Translating the Theoretical Into Practical

Abstract

Functional analytic psychotherapy (FAP) provides a behavioral analysis of the psychotherapy relationship that directly applies basic research findings to outpatient psychotherapy settings. Specifically, FAP suggests that a therapist's in vivo (i.e., in-session) contingent responding to targeted client behaviors, particularly positive reinforcement of a client's effective behavior, should be a powerful mechanism of change. However, much of the previous literature on FAP has been theoretical, broadly defining FAP techniques rather than explicating them with the precision necessary for replication and training. In this article, the authors explicate a logical framework for turn-by-turn interactions between the client and therapist that may guide research, training, and dissemination of FAP. This molecular behavioral description of the events of the proposed logical interaction lends itself to microprocess research methodology, and a discussion of potential hypotheses to explore follows. Prescriptive, direct guidance for the application of FAP for training and dissemination purposes is given.

Efeitos de análises de contingências sobre comportamentos clinicamente relevantes e sobre mudanças extra sessão

“…Nos últimos anos, têm crescido o interesse dos psicólogos sobre a Psicoterapia Analítica Funcional (Functional Analytic Psychotherapy -FAP - Tsai et al, 2009;Tsai, Kohlenberg, Kanter, Holman, & Loudon, 2012). Pesquisadores têm investigado teórica e empiricamente a eficácia dessa psicoterapia Geremias, 2014; e também os mecanismos de ação pelos quais a FAP produz seus efeitos Lizarazo, Muñoz-Martínez, Santos, & Kanter, no prelo;Mangabeira, 2014;Meurer, 2011;Popovitz, 2013;Weeks, Kanter, Bonow, Landes, & Busch, 2012). Recentemente, alguns autores têm discutido a interação entre cliente e terapeuta durante a sessão clínica, nomeando-a como Interação Lógica da FAP (Tsai et al, 2012;Weeks et al, 2012).…”

“…Pesquisadores têm investigado teórica e empiricamente a eficácia dessa psicoterapia Geremias, 2014; e também os mecanismos de ação pelos quais a FAP produz seus efeitos Lizarazo, Muñoz-Martínez, Santos, & Kanter, no prelo;Mangabeira, 2014;Meurer, 2011;Popovitz, 2013;Weeks, Kanter, Bonow, Landes, & Busch, 2012). Recentemente, alguns autores têm discutido a interação entre cliente e terapeuta durante a sessão clínica, nomeando-a como Interação Lógica da FAP (Tsai et al, 2012;Weeks et al, 2012). Refletindo sobre essa interação, é possível dividi-la em duas partes: experiencial (relacionada com os CCRs evocados e modelados) e analítica (relacionada com as análises sobre o comportamento do cliente, feitas tanto por terapeuta como por cliente).…”

“…Recently, a surge of interest in FAP has occurred. Most of the published works in FAP are theoretical (e.g., Cautilli, Riley-Tillman, Axelrod, & Hineline, 2005;Holmes, Dykstra, & Williams, 2003;Kanter, Callaghan, Landes, Busch, & Brown, 2004;Weeks, Kanter, Bonow, Landes, & Busch, 2012;Wetterneck, & Hart, 2012) but an increase in empirical work on FAP over the last several years was described by and . However, as observed, the published empirical studies of FAP still lack rigorous designs and most are narrative case studies.…”

“…have been published to clarify what FAP looks like in practice, as well as to facilitate future clinical, research, and training efforts (Weeks et al, 2012). Any description of FAP does not mandate one specific manualized interaction sequence, as the therapist in FAP is charged with reacting functionally and idiographically to the client in the moment.…”

“…Traditionally, the basic Rule 5 strategy was to provide descriptions of the contingencies affecting the client's behavior, making these contingencies more salient to the client, and thereby increasing the likelihood that these contingencies will affect his or her behavior. Rule 5 may involve descriptions that relate in-session contingencies experienced by the client and therapist to out-of-session contingencies to help the client see similarities between his behavior and its consequences in session and out of session (in-to-out parallels, Weeks et al, 2012). Rule 5 may also involve designing and asking the client to complete homework assignments to prompt the client to engage in the behavior that was reinforced in session during the between-session intervals.…”