Structure for the workshop
 Introduction
 Functional contextualism
 Basic behavioral principles
 RFT in the lab
 Main concepts in RFT and their general implications
 RFT and clinical work (ACT)
Blackledge/Törneke
2
Behavioral tradition
Skinner and verbal behavior: An interpretative
analysis based on animal research and general
knowledge
Two problems:
 Noam Chomsky
 A lack of an extensive research program
Blackledge/Törneke
3
Cognitive tradition
Hopythetical constructs as the answer: Mental
representations, schema
Two problems:
 Central phenomena cannot be manipulated
 Analysis of talking dissappeared when thinking was
made the central issue
Blackledge/Törneke
4
Clinical impact
 Is everybody as good as everybody?
 Does verbal behavior (cognition) matter?
 What about going back to basic science for some
answers?
Blackledge/Törneke
5
Background Information
for ACT & RFT
 A full appreciation of what RFT has to do with ACT
requires:
 An understanding of functional contextualism
 An understanding of basic behavioral principles
 Including the continuity between the nature and purpose
of these principles and the nature and purpose of RFT &
ACT.
Blackledge/Törneke
6
Functional Contextualism:
The Philosophical Foundation for
ACT & RFT
Stephen Pepper’s
“World Hypotheses”
 Described “relatively adequate” pre-analytic
philosophical assumptions people make about (1)
the goals of science and (2) the nature of
knowledge.
 Cast them as untestable assumptions
 Matters of subjective opinion
 Can’t run an empirical study to see whose opinions about
the goals of science and the nature of knowledge are
“wrong” and whose are “right”
Pre-Analytic Assumptions
about Science
1.
What is the goal of science?
 Science is simply a systematic method for answering
questions
 The questions that “should” be asked are a matter of
subjective opinion.
Example: Grief
o (A) “We should discover the various stages of grief
people go through”
o (B) “We should discover the best ways to help those in
grief cope more effectively”
o (C) “We should discover the neurological substrates of
grief”
Pre-Analytic Assumptions
about Science
Metaphorical example:
 “What should people do with their time on Earth?”





Help others?
Make money?
Raise a family?
Contribute to their community/country?
Follow a religion?
 As with the question, “What is the goal of science?”,
there are no purely objective, absolutely true answers to
this question.
 It’s a matter of opinion—of philosophical assumption.
Pre-Analytic Assumptions
about Science
2.
What is the nature of knowledge?
 What is the nature of reality?
 Can we come to know what “reality” is in an objective,
complete, “T”ruth sense.
 Or, can we only come to know relative or partial “t”ruths
Pre-Analytic Assumptions
about Science
 In other words, can human beings use science to
discover absolute truth?
 Or, might things like the following work to prevent
this from happening:




Human perceptual errors & limitations
Measurement error
Errors in data interpretation
The effects that observation have on what is being
observed
 Failure to observe a phenomenon in multiple contexts
What kinds of ‘pre-analytic
philosophical assumptions’
are there?
 Pepper described 4 “relatively adequate” world
views:





Contextualism
Formism
Mechanism
Organicism
Not the only possible world views….
 We’ll discuss mechanism and contextualism
Mechanism
 Dominant set of philosophical assumptions held by
scientist
 Indeed, some would say there is no other approach to
science
Core assumption: Human beings are like machines
 They are made up of a variety of parts, each with its
own task.
 Various environmental or other forces move
through the machine and exert an effect.
Mechanism
 Mechanisms = “elemental realism”
 The goal of science is to:
 Determine what these parts are & how they interact
 Determine how various forces (variables) impact the
functioning of the machine.
 Once we know exactly how the machine works and how
various forces affect it, we’ll be able to fix the machine
when it breaks, or help keep it working, but……
 Building comprehensive & accurate causal models that
describe the machine’s functioning takes precedence.
Mechanism
Truth Criterion = How do we know when a theory is
correct?
 Mechanism = Truth by Correspondence
• i.e., correspondence to “Reality”
• Determined primarily by building causal models
(theories) that perfectly predict what will happen in
increasingly complex experiments.
 Examples?
Contextualism
Human behavior can only be understood in context.
 You must be able to understand an organism’s
learning history and the current context surrounding
the behavior of interest in order to understand why
the behavior is occurring and what can be done to
change or maintain it.
Contextualism
 Because behavior can only be “understood” in context,
all knowledge is relative.
 Truth Criterion = Certainly not correspondence—Context
issue makes “truth” relative.
1.
Prediction & Control
(Functional Contextualism)
2.
Description
(Descriptive Contextualism)
Contextualism
 Assumptions behind contextualism:
 The “Real” world probably cannot be accurately &
completely captured by any theory
• Too complex
• Humans too limited in perceptual & analytic abilities
• Humans systematically biased
Contextualism
Assumptions behind contextualism:
 There is “One world”.
 Theories and their “causal” models are simply tentative
ways of talking about human behavior that should be
held lightly & that do not accurately describe “reality”
 Theories are useful to the extent that they facilitate
achievement of the theorizer’s explicit goals
 Prediction & control; description
Contextualism
 Descriptive Contextualism
 Archaeology
 History
 Kantor’s “Interbehaviorism”
 Functional Contextualism
 Relational Frame Theory (Acceptance & Commitment
Therapy)
 Conventional behaviorism, from some perspectives
 Some modern feminist, sociological theories
Contextualism
 “Prediction & control” softened to “prediction and
influence.
 What do you think of the ethical implications of making
science be about “prediction & control/influence?
 Consider also: Since contextualism does not subscribe to
the notion of ‘absolute truth’, there is no ‘absolute
grounding’ for any ethical principles one might attach to
it. Does this complicate its ethical implications? Can
these complications be circumvented?
 E.g., ACT & Values
Contextualism
 What misgivings do you have about contextualism &
its implications?
Is Contextualism “Fishy”
compared to Mechanism?
 “Every theory ever invented by man is wrong. The
theories that we currently subscribe to—we just don’t
know how they’re wrong yet” (K. G. Wilson)
Example:
Ptolemy’s model of the solar system (100 AD)
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.ht
m
Used for 1500 years
It was “wrong”—but you could predict the position of
the stars and navigate by it!
Is Contextualism “Fishy”
compared to Mechanism?
Let’s harken back to a brief list of factors that can prevent
a theory from ‘mapping onto reality’ before looking at
what went wrong with Ptolemy’s theory:
 Human perceptual errors & limitations
 Measurement error
 Errors in data interpretation
 The effects that observation have on what is being
observed
 Failure to observe a phenomenon in multiple contexts
Is Contextualism “Fishy”
compared to Mechanism?
 Why was Ptolemy’s model of the solar system accepted
as absolute truth for so long? It was a perfectly predictive
model!
 Accepted [Church; astronomers; navigators]
dogma
 It works and fits with “known” beliefs—therefore it must
be absolute truth
 Errors in data interpretation (model predicts the
“movement” of the stars….when they apparently
do not move)
 Failure to study phenomena in multiple contexts
(i.e., what would it look like if one had a ‘galaxyeye view’?)
Is Contextualism “Fishy”
compared to Mechanism?
 Why was Ptolemy’s model of the solar system
accepted as absolute truth for so long? It was a
perfectly predictive model!
 Measurement error: The stars weren’t exactly where
the model predicted them to be (i.e., in terms of
astronomical units), but there was not an accurate
enough way of measuring this then.
 Human perceptual errors & limitations: It looks like the
stars are moving, so the model must be True!
 Could it be that some of the same sources of error
might confound the Absolute basis of virtually any
theory?
Stephen Pepper’s
“World Hypotheses”
 Why is clarity about one’s philosophical assumptions
about science & the nature of knowledge important?
 Lack of clarity regarding one’s philosophical assumptions
can lead to:
 Unproductive (& unpleasant) arguments with other
professionals regarding their methods, findings, & goals.
 Incoherent focus in your professional work
 Research that doesn’t satisfy your curiosity or further the
development & testing of your theory
 Therapy that is unfocused
Functional Contextualism
& ACT
 The nature of FC assumptions shine brightly in ACT:
 What we think is just a way of describing or evaluating
events---not the way.
 Words don’t capture reality (or the ‘richness of
experience’)
 When one’s ‘theory’ (thoughts) helps you move
toward your goals (values), listen to it; when it doesn’t,
defuse.
 Hold your theories (thoughts) lightly…….
 Theories as metaphors…….and the risk of frozen
metaphors
Functional Contextualism
& RFT
 And, as you’ll see, FC assumptions also shine
brightly in RFT:
 Just as a theory is a nonbinding way of talking about a
set of phenomena, what we think--how we relationally
frame our experiences--is simply a way of verbally
conceptualizing those experiences. It is not a
reflection of absolute Truth.
 The usefulness of RFT as a theory depends on its ability
to predict how people will think (relationally frame)
under specific circumstances, and influence the impact
those thoughts have on subsequent behavior.
The Nature & Goals of
Behaviorism
The Nature & Goals of
Behaviorism
 Goals are highly pragmatic
 Find ways of conceptualizing/speaking about human
behavior that maximize or ability to predict & influence
human behavior.
 “Functional Contextualism”
 Theory is “true” to the extent that it facilitates reliable
prediction & control of behavior.
 Assumption that human behavior is too complex (and
the nature of human scientific inquiry too limited) to
discover “Absolute Truth”.
The Nature & Goals of
Behaviorism
 Parsimony is King
 The simplest explanation for human behavior is best.
 Use an absolute minimum of principles/processes to
predict and influence behavior
 If these principles are proven insufficient, conservatively
add new principles that do prove sufficient.
The Nature & Goals of
Behaviorism
 Theoretical principles should rely only on directly
observable & directly manipulable behavior/stimuli
 The introduction of unobservable “intervening
variables” compromise parsimony.
 You can’t directly manipulate an intervening variable
 Compromises the “influence” part of “prediction and
influence: A good functional contextual theory should be
able to directly tell you exactly what to manipulate under
various directly observable conditions.
Basic Behavioral Principles:
Operant & Respondent
Conditioning
Blackledge/Törneke
35
What’s a Stimulus?
 Anything you can perceive







Thought
Feelings
Sound, smell, sight, taste, physical sensation
Something said to you
The look on someone’s face
Memory
IF YOU RESPOND TO IT, IT’S A STIMULUS
What’s a [stimulus]
function?
 Typically used to refer to the type of consequence
you receive for behaving in a certain way
 If yelling serves an “attention function”, it means
someone pays attention to you after you yell
 If hiding serves an “avoidance function”, it means you
avoid some type of aversive consequence by doing so
 Can refer simply to what a stimulus “makes” you do
 Automatic (conditioned) response: Food makes you
salivate, a moving car makes you move out of the
way…..a picture of G. W. Bush makes you wince.
Respondent (Classical)
Conditioning
Respondent Conditioning:
Basic Idea
 Many stimuli naturally elicit (produce) an automatic
response
 Sight of food elicits a salivation response
 An object moving toward your head elicits a ‘flinching’
or ‘ducking’ response
 A physical attack during a war elicits anxiety
 Sugar elicits the release of insulin into your
bloodstream
Respondent Conditioning:
Basic Idea
 If you repeatedly pair a neutral stimulus with an
“unconditioned” stimulus, the “neutral” stimulus
can come to elicit the same response
 Pavlov’s dogs: An audio tone can come to elicit
salivation
 The spoken word “duck” can come to elicit a
“flinching” or “ducking” response
 The sight of a soldier or loud sound can come to elicit
anxiety
 The sweet taste of a diet (or “light”) soda can come to
elicit the release of insulin
Terminology
 Unconditioned stimulus (US):
◦ natural stimulus producing response
 Unconditioned response (UR):
◦ Unlearned or automatic response
 Conditioned stimulus (CS):
◦ originally a neutral stimulus--now elicits response that
looks like an UR
 Conditioned response (CR):
◦ Response occurring to a CS that looks like an UR
Principle of Respondent
Conditioning
 A neutral stimulus followed closely in time by a US,
which elicits a UR, then the previously neutral
stimulus will also tend to elicit the same response
Factors Influencing
Respondent Conditioning
1. The greater the number of pairings of a CS
with a US, the greater is the ability of the
CS to elicit the CR
2. Stronger conditioning occurs if the CS
precedes the US by about half a second,
rather than by a longer time or rather than
following the US

Conditioned taste aversion – exception to the rule
3. A CS acquires greater ability to elicit a CR if
the CS is always paired with a given US than
if it is only occasionally paired with the US.
Factors Influencing Respondent
Conditioning
4. When several neutral stimuli precede a US, the
stimulus that is most consistently associated
with the US is the one most likely to become a
strong CS
5. Respondent conditioning will develop more
quickly and strongly when the CS or US or both
are intense rather than weak
Higher Order Conditioning
 1st order
 Pair NS and US to produce UR
 CS will produce CR
 EX: Pair bell and food to produce salivation; bell will
produce salivation after conditioning
 2nd order
 Pair NS and CS to produce CR
 Produce a new CS which elicits the CR
 EX: Pair light with bell to produce salivation; light will
produce salivation after conditioning
Factors affecting
conditioning
 Stimulus generalization
 Similar stimuli elicit CR
 Stimulus discrimination
 Respond to specific stimuli, but not similar ones
Operant Conditioning
 Basic principle #1: Any behavior that is reinforced will occur
more frequently.
 Anything that increases the frequency of a behavior is a
reinforcer.
 Three term contingency: StimulusResponseReinforcer
Or, AntecedentBehaviorConsequence
(ABC)
Operant Conditioning
 Basic principle #2: Any behavior that is
punished will occur less frequently.
 Anything that decreases the frequency of a
behavior is a punisher.
 Three term contingency:
StimulusResponsePunisher
Or, AntecedentBehaviorConsequence
(ABC)
Operant Conditioning:
Reinforcement
 Many things can reinforce behavior: Things you say
and do, food or other things you give them,
attention, verbal or nonverbal approval, escape from
demanding or unpleasant tasks, actions or activities
and so on.
Operant Conditioning
 Something functions as a reinforcer if it increases
the frequency of any behavior that immediately
precedes it.
 Reinforcers typically fall into one of four functional
classes: (1) escape from demanding or unpleasant
tasks, (2) attention from others, (3) acquisition of
preferred items or privileges, and/or (4) selfstimulation.
Operant Conditioning:
Function vs. topography
 It doesn’t matter what it looks like or what you think
it should do. It’s only a reinforcer if it increases the
frequency of the given (target) behavior. Sometimes
“desirable” things aren’t reinforcers, sometimes
“undesirable” things are.
 For example, negative attention can be reinforcing
for a child; compliments can be punishing; things a
child says he wants may not be reinforcing;
Operant Conditioning:
Function vs. topography
 Things are more or less reinforcing depending on
what other reinforcers are currently available (e.g.,
verbal approval from one person vs. simple
attention from another).
 Things that serve as a reinforcer for a given person’s
behavior in one context may not work in other
contexts or at other times.
General principles of reinforcement:
 Reinforcement works best when delivered
immediately (e.g., less than 15 seconds) after the
target behavior.
 Reinforcement works best when the behavior being
reinforced is specified.
 Reinforcement principles can & should be used to
teach appropriate replacement behaviors as well as
to reinforce “naturally” occurring appropriate
behaviors.
Operant Conditioning:
Punishment
 Anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior
that immediately precedes it is a punisher.
 Punishment can involve the introduction of
something unpleasant or aversive (e.g., being yelled
at, hit, called names, being told what you’re doing is
unwise, etc.), or the removal of something pleasant
or reinforcing (e.g., losing privileges, being forced to
take a time out, withdrawing attention, etc.).
Operant Conditioning:
Punishment
 Punishment is very often used in our culture for
several reasons: (1) It tends to work immediately; (2)
it requires relatively little effort; (3) it is often
reinforcing to the person applying the punishment;
(4) it’s often modeled by our government, TV,
movies, and friends and family.
Punishment:
Function vs. topography
 Same as with reinforcement: Sometimes
“undesirable” things aren’t punishers; sometimes
“desirable” things are.
Types of
Reinforcement & Punishment
Positive
Reinforcement
Punishment
Negative
Appetitive Consequence
added
Aversive Consequence
taken away
Aversive Consequence
added
Appetitive Consequence
taken away
Operant & Respondent
Conditioning:
Applications
Common Clinically Relevant Respondently
Conditioned Responses
 Post traumatic reactions
 Phobic responses
 Panic attacks
 CC plays a role in virtually every DSM/ICD diagnosis
Anxiety-based Responses and the Interaction of
Operant & Classical Conditioning
 Classically conditioned stimuli very often lead to
avoidance behavior
 Avoidance behavior is negatively reinforced
 Example: PTSD soldier (presence of crowds has
become classically conditioned to an attack)
 Soldier may likely avoid or escape peacetime crowds in
the future…..and thus not learn that there is no risk of
attack
 An increasingly wide variety of neutral stimuli can
come to evoke avoidance/escape over time due to
the interaction of classical & operant conditioning.
Exposure
 Classical (respondent) extinction
 Repeatedly present the CS without the occurrence
of the US
 Make sure the client doesn’t avoid/escape or
he will not learn that no US follows the CS
 That is, make sure the avoidance/escape
response is not negatively reinforced
 Frontline treatment component for a variety of
anxiety disorders
Respondent Extinction
(Exposure)
Respondent Conditioning:
A Fundamental Symmetry
 When respondent conditioning causes a problem…..
 You use respondent [extinction] procedures to
cause the problem
Blackledge/Törneke
64
Operant Conditioning:
A Fundamental Symmetry
 OC leads to a great variety of problems:
 Problematic behaviors with a sufficient history of
reinforcement will continue to occur
 Desirable behaviors with a sufficient history of punishment
will not occur
 Desirable/effective behaviors that have never been learned
will not occur
 To rectify these OC problems, you use operant
conditioning:
 Increased reinforcement of desirable
behaviors……decreased reinforcement for undesirable
ones……shaping/modeling of unlearned behaviors
Blackledge/Törneke
65
Applications of
Operant Conditioning
 Skills training






Anger management skills
Coping skills
Problem solving skills
Communication skills
Parenting skills
Operant principles essentially used for anything you
teach your client directly, and any lessons/skills your
client learns “on his own”.
Applications of
Operant Conditioning
 Applied behavior analysis
 Language training, skills training, problem behavior
management for people diagnosed with:




Autism
Developmental disabilities
Traumatic Brain Injury
Dementia
Operant Conditioning & ACT:
An Example
 Teaching clients how to use various defusion,
self as context, commitment & acceptance
techniques involves repeated reinforcement:
 Therapist verbal & nonverbal behavior that
reinforces client’s use of these strategies in
session
 Reinforcement the client receives via:
 More successful movement toward values
 Alleviation of distress
Learning &
“Transformation of Function”
 Every stimulus has a “function”.
 Learning processes explicitly indicate how these
functions are changed or “transformed”:
 Classical conditioning
 Operant conditioning
 If you want to change a problematic stimulus function
(i.e., change a problematic behavior), you use
identified learning processes.
