There have been new approaches in recent times about behavioral and cognitive therapies. Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and Relational frame theory (RFT) are examples of such therapies (Hayes,2005, p.132). RFT dives into human language and cognition (Fletcher and Hayes,2005, p.317). As humans we can correlate what we see with what the item really is. For example, when we see beware of dogs’ sign, we imagine the presence of the dog in the environment we are even though we may not have seen the dog. This influences our behavior of either knocking or ringing a doorbell before going into such an environment. Both RFT and ACT consider ‘private events’ that is thoughts or feelings and is still evolving in behavior analysis. This reflection would be on relational frame theory introduction, using acceptance and commitment therapy for people with disabilities and an experiment to scrutinize the consequences of individualized ACT in schools.
According to Blackledge (2003), RFT deliberately uses technical terms (p.421). In my opinion, this would make it hard for a non-scientist to understand it. I am just wondering how a parent or care giver who wants to read articles on RFT would be able to grasp the concept due to its complexities. To the parent, this would help him or her gain knowledge of its application on his or her child. On the other hand, I understand this technicality is meant to deter people who are not qualified to use its application however it is not helpful to parents or caregivers who just want knowledge. Also, how would parents or caregivers give informed consent if they do not even understand the rationale behind RFT because of its technical word use. This article highlighted how certain stimuli learnt through direct experiences, instructions or modelling influence a response or behavior (p.422). For example, as a child, I heard lions could eat humans and even though I had never seen one in my life I was always imagining what could happen to me if I met one. My dad took me to the zoo when I was 8 years old, and I was petrified to go near the lion zone. I was so scared I run out of the zoo and never went back. Yes, I knew they were in cages, but I could not get over the fact that they could devour me. The article also discussed relational responding a principle of RFT and how it could lead to psychological issues if it is not controlled (p.425). For example, there has been a lot of fitness gurus advocating against eating carbs because they cause weight gain. Imagine a teenager hearing this repeatedly from Instagram, family, friends and already feel he or she is ‘fat’. It can trigger him or her to deprive him or herself from food leading to a potential eating disorder.
Consequently, Hoffman et al. (2016) elaborated on the scarcity of research into private events for people with disabilities (p.15). This is not surprising, and I believe this can be attributed to ethical concerns. Moreover, when working with a vulnerable population, informed consent and assent needs to be considered which may not be easy to get. Also, even though the Institutional review board (IRB) may allow this process to go ahead, it can be tedious, and most researchers would not want to go through that process. The article also reiterated that private events are sometimes disregarded when examining its role in environmental behavior interactions and the lack of literature in behavior analytic journals (p.15). I am astonished by this statement because B.F. Skinner, the father of behavior analysis talks about the role of private events in radical behaviorism. I am wondering if maybe behavior analysts without a psychology credential feel the topic of private events is outside their scope of competence and a psychologist should be the one addressing these private events. Additionally, the article also discussed therapists or behavior analysts using environmental contingencies to regulate self-rules (p.17). I am just wondering if these self-rules can be used to regulate problem behaviour especially by customizing interventions to the individuals’ self-rules to increase client compliance. However, this may not be appropriate if these self-rules are harmful to the client. This article expressed the goal of ACT not changing private events but rather amending how an individual responds to those feelings or thoughts (p.18). In other words, ACT aims to change an individual’s perspective about situations. This is likely to help the person feel heard and understood.
Wilson et al. (2022) states in schools, involvement of aggressive behavior is related to low study skills (p.141). In my view, aggressive behavior in schools lead to disruption in academic activities which makes students unproductive. The article also highlighted teachers and school personnel having burnout and stress when there is a lot of disruptive behaviors in schools (p.141). I believe this is because some schools may lose staff when they feel unsafe from the disruptive behaviors and resign from their jobs. In the article, a meta-analysis on mindfulness intervention showed an improvement in adolescent students’ performance (p.142). Meta -analysis is the highest level of evidence and if it has confirmed mindfulness interventions work, it means it can be effective for students when used.
Assent for participants of the study in Wilson et al. (2022) was sought which was good. Also, the social validity of the study by Wilson et al. (2022 was also checked. Similarly, Blackledge (2003), gave an overarching overview of RFT however, the explanation of RFT was very condensed and hard to understand. Hoffman et al. (2016) gave a behavior analytic perspective of ACT which made it more practical to follow.
In conclusion, RFT and ACT are emerging therapies which behavior analysts should consider carefully. They must ensure they understand the principles behind it before utilizing it. Also, behavior analysts should conduct more research to understand RFT and ACT.
References
Hayes, S. C. (2005). Stability and change in cognitive behavior therapy: Considering the implications of ACT and RFT. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23, 131-151.
Fletcher, L., & Hayes, S. C. (2005). Relational frame theory, acceptance and commitment therapy, and a functional analytic definition of mindfulness. Journal of rational-emotive and cognitive-behavior therapy, 23, 315-336.
Blackledge, J. T. (2003). An introduction to relational frame theory: Basics and
applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421–433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099997
Hoffman, A.N., Contreras, B.P., Clay, C.J., & Twohig, M.P. (2016). Acceptance and
commitment therapy for individuals with disabilities: A behavior analytic strategy for
addressing private events in challenging behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 14-
24.
Wilson, A.N., Dzugan, E., & Hutchinson, V.D. (2022). Using a nonconcurrent multiple-
baseline across-participants design to examine the effects of individualized ACT at
school. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15,141-154.
