What is RFT?

There is a strong empirical and conceptual relationship between language and derived stimulus relations. An empirical relationship does not indicate that derived stimulus relations depend upon language or that such relations are mediated by language. When two dependent variables are correlated, one conservative strategy is to determine whether both variables are reflective of the same basic underlying psychological process. If the two areas do overlap at the level of behavioral process, then questions about human language may also be questions about derived stimulus relations, and vice versa.

This is the basic theoretical and empirical research strategy of RFT. The overarching aim of this behavioral research has been to integrate a range of apparently diverse psychological phenomena including, for example, stimulus equivalence, naming, understanding, analogy, metaphor, and rule-following.

Relational Frame Theory adopts the view that the core defining element in all of these, and many other inherently verbal activities, is arbitrarily applicable relational responding, and moreover that such responding is amenable to a learning or operant analysis.

RFT treats relational responding as a generalized operant, and thus appeals to a history of multiple-exemplar training. Specific types of relational responding, termed relational frames, are defined in terms of the three properties of mutual and combinatorial entailment, and the transformation of functions. Relational frames are arbitrarily applicable, but are typically not necessarily arbitrarily applied in the natural language context.

Mutual entailment refers to the derived bidirectionality of some stimulus relations, and as such it is a generic term for the concept of "symmetry" in stimulus equivalence. "Mutual entailment" applies if stimulus A is related to another stimulus B in a specific context, and as a result a relation between B and A is entailed in that context. Combinatorial entailment refers to instances in which two or more relations that have acquired the property of mutual entailment mutually combine. Combinatorial entailment is the generic term for what is called "transitivity" and "equivalence" in stimulus equivalence. Combinatorial entailment applies when, in a given context, A is related to B and B is related to C, and then in that context a relation is entailed between A and C and another between C and A. For example, if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then a bigger-than relation is entailed between A and C, and a smaller-than relation is entailed between C and A. A transformation of stimulus functions applies when functions of one event in a relational network is altered based on the functions of another event in the network and the derived relation between them. Mutual and combinatorial entailment are regulated by contextual cues (C rel). The transformation of stimulus functions are regulated by additional contextual cues (C func).

The development of relational responding can be organized into a rough list that gradually becomes more and more complex. We are not presenting this list as a set of stages or steps, and we would expect them to be sequenced only in broad terms and even then only if the training history is typical. Nevertheless, this list gives a sense of the complexity that emerges from the small set of core concepts in Relational Frame Theory.

1. Contextually controlled mutual entailment in equivalence
2. Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in equivalence
3. Contextually controlled transfer of stimulus functions through equivalence relations
4. Integration of these response components into a functional response class: a frame of coordination
5. Simple examples of verbal understanding
6. Contextually controlled mutual entailment in additional types of stimulus relations
7. Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in additional types of stimulus relations
8. Contextually controlled transformation of stimulus functions in additional types of stimulus relations
9. Integration of these into additional relational frames
10. Simple examples of genuinely verbal governance of behavior by others
11. Conditional contextual control over the participation of given elements in relational frames
12. The development of relational networks
13. More complex examples of verbal understanding
14. Verbal governance of the behavior of others (e.g., verbal mands and tacts)
15. Transformation of stimulus functions across relational networks
16. Increasing number and complexity of relational frames
17. Increasing acquisition of specific participants in specific relational frames (e.g., vocabulary)
18. Complex interactions between relations (training in one influences development of another)
19. Integration of related types of relational frames into families of relational responses
20. Elaborated and increasingly subtle contextual control over relational responding (e.g., syntax; number of relational terms)
21. Elaborated and increasingly subtle contextual control over transformation of stimulus functions (e.g., number and specificity of functional terms)
22. Nonarbitrary properties serve as a relational context for arbitrarily applicable relational responses
23. Increasingly complex relational networks
24. With acquisition of equivalence, time or causality, and evaluation, the development of relational sentences that function fully as rules
25. Relating relational networks
26. Transformation of stimulus functions based on the relating of relational networks
27. Relating relational networks under the control of nonarbitrary properties of the environment
28. More complex examples of rule understanding and rule-governance, particularly pliance and tracking
29. Regulation of the behavior of the listener through the establishment of relational networks in the listener
30. With the acquisition of hierarchical class membership, use of relational networks to abstract nonarbitrary properties and to have these properties participate in relational frames
31. Abstracting properties of the nonarbitrary environment based on relational networks and the relating of relational networks
32. With the acquisition of temporal, contingency, and causal relational frames, increased insensitivity to temporal delays
33. Development of deictic relational frames
34. Development of perspective-taking and sense of self
35. Construction of the verbal other
36. Construction of the conceptualized group
37. Contextual control of relational responding by the nonarbitrary and arbitrary properties of the listener
38. Further development of rule-following, particularly augmenting
39. Regulation of the behavior of the listener by orienting the listener to abstracted features of the environment
40. Acquisition of increasingly abstract verbal consequences
41. Self-rule generation and self rule-following
42. Pragmatic verbal analysis and increasingly complex forms of problem solving and reasoning
43. Increasing dominance of the verbal functions of the environment

