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.

• Contextually controlled mutual entailment in equivalence

• Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in equivalence

• Contextually controlled transfer of stimulus functions through equivalence relations

• Integration of these response components into a functional response class: a frame of coordination

• Simple examples of verbal understanding

• Contextually controlled mutual entailment in additional types of stimulus relations

• Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in additional types of stimulus relations

• Contextually controlled transformation of stimulus functions in additional types of stimulus relations

• Integration of these into additional relational frames

• Simple examples of genuinely verbal governance of behavior by others

• Conditional contextual control over the participation of given elements in relational frames

• The development of relational networks

• More complex examples of verbal understanding

• Verbal governance of the behavior of others (e.g., verbal mands and tacts)

• Transformation of stimulus functions across relational networks

• Increasing number and complexity of relational frames

• Increasing acquisition of specific participants in specific relational frames (e.g., vocabulary)

• Complex interactions between relations (training in one influences development of another)

• Integration of related types of relational frames into families of relational responses

• Elaborated and increasingly subtle contextual control over relational responding (e.g., syntax; number of relational terms)

• Elaborated and increasingly subtle contextual control over transformation of stimulus functions (e.g., number and specificity of functional terms)

• Nonarbitrary properties serve as a relational context for arbitrarily applicable relational responses

• Increasingly complex relational networks

• With acquisition of equivalence, time or causality, and evaluation, the development of relational sentences that function fully as rules

• Relating relational networks

• Transformation of stimulus functions based on the relating of relational networks

• Relating relational networks under the control of nonarbitrary properties of the environment

• More complex examples of rule understanding and rule-governance, particularly pliance and tracking

• Regulation of the behavior of the listener through the establishment of relational networks in the listener

• With the acquisition of hierarchical class membership, use of relational networks to abstract nonarbitrary properties and to have these properties participate in relational frames

• Abstracting properties of the nonarbitrary environment based on relational networks and the relating of relational networks

• With the acquisition of temporal, contingency, and causal relational frames, increased insensitivity to temporal delays

• Development of deictic relational frames

• Development of perspective-taking and sense of self

• Construction of the verbal other

• Construction of the conceptualized group

• Contextual control of relational responding by the nonarbitrary and arbitrary properties of the listener

• Further development of rule-following, particularly augmenting

• Regulation of the behavior of the listener by orienting the listener to abstracted features of the environment

• Acquisition of increasingly abstract verbal consequences

• Self-rule generation and self rule-following

• Pragmatic verbal analysis and increasingly complex forms of problem solving and reasoning

• 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 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) using graphics, animation, and practice activities.

The tutorial was written and designed for a very broad audience, and helps users to gain mastery over complex concepts in RFT by breaking them down and allowing the user to practice them along the away.

In 2005 the tutorial received the Nova Southeastern Award for Outstanding Practice by a Graduate Student in Instructional Design from the Design & Development division of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology. With an award name that long, you know it's got to be good.

The New and Improved Version
In early 2010, the tutorial was moved to a newer, faster, and more secure site and server (http://foxylearning.com) and was enhanced based upon user feedback (although core content and concepts remain the same).

The new tutorial’s improvements include full audio narration, more user control (volume, replaying, showing corresponding text, ability to save progress at any point in the tutorial), more detailed performance data available to instructors, and enhanced technical and customer support. For a more complete list of the changes to the tutorial visit http://foxylearning.com/rft/changes.

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.

Choose a link below to learn more about the tutorial.

Suggested Readings & Helpful Presentations

There are numerous resources for further reading. These are simply a few suggestions and you may find many others helpful. We highly recommend using this list as a starting point from which to begin your journey, and using the searchable Publications list as an instrument for guiding your own path of learning.

General Theory Books on RFT and Contextual Behavior Science

• Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.

This book may be one of the most difficult to read, but it is also the most thorough account of RFT principles and we highly recommend reading it (at some point) to gain a thorough and working understanding of RFT. Suggestion: do the RFT tutorial first. Read chapters 1 to 8, not stopping when you do not understand. Then pause and re-read Chapter 8. Then re-read the whole book and now you can stop and try to figure out what you do not understand. Don't worry. You will survive it.

• Ramnero, J., & Törneke, N. (2008). ABCs of human behavior: Behavioral principles for the practicing clinician. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger & Reno, NV: Context Press.

The ABCs of Human Behavior offers the practicing clinician a solid and practical introduction to the basics of modern behavioral psychology. The book focuses both on the classical principles of learning as well as more recent developments that explain language and cognition in behavioral and contextual terms. These principles are not just discussed in the abstract—rather the book shows how the principles of learning apply in a clinical context. Practical and easy to read, the book walks you through both common sense and clinical examples that will help you use behavioral principles to observe, explain, and influence behavior in a therapeutic setting.

• Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989/2004). Rule governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York: Plenum / reprinted in 2004 by Context Press.

One of the first full-length presentations of the ACT / RFT model is in three chapters in this book on the topic. This book is now available in paperback from Context Press.

Understanding RFT: A few simple articles and presentations

• Blackledge, J. T. (2003). An introduction to Relational Frame Theory: Basics and applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421-433.

• Blackledge, J.T. & Moran, D.J. (2009). Introduction to relational frame theory for clinicians. Japanese version published in Kokoro no Rinsho.

• Törneke, N. & Luoma, J. (2009, July). RFT: Basic concepts and clinical implications. Paper presented at the 3rd World Conference for Contextual Behavioral Science, Enschede, Netherlands.

• Blackledge, J. T. (2009). How is RFT Relevant to Clinical Psychology? Audio and handouts from a teleconference given to the Psychotherapy Research Network in March, 2009.

Books on Applying RFT

• Rehfeldt, R. A., Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). Derived relational responding: Applications for learners with autism and other developmental disabilities. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

Derived Relational Responding offers a series of revolutionary intervention programs for applied work in human language and cognition targeted at students with autism and other developmental disabilities. It presents a program drawn from derived stimulus relations that you can use to help students of all ages acquire foundational and advanced verbal, social, and cognitive skills.

• Woods, D. W., & Kanter, J. W. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding behavior disorders: A contemporary behavioral perspective. Reno, NV: Context Press.

This volume presents a contemporary behavioral model of behavior disorders that incorporates the findings of current RFT and ACT research. Rich in possibilities for clinical work, this view of disordered behavior is an important milestone in clinical psychotherapy - an opportunity for behavioral clinicians to reintegrate their clinical practice with an experimental analysis of behavior.

• Dahl, J. C., Plumb, J. C., Stewart, I., & Lundgren, T. (2009). The Art and Science of Valuing in Psychotherapy: Helping Clients Discover, Explore, and Commit to Valued Action Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Oakland, CA; New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

This book is an applied volume in purpose, but includes an RFT account of each of the ACT processes, and in particular an in depth RFT perspective on personal values and the clinical interventions employed to enhance them and promote committed action.

• Dougher, M. J. (Ed.). (2000). Clinical Behavior Analysis. Reno, NV: Context Press.

While not explicitly a volume on RFT, this book is an excellent resource on clinical behavioral approaches to common problems and includes several chapters with an RFT perspective on clinical problems.

The role of RFT in Contextual Behavioral Science

• Vilardaga, R., Hayes, S. C., Levin, M. E., & Muto, T. (2009). Creating a strategy for progress: A contextual behavioral science approach. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 105-133.

• Levin, M. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2009). ACT, RFT, and contextual behavioral science. In J. T. Blackledge, J. Ciarrochi, & F. P. Deane (Eds.), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Contemporary research and practice (pp. 1 – 40). Sydney: Australian Academic Press.

• Hayes, S.C. (2009, July). The importance of RFT to the development of contextual behavioral science. Presidential address given at the 3rd World Conference on Contextual Behavioral Science, Enschede, Netherlands.

ACT/RFT Reader Update

• ACT/RFT Reader Update is a review by CBS reseachers of recent research in both ACT and RFT and is updated a few times a year. Each of the articles reviewed is available on this site.

This page is under construction so please check back for updates as they become available.

Academic Training

A number of academic training programs provide some measure of training in RFT. Go to Research Labs and click on a program or school's name to learn more about it.

ACBS Members: If you are a faculty member in an academic program that provides training in RFT, you can list your program clicking on the "labs" tab to the left and then "add child page" at the bottom of that page.

RFT Study Group for Beginners

PLEASE NOTE: This study group is not longer running, but we have left the information gathered here for your perusal. You may find the information in these pages of some use to you. Also, you may consider starting your own study group by asking colleagues and others on the listservs of their interests and then using these pages or asking ACBS staff to help you update them for your current purposes.

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.

Empirical Support

This list includes research articles that contain original data relevant to RFT.

We are doing our best to update this page frequently, but for the most up-to-date list, visit the Publications database and choose "RFT: Empirical" as a search term.

ACBS members can add child pages to update with new literature, but the best way to update the page is to email Jen Plumb to have content added to this page.

As of the beginning of 2009 there are about 150 empirical articles that are either on RFT ideas or very closely related.

In Press

• Hooper, N., Saunders, S., & McHugh, L. (in press). The derived generalization of thought suppression. Learning and Behavior.

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Murtagh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (in press). Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to measure attitudes towards meat and vegetables in vegetarians and meat-eaters. The Psychological Record.
  

  One of the first two empirical studies to test the validity of the IRAP by comparing it to the IAT using a "known-groups" approach. The studies also introduce the use of the D-IRAP algorithm.

