Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
A Contextual Behavioural Science approach to the self and
perspective taking
Louise McHugh
The self is a concept that is widespread in modern psychology
and has played either a central or supporting explanatory role in
several major theoretical approaches to human behaviour
including psychodynamics, humanism and positive
psychology. Despite the popularity of ‘self’ as an explanatory
concept within these approaches, however, it has arguably
remained ill-defined in operational terms. Recently, however, a
strand of behavioural psychology, namely Contextual
Behavioural Science (CBS), has emerged that has begun to
provide a functional analytic account of human language and
cognition. From this perspective only humans have a sense of
self. This is because only humans have language.
Characterizing the self in functional terms is crucial to coherent
understanding and effective intervention. The current paper
examines a bottom up functional approach to understanding
the self and perspective taking that can provide crucial
knowledge on how to predict and influence self related
problems.
Addresses
University College Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding author: McHugh, Louise (louise.mchugh@ucd.ie)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10
This review comes from a themed issue on Third wave behavioural
therapies
Edited by Kevin Vowles
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.030
2352-250X/# 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
One thing that most psychologists and psychotherapists
agree on is the importance of a sense of self [1,2]. A
healthy self is pretty much universally seen as a prereq-
uisite for sound mental functioning, while dysfunctional
or underdeveloped aspects of self are understood to
contribute to poor mental health [3]. The Contextual
Behavioural Science (CBS) approach suggests that the
sophisticated capacity of humans to understand them-
selves and others can be a double-edged sword [4]. The
capacity for humans to understand and evaluate them-
selves can help them to clarify what is important to them
and allow them to set and achieve goals towards living a
meaningful life. However, this sense of self can also trap
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10
people into a description that makes them feel lacking
when compared to others (‘they are better than me’), that
can hamper effective communication and relationships
with others (‘I must not expose myself’) and can result in
arbitrary barriers to moving towards a meaningful life (‘I
am not good enough’).
Self related problems are at the root of many clinical
disorders. For example, a lack of understanding ourselves
is linked to lower emotional resilience, less meaningful
relationships and increased narcissism and reactive anger
[5]. Self related problems range from a lack of under-
standing of the self and others, a pattern linked to autistic
spectrum conditions [6], to a strong attachment to a
negative self concept (a pattern linked to Major Depres-
sive Disorder [7]). Functional approaches to maladaptive
behaviour are becoming increasingly popular in psychol-
ogy [8,9] and are been widely applied across diagnostic
categories (e.g., diabetes self-management [10]; weight
control [11]; obsessive compulsive disorder [12]; depres-
sion [13]; chronic pain [14]; and even psychosis [15]). The
current paper examines a bottom up functional approach
to understanding the self and perspective taking that can
provide crucial knowledge on how to predict and influ-
ence self related problems. The current review will
examine how functionally distinct units are involved in
developing a healthy self concept. This is a response to
the need for a basic theoretical understanding of the
development of self understanding in order to design
effective interventions for self related problems (e.g.,
weak perspective taking, a negative self concept or low
empathy).
What is a functional approach?
Functional contextualism is the philosophy of science
underpinning Contextual Behavioural Science (CBS) that
considers events as on-going actions that derive meaning
from their context [16]. The novel CBS approach to the
self and perspective taking being introduced here is based
on the worldview of functional contextualism. The root
metaphor of contextualism is the event or act in context.
From this perspective, act and context are inseparable; for
example, according to Biglan [17]:
‘[A]n act in context is initially experienced as a whole; the
behavior of the person and the context are fused. The
very quality of the act is a function of its context. Going to
the store is different from going to the bank; raising one’s
hand to get attention is different from raising it in the act
of stretching’. (p. 32)
www.sciencedirect.com

The key advantage of the Functional Contextual ap-
proach to any phenomena of human behaviour including
the self and perspective taking is that it is a naturalistic,
empirical, pragmatic approach. It is naturalistic refers to
the fact that it is not based on things that cannot be
directly seen or manipulated such as the id or the ego of
psychodynamics or the visual–spatial sketch pad of cog-
nitive psychology, for example. Instead, its theoretical
explanations always include processes in the environment
that affect behaviour and that can be directly seen and
manipulated by the scientist. It is empirical means it is
based on scientific theory and empirical work. This theory
is based on the observations of scientists over decades of
basic research. Empirical work leading to the CBS ap-
proach to the self and perspective taking is in fact almost
four decades old, and in that time there has been sub-
stantial empirical and theoretical progress (see [18]).
