Reticulated Science Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada

The Purpose of ACBS Creating a psychology more adequate to the challenge of the human condition

Where CBS Started: Behavior Analysis Philosophical clarity Basic principles from the lab Inductive extensions using functional analysis Time series designs evaluating extensions

What do you do when you hit a wall? COGNITION COGNITION COGNITION LANGUAGE LANGULANGUAGE LANGUAGE GUAGE LANGUAGE LAN GUAGE LANGUAGE LAN COGNITION GNITION NITIONCOGNI N N E U N COG Why That is Not Enough

The CBS Strategy Rearrange the relation between applied and basic psychology

You Cannot Turn This Over to Someone Else The CBS approach: Applied and basic psychologists need to take responsibility for each other and for the field as a whole

ACT in Silence RCTs on ACT by Year

Its Not Bottom Up vs Top Down It’s reticulated development versus silos

Context Theory of Cognition Manipulable variables linked to actions of importance This is controlled by history and context Limoo Betrang 1. Mutual Entailment 2. Combinatorial Entailment

Functions Betrang sour salivation citrus bumpy lemonade yellow 3. Transformation of Functions sour salivation citrus bumpy lemonadeyellow Manipulable variables linked to actions of importance This is controlled by history and context

A Classic Example all Parents Know A child learns that a nickel is “smaller than” a dime 5 10 And thus that a dime is “bigger than” a nickel 10 5 & is worth more good 5 If Good 10then

Our Fence-Post Dumb Behavioral Idea Maybe it is operant behavior View it as a contextual controlled relational response, based originally on multiple exemplar training

It Can Be Trained Berens and Hayes, JABA, 2008

It Makes a Difference Given A < B < C; Shocks to B Dougher et al., JEAB, 2007

The Applied  Basic Gambit Found a New Way Forward Expand Behavioral Principles to Account for Human Language and Cognition: Relational Frame Theory

Liberalized Language Practitioners need middle level terms. These needs to be linked to basic principles and integrated into models and theories.

Probability of Avoidance 100% 50% 100% 50% “Don’t Think “Bear” Earlier Remove “Bear” BEARGEEDER (C) UNRELATED BEARGEEDER (C) UNRELATED

Expectations of Depressives Liv Kosness, Louise A. McHugh, Jo Saunders & Robert Whelan

IAT versus IRAP Sarah Roddy, Ian Stewart & Dermot Barnes-Holmes.1.05 R2 Above Explicit Anti-Fat Attitudes R2 Above Feelings toward Fat People IAT IRAP IAT IRAP.1.05 Relation to behavioral intentions

Example Jared Chase dissertation Adjusted Cumulative GPA Beginning Spring 2009 End Spring 2009 End Fall Group RCT: Wait list, Goal-Setting, Values plus Goal-Setting Psych Majors Not in Study (N = 447) Goal Setting Alone (N = 48) Wait list (N = 33) Values plus Goal Setting (N = 51) Now add: Values plus Goal Setting

THEN NOW YOU I HERE THERE Deictic Frames

Perspective Taking Self Self-as-context

Figure 6. Within subject analysis for Abu. Multiple baseline across levels of Complexity includes data series for each deictic relational frame. The lower panel represents Theory of Mind probe percentages.

Relation of Deictic Framing to Theory of Mind Performance

For Example: Caring About Being With Others Roger Vilardaga, Ana Estévez, Michael E. Levin and Steven C. Hayes Social Anhedonia I/You Here/There Now/Then - Perspective Taking Empathy Experiential Avoidance Joy Sadness Repertoire Narrowing

Social Anhedonia R2R2 ∆F∆Fβ Step Gender -.17 Age -.09 Step 2.10*6.914 Gender -.13 Age -.10 Deictic ability -.26* Step 3 15*5.172 Gender -.06 Age -.04 Deictic ability -.23* Empathic concern -.23* Step 4.26** Gender -.02 Age.05 Deictic ability -.18† Empathic concern -.26* Experiential Avoidance.35**

Its Not Bottom Up vs Top Down It’s reticulated development versus silos