A context that controls the transformation of stimulus functions. Pronounced "cee funk." (Note: the "func" portion of this term