I'm learning about FAP so please excuse me if this is an obvious question or I

am using the wrong terminology.



I understand that one of the one main prinicples of FAP is to respond to CRB2s

with "natural reinforcers" and for therapists to share their emotional and

cognitive responses with their client, promoting intimacy and connectedness.

This sounds as if it is universally applied  without any assessment of stimulus

preference or identification of the most effective reinforcers for that client 

- for example a male  client may be more effectively reinforced by status/

money/ praise.  Equally a therapist gushing over about how connected he or she

feels to the client might be interpreted by the client as contrived and

aversive?



So my  question is - Is assessing the stimulus/ reinforcer for a client done

systematically? If so, do you just ask what is effective for them or just notice

the response you get as part of a functional analysis? Do you ever deviate from

natural reinforcers that promote connectedness and if so what was more

effective? (I am reminded by a suggestion by David Burns who said he had

considered paying people to do their homework.)

Thanks

David Veale

David - this is from Bob Kohlenberg - he's having trouble with his email and

asked me to post this for him - Jonathan



David

Now, about assessing which reinforcers are appropriate for which clients.   FAP

is aimed at improving interpersonal functioning- dealing with interpersonal

problems.  This is not quite as limiting as it first appears. There is

substantial support in the literature that interpersonal functioning (improving

interpersonal relationships, dealing with interpersonal stress, etc.) plays a

major role in the development, recovery, and resistance to relapse in most

disorders (including mood and substance abuse).  Second, FAP is only applicable

if these problems (CRB1s) also occur in the context of the therapist client

relationship.  So, if the problem occurs, it means that the therapeutic

relationship is naturally evoking the relevant behaviors.  This indicates that

the responses of the therapist also have the potential to reinforce.  For

example, a business executive (interested in making more money) might want to

improve his performance learning why he seems to evoke conflict and

countercontrol with his employees.  If the same kind of conflict occurs in the

session with the therapist, the therapist can point this out and also say he

will let the client know when he is evoking resistance (in the therapist) and

then when he more effectively is avoiding the evocation, dealing with, and

handling these conflicts (these would all involve some self disclosure of the

therapist private reactions).  The therapist and client would be constantly

assessing (informally) whether CRB2 are increasing, e.g., the client’s

behavior is being shaped by the therapist’s reactions and whether these

improvements are being transferred to daily life.  A good FAP case

conceptualization is very helpful with this process and is shared with the

client and is constantly evolving as the topography of CRBs change and whether

or not outside improvements are occurring.  By the way, it would not surprising

if similar issues were causing problems in other relationships as well- but if

these are not a problem for the client- the therapist would not push this.  On a

more systematic and research level, Jonathan (and Glenn and Bill) has put in

great deal of effort and published data on this.



Regarding arbitrary reinforcers.  They can be used, but with caution.  I would

be reluctant to generically pay clients for doing homework.  The danger is that

such payments may interfere with the intended purpose of the homework (to have

the client contact the natural reinforcers in their daily life).  I have always

been impressed with Beck’s method of implementing hypothesis testing-

essentially he tries to remove the arbitrary reinforcer of doing something to

please the therapist (Beck seems to intuitively see the dangers in this).  The

Beckian therapist says to the client that I am not going to tell what works and

what doesn’t – be an experimenter—try it and find out for yourself (e.g.,

contact the natural reinforcers).



Does this help- or is the language too fapy?



Best



Bob Kohlenberg





Assistant Professor

Director, UWM Depression Treatment Specialty Clinic

Coordinator, UWM Psychology Clinic

Core Scientist, Center for Addictions and Behavioral Health Research

Department of Psychology

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Office: Garland Hall 238D

Phone: (414) 229-3834



----- Original Message -----

From: "dmwdcv" <david@...>

To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:30:09 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Assessment of most effective

reinforcer



I'm learning about FAP so please excuse me if this is an obvious question or I

am using the wrong terminology.



I understand that one of the one main prinicples of FAP is to respond to CRB2s

with "natural reinforcers" and for therapists to share their emotional and

cognitive responses with their client, promoting intimacy and connectedness.

This sounds as if it is universally applied  without any assessment of stimulus

preference or identification of the most effective reinforcers for that client 

- for example a male  client may be more effectively reinforced by status/

money/ praise.  Equally a therapist gushing over about how connected he or she

feels to the client might be interpreted by the client as contrived and

aversive?



