roger vilardaga, m.a. michael e. levin tom waltz, ph.d. steven c. hayes, ph.d. douglas long

Testing a New Perspective-Taking Procedure in the Context of

Attitudes, Emotional Reactions and Behaviors Towards Different

Cultural GroupsRoger Vilardaga, M.A.

Michael E. LevinTom Waltz, Ph.D.

Steven C. Hayes, Ph.D.Douglas Long

Takashi Muto, Ph.D.

University of Nevada, Reno

Reduction of Stigma is Difficult

• Some support for mainstream approaches:• Contact hypothesis • Multicultural approach

• Perspective-taking procedures also seem to be a promising alternative, with positive data on• Conflict resolution • Stigmatizing attitudes • Helping behaviors

Existing Stigma Reduction Approaches

• Are weakly linked to known behavioral principles

• And are difficult to disseminate or implement• e.g., 3-year long role-playing programs • e.g., Simple experimental manipulations without

extensive application

A Behavioral Approach to Empathy and Stigma is Worth Exploring

• From a Relational Frame Theory view point seeing through the eyes of another is based on• Deictic framing, which “specifies a relation in

terms of the perspective of the speaker”• Has been shown to emerge in early ages and to be

trainable

• And this might be regulated by experiential avoidance

These Two Ideas Lead to Predictions

1. Individuals with a fluent deictic framing repertoire will tend to be more aware of themselves and others and to stigmatize less and empathize more

2. Especially among those who are less experientially avoidant

3. And the strengthening of a deictic framing repertoire should lead to reductions of stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors and increases in empathy

Two preliminary studies

Time series Group study

Example of Vignette

• “It’s hard when you go out in the streets and you’ve got a bunch of White friends and you’re the darkest person there. No matter how light you are to the rest of your family, you’re the darkest person there and they say you’re Black. Then you go out with a bunch of Black people and you’re the lightest there and they say, “Yeah, my best friend’s White”. But I’m not. I’m both.”

Group Study

• Demographics:• Age: M=21• 43% males• 5% Latino, 13.5% Black, 78% White

• Randomized to: • Control (n=19)• Deictic (n=18)

Partial List of Dependent Variables

• Deictic Framing assessment task (McHugh et al., 2004):

• 18 questions

• Simple, reversals and double reversals

• No feedback

• “How connected do you feel to [the character of the story] right now?”

• 0=most distant

• 50=mildly connected

• 100=most connected

Dependent Variables• Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI, Davis, 1983)

• Perspective-taking (e.g. trying to look at the other side)

• Fantasy (e.g. imagining what it would be like in stories)

• Empathic (e.g. being soft hearted)

• Unable to handle personal distress (e.g. going to pieces in emergencies)

• Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ, Baer, 2006)

• Observe (making note of personal reactions) • Describe (able to describe personal reactions) • Acting with awareness • Being non-Judgmental • Being non-Reactive

Dependent Variables

• Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II, Hayes, 2004)

• Delay discounting task

Is Deictic Framing Related to Empathy / Awareness?

*=p<0.05**=p<0.01+=p<0.10

IRIFantasy

IRIEmpathy

FFMQObserve

McHugh’s DEICTIC ASSESSMENT .37* .38* .36*

• Those with greater deictic flexibility are more • self-observant

• empathetic

• prone to feel immersed in other people’s stories

Is Experiential Avoidance Related to Empathy / Awareness?

IRIDistress

IRIEmpathy

FFMQ Awareness

FFMQNonjudge

FFMQ.Nonreaction

AAQ-II .58** -.39* -.52** -.63** -.57**

• More experientially avoidant individuals are• Less aware, more judgmental, and more reactive

• Less empathetic

• Unable to handle personal distress

Group Study

• Dependent variable: amount of connection with character of vignette from ethnic minority group

• Analysis of covariance on post and follow up• pre as the covariate• last value carried forward for missing data• removing 4 outliers

• Wilcoxon non-parametric tests

Group Study: Connection

• Interaction significant (p < .05)• Initial difference but effects wear off

Post

F-up

80

70

60

Con

nect

ion

(1 –

100

)

Deictic

Control

Results indicate

• Promising baseline data

• There seems to be some significant effects due to training

• But the effects of the deictics intervention wear off at follow up

• The non-parametric tests indicate that there are significant differences by condition both at post and follow up

Trying to move deictics framing in a time series design

• AB, ABA, ABC design

• Empathy measurements were taken towards specific vignettes or target people

Example of session sequence

Examples of deictic prompts• “Remember the first time that you had this

thought, jugdment and evaluation in the past” (YOU-THERE↔THEN)

• “Imagine that she is imagining that you are imagining to belong to someone else’s race” (YOU↔SHE-SHE↔YOU-YOU↔OTHER )

• “Imagine that your best friend is experiencing that difficult thought, judgment or evaluation about (target x) and keeps experiencing in 5 years from now” (YOU↔OTHER-THERE-THEN)

Generally Weak Results but Some Evidence for Improvement of Deictic

Framing

Delay Discounting task

• Chose between volunteering certain amount of time towards • people with similar cultural background or values• people with different cultural background or

values

• Or receiving a monetary compensation immediately

What have we learned from the study?

• Subjective ratings of empathy towards different individuals are• Very stable• Have common ceiling effects• Possibly highly correlated

• McHugh’s Deictics task works well, especially if using different content for each question

• Volunteering discounting data is a promising approach that captures individual differences

Conclusion

• The baseline data suggests a possible direct link between a specific behavioral phenomena (deictic framing) and empathy

• It also supports the role of experiential avoidance, which has been successfully targeted in previous ACT/RFT interventions on stigma:• Lillis and Hayes, 2007

• Masuda, 2007

• Kohlenberg et al, in press

• The intervention data are inconclusive, but there are some very preliminary positive signs  

Future directions

• There is a long way yet to go in the field of deictic training in verbally competent adults

• But overall the data suggest this may be a path worth pursuing