Bridging the Divide: Linking Basic Science to Applied Psychotherapeutic Interventions—A Relational Frame Theory Account of Cognitive Disputation in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy

  • John T. Blackledge
  • Daniel J. MoranEmail author
  • Albert Ellis
Original Article


The importance of linking applied psychotherapeutic techniques and strategies to basic experimental science is discussed, both as an independent ideal and in light of non-specific factors research suggesting that atheoretical global factors are responsible for the vast majority of clinical change. As an example of how such basic-applied linkage can occur, principles from Relational Frame Theory and other relevant experimental data are used to analyze and explain the potential utility of two specific strategies often employed in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy to remediate “awfulizing” and low frustration tolerance, respectively. The preliminary nature of this analysis is highlighted to allow a realistic view of the tremendous task at hand for clinical psychologists seeking a stronger basic science foundation for applied technologies.


Relational Frame Theory Rational emotive behavior therapy Theory-specific Derived relational responding Low frustration tolerance 


  1. Ahn, H., & Wampold, B. E. (2001). Where oh where are the specific ingredients? A meta-analysis of component studies in counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackledge, J. T. (2003). An introduction to relational frame theory: Basics and applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421–433.Google Scholar
  4. Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685–716.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DeRubeis, R. J., Brotman, M. A., & Gibbons, C. J. (2005). A conceptual and methodological analysis of the nonspecifics argument. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dryden, W. (1999). Rational emotive behavior therapy: A training manual. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Emmelkamp, P. M., & Beens, H. (1991). Cognitive therapy with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A comparative evaluation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29(3), 293–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Espin, M. J. G., Martin, S. F., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Relational Frame Theory and coherence: An experimental approach. Presented at the 31st Annual Association for Behavior Analysis Conference, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  9. Espin, M. J. G., Martin, S. F., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Fontan, M. L. (2003). Coherent and incoherent training of equivalence classes and its effects on the relational context. Presented at the 29th Annual Association for Behavior Analysis Conference, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  10. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  11. Gonzalez, J. E., Nelson, J. R., Gutkin, T. B., Saunders, A., Galloway, A., & Shwery, C. S. (2004). Rational emotive therapy with children and adolescents. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayes, S. C. (1987). The relation between “applied” and “basic” psychology. Behavior Analysis, 22(3), 91–100.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Hayes, S. C., Fox, E., Gifford, E. V., Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Healy, O. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 21–50). NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Horvath, A. O., & Luborsky, L. (1993). The role of therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4, 561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ilardi, S. S., & Craighead, W. E. (1994). The role of nonspecific factors in cognitive-behavior therapy for depression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazdin, A. E. (2005a). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kazdin, A. E. (2005b). Treatment outcomes, common factors, and continued neglect of mechanisms of change. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Mechanisms of change in psychotherapy: Advances, breakthroughs, cutting-edge research (in preparation). In R. Bootzin & P. McKnight (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  20. Lazarus, A. (1995). Different types of eclecticism and integration: Let’s be aware of the differences. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 5(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
  21. Lazarus, A. (1996). The utility and futility of combining treatments in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3(1), 59–68.Google Scholar
  22. Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201–239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lovaas, O. I., & Smith, T. (1994). Intensive and long-term treatments for clients with destructive behaviors. In T. Thompson & D. Gray (Eds.), Destructive behavior in developmental disabilities: Diagnosis and treatment (pp. 243–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that “everyone has won and all must have prizes”? Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995–1008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relations of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Donohue, W., & Krasner, L. (1995). Handbook of psychological skills training: Clinical techniques and applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  27. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1990). Relations between baseline contingencies and equivalence probe performances. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 213–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pilgrim, C., & Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Hayes, S. C. (2001). Social processes. In S. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 197–210). NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2002). The development and dissemination of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A multi-level, evidence-based system of parenting and family support. Prevention Science, 3(3), 173–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  32. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn. (2000). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  34. Walen, S. R., DiGiuseppe, R., & Dryden, W. (1992). A practitioner’s guide to rational-emotive therapy. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • John T. Blackledge
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Moran
    • 2
    Email author
  • Albert Ellis
    • 3
  1. 1.Morehead State UniversityMoreheadUSA
  2. 2.MidAmerican Psychological InstituteJolietUSA
  3. 3.The Albert Ellis InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations