The Latest Model Developments of the Relational Frame Theory: From MDML to HDML

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240525

Abstract

Abstract: The Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a contemporary theory of language and cognition based on behavioral analysis, proposed by American psychologists Hayes and colleagues in 1985. RFT refers to a class of responses that involve relationships between stimuli that are clearly defined and controlled within a context as Arbitrary Applicable Relational Responses (AARR), which is the fundamental process of RFT. This article reviews early RFT research and systematically discusses the latest developments in RFT theory, including the multidimensional multilevel model (MDML) and the hyper-dimensional multilevel model (HDML) developed in recent years.
Early RFT research often focused on the"demonstration research". That is, the early RFT research involved demonstrations of predicted entailment and transformation effects. Frameworks are either demonstrated or they are not. However, the key to RFT lies in the functional response units that involve associations rather than individual stimuli. In other words, once a relational frame is established as an operant response, operant contingencies will influence the associated response units.
To further develop the demonstration research stage discussed earlier, Researchers developed the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). The IRAP is a computer-based task that combines the Implicit Association Test (IAT) with the Relational Evaluation Procedure (REP). Its purpose is to measure the strength or occurrence probability of natural language relations by eliciting responses from participants under time pressure . However, due to its close connection with the IAT, subsequent research quickly focused on implicit attitudes and cognition, thereby reducing attention to the RFT or AARR itself. Therefore, researchers advocate returning to the initial focus of RFT research and striving to analyze the formation of relational frames. This led to the development of the MDML and HDML.
The MDML framework identifies four dimensions of RFT analysis and five levels of relational development. The four dimensions are relational consistency, relational complexity, derived relations, and flexibility. The five levels of relational development are mutual entailing relational framing, relational networking, relating relations, and relating relational networking. MDML conceptualizes and studies the 20 intersections between the four dimensions of relational analysis and the five levels of development to understand and study the dynamics of AARR in laboratory and natural environments. HDML shifts the focus from individual frames to relational interactive networks and establishes a new concept analysis unit called ROE-M, representing relationship, orientation, evocation, and motivation aspects within RFT. Orientation in HDML refers to the extent to which a stimulus event is noticed or "stands out" in a broader context. Evocation refers to whether the noticed stimulus or event is liked, disliked, or relatively neutral, and the degree to which the stimulus event is considered approachable or avoidable. Motivation represents the intensity of motivational factors that interact with orientation and/or evocation and is dynamically related. ROE-M emphasizes the functional features of contexts and provides a concise and precise analysis of the impact of language skills on any contextual variable of human behavior, while always emphasizing the highly dynamic and complex nature of human psychological events. Explanations of behavior based on the inseparable characteristics of ROE-M extends beyond the reinforcement process and even beyond traditional RFT explanations.
The RFT and its subsequent developments in the MDML and HDML frameworks aim to provide an accurate, concise, and functional analysis framework for describing verbal behavior and to provide a unified analytic framework for psychological events or issues. The Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), based on the development of the RFT, has been empirically validated in international and domestic clinical psychological interventions. However, there is still limited introduction and exploration of the RFT and its latest developments among Chinese scholars. We hope that Chinese scholars can systematically validate this theory within the Chinese cultural context and explore the cultural adaptability of the RFT in different settings and populations, thus fully realizing its practical value.

Key words: relational frame theory (RFT), behavior analysis, AARR, MDML, HDML

摘要： 关系框架理论是美国心理学家Hayes等人于1985年提出的基于行为分析的当代语言与认知理论。关系框架理论将一类由语境控制并明确规定了刺激之间关系的反应称为任意适用的关系反应,并将其作为关系框架理论的基本过程。文章系统梳理了关系框架理论的最新发展,包括研究者对早期关系框架理论研究的反思、最近几年发展出来的多维度多水平模型和超维度多水平模型,并对理论的发展进行了总结和评价,提出了未来的研究方向,以期为该理论在中国的实证研究和发展提供参考。

关键词: 关系框架理论, 行为分析, AARR, MDML, HDML

Wang Shujuan, Chen Jing, Zhu Zhuohong. The Latest Model Developments of the Relational Frame Theory: From MDML to HDML[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(5): 1262-1270.

王淑娟, 陈晶, 祝卓宏. 关系框架理论模型的最新发展：从MDML到HDML^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(5): 1262-1270.

References

[1] 白晓宇, Mutusva, T. S., 祝卓宏. (2019). PEAK关系训练系统: 孤独症语言障碍康复的新方法. 心理科学进展, 27(11), 1896-1905.
[2] 刘园芳, 白晓宇, 林凡裕, 祝卓宏, 李新影. (2021). BHP: 孤独症患者观点采择训练新方法. 中国特殊教育, 1, 44-50.
[3] 毛晓翎, 王分分, 曹静, 祝卓宏. (2017). 多范例训练提升儿童隐喻理解能力的干预性研究. 心理与行为研究, 15(5), 675-682.
[4] 王分分, 祝卓宏. (2017). 言语行为的关系框架理论视角: 孤独症谱系障碍的新探索. 心理科学进展, 25(8), 1321-1326.
[5] 王淑娟, 张婍, 祝卓宏. (2012). 关系框架理论: 接纳与承诺治疗的理论基础(述评). 中国心理卫生杂志, 26(11), 877-880.
[6] Barnes-Holmes D., Barnes-Holmes Y., Hussey I., & Luciano C. (2016). Relational frame theory: Finding its historical and intellectual roots and reflecting upon its future development. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[7] Barnes-Holmes D., Barnes-Holmes Y., Luciano C., & McEnteggart C. (2017). From the IRAP and REC model to a multi-dimensional multi-level framework for analyzing the dynamics of arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(4), 434-445.
[8] Barnes-Holmes, D. & Harte, C. (2021). A primer on relational frame theory (RFT). In M. P. Twohig, M. E. Levin, & J. M. Peterson (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of acceptance and commitment therapy. Oxford University Press.
[9] Barnes-Holmes, D., & Harte, C. (2022). Relational frame theory 20 years on: The Odysseus voyage and beyond. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 117(2), 240-266.
[10] Barnes-Holmes D., O'Hora D., Roche B., Hayes S. C., Bissett R. T., & Lyddy F. (2001). Understanding and verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 103-117). Plenum Publishers.
[11] Beck C., Garcia Y., Brothers L., Mahoney A., Rancourt R. C., & Andrews M. (2023). A systematic review of the impact of derived relational responding technology in raising intelligence scores. The Psychological Record, 73(3), 339-361.
[12] Bordieri M. J., Kellum K. K., Wilson K. G., & Whiteman K. C. (2016). Basic properties of coherence: Testing a core assumption of relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 66(1), 83-98.
[13] Chan S. C., Ormandy S., Stockwell A., & Rehfeldt R. A. (2023). The application of relational frame theory to teaching early piano skills to children on the autism spectrum. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 39(1), 1-29.
[14] Edwards D. J. J., McEnteggart C., & Barnes-Holmes Y. (2022). A functional contextual account of background knowledge in categorization: Implications for artificial general intelligence and cognitive accounts of general knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 745306.
[15] Gibbs A. R., Tullis C. A., Conine D. E., & Fulton A. A. (2024). A systematic review of derived relational responding beyond coordination in individuals with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 36(1), 1-36.
[16] Gillespie, D., & Provost, S. (2023). Does it apply to me: Using relational frame theory to examine anaesthetists' approach to safety behaviour and human factors. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, 12(1), 218-222.
[17] Harte, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2022). The status of rule-governed behavior as pliance, tracking and augmenting within relational frame theory: Middle-level rather than technical terms. The Psychological Record, 72(1), 145-158.
[18] Harte C., Barnes-Holmes D., de Rose J. C., Perez W. F., & de Almeida, J. H. (2023). Grappling with the complexity of behavioral processes in human psychological suffering: Some potential insights from relational frame theory. Perspectives on Behavioral Science, 46(1), 237-259.
[19] Hayes, S. C., & Barnes, D. (1997). Analyzing derived stimulus relations requires more than the concept of stimulus class. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68(2), 235-244.
[20] Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1985). Verbal behavior, equivalence classes, and rules: New definitions, data, and directions. Invited Address Presented at the Meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Columbus, OH.
[21] Hayes S. C., Brownstein A. J., Zettle R. D., Rosenfarb I., & Korn Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(3), 237-256.
[22] Hayes, S. C, Fox E, Gifford E. V, Wilson, K. G., Barnes-Holmes D., & Healy D. (2001). Derived relational responding as learned behavior. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition (pp. 21-49). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
[23] Hayes S. C.,& Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the listener as a basis for rule-governance. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition,, contingencies,, and instructional control (pp. 153-190). Plenum Press.
[24] Hayes S. C.,& Hofmann, S. G. (2020). Beyond the DSM: Toward a process-based alternative for diagnosis and mental health treatment Context Press/New Harbinger Publications Toward a process-based alternative for diagnosis and mental health treatment. Context Press/New Harbinger Publications.
[25] Hayes, S. C., & Sanford, B. T. (2014). Cooperation came first: Evolution and human cognition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101(1), 112-129.
[26] Herc, H. C. (2022). Applying relational frame theory and increased sensory involvement with metaphors to the digital delivery of an ACT-based coping skill. Dissertation (Master thesis). The University of Toledo.
[27] Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). Relational frame theory. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 115-128). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[28] 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(2), 201-239.
[29] Luciano C., Becerra I. G., & Valverde M. R. (2007). The role of multiple-exemplar training and naming in establishing derived equivalence in an infant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87(3), 349-365.
[30] O'Hora, D., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). The referential nature of rules and instructions: A response to instructions, rules, and abstraction: A misconstrued relation by Emilio Ribes-Inesta. Behavior and Philosophy, 29, 21-25.
[31] O'Hora D., Barnes-Holmes D., Roche B., & Smeets P. (2004). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 437-460.
[32] O'Hora D., Barnes-Holmes D., & Stewart I. (2014). Antecedent and consequential control of derived instruction-following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102(1), 66-85.
[33] O'Toole, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Three chronometric indices of relational responding as predictors of performance on a brief intelligence test: The importance of relational flexibility. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 119-132.
[34] Rosenfarb I. S., Hayes S. C., & Linehan M. M. (1989). Instructions and experiential feedback in the treatment of social skills deficits in adults. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(2), 242-251.
[35] Stewart I., Barnes-Holmes D., Hayes S. C., & Lipkens R. (2001). Relations among relations: Analogies, metaphors, and stories. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition (pp. 73-86). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
[36] Stewart, I., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational frame theory and analogical reasoning: Empirical investigations. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4(2), 241-262.
[37] Tagliabue M., Squatrito V., & Presti G. (2019). Models of cognition and their applications in behavioral economics: A conceptual framework for nudging derived from behavior analysis and relational frame theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2418.
[38] Turner, J. I. (2021). Frame of politics: A thesis of relational frame theory and U.S. presidential debates (Master thesis). The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
[39] Tyrberg M. J., Parling T., & Lundgren T. (2021). Patterns of relational framing in executive function: An investigation of the Wisconsin card sorting test. The Psychological Record, 71(3), 411-422.
[40] Wolgast, A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2022). Flexible social perspective taking in higher education and the role of contextual cues. Frontline Learning Research, 10(1), 76-107.
[41] Zettle R. D.,& Hayes, S. C. (1982). Rule-governed behavior: A potential theoretical framework for cognitive-behavior therapy. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive behavioral research and therapy (pp. 73-118). Academic Press.