Learning &
“Transformation of Function”
 Classical conditioning:
 Change problematic functions through new pairings or
through classical extinction.
 Operant conditioning:
 Change problematic functions through differential
reinforcement or punishment
A Process for Every
Problem?
 Operant & classical conditioning work great for
changing behaviors that arise solely through these
processes.
 These processes (along with a few embellishments like
stimulus generalization & discrimination) arguably
account for animal behavior.
 But what if an additional learning process is needed
to account for human behavior?
 In other words, what if there’s another learning
process that transforms stimulus functions in a
different way than OC & RC?
Evidence for an ‘Exclusively’
Human Learning Process?
 Hundreds of “Stimulus Equivalence” studies (since
1971)—Murray Sidman & colleagues
 180 +Relational Frame Theory studies (since 1991)—
Steve Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes & colleagues
 These studies point to human language as the
source (or the expression) of a uniquely verbal
learning process
 Nonverbal humans haven’t demonstrated it yet
 Animals haven’t demonstrated it yet (with the possible
exception of a single California Sea Lion)
Stimulus Equivalence
Blackledge/Törneke
73
Stimulus Equivalence
 [Board examples]
 Process by which stimuli enter into classes of equivalence
or non-equivalence
 Cannot account for with classical or operant conditioning
 Animals can be taught to do this with formal stimulus
properties
 Humans can be taught to do it with non-formal (abstract)
stimulus properties
 Sidman considered this ability to be a “primitive”
 Can also think in terms of establishing a relation of
equivalence or nonequivalence between two stimuli
Stimulus Equivalence
 Foundation of language use:
 “Apple”  actual apple 
 “Apple” doesn’t formally resemble an actual apple, or a
picture of an apple.
 In other words, stimulus equivalence is an additional
process that allows individual words to have meaning-and one that speeds up the learning process
 “cat”  actual cat  “el gato”  “le chat”
Stimulus Equivalence
 Also, allows combinations of words to carry
additional meaning:
 I am a bad person. (I  bad).
 I am not hungry. (I < - > hungry)
 Though accounting for the meanings conveyed by a
sentence solely in terms of
equivalence/nonequivalence is theoretically possible,
the analysis is EXTREMELY cumbersome—and thus
extremely impractical.
How does RFT “improve” on
Stimulus Equivalence
 Allows for multiple relations between stimuli (not just
relations of equivalence or nonequivalence)
 Bigger than, smaller than, better than, worse than, smarter
than, before, after—virtually any way you can imagine
relating two stimuli
 Also, doesn’t view this kind of “verbal relating” as a
“primitive”, but rather “higher order operant behavior”
 “Relating stimuli” as an operant behavior
 E.g., generalized imitation; generalized rule-following
 Once you learn how to relate stimuli, you can bring this
relational ability to bear on any stimuli you encounter =
“generalized” relational responding
Wait a minute…..How can you think of
language as relations between stimuli?
 Sentences establish relations between
words…….words are stimuli……..sentences
establish relations between stimuli.
 “Relational Game” PDF
Pick one word from each column. How
are they the equivalent?
 Success
 Good
 Pride
 Bad
 Happiness
 Selfish
 Loyalty
 Generous
 Hard work
 Pointless
 Love
 Important
Blackledge/Törneke
79
Relational Frame Theory
 Forming relationships between stimuli changes their
functions in accordance with the relation
 Playing “Dungeons and Dragons” as a 12-year old:
Functions:
 Fun, felt good about it, talked about it, proud of it
 Told “D&D is………geeky, dumb, etc.
“People who play D&D are…..losers, geeks, etc.”
• New functions of playing: Felt embarrassed, worried
more, didn’t talk about it.
Relational Frame Theory
 One can “derive” additional relationships between
stimuli given limited information
 People who play D&D are geeks. Geeks don’t get dates
 Two relations “trained”; four relations “derived”:




Geeks play D&D
People who don’t date must be geeks.
People who play D&D don’t get dates
People who don’t get dates must play D&D
 Deriving these additional relations can result in
additional ‘transformations of function’
Relational Frame Theory
 Relational responding (the act of forming
relationships between stimuli) is operant behavior
 We think the way we do because we have been
reinforced for thinking that way in the past (or
punished or not reinforced enough for thinking in
other ways.
 We derive relations the way that we do because we’ve
been reinforced for deriving that way in the past.
Relational Frame Theory
 Relational responding (the act of forming relationships
between stimuli) is a special kind of operant behavior
 Differences: Given the way operant conditioning (as
opposed to derived relational responding) is defined &
operationalized, it does not account for:
 (Loosely speaking) abstract relations between stimuli being
responsible for changing stimulus functions
 In OC, reinforcement/punishment responsible for changing
function of the Sd—there are no ‘relational dimensions’ in play
 Derived responding along abstract stimulus dimensions
 Animals can generalize along formal stimulus dimensions, but
cannot respond along abstract dimensions.
Relational Frame Theory
 Forming relationships between stimuli changes their
functions in accordance with the relation
 Relations between stimuli can occur along abstract
or arbtrary dimensions
 One can “derive” additional relationships between
stimuli given limited information
 Simple logic: A > B; B = C
 A & B are reciprocally related—they are complementary
 A & C are reciprocally related by virtue of how these
stimuli relate to an intermediary stimulus (B)
Relational Responding
 RFT distinguishes between two main types:
 Non-arbitrary relations
 Involves formal, physical dimensions
 Arbitrary relations
 Typically involves abstract concepts & dimensions
 Beauty, love, honor, justice, intelligence, fairness, worth/value,
good/bad, etc.
 If you can’t see it, smell it, touch it, taste it or hear it, it’s
an arbitrary (abstract) stimulus property
 Can also involve “improper” or arbitrary use of formal
properties
 E.g., “Less is more”; “smaller cars are better”
Non-Arbitrary & Arbitrary Relations
NON-ARBITRARY
(FORMAL) RELATIONS
ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE
RELATIONS
“APPLE”
‘SAME’
“worse”
“better”
‘OPPOSITE’
5c
10c
‘MORE THAN’
Relational Frame Theory
The Core Verbal Process
Training Relational Frames
Limoo
Limoo
Betrang
Bervil Norna
Relational Frame Theory
The Core Verbal Process
Some Derived Relations
Betrang
Husko Limoo Patar
Limoo Patar Husko
Relational Frame Theory
Defining Properties of Relational Frames
1. Mutual
Entailment
salivation
bumpy
lemonade
Limoo
Betrang
sour
yellow
citrus
3. Transformation
of Functions
2. Combinatorial
Entailment
salivation
bumpy
lemonade
Betrang
citrus
sour
yellow
On Terms (and fancy
equations)
 Mutual entailment
 If A is larger than B, then B is smaller than A
Crel {A rx B ||| B ry A}
 Combinatorial entailment
 If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A and C are in
some way related
Crel {A rx B and B ry C ||| A rp C and C rq A}
 Transformation of function
 When a stimulus has a certain psychological function, the
functions of other, related, stimuli may be altered or
transformed in accordance with the relation
Cfunc [Crel A rx B and B ry C{Af1 ||| Bf2rpand Cf rq}]
Relational Frames
 Relational frames are particular patterns of
arbitrarily applicable relational responding (ways
of relating stimuli along abstract dimensions)
that show the properties of mutual and
combinatorial entailment, and transformation of
functions.