2009

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Waldron, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). Testing the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Measuring attitudes towards Dublin and country life in Ireland. The Psychological Record, 59, 389-406.
  

  One of the first two empirical studies to test the validity of the IRAP by comparing it to the IAT using a "known-groups" approach. The studies also introduce the use of the D-IRAP algorithm.

• Dawson, D. L., Barnes-Holmes, D., Gresswell, D. M., Hart, A. J. P., & Gore, N. J. (2009). Assessing the implicit beliefs of sexual offenders using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: A First Study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 57-75.

• Power, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of implicit relative preferences: A first study. The Psychological Record, 59, 621-640.
  

  The first IRAP study that involved using comparative relations as a means of determining implicit relative preferences for different social groups. This was also the first study to show a clear divergence between responses on the IRAP and an explicit measure.

• Gross, A. C., & Fox, E. J. (2009). Relational frame theory: An overview of the controversy. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 87-98.

• Vahey, N. A., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). A first test of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of self-esteem: Irish prisoner groups and university students. The Psychological Record, 59, 371-388.
  

  The first empirical study that aimed to develop a self-esteem IRAP.

• Lipkens, G. & Hayes, S. C. (2009). Producing and recognizing analogical relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91, 105-126.
  

  Article shows for the first time that relating relations can be the basis of producing related events, selecting relations, or selecting related events.

• Murphy, C. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Establishing derived manding for specific amounts with three children: An attempt at synthesizing Skinner's verbal behavior and relational frame theory. Psychological Record, 59(1), 75-91.

• O'Connor, J., Rafferty, A., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). The role of verbal behavior, stimulus nameability and familiarity on the equivalence performances of autistic and normally developing children. Psychological Record, 59(10), 53-74.

• O'Toole, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Three chronometric indices of relational responding as predictors of performance on a brief intelligence test: The importance of relational flexibility. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 119-132.
  

  The first empirical study that used the IRAP to investigate the relationship between relational responding and IQ. Although not reported in the article, the research allowed us to determine that the D-IRAP algorithm appears to control for individual differences in cognitive ability.

2008

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayden, E., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2008). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a response-time and event-related-potentials methodology for testing natural verbal relations: A preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 58, 497-516.
  

  The first empirical study of the IRAP. The article also provides a brief potted history of the research that led to the development of the procedure.

• Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J.P., Whelan, R. & Rhoden, J. (2008). Derived avoidance learning: Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. The Psychological Record, 58, 269-286.
  

  This interesting study demonstrated that participants will demonstrate avoidance based on the stimulus relations of “same” and “opposite.” Control participants provided evidence that the transformation was a direct product of a relational learning history. Although equivalence may account for the finding, the explanation is circuitous.

• Gavin, A., Roche, B., & Ruiz, M. R. (2008). Competing contingencies over derived relational responding: A behavioral model of the implicit association test. The Psychological Record, 58, 427-441.

• Ju, W. C. & Hayes, S. C. (2008). Verbal establishing stimuli: Testing the motivative effect of stimuli in a derived relation with consequences. The Psychological Record, 58, 339-363.

• McHugh, L., & Reed, P. (2008). Using Relational Frame Theory to build grammar in children with Autistic Spectrum Conditions. The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 2.4-3.1, 60-77.

• O'Hora, D., Pelaez, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rae, G., Robinson, K., & Chaudhary, T. (2008). Temporal relations and intelligence: Correlating relational performance with performance on the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 58, 569-584.

• Pérez-González, L.A., Herszlikowicz, K. & Williams, G. (2008). Stimulus relations analysis and the emergence of novel intraverbals. Psychological Record, 58, 95-129.

• Roche, B. T., Kanter, J. W., Brown, K. R., Dymond, S., & Fogarty, C. C. (2008). A comparison of "direct" versus "derived" extinction of avoidance responding. The Psychological Record, 58, 443-464.

• Roche, B. & Dymond, S. (2008). A transformation of functions in accordance with the nonarbitrary relational properties of sexual stimuli. Psychological Record, 58, 71-94.

• Vitale, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Campbell, C. (2008). Facilitating responding in accordance with the relational frame of comparison: Systematic empirical analyses. The Psychological Record, 58, 365-390.

• Weinstein, J. H., Wilson, K. G., Drake, C. E., & Kellum, K. K. (2008). A Relational Frame Theory Contribution to Social Categorization. Behavior and Social Issues, 17, 39-64.

2007

• Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Arbitrarily applicable comparative relations: Experimental Evidence for relational operants. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 45-71.
  

  In a combined multiple baseline (across responses and participants) and multiple probe design (with trained and untrained stimuli), it was shown that reinforced multiple exemplar training facilitated the development of arbitrary comparative relations, and that these skills generalized not just across stimuli but also across trial types.

