RFT

Relational Frame Theory (RFT)

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is an explicitly psychological account of human language and cognition. It is an approach designed to be a pragmatically useful analysis of complex human behavior, and provides the empirical and conceptual tools to conduct an experimental analysis of virtually every substantive topic in this arena. Further, the contextual approach of RFT provides a functional account of the structure of verbal knowledge and cognition, creating an important link between the traditionally disparate perspectives of cognitive and behavioral psychology.

While there are many different theories of language and cognition available, RFT offers several distinct advantages over traditional approaches. We believe these advantages make RFT of interest not only to behavioral theorists but also to cognitive psychologists, therapists, educators, and anyone studying the human condition. Click on a link below or at the top (under FAQ; for example, you will find some answers to frequently asked questions about RFT) to learn more about RFT, or check out the RFT Forum for ongoing discussion.

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.

About RFT

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.

Guidelines for Posting/Contributing

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!

RFT Book Summary & Discussion

This section is for individuals to offer their summaries, questions, and comments about the RFT book.

Chapter 1

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 1 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

1.3.1 Rule governed behaviour

What's hardest for me in all of this is learning the language. It's very precise, and not intuitive for me. Okay, enough whining.
Questions:

1. Autoclitic frames?
Autoclitic: a unit of verbal behaviour that depends on other verbal behaviour for its occurrence and that modifies the effects of that behaviour on the listener. (Catania)
Ex:if-then?
So in Skinner's quote on pg 15 he's pointing to relational framing as a behaviour without explicitly delineating it?

2. Language hypothesis-the idea that differences between instructed and uninstructed performances could be accounted for by human language.
...the behaviour is verbal in Skinner's approach because a specially conditioned listener mediates reinforcement of this behaviour. (p.16)
I'm still struggling with this. So, for Skinner, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn't make a sound?
Another question: For Skinner, can the listener and the speaker be the same person?

How can listening not be verbal? "The role of the listener in any verbal episode was thus "not necessarily verbal in any special sense.""
I think I understand the unworkability of this definition, I just want to understand Skinner's conceptualization.
Please don't tell me I have to read Verbal Behaviour.

I'm not quite understanding Skinner's dilemma regarding a functional definition of "specifying". He cannot refer to reference. I understand that, but am not getting the inability to refer to verbal behaviour. Is this why? "(Skinner)did not distinguish between verbal rules and regularities observed in other complex antecedents." p17

thanks
Joanne

questions on 1.1.3 and 1.2.1

Okay, help. Can someone give me a real life example that will help me distinguish a mand from a tact?
Tact: A verbal operant in which a response (from the person emitting the operant or from the environment) of a given form is evoked.. by a particular object or event or property of an event of an oject or event."

There is an excellent summary of the core ideas of Verbal Behavior in Kohlenberg and Tsai's 1991 FAP Book. The whole of chapter 3 is about these issues and is very interesting as is the whole book. I copy a few lines from it since they tell it much better than I could :

A tact is defined as a verbal response that is under the precise control of discriminative stimuli, and that is reinforced by generalized secondary reinforcers. For example, if you are shown a red ball and asked, "What is this?" and you say "A red ball," you would be tacting because the form of your response ("red ball") is controlled by the object and is reinforced by a conditioned generalized reinforcer such as "uh-huh," "right" or "thank you," or any of hundreds of reactions that indicate you were understood. Notice that the contingency or reinforcer is borad and general, whereas the prior discriminative stimulus (Sd) is specific. The tact is thus brought about by the presence of a particular stimulus (e.g., a red ball) and an audience (the therapist or parent). Tacts, in this sense, are similar to the notion of labels or names ( p.54)

1.1.3 Skinner's Approach p9
Mand: A verbal operant in which the response, (whose? the person emitting the operant or the environment?) is reinforced by a characteristic consequence and is therefore under the functional control of relevant conditions of deprivation or aversive stimulation.

Stil from the FAP book : Mands are the speech involved in demands, commands, requests, and questions. A mand is behavior with the following characteristics: (1) it occurs because it was followed by a particular reinforcer, (2) its strength varies with the relevant deprivation or aversive stimulation, and (3) it appears under a very broad range of discriminative stimuli. Thus, if you were to say, "I would like some water" because you were thirsty, this would be a mand because it would be reinforced by a very specific reinforcer - someone hearing you and giving you water or showing you were to get some. Your "I want some water" response would not be reinforced by a generalized secondary reinforcer such as someone saying "That's right," or "Thanks for sharing that with me," or "I understand what you said". It's strength would also vary with how water deprived you were. Your mand for water can occur in almost any setting where you are thirsty and there is another person who can hear you. (p.56)

1.2.1 The definition of verbal behavior is not functional.p12

I'm not sure I understand this sentence in the last PP on the page
The behavior is not superstitious: the contingency is non arbitrary and is produced by the rat's behaviour.

Hope this is correct behavioralese : If you give arbitrary reinforcement to a pigeon, the frequency of the behavior closely preceding the reinforcement (it could be odd !) will rise. Thus, the probability that this particular behavior will occur short before the next instance of arbitrary reinforcement will rise, so it will be reinforced again and so on. As a final result, the pigeon will in the end emit this particular behavior with a high frequency, although the behavior in itself has no effect whatsoever on the reinforcing contingency. Which is not the case in the described example : As I understand it, by pressing the lever, the rat slightly shakes the feedbag and as a result, every five presses in average, a food pellet is jarred loose. This reinforcement is not arbitrary and is produced by the rat's behavior.

Here's another one on p13.
...Leighland cited Skinners ...theorising that the restricted contingencies required for abstraction ( a highly precise form of stimulus control) could only arise from an extensive history of social mediation.
The whole next paragraph just compounds the murk.

I find it difficult too. Maybe the important thing is to understand the critic made to Skinner's VB : Making appeal to the history of the listener in order to understand the behavior of the speaker is said to be a «conceptual error» making the design of fruitful experimental strategies extraordinarily difficult.

Okay enough for now. My mind is acting up.
Joanne

So does mine
Philippe

Chapter 2

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 2 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

C func equation, page 33

I have read and reread (and reread again!) chapter 2 over the past month, and find it much denser even than chapter 1. The concept I get hung up on over and over is the notion of arbitrary applicability (AA). While I know that AA is defined as a relationship that depends on social whim or consensus instead of formal characteristics of the stimulus, I think I’m missing the implications.

If we look at the equation for Cfunc as expressed on page 33, there’s a sentence that follows that says: “[w]e can say it this way: given arbitrarily applicable stimulus relations between A, B, and C, and given a context that actualizes the transformation of a given function of A, the functions of B and C will be modified in terms of the underlying relations between A, B, and C.”

I’d like to substitute examples for “A, B, and C”—could someone tell me if I’m on the right track with this?
An example of an actualizing context would be people talking to each other, having a conversation.
In that context, A might be a banana (the fruit itself, not the word).
One person could say, “Have you ever noticed how her nose [B, in my example?] looks like a banana [the oral word for the fruit, C in my example?]?”
Now, this comparison relies on both people’s previous experience with bananas. If the person responded “What’s a banana?” the first person would have to whip out a banana, or at least a picture of a banana, for purposes of comparison.
If this is right so far, one question would be, does one of the 3 items in the relation have to be something with material existence, not “just” a word? I think the answer to this is “no” because what if my characters were talking about something abstract?

So . . .
One person might say, “Love [A] is blind [B].”
Would C in this example be the quality of not being sighted, of blindness?
I’m getting tangled up here. Help!

Pg 30 mutual entailment and transformation / transfer of stimulus function

On page 30, first full paragraph, there is a description of a natural language event--someone names a ball to a child. It's being used to illustrate mutual entailment. But it seems that the last sentence "the r response in other words, will involve responding to the sound "ball" in terms of the previously experienced functions of actual balls." So that seems to be a description of the transfer of stimulus functions.

Is transfer of stimulus function a more precise term than transformation of stimulus function.
Is transfer of stimulus function a subset of transformation of stimulus function that applies with frames of coordination or is it a different thing altogether?
Joanne Steinwachs
Leslie Telfer

Some questions

Hi all,

Here are some questions I have after reading chapter 2.

1. In paragraph 2.1.1 (page 22/24) is explained what overarching purely functional operants are. Could one say that 'avoidance' is an overarching purely functional operant?

2. Does anyone know what 'self-discrimination functions' are? They are mentioned on page 32 in a paragraph about tranformation of stimulusfunctions (2.2.3)as an example of stimulusfunctions that have been shown to transfer.
As a whole, I still find the concept of stimulusfunctions very difficult to grasp. What I find especially difficult is to find good examples and to specify stimulusfunctions that are involved when looking at a real life example. Anyone who can help out here with examples?

3. In paragraph 2.4 families of relational frames are summed up (page 35-39). If I get it right the phrase: 'snakes are dangerous' means NOT that the snakes are in a relation of coordination, which should be understood as equivalence, but in a relation of hierarchie, like the phrase: John is an man. Snakes are a part of dangerous stuff. Is this right?

4. Am I right that stimulusfunctions can be relata?

Jacqueline

Chapter 3

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 3 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 4

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 4 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 5

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 5 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 6

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 6 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 7

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 7 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 8

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 8 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 9

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 9 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 10

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 10 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 11

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 11 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 12

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 12 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Chapter 13

This page is for summaries, discussions, and questions about Chapter 13 of the RFT book.

  • To add a new summary, question, or discussion item, click on the add a child page link at the bottom of this page. This will create a new web page for your summary or question. It will also create a link to your new page at the bottom of this page.
  • To respond to a summary, question, or discussion item someone has already posted, go to the page that contains their question or summary and click on the add new comment link at the bottom of that page. This will append your comment to the bottom of that page (it does not create a new web page). You can also reply to existing comments by clicking on the "reply" link in the comment.

Happy commenting, child paging, discussing, and learning!

Other Helpful Readings

Hi all,
I suggest that we use this page to post other readings so people don't have to dig through posts to find them. If it's not too much trouble, when you come across something, please post it here as well as in your original post. I'm thinking that all that we post here will be read by newcomers to ACT/RFT and I'd like to make it as easy as possible for them. It would also be useful if you'd give a few sentences on why you found it useful and what you found it useful for.

So far we've got:
Kohlenberg and Tsai (1991)
Blackledge articles, (probably found on website) Sandra? Do you know where?
Hayes, Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life
Hayes et al, Practical Guide to ACT
The RFT tutorial

Any others?

Thanks,
Joanne

Learning BA to understand RFT

Hi all,
For those of us who aren't behaviourally trained, I've been working through this Resources in Behavior Analysis page from the Cambridge Center. It's wonderful:

http://www.behavior.org/behavior/index.cfm?page=http%3A//www.behavior.org/behavior/behavior_analysis_resources.cfm

It's on the website, but I thought I'd put it here. The Skinner program on BA is helping me a lot with basic terminology.
Joanne Steinwachs

RFT FAQ

Click on a question below to view its answer.

ACBS Members: To suggest a question for someone to answer, click on the "add new comment" link at the bottom of this page and enter your question. To provide a question and an answer to this FAQ, click on the "add child page" link at the bottom of this page.

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.

Research

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

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.

    Microsoft Visual Basic

    Ole Miss IRAP software

    Below is a zip file containing the Ole Miss IRAP (version 3.5). The program is easy to learn and readily adapted for your own research interests. The pdf file is the current manual for installing and using the program. I recommend reading this manual before anything else (it's only six pages). In addition to installation instructions and explanations of the program features, it also contains some useful information about handling participants and accessing data.

    While the Ole Miss IRAP is copyrighted, this was done to keep it freely available. I encourage researchers to use, distribute, and modify the program as they see fit. Feel free to contact me if you encounter technical problems installing or using the program, or even if you would just like to bounce a study idea off of me. I'm all about the research and will do what I can to help.

    Have fun!

    PsyScope

  • 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., 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-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.)