The foregoing provides a summary of the key features of RFT. The key concept that underlies Relational Frame Theory is extremely simple—try to think of relating per se as learned behavior. As the list above shows, however, applying this simple idea leads to many specific points—the nature of an arbitrarily applicable relational response, the role of context, the varieties of relational responses, the role of the nonarbitrary environment, networks of relations, the use of these abilities to solve problems, the development of self, and so on.

Advantages of RFT

Advantages of the RFT Approach to Human Language and Cognition

There are many different theories—in many different disciplines—that attempt to explain or account for human language and cognition. With so many different theories available, what is unique or special about Relational Frame Theory?

We believe the functional, contextualistic approach of RFT to understanding complex human behavior has led to a system of analysis that offers many advantages over the traditional structural and “information transmission” models of language and cognition (Blackledge, 2003). These advantages include:

• RFT is parsimonious, relying on relatively few basic principles and concepts to account for language and cognition.

• RFT is precise, allowing the study of human language to be conducted in accordance with the carefully-specified definitions of its component processes.
• RFT has broad scope, providing plausible explanations and new empirical approaches to a wide variety of complex human behaviors in both basic and applied domains (such as problem solving, metaphors, self, spirituality, values, rule-governed behavior, psychopathology, etc.).
• RFT has depth, meaning that its analyses cohere with established treatments at other levels of analysis. For example, it provides plausible accounts of cultural phenomena such as knowledge amplification; recent neurological research indicates that the brain processes seen while subjects engage in derived relational responding fit with the RFT language claim; and connectionist models of the learning history needed to establish relational frames coheres with RFT.
• The principles of RFT are directly observable, especially under laboratory conditions, so no tenuous inferences about the existence of unseen structures or processes (such as cognitive schemas or language acquisition devices) are required.
• RFT is firmly based on empirical research that has without exception supported its tenets. In addition to the over 30 published empirical treatments of RFT, the theory also accounts for the data observed in hundreds of empirical studies on the concept of stimulus equivalence that have been published since 1971. RFT has withstood all empirical tests so far, and all of its core claims now have at least some supportive data. So far, no data has arisen in contradiction to the theory.
• RFT has direct applied and clinical applications that are not apparent in other accounts of human language and cognition. There are nearly 30 successful empirical studies on applied methods based on RFT (particularly Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, but including other methods as well, such as methods of attitude change, or the treatment of stigma and prejudice) and many clear applied implications yet to be pursued.
• RFT is generative. The account leads quickly to innovative and (so far) empirically successful approaches to virtually all of the important topics in the language and cognition domain.
• RFT is testable. Its core claim (that relating can be thought of as learned, operant behavior) is an empirical matter. If relational frames do not develop, come under contextual control, respond to shaping via multiple exemplar training, and respond to consequences, then the theory is false. Further, its claim that relational frames are the core of human language is testable both directly and pragmatically. For example, if RFT does not lead to more successful education interventions than those that currently exist, then it fails. (see section on research evidence).
• RFT is progressive. RFT supports what is within the "protective belt" of the behavioral paradigm and yet is generative in the sense described above (see Lakatos for this approach to progressivity). RFT is a behavioral theory that builds on everything that is known about basic behavioral principles, but takes this basic account into a fundamentally new direction with profound and exciting implications for almost every topic relating to complex human behavior. Yet it does so without any patchwork corrections to the basic assumptions of the behavioral paradigm.
• RFT is coherent. Its philosophical basis is well articulated; its assumptions are clearly stated; its concepts are carefully defined; and all of these levels fit together.