• Cahill, J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rodríguez-Valverde, M., Luciano, C., & Smeets, P. M. (2007). The derived transfer and reversal of mood functions through equivalence relations II. The Psychological Record, 57, 373-389.

• Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D., Fink, B., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 179-197.
  

  Transformation of respondent stimulus functions via more-than/less-than direct and derived relations.

• Gómez, S., López, F., Martín, C.B., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2007). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of functions in accordance with symmetry and equivalence. Psychological Record, 57(2), 273-294.
  

  This is a very straightforward study programming transformation of function with young children. The first experiment simply exposed four children to action-object exemplar training and tested for symmetry. Experiment two enhanced transformation via multiple exemplar training; effectively demonstrating the ability to program stimulus relations via exemplar training.

• Gaynor, S. T., Washio, Y. & Anderson, F. (2007). The conjunction fallacy: A derived stimulus relations conceptualization and demonstration experiment. The Psychological Record, 57, 63-85.

• Luciano, M. C., Gómez, I., & Rodríguez, M. (2007). The Role of Multiple-Exemplar Training and Naming in Establishing Derived Equivalence in an Infant. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

• McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2007). Deictic relational complexity and the development of deception. Psychological Record, 57(4), 517-531.

• McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Whelan, R. & Stewart, I. (2007). Knowing me, knowing you: Deictic complexity in false-belief understanding. Psychological Record, 57(4), 533-542.

• McKenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2007). Testing the fake-ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): the first study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, (7)2, 123-138.
  

  The first empirical study that sought to determine if the IRAP can be readily faked.

• O'Toole, C., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Smyth, S. (2007). A derived transfer of functions and the Implicit Association Test. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 263-283.

• Rehfeldt, R., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M. & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007). Assessing Relational Learning Deficits in Perspective-Taking in Children with High Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23-47.

• Rosales, R. & Rehfeldt, R.A. (2007). Contriving transitive conditioned establishing operations to establish derived manding skills in adults with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 105-121.

• Schlund, M.W., Hoehn-Saric, R. & Cataldo, M.F. (2007). New knowledge derived from learned knowledge: Functional-anatomic correlates of stimulus equivalence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87(2), 287-307.

2006

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Power, P., Hayden, E., Milne, R., & Stewart, I. (2006). Do you really know what you believe? developing the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) as a direct measure of implicit beliefs. The Irish Psychologist, (32)7, 169-177.

• Dixon, M.R., Rehfeldt, R.A., Zlomke, K.R. & Robinson, A. (2006). Exploring the development and dismantling of equivalence classes involving terrorist stimuli. Psychological Record, 56, 83-103.
  

  This paper describes 2 studies that present a conceptual interpretation and experimental findings involving developing and dismantling of equivalence classes consisting of terrorist stimuli. Results of experiment 1 showed that participants made predictable responses to stimuli during pretest, however made fewer culturally controlled responses after training. Experiment 2 showed that it was easy to acquire relations involving terrorist stimuli when compared to two other conditions. Implications are discussed.

• Dixon, M. R., Zlomke, K. M., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2006). Restoring Americans’ Nonequivalent Frames of Terror: An Application of Relational Frame Theory. The Behavior Analyst Today, 7(3), 275-289.

• Haas, J. R., & Hayes, S.C. (2006). When knowing you are doing well hinders performance: Exploring the interaction between rules and feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26, 91-111.
  

  The effect of two types of verbal consequences, rule-following feedback and task performance feedback, on rule-induced insensitivity to programmed schedules of reinforcement were examined. Rule-following feedback could be either accurate or non-contingently positive. The task involved moving a sign through a grid using telegraph keys operating on a multiple DRL 6/FR 18 schedule of reinforcement in the presence of an initially accurate rule. After acquisition, the multiple schedule was changed without notice to a FR 1/FI Yoked schedule. Accurate rule-following feedback plus feedback on task performance produced striking insensitivity to the DRL 6 to FR 1 schedule change, the opposite of what might be expected by a common sense analysis of task performance feedback, even after controlling for contact with the changed contingency. It is argued that findings such as these can only be understood by considering the mutual verbal relations evoked by the combinations of rules and feedback, rather than treating feedback as a simple consequential event or as a verbal consequence whose effects do not depend on the relations sustained with other events.

• McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Stewart, I. (2006). Understanding false belief as generalized operant behavior. Psychological Record, 56(3), 341-364.

• Ninness, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Ford, A. M., Payne, R., et al. (2006). Transformations of mathematical and stimulus functions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 299-321.

• Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Striefel, S. (2006). Establishing and reversing equivalence relations with precursor to the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 56(2), 267-286.

• Smyth, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Forsyth, J. P. (2006). A derived transfer of simple discrimination and self-reported arousal functions in spider fearful and non-spider fearful participants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(2), 223-246.
  

