Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 113–117 | Cite as

A Reticulated and Progressive Strategy for Developing Clinical Applications of RFT

  • Matthieu Villatte
  • Jennifer L. Villatte
  • Steven C. Hayes
Book Review

Introduction

An important goal of Mastering the Clinical Conversation: Language as Intervention (MCC) (Villatte, Villatte, & Hayes, 2016) is to stimulate mutual interest and facilitate dialogue between clinicians and RFT researchers. We were thus excited to read in this review (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2017) the numerous positive points appreciated by researchers that have made substantial contributions to the RFT literature. We appreciate the time and consideration the reviewers invested in providing feedback that can improve this work, and are encouraged that the positive aspects of their feedback are largely consistent with the feedback we have received from clinicians, researchers, and educators who have read MCC or participated in our MCC-based training, supervision, and consultation. For example, the reviewers detail a number of positive evaluations on our treatment of the self, meaning and motivation, metaphors, and experiential practice. We were also pleased to see such an...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This commentary has no funding source to report.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or non-human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., Harte, C., Leech, A., & McEnteggart, C. (2017). Review: Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention, Villatte, M., Villatte, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2016). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. The Psychological Record. doi:  10.1007/s40732-017-0229-0.
  2. Carpenter, K. M., Amrhein, P. C., Bold, K. W., Mishlen, K., Levin, F. R., Raby, W. N., … Nunes, E. V. (2016). Derived relations moderate the association between changes in the strength of commitment language and cocaine treatment response. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 24(2), 77–89. doi:  10.1037/pha0000063.
  3. Dahl, J. C., Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., & Lundgren, T. (2009). The art and science of valuing in psychotherapy: Helping clients discover, explore, and commit to valued action using acceptance and commitment therapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  4. Dahl, J. C., Stewart, I., Martell, C., & Kaplan, J. S. (2014). ACT and RFT in relationships: Helping clients deepen intimacy and maintain healthy commitments using acceptance and commitment therapy and relational frame theory. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  5. Dymond, S., May, R. J., Munnelly, A., & Hoon, A. E. (2010). Evaluating the evidence based for relational frame theory: A citation analysis. Behavior Analyst, 33, 97–117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  7. Foody, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, C. (2013). An empirical investigation of hierarchical versus distinction relations in a self-based ACT exercise. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 13(3), 373–388.Google Scholar
  8. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Contextual behavioral science: Creating a science more adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hooper, N., & Larsson, A. (2015). The research journey of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hooper, N., Saunders, S., & McHugh, L. (2010). The derived generalization of thought suppression. Learning & Behavior, 38(2), 160–168. doi: 10.3758/LB.38.2.160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luciano, C., Ruiz, F. J., Torres, R. M. V., Martín, V. S., Martínez, O. G., & López, J. C. (2011). A relational frame analysis of defusion interactions in acceptance and commitment therapy: A preliminary and quasi-experimental study with at-risk adolescents. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 11, 165–182.Google Scholar
  13. Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ruiz, F. J., Rodríguez-Valverde, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Dougher, M. J., López-López, J. C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Gutierrez-Martínez, O. (2014). Effects of an acceptance/defusion intervention on experimentally induced generalized avoidance: A laboratory demonstration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 94–111. doi: 10.1002/jeab.68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. McHugh, L., & Stewart, I. (Eds.). (2012). The self and perspective taking: Contributions and applications from modern behavioral science. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. O'Connor, M., Farrell, L., Munnelly, A., & McHugh, L. (2017). Citation analysis of relational frame theory: 2009-2016. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6, 152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rehfeldt, R. A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (Eds.). (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  18. Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical applications. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  19. Törneke, N. (2017). Metaphor in practice: A professional's guide to using the science of language in psychotherapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  20. Vilardaga, R. (2014). Technical, practical and analytic innovations in single case designs for contextual behavioral scientists. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(2), 136–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Villatte, M., Villatte, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2016). Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Zettle, R., Hayes, S. C., Barnes Holmes, D., & Biglan, T. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of contextual behavioral science. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthieu Villatte
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Villatte
    • 2
  • Steven C. Hayes
    • 3
  1. 1.Evidence-Based Practice InstituteSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.University of Nevada RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations