciviy can conain arbirarily applicable relaional responding, in which case i is verbal. I so, i is no made up solely o coningency-shaped behavior, bu i is si ll quesionable wheher we should call i “rule ollowing.” A rule should, per definiion, speciy a coningency beween behavior and consequence, wih boh behavior and consequence being conaced verbally. Bu regardless o hese possibly borderline cases, rule ollowing, and especially racking, describes wha we mean when in everyday language we say ha we are solving problems. We relae differen hings beore us o each oher, and even o privae evens, which are also “beore us” because we experience hem rom he same perspecive rom which we observe everyhing else. We relae all o hese evens�hose conaced direcly as well as hose conaced indirecly�by using comparaive, causal, hierarchical, emporal, and perspecive-aking rames. en, based on he many differen opions made available o us in his way, we ake our acion. Apparen conac wih differen behaviors and differen consequences
129
Leariing F
is he undamenal condiion or his skill. When hrough relaional raming we manipulae variables o make he appearance o a soluion more probable (o paraphrase Skinner), we can use his skill o ormulae sel-rules ha can in urn come o influence urher behavior. Some problem solving is sraegic: Wha we wan o achieve is clear; i is only he pah o he goal ha is unclear. A ypical example is when someone ges los on her way o a cerain address. She finds hersel in an unknown neighborhood and ries o reesablish her bearings by looking a a map and her surroundings, and by considering differen possibiliies. Anoher example could be wha happens during an appendecomy i he surgeon realizes his paricular paien’s anaomy deviaes rom he usual, and hus new soluions are required. Ye anoher example is a psychologis working wih a young boy who reuses o go o school, so ha he boy can ake up his schoolwork again. is one may border on being a siuaion where he goal isel is unclear. In his ype o problem solving, raher han simply seeking he achievemen o a known goal, we are aced wih a variey o possible consequences, which necessiaes comparing hem wih each oher and making choices. A more ypical example o his ype o problem solving is a young person who has jus finished college and is asking hersel wha o do wih her lie over he nex ew years. Oher examples are choosing a spouse or parner, or an occupaion. Ye oher examples are wha we ofen reer o as exisenial quesions: “Wha do I wan my lie o sand or?” or “Wha is imporan o me?” Augmening has a decisive uncion in his ype o problem solving. Verbally consruced consequences ha are globally desirable o he individual can come o conrol a wide range o behavior. I can relae specific acions and consequences ha are close a hand o differen values�o wha I hink is imporan in lie. In all o hese siuaions, we relae boh evens we have experienced and hose we have no o ourselves; o differen possible behaviors and consequences. I can seemingly pu mysel in conac wih everyhing rom he beginning o he universe, humaniy’s purpose in he world, and dinner wih my in-laws las nigh o he laundry I orgo o hang his morning, wha I will be doing five years rom now, my own deah someime in he uure, and wha will happen afer ha. I can relae any or all o his o somehing I am planning o do omorrow and o how I eel abou hings in his very momen. And I can do all o hese hings while lying in my own bed. Bu mos o he ime I do his as a par o dealing wih everyhing I acually encouner in lie: when I alk o my coworkers, rebuild my summer cotage, bone up or an exam, have sex, organize poliical meeings, fix my car, or do my shopping in he mall. In all o hese siuaions I encouner he world he way i is arranged. And in all o hese siuaions, he abiliy o be boh speaker and lisener and o ollow sel-rules and hereby solve problems increases my flexibiliy in an 130
elaional Framing and ule-Governed Behavior
almos unahomable way. is aciviy�wha in ordinary language we migh call an abiliy o enerain ideas and soluions in connecion wih wha we are aced wih�is someimes wihin F called pragmaic verbal analysis (S. C. Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & oche, 2001). is means ha humans can absrac ormal characerisics o evens hey are aced wih and relae hem o each oher in a way ha isn’ necessarily circumscribed by hese characerisics hemselves.
SUMMAY From he sandpoin o behavior analyic assumpions, all human aciviy can be undersood based on he coningency beween a behavior and is anecedens and consequences. When a person has learned arbirarily applicable relaional responding, his has ar-reaching consequences or how her learning aciviy coninues. I allows anecedens o acquire simulus uncions ha are resriced neiher o he direc coningencies ha he individual has acually encounered in her hisory nor by he physical qualiies o differen simuli. Anecedens ha have acquired heir uncions in his way, hrough relaional raming, can now speciy behaviors and consequences ha are no ye presen, and hus uncion as wha we commonly call rules or insrucions. is explains he human abiliy o ac in relaion o long-erm consequences, raher han being compleely conrolled by direc coningencies. Or, in more everyday words, his allows us o pu off immediae graificaion. As discussed, behavior ha is influenced by verbal anecedens is called rule-governed behavior. wo differen ypes o rule-governed behavior can be disinguished based on heir hisorical reinorcing coningencies, and a hird ype ineracs wih boh o hese. Pliance is he undamenal ype o rulegoverned behavior; i involves rule ollowing ha helps us conac socially mediaed consequences ha are dependen on rule ollowing as such. I is hrough pliance ha we firs learn o ollow rules and insrucions. Once his skill is learned, we can learn racking: rule-governed behavior by which we conac consequences ha depend on how he world is arranged, independenly o he rule. e hird ype o rule-governed behavior, augmening, is combined wih pliance and racking and affecs he degree o which differen consequences uncion as reinorcing or punishing. Augmenals uncion as verbal esablishing operaions. Figuraively speaking, you migh describe hese hree orms o rule ollowing like his: In pliance you seek wha he rule giver “holds in her hand.” In racking you seek “whaever is on he map.” In augmening you seek consequences based on he value you assign o hem.
131
Leariing F
ule ollowing vasly increases our abiliy o ac flexibly in our social environmen, as well as our physical environmen. is abiliy seems o be he mos general effec o verbal behavior (Caania, 2007). ere is a cos o all o his, however: ule ollowing has cerain side effecs. In he nex chaper, I will describe his dark side o our human abiliy o rame evens relaionally.
132
CHAPTER 7 e Dark Side o Human Languaging
I is easy o see he huge advanage human beings have in being able o pu simuli ino arbirary relaions, especially when a se reperoire o rule-governed behavior is in place. is allows us o sidesep immediae graificaion and deal wih evens beore hey ake place. We can carry ou long behavioral sequences, and we can ac on consequences ha are disan in ime or in space or ha are very absrac. A he same ime, his orce also has a dark side (örneke, Luciano, & Valdivia-Salas, 2008).
ULE�GOVENED BEHAVIO AND INSENSIIVIY O IMMEDIAE CONSEQUENCES e mos obvious and documened problemaic effec o rule-governed behavior is an increased insensiiviy o immediae connecions beween simuli�o direc coningencies. ules aler simulus uncions and override direc coningencies. is is a key advanage o rule-governed behavior, giving us he abiliy o sidesep immediae graificaion, bu i is no always advanageous. A number o sudies illusrae his phenomenon (S. C. Hayes, Brownsein, Zetle, osenarb, & Korn, 1986; Mathews, Shimoff, Caania, & Sagvolden, 1977).
Learning F
ypically, he experimens are carried ou as ollows: e paricipans are given a simple ask, such as pressing a buton when cerain lighs come on. Some o he paricipans are old wha hey need o do in order o earn poins (or example, “Press he buton only when his specific ligh is li”). Anoher group is given more general direcions ha do no speciy he way in which poins are earned. All o he paricipans are given immediae eedback when successul; ha is, hey can see when hey have earned poins. e advanage in knowing he rule is obvious, and hose paricipans who know i iniially earn heir poins aser han hose in he conrol group. Bu afer a while, he conrol group sars earning he same amoun o poins as he oher group. ey learn by rial and error. When boh groups have sared o earn poins equally, he coningencies are alered so ha all paricipans mus use a new mehod o pressing he buton o earn poins. is change is made wihou any o he paricipans knowing he new way o respond o earn poins. e various sudies all demonsrae he same phenomenon: e paricipans who iniially learned how o earn poins by means o a rule have greaer difficuly in discriminaing he new coningencies. A his poin, he conrol group more quickly learns how o earn poins based on wha has become reinorcing. e rule ha was helpul in he beginning becomes an obsacle. I seems o sand in he way o quickly adaping o he alered and nonarbirary relaions beween differen evens. Mos o us are acquained wih his rom our own experiences. Our noions (rules) o how somehing ough o be or how somehing should be done can ge in he way when we atemp o learn new hings. We coninue o do hings ha do no work, ollowing rules ha say hey should work. We go on arguing or a cerain posiion, even hough i does no ake us in he direcion we mean i o, ollowing rules ha say we are righ. We sruggle o orge hings we canno orge, ollowing rules ha say i isn’ good o hink abou hese unpleasan hings. is brings us o he main subjec o his chaper: how rule-governed behavior�as seen rom an F perspecive�conribues o wha we usually call psychopahology. Bu beore we ake a closer look a how he differen ypes o rule-governed behavior inerac o creae difficulies, le’s ake a look a an even more undamenal consequence o relaional learning: ha arbirarily applicable relaional responding necessarily means ha we humans have a broad inerace wih pain.
A BOADENED INEFACE WIH PAIN Some hings we like; ohers we do no. Some hings ase good; ohers do no. Some hings seem inriguing; ohers seem righening. In he language 134
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
o learning heory, we say ha, or a given individual in a given conex, some hings are appeiive while oher hings are aversive. A common way new siuaions acquire eiher o hese uncions is hrough generalizaion. ings seem pleasan or unpleasan based on heir resemblance o hings we have encounered earlier, or because, hrough responden learning, hey have been associaed wih somehing pleasan or unpleasan. However, by means o relaional learning, hings can be relaed o each oher independen o hese nonarbirary relaions. Conexual cues can esablish new arbirary relaions. is means ha hings ha we have no ye encounered or ha lack physical links wih he hings we have come across can neverheless have uncions or us. ese uncions can be appeiive as well as aversive. is is due o our abiliy o rame evens relaionally a he undamenal level o muual enailmen and combinaorial muual enailmen, as described in chaper 4. Le’s compare his wih a siuaion where a nonverbal creaure flees rom a predaor o find sheler. In such a siuaion, he creaure can learn ha a cerain behavior leads o saey in he presence o a cerain predaor. Once he animal is shelered, is posiion will have simulus uncions immediaely conneced wih his place o sheler, wihou hese uncions being relaed o he predaor. A his poin, he uncion his place has or he animal is wha we humans would call saey or securiy. In order or he uncion o be relaed o he predaor, he evens o he learning siuaion would need o occur in reversed order. According o he principles o operan and responden condiioning, only i he animal’s encouner wih he sheler precedes is encouner wih he predaor can he sheler have simulus uncions relaed o he predaor. Suppose a human being were in a similar siuaion. Humans, oo, would find uncions o saey and securiy conneced wih he place o reuge. is spo will, however, also be relaed o he predaor hrough muual enailmen. (In ac, he previous example, wherein an animal experienced he human phenomena “saey” and “securiy,” is, sricly speaking, incorrec.) As humans, we canno hink o securiy wihou i being relaed o is opposie. In par, securiy is wha i is o us precisely because o is no being is opposie. e wo are relaed verbally, hrough muual enailmen. Bu or he animal in he example above, his place o sheler�as ar as we know�is simply “his place”: he place in and o isel, in he siuaion in which he animal finds isel a ha momen. is is never he case or a verbally compeen human being. ings are always relaed o heir opposies, as well as o a number o oher hings. You migh say ha he abiliy o rame relaionally means ha a phenomenon ha is very similar o generalizaion pus humans in ouch wih an almos endless number o evens or simuli, bu wihou he ype o resricions ha apply or generalizaion. 135
Learning F
is has a decisive impac on he way we humans experience our realiy. One imporan consequence is he uncions our privae evens acquire. ese privae evens are almos consanly presen. Furhermore, all o our painul experiences conain such privae evens�hings noiced and known only by he individual who experiences hem. rough muual enailmen, privae evens acquire simulus uncions via heir relaions wih he evens he indi vidual has experienced. I E acquires discriminaive uncions or D, hen D, hrough muual enailmen, can acquire similar uncions or E, as noed in connecion wih he laboraory experimens in chaper 4. Moreover, our abiliy o rame evens relaionally does no sop wih hese basic uncions. Derived relaional responding offers almos infinie possibiliies. Saring wih a specific experience, we can, or insance, pu his ino a comparaive and emporal relaion and hus conac “somehing worse afer his.” Privae evens become poenially painul in hemselves, and hrough our abiliy o rame relaionally, our inerace wih pain increases exponenially. Imagine he ollowing siuaion: You are spending ime by he Medierranean. e nigh is pleasanly warm. e day was wonderul�relaxing and invigoraing a he same ime. You ge ogeher wih some good riends. e plan is o enjoy a nice meal ogeher. People are alking all around you, and you hear bis and pieces o an inriguing sory. e ocean is as smooh as a mirror jus below he large paio where you are siting. e waiers are beginning o bring your plaes. Everyhing is jus delighul; you are having a grea ime. en here is he hough “I only Peer could have been around or his.” Even our good experiences are relaed o bad ones. Pain can be presen anywhere. Indeed, we can be ranspored anywhere a he speed o hough wihou even moving. While his does provide a huge window o possibiliies or us humans, i also creaes a broader inerace wih pain. As long as pain is conneced wih a cerain siuaion in he exernal world, we generally have he opion o leaving o escape. ere may be imes when his opion is no available, bu quie ofen i is. However, where can a person run in order o escape rom he pain he conacs hrough his own languaging? In he long run, he condiions under which we live as humans mean ha here is no escape. Once he abiliy o pu hings in arbirary relaions is esablished, we are ineviably suck�or good and or bad. Consequenly, pain is buil ino hings ha, in hemselves, are ar rom painul. Consider a six-year-old girl who drew a picure a school. Her aher says, “a’s nice. You really did well on ha!” Given her verbal compeence, he child will also be in conac wih he opposie o wha is said, ha is, “no so nice” and “no doing very well.” She may no conac his a he very momen when her aher speaks, bu she may do so a a laer ime, such as 136
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
when she ries o draw anoher picure and i doesn’ urn ou he way she waned i o. She will no need anyone else o make he judgmen ha his is “no so nice” or ha she “did no do well.” Her abiliy o rame relaionally pus her in conac wih his in a specific conex. ere is no way ou o his human predicamen. All o his is a par o he power o hinking. inking can ake us any where, including where we do no wan o go. Privae evens can become painul in hemselves. oughs o pain, even ypes o pain we have never experienced, acquire simulus uncions rom real pain. Ye neiher hese houghs nor oher privae evens are he real problem (Luciano, odríguez Valverde, & Guiérrez Marinez, 2004). ey are a naural par o human language. Due o our abiliy o rame relaionally, our inerace wih boh aversive and appeiive uncions increases exponenially. ese are he condiions under which verbally compeen human beings live. e real problem arises when, based on hese privae evens, we begin o ake acions ha are ollowed by consequences and ha don’ work well. As you’ll recall rom he discussion o sel-as-sory in chaper 5, verbal behavior, especially o he privae kind, can occur simulaneously wih bu independen o over behavior. We can hink, eel, and remember wihou his, in and o isel, having much effec on our environmen. I is when we ac overly, and hereby conac consequences, ha our lives are more generally affeced. And i is when privae evens come o conrol over acion ha he essenial sep in human psychological problems is aken, as seen rom a behavior analyic perspecive. is brings us back o rule-governed behavior. As discussed in chaper 6, rule-governed behavior can be influenced by privae simuli, such as sel-rules. Many poenial pialls arise when his human reperoire, in isel a resul o relaional raming, is combined wih our broadened inerace wih pain. We all oo readily learn o use his reperoire (rule-governed behavior) in a dysuncional way in relaion o houghs, eelings, memories, and bodily sensaions, especially in order o conrol painul aspecs o hese privae evens. Even i his isn’ a compleely ineviable process, i is easy o undersand why i akes place. ule-governed behavior is successul or humans in many differen areas, and paricularly in he area o avoiding danger and oher evens ha could have negaive consequences in our lives. I is usually helpul o clear away obsacles o wha we wan o achieve. When houghs, memories, and eelings acquire simulus uncions rom evens ha have been or could have been aversive, i is naural or us o deal wih hese phenomena in he same way we are used o dealing wih oher hings ha hur us or impede us. Simply pu: Make a plan or geting rid o he difficuly or obsacle and execue he plan. I is in connecion wih his sraegy�inenionally rying 137
Learning F
o conrol privae evens�ha we mos clearly can see he dark side o relaional raming. Especially in ligh o he ac ha rule-governed behavior has a endency o coninue even in siuaions where i does no ulfill is purpose, as evidenced by he experimens described earlier in his chaper. is behavior is insensiive o direc coningencies. So i we ry o conrol painul privae evens by ollowing rules saying ha hese phenomena should or mus be eliminaed, he ac ha hese phenomena are no subjec o our effors migh no sop us rom coninuing o ollow such rules. As a resul, we risk ending up in vicious circles ha resric our lives.
PSYCHOLOGICAL POBLEMS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ULE�GOVENED BEHAVIO For he sake o clariy, I will go hrough he problems conneced wih each ype o rule-governed behavior separaely. In real lie, however, hey are all coninuously ineracing wih each oher. e mos essenial issue here is how augmening ineracs wih he wo more basic ypes o rule-governed behavior o aler he uncion o presen coningencies, creaing differen ypes o pialls.
Problems Conneced wih Pliance e undamenal problem wih pliance is is insensiiviy o direc coningencies. A person who consanly seeks reinorcemen and atemps o avoid punishmen by rying o please ohers will have problems conacing oher consequences, appeiive as well as aversive. Using he imagery rom he end o he previous chaper, we migh say ha a person who primarily seeks hings ha “he rule giver has in his hand” is going o risk missing a lo o oher hings ha “are on he map.” Here’s an example: A person who visis ar museums primarily because his is wha an inellecual person should do, or in order o gain he approval o someone paricular, lowers his chances o enjoying he ar or learning more abou ar as such. Pars o his poenial experience will be blocked because ocusing on he approval o he oher, or example, is incompaible wih ocusing on he deails o wha is displayed a he museum. e consequences ha he person would have encounered i he had engaged his ineres in he arwork or is own sake simply are no conaced, as his behavior
138
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
never occurs. A major difficuly when pliance dominaes a person’s behavioral reperoire is ha consequences ha are dependen on oher people are no as predicable or conrollable as oher ypes o consequences. Someone can, or example, love mainly in order o be loved back, bu his is no necessarily wha resuls. A person migh lisen o ohers primarily o have hem lisen o him, bu his does no always happen eiher. I someone repeaedly reaches ou o anoher person mainly because he hopes o ge ha person’s approval, he will probably be disappoined, off and on. e mos obvious consequence or people exhibiing generalized pliance is ha hey become vulnerable o social whim. is applies o wha migh be called counerpliance, as well, such as when a person opposes an auhoriy jus because “You should never ollow orders.” Even when hese acions backfire on he person in he long run, he ends o resis or ac in opposiion when an auhoriy ells him o do somehing. I is as hough he canno comply wih auhoriies�even in siuaions where he would obain reinorcing consequences by doing so. A lhough in his case he person is acing in opposiion, he is ollowing a rule conrolled by he same uncional links as when obeying. is means he does wha he does in order o achieve socially mediaed consequences based on wha he rule lays down� only he oher way around. Funcionally, counerpliance is a ype o pliance, and i can become a problem i i dominaes he behavioral reperoire. When pliance is generalized and dominaes a person’s acions, wo key problems arise: Firs, his may sop him rom learning successul racking (S. C. Hayes e al., 1998). As racking is a skill ha increases behavioral flexibiliy enormously, his can be problemaic. And second, he person remains very sensiive o he consequences offered by ohers. ere is a risk ha he only governing consequences will be hose managed by ohers, and his will make he individual very vulnerable in relaion o his social environmen. Over ime, consequences become reinorcing or punishing simply because hey are conrolled by ohers. I we ollow he rule, explici or implici, “Comply wih he wishes o ohers so ha hey are pleased wih you” as he essenial rule in lie, we run a high risk o placing our lives in he hands o ohers and sraying rom our own goals and desires. Wheher his becomes a problem depends, in large par, on how successul we are in geting he approval o ohers�and always geting he approval o ohers is no easy. In mos human setings, i we ollow his rule, we run a high risk o no geting enough o he approval we seek. And i we don’ ge wha we wan and he rule is sill in conrol, we will make even greaer effors o receive approval. Even hen, we sill migh no ge enough, so we ry even harder and end up in a vicious circle. is can lead o a very limied lie, a lie ha lacks conac wih a number o oher poenial 139
Learning F
reinorcing consequences. ese poenial consequences�which canno be conaced wihou racking�are blocked. is is a classical clinical problem ha has been described a leas since he days o Freud. In herapy sessions, you may noice generalized pliance when a clien seems o une in o “wha he herapis wans” in a rigid way. Counerpliance in relaion o he herapis is anoher orm o he same phenomenon. One example is a clien who never adheres o insrucions rom he herapis, rom a sance o “No one is going o ell me wha o do.” o undersand how his orm o rule-governed behavior urns ino a more comprehensive problem in a person’s lie, we also need o undersand he ineracion beween generalized pliance and augmening. Augmening may conribue o he persisence o generalized pliance, as well as o is increase. is occurs when his problemaic ype o pliance is conrolled by absrac and verbally consruced consequences conneced o he primary, socially mediaed consequences. Mos people whose behavioral reperoire is dominaed by problemaic pliance are no behaving his way simply based on immediaely available consequences, such as geting someone’s approval in he here and now. More all-embracing premises abou wha is imporan in lie usually come ino play. I will reurn o his issue below, in he secion “Problems Conneced wih Augmening.”
Problems Conneced wih racking e simples orm o racking consiss o ha which specifies a direc coningency, ha is, a behavior and a consequence, where his consequence will ollow such behavior independenly o he rule as such; or example, “ake a painkiller, and i will hur less.” e behavior is perormed, and he consequence is conaced. e capaciy or racking is srenghened in his way, and he person’s behavioral reperoire is expanded. e probabiliy increases ha he person will ollow new and possibly more complicaed racks. racking can also be used in he pursui o long-erm consequences, such as geting good grades a he end o he semeser. is augmens he reinorcing uncion o direc, shor-erm consequences or differen ypes o acions, such as handing in school assignmens on ime, being in class or every lesson, and so on. is is an example o how augmening ineracs wih racking. However, racking can become problemaic in several ways. One example is when racking is used in conexs where i canno work. For insance, ake he rule “I have o be unconsrained,” which o course is impossible o ollow. A naurally sponaneous behavior canno, by definiion, be under he command o insrucions. A person who acs based on he rule “I have o
140
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
be unconsrained” will no, as a resul, have he experience o being unconsrained. racking canno uncion when he behavior specified in he rule is incompaible wih rule ollowing as such. I would be like rying o ollow he rule “You mus no ollow rules.” racking also becomes problemaic when he rack does no correspond o he way he world is arranged and rule ollowing hereore does no lead o he specified consequence. Le’s use he rule “I you sop smoking, you will eel beter” o illusrae his. Mos people who sop smoking won’ primarily conac ha kind o consequence, a leas no iniially. An imporan poin is ha i you ollow incorrec rules such as his one, he arge behavior will probably wane, since he specified consequences ha were o susain he rule ollowing do no occur. I someone sops smoking specifically o “eel beter,” ha person is likely o ake up smoking again in a relaively shor ime. Ye coninuing in acions based on incorrec rules can poenially become roublesome in a differen way. ake he rule “In order o recover, I have o avoid pain.” Based on his rule, he individual migh ac in a way mean o keep pain away, and as a resul, he won’ experience ha he shor-erm and long-erm consequences specified in he rule (no eeling pain and recovering) are no coordinaed over ime. e person akes acion o avoid pain and pain is avoided, so he behavior is negaively reinorced. In addiion, he connecions esablished in he rule, beween recovery and no eeling pain, creae a consequence o “doing hings he righ way,” which also susains his ype o racking. In his example, here is a problem wih he shor-erm consequences specified in he rule. I’s rue ha you migh no experience pain i you don’ perorm a cerain physical aciviy. Bu he way his world is arranged, pain migh play a par in he process o recovery. I he person acs in accordance wih a rule saing ha pain is incompaible wih recovery, hen racking o relaively shor-erm consequences (limied physical aciviy → no pain) will block racking o more long-erm consequences (aciviy → pain → recovery). is becomes a vicious circle where well-uncioning shor-erm racking does no work in he long run. However, he ac ha his racking works in he shor erm means here is a risk ha he governing uncion o he rule as a whole is reinorced. is is because he rule coordinaes he shor-erm consequence o having no pain, a consequence ha is acually conaced, wih he long-erm consequence o recovery. On op o his, here is he reinorcing consequence “doing hings he righ way.” is paradoxical effec is a undamenal process in many common clinical problems, including depression, anxiey disorders, and differen ypes o addicion. An example would be a person wih social anxiey disorder. When he person acs according o he rule “I canno leave home because i will give me anxiey,” he person is ofen correcly racking he shor-erm 141
Learning F
consequence o no eeling as anxious by saying a home. Bu i his behavior coninues over ime, his kind o racking may have he opposie effec, causing social anxiey o increase and possibly leading o depression. Anoher example would be a person who is addiced o alcohol. When he racks he rule “I will eel beter i I do some drinking now,” i may work in he shor erm. However, i he coninues drinking, his problem will no disappear, and his experience o no being able o conrol his lie in he way he wans o will probably increase; and a he same ime, he will no rack he long-erm and desrucive consequences o coninuing o drink. is person is suck in a limied, and in his case insufficien, behavioral reperoire when i comes o racking long-erm consequences. ese examples may seem o imply ha he person doesn’ undersand he long-erm consequences. In ac, his is rarely he case. People who wihdraw in order o eel beter and avoid anxiey usually know ha his increases anxiey in he long run. People who drink as a means o coping usually know ha drinking will worsen heir problems in he long run. Like any oher orm o privae verbal behavior, he privae verbal behavior o “undersanding” can occur wihou having any imporan effec on over behavior. e problem is no primarily a lack o undersanding; i’s a resul o ollowing a rule and conacing he shor-erm consequences. is imporan poin bears repeaing: I is no primarily a mater o undersanding; he crucial elemen here is rule-governed behavior ollowed by consequences. Negaive reinorcemen clearly plays a role in he examples above. By no conacing social setings, you can avoid he experience o social anxiey. By drinking alcohol, you can decrease anxiey and uneasiness in he shor erm. Bu oher reinorcemen coningencies also come ino play. Augmening plays an imporan role in susaining poorly uncioning racking, jus as i does in connecion wih problemaic pliance. As menioned above, “doing he righ hing” alers he uncions o ineffecive racking so ha he indi vidual coninues o ollow he rule in spie o he long-erm consequences his leads o. We humans easily ge suck in ollowing rules ha do no work well, especially rules ha govern behaviors or conrolling ear, downhearedness, shame, grie, or eelings o loneliness. We do his in an atemp o reach goals along he pah oward somehing “urher sill.” e essenial uncion o his direcion�his “urher sill”�is conneced wih problemaic augmening.
Problems Conneced wih Augmening ere is a common denominaor beween augmening and pliance: Boh are sensiive o social whim. In he case o pliance, his is a resul o
142
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
he consequences specified by he rule being arranged by he social communiy. e verbal neworks ha make augmening possible are also arranged by he social communiy, hough in a more complex way; hey are shaped by he social inerplay ha lies a he very base o languaging. e relaional neworks ha serve as augmenals, inensiying he governing uncion o consequences, can be very absrac. And he more absrac he governing consequences, he harder i is or immediae consequences o have an impac on behavior. e undamenal problem in connecion wih augmening is ha is ineracions wih pliance and racking lead o increased insensiiviy o direc coningencies. Le’s reurn o he problems conneced wih pliance. As menioned, augmening can easily make he problems wih pliance persis and increase. Alhough here are individuals who seek appreciaion rom ohers in order o obain angible orms o reinorcemen, generalized pliance usually occurs under he influence o more absrac, verbally consruced consequences. Absrac consequences like “being a good person,” “being successul,” or “being lovable” may have become esablished as he ulimaely desirable consequence or a paricular individual. ese ypes o consequences may be coordinaed wih specific acions, like doing wha ohers do, agreeing wih wha ohers say, saying wihin a cerain patern o behavior, or never saying no. is ype o learning hisory srenghens an arbirary relaion o coordinaion beween, or example, “being lovable” and adaping o ohers in various ways. is will, in urn, affec he simulus uncions o a behavior ha involves no adaping. For a person like his, he various orms o “no adaping” will have punishing uncions. is is because “no adaping” is in opposiion o “being lovable,” which is he sel-eviden aim or value or his individual. Le’s ake a deailed look a wha is going on in problemaic augmening based on generalized pliance when a person sysemaically acs on a sel-rule such as “o achieve wha I wan, I need o ac in a way ha makes me eel good, and I eel good when no one criicizes me and when I ge appreciaion rom people around me.”1 is is he resul o advanced relaional raming: 1.
Cerain houghs and eelings ha are evoked by people’s criicism or heir ailure o express appreciaion (or example, “I am bad; I’m no he way I should be”) are pu in opposiion o acions ha are aimed a specific goals. In essence, “I I have hese houghs and eelings, hey will sop me rom acing in a cerain direcion.”
1 Noe ha he person does no necessarily observe any houghs when he rule ollowing occurs. He may repor having hese houghs or he may no. e rule may be implici. Wha is essenial is ha he person is in ac acing in his way. 143
Learning F 2.
e person’s goals are pu in coordinaion wih eeling good; ha is, “I need o eel good o be able o ac oward hese goals.”
3.
Feeling good is esablished as a necessary componen (causal or condiional raming) o reaching he hings ha really mater o ha person.
Anoher example o problemaic augmening is a depressed person who dwells on pas evens. I asked wheher going over hings again and again seems o lead him anywhere, he will probably acknowledge ha i does no. Sill he keeps doing i. Negaive reinorcemen plays a significan role here. is aciviy helps him avoid somehing he experiences as painul. Perhaps he avoids oher houghs by dwelling on he pas. Bu negaive reinorcemen is no he only governing consequence. is person’s ruminaion probably belongs o a uncional class o behavior ha we would call problem solving. is is wha you are “supposed o do” o deal wih problems. So his is acually anoher example o how a behavior is reinorced by “doing wha I need o do in order o eel good.” inking hings hrough is seen as he righ hing o do. We migh ask why his ype o problem solving becomes so inense or a cerain person in a cerain siuaion. People whose houghs consanly reer o he pas ofen say ha his is an atemp o eel beter. And why is eeling beter so imporan? Because i is seen as a means o reaching oher imporan goals or values in lie. is rule�“I have o work o ge rid o my depressed eelings in order o eel good, and I need o eel good o be able o achieve wha is imporan in my lie”�uncions as an augmenal ha alers simulus uncions in various ways. e houghs he person is avoiding by dwelling on pas evens become even more aversive hrough augmening, since hey are no longer jus painul in hemselves; hey are now in opposiion o reaching imporan hings in lie, as well. A his poin, he augmenal inensifies effors o ge rid o he undesired houghs because he rule specifies ha his is wha i akes o achieve imporan goals and live in accordance wih one’s values. Imagine a person who is experiencing hallucinaions. Le’s assume ha his person is racking he rule “I I say in bed oday, I will no hear voices.” When asked why i is imporan no o hear voices, he person migh respond ha lie is easier o handle wihou hearing voices, ha he doesn’ risk being locked up in a menal insiuion, or ha he wans o ge away rom houghs o going insane. is racking may work in he shor erm, bu i does no rack more long-erm consequences. As a resul, he behavior becomes par a long-erm vicious circle, as described above. Augmening could poenially complicae his siuaion urher hrough a sel-rule like “I have o make sure I don’ hear voices, since a normal person doesn’ hear hem.” As a resul,
144
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
experiencing hallucinaions becomes even more aversive, since hey’ve been pu in opposiion o being a normal person. is urher moivaes he behavior ha, according o he rule, is supposed o conrol he hallucinaions. e process as a whole now goes beyond he original painul experiences�experiences ha can be difficul enough in hemselves. I is now also a quesion o “being a normal person.” e same principle can be seen in processes involved in dependen personaliy disorder. A person wih his diagnosis will ofen behave in ways aimed a avoiding eeling a lack o suppor, wheher by openly appealing o ohers or by being passive. Le’s assume ha a rule governing his person’s behavior is “In order o be able o do wha I wan, I need o ocus on eeling suppored.” is rule inensifies he aversive qualiy in he experience o no eeling suppored, since ha experience now sands no only or he acual uneasiness, bu also or obsrucing he lie he person desires. is increases he moivaion o ac in a way ha is supposed o bring abou eelings o suppor or avoid he opposie. And as he experience o suppor naurally varies in a social environmen, his can all oo easily lead o a vicious circle wherein he more his experience eludes he person, he more he finds i imporan o achieve. All o he clinical examples above illusrae he same oundaional course o evens and he same human dilemma, regardless o diagnosis. ulegoverned behavior, in he shape o pliance and racking, allows us o ac o achieve more long-erm consequences. However, i also necessiaes a degree o rigidiy. is rigidiy can increase under he influence o augmening, especially when he consequences sough are eiher very absrac or disan in ime and space. Le’s reurn o he definiion o augmenals. ey are rules ha come close o wha we in everyday language would call assumpions, premises, or saring poins. Augmenals are ofen implici and seem mater o course. We jus ake hem or graned, and ha is precisely how hey influence our behavior. ey are verbally consruced, complex relaional neworks ha govern our behavior by operaing on he degree o which differen consequences uncion as reinorcing or punishing. ey uncion as a ype o verbal esablishing operaions. Augmening is regarded as he mos advanced orm o rule-governed behavior (S. C. Hayes e al., 1998). Jus o be clear, all rule-governed behaviors have good and bad sides, bu in his conex I am emphasizing heir problemaic effecs. Noe, however, ha rom a behavior analyic perspecive hese assumpions or saring poins, in and o hemselves, are no he problem. e problem is no he rules. e rules are simply words expressed by ohers or privae evens discriminaed by he individual, or, in many cases, hey are neiher
145
Learning F
expressed by ohers nor discriminaed as a privae even; hey are implici. When pu ino words, hey are verbal absracions o acions, as discussed in chaper 6. e real problem isn’ he rules; i’s rule ollowing . When acions resul in consequences ha urn ino lie problems, hese problems arise, in par, because cerain acions simply do no give us wha we wan, and, in par, because hese very acions preclude oher acions ha could have been more likely o lead o reinorcing consequences.
