The Self as the Context for Rule-Governed Behavior

Full reference: Luciano, C., Valdivia-Salas, S., & Ruiz, F.J. (2012). The Self as the Context for Rule-Governed Behavior. In R.A. Rehfeldt & Y. Barnes-Holmes (Eds.), Derived Relational Responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities (pp. 144-159). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Type of work: Theoretical chapter with illustrative clinical examples

Central thesis and objectives

The chapter presents a theoretical analysis of how the self functions as context for rule-governed behavior (RGB) from the perspective of Relational Frame Theory (RFT). The central thesis is that the development of self depends fundamentally on the verbal community that formulates questions about one's own behavior, and that this sense of self, once established, can serve as context that facilitates or hinders effective rule-governed conduct. The authors contend that understanding this relationship is critical to explaining both adaptive and problematic patterns of behavioral regulation.

The chapter's objective is to expose how human verbal behavior establishes a self that can function as context for rule-following. The authors argue that without understanding this contextual mechanism, it is impossible to fully understand how interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) can be effective in modifying problematic patterns of behavioral regulation derived from experiential avoidance.

Theoretical framework

The authors ground their analysis in Relational Frame Theory, initially developed by Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, and Roche (2001). From this perspective, self-development depends on the existence of a verbal community that formulates questions and shapes answers about one's own behavior. Through these interactions, a person learns to report their own behavior, what RFT terms derived relational behavior.

RFT proposes that self develops in three senses: (1) self-as-content — the thoughts and emotions a person holds about themselves; (2) self-as-process — the moment-to-moment experience of one's own behavior; and (3) self-as-context — the abstract observing perspective that allows discrimination of one's behavior without fusion with it.

The authors describe three principal types of rule-governed behavior: pliance (compliance with social rules controlled by socially-mediated consequences), tracking (rule-following controlled by natural consequences), and augmenting (potentiation of consequences through verbally-established arbitrary relations). Each type of RGB has distinct functions and can become problematic under certain circumstances.

Argument development

The authors initially develop the distinction between atheoretical understanding of rules in cognitive psychology and functional analysis from RFT. They note that from a functional-analytic perspective, what defines a rule is not its topographic form but its function as a verbal operant that alters behavioral control. This precision is fundamental because it explains how an identical rule, topographically identical, may or may not control behavior depending on context.

Subsequently, they expose in detail each type of RGB. In pliance, the authors emphasize that behavior is controlled by histories of socially-mediated contingencies. They exemplify with a mother establishing rules about her child's behavior, where reinforcement depends on the behavior being observed by others. They underscore that pliance is essential for cultural development but can become problematic when natural contingencies diverge from social ones.

In tracking, the authors describe how behavior is controlled by the perceived correspondence between rule and natural consequences. They provide the example of a person following the rule "if I brush my teeth with toothpaste, my teeth will be cleaner" because the correspondence between rule and current experience is evident. However, they underscore that tracking becomes problematic when applied to internal contexts, such as when a person follows the rule "I must get rid of my anxious thoughts" based on the mistaken belief that these thoughts can and should be controlled.

The concept of augmenting is presented as the most advanced form of RGB. Here, behavior is controlled by transformation of functions through verbally-established contextual relations. The authors give the example of a mother teaching her child that eating vegetables is related to "becoming strong and big," transforming the aversive properties of vegetable taste into appetitive properties through relational connection with abstract values.

The authors then open extensive analysis on how destructive experiential avoidance (DEA) emerges as an ineffective form of augmenting. When a person generates and follows self-derived rules such as "I must not feel anxious in order to live a meaningful life" or "I must avoid negative thoughts to be well," they are augmenting the aversive consequences of private events through rigid conceptual relations. This is a form of augmenting that interferes with value-directed flexible behavior.

The authors underscore that the central problem in DEA is not simply that the person avoids private events (which is normal), but rather that they have developed a relational network establishing hierarchical relations between control of private events and achievement of values. When this relational network becomes entangled such that "feeling good" becomes a superordinate goal necessary to achieve other goals, the person becomes trapped in problematic behavioral regulation.

The analysis of overcoming DEA is particularly notable. The authors propose that therapeutic change requires development of fluency in specific contextual discriminations that allow the person to behave from the perspective of self-as-context. This involves learning to be in contact with private events while behaving in accordance with values. They describe how "I + here and now" type interventions contrasted with "HERE & NOW while private event" facilitate acquisition of this type of behavioral control.

Implications

The authors note critical implications for both understanding pathology and treatment. First, they suggest that many psychological disorders can be understood as problematic patterns of behavioral regulation based on ineffective RGB where self-as-context has not been sufficiently developed. This includes pathological pliance patterns (where the person sacrifices personal values for others' approval), problematic tracking (where the person follows rules derived from cultural common sense that prove ineffective), and destructive augmenting (where transformation of functions through conceptual relations creates relational networks interfering with flexible behavior).

Second, they propose that effective interventions must target development of fluency in contextual discriminations related to self-as-context. This is consistent with central components of ACT such as cognitive defusion (which allows separating thought content from its function), acceptance (which allows contact with aversive events without controlling them), and committed action (which involves behaving toward values despite aversive private events).

Significance and contribution

This theoretical chapter makes a fundamental contribution to understanding how self functions in behavioral regulation. By integrating concepts from Relational Frame Theory with functional analysis of rule-governed behavior, the authors provide a conceptual framework explaining both how adaptive behavioral patterns develop and how problematic patterns emerge. Particularly important is the distinction among self-as-content, self-as-process, and self-as-context, providing precise language for describing how sense of self can facilitate or hinder effective behavior. This framework has direct implications for psychosocial intervention design and understanding mechanisms of change in therapies based on functional contextualism such as ACT.