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

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

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

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

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

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

• Contextually controlled mutual entailment in equivalence

• Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in equivalence

• Contextually controlled transfer of stimulus functions through equivalence relations

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

• Simple examples of verbal understanding

• Contextually controlled mutual entailment in additional types of stimulus relations

• Contextually controlled combinatorial entailment in additional types of stimulus relations

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

• Integration of these into additional relational frames

• Simple examples of genuinely verbal governance of behavior by others

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

• The development of relational networks

• More complex examples of verbal understanding

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

• Transformation of stimulus functions across relational networks

• Increasing number and complexity of relational frames

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Increasingly complex relational networks

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

• Relating relational networks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Development of deictic relational frames

• Development of perspective-taking and sense of self

• Construction of the verbal other

• Construction of the conceptualized group

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

• Further development of rule-following, particularly augmenting

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

• Acquisition of increasingly abstract verbal consequences

• Self-rule generation and self rule-following

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

• Increasing dominance of the verbal functions of the environment

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

Advantages of 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, intelligence, 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 many 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, or increasing intelligence) 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. This has resulted in newer models that are being updated as well as changes in methodology to study topics of interest more precisely.

• 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.

An Introduction to Relational Frame Theory is a fully online, self-paced, interactive, multimedia tutorial designed to introduce the basic concepts and approach of Relational Frame Theory (RFT). It was developed by Dr. Eric J. Fox and first released in 2004, and has been regularly updated and maintained by FoxyLearning since 2010. An open-access version can be completed for free, a CEU version can be completed at CEUniverse to earn 7 continuing education units to maintain certification as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA), and instructors or trainers can assign a low-cost version of the free version as a supplement to their course or training. The tutorial was written and designed for a very broad audience, and helps users to gain mastery over complex concepts in RFT by breaking them down and allowing the user to practice them along the away. 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.

Visit FoxyLearning to learn more!

There is an extensive list of excellent articles that describe RFT in simple terms, and links the principles directly to ACT processes. We highly recommend reading some of these to further your understanding RFT and it's relation to ACT.

Please visit the page by clicking here.

There are numerous resources for further reading. These are simply a few suggestions and you may find many others helpful. We highly recommend using this list as a starting point from which to begin your journey. We also recommend you click on this link to see a longer list of RFT/Behavior Analysis books and also to use the Publications list as an instrument for guiding your own path of learning.

Top 10 RFT Research Articles

In Spring 2023, the RFT SIG took on the task of developing an unofficial list of top RFT research articles to help people know where to start diving into the literature. The categories were “Just Getting Started” and “Contemporary and Advanced”.

Just Getting Started

• Hayes, S. C., Law, S., Assemi, K., Falletta-Cowden, N., Shamblin, M., Burleigh, K., ... & Smith, P. (2021). Relating is an operant: A fly over of 35 years of RFT research. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 12(1), 5-32.
• Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & O’Hora, D. (2010). Relational frame theory and human intelligence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 37-51.
• Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Cullinan, V. (2000). Relational frame theory and Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: A possible synthesis. The Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 69-84.
• Ming, S., Moran, L., & Stewart, I. (2014). Derived relational responding and generative language: Applications and future directions for teaching individuals with autism spectrum disorders. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 15(2), 199-224.
• Blackledge, J. T. (2003). An introduction to relational frame theory: Basics and applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421.
• Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2013). Language generativity, response generalization, and derived relational responding. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29(1), 137-155.
• Pelaez, M., & Monlux, K. (2018). Development of communication in infants: Implications for stimulus relations research. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 175-188.
• McEnteggart, C. (2018). A brief tutorial on acceptance and commitment therapy as seen through the lens of derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 215-227.
• Healy, O., Barnes‐Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(2), 207-227.
• Stapleton, A., & McHugh, L. (2021). Healthy selfing: Theoretically optimal environments for the development of tacting and deictic relational responding. Perspectivas em Análise do Comportamento, 12(1), 125-137.