    IRAP

    Some theoretical questions and question-hypotheses concerning the IRAP and RFT:
    The IRAP seems to be a measure of implicit preferences, in contrast with the explicit preferences. Explicit preferences are more influenced by social control (eg political correctness).
    1. Does relational framing influence the more implicit preferences as well as the explicit? And if yes, how?
    2. Can we say it’s good to be aware of our implicit preferences (as revealed by the IRAP) and make choices without bringing them into account? The implicit is good to know, to realize it’s there. But the explicit is the more important? We can learn to live our life in the direction of our explicit preferences. E.g.: ‘Muslims are terrorists’ vs ‘I want to live with all kinds of people. Not all Muslims are equal. I do respect them.’ IRAP might reveal the first relation, but the second could be more important.
    3. When existing relational networks are extended with new S, will these S influence the implicit functions or the explicit or both (depending on context)?
    4. when the implicit preferences and the explicit preferences are different, contextual influences are responsible for these differences? Experiential avoidance, political correctness, … If these contextual S are not present, the implicit and explicit preferences are growing more toward each other?
    5. cognitive therapy is working on the explicit relations by social control? After cognitive therapy the implicit positions might stay unchanged?
    6. when the social pressure is very high (IRAP on ‘Muslims are terrorists’ taken by a clearly Muslim researcher and without anonymity) even the implicit measures could be influenced? (contextual cues are stronger).
    7. explicit, but perhaps also implicit preferences can reverse? E.g. the Muslim-experiment described above: when after a while the apparently-Muslim researcher says he’s anti-Muslim (eg political refugee) – after this the IRAP-scores might reverse?

    Francis De Groot
    francis.de.groot@fracarita.org

    RFT and Basic Social Research

    First, I would like to say that, from my reading of Part I. in the RFT book, it seems the overall program of research has a stable foothold within behavior analysis. This is further accentuated by the fact that applied research is beginning to appear in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (see Ninness et al.)in which RFT principles are built into a computer program which teaches trigonomic functions and their graphical representations in an efficient manner. Believe me, it works...I am a co-author on the latest of these RFT/math studies, and, coming into the project, I knew pretty much nothing about functions and their graphical representations but after approx. an hour in the program as a pilot subject I had a firm grasp on the concepts...as well as many novel formulae and graphs never before seen.

    Because work like this is emerging along side a strong basic research program, I think RFT is here to stay. As for its future, I have been working on a way to study meta/macrocontingencies and cultural materialism in a basic laboratory setting. This area is the domain of "cultural analysis," or "behavioral anthropology," and even crosses over into OBM. When studied behavior-analytically the phrase "culture" is really synonymous with "social behavior."

    If this basic research catches on, I predict the future could see a merging of both research programs in order to study how relational framing operates in relation to social behavior. The beauty about this particular social-behavioral research program is that it begins (presumably) in a laboratory setting analogous to the most basic contexts which give rise to interlocking contingencies as they occur in nature, and as they (presumably) occurred in the evolution of cultures. So, this program would (presumably) be the most thourough, inductive, investigation of social behavior to-date. This is similar to the beginnings of the behavior-analytic research program in general: Skinner started with the most basic contexts and slowly built upon them until now, where we can study language and cognition, and do so in an inductive, non-hypothetical, manner.

    Perhaps combining RFT with such research could reveal principles relevant to symbolic behavior, myths, taboos, and "norms" etc... but would do so with the precision of a basic behavioral laboratory. Other basic researchers are already hard at work developing an equation of choice behavior, perhaps a few decades will reveal equations of norms, taboos, and even a "terrorism equation." It seems pretty far-fetched, but what an exciting way to earn a living!

    RFT and magical thinking in childhood

    RFT and magical thinking: hypothesis

    A hypothesis: is it possible that the period of ‘magical thinking’ in the development of children (enduring until adulthood) is depending on the development of processes central in RFT: developing of mutual entailment, literality of thoughts, reason giving and causal thinking? When children are developing those skills, but aren’t fully acquainted with them, they might more easily fall in the traps of magical thinking.

    Possible test: children who are later in developing those skills, should show delayed magical thinking too (and vice versa).

    Francis De Groot
    francis.de.groot@fracarita.org

    Whole Lotta Predictions

    I challenged the RFT list serve to come up with some good solid predictions that went beyond the several dozen in the RFT book.

    This list, raw and unfiltered, is the result. Some of these ideas are great. Some seem off. And anyone was and is allowed to play. But it seemed more important to get people thinking than to get it right if "right" meant that some "leader" says "this is right."

    If you have ideas, back up to the next highest level and add a child page and put yours out there!

    - S

    Steve Hayes

    Predictions from Steve

    • Responding in accordance with a coherent relational network will take less time (on average) than responding in accordance with an incoherent network (subject, of course, to the usual caveats concerning individual histories).
    • Relating derived relations will produce some of the same effects that have been observed for analogical reasoning
    • RFT models of semantic relations, analogy, executive function tasks, perspective-taking and the like should produce neural effects that overlap to some degree with the effects observed in the mainstream neuro-cog literature.
    • Increasing the extent, flexibility, and fluency of relational frames, relational networks, relating relations, relating relational networks, the transformation of functions, and contextual control over each of these, should impact positively on a variety of standard measures of human language and cognition.

    Steve posted a list of new things RFT does to the Academy of Cognitive Therapy
    June 2005. The list was:

    RFT:

    • Provides new ways to do language training
    • Has lead to a new and increasingly empirically supported psychotherapy
      (ACT) and to quite number of new psychotherapy techniques
    • Suggests how to establish a sense of self in children
    • Shows some of how to train children in "theory of mind"
    • Gives a process account of mindfulness
    • Predicts how many basic cognitive skills form
    • Predicts new ways to increase openness to new learning
    • Explains some of where psychological rigidity comes from
    • Leads to a new model of psychopathology
    • Suggests some of the core skills involves in language and its subskills such as analogy and metaphor
    • Shows why existing information processing research in specific areas (e.g., analogy) is flawed and show how to correct that flaw
    • Predicts new methods how to increase some intellectual abilities
    • Predicts new methods for how to increase motivation verbally
    • Predicts some new methods to decrease motivation verbally
    • Has lead to new ways we might assess current cognitive relations
    • Explains some of why cognitive fusion emerges, why it is harmful, and what to do about it
    • Explains some of why experiential avoidance emerges, why it is harmful, and what to do about it
    • Provides unexpected predictions about neurobiological responses to specific cognitive tasks

    ----------

    What happens to Crel and Cfun in RFT studies when you teach folks to apply defusion during testing, and or when you teach defusion, train, and then test? I am thinking of M Dougher's recent study with > or < relations with shock. I wonder whether defusion would alter the transformation, perhaps leading subjects to not rip off the shock electrodes in the context of > relation. I wonder whether defusion would strengthen or perhaps weaken Crel and/or Cfun. My guess is that it may result in more rapid learning of Crel, but knock out Cfun. This would be cool to show. Maybe someone has done this, but if not we really should cook up some experiments along these lines.

    -j forsyth

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

    1. Additional corollary hypotheses:
    (A) Speed of acquisition of AARR during an REP task (i.e., number of trials needed to respond consistently correctly) will correlate significantly and inversely with verbal IQ. (can’t recall off hand if Denis O’Hora has already tested this specifically yet).
    (B) This one would be a doozie to quantify and test, but it follows from RFT: Subjects presented with a novel metaphor who generate higher numbers of apt comparisons (especially in shorter amounts of time) will perform better (i.e., will respond correctly more frequently and given less training trials) in an REP task that assesses their ability to correctly derive relations after two previously trained frames are brought into coordination.
    2. Additional corollary hypotheses:
    (A) AARR in fully verbal subjects will fail to occur over time within an experimental context, given a consistent lack of reinforcement for AARR and/or consistent punishment of AARR within that context.
    3. Additional corollary hypotheses:
    (A) The same established verbal relation (e.g., A is similar to B, which is similar to C) can be shown to accompany different functional transformations across different experimental contexts.
    (B) Identical functional transformations can be shown to be achieved through the training of different verbal relations.

    J T

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

    read some RFT-research on the change of psychological function of stimulus C by putting it in relation with A-B (sexual excitement, taste preference, mood). What if C is relationally framed with 2 different classes: A-B-C, and X-Y-C. And let's say A is experienced a bit negative, and X also a bit negative. Would C become experienced more negative, than when it's framed with only one class? This might be an operationalisation of multiple small life experiences leading to a larger reaction.

    De Groot, Francis [francis.de.groot@fracarita.org]

    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.

    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). It was developed using Macromedia Flash, PHP, and MySQL and includes an abundance of graphics, animations, interactions, and practice activities to help clarify the complex concepts of RFT. Take a look at some screenshots to get a feel for the tutorial's look and design.

    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.

    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.

    Choose a link below to learn more about the tutorial.

    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

    Click on a thumbnail below to see a larger image and brief description of the screenshot.

    RFT Tutorial Screenshot 1     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 2     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 3     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 4

    RFT Tutorial Screenshot 5     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 6     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 7     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 8

    RFT Tutorial Screenshot 9     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 10     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 11     RFT Tutorial Screenshot 12

    Instructor Control Panel

    Launch 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

    Launch 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!