 Kinds of relational frames






Coordination (i.e., sameness; loose-tight equivalence)
Opposition
Distinction
Comparison
Hierarchical relations
Deictic relations (specify a relation in terms of the
perspective of the speaker such as left-right, I-you, herethere, now-then)
Relational Frames
 You learn how to “mutually entail” because of a
direct history of reinforcement for mutually
entailing.
 Same goes for combinatorial entailment
 Thus, you learn to (a) relate stimuli and (b) derive
relations between stimuli due to a history of direct
reinforcement for these behaviors
 Once you’ve received repeated reinforcement across
exemplars, you emit these “relating” and “deriving”
responses automatically when you encounter new
stimuli.
Relational Framing
 Discussion of relational frames can imply we’re
talking about a static way of thinking about
something that is stored somewhere in the brain.
Relational Framing
 “Relational Framing” is a more accurate term
 A person responds as if he were framing, in a given
moment, relevant stimuli in a particular way.
 In an experimental capacity, the “particular way” of
framing can be determined through observing a pattern
of responses to the relevant stimuli
 Relational Framing as a pattern of responding observed to
come about through a history of reinforcement for
relational and derived relational responding
 In an experimental capacity, you know it’s relational
framing if your experimental method precludes the
operation of direct operant or respondent processes
Blackledge/Törneke
95
Relational Framing
 Thus, the account is based on entirely observable
responses
 A stimulus is presented—a behavior is emitted
 Of course, you need to know the person’s learning
history with respect to these stimuli to know if
relational framing is responsible for the response……
 Just like you’d need to know an organism’s relevant
history to know if OC or CC were responsible for an
observed response
Relational Framing
 So far, experimental data has indicated
that:
 Relational framing can override or alter
the effects of classical and direct operant
conditioning
 Relational framing may be (by far) the
dominant force in determining how
verbal humans behave.
Blackledge/Törneke
97
Relational Frames:
The Foundation of Language and Cognition?
Try this exercise: Learn four relations and see what
happens. . .
RELATION 1:
OLDER THAN
HOMER
LISA
Relational Frames:
The Foundation of Language and Cognition?
RELATION 2:
OLDER THAN
LISA
MAGGIE
Relational Frames:
The Foundation of Language and Cognition?
RELATION 3:
YOUNGER THAN
HOMER
ABE
Relational Frames:
The Foundation of Language and Cognition?
RELATION 4:
YOUNGER THAN
ABE
MONTY BURNS
From 4 Trained Relations. . .
OLDER
OLDER
OLDER
Relational Framing
 Remarkably generative learning process
 Learn 4 things, get 16 for free
 Learn X things, get X2 for free
 In operant conditioning, learn 1 thing, get 1
thing
 Exception: Stimulus generalization (along formal dimensions
only!)
 Addresses Chomsky’s main criticism of
Skinner’s “Verbal Behavior”
 And…………
Relational Framing
 Explains why it takes a chimpanzee (for
example) 18 years of training to learn
signs for 200-250 words, in contrast to
learning rate for a human child:
 Starting by age 2 or 3, a normally
developing child learns about 3,500
new words a year
 By age 18, we know approximately
60,000 words.
First, we establish non-arbitrary contextual control. That is, we use
physically similar stimuli and reinforce choices of some, but not
others, in the presence of our contextual cues.
Imagine we wish to establish Same and Opposite relational frames..
CONTEXTUAL
CUE
Once the contextual cues are functioning as Same & Opposite,
we use them with arbitrary (physically dissimilar) stimuli..
The Concept of the Transformation of
Functions: Why is it Important?
If someone has a fear of dogs, and they are told that ‘jumjaw’ is another word for
dog, then fear may be elicited upon hearing ‘here comes a jumjaw!’
WHEN
is a
‘DOG’
is a
‘Jumjaw’
:
FEAR
Three questions to answer
1.
If languaging is behavior, what kind of behavior is it?
Or: What are humans doing?
2.
How does this kind of behavior interact with, or
contribute to, our behavior as a whole?
Or: Why is this important?
3.
What controls this kind of behavior?
Or: How do we influence this?
Blackledge/Törneke
114
114
Question 1: If languaging is behavior,
what kind of behavior is it?
Languaging (verbal behavior) is the behavior of relating
stimuli/events in a particular way.
@
Blackledge/Törneke
#
115
&
Liza, the parrot och pretty
Sue
”pretty Sue”
Mutual entailment
Bidirectionality
Blackledge/Törneke
116
Arbitrarily applicable
relational responding (AARR)
@
#
Direct
Mutual entailment
Combinatorial mutual entailment
Blackledge/Törneke
117
&
Different types of relations
Coordination, ”the same as”
Spatial relations (in front of-behind)
Opposite
Causal relations (if-then)
Comparison (more-less)
Temporal relations (before-after)
Hierarcial relations (one thing is
part of another)
Perspective (here-there)
Blackledge/Törneke
118
Blackledge/Törneke
119
Blackledge/Törneke
120
Blackledge/Törneke
121
Blackledge/Törneke
122
Some terminology
 Arbitrarily applicable relational responding
(AARR)
 Same as: relational framing, derived relational
responding
 Relational frames
 Relational networks
Blackledge/Törneke
123
Question 2: How does this way
of relating affect human
behavior as a whole?
 AARR affects human behavior as a whole by
transforming stimulus functions
 Remember: Relations between stimuli influence
behavior (= alter stimulus functions)
Peter comes before Dick
Blackledge/Törneke
Dick is together with John
124
Temporal framing
Before
Before
Peter
Together
Dick
Together
After
After
Direct
Mutual entailment
Combinatorial mutual entailment
Blackledge/Törneke
John
125
The effect of different
relational frames
 Coordination: Cat under the table…
 Comparative: This one has better quality…
 Hierarchial: He is from the south …
 Opposition: He is not at all like Eric…
 Perspective: If you were standing here…
Blackledge/Törneke
126
Question 3: What governs
this kind of behavior?