RFT Study Group for Beginners

This is a place for people who are perhaps not behaviourally trained to learn RFT. We are primarily a group of clinicians and others who have been drawn to RFT through our exposure to ACT. Together, with each other's help, we are walking through the RFT book chapter by chapter and discussing both our understandings and our struggles. Please join in if you like.

Beginning June 2006, our plan is to read one chapter a month, commenting on it as we go. We are particularly open to people who may know more than we do. So if you read something here that seems as if we're barking up the wrong conceptual tree, please, don't hold back. For those who are participating, let's try to remember that the only stupid question is the one not asked.

There are two basic ways to contribute to our ongoing discussion: by adding child pages or by adding comments. The differences between these are described below.

Child Pages
Child pages are used to create entirely new web pages that are connected to a "parent" page. For example, this page that you're reading is a child page of the "About RFT" page (likewise, the "About RFT" page is the "parent page" of this page). "RFT Book Summary & Discussion" is a child page of this page. You can add a child page to any existing page by clicking on the "add child page" link at the bottom of the page. When you add a child page, several things happen:

1. A new web page is created with whatever title and content you give it

2. A link to your new page will be listed at the bottom of the parent page (like the link to "RFT Book Summary & Discussion" seen at the bottom of this page)
3. A link to your new page will appear in the menu hierarchy on the left side of the screen (like the link to "RFT Book Summary & Discussion" seen on the left side of the screen below "RFT Study Group for Beginners"

So when should use add a child page? When you are contributing a new summary or question or discussion point. If you are just responding to something someone else has already posted, you should add a comment to their page (see below). For example, if you wanted to add a summary of Chapter 4 of the RFT book, you would go to the Chapter 4 page (RFT > About RFT > RFT Study Group for Beginners > RFT Book & Discussion > Chapter 4) and then click on the "add child page" link at the bottom of that page. A link to your summary page would then appear at the bottom of the Chapter 4 page and below Chapter 4 in the hierarchical menu on the left.

Comments
Unlike a child page, a comment is not a new web page. It is simply a comment added to the bottom of an existing page. Each page can have an unlimited number of comments, and users can reply to existing comments. In this way, every page can be like a whole discussion board with a primary post (the "child page" that has been added) and a discussion listed below it that consists of a series of comments.

If you are just responding to something someone else has already posted, you should probably just add a comment to the page by clicking on the "add new comment" link at the bottom of that page. If you are responding to an existing comment, you can click on the "reply" link listed in the comment itself.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

How does Relational Frame Theory (RFT) relate to traditional CBT-theories?

That question is a huge one. RFT seeks a broad understanding of cognition. In the long run it could be more important than ACT because if it works the whole of psychology could change.

RFT is developmental, contextual, and behavioral. It gives you ideas about what to change to make things happen. It is so basic that it goes all the way down to animal behavior and human infants; and yet so broad in scope that it has clear implications for our understanding of social processes or such human activities as religion.

We have never had an empirically adequate behavioral, contextual account of cognition. Now we have at least the beginnings of one and it seems to be braking down the artificial barriers between cognitive and behavioral science.

The theories underlying CBT and CT are not like that. They have relatively low scope and they emerged typically from clinical concerns. They do not pretend to be the functional equivalent in cognition for what “behavioral principles” are in non-verbal behavior.

You have to be impressed with what the traditional behavior therapists were able to do with traditional behavioral principles, in part because these principles emphasized manipulable contextual variables. Imagine what we might do with a theory of cognition that emphasized manipulable contextual variables, if the theory was relatively adequate. Maybe a lot.

How is RFT different from stimulus equivalence?

I often hear behavior analysts comment that RFT is essentially the same thing as stimulus equivalence, or that RFT does not add anything new to the equivalence literature.