Contemporary and Advanced

• Kirsten, E. B., & Stewart, I. (2021). Assessing the development of relational framing in young children. The Psychological Record, 72(1), 221-246.
• Belisle, J., & Dixon, M. R. (2020). Relational density theory: Nonlinearity of equivalence relating examined through higher-order volumetric-mass-density. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(1), 259-283.
• Cummins, J., Nevejans, M., Colbert, D., & De Houwer, J. (2023). On the structure of relational responding. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 27(1), 16-25.
• Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McEnteggart, C. (2020). Updating RFT (more field than frame) and its implications for process-based therapy. The Psychological Record, 70(1), 605-624.
• Hayes, L. J., & Fryling, M. J. (2019). Functional and descriptive contextualism. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 14(1), 119-126.
• Foody, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., Törneke, N., Luciano, C., Stewart, I., & McEnteggart, C. (2014). RFT for clinical use: The example of metaphor. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(4), 305-313.
• Delabie, M., Cummins, J., Finn, M., & De Houwer, J. (2022). Differential Crel and Cfunc acquisition through stimulus pairing. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 24(1), 112-119.
• Mulhern, T., Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2018). Facilitating relational framing of classification in young children. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 8(1), 55-68.
• Kirsten, E. B., Stewart, I., & McElwee, J. (2022). Testing and training analogical relational responding in children with and without autism. The Psychological Record, 72(1), 561-583.
• 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(3), 375-396. 

General Theory Books on RFT and Contextual Behavior Science

• Villatte, M., Villatte, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2019). Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Dahl, J., Stewart, I., Martell, C., Kaplan, J. (2014) ACT and RFT in Relationships: Helping Clients Deepen Intimacy and Maintain Healthy Commitments Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Relational Frame Theory.
• Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (Eds.) (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. New Harbinger Publications.

• Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical applications. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc. 

  This book is designed to make RFT accessible to clinicians. This book is extremely readable and helps the reader understand behavioral principles, technical terms within RFT, and how to apply RFT across many different areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special Issues

Conceptual Developments in Relational Frame Theory: Research and Practice. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.

Videos

• Free Videos: Learning About and Applying RFT
• RFT Videos (available for ACBS members only)

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 "research labs" link above and then "add child page" at the bottom of that page.

The RFT email listserv is a forum for scientists, scholars, practitioners, and students to discuss Relational Frame Theory (RFT), an explicitly psychological account of human language and cognition. RFT is an approach designed to be a pragmatically useful analysis of complex human behavior, providing empirical and conceptual tools to conduct an experimental analysis of substantive topics in this arena. It is based on the principles of behavior analysis and contextual behavioral science. RFT is looked to as the conceptual basis for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, as well as an increasingly large array of other applied interventions such as language training program, or programs designed to develop a sense of self in developmentally delayed children.

The RFT listserv is restricted to professionals or graduate students in relevant fields. Paid ACBS membership (student or professional) is required to join the RFT Listserv and you must be logged into your ACBS account.

Click here to join the RFT listserv

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.

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.

Ian Stewart, John McElwee and Siri Ming presented this 3 hour workshop at the Penn State National Autism conference in 2011:

http://wpsu.org/live/archive_player/37438

Here is a video on RFT from the Your ACT Auntie Series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvnEn1Y-gcQ

Joseph Rhinewine offers a free, 1-hour, YouTube video "crash course" on RFT.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdc2ztLPj9fL1GkcNaAkWePKNAC8xulms

Relational Frame Theory: From Basic Science to Behavioral/Clinical Application

In this presentation, Thomas G. Szabo, Ph.D., BCBA:
• Introduces basic RFT terminology
• Reviews applied RFT findings in the literature
• Suggests essential strategies for using RFT to promote
o Perspective-taking
o Relational responding
o Creativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ViXj2XEY28

This list includes research articles that contain original data relevant to RFT up until 2010. As the number of RFT articles has increased greatly since then, updating this list has become challenging.

For the most up-to-date list, visit the publications database and choose "RFT: Empirical" as a search term. To search for RFT articles by year type in "RFT 2011" or "Relational 2011" on the publications database search.

When logged in, ACBS members can add child pages to update this with new literature -- learn how here.

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

2011 - 2021

Hayes, S. C., Law, S., Assemi, K., Falletta-Cowden, N., Shamblin, M., Burleigh, K., Olla, R., Forman, M., & Smith, P. (2021). Relating is an Operant: A Fly Over of 35 Years of RFT Research. Perspectivas Em Análise Do Comportamento, 12(1). DOI: 10.18761/PAC.2021.v12.RFT.02
RFT was first formally described in 1985 and in the 35 years since, hundreds of studies have been conducted on relational learning from an operant point of view. This paper briefly summarizes that history and examines some of its key claims. So far, the empirical program delineated by RFT has held up remarkably well.

O'Connor, M, Farrell, L, Munnelly, A., and McHugh, L. (2017). Citation analysis of relational frame theory: 2009–2016. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 152-158.
This article contains a list of Empirical RFT articles in the Supplementary material for Empirical RFT articles

2010

Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I., (2010). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure: Exploring the impact of private versus public contexts and the response latency criterion on pro-white and anti-black stereotyping among white Irish individuals. The Psychological Record, 60, 57-80.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Murtagh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2010). Using the Implicit Association Test and the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure to measure attitudes towards meat and vegetables in vegetarians and meat-eaters. The Psychological Record.
One of the first two empirical studies to test the validity of the IRAP by comparing it to the IAT using a "known-groups" approach. The studies also introduce the use of the D-IRAP algorithm.

Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & O’Hora, D. (2010). Relational Frame Theory and human intelligence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 37-51.
An early conceptual look at the relationship between derived relational responding and intelligence.

Dymond, S., May, R. J., Munnelly, A., & Hoon, A. E. (2010). Evaluating the evidence based for relational frame theory: A citation analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 33, 97-117. 
A total of 174 articls were identified between 1991 and 2008, 62 (36%) of which were empirical and 112 (64%) were nonempirical articles. Further analyses on these articles are conducted.

Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2010). The impact of derived relational responding on gambling behavior. Analysis of Gambling Behavior, 4, 1-16.

Gore, N. J., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Murphy, G. (2010). The relationship between intellectual functioning and relational perspective-taking. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10(1), 1-17.

Guinther, P. M., & Dougher, M. J. (2010). Semantic False Memories In The Form Of Derived Relational Intrusions Following Training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(3), 329.

Hinton, E. C., Dymond, S, Von Hecker, U. & Evans, C. J. (2010). Neural correlates of relational reasoning and the symbolic distance effect: Involvement of parietal cortex. Neuroscience, 168, 138-148. 

Hooper, N., Saunders, S., & McHugh, L. (2010). The derived generalization of thought suppression. Learning and Behavior.

Levin, M. E., Hayes, S. C., & Waltz, T. (2010). Creating an implicit measure of cognition more suited to applied research: A test of the Mixed Trial - Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (MT-IRAP). International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6, 245-261. 

Moran, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2010). Brief Report: The Training and Assessment of Relational Precursors and Abilities (TARPA): A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

Munnelly, A., Dymond, S., & Hinton, E. C. (2010). Relational reasoning with derived comparative relations: A novel model of transitive inference. Behavioral Processes, 85, 8-17.

Vahey, N., Boles, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2010). Measuring Adolescents' Smoking-related Social Identity Preferences with the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) for the First Time: A Starting Point that Explains Later IRAP Evolutions. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 453-474.

Villatte, M., Monestès, J. L., McHugh, L., Freixa i Baqué, E., & Loas, G. (2010). Adopting the perspective of another in belief attribution: Contribution of Relational Frame Theory to the understanding of impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 41, 125-134.

Villatte, M., Monestès, J. L., McHugh, L., Freixa i Baqué, E., & Loas, G. (2010). Assessing perspective taking in schizophrenia using Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 60, 413-424.

2009

Barnes-Holmes, D., Waldron, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). Testing the validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Measuring attitudes towards Dublin and country life in Ireland. The Psychological Record, 59, 389-406.
One of the first two empirical studies to test the validity of the IRAP by comparing it to the IAT using a "known-groups" approach. The studies also introduce the use of the D-IRAP algorithm.