This special way of relating is governed by
contextual cues that specify the relation regardless
of the properties of the stimuli that are being related
@
>
#
>
&
# is the same as a10000
hard US
punsch
dollars
on the noose
Blackledge/Törneke
127
More than
More than
@
More than
#
Less than
Less than
Less than
Direct
Mutual entailment
Combinatiorial mutual entailment
Niklas Törneke
&
128
Contextual cues
Combinations of sounds or signs (words) :
…is the same.., ..behind.., …larger.., …there..,
…later.., …inside...
Gestures
Different features of the environment
Blackledge/Törneke
129
Responding to relations
 Contingencies
 Physical properties of stimuli (including relations
based on physical properties)
 Relational framing (based on specific contextual
cues)
 Direct and indirect (derived) stimulus functions
Blackledge/Törneke
130
Definition of relational
framing
Relating in a way which is characteristed by
 Mutual entailment
 Combinatorial mutual entailment
 Transformation of stimulus function in accordance with the established
relation
Relating in this particular way is also, according to RFT, the definition of
verbal behavior and the basic process in human language and cognition
Blackledge/Törneke
131
But not all functions are
transformed
Argentina is better than Sweden in soccer
The US is ahead of Sweden in nuclear science
Sweden is ahead of the US in providing health services to all its
inhabitants
Some contextual cues controll the relation: Crel
Some contextual cues controll which functions are transformed
according to a specified relation: Cfunc
Blackledge/Törneke
132
Crel and Cfunc: further examples
 Argentina is better than Sweden
 To argue with him is like to be run over by a
steamroller
 She is a lioness!
Blackledge/Törneke
133
The birth of human language and
the explosion of ”meaning”
 Relating, and thus stimulus functions, can now be controlled by
social whim
 What if small is big, before is after and here is there?
 The generativity of human language
 AARR is the basis of ”speaking with meaning and listening with
understanding”
 ”Thinking” is doing the same thing, all by yourself
Blackledge/Törneke
134
Two dramatic effects on human
behavior
Our experience of self
Rule-governed behavior
Blackledge/Törneke
135
Three aspects of our
experience of self
Self as perspective (context)
Self as process
Self as story (content)
Blackledge/Törneke
136
The most important effect of AARR:
rule-governed behavior
 Rule-governed behavior; behavior governed by
instructions
 Rule-governed behavior and contingency-shaped
behavior
 Rules given by others and self-rules
 Self-rules and cognitions
Blackledge/Törneke
137
RFT and rule-governed behavior
When relations are by social whim, words can have very flexible
”meaning” (function)
Then antecedents (A) can specify behavior (B) and consequence (C)
regardless of whether this behavior has been done before and/or
the consequence has ever been contacted directly
For this to take place you have to have at least coordinating, casual
and temporal frames
”If you go to bed (B) I’ll give you a surprise tomorrow (C)”
”If you do that once more (B) I will leave and never come back (C)”
Self-rules: ”Study now (B) and you will pass the exam (C)”
”Do as you are told (B) otherwise you will be alone (C)”
Blackledge/Törneke
138
Rule-governed behavior:
the blessing
 Sidestepping imidiate gratification
 Contacting long term consequences
 Contacting ”what could (should) have been”
 Planning and verbal problem-solving
Blackledge/Törneke
139
Rule-governed behavior:
the curse
 The dominance of indirect stimulus
functions has the risk of fusion
 Rule-governed behavior has the risk of
experiental avoidance
Blackledge/Törneke
140
Clinical implications
 RFT supplies a new understanding of psychotherapy
generally
 Clinical behavior analysis: Treatment starts by a
functional analysis and focuses on two kinds of
behavior; problematic and alternative
 ACT asks two questions:
1.
In what direction do you want to go? (motivation)
2. What stands in your way? (private events as
hindrances)
Blackledge/Törneke
141
Strategy and technique
 Clarify desirable consequences
 Evaluate what kind of actions would carry in that
direction
 Undermine problematic verbal behavior
(defusion)
 Metaphors and experiental excercises
Blackledge/Törneke
142
Relating your way through the Hexaflex:
RFT and ACT’s Six Core Processes
Contact with the
Present Moment
Acceptance
Values
Defusion
Committed
Action
Self as
Context
ACT is Thoroughly and
Completely Grounded in RFT,
Right?
 Not exactly.
 To the extent that RFT has broad scope, it should be
able to be used to comprehensively conceptualize
ACT.
 ACT & RFT emerged together.
 Some points of correspondence between both were
explicit from the beginning, but many more have
come to be fleshed out over time.
 E.g., no RFT-based analysis of self as context until 15-20
years after ACT was born.
ACT is Thoroughly and
Completely Grounded in RFT,
Right?
 Lab-based RFT experiments on ACT’s processes have
emerged in the last decade




Defusion
Self as context
Values
Acceptance
RFT & Acceptance
Acceptance
 Acceptance involves the active and aware
experiencing of private events occasioned by one’s
history without attempts to change their frequency
or form, especially when doing so would cause
psychological harm.
 “The act of approaching aversive stimuli, when that
act is in an if-then frame with valued outcomes
and/or a frame of coordination with valued actions.”
Blackledge & Barnes-Holmes (2009). Core processes in acceptance and commitment
therapy.
Acceptance & If-Then
relations
 “If I’m willing to feel anxious, then I can stand up
here and talk about things that matter to me.”
RFT & Cognitive Defusion
RFT & Defusion
 “Cognitive defusion techniques attempt to alter the
undesirable functions of thoughts and other private
events, rather than trying to alter their form,
frequency or situational sensitivity. Said another
way, ACT attempts to change the way one interacts
with or relates to thoughts by creating contexts in
which their unhelpful functions are diminished.”
 Hayes, 2006
Crel and Cfunc
 Crel = Relational context
 Contextual cues that establish what relations exists
between stimuli
 Virtually always refers to the relational words used in a
sentence—sometimes to other words that help qualify
the relation
 “He’s the same man is father was.”
 “She’s feeling a bit under the weather right now.”
 Defusion techniques do not attempt to change the
relational context—the relation(s) between stimuli
 Equates to ‘not trying to change a thought’
Crel and Cfunc
 Cfunc = Functional context
 Contextual cues that qualify/quantify the specifics of a
relation between stimuli.