ISKS ELAED O HE DOMINANCE OF INDIEC SIMULUS FUNCIONS Once a reperoire o relaional raming is esablished in a given individual, derived or verbal simulus uncions can dominae over direcly esablished uncions. is was shown in he experimens menioned in he beginning o his chaper, where a rule coninued o govern paricipans’ behavior even when he coningencies were alered in a way such ha he rule no longer corresponded o how he environmen was arranged. In all likelihood, his occurs because our experiences o acing on indirec simulus uncions have been highly reinorcing in so many areas. Simply pu, language works. When someone says somehing, hey uter a sequence o sounds. is becomes very clear when we lisen o someone speaking a language we do no undersand. In ha case, we only conac he direc simulus uncions: he characer o he sounds, perhaps he rhyhm and speed o he uterances, and so on. I we’ve previously heard ha language spoken, i may provoke memories rom hose imes or siuaions. Neverheless, our experience is sill mosly conrolled by direc simulus uncions�he immediae connecions beween hese sounds and our direc experiences. is ends o diminish when we hear a language ha we’ve masered. e indirec simulus uncions come o he oreron. We undersand wha he person is saying and ac based on his. Ye all we ruly hear, even in his case, is combinaions o sounds. However, because boh speaker and lisener have he same way o puting paricular sounds in relaion o each oher, and in relaion o a number o oher hings, we undersand wha we hear. ese relaions are, in hemselves, arbirary. We are playing he same social game ogeher. One way o comprehending he naural flow by which indirec simulus uncions dominae is o ry o conac direc simulus uncions in a conex where his does no normally pay off. As a reader, you can ry his now, by looking a he ex you are reading and ocusing on he conras beween he paper’s color and he patern made by he prining ink wihou making a noe
146
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
o wha he ex means. You may find i remarkably difficul; he meanings o words are so eviden o us. is does no necessarily indicae ha i is impossible o swich his meaning off, or ha he indirec simulus uncions mus dominae. I migh be possible ha, perhaps by means o some mediaion or ocusing echnique, you can unlink he meaning rom he acual ex, so ha you simply noe he visual conras beween black and whie. However, his is no he undamenal atiude we have learned o ake in relaion o writen ex. Anoher way o experimening wih direc and indirec simulus uncions is o say a word aloud�quickly and repeaedly�or a while. I you haven’ done his beore, give i a ry now. ake he name o he ciy or own where you were born and repea i quickly and loudly or a while. Wha did you experience? When doing his, mos people experience shor momens when he meaning disappears and hey only hear a sound. How does his work? Based on F you migh say ha he conex ha normally susains indirec simulus uncions is alered, and his is wha makes he uncions diminish. Perorming his exercise changes he aspec o he conex reerred o as C unc in F. Indirec simulus uncions are no inheren; hey arise as a resul o how we behave, someimes ogeher and someimes by ourselves. I is possible o aler hese uncions by influencing conexual acors. In he examples above, he effec is obviously ransiory. e normal conex is solidly presen. Indirec simulus uncions do no dominae everywhere and in all circumsances. Humans live in a world where boh direc and indirec simulus uncions influence our behavior. In some siuaions, direc simulus uncions dominae. I you are a skilled pianis and you are playing one o your avorie pieces by hear, hen you are doing his mainly under he influence o direc simulus uncions o he momen. I someone were o sar speaking o you�say hey sugges ha you play i in a differen way�you would noice he disurbance, bu you could undoubedly le his go and really immerse yoursel in playing his music so ha you would sill mainly be under he influence o direc simulus uncions. o coninue wih a behavior and simply le your nex sep be influenced by whaever you ace direcly is an abiliy ha is sill inac in humans, even i i mus compee wih rule-governed behavior. e dominance o indirec simulus uncions need no be a problem. Mos o he ime, arbirarily applicable relaional responding increases he flexibiliy o our acions. a i increases he risk o rigidiy in oher siuaions is simply he oher side o he same coin. Ye he risk o being overly influenced by a sric dominance o indirec simulus uncions is real. Earlier in his chaper I described his in connecion wih problems relaed o he
147
Learning F
differen orms o rule ollowing. When his dominance becomes srong, F uses he erm usion o indicae ha cerain acions are compleely dominaed by, or used wih, indirec simulus uncions. Fusion occurs when cerain verbal (indirec) simulus uncions dominae over oher poenially available simulus uncions, boh direc and indirec (Srosahl, Hayes, Wilson, & Gifford, 2004; S. C. Hayes, Srosahl, Buning, wohig, & Wilson, 2004). I can ac wholehearedly based on he assumpion ha licorice ases errible wihou ever having ased i, regardless o oher poenially available direc simulus uncions (how i would ase i I ried i) or indirec simulus uncions (oher opinions abou licorice). I can ac compleely in line wih he assumpion “I am no able o alk o him,” even hough oher direc simulus uncions (wha would happen i I alked o him) or indirec simulus uncions (oher views on wha I am able o do) are poenially available. Again, i is imporan o emphasize ha i is usion in acion ha can become problemaic. You migh pu i his way: Fusion is acion; i does no reer o a menal process ha in some way precedes he behavior. e poenial piall conneced o dominance o verbal uncions is used behavior ollowed by consequences, no inflexible houghs in hemselves.
EXPEIENIAL AVOIDANCE AS A CENRL POCESS IN CONNECION WIH PSYCHOPAHOLOGY A undamenal poin made in his chaper is ha he dark side o arbirarily applicable relaional responding becomes mos eviden when rule-governed behavior is ocused on conrolling privae evens. e reason or his behavior is ha privae evens can easily atain aversive uncions hrough arbirarily applicable relaional responding. is was also a prominen heme in he preceding survey o how differen ypes o rule-governed behavior can urn ino behavioral raps. We all oo easily come o ocus our acions on conrolling privae evens. is ype o rule-governed behavior, called experienial avoidance , is defined as acions aimed a conrolling or eliminaing affecs, houghs, memories, and bodily sensaions (S. C. Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follete, & Srosahl, 1996). e oucome o his behavior is generally paradoxical. I may work in he shor run, bu in he long run i heighens our risk o acually increasing he ype o experiences we are working o avoid. A he same ime, lie as a whole becomes resriced and lie saisacion wanes. I have illusraed all o his above, in he passages on he negaive effecs o rule-governed behavior aimed a conrolling privae evens, and exensive 148
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
scienific daa confirm ha experienial avoidance can be cenral o psychopahology (Karekla, Forsyh, & Kelly, 2004; Chapman, Graz, & Brown, 2006; Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Homann, 2006; Chawla & Osafin, 2007). e origins o his problemaic behavior are sraighorward. reaening siuaions have aversive simulus uncions and become he objec o avoidance or all organisms. For us humans, privae evens readily acquire aversive simulus uncions hrough relaional raming, and hereby also become objecs o avoidance. A he same ime, our inerace wih hese evens is immense, i no limiless. As rule-governed behavior is esablished in he child, a number o advanced behaviors become available and may be urned oward conrolling houghs, eelings, and bodily sensaions. I rules hen are esablished ha enail a relaion o opposiion beween privae phenomena ha are el o be aversive versus a saisacory lie, hese rules are likely o uncion as augmenals. ese augmenals can hen esablish he privae evens in quesion as even more aversive, so he imporance o avoiding hem becomes even greaer, urher increasing he moivaion o deliberaely ocus acions on conrolling hese phenomena. In his way, experienial avoidance is esablished. As he abiliy o rame relaionally gradually becomes more complex, an increasing number o evens become relaed o oher simuli in a wide variey o ways. More eelings and houghs can hereore be coordinaed wih ha which is aversive. ese eelings and houghs, in urn, can be pu in opposiion o ha which is desired, and hereby also become he objecs o various avoidance sraegies. Te problem wih experienial avoidance is ha he human abiliy o conrol privae evens is quie limied . o a grea degree, hese phenomena are ou o our voliional conrol. oughs emerge, and eelings, memories, and bodily sensaions are acivaed in an auomaic way in counless siuaions in lie, making i impossible or rules ha propose conrol o privae evens o work effecively. Anoher problem is ha he more you ry o ollow rules like hese, he greaer he risk ha in he longer erm you’ll wind up more closely in ouch wih wha you have been rying o avoid (Wegner & Gold, 1995; Abramowiz, olin, & Sree, 2001). Ye anoher problem, and he mos imporan one, is ha when an individual commis himsel o his orm o deliberae avoidance, oher behaviors, which migh have led o posiive reinorcemen, are precluded. e long-erm resul is an increased risk o living in a way ha is ulimaely unsaisacory o he individual.
O SUGGLE WIH ONESELF A human’s experience o himsel, and his abiliy o verbally discriminae himsel and his acions, are a prerequisie or more advanced rule-governed 149
Learning F
behavior. Oher species can also discriminae heir own acions, bu because o our capaciy or relaional raming, he complexiy o human sel-discriminaion is enormously greaer (D. Barnes-Holmes e al., 2001). We humans can pu our own acions ino a number o differen relaional rames. is means we can conac “his acion�earlier or laer on” (emporal raming), “no perorming his acion” (opposiional raming), “more o his acion” (comparaive raming), or “his acion over here” (perspecive raming), or example�and all wihou he acion having o be a hand or even having occurred previously. In addiion o his, we are able o pu our experience o sel in relaional rames. rough verbal behavior, we can learn o discriminae ha “ I am he one who is perorming his acion.” We do his hrough verbal perspecive aking, as described in chaper 5. is skill is combined wih rule-governed behavior o orm sel-generaed rules where he individual is boh speaker and lisener. e abiliy o discriminae onesel in his way can be affeced by he problemaic complicaion discussed above: he dark side o relaional raming. I houghs can acquire aversive uncions rom essenially any direcion hrough relaional raming, hen my houghs abou mysel can also acquire aversive uncions. is can ake place hrough direc experience. For example, when I experience somehing painul, his is direcly relaed o my experience o mysel. I can also ake place hrough oher people’s narraive o mysel, such as i I am ofen old ha I’m no he way I ough o be, ha I do hings he wrong way, ha I’m bad, or ha I’m supid. I direc and indirec means are combined, he probabiliy increases ha I will develop a narraive o mysel ha is painul in differen ways, and hrough his narraive I risk having my lie circumscribed. However, even i I do no have powerul experiences like hese�eiher o pain in isel or o requenly being presened wih an aversive sory o mysel�I sill will no escape his possibiliy. Alhough my experiences and he sory o mysel ha ohers have handed o me migh be dominaed by appeiive uncions, my verbal abiliy will necessarily also pu me in conac wih aversive uncions in relaion o mysel. All organisms consanly discriminae beween aversive and appeiive simuli. ese discriminaive responses increase in a dramaic way in connecion wih he abiliy o rame evens relaionally, especially when raming comparaively. Since humans, hrough verbal perspecive aking, learn o relae o hemselves as objecs, he ollowing quesion becomes ineviable: Am I appeiive or aversive? In more everyday language, he quesion migh be phrased along hese lines: Am I good or bad? Am I he way I should be? Am I good enough? Jus as boh direc and indirec aversive simulus uncions are relaed o privae evens in general, hey are also relaed o he experience o “me.” 150
e Dark Side o Human Languaging
Because my privae evens are in a very special and direc relaion wih my sense o sel, i is easy o undersand ha hey will acquire uncions ha are cenral o my behavior. ey do, afer all, ake place wihin me. In he discussion o how our experience o sel originaes, in chaper 5, I described how our sories o ourselves are conneced wih risks o rigidiy and o alling ino verbal pia pialllls. s. e more I ac in u usion sion wi wihh my sor soryy o mysel mysel,, he greae greaerr my risk o acing in a way ha in he long run has a negaive and resricing effec on my lie. is is paricularly applicable i my direc and indirec learning hisory has resuled in a limiing sory ha increases he probabiliy o problemaic rule ollowing. Le’s suppose ha my sory o mysel describes me as someone who “can suddenly do somehing compleely crazy” or who “canno make i alone.” I isn’ hard o see how a narraive like his�i I ac in usion wih i�promoes a kind o rule ollowing ha susains guardedness and behavior ha lacks independence. Such a narraive also assigns indirec aversive uncions o aspecs o sel-as-process. A cerain eeling ha I noice, say eeling insecure, can become an obsacle o acion, an aneceden o avoidance. is ype o avoidan behavior ends o resul in negaive reinorcemen because, in he shor run, my eeling o insecuriy decreases when I ac in a guarded way. Following his rule can hereore poenially increase my endency o ac in usion wih he sory, which will come o urher dominae my behavior as a resul. And all o his can ake place even in siuaions where his behavior causes severe losses in my lie. Experienial avoidance has become a rap. A number number o psycholog psychological ical problems and psych psychiar iaric ic diag diagnoses noses can be analyzed in a corresponding way. esponsibiliy-ocused sories o sel are ofen imporan elemens in connecion wih obsessive-compulsive syndromes. Sories dealing wih guil are ofen key in depressive condiions. Sories abou he individual’s own body and appearance have cenral uncions in connecion wih eaing disorders, and narraives abou onesel and one’s need or inerpersonal affirmaion ofen have hese uncions in connecion wih borderline personaliy disorder. ese are jus a ew ypical examples. Many people explain ha hey seek psychological counseling because hey eel low in sel-confidence or sel-eseem. Many o hese individuals express heir problem in erms such as “ere’s somehing wrong wih me” or “I’m no normal,” or hey seem o assume ha here is “somehing wrong inside” ha causes heir dilemma or heir sympoms. Many o hese descripions o he problems are problemaic in hemselves and consiue some o he verbal raps ha resric he individual. Sill, hese phrases also poin ou ha an imporan par o he human dilemma is conneced wih how we ac in relaion o our experience o sel. is experience o sel can acquire aversive uncions hrough verbal learning and can be urher complicaed hrough 151
Learning F
he problemaic ypes o rule ollowing described in his chaper, which lead o experienial avoidance.
SUMMAY Human language is enormously useul, ye i also has some problemaic side effecs. e behavioral reperoire o derived relaional responding resuls in he human capaciy o ransorm simulus uncions by way o muual enailmen and combinaorial muual enailmen. As a resul, he possibiliies o conacing nonpresen evens increase dramaically, so aversive simulus uncions can poenially become omnipresen. In addiion, our capaciy or relaional raming also makes rule-governed behavior possible. is oo is very useul, bu i opens he door o geting caugh in differen ypes o behavioral behav ioral raps raps.. A mong he y ypes pes o ru rule le ollow ollowing ing h ha a I have descr described, ibed, augmening seems o be poenially he mos problemaic. When we ollow augmenal rules abou wha is necessary in order o have a good and meaningul lie, many privae evens atain srong aversive uncions. Deliberae effors o conrol hem hen seem o offer he only way orward. However, his pah all oo ofen becomes a dead-end sree. ere’s a cerain uiliy in his kind o rule ollowing, since hese privae evens aren’ ypically subjec o effors o conrol hem, and, paradoxically, he very effor o avoid hese evens acually increases he likelihood ha hey will occur. Compounding he problem, and perhaps wors o all, hese effors can urn ino an essenial aspec o lie, resuling in oher behaviors being abandoned�behaviors ha migh have increased he probabiliy o conacing posiive reinorcemen in he long run. ese vicious circles are esablished by he basic problem o acing in usion wih hese rules. Because many o hese rules are sel-generaed and also ofen speciy wha he person should do in regard o “himsel,” an imporan par o hese problemaic behaviors is enaced in relaion o our experience o sel. I isn’ ineviable ha we ge caugh in raps like hese, and even i we end up on such a dead-end sree, i isn’ necessarily a erminal poin. Our behavior can be influenced by a number o differen conexual acors. ereore, changing conexual acors as a means o diminishing desrucive rule ollowing is he goal o any psychological reamen based on he principles presened in his book. I is my aim, in par 3 o he book, o explore how o approach his ype o reamen.
152
PA RT 3 Clinical Cli nical Imp I mplicaio licaions ns
CH A PTE PTER R8 Learning eory and Psychologica Psycho logicall erapies
A ll psycholog All psychological ical herapie herapiess mus deal wi wihh wo separ separae ae arena arenas, s, wo pri princincipally differen ses o condiions. One arena is ha shared by herapis and clien�heir ime spen in sessions. e oher arena is he res o he clien’s lie, where he encouners he problems or difficulies ha have made him seek help. e firs is he only arena he herapis can influence direcly, as she is presen here. A he same ime, he second arena�he clien’s lie ouside o herapy�is, o course, in he long run more imporan o he clien. a is where cha change nge needs o a ake ke place. is provides he herapis wih wo possible ways o exering influence, as seen rom a behavior analyic perspecive: hrough clien-herapis ineracions when he clien’s problemaic behavior is presen during sessions, or hrough he he herapis’s herapis’s abiliy abili y o influence he clien’s rule-governed behavior. In he firs case, i he clien behaves he same way during herapy sessions as he would have ou here “in real lie,” here is a possibiliy ha he herapis can offer differen circumsances rom hose ha normally influence he clien’s acions, giving he clien an opporuniy o learn somehing new. An example is a person who ypically urns quie and wihdraws rom ohers when he eels ee ls dis disappoine appoinedd and sad, and or or whom h his is behav behavior ior is a problem. I his occurs in his ineracion wih he herapis, he herapis may ac in a way ha creaes circumsances ha change he clien’s behavior. Perhaps he herapis noices how he clien wihdraws and calls his atenion o his while wh ile al also so encourag encouraging ing a di differen fferen y ype pe o behav behavior. ior. I he cl clien ien r ries ies a new way o behav behaving ing,, lilike ke ex expressi pressing ng hi hiss di disappoin sappoinmen, men, he herapi herapis s can ac in
Learning F
a way ha reinorces his new behavior. is process is also a undamenal par o exposure herapy. For example, a person wih obsessive-compulsive problems may no dare o keep knives wihin reach or ear o harming ohers. In his case, herapy will ypically include creaing siuaions, arranged by he herapis and clien collaboraively, wherein knives are wihin reach. is may occur in he consuling room or in a place where his problem is usually riggered, such as he clien’s home. e herapis works o suppor new behavior, in his case or he clien o have access o or handle a knie in a way he has earlier avoided, and she ries o arrange or consequences ha reinorce his new behavior. Boh o hese examples demonsrae how he herapis can build on behavioral principles o arrange a new conex or he clien’s problemaic behavior when i occurs, and in his way increase he probabiliy o behavioral change. In he later example, he herapis arranges a seup o anecedens and consequences or boh problemaic and new behavior. O course, he herapis hersel is also a par o he clien’s conex when he wo o hem are ineracing. However, given wha I menioned abou herapy’s wo arenas, i is eviden ha changes ha occur when he herapis is presen are no he primary goal. I is change in he second arena, he clien’s own lie, ha we are aiming or in herapy. I his is o happen, generalizaion is necessary; he clien learns somehing new as he works wih he herapis, and his is subsequenly generalized in his day-o-day lie. Bu or such changes o be lasing, he consequences ha ace he clien “ou here,” in real lie, mus reinorce his new behavior as well. I no, here is a risk ha he newly learned approach rom herapy won’ be firmly esablished in he clien’s ordinary lie and hus will be easily exinguished. e herapis does no conrol consequences ha ake place in he second arena, so in heir work or change, herapis and clien mus ake his ino consideraion as hey creae a reamen plan. In he clien’s day-o-day lie, are here naural reinorcers or he clien’s new way o behaving? o go back o he example o exposure herapy, we can assume ha in mos cases here is more reinorcemen or he ordinary use o knives han here is or always avoiding hem. Likewise, expressing one’s disappoinmen and sadness, raher han wihdrawing, is probably reinorced, a leas in cerain conexs, hough no necessarily in all. Pahs o desired changes can hus involve a process along hese lines: e clien pracices new behavior in his ineracions wih he herapis and encouners new consequences ha reinorce his behavior. He hen acs in he same way in his day-o-day lie and encouners even more reinorcing consequences, making i more likely ha he new behavior will occur in oher, similar siuaions. In collaboraion wih he clien, he herapis has se up a new conex consising o boh anecedens and consequences, and 156
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
his leads o a change ha is subsequenly generalized. is pah o change is cenral in connecion wih many problems ha, a a cursory glance, may seem o differ considerably. o have problems wih inimacy and wih elling ohers wha you hink and eel may, or example, seem very differen rom an obsessive-compulsive sympom like avoidance o handling knives. Seen rom a behavioral perspecive, however, boh he problems hemselves and he pahs o change may be similar in a undamenal way. is is, o course, because behavioral principles are no primarily abou psychological problems or clinical diagnoses. Behavioral principles are abou human behavior as a whole and are hereore universally applicable. From a behavioral poin o view, an imporan par o he work oward change is ha he sessions in which herapis and clien mee (he firs arena) provide opporuniies o learn new hings in his direc way. Bu anoher elemen is also involved. e clien ells he herapis abou hings ha happen in his lie when he herapis isn’ presen (he second arena). ey discuss he clien’s behavior: wha he has done and wha he has experienced. is occurs naurally in all ypes o psychological herapy, regardless o he school o hough. In ac, i is regarded as such a naural ac ha i is ofen seen as unproblemaic, obvious, or naural. However, his isn’ he case rom a behavioral perspecive. Insead, we quesion how his is possible. How can wo people, siting in a room, exchange series o sound combinaions and gesures, and in so doing, conac hings ha have happened earlier�maybe years ago�or hings ha have no ye aken place? And how can alking in his way influence wha happens laer? Hopeully, pars 1 and 2 o his book have provided some answers o hese quesions, or a leas a clearer idea o he processes involved. e possibiliies o influencing evens hrough languaging are a resul o our learned capabiliy o raming relaionally, in he way described in par 2 o his book. e area in which arbirarily applicable relaional responding has he greaes pracical consequences is our abiliy o creae and ollow rules and hereby influence behavior ha is no ongoing. is applies o he behavior o ohers, as well as our own behavior. Jus as his is a naural par o all aspecs o human lie once we have learned he abiliy o engage in rule-governed behavior, i is also a naural par o all psychological herapy. I will be aking place regardless o wheher he herapis emphasizes i. Le’s reurn o he examples above: learning o ell ohers wha you hink and eel, and geting over painul houghs o wha you could do i you were holding a knie in your hand. I he firs clien communicaes his disappoinmen o he herapis, and heir subsequen ineracion hen differs rom wha he clien has experienced ouside he consuling room, his means he can learn new ways o behaving. I he second clien acually handles a knie in 157
Learning F
a successul way, and i his ear ha he will do somehing he doesn’ wan o do isn’ realized, hen he oo has learned somehing new. Mos likely, even wihou wi hou he help o he he herapis, herapi s, he he clien cl ien will wi ll hen hen be able o ormulae or mulae rules r ules along he lines o “I I ac like his a home, hings migh urn ou more he way I wan hem o,” simply si mply based on hi hiss ex experience perience in herap herapy. y. O course, his chain o evens isn’ ineviable, and i doesn’ necessarily ollow ha ormulaing rules like his will lead o changed behavior ouside he consuling room. Bu his is a common way in which a change o behavior akes place. And in mos ypes o psychological herapy, he herapis uses his ype o sraegy in a deliberae way. An imporan par o herapy is exacly his: ormulaing rules and rying o increase he probabiliy ha he clien willll ollow hem wi hem..
BEHAVIORL PINCIPLES AND OHE APPOACHES O PSYCHOLOGICAL HERPY I have described wo pahs o change in he preceding discussion. Using ypical behavioral erminology, you migh say ha in psychological herapies or verbally compeen individuals, we esablish consequences ha reinorce new behavior in session and also rain rule-governed behavior. e herapis can only ac in relaion o he clien when hey mee, in he firs arena. ere, he herapis can esablish anecedens and consequences or behavior as i occurs. I new behavior occurs in he herapeuic siuaion and he herapis manages o esablish reinorcing consequences, hese can have lasing resuls on he clien’s behavior, provided ha his new behavior mees wih sufficienly reinorcing consequences ou here in he clien’s everyday lie, he second arena. In addiion, verbal anecedens (rules) play an especially significan role, since hey can influence behavior long afer hey have been esablished. And, or beter and or worse, hese rules enail a degree o insensiiviy o direc coningencies. In any psychological herapy herapy rooed rooed in behavioral principles, pri nciples, he herapeuic sraegy is developed based on an undersanding o he coningencies ha influence behavior: anecedens and consequences. e herapis atemps o influence hese conexual acors in differen ways. erapy is hus ounded on a uncional analysis, or ABC (amnerö & örneke, 2008). Since learning heory is abou human behavior as a whole, i is, o course, possible o analyze all psychological herapies rom his rame o reerence, regardless o which heory he herapy in quesion is based on. I a herapis’s 158
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
acions in relaion o a clien in ac change he clien’s behavior, his mus be occurring according o behavioral principles, i we assume ha hese principles are universally valid. When a psychoanalys or a cogniive herapis achieves changes in a clinical seting (Leichsenring, 2005; Dobson, 1989; Beck, 2005) his akes place because heir acions in herapy influence anecedens and consequences o he behavior ha has been changed. ere is no oher possibiliy when we look a his rom a behavioral perspecive, regardless o wheher he herapiss hemselves describe heir work or change rom a differen heoreical angle. In he remainder o he book, I will describe a psychological herapy ha is based on behavioral principles, wih a special emphasis on conclusions drawn rom relaional rame heory. Bu firs, le me ouline a view we can ake on wo oher imporan psychoherapy models as seen rom his perspecive. I do his rom he convicion ha behavioral principles are universally valid. As I do his h is I am a m aware o wo wo poenial poen ial risk r isks: s: Firs, Firs , here is i s a risk ri sk ha h a his h is could be inerpreed as presumpuous�ha he claims seem oo grand. a is an ineviable risk. e claims o learning heory are grand. is heory does are grand. no proess o explain only cerain aspecs o human behavior or a cerain ype o herapy. I akes as is saring poin he view ha behavioral principles are universally applicable, ha hese principles describe how we humans learn everyhing we learn and how i is possible o influence his learning process. Second, here is a risk ha some who advocae he herapy models analyzed here will eel ha my descripions aren’ air, since I will summarize hese models and, o a large degree, will disregard he explanaions offered by hes hesee herapie herapies. s. A ll I can do in regard o h his is concern is cla clari riy y my own saring poins. I am no atemping o describe a heoreical inegraion o he psychology o learning and oher heories, nor do I inend o accoun or any orm o dialogue among he heories o he differen models. My inenion is o give he reader a behavioral perspecive on oher models o psychological herapy. Such a perspecive is possible; we can look a he cenral componens o psychodynamic1 and cogniive herapy rom he principles o learning heory heory..
1 I am using he erm “psychodynam “psychodynamic ic herapy” o denoe al alll orms o psychological herapy based on wha is usually called “psychodynamic heory” or “psychoanalyic heory.” e borders beween he differen erms in use are no always disinc. Here, he erm reers o he whole range o such herapies, rom exensive psychoanalysis five sessions a week or many yearss o shor manua year manual-based l-based herapie herapies, s, or ex example, ample, he ki kind nd descr described ibed or so-called affec phobia (McCullough e al., 2003). 159
Learning F
Behavioral Princ Principles iples and Psychodynamic Terapies I is no a novel underaking o describe psychodynamic herapies rom he perspecive o learning heory. In several o his books, Skinner wroe abou how he principles he deduced rom his experimens can be used o undersand how psychoherapy works (Skinner, 1953, 1957, 1974). e ype o psychoherapy he analyzed is primarily psychoanalysis, along wih humanisic psychoherapies. Oher earlier wriers have also analyzed psychoanalyically based herapies using learning heory (Dollard & Miller, 1950; Ferser, 1972). Skinner noed wo undamenal possibiliies or exering influence wihi wi hinn he ra ramework mework o psychoa p sychoanal nalysi ysis, s, and a nd wih w ihin in psychoher ps ychoherapy apy in i n general genera l (Ski Skinner, nner, 1974 1974). ). e firs is ha he he herapis, over ime, i me, develops a relaionship o her clien ha makes her a source o reinorcemen. e herapis receives he clien’s behavior in a differen way han he clien is used o in ordinary lie. In he course o herapy, new consequences will become coningen on behavior. behav ior. A n impor imporan an ex example ample menioned by Sk Skin inner ner is h ha a he herapi herapis s rerains rom aversive (punishing) conrol. e experience o sysemaic aversive conrol influences people o use an avoidan behavioral reperoire. Wih such a hisory, people mainly ac o diminish aversive evens and ge away. I he herapis behaves differenly in his regard, he probabiliy increases ha avoidance is exinguished in he ineracion beween clien and herapis and ha he clien ries ou new behaviors, such as more clearly expressing his opinion abou somehing he herapis has said or done. I he herapis hen acs o reinorce his behavior, he possibiliy o learning new ways o relaing o ohers has been esablished. e ac ha sessions are requen and he course o herapy coninues or so long provides he herapis wih many opporuniies o esablish consequences or he clien’s behavior ha open up prospecs or learning new behaviors. In requen ineracions ha ake place over an exended period o ime, he herapis can conrol conexual acors ha influence he clien more han would oherwise be possible. eerring o he concep o he wo arenas, you migh say ha psychoanalysis esablishes he firs arena o a very high degree compared o a herapeuic seting where herapis and clien mee less requenly or or ewer sessions. Bu, o course, his is no auomaically helpul o he clien. Wihin he conex o closely spaced ineracions, he herapis mus esablish consequences o he clien’s behavior behav ior ha ac acual ually ly enable cha changes nges he clie clien n desire desires. s. ere is alw always ays he risk ha ha he herapis isn’ capable capable o his, and ha, h a, in he wors-case scenario, she acually srenghens or aggravaes he ype o behavior ha is problemaic or he clien.
160
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
I we look a his siuaion rom he sandpoin o learning heory, a limiaion o his mehod o exering influence is ha i requires generalizaion. I a clien has learned a new behavior in ineracion wih his herapis and his behavior behav ior is i s no rein reinorced orced in he res o his h is lilie, e, general generaliza izaion ion probably won’ occur. However, his limiaion applies o all psychological herapy, since no herapis can conrol wha happens ouside o he herapeuic seting. a said, he requen and long-erm ineracions ha are a par o psychoanalysis provide many opporuniies or influence. Anoher A noher possible lilimi miaion aion is ha he behav behavior ior we wan o in influence fluence needs o occur during ineracions in herapy in order or i o be influenced by conex conexu ual al acor acorss h ha a are presen in he momen. Iner Inerpersona personall behav behavior ior is, o course, highly likely o be cued in a ramework like his. Bu problemaic behavior behav ior in realms oher han h an inerpersona iner personall behavior may only be promped by exernal circumsances. Cerain ypes o compulsive behavior and avoidance o specific exernal phenomena, like spiders or social setings, are examples o problemaic behaviors ha do no necessarily manies wihin he seting o psychoanalysis. e acual behavior is no displayed, even hough here may be an excellen possibiliy ha he clien will alk abou i. However, he way he clie clien n al alks ks abou his h is problemaic behav behavior ior may no be wha needs o change. Since psychoanalysis usually emphasizes he imporance o keeping herapeuic conac inside defined boundaries o ime and locaion, his can obsruc esablishing exernal siuaions ha bring cerain problems o he ore. Skinner noed ha one behavior ha is ofen reinorced in a general way in psycho psychoherapy herapy is obser observa vaion ion o one’ one’ss own behav behavior�wha ior�wha is, wi wihi hinn he psychology o learning, called sel-discriminaion. One par o seldiscriminaion could be learning o noice he connecion beween wha you do and wha happens when you do wha you do. A clien migh say, “I noiced ha she looked my way and I wondered i I should walk up o her o alk a bi, bu I did didn’ n’ do i.” In a psychody psychodynam namic ic herap herapy, y, he herapi herapis s would be likely o reply, “ell me more abou his,” or oherwise say somehing ha reinorces coninued sel-discriminaion by he clien: discriminaions o how i el, wha memories were recalled during he inciden, wha happened afer ha, and similar ypes o connecions. is is close o wha behavior analysis reers o as a uncional analysis. I he clien alks or hinks abou hese connecions, his is verbal discriminaion, which is an insance o he person acing he coningencies o his specific siuaion. Alhough his is done in accordance wih slighly differen guidelines wihin psychodynamic herapies han wihin behavior analysis, i is sill rue ha he behavior o acing hese coningencies is ofen reinorced.
1611 16
Learning F
is behavior�being able o ac one’s own behavior and is connecion o oher evens�is called insigh, boh in psychodynamic herapy and in everyday language. From he perspecive o learning heory, i could be called oulook�which migh be a more fiting expression (Ferser, 1972). You learn o discriminae, and, since in his case i is verbal discriminaion, you learn o ac your own behavior as well as he connecion beween wha you do and oher evens. Doing his is a prerequisie or wha Skinner spoke o as he oher possible way o exering influence in psychoherapy in general, and in psychodynamic herapy specifically: ormulaing rules or behavior ouside he herapeuic seting. echnically pu, he herapis is o esablish anecedens ha increase he probabiliy o a cerain behavior aking place in a siuaion oher han he one a hand. In oher words, he herapis does somehing o increase he chances ha a cerain rule-governed behavior will occur in a seting oher han in session wih he herapis. I his sel-discriminaion occurs as a resul o herapy, he clien will ormulae rules like hese wheher or no he herapis acively helps him do so. In psychoanalysis he herapis usually gives his kind o help sparingly, bu many ma ny oher o her y y pes o psychod psychodyn ynam amic ic herapy herapy mak makee more room or muual muu al work o orm such suc h rules. ru les. Indire I ndirec cly, ly, his h is occurs occ urs in i n classical clas sical psychoa p sychoanal nalysi ysiss oo, since he clien is a verbally compeen human being and possesses he skills needed o creae sel-rules. Clearly, hese wo essenial ways o influencing he clien’s behavior can and do inerac wih each oher. I a cerain new behavior resuls in new and differen consequences in ineracions wih he herapis, and especially i his happens repeaedly, his experience can orm he oundaion o a rule o his ype: “I I also do his when I’m disappoined in Lee, he migh lisen.” e person acs, mees cerain consequences, acs a coningency, and ormulaes a rule ha specifies a possible behavior and a possible uure consequence. I he person subsequenly acs according o his rule, his is he ype o behavior described as racking in chaper 6. We can describe desc ribe diffe d ifferen ren ypes y pes o psychodynam psychody namic ic herapy, and oher psychological herapies as well, based on he balance beween hese wo sraegies or working o change clien behavior. In requen and long-erm psychoanal ysis, ysi s, he di direc rec coni coningencies ngencies ha are esabl esablished ished in he inerac ineracion ion be beween ween herapis and clien are very likely o play a large par in any changes. erapy provides wha some early inerpreers o psychoanalysis called “a correcive emoional experience” exper ience” (Alexa (Alexander nder,, French, & he Insiue Ins iue or Psychoanaly Psychoanalysis, sis, 1946, p. 66). 66). Generally speaki spea king, ng, however, psychoanalysis has a srong emphasis on “undersanding” and alking abou he connecion beween acions, houghs, emoions, and exernal evens. e classic psychoanalyic inerpreaion can be undersood as a verbally ormulaed discriminaion o any such 162
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
coningency. I is an example o how he herapis acs such a coningency. In an ideal siuaion, an inerpreaion o his kind is a pure ac (described in chaper 2), hough his is no necessarily so. is verbal behavior can lead o ormulaing rules, suggesions, or advice, or maybe simply o a descripion o differen alernaives. Shorer and more prescripive ypes o psychodynamic herapy have a sronger ocus on influencing rule-governed behavior hrough helping he clien ormulae rules or alernaive behavior. In principle, here is nohing o preven herapies wih less conac beween herapis and clien rom having heir main effecs hrough direc coningencies esablished in he ineracion beween he wo. However, he likelihood ha his kind o conac conains new consequences ha are effecive and go on o become generalized in he clien’s daily lie is no as high as when he herapeuic conac is requen and o a long-erm characer. In herapis-clien relaionships ha are shor-erm or involve less requen conac, he herapis simply has ewer chances o esablish direc coningencies or behavior. And ye requen ineracion is no guaranee ha change will ake place. Frequen and long-erm herapeuic conac can consis o differen ypes o verbal behavior wihou any coningencies or change being esablished. From he perspecive o learning heory, i is air o assume ha an ideal psychodynamic herapy has a balanced disribuion o hese wo principles: nonverbal learning hrough direc coningencies ha promoe change, and ormulaing rules ha lead o enhanced skills in racking.
Behavioral Principles and Cogniive Terapies Jus as he erm “psychodynamic herapy” encompasses slighly varying approaches, so does he erm “cogniive herapy.” e ollowing discussion is based on Beck’s definiion: “Cogniive herapy is bes viewed as he applicaion o he cogniive model o a paricular disorder wih he use o a variey o echniques designed o modiy he dysuncional belies and auly inormaion processing characerisic o each disorder” (Beck, 1993, p. 194, ialics added). Cogniive herapy can also be analyzed using he wo principles or exering influence menioned by Skinner (Zetle & Hayes, 1982). Using his book’s erminology, you could say ha he main goal in cogniive herapy is or he herapis o ocus on influencing how rules are ormulaed. e herapis iniially spends ime monioring he relaionship beween he clien’s verbal behavior (houghs, belies, lie principles) and he issues he clien describes as problemaic. e herapis hen uses a variey o echniques o quesion his verbal behavior and help he clien reormulae i. An imporan par o his reormulaion is achieved hrough differen ypes o
163
Learning F
experimens. Based on wha herapis and clien ormulae during sessions, he clien is encouraged, in homework assignmens, o check differen hypoheses concerning he connecions beween his behavior and oher evens. For example, in dialogue wih he herapis, he clien may ormulae a rule like “I I ell Lee my houghs, he will despise me.” Iniially he herapis helps he clien more clearly speciy wha his means. She may ask somehing like “How do you know he will despise you?” Oher possible quesions would be “Assuming ha he were o despise you, how would ha be made eviden? Would you be able o observe i somehow? Wha would you inerpre as a sign ha he acually despises you?” Following his, she would help he clien phrase an alernaive hypohesis abou how Lee migh reac and wha indicaors he clien could ry o observe ha migh poin o his hypohesis being correc. Based on his dialogue, a homework assignmen is consruced in which he clien checks wheher his hypohesis is in line wih how Lee acually behaves (Beck, 1976). e herapis hus helps he clien ac connecions beween his own behavior and oher evens; in his case how Lee reacs i he clien ells him cerain hings. e homework assignmen could become a way o raining he clien’s racking reperoire. Clearly, cogniive herapy places a srong emphasis no jus on how rules are ormulaed, bu also�hrough hese ypes o real-lie experimens�on arranging or he clien o conac direc coningencies by way o how hese hings acually urn ou. e clien hen brings hese experiences back o he conversaion wih his herapis, where hey are used as a basis or new ormulaions, which in urn can be checked. When behavior principles serve as he basis or undersanding he oucome o herapy, a limiaion o his herapy model, and all models o psychoherapy conduced primarily in oupaien setings, is ha he herapis is no in conrol o he consequences he clien encouners ouside o he herapy seting. In he example above, he herapis doesn’ conrol how Lee acually reacs. And in order or herapy o effec change in he long run, generalizaion is required. is requires ha he clien acually encouners reinorcing consequences or he new behavior he is experimening wih ouside o he herapy sessions. How, hen, does cogniive herapy allow or direc reinorcemen o behavior in he ongoing ineracion beween herapis and clien? One kind o behavior is almos assuredly reinorced: he verbal behavior o ormulaing acs and, in ime, rules or behavior. You learn�parly hrough direc coningencies�o alk and hink in a cerain way. Bu as menioned in regard o psychodynamic herapy, his is no necessarily o help o he clien. e way he clien hinks and alks abou his behavior may no be he behavior ha needs o be changed. Bu o he exen ha new rules or behavior are 164
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
ormulaed, hese can uncion as anecedens or behavior in differen siuaions and hereby lead o new ypes o rule-governed behavior ha work beter or he clien. Anoher eaure o cogniive herapy ha increases he herapis’s chances o influencing direc coningencies in connecion wih he clien’s behavior is engaging in behavioral experimens while he herapis is presen. ese experimens are se up in much he same way as he homework assignmens are. Le’s say he clien ormulaes he rule “I I eel oo much anxiey, I’ll lose conrol compleely.” In his case, he herapis firs helps he clien speciy precisely wha he differen pars o he rule mean: How much anxiey is oo much? Wha would be an example o losing conrol compleely? en herapis and clien creae an experimen aimed a checking he core conen o he rule. In his case, he experimen should aim a increasing he clien’s level o anxiey. How his is done depends on wha exernal siuaion is mos likely o make his person anxious. I could be handling knives, going hrough a car wash, or doing somehing unusual in ull view o oher people. Even in hese siuaions, where he herapis paricipaes in he experimens, she is no in conrol o mos o he consequences ha occur as a resul o he clien’s behavior. Bu here are usually ewer variables ha are ou o he herapis’s conrol han in homework assignmens she doesn’ ake par in. In addiion, he herapis also has he opporuniy o observe behavior ha occurs in he momen�or example, behaviors riggered by he clien’s experience o anxiey�and hen reinorce alernaive behavior in he momen. e clien’s experiences rom he experimen are hen used o ormulae prospecive new ways o behaving. erapis and clien ac he coningencies o a cerain behavior and is resuls in he experimen and ormulae racks ha in urn hopeully increase he probabiliy o new behavior in uure siuaions. From a behavioral perspecive, hese ypes o experimens should be an ideal way o pracicing he reperoire o racking. And indeed, leading cogniive herapiss regard hese ypes o experimens as essenial o cogniive herapy, especially in he reamen o anxiey disorders (Clark e al., 2006). e work wih direc coningencies in he herapis-clien ineracion ha is a cenral par o psychodynamic herapy also occurs wihin he rame work o cogniive herapy (Saran & Segal, 1990), and behavioral principles do a good job o explaining his kind o herapeuic work. When he clien’s problemaic behavior is riggered in he firs arena, in his ineracion wih he herapis, her responses can hen uncion as reinorcing or alernaive behavior. Addiionally, by making he connecions beween he clien’s behavior and oher evens he subjec o a join analysis, she aciliaes he ormulaion o rules. ese rules can subsequenly uncion as anecedens or new behavior ouside he herapeuic seting, in he second arena. Currenly, 165
Learning F
his way o using he herapeuic relaionship as a ocus in herapy occurs across he boundary beween psychodynamic and cogniive models o psychoherapy (Saran & Muran, 2000; Newman, Casonguay, Borkovec, Fisher, & Nordberg, 2008). Differen models o cogniive herapy can hus also be analyzed based on he balance beween he wo possible sraegies or change described by Skinner (direc coningencies and esablishing new rule-governed behavior). is is especially clear i we include he models ha are closer o he behavior herapeuic radiion in he discussion. Beck’s model o cogniive herapy was influenced by behavior herapy a an early sage, especially when i comes o herapeuic echniques; hereore he sraegies ha are mean o provide he clien wih direc correcive experiences have always held an imporan posiion wihin cogniive herapy (Beck, 1976, 2005). Wihin cogniive herapies here are also mehods ha assign less imporance o his and insead emphasize he imporance o influencing he clien’s ways o hinking and speaking abou his behavior and is relaionship o oher evens. e balance beween he wo sraegies probably also varies rom herapis o herapis. ere is, however, a curren rend oward sressing he imporance o herapies offering componens ha, in behavioral erms, influence he clien hrough direc coningencies. Pars o his rend are closely linked o an increase in he influence o behavior herapy (Farmer & Chapman, 2008), bu he rend can also be seen wihin varians o cogniive herapy where his influence is no as pronounced. In schema herapy, or example, a ype o ineracion beween herapis and clien called limied reparening is recommended (Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). In his approach, he herapis acs in a way ha les he clien encouner consequences o his behavior ha differ rom his experiences early in lie. is approach also calls upon he herapis o respond o some o he clien’s needs ha haven’ been me in his earlier experiences, wihin he appropriae boundaries o he herapeuic relaionship. e goal o his sraegy is described by advocaes o schema herapy using Alexander’s erm rom 1946: e clien is o have a “correcive emoional experience” (Alexander e al., 1946, p. 66).
PSYCHOLOGICAL HERPIES AND A NEW UNDESANDING BASED ON F From a behavioral perspecive, learning new hings in he conex o psychological herapy akes place in wo undamenal ways: Firs, new direc coningencies are esablished in herapeuic ineracions. And second, new rules are
166
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
esablished ha increase he probabiliy o changes in rule-governed behavior. e analysis in his chaper makes i clear ha hese wo pahs o change are used in herapies ha are no explicily based in behavioral principles. Wha we hope o do hrough herapy ha does ake is saring poin in a behavioral undersanding is provide somehing ha, in he long run, demonsraes a greaer capaciy o help people precisely because i is deliberaely ounded on his specific scienific analysis o change processes. erapy models ha are explicily based in behavioral principles have displayed promising resuls, even when hey haven’ inegraed he new knowledge rom he field o relaional learning. wo examples o his are dialecical behavior herapy and behavioral acivaion. When hese wo pahs o change (esablishing new coningencies o reinorcemen in session and esablishing new verbal anecedens or behavior ouside o session) are described as differen rom each oher, i is imporan o undersand ha hey are differen only in cerain respecs. Naurally, hey are also similar. ey are alike in ha boh involve a herapis who works o aler conexual acors in he presen momen and hereby influence behavior. elaional raming is influenced by conexual acors in he presen momen, jus as all oher behavior is. ere is no oher way o exering influence. Arbirarily applicable relaional responding does no ake place in a dieren realm han oher behavior does. I is somehing an individual perorms in he here and now, in a specific conex. Wha separaes he wo pahs o change is ha once a person has learned relaional raming, his behavior can be influenced in a way ha wouldn’ be possible i he had no learned his abiliy. is is due o he way in which simuli can now acquire heir uncions or an individual. Wha conribuion is made by his undersanding o relaional learning? Firs, i means ha he scienific analysis o behavior ha has been evolving over he pas cenury can now more effecively ake on phenomena ha his radiion once had difficulies dealing wih. e uncions o human language and cogniion are now more readily available or behavior analysis, and insoar as hese are imporan acors in connecion wih psychological problems, we can benefi rom his increased undersanding. Phenomena ha have already been subjec o psychological reamen rom oher heoreical approaches are now also available o a scienific mehod ha has proven very successul in fields oher han wha has radiionally been called psychoherapy (Ayllon, Layman, & Kandel, 1975; Peerson & Azrin, 1992; Sallows & Graupner, 2005). e undersanding o relaional learning offers he hope ha clinical behavior analysis can ake a general sep orward in working wih verbal behavior. e later has already begun wihin cerain ypes o cogniive herapy (Ellis, 2005; Blackledge e al., 2008). 167
Learning F
e second conribuion o clinical behavior analysis as a direc resul o our increased undersanding o relaional learning is wha was discussed in chaper 7: he side effecs o human language. Beyond supplying us wih increased flexibiliy, rule-governed behavior also opens he door o a number o raps. ese raps are cenral o common clinical problems and hus are o immediae relevance o clinical herapies. Changing rule-governed behavior is a he core o all psychological herapies. Bu i rule-governed behavior in isel is par o he problem, one o he herapis’s mos commonly used ools could uncion as a rojan horse. All psychoherapy is alk herapy, more or less. I language is par o he problem, how do we go abou using i o bring abou change? Could i be ha, in ac, psychological herapies need o offer some kind o release rom he power o language, a leas in some respecs? is seems o be a reasonable conclusion rom he research upon which F is buil. And his conclusion is, or he mos par, somehing new. As he experimenal work on relaional condiioning has proceeded over he las weny years, clinical inervenions have been developed based on hese findings. One resul is a paricular orm o clinical behavior analysis: accepance and commimen herapy (AC, pronounced as one word). is model inegraes behavioral inervenions ha have long been esablished� inervenions like exposure and behavioral acivaion. I also places a srong emphasis on inervenions ha are moivaed by he new knowledge summarized in par 2 o his book. is especially applies o he knowledge ha, in psychological herapies, i is ofen essenial o diminish he dominance o problemaic verbal behavior over oher human behavior.
CLINICAL BEHAVIO ANALYSIS e remaining chapers o his book are devoed o clinical behavior analysis, wih a paricular emphasis on how i can be reshaped in ligh o our knowledge abou relaional learning, including is dark side. Since AC has been developed wih precisely his agenda, his model o herapy will predominae. However, my aim is no primarily o inroduce AC, bu o describe clinical behavior analysis in a broader sense and how our knowledge abou relaional learning develops and deepens his enire radiion. I will hereore describe clinical inervenions wihin a srucure ha more closely resembles classical behavior analysis han he specific model ofen used in presenaions o AC (see, e.g., S. C. Hayes & Srosahl, 2004; Luoma, Hayes, & Walser, 2007; Bach & Moran, 2008). I do his or several reasons. Firs, I wan o clearly illusrae he immediae connecion beween a classical uncional analysis and he inervenions I 168
Learning eory and Psychological erapies
propose. e purpose o his book is o show how learning heory, including more recen findings in his field, is direcly applicable in clinical pracice. An argumen ha has been given or developing he special descripion o AC ha dominaes mos published exs abou he model is ha i is mean o aciliae learning by herapiss who are no very amiliar wih learning heory, so hey can readily make use o he AC model in heir work (S. C. Hayes, 2008). Since I, quie o he conrary, inend o describe he behavioral oundaions, his argumen does no apply here. Second, I wan o sress ha he new inervenions recommended in AC are no defined as belonging o any specific model o herapy. Learning heory is a scienific heory and is pracical applicaions are reely available, raher han being associaed wih any specific model o herapy. Las bu no leas, I wan o describe a psychological reamen ha is based on principles raher han well-defined manuals. e herapy models ha have heir oundaion in behavior analysis all underline ha hey are governed by principles raher han by manuals. is goes or accepance and commimen herapy and uncional analyical psychoherapy, as well as or behavioral acivaion. And ye hese approaches are ofen described precisely as i hey were disinc, delimied models, raher han simply differen aspecs o he same herapeuic radiion�and his despie he ac ha hey all openly admi heir close affiniy. Consequenly, differen atemps have been made o inegrae he differen models (Callaghan, Gregg, Marx, Kohlenberg, & Gifford, 2004; Kaner, Baruch, & Gaynor, 2006; Kaner, Manos, Busch, & usch, 2008). ese atemps usually involve adding aspecs o one model o one o he oher models. In he remainder o he book, I wan o ake a more undamenal approach. I inend o describe clinical behavior analysis as one inegraed herapy model, based on he principles o behavioral psychology and wih a paricular ocus on he conribuion offered by F. is is no done rom a posiion o arguing wih any o he individual models or wih he more common ways o describing hem. My inenion is o highligh heir common ground and poin o he possibiliy o a coordinae applicaion. e srucure I will ollow is aken rom uncional analysis. e herapis can, in a given momen, ocus her inervenions on influencing eiher he anecedens or he consequences ha surround a specific behavior. In he nex chaper, I will describe some common saring poins o clinical behavior analysis. In chaper 10, I will go on o describe inervenions ha ocus on consequences, and in chaper 11 I’ll look a inervenions ha ocus on anecedens. In all o hese chapers, a key ocus will be on inervenions ha have heir basis in F.
169
CHAPTER 9 General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
e herapeuic seting o clinical behavior analysis is he same as i is or psychoherapy in general. e herapis mees wih he clien or an hour or wo, wih a cerain number o days or weeks beween sessions. ese condiions are urher ailored o each individual case. I he herapeuic work concerns difficulies ha are generalized across broad areas o he clien’s lie, such as in chronic depression or wha is usually caegorized as personaliy disorders, herapy may coninue or several monhs or someimes several years. erapies or reaing specific phobias, on he oher hand, can ofen be conduced over jus a ew individual herapy sessions ha are airly close ogeher in ime, and perhaps o a longer duraion per session. Bu i is no jus he ype o problem ha deermines he ime rame o reamen. e goal o herapy is naurally an imporan acor. A person wih a very high degree o uncional impairmen or a diagnosis ha is generally seen as serious may be in herapy or a shor period o ime because he goal is limied. For example, a person diagnosed wih chronic schizophrenia may be atending herapy wih he limied goal o being able o go abou mos o his daily business despie his roublesome audiory hallucinaions. Clinical behavior analysis is also subjec o he general condiions o psychological herapy described in chaper 8. All influence on he clien is exered in he momen in wo primary ways: by esablishing direc coningencies, and hrough rules. When i comes o direc coningencies, seting up new consequences o behavior is key. ules are simply verbal anecedens, and hey are imporan because hey can govern behavior a much laer poins
Learning F
in ime and in differen conexs han he siuaion in which hey are given. Anoher imporan aspec o rules is ha he behavior hey govern is relaively insensiive o direc coningencies.
INIIAL CONAC AND HE WO AENAS OF HERPY e herapis only has direc access o he arena she shares wih he clien, ha is, whaever akes place when he wo o hem mee. is means ha any influence mus be exered in his arena. A he same ime, he clien is seeking help in regard o hings ha happen in he second arena: his lie ouside o sessions wih he herapis. e firs arena is used o influence he second arena. e clien usually ocuses on he second arena during iniial conac wih he herapis: He relaes his problem and how i maniess in his lie. Ye his problem may also presen isel in he firs arena even during his iniial conac wih he herapis. I he clien describes his problem as being ha he worries oo much, he may also be able o repor ha he is worrying in ha momen� abou, or example, how herapy is going o urn ou. Someimes he clien may no repor his, bu he herapis eels she can observe i. Perhaps he clien asks several quesions abou he reamen and does so in a way ha seems o be precisely “he clien being worried.” Based on he undamenal condiion o herapy�ha any and all influence akes place “now”�i is imporan or he herapis o noe any signs o he clien’s problemaic behavior occurring in he momen. is applies o he iniial conac and hroughou he enire herapeuic ineracion. In ac, hese occasions provide especially avorable opporuniies o exer influence. Sill, mos herapies begin wih a ocus on he second arena. Mos people’s expecaions o psychological herapy lead hem o believe his is naural. I is also naural rom he herapis’s perspecive, since he clien’s sory ofen provides an overall picure o he problem. However, i is imporan or he herapis o remain aware ha when he clien relaes somehing, wha is direcly accessible is he clien’s way o alking, no he acual phenomenon he describes. As i is, wha is demonsraed is verbal behavior. I verbal behavior is par o he problem, hen here is an embedded problem�a problem inheren in he condiions o herapy, as all psychoherapy is “alk herapy.” is gives he herapis urher reason o make use o he occasions when he more direc problemaic behavior is demonsraed in he firs arena. Anoher common way in which behavior herapiss ry o circumven his dilemma is by using differen raing scales,
172
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
logs, and quesionnaires in he hope ha his will provide more direc conac wih wha occurs in he second arena. While his is an imporan conribuion, filling ou raing scales is, o course, no he same behavior as ha he scales aim a describing. ere is no geting around he quandary ha, a he beginning o a herapeuic relaionship, wha he herapis aces firs and oremos is verbal behavior. is illusraes a poin I made in chaper 3: ha an increased undersanding o verbal behavior is incredibly imporan in psychological herapies. alk herapy needs a language heory! So le’s ake a look a wha we need o do in he iniial phases o a herapeuic ineracion based on he heoreical view presened in his book.
PEFOMING A FUNCIONAL ANALYSIS e undamenal elemen o behavior analysis is describing behavior based on ABC (amnerö & örneke, 2008). A cerain behavior (B) is o be undersood and influenced. is is done by ideniying he conexual acors (A and C) ha influence he behavior in quesion. Following his, he herapis atemps o aler hese conexual acors. In he iniial conversaion wih a clien, he descripion in isel is ocused. Wha behavior is o be influenced, and which anecedens and consequences are available and useul in his process? In experimenal behavior analysis, hese acors are immediaely observable and available or manipulaion. e analys is presen in he relevan course o evens and has access o he relevan conexual acors. o some exen, he same goes or applied behavior analysis i he herapis is presen in he lie siuaion where he behavior akes place. is is he case in insiuional herapy, such as in schools and inpaien reamen. Bu he circumsances are differen in clinical behavior analysis. Wha I have called he second arena is accessible only hrough wha he clien relaes; hrough his verbal behavior. is means herapy in his seting akes is saring poin in verbal behavior. e ac ha his can sill change he clien’s behavior in he second arena as much as i evidenly does is an example o how powerul verbal behavior is. Psychoherapy clearly has an impac (oh & Fonagy, 1996). So wha are we rying o do hrough uncional analysis under hese condiions? We are rying o discriminae he ype o behavior ha is problemaic or he clien. In behavior analyic language, you could say ha we are acing behavior and differen relevan relaionships beween behavior and conexual acors. We do his or wo purposes. Firs, he herapis is atemping o ideniy coningencies in he clien’s sory ha migh be used in inervenions or change in he long run. Wha is he clien doing ha resuls in unwaned consequences? e herapis assumes ha wha he clien relaes 173
Learning F
corresponds sufficienly o wha acually happens, and ha his narraive is hus o use in herapy. Such is he herapis’s approach even hough she is undoubedly aware ha his may no be enirely he case. Clinical behavior analysis sars rom he assumpion ha he clien is acing his own behavior in a sufficienly pure way, a leas wih he help o he herapis and her supporive quesions. e clien is naurally a firshand winess o his own lie and experience. However, given he shorcomings in his saring poin, i is imporan or he herapis o consanly have he second purpose in mind: ideniying any behavior she hinks may be problemaic i i shows up in he presen momen o he ineracion. is makes he herapis a winess, oo, a leas o some aspecs o wha occurs or he clien. e bes condiions or a useul uncional analysis are in place i i is based parly on he clien’s sory rom he second arena, and parly on somehing ha is aking place in he firs arena, where he herapis is presen. e ollowing clien-herapis ineracion demonsraes how his can be done. (is is a ypical bu ficionalized ineracion, as are all case examples in his book.) Anne says ha she has always been a worrier. For many years i wasn’ very roubling; she jus hough i was par o her naure, bu his changed in a subsanial way afer she raveled hrough Souheas Asia our years earlier. While walking along a beach lae a nigh, she was robbed by hree men, who appeared behind her suddenly, knocked her over, and made her give hem her camera and all he money she was carrying. ey had a generally menacing atiude, bu hey didn’ harm her. Afer his episode she wen back o he hoel and me he riend she was raveling wih. When she sared o ell her riend wha had happened, Anne experienced inense anxiey and dizziness and, as she repored, “urned oally weird.” When hese sympoms did no subside afer a couple o hours, her riend ook her o a hospial, where she sayed or a day and a nigh. ey old her nohing was wrong wih her and gave her an injecion ha helped her relax. Afer arriving back home, Anne was roubled by anxiey atacks in connecion wih hings ha reminded her o he even. Over a period o wo monhs she me wih a psychologis, and her roubles abaed. She doesn’ hink abou wha happened on her rip a grea deal any more, and i doesn’ eel painul or her o hink abou i. However, Anne coninues o eel ha she has changed. She eels curailed in her day-o-day lie, and i seems o her ha she has been injured by wha happened. She says, “I am no my usual sel any more,” and repors ha a number o roubles in her daily lie rigger hese ypes o houghs: physical ension, iredness, and paricularly he experience o no being able o concenrae. She devoes a lo o hough o wha
174
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
migh be wrong and wha she should do. Periodically, she eels low. She hinks abou how her lie has been ruined and believes ha wha happened during her holiday rip caused his injury. She has inervals when she eels good, bu hen he same eelings reurn. She has seen medical docors and gone hrough differen examinaions in order o eliminae physical problems, bu each ime she is old ha nohing is wrong wih her. Afer Anne has given he above accoun and differen examples o how she ges mired in brooding in everyday siuaions, he ollowing dialogue wih he herapis akes place. Terapis:
is rouble you menioned�he “weirdness”�can you eel any o ha now?
Anne:
Now, when I’m here wih you, you mean? Yes, I acually do eel some o i now. I’s like I can never ge rid o i. I’s hopeless! Somehing wen wrong when ha hing happened�somehing in my brain. And sill, I don’ hink abou wha acually happened ha much. I happened and i was errible, bu i eels like a long ime ago. I go o alk abou i when I came home. Bu somehing wen wrong inside me. And I guess he docors don’ seem o be able o find i or do anyhing abou i. Wha could i be? I jus ouls up my work compleely. I can’ hink sraigh. Where will all o his lead? I was offered a new posiion las monh, bu I don’ know i I have he gus o accep i. Wha i I can’ handle i? W ha i his never sops?
Terapis:
Is his wha happens o you?
Anne:
Wha do you mean?
Terapis:
I mean, wha happened righ now?
Anne:
a I eel some o i, you mean?
Terapis:
Yes, and even more specifically, wha you seem o do when you eel i. I’s like here are wo pars in wha happens, and i seems o be happening righ here and now. Firs you eel some o he “weirdness,” and hen you sar reasoning and asking quesions: Wha’s wrong? Where will his lead? and so on. I seems like you’re rying o sor i ou. Or am I misinerpreing you?
175
Learning F
Anne:
No… Okay… Yes, I see wha you mean. I don’ hink I’ve seen i ha way beore, bu now ha you say i, I hink you’re righ. Firs somehing reminds me o i�again� and hen I jus kind o dive righ in here. Yeah…ha’s exacly wha usually happens.
Noe how he herapis uses wha Anne has old her abou her problems. When, afer hearing Anne, she sees somehing in heir ineracion in he room (he firs arena) ha is similar o wha Anne is relaing rom he second arena, he herapis ocuses on his in her analysis. ogeher wih Anne, she acs he differen pars in an ABC analysis o he behavior aking place here and now, hen compares his wih wha Anne can observe in her daily lie.
WHA BEHAVIO IS O BE FOCUSED? A he beginning o he clien-herapis relaionship, he herapis scans he clien’s sory as he relaes i. Naurally, her knowledge o how problems usually manies hemselves plays a par. e herapis has assumpions o her own. All he while, i is imporan o ake a broad view o wha he clien repors. e saring poin is he clien’s problems and how hey show up in his curren siuaion. Evens rom earlier imes can also be used, especially as addiional examples o hings ha are currenly in ocus. Evens rom long ago can, o course, be very imporan o somehing ha is aking place much laer, and can even be cenral o he clien’s problems. However, i is difficul o use evens rom he disan pas as he sole basis or a uncional analysis, as all o us have poor direc access o hese kinds o evens and processes. is makes i difficul o achieve he kind o deailed descripion we hope o arrive a wih a uncional analysis. Furhermore, he problems ha have led he clien o seek help are closer a hand. People who had problems many years ago bu don’ currenly experience any difficulies don’ usually seek psychological help. Wha is needed or a uncional analysis is always in closer proximiy. However, wha we commonly call “memories” are sill ineresing in erms o he uncion hey have now or curren behavior. Iniially, he clien’s problemaic behavior is a he cener o atenion in he herapeuic ineracion. Wha is his person doing ha conribues o hings no urning ou he way he wans hem o? In he lieraure, his is ofen called “a behavioral excess” (Kaner & Saslow, 1969), somehing a person does oo much o. Some problemaic behavior is no supposed o be perormed a all. Abusing children is a simple example o his ype o behavior. Bu mos
176
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
o he ime, problemaic behavior is simply abou doing oo much o somehing. Anne’s example, in he dialogue above, is ypical in his regard. She asks hersel quesions, she hinks abou hem, and she ries o sor i all ou. No one would sugges ha his is somehing ha she should sop doing alogeher. is behavior is very useul in many siuaions and is even vial o us humans. Bu Anne does oo much o his behavior, and she uses i in conexs where i doesn’ work. e oher ype o behavior ha gradually becomes imporan o ac in he herapeuic seting is alernaive behavior. is is behavior ha, when perormed, increases he probabiliy ha hings will urn ou as he clien wans hem o�behavior ha increases he workabiliy o lie. Alernaive behavior can ofen be described as a defici: behavior ha exiss in he clien’s reperoire bu is seldom used, or a leas no used in he conex where i would increase he workabiliy o lie. O course, i may be ha a desired alernaive behavior doesn’ exis in he clien’s reperoire. ere could be someone who has never�in any siuaion whasoever�pu his oo down o someone in a posiion o auhoriy, or example; someone who repors ha he “doesn’ even know how o go abou somehing like ha.” In many cases, however, his descripion is acually a way o saying, “I don’ wan wha I hink ha would enail,” raher han a rue indicaor o a complee lack o capabiliy. In principle, hen, here are wo ypes o behavior in ocus in a clinical uncional analysis: problemaic behavior and alernaive behavior. We could say ha we have wo ypes o clinically relevan behavior. is brings us o a poin where F can cas ligh on wha he herapis should be especially on he lookou or.
EXPEIENIAL AVOIDANCE AS HE FOCUS OF FUNCIONAL ANALYSIS A core uncion o mos problemaic behaviors ha dominae when people seek psychological help is rying o avoid hings. Problemaic behavior is ofen governed by negaive reinorcemen. e person does wha he does because ha helps him ge rid o hings he does no wan, a leas in he shor erm. ese behaviors are under aversive conrol. As described in chaper 7, he capaciy o rame relaionally opens he door o a very wide inerace wih pain. Privae evens like houghs, eelings, and bodily sensaions can acquire aversive uncions in hemselves and hereby become he objec o avoidance effors. ule-governed behavior, and he problem-solving sraegies i resuls
177
Learning F
in, can easily develop ino behavioral excesses, as in Anne’s example. When Anne experiences houghs ha somehing is wrong or ha somehing isn’ going o work ou, indirec simulus uncions dominae�uncions ha she accesses hrough arbirarily applicable relaional responding. Anne doesn’ ac based on simply having a hough; she acs based on he conen o he hough, or wha we migh commonly reer o as is meaning. She acs on he basis o a sory ha, among oher hings, deals wih he uure. You migh say ha insead o regarding his sory as somehing ha is aking place wihin her in he momen, she regards her uure lie rom he perspecive o his sory. She “dives righ in,” o use her own erm. I we were o inquire more closely abou he poin o his behavior, Anne would probably describe i as an effor o dissolve he hreaening aspecs o he sory, eiher by “undersanding wha i’s abou” and hereby being able o hwar he hrea, or by realizing ha “i’s nohing dangerous.” ere is nohing inherenly unnaural or srange in his behavior. is is wha we all do when we ace hreas. Anne’s problem is ha her experience o his hrea is disribued hroughou her lie, and he resuling behavioral sraegy dominaes and doesn’ acually work well in regard o wha she wans o achieve. When hose bodily sensaions reurn, her houghs abou wha his means reurn, as well. She canno ge rid o hem. Her atemps o ge rid o hese experiences acually consiue he ype o behavior ha adds o her problems and resrics her lie. Anne’s behavior is an example o experienial avoidance. She is occupied wih hese atemps o eliminae or conrol phenomena wihin her experience ha are no under volunary conrol. Because her herapis knows ha his is a common behavioral sraegy, she has reason o look or exacly his. Behaviors ha vary widely in exernal qualiies can neverheless serve he same uncion o experienial avoidance. Alhough he behaviors are opographically differen, hey are uncionally alike since hey serve he same purpose. ey belong o he same uncional class. You can ry o ge rid o unpleasan eelings, painul houghs, or disressing recollecions in differen ways: In a ace-o-ace ineracion, you migh look aside and all silen. Bu you could also alk energeically or raise your voice, i your purpose in his is he same: ridding yoursel o he unwaned experiences. In a siuaion like Anne’s, anoher person migh ry o hink o somehing else. Anne, on he oher hand, hinks abou i more. ese opographically disinc behaviors can be uncionally alike i boh aim a geting rid o he unpleasan experience. As anoher example, when people experience grie, boh increased aciviy and passive wihdrawal can be aimed a reducing he eelings o sorrow and loss.
178
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
FUNCIONAL ANALYSIS IS HERPY BEGUN Wha herapis and clien do in a uncional analysis is muually ac he clien’s behavior and he relaions beween his behavior and he conexual acors ha influence i. is brings us back o Skinner’s saemen ha “a person who has been ‘made aware o himsel’ by he quesions he has been asked is in a beter posiion o predic and conrol his ow n behavior” (Skinner, 1974, p. 35). How acing one’s own behavior, and he coningencies ha influence i, can a a laer poin aler he kind o behavior ha is being aced is explained by F. Verbal behavior, such as words or houghs, can aler simulus uncions o oher evens hrough muual enailmen and combinaorial muual enailmen. ake Anne and her effor o eliminae he eeling ha somehing is wrong wih her. Her behavioral saring poin has been ha i she hinks more, she will reach wha she is sriving or: somehow eliminaing he hrea. is does no necessarily mean ha she’s had his in her houghs explicily, bu she has been acing rom such an assumpion. She has behaved as i such an approach is he mos viable way orward. In he ollowing ineracion, he herapis uses a uncional analysis in an atemp o affec he simulus uncions o he behavior o “diving righ in.” Terapis:
So, firs, somehing reminds you. is ime I guess i was my quesion. And hen you dive righ in here… Wha do you eel is he poin in ha? e poin in diving in here?
