RFT & the Self:

Theory, Research, and Applications

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

z The RFT approach to self is rooted in a

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

z Animals ‘know’ (non-verbally) what they

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

No response
DRO schedule

DRL schedule

Response

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

z Non-verbal self-awareness
z Responding to one’s own behavior
z Non-verbal self
z The physical organism
Relational Frame Theory & Self
 Verbal Self-Knowledge

z Humans don’t simply behave with regard

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

NON-ARBITRARY ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE

(PHYSICAL) RELATIONS
RELATIONS

‘APPLE’
‘SAME’
‘IS’

10c 5c
‘MORE THAN’

Better Worse
‘OPPOSITE’
 RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY
PROPERTIES OF ARBITRARILY APPLICABLE RELATIONAL RESPONDING

1. Mutual Entailment
salivation sweet

smooth red
Apple

Ull 3. Transformation
of Functions
2. Combinatorial
salivation sweet
Entailment
ull
smooth red
RFT & Verbal Behavior

z Any object in a relational frame is a

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

Dymond and Barnes (1995)

Train 1 Response Test 0 Response

Function Function

B1 Less
B2
Same Less
Same
A1 More

Same More
C1 C2
Test 1 Response Test 2 Response
Function Function
Verbal Self-Discrimination
z Verbal reports of one’s own behavior,
or of the contingencies controlling it,
can alter the functions of both
z This can be for the good…
z …as well as for the bad…

–Self-instructions can reduce the effects

of temporal delays in reinforcement

–Self-knowledge of aversive
events is itself aversive
Perspective Taking
Development of Perspective-Taking

z Being able to respond verbally to our

environment allows the development of certain
patterns of relational framing
z RFT refers to these frames as DEICTIC, which
means that they depend on the perspective of
the speaker
z For RFT, deictic relational frames provide the
basis of perspective taking
Deictic Frames
z Most relational frames are based
on formal or non-
arbitrary counterparts
z This chair is bigger than that chair <
z Steve has less hair than Homer
z DEICTIC frames belong to a special class of
relations that have no non-arbitrary
counterparts and thus demonstration and
multiple exemplar training cannot rely on such
features
Development of Perspective-Taking

z The verbal community trains deictic relations

by asking questions such as
z What am I doing over here?
z What are you doing now?

z Perspective is the invariant that is abstracted

from these discriminations
z I-YOU, HERE-THERE, NOW-THEN
z It is (verbal) responding to responding
from a particular locus
Development of Perspective-Taking

z Abstraction of one’s perspective requires

z Sufficiently well developed relational repertoire
z Extensive history of multiple exemplars that take
advantage of that repertoire
z Deictic frames are supported by simpler
relations that are true relative to a given
perspective
z Which is your left hand?
z Which way is left?
I am abad
good
husband
doctor
I think of lunchtime
your
my father
work
pain
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I touch the
my
intohot
face
screen
thepan
water

I see ayou
and
bright
desk
coming
hearfuture
a dog

I hear birds
music
my
a driving
mother
singing
car
calling

I eat chocolate
bread
aicesteak
cream
I am abad
good
husband
doctor
I think of lunchtime
your
my father
work
pain
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I touch the
my
intohot
face
screen
thepan
water

I see ayou
and
bright
desk
coming
hearfuture
a dog

I hear
eat chocolate
bread
aice
birds
music
my
asteak
driving
cream
mother
singing
car
calling
I am abad
good
husband
doctor
I think of lunchtime
your
my father
work
pain
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I touch the
my
intohot
face
screen
thepan
water

I hear
see
eat ayou
and
bread
chocolate
ice
birds
music
my
abright
desk
steak
driving
cream
coming
hear
mother
singing
future
a car
dog
calling
I am abad
good
husband
doctor
I think of lunchtime
your
my father
work
pain
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I hear
touch
see
eat ayou
and
bread
chocolate
ice
birds
music
my
abright
desk
steak
the
my
into
driving
cream
coming
hear
mother
hot
face
screen
the
singing
future
apan
water
car
dog
calling
I think of lunchtime
your
my father
work
pain
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I hear
am
touch
see
eat ayou
and
bread
chocolate
ice
bad
good
birds
music
my
abright
desk
steak
husband
doctor
the
my
into
driving
cream
coming
hear
mother
hot
face
screen
the
singing
future
apan
water
car
dog
calling
I go home
into
back
to mythe
tooffice
school
dark

