From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding

Abstract

The article presents the beginnings of a conceptual framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding (AARRing). The framework focuses on the dimensions and levels of AARRing that have been the focus of empirical and conceptual analyses in the literature on relational frame theory over the past 30 years. The name of the framework is abbreviated the MDML, and the conceptual and empirical context from which it emerged is presented. The framework currently consists of four dimensions, (i) coherence, (ii) complexity, (iii) derivation, and (iv) flexibility; and five levels of relational development, (i) mutual entailing, (ii) relational framing, (iii) relational networking, (iv) What is the MDML and What Does it Offer?At this point in an earlier version of the current paper we first presented the historical background to the MDML before describing the framework itself and explaining why we

A Multiple-Baseline Evaluation of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Focused on Repetitive Negative Thinking for Comorbid Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression

“…RNT processes provoke at least three critical counterproductive effects. Firstly, the network of thoughts increases in complexity because myriads of new relations are established during the process (Barnes-Holmes et al, 2017). This effect facilitates the initiation of a new RNT process because more thoughts might begin to work as triggers (e.g.…”

Efeitos de uma Metáfora na Transformação de Funções de Estímulos

“…A literatura da ACT sugere que as intervenções mais efetivas para promover a flexibilidade psicológica (por exemplo, a permanência diante de eventos aversivos quando isso for importante para a pessoa; Hayes et al, 1999) envolve o treino de respostas relacionais de tomada de perspectiva e hierárquicas (e.g., Luciano et al, 2014). No entanto, as respostas relacionais dêiticas e hierárquicas apresentadas na metáfora utilizada implicam um nível de baixa complexidade (Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Luciano & McEnteggart, 2017), quando comparadas com as utilizadas no estudo de Luciano et al (2014), sugerindo que o responder relacional apresentado -eu/ outro (outro = meus sentimentos, pensamentos) e aqui (na margem do rio) / lá (na correnteza) -não foi suficiente para alterar a função aversiva dos estímulos. A flexibilidade psico-lógica, de acordo com Torneke et al (2015), envolve responder ao próprio responder como participando em molduras hierárquicas com o "eu" dêitico.…”

“…No protocolo DEF utilizado por Luciano et al, (2014), as relações eu/ outro; aqui/ali envolviam sentenças da complexidade de: "Agora olhe para o seu bolso e perceba que é você quem pode observar o pensamento escrito no pedaço de papel ali mesmo e também é você quem pode notar qualquer outro pensamento ou sensação à medida em que vão aparecendo (...)". Assim, estudos futuros poderiam fazer uso de outra "metáfora clássica" que resolva os dois problemas aqui apontados: (1) que seja mais adaptada à tarefa experimental e que (2) utilize respostas relacionais dêiticas e hierárquicas, tal como no protocolo DEF de Luciano et al (2014) e ainda, que manipule níveis de complexidade destas relações (Barnes-Holmes et al 2017).…”

A Brief Tutorial on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as Seen Through the Lens of Derived Stimulus Relations

“…The framework also conceptualizes each of these levels as having four dimensions: (a) derivation, (b) complexity, (c) coherence, and (d) flexibility. Each level intersects with each dimension, yielding 20 units of analysis for conceptualizing the dynamics of relational responding (see Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Luciano, & McEnteggart, 2017, for a detailed treatment of the MDML framework). In brief, derivation refers to how many times a derived response has been emitted-the first response is, by definition, high in derivation because it derived entirely from a trained relation(s).…”