T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

AN INTRODUCTION TO RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY:

BASICS AND APPLICATIONS
John T. Blackledge
University of Nevada, Reno

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) has made a very respectable empirical and theoretical showing in
the psychological literature during the past decade, but the theory still remains unknown or
unappreciated by most cognitive and behavioral psychologists. This article highlights why this
might be the case, and presents RFT in a simplified, systematic manner, in part by comparing it to a
well-known cognitive model. Finally, the article outlines RFT’s relatively unique contributions to
psychological accounts of language and cognition, and addresses some of RFT’s scientific and
applied implications.

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) has had important human processes that arise from the
a notable presence in the psychology literature behavioral tradition are thus easy to ignore.
since its development over a decade ago. Well
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

over 30 empirical RFT studies have been The first purpose of this article is to
published in peer-reviewed psychology journals convey the principles of Relational Frame
in the past 10 years, and an even larger number Theory in relatively easy to understand fashion.
of theoretical and descriptive treatments of it In doing so, it is hoped that what RFT has to do
have been published as well. Recently, a book with language, cognition, and psychopathology
length treatment of RFT has been made will become apparent. Since a vast amount of
available (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, cognitive literature regarding these topic areas
2001), summarizing supporting data and currently exists, RFT’s relatively unique and
extending RFT analyses to a variety of important contributions to this literature will be
psychological phenomena. In addition, RFT outlined as well. To accomplish these goals, a
principles form the theoretical background of popular and widely-known cognitive model of a
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; “fear network” (Lang, 1985) will first be
see, for example, Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, presented and briefly described. Lang’s model
1999). contains some cosmetic similarities to RFT that
will hopefully orient the reader to the analysis
Given the relatively frequent that follows. Following the description of this
appearances of Relational Frame Theory in model, an RFT account of the same information
psychological literature, it is perhaps surprising presented in the model will be advanced,
that the theory remains virtually unknown allowing a systematic introduction to the reader
outside behavioral circles, and even of the defining features of RFT. Finally, several
unrecognized or misunderstood by many reasons why RFT offers a unique and important
academic behavioral psychologists. RFT has approach to language, cognition, and human
largely escaped notice and comprehension for at suffering will be described. Empirical evidence
least three reasons. First, RFT intentionally and more extensive arguments of technical
makes use of technical, non-colloquial language points about RFT made throughout the article
to allow a scientific treatment of cognition. As can be found, for example, in Hayes et al.
such, published descriptions of RFT are (2001).
undeniably technical, and not readily accessible
to those who have not spent a considerable RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY: BASICS AND
amount of time trying to understand the theory. APPLICATIONS
Second, its significance and relevance to human
psychopathology and language in general do not Lang’s Fear Network
immediately seem obvious due to its non- Lang’s (1985) exemplary model of a
traditional account of these phenomena. Finally, fear network is presented succinctly in Figure 1.
non-behavioral psychologists have long assumed Stimulus propositions (indicated in ovals in
that behaviorism has little or nothing to offer to Figure 1) involve “information about prompting
the understanding of human language and external stimuli and the context in which they
cognition. Theories of these fundamentally occur,” and response propositions refer to

421
 B L A C K L E D G E

“information about responding in this context, area implies danger and other unpredictable
including expressive verbal behavior, overt acts, consequences). Responses like an accelerated
and the visceral and somatic events that mediate heart rate, saying “I’m afraid,” and running
arousal and actions” (p. 194). Meaning away are the almost inevitable outcome of the
propositions (shown in rectangles) refer to cognitive processing specified by the model.
“information that defines the meaning of the The components of the network can be learned
stimulus and response data” (p. 194). Lang through direct experience (e.g., by being bitten
maintains that the network of stimuli shown in by a snake), through instruction (learning about
the figure exists as a schema in long-term what snakes are, where they live, and how
memory, and states that the entire network is dangerous they can be), and through modeling
activated when any component stimulus is (watching others respond in fear to snakes, or
encountered. The model indicates that simply hearing others describe how afraid they are of
walking in a wooded area and seeing quick snakes). As stated earlier, only a few of the
movement out of the corner of one’s eyes, for stimuli specified in the model need be present
example, could be enough to accelerate one’s for the entire network to be activated.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

heart rate, feel afraid, and subsequently run

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

away. The stimulus propositions provide the

initial input, the implications of these stimuli are
altered by the meaning propositions present in
the network (e.g., seeing movement in a wooded

“I’m Wooded
afraid” Area

Fear
In Dangerous
Say
Feel
Is

Run See Snake

Away
I
Not
Is Predictable

Moves
Am Accelerated

Alone Heart Quickly

Figure 1. A modified version of Lang’s (1984) fear network. Stimulus propositions are designated in ovals, meaning propositions
in rectangles, and response propositions by ovals connected with double lines.

An RFT Account of Lang’s Model

explicit and implicit relationships between its
component stimuli. For example, the feeling of
Three observations about Lang’s model “fear” and the thought “I’m afraid” can be
will help prepare the reader for the discussion of considered as causes for “running away,” a
RFT that follows. First, note that the schema in “snake” is considered equivalent to “danger”
Figure 1 includes examples of thoughts, and “unpredictability,” and both the “snake” and
emotions, physiological sensations, and overt “Me” are in a “wooded area.” In these
behaviors. As with Lang’s model, RFT examples, then, we can say that there are causal
incorporates all these classes of stimuli. Second, relationships between stimuli (such that the
note that the figure specifies a number of thought and feeling of fear are viewed as causes

422
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

for running), relationships of coordination or A similar relationship exists between “snake”

rough equivalence between stimuli (such that a and “wooded area.” Note also that “snake” is
“snake” is considered to be roughly the same related coordinately (i.e., as roughly equivalent)
thing as “danger,” for example), and hierarchical to “danger,” “not predictable,” and “quick
relationships between stimuli (where a “snake” movement,” and that these three stimuli are
is considered to be part of something larger—in further related coordinately to “fear.” The
this case, a “wooded area”). Third, notice that presence of any one of these five stimuli, in this
the different stimuli pictured in Figure 1 share context, could thus ‘carry’ some important
some of the functions of the other stimuli in the stimulus functions of the other stimuli by virtue
network by virtue of their association. For of this relationship of coordination. Further, as
example, being in a wooded area might lead to many people do, “I” frame the experience of
the same fear, accelerated heart rate, running “fear” and thoughts like “I’m afraid” as causes
away that seeing a snake slither toward me for things like “running away.” Finally, “fear”
would. The wooded area thus can be said to is framed in coordination with an “accelerated
serve some of the same functions as a snake heart rate,” being “alone,” and thinking things
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

simply because I know that snakes can be found like “I’m afraid.” Any one of these stimuli, if
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in wooded areas. Similarly, quick movement in experienced, could thus deliver some stimulus
the underbrush seen peripherally might also functions of their coordinated stimuli. For
have some of the same stimulus functions that example, an accelerated heart rate could lead me
actually seeing a snake would provide. to think that I am afraid, with a feeling of fear
occurring simultaneously. Basically, then, the
The notion of relationships between specified relationships between stimuli provide
stimuli is one of the critical hallmarks of “me” with more information about those stimuli,
Relational Frame Theory. Look at the RFT and actually result in changing the stimulus
version of Lang’s fear network pictured in functions of the stimuli involved.
Figure 2. As a starting point, notice that this
relational frame specifies that a hierarchical
relationship exists between “I/me” and “wooded
area,” such that “I” am in a “wooded area” (and
the wooded area correspondingly contains me).

423
 B L A C K L E D G E

Wooded
Area

Alone
Contains (Hierarchical relation)

Contains (Hierarchical relation)

Coordination Danger

I/Me Fear Snake

Not
Predictable
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Coordination

Quick
Causation Movement Coordination
Accelerated
Heart Rate
Coordination

Run Think
Away “I’m
afraid”

Causation

Figure 2. An RFT adaptation of Lang’s (1985) fear network.

Relational Responding
never had the opportunity for wooded areas to
become classically conditioned to snakes). If I
In behavioral circles, it is very common was also told that “snakes are dangerous,
to talk about discriminating (i.e., detecting and unpredictable, and move quickly,” and I already
responding to) specific stimuli. The RFT knew that dangerous unpredictability and sudden
principle of relational responding refers to the movement were things to be justifiably afraid of,
process of discriminating relationships between I would then know to be afraid of snakes even if
stimuli such as those designated in Figure 2. I had never encountered one before. Knowing
The idea of discriminating relationships between the relationships between wooded areas teeming
stimuli is important, in part, because it allows with dangerous snakes that are a deadly threat to
more information to be gleaned from sets of me by virtue of the fear they engender when I
stimuli than discrimination of each individual think about them could also engender other,
member of the set would allow. For example, even more complex behavior. For example, if I
being able to discriminate a wooded area, and knew I was going on a camping trip to the
being able to discriminate a snake, tells me woods, the relational frame depicted in Figure 2
nothing about the relationship between snakes might also cause me to pack a snake bite kit and
and wooded areas. If I also knew that snakes are wear tall leather boots, and to make sure my tent
often in wooded areas because a friend told me, flap is tightly zipped at all times, all to avoid
I would then know to be more careful when problems from a creature I have never even
walking in the woods even if I had never once seen. While there are some obvious benefits to
encountered a snake in the woods (and thus the ability to relate information like this, it is

424
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

also clearly obvious that this process can get out snakes can be dangerous, unpredictable, and
of control and lead to psychological problems often move quickly, and that I had learned
like the snake phobia pictured in Figure 2. previously that danger, unpredictability, and
quick movement were fearsome events. Even
It is possible that the stimuli shown in though no one had ever told me that I should be
Figure 2 could all easily have come to be afraid of snakes, I would then know that they are
“related” according to standard behavioral indeed something to be afraid of. Note that
principles like respondent conditioning, operant these exact relationships between these stimuli
conditioning, and stimulus generalization. are specified in the model. “Snake” is related
However, it should be remembered that coordinately with “danger,” “not predictable”
traditional behavioral accounts of respondents and “quick movement,” and these last three
and operants (with the exception of stimulus stimuli are coordinately related to “fear.” A
generalization) exclusively involve direct connection between “fear” and “snake” has thus
contingencies that have actually been never been directly learned. Rather, the
encountered at some point(s) in one’s learning relationship between “fear” and “snake” has
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

history. The principle of stimulus generalization been derived.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

requires that I have a history with respect to

stimuli that are formally similar to the object of There are two specific types of derived
the generalization. Formal properties of stimuli relational responding, and both are given
are those properties that can be seen, heard, technical names so that they can be used with
smelled, touched, or tasted. Assuming that I precision. The first type of derived relational
have never seen a snake, and did not regularly responding is called mutual entailment. Mutual
look at pictures of snakes while I learned second entailment simply means that if stimulus A is
hand all the things about snakes designated in related in a specific way to stimulus B, then B is
Figure 2, stimulus generalization could similarly related in a complementary way to A. Look at
not be responsible for my snake phobia. the bottom two rectangles in Figure 2. If I have
Carefully controlled empirical studies on RFT been taught that the cognition “I’m afraid” is a
have consistently demonstrated that relational cause for “running away,” I would be able to
responses like the ones shown in Figure 2 can derive that “running away” is an effect of
and do occur in manner consistent with RFT thinking “I’m afraid.” Similarly, if I have been
principles and inconsistent with direct taught that “wooded areas” contain “snakes,” I
contingency respondent, operant, and would be able to derive that snakes are
generalization processes (see Hayes et al., 2001, contained in wooded areas. As a final example,
for a review of these studies and an elaboration if I know that “snakes” “move quickly,” I am
on this argument). able to derive that “quick movement” (in certain
contexts) is indicative of “snakes.” Such simple
Derived Relational Responding derivations may appear so obvious to the reader
that they seem not to warrant any attention. To
The empirically demonstrated fact that those first learning language, however, mutual
specific types of relational responding occur entailment is anything but simple. A study by
even in specific situations where they have not Lipkens, Hayes, & Hayes (1993) provided
been directly taught requires that such instances evidence that very young children (about 1 ½
be referred to as derived relational responding. years) do not derive mutually entailed relations.
Derived relational responding involves the Also, a study currently under way with autistic
ability to relate stimuli in a variety of ways even children (Blackledge, Blackledge, Cummings, &
though one has never been reinforced (i.e., Hayes, in progress) has indicated that autistic
directly trained) for relating those stimuli in children must be directly trained to mutually
those specific ways. Look at the relationships entail relations before they can do so with
between “fear,” “danger,” “not predictable,” spontaneity. Additionally, with the possible
“quick movement,” and “snake” in Figure 2, for exception of a single sea lion (Schusterman &
example. Assume that no one has ever directly Kastak, 1998), no non-human animal has ever
told me that I should be afraid of snakes, or demonstrated mutual entailment when relating
reinforced my fear in the presence of a snake. stimuli on non-formal dimensions. Deriving
Assume also that I learned from someone that mutually entailed relations seems simple to us

425
 B L A C K L E D G E

because we have been doing it extensively for information alone, I would not be able to know
almost our entire lives. that there may be a snake somewhere around
me. But since both stimuli are related to
The second type of derived relational “Wooded area,” I am able to derive a
responding is called combinatorial entailment. combinatorial relation between them. In this
To understand this principle, the relationship case, I know that snakes are contained in
between at least three stimuli must be wooded areas, and I also know that I am
considered. Look again at Figure 2, and currently contained in a wooded area. When I
consider again the relation it describes between combine these two relations, I derive that there
“fear” and “snake.” Mutual entailment is is a snake somewhere in the wooded area I am
demonstrated in the reciprocal relationships that now in.
exist between “fear” and “danger,” “not
predictable,” and “quick movement,” and also in A different example will more clearly
the reciprocal relationships between “snake” and describe the reciprocal nature of combinatorial
“danger,” “not predictable,” and “quick entailment. Look at the relationships between
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

movement.” “Fear” and “snake” have never “accelerated heart rate,” “fear,” and “run away”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

been directly related to one another in the figure, in Figure 2. “Accelerated heart rate” is related
and thus any relations between them cannot be coordinately to “fear,” and “fear” stands in a
accounted for by the process of mutual causal relation with “run away.” No direct
entailment. The relationship between “fear” and relation is specified between “accelerated heart
“snake” requires that the relationship between rate” and “run away, but combinatorial
“fear” and the three intermediary stimuli shown entailment tells us that a causal relationship
in Figure 2, and the relationship between those between “accelerated heart rate” and “run away”
three intermediary stimuli and “snake,” be may be derived because increased heart rate is
combined to form a small network of coordinated with fear, and fear is framed as a
interrelated stimuli. Thus, the derived cause for running away. Thus, I may “run
relationship between “snake” and “fear” in this away” in a wooded area after I notice my
case is called combinatorial entailment. “accelerated heart rate,” perhaps even before I
Combinatorial entailment refers to the reciprocal actually interpret that physical sensation as
relationships that exist between two stimuli by being indicative of fear. The combinatorially
virtue of how those stimuli are related to other, entailed causal relationship between
intermediary stimuli. Combinatorially entailed “accelerated heart rate” and “run away” is
relations, by definition, occur between two reciprocal in nature. “Running away” is an
stimuli that have not been directly related to one effect of “accelerated heart rate,” which is a
another. In this example, the nature of the cause of “running away”. The reciprocal nature
reciprocal relations between the combinatorially of the relationship is further circumscribed by
entailed stimuli “fear” and “snake” are rather the context designated by Figure 2, such that
simple, because only relationships of “accelerated heart rate” is not framed as an effect
coordination exist between all elements of their of “running away” from a dangerous and feared
five-stimulus network. Thus, “snake” is situation, but rather part of the cause. Of course,
combinatorially coordinated with “fear” just as once out of the wooded area, a new context
“fear” is combinatorially coordinated with would likely support framing “accelerated heart
“snake”. rate” as a direct effect of “running.” As with
mutual entailment, empirical evidence indicates
Figure 2 provides other examples that that combinatorial entailment does not occur
better illustrate the reciprocal nature of automatically when learning language, but rather
combinatorially entailed relations. Look at the develops as a function of learning language
relationship between “I/Me,” “Wooded area,” (Blackledge et al., in progress; Lipkens et al.,
and “Snake,” for example, and suppose that I am 1993).
currently standing in a wooded area. The figure
specifies that there is no direct relationship Coordination: A Common Relation
between “me” and the “snake” by virtue of the
fact that ‘”I/Me” and “Snake” are not directly Before continuing to describe the
connected to one another. Given this primary features of RFT, a brief digression is

426
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

warranted to explain a specific type of relation Unfortunately, mom doesn’t want to share her
that is often confusing to readers (perhaps last 7-Up, so she says, “7-Up is bad. RC is
because of its unusual name). Probably the most better. RC is just like Coke. Wouldn’t you
basic and widespread relational response rather have some RC?” The child has never had
occurring to stimuli involves coordinative 7-Up or RC, but the comparative and
relations. If two stimuli are related coordinately, coordinative relations the mother specified
then that means that they are the same or nearly between them and Coke transform the
the same. The term coordination is used because previously neutral stimulus functions of 7-Up
it accounts both for things that are identical to and RC. RC now becomes “good” because it’s
one another, and things that are similar in many the “same” as Coke, and 7-Up becomes “bad”
respects. As with perhaps every relational because it’s worse than Coke. The child would
response, young children first learn how to now be expected to want RC rather than 7-Up,
coordinately relate stimuli based on formal and evaluate the former as “good’ and the latter
stimulus properties. For example, a child first as “bad”, even though she had never tried either
learning language may quickly learn that ‘this one.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Coke’ is the same as ‘that Coke,’ or that ‘this hot

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

dog’ is the same as the hot dog she ate last week. Refer again to Figure 2. Suppose the
With a little more practice, she learns that in an same girl, later in life, is told that “These woods
important sense, the spoken word “Coke” is the contain snakes.” She has had enough experience
same as actual Coke, and that the written word with snakes, either directly or indirectly, to
“Coke” is roughly the same as actual Coke and know that she is afraid of them, although she has
the spoken word Coke. Here is an example of never encountered one in the woods. Prior to
how this might occur. Suppose a child who has being told that wooded areas contain snakes, she
learned that the spoken word “Coke” refers to liked playing in the woods, and found the woods
actual Coke is told that Pepsi is the same as to be very pleasant. The hierarchical
Coke, and that she will receive a glass of Pepsi if relationship just established between wooded
she puts away her toys. Even though the child areas and snakes, however, results in a
has never tasted or seen Pepsi, relating it transformation of the wooded area’s functions.
coordinately with Coke may make pertinent Where before, the woods were “beautiful,”
stimulus functions of actual Coke (e.g., its taste “relaxing,” and “fun,” they are now
and refreshing quality) psychologically present. “dangerous,” “unpredictable,” and an object of
Given that the child enjoys Coke and will do “fear” by virtue of their relationship to snakes
almost anything to get some, framing it and the events and experiences she usually
coordinately to Pepsi leads the child to put away frames in coordination to snakes.
her toys. Even though the stimulus properties of
Pepsi have never been directly contacted, With a vast amount of training, using
framing it coordinately with a familiar stimulus multiple relations across many, many stimuli,
allows the child to ‘understand’ what Pepsi is. words come to share the functions of a wide
variety of experiences and events. At first, this
occurs through direct training, and along formal
Transformation of Stimulus Functions
stimulus dimensions. After repeated
This discussion alludes to another experiences of doing so across multiple
defining characteristic of RFT that has now been exemplars, we learn to bring relational
alluded to several times. Making relational responding to bear on non-formal, or arbitrary,
responses between stimuli results in relations between stimuli. Once we do so, our
transformation of stimulus functions for all of verbally constructed worlds become increasingly
the stimuli involved. Said more simply, when complex as we derive more and more relations
two stimuli are related, some of the functions of between virtually every stimulus we
each stimulus change according to what stimulus discriminate. To conduct a thought experiment
it is related to, and how it is related to that that illustrates the degree to which we can relate
stimulus. Suppose mom is drinking a 7-Up, and any two stimuli, try the following: Randomly
the increasingly verbally sophisticated child pick any two nouns (and make an effort to pick
(expecting it to be good because she usually two apparently unrelated nouns), and ask
likes what mom is drinking) asks for a drink. yourself, “How is X like Y?” You might end up

427
 B L A C K L E D G E

with a question like “How is a dog like a hat?” given arbitrary significance by the socio-verbal
It is most likely that you have never been community. Given its arbitrary (or non-formal)
directly taught how a dog is like a hat. In short nature, a seal could not discriminate the
order, however, you could come up with several relational dimension of importance. A
derived relational responses (they would be somewhat verbally sophisticated person,
derived if you had never been directly taught to however, would pick the President given the
relate dogs and hats before). For example, you directive, “pick the bigger one.”
might quickly decide that both dogs and hats are
“always there when you need them,” “both keep Thus, the essence of RFT is arbitrarily
you warm,” are “both a regular part of your applicable derived relational responding that is
day,” and are both “a little dirty.” As a result of non-arbitrarily applied. The term appears
this specific question, you might now be a little difficult and is definitely technical, but most of
more fond of your hat, be more likely to think of the components of the term have already been
your dog when you go to put your hat on, and be described. Relational responding refers to the
more likely to wash it. By simply relating your ability to respond to relations between stimuli
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

hat coordinately to your dog, you have actually rather than just responding to each stimulus
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

transformed the stimulus functions of the hat. separately. Relations between stimuli can be
You have done so, in part, by deriving derived (from the processes of mutual and
relationships between your hat and stimuli that combinatorial entailment), meaning that
previously were only framed coordinately to relations between stimuli need not be directly
your dog. In fact, by comparing your dog to your learned. And the process of derived relational
hat for the first time, you have brought aspects responding can occur with respect to arbitrary
of an entire network of stimulus relations (as opposed to just formal) stimulus properties.
regarding your dog into a frame of coordination The process of arbitrarily applicable derived
with the network of stimulus relations about relational responding results in the
your hat. transformation of stimulus functions of the
stimuli that are correspondingly related (such
Arbitrarily Applicable Derived Relational
that the specific relations between the stimuli,
Responding and the broader context they are encountered in,
determine precisely how the stimulus functions
It is not just the ability to derive of each stimulus are transformed). Finally,
relational responses between stimuli that is the arbitrarily applicable derived relational
hallmark of RFT, but rather the ability to do so responding is said to be non-arbitrarily applied,
using arbitrary (or non-formal) properties of meaning that the socio-verbal community only
stimuli. An animal such as a seal can be taught, reinforces relational responses to certain
for example, to always pick the physically larger arbitrary stimulus properties in given contexts,
object when directed to “pick the bigger one,” but not others. For example, the socio-verbal
even when presented with objects of varying community would support the arbitrarily
size that it has never seen before. Derived applicable derived relational response that one
relational responding can thus occur in response driver is smarter than a second driver, but would
to formal stimulus dimensions such as size in not support the response that the first car is
organisms that don’t ‘speak a language’ in the smarter than the second car. The second
colloquial sense. The same seal would not be relational response just doesn’t ‘make sense,’
able to correctly respond, however, to the but the first one does. When a relational
directive “pick the bigger one” when presented response does ‘make sense,’ it usually means
with the President of the United States, a retail that it has been non-arbitrarily applied—that the
clerk, and a hobo. The seal would pick the language community ‘approves’ of that way of
physically largest of the three men, but a highly relating specific things.
verbal person would likely discriminate that
“bigger,” in this context, refers to the importance
The Operant Nature of RFT’s Component Processes
of the man, not his physical size. Importance is
not a formal stimulus property that can be All the examples provided in this
directly seen, tasted, smelled, touched, or tasted, section point to a key feature of derived
but is rather a stimulus property that has been relational responding. Such responding is

