Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
RFT Bridges Waves with Pragmatism as Supports PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
RFT Bridges Waves with Pragmatism as Supports

RFT Bridges Waves with Pragmatism as Supports

167 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

RFT Bridges Waves with Pragmatism as Supports

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. RFT Bridges Waves with Pragmatism as Supports Hank Robb, PH.D., ABPP

  2. Acknowledgments • The ACT/ RFT community was very supportive and helpful to this presentation. • Special acknowledgement to D.J. Moran, Ph.D.

  3. Definition: • “Relational Frame Theory is a comprehensive functional contextual program of basic behavioral research on human language and cognition” • (Hayes, Strosahl, Bunting, Twohig, Wilson, 2004, p. 21)

  4. What does this functional contextual behavioral research add to what we know about language and cognition?

  5. RFT brings to light an analysis of a generalized operant behavior that is rarely analyzed: RELATING! Also called Relational Responding

  6. What is Relating?(Relational Responding) • Responding in accordance to the properties of two or more stimuli • Conditioned discrimination • Derived relational responding

  7. Conditioned Discrimination = Pick taller = Pick shorter

  8. A B Extinction Schedule

  9. $$ Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  10. $$ Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  11. $$ After counterbalanced, multiple exemplar trainings, the subject reliably selects the object that is physically taller. This is a nonarbitrary relation. Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  12. Arbitrary: Based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something Nonarbitrary: NOT based on or determined by individual preference or convenience but rather by “necessity” or the “intrinsic” nature of something

  13. Think about what happens in discrimination… • Think about what a “discrimnator” is…

  14. = Pick shorter A B Extinction Schedule

  15. $$ Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  16. $$ Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  17. $$ AGAIN - After counterbalanced, multiple exemplar trainings, the subject reliably selects the object that is physically shorter. This is a nonarbitrary relation. Food A B Reinforcement Schedule

  18. Nonverbal organisms are capable of this kind of relating… …because the relating is based on physical nonarbitrary properties A B

  19. Nonverbal organisms are capable of this kind of relating… A monkey can do this! …because the relating is based on physical nonarbitrary properties A B

  20. A B

  21. That’s called derived relating, baby!

  22. …and it’s simpler than you think • In this demonstration, the boy is taught that A=B, and derives that B=A • This type of deriving is only available in this sense to verbally adroit human beings, and it is called: Derived Relational Responding

  23. Derived Relational Responding • “Derive” means to obtain or draw from • When the boy is taught A=B, he has a history of also being reinforced for B=A relationships. • Infra-human subjects do not demonstrate this.

  24. A few examples of Derived Relational Responding

  25. CUG

  26. CUG WOL YAB VEK Extinction Schedule

  27. CUG $$ YAB VEK WOL Reinforcement Schedule

  28. CUG $$ VEK WOL YAB Reinforcement Schedule

  29. CUG DAX NAL ZET Extinction Schedule

  30. CUG DAX NAL ZET Extinction Schedule

  31. CUG $$ DAX NAL ZET Reinforcement Schedule

  32. CUG $$ ZET NAL DAX Reinforcement Schedule

  33. CUG $$ DAX ZET NAL Reinforcement Schedule

  34. What was demonstrated? CUG Trained Trained ZET VEK So far, it’s just conditioned discrimination

  35. SD : R  S R+ present CUG select VEK reinforced with money : 

  36. Here’s where things get funky. ZET CUG LIF RAL

  37. VEK LIF CUG RAL

  38. What was demonstrated? CUG Trained Trained Derived Derived ZET VEK Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, O’Hora, 2001

  39. What was demonstrated? CUG Trained Trained Derived Derived ZET VEK In the absence of previous reinforcement, a new response is demonstrated. Mutual entailment – Bidirectional relating: If A is related to B, B is related to A

  40. ZET VEK LIF RAL

  41. ZET LIF VEK RAL

  42. VEK LIF RAL ZET

  43. VEK ZET LIF RAL

  44. What was demonstrated? CUG Trained Trained Derived Derived ZET Derived VEK Derived Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, Dymond, O’Hora, 2001

  45. What was demonstrated? CUG Trained Trained Derived Derived ZET Derived VEK Derived In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C

  46. What was demonstrated? Just for fun… notice how these relations are ARBITRARY CUG Trained Trained Derived Derived ZET Derived VEK Derived In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C

  47. Derived Relational Responding • We trained 2 stimulus relations • The subject derived 4 more

  48. What was demonstrated? CUG SAME SAME SAME SAME ZET SAME VEK SAME In the absence of previous reinforcement, another new response is demonstrated. Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C

  49. Basic Principles in RFT • Mutual entailment • If A=B, then B=A • Combinatorial entailment • If A=B and B=C, then A=C • Transformation of Stimulus Functions • Environmental events will have an altered effect on behavior due to the environmental events’ participation in relations with other stimulus events

  50. Transformation of Stimulus Functions VEK RAL ZET Punishment Schedule Same research participant in the last training