I think
am
hear
touch
see
eat ayou
anddoctor
of
bread lunchtime
your
my
chocolate
ice
bad
good
birds
music
my
abright
desk
steak
husband
the
my
into
driving
cream
coming
hear father
work
apain
mother
hot
face
screen
the
singing
future
pan
water
car
dog
calling
I think
hear
am
touch
see
go
eathome
into
back
to
ayou
and
bread
chocolate
ice
bad
good
birds
music
my
abright
desk
steak
husband
doctor
my
of
the
my
into
driving
cream
the
coming
hear
to
lunchtime
your
my
mother
office
hot
face
screen
the
school
singing
dark
father
work
future
apain
pan
water
car
dog
calling
Perspective-Taking

z A person is always speaking from the

perspective of I-HERE-NOW about events that
happen THERE and THEN
z Words like I and YOU do not define
perspective-taking frames; they are
Crels that often control perspective-taking frames
z Responding in accordance with deictic frames
allows us to evaluate, compare, contrast, and
judge events from a constant perspective
Empirical Work
McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes (2004)

80

70

60

50

Errors 40

30

20

10

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

Deictic relational framing (I-You, Here-There, Now-Then)

ability correlates with data from Theory of Mind studies
McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes (2004)

Deictic relational frames produce ERPs patterns similar

to those found in ToM research SELF

OTHER
A Single Relation Task

I have a white brick and you have a red brick

Which brick do you have?

Which brick do I have?

 A Reversed Relation Task

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

there on the black chair

Here: There:

If HERE was THERE & THERE was HERE

Where would I be sitting?

Where would you be sitting?

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

If HERE was THERE and THERE was HERE

and
NOW was THEN and THEN was NOW

Where would I be sitting now?

Where would you be sitting then?

Further Research on Deictics
z Relational repertoires required for
perspective taking follow a distinct developmental
profile and are comprised of functionally distinct
relational components (McHugh, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-
Holmes & Stewart, 2006)
z Deictic relations are generalized operants (Weil,
2007)
z Deictic relations can be trained (e.g., Heagle & Rehfeldt,
2006) including in children with autistic spectrum
disorders with perspective-taking deficits (Rehfeldt,
Dillen, Ziomek & Kowalchuk, 2007)
Supportive Data from Alternative
Perspectives
 GALLUP (1977) – Self Recognition
Self recognition in primates, American Psychologist, 32, 329-338

z In Gallup (1977), chimps first reacted to mirror images

with fright / aggression
z After 10 days exposure they responded in accordance
with a correspondence between themselves and the
mirror image
z Gallup claimed the chimps were ‘self-aware’ but
Povinelli (1998) disagreed, arguing that they were
simply responding to a correspondence between their
own behavior and that of the image
z This is a combination of non-arbitrary similarity
and non-verbal responding to one’s own
behavior
 POVINELLI (1998)
Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75

z Povinelli (1998)
z Three year olds who saw a video from minutes earlier
of an experimenter putting a sticker on their head
seemed to recognize themselves but described the
child in the video in the third person and, crucially,
failed to reach up to their head to remove the sticker
z Four year olds + referred to the child in the video as
‘me’ and removed the sticker
z Results indicate that ‘a consistent sense of self
appears to emerge between 3.5 and 4 years old’
 BARRESI (1998)
Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75

z Three year olds can deal with self and other in

the present, but cannot make decisions about a
‘future self’ or ‘future other’
z No ‘empathy for their own future self or the
future self of the other’ (p.7)
z Not yet conscious of the self or other as
extended in time, with desires that can conflict
between selves from different times
 BARRESI (1998)
Maybe not, American Psychologist Presents, 9(4), 67, 72-75
Neuropsychological Perspectives
Two neurally distinct, but habitually integrated, forms
of self-reference.
Narrative self-reference (self-as-content)
•The self extended across time and space
•Linguistic semantic network
•Supported by activity in midline prefrontal cortices
Experiential self-reference (self-as-process)
•Moment by moment self awareness
•Intero- and exteroceptive sensory processing
•Supported by lateral PFC and insula
•Brain’s ‘default mode’ ≈ narrative self-reference
Farb, Segal…Anderson (2007)
SCAN, 2, 313-322