Here are a few points to help clarify the difference between RFT and stimulus equivalence:

1) Stimulus equivalence is an empirical phenomenon; RFT is a behavioral theory about how that phenomenon (and other phenomena) comes about. In other words, RFT provides an operant analysis of how/why people are able to form equivalence classes. I cringe when I hear behavior analysts try to use stimulus equivalence as an explanation for some other behavioral event without recognizing that equivalence itself is a behavioral event that requires a technical analysis! This is especially true because the phenomenon of equivalence doesn't readily make sense from a direct contingency analysis (i.e., the "derived" or "emergent" relations are interesting because they're somewhat unexpected based on the organism's history of reinforcement in the presence of the "equivalent" stimuli...that is why we call the relations "derived" or "emergent").

2) Murray Sidman, a pioneer in behavior analysis and stimulus equivalence research, provided some of the earliest behavioral accounts of stimulus equivalence. Sidman's approach, however, was/is primarily a descriptive one: "My own theorizing has been directed not so much at an explanation of equivalence relations but rather, at the formulation of a descriptive system -- a consistent, coherent, and parsimonious way of defining and talking about the observed phenomena" (Sidman, 1994). A precise, coherent description of an empirical phenomenon is important, but it is not the same as a functional, behavioral explanation. RFT attempts to offer such an explanation.

3) In my view, RFT is a more scientifically conservative way to account for equivalence (as compared to Sidman's approach) because it does not require any new behavioral principles at the level of process (in Chapter 2 of the RFT book, we do propose a new behavioral principle at the level of outcome, but that is simply due to the unusual effects we see from the transformation of stimulus functions). Sidman, on the other hand, suggests that equivalence is probably a basic stimulus function "not derivable from more fundamental processes." RFT claims that it IS derivable from more fundamental processes -- basically, a history of multiple-exemplar training and differential reinforcement for relational responding.

4) The terms RFT uses to describe equivalence and other derived stimulus relations (e.g., mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, transformation of stimulus functions) are more general than the terms used by Sidman (e.g., reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, etc.). RFT introduced these new terms so that we could have a language to talk about all different types of stimulus relations (bigger than, before-after, opposites, darker than, etc.). Sidman's terms were taken from mathematical set theory and apply to equivalence relations, but do not work for other types of stimulus relations. In other words, RFT folks did not create new terms just for the hell of it or just because they sounded kewl.

5) RFT, as suggested in point 4, also emphasizes research on types of derived stimulus relations other than equivalence. This is important because stimulus functions can be changed on the basis of these derived relations, and the functions will be changed differently based on different relations. It has been demonstrated many times now that stimulus functions can transfer between members of an equivalence class (i.e., if one stimulus becomes a conditioned reinforcer, other stimuli in the equivalence class may also become reinforcers). But it has also been demonstrated that a stimulus can acquire new functions on the basis of a derived relation other than equivalence to another stimulus. For example, if stimulus A is a conditioned reinforcer and the learner derives a relation of opposition between stimulus A and B, stimulus B is likely to acquire aversive functions (the stimulus functions are transformed on the basis of its derived relation to stimulus A). This has been demonstrated with quite a few different types of stimulus functions and with quite a few different types of relations. Many researchers studying derived relations focus on equivalence relations exclusively, but RFT suggests knowledge of these other types of relations and their impact on the psychological functions of stimuli is also vitally important to a comprehensive theory of language and cognition.

Computer Programming

This section of the site is for researchers to share custom computer programs, files, tips, and information useful for developing computer-controlled experimental procedures.

Computer Programs and Resources from The National University of Ireland, Maynooth

• Visual Basic for Psychologists

• PsyScope: Easy-to-Use Software for Running Computer-Controlled Experiments in Psychology

• The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedures (IRAP)

Computer Programs and Resources from The University of Mississippi

Our lab at Ole Miss has made software available for both the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure and the traditional Matching-to-Sample software. At the links below, you will find both the installable programs and the source code for both experimental preparations. This software was designed to run on PC type computers and written in Microsoft VB.NET programming language. Be sure to read the manual carefully before running this software. We have used this software successfully on a variety of PC's in our lab at Ole Miss. These computers are both Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon machines using both XP and Windows 2000 operating systems. However, we can make no gaurantees that this software will run on any other user's machine. As such, you should use this software at your own risk.

Empirical Support

This list includes research articles that contain original data relevant to RFT. It is hard to update this list so you should also go to the publications database and download more recent things. Members can add daughter pages and I think some can edit this actual page (try) to add annotation or new pieces. If not, email me and I will get them added (hayes@unr.edu). - S

• Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91-124.
  

