Printer-friendly version

This list serves as 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 list is restricted to those who are professional or student members of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS).


To email this group directly, send messages to: rft@lists.contextualscience.org

Re: [rft] What frames are involved in a value statement

Hi Matt and Tony,

I am not sure whether what I say applies. But maybe it is useful to
additionally distinguish the speaker-listener perspective.

If a speaker gives a formative augmental like "This cup is bad" he does an
action of coordinate framing that may be separated from the stimulus
function the cup has for the listener after that augmental has been given to
him. And in following this rule the listener performs the framing himself as
did the speaker when he gave it.

The next question then might be: how originated the framing in the speaker
in the first place?

like World Con on FB, follow the news feeds, and see Joseph's presentation (or whatever we end up calling it)

You may be sorry you posted that, after all, a bet is a bet, and now it is public knowledge!!
Don't worry Joseph, only 4000 people will then see your …hmmm…..presentation.

Cant attend World Con but still want to see what is happening?
Don't worry, we've set up an ACBS World Conference Facebook news feed so you can see all the latest.

Like the page on Facebook and you can follow the presentations, news, fun, and frivolity.

Conference delegates, please make sure you post stuff on this page for all the folks not attending.

need a couple more articles for JEAB special issue

Hey everyone,
The special issue of JEAB on stimulus-stimulus relations/RFT and translational research is coming along. We are hoping for a couple more articles on the applied side. If you have a good applied study that is translational at some level please think of this issue. Feel free to contact me and I can look at a draft, an abstract, or just chat with you and tell you if it might fit in the issue. I am attaching the call for papers.

This issue will be really nice for this organization and the type of work that we do.

This page contains attachments restricted to ACBS members. Please join or login with your ACBS account.

What frames are involved in a value statement

I am finding it surprisingly complex to analyse and classify some sentences
in terms of RFT. Consider this:

"I value reducing your pain"

Is it coordination ("I am a pain-reducing type of person")
Temporal ("I wish your pain to be reduced in the future')

Causal ("I wish to bring about a reduction in your pain").


Frames of coordination

Are frames of coordination always the same as frames of equivalence?

Are there frames that put things in a relation of coordination as in
'A always comes with B', but which is not a relation of equivalence?

I am thinking of the ACT matrix diagram and wanting to say that it
puts the different quadrants of the matrix (away moves, toward moves,
unwanted inner experience and values) into a frame of coordination so
that all these aspects are brought to attention when the matrix is
used or evoked.

Clearly they are not equivalent, yet, my clinical experience is that
with practice of the matrix, in

Syndicate content