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

Power, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2009). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a measure of implicit relative preferences: A first study. The Psychological Record, 59, 621-640.
The first IRAP study that involved using comparative relations as a means of determining implicit relative preferences for different social groups. This was also the first study to show a clear divergence between responses on the IRAP and an explicit measure.

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

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

Lipkens, G. & Hayes, S. C. (2009). Producing and recognizing analogical relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91, 105-126.
Article shows for the first time that relating relations can be the basis of producing related events, selecting relations, or selecting related events.

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

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

O'Toole, C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2009). Three chronometric indices of relational responding as predictors of performance on a brief intelligence test: The importance of relational flexibility. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 119-132.
The first empirical study that used the IRAP to investigate the relationship between relational responding and IQ. Although not reported in the article, the research allowed us to determine that the D-IRAP algorithm appears to control for individual differences in cognitive ability.

2008

Barnes-Holmes, D., Hayden, E., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2008). The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a response-time and event-related-potentials methodology for testing natural verbal relations: A preliminary study. The Psychological Record, 58, 497-516.
The first empirical study of the IRAP. The article also provides a brief potted history of the research that led to the development of the procedure.

Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J.P., Whelan, R. & Rhoden, J. (2008). Derived avoidance learning: Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. The Psychological Record, 58, 269-286.
This interesting study demonstrated that participants will demonstrate avoidance based on the stimulus relations of “same” and “opposite.” Control participants provided evidence that the transformation was a direct product of a relational learning history. Although equivalence may account for the finding, the explanation is circuitous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007

Berens, N. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007). Arbitrarily applicable comparative relations: Experimental Evidence for relational operants. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 45-71.
In a combined multiple baseline (across responses and participants) and multiple probe design (with trained and untrained stimuli), it was shown that reinforced multiple exemplar training facilitated the development of arbitrary comparative relations, and that these skills generalized not just across stimuli but also across trial types.

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

Dougher, M. J., Hamilton, D., Fink, B., & Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 179-197.
Transformation of respondent stimulus functions via more-than/less-than direct and derived relations.

Gómez, S., López, F., Martín, C.B., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2007). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of functions in accordance with symmetry and equivalence. Psychological Record, 57(2), 273-294.
This is a very straightforward study programming transformation of function with young children. The first experiment simply exposed four children to action-object exemplar training and tested for symmetry. Experiment two enhanced transformation via multiple exemplar training; effectively demonstrating the ability to program stimulus relations via exemplar training.

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

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

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

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

McKenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2007). Testing the fake-ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): the first study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, (7)2, 123-138.
The first empirical study that sought to determine if the IRAP can be readily faked.

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

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

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

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

2006

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

Dixon, M.R., Rehfeldt, R.A., Zlomke, K.R. & Robinson, A. (2006). Exploring the development and dismantling of equivalence classes involving terrorist stimuli. Psychological Record, 56, 83-103.
This paper describes 2 studies that present a conceptual interpretation and experimental findings involving developing and dismantling of equivalence classes consisting of terrorist stimuli. Results of experiment 1 showed that participants made predictable responses to stimuli during pretest, however made fewer culturally controlled responses after training. Experiment 2 showed that it was easy to acquire relations involving terrorist stimuli when compared to two other conditions. Implications are discussed.

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

Haas, J. R., & Hayes, S.C. (2006). When knowing you are doing well hinders performance: Exploring the interaction between rules and feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26, 91-111.
The effect of two types of verbal consequences, rule-following feedback and task performance feedback, on rule-induced insensitivity to programmed schedules of reinforcement were examined. Rule-following feedback could be either accurate or non-contingently positive. The task involved moving a sign through a grid using telegraph keys operating on a multiple DRL 6/FR 18 schedule of reinforcement in the presence of an initially accurate rule. After acquisition, the multiple schedule was changed without notice to a FR 1/FI Yoked schedule. Accurate rule-following feedback plus feedback on task performance produced striking insensitivity to the DRL 6 to FR 1 schedule change, the opposite of what might be expected by a common sense analysis of task performance feedback, even after controlling for contact with the changed contingency. It is argued that findings such as these can only be understood by considering the mutual verbal relations evoked by the combinations of rules and feedback, rather than treating feedback as a simple consequential event or as a verbal consequence whose effects do not depend on the relations sustained with other events.