  A cogent introduction to RFT in which the author compares "Sidman equivalence" with RFT, offers a respondent analysis of symmetry, and predicts various outcomes of training designs. Good for an undergraduate introduction to the area

• Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405-430.
  

  Transfer and contextually-controlled transfer in kids of different ages with the older subjects passing the more complex tests. A nice example of a nonautomated transfer study.

• Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and non-arbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61-81.
  

  An elegant demonstration of transfer of functions through equivalence relations, with and without a prior equivalence test, and a generalised transfer through non-arbitrary relations. One of the most-cited transfer articles.

• Barnes, D., McCullagh, P. D., & Keenan, M. (1990). Equivalence class formation in non-hearing impaired children and hearing impaired children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8, 19-30.

• Barnes, D., Lawlor, H., Smeets, P. M., & Roche, B. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and academic self-concept in mildly mentally handicapped and non-mentally handicapped children. The Psychological Record, 46, 87-107.
  

  Using educationally-relevant real world stimuli such as "slow" and "able" as well as the subject's own name, the authors show how developmentally-delayed children come to fail tests for equivalence when the predicted outcome is in contrast to their learning history. That is, subjects did not relate their own name to "able." A neat study on prior-learning effects in equivalence formation.

• Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57-83.

• Barnes-Holmes, Y. Barnes-Holmes, D. Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (2001a). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of function in accordance with symmetry. The Psychological Record, 51, 287- 308.

• Barnes-Holmes, Y. Barnes-Holmes, D. Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (2001b). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of function in accordance with symmetry II. The Psychological Record, 51, 589-603.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002). Matching functionally-same relations: Implications for equivalence-equivalence as a model for analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 52, 351-312.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press). Equivalence-equivalence as a model of analogy: Further analyses. The Psychological Record.

• Carr, D., Wilkinson, K. M., Blackman, D., & McIlvane, W. J. (2000). Equivalence classes in individuals with minimal verbal repertoires. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74, 101-115.

• Carr, D. (2003). Effects of exemplar training in exclusion responding on auditory-visual discrimination tasks with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 507-524.
  

  Showed that multiple-exemplar training with auditory-visual exclusion tasks facilitated nonreinforced exclusion performances which reduced error rates on subsequent novel stimulus sets.

• Cullinan, V. A., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1998). A precursor to the relational evaluation procedure: Analyzing stimulus equivalence.The Psychological Record, 48, 121-145.

• Cullinan, V. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). A precursor to the relational evaluation procedure. II. The Psychological Record, 50, 467-492.

• Cullinan, V. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2001). A precursor to the relational evaluation procedure: Searching for the contextual cues that control equivalence responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 339-349.

• Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243-257.
  

  Showed a correlation between receptive language skills and the derivation of equivalence. Interpreted this correlation in RFT terms, suggesting that the correlation was due to the functional overlap of the two tasks.

• Dougher, M., Perkins, D. R., Greenway, D., Koons, A., & Chiasson, C. (2002). Contextual control of equivalence-based transformation of functions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 63-94.

• Dymond, S. & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163-184. Erratum, 66, 348.
  

  The first study to show three patterns of derived relational responding in accordance with sameness, more-than, and less-than. Alternative explanations for the transformation test outcomes are considered and found wanting. The relational network figure has been reproduced in several different publications

• Dymond, S. & Barnes, D. (1996). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46, 271-300.
  

  Demonstrates a transformation of functions in accordance with sameness and oppositon, using several matching-to-sample control tasks to prevent formation of simple equivalence and nonequivalence relations.

• Gomez, S., Huerta, F., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, C. (1999). Breaking equivalence relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 17, 1-4.
  

  The objective of this study was to produce responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence, across novel stimulus sets.

• Gomez, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, M. C. (2001). Generalized break equivalence I. The Psychological Record, 51, 131-150.
  

  The objective of this study was to produce responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence across novel stimulus sets. Building on the work of Gomez et al (1999), the authors employed several new procedures to generate ‘broken’ equivalence relations which provides support for the generalized operant nature of derived relational responding.