428
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

actually operant behavior. That is, RFT they had the stimulus functions of other, related
specifies that language-able organisms learn to stimuli. The operant process of transformation
respond to specific relations between stimuli of function is shaped along with the processes of
through differential reinforcement much as they relational responding, mutual entailment, and
are shaped to respond to individual stimuli in combinatorial entailment, until all four processes
specific ways. After an extensive history of come under increasingly complex and specific
reinforcement for relating a variety of stimuli in contextual control.
a variety of different ways, it then becomes
possible to relate other, novel stimuli in a variety Even though language may not usually
of ways even though relating those specific be explicitly taught and thought about in
stimuli in those specific ways has never been relational terms, it has been argued elsewhere
directly taught. that empirical data and subsequent theoretical
implications indicate that thinking about
The process begins when relationships language in this way has important
between stimuli along formal dimensions are consequences for predicting human behavior and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

taught. For instance, comparative relations changing it for the better (see, for example,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

between stimuli might be initially taught along a Hayes et al., 2001; see also Hayes et al., 1999).
formal dimension of size. Over a period of time, Language defined as arbitrarily derived
a very young child might be reinforced for relational responding has important practical
bringing the physically larger ball (but not a implications for clinical psychologists, and even
smaller ball) when asked to bring the “big ball,” psychologists from other sub-disciplines (see,
for referring to his physically larger, older sister for example, Hayes et al., 2001).
as his “big sister” (rather than his little sister),
and referring to his toy car as his “little car,” as Relational Framing as Process, Not Structure
opposed to the “big car” that dad drives. After
using the comparative relation of big—little Relational framing is a short-hand term
numerous times across numerous formally for the process of arbitrarily applicable derived
related stimuli, he is then taught to relational responding that is non-arbitrarily
comparatively relate stimuli according to non- applied. The term relational frame is often used
formal properties. He might then be able to instead of relational framing because the former
refer to his friend Tim’s older sister as “Tim’s term is less awkward to use, and because it is
big sister” even though Tim is physically larger sometimes useful to ‘freeze frame’ the process
than his sister. The temporal relation of older— of relational framing (as has been done with the
younger between Tim and his sister is based on relational frame in Figure 2) so that it can be
arbitrary properties of the stimuli (Tim and his more easily analyzed and talked about.
sister) because the passage of time is not a Referring to relational framing as relational
stimulus that can be tasted, touched, smelled, frames and using the kind of images shown in
heard, or seen, and is thus not a formal stimulus Figure 2 may likely give the impression that
property. relational frames exist, somewhere, as static
structures. In fact, the act of relational framing
In fact, all of the four cornerstones of is thought of as a process, an ongoing way of
RFT are considered to arise according to operant responding to stimuli as they are presented.
processes. Responding to relations between People frame events relationally in the moment
stimuli rather than simply to separate stimuli as an active process that is a function of their
might be one of the first pieces learned by verbal extensive learning history and stimulation in the
children. Learning to mutually entail relations present environment. “Storage” of these frames
between stimuli (i.e., derive a reciprocal as structures is not implied and not required.
relationship given a directly trained relationship) The processes of mutual entailment,
is likely also directly shaped through differential combinatorial entailment, and transformation of
reinforcement, as is combinatorial entailment. stimulus function can be directly observed (and
Transformation of stimulus functions is also has been in over 30 empirical studies) without
likely an operant process. People learning any inference required. The ongoing process of
language are essentially reinforced for relational framing can be directly observed
responding to specific verbal stimuli as though outside the laboratory as well, albeit with an

429
 B L A C K L E D G E

inevitable sacrifice in reliability due to lack of 4. RFT allows study of human language
experimental control. to be conducted with great precision, in
accordance with the carefully specified
Why RFT is Important: Theoretical Merits and definitions of its component processes.
Applications
5. RFT has broad scope. Theoretical
Given that a vast empirical cognitive extrapolations of the theory have given
literature on language, cognition, and the role plausible explanations of a wide variety
they play in psychopathology already exists, of human behavior (see, for example,
readers subscribing to cognitive theory may Hayes et al., 2001, and Hayes et al.,
rightfully ask why a new theory of these 1999, for detailed RFT accounts of
phenomena is necessary. Similarly, given psychopathology). RFT accounts
existing and long-standing behavioral accounts exist, for example, for spirituality
of verbal behavior (i.e., Sidman, 1994; Skinner, (Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, & Gregg,
1957), behaviorally-oriented readers may also 2001), values (Hayes et al., 1999), and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

question the necessity of yet another account. In rule-governed behavior (Hayes &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

