The role of common physical properties and augmental functions in metaphor effect

1. The role of common physical properties and augmental functions in metaphor effect Marco A. Sierra1 Francisco J. Ruiz1 Cindy L. Flórez1 Diana Riaño-Hernández1 Carmen Luciano2 1Clinik Lab, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz (Colombia), 2Universidad de Almería, Madrid Institute of Contextual Psychology (Spain)

2. Introduction • Metaphors are commonly used tools in ACT: • Creative Hopelessness: realizing the negative consequences of the inflexible behavioral pattern (e.g., Man in the hole, Monster and the pit). • Defusion: hierarchically differentiation of the self and ongoing private events (e.g., Chessboard metaphor, Passengers in the bus). • Committed Action: willingness to experience discomfort as a step to a valued direction.

3. Introduction • Theoretical suggestions of how to improve the effect of metaphors (Foody et al., 2014; Törneke, 2016; Villatte, Villatte, & Hayes, 2016). • However, few RFT research has analyzed what components of metaphors improve their effect in promoting psychological flexibility.

4. Introduction • In basic RFT research, Ruiz and Luciano (2015) found that analogies that share common physical properties are judged as more apt than purely relational ones. • Analogue studies have shown that specifying a personal valued context in ACT-based protocols increased their effect (Branstetter-Rost et al., 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2004; Páez-Blarrina et al., 2008).

5. Introduction Do common physical properties with the participant’s discomfort improve the effect of the metaphor? Does specifying appetitive augmental functions (i.e., values) improve the effect of the metaphor? Do both components interact?

6. Introduction • Consider a person in a painful rehabilitation process after surgery (as in Fernández, Luciano, & Valdivia-Salas, 2012). • An ACT therapist want to propose a metaphor… • Do I need to include physical properties in the metaphor content similar to the patient’s pain? • Do I need to specify appetitive augmental functions in the metaphor?

7. Method ♦Participants: 83 undergraduates Inclusioncriteria:No previous experience with the experimental procedures and ACT/RFT literature. Exclusioncriteria:Cardiac and circulatory affections, hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, chronic pain conditions or recent wounds.

8. Method ♦Design Independent Variables YES NO YES NO

9. Method ♦Design Factorial Design 2x2

10. Method • ♦Design Dependent Variables

11. Method • ♦Instruments and Experimental Task Cold-Pressor Task • Introduction of the right hand in a glass container with circulating water at 4.5°C to 5.5°C.

12. Method • ♦ Protocols • Audio records that included an adapted version of the swamp metaphor (Hayes et al., 1999; Gutiérrez et al., 2004). • Common components: • In the beginning, every protocol evoked the sensation induced by the cold-pressor. • Every protocol stated that the sensation evoked in the story was only temporary. • At the end, every protocol provided the instruction of trying to use the story’s content on the next exposure to the cold-pressor.

13. Method PROTOCOL “A” ValuedDirection ColdWater PROTOCOL “B” Samelandscape ColdWater PROTOCOL “C” ValuedDirection DirtyWater PROTOCOL “D” Samelandscape DirtyWater

14. Method • ♦Procedure Phase 4 Phase 3 Phase 2 Phase 1

15. Method ♦Data Analysis

16. Results • ♦ Results showed NO significant differences across conditions in the pre-test. Descriptive Data for Each Condition at Pretest and One-Way ANOVA Results

17. Results Two-Way ANOVA Results Regarding Percentage of Temporal Improvement • ♦ There was an effect of both independent variables on the percentage of temporal improvement. • ♦ There was no interaction between the independent variables.

18. Results • ♦ There was no effect on neither of the independent variables on pain perception. • ♦ There was no significant interaction between the variables. Two-Way ANOVA Results Regarding Differential Pain Perception

19. Discussion

20. Practicalimplications