Jan De Houwer*, Yvonne Barnes-Holmes#, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes#

1. Riding the Waves: A Functional-Cognitive Perspective on the Relations between Behavior Therapy,Cognitive Behavior Therapy, andAcceptance and Commitment Therapy • Jan De Houwer*, Yvonne Barnes-Holmes#, & Dermot Barnes-Holmes# • *Ghent University, Belgium; NUIM, #Ireland Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

2. Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

3. De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 202-209. • De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631-642. • De Houwer, J., Gawronski, B., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2013). A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 252-287. • Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Barnes-Holmes (submitted). On How Contextual Behavioral Science May Contribute to the Study of Evaluative Conditioning.

4. I. Two approaches in psychology • I.1. The functional approach • I.2. The cognitive approach • II. The functional-cognitive framework • II.1. The two approaches are not competitors • II.2. The two approaches are mutually supportive • III. Situating BT, CBT, and ACT in the F-C framework • III.1. BT • III.2. CBT • III.3. ACT • IV. Implications for relation between BT, CBT, ACT • V. Conclusions and Caveats

5. I. Two approaches in psychology E1 E2 E3 Environment Behavior • I.1. The functional approach in psychology • - Study of relations between environment and behavior • - Functional = B is function OF E (mathematical sense) • - Is (nomological) explanation: What influences behavior (E1, E2, E3, …; simple or complex) in term of principles with precision, scope, and depth (e.g., lever pressing, tantrums in kids, …) • - Aims to predict-and-influence based on (manipulation of) environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

6. Behavior Environment ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° • I.2. The cognitive approach • - Study of mental processes mediating impact of environment on behavior • - Cognitive = mental = informational • => not subclass of behavioral phenomena (e.g., talking) • - Is (mechanistic) explanation: contiguous causation involving mental (informational) representations and processes • => e.g. latent learning: Etime1 causes Btime2 due to representation • => note: mechanism can be recursive, parallel, chaotic, … • - Aims to predict: have mechanism that corresponds with behavior (model) Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

7. II. Functional-Cognitive Framework (DH, 2011) ENVIRONMENT 1 BEHAVIOR MENTAL PROCESS 2 BEHAVIOR • II.1. The two approaches are not competitors ENVIRONMENT 1 MENTAL PROCESS 2 BEHAVIOR ENVIRONMENT 1 MENTAL PROCESS 1 BEHAVIOR ENVIRONMENT 2 MENTAL PROCESS 2 BEHAVIOR

8. Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation The fact that statistical contingency increases salivation is due to formation of associations in memory • II.2. The two approaches are mutually supportive Functional: 1st level of explanation Increase in salivation is due to pairing of bell and food = classical conditioning as an effect Environment: Description e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10; time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; … Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

9. Approach does not depend on what one does but on why: • Also cognitive needs to return to environment; also functional can engage in cognitive theorizing => AIMS; topography vs. function • Not a battle of aims (as in the past) but a mutual cooperation to the benefit of both approaches • Interacting with cognitive psychology can help you achieve the aims of functional psychology (and thus become a better functional psychologist) • Interacting with functional psychology can help you achieve the aims of cognitive psychology (and thus become a better cognitive psychologist) • Provided that one remains true to aims and does not conflate levels • Requires conceptual rigor and clarity! Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

10. Conceptual traps: • 1. “Functional” concepts that cannot be defined in terms of environment-behavior relations with sufficient precision, scope, and depth: • => e.g., mid level terms such as “fusion” • => hinders functional analysis and thus aim to predict-and-influence • 2. Cognitive concepts that are equated with concepts at the functional or environmental level • => e.g., classical conditioning as “association formation” • => requires (possible incorrect) a priori assumptions of mechanism mediating impact of environment on behavior and thus aim to build a model of the mechanism Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

11. Cognitive: 2nd level of explanation The fact that statistical contingency increases salivation is due to formation of associations in memory Classical conditioning as an effect is a proxy for association formation in memory Functional: 1st level of explanation • E.g: Classical conditioning as association formation Increase in salivation is due to pairing of bell and food Increase in salivation is due to formation of association in memory Environment: Description e.g., time 1: bell - no salivation; time 2: food; ITI=10; time 3: bell = 2 drops salivation; … Functional-cognitive framework – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

12. III. Situating BT, CBT, and ACT in F-C framework • III.1. Behavior Therapy: Two conceptualizations • a) BT historically fits within the functional approach: • - classical conditioning (BT): CS-US pairings => change in behavior • - operant conditioning (ABA): Sd: R-O => changes in behavior • => BT analysis: psychopathology as instances of conditioning • (e.g., fear for elevator as instance of conditioning) • => BT techniques: therapy as analogous to changing conditioning • (e.g., exposure as instance of extinction) • b) Mechanistic BT: Conditioning as S-R association formation mechanism • => BT functional analysis and techniques conceptualized in terms of the formation and change in S-R associations (which can be understood either as a functional or mental mechanism) • => limits view on possible moderators / techniques

13. Cognitive approach BT as S-R BT functional analysis Functional approach BT Techniques Environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

14. III.2. CBT: Two traditions can be identified • a) Tradition I: Conditioning (and thus BT) as S-S association formation • => BT functional analysis and techniques conceptualized in terms of the formation and change in S-S associations (which is firmly situated at the cognitive level as a mental mechanism) • => broader view on possible moderators / techniques (e.g., context dependent relapse – Bouton, Mineka & Zinbarg; but still limiting) • b) Tradition II: CT • => psychopathology as biased information processing • => “functional” analysis of (origins of) biases • => correcting info processing via interventions in environment • *BT techniques • *talk therapies • *Cognitive Bias Modification (e.g., attentional retraining) • ! Therapeutic techniques do not define approach but aims do ! Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006

15. Cognitive approach CT BT as S-S BT as S-R CBT “functional” analysis BT functional analysis Functional approach BT techniques Talk therapy CBM Environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

16. III.3. ACT: Two possible conceptualisations • a) ACT as applied RFT: Fits within functional approach • => new functional principle: AARR • => functional analysis: psychopathology as AARR • => therapy as revealing AARR and allowing for alternative AARR • b) ACT as “hexaflex” • => not strictly functional or cognitive • - some functional terms (e.g., ply) • - some mid level terms maybe • ultimately functional but … • => mix of therapeutic techniques Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

17. Cognitive approach CT BT as S-S BT as S-R ACT as Hex ? CBT “functional” analysis BT functional analysis ACT functional analysis Functional approach BT techniques ACT techniques Talk therapy CBM Environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

18. Non-arbitrary applicable relational responding (NAARR) Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

19. Arbitrary applicable relational responding (AARR) Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014

20. Cognitive approach CT BT as S-S BT as S-R ACT as Hex CBT “functional” analysis BT functional analysis ACT functional analysis Functional approach BT techniques ACT techniques Talk therapy CBM Environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

21. IV. Implications for relation between BT,CBT,ACT • 1. Therapeutic techniques do not define approach but aims do • => different techniques can be used by different people with different aims • => each approach adds techniques but retains old ones for new aims • 2. “BT as S-S” part of CBT compatible with “BT functional analysis” but not “BT as S-R” => historically, this has been a false debate • 3. “CBT functional analysis” not functional in same sense as “BT functional analysis” or “ACT functional analysis” • 4. “ACT as applied RFT” is functional in same sense as original BT but with AARR as added principle • => but AARR is a game changer that changes other principles • 5. “ACT as applied RFT” is compatible with CBT as cognitive theory • 6. Status of “ACT as hexaflex” within F-C framework is ambiguous

22. Cognitive approach Propositional theory CT BT as S-S BT as S-R ACT as Hex CBT “functional” analysis BT functional analysis ACT functional analysis Functional approach BT techniques ACT techniques Talk therapy CBM Environment Distinction Procedure, Effect, and Theory – Jan De Houwer - 09/06/2006 Functional-cognitive approach – ACBS Minneapolis – 20 June 2014 Learning – Gdansk – 7 July 2007

23. V. Conclusions and Caveats • 1. Functional and cognitive approaches in psychology are not mutually exclusive but mutually supportive • => but building bridges will not be easy: Panel on Saturday • 2. Approach depends not on what one does but why: Everyone can engage at all levels, but ultimate aim is what counts. • 3. Adhering to aims requires conceptual rigor and clarity • 4. Also therapeutic approaches can be situated in F-C framework, revealing interesting communalities and differences • 5. Not a blame game but an awareness raiser • => clinicians cannot wait for complete conceptual and theoretical clarity • => but also do not delude yourself about it is you are doing