Improving Social Skills by Building
Fluency on Deictic Relational Classes
Donny Newsome, MA
University of Nevada, Reno
The Challenge of Teaching Social Skills
•
•
•
•
•
•
Slippery – difficult to define
Subtle
Contextually dependent
Subjective
Impacts Quality of Life
Collateral problem behaviors
– Verbal abuse
– Theft
– Property destruction
Traditional Approaches
• Component Skills Deficit Model - Views
knowledge of rules as being key component
skills of the broader social repertoire
• “eye contact is good, but not for too long”
• “don’t stare”
• “do unto others….”
• “always say please and thank you”
The Problems with Rule-Based
Approaches
• Infinite number of rules
• Limited applicability of a single rule
– ‘always say please and thank you…..well, not always….just
most of the time….well, really just when it is socially
appropriate to do so…but not at times when it isn’t…..’
• Rigidity – Lack of contextual sensitivity
• Insensitivity to changes in contingencies not described
in the rule
– (Haas & Hayes, 2006; Hayes, Brownstein, Haas, &
Greenway, 1986; Hayes, Strosal & Wilson, 1999; Skinner,
1957)
Alternative: Experiential Contact
• Non-specific feedback on performance, but
not rules
– (Azrin & Hayes, 1984; Rosenfarb, Hayes & Linehan,
1989)
• Outperformed rule-based strategies
*Requires a certain minimal repertoire to be
sensitive to feedback and subtle differences in
social contingencies
New Conceptualization of Component
Skills Deficit Model
• Emerging approaches: Component skills
identified at a more fundamental level of
cognitive processes
– Similar to Johnson & Layng (1992) definition of
tool skills: “the most basic elements of more
complex skills” (pg 1479).
New Conceptualization of Skill Deficit
Model
• Deficits are at the level of basic verbal processes
(relational responding), not in knowledge of rules
• Basic relational operants are not situationspecific
• Allows for a generative approach to social skill
acquisition
• Promotes meaningful contact and sensitivity to
subtle social cues and contingencies
– Making room for shaping to occur
RFT – Perspective Taking
• Deictic Frames
– 3 Types of relations
I – you
Here – there
Now – then
– 3 Levels of Complexity
Simple
Reversed
Double-reversed
RFT – Perspective Taking
• Validity in Evidence:
– Performance on ToM tasks in social anhedonia
and schizophrenia (Barnes-Holmes, et al. 2004;
Villatte, et al. 2008; Villatte, et al. 2010; Weil, et al.
2010)
– Deficits in perspective-taking tasks in ASD relative
to controls (Rehfeldt, et al 2007)
– IQ (RFT–PT) (Gore, et al. 2010)
Case Study - Background
• 24 yr old Male, JP
• Autism, Mild MR, ADHD, Speech impediment
(stutter)
• Problem Behaviors:
–
–
–
–
Verbal abuse
Stealing
Property destruction
Refusals
• Acquisition Targets:
– Appropriate conversation skills
– Coping skills
– Compromising
Case Study – Initial Protocol
• Began with standard differential
reinforcement protocol combined with
replacement behavior training (RBT)
• RBT protocols included role-playing with
feedback and hypothetical-situation exercises
• Some acquisition targets moved, but problem
behaviors also increased
Case Study – Revised Protocol
• Included fluency training on simple deictic relations
– Daily training on I – You relations
– Weekly probes for Here – There and Now – Then relations
• Additional fluency programs for socially relevant skills
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
F/S Emotion terms
H/S Complete sentence with emotive term
H/S Emotion for event
F/S Positive statements
H/S What you can do to help
F/S Thoughts about standing in line
F/S Thoughts about life in 10 years
Baseline
Differential
Reinforcement
+ RBT
Differential
Reinforcement + RBT
+ Deictic
Replacement Behaviors
Problem Behaviors
300
Replacement Bx
250
Baseline
Differential
Reinforcement + RBT
200
Differential Reinforcement
+ RBT + Deictic
Appr.Conversation
150
Compromising
Coping Skills
100
50
0
May
June
July
September October
November December
January
February
Problem Bx
100
80
August
Differential
Reinforcement + RBT
Baseline
Differential Reinforcement
+ RBT + Deictic
60
Stealing
Physical Aggression
Verbal Abuse
40
Refusals
20
0
May
June
July
August
September October
November December
January
February
Case Study - Results
• Targeting deictic relational skills appeared to
improve sensitivity to programmed social
contingencies
• This was accomplished by only training simple
relations
• Also found that training all 3 deictic relations
was not necessary
I - You
Here – There & Now - Then
Incorrect Responses
Case Study – Caveats & Questions
• Idiosyncratic?
• ‘True’ fluency was difficult to measure due to
stuttering issue
• Unable to say which programs were critical to
success
• Incremental utility of training reversed and
double-reversed relations
Case Study - Contributions
• Practical Utility
• Value of a fluency-based approach and SCC
measurement system
• Utility of time-series analysis
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Azrin, R.D., Hayes, S.C. (1984). The Discrimination of Interest Within a
Heterosexual Interaction: Training, Generalization, and Effects of Social Skills.
Behavior Therapy, 15, 173-184.
Gore, J.N., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Murphy, G. (2010). The relationship between
intellectual functioning and relational perspective-taking. International Journal of
Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10-1, 1-17.
Barnes-Holmes Y., McHugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking
and theory of mind: A relational frame account. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5,
15-25.
Haas, J. R., Hayes, S. C. (2006). When knowing you are doing well hinders
performance: Exploring the interaction between rules and feedback. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 26 (1,2), pp. 91-111.
Hayes, S.C., Brownstein, A.J., Haas, J.R. & Greenway, D.E. (1986). Instructions,
multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedulecontrolled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46(2):
137-147.
Hayes, S.C, Strosal, K.D., Wilson, K.G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Johnson, K.R., Layng, T.V. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier, literacy and
numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1475-1490.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as
relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54,
115-144.
Rehfeldt, R.A., Dillen, J.E., Ziomek, M.M. & Kowalchuk, R.K. (2007). Assessing
relational learning deficits in perspective-taking with high functioning autism
spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23-47.
Rosenfarb, I.S., Hayes, S.C., Linehan, M.M. (1989). Instructions and experiential
feedback in the treatment of social skills deficits in adults. Psychotherapy,
26(2), 242-251.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Copley Publishing Group. Acton,
Massachusetts.
Villatte, M., Monestes, J., McHuch, L., Baque, E.F., Loas, G. (2008). Assessing deictic
relational responding in social anhedonia: A functional approach to the
development of theory of mind impairments. International Journal of Behavioral
Consultation and Therapy, 4-4, 360-373.
Villatte, M., Monestes, J., McHuch, L., Baque, E.F., Loas, G. (2010). Adopting the
perspective of another in belief attribution: The contribution of relational frame
theory to the understanding of impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 41, 125-134.
Weil, T. M. & Hayes, S. C. (Under Review) Impact of training deictic frames on
Theory of Mind in Children. Psychological Record.