Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructs, Events, and Acceptance and Commitment Training

  • SI: Acceptance and Commitment Training in Behavior Analysis
  • Published:
Behavior Analysis in Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present article considers acceptance and commitment training (ACT) from the perspective of interbehavioral psychology. Specifically, J. R. Kantor’s (1957) explicit distinction between constructs and events is reviewed, with particular attention given to the use of ACT in the practice settings of applied behavior analysis. It is recommended that practitioners be especially sensitive to the distinction between constructs and events as they consider employing ACT interventions. The interbehavioral field construct of interbehavioral psychology is briefly described as a context for conceptualizing both practice and research related to ACT in behavior analysis. Related conceptual issues, especially issues pertaining to the subject matter of behavior analysis and the Skinnerian concept of private events, are considered. The potential value of further integrating interbehavioral thinking into ACT practice and research is described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Readers interested in this topic may also be interested in Pérez-Almonacid (2019) on technical and ordinary language with respect to emotions and feelings.

References

  • Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2020). Updating RFT (more field than frame) and its implications for process-based therapy. The Psychological Record, 70(4), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00372-3.

  • Castro, M., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Root, W. B. (2016). On the role of values clarification and committed actions in enhancing the engagement of direct care workers with clients with severe developmental disorders. Journal of Contextual Behavior Science, 5(4), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.09.003.

  • Dahl, J., & Lundgren, T. (2006). Living beyond your pain: Using acceptance & commitment therapy to ease chronic pain. New Harbinger.

  • Darrow, S. M., & Follette, W. C. (2014). Where’s the beef? Reply to Kanter, Holman, and Wilson. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(4), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.08.007

  • DeBernardis, G. M., Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2014). Perspective-taking as a continuum. The Psychological Record, 64(1), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0008-0.

  • Dixon, M. R., Hayes, S. C., Stanley, C., Law, S., & al-Nassar, T. (2020). Is acceptance and commitment training or therapy (ACT) a method that applied behavior analysts can and should use? The Psychological Record, 70(4), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00436-9.

  • Eifert, G. H., & Forsyth, J. P. (2005). Acceptance and commitment therapy for anxiety disorders: A practitioner’s guide to using mindfulness, acceptance, and values-based behavior change strategies. New Harbinger.

  • Finn, M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2021). In support of reacquainting functional contextualism and interbehaviorism. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 19, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.11.001

  • Fryling, M. J. (2012). Relational responding as a psychological event. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 12(1), 85–96 https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen12/num1/319/relational-responding-as-a-psychological-EN.pdf.

  • Fryling, M. J. (2013). Constructs and events in verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2009). Psychological events and constructs: An alliance with Smith. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395653.

  • Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). Are thoughts private? Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 40(3), 1–10. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/593/59335812001.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2018). J. R. Kantor and behavior analysis. Conductual, 6, 86–94 http://conductual.com/articulos/J.%20R.%20Kantor%20and%20Behavior%20Analysis.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryling, M. J., & Hayes, L. J. (2019). Interpersonal closeness and conflict in interbehavioral perspective. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 19(2), 131–140 https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen19/num2/512.html.

  • Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020). The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. (2008). The happiness trap: Stop struggling and start living. Trumpeter.

  • Hayes, L. J. (1992a). Equivalence as process. In S. C. Hayes & L. J. Hayes (Eds.), Understanding verbal relations (pp. 97–108). Context Press.

  • Hayes, L. J. (1992b). The psychological present. The Behavior Analyst, 15, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392596.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. J. (1998). Remembering as a psychological event. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 18(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091180.

  • Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2009). Overcoming the pseudo-problem of private events in the analysis of behavior. Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 39–57 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41472421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2015). A historical perspective on the future of behavior science. The Behavior Analyst, 38(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-015-0030-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2018). Psychological events as integrated fields. The Psychological Record, 68(2), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0274-3.

  • Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2019). Functional and descriptive contextualism. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 14, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C. (1993). Analytic goals and the varieties of scientific contextualism. In S. C. Hayes, L. J. Hayes, H. W. Reese, & T. R. Sarbin (Eds.), Varieties of scientific contextualism (pp. 11–27). Context Press.

  • Hayes, S. C. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life: The new acceptance and commitment therapy. New Harbinger.

  • Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Plenum Press.

  • Hayes, S. C., & Bissett, R. T. (2000). Behavioral psychotherapy and the rise of clinical behavior analysis. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 231–245). Context Press.

  • Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Melancon, S. M. (1989). Avoiding and altering rule-control as a strategy of clinical intervention. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 359–384). Context Press.

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

  • Hoffmann, 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(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0105-4.

  • Kantor, J. R. (1924). Principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Principia Press.

  • Kantor, J. R. (1953). The logic of modern science. Principia Press.

  • Kantor, J. R. (1957). Events and constructs in the science of psychology: Philosophy: Banished and recalled. The Psychological Record, 7(2), 55–60.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393285.

  • Kantor, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology: A sample of scientific system construction. Principia Press.

  • Kantor, J. R. (1969). Spurious philosophy and specious psychology. The Psychological Record, 19(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393823.

  • Kantor, J. R., & Smith, N. W. (1975). The science of psychology: An interbehavioral survey. Principia Press.

  • Leigland, S. (2014). Contingency horizon: On private events and the analysis of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 37(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-014-0002-5.

  • Little, A., Tarbox, J., & Alzaabi, K. (2020). Using acceptance and commitment training to enhance the effectiveness of behavioral skills training. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 16, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2007). Learning ACT: An acceptance and commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists. New Harbinger.

  • Moran, D. J. (2015). Acceptance and commitment training in the workplace. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newsome, D., Newsome, K., Fuller, T. C., & Meyer, S. (2019). How contextual behavioral scientists measure and report about behavior: A review of JCBS. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrott, L. J. (1984). Listening and understanding. The Behavior Analyst, 7(1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391883.

  • Pérez-Almonacid, R. (2019). A non-mediational approach to emotions and feelings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 181. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz, E. K. (2020). Interbehavior as a clinical focus in CBS: A response to Hayes and Fryling (2019). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 273–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz, E. K., Boullion, G. Q., & Rachal, D. O. (2020). Second and third-wave behavior therapy. In M. Fryling, R. A. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Concepts and principles for practitioners (pp. 250–263) New Harbinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. The Free Press.

  • Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Random House.

  • Smith, N. W. (2007). Events and constructs. The Psychological Record, 57(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395570.

  • Snyder, K., Lambert, J., & Twohig, M. P. (2011). Defusion: A behavior-analytic strategy for addressing private events. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tarbox, J. (Chair) (2018, May 29). Acceptance and commitment therapy seminar. Association for Behavior Analysis International, San Diego, CA, United States. https://www.abainternational.org/events/program-details/event-detail.aspx?intConvId=55&by=Day&date=5/29/2018

  • Tarbox, J., Szabo, T. G., & Aclan, M. (2020). Acceptance and commitment training within the scope of practice in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00466-3

  • Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. New Harbinger.

  • Törneke, N., Luciano, C., & Valdivia Salas, S. (2008). Rule-governed behavior and psychological Problems. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(2), 141–156 https://www.ijpsy.com/volumen8/num2/191/rule-governed-behavior-and-psychological-EN.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Special Education and Counseling, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Dr, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA

    Mitch Fryling

  2. University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA

    Linda J. Hayes

Authors
  1. Mitch Fryling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda J. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitch Fryling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

This article does not describe research with human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fryling, M., Hayes, L.J. Constructs, Events, and Acceptance and Commitment Training. Behav Analysis Practice 15, 83–89 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00598-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00598-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation