Understanding Relational Frame Theory
Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a behavioral account of human language and cognition developed primarily by Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, and Bryan Roche. RFT proposes that the core of human language is the learned ability to derive relations among stimuli, and that this ability transforms how stimuli function. For BCBA exam candidates, understanding RFT is increasingly important because it provides the behavioral foundation for understanding complex verbal behavior, rule governance, and interventions like ACT.
At its simplest, RFT extends Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior by providing a detailed account of how humans respond to stimuli based on derived (not directly trained) relationships. While Sidman's stimulus equivalence research demonstrated that humans can derive untrained relations among stimuli, RFT broadens this analysis to include many types of relational responding beyond equivalence.
Core Concepts in RFT
Arbitrarily Applicable Relational Responding (AARR)
The central concept in RFT is arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Humans learn to relate stimuli based on contextual cues rather than solely on physical properties. For example, a child learns that the word "dog" and a picture of a dog "go together" (coordination), but also that a Great Dane is "bigger than" a Chihuahua (comparison), and that a dog's bark "comes before" the mail carrier runs (temporal). These relational responses are "arbitrarily applicable" because they can be applied to any stimuli based on contextual cues, not physical similarities.
Relational Frames
A relational frame is a class of relational responding defined by three properties:
- Mutual entailment: If A is related to B, then B is related to A (though not necessarily in the same way). If you learn that A is "bigger than" B, you can derive that B is "smaller than" A.
- Combinatorial entailment: If A is related to B and B is related to C, then relations between A and C can be derived. If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C.
- Transformation of stimulus functions: When stimuli are related, the functions of one stimulus can transform the functions of the other. If you learn that "serpiente" means "snake" and you fear snakes, the word "serpiente" may now elicit fear responses.
Common relational frames include coordination (sameness), opposition, comparison, hierarchical, temporal, causal, deictic (perspective-taking), and conditional relations.
Transformation of Stimulus Functions
Perhaps the most clinically relevant aspect of RFT is the transformation of stimulus functions. This process explains how stimuli that have never been directly paired with reinforcers or punishers can acquire behavioral functions through derived relations. Consider this example: a client learns through direct experience that presenting at meetings produces anxiety (a classically conditioned response). Through verbal relations, the client derives that "the upcoming conference talk" is similar to "presenting at meetings." Without any direct experience with conference talks, the client now exhibits anxiety responses to the conference, avoids preparing, and may develop escape-maintained problem behavior.
This analysis has profound clinical implications. It explains why traditional extinction procedures may be insufficient for verbally competent individuals. Even after direct contingencies change, verbal relations can maintain problematic stimulus functions. A client who was bitten by a dog years ago and has since had positive experiences with dogs may still respond with fear because verbal rules ("dogs are dangerous") maintain the fearful function of dogs through relational framing.
Clinical Applications of RFT
Language Training
RFT provides a framework for understanding why some language interventions produce generalized outcomes while others do not. Training that establishes relational operants (the ability to derive relations) should produce broader generalization than training that targets individual responses. For example, teaching a child to respond to "same" and "different" as contextual cues for coordination and distinction frames can enable the child to derive relations among novel stimuli without direct training.
Perspective-Taking
Deictic framing (I/you, here/there, now/then) is the relational basis of perspective-taking. Deficits in deictic framing have been linked to difficulties with social skills, empathy, and theory of mind. RFT-based interventions for perspective-taking involve systematically training deictic relations across increasing levels of complexity, from simple ("I am here, you are there") to reversed ("If I were you and you were me, where would I be?") to double-reversed relations.
Rule-Governed Behavior
RFT clarifies the analysis of rule-governed behavior by explaining how verbal rules transform the functions of environmental stimuli. Rules are verbal stimuli that alter the listener's behavior by specifying contingencies. RFT identifies three types of rule following: pliance (controlled by speaker-mediated consequences), tracking (controlled by the correspondence between the rule and natural contingencies), and augmenting (altering the reinforcing value of consequences through verbal statements).
Understanding Problem Behavior in Verbal Individuals
For verbally competent clients, RFT helps explain why functional analyses sometimes produce unclear results. When behavior is controlled by derived relations rather than direct contingencies, traditional antecedent-behavior-consequence analyses may miss the verbal context that maintains the behavior. A client who engages in self-injury "for no apparent reason" may be responding to private verbal events (thoughts, images) that function as discriminative stimuli through transformation of stimulus functions.
RFT and the BCBA Exam
The BCBA exam increasingly reflects the field's growing integration of RFT concepts. Exam candidates should understand the distinction between directly trained and derived relations, the three properties of relational frames, and how transformation of stimulus functions relates to clinical phenomena. Questions may test your understanding of how verbal behavior produces novel behavioral functions without direct training, and how this knowledge informs assessment and intervention decisions.
Focus your study on understanding RFT as an extension of, not a departure from, Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior. Both accounts share the same philosophical commitment to functional contextualism and the analysis of behavior in terms of environmental variables. RFT builds on this foundation by providing a more detailed account of derived stimulus relations and their role in complex human behavior.