Finally, the Functional Contextual approach is pragmatic
— it aims to actually change behaviour, not simply
describe it as many other approaches within psychology
do. In fact this intentional focus on changing behaviour is
a fundamental, ‘built-in’ feature of this account and
therefore it will continue to lead to immediate and
powerful applications such as in education and psycho-
therapy.
Relational frame theory and perspective
taking
From a Contextual Behavioural Science (CBS) point of
view the sophisticated sense of self we narrate about is a
uniquely human skill [3,19]. According to CBS the expe-
rience we have of self is a byproduct of language [20].
From the CBS relational framing underpins language
which is necessary for the development of perspective
taking and a sophisticated sense of self [21]. Relational
Frame Theory (RFT) suggests that we learn to relate
(relationally frame) stimuli in our environment and that
this relational activity can change the psychological
functions of those stimuli (see [22] for a book length
account of Relational Frame Theory). The change in
psychological functions of stimuli across relations is
referred to as ‘transformation of function’ (ToF). ToF
effect can be highly useful in many contexts. For
example, by reading a set of instructions a person can
learn how to assemble a piece of equipment. In this
case, the activity of relational framing has transformed
the functions of the parts of the equipment so that the
person can come to interact with them effectively so as
to produce the end product. However ToF can also be
problematic in some contexts. For example, if a person
frames themselves as a socially awkward individual and
based on that framing they derive further relations such
as they should avoid company. In the latter example, the
functions of other people are transformed for that in-
dividual so that they will now tend to avoid people even
though interaction with them might be psychologically
beneficial.
www.sciencedirect.com
The self and perspective taking McHugh 7
Children learn to frame their own behaviour as different
from that of others by learning three key ‘deictic’ or
‘perspective’ relations which are ‘I versus YOU’, ‘HERE
versus THERE’ and ‘NOW versus THEN’ [3,23]. They
learn to respond appropriately to questions such as ‘What
are YOU doing HERE?’, ‘What am I doing NOW?’, ‘What
was I doing THEN?’, etc. They also learn that whenever
they are asked about their own behaviour they always
answer from the point of view of ‘I’, ‘HERE’ and ‘NOW’.
They learn that this perspective is consistent and differ-
ent from that of others. For example, if you ask me about
my behaviour, I will always answer from the position of
‘I’, ‘HERE’ and ‘NOW’ in response to your question
asked by YOU, THERE (where you are) and THEN
(when you asked — a few seconds ago). I is always from
this perspective here, not from someone else’s perspec-
tive there. A sense of self is therefore abstracted through
learning to talk about one’s own perspective in relation to
other perspectives.
Three steps to flexible perspective taking
Table 1 outlines a theoretical account of three function-
ally distinct steps to the development of a flexible per-
spective taking also referred to as flexible connectedness
from the CBS point of view [24]. From this point of view
deficits in any of these steps will result in self related
problems. Step 1 involves deictic (perspective taking)
relational frames that specify a relation in terms of the
perspective of the speaker. The three frames that appear
to be most important in this regard are those of I-YOU
(interpersonal), HERE-THERE (spatial) and NOW-
THEN (temporal). Unlike other frames, these do not
appear to have formal or non-arbitrary counterparts and
cannot be traced to formal dimensions in the environ-
ment. Instead, it is the relationship between the individ-
ual and other events that serves as the constant variable
upon which these frames are based. Acquisition of
these frames means learning to differentiate my be-
haviour (‘I’) from that of others (‘YOU’) and learning
that my current responding is always ‘HERE’ not
‘THERE’ and ‘NOW’ not ‘THEN’ (see Table 1, top
panel). Training protocols have been developed that
specifically target this repertoire when deficient (see
[25] for a review). Step 2 involves empathy training via
the transformation of emotional functions (i.e., transfer
of emotional effects from YOU THERE THEN to I
HERE NOW). Empathy involves the transformation of
emotional functions via deictic relational frames. In
nontechnical terms, we adopt the perspective of others
and this allows us to ‘feel their emotions’. Step
3 involves deictic ‘self-as-context’ training regarding
one’s own private events. The experience of self-as-
context is the invariant in all perspective discrimina-
tions (i.e., ‘HERE and NOW’). Self-as-context can be
thought of as a transcendence of psychological content
that allows acceptance of that content.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10
8 Third wave behavioural therapies

Table 1

A three step guide to flexible perspective taking.

