Can CBS Benefit from and extend Goldiamond’s thinking and work?!

Amy R. Murrell, Ph.D.

University of North Texas – Department of Psychology

Israel Goldiamond (* what I can tell from reading his work & things written about him) Worked in multiple settings widely relevant to professional development

Both basic and applied work

President of ABA in early 1970s

Editor of many journals relevant to behavioral research and treatment

Argued for the role of scientists in social responsibility and ethical matters Involved in organizational meetings devoted to such issues

Included himself as scientist and clinician in his writings

Conducted detailed, technical, careful (and at times quite lengthy) analyses Wrote in similar ways

And yet, work is quite easily understandable if take time to read it

Seems to be a staunch advocate – maybe even to point of being contrary But, at least in writing, never seemed to be self-aggrandizing or antagonistic about

work

Always wrote things like: this is only one way, there are limits to prediction and influence, cites people from far discrepant fields, specifically mentions other models and their benefits, no us-them in any thing I’ve read

And, Jesus R. said tell me how this ACT stuff isn’t just Izzy Goldiamond’s work There is certainly a basic to applied bridge that going for in the

constructional approach that is very familiar to the CBS community In both, this often has to do with language

There is a recognition in both approaches that the context(s) within which behavior occurs is important - and that behavior that formally looks negative serves (a) useful function(s) such that shifting contextual contingencies is seen as an effective way to address behavior (as opposed to labeling it, attempting to directly manipulate private content, etc.) There is a related recognition of aversive control having downsides in

both

As well as an idea about shaping up existing behavioral repertoires – start where client is and build to more desired functioning levels/behaviors

Each use specific tools to do functional analyses and to help clients or their significant others do the same in their daily lives

More compare and contrast In each approach, there is an emphasis, therefore, on

long-term self-selected goals (or values) to guide the process

In each approach, there is a awareness of how important it is to attend to contingencies in the moment – pure discrimination and also alternative responses (contact with the present moment) This is especially important for verbal behavior because

may realize a shift but not say it

Use of metaphor to generalize content is much like RFT transformation (potentiating variables and establishing operations)

Symptoms and alternatives - costs and benefits (acceptance and defusion)

Are references to other pieces of hexaflex too, actually

How can use this work to expand?

I think may not have caught on because detailed, long, cautious, etc.

I see big potential in training and dissemination Studies were rate of speech and affect were conditioned

Talk about this a lot in ACT and FAP but not a whole lot of this gets out there