this section, a brief outline of why an RFT Hayes, 1989; Hayes et al., 2001).
account of language is an important addition to
the psychological literature will be introduced. 6. RFT has depth, meaning that it allows
Some of the points made here are self- analysis of varying degrees of
explanatory and thus require no elaboration. complexity of its subject matter
Elaboration of a few points is beyond the scope (language-based phenomena). For
of this article, and the reader is thus referred example, Hayes (1994) and Hayes et al.
elsewhere for evidence of the claim. The final (1999), among others, have presented
point will be briefly elaborated to illustrate the detailed cases regarding how RFT
utility of RFT in the stated domains. processes may be at the heart of human
suffering in general. In addition, they
1. RFT is parsimonious, requiring only play a role in more specific cases of
the concepts of relational responding, human suffering such as anxiety
mutual entailment, combinatorial (Friman, Hayes, & Wilson, 1998),
entailment, and transformation of sexual abuse (Pistorello, Follette, &
function to explain the process of Hayes, 2000), and trauma (Walser &
arbitrarily applicable derived relational Hayes, 1998)
responding that is non-arbitrarily
applied (the RFT definition for the 7. RFT does not require the use of
colloquial term language). mentalistic terms or structures. It avoids
problematic behavior-behavior relations
2. RFT processes are directly observable, (see, for example, Hayes & Brownstein,
especially under laboratory conditions. 1986). It properly casts verbal behavior
Thus, no tenuous inferences about the as a dependant variable rather than an
existence of directly unobservable independent variable. That is, the
structures or processes are required. theory does not violate the observation
that thoughts cannot serve as
3. RFT is firmly based on empirical independent variables by virtue of the
research that has without exception fact that they cannot be directly
supported its tenets. In addition to the manipulated (changes in the
over 30 published empirical treatments environment supporting different
of RFT, the theory also accounts for the thoughts must first occur). This means
data observed in hundreds of empirical that RFT specifies the kinds of
studies on the concept of stimulus environmental operations that must
equivalence that have been published occur before changes in thinking and
since 1971. overt behavior will result.

430
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

8. RFT accounts for 30 years of might still have the thought that I ‘should’ run
empirical stimulus equivalence findings, away, and definitely feel like doing so, but
and 10 years of empirical RFT findings, disruption of the context of literality will have
that Skinner’s (1957) treatment of shown me that such relationships between
language clearly cannot predict or stimuli are ‘just talk’ rather than prescribed
explain. In addition, RFT does so in a realities. Acceptance & Commitment Therapy
manner requiring only that the principle (e.g., Hayes et al., 1999) is an example of an
of operant responding be expanded to explicitly RFT-based treatment that essentially
include the concepts of relational involves systematic efforts to dissolve the
responding, derived responding, and context of literality in problematic domains of
relational responding to arbitrary clients’ lives.
stimulus dimensions (Hayes et al., 2001
have presented detailed accounts of how Other interventions are suggested by
these concepts have ample precedents in RFT, although they have not yet been developed
the behavioral literature). and implemented. For example, some recent
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

empirical RFT literature suggests that direct

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

9. RFT has direct clinical implications attempts to challenge cognitions (i.e., restructure
that are not apparent in other existing relations between stimuli) may be
psychological models of human ineffective or counterproductive (Pilgrim &
psychopathology. Galizio, 1995; Wilson, 1998; Wilson & Hayes,
1996). Hayes et al. (2001) have suggested that
As an example of this final point, adding more ‘constructive’ relations to
consider the cognitive defusion techniques problematic relational networks might thus be
designed to disrupt the context of literality in more effective than trying to eliminate existing
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes et relations. For example, Clayton (1995) found
al., 1999). The context of literality refers to the that employees who had remarked how chaotic
ongoing support, in the form of differential their workplace was reacted more favorably
reinforcement provided by the socio-verbal when chaotic workplaces were framed as being
community, for transformations of stimulus more conducive to creativity. Those workers
functions occurring during arbitrarily applicable who were subjected to challenges of their
derived relational responding. In a non- appraisal of the workplace as chaotic did not
technical sense, this context supports the “literal develop more favorable attitudes toward the
belief in one’s thoughts” that active responding workplace. Another example of an intervention
to transformed stimulus functions entails. The analyzed from an RFT perspective is presented
stimuli in the interrelated set of relational in Blackledge & Hayes (in preparation). Briefly,
responding shown in Figure 2 can take on that manuscript suggests that interpersonally
harmful stimulus functions by virtue of the focused brief psychodynamic treatments (e.g.,
stimulus transformations mediated by these Levenson, 1995) are in part effective because
relational responses. It follows logically, then, they make use of client relational frames newly
that disrupting this context of literality might be emerging around the client-therapist relationship
a useful way to treat the designated phobia. If to effect change, rather than involving direct
treatment is structured such that the context challenges of the presumably entrenched ways
supporting transformations of function within the client frames pre-existing relationships.
these relational responses (i.e., the “literal Thus, the “corrective emotional experience”
belief”) is undermined, then the transformations (Levenson, p. 42) referred to in such treatments
of function in the pictured relationships would may involve first, an in-vivo shaping of a more
be expected to attenuate or fall away during adaptive way of framing interpersonal
these periods of disruption. Teaching the client interactions, and second, allowing the client to
to create similar contextual conditions outside of spontaneously bring this idiosyncratic frame to
the therapy session could be expected to allow bear on other relationships once its components
repetition of this contextual disruption. For exist at sufficient operant strength.
example, I might no longer run away when I feel
fear in a wooded area if the causal relationship
between fear and running away is disrupted. I