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

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

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

Smyth, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Forsyth, J. P. (2006). A derived transfer of simple discrimination and self-reported arousal functions in spider fearful and non-spider fearful participants. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(2), 223-246.
This article used the stimulus paring observation procedure to demonstrate transformation of arousal functions, and provided further evidence that anxiety responses can participate in arbitrary relational frames and produce problematic clinical outcomes.

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

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

2005

Barnes-Holmes, D., Regan, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Commins, S., Walsh, D., Stewart, I., et al. (2005). Relating derived relations as a model of analogical reasoning: reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84(3), 435-451.
This study used event related potentials to test the RFT prediction that same-same relations are simpler and functionally distinct different-different analogical reasoning. Reaction times were significantly longer, and waveforms were significantly more negative for different-different than they were for same-same relations. This is consistent with the prediction based on RFT.

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

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

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

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

Ninness, C., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Harrison, C., Ford, A. M., & Ninness, S. K. (2005). A functional analytic approach to computer-interactive mathematics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38 , 1-22.
One of the first uses of RFT in higher education. Here is the abstract: Following a pretest, 11 participants who were naive with regard to various algebraic and trigonometric transformations received an introductory lecture regarding the fundamentals of the rectangular coordinate system. Following the lecture, they took part in a computer-interactive matching-to-sample procedure in which they received training on particular formula-to-formula and formula-to-graph relations as these formulas pertain to reflections and vertical and horizontal shifts. In training A-B, standard formulas served as samples and factored formulas served as comparisons. In training B-C, factored formulas served as samples and graphs served as comparisons. Subsequently, the program assessed for mutually entailed B-A and C-B relations as well as combinatorially entailed C-A and A-C relations. After all participants demonstrated mutual entailment and combinatorial entailment, we employed a test of novel relations to assess 40 different and complex variations of the original training formulas and their respective graphs. Six of 10 participants who completed training demonstrated perfect or near-perfect performance in identifying novel formula-to-graph relations. Three of the 4 participants who made more than three incorrect responses during the assessment of novel relations showed some commonality among their error patterns. Derived transfer of stimulus control using mathematical relations is discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O'Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2004). Derived relational networks and control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbal responding. The Psychological Record, 54, 437-460.
Results from two studies examining instructional control on novel stimulus situations are described. The researchers employed the Relational Evaluation Procedure to train relations and then tested these in novel situations. Results support the idea that novel instructions can control behavior and that RFT provides an adequate model for the generativity of language.

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

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

Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). A functional-analytic model of analogy using the relational evaluation procedure. The Psychological Record, 54, 531-552.
This study provides an empirical demonstration of analogy using the Relational Evaluation Procedure (REP), a recently developed technique for the rapid training and testing of derived stimulus relations. The experiment involved 9 stages in which 5 adult male subjects were exposed to a complex series of REP training and testing protocols, by the end of which they each readily demonstrated 24 completely novel instances of responding in accordance with analogical relations as conceptualized by RFT.

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

Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004a). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of same and opposite. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82, 177-195.
Formative augmenting, behavior due to relational networks that establish given consequences as reinforcers or as punishers, was demonstrated in accordance with Same and Opposite relational networks. Some stimuli acquired reinforcing functions, based on the derived relation of Opposite, although in some cases no such function had actually been established for any member of the network. These effects were also observed across ABA reversals in the baseline contingencies.

Whelan, R., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004b). Empirical models of formative augmenting in accordance with the relations of same, opposite, more-than, and less-than. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, 285-302.
Authors demonstrated through two experiments that stimuli acquired reinforcing functions based on derived relational networks. This research supports the idea of formative augmenting: the degree to which events function as consequences was altered based on relational networks of Same and Opposite and more-than and less-than.