•8 week course in mindful meditation resulted in

•↓ mPFC activity
•↑ right lateralized network activity
•Decoupling of these two networks
•Mindfulness training may afford greater flexibility
and access to present moment self awareness
•Viscerosomatic awareness without automatic
evaluation
The Three Senses of Self
The Three Senses of Self
z Object of verbal knowledge
z The conceptualized self
z Self as content
z Process of verbal knowledge
z The knowing self
z Self as process
z Locus of verbal knowledge
z Transcendent self
z Self as context or perspective
Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)
z Elaborate descriptive and evaluative relational
networks
z Constructed HERE and NOW
z About me (or my behaviors) THERE and THEN

z Organized into relational

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

z The product of evaluative processes are

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

z Appear to be True, historical, and thus,

unchangeable
z Basis for reason-giving
z Can become rigid and ossified
z Ignore contradictory evidence
z Amplify confirmatory evidence
z Act in ways that avoid disconfirmation
z Clinical Implications
z Depression, identity crisis, stuck in dysfunctional
relationships/jobs/behavioral patterns
The conceptualized self trap

I slept all day. I am a lazy person.

Result: The only way to change your

future is to change your past. You’re Stuck!
The conceptualized self trap

Or worse…

You’ve been living in an imaginary cage.

Self-as-Content (Conceptualized Self)

z Relevant ACT techniques

z Defusion exercises
z Identifying programming
z Rewriting your autobiography

z The documentary of you

z Who would be made wrong?

z Corpus delecti

z Self-as-context exercises
z Box full of stuff
z Chessboard Metaphor
Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)
z Ongoing, fluid self- awareness
z I feel, I see, I think, I wonder, I like, I hear, I remember…

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

z Threats to self-as-process
z Inadequate training by
verbal community
z Experiential avoidance

z Clinical implications
z Weak self knowledge
z Dominance of evaluative framing
z Dominance of conceptualized past and future
Self-as-Process (Knowing Self)

z Relevant ACT techniques

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

z The sense of self as perspective

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

z Not threatened by aversive content or process

z Facilitates willingness, compassion, intimacy
Self-as-Context Clinical Issues

z Clinical implications
z No/unstable sense of self
z Stigma, objectification of others
z Social anhedonia
z Lack of empathy and self-compassion
z Difficulties with intimacy, connecting with others
z Relevant ACT techniques
z Observer, Eyes On
z Shifting Perspectives (time, place, person)
z Metaphors: sky and weather, ocean
Self meets Other
z Conceptualized other
z Stereotypes, characterizations, straw men
z Idealizations and expectations
z Knowing other
z Basis for empathy and understanding
z Awareness of speaker impact on listener
z Transcendent other
z Ontological/philosophical impasses
z Transcendent other = transcendent self
z Basis for compassion and intimacy
EXTRA MATERIAL
Perspective-Taking & the 3 Selves

Self as Content Self as Process

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

I am having the thought that I am worthless

Hierarchical
Hierarchical
Relation
Relation

Self as Content Self as Process

I am a worthless AND I feel so worthless
person right now

I am having the feeling that I am worthless right now

The Three Senses of Self

CONTENT: I am an environmentalist

PROCESS: I feel pride in my environmentalism

CONTEXT: Both content and process are a function of my

unique perspective
IDENTITY CRISIS
IDENTITY CRISIS
Self-as-Process Clinical Issues
z What ACT processes would you target in
order to develop a sense of knowing self?
z ACT Techniques
z Leaves on stream, soldiers on parade
z Cubby-holing (labeling)
z Observing sensations, body scan
z Any, all mindfulness exercises
NEGATIVE SELF-CONTENT