Steps Theory Example

1. Basic deictic Deictic relational frames specify a relation in terms of the ‘If I were you, where would I be?’
relational responding perspective of the speaker. The most important frames are ‘If I were you and here was there, where
I-YOU, HERE-THERE and NOW-THEN. Acquisition of would I be?’
these frames means learning to differentiate my behaviour
(‘I’) from that of others (‘YOU’) and learning that my current
responding is always ‘HERE’, not ‘THERE’ and ‘NOW’ not
‘THEN’.
2. Transformation of Empathy involves the transformation of emotional ‘I feel sad. If you were me,
emotional functions functions via deictic relational frames. In nontechnical how would you feel?’
via deictic relational terms, we adopt the perspective of others and this allows
responding us to ‘feel their suffering’. This may prompt us to help
them; however, if the suffering is too much, we may avoid
deictic framing.
3. Self-as-context Deictic framing also enables the experience of self/ ‘I watch thoughts and feelings come
(Flexible self) other-as-context, the invariant in all deictic discriminations and go. Who is it that is watching them?’
(i.e., ‘HERE and NOW’). Self/other-as-context can be
thought of as a transcendence of psychological content
that allows acceptance of that content. This includes
acceptance of painful content produced through empathic
responding to the suffering of others, which can support
empathic responding.

Clinical groups with perspective taking and
self problems
In the past three decades, interest in impairments in
perspective taking and how this impacts on the self has
grown exponentially in the clinical literature. A Function-
al Contextual account of the development understanding
the self and perspective taking should inform the devel-
opment of effective interventions to train such repertoires
in populations where they are deficient. Evidence sup-
porting the CBS account of perspective taking as deictic
relational framing has been accumulating over the last
decade. The first empirical contribution in this area was
McHugh et al. [23] who employed a protocol that focused
on the three perspective taking frames (I-YOU, HERE-
THERE, and NOW-THEN) to provide a developmental
profile of the deictic framing skills of individuals across
different age groups. Findings indicated a clear develop-
mental trend. Young children (aged 3–5) produced more
errors than all of the older age groups (ranging from six to
30). Furthermore, these differences were broadly consis-
tent with the mainstream cognitive-developmental liter-
ature that has reported that performances on simple
theory of mind tasks generally develop across the ages
of four and five years old, and are usually well established
by age six.
These studies showed that the relational repertoires
required for perspective taking appear to follow a distinct
developmental trend. Furthermore, concordant with the
pragmatic focus of CBS, a number of more recent studies
have used variations on the McHugh et al. [23] protocol
to assess and remediate deficits in perspective taking
framing in young children (e.g. [26,27]). Two studies
provide evidence not only of the potential for deictic
relational frames to be trained but also how training this
form of responding might positively affect performance
on alternative perspective taking tasks and in alternative
(including real-world) contexts. Heagle and Rehfeldt
[28] taught typically developing children between the
ages of six and 11 perspective taking skills. Generalization
of perspective taking to new stimuli (i.e., in the context of
questions referring to novel situations) and real-world
conversational topics (i.e., children were asked more
ecologically valid conversation type questions) were also
tested. The children were successfully trained on the
perspective taking protocol and performed with high
accuracy on the generalization tests. Weil et al. [26] also
trained the perspective taking protocol with children,
aged between 57 and 68 months. Performance on ToM
tasks was tested before, during, and after the training of
the perspective taking protocol, and the children all
showed improvement.
Another important extension of the CBS approach to
perspective taking is work investigating deficits in deictic
framing in clinical populations. Previous research has
found that individuals with ASD show deficits on per-
spective taking tasks (e.g., Villatte et al., 2010). Hence,
Rehfeldt et al. [27] examined deictic relational framing in
children with ASD and compared their performance with
that of age-matched typically developing counterparts.
Findings indicated that the ASD group made more errors
on the McHugh et al. protocol. Mainstream research has
also demonstrated deficits in perspective taking in indi-
viduals with schizophrenia (e.g., [29]). Thus, a number of
studies have used the McHugh et al. protocol to assess
levels of deictic relational responding in this population.
For example, Villatte et al. [29] showed that schizophrenic

Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10 www.sciencedirect.com


patients showed poorer performance on deictic relational
responding, indicating a specific deficit. More recently
O’Neill and Weil [30] trained deictic relational respond-
ing in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and demon-
strated generalization to performance on Theory of Mind
tests.
There has also been investigation of deficits in deictic
relations in the subclinical condition of social anhedonia.