  This article used the stimulus paring observation procedure to demonstrate transformation of arousal functions, and provided further evidence that anxiety responses can participate in arbitrary relational frames and produce problematic clinical outcomes.

• Valdivia, S., Luciano, C., & Molina, F. J. (2006). Verbal regulation of motivational states. The Psychological Record, 56, 577-595.

• Whelan, R., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Dymond, S. (2006). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of more-than and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86(3), 317-335.

2005

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., Stewart, I., et al. (2005). Relating derived relations as a model of analogical reasoning: reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84(3), 435-451.
  

  This study used event related potentials to test the RFT prediction that same-same relations are simpler and functionally distinct different-different analogical reasoning. Reaction times were significantly longer, and waveforms were significantly more negative for different-different than they were for same-same relations. This is consistent with the prediction based on RFT.

• Dixon, M.R. & Zlomke, K.M. (2005). Implementación del precursor del procedimiento de evaluación relacional en el establecimiento de marcos relacionales de igualdad, oposición y diferencia. = Using the precursor to the relational evaluation procedure (PREP) to establish the relational frames of sameness, opposition, and distinction. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 37(2), 305-316.

• Gutiérrez-Martí¬nez, O., Luciano-Soriano, M. C., & Valdivia, S. (2005). Change of self-efficacy verbalizations and derivation of functions. Psicothema, 17, 625-630.

• Merwin, R.M. & Wilson, Kelly G. (2005). Preliminary findings on the effects of self-referring and evaluative stimuli on stimulus equivalence class formation. Psychological Record, 55, 561-575.

• Murphy, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2005). Derived manding in children with autism: Synthesizing Skinner's verbal behavior with relational frame theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(4), 445-462.

• 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 , 1-22.
  

  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.

• Ninness, C., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Vasquez III, E., Harrison, C., Ford, A.M., et al. (2005b). A relational frame and artificial neural network approach to computer-interactive mathematics. Psychological Record, 55, 135-153.

• O'Hora, D., Â Pelaez, M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). Derived relational responding and performance on verbal subtests of the WAIS-III. The Psychological Record, 55(1), 155-175.

• Rehfeldt, R.A. & Dymond, S. (2005). The effects of test order and nodal distance on the emergence and stability of derived discriminative stimulus functions. Psychological Record, 55(2), 179-196.

• Rehfeldt, R. A. & Root, S. L. (2005). Establishing derived requesting skills in adults with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 101-105.

• Reilly, T., Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005). The effect of training structure on the latency responses to a five-term linear chain. The Psychological Record, 55(2), 233-249.

• Smeets, P.M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2005a). Auditory-visual and visual-visual equivalence relations in children. The Psychological Record, 55(3), 483-503.

• Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes D. (2005b). Establishing equivalence classes in preschool children with many-to-one and one-to-many training protocols. Behavioural Processes, 69(3), 281-293.

• Whelan, R., Cullinan, V. & O'Donovan, A. (2005). Derived same and opposite relations produce association and mediated priming. = Mismas Relaciones derivadas y Opuestas Producen la Asociación y la Preparación Mediada. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 5(3), 247-264.

2004

• Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with opposite as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 559-586.

• Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., & Luciano, C. (2004). The derived transfer of mood functions through equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 54, 95-114.

• Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Strand, P., & Friman, P. (2004). Establishing relational responding in accordance with more-than and less-than as generalized operant behavior in young children. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 531-558.

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Staunton, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Whelan, R., Stewart, I., Commins, S., et al. (2004). Interfacing Relational Frame Theory with cognitive neuroscience: Semantic priming, The Implicit Association Test, and event related potentials. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 215-240.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Equivalence-equivalence: Matching stimuli with same discriminative functions. The Psychological Record, 54, 145-162.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Stewart, I. (2004). Matching derived functionally-same relations: Equivalence-equivalence and classical analogies. The Psychological Record, 54, 255-273.

• McHugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking as relational responding: A developmental profile. The Psychological Record, 54, 115-144.
  

  This article describes traditional tasks that relate to what developmental literature calls “Theory of Mind. ” Its goals were to develop and test a protocol across groups in several different developmental stages (young children through adulthood) that indicated that perspective taking could be described in terms of relational responding (arbitrarily applicable, mutually entailed, combinatorily entailed, and showing transformation of stimulus function) and that added but did not contradict the traditional and developmental literature. Study 1 tested the protocol, Study 2 tested whether young children’s poor response was an artifact of word length, and Study 3 tested whether the experimenter’s cues affected responding. Results from three studies indicated indeed that perspective taking can be viewed as an operant, and that deictic frames across three levels of complexity were functionally distinct classes of behavior. A developmental profile emerged, showing that derived relational responding develops with age as well as relational complexity. Further, I-YOU relations emerge before HERE-THERE and NOW-THEN relations, and NOW-THEN relations produced the most errors in all participants regardless of age.