2003

Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2003a). Equivalence-equivalence as a model of analogy: Further analyses. The Psychological Record, 53, 349-372.
This study attempted to train equivalence-equivalence relations with 5-year-old children. Only 8 of 18 showed equivalence-equivalence relations when tested. The procedure was then tested with adults and was successful with all of them.

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

Carr, D. (2003). Effects of exemplar training in exclusion responding on auditory-visual discrimination tasks with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 507-524.
Showed that multiple-exemplar training with auditory-visual exclusion tasks facilitated nonreinforced exclusion performances which reduced error rates on subsequent novel stimulus sets.

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

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

2002

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

Carpentier, F., Smeets, P. M., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2002b). Matching functionally-same relations: Implications for equivalence-equivalence as a model for analogical reasoning. The Psychological Record, 52, 351-312.
This study tested equivalence-equivalence and nonequivalence-nonequivalence relations with adults, 9-year-olds, and 5-year-olds. Most of the adults and 9-year-olds demonstrated these relations, but the 5-year-olds did not.

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

Gomez, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, M. C. (2002). Generalized break equivalence II: Contextual control over a generalized pattern of stimulus relations. The Psychological Record, 52, 203-220.
Building on the work of Gomez et al (1999; 2001), the authors established effective contextual control over the Generalised Break Equivalence Pattern (GBEP) which provides further support for the generalized operant nature of derived relational responding.

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

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

O'Hora, D., Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. (2002). Response latencies to multiple derived stimulus relations: Testing two predictions of Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 52, 51-75.
The authors measured response latencies to mutually entailed same, opposite, more-than, and less-than relations. Response latencies to same and opposite relations were significantly faster than more-than and less-than relations. A second experiment showed a gradual decrease in response latency for more/less relations across a novel stimulus set.

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

Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Roche, B., & Smeets, P. M. (2002b). A functional-analytic model of analogy: A relational frame analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 375-396.
This study explored a behavior-analytic model of analogical reasoning, defined as the discrimination of formal similarity via equivalence-equivalence responding. Equivalence classes were trained, and subjects responded according to equivalence-equivalence relations. Subjects discriminated by shape or color of a relata. Transformation of stimulus functions of a block-sorting task based on this model of analogy was also shown.

2001

Barnes-Holmes, Y. Barnes-Holmes, D. Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (2001a). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of function in accordance with symmetry: I. The Psychological Record, 51, 287- 308.
This paper demonstrates that multiple exemplar training provides the necessary history to establish transformation across symmetry relations. Four studies confirmed that after relatively few exemplar training sessions, transformation could occur even across response modalities.

Barnes-Holmes, Y. Barnes-Holmes, D. Roche, B, & Smeets, P. M. (2001b). Exemplar training and a derived transformation of function in accordance with symmetry II. The Psychological Record, 51, 589-603.
This study clears some questions raised by Part I. Specifically, the authors found that naming is not a critical component of transformation, and children could readily demonstrate transformed functions in accordance with symmetry with no history of naming. The third part of the study examined the effects of pre-training. Results suggest that pre-training may be effective, but if not, to forgo additional pre-training and move immediately to multiple exemplar training.

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

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

Gomez, S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, M. C. (2001). Generalized break equivalence I. The Psychological Record, 51, 131-150.
The objective of this study was to produce responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence across novel stimulus sets. Building on the work of Gomez et al (1999), the authors employed several new procedures to generate ‘broken’ equivalence relations which provides support for the generalized operant nature of derived relational responding.

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

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

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

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

O'Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Developing a procedure to model the establishment of instructional control. Experimental Analysis of Behavior Bulletin, 19, 13-15.
The authors measured response latencies to mutually entailed same, opposite, more-than, and less-than relations. Response latencies to same and opposite relations were significantly faster than more-than and less-than relations. A second experiment showed a gradual decrease in response latency for more/less relations across a novel stimulus set.]

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

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

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

2000

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

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

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

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

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

Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (2000). Derived relational responding as generalised operant behaviour. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 74, 207-227.
Demonstrated that response patterns on novel stimulus sets was controlled by the feedback delivered for previous stimulus sets.

Leader, G., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P. M. (2000). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure III. The Psychological Record, 50, 63-78.
Similar to the study above but with young children as subjects.

Roche, B., Barnes-Holmes, D., Smeets, P. M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & McGeady, S. (2000). Contextual control over the derived transformation of discriminative and sexual arousal functions. The Psychological Record, 50, 267-291.
Following on from Roche and Barnes (1997) and McGeady and Roche (1997), the authors demonstrate four distinct contextually-controlled transformations of function by presenting the contextual cue along with the derived stimuli. Skin resistance responses and operant discriminations are measured. Still the only study to employ such a testing format.

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

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

1999

Gomez, S., Huerta, F., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Luciano, C. (1999). Breaking equivalence relations. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 17, 1-4.
The objective of this study was to produce responding in accordance with symmetry and transitivity but not with equivalence, across novel stimulus sets.

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

1998

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

Dymond S. & Barnes D. (1998). The effects of prior equivalence testing and verbal instructions on derived self-discrimination transfer: A follow-up study. Psychological Record 48(1), 147-170.
A follow-up study to Dymond & Barnes (1994). Subjects were not given equivalence training this time but were instead trained in a series of conditional discriminations. Also, some subjects were given extensive instructions and others were given minimal instructions. Neither of these factors affected the subjects performance and the results from previous experiments were replicated.

Hayes, S. C., & Bissett, R. (1998). Derived stimulus relations produce mediated and episodic priming. The Psychological Record, 48, 617-630.
Showed that priming effects that are well known in semantically related words also occurred in nonsense stimuli related through equivalence.

Healy, O., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (1998). Derived relational responding as an operant: The effects of between-session feedback. The Psychological Record, 48, 511-536.
Delivering accurate or inaccurate feedback to subjects following a test for derived equivalence relations produces responding on subsequent tests that is consistent with that feedback. One of the first to demonstrate the operant nature of relation responding.

1997

Barnes, D., Hegarty, N., & Smeets, P. M. (1997). Relating equivalence relations to equivalence relations: A relational framing model of complex human functioning. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14, 57-83.
This study examined the RFT approach to analogical reasoning. Subjects were trained on several equivalence relations. They were then shown pairs of relata in which both of the relata were from the same relation or in which both relata were from different relations. The subjects successfully matched pairs of same with same and different with different.

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

Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1997). A transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions in accordance with arbitrary relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67, 275-301.
The first study to show a transformation of respondently conditioned sexual arousal functions, measured as skin resistance responses, through same and opposite relations. An excellent demonstration of how to conduct complex electrodermal research within an RFT framework.

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

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

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

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

1996

Barnes, D., Lawlor, H., Smeets, P. M., & Roche, B. (1996). Stimulus equivalence and academic self-concept in mildly mentally handicapped and non-mentally handicapped children. The Psychological Record, 46, 87-107.
Using educationally-relevant real world stimuli such as "slow" and "able" as well as the subject's own name, the authors show how developmentally-delayed children come to fail tests for equivalence when the predicted outcome is in contrast to their learning history. That is, subjects did not relate their own name to "able." A neat study on prior-learning effects in equivalence formation.

Dymond, S. & Barnes, D. (1996). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness and opposition. The Psychological Record, 46, 271-300.
Demonstrates a transformation of functions in accordance with sameness and opposition, using several matching-to-sample control tasks to prevent formation of simple equivalence and nonequivalence relations.

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

Leader, G., Barnes, D., & Smeets, P.M. (1996). Establishing equivalence relations using a respondent-type training procedure. The Psychological Record, 46, 685-706.
The first in a series of studies investigating a new procedure for the derivation of equivalence relations. “Training” merely involves observing on-screen presentations of stimulus pairs and then testing for equivalence using a match-to-sample format. More effective in establishing equivalence than standard MTS arrangements.

Roche, B., & Barnes, D. (1996). Arbitrarily applicable relational responding and sexual categorization: A critical test of the difference relation. The Psychological Record, 46, 451-475.
After Steele & Hayes, the first study to systematically examine the relational frame of distinction using socially-loaded stimuli. This study inspired a series of exchanges between the authors and Richard Saunders in the same volume on the relationship between equivalence and RFT.