This is a dimension of schizotypy (a measure of normal
personality traits linked with schizophrenia) character-
ized by social disinterest, withdrawal, and lack of pleasure
from social contact, which are important predictors of
psychosis. For example, Villatte et al. [31] compared
individuals with high social anhedonia to nonclinical
controls on the McHugh protocol. The social anhedonia
group were less accurate than controls on the McHugh
protocol, specifically on high relational complexity tasks
that included an interpersonal perspective (i.e., those
including I-YOU and HERE-THERE relations).
Social anhedonia is associated with low levels of interper-
sonal interaction, and it is possible that this deficit in
interpersonal deictic responding is an effect of lack of
social interaction. This suggests that the more severe
ToM deficits observed in schizophrenia might result from
a developmental history predating the start of the diag-
nosable condition. Other recent RFT-based work has
supported this interpretation by providing evidence that
social anhedonia scores can be accounted for by deictic
framing, empathic concern, and experiential avoidance
[24]. This work is based on the idea that a number of
factors determine social interaction and that these include
not just perspective taking, which allows the empathic
experience of emotion, but also the willingness to expe-
rience that emotion. Since CBS suggests how patterns of
responding such as this might be changed (i.e., basic
deictic framing can be trained and, as will be seen, so
too can the more advanced deictic skills required for
emotional acceptance), then this work has both indicated
important predictors of the clinical condition of schizo-
phrenia and also suggested ways in which this condition
might be made less likely.
Future directions
Future work in the area of deictic relational responding is
needed to further support this functional approach to the
development of the self and perspective taking. This can
be achieved in a number of ways. Systematically model-
ling the three steps of flexible perspective taking. This
might involve a battery of tests that measure the three
levels of a flexible self (i.e., deictic relational ability,
transformation of deictic relational responding and self
as context) while testing key processes that are predicted
to operate on the three steps of the flexible perspective
taking model (e.g., acceptance and defusion). The model
can then be tested on known clinical groups to inform the
www.sciencedirect.com
The self and perspective taking McHugh 9
development of a functional intervention that promotes a
healthy self concept. The training technique protocols
derived so far for training deictic relational responding
need to be further explored. For example, no published
work documenting the effectiveness of training the trans-
formation of emotional functions across deictic relations
has been conducted. Future research should systemati-
cally examine the impact of training the three steps to a
flexible self in populations with self deficits. Importantly,
no study till date has looked at whether gains in perspec-
tive taking as articulated by CBS are associated with
decreased disruptions in functioning. Future work should
test whether improvements in deictic relational respond-
ing (such as those demonstrated by O’Neill and Weil
[30]) as impact on diagnosis, decreased disruptions in
functioning or enhancing quality of life.
Conclusion
This current article reviewed the functional contextual
approach to the self and perspective taking. It aims to
inform future research and practice in the area of self and
perspective related clinical problems. The review dem-
onstrated how the Contextual Behavioural Science ac-
count of language and cognition, Relational Frame
Theory can enhance clinical work and to promote the
design of interventions that specifically target self and
perspective taking related problems.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1. James W: The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover
Publications; 1890.
2. Hood B: The Self Illusion: Why There is No ‘You’ Inside Your Head.
Constable; 2012.
3. McHugh L, Stewart I: The Self and Perspective Taking:
Contributions and Applications From Modern Behavioral Science.
Dublin: New Harbinger Publications; 2012.
4. Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, Wilson KG: Contextual behavioral
science: creating a science more adequate to the challenge of
the human condition. J Context Behav Sci 2012, 1:1-16.
5. Neff K: The development and validation of a scale to measure
self-compassion. Self Ident 2003, 2:223-250.
6. Lind SE, Bowler DM: Delayed self-recognition in children with
autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord 2009, 39(4):
643-650.
7. Rimes K, Watkins E: The effects of self-focused rumination on
global negative self-judgments in depression. Behav Res Ther
2005, 43:1673-1681.
8. Ruiz FJ: A review of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
(ACT) empirical evidence: correlational, experimental
psychopathology, component and outcome studies. Int J
Psychol Psychol Ther 2010, 10:125-162.
9. McHugh L: A new approach in psychotherapy: ACT
(acceptance and commitment therapy). World J Biol Psychiatr
2011, 12:76-79.
10. Gregg JA, Callaghan GM, Hayes SC, Glenn-Lawson JL:
Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance,
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10
10 Third wave behavioural therapies
mindfulness, and values: a randomized controlled trial. J
Consult Clin Psychol 2007, 75(2):336-343.