So my  question is - Is assessing the stimulus/ reinforcer for a client done

systematically? If so, do you just ask what is effective for them or just notice

the response you get as part of a functional analysis? Do you ever deviate from

natural reinforcers that promote connectedness and if so what was more

effective? (I am reminded by a suggestion by David Burns who said he had

considered paying people to do their homework.)

Thanks

David Veale







------------------------------------



Yahoo! Groups Links

Thank - that is very helpful and I am looking forward to learning more in formal

workshops.

David Veale





--- In functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan W Kanter

<jkanter@...> wrote:

>

> David - this is from Bob Kohlenberg - he's having trouble with his email and

asked me to post this for him - Jonathan

>

> David

> Now, about assessing which reinforcers are appropriate for which clients.  

FAP is aimed at improving interpersonal functioning- dealing with interpersonal

problems.  This is not quite as limiting as it first appears. There is

substantial support in the literature that interpersonal functioning (improving

interpersonal relationships, dealing with interpersonal stress, etc.) plays a

major role in the development, recovery, and resistance to relapse in most

disorders (including mood and substance abuse).  Second, FAP is only applicable

if these problems (CRB1s) also occur in the context of the therapist client

relationship.  So, if the problem occurs, it means that the therapeutic

relationship is naturally evoking the relevant behaviors.  This indicates that

the responses of the therapist also have the potential to reinforce.  For

example, a business executive (interested in making more money) might want to

improve his performance learning why he seems to evoke conflict and

countercontrol with his employees.  If the same kind of conflict occurs in the

session with the therapist, the therapist can point this out and also say he

will let the client know when he is evoking resistance (in the therapist) and

then when he more effectively is avoiding the evocation, dealing with, and

handling these conflicts (these would all involve some self disclosure of the

therapist private reactions).  The therapist and client would be constantly

assessing (informally) whether CRB2 are increasing, e.g., the client’s

behavior is being shaped by the therapist’s reactions and whether these

improvements are being transferred to daily life.  A good FAP case

conceptualization is very helpful with this process and is shared with the

client and is constantly evolving as the topography of CRBs change and whether

or not outside improvements are occurring.  By the way, it would not surprising

if similar issues were causing problems in other relationships as well- but if

these are not a problem for the client- the therapist would not push this.  On a

more systematic and research level, Jonathan (and Glenn and Bill) has put in

great deal of effort and published data on this.

>

> Regarding arbitrary reinforcers.  They can be used, but with caution.  I would

be reluctant to generically pay clients for doing homework.  The danger is that

such payments may interfere with the intended purpose of the homework (to have

the client contact the natural reinforcers in their daily life).  I have always

been impressed with Beck’s method of implementing hypothesis testing-

essentially he tries to remove the arbitrary reinforcer of doing something to

please the therapist (Beck seems to intuitively see the dangers in this).  The

Beckian therapist says to the client that I am not going to tell what works and

what doesn’t â€" be an experimenterâ€"try it and find out for yourself (e.g.,

contact the natural reinforcers).

>

> Does this help- or is the language too fapy?

>

> Best

>

> Bob Kohlenberg

>

>

> Assistant Professor

> Director, UWM Depression Treatment Specialty Clinic

> Coordinator, UWM Psychology Clinic

> Core Scientist, Center for Addictions and Behavioral Health Research

> Department of Psychology

> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

> Office: Garland Hall 238D

> Phone: (414) 229-3834

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "dmwdcv" <david@...>

> To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 2:30:09 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

> Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Assessment of most effective

reinforcer

>

> I'm learning about FAP so please excuse me if this is an obvious question or I

am using the wrong terminology.

>

> I understand that one of the one main prinicples of FAP is to respond to CRB2s

with "natural reinforcers" and for therapists to share their emotional and

cognitive responses with their client, promoting intimacy and connectedness.

This sounds as if it is universally applied  without any assessment of stimulus

preference or identification of the most effective reinforcers for that client 

- for example a male  client may be more effectively reinforced by status/

money/ praise.  Equally a therapist gushing over about how connected he or she

feels to the client might be interpreted by the client as contrived and

aversive?

>

> So my  question is - Is assessing the stimulus/ reinforcer for a client done

systematically? If so, do you just ask what is effective for them or just notice

the response you get as part of a functional analysis? Do you ever deviate from

natural reinforcers that promote connectedness and if so what was more

effective? (I am reminded by a suggestion by David Burns who said he had

considered paying people to do their homework.)

> Thanks

> David Veale

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>