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

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

1995

Barnes, D., Browne, M., Smeets, P., & Roche, B. (1995). A transfer of functions and a conditional transfer of functions through equivalence relations in three- to six-year-old children. The Psychological Record, 45, 405-430.
Transfer and contextually-controlled transfer in kids of different ages with the older subjects passing the more complex tests. A nice example of a nonautomated transfer study.

Dymond, S. & Barnes, D. (1995). A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more-than, and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 64, 163-184. Erratum, 66, 348.
The first study to show three patterns of derived relational responding in accordance with sameness, more-than, and less-than. Alternative explanations for the transformation test outcomes are considered and found wanting. The relational network figure has been reproduced in several different publications

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

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

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

1994

Barnes, D. (1994). Stimulus equivalence and relational frame theory. The Psychological Record, 44, 91-124.
A cogent introduction to RFT in which the author compares "Sidman equivalence" with RFT, offers a respondent analysis of symmetry, and predicts various outcomes of training designs. Good for an undergraduate introduction to the area

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

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

Dymond, S., & Barnes, D. (1994). A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 62, 251-267.
Four subjects were trained in matching-to-sample tasks and equivalence relations. They showed the expected transfer of self-discrimination response functions. Four control subjects either received training in matching to sample but were not tested on equivalence or were trained and tested using stimuli not used in the transfer test. None of these showed the transfer of self-discrimination response functions.

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

1993

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

Barnes, D., & Keenan, M. (1993). A transfer of functions through derived arbitrary and non-arbitrary stimulus relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 61-81.
An elegant demonstration of transfer of functions through equivalence relations, with and without a prior equivalence test, and a generalised transfer through non-arbitrary relations. One of the most-cited transfer articles.

Lipkens, R., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Longitudinal study of the development of derived relations in an infant. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 201-239.
Showed the development of derived stimulus relations, including equivalence and exclusion, in a human infant.

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

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

1991

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

Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1991). The transfer of contextual control over equivalence classes through equivalence classes: A possible model of social stereotyping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 505-518.
Showed that transfer effects extended to conditional stimuli that themselves regulated derived relational responding. Extends the analysis to social stereotyping

Steele, D., & Hayes, S. C. (1991). Stimulus equivalence and arbitrarily applicable relational responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 519-555.
The first experimental demonstration that establishing cues that controlled non-arbitrary stimulus relations later produced multiple forms of derived relational responding with arbitrary stimulus sets. One of the first clear experimental demonstrations of RFT.

Watt, A., Keenan, M., Barnes, D., & Cairns, E. (1991). Social categorization and stimulus equivalence. The Psychological Record, 41, 33-50.
This study examined whether social categorization could be explored in terms of stimulus equivalence by testing whether equivalence training could be transferred to untrained social stimuli. The study had Irish Protestants, Irish Catholics and English Protestants go through a series of matching-to-sample procedures in which they were trained to match Protestant or Catholic stimuli with non-sense syllables. The findings suggest that previous learning might interfere with equivalence responding in the experimental training.

1990 and earlier

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

Hayes, L. J., Thompson, S., & Hayes, S. C. (1989). Stimulus equivalence and rule following. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 275-291.
Authors describe results of two studies attempting to specify the relationship between verbal and nonverbal behavior in the context of rule following. Two stimulus equivalence relationships were trained and then subjects were tested for production of novel behavior. Novel behavior was produced in both the presence and absence of names provided for the equivalence classes.

De Rose, J. C., McIlvane, W. J., Dube, W. V., Galpin, V. C., & Stoddard, L. T. (1988). Emergent simple discrimination established by indirect relation to differential consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50, 1-20.
One of the early articles studying the transfer of stimulus functions among members in equivalent classes.

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

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

Devany, J. M., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1986). Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 243-257.
Showed a correlation between receptive language skills and the derivation of equivalence. Interpreted this correlation in RFT terms, suggesting that the correlation was due to the functional overlap of the two tasks.