Anne:
Poin? I don’ know. Wha am I supposed o do? I have o ry o solve i somehow, you know.
Terapis:
So you could maybe say ha his “rying o solve i” is he poin. a’s wha i’s all abou: solving i.
Anne:
Yeah, you could maybe say ha. ere has o be a soluion, you know.
Terapis:
Yes, ha sounds like a reason or diving in here, I hink� o find a soluion. Is i working?
Anne:
(silen or a momen) I’s no working a all. e more I hink abou i, he worse i ges.
179
Learning F
Terapis:
Wha i your experience is elling you somehing imporan here? “Diving righ in” inroduces isel as an obvious road orward. And when you do his, i jus ges worse. Maybe “diving in here” is wha doesn’ work?
Following his dialogue, he behavior “diving righ in” may acquire new simulus uncions or Anne. Previously his behavior had seemed o be he only possible behavior�wha she had o do o find a soluion. Afer he dialogue above, i acquires he uncion o “somehing I do ha makes hings worse.” O course, his isn’ necessarily enough o spark a change, bu he very analysis o he relaionship beween behavior and consequences can influence uure behavior, and rom he viewpoin o F, we can undersand why his is so. In AC, his par o a uncional analysis is used o generae wha is called creaive hopelessness. e herapis helps he clien conac he connecion beween wha she does and wha he acual consequences are. I he consequences are somehing he clien doesn’ wan, uncional analysis ransorms his course o evens ino creaive hopelessness: hopelessness in he sense ha he sraegy he clien is applying doesn’ work, and creaive in he sense ha precisely his experience o how hopeless he sraegy is can open he door o new alernaives.
CAPUING BEHAVIO In he example wih Anne, he herapis capures somehing he clien does in he momen, as a naural par o he ineracion. e herapis brings he ocus o somehing he clien does in he momen, which hen becomes he subjec o dialogue and inervenion. In Anne’s case, his happens early in he course o herapy, bu i ofen akes more ime or such a process o become clear o he herapis. In any case, i is imporan or he herapis o consanly remain aler o his possibiliy. ese siuaions where clinically relevan behavior is occurring are useul in wo ways: e herapis can use he behavior as he basis or a uncional analysis perormed ogeher wih he clien, and she can also inervene or change in oher ways. Funcional analyical psychoherapy places a special emphasis on his ype o analysis o inerpersonal behavior as demonsraed in relaion o he herapis and describes many differen ways o use his kind o ineracion o aciliae behavioral change (Kohlenberg & sai, 1991; sai e al., 2008). However, as he example wih Anne demonsraes, no all relevan behavior is inerpersonal, sricly speaking. I is rue ha Anne’s problemaic behavior
180
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
is demonsraed in he dialogue wih he herapis here, bu in he second arena, Anne’s daily lie, she does more or less he same hing, bu wih hersel as he lisener. Many imes i is ambiguous o he herapis wheher a problemaic behavior is playing ou in he ineracion. When he clien’s sory abou wha happens in he second arena describes wha he herapis inerpres as a problemaic behavior, he herapis can seize he opporuniy o simply ask he quesion. ichard’s sory provides an example o his. ichard has el dejeced or years. He says he has perhaps always been “a bi on he gloomy side.” He works as a eacher and hinks ha his perormance has gone downhill gradually over he pas year. He has periodically been away on medical leave wih “depressive burnou” and has been aking anidepressans, bu hey haven’ helped appreciably. He says ha he acually likes mos o he hings he does in his work, bu ha he isn’ given he mos appealing asks any longer, reporing, “e young overachievers ge all o hem.” He ends up in he background a home, oo. He and his wie, Erin, have wo children in heir early eens. Erin is acive and devoed, boh in her own work and in heir amily lie. ichard eels like he’s alling behind. He ags along wih Erin’s iniiaives bu finds himsel more and more passive. His amily has sared o complain ha he keeps digging in his heels and ha hey can’ coun on him. In his dialogue wih he herapis, ichard has a raher docile atiude. He answers quesions and is mosly atenive, bu he does seem dejeced. e ollowing dialogue akes place during his fifh session. Richard:
I eel burdened. Whaever I do, i doesn’ make any difference. I’s like a haze. I manage o ge hrough he days, bu nohing ever seems o change. See, here’s jus no srengh.
Terapis:
When you eel burdened like his and here’s no srengh, wha do you do?
Richard:
You mean a work?
Terapis:
Yes, as an example.
Richard:
I ry o do wha I can. You have o ake one hing a a ime. I’s no use geting burn-ou again, you know. I can remember when hings were worse, bu i’s no much un his way eiher. I’m jus hanging in here.
Terapis:
And wha do you do a home?
181
Learning F
Richard:
I guess i’s he same hing. I’m eeling more and more burdened a home oo. Bu Erin keeps i up, and I guess I ag along.
Terapis:
When I hear you say you’re agging along, i sounds raher passive, a leas o me�like “lying low.” Does ha sound righ o you?
Richard:
Yes, sure. I don’ know wha o do. ere’s no srengh lef.
Terapis:
Okay, here’s no srengh and you’re lying low, bu sill hanging in here.
Richard:
Yes, so ar…
Terapis:
Is “lying low” somehing you hink you’re doing here?
Richard:
Wha do you mean, “here”?
Terapis:
Here wih me, in our conversaions. I’ve noiced ha you lisen o me, ha you answer quesions, and ha you paricipae in wha we’re doing here. And a he same ime, I wonder i somehow you’re lying low here, oo�as i i’s no use here eiher, as i you’re acing he same way here as you do a home or a work.
Richard:
(afer a momen o silence) Yes, now ha you menion i. I mean, I wan his o help; I wan i o ge beter. Bu I hink I’m lying low here oo. I do. I guess i’s somehing ha comes naurally o me, maybe.
EVOKING BEHAVIO A lo o problemaic behavior can be capured in he ineracion beween clien and herapis. In my experience, more so han may seem o be he case. Bu here is also a need or he herapis o evoke clien behavior. We need o access he clien’s behavior in a direc way, beyond wha is demonsraed or riggered by he quesions in a dialogue. is is necessary o perorm a uncional analysis and o inervene or change more direcly. Behavior herapy has a long radiion o doing precisely his. e erm usually used or his ype o herapeuic work is “exposure.” is is also he single psychological inervenion mos widely suppored by scienific daa (Barlow, 2002). I is used in all ypes o evidence-based herapies, mos
182
General Guidelines Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
ypically in reaing anxiey disorders. While he sraegy is simple, his does no necessarily mean ha accomplishing his ype o inervenion is easy. On he conrary, i can be raher difficul and require a high degree o compeence in he herapis. In exposure, herapis and clien deliberaely seek he ype o condiions under which he clien’s problemaic behavior usually occurs. In reaing a specific phobia, like ear o injecions, herapis and clien arrange a siuaion where an injecion is o be given. In reaing compulsive washing wash ing,, he herapi herapis s and cl clien ien mig migh h go o vi visi si bah bahrooms. rooms. In rea reaing ing pos-raumaic sress characerized by painul memories, he clien is asked o recall wha is ormening him. All o his is done precisely or he purpose o evoking behavior. e aim is o allow he herapis o be presen when he clien’s problemaic behavior occurs, parly o help he clien recognize wha he is doing ha doesn’ work, and parly o influence he clien in finding a response ha works beter or him. Exposure herapy doesn’ ocus solely on he clien being exposed o aversive phenomena; i also looks a wha he person does when he is exposed. Being exposed o he problemaic siuaion is usually a necessary par o learning somehing new. I is in his siuaion ha he person can learn alernaive a lernaive behavior, and also learn o recognize recogni ze i so ha i migh be inegraed ino his behavioral reperoire. We migh hereore say ha skills raining is a par o exposure herapy. Deliberaely evoking behavior in he arena o herapy has a wider applicaion han you migh hink when you hear he word “exposure.” I is everyhing ha he herapis does, ofen in agreemen wih he clien, in order or clinically relevan behavior o occur in his arena. For example, i bulimic behavior behav ior is he ocus o herap herapy, y, delibe deliberaely raely evok evoking ing behav behavior ior mig migh h mean arranging or he clien o have a meal jus beore he herapy session. For a clien wih a differen problem, i migh involve he herapis siting silenly and adoping a neural waiing atiude i he clien’s problemaic behavior is riggered under hese ypes o condiions. Differen ypes o role-playing can be used o evoke wha he clie clien n needs ne eds o work wi wih. h. Wihi Wi hinn AC AC,, a number o ex experien perienial ial exerci exercises ses are used o evoke or elici behavior (S. C. Hayes, Srosahl, & Wilson, 1999). ey are used boh o discriminae problemaic behavior and o help he clien find alernaive ways o behav behaving. ing. In addi addiion ion o usi using ng exerc exercises ises h ha a have been speci specifica ficallllyy developed rom he heoreical principles AC is ounded on, he herapis is also encouraged o creae new exercises ha fi he momen and are based on he same principles. Some o hese exercises are more more like wha wh a is radiionally radiional ly called exposure, in ha hey aim a esablishing a siuaion where he clien can be expeced o experience negaive affec. is is naural, considering ha experienial avoidance is seen as a major problem. One such exercise involves
183
Learning F
he herapis and clien placing heir chairs in close proximiy, hen silenly looking ino each oher’s eyes or a couple o minues. is exercise uilizes he ac ha mos o us eel uncomorable when wha we hink o as our personal erriory is inringed upon. And ye here is no real hrea a hand. e insrucions or his exercise are simply o si sill in his way and noe how i eels�o noe he differen houghs ha come up and any oher reacions. Afer A ferward, ward, herapi herapis s and clien cl ien alk a lk abou wha w ha was wa s noed, includi i ncluding ng houghs, houg hs, eelings, and bodily sensaions. e clien may have noiced an impulse o cu he exercise shor. In ha case he conversaion can revolve around wha i was lilike ke o jus si and obser observe ve h his. is. Or maybe he cl clien ien did cu he exerc exercise ise shor, providing an opporuniy o alk abou ha. I he clien’s problem is experienial avoidance, he conversaion will be abou he wo ypes o clinically relevan behavior�problem behavior and alernaive behavior. e ollowing dialogue wih Anne illusraes anoher exercise ha is also aimed a discriminaing hese wo ypes o behavior. Or perhaps, as in he eye-conac exercise, i is aimed a behaviors ha are in some sense analogous or uncionally similar o wha he clien has described. In her dialogue wih he herapis, Anne has described he difficulies she’s rying o manage: physical sympoms, lack o concenraion, and alarming houghs. She describes her own effors, how hose effors don’ really work, and al also so her r rus usraion raion a no being b eing able o find an aler alernai naive. ve. Terapis:
ere’s an exercise ha I use someimes. Would you be ere’s willlling wi ing o r ryy i?
Anne: Anne:
Sure.
Terapis:
(brings ou a noepad) I noepad) I wan o make a noe o some o he hings you hink are he wors problems, he hings ha boher you and ha you said you wan o ge rid o�your lack o concenraion, or example (jos down somehing on he noepad). noepad). Wha else is essenial?
Anne:
e iredness, he ension in my body body… …
Terapis:
(wries wha Anne menions) How menions) How abou he houghs abou no being your usual sel and he risk ha hings are never going o ge beter?
Anne:
a’s he wors par�h par�ha a i’ i’ss going o go on lilike ke hi his. s.
e herapis noes he hings Anne ells her and hen holds he pad up wihh he noes aci wi acing ng A nne so ha she can see hem hem..
184
General Guidelines Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
Terapis:
Place your hand agains agains hi his, s, agains he wr wriing iing on he pad.
Anne:
(holds he palm o her hand agains he pad, umbling a bi) Okay…
Terapis:
(presses her hand agains he pad om he oher side) Keep i in check. Keep i away rom you!
Anne:
(pus more weigh behind her pressure) Like pressure) Like his?
e herapis and Anne press he noepad rom heir opposie posiions, making he pad go back and orh a bi. Terapis:
Good! emember wha h his is is lilike ke (lowers he noepad). noepad). Noice wha ha was like and compare i o his (places he noepad in Anne’s lap, wih he scribbled noes acing up). up).
Anne:
(afer a momen o silence) Well, silence) Well, ha’s a litle differen.
Terapis:
In wha way?
Anne:
Well, i’s easier o hold i in my lap�i lap�inn one way. Bu i’s awul oo. I don’ like ha.
Terapis:
No. W hich o he wo posiions requires more sreng srengh? h?
Anne:
Well, ha would be keeping i away rom me. Bu ha eels good oo, in some way. A leas I’m doing somehing.
Terapis:
Okay. Wh Which ich o hese wo posiions is more simi similar lar o wha you are doing ou here, in your lilie? e?
Anne:
Keeping i away rom me. a’s wha I do al alll he ime. a’s i. a’s wha I do all he ime, acually.
e dialogue during and afer an exercise like his one can evolve in differen direcions. Someimes cliens remove he noepad as soon as i’s placed in heir lap. I’s imporan or he herapis o be open o he clien’s acual experience and remember ha his is wha she should base her work on hroughou. e dialogue is no an atemp a persuasion; i’s a way o rying o evoke behavior ha is clinically relevan and helping he clien noice i. ere are many possible aspecs o map ou, based on his exercise. Wha are he advanages o hese differen behaviors, and wha are he disadvanages? In which o hese wo posiions is he clien more ree o pursue a valued direcion in lie? I, like Anne, cliens can clearly see ha “keeping i away” is
185
Learning F
wha hey do, wha would “ keepi keeping ng i in hei heirr lap” involv involve, e, i hey were o do his in day-o-day lie? In hese ypes o herapy siuaions, he goal is o map ou and influence wo ypes o behavior: problemaic behavior in he shape o experienial avoidance, and alernaive behavior. e exercise above, wih he noepad, can sugges wha he alernaive is. emember ha, according o F, he undamenal problem wih experienial avoidance is ha verbal behavior in he shape o rule ollowing is overly dominaing. Exercises like he one described above can provide he clien wih a way o conacing an alernaive, based on direc simulus uncions. For a shor momen, verbal conrol is circumvened.
USING MEAPHOS AS HERPEUIC OOLS Experienial exercises are used in herapy o ry o dodge he dominance ha indirec simulus uncions so easily acquire or us humans. Anoher ool ha can be used or he same purposes is meaphors. Using meaphors as ools in psychological herapy is no a new device, and i definiely isn’ a unique conribuion rom F and he research i is based on. is herapeuic ool has a long hisory wihin psychoherapy, especially wihin he nonempirical radiions (Evans, 1988; Kopp, 1995; Mays, 1990). A he same ime, wih he help o F, we can answer he quesion o why meaphors can be such an efficien ool. Undersanding he significance o meaphors and analogies wihi wi hinn huma humann lan langu guage age als alsoo giv gives es us some gu guideli idelines nes or how hey can be used. Meaphors are verbal ools. A he same ime, hey also conain relaional neworks where direc simulus uncions play a decisive role. ecall he meaphor ha Sue and Larry are like cas and dogs, rom chaper 5. Here are wo relaional neworks. We have Sue and Larry on one side, and cas and dogs on he oher. e relaion beween hese neworks is arbirarily esablished hrough he conexual acor “are like.” Bu each nework also conains a number o direc simulus uncions ha are esablished in he lisener’s hisory; or example, he experience o cas and dogs and how hey usually relae o each oher. And he poin in his meaphor is ha he relaions beween hese direc simulus uncions can influence he lisener’s way o relaing o Sue and Larry. Larr y. In an insan, insa n, as soon as he meaphor meaphor is utered, a large number o relaions beween simuli si muli are cued c ued or he lisener. ese relaions beween simuli are colleced rom evens he lisener has experienced
186
General Guidelines Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
and are hen ranserred o a phenomenon ha is less well-known. I meaphors sugges possible alernaive ways o acing, hese are ofen flexible and open, raher han exac. is creaes a shorcu ha bypasses he verbal raps ha could occur i he same behavior by Sue and Larry were o be described in more acual and didacic language. In Anne’s case, one way o alking wih her abou her atemps o solve her problems by hinking more could be saying, “Wha i you can’ plow a field by illing he soil in your head?” is meaphor is designed o help her conac he hopelessness o he sraegies she’s been using o ry o solve her problems. So wha do we wan o use meaphors o do? e same hing which we wan o do by usi using ng a u uncion ncional al ana analys lysis. is. We wan o help he clie clien n ac his own behavior, boh he problemaic behavior in he shape o experienial avoidance and alernaive behavior. Le’s reurn o he dialogue wih Anne. She acually offers a meaphor hersel as she atemps o describe wha she does when she hinks abou her roubles and wha she ries o do abou hem. She says ha she “dives righ in.” is meaphor is a way o describing her paricular variey o experienial avoidance. Perhaps i offers he herapis an inroad o discussing wha Anne is experiencing, and maybe i also suggess a way ou o her dilemma. e herapis could, or example, alk abou how Anne experiences he rouble in so many differen conexs and ha she can’ ge away rom i. I is as i lie “hrows her ino he waer.” Bu even i she is hrown in he waer, perhaps she can choose wha o do once she finds hersel here. For example, here may be a difference beween “diving” and “swimming oward somehing you wan o reach reach.” .” Alhoug A lhoughh meaphors can ofen provide a shorc shorcu u h ha a by bypasses passes verbal raps, using hem also enails some dangers. I isn’ unusual or a meaphor o have cerain uncions or one individual and oher uncions or anoher. is is why i is imporan or he herapis o lisen careully o he clien’s experience. Wha doesn’ work or he clien doesn’ work. Meaphors should no be used o argue wih cliens abou wha is righ and wha is wrong. I ha is where w here you end end up, herapis and clien are probably probably in he grip g rip o verbal raps once again. e border beween meaphors and experienial exercises, which can be used o evoke behav behavior, ior, is ofen indi indisi sinc. nc. i iss sa sands nds o reason, as i is he similariy beween wha is done in he firs arena and wha he clien is used o doing in he second arena ha is a he core o experienial exercises. Similariy o some kind is also he essenial ingredien in a meaphor�a similariy beween wo relaional neworks. neworks.
187
Learning F
Consider again he exercise involving he noepad, wherein he herapis ried o help Anne discriminae wo differen behaviors in relaion o he pain she experiences: keeping i away rom her versus keeping i in her lap. I, as in he dialogue above, he exercise leads o he clien discriminaing he dierence beween hese wo as relevan o acions ou here in real lie, hen he exercise can be used as a ype o meaphor. is can be done direcly afer he exercise via quesions rom he herapis: “I you were o keep hese roubles (lack o concenraion, ensions, roubling houghs) more in your lap in your daily lie, in wha way would you do ha, do you hink?” e herapis could also reurn o his a a laer sage, when he clien relaes somehing ha has aken place in he second arena. e herapis may ask, “Wha you are describing now�would you say ha was pushing i away rom you or keeping i in your lap?” Boh experienial exercises and he use o meaphors are hus ways o rying o minimize he raps inheren in rule ollowing and are hereore undamenal hroughou herapy. is does no mean ha rule-governed behavior is absen in he ype o herapeuic processes illusraed in hese examples. e clien is a verbal being and will consanly creae sel-rules in hese siuaions, independen o wheher he herapis is aking an acive par in his process or no. e hope is ha hese rules can become more flexible i hey are based, firsly, on direc simulus uncions hrough experienial exercises and, secondly, on meaphors ha make use o he clien’s direc experiences.
GOALS AS A PA OF HERPY I is obvious o mos people ha psychological herapy should have goals. In a uncional perspecive, goals are essenial no only because hey are wha herapy is supposed o lead o; hey are a par o herapy as such. In herapy based on uncional analysis, he decisive acor is he consequences o behavior. Wha governs behavior is firs and oremos is pas consequences. For verbal beings, anoher acor is wha we could call desirable consequences. rough relaional raming, we have he opporuniy o seemingly conac evens ha have no ye aken place. We have he abiliy o wan somehing we have no experienced, and we can ac o make ha hing happen. As described in chaper 6, his is he very basis o rule-governed behavior. is is he same behavior we reer o in ordinary language as having inenions: We ac wih a purpose. e wo ypes o clinically relevan behavior ha I have described (problemaic behavior and alernaive behavior) are, o course, also his kind o behavior�behavior wih he inenion o achieving somehing; behavior 188
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
wih a cerain direcion. Behavior is influenced by desirable consequences. is was discussed in he dialogue wih Anne, as he herapis inquired abou he aim o Anne’s behavior o “diving righ in.” Is aim was o dissolve he hrea Anne experienced. I was aimed a geting rid o or gaining conrol o her ension, lack o concenraion, iredness, and houghs o somehing being wrong wih her. Perhaps Anne would say ha she was sriving o “eel normal.” Anne’s problem was ha “diving righ in” did no accomplish his and even blocked her rom rying oher soluions. Experienial avoidance dominaed her behavior in general. When rying o find an alernaive behavior, i is hereore imporan o ask wha he purpose is. I Anne is supposed o work on no diving righ in by insead doing somehing else, wha is he purpose o his? In which direcion does she wan o head? Wha are he desirable consequences she migh work oward? I he herapis were o ask Anne, she migh reply, “I jus wan o eel like I used o. I jus wan o be normal.” Bu noe ha his leads o he same dilemma. ese are precisely he ype o goals ha haven’ worked or Anne. a his is he case is conneced o he buil-in problem wih experienial avoidance: oughs, eelings, and bodily sensaions usually aren’ under volunary conrol. Anne needs o direc hersel oward somehing else, especially since reraining rom diving righ in and insead pracicing doing somehing else could iniially mean increased discomor. Afer all, diving righ in is a soluion ha’s ied o a hope ha i will help. I Anne rerains rom his behavior, she migh iniially eel like she is worse off�as i she has given up. So wha could moivae Anne o expose hersel o his? She needs somehing ha makes i worhwhile. Someimes i migh be enough o conac a possibiliy such as “My problem may ge beter in he long run.” Bu cliens ofen need somehing more significan, somehing hey value�somehing ha uncions as a desirable consequence and ha moivaes hem in experimening wih alernaive behaviors. So figuring ou he direcion in which he clien should urn is an imporan par o herapy. In he dialogue wih ichard, he describes ha he “is jus hanging in here” and agrees ha he’s “lying low.” e herapis needs o work wih ichard o define more specifically wha his behavior consiss o and wha is purpose is. ichard hins ha he purpose is prevening his problems rom geting worse, because he doesn’ wan o experience wha he previously experienced. He remembers an experience ha he wans o avoid. Bu his direcion could urn ino a rap, as experienial avoidance so easily does. I will be imporan or ichard o ideniy wha an alernaive direcion would be. I he were o rerain rom lying low or jus hanging in here, wha would he do ha or? Wha would he aim o his alernaive behavior be? Wha would make i worh he risk? Wha would he desirable consequence be? 189
Learning F
e atenive reader may noice ha I am now approaching a cerain ype o rule-governed behavior: augmening, which I discussed in chaper 6. In a model o psychoherapy based in F, here is an emphasis on he difficulies and raps inheren in rule-governed behavior. Bu here is more; such a model o psychoherapy also draws on he significan conribuion o rule-governed behavior in creaing more flexibiliy in human behavior. We can seemingly conac somehing we wan and make ha our direcion, even when wha we desire is no direcly accessible. I need only be presen o us hrough our abiliy o rame relaionally. is can be very useul. Clariying in which direcion he clien wans o move and he purpose o change is an imporan par o herapy. In everyday language, we migh reer o his as moivaion. I’ll reurn o his in chaper 11, which ocuses on working on rules, or verbal anecedens.
HE FOUNDAION OF A CLINICAL BEHAVIO ANALYSIS HA INCLUDES F In a clinical uncional analysis, we are ineresed in wo ypes o clinically relevan behavior. One is problemaic behavior or a behavioral excess belonging o a broad uncional class: experienial avoidance. e oher is an alernaive behavior. In principle, he later can be any orm o behavior, as long as i doesn’ belong o he class o experienial avoidance and aims or somehing else�preerably a consequence ha is globally desirable o he clien. e herapis’s ask is o help he clien o reduce experienial avoidance and experimen wih alernaive behavior. is may sound simple, bu i rarely is. I i were simple, he clien would probably have done i already. e side effecs o human languaging block he way. Derived (indirec) simulus uncions conribue o he ype o raps described in chaper 7 and summed up in he erm “usion.” As humans, our acions are ofen used wih our own languaging; we ollow explici or implici rules even when his ype o behavior does no help us reach wha we wan. We are hus rying o achieve wo hings in herapy, and hese primary herapeuic goals run hrough an individual’s course o herapy as a whole, wihou necessarily occurring in any paricular order.
190
e herapis atemps o undermine nonuncioning rule ollowing and acs o help he clien deuse, o shif o behavior ha is more flexible in relaion o indirec simulus uncions.
General Guidelines or Clinical Behavior Analysis
e herapis ries o help he clien change direcion and urn oward hings he values, hings he wishes o accomplish or be rue o. e herapis helps he clien define consequences ha are globally desirable or him and also helps he clien ac in a way ha increases he probabiliy o conacing hose consequences.
erapy hus akes ino accoun he side effecs o human languaging, as well as is possibiliies. All behavior is influenced by he conex in which i occurs. I is influenced by he hings ha ollow upon behavior (consequences) and by he hings ha precede i (anecedens). By alering hese wo aspecs o he conex, he herapis can influence he clien. I is hereore naural o caegorize herapeuic sraegies accordingly, ino sraegies ha primarily aler wha ollows upon behavior, on one hand, and sraegies ha aler wha precedes behavior, on he oher. Chaper 10 will ocus on consequences, and chaper 11 will ocus on anecedens.
191
CHAPTER 10 Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
When we say ha he herapis, in her work wih a clien, can ocus on eiher he consequences or he anecedens ha surround a specific behavior, i is imporan o clariy one hing: We can never ruly address only one or he oher. All kinds o behavior have boh anecedens and consequences ha exer differen ypes o influence on wha akes place. In he ype o ineracion involved in clinical work, he herapis’s acions will always provide boh consequences and anecedens or he clien’s behavior. In he same way, he clien’s acions will provide boh consequences and anecedens or he herapis’s behavior. ere is no escaping hese condiions o human ineracion. ere is no neural ground, no way o “doing nohing.” I he herapis remains silen afer he clien says somehing, his will be he consequence he clien aces afer saying wha he said. I he clien hen goes on o say somehing more, he herapis’s silence was a par o he anecedens ha preceded his acion by he clien. I he herapis says somehing, looks away, changes posiion, or acs in any oher way, i is par o he anecedens and consequences ha he clien encouners in he momen and ha influence his urher acions. Muual influence is a par o he human condiion whenever wo people inerac. ere is no oher possibiliy. And his influence akes place hrough he consequences and anecedens esablished in he ineracion. When I wrie abou ocusing on consequences (or anecedens), I am saying ha, in a given momen, he herapis can ocus on one or he oher. I is simply a way o describing he herapis’s inenion. I she has an inenion o ocusing her acions oward esablishing consequences ha reinorce
Learning F
a cerain behavior on he par o he clien, his is no a descripion o he enire process ha occurs when she does his. In ac, here are ineviably many hings occurring alongside whaever he herapis is rying o do, and he herapis is unaware o many o hem. I would probably be impossible o describe everyhing ha goes on. A bes, he herapis is clearly aware o one or a ew essenial variables ha she can aler.
INFLUENCING HOUGH CONSEQUENCES: HE CLASSICAL SREGY OF BEHAVIO ANALYSIS e mos imporan conclusion in Skinner’s work was ha consequences o behavior are o primary significance in influencing subsequen behavior due o how differen consequences reinorce or punish he behavior ha precedes hem. As a resul, behavior analysis is srongly dominaed by atemps o esablish consequences ha change behavior. Mos o his work has been aimed a helping individuals wih airly serious problems, such as menal reardaion and auism (Smih, 1996; emingon e al., 2007). In order o exer influence by esablishing direc consequences or behavior, he herapis has o be presen when he problemaic behavior occurs. Since people wih hese ypes o problems have radiionally ofen been insiuionalized, more possibiliies or such influence have exised. Auisic children have been reaed in accordance wih hese principles in heir home environmens, as well, hough his requires he herapis o spend many hours a week wih he child (Cohen, Amerine-Dickens, & Smih, 2006). As poined ou earlier, his inense ineracion beween herapis and clien doesn’ occur wihin he ramework o clinical setings. Psychoanalysis is he ype o herapy ha has he mos ime-consuming ramework o ineracion, bu his oo is sparse compared o he orms o herapy ha applied behavior analysis has radiionally offered is highly uncionally impaired cliens. In regard o requency o conac, clinical behavior analysis is more like oher orms o psychoherapy. erapis and clien generally mee once or possibly wice a week. e oal number o herapy sessions ranges rom a ew o many over he course o one or even several years. In his respec, clinical behavior analysis doesn’ differ rom wha is sandard in he ypes o psychological herapy normally called psychoherapy. Considering he behavioral principles ha orm he oundaion o behavior analysis, exering influence by esablishing direc consequences or behavior is a naural and undamenal approach. is also applies o clinical 194
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
behavior analysis, alhough i has limiaions because o he relaively sparse conacs beween herapis and clien. Le’s ake a look a how his influence can be exered despie he ime limiaions.
ESABLISHING CONSEQUENCES FO POBLEMAIC BEHAVIO In esablishing consequences or problemaic behavior, wo clinically relevan classes o behavior are in ocus: experienial avoidance in is various orms and alernaive behavior. Le’s reurn o ichard o illusrae how he herapis can esablish consequences or ichard’s problemaic behavior in a way ha can conribue o change. Based on he dialogue in he preceding chaper, ichard and he herapis have worked ogeher o ideniy ichard’s passiviy as a problemaic behavior. He is lying low, sanding by, and agging along. a his is a problem or ichard is clear o him in one way, because he isn’ saisfied wih how hings urn ou. ogeher, hey have also idenified he reason or his behavior, as seen rom ichard’s perspecive. As hings sand, he behaves in his way so ha hings won’ ge worse. Bu he has also described his behavior as a longsanding patern in his lie. Jus agging along and accommodaing himsel o oher people’s wishes has el naural o him; i eels like he saes sraegy. In conversaion wih his herapis, ichard has described wha would be a desirable alernaive behavior or him. He would like o be more asserive� ake up more space in his ineracions wih oher people. A work, his would mean leting his supervisor know wha asks and assignmens he would like. A home, his would mean aking iniiaive in planning aciviies. For example, ichard would like o ake he children o a ooball game. He’s a longime an o he local eam and has noiced ha his children are ineresed in ooball. His wie, Erin, on he oher hand, isn’ very ineresed in spors. ichard and his herapis have discussed his as he basis or a homework assignmen in herapy, ha ichard should bring his up wih his amily. Aferward, he ollowing dialogue akes place during session eigh. Terapis:
How did hings go wih he ooball game? Did you bring i up?
Richard:
Yes, bu we jus alked loosely abou i. I checked wha hey hough abou i. Bu here’s a lo going on hese nex ew weekends.
Terapis:
e children have a lo planned? 195
Learning F
Richard:
Yes, Erin wans us o go o visi her siser. And nex week is a busy week in school.
Terapis:
How do you eel abou his?
Richard:
I’m no sure. You know how hard i is or me o pursue somehing ha involves Erin. Can you help me ou here? How do you handle women who always wan o make all he decisions?
A one level, ichard is asking or advice. e herapis could sugges a soluion and maybe do some role-playing around how ichard migh ac in relaion o Erin. A he same ime, he herapis noices ha ichard is acing in his ypically problemaic way, here and now. He is lying low and seeking an iniiaive rom he herapis. e herapis brings his ac ino ocus. Terapis:
I’m wondering a litle abou wha you’re doing righ now, here, wih me. I ge he eeling ha you’re lying low� waiing o see i I’ll ake charge or give you somehing you can ag along wih.
Richard:
Wha am I supposed o do? You’re he exper.
Le’s sop and examine wha he herapis is doing and wha he resul is. e herapis noices a problemaic behavior on ichard’s par: his ypical version o experienial avoidance, wha he does because i eels saes. ichard is lying low, aking a passive atiude, and seeking iniiaive rom someone else, in his case he herapis. A his poin, he herapis esablishes a consequence ha consiss o simply acing ichard’s behavior, he very behavior hey have defined ogeher as problemaic. echnically speaking, he herapis ries o esablish a punishing coningency. She does somehing inended o make i less likely ha ichard will repea his behavior. We don’ ye know wha uncion his response will have or ichard’s behavior, bu we can assume ha he herapis inends o esablish an aversive consequence. How are we o undersand his�ha when she describes wha ichard does using everyday language, she acs in a way ha can uncion as a punishing coningency? We can undersand his hrough F. In an earlier dialogue, his very behavior�wihdrawing and lying low�has been defined as he problem. Wha ichard does increases his difficulies. When as a consequence o his acions ichard encouners his commen, i pus him in ouch wih “I am doing wha gives me my problems.” e herapis acs ichard’s behavior in ha momen, and since his ac is in a relaion o coordinaion o “wha I do ha makes hings worse or me,” i is likely o be aversive o him, provided
196
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
ha he acually shared he iniial assessmen ha his behavior is somehing ha conribues o he pain he experiences. Alhough we assume ha his acion on he par o he herapis can make a posiive conribuion o change in ichard’s lie, i also involves wo difficulies. e firs is he erminology. Surely, no herapis wans o punish her clien; his sounds inhumane. In order o avoid his unsympaheic erminology, herapiss and heoriss have sough oher words o describe his process, and i migh be wise o avoid a erminology ha causes misundersandings. Some speak o weakening a behavior insead o punishing i. Anoher way o puting i is o say ha you block or obsruc he clien’s problemaic behavior. e imporan hing is o undersand wha we are reerring o, regardless o which erminology is used. e herapis esablishes a consequence or he clien’s problemaic behavior, and his is inended o reduce he chances o he behavior being repeaed. In basic behavioral erminology, his process is called a punishing coningency, i i really has he inended effec. e second problem wih his course o acion is more imporan han erminology or he risk o misundersandings. When an aversive consequence is esablished, here is always he risk ha avoidan behavior will simply increase in response. Indeed, his is exacly wha happened in his example. ichard ook an even more passive atiude: “You’re he exper.” Le’s look a how he herapis handles his. Terapis:
Yes, well, ha is my role. a’s how i works. And o course his is exacly wha we expec rom expers: o give us somehing we can hang on o. You definiely have a poin here. Bu you and I have alked abou how his becomes a kind o a rap or you�ha you end o sar lying low, jus waiing or ohers o ake he iniiaive and hen you ag along. And even i his is wha I’m supposed o do, as some kind o exper, I wonder i you migh be geting suck in his rap now, righ here in our conversaion?