• O'Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2004). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record, 54, 437-460.
  

  Results from two studies examining instructional control on novel stimulus situations are described. The researchers employed the Relational Evaluation Procedure to train relations and then tested these in novel situations. Results support the idea that novel instructions can control behavior and that RFT provides an adequate model for the generativity of language.

• Roche, B., Linehan, C., Ward, T., Dymond, S., & Rehfeldt, R. (2004). The Unfolding of the Relational Operant: A Real-time Analysis Using Electroencephalography and Reaction Time Measures. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 4(3), 587-603.

• Valverde, M., Luciano, M. C., Gutiérrez Martí­nez, O., & Hernández López, M. (2004). Tranfer of latent inhibition of aversively conditioned autonomic responses through equivalence classes. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 605-622.

• Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 54, 531-552.
  

  This study provides an empirical demonstration of analogy using the Relational Evaluation Procedure (REP), a recently developed technique for the rapid training and testing of derived stimulus relations. The experiment involved 9 stages in which 5 adult male subjects were exposed to a complex series of REP training and testing protocols, by the end of which they each readily demonstrated 24 completely novel instances of responding in accordance with analogical relations as conceptualized by RFT.

• Smeets, P. M., van Wijngaarden, M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Cullinan, V. (2004). Assessing stimulus equivalence with a precursor to the relational evaluation procedure. Behavioural Processes, 65, 241-251.

• Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004a). 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.

• Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004b). Empirical models of formative augmenting in accordance with the relations of same, opposite, more-than, and less-than. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 285-302.
  

  Authors demonstrated through two experiments that stimuli acquired reinforcing functions based on derived relational networks. This research supports the idea of formative augmenting: the degree to which events function as consequences was altered based on relational networks of Same and Opposite and more-than and less-than.

2003

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003a). Equivalence-equivalence as a model of analogy: Further analyses. The Psychological Record, 53, 349-372.
  

  This study attempted to train equivalence-equivalence relations with 5-year-old children. Only 8 of 18 showed equivalence-equivalence relations when tested. The procedure was then tested with adults and was successful with all of them.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003b). Matching unrelated stimuli with same discriminative functions: Training order effects. Behavioural Processes, 60, 215-226.

• 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.

• Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). Children's emergent preferences for soft drinks: Stimulus-equivalence and transfer. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 603-618.

• Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Akpinar, D. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003). Reversal of equivalence relations. The Psychological Record, 53, 91-120.

2002

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002a). Establishing transfer of compound control in children: A stimulus control analysis. The Psychological Record, 52, 139-158.

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

  This study tested equivalence-equivalence and nonequivalence-nonequivalence relations with adults, 9-year-olds, and 5-year-olds. Most of the adults and 9-year-olds demonstrated these relations, but the 5-year-olds did not.

• 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.
  

  Transformation of functions among members in equivalence classes

• 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.

• Luciano, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002). Establishing reports of saying and doing and discriminations of say-do relations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23, 406-421.

• Markham, M.R., Dougher, M.J. & Augustson, E.M. (2002). Transfer of operant discrimination and respondent elicitation via emergent relations of compound stimuli. Psychological Record, 52(3), 325-350.

• 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.

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

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

  This study explored a behavior-analytic model of analogical reasoning, defined as the discrimination of formal similarity via equivalence-equivalence responding. Equivalence classes were trained, and subjects responded according to equivalence-equivalence relations. Subjects discriminated by shape or color of a relata. Transformation of stimulus functions of a block-sorting task based on this model of analogy was also shown.

2001

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

  This paper demonstrates that multiple exemplar training provides the necessary history to establish transformation across symmetry relations. Four studies confirmed that after relatively few exemplar training sessions, transformation could occur even across response modalities.

• 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.
  

  This study clears some questions raised by Part I. Specifically, the authors found that naming is not a critical component of transformation, and children could readily demonstrate transformed functions in accordance with symmetry with no history of naming. The third part of the study examined the effects of pre-training. Results suggest that pre-training may be effective, but if not, to forgo additional pre-training and move immediately to multiple exemplar training.

• 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.

• Fitzgerald, D. L. (2001). The effects of fluency in the acquisition of conditional, symmetric, and equivalence relations on the emergence of derived relational responding and the contextual control of relational behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 61(9-B).

• 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.

• Leader, G., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Establishing fraction-decimal equivalence using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 51, 151-166.

• Leader, G., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2001). Matching-to-sample and respondent-type training as methods for producing equivalence relations: Isolating the critical variable. The Psychological Record, 51, 429-444.

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

• Lyddy, F., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Hampson, P. J. (2001). A transfer of sequence function via equivalence in a connectionist network. The Psychological Record, 51, 409-428.

• 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.
  

  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.]

• Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Derived stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus relations in children and adults: Assessing training order effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 130-154.