 Given that a specific relation has been established (Crel
), what exact kinds of transformations of function does
that relation result in?
 “Struggling with anxiety is like struggling with
quicksand.”
Crel and Cfunc
 A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a relation
transforms the functions of the relata.
 Historical variables (e.g., the learning history of the person
doing the relating)
 E.g., learning histories with respect to metaphors
 Additional words that highlight specific aspects of a relation
and attenuate others
 E.g., “You basically put a grill together the same (Crel) way you would
put a piece of furniture together. Take out all the parts, read the
instructions, pull out the socket wrench and get to work”.
• Additional words that qualify when a relation holds
 E.g., “There is (Crel)a speed trap set up right by Exit 32”
Crel and Cfunc
 A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a
relation transforms the functions of the relata.
 Grammatical and syntactic rules play a big role in
setting the functional context.
 If you don’t use the right words strung together in the
proper way, the sentence doesn’t make sense and the
attempted way of relating stimuli won’t transform the
relata’s functions in the expected way.
Crel and Cfunc
 A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a
relation transforms the functions of the relata.
 Contextual cues like tone of voice & manner of
speaking can also moderate how a relation transforms
the functions of its relata.
 “I’m an idiot”—spoken in a solemn, defeatist tone.
 “I’m an idiot”– sung in sing-song operatic voice.
Crel and Cfunc
 A variety of contextual cues can moderate how a
relation transforms the functions of the relata.
 Even basic contextual features like speaking a sentence
too slowly or too quickly, or substituting a sillly/out of
place word for an emotionally laden one, can
dramatically change how a relation transforms
functons.
 “That’s so………sunshine?”
So what does all this have to
do with RFT and Defusion?
 Defusion strategies violate key features of what can
be called the “context of literality”
-- a context in which words are taken literally--
such that the relational context isn’t changed, but
the functional context is.
 The thoughts stay the same……..but they start to
function very differently.
In other words……
Defusion: Rationale
 What we think changes our experience of ourselves
and the world around us.
 But, what we think (or say) has to be experienced
under a certain set of conditions in order to change
our experiences.
Defusion: Rationale
 Think of times when you experienced words as just
sounds or marks on paper:




“Milk” exercise
Unfamiliar foreign language
Auctioneer
Etc.
 When language is experienced under normal
conditions, it can change your experience
accordingly
 When it isn’t, words appear more as what they are:
Simply scratches on paper, arbitrary symbols, weird
sounds.
Defusion: Rationale
 Defusion strategies ‘break the rules’ of language as
usual to disrupt its ability to change your experience,
to help undercut reliance on language as the final
arbiter of “Truth”.
What are the rules of Language as
Usual?
 Think of all the conditions virtually always
present when language is being spoken with
meaning and listened to with understanding:
Parameters exist around how sentences are
structured and how words are used.
Certain words refer to certain things.
Certain minimal grammatical units must be
used.
What are the rules of Language as
Usual?
 Parameters exist around how quickly words can be
spoken & how frequently a word can be repeated.
 Parameters exist around what is attended to when
thinking or speaking:
 You attend to the content of what’s being thought
or spoken about.
 Once you focus exclusively on the process of
thinking or speaking, you lose the flow—you begin
to focus on the fact that words or thoughts are
being formed, rather than on the content of what is
being formed.
What are the rules of Language as
Usual?
 You focus on the more proximally distal & abstract
stimulus products of thinking & speaking, rather
than on concrete, formal stimulation that is
occurring right now.
What are the rules of Language as
Usual?
 When the preceding functional context is in place,
RFT predicts that language will be used with
meaning and listened to with understanding—that
language (relational responding) will have the ability
to alter your experience (i.e., transform stimulus
functions in ways that would be quite literally
expected given one’s learning history).
 When sufficient contextual cues that make up the
aforementioned Cfunc are removed, the “expected”
functional transformations are disrupted.
Defusion: An RFT-based
Experimental Example
 Roche, Dymond, Melia, Kanter, & Blackledge (under
submission).
 Defusion/no defusion pre-training w/ arbitrary symbols
 Arbitrary symbols (A1’s) placed in equivalence classes
with B1’s & C1’s
 C1’s repeatedly presented before aversive pic
 Defusion group showed significantly less avoidance
when presented with A1’s
RFT, Self as Context
& Self as Content
Self as context
 Discriminating one’s ‘self’ as a distinct observer of
varying, transitory thoughts, feelings, sensations,
sights, sounds, & experiences.
 Development of a sense of self as context……
 Wherever you go, there you are…..
 Whatever you feel, there you are
 Whatever you think, there you are……
Self as Context
 Requires the ability to relate stimuli in the following
ways:




I—You (It; that) (deictic relation)
Here—There (spatial relation)
Now---Then (temporal relation)
Adopting a sense of self as context involves perceiving
stimuli (“you’s” or “it’s”), out there, and (as can’t
notice you’ve noticed something until after you’ve
noticed it) then, from a perspective of I, Here, and Now.
Self as Context
 Why do you notice stimuli there and then from a
perspective of I Here Now?
 I am always the one doing the perceiving
 I am always Here, perceiving from the same locus of
perspective
 Perception always occurs in the present, Now
 Though reflecting on what is perceived always happens
after the perceptual fact
Self as Content
 Relating one’s “self” coordinatively to one’s
thoughts, feelings, and/or experiences.
 Framing one’s self as equivalent to the content of
one’s thoughts, feelings, etc.
Self as Content
 How does a sense of self as content develop?
 Coordinative relations appear to be the most basic
relation, and thus the first one learned.
 So much of everyday language involves relating
people coordinatively to various other stimuli (typically
in an evaluative fashion)…….
 Additionally, so much of everyday language involves
placing people’s actions in coordinative relations with
other stimuli
 E.g., “that was a stupid/selfish/ignorant thing to do”
Self as Content
 How does a sense of self as content develop?
 In other words, we are so often reinforced for placing
various stimuli in frames of coordination, including
placing I in a frame of coordination with evaluations
There and Then, it becomes a default mode.
 Thus, I comes to coordinatively related to thoughts &
feelings there and then.
But if our learning histories shape
up both a sense of self as context
and content, why does a sense of
self as content tend to dominate?
Why does Self as Content
Dominate?
 Ironically, perhaps because I am always right here,
right now, perceiving things, a sense of self as
context fades into the background
 E.g., how often do you think about breathing? That
which is always with us comes often to be ignored.