Richard:
(firs silen, hen sighing) Yeah, I can see wha you’re saying. I hink ha’s righ. I wan someone o give me he answer. And ha makes me even more passive. I sar backing off. I’s so hard.
Terapis:
Yes, i is hard. And i you were o make some more room or yoursel righ here and now while we’re alking�jus when you eel ha i’s hard�how would you go abou ha? Is here a crack in he wall somewhere, a place where you could sar o creae some room? 197
Learning F
Esablishing punishing or weakening coningencies in relaion o problemaic behavior can be an imporan par o he work o ocusing on consequences in he ineracion beween herapis and clien. In his example he herapis reains he aversive consequence (“Now you are demonsraing your problemaic behavior”) while also doing a couple o oher hings in andem. Firs, she says hings ha are likely o reinorce cerain pars o ichard’s behavior righ now, he pars ha are more uncional. She can do his because here are several srands in ichard’s behavior. While he does, in ac, lie low and demonsrae a passive atiude, he also coninues he dialogue. A one level he ells his herapis some o his houghs abou he siuaiuon. When he herapis confirms deails he menions, his hopeully has a reinorcing uncion in relaion o hese pars o his behavior. is is reerred o as “validaion” in dialecical behavior herapy, a herapy model ha emphasizes ha here is almos always somehing in wha he clien is saying ha can be validaed (Linehan, 1997). In more classical behavioral language, you migh say ha here is almos always some aspec o he clien’s behavior ha should be reinorced. is is how he herapis views ichard’s behavior when he says, “You’re he exper.” is is why she ries o esablish a consequence o increase he probabiliy ha ichard will express his opinion again. e herapis ries o reinorce he uncional behavioral class “expressing one’s opinion.” e nex hing he herapis does in he dialogue displays he impossibiliy o sringenly separaing he work conneced o consequences rom he work conneced o anecedens. She esablishes a verbal aneceden inended o uncion as a rule or alernaive behavior. She inquires ino he possibiliy o ichard himsel aking up more space here and now�he possibiliy o ichard aking he iniiaive, so o speak. And she does his by reerring o wha she and ichard previously discussed as an alernaive pah: aking up space. I ichard decides o ake he risk o acually ake up space, hey could go on o alk abou he difficulies involved in aking up space here and now, and abou how i urned ou. en he dialogue could urn o how ichard migh do his in relaion o Erin. A ha poin, he inervenion clearly would have moved on o dealing wih anecedens or behavior�a behavior ha is o ake place in he second arena o his herapeuic work. Bu in his scenario, i would be done afer ichard had more direc experience wih boh o he relevan behavioral classes. He would have demonsraed boh he problemaic behavior and he alernaive behavior in he firs arena and would have encounered differen consequences or each.
198
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
ESABLISHING CONSEQUENCES FO ALENAIVE BEHAVIO When he herapis hinks she can discriminae he clien doing somehing in he firs arena ha is an alernaive o he problemaic behavior, she should ake he opporuniy o esablish a consequence aimed a increasing he probabiliy o he clien doing i again. In he dialogue above, he herapis did his in connecion wih ichard coninuing he dialogue and expressing his opinion. is was done primarily o annul he risk o marked avoidance in he momen. Generally speaking, he behaviors we wan o reinorce mos o all are he ones ha are he cleares examples o alernaive behavior. Which behavior is, hen, o be reinorced? o answer his quesion, i’s helpul or he herapis o keep in mind he definiion o problemaic behavior as experienial avoidance. e undamenal problem is he human endency o use rule-governed behavior in an atemp o conrol, reduce, or ge rid o privae evens; when i comes o eelings, memories, bodily sensaions, or houghs ha sponaneously presen hemselves, we atemp a soluion ha ofen doesn’ work. e alernaive behavior o be reinorced is hus behavior ha aims or somehing oher han avoidance o privae evens. In principle, i could be essenially any behavior wih such an aim. However, a grea many o such behaviors probably don’ aim or somehing he clien desires. ereore, we may need o delimi his urher: e behavior o be reinorced should be behavior ha has a higher probabiliy o leading he clien in a desired direcion�wih he excepion o simply geting rid o privae evens. Obviously, his soluion conains a paradox. People seek psychological help in order o ge rid o privae evens like depressive mood and anxiey. And successul psychological herapies do achieve his, o a greaer or lesser exen. Ye his presens a dilemma: When geting rid o privae evens is he goal, behavior ofen ends up couneracing is own purpose, as described in chaper 7. is is an example o he remarkable side effecs o verbal behavior. Working wih he clien o map ou wha he alernaive behavior should aim or is an imporan par o herapy. is is, again, an example o ocusing on anecedens, since a curren goal is a verbal saemen (or hough) abou a desired consequence, and no he consequence in isel. e consequence remains o be experienced. ichard has described wha he wans o do as “aking up more space.” When he was asked wha he would do wih his exra space or in wha way aking up his space would be posiive, he menioned wo hings. Firs, he wans his o affec his relaionships wih oher people. He wans o be closer o his children, o be more involved in heir lives, and
199
Learning F
o share his own experiences. And a work he wans o prove his abiliies and have enough space o do hings he hinks will be beneficial or he sudens and he school. He doesn’ like being passive and jus agging along. He wans o be a person who can ake he iniiaive, a leas more han he currenly is. In he uncional analysis ha he herapis and ichard have creaed ogeher, i is clear ha his passive atiude increases in siuaions where “hings eel uncerain.” Exernally he siuaions are differen, bu hey have in common he ac ha oher people are acing o achieve wha hey wan or wha hey believe in and ichard noices ha he wans somehing else. Even a his early sage, hings begin o “eel difficul,” so he wais. He eels ha ohers disregard him, and he ends o ruminae over why i urned ou his way and conclude ha his is he ineviable oucome. An alernaive o lying low and waiing is, o course, o sep orward and ake up some space in he siuaions ha eel difficul and uncerain. One siuaion where his behavior migh be demonsraed in relaion o he herapis is in regard o homework assignmens. Le’s assume ha he herapis suggess a homework assignmen in which ichard brings up wih a colleague ha he would like o swich asks during an upcoming eachers’ seminar. e herapis clearly shows, in various ways, ha she hinks his is an appropriae homework assignmen. I ichard objecs and ells her ha he would like o srucure he homework differenly, his could be seen as an insance o a desirable alernaive behavior in relaion o he herapis. is provides an opporuniy o esablish a reinorcing consequence, which he herapis could do by simply lisening o ichard and aking his objecion seriously. Deermining, in he momen, wha herapis behavior will uncion as reinorcing or he clien’s alernaive behavior is a difficul ask. A supporive quesion he herapis can consisenly ask hersel is wha behavior on her par migh resemble a naurally occurring consequence in he clien’s day-o day lie (he second arena) ha would reinorce alernaive behavior. In his ligh, he ask in herapy is o offer a consequence in he curren ineracion ha corresponds o his. In he example wih ichard, his behavior o objecing and giving his own opinion can be reinorced by giving due consideraion o wha he says. Anoher imporan quesion or he herapis o keep in mind is wheher he alernaive behavior is acually reinorced in heir ineracion. Is ichard’s behavior o aking up space in his ineracion wih he herapis increasing as he herapy sessions proceed? I no, reinorcing coningencies haven’ been sufficienly esablished, per definiion. I his is he case, he herapis needs o examine her own behavior and probably needs o change i. I, on he oher hand, ichard does demonsrae more alernaive behavior in relaion o he herapis, she can ry o noe he ypes o siuaions where his happens, and 200
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
hereby gain a beter undersanding o which pars o her own behavior are benefiing he herapeuic goals. I is imporan o noe a risk involved in his work: ha he reinorcing coningencies ha are esablished may no be naural (Ferser, 1967), in which case hey may no uncion as inended. Or hey may uncion as reinorcing in ineracions wih he herapis, bu no suppor generalizaion o he behavior in he clien’s lie ouside o herapy (Kohlenberg & sai, 1991; sai e al., 2008). I’s especially imporan o be vigilan agains esablishing consequences aimed a influencing he clien’s behavior in a direcion he herapis desires ha doesn’ align wih he clien’s goals. I his occurs, i would be wha in everyday speech we call manipulaion.1 I described above how he herapis’s acing o he clien’s problemaic behavior can uncion as an aversive consequence or his behavior. In a corresponding way, he herapis’s acing o alernaive behavior can uncion as a reinorcing consequence or ha behavior. Wheher his happens depends on wheher he uncional analysis ha defines a desirable alernaive behavior is adequae. Le’s suppose ha ichard and he herapis agree ha he behavior o “aking up more space” is desirable or ichard. And maybe, in his ineracions wih he herapis, his behavior has someimes been ollowed by reinorcing consequences. When his behavior akes place again, perhaps he herapis says, “I jus occurs o me ha wha you’re doing now is differen; ha i’s like you’re making more room or yoursel.” As a resul, in addiion o he reinorcing consequence o obaining somehing he wans, ichard now conacs he verbally esablished consequence “doing somehing new ha helps me make changes.” is is probably a reinorcing consequence or his behavior, provided ha wha he herapis says corresponds o ichard’s own experience. I i does no, here is he obvious risk ha he ineracion insead becomes ye anoher example o ichard doing wha he so ofen does: accommodaing himsel and agging along. In his case, he herapis’s commen would acually uncion as reinorcing or ichard’s problemaic behavior. is is anoher example o how imporan i is or herapiss o be aware o he acual resuls o heir ineracions wih cliens.
1 Wihin behavior analysis (and experimenal science more generally) he word “manipulaion” is used wihou he negaive associaions i has in ordinary conexs. “o manipulae” simply means “o change somehing.” In his sense o he word, when you do or say somehing in an ineracion, i is always a manipulaion o he acors ha precede and/or ollow he oher person’s behavior. e risk described here, however, is ha he herapis’s acions also become manipulaion in he everyday, negaive sense o he word. 201
Learning F
EXINCION OF POBLEMAIC ULE FOLLOWING Based on F, we can draw he conclusion ha rule ollowing ofen conribues o psychological problems, as described in chaper 7. Esablishing new direc coningencies in he ineracion beween clien and herapis can conribue o breaking down his ype o desrucive verbal conrol. e direc experience o geting hings you wan hrough a behavior (or example, hrough “aking up space”) can, in he long run, circumven a behavior governed by a rule (or example, “I’d beter lie low”). O course, he dominance ha verbally esablished coningencies ofen have or humans is no absolue. Behavior is consanly shaped by he ineracion beween he wo essenial pahs o learning: hrough direc simulus uncions, and hrough derived (indirec) simulus uncions. New direc experiences ha occur in he herapeuic ineracion can break he dominance o verbal rules in a specific regard. An analysis according o F provides ye anoher primary way o alering consequences in ways ha can be helpul or he clien. Le’s reurn o he herapis’s dialogue wih Anne. During heir fifh session hey’re alking abou Anne’s difficulies wih concenraing and how his disrups her work. Anne describes how, during a meeing a work, she realized ha she hadn’ caugh wha someone else jus said. She became ense and hough, “Here I go again.” oughs abou how hings would never work ou sared o come up, and she wondered i ohers noiced how weird she was eeling.
202
Anne:
I’s hopeless. I don’ know wha’s going on.
Terapis:
I sounds like his is difficul or you. And you wan o ge a grip on wha’s going on.
Anne:
I can’ live like his! Somehing has o be done abou i.
Terapis:
Okay hen, here are several houghs here: One is ha you can’ live like his. Anoher is ha somehing has o be done abou i.
Anne:
I have o find a soluion.
Terapis:
So ha’s anoher hough: You have o find a soluion.
Anne:
Wha do you mean? I don’ ge i?
Terapis:
Anoher one: I don’ ge i.
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
Anne:
Bu… Are you saying ha I’m jus imagining his, or wha? I really can’ live like his. I have o be able o go o a meeing. Oherwise I won’ be able o do my work. a’s no okay. I have really ried, bu i doesn’ work.
Terapis:
I hear anoher one: a’s no okay.
Anne:
You’re making me conused. I’m really rying o undersand, bu I’m compleely los now…
Terapis:
Good!
Anne:
Good? In wha way? Wha do you mean? I’m sure here is a poin here, bu I’m no geting i…
Terapis:
You’re rying o undersand? rying o work i ou? Wha i i’s like his: I you hink you undersand wha I mean� whaever I mean, ha’s no i?
Anne:
Should I ge mad or sar laughing? I’m oally conused…
Terapis:
Exacly. Can you be here?
Anne:
Conused? I don’ like i.
Terapis:
Okay. Can you have he experience ha you are conused and don’ like i, and jus be here?
Noice how his conversaion deviaes rom wha we are used o in ordinary conversaions. Bu he herapis has an explici goal in her behavior o deviaing. Languaging is a behavior ha is mainained by a number o differen conexual acors. I’s a social game we play ogeher and is dependen on a cerain conex. Once we’ve learned how o play, we can do so privaely or silenly o ourselves, bu his behavior is originally learned in a social conex. In a dialogue, our languaging is influenced by he consequences i encouners. In our everyday lives, we all inhabi a social and culural conex ha offers a wealh o consequences ha reinorce verbal behavior. People lisen o wha we say, and hey answer in a way ha we can undersand. Even i hey rejec us, hey do so in a way ha ollows he collecive rules ha are buil ino our languaging. Words usually mean wha hey normally mean. We usually adhere o he rules o grammar, and i we break hese rules, we generally do so in a way ha is “undersandable.” Even our breaches o he rules ollow he rules o he game, so o speak. All o his is so naural ha i’s hard or us o imagine anyhing else. Now, i verbal behaviors are a par o psychological problems, he conexs ha suppor hese behaviors could be alered o help
203
Learning F
cliens ou o verbal raps. is is wha Anne’s herapis is rying o achieve in his dialogue. She does his while ocusing on offering consequences oher han hose ha normally mainain Anne’s problemaic verbal behavior. Anne says ha “somehing has o be done” abou his. In an ordinary dialogue, liseners will, in one way or anoher, ac on he indirec simulus uncions ha his saemen has in relaion o hem. ey may, or example, sugges somehing ha could be done. Or hey may agree ha somehing should be done, alhough hey don’ know wha. Even i hey reply by saying ha i may no be necessary o do somehing abou he siuaion, his is also a behavior ha reinorces he verbal behavior in isel. I is coheren wih verbal behavior as a whole, and as explained in chaper 4, coherence is a generalized reinorcer ha is esablished early on in a child’s language raining. is is clear i Anne, in response o a poenial reply ha nohing needs o be done, gives reasons or why somehing acually mus be done abou his. In a case like his, Anne is perorming even more o he verbal behavior she is so accusomed o perorming. She’s accusomed o hinking abou wha she should do, abou why i doesn’ urn ou as she’d like, and abou wha’s wrong. Also, jus like all verbally compeen humans, she is accusomed o giving reasons why she acs as she does. And he normal consequence o giving reasons is ha he oher pary eiher acceps her reasons or les her know why hose reasons are no accurae or applicable. By no offering hese ypes o reinorcing consequences or Anne’s verbal behavior, he herapis is aiming a exinguishing Anne’s problemaic behavior wihin he herapeuic ineracion. Firs he herapis ocuses on direc simulus uncions. Anne’s behavior is dominaed by he indirec simulus uncions o her saemen. She acs in usion wih hese uncions; her behavior is dominaed by hem. e herapis does no, however, go along wih his, as we normally do in a verbal dialogue, bu insead poins ou wha is acually presen: “Look, here’s a hough.” When his is repeaed Anne is conused and possibly rusraed. e normal way o speaking (and hinking) is no working. e consequences are no wha hey usually are. Anne firs acs as hough her descripion is being called ino quesion, and she delivers reasons or why she has o do wha she does. Ye he consequences sill are no ypical. She handles his as she is accusomed o doing: She increases her effors o undersand he siuaion. e herapis hen says somehing ha is likely o be aversive i you are really ou o undersand wha’s going on: “I you hink you undersand wha I mean�whaever I mean, ha’s no i.” How is such a saemen o be handled? e las commen, which becomes a sel-conflicing rule or he behavior o rying o undersand, could consiue a punishing coningency. is speaks o he risks associaed wih his ype o coningency. As I poined ou earlier, i is imporan or he herapis o do somehing more han jus 204
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
obsruc problemaic behavior. In his case, she brings in an aneceden or alernaive behavior by hining ha maybe Anne can say precisely where she is. A differen way o making he suggesion would be a commen such as “Wha i conusion isn’ your enemy?” For Anne, his could uncion as a rule or he behavior o saying where she is, eeling wha she eels, and no being so quick o ry o conrol or eliminae her uneasiness in he momen. e way I am here describing an inervenion ha esablishes a prospecive rule is anoher example o how working wih consequences is never enirely abou consequences, alhough consequences are wha I have chosen o ocus on in his chaper. I is also possible ha he commen abou conusion no being he enemy acually uncions as a reinorcing consequence or pars o Anne’s behavior. Even when Anne noices her own conusion and acs his sae in he momen, his behavior can already be differen rom he problemaic behavior displayed a he beginning o he ineracion. Saying in he momen and simply observing wha here is o observe, wihou immediaely looking o ge away rom her own sae, is differen rom wha Anne has ypically been doing. In his way, he herapis’s commen can urher reinorce his rudimen o change. F can inorm and suppor his way o breaking he rules o languaging in order o help people ge ou o psychological raps. Similar sraegies are a core componen in accepance and commimen herapy. I is imporan o undersand ha his is no somehing ha should be done randomly in herapeuic work. I should be based on a uncional analysis o an individual clien’s difficulies. In he example above, he herapis chooses o ac his way in connecion o Anne’s ypical problemaic behavior o “diving righ in” o a verbal way o solving a problem. Alhough Anne’s sraegy is inended o lead her o increased undersanding and o answers o her quesions, i ulimaely leads o a dead-end sree in her lie. So how is i possible or his new behavior o be generalized? Afer all, I have jus explained ha we consanly ace a social conex ha, on he conrary, suppors problemaic verbal behavior. e answer lies in direc coningencies. I is common or cliens o eel ha he consequences o hese ypes o inervenions relieve some o he pressure hey eel. When people who have sruggled o do somehing ha hasn’ delivered on is promises finally realize ha hey can abandon his sruggle, hey ofen conac reinorcing consequences. An increased experience o vialiy in he momen is common, as are opporuniies or more flexible behavior. In his siuaion, people simply end o do hings hey haven’ done earlier. Anne may noice somehing ha she previously jus ignored. Perhaps she coninues o inerac wih someone in a siuaion ha she once would have cu shor. Over ime, his will lead o conac wih a number o naurally occurring reinorcers ha 205
Learning F
she hasn’ conaced beore. Perhaps she’ll encouner a new ype o response rom someone. Perhaps she’ll manage o carry ou a work assignmen ha had requenly been inerruped as she swiched her ocus o how poorly she concenraes. Once Anne has experienced various new coningencies, somehing else occurs, as well. I Anne, in a cerain siuaion, once again “dives righ in” o her old, problemaic ways o responding, i’s more likely ha she’ll lose his new, rewarding experience. a could hen uncion as a naurally occurring negaive punishmen coningency or her old way o responding.2 is coningency can hen also conribue o mainaining Anne’s new behavior.
CONSEQUENCES AND HERPY’S WO AENAS In his chaper I have emphasized consequences or he clien’s behavior ha are available during herapy sessions, wha I’ve called herapy’s firs arena. ese are consequences ha he herapis can esablish in a direc way. roughou herapy, i is imporan or he herapis o be observan o he role she plays in he clien’s behavior and o make use o he opporuniies or direc influence ha migh benefi he clien. A he same ime, i is in he second arena ha cliens live heir lives, and his is where hey ulimaely need o change. In he end, he consequences he clien encouners “ou here” are he crucial ones, and hese are ou o he herapis’s conrol. Sill, he relaionship beween a behavior and is consequences is no one-sided. Jus as he consequences o a behavior influence uure behavior, he behavior influences wha consequences will ollow. I he clien learns a new way o responding in ineracion wih he herapis and subsequenly ries his behavior in he second arena, he chances o experiencing new consequences increase, and his can have a reinorcing uncion. However, esablishing consequences or curren behavior is no he only way o influence uure behavior. All behavior is also subjec o influence by anecedens. rough arbirarily applicable relaional responding, anecedens become enormously more complex han i hey were based only on direc coningencies. e possibiliy o exering influence hrough verbal anecedens is undamenal o all models o psychoherapy. Skinner poined his ou 2 Naurally, his does no mean ha anyone is punishing anyone else. I remind he reader o he definiion o he erm “punishing” wihin behavioral heory: a consequence ha leads o a reduced probabiliy ha he behavior ha preceded i will reoccur. 206
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Consequences
long ago, noing ha giving advice and insrucions are basic componens in all kinds o herapy (Skinner, 1974, p. 204). Boh he possibiliies and he specific problems involved wih verbal anecedens have been described in chapers 6 and 7. In he final chaper o his book, we’ll reurn o his opic and is clinical implicaions.
207
CHAPTER 11 Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
All psychoherapies ake rule-governed behavior or graned; cliens are assumed o have his capabiliy. All herapiss, regardless o psychological model, assume ha insrucions o one kind or anoher influence behavior. is is as rue o he psychoanalys who encourages her clien o associae reely as i is o he cogniive herapis who asks her cliens o noe auomaic houghs or perorm an experimen. I is also rue o he herapeuic model described in his book. A he same ime, an analysis o psychoherapy according o F involves an emphasis on he imporance o undersanding jus how his process works. Analyzing alk herapy in a scienific way requires a heory o language. e analysis o human languaging accouned or in par 2 o his book confirms he universal noion ha verbal anecedens in he orm o “alk” (aloud or silen) conribue o and influence oher kinds o behavior. is provides us wih urher possibiliies or influence, compared o behaviors ha are governed purely by direc coningencies. However, as noed, his behavioral reperoire has some problemaic side effecs. A herapy based on his viewpoin should hus make use o verbal behavior while also remaining aware o is problemaic aspecs. Since F’s insigh ino he problemaic aspecs o language is in many ways a novel conribuion o he field o psychoherapy, his chaper will devoe a air amoun o atenion o he work ha concerns he side effecs o languaging. I will begin, however, wih he more ypical use o insrucions as a means o achieving change.
Learning F
VEBAL ANECEDENS FO NEW BEHAVIO e herapis esablishes verbal anecedens or new behavior as soon as she perorms he iniial uncional analysis. She iniiaes rule-governed behavior in he clien by asking he clien o describe evens ha have aken place ouside he consuling room; or example, hings ha happened earlier and he clien’s houghs and eelings on hese occasions. In behavioral erms, his is described as acing (ogeher wih he clien) clinically relevan behavior and is connecions o conexual acors. is is he acual basis o he herapy as a whole, and i is in isel an example o how, hrough verbal anecedens, he herapis can increase he probabiliy o he clien doing somehing differen rom wha he usually does. e herapis may, or example, ask he clien o fill ou a log beween sessions o provide inormaion on he clien’s behavior in he second arena and wha he does a differen imes o day. She will perhaps also ask him o make noes o his degree o depressive mood or anxiey in connecion wih he hings he does (Dimidjian, Marell, Addis, & Herman-Dunn, 2008). I hese direcions cause he clien o adap and fill ou a log as a homework assignmen, his would be a ypical example o rule-governed behavior. In addiion, his is usually a new behavior. Cliens (as well as people in general) do no usually ake much ime o observe, in such a srucured way, he hings hey do and how his ineracs wih wha akes place around hem. How such acing o one’s own behavior can in isel bring abou changes has been discussed in chaper 9. An imporan par o he iniial sages o herapy is or he herapis o reinorce precisely his ype o sel-discriminaion. is is done by careully monioring he recording asks assigned as homework. is is ye anoher example o how he herapis alernaely ocuses on influencing anecedens and consequences, respecively. Here we are ocusing on anecedens, firs and oremos, and more specifically on giving direcions or how o carry ou homework assignmens like sel-monioring and recording o he clien’s own behavior. In an iniial herapeuic siuaion, such an analysis can quickly lead o a suggesion or alernaive behavior in he second arena. Le’s ake a look a his dynamic in he example o Scot. For years, he’s been experiencing ha people alk abou him, harass him, and wan o harm him in differen ways. is applies paricularly o people he mees in a number o differen everyday siuaions and who are unknown o him. All o his makes him eel unairly reaed and roubled, so he ries various sraegies o avoid being exposed o hese experiences. He avoids many setings where he eels he has a heighened
210
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
risk o such experiences. As a resul, he lives a raher isolaed lie and avoids social conac excep wih his amily o origin. He lives alone in an aparmen, and because o his difficulies, he is unable o work and is on disabiliy. Sporadically, he hears voices ha confirm his experiences. e voices speak maliciously o him and someimes even hreaen him. Mos o he ime he doesn’ hear voices, bu he sill experiences he harassmen going on “behind his back.” Scot also does a lo o brooding on everyday evens; he hinks abou wha ohers hink o him, wha hey have said abou him, and why. In he iniial uncional analysis, he herapis and Scot idenified wo ypes o problemaic behavior: He wihdraws, and he also devoes a lo o hough o wheher he evens o each day are examples o harassmen. ese wo behaviors seem conneced in ha he brooding is also a par o his sraegy or no having o ace perceived harassmen. e experience o being someone who is harassed is painul; i brings his atenion o his eelings o loneliness and how painul his is or him. In his fifh session, Scot relaes an example o wha ypically happens. Scot:
I was sanding in line, waiing or my urn a he couner. en I hear some people in ron o me say somehing I can’ make ou, and one o hem looks a me. Wha he heck is ha all abou? I don’ even know hem. So wha are hey up o? My broher says hey probably weren’ alking abou me, hough…
Terapis:
And wha do you hink?
Scot:
(sighs) I don’ know. Don’ know or sure. Bu when I was sanding in line i seemed very clear o me. a’s exacly wha happens�wha always happens. Why do hey wan o pick on me?
Terapis:
Okay, so whaever i’s really abou, we know one hing: You ge his hough ha hey’re alking abou you. And ha eels really lousy�like being harassed.
Scot:
Exacly.
Terapis:
So wha do you do?
Scot:
Wha do you mean? Wha can I do?
Terapis:
I jus mean, wha did you do when his happened? You’re sanding here, you see hem looking a you, you ge he hough ha hey’re alking abou you, and you ge he eeling o harassmen. So wha did you do? 211
Learning F
Scot:
I jus walked away o a differen line. ried no o look a hem.
Terapis:
Do you hink his could be an example o wha we’ve alked abou�ha you wihdrew?
Scot:
Yes, I hink so. Yeah, ha’s wha i is.
Terapis:
How did i urn ou when you did his?
Scot:
Well, I go rid o hem. Bu his is no how I wan i o be�waiing in line all over again. Who wans ha?
Terapis:
Wha would i be like, do you hink, o ge ha eeling o harassmen and simply say in line?
is dialogue gives us examples o several undamenal behaviors on he par o he herapis. One is ha he dialogue makes he herapis say somehing ha could uncion as a rule or alernaive behavior: “Wha would i be like o say here?” A his poin, o course, we don’ know i his is going o become a rule or Scot. I is no unil a behavior occurs in a cerain relaion o an aneceden ha we can say he aneceden has uncioned as a rule. 1 Bu i is possible ha i will, and his possibiliy is one reason why he herapis says his. In such a dialogue, he herapis may, laer in he session, propose a clearer suggesion (a rule) or Scot o use in a homework assignmen by experimening in a similar siuaion: firs noing he “eeling o harassmen,” hen saying here as an alernaive o wihdrawing. e purpose is o allow Scot o conac consequences oher han hose his curren behavior resuls in. Please noe, however, ha his work is ocused on anecedens; i is no he same as working o esablish consequences or he problemaic behavior being discussed. e herapis and Scot are alking abou hings ha ake place in he second arena. e only hing going on in he firs arena, a he momen, is heir alking. is means ha he consequences ha could ollow 1 Le me remind he reader ha he use o he word “rule” here deviaes somewha rom he way his word is used in our everyday lives. Normally a rule is somehing wih a specific expression. e definiion is opographical. However, his is no he case here. Here a rule is an aneceden ha has influenced a cerain ype o behavior: wha we call rule-governed behavior. I is he behavior and is learning hisory ha define wha precedes he behavior (he aneceden) as a rule. Somehing ha opographically would be defined as a quesion (“Wha would i be like o say here?”) can acquire he uncion o a rule. 212
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
upon he behavior hey are alking abou (wihdrawing or saying here) are no consequences he herapis can conrol. ey are indeed speaking abou consequences, bu ha is quie differen rom esablishing consequences. e only behavior ha can be reinorced, or possibly punished, is behavior occurring in he momen. And when i comes o he behavior o carrying ou a uncional analysis, here is an impac. e herapis reinorces his behavior in differen ways during he dialogue by rewarding Scot or describing evens rom he second arena and or his effor o discriminae differen coningencies: wha he does, on one hand, and wha precedes and ollows his behavior, on he oher. o firs perorm a uncional analysis in his way, hen reinorce his behavior in he herapy session, and, finally, based on he analysis, muually arrive a alernaive behavioral sraegies is he core o he herapeuic model called behavioral acivaion (Marell e al., 2001; Dimidjian e al., 2008). ese alernaive sraegies are hen given as homework assignmens or he clien o experimen wih beween sessions. e experimens are subsequenly analyzed, and new sraegies are ormulaed and esed in new homework assignmens. e aim o herapy is hus esablishing o verbal anecedens� rules�or he clien’s acions in he second arena. e decisive quesion is, o course, wheher he new behavior acually encouners reinorcing consequences. As menioned, hese consequences are ou o he herapis’s conrol. In he same way ha experienial avoidance is a he core o he analysis used o esablish consequences, as discussed in he previous chaper, experienial avoidance is also a he core o he work o esablish anecedens or alernaive behavior. is is clear in he dialogue wih Scot. e analysis accomplished in he clien-herapis dialogue poins o Scot’s avoidance o “he eeling o harassmen.” e herapis ries o help Scot o ac he connecion beween he behavior and is consequences (“How did i urn ou when you did his?”) and inroduces a possible aneceden or alernaive behavior (“Wha would i be like o say here?”). e basic sraegy is simple, bu doing his in a way ha helps he clien is ofen complicaed. e ask is o ormulae possible rules in a way ha influences he clien o go on o es and ry new behavior.
USING PLIANCE O PRCICE RCKING In he process oulined above, he ype o rule-governed behavior aimed a is well-uncioning racking. is means he clien ollows a rule ha saes wha is o be done in order o achieve a desirable consequence, and ha he
213
Learning F
behavior works independenly o he rule giver. When he behavior works, he clien conacs he desirable consequence. Le’s say ha Scot says in he original line (or in a similar siuaion) while sill eeling harassed, and he consequences seem posiive o him in some respec. He may noice ha i is easier or him o do his shopping, ha he eeling o being harassed wanes, or ha people don’ acually alk abou him in he way he had eared. Or maybe he discovers ha hey someimes do, bu he is able o inerac wih hem in a way ha works or him. I Scot keeps ollowing he rule o “saying here” when his eelings and houghs are occupied wih he issue o being harassed, and he does his based on apparenly conacing hese new consequences hrough he rule, hen he process is an example o racking. I he coninues o behave in a similar way several more imes, he direc coningencies will ake on a more dominan uncion. e direc experiences o wha acually works will ake over. Scot conacs new consequences because o his new behavior. In many herapeuic siuaions, a he ouse i can be difficul o ge he clien o experimen in his way. People who are depressed or who have very srong assumpions abou he way he world is may no be ready o experimen o see wha happens. emember, oo, ha he consequences he herapis wans he clien o conac are no somehing he herapis can conrol. Suggesing o Scot ha he should experimen wih “saying here” when he eels harassed doesn’ guaranee ha he consequence he will encouner i he does will acually reinorce his behavior o saying here. One way o ackling his poenial difficuly is o begin wih experimens where he herapis eels ha reinorcing consequences are very likely o occur. Anoher alernaive is o work wih consequences ha he herapis acually can conrol. For example, he herapis could say ha cerain homework assignmens “are always included in his herapy” and make i clear ha, in order o complee he herapy, he clien mus carry ou he assignmens. And in ac, his componen is a consiuen o mos herapeuic seups, since adaping o he herapeuic model is a par o all herapies. I he clien doesn’ comply, he runs he risk ha herapy will be suspended. Anoher example o conrolling consequences would be i he herapis asked he clien o do somehing or he herapis’s sake. In boh o hese examples, he herapis is in command o he consequences specified in he rule. I he clien ollows he rule “…because his herapis wans his” or “…because ha’s wha you’re supposed o do in his ype o herapy,” his behavior would be an example o pliance. While i is ofen problemaic or pliance o dominae (as explained in chaper 7), atemps o esablish pliance can neverheless be used as a firs sep in an effor o esablish well-uncioning racking. Somehing ha is iniially done “because he herapis wans 214
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
i done” can, o course, also resul in consequences beyond hose he herapis is in conrol o, and in his way he behavior can become a firs sep in srenghening racking. As described in chaper 6, his is he way we have all learned o rack rom he ouse. Scot migh iniially “say here” insead o walking away because he wans o saisy or please his herapis. Even so, his may be an avenue oward encounering new, alernaive consequences in he second arena. I hese consequences are reinorcing or he behavior o “saying here,” his behavior may gradually shif o racking. e rule-governed behavior o saying raher han wihdrawing�even in siuaions where he eels like people are alking abou him�will hen be working or him, independenly o he rule giver. Even i he herapis doesn’ ry o esablish pliance, here is good reason o assume ha his behavior plays a role in many herapeuic ineracions. Cliens ofen do hings because hey wan o saisy or please he herapis. While his can be a sep in he process oward well-uncioning racking, i i blocks he pah o change, i can be a problem. e later aspec is somehing I will reurn o laer in he chaper.
