Association for Contextual Behavioral Science

Much of my personal philosophy and approach to therapy is rooted within the radical-behavioural tradition, and more recent developments in this area such as RFT. I have enjoyed reading the ACT and FAP literature, and had interesting experiences at one of the ACT workshops. I also integrate these approaches into my clinical work with clients.

With the learning history I have, however, I find it difficult to understand what ‘mindfulness’ IS from a behavioural perspective, how it helps, and what the processes are that underlie it. What am I actually ‘doing’ when I am being ‘mindful’? Since moving away from my early studies in critical psychology (Laing, Psychoanalysis, Rogers etc.) at college, and becoming more of a Skinnerian, I have been suspicious of mentalistic terms, as they (as you will know) suggest internal causes for behaviour, rather than environmental contingencies. For this reason, perhaps, I seem to becoming more sceptical of the term ‘mindfulness’. Descriptions of ‘mindfulness’ within the literature are also unhelpful, such as ‘an altered state of consciousness’, like that actually means anything within itself.

Initially I conceptualised it as a form of attentional training, but then wondered if directing attention away from something unpleasant may actually be increasing avoidance and negative reinforcement (which it undoubtedly does). Then, conversely, I thought of it more as a functional behavioural response (exposure and non-avoidance) to internal verbal behaviour/physical sensations. This makes more sense. Exposure transforms the stimulus functions of the distressing stimuli; associated feelings/thoughts are not taken as literally true, and therefore the behaviour that is contingent upon them changes too. In other words, if I know that my distressing feelings are just feelings, I don’t have to engage in avoidant behaviour to reduce them, and therefore in the long run I become less avoidant.

This explanation makes sense from a behavioural perspective, but when talking to colleagues from other traditions, ‘mindfulness’ takes on a completely different, often spiritual, explanation. This worries me a little (not because they have a different explanation, but that by introducing it into a behavioural science it somehow legitimises a whole bunch of stuff that I am extremely sceptical of, from crystal swinging to astrology, and somehow changes the science of behaviour). A good example of a derived stimulus relation on my part, no doubt.

As soon as mentalistic terms are adopted (as within a good deal of cognitive therapies), the science and theory that underpins the technology is often discarded in favour of technique and approach. This reduces the adaptability of the technology, makes the therapy ‘technique heavy’ and leaves little room for the development of the underlying technology. I feel that behavioural science should be and is different to this (with 100 years of empirical data), but sometimes wonder what the long-term consequences of the rapid introduction of empirically untested techniques will be. I often come across colleagues that are brilliant therapists, but are only successful with certain clients. They find it extremely difficult to synthesise new techniques, because they have a poor knowledge of the underlying technology, and therefore try to bombard clients with the techniques they do have, instead of being adaptable to their clients needs. I am aware, however, that the ACT literature attempts to confront these problems.

So, sorry about the rant. My questions to you guys are:

1) What are you doing when being ‘mindful’?

2) How do you make sense of mindfulness from a behavioural perspective?

3) Is their a danger that overly mentalistic terms will become common place in behavioural science, and therefore reduce its scientific underpinnings?

4) Is it possible that introducing techniques from older (spiritual?) traditions too quickly will hinder the progress of the science as a whole, and transform what it actually is? A kind of ‘guilt by association’?

Answers on a post card…