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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn. (2000). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. Moran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blackledge, J.T., Moran, D.J. & Ellis, A. Bridging the Divide: Linking Basic Science to Applied Psychotherapeutic Interventions—A Relational Frame Theory Account of Cognitive Disputation in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther 27, 232–248 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-007-0078-x

Download citation

Keywords

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