UNDEMINING VEBAL ANECEDENS We all live under he assumpion ha i works o give insrucions or rules, boh in lie in general and in psychological herapy. However, an analysis o verbal behavior according o F shows us ha giving insrucions does no always work as we assume i does, ha i can be problemaic, and why his is so. As described in chaper 7, human language has a buil-in rigidiy ha makes us prone o differen kinds o raps. We ac on indirec simulus uncions even when doing so doesn’ ake us where we wan o go. You migh say our languaging has a undamenalis qualiy and ha his aspec is mainained by a number o differen conexual acors ha we are all collecively conribuing o in his social game o languaging. One essenial way o alering hese acors in he herapeuic ineracion is by no offering he consequences we normally do ollowing verbal behavior. is was described in he dialogue wih Anne in chaper 10. Anoher way o alering he conexual acors in verbal behavior is o undermine verbal anecedens ha influence problemaic rule governing and esablish alernaive anecedens. Le’s look a how Scot’s herapis uses his echnique. Scot has old his herapis abou his houghs ha ohers are alking abou him and abou his eeling o being harassed. He has given differen examples o siuaions when his occurs. e ollowing dialogue is rom laer in his fifh session. 215
Learning F
216
Terapis:
We’ve alked a bi abou painul houghs and eelings ha you experience in differen siuaions. I hough we migh ake some ime o alk abou houghs and eelings in general, abou how hey uncion�hings ha are rue abou roubling houghs bu ha acually apply o oher kinds o houghs as well, any kinds o houghs and eelings. Would ha be okay?
Scot:
Sure.
Terapis:
One hing is ha hey usually shif back and orh a bi. ey come and go, so o speak. ake houghs as an example. Do you noice having any houghs righ now?
Scot:
Nohing paricular…
Terapis:
Le me give an example. igh now, when you said you didn’ hink o anyhing in paricular, I hough, “Wha should I say nex?” a was a hough ha came up in my head.
Scot:
Okay, I ge i. So now I had a hough ha I ge he hang o wha you mean. Bu ha’s he way i is all he ime.
Terapis:
Exacly. ey come and go, and hey shif back and orh. I you ake a look around his room wihou doing anyhing else, I’m sure you will noice some more houghs. ry i.
Scot:
How? You wan me o jus look around and see i i makes me hink o anyhing special?
Terapis:
Yes, only i doesn’ have o be somehing special�i can be anyhing. ake a couple o seconds o look around, and jus make a noe o he houghs in your mind. You don’ have o ell me wha hey are i you don’ wan o. Jus ry o noice hem.
Scot:
(looks around silenly firs) Well, firs i was all jus a blank, hen I noiced hinking i’s a blank. en a bunch o oher suff; ha I like ha paining, or example (poins).
Terapis:
Good! And isn’ his he way i works mos o he ime? I mean, even when we alk o each oher, here are simulaneously oher houghs in our heads�differen houghs han he ones we say ou loud. A leas ha’s how
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
i works or me. I’m doing a lo o alking righ now, bu a he same ime here are oher houghs running hrough my mind ha I don’ say ou loud�houghs ha I’m he only one who noices. Are you wih me here? Is ha somehing you recognize? Scot:
Sure. ere’s no way you could make ime o say everyhing.
Terapis:
a’s righ. I’s almos as i we could say here are our o us in he room. I’m over here, lisening o my head, and you’re over here, lisening o yours. And all he ime, we’re alking o each oher as well.
Scot:
How do you mean, our? You’re no alking abou voices now, are you? I am no hearing any voices now.
Terapis:
Well, I guess his may be rue or voices oo, bu ha’s no wha I mean. I mean his “alk” ha’s in all o us: houghs, hings we remember, hings ha come and go. Bu I guess i’s he same hing wih voices… I I ge you righ, hey come and go oo. Like you said, you aren’ hearing any now.
Scot:
Okay, I see wha you mean. I sounds a litle srange when you say i, bu sure, ha’s wha i’s like or me oo. Sure.
Terapis:
And i you hink abou i, isn’ ha wha eelings are like, oo? ey come and go. You eel one way righ now; earlier oday maybe you el a differen way. is morning I el ired. igh now, hough, I don’ noice eeling ired a all. How do you eel righ now, siting here?
Scot:
I’m fine. igh now, I’m almos having un. Bu earlier, when I was waiing ou here, hings el uncerain.
Terapis:
a eeling o harassmen, is ha noiceable o you now?
Scot:
(afer a momen o silence) No, no righ now. Bu when I firs go here here was some o ha. No a lo, bu a litle bi. Ou here in he recepion room.
Terapis:
Good, ha’s exacly wha I mean. ey come and go. Some houghs or eelings are nice, ohers aren’ ha nice. Some we like, ohers we don’. And have you noiced somehing else? We’re here he whole ime, boh o us. 217
Learning F
oughs and eelings come and go, bu we, who noice hem, we’re here all he ime. Scot:
I don’ know… I eel really insecure. I don’ know who I am, really. I’s like I’m someimes his and someimes ha.
Terapis:
And when you eel like ha, and you ge he hough ha you don’ know who you are�who is noicing ha a ha momen?
Scot:
Noicing wha i eels like, you mean? Well, I guess ha’s me. Yes, well, ha’s acually rue (laughs).
How are we o undersand wha he herapis is doing in his sequence? She ries o esablish a conex wihin which houghs and eelings acquire a differen uncion han hey ofen do in our day-o-day lie. She does his wih a special ocus on areas where we end o ge suck in verbal raps. e raps ha resul in experienial avoidance come in differen orms as described in chaper 7; however, all verbal raps are characerized by usion, by behavior ha is dominaed by derived simulus uncions. You could say ha we “ake off” ino he sory offered o us by our own relaing. Words and houghs acquire power. is is wha i’s like or Scot. e combinaion o his lie hisory and curren circumsances provides him wih his experience o being harassed. He hinks ha ohers are alking abou him, and he acs on hese houghs. One hing he does as a resul is wihdraw rom people. Noe ha he crucial poin in his discussion is no wheher Scot’s houghs are wha we normally call rue. e poin is ha when he experiences hese (rue, unrue, or whaever) houghs, he does hings ha clearly don’ lead o good oucomes or him. In he dialogue above, he herapis ries o esablish a differen conex or hese houghs�a conex ha gives hem a differen uncion, even i hey remain presen. is is hereore an example o he herapis atemping o aler ha par o he curren conex ha serves as C unc. Her inenion is o change Scot’s behavior in connecion wih hese houghs, no o change or correc he acual houghs. e herapis does no ry o find alernaive houghs; she ries o help Scot develop an alernaive behavior when hese houghs are presen. Scot is used o behaving in a cerain way based on he conen o his houghs. e herapis provides a conex wihin which he can noice he process raher han respond o he conen. She alks abou houghs (and eelings) he way we normally alk abou exernal hings: “Look, here i is.” From he viewpoin o F, his means she is helping Scot ake perspecive on his privae evens. A verbally compeen person always acs rom he
218
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
perspecive o I-here-now. When we ac in usion wih derived simulus uncions, hese are also I-here-now. We find ourselves inside hem. ey esablish our realiy and hereby govern our behavior. As he dialogue above illusraes, he herapis can aler he conex o shif wha is el and hough o I-herehen: “a was somehing I hough (or el), here and hen.” e inenion is no o discuss wheher he hough or eeling is rue or fiting; he inenion is o help he clien discriminae his in his own experience: “a hough (or eeling) is somehing ha happens wihin me and, a he same ime, a a cerain disance rom me.” I is happening here. is isn’ a logical argumen. According o pure logic, our experiences do no occur a a disance rom us. Bu as discussed in chaper 5, here is an experienial difference beween our coninuous experience o observing everyhing rom a unique perspecive (“I”) and wha we observe rom his perspecive. When our behavior is characerized by usion, we rame hese evens wihin ourselves as I-here-now and no as I-here-hen. In he dialogue above, he herapis is rying o help Scot develop his perspecive-aking abiliy in relaion o hese privae evens. is herapeuic sraegy isn’ inended as an argumen in suppor o he herapis’s views; i serves as a means o helping he clien develop his ype o sel-discriminaion. is makes i especially imporan or he herapis o be aler o he possibiliy ha he clien is simply agreeing wih somehing she says, raher han discriminaing his own experience. Tis herapeuic sraegy has a specific goal: o help cliens ame privae evens as I-here-hen. Privae evens ha are amed relaionally as I-here-hen acquire differen simulus uncions han i hey were amed as I-here-now (Luciano e al., 2004; Valdivia, Luciano, & Molina, 2006). Alering simulus uncions is he inenion, because his leads o behavioral changes. e momen his perspecive is aken (privae evens occur as I-here-hen), he individual is in an experienial posiion ha we migh describe in everyday language as having a choice. In used behavior, we don’ experience such opions; we simply ac on he derived simulus uncions conaced, or example by “hinking.” When he hough or he eeling is ramed as I-here-hen, we can sill ac on is conen, bu we can also ac differenly. is inervenion is an example o wha AC reers o as deusion (Blackledge, 2007). As a herapeuic echnique, deusion is synonymous wih rying o break off used behavior. In he dialogue wih Scot, he herapis esablished anecedens or behavior in relaion o privae evens in general. Differen ypes o houghs and eelings are used as examples, and based on hese, he herapis ries o help Scot o ake perspecive�o discriminae he privae evens in hemselves as in some sense disinc rom “himsel.” e houghs and eelings ha are he mos difficul or him are menioned, bu hey are no he ocus. is can be an appropriae way o inroducing deusion exercises in herapy. 219
Learning F
We could see i as a orm o didacics, serving o undermine normal aneceden uncions and creae a new conex or privae evens in general. Laer in herapy, however, i is imporan o ollow up wih deusion aimed a issues ha are paricularly relevan o he clien’s problem, as Scot’s herapis does in he ollowing example. During his eighh session, Scot ells he herapis ha he el like people were looking a him in he recepion room. He eels boh upse and angry as he considers wheher he people who sa here alking o each oher were alking abou him and why hey would do ha�wha heir reasons could be. Terapis:
So now you have he eeling o being harassed. And ha’s a difficul siuaion or you.
Scot:
Why can’ hey jus leave me alone? I’s crazy! Wha do you hink? How can hey know hings abou me?
Terapis:
I sounds o me like you’re doing one o he hings you usually do when you hink and eel his way: You’re rying o answer a whole lo o quesions.
Scot:
Yeah, ha’s rue. I sure as heck don’ wan hings o be like his.
Terapis:
I wonder i we could do an exercise ha migh ell us somehing abou wha’s happening righ now, and ha migh be o help o you. Would ha be okay?
Scot:
Sure, sure�anyhing ha helps me.
e herapis sands up and asks Scot o sand nex o her. en she picks up a newspaper and holds i close o boh o heir aces�closer han or normal reading.
220
Terapis:
Are you able o read wha i says?
Scot:
No, no a chance. I’s jus a blur.
Terapis:
Same hing wih me. Wha i i wasn’ jus blurry, bu scary, oo, like he eeling o being harassed?
Scot:
Bu in his case, you can back off or keep he paper a arm’s lengh.
Terapis:
You’re righ. Le’s do ha (holds he paper arher away om heir aces). How’s ha?
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
Scot:
(reads a ew senences om he paper) Well, ha’s clear enough.
e herapis and Scot si down. Terapis:
Maybe we could do somehing similar wih he hings you brough up�all o your houghs concerning wha happened in he recepion room, your roubling houghs and quesions. Which ones are wors?
Scot:
Wha do hey wan wih me? Why don’ hey leave me alone?
Terapis:
Are hose he wors?
Scot:
(afer a momen o silence) I hink he wors is his: ey don’ like me.
Terapis:
Yeah, ha is a roubling one. (Silen or a momen.) Do you hink you could ake ha and keep i a some disance rom you? Wrie i on he wall over here (poins o he wall behind hem) , below he paining. See i you can wrie i here, jus so you can see i here in your mind’s eye. You could close your eyes i ha makes i easier.
Scot:
a eels weird. I’d raher keep hem open.
Terapis:
a’s jus fine. See i you can wrie i on he wall: “ey don’ like me.” ake your ime, here’s no hurry. (She wais.) Have you go i up here?
Scot:
Yes. I’s a litle indisinc.
Terapis:
a’s okay; i doesn’ have o be crysal clear. Bu you see i here?
Scot:
Yes.
Terapis:
Can you see wha kind o handwriing you wroe in? You know, cursive or block leters, or wha?
Scot:
I’s prined, wih block leters.
Terapis:
Good! Is i all in one line, or are he words below each oher?
Here he herapis is applying he principle o deusion o he specific hreaening conen ha Scot describes. e herapis helps Scot ake
221
Learning F
perspecive on his conen wih he inenion o alering simulus uncions and creaing a conex where Scot can ac more independenly o he privae evens ha normally dominae his behavior�hose privae evens ha were previously summarized in he expression “he eeling o harassmen.” e herapis uses he experienial disance ha Scot has learned o conac beween himsel as perspecive and he sory ha he is so easily absorbed in, he perspecive-aking abiliy ha is a resul o ordinary language raining. She also increases his experienial disance by helping Scot ake he same atiude oward his experience o being harassed as he does oward exernal hings. Noice, however, ha he sory as such is lef as i is. e herapis even helps Scot phrase he mos difficul par o he sory beore i is ranserred rom “here” o “here, on he wall.” e ollow-up quesions abou ype o handwriing and so on are mean o uncion as anecedens or a diversified and flexible behavior in relaion o ha which is hreaening. is is a clear example o deusion in he shape o an exercise. Bu he same sraegy can also be applied in ypical herapeuic conversaions. One example o his appeared in a dialogue wih Anne in chaper 10, when he herapis repeas “a’s anoher hough” several imes. In ha dialogue, he herapis’s ocus was on esablishing consequences ha could conribue o exincion o problemaic verbal behavior. Bu such commens can also become anecedens or alernaive behavior in relaion o hese houghs. e herapis poins ou he possibiliy o regarding houghs in perspecive, as somehing here-hen. Wihin AC, his is an imporan sraegy early on in he ineracion wih a clien. When he clien relaes somehing ha happened and his narraive includes a privae even�or example, wha he hough or el�he herapis ofen replies by repeaing wha was relaed in a way ha discriminaes he eeling or hough in isel, relaing o i as somehing herehen. I he clien says ha somehing isn’ going o work, he herapis may reply, “So you had he hough ha i won’ work.” As menioned, he poin is no o quesion wha he clien said. I he clien sees he siuaion in ha way and responds ha “i definiely won’ work,” he herapis should clariy ha he poin in wha she said wasn’ o argue wih wheher a paricular hough was correc. e poin was o show ha he saemen or hough, in isel, is somehing ha is utered or hough. is is done wih he inenion o laying a oundaion or more specific work on deusion by esablishing anecedens or raming wha was said or hough as I-here-hen. is elemen is presen in he firs dialogue wih Scot, when, afer Scot has given his accoun o his painul experience, he herapis coins he expression “he eeling o harassmen.” In he parlance o psychology, we migh say ha cerain houghs, eelings, or oher specific behaviors are, or a momen, aced upon as i hey were objecs. Noice, however, ha his does no involve objeciying Scot. Quie 222
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
he opposie. is is a conscious raining o Scot’s capaciy o experience himsel as he subjec. For all o us, our experience o ourselves as subjecs is based on precisely his ype o raining, in line wih he processes oulined in chaper 5. is discussion o undermining verbal anecedens is in no way inended o imply ha verbal anecedens can be avoided in herapy; regardless o wha he herapis says, i will have verbal uncions or he clien. Bu i is possible o aler he anecedens ha ypically influence problemaic rule ollowing. In pracice, o course, his means ha oher anecedens will be esablished.
MEAPHOS FO ACHIEVING DEFUSION Meaphors are anoher imporan ool or esablishing anecedens ha undermine problemaic rule ollowing and increase alernaive behavior. A meaphor can sugges possible courses o acion and hereby uncion as a rule, bu i ypically does so in a flexible and open-ended way, raher han by prescribing behavior precisely. Anyone who wans o ollow direcions con veyed via a meaphor will have o find his way orward sep-by-sep; his behavior will necessarily be characerized by rying i ou. e overall direcion is indicaed, bu no exac descripion o he behavior is available. is means he probabiliy o conacing direc simulus uncions increases, which is exacly wha he herapis is aiming or when sriving o diminish dysuncional rule ollowing. o he exen ha a meaphor conains relaions beween simulus uncions ha have been esablished by he clien’s direc hisory, i will also have a guiding qualiy characerized by he clien’s experience. A ypical meaphor used wihin AC o increase he probabiliy o deusion involves passengers on a bus (S. C. Hayes e al., 1999). e herapis may bring his meaphor up in a siuaion where he I-here-now and I-here-hen uncions o privae evens have been brough o he ore. I can be used as a ollow-up o an earlier deusion inervenion, such as he previous dialogue wih Scot, or as a par o an iniial and more didacic phase o a herapy. I could be inroduced as ollows: “We could describe houghs, memories, and eelings, and how hey affec our lives, somehing like his: We are each driving around in a bus o our own. We are he ones doing he seering, and he bus is ull o passengers: houghs, memories, eelings, and so on. Passengers have been geting on a differen occasions during our journey. Exacly when some passengers go on may or may no be clear. A simple example or my own par is ha because I grew up in Chicago, I have images o Chicago as passengers on my bus. ese passengers requenly ake up space in he back o he bus,
223
Learning F
even hough I don’ go o Chicago very ofen nowadays. How abou you�do you have any images o Chicago as passengers on your bus?” I would be fiting o engage in a shor dialogue o check ha he clien ollows wha is being described here. I he does, he herapis can go on o describe houghs and eelings as oher passengers on he bus. She can menion ha some passengers seem raher neural, ohers seem nice, and some seem unpleasan, perhaps even repugnan. She can bring in privae evens ha he clien has old her abou and ha seem o have a painul governing uncion in his lie. For example, Scot’s herapis could menion he “eeling o harassmen” as one o he unpleasan passengers. e herapis can also alk abou how we don’ noice all o he passengers all o he ime, bu ha in cerain siuaions hey sand up, or hey may even come orward o breahe down our necks and ell us how o drive. In Scot’s case, his herapis could coninue by saying somehing like “ake ha eeling o harassmen, or example. I keeps coming up o he ron o he bus, wih los o say, doesn’ i? Prety heavyduy suff, oo. Would you say i’s elling you how o drive, as well?” Up o his poin, he meaphor has esablished privae evens as being a a cerain disance rom he driver. Anoher aspec o he meaphor is how i can be used o alk abou who is seering he bus. e herapis can alk abou how he driver could drive according o wha he passengers ell him or how he can choose o drive in spie o wha hey’re saying. She can draw ou he raps ha he clien (and people in general) someimes ends up in by leting differen passengers decide where o seer he bus; in Scot’s case, “he eeling o harassmen” makes him seer away rom he line he had been waiing in. e herapis can alk abou wha we humans ypically do o make passengers si down quiely and no come orward o hreaen or disrac us. She can alk abou how, even when hosile passengers are righ behind us, breahing down our necks, we can sill keep driving his bus o ours. No one else is a he wheel. ere is a undamenal difference beween he driver and he passengers. is approach allows he herapis o speak meaphorically abou experienial avoidance. A he same ime, he meaphor can be used o help cliens accep whaever hey find hreaening in he back o he bus, which will help increase heir flexibiliy in relaion o wha hey usually avoid. AC offers a number o meaphors and encourages herapiss o make use o hem (S. C. Hayes e al., 1999; Luoma e al., 2007). I also encourages herapiss o develop new meaphors ogeher wih heir cliens�meaphors ha are personally relevan and useul or paricular cliens. O course, he herapis’s abiliy o ideniy suiable meaphors requires a solid undersanding o he principles o reamen in order o deermine wha needs o be highlighed. One meaphor or deusion ha I use now and hen is rom a conex 224
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
mos o us recognize. 2 I is a shor sequence in he 1937 animaed Disney film Snow Whie and he Seven Dwars , and in paricular he scene where Snow Whie is in he cabin wih he seven dwars, dancing o he music. Some o he dwars are playing musical insrumens when, suddenly, a bumblebee flies in and sars o disrac hem. e dwars begin o adjus heir behavior in an effor o ge rid o i. oughs can be like ha bumblebee�and maybe like a whole swarm o hem. I’s naural o do hings like waving your arms o ge rid o bumblebees. e experience o having a whole swarm o bees around your head can be raher hreaening. Bu can we drive hem away by desperaely waving our arms? And wha abou he houghs and recollecions ha are a he cener o he clien’s pain and sruggle? Can he clien drive hem away by making hem he ocus o his acions? Wha does he clien ypically do ha resembles waving off bumblebees, and how does ha usually urn ou? is meaphor provides a means o alking abou hese experiences and abou how he clien acs when hey pop up. Bu no only is his done in he rame o a meaphor; he very srucure o he meaphor places he privae evens “ou here,” like bumblebees. In his way, heir simulus uncions are ransormed. In addiion, he clien’s behavior can become less dominaed by his experience, since a verbal being’s acions are always necessarily perormed rom he posiion o I-here-now.
PIVAE EVENS AS OBSACLES O WHA MATES IN LIFE e clinical applicaions o F come in many varieies, and ye his work is, in many ways, jus in is inancy. On one hand, F sheds new ligh on herapeuic sraegies ha are well-known in hemselves, and on he oher, i offers a number o new ideas and approaches. In his book, I ocus on he inervenions I consider o be he mos groundbreaking: deusion and valued living ha embraces painul privae evens. ese sraegies are also paricularly emphasized wihin AC. Ye no even hese ideas are compleely new. In various ways, hey are also buil ino herapeuic models based on differen heoreical backgrounds. e heoreical undersanding ha F offers can help define and improve hese sraegies urher. is is naural, since F 2 is may be paricularly rue in Sweden, as his scene is a par o he Disney popourri o classics and specials ha has been aired on Swedish elevision every Chrismas or he las fify years or so. ank you o he clien who firs brough his meaphor up! 225
Learning F
is a heory ha is concerned precisely wih languaging as such, and all alk herapies primarily make use o language. From a deeper undersanding o languaging, we are able o demonsrae in greaer deail how hese sraegies should be developed and used. e firs sraegy, described above, is conained in he erm “deusion.” Is objec is o esablish an increased disance beween he clien’s experience o a coninuous sel (sel-as-perspecive, discussed in chaper 5) and he privae evens ha have aken on dysuncional conrol o he clien’s lie. e goal, o course, is o hereby reduce he probabiliy o experienial avoidance. e second main sraegy is o work wih he experienial obsacles he clien experiences and heir relaionship o wha he clien eels is imporan in lie (Luciano e al., 2004). One o he basic principles o learning heory is ha we humans are governed by consequences. e consequences o our pas acions have a srong impac on our uure behavior. is is he undamenal hesis in operan psychology. Once we have learned arbirarily applicable relaional responding, his capabiliy changes wha can uncion as governing consequences. As a resul, exernal hings and inernal experiences no longer uncion only as wha hey are in hemselves; hey can also acquire a number o differen uncions depending on wha hey are relaed o. And since his relaing is, o a high degree, governed by a socially arbirary game, he variabiliy is immense. For nonverbal beings, he hings ha can uncion as reinorcing consequences are sharply delimied. Primary reinorcers can have such a uncion, and so can reinorcers ha have been esablished by being direcly conneced wih primary reinorcers. e same is rue or simuli ha have a ormal, physical similariy o any o hese. For a verbal being, however, variabiliy is increased because neworks 3 o differen derived relaions can make an even reinorcing. For example, a consequence o a cerain acion can be reinorcing i i is in a relaion o coordinaion wih “being a good person.” Ye i can also be punishing i i is in a causal (i-hen) relaion o “he uure misorune o my children.”
3 A he risk o repeaing mysel, I wan o remind he reader ha his does no mean ha such neworks acually exis, eiher in he exernal conex or in an imaginable inernal world. is is simply a way o describing a behavior ha is governed by complex derived relaions. ese relaions in hemselves are, in urn, a way in which he individual responds, governed by conexual acors. e reason I am repeaing mysel a bi in his regard is ha our everyday language is so permeaed wih menalisic conceps ha hey are hard o avoid, even when one srives o use a more sringen, scienific language. 226
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
ese ypes o relaional neworks can also be an elemen o anecedens and hus uncion as rules and influence behavior. is is he very essence o rule-governed behavior. As defined in chaper 6, he ype o rules ha influence he degree o which differen evens uncion as reinorcing or punishing are augmenals, and he behavior ha indicaes ha an aneceden has had an augmening uncion is called augmening. is is he phenomenon we are reerring o when, in everyday language, we alk abou wha is imporan o us�he hings we wan and wish. More scienifically, hese wans can be described as verbally consruced desirable consequences ha are globally valid or a given individual. Wihin AC, he word “values” is used, bu he exac wording isn’ imporan. We could jus as well alk abou wha we wan in lie and wha is imporan o a given individual. e hings ha are imporan�he hings we wan our lives o be abou�have a crucial uncion in our work or change. ese are he hings ha moivae us. In order or us o wan o make changes, here mus be somehing a sake, some poin in making differen choices rom hose we have made beore. We need o be able o see somehing we wan ahead o us�a goal or valued direcion. And when we do, we are in apparen conac wih desirable consequences. ese conexual acors can, in urn, uncion as anecedens or acions ha increase he probabiliy ha we will conac he desirable consequences more direcly. People who are suck in experienial avoidance have problems in his area. I isn’ ha hey lack values, or hings ha make hem wan o ac in a cerain direcion; he problem is ha privae evens, in he orm o houghs, eelings, memories, or bodily sensaions, have been esablished as obsacles o acions ha could lead o hese desired consequences. For hese individuals, privae evens uncion as barriers o hese ypes o acions. From heir poin o view, removing or conrolling hese privae phenomena is a prerequisie or engaging in acions ha move hem oward heir valued consequences. o illusrae, le’s reurn o ichard. He describes desirable consequences, consequences ha he values. In he dialogue wih his herapis, he has described wha kind o a aher he wans o be and how he would like o ac a work. However, he rerains rom acions ha could lead in his direcion, due o eelings o insecuriy, memories o hings ha happened earlier when he ook similar seps, and various houghs associaed wih all o his. In shor, or ichard hese privae evens sand in opposiion o acions ha poin in he direcion he wans o go. is brings us o a more precise ormulaion o he second undamenal sraegy or diminishing he conrol o verbal anecedens where hey have problemaic influence on he individual’s lie: Aler he relaions beween he relevan privae evens and he valued acions so ha raher han being in a relaion o opposiion, hey ener ino a relaion o 227
Learning F
coordinaion. In his case, a relaion o coordinaion means ha hese wo� he privae evens and he valued acions�can be presen a he same ime; hey can coexis. Once again i is imporan o poin ou ha his sraegy is no abou argumens or effors o convince he clien ha “his is he way hings acually are.” e aim is o provide a conex in he ineracion beween herapis and clien ha increases he probabiliy o behavior where hese wo are in coordinaion. Le’s reurn o he wo meaphors described above and look a how hey can be used in his sraegy. In he conversaion abou he meaphor o passengers on a bus, he herapis could begin by alking abou values and he imporan hings in lie. “I you were ree o drive anywhere you wan, where would you drive your bus? In a world where you were oally ree, wha direcion would you sar driving in? Wha would you be heading oward in differen areas o your lie?” e herapis could also alk abou he relaion o opposiion ha is implied in he clien’s behavior and resuls in he clien ocusing his acions on “geting rid o he passengers”; or example, “I seems like you eel you need o ge rid o your passengers firs. Wha do you hink would happen i you simply le hem be and brough hem along on your rip o where you wan o go?” e meaphor rom he scene in Snow Whie and he Seven Dwars can be used in he same way: “Wha i, insead o waving your arms o make he bumblebees go away, you were o keep your hands on your insrumen and play he une you wan o play? I akes gus, because i means you have o le he bees fly around wherever hey wan. Bu wha i hey aren’ your enemies? Wha i hey’re no wha hey appear o be? Wha i you can jus le hem be here and sill direc yoursel oward wha you aspire o?” Anoher example o he same sraegy is he exercise he herapis did wih Anne in chaper 9�he one where he noepad was used o illusrae he choice o he wo uncional behavioral classes o “keeping i away rom me” and “keeping i in my lap.” e firs choice keeps ha which is hreaening in a relaion o opposiion and esablishes he experience as an obsacle ha mus be removed or kep away. e second allows hose same hreaening phenomena o exis in a relaion o coordinaion wih acions ha Anne values. is helps her see ha she can le her difficul experiences be here while simulaneously moving in he direcion she wishes. Noe how a relaion o opposiion beween privae evens and valued acions ends o lead o rigid behaviors and vicious circles. For ichard, a eeling o insecuriy is in opposiion o moving in he direcion o hings he wans. I, based on his relaion, he rerains rom doing wha he wans o do, hen he eeling o insecuriy will become increasingly aversive over ime. From he beginning i was a eeling ha in isel was unpleasan, bu wih ime 228
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
i also becomes “wha obsrucs me rom wha I desire.” And he more imporan his desire is, he more aversive he eeling o insecuriy will be, precisely because i seems o block moving ahead in ha direcion. is makes i all he more imporan o ge rid o, and so he cycle coninues. In effors o eliminae experienial avoidance, hese wo sraegies work ogeher well. e firs sraegy, deusion, can undermine he endency o privae evens o influence behavior here-now. is is done by raming he privae evens wih problemaic simulus uncions as I-here-hen. ransorming heir simulus uncions in his way makes i easier o relae o hem as somehing ha can be “brough along or he rip,” insead o somehing ha is in opposiion o engaging in valued acions. As a resul, hey are also likely o become less aversive as ime passes. ichard may sill eel insecure in cerain siuaions. Bu i he has brough his eeling along while acing in he direcion o wha he desires and experienced posiive consequences o hese acions, his relaionship o his eelings o insecuriy w ill change as well. ey may sill be unpleasan, bu hey are no longer aversive in he sense ha hey block his pah oward wha he sees as imporan in lie.
NO KNOWING WHA ONE WANS In many cases i is easy o define herapeuic goals. People know wha hey wan, wha maters o hem, and ino which areas hey wan o read. is is rue even i hey eel ha here are obsacles o hose goals. In siuaions like hese, conversaions abou he clien’s goals and values uncion as moivaional anecedens. Wih ichard, such a conversaion could revolve around he role he would like in his work as a eacher or around how he and his children could spend heir ime ogeher, perhaps by going o wach heir home eam in a game. e herapis speaks in a way ha gives ichard he opporuniy o “scen” somehing he would like o atain. I his conribues o ichard acually aking seps in ha direcion, wha he herapis said may have worked as a moivaive augmenal (discussed in chaper 6). Bu someimes he siuaion in herapy is quie differen. Nohing seems o be moivaing or he clien. e herapis’s atemps o alk wih he clien abou wha would be worh reaching or go unanswered. e ollowing dialogue, which akes place during ichard’s ninh session, illusraes his siuaion. Richard:
ings keep going wrong. I eel like I’m rying, bu i doesn’ lead anywhere. Yeserday I acually suggesed ha we could go o he game omorrow. Bu i’s a nigh game, and Erin hough i was oo lae because my son has a
229
Learning F
major Spanish es he nex day. I’s he same way a work. I’ve ried o alk o he principal, bu nohing happens. And when i comes o my work, I’m no sure I even know wha I wan. I hink I’ve done my bes, bu…
230
Terapis:
So you’ve come o a hal. Do you have any idea wha you could do in his siuaion?
Richard:
No, i seems hopeless. And I’m no really sure wha he poin is any more. Is work really ha imporan? I don’ know.
Terapis:
Wha is imporan, hen?
Richard:
I wish I knew. a’s exacly i. Well, my amily is imporan. Bu hey’re doing okay eiher way. I’s like i doesn’ really mater. I don’ really know wha is imporan.
Terapis:
a sounds like a good reason o jus lie low. How does ha sound?
Richard:
No, ha’s no good. I’s no good he way i is, I know ha. I jus don’ know wha I wan. ere’s a void. I hink everyone is so used o me lying low. a’s how i has always been. I migh be oo lae, I guess.
Terapis:
And how does ha sound; i i’s oo lae?
Richard:
(noiceably affeced) Heavy. oo damn roten. I’s like I’m never given he chance. ere’s no space or me.
Terapis:
(silen or a momen) You know wha i makes me hink when you describe hese difficul hings ha are so heavy or you?
Richard:
No, wha?
Terapis:
I makes me hink ha wha is imporan, wha maters o you, is righ here. igh here, along wih he heavy and he roten suff.
Richard:
How do you mean? o me i’s all jus hell.