431
 B L A C K L E D G E

CONCLUSION Clayton, T. M. (1995). Changing organizational culture through

relational framing. Master’s thesis available from the library
It is hoped that this treatment of of the University of Nevada, Reno.
Relational Frame Theory has not only made the Friman, P. C., Hayes, S. C., and Wilson, K. G. (1998). Why
theory itself more readily understood, but also behavior analysts should study emotion: The example of
that the reader now has a basic understanding of anxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 137-156.
why the theory has important scientific and Gentner, D., & Jeziorski, M. (1993). The shift from metaphor to
applied implications. It is openly acknowledged analogy in Western science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and thought, second edition (pp. 447-480). New York:
that even this treatment of RFT is perhaps Cambridge University Press.
unnecessarily complex. RFT essentially
Hayes, S. C. (1994). Content, context, and the types of
involves a very small and simple set of psychological acceptance. In S. Hayes, N. Jacobson, V.
processes, but uses some complicated Follette, & M. Dougher (Eds.), Acceptance and change:
terminology to describe them. In addition, the Content and context in psychotherapy (pp. 13-32). Reno,
processes themselves can seem foreign and even NV: Context Press.
irrelevant to language because they (at first and Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

even second glance) may not seem to match up frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

language and cognition. New York: Kluwer

well with the way we have been taught to think Academic/Plenum Publishers.
and talk about language. If we are to move
Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-
beyond gross metaphorical analyses of language behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the
(where, for example, the brain is considered to purposes of science. Behavior Analyst, 9(2), 175-190.
be like a computer) to more precise technical Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1989). The verbal action of the
accounts, however, we will have to abandon listener as a basis for rule governance. In S. Hayes (Ed.),
common sense for a sense that it a little less Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and
common (see, for example, Gentner & Jeziorski, instructional control (pp. 153-190). New York: Plenum.
1993, for an account of the place of metaphor in Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance
science). Relational Frame Theory is an attempt and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to
behavior change. New York:Guilford Press.
to do just that. The extent to which it may
Lang, P. J. (1985). Cognition in emotion: Concept and action. In
correspondingly succeed in enhancing our
C. Izard & J. Kagan (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and
ability to predict human behavior and change it behavior (pp. 192-226). New York: Cambridge University
for the better depends both on empirical data, Press.
and the degree to which the theory is utilized by Levenson, H. (1995). Time-limited dynamic psychotherapy: A
the psychological community. guide to clinical practice. New York: Basic Books.
Lipkens, G., Hayes, S. C., and Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal
REFERENCES study of derived stimulus relations in an infant. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201-239.
Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Dymond, S. (2001). Self and Pilgrim, C., and Galizio, M. (1995). Reversal of baseline relations
self-directed rules. In S. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. and stimulus equivalence: I. Adults. Journal of the
Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 63, 225-238.
account of human language and cognition (pp. 119-140). Pistorello, J., Follette, V. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Long-term
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. correlates of childhood sexual abuse: A behavior analytic
Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayes, S. C., & Gregg, J. (2001). Religion, perspective. In M. Dougher (Ed.), Clinical behavior analysis
spirituality, and transcendence. In S. Hayes, D. Barnes- (pp. 75-98). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Holmes, & B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A Schusterman, R. J., & Kastak, D. (1998). Functional equivalence
post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition in a California sea lion: Relevance to animal social and
(pp. 3-20). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum communicative interactions. Animal Behaviour, 55(5),
Publishers. 1087-1095.
Blackledge, J. T., & Hayes, S. C. (In preparation). Adding Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-
relational responses to existing relational networks: An Century-Crofts.
example of an intervention grounded in Relational Frame
Walser, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1998). Acceptance and trauma
Theory. Manuscript in preparation.
survivors: Applied issues and problems. In V. Follette & J.
Blackledge, J. T., Reinbold, C. A., Adams, M., Adams, A., Ruzek (Eds.). Cognitive-behavioral therapies for trauma
Cummings, A., & Hayes, S. C. (In progress). Teaching (pp. 256-277). New York: The Guilford Press
arbitrary better-worse relational responses to children
Wilson, K. G. (1998). Relational acquisition of stimulus function
diagnosed with autism. Study in progress.
in substance dependence: A preliminary examination of drug
versus non-drug related equivalence classes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation at the University of Nevada, Reno.

432
 T H E B E H A V I O R A N A L Y S T T O D A Y V O L U M E 3 , I S S U E 4 , 2 0 0 3

Wilson, K. G., and Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived Author’s Note: Address editorial correspondence to: John T.
stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Blackledge, 550 Central Ave. #123, Alameda, CA 94501,
Behavior, 66, 267-281. Fax/Phone (510) 749-8492, email:[email protected]
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

433