Reticulated Science
Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada
The Purpose of ACBS
Creating a
psychology more
adequate to the
challenge of the
human condition
Where CBS Started:
Behavior Analysis
Philosophical
clarity
Basic principles
from the lab
Inductive
extensions using
functional analysis
Time series designs
evaluating
extensions
Why That is Not Enough
What do you do
when you hit a
wall?
GU
AGE
LAN
GU
AGE
LAN
NIN
TION
COG
NI
TION
COG
NI
E
LAN
GU
AGE
LAN
GU
AGE
G
NI
TION
COG
U
AGE
LAN
GU
AGE
LAN
GU
NI
TION
COG
NI
TION
AGE
LAN
GU
AGE
LAN
N
N COG
LAN
GU
NI
TION COG
The CBS Strategy
Rearrange the
relation between
applied and basic
psychology
You Cannot Turn This Over to
Someone Else
The CBS approach:
Applied and basic
psychologists need
to take
responsibility for
each other and for
the field as a whole
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
ACT in Silence
35
30
RCTs on ACT by Year
25
20
15
10
5
0
Its Not Bottom Up
vs Top Down
It’s reticulated
development
versus silos
Context Theory of
Cognition
1. Mutual
Entailment
Manipulable
variables linked
to actions of
importance
This is controlled
by history and
context
Limoo
Betrang
2. Combinatorial
Entailment
Functions
Manipulable
variables linked
to actions of
importance
salivation
bumpy
sour
yellow
lemonade
citrus
This is controlled
by history and
context
3. Transformation
of Functions
salivation
bumpy
lemonade
Betrang
citrus
sour
yellow
A Classic Example all Parents Know
A child learns that a nickel is “smaller than” a dime
5
10
And thus that a dime
is “bigger than” a nickel
5
10
Good
good
& is worth more
If
5
then
10
Our Fence-Post Dumb
Behavioral Idea
• Maybe it is operant behavior
• View it as a contextual
controlled relational
response, based originally on
multiple exemplar training
It Can Be Trained
Berens and Hayes, JABA, 2008
It Makes a Difference
Given A < B < C; Shocks to B
Dougher et al., JEAB, 2007
The Applied  Basic Gambit
Found a New Way Forward
Expand Behavioral
Principles to
Account for Human
Language and
Cognition:
Relational Frame
Theory
Liberalized Language
Practitioners need
middle level terms.
These needs to be
linked to basic
principles and
integrated into
models and
theories.
Contact with the
Present Moment
Acceptance
Values
Defusion
Committed
Action
Self as
Context
Probability of Avoidance
“Don’t Think “Bear”
Earlier
100%
Remove “Bear”
UNRELATED
GEEDER (C)
50%
BEAR
UNRELATED
BEAR
50%
GEEDER (C)
100%
Expectations of Depressives
Mean D-IRAP Score ms
Liv Kosness, Louise A. McHugh, Jo Saunders & Robert Whelan
0.33
0.28
0.23
0.18
0.13
0.08
0.03
-0.02
-0.07
-0.12
High BDI
Low BDI
PosD
-0.023
0.3
NegD
-0.116
0.041
IAT versus IRAP
Sarah Roddy, Ian Stewart & Dermot Barnes-Holmes
Relation to behavioral intentions
R2 Above Explicit
Anti-Fat Attitudes
R2 Above Feelings
toward Fat People
.1
.05
IRAP
IAT
.05
IAT
IRAP
.1
Example
3 Group RCT: Wait list, Goal-Setting,
Values plus Goal-Setting
Jared Chase dissertation
Adjusted Cumulative GPA
3.2
Now add:
Values plus Goal
Setting
Values plus
Goal Setting (N = 51)
3.15
Goal Setting
Alone (N = 48)
3.1
Wait list (N = 33)
Psych Majors Not in Study (N = 447)
3.05
Beginning
Spring 2009
End
Spring 2009
End
Fall 2009
Deictic Frames
YOU
HERE
NOW
I
THEN
THERE
Perspective Taking Self
Self-as-context
Figure 6. Within subject analysis for Abu. Multiple baseline across levels of Complexity includes
data series for each deictic relational frame. The lower panel represents Theory of Mind probe
percentages.
Percent Correct
Relation of Deictic Framing to
Theory of Mind Performance
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Deictic
ToM
Pre
Simple
Phases
Double
Reversals
Roger Vilardaga, Ana Estévez, Michael E. Levin and Steven C. Hayes
For Example:
Caring About Being
With Others
Perspective
Taking
Experiential
Avoidance
Empathy
Joy
Sadness
Now/Then
I/You
Here/There
-
--
Repertoire
Narrowing
+
Social Anhedonia
R2
Step 1
Gender
Age
Step 2
Gender
Age
Deictic ability
Step 3
Gender
Age
Deictic ability
Empathic concern
Step 4
Gender
Age
Deictic ability
Empathic concern
Experiential Avoidance
Social Anhedonia
∆F
β
.036
1.865
.10*
6.914
15*
5.172
.26**
14.599
-.17
-.09
-.13
-.10
-.26*
-.06
-.04
-.23*
-.23*
-.02
.05
-.18†
-.26*
.35**
Its Not Bottom Up
vs Top Down
It’s reticulated
development
versus silos