Terapis:
I’m hinking o wha you said abou never geting he chance. a here’s no space or you. ere’s somehing abou his geting a chance�wha i would be like i here was a space or you. I sounds imporan…
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
I’s one hing o say ha nohing is imporan, nohing maters, and you don’ know wha you wan. a’s verbal behavior, and prety common, a ha. And i a clien says his, here is an imporan poin in i. Many imes i ells he herapis somehing abou he difficuly he clien finds himsel in. Bu saying ha nohing maters is rarely an acual descripion o he clien’s experience. In oher words, i is rarely a ac and paricularly no a pure ac. I is more ofen a mand. I is a verbal saemen governed by earlier consequences o saying his, consequences like wha he lisener says or does a ha poin. One common consequence when someone says he doesn’ know, or ha nohing maters, is ha he person he’s alking wih couners his somehow; he oher person provides advice. Anoher common consequence is ha he oher person sops asking. e later is especially common afer someone says, “I don’ know.” Boh o hese consequences would probably lead ichard deeper ino his ypical dilemma. e herapis does no, however, inerpre wha ichard says as a saemen abou wha is a hand. e reason or his is ha she doesn’ hink people are generally indifferen. As humans, we are governed by consequences. Wha ollows upon our acions is o imporance o us, jus as is rue or oher animals. We can alk in differen ways and or differen reasons, bu ha doesn’ change our basic condiions. In order o ener ino a dialogue abou his, he herapis draws nearer o ichard’s pain and poins ou ha wha is imporan is in relaion o wha is painul. is isn’ peculiar, when you hink abou i. In ac, i seems naural. Psychological pain exiss precisely because somehing imporan is inaccessible. I nohing were imporan, why would anyhing eel difficul, roten, or heavy? ichard’s use o words also poins o his link when he alks abou no being given a chance and here no being space or him. ere are many ruiul ways o coninuing his dialogue wih ichard. Hopeully he will be able o see ha here is somehing imporan here, in being given a chance and a space. e herapis can ask him how he hinks he’d like o use a chance or space i i were given o him. ey can also alk abou wha would be necessary or him o ake a chance himsel or o ake up space i his isn’ “given” o him. e later issue is probably imporan o discuss wih someone like ichard. I’s also likely ha here will be reasons o reurn o he wo sraegies discussed above: firs, o help ichard ake perspecive on he hings ha are heavy and painul, and second, o aler he relaion o opposiion beween hese experiences and acions ha are direced oward aking up some space. e poin above, ha here are always hings ha are imporan o us, no mater wha we say, may need o be clarified. Even i utering “I don’ know wha I wan” ofen represens a mand and a ques or specific consequences, he difficulies in knowing wha one wans can also be real. Among oher 231
Learning F
hings, knowing wha one wans requires he abiliy o discriminae a number o one’s own suble processes. o learn his is o learn o ac one’s own privae evens as hey ake place, developing wha was called sel-as-process in chaper 5. Some o us have had good raining in his skill, and ohers have no. Some people have primarily learned o ideniy oher people’s acions and needs and hereore have developed generalized pliance. As a resul, hey may no be skilled a acing heir own privae evens. Anoher possible reason why an individual may have problems accessing wha he wans is ha cerain privae evens may seem very hreaening. is can lead o deliberaely avoiding ocusing on hose evens. Over ime, his can have a side effec o making i difficul or he person o access oher privae simuli, as well, beyond hose iniially avoided. Learning o ac sel-as-process can hus be an imporan skill in ideniying wha maters in one’s lie and hereore is also imporan in becoming moivaed o choose one’s direcion. e work conneced wih his in clinical behavior analysis is similar o wha has been described in oher herapeuic models (Greenberg & Pavio, 1997). aking i in small seps, he herapis works on helping he clien o ocus on and o discriminae wha goes on in himsel�usually in he orm o emoional and physical phenomena. Alongside his, i generally remains imporan o work on deusion and clariying values. is is because even he behavior o acing wha is aking place wihin onesel can become complicaed in connecion wih rule-governed behavior. I his occurs, deusion exercises may be imporan o help he clien develop more sel-discriminaion. e issue o knowing wha one wans gives us ye anoher example ha he work wih anecedens and he work wih consequences always go ogeher. e specific inenion here, hough, has been o poin ou he imporance o alking abou he imporan hings in lie as a way o esablishing moivaional anecedens. e herapis ries o esablish condiions ha uncion as augmenals or alernaive behavior.
UNDEMINING DIFFEEN FOUNDAIONS IN HE FUNDAMENALISM OF LANGUAGING In chaper 7, I described differen ypes o problemaic rule-governed behavior. One common example o his is when pliance is generalized and hereby blocks well-uncioning racking. Anoher example is when racking o airly shor-erm consequences blocks he racking o more long-erm consequences. 232
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
e rigidiy o his ype o rule ollowing is ofen increased by more comprehensive, absrac rules abou wha is imporan in lie ha srenghen he governing orce o he consequences specified in he more concree rules. In his case, problemaic augmening is dominan. One imporan ype o rule-governed behavior occurs when verbally consruced consequences ha are globally desirable or he individual are governing. In he discussion above, I described how hese ypes o consequences (“wha I wan,” “wha is imporan in lie”) can be used o moivae alernaive behavior. Bu hese rules can also paricipae in he clien’s problemaic behavior. I we ake a closer look a he hree cliens I’ve described, we can see ha heir problemaic rule-governed behavior ollows some rules ha are raher concree. However, hese rules acquire heir moivaional srengh rom more comprehensive rules. e inervenions I’ve described as ways o undermining verbal anecedens may need o address boh he concree rules and hose ha are more comprehensive and absrac. Le’s reurn o Anne. Her problemaic rule-governed behavior (experienial avoidance) quickly becomes obvious in he dialogue. Bodily sensaions and phenomena she doesn’ recognize in hersel lead o a sel-generaed rule abou how he siuaion has o be solved, and hese experiences are ollowed by behavior ha is aimed a achieving his�among oher hings, wha she meaphorically calls “diving righ in.” is behavior urns ino an example o racking where airly shor-erm consequences o “eeling beter” dominae and also block Anne’s conac wih more long-erm consequences. Deusion sraegies would involve undermining he governing anecedens by helping Anne ake perspecive on boh he bodily sensaions and he caasrophic houghs she has in connecion wih hem. e herapis would also work o change he uncions o he physical sensaions rom being obsacles (in opposiion o valued acion) o being somehing Anne could bring along while she does wha she wans o do. A he same ime he herapis could look or more comprehensive rules ha may be a work. is may no be necessary, bu he more difficuly Anne has in doing somehing oher han wha she normally does, he greaer he need o seek moivaional anecedens ha exer srong conrol on her problemaic behavior.4 One way o doing his is by asking wha makes i so imporan o her no o experience hose physical sensaions. Anne migh reply ha i simply “eels wrong,” and ha his indicaes ha somehing is wrong. Again, he herapis can ry o help Anne o rame his as I-here-hen raher
4 O course, when carrying ou a uncional analysis, here is also reason o look or consequences ha conribue o his siuaion. 233
Learning F
han as I-here-now and o ac no as hough his is an obsacle, bu insead as hough i is somehing ha can be brough along. In his ype o dialogue i is airly common or cliens o say hings like “I occurs o me ha his is probably wha I’ve always done�even beore ha errible episode. I hink i has always been imporan o me o have hings eel normal. Nohing is supposed o eel disurbing.” Many imes his is ollowed by recollecions rom earlier evens in lie. I Anne were o say somehing along hese lines, hen based on F he herapis migh suspec ha his suggess a moivaional aneceden o Anne’s problemaic behavior. I could be an augmenal ha makes i even more imporan o Anne o “dive righ in” or oherwise do whaever she can o eliminae or conrol her privae evens. e same herapeuic sraegies are sill applicable in his case. eoreically, we are once again approaching a problem I briefly ouched upon in chaper 6 in connecion wih he discussion abou implici rules. In he curren discussion o rule-governed behavior, where is he rule? In his case i seems like a pos hoc consrucion. Anne describes her behavior as i she ollowed a rule ha nohing is supposed o eel disurbing. She may say ha she ofen hinks in his way, which makes i clearer ha we are dealing wih verbal behavior here. A common variaion would be demonsraed i Anne said ha she hasn’ hough along hese lines or many years, bu ha she can remember ofen hinking in his way as a child, or ha her parens ofen spoke in his way. Bu here is also he possibiliy ha she doesn’ recognize hese houghs a all, rom recen imes or he disan pas. She simply noices her own behavior as somehing ha she has done or a long ime, ha his is somehing she has always done. In his case, he quesion o wheher his behavior should be regarded as rule-governed or as conrolled by direc coningencies canno be answered. We wouldn’ know enough abou Anne’s learning hisory o deermine his. Be ha as i may, i is now possible or Anne o relae verbally o her own behavior. She can discriminae i as “somehing I do (here-hen)” and hereby arrive a he experience o having a choice. A his poin he herapis may ask a quesion such as “Wha would be imporan o you�wha would you like o do i you weren’ ocusing on making sure nohing disurbs you?” Hopeully his would uncion as an aneceden or alernaive behavior. eaders who are accusomed o working wihin a psychodynamic or cogniive rame o reerence will, o course, recognize hese processes. We are now dealing wih phenomena ha in psychodynamic herapy all under he heading o “he subconscious” and wihin cogniive herapies are associaed wih “schemas” or “underlying belies.” ese differen heoreical consrucs atemp o describe he same or similar phenomena. From a behavior analyic perspecive, however, i is imporan o emphasize ha we do no gain 234
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
anyhing, in pracice, by reerring o unobservable inernal srucures in order o explain phenomena. Our ocus is no on he rule, bu on he behavior. e rule may be observable i i is utered or hough by someone, bu i can also be implici and only exis as an absracion o he ineracion in he momen. In his case, he rule exiss in he ineracion beween he behaving human and he condiions under which he acs. Neverheless, i can be useul o alk abou a rule in he herapeuic siuaion, as his can aciliae he clien’s aking perspecive on his own behavior, which is he aim. We can apply a similar analysis o he herapis’s atemps o undermine differen oundaions in he undamenalism o languaging in connecion wih ichard and Scot. I’ll do so briefly o provide urher illusraion o hese principles, saring wih ichard. ichard describes a specific rule abou lying low in relaion o ohers who express wha hey wan and hink abou hings. e obsacle he runs ino is his experience o uncerainy. is experience can probably be clarified and more closely defined in he ongoing clien-herapis dialogue. e uncion o his experience (uncerainy) as an obsacle can be undermined using he same sraegies as described or Anne. ichard’s problemaic behavior is clearly inerpersonal and may be a sign o problemaic pliance. I his is he case, he herapis has srong reasons o pay especially close atenion o he ineracion in he room, as menioned in chaper 10. is can help ichard discriminae his own problemaic behavior in he ineracion, and i can also help him ake perspecive on his experienial obsacles and move in he direcion he desires. Wha would problemaic augmening look like in ichard’s case? I could be displayed in he orm o avoiding aking up space, based on an implici (or imagined) consequence ha involves being rejeced or atacked�being seen as someone who isn’ good enough. is rule can also be undermined hrough deusion. Is i possible or ichard o have his experience o being seen as no good enough, ake perspecive on his, and, having his experience (here-hen), sill ac oward whaever he chooses or values? e descripion o Scot’s ineracions wih he herapis demonsraed he work o undermine verbal rules. Scot’s behavior is governed by concree rules abou how o ac when he eels harassed, and also by a more comprehensive rule ha specifies he risk o no being well liked. e way Scot alks abou his inimaes ha he herapis is closing in on somehing ha or Scot (and or mos o us) is a dreaded consequence: being abandoned and alone. A acual consequence like his is likely o be aversive o humans, so i’s naural ha we ry o avoid i; however, when avoiding even apparenly conacing his consequence in he orm o a verbal aneceden, we end o do hings ha don’ work or our bes ineress and ha ofen obsruc moving in desired direcions. Helping Scot discriminae his verbal aneceden as somehing 235
Learning F
ha he (here) can have (here), and helping him ake his experience along while he urns oward he hings ha are o value o him, is he aim o he work in herapy. is is done in he hope ha he will hereby encouner consequences ha are beter or him han hose he is conacing by doing wha he does now.
SUMMAY ere is room or more han one way o working wih verbal anecedens wihin clinical behavior analysis. Giving insrucions or alernaive behavior plays an imporan role. is akes place explicily when he herapis suggess somehing, bu i also occurs implicily when he clien draws conclusions rom wha goes on in he herapy seting and hen generaes rules himsel, based on his. Our knowledge o how his happens has been considerably increased hrough he research F is based on. My specific ocus, however, has been on how we can work wih he dark side o rule ollowing by undermining he conrol ha verbal anecedens have over human behavior. One paricularly imporan acor in his is he uncion ha privae evens acquire when we ac o conrol or eliminae hem. I’ve described wo main sraegies inended o aler he uncions o privae evens ha serve as problemaic anecedens or behavior. One sraegy involves developing he clien’s experience o a coninuous sel (sel-as-perspecive) and disinguishing he governing privae evens rom ha ongoing, coninuous sense o sel. When we humans ac in usion wih privae evens, hey serve as naural saring poins and hereore dominae our behavior. When we rame hem as I-here-hen, heir simulus uncions are ransormed and we have a beter chance o behaving flexibly in relaion o hese evens. is is deusion, and i gives us a beter possibiliy o successully applying he oher primary sraegy I’ve described. e second sraegy is aimed a undermining he uncion o privae evens as obsacles o acions ha migh ake he clien oward long-erm and generally desirable consequences. e inenion is o move rom behavior governed by hese experiences�paricularly behavior based on hese experiences being in opposiion o valued acions�o behavior where hese experiences are brough along in he direcion he clien wans o go. In boh o hese sraegies, he herapis works o change he conex wihin which he clien’s problemaic verbal behavior occurs. e ocus on hese wo sraegies is a direc ougrowh o an undersanding o verbal behavior based in relaional rame heory. is doesn’ mean ha hese approaches are enirely novel or ha here is nohing similar in oher
236
Alering he Conex wih a Focus on Anecedens
models o psychoherapy. However, he special emphasis on hese sraegies is new, and some concree and innovaive herapeuic moves ollow rom his. One undamenal difference compared o mos oher models is aking behavior analysis as a saring poin. ere is good reason o reurn o his as he book draws o a close. e essenial assumpion is ha behavior is perormed by he organism as a whole, and he acors ha govern his behavior are o be ound in he conex in which he behavior occurs. is applies o all behavior, including verbal behavior, which is ofen described in erms o language and cogniion. While his undamenal basis is limiing in some ways, i also opens he door o many poenial inervenions. I is limiing in ha only he conexual acors are o direc ineres. e herapis is a par o he clien’s conex, and her only way o inervening direcly is by alering ha same conex. A he same ime, his saring poin offers a grea deal o hope. I is possible o aler conexual acors; hey are accessible o direc influence. is provides he herapis wih an opporuniy o assis he clien in making he changes he desires.
237
Aferword
ere are a leas wo good ways o be pracical. One is o ell someone how o do somehing in a given siuaion. a is a grea way o make a difference quickly, bu i does no ell he person wha o do when he siuaion is differen. Anoher approach is o ell a person how hings work, and hen o make suggesions abou wha o do based on ha undersanding. is approach is admitedly more complicaed, bu i i is successul, he person undersands a good deal more. e principles are known. A person wih ha level o undersanding migh see enirely differen alernaives or wha should be ried. New siuaions are less righening precisely because hey are a bi less new when heir dephs are plumbed. I is easier o be creaive while sill saying linked o wha is known. is book is a pracical book o he second kind. ose o you who have suck wih he book now have a sense o wha I mean. I is no by acciden. örneke had a purpose in mind: “o show how learning heory, including more recen findings in his field, is direcly applicable in clinical pracice” (p. 170). He waned o describe “a psychological reamen ha is based on principles raher han well-defined manuals” (p. 171). I believe he has done so, rom he ground up. As supplemened by his book Te ABCs o Human Behavior (amnerö & örneke, 2008), his book carries behavioral hinking ino a pracical psychology adequae o serve as a oundaion or clinical work, regardless o label or radiion. is is a varian o an old idea�as old as behavior herapy isel. In he early days o behavior herapy (in he early 1960s), he idea was ha behavioral principles could be scaled ino a complee psychology o human sruggle and achievemen. Unorunaely, i was no o be. ere were bold effors,
Learining F
bu he principles were no adequae o deal ully wih human cogniion. e vision oundered and praciioners urned o clinical and commonsense heories o cogniion. As örneke has shown, i is differen now. e botom-up, inducive vision in behavior analysis has coninued o unold. ere is now a lo more o be said. ere is nohing o imporance in human cogniion ha is obviously ouside o he heoreical reach o F. Empirically, much more remains, o course, and I do no mean o imply ha F ideas are correc in any ulimae sense. All ideas are limied, and o some degree, ha means all scienific ideas and heories are incorrec. ere is no reason o suspec ha has changed in he las day or monh or year or decade. Bu even limied ideas can be useul or a ime�perhaps a long ime. us, I do no mean ha his analysis is “righ.” I mean only ha behavioral psychology is in he game. e analysis is plausible, empirical, and evolving. And unlike many heories o cogniion ha are ou here, his approach ells praciioners wha language and cogniion is, how i comes o be, wha is benefis and weaknesses are, and how i can be modified o beter serve human ineress. e principles in his book give every sign o being useul or a ime� maybe even a long ime. Behavioral and F principles are no designed o apply merely o accepance and commimen herapy, or even uncional analyical psychoherapy or behavioral acivaion. ey are designed o have broad scope and o undergird all orms o psychoherapy. ey are designed o relae o all orms o educaion. ese principles are designed o be applicable a home, in business, in he consuling room, or a school. ey arguably apply o all verbal evens, even he ones occurring a his momen. I undersand his sounds grand. I can’ be helped. As örneke poins ou, learning heory is inherenly grand in is vision. Wha readers can do wih a book like his is no o “believe” bu o sep orward boldly and responsibly and apply heir new undersanding o see how well i works. Wha will your world look like clinically (and a home, a work, and in your relaionships) as you begin o hink abou language, hough, and reasoning rom a deeply uncional and conexualisic viewpoin? Answering ha quesion is an exercise ha is boh un and pracical. I promises o liberae praciioners. For hose wih scienific leanings, i poins oward a very differen way o be empirically suppored: know he principles, analyze he siuaion in erms o hese principles, ac based in par on ha undersanding, and evaluae how i urns ou, recycling as needed. Insead o being resriced o empirically suppored packages, we can explore empirically
240
eerences
suppored procedures, processes, and principles. a is a liberaing vision worhy o effor. Oh, and one final sep. Go o www.conexualpsychology.com and le us all know wha you find ou. �Seven C. Hayes Foundaion Proessor o Psychology Universiy o Nevada
241
eerences
Abramowiz, J. S., olin, D. F., & Sree, G. P. (2001). Paradoxical effecs o hough suppression: A mea-analysis o conrolled sudies. Clinical Psychology Review, 21 , 683-703. Alexander, F., French, . M., & he Insiue or Psychoanalysis. (1946). Psychoanalyic herapy: Principles and applicaion . New York: onald Press. Andersson, J. . (2005). Cogniive psychology and is implicaions (6h ed.). New York: Worh Publishers. Ayllon, ., Layman, D., & Kandel, H. J. (1975). A behavioral-educaional alernaive o drug conrol o hyperacive children. Journal o Applied Behavior Analysis, 8 , 137-146. Bach, P., & Moran, D. (2008). AC in pracice: Case concepualizaion in accepance and commimen herapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Barclay, M. W. (1997). e meaphoric oundaion o lieral language: oward a heory o he reificaion and meaning o psychological consrucs. Teory and Psychology, 7 , 355-372. Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiey and is disorders: Te naure and reamen o anxiey and panic (2nd ed.). New York: Guilord Press. Barnes, D., Hegary, N., & Smees, P. (1997). elaing equivalence relaions o equivalence relaions: A relaional raming model o complex human uncioning. Analysis o Verbal Behavior, 14 , 1-27. Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). elaional rame heory and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior : A possible synhesis. Behavior Analys, 26 , 69-84.
Learining F
Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, ., & Sewar, I. (2006). Do you really know wha you believe? Irish Psychologis, 32 , 169-177. Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., Dymond, S., & O’Hora, D. (2001). Muliple simulus relaions and he ransormaion o simulus uncions. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. oche (Eds.), Relaional ame heory: A posSkinnerian accoun o human language and cogniion (pp. 51-72). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Barnes-Holmes, D., Saunon, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Whelan, ., Sewar, I., Commins, S., e al. (2004). Ineracing relaional rame heory wih cogniive neuroscience: Semanic priming, he implici associaion es, and even relaed poenials. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological reamen, 4 , 215-240. Barnes-Holmes, D., & Sewar, I. (2004). elaional rame heory and analogical reasoning: Empirical invesigaions. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 4 , 241-262. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McHugh, L. D. (2004). eaching derived relaional responding o young children. Journal o Early and Inensive Behavior Inervenion, 1 , 3-26. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smees, P. M. (2004). Esablishing relaional responding in accordance wih opposiion as generalized operan behavior in young children. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 4 , 559-586. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smees, P. M., & Luciano, C. (2004). e derived ranser o mood uncions hrough equivalence relaions. Psychological Record, 54 , 95-114. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smees, P. M., Srand, P., & Friman, P. (2004). Esablishing relaional responding in accordance wih more-han and less-han as generalized operan behavior in young children. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 4 , 531-558. Barnes-Holmes, Y., McHugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspeciveaking and heory o mind: A relaional rame accoun. Behavior Analys oday, 5 , 15-25. Baron-Cohen, S., ager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (2000). Undersanding oher minds: Perspecives om developmenal cogniive neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York: Oxord Universiy Press.
244
eerences
Beck, A. . (1963). inking and depression: Idiosyncraic conen and cogniive disorions. Archives o General Psychiary, 9 , 324-333. Beck, A. . (1964). inking and depression: eory and herapy. Archives o General Psychiary, 10 , 561-571. Beck, A. . (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimenal, and heoreical aspecs. New York: Harper and ow. Beck, A. . (1976). Cogniive herapy and he emoional disorders . New York: Meridian. Beck, A. . (1991). Cogniive herapy: A 30-year perspecive. American Psychologis, 46 , 368-375. Beck, A. . (1993). Cogniive herapy: Pas, presen, and uure. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 61 , 194-198. Beck, A. . (2005). e curren sae o cogniive herapy. A 40-year perspecive. Archives o General Psychiary, 62 , 953-959. Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Arbirarily applicable comparaive relaions: Experimenal evidence or a relaional operan. Journal o Applied Behavior Analysis, 40 , 45-71. Blackledge, J. . (2007). Disruping verbal processes: Cogniive deusion in accepance and commimen herapy and oher mindulness-based psychoherapies. Psychological Record, 57 , 555-576. Blackledge, J. ., Moran, D. J., & Ellis, A. (2008). Bridging he divide: Linking basic science o applied psychoherapeuic inervenions�A relaional rame heory accoun o cogniive dispuaion in raional emoive behavior herapy. Journal o Raional Emoive Cogniive Behavior Terapy, 27 , 232-248. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Paren-child atachmen and healhy human developmen. New York: Basic Books. Buber, M. (1970). I and hou. New York: ouchsone. Callaghan, G. L., Gregg, J. A., Marx, B. P., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Gifford, E. (2004). FAC: e uiliy o an inegraion o uncional analyical psychoherapy and accepance and commimen herapy o alleviae human suffering. Psychoherapy: Teory, Research, Pracice, raining, 41 , 195-207. Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, . A., & Homann, S. G. (2006). Effecs o suppression and accepance on emoional responses o individuals wih anxiey and mood disorders. Behaviour Research and Terapy, 44 , 1251-1263.
245
Learining F
Carpenier, F., Smees, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002). Maching uncionally-same relaions: Implicaions or equivalence-equivalence as a model or analogical reasoning. Psychological Record, 52 , 351-312. Carpenier, F., Smees, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Sewar, I. (2004). Maching derived uncionally same relaions: Equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies. Psychological Record, 54 , 255-273. Caania, A. C. (2007). Learning (4h ed.). New York: Sloan Publishing. Chapman, A. L., Graz, K. L., & Brown, M. Z. (2006). Solving he puzzle o deliberae sel-harm: e experienial avoidance model. Behaviour Research and Terapy, 44 , 371-394. Chawla, N., & Osafin, B. (2007). Experienial avoidance as a uncional dimensional approach o psychopahology: An empirical review. Journal o Clinical Psychology, 63 , 871-890. Chomsky, N. (1959). eviews. Verbal Behavior , by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35 , 26-58. Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiy Press. Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., Hackmann, A., McManus, F., Fennell, M., Grey, N., e al. (2006). Cogniive herapy versus exposure and applied relaxaion in social phobia: A randomized conrolled rial. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 74 , 568-578. Cohen, H., Amerine-Dickens, M., & Smih, . (2006). Early inensive behavioural reamen: eplicaion o he UCLA model in a communiy seting. Developmenal and Behavioral Pediarics, 27 , 145-155. Collins, A., & Bursein, M. (1989). Aferword: A ramework or a heory o comparison and mapping. In S. Vosniadou & A. Orony (Eds.), Similariy and analogical reasoning (pp. 546-565). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiy Press. Dahl, J., Plumb, J., Sewar, I., & Lundgren, . (2009). Te ar and science o valuing in psychoherapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, . O. (1986). Equivalence class ormaion in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 46 , 243-257. Dickins, D. W., Singh, K. D., obers, N., Burns, P., Downes, J., Jimmieson, P., e al. (2001). An MI sudy o simulus equivalence. Neurorepor, 12 , 2-7.
246
eerences
Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, . J., Addis, M., e al. (2006). andomized rial o behavioral acivaion, cogniive herapy, and anidepressan medicaion in he acue reamen o aduls wih major depression. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 74 , 658-670. Dimidjian, S., Marell, C. ., Addis, M. E., & Herman-Dunn, . (2008). Behavioral acivaion or depression. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.), Clinical handbook o psychological disorders (4h ed.; pp. 328-364). New York: Guilord Press. Dobson, K. S. (1989). A mea-analysis o he efficacy o cogniive herapy or depression. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 57 , 414-419. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personaliy and psychoherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dougher, M. J., Augusson, E. M., Markham, M. ., Greenway, D. E., & Wuler, E. (1994). e ranser o responden eliciing and exincion uncions hrough simulus equivalence classes. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 62 , 331-351. Dougher, M. J., & Hackber, L. (2000). Esablishing operaions, cogniion, and emoion. Behavior Analys, 23 , 11-24. Dougher, M. J., Hamilon, D., Fink, B., & Harringon, J. (2007). ransormaion o he discriminaive and eliciing uncions o generalized relaional simuli. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 88 , 179-197. Dugdale, N., & Lowe, F. L. (2000). esing or symmery in he condiional discriminaion o language-rained chimpanzees. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 73 , 5-22. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A ranser o sel-discriminaion response uncions hrough equivalence relaions. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 62 , 251-267. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1995). A ranser o sel-discriminaion response uncions in accordance wih he arbirary relaions o sameness, more-han, and less-han. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 64 , 163-184. Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1996). A ransormaion o sel-discriminaion response uncions in accordance wih he arbirarily applicable relaions o sameness and opposiion. Psychological Record, 46 , 271-300. Edvardson, C. (1997). Burned child seeks he fire . Boson: Beacon Press. Ekman, P. (1992). An argumen or basic emoions. Cogniion and Emoion, 6 , 169-200.
247
Learining F
Ellis, A. (1989). e hisory o cogniion in psychoherapy. In A. Freeman, K. M. Simon, L. E. Beuler, & H. Arkowiz (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook o cogniive herapy (pp. 5-19). New York: Plenum. Ellis, A. (2005). Can raional-emoive behavior herapy (EB) and accepance and commimen herapy resolve heir differences and be inegraed? Journal o Raional-Emoive and Cogniive-Behavior Terapy, 23 , 153-168. Evans, M. B. (1988). e role o meaphor in psychoherapy and personaliy change: A heoreical reormulaion. Psychoherapy, 25 , 543-551. Farmer, . F., & Chapman, A. L. (2008). Behavioral inervenions in cogniive behavior herapy. Washingon, DC: American Psychological Associaion. Ferser, C. B. (1967). Arbirary and naural reinorcemen. Psychological Record, 17 , 341-347. Ferser, C. B. (1972). An experimenal analysis o clinical phenomena. Psychological Record, 22 , 1-16. Ferser, C. B. (1973). A uncional analysis o depression. American Psychologis, 28 , 857-870. Freeman, A., Prezer, J., Flemming, B., & Simon, K. (2004). Clinical applicaions o cogniive herapy (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Genner, D. (1989). e mechanism o analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Orony (Eds.), Similariy and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiy Press. Genner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Borona, C. (2001). Meaphor is like analogy. In D. Genner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), Te analogical mind: Perspecives om cogniive science (pp. 199-254). Cambridge, MA: MI Press. Genner, D., Holyoak, K. J., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Te analogical mind: Perspecives om cogniive science. Cambridge, MA: MI Press. Gifford, E. V., & Hayes, S. C. (1998). Funcional conexualism: A pragmaic philosophy or behavioral science. In W. O’Donohue & . Kichener (Eds.), Handbook o behaviorism (pp. 285-327). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Gorner, E. ., Gollan, J. K., Dobson, K. S., & Jacobson, N. S. (1998). Cogniive behavioral reamen or depression: elapse prevenion. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 66 , 377-384. Greenberg, L. G., & Pavio, S. C. (1997). Working wih emoions in psychoherapy . New York: Guilord Press.
248
eerences
Harmon, K., Srong, ., & Pasnak, . (1982). elaional responses in ess o ransposiion wih rhesus monkeys. Learning and Moivaion, 13 , 495-504. Hayes, L. J. (1992). e psychological presen. Behavior Analys, 15 , 139-145. Hayes, S. C. (1984). Making sense o spiriualiy. Behaviorism, 12 , 99-110. Hayes, S. C. (1989). Nonhumans have no ye shown simulus equivalence. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 51 , 385-392. Hayes, S. C. (1991). A relaional conrol heory o simulus equivalence. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 19-40). eno, NV: Conex Press. Hayes, S. C. (2008). Climbing our hills: A beginning conversaion on he comparison o accepance and commimen herapy and radiional cogniive behavioral herapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Pracice, 5 , 286-295. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & oche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relaional Frame Teory: A Pos-Skinnerian Accoun o Human Language and Cogniion . New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Hayes, S. C., Brownsein, A. J., Zetle, . D., osenarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). ule-governed behavior and sensiiviy o changing consequences o responding. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 45 , 237-256. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relaional responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. oche (Eds.), Relaional ame heory: A posSkinnerian accoun o human language and cogniion (pp. 21-50). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Hayes, G. J. (1998). Moral behavior and he developmen o verbal regulaion. Behavior Analys, 21 , 253-279. Hayes, S. C., & Gregg, J. (2000). Funcional conexualism and he sel. In C. Muran (Ed.), Sel-relaions in he psychoherapy process (pp. 291-307). Washingon, DC: American Psychological Associaion. Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). e ranser o specific and general consequenial uncions hrough simple and condiional equivalence classes. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 56 , 119-137. Hayes, S. C., & Srosahl, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). A pracical guide o accepance and commimen herapy. New York: Springer-Verlag. Hayes, S. C., Srosahl, K. D., Buning, K., wohig, M., & Wilson, K. G. (2004). Wha is accepance and commimen herapy? In S. C. Hayes & K. D.
249
Learining F
Srosahl (Eds.), A pracical guide o accepance and commimen herapy (pp. 3-29). New York: Springer-Verlag. Hayes, S. C., Srosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Accepance and commimen herapy: An experienial approach o behavioral change. New York: Guilord Press. Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follete, V. M., & Srosahl, K. (1996). Experienial avoidance and behavioral disorders: A uncional dimensional approach o diagnosis and reamen. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 64 , 1152-1168. Hayes, S. C., Zetle, . D., & osenarb, I. (1989). ule ollowing. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cogniion, coningencies, and insrucional conrol (pp. 191-220). New York: Plenum. Heagle, A. I., & eheld, . A. (2006). eaching perspecive-aking skills o ypically developing children hrough derived relaional responding. Journal o Early and Inensive Behavior Inervenion, 3 , 1-34. Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smees, P. M. (2000). Derived relaional responding as generalized operan behavior. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 74 , 207-227. Homann, S. G., & Asmundson, G. J. G . (2008). Accepance and mindulness based herapy: New wave or old ha? Clinical Psychology Review, 28 , 1-16. Holyoak, K. J., & agard, P. (1997). e analogical mind. American Psychologis, 57 , 35-44. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On he origins o naming and oher sym bolic behavior. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 65 , 185-241, 341-353. Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). eaching children wih auism o mind-read: A pracical guide. Chicheser, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., ruax, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., e al. (1996). A componen analysis o cogniive-behavioral reamen or depression. Journal o Consuling and Clinical Psychology, 64 , 295-304. Jeannerod, M. (1994). e represening brain: Neural correlaes o moor inenion and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17 , 187-245. Ju, W. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2008). Verbal esablishing simuli: esing he moivaive effec o simuli in a derived relaion wih consequences. Psychological Record, 58 , 339-363.
250
eerences
Kaner, F. H., & Saslow, G. (1969). Behavioral diagnosis. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior herapy: Appraisal and saus (pp. 417-444). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kaner, J. W., Baruch, D. E., & Gaynor, S. . (2006). Accepance and commimen herapy and behavioral acivaion o depression: Descripion and comparison. Behavior Analys, 29 , 161-185. Kaner, J. W., Busch, A. B., Weeks, C. E., & Landes, S. J. (2008). e naure o clinical depression: Sympoms, syndromes, and behavior analysis. Behavior Analys, 31 , 1-21. Kaner, J. W., Manos, . C., Busch, A. B., & usch, L. C. (2008). Making behavioral acivaion more behavioral. Behavior Modificaion, 32 , 780-803. Kanor, J. . (1970). An analysis o he experimenal analysis o behavior (EAB). Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 13 , 101-108. Karekla, M., Forsyh, J. P., & Kelly, M. M. (2004). Emoional avoidance and panicogenic responding o a biological challenge procedure. Behavior Terapy, 35 , 725-746. Kohlenberg, . J., & sai, M. (1991). Funcional analyical psychoherapy: Creaing inense and curaive herapeuic relaionships. New York: Plenum. Kohlenberg, ., J., & sai, M. (1995). I speak, hereore I am: A behavioral approach o undersanding problems o he sel. Behavior Terapis, 18 , 113116, 124. Kohu, H. (1971). Te analysis o he sel. New York: Inernaional Universiies Press. Kohu, H. (1977). Te resoraion o he sel. New York: Inernaional Universiies Press. Kokinov, B. N., & Perov, A. A. (2001). Inegraing memory and reasoning in analogy-making: e AMB model. In D. Genner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), Te analogical mind: Perspecives om cogniive science (pp. 59-124). Cambridge, MA: MI Press. Kopp, . . (1995). Meaphor herapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & ompson, W. L. (2001). Neural oundaions o imagery. Neuroscience, 2 , 635-642. Lahav, A., Salzman, E., & Schlaug, G. (2007). Acion represenaion o sound: Audiomoor recogniion nework while lisening o newly acquired acions. Journal o Neuroscience, 27 , 308-314.
