Download is function OF - Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

Riding the Waves:
A Functional-Cognitive Perspective
on the Relations between Behavior Therapy,
Cognitive Behavior Therapy, and
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
Jan De Houwer*, Yvonne Barnes-Holmes#, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes#
*Ghent University, Belgium; NUIM, #Ireland
Effect, and
Theory
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitiveDistinction
frameworkProcedure,
– ACBS Minneapolis
– 20
June 2014
09/06/2006
Procedure,
Effect, and
Theory
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–framework
7 July 2007
– ACBS Minneapolis
– 20
June 2014
09/06/2006
De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would
profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 6, 202-209.
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning?
On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631-642.
De Houwer, J., Gawronski, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). A functionalcognitive framework for attitude research. European Review of Social
Psychology, 24, 252-287.
Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Barnes-Holmes (submitted). On How
Contextual Behavioral Science May Contribute to the Study of
Evaluative Conditioning.
I. Two approaches in psychology
I.1. The functional approach
I.2. The cognitive approach
II. The functional-cognitive framework
II.1. The two approaches are not competitors
II.2. The two approaches are mutually supportive
III. Situating BT, CBT, and ACT in the F-C framework
III.1. BT
III.2. CBT
III.3. ACT
IV. Implications for relation between BT, CBT, ACT
V. Conclusions and Caveats
I. Two approaches in psychology
I.1. The functional approach in psychology
- Study of relations between environment and behavior
E1
Environment
Behavior
E2
E3
- Functional = B is function OF E (mathematical sense)
- Is (nomological) explanation: What influences behavior (E1, E2, E3, …;
simple or complex) in term of principles with precision, scope, and depth
(e.g., lever pressing, tantrums in kids, …)
- Aims to predict-and-influence based on (manipulation of) environment
Effect, and
Theory
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitiveDistinction
frameworkProcedure,
– ACBS Minneapolis
– 20
June 2014
09/06/2006
I.2. The cognitive approach
- Study of mental processes mediating impact of environment on behavior
Environment
° °° ° ° ° °° °°°°°
Behavior
- Cognitive = mental = informational
=> not subclass of behavioral phenomena (e.g., talking)
- Is (mechanistic) explanation: contiguous causation involving mental
(informational) representations and processes
=> e.g. latent learning: Etime1 causes Btime2 due to representation
=> note: mechanism can be recursive, parallel, chaotic, …
- Aims to predict: have mechanism that corresponds with behavior (model)
Procedure,
Effect, and
Theory
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–framework
7 July 2007
– ACBS Minneapolis
– 20
June 2014
09/06/2006
II. Functional-Cognitive Framework (DH, 2011)
II.1. The two approaches are not competitors
ENVIRONMENT 1
BEHAVIOR
MENTAL PROCESS 2
BEHAVIOR
ENVIRONMENT 1
MENTAL PROCESS 2
BEHAVIOR
ENVIRONMENT 1
MENTAL PROCESS 1
BEHAVIOR
ENVIRONMENT 2
MENTAL PROCESS 2
BEHAVIOR
II.2. The two approaches are mutually supportive
Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation
The fact that statistical contingency increases salivation
is due to formation of associations in memory
Functional: 1st level of explanation
Increase in salivation is due to pairing of bell and food
= classical conditioning as an effect
Environment: Description
e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10;
time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; …
Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014
 Approach does not depend on what one does but on why:
Also cognitive needs to return to environment; also functional can
engage in cognitive theorizing => AIMS; topography vs. function
 Not a battle of aims (as in the past) but a mutual cooperation to the
benefit of both approaches
Interacting with cognitive psychology can help you achieve the
aims of functional psychology (and thus become a better functional
psychologist)
Interacting with functional psychology can help you achieve the
aims of cognitive psychology (and thus become a better cognitive
psychologist)
 Provided that one remains true to aims and does not conflate levels
Requires conceptual rigor and clarity!
Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014
Conceptual traps:
1. “Functional” concepts that cannot be defined in terms of environmentbehavior relations with sufficient precision, scope, and depth:
=> e.g., mid level terms such as “fusion”
=> hinders functional analysis and thus aim to predict-and-influence
2. Cognitive concepts that are equated with concepts at the functional or
environmental level
=> e.g., classical conditioning as “association formation”
=> requires (possible incorrect) a priori assumptions of
mechanism mediating impact of environment on behavior and
thus aim to build a model of the mechanism
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
E.g: Classical conditioning as association formation
Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation
The
fact that
statistical contingency
increases
salivation
Classical
conditioning
as an effect is
a proxy for
isassociation
due to formation
of associations
formation
in memory in memory
Functional: 1st level of explanation
Increase
Increaseininsalivation
salivationisisdue
duetotopairing
formation
of bell
of and food
association in memory
Environment: Description
e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10;
time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; …
Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014
III. Situating BT, CBT, and ACT in F-C framework
III.1. Behavior Therapy: Two conceptualizations
a) BT historically fits within the functional approach:
- classical conditioning (BT): CS-US pairings => change in behavior
- operant conditioning (ABA): Sd: R-O => changes in behavior
=> BT analysis: psychopathology as instances of conditioning
(e.g., fear for elevator as instance of conditioning)
=> BT techniques: therapy as analogous to changing conditioning
(e.g., exposure as instance of extinction)
b) Mechanistic BT: Conditioning as S-R association formation mechanism
=> BT functional analysis and techniques conceptualized in terms of
the formation and change in S-R associations (which can be
understood either as a functional or mental mechanism)
=> limits view on possible moderators / techniques
Cognitive approach
BT
as S-R
BT functional
analysis
Functional approach
BT
Techniques
Environment
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
III.2. CBT: Two traditions can be identified
a) Tradition I: Conditioning (and thus BT) as S-S association formation
=> BT functional analysis and techniques conceptualized in terms of
the formation and change in S-S associations (which is firmly
situated at the cognitive level as a mental mechanism)
=> broader view on possible moderators / techniques (e.g., context
dependent relapse – Bouton, Mineka & Zinbarg; but still limiting)
b) Tradition II: CT
=> psychopathology as biased information processing
=> “functional” analysis of (origins of) biases
=> correcting info processing via interventions in environment
*BT techniques
*talk therapies
*Cognitive Bias Modification (e.g., attentional retraining)
! Therapeutic
techniques do not define approach but aims do !
Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer 09/06/2006
Cognitive approach
BT
as S-R
CT
BT
as S-S
CBT “functional”
analysis
BT functional
analysis
Functional approach
BT
techniques
Talk
therapy
CBM
Environment
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
III.3. ACT: Two possible conceptualisations
a) ACT as applied RFT: Fits within functional approach
=> new functional principle: AARR
=> functional analysis: psychopathology as AARR
=> therapy as revealing AARR and allowing for alternative AARR
b) ACT as “hexaflex”
=> not strictly functional or cognitive
- some functional terms (e.g., ply)
- some mid level terms maybe
ultimately functional but …
=> mix of therapeutic techniques
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
Cognitive approach
BT
as S-R
CT
BT
as S-S
CBT “functional”
analysis
BT functional
analysis
?
ACT functional
analysis
Functional approach
BT
techniques
ACT
as Hex
Talk
therapy
CBM
Environment
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
ACT
techniques
Non-arbitrary applicable relational responding (NAARR)
Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014
Arbitrary applicable relational responding (AARR)
Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014
Cognitive approach
BT
as S-R
CT
BT
as S-S
CBT “functional”
analysis
BT functional
analysis
ACT
as Hex
ACT functional
analysis
Functional approach
BT
techniques
Talk
therapy
CBM
Environment
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
ACT
techniques
IV. Implications for relation between BT,CBT,ACT
1. Therapeutic techniques do not define approach but aims do
=> different techniques can be used by different people with different aims
=> each approach adds techniques but retains old ones for new aims
2. “BT as S-S” part of CBT compatible with “BT functional analysis” but not
“BT as S-R” => historically, this has been a false debate
3. “CBT functional analysis” not functional in same sense as “BT functional
analysis” or “ACT functional analysis”
4. “ACT as applied RFT” is functional in same sense as original BT but with
AARR as added principle
=> but AARR is a game changer that changes other principles
5. “ACT as applied RFT” is compatible with CBT as cognitive theory
6. Status of “ACT as hexaflex” within F-C framework is ambiguous
Cognitive approach
BT
as S-R
CT
BT
as S-S
CBT “functional”
analysis
BT functional
analysis
Propositional
theory
ACT
as Hex
ACT functional
analysis
Functional approach
BT
techniques
Talk
therapy
CBM
Environment
Effect, and
– Jan De Houwer Functional-cognitive
Learning – GdanskDistinction
–approach
7 July 2007
–Procedure,
ACBS Minneapolis
– 20Theory
June 2014
09/06/2006
ACT
techniques
V. Conclusions and Caveats
1. Functional and cognitive approaches in psychology are not mutually
exclusive but mutually supportive
=> but building bridges will not be easy: Panel on Saturday
2. Approach depends not on what one does but why: Everyone can
engage at all levels, but ultimate aim is what counts.
3. Adhering to aims requires conceptual rigor and clarity
4. Also therapeutic approaches can be situated in F-C framework,
revealing interesting communalities and differences
5. Not a blame game but an awareness raiser
=> clinicians cannot wait for complete conceptual and theoretical clarity
=> but also do not delude yourself about it is you are doing