 A sense of self as context is typically not explicitly
taught, but rather implicitly derived
 No S+ for “I am distinct from my thoughts & feelings”
 Much S+ for coordinatively categorizing and evaluating
things.
Why does Self as Content
Dominate?
 Sometimes, a person’s sense of self as context is
underdeveloped
 E.g., in many diagnosed with BPD
RFT & Contact with the
Present Moment
CwPM as a ‘Counter-Balance’
to Relational Framing
 Relational framing (thinking; speaking), virtually by
definition, involves a lack of contact with the present
moment.
 “At this very moment, I am speaking about ‘right now’ “
 Loosely, language describes/evaluates stimulation that
presents itself just before the words are formed
 This often is not a bad thing (and can be a very good
thing).
 But…….
Blackledge/Törneke
179
When Being ‘Stuck in your head’
isn’t such a good thing…..
 Language is most helpful when it quickly &
effectively assists in adapting to changes in the
environment.
 Behavior solely guided by verbal rules lacks sufficient
flexibility
 Transformations of function occurring alongside
negatively evaluative language can:
 Make pleasant/neutral ‘direct experiences’ unpleasant
 Make unpleasant situations worse
Blackledge/Törneke
180
Why CwPM is a
Good Thing
 CwPM as ‘data gathering’.
 Present moment feedback about the ‘situation on the
ground’ and the effectiveness of one’s actions
 Can be used to ‘feed back’ into relational framing and
use language to facilitate more effective action
Blackledge/Törneke
181
Why CwPM is a
Good Thing
 CwPM and vitality
 Vitality = “physical or intellectual vigor”
 Vigor = “strong feeling; enthusiasm or intensity”
 Direct experiencing = multisensory; higher salience
 Talking about experiences = more 2-dimensional; lower
salience
Blackledge/Törneke
182
RFT & Values
 “Values are freely chosen, verbally constructed
consequences of ongoing, dynamic, evolving
patterns of activity, which establish predominant
reinforcers for that activity that are intrinsic in
engagement in the valued behavioral pattern itself’
(Wilson & Dufrene, 2009)
Blackledge/Törneke
183
Reinforcers?
 Values are essentially verbal descriptions of personal
actions and qualities of action that have received
robust degrees of positive reinforcement in the past
 May include actions/qualities of action demonstrated
by others to receive highly desired positive reinforcers .
 As with any reinforcers, values may be highly
idiosyncratic
Blackledge/Törneke
184
Values are Verbally
Constructed?
 For animals, reinforcers are either primary or
conditioned, and distal reinforcers very rarely come
to hold sway over current behavior.
 Primary & conditioned reinforcers are important to
humans, but DRR leads many other outcomes and
actions to become reinforcing as well:
 Exercise (& example): What is one thing that matters
deeply to you? Explain why using only the principles of
primary and/or conditioned short-term reinforcement.
Blackledge/Törneke
185
Values are ongoing
patterns of activity…….
 Values refer to a potentially great variety of
thematically or functionally related behaviors that
are often instrumental in achieving desired
consequences.
 Topography vs. function
 New behaviors that fit the pattern can often be
verbally identified and implemented—without any
direct history of reinforcement.
 DRR greatly expands the number of “functionally”
related behaviors that can be emitted.
Blackledge/Törneke
186
…that are Actively Constructed,
Dynamic & Evolving
 Typical values statement = brief ‘mission statement’
 Refers to several concise ‘qualities of action’
 May not perfectly describe the precise essence of a way of
living (with respect to that domain) that brings vitality,
meaning, purpose.
 Simply provides the bullet points of an outline—doesn’t
flesh out the life-long narrative.
 On an ongoing basis, a great variety of behaviors can be
chosen to implement this ‘mission statement’
 Some actions are planned, many spontaneous ones are
tailor-made on the spot, some no-longer effective ones are
abandoned, etc.
Blackledge/Törneke
187
…that are Actively Constructed,
Dynamic & Evolving
 The topography of these values-consistent behaviors
may dramatically evolve over time
 Example: How do you live a value with respect to a
loved one whose passed away?
Blackledge/Törneke
188
Values establish reinforcers that are
intrinsic in engagement in the valued
behavioral pattern itself?
 Typically, client-endorsed values are initially outcomeoriented
 But, verbal processes can place actions that are
consistent with such outcomes (or often lead to them) in
a frame of coordination with these outcomes.
 Verbal transformations of function may then transfer
some of the reinforcing functions of those outcomes to
the coordinated behaviors.
 May even make previously aversive behaviors reinforcing
Blackledge/Törneke
189
“Freely Chosen?”
 Behaviorism & Free Will vs. Determinism:
 ‘All behavior is determined’
 “Freely” in the Skinnerian sense:
 Free from aversive control
 A sense of free will, of choice, is thought to emerge
when the ‘have to’s’ fall away and one is focused
largely on the ‘want to’s’.
Blackledge/Törneke
190
Choice: Where do Values
Come From?
 Theoretically, values are ways of behaving that are
‘determined’ by one’s learning history:
 that have received highly salient positive
reinforcement in the past
 modeled by others who received highly desired forms
of reinforcement
 that mirror behavior emitted toward you which you
found reinforcing
 resulting from verbal derivations regarding behavior
one believes may be instrumental in living a life that is
meaningful, purposeful, and vital
Blackledge/Törneke
191
Values as
Motivative Augmentals
 “Behavior due to relational networks that
temporarily alter the degree to which previously
established consequences function as reinforcers or
punishers”
 Example: “Your daughter could really use a hug
from you right now”.
 A verbal statement that makes an already
reinforceable behavior more likely to occur.
Blackledge/Törneke
192
Values as
Formative Augmentals
 “Establish some new event as an important
consequence”; “behavior due to relational networks
that establish given consequences as reinforcers or
punishers.”
 Example: “Even though it’s frightening, doesn’t a
big part of you really want to open up to your
partner and tell her exactly how you’re feeling—to
really connect with her, be close to her?”
 Places neutral/aversive behavior in a frame of
coordination (for example) with desired
consequences.
Blackledge/Törneke
193
RFT & Commitment
 Verbally committing to a value or values-consistent
action(s).
 Public commitments increase probability of the stated
behavior given a relatively consistent history of
reinforcement for say-do correspondence (and/or
punishment for the opposite)
 Commitment may also act as a formative or motivative
augmental.
 Actually acting in a values-consistent manner.
Blackledge/Törneke
194