• Most clients coming into therapy have a very negative

self-concept

• Self evaluations are often seen as literally true, which can

be very painful

• As a result, the ‘self’ needs to change

NEGATIVE SELF-CONTENT

Barnes, Lawlor, Smeets & Roche (1996)

“Stimulus equivalence and academic self-concept among

mildly mentally handicapped and non-handicapped
children”

Developmentally disabled children were more likely than

non-developmentally disabled children to fail an
equivalence test by choosing SLOW rather than ABLE as a
match for their own name in the critical test phase despite
showing comparable levels of equivalence responding when
non-loaded terms were used
 Nonverbal Knowing
z Nonverbal self
z Locus of nonverbal knowledge
z Ongoing behavioral stream
z Biological organism
z Nonverbal knowledge
z Organism’s non-relational behavioral
repertoire
z Nature of knowing: direct
behavioral processes
z Operant and classical conditioning
z Stimulus and response
generalization based on formal
properties of events in evolutionary
sense
Verbal Knowing
z Verbal self
z Object of verbal knowledge
z Process of verbal knowledge
z Locus of verbal knowledge
z Verbal knowledge
z Behavioral functions established through networks of
derived stimulus relations
z Nature of verbal knowledge
z Derived and arbitrarily applicable relational responding
Training Self As Process

-Publically accessible stimuli or

responses
-Private stimuli correlated with
publically trained verbal
discriminations
-Metaphorical extension

RFT amplifies this regulation

-Bidirectional relational
responding
-Explains process of
construction of verbal correlates
and metaphorical extension
Self As Process Æ Avoidance
I’m feeling good

Well, mostly good, except for those nagging doubts

Stop that! I must think positive…

Who am I kidding? - that’s not going to work.

I’m just not good enough

I’m going back to bed

Allows Others to Predict Behavior

I feel very unsure about going

PROBABLY WON’T GO
The Importance of ‘Being Right’
z Harre (1993)
z Young children spend considerably more
time asserting their status within a group by
demonstrating the correctness of their
opinions than by using other more direct
means
The Importance of ‘Coherence’

z Festinger (1954): Cognitive Dissonance

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

z Dymond & Barnes (1994, 1995, 1996)

z Barnes, Lawlor, Smeets, Roche (1996)
z McHugh et al. (2004 etc.)
z IRAP and self (Vahey et al.)
z Luciano et al. (Rehfeldt & Barnes-
Holmes, 2009)
z Villardaga et al. (Update needed)
Le ve l of Re la tion Type Te st/Tra ining Se ssion No. Re sults
Com ple x ity
Simple I-YOU Test 1 - 3 8/8; 8/8; 8/8
HERE-THERE
NOW-THEN
Reversed I-YOU Test 4 – 6 0/8; 0/8
Train (aids) 7 – 9 3/8; 7/8; 8/8
Train 10 - 11 6/8; 8/8
TRAINING Test 12 – 13 8/8; 8/8
Gen Test 14 – 15 8/8; 8/8

PERSPECTIVE HERE-THERE Test

Train
16 - 17
18 - 19
0/12; 0/12
7/12; 12/12
Test 20 - 21 12/12; 12/12
4 yrs. 1 mth. / Gen Test 22 - 23 12/12; 12/12
63 sessions of NOW-THEN Test 24 - 25 1/16; 0/16
training over Train 26 - 29 6/16; 12/ 16;
10 weeks 12/16; 16/16
Test 30 - 31 16/16; 16/16
Gen Test 32 - 34 16/16; 14/16;
16/16
Double Reversed I-YOU Test 35 - 36 0/6; 1/6
HERE-THERE

Train 37 - 38 2/6; 6/6

Test 39 - 41 5/6; 6/6; 6/6
Gen Test 42 - 45 5/6; 6/6; 6/6
HERE-THERE Test 46 - 47 0/12; 0/12
NOW-THEN Train 48 - 51 6/12; 8/12;
10/12; 12/12
Test 52 - 53 12/12; 12/12

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

12/12; 12/12

ALL ALL GEN 58 - 63 12/12; 11/12;

12/12; 11/12;
12/12; 12/12