• Osborne, J.G. & Koppel, L. (2001). Acquisition, generalization, and contextual control of taxonomic and thematic relational responding. Psychological Record, 51(2), 185-205.

• 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.
  

  This study demonstrated equivalence-equivalence responding based on the abstraction of common formal properties.

2000

• Augustson, E.M., Dougher, M.J. & Markham, M.R. (2000). Emergence of conditional stimulus relations and transfer of respondent eliciting functions among compound stimuli. Psychological Record, 50(4), 745-770.
  

  Transfer of respondent eliciting functions occurs even among compound stimuli.

• Barnes-Holmes, D., Keane, J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). A derived transformation of emotive functions as a means of establishing differential preferences for soft drinks. The Psychological Record, 50, 493-511.

• Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Matching compound samples with unitary compounds: Derived stimulus relations in adults and children. The Psychological Record, 50, 671-686.

• 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.

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Smeets, P.M., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Establishing equivalence classes with match-to-sample format and simultaneous-discrimination format conditional discrimination tasks. The Psychological Record, 50, 721-744.

• Smeets, P. M., Dymond, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2000). Instructions, stimulus equivalence, and stimulus sorting: Effects of sequential testing arrangements and a default option. The Psychological Record, 50, 339-354.

1999

• 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.

• Smeets, P. M., Barnes, D., & Luciano, C. M. (1999). Reversal of emergent simple discrimination in children: A component analysis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(3), 327-343.

1998

• 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.

• Dymond S. & Barnes D. (1998). The effects of prior equivalence testing and verbal instructions on derived self-discrimination transfer: A follow-up study. Psychological Record 48(1), 147-170.
  

  A follow-up study to Dymond & Barnes (1994). Subjects were not given equivalence training this time but were instead trained in a series of conditional discriminations. Also, some subjects were given extensive instructions and others were given minimal instructions. Neither of these factors affected the subjects performance and the results from previous experiments were replicated.

• 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.

• 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.

1997

• 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.
  

  This study examined the RFT approach to analogical reasoning. Subjects were trained on several equivalence relations. They were then shown pairs of relata in which both of the relata were from the same relation or in which both relata were from different relations. The subjects successfully matched pairs of same with same and different with different.

• 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.

• 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.

• Smeets, P., & Barnes, D. (1997). Emergent conditional discrimination in children and adults: Stimulus equivalence derived from simple discriminations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 64-84.

• Smeets, P., Barnes, D., & Roche, B. (1997). Functional equivalence in children. Derived stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus relations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 1-17.

• Smeets, P.M., Leader, G., & Barnes, D. (1997). Establishing stimulus classes with adults and children using a respondent training procedure: A follow-up study. The Psychological Record, 47, 285-308.

1996

• 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.

• 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.

• Grey, I., & Barnes, D. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and attitudes. The Psychological Record, 46, 243-270.

• 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.

• 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.

• Smeets, P., Barnes, D., & Schenk, J., & Darcheville, J., (1996). Emergent simple discriminations and conditional relations in children, adults with mental retardation, and normal adults. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(B), 201-219.

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

1995

• 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.

• 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

• Smeets, P. M., & Barnes, D. (1995). Emergent simple discrimination via transfer from differentially reinforced S+ stimuli: A further test of the stimulus-response interaction model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B(4), 329-345.

• Smeets, P., Barnes, D., & Luciano, C. (1995). Total reversal of emergent simple discrimination in children: A component analysis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 327-343.

• Smeets, P., Schenk, J., & Barnes, D. (1995). Establishing arbitrary stimulus classes via identity matching training and non-reinforced matching with complex stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B(4), 311-328.

1994

• 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

• Cullinan, V., Barnes, D., Hampson, P. J., & Lyddy, F. (1994). A transfer of explicitly and nonexplicitly trained sequence responses through equivalence relations: An experimental demonstration and connectionist model. The Psychological Record, 44, 559-585.

• Dougher, M. J., Augustson, E., Markham, M. R., Greenway, D. E., & Wulfert, E. (1994). The transfer of respondent eliciting and extinction functions through stimulus equivalence classes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 331-351.
  

  One of the early articles studying the transfer of respondent eliciting functions.

• Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251-267.
  

  Four subjects were trained in matching-to-sample tasks and equivalence relations. They showed the expected transfer of self-discrimination response functions. Four control subjects either received training in matching to sample but were not tested on equivalence or were trained and tested using stimuli not used in the transfer test. None of these showed the transfer of self-discrimination response functions.

• 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.

1993

• Barnes, D., & Hampson, P. (1993). Stimulus equivalence and connectionism: Implications for behavior analysis and cognitive science. The Psychological Record, 43, 617-638.

• 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.

• 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.