251
Learining F
Leahy, ., & Dowd, . (Eds.). (2002). Clinical advances in cogniive psychoherapy: Teory and applicaion. New York: Springer. Leary, D. E. (1990). Psyche’s muse: e role o meaphor in he hisory o psychology. In E. E. Leary (Ed.), Meaphors in he hisory o psychology (pp. 1-23). New York: Cambridge Universiy Press. Leichsenring, F. (2005). Are psychodynamic and psychoanalyic herapies effecive? A review o empirical daa. Inernaional Journal o Psychoanalysis, 86 , 841-868. Leigland, S. (2005). Variables o which values are a uncion. Behavior Analys , 28, 133-142. Linehan, M. (1993). Cogniive-behavioral reamen o borderline personaliy disorder. New York: Guilord Press. Linehan, M. (1997). Validaion and psychoherapy. In A. C. Bohar & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empahy reconsidered: New direcions in psychoherapy (pp. 353-392). Washingon, DC: American Psychological Associaion. Lipkens, ., & Hayes, S. C. (2009). Producing and recognizing analogical relaions. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 91 , 105-126. Lipkens, ., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longiudinal sudy o he developmen o derived relaions in an inan. Journal o Experimenal Child Psychology, 56 , 201-239. Longmore, ., & Worrel, M. (2007). Do we need o challenge houghs in cogniive behavior herapy? Clinical Psychology Review, 27 , 173-187. Luciano, C., Gómez, I., & odríguez, M. (2007). e role o muliple-exemplar raining and naming in esablishing derived equivalence in an inan. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior , 87 , 349-365. Luciano, C., odríguez, M., Mañas, I., uíz, F., Berens, N., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2009). Acquiring he earlies relaional operans: Coordinaion, difference, opposiion, comparison, and hierarchy. In . A. eheld & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relaional responding applicaions or learners wih auism and oher developmenal disabiliies (pp. 149-170). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Luciano, C., odríguez Valverde, M., & Guiérrez Marinez, O. (2004). A proposal or synhesizing verbal conexs in experienial avoidance disorder and accepance and commimen herapy. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 4 , 377-394. Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Cabello-Luque, F., & Hernández, M. (2009). Developing sel-direced rules. In . A. eheld & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.),
252
eerences
Derived relaional responding applicaions or learners wih auism and oher developmenal disabiliies (pp. 335-352). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, . D. (2007). Learning AC: An accepance and commimen herapy skills-raining manual or herapiss . Oakland, CA: New Harbinger; eno, NV: Conex Press. Marks, I., & Dar, . (2000). Fear reducion by psychoherapies. Briish Journal o Psychiary, 176 , 507-511. Marell, C. ., Addis, M. E., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Depression in conex: Sraegies or guided acion. New York: Noron. Mathews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Caania, A. C., & Sagvolden, . (1977). Uninsruced human responding: Sensiiviy o raio and inerval coningencies. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 27 , 453-467. Mays, M. (1990). e use o meaphor in hypnoherapy and psychoherapy. Individual Psychology, 46 , 423-430. McCullough, L., Kuhn, N., Andrews, S., Kaplan, A., Wol, J., & Hurley, C. L. (2003). reaing affec phobia: A manual or shor-erm dynamic psychoherapy. New York: Guilord Press. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). raining perspecive-aking wih a 4-year-old child. Paper presened a he Firs World Congress on AC, F, and he New Behavioral Psychology, Linköping, Sweden. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspecive-aking as relaional responding: a developmenal profile. Psychological Record, 54 , 115-144. McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Undersanding and raining perspecive-aking as relaional responding. In . A. eheld & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived relaional responding applicaions or learners wih auism and oher developmenal disabiliies (pp. 281-300). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. Michael, J. (1975). Posiive and negaive reinorcemen: A disincion ha is no longer necessary; or beter ways o alk abou bad hings. Behaviorism, 3 , 33-45. Michael, J. (1986). eperoire-alering effecs o remoe coningencies. Analysis o Verbal Behavior, 4 , 10-18. Michael, J. (1993). Esablishing operaions. Behavior Analys, 16 , 191-206.
253
Learining F
Moore, J. (2008). Concepual oundaions o radical behaviorism . Cornwall-onHudson, NY: Sloan Publishing. Morris, E. K., & odd, J. . (1998). Wasonian behaviorism. In W. O’Donohue & . Kichener (Eds.), Handbook o behaviorism (pp. 15-69). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Newman, M. G., Casonguay, L. G., Borkovec, . D., Fisher, A. J., & Nordberg, S. S. (2008). An open rial o inegraive herapy or generalized anxiey disorder. Psychoherapy: Teory, Research, Pracice, raining, 45 , 135-147. O’Donohue, W., & Kichener, . (Eds.). (1998). Handbook o Behaviorism . San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Öhman, A. (2002). Auomaiciy and he amygdala: Nonconscious responses o emoional aces. Curren Direcions in Psychological Science, 11 , 62-66. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & oche, B. (2001). Developing a procedure o model he esablishmen o rule governance. Experimenal Analysis o Human Behavior Bullein, 19 , 14-16. O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., oche, B., & Smees, P. M. (2004). Derived relaional neworks and conrol by novel insrucions: A possible model o generaive verbal responding. Psychological Record, 54 , 437-460. Ös, L. G. (2008). Cogniive behavior herapy or anxiey disorders: 40 years o progress. Nordic Journal o Psychiary, 62 , 5-10. Ös, L. G., ulin, U., & amnerö, J. (2004). Cogniive behavior herapy vs. exposure in vivo in he reamen o panic disorder wih agrophobia [sic]. Behaviour Research and Terapy, 42 , 1105-1127. Overskeid, G. (2008). ey should have hough abou he consequences: e crisis o cogniivism and a second chance or behavior analysis. Psychological Record, 58 , 131-151. Parrot, L. (1984). Lisening and undersanding. Behavior Analys, 7 , 29-39. Parrot, L. (1987). ule-governed behavior: An implici analysis o reerence. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), B. F. Skinner: Consensus and conroversy (pp. 265-276). Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Peerson, A. L., & Azrin, N. H. (1992). An evaluaion o behavioral reamens or ourete syndrome. Behaviour Research and Terapy, 30 , 167-174. Power, M., & Dalgleish, . (1997). Cogniion and emoion: From order o disorder. London: Psychology Press.
254
eerences
amnerö, J., & örneke, N. (2008). Te ABCs o human behavior: Behavioral principles or he pracicing clinician. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger; eno, NV: Conex Press. eheld, . A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Derived relaional responding applicaions or learners wih auism and oher developmenal disabiliies. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger. eheld, . A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuck, . (2007). Assessing relaional learning deficis in perspecive-aking in children wih high-uncioning auism specrum disorder. Psychological Record , 57 , 23-47. eheld, . A., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). e operan-responden disincion revisied: oward an undersanding o simulus equivalence. Psychological Record, 48 , 187-210. emingon, B., Hasings, . P., Kovshoff, H., Degli Espinosa, F., Jahr, E., Brown, ., e al. (2007). Early inensive behavioral inervenion: Oucomes or children wih auism and heir parens afer wo years. American Journal o Menal Reardaion, 112 , 418-438. oche, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). Behavior analysis and social consrucivism: Some poins o conac and deparure. Behavior Analys, 26 , 215-231. oche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smees, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Conexual conrol over he derived ransormaion o discriminaive and sexual arousal uncions. Psychological Record, 50 , 267-291. oh, A., & Fonagy, P. (1996). Wha works or whom? A criical review o psychoherapy research . New York: Guilord Press. Saran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000). Negoiaing he herapeuic alliance: A relaional reamen guide. New York: Guilord Press. Saran, J. D., & Segal, Z. D. (1990). Inerpersonal process in cogniive herapy. New York: Guilord Press. Salkovskis, P. (Ed.). (1996). Froniers o cogniive herapy: Te sae o he ar and beyond. New York: Guilord Press. Sallows, G. O., & Graupner, . D. (2005). Inensive behavioral reamen or children wih auism: Four-year oucome and predicors. American Journal o Menal Reardaion, 110 , 417-438. Schlinger, H. D. (1990). A reply o behavior analyss wriing abou rules and rulegoverned behavior. Analysis o Verbal Behavior, 8 , 77-82. Schlinger, H. D. (2008). Lisening is behaving verbally. Behavior Analys, 31 , 145-161.
255
Learining F
Schnaiter, . (1978). Privae causes. Behaviorism, 6 , 1-12. Sidman, M. (1971). eading and audiory-visual equivalences. Journal o Speech and Hearing Research, 14 , 5-13. Sidman, M., & Cresson, O. (1973). eading and crossmodal ranser o simulus equivalences in severe reardaion. American Journal o Menal Deficiency, 77 , 515-523. Sidman, M., & ailby, W. (1982). Condiional discriminaion versus maching o sample: An expansion o he esing paradigm. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 37 , 5-22. Siegel, D. J. (1999). Te developing mind: oward a neurobiology o inerpersonal experience. New York: Guilord Press. Skinner, B. F. (1938). Behavior o organisms. New York: Appleon-Cenury-Crofs. Skinner, B. F. (1945). e operaional analysis o psychological erms. Psychological Review, 52 , 270-277. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior . New York: Macmillan. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . New York: Crofs-Cenury-Crofs. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism a fify. Science, 140 , 951-958. Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operan analysis o problem solving. In B. Kleinmunz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, mehod, and heory (pp. 133-171). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Skinner, B. F. (1974). Abou behaviorism. New York: Knop. Skinner, B. F. (1989). Recen issues in he analysis o behavior . Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing. Smih, L. J. (1996). A behavioural approach o he reamen o non-reenive encopresis in aduls wih learning disabiliies. Journal o Inellecual Disabiliy Research, 40 , 130-139. Solso, . L., MacLin, M. L., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Cogniive psychology (7h ed.). Boson: Pearson Educaion Inernaional. Sewar, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Undersanding meaphor: A relaional rame perspecive. Behavior Analys, 24 , 191-199. Sewar, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2008). A uncional-analyic model o meaphor using he relaional evaluaion procedure. Unpublished manuscrip.
256
eerences
Sewar, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & oche, B. (2004). A uncional-analyic model o analogy using he relaional evaluaion procedure. Psychological Record, 54 , 531-552. Sewar, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., oche, B., & Smees, P. M. (2001). Generaing derived relaional neworks via he absracion o common physical properies: A possible model o analogical reasoning. Psychological Record, 51 , 381-408. Sewar, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., oche, B., & Smees, P. M. (2002). A uncional-analyic model o analogy: A relaional rame analysis. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 78 , 375-396. Sewar, I., & McElwee, J. (2009). elaional responding and condiional discriminaion procedures: An apparen inconsisency and clarificaion. Behavior Analys, 32 , 309-317. Srosahl, K. D., Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., & Gifford, E. V. (2004). An AC primer. Core processes, inervenion sraegies, and herapis compeencies. In S. C. Hayes & K. D. Srosahl (Eds.), A pracical guide o accepance and commimen herapy (pp. 31-58). New York: Springer-Verlag. omkins, S. (1987). Scrip heory. In J. Aronoff, A. I. abin, & . A. Zucker (Eds.), Te emergence o personaliy (pp. 147-216). New York: Springer. örneke, N., Luciano, C., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2008). ule-governed behavior and psychological problems. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 8 , 141-156. sai, M., Kohlenberg, . F., Kaner, J. W., Kohlenberg, B., Follete, W. C., & Callaghan, G. M. (2008). A guide o uncional analyic psychoherapy: Awareness, courage, love, and behaviorism. New York: Springer. Valdivia, S., Luciano, C., & Molina, F. J. (2006). Verbal regulaion o moivaional saes. Psychological Record, 56 , 577-595. Vosniadou, S., & Orony, A. (1989). Similariy and analogical reasoning . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiy Press. Vygosky, L. (1986). Tough and language. Cambridge, MA: MI Press. Wason, J. B. (1929). Psychology om he sandpoin o he behavioris (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincot. Wegner, D. M., & Gold, D. B. (1995). Fanning old flames: Emoional and cogniive effecs o suppressing houghs o a pas relaionship. Journal o Personaliy and Social Psychology, 68 , 782-792.
257
Learining F
Whelan, ., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004a). e ransormaion o consequenial uncions in accordance wih he relaional rames o same and opposie. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 82 , 177-195. Whelan, ., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004b). Empirical models o ormaive augmening in accordance wih he relaions o same, opposie, more-han, and less-han. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 4 , 285-302. Whelan, ., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dymond, S. (2006). e ransormaion o consequenial uncions in accordance wih he relaional rames o morehan and less-han. Journal o he Experimenal Analysis o Behavior, 86 , 317-335. Williams, J. M. G. (1992). Te psychological reamen o depression. London: ouledge. Wilson, K. G. (2001). Some noes on heoreical consrucs: ypes and validaion rom a conexual behavioral perspecive. Inernaional Journal o Psychology and Psychological Terapy, 1 , 205-215. Wilson, K. G., O’Donohue, W. ., & Hayes, S. C. (2001). Hume’s psychology, learning heory, and he problem o knowledge amplificaion. New Ideas in Psychology, 19 , 1-25. Wray, A. M., Freund, . A., & Dougher, M. J. (2009). A behavior-analy ic accoun o cogniive bias in clinical populaions. Behavior Analys, 32 , 29-49. Young, J. E. (1990). Cogniive herapy or personaliy disorders: A schema-ocused approach. Sarasoa, FL: Proessional esource Press. Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema herapy: A praciioner’s guide. New York: Guilord Press. Zetle, . D., & Hayes, S. C. (1982). ule-governed behavior: A poenial heoreical ramework or cogniive behavior herapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cogniive behavioral research and herapy (pp. 73-118). New York: Academic Press.
258
Niklas Törneke, MD , is a psychiaris and licensed psychoherapis in privae
pracice in Kalmar, Sweden. ogeher wih Jonas amnerö, Ph.D, he has pre viously auhored Te ABCs o Human Behavior . Foreword wrier Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Ph.D. , is oundaion proessor o psychology a he Naional Universiy o Ireland, Maynooh, and coauhor o Relaional Frame Teory. He has published over wo hundred scienific aricles, and book chapers, he vas majoriy o which have ocused on he sudy o human language and cogniion rom a behavior-analyic perspecive. Aferword wrier Steven C. Hayes, Ph.D. , is Universiy o Nevada Foundaion Proessor o Psychology a he Universiy o Nevada, eno, and has auhored and coauhored numerous books, including Accepance and Commimen Terapy , Relaional Frame Teory and Ge Ou o Your Mind and Ino Your Lie , as well as hundreds o aricles and book chapers on relaed subjecs.
Index A ABC analysis, 16-20 ABCs o Human Behavior: Behavioral Principles or he Pracicing Clinician, Te (amnerö and örneke), 2, 4, 5, 239 absrac consequences, 143 absraced relaions, 74-75 accepance and commimen herapy (AC), 2; clinical behavior analysis and, 168-169; deusion used in, 219; evoking or eliciing behavior in, 183184; uncional analysis used in, 180; meaphors used in, 223-225 affec heory, 11 affecive saes. See eelings alernaive behavior: descripion o, 177, 190; esablishing consequences or, 199-201; giving insrucions or, 236; goals o herapy and, 189; mapping ou and influencing, 186; proposing rules or, 212. See also problemaic behavior analogies, 93-96; human knowledge rooed in, 92; meaphors disinguished rom, 96-97. See also meaphors Andersson, Gerhard, xv anecedens: meaphors or esablishing, 223-225; or new behavior, 210-213; in operan condiioning, 16-17; in psychological herapies, 158; in responden condiioning, 20, 21; o
rule-governed behavior, 114-116, 131, 212; undermining verbal, 215-223, 236 anxiey: cogniive herapies and, 53, 165; exposure herapy or reaing, 183; rule-governed behavior and, 141-142 appeiive uncions, 135, 150 applied behavior analysis, 3-4 arbirarily applicable relaional responding (AA), 83, 88-89, 148 arbirary relaions, 76, 77-80 arenas o herapy: clinical behavior analysis and, 172-173; consequences and, 206-207; psychological herapies and, 155, 156, 157 associaion, learning by, 20-22 atachmen heory, 11 augmenals, 121-122, 124, 145 augmening, 121-125, 131; ormaive, 122, 123; moivaive, 123; pliance affeced by, 125-126, 140, 142-143; psychological problems conneced wih, 142-146; sraegic problem solving and, 130; racking affeced by, 140, 142, 144-145 auisic children, 105-106, 194 auocliic behavior, 32-33 aversive conrol, 160, 177 aversive uncions, 135, 149, 150
B Barnes-Holmes, Dermo, xii
Learining F base field o experience, 93 Beck, Aaron, xiv, 51, 163, 166 behavior: alernaive, 177, 186, 189, 190; capuring, 180-182; conex influencing, 191; evoking, 182-186; problemaic, 176-177, 186, 190; rulegoverned, 40-42; acing o, 179, 210; verbal, 28-43 behavior analysis: approach o, ix; behavior as ocus o, 234-235; cogniive heories and, 43-46; concep o “sel” in, 101-102; uncional classes in, 16; undamenal principles o, 12-26; human hinking and, 46-47, 49-51; influence o consequences in, 194-195; “manipulaion” used as erm in, 201n; privae evens and, 49-51; as saring poin, 237; use o erm, 3-4. See also clinical behavior analysis behavior herapy, 166, 182, 239-240 behavioral acivaion, 55-56 behavioral experimens, 165 behavioral principles: cogniive herapies and, 163-166; overview o psychological herapies and, 158-159; psychodynamic herapies and, 160-163 behavioral psycholog y, 2-3 behavioral psychoherapy, 4 behaviorism: premises o, 10-11; radical, 9-10, 11-12 book overview, 4-5 borderline personaliy disorder, 151 Bowlby, John, 11 bulimic behavior, 183 Burned Child Seeks he Fire (Edvardson), 13
C capuring behavior, 180-182 causal relaions, 80 Chomsky, Noam, ix, xiv clinical behavior analysis, 4, 168-169, 171-191; arenas o herapy in, 172-173, 206; behavior as ocus o, 234-235; capuring behavior in, 180-182; clari ying clien values in, 229-232; clinically relevan behavior in, 190; esablishing consequences or behavior
262
in, 195-201; evoking behavior in, 182-186; experienial avoidance and, 176-177; exincion o problemaic rule ollowing in, 202-206; ocusing on behaviors in, 176-177; oundaion o F wih, 190-191; uncional analysis perormed in, 173-176, 179180; goals as par o, 188-190, 229; influencing hrough consequences in, 194-195; iniial herapeuic conac in, 172-173; meaphors as herapeuic ools in, 186-188, 223-225; obsacles o valued living in, 225-229; pliance used o pracice racking in, 213215; herapeuic seting o, 171; undermining verbal anecedens in, 215-223; verbal anecedens or new behavior in, 210-213. See also behavior analysis; psychological herapies cogniion, 28 cogniive behavioral herapies (CB), 1 cogniive heories, 1, 43-46, 105, 126 cogniive herapy: Beck’s definiion o, 163; behavioral principles and, 163166; dominaing posiion o, 51-52; power o hinking and, 52-54; schemas or underlying belies in, 234 coherence, 84-85, 110 combinaorial muual enailmen, 63, 64, 66-67, 84 comparaive raming, 150 comparaive relaions, 79, 81 comprehensive rules, 233-234 compulsive behaviors, 183 concepualized sel, 108-110 condiioned punishers, 23 condiioned reinorcers, 23 condiioned response, 21-22 condiioned seeing, 78 condiioned simulus, 22 condiioning: operan, 13-20; responden, 20-22 consequences: absrac, 143; or alernaive behavior, 199-201; arenas o herapy and, 206-207; desirable, 188-189; influences o, 13-14, 194-195; learning hrough, 13-20; or problemaic behavior, 195-198;
Index psychological herapy and, 158; rulegoverned behavior and, 202-206; ypes o, 14-15 conexual cues, 75, 76, 77-78; meaphors and ypes o, 99-101; relaional raming and, 85-87 conexualpsychology.com websie, 241 coningencies, 17, 71, 205-206 coningency-shaped behavior, 41 coninuiy o sel, 104, 107 coordinaion, 77, 78, 228 correcive emoional experience, 162, 166 counerpliance, 139, 140 creaive hopelessness, 180
D deusion: example o using, 220-222; experienial avoidance and, 229; inroducing ino herapy, 219-220; I-here-hen perspecive and, 219, 229, 236; meaphors or achieving, 223225; objecive o, 226. See also usion dependen personaliy disorder, 145 depression: cogniive herapies and, 53; problemaic augmening and, 144 derived relaional responding: as learned behavior, 67-69; operan condiioning and, 68; simulus uncions and, 71-74; synonymous erms or, 89; verbal behavior and, x derived simulus uncions, 74, 202, 219 derived simulus relaions, 60-69; experimens on, 60-65, 71-73; human language and, 66-67 desirable consequences, 188-189, 227 dialecical behavior herapy (DB), 2, 198 didacics, 220 difference (disincion), 80 direc coningencies, 74, 165, 166, 205 direc simulus uncions, 74, 146, 147, 202, 204 discriminaion: operan condiioning and, 26; sel-discriminaion, 149-150, 161-162, 210, 219, 232; verbal, 161, 162 discriminaive uncion, 16, 17-18, 19, 150
discriminaive simulus, 17
E eaing disorders, 151 echoic behavior, 31-32 emoions. See eelings enailed relaions, 62, 63 Epiceus, 51 equivalence class ormaion, x esablishing operaion, 18 ehical behavior, 124 evaluaive raming, 110 evoking behavior, 182-186 experienial avoidance: deusion or undermining, 229; esablishing consequences or, 195-198; uncional analysis ocused on, 177-178; psychopahology and, 148-149; speaking meaphorically abou, 224; valued acions and, 227-228 experienial disance, 222 experienial exercises, 186, 188 experimenal analysis o behavior, 3 experimens, behavioral, 165 exposure herapy, 156, 182-183 exincion: operan vs. responden, 23-24; o problemaic rule ollowing, 202-206 eye-conac exercise, 184
F eelings: meaphors or deusing, 223225; observing in ourselves, 107-108. See also privae evens Five Ans Are More Tan Four Elephans (V series), 104 ormaive augmening, 122, 123 uncional analysis, 16; capuring behavior in, 180-182; clinically relevan behavior or, 190; experienial avoidance as ocus o, 177-178; perorming in behavior analysis, 173176, 179-180; psychological herapy and, 158, 161; rule-governed behavior and, 113 uncional classes, 16 uncional conexualism, 9-10
263
Learining F usion: behavior characerized by, 219; definiion o, 148; o language and acion, 190; wih our sel sory, 151; verbal raps characerized by, 218. See also deusion
G generalizaion: augmening vs., 122n; operan condiioning and, 24-25; psychodynamic herapies and, 161; responden condiioning and, 25; simulus uncions and, 71; acing privae evens hrough, 38 goals, herapeuic, 188-190, 229 grammaical rules, 203
H Hayes, Seven C., xiii, 241 hierarchical relaions, 80 homework assignmens, 200, 210, 213 hopelessness, creaive, 180
I I-here-now perspecive, 103-104, 111, 219 implici rules, 115-116, 126, 234 indirec simulus uncions: definiion o, 74; risks relaed o dominance o, 146-148 inormaion processing heories, 43, 44 insigh, 162 inraverbal behavior, 32 I-here-hen perspecive, 219, 229, 236
learning: arbirary relaions and, 77-80; discriminaion and, 26; exincion and, 23-24; generalizaion and, 24-25; operan, 13-20, 22-23; pliance, 119; responden, 20-22, 23; acing o privae evens, 33-38; racking, 120-121 learning heory, 158-159, 160, 169, 226, 240 LeDoux, Joseph, 11 Linehan, Marsha, 1 lisening: rule-governed behavior and, 40-42; verbal behavior and, 40
M mands, 30-31, 118 manipulaion, 201 memories, 176 meaphors, 96-101; analogies disinguished rom, 96-97; conexual cues and, 99-101; deusion achieved hrough, 223-225; human knowledge rooed in, 92; prevalence o, 99; herapeuic use o, 186-188. See also analogies mind, heory o, 105-106 moral behavior, 124 moivaion: clien lack o, 229-231; influenced by augmening, 123-124 moivaional uncion, 16, 19 moivaional operaions, 18, 124 moivaive augmening, 123 muual enailmen, 63, 64, 66-67, 84 muual influence, 193
K knowing onesel, 108
L language: acion used w ih, 190; analogies used in, 92, 93-96; coherence as qualiy o, 84-85; dark side o using, 133-152; derived simulus relaions and, 66-67; indirec simulus uncions and, 146-148; meaphors used in, 92, 96-101; problemaic aspecs o, 209. See also verbal behavior
264
N negaive punishmen, 15 negaive reinorcemen, 14, 15, 142, 144, 151 neworks, relaional, 116n, 186, 226-227 nonarbirary relaions, 76 nonverbal beings, 226 noepad exercise, 184-185, 188, 228
O obsessive-compulsive syndromes, 151
Index operan condiioning, 11, 13-20; ABC analysis and, 16-20; consequences and, 13-15; derived relaional responding and, 68; discriminaion and, 26; exincion and, 23; uncional classes and, 16; generalizaion and, 24-25; ineracion o responden condiioning and, 22-23; simulus uncions and, 71 operan exincion, 23 opposiional raming, 150 oulook, 162
P pain: privae evens and, 136-138; rulegoverned behavior and, 137-138, 141 passengers-on-a-bus meaphor, 223-224, 228 pas consequences, 188 perspecive raming, 150 perspecive aking: alering simulus uncions hrough, 219; experience o sel and, 102-104, 107; I-here-now perspecive, 103-104, 111, 219; Ihere-hen perspecive, 219, 229, 236; relaive o houghs/eelings, 222; heory o mind and, 105-106 phobias, 183 pliance: affeced by augmening, 125126, 140, 142-143; counerpliance as ype o, 139, 140; pracicing racking using, 213-215; psychological problems conneced wih, 138-140; as rule-governed behavior, 118-119, 125, 131 posiive punishmen, 15 posiive reinorcemen, 14, 15 pos-raumaic sress, 183 pragmaic ruh crierion, 20 pragmaic verbal analysis, 131 primary punishers, 23 primary reinorcers, 23, 70, 226 privae evens: behavior analysis and, 49-51; difficuly alking abou, 39-40; dilemma in geting rid o, 199; learning o ac, 33-38, 232; meaphors or deusing, 223-225; as obsacles o valued living, 225-229, 236; painul experiences and, 136-138;
sel-as-process and, 107-108; social ineracions and, 38-39; houghs described as, 27-28. See also eelings; houghs problem solving: definiion o, 129; rulegoverned behavior and, 129-131 problemaic behavior: descripion o, 176-177, 190; esablishing consequences or, 195-198; exincion o rule ollowing as, 202-206; mapping ou and influencing, 186. See also alernaive behavior psychoanalysis, 160, 194 psychodynamic heory, 126, 159n psychodynamic herapies: behavioral principles and, 160-163; he subconscious in, 234; use o erm, 159n psychological now, 104 psychological herapies, 155-169; arenas peraining o, 155, 156, 157; behavioral principles and, 158-166; cogniive herapies, 163-166; goals used in, 188; meaphors used in, 186; psychodynamic herapies, 160-163; relaional learning and, 167-168; rule-governed behavior and, 168; herapeuic relaionship and, 155-158, 163, 166. See also clinical behavior analysis psychopahology, 112; augmening and, 142-146; experienial avoidance and, 148-149; pliance and, 138-140; rulegoverned behavior and, 134, 138-146; sories o sel and, 151; racking and, 140-142 punishers, 23 punishing coningency, 196, 197, 204, 206 punishmen, 14-15, 206
R radical behaviorism: explanaion o, 11-12; use o erm, 9-10 amnerö, Jonas, 2 reinorcemen, 14, 15, 198 reinorcers, 23 relaional evaluaion procedure, 95
265
Learining F relaional rame heory (F): AC ounded in, 2; analogies described in, 94-96; experience o sel in, 106-112; usion defined in, 148; meaphors in, 186; origins o, x; perspecive aking in, 102-104; heoreical reach o, 240; ransormaion o uncions in, 73-74; verbal behavior defined in, 87-88 Relaional Frame Teory: A PosSkinnerian Accoun o Human Language and Cogniion (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and oche), x-xi relaional raming, 83-87, 88, 89; ABC sequence and, 114-116; advanced, 143-144; conexual cues and, 85-87; explanaion o, 83-85; human experience and, 93-94; origin o analogies in, 94; psychological herapies and, 167-168; rule-governed behavior and, 113-132, 152; seldiscriminaion and, 149-150 relaional neworks, 116n, 186, 226-227 relaions o perspecive, 80 responden condiioning, 20-22; anecedens and, 20, 21; discriminaion and, 26; exincion and, 24; generalizaion and, 25; ineracion o operan condiioning and, 22-23; simulus uncions and, 70-71 responden exincion, 23 role-playing, 183, 196 rule-governed behavior, 40-42, 113-132; anecedens o, 114-116, 131, 212; augmening as, 121-125, 142-146; clinical behavior analysis and, 190; comprehensive rules in, 233-234; experienial avoidance as, 148-149; explanaion o, 113-114; exincion o problemaic, 202-206; acors influencing, 116-117; goal seting and, 188-190; implici rules and, 115-116, 126, 234; indirec simulus uncions and, 146-148; insensiiviy o immediae consequences and, 133-134; pain relaed o, 137-138, 141; pliance as, 118-119, 125, 138140; problem solving and, 129-131;
266
psychological herapies and, 168; psychopahology and, 134, 138-146; relaional raming and, 113-132; selrules and, 127-128; simulus uncions and, 114-116; summary o, 131-132; racking as, 120-121, 140-142; ypes o, 118-127
S saey/securiy, 135 schema herapy, 166 schemas, 126 secondary punishers, 23 secondary reinorcers, 23 sel: concep o, 101-102; experience o, 102-104, 106-110; perspecive aking and, 102-104; hree aspecs o, 106-112 sel-as-conex, 107 sel-as-perspecive, 107, 111, 236 sel-as-process, 107-108, 111, 112, 232 sel-as-produc, 112 sel-as-sory, 108-110, 111 sel-discriminaion, 149-150, 161, 210, 219, 232 sel-rules, 127-128 Sidman, Murray, x, 60, 77 similes, 95 Skinner, B. F.: on behavior analysis, 3; on concep o sel, 101; on privae evens, 27, 28, 38, 39, 50; on psychological herapies, 160, 161, 163; on radical behaviorism, 9, 10, 11-12; on rulegoverned behavior, 41, 42, 113, 129; on sel-awareness, 39, 179; on verbal behavior, ix, 28-33, 40, 42, 87 Snow Whie and he Seven Dwars meaphor, 225, 228 social anxiey disorder, 141-142 social ineracions: arbirary relaions and, 79; privae evens and, 38-39 spaial relaions, 80 simuli: condiioned, 22; discrimi naive, 17; relaions beween, 80-83; uncondiioned, 21, 22 simulus, use o erm, 21n simulus uncions: aleraion o, 70-74, 219; arbirary/nonarbirary relaions
Index and, 76, 77-80; conexual acors and, 74-77; derived simulus responses and, 71-74; direc, 74, 146, 147, 202, 204; explanaion o, 69-70; indirec, 74, 146-148; perspecive aking and, 219; relaions beween simuli and, 80-83; rule-governed behavior and, 114-116, 131; ransormaion o, 73, 74, 84 sory abou ourselves, 108-110, 151 sraegic problem solving, 130 subconscious, 126, 234
T acing: o behavior, 179, 210; explanaion o, 29-30, 125n; o privae evens, 33-38, 232 aking dicaion, 31 alk herapy, 168, 172-173, 209 arge field o experience, 93 emporal raming, 150 emporal relaions, 80, 81 erminology overview, 3-4 exual behavior, 31 herapeuic relaionship: in clinical behavior analysis, 172-173; in psychological herapies, 155-158, 163, 166 herapy. See clinical behavior analysis; psychological herapies houghs: behavior analysis and, 46-47, 49-51; cogniive herapy and, 51-54; described as privae evens, 27-28; learning o ac, 35-37; meaphors or deusing, 223-225; pain relaed o, 136-138; power o hinking and, 54-56, 89; regarding in perspecive, 222; sel-rules as, 128; social environmen and, 38-39. See also privae evens
racking: affeced by augmening, 140, 142, 144-145; pliance used o pracice, 213-215; psychological problems conneced wih, 140-142; as rulegoverned behavior, 120-121, 131 ranscripion, 31 ransormaion o simulus uncions, 73, 74
U uncondiioned punishers, 23 uncondiioned reinorcers, 23 uncondiioned response, 21, 22 uncondiioned simulus, 21, 22
V validaion, 198 values: lack o clariy abou, 229-232; privae evens as obsacles o, 225-229, 236; rule ollowing and, 124 verbal anecedens: or new behavior, 210-213; undermining, 215-223, 236 verbal behavior, 28-43; auocliic behavior and, 32-33; behavior analysis and, 46-47; derived simulus relaions and, 60-69; echoic behavior and, 31-32; exincion o problemaic, 203-204; inraverbal behavior and, 32; mands and, 30-31; meaphors and, 186-187; new definiion o, 87-88; privae evens and, 38-40; problemaic aspecs o, 209; psychoherapy and, 168, 172-173; F definiion o, 68, 88; speakers and liseners in, 40; acs and, 29-30, 33-38. See also language Verbal Behavior (Skinner), ix, x verbal discriminaion, 161-162 verbal raps, 218
267
w w o u S i w . r B g n u more tools for your practice n e o o p w h k f o r from ne w harbinger publications, inc. a r A l b i e r t n g e s a t r . c o m
LEARNING ACT
DERIVED RELATIONAL
THE ART & SCIENCE
An Acceptance & Commitment Therapy Skills-Training Manual for Therapists
RESPONDING APPLICATIONS
OF VALUING IN
FOR LEARNERS WITH AUTISM
PSYCHOTHErPY
& OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL
Helping Clients Discover, Explore, & Commit to Valued Action Using Acceptance & Commitment Therapy
DISABILITIES
US $44.95 / ISBN: 978-1572244986 Also available as an eBook at newharbinger.com Copublished with Context Press
US $79.95 / ISBN: 978-1572245365 Also available as an eBook at newharbinger.com Copublished with Context Press
ACT MADE SIMPLE
THE ABCs OF HUMAN
ASSESSING MINDFULNESS
An Easy-To-Read Primer on Acceptance & Commitment Therapy
BEHAVIOR
& ACCEPTANCE
Behavioral Principles for the Practicing Clinician
PROCESSES IN CLIENTS
US $39.95 / ISBN: 978-1572247055 Also available as an eBook at newharbinger.com
US $49.95 / ISBN: 978-1572246263
Illuminating the Theory & Practice of Change
US $49.95 / ISBN: 978-1572245389
US $58.95 / ISBN: 978-1572246942
available from
newharbingerpublicatio ns, inc. and fine booksellers everywhere To order, call toll free 1-800-748-6273 or visit our online bookstore at www.newharbinger.com (VISA, MC, AMEX / prices subject to change without notice)
Sign up to receive QUICK TIPS for THERAPISTS— fast and free solutions to common sticky client situations mental health professionals encounter. Written by New Harbinger authors, some of the most prominent names in psychology today, QUICK TIPS for THERAPISTS are short, helpful emails that will help enhance your client sessions. Visit www.newharbinger.com and click on “Quick Tips for Therapists” to sign up today.