• Gomez, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, M. C. (2002). Generalized break equivalence II: Contextual control over a generalized pattern of stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 52, 203-220.
  

  Building on the work of Gomez et al (1999; 2001), the authors established effective contextual control over the Generalised Break Equivalence Pattern (GBEP) which provides further support for the generalized operant nature of derived relational responding.

• Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Devany, J. M., Kohlenberg, B. S., & Shelby, J. (1987). Stimulus equivalence and the symbolic control of behavior. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 361-374.
  

  Showed the transfer of discriminative functions through equivalence relations]

• Hayes, L. J., Brenner, K., & Hayes, S. C. (1994). Assessing pre-existing stimulus relations via stimulus equivalence. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 20, 146-166.

• Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275-291.

• Hayes, S. C., & Bissett, R. (1998). Derived stimulus relations produce mediated and episodic priming. The Psychological Record, 48, 617-630.
  

  Showed that priming effects that are well known in semantically related words also occurred in nonsense stimuli related through equivalence.

• Hayes, S. C., Kohlenberg, B. K., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of specific and general consequential functions through simple and conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56,119-137.
  

  Showed the transfer of consequential functions through equivalence relations, both simple and conditional.

• Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (1998). Derived relational responding as an operant: The effects of between-session feedback. The Psychological Record, 48, 511-536.
  

  Delivering accurate or inaccurate feedback to subjects following a test for derived equivalence relations produces responding on subsequent tests that is consistent with that feedback. One of the first to demonstrate the operant nature of relation responding.

• Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalised operant behaviour. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 74, 207-227.
  

  Demonstrated that response patterns on novel stimulus sets was controlled by the feedback delivered for previous stimulus sets.

• Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: A possible model of social stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505-518.
  

  Showed that transfer effects extended to conditional stimuli that themselves regulated derived relational responding. Extends the analysis to social stereotyping

• Leader, G., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46, 685-706.
  

  The first in a series of studies investigating a new procedure for the derivation of equivalence relations. “Training” merely involves observing on-screen presentations of stimulus pairs and then testing for equivalence using a match-to-sample format. More effective in establishing equivalence than standard MTS arrangements.

• Leader, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure III. The Psychological Record, 50, 63-78.
  

  Similar to the study above but with young children as subjects.

• Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201-239.
  

  Showed the development of derived stimulus relations, including equivalence and exclusion, in a human infant.

• Luciano, M. C., Herruzo, J., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Generalization of say-do correspondence. The Psychological Record, 51, 111-130.

• McGeady, S. & Roche, B. (1997). A contextually controlled transformation of operant response functions in accordance with arbitrarily applicable relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 15, 12-13.

• McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D. (in press). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record.

• Ninness, C., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Harrison, C., Ford, A. M., & Ninness, S. K. (2005). A functional analytic approach to computer-interactive mathematics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38 (1), 1-22. (PDF).
  

  One of the first uses of RFT in higher education. Here is the abstract: Following a pretest, 11 participants who were naive with regard to various algebraic and trigonometric transformations received an introductory lecture regarding the fundamentals of the rectangular coordinate system. Following the lecture, they took part in a computer-interactive matching-to-sample procedure in which they received training on particular formula-to-formula and formula-to-graph relations as these formulas pertain to reflections and vertical and horizontal shifts. In training A-B, standard formulas served as samples and factored formulas served as comparisons. In training B-C, factored formulas served as samples and graphs served as comparisons. Subsequently, the program assessed for mutually entailed B-A and C-B relations as well as combinatorially entailed C-A and A-C relations. After all participants demonstrated mutual entailment and combinatorial entailment, we employed a test of novel relations to assess 40 different and complex variations of the original training formulas and their respective graphs. Six of 10 participants who completed training demonstrated perfect or near-perfect performance in identifying novel formula-to-graph relations. Three of the 4 participants who made more than three incorrect responses during the assessment of novel relations showed some commonality among their error patterns. Derived transfer of stimulus control using mathematical relations is discussed.

• O'Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Developing a procedure to model the establishment of instructional control. Experimental Analysis of Behavior Bulletin, 19, 13-15.

• O'Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. (2002). Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51-75.
  

