* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download is function OF - Association for Contextual Behavioral Science
Bioecological model wikipedia , lookup
Social learning in animals wikipedia , lookup
Verbal Behavior wikipedia , lookup
Top-down and bottom-up design wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive flexibility wikipedia , lookup
George Armitage Miller wikipedia , lookup
Situated cognition wikipedia , lookup
Background music wikipedia , lookup
Eliminative materialism wikipedia , lookup
Environmental psychology wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive interview wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive semantics wikipedia , lookup
Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive model wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive neuroscience wikipedia , lookup
Behaviorism wikipedia , lookup
Functionalism (philosophy of mind) wikipedia , lookup
Neurophilosophy wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive development wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive psychology wikipedia , lookup
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