11. Lillis J, Hayes SC, Bunting K, Masuda A: Teaching acceptance
and mindfulness to improve the lives of the obese: a
preliminary test of a theoretical model. Ann Behav Med 2009,
37:58-69.
12. Twohig MP, Hayes SC, Masuda A: Increasing willingness to
experience obsessions: acceptance and commitment therapy
as a treatment for obsessive–compulsive disorder. Behav Ther
2006, 37(1):3-13.
13. Zettle RD, Rains JC: Group cognitive and contextual therapies
in treatment of depression. J Clin Psychol 1989, 45:438-445.
14. Wicksell RK, Dahl J, Magnusson B, Olsson GL: Using acceptance
and commitment therapy in the rehabilitation of an adolescent
female with chronic pain: a case example. Cogn Behav Pract
2005, 12:415-423.
15. Bach P, Hayes SC: The use of acceptance and commitment
therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients:
a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol 2002,
70(5):1129-1139.
16. Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D, Wilson K: Contextual behavioral
science: creating a science more adequate to the challenge of
the human condition. J Context Behav Sci 2013, 1:1-16.
17. Biglan A: Changing Cultural Practices: A Contextualist Framework
for Intervention Research. Reno, NV: Context Press; 1995.
18. Foody M, Barnes-Holmes Y, Barnes-Holmes D: Deictic relations
and perspective-taking. In Advances in Relational Frame
Theory: Research and Application. Edited by Dymond S, Roche B.
New Harbinger; 2013.
19. Stewart I, McHugh L: Perspective-taking. Bridging Acceptance
and Commitment Therapy and Positive Psychology: A
Practitioner’s Guide to a Unifying Framework. Oakland, CA: New
Harbinger; 2013.
20. Barnes-Holmes D, Hayes SC, Dymond S: Self and self-directed
rules. In Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of
Human Language and Cognition. Edited by Hayes SC, Barnes-
Holmes D, Roche B. New York: Plenum Press; 2001.
21. Villatte JL, Villatte M, Hayes SC: A naturalistic approach to
transcendence: deictic framing, spirituality and pro-sociality.
In The Self and Perspective-Taking. Edited by McHugh L, Stewart
I. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger; 2012.
Current Opinion in Psychology 2015, 2:6–10
22. Törneke N: Learning RFT: An Introduction to Relational Frame
Theory and its Clinical Applications. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger
Publications, Inc.; 2010.
23. McHugh L, Barnes-Holmes Y, Barnes-Holmes D: Perspective-
 taking as relational responding: a developmental profile.
Psychol Rec 2004, 54:115-144.
A seminal study demonstrating development of deictic relational
repertoires.
24. Vilardaga R, Estévez A, Levin MC, Hayes SC: Deictic relational
 responding. Empathy, and experiential avoidance as
predictors of social anhedonia: further contributions from
relational frame theory. Psychol Rec 2012, 62(3):409.
An important study highlighting the relative contribution of deictic relational
responding, empathy and experiential avoidance to social anhedonia.
25. McHugh L, Barnes-Holmes Y, Barnes-Holmes D: Understanding
and training perspective-taking as relational responding. In
Derived Relational Responding: Applications for Learners with
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Edited by Rehfeldt R,
Barnes-Holmes Y. Dublin: New Harbinger; 2009.
26. Weil TM, Hayes SC, Capurro P: Establishing a Deictic Relational
Repertoire in Young Children. Psychol Rec 2011, 61 Article 5.
27. Rehfeldt RA, Dillen JE, Ziomek M, Kowalchuk M, Kowalchuk RK:
Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in
children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder.
Psychol Rec 2007, 57:23-29.
28. Heagle AI, Rehfeldt RA: Teaching perspective-taking skills to
 typically developing children through derived relational
responding. J Early Intens Behav Interv 2006, 3:1-34.
One of the first studies to demonstrate that deictic relational responding
can be trained.
29. Villatte M, Monestès M, McHugh L, Freixa i Baqué E, Loas G:
Adopting the perspective of another in belief attribution:
contribution of Relational Frame Theory to the understanding
of impairments in schizophrenia. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatr
2010, 41:125-134.
30. O’Neill J, Weil TM: Training deictic relational responding in
 people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Psychol Rec 2014,
64:301-310.
The first study to demonstrate that deictic relational responding can be
trained in people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
31. Villatte M, Monestès M, McHugh L, Freixa i Baqué E, Loas G:
Assessing deictic relational responding in social anhedonia: a
functional approach to the development of theory of mind
impairments. Int J Behav Consult Ther 2008, 4:360-373.
www.sciencedirect.com