  The authors measured response latencies to mutually entailed same, opposite, more-than, and less-than relations. Response latencies to same and opposite relations were significantly faster than more-than and less-than relations. A second experiment showed a gradual decrease in response latency for more/less relations across a novel stimulus set.

• O'Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (in press). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record.

• Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicable relational responding and sexual categorization: A critical test of the difference relation. The Psychological Record, 46, 451-475.
  

  After Steele & Hayes, the first study to systematically examine the relational frame of distinction using socially-loaded stimuli. This study inspired a series of exchanges between the authors and Richard Saunders in the same volume on the relationship between equivalence and RFT.

• Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions in accordance with arbitrary relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275-301.
  

  The first study to show a transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions, measured as skin resistance responses, through same and opposite relations. An excellent demonstration of how to conduct complex electrodermal research within an RFT framework.

• Roche, B., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Incongruous stimulus pairing and conditional discrimination training: Effects on relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 143-160.

• Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267-291.
  

  Following on from Roche and Barnes (1997) and McGeady and Roche (1997), the authors demonstrate four distinct contextually-controlled transformations of function by presenting the contextual cue along with the derived stimuli. Skin resistance responses and operant discriminations are measured. Still the only study to employ such a testing format.

• Schusterman, R. J. & Kastak, D. (1993). A California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) is capable of forming equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 43, 823-840.

• Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519-555.
  

  The first experimental demonstration that establishing cues that controlled non-arbitrary stimulus relations later produced multiple forms of derived relational responding with arbitrary stimulus sets. One of the first clear experimental demonstrations of RFT.

• Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2001). Generating derived relational networks via the abstraction of common physical properties: A possible model of analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 51, 381-408.

• Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2002). Stimulus equivalence and non-arbitrary relations. The Psychological Record, 52, 77-88

• Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2002). A functional-analytic model of analogy: A relational frame analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 375-396.

• Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (in press). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record.

• Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33-50.

• Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 177-195.
  

  Formative augmenting, behavior due to relational networks that establish given consequences as reinforcers or as punishers, was demonstrated in accordance with Same and Opposite relational networks. Some stimuli acquired reinforcing functions, based on the derived relation of Opposite, although in some cases no such function had actually been established for any member of the network. These effects were also observed across ABA reversals in the baseline contingencies.

• Wilson, K. G. & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267-281.

• Wulfert, E., & Hayes, S. C. (1988). Transfer of a conditional ordering response through conditional equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 125-144.

• Zentall, T. R., & Urcuioli, P. J. (1993). Emergent relations in the formation of stimulus classes in pigeons. The Psychological Record, 43, 795-810.

Research Failures

It seems important to let the world know about RFT research failures or disconfirmations of the theory. If you have any, please add a daughter page and describe the study as well as you can to let the community know about it. If you have ideas about why it might have failed, feel free to list them. If you think that it did not work because RFT is incorrect, feel free to state that and to suggests necessary changes to the theory, both big and small.

If few pages are added, do not jump to the conclusion that there are few failures. This page is designed to invite them into the light but often researchers hold failures back.

To this date, I confess I know of no RFT failures. But if they are there, we want them to be known, and given good visibility here on the ACBS website.

Research Predictions

Please add a daughter page describing any predictions you may have based on RFT. You should state the reasons for the prediction clearly, and be sure to leave your name.

By putting it on the page you are giving away the idea -- anyone is free to test it. However, we would ask if anyone does that, they ask the individual if they want to be acknowledged in the article that may result (not necesarily as an author, but perhaps in a footnote ... such as "The core ideas tested in this article was first suggested to us by Bessy Bluebottom, and we would like to thank her for the suggestion." Something like that.)

Research Procedures

This section of the site is for researchers to share instructions, information, and data useful for running computer-controlled experimental procedures.

It is our hope that in sharing such information we can develop best practices to reduce the influence of extraneous variables on the results of computer-controlled RFT studies.

Please tell the community about what you and your lab do.

About the Tutorial

An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory is an interactive, web-based tutorial designed to introduce the basic concepts and approach of Relational Frame Theory (RFT). It was developed using Macromedia Flash and includes an abundance of graphics, animations, interactions, and practice activities to help clarify the complex concepts of RFT.

Purpose/Intended Audience
The tutorial was written and designed for a very broad audience. It is hoped that everyone from undergraduate psychology students to doctoral-level psychologists to any educated person on the street (or on the web!) will find the material accessible, engaging, and relevant. Psychology students at both the undergraduate and graduate level will probably find the tutorial most useful, but anyone interested in human language and cognition will hopefully find it of interest, as well. Further, I have tried to make it easy to use the tutorial as an assignment or extra-credit project for a course or training program by allowing instructors to track which students have completed the tutorial, view their performance on the tutorial quiz, etc.

Prerequisite Knowledge Required
Since the tutorial was designed for a broad audience, very little prerequisite knowledge is expected or required. Familiarity with basic principles of learning and conditioning probably helps the most, though these are also addressed at a very general level in the tutorial.

Technical Requirements
The tutorial was developed using Macromedia Flash, and requires that the Macromedia Flash Player version 6 or above be installed on your computer. The vast majority of computers already meet this requirement, and the tutorial should automatically check your system and inform you if you need to download a new version. Although it has not been thoroughly tested on all web browsers or systems, you should be able to access the tutorial with most web browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Netscape, Safari, Mozilla) and operating systems (e.g., Windows, Macintosh, Linux).

Length
The tutorial takes most people about 3 hours to complete, but you do not need to complete the whole tutorial in one sitting. You can exit the tutorial whenever you like, and your progress will be saved automatically. Then you can return, login with your username and password as a "returning user," and complete additional lessons in the tutorial.

Accuracy of Content
I have worked closely with Drs. Steven Hayes and Dermot Barnes-Holmes, two of the leading architects of Relational Frame Theory, to ensure accuracy of the tutorial content. While they should not be held responsible for any errors or inaccuracies detected, they have reviewed and verified the accuracy of a majority of the content in the tutorial. It should also be remembered that the large number of concepts to be covered and the broad intended audience means that some concepts or issues may not be covered with the degree of technical precision some might prefer.

Screenshots

Instructor Control Panel

Click on the link above to register a new instructor account or to login to an existing instructor account. Here are some important things to remember before you begin:

• It's easy to make this tutorial available to your students as an assignment or extra-credit project. Just click on the link above, register an instructor account, add a course, and provide your students with the Course Access Code. You will then be able to login to see which of your students have completed the tutorial, along with their performance on the tutorial quiz.

• Students can attempt the tutorial quiz as many times as they'd like, and you'll be able to see both their first score and their highest score. If you are offering credit or points for the tutorial or completing the quiz, you should specify for your students whether you will count just their first score on the quiz or their highest score.

• When you create an instructor account and add a course, a Course Access Code will be generated for you automatically. Give this code to your students and instruct them to enter this code at the appropriate point when they are registering their user account. If they do not enter this code, you will not be able to verify which of your students have completed the tutorial or see their quiz scores.

• Before creating an instructor account, you can preview the tutorial by registering a user account and taking the tutorial yourself, if you'd like. Note that your user account will be entirely separate from your instructor account. Or you can just peruse some screenshots of the tutorial.

Access Tutorial

Click on the link above to register a new user account or to login to an existing user account. If the link returns only a blank page, make sure you have the latest version of the Flash Player installed for your browser (it's free!)

Here are some important things to remember before you begin:

• Please note that you must be connected to the Internet the entire time you are taking the tutorial, not just when it loads at the beginning. The tutorial interacts with an online database on a regular basis, so if you become disconnected from the Internet you will begin receiving error messages.

• If you are taking the tutorial to get credit or extra-credit for a course or training program, make sure you enter your Course Access Code when prompted. If you do not enter this code, your instructor will not be able to verify whether or not you have completed the tutorial.

• There is no time limit for completing the tutorial, and you may login and exit the tutorial whenever you would like. The tutorial automatically saves your progress when you exit the tutorial.

• You may attempt the quiz at the end of the tutorial as many times as you'd like. If you are taking the tutorial for a course, your instructor will see both your first quiz score and your highest quiz score.

• After you complete the tutorial, you can return whenever you like (just login using your same username and password) to review the lessons.

• If you become disconnected from the Internet or your computer crashes or something while taking the tutorial, try coming back to this web page, launching the tutorial again, and logging in as a "Returning User."

• Have fun!