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

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

1991

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

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

  This study examined whether social categorization could be explored in terms of stimulus equivalence by testing whether equivalence training could be transferred to untrained social stimuli. The study had Irish Protestants, Irish Catholics and English Protestants go through a series of matching-to-sample procedures in which they were trained to match Protestant or Catholic stimuli with non-sense syllables. The findings suggest that previous learning might interfere with equivalence responding in the experimental training.

1990 and earlier

• 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.

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

  Authors describe results of two studies attempting to specify the relationship between verbal and nonverbal behavior in the context of rule following. Two stimulus equivalence relationships were trained and then subjects were tested for production of novel behavior. Novel behavior was produced in both the presence and absence of names provided for the equivalence classes.

• De Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1-20.
  

  One of the early articles studying the transfer of stimulus functions among members in equivalent classes.

• 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.

• 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

• 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.

Applied RFT

The most obvious form of "applied" RFT is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. However, ACT is only one small portion of the applied work being done that utilizes RFT concepts.

Indeed, the principles of RFT and procedures that RFT researchers are honing can be widely applicable to learning, education, child and adult development, clinical problems, and much more.

Below are some areas in which RFT is being used to predict and influence complex human phenomena and to help improve interventions in many clinically relevant areas.

RFT and Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorder

A key aspect of language, and one that is at the core of communication deficits for children with autism, is generativity—put simply, the ability to produce or understand totally new sentences. Understanding and accounting for linguistic generativity is critical to any account of language development (Malott, 2003), and to the creation of programs for teaching flexible and fully functional language repertoires. RFT provides new insight into the issue of generativity, by conceptualizing the core skill in language as learned contextually controlled relational responding (referred to as relational framing).

Typically developing children learn relational framing through natural language interactions during which they are exposed to contingencies that establish these response patterns (e.g., Lipkens, Hayes & Hayes, 1993; Luciano, Gómez & Rodríguez, 2007). However, children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) do not easily learn this key form of responding (e.g., Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek, & Kowalchuk, 2007) —while many children with ASD are able to learn functional language skills through explicit training, language use for many remains rote, despite intensive intervention (see, e.g., Luciano, Rodriguez, Manas, Ruiz, Berens, & Valdivia-Salas, 2009).

A number of recently published RFT-based studies, however, (e.g., Murphy, Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2005; O’Connor, Rafferty, Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2009) have begun to show that relational framing can be successfully trained in developmentally delayed populations including individuals with ASD. This work holds great promise for the future.

REFERENCES

• 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.

• Luciano, C., Gomez Becerra, I. & Rodriguez Valverde, M. (2007). The role of multiple- exemplar training and naming in establishing derived equivalence in an infant. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 349-365.

• Luciano, C., Rodriguez, M., Manas, I., Ruiz, F., Berens, N., & Valdivia-Salas, S. (2009). Acquiring the earliest relational operants: coordination, distinction, opposition, comparison and hierarchy. In Rehfeldt, R.A. & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (Eds.). Derived Relational Responding: Applications for Learners with Autism and other Developmental Disabilities. CA: New Harbinger.

• Malott, R. W. (2003). Behavior analysis and linguistic productivity. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 11-18.

• Murphy, C., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2005). Derived manding in children with autism: Synthesizing Skinner's Verbal Behavior with relational frame theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 59(1), 445-462.

• O’Connor, J., Rafferty, A., Barnes-Holmes, D. & Barnes-Holmes , Y. (2009). The role of verbal behavior, stimulus nameability and familiarity on the equivalence performances of autistic and normally-developing children. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 53-74.

• Rehfeldt, R.A. & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). Derived Relational Responding: Applications for Learners with Autism and other Developmental Disabilities. CA: New Harbinger.

• Rehfeldt, R. A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuk, R. E. (2007). Assessing relational learning deficits in perspective-taking in children with high functioning autism spectrum disorder. The Psychological Record, 57, 23-47.

Additional information will be added soon.

Ongoing Lines of Research

The ACBS community has has a list of research labs all over the world where you might:

• gain a better understanding of the current lines of research in RFT that is ongoing;

• network with others doing similar work as yours;

• foster collaboration between researchers and labs;

• follow up with researchers on the status of projects.

We are working to create a list that more specifically details which labs are focused on RFT or incorporate RFT into their work but for now, please peruse the list of Research Labs to find links to each lab's updated website regarding ongoing research projects.

Research Procedures & Computer Programming

This section of the site is for researchers to share programs, files, 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 share with the community what you and your lab do.

Disclaimer: All software and files provided on this site are distributed on an "as is" basis. The webmaster or authors of the programs assume no responsibility for problems or damage resulting from the use of these products.

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.

Ole Miss Matching-to-Sample Software

Disclaimer: All software and files provided on this site are distributed on an "as is" basis. The webmaster or authors of the programs assume no responsibility for problems or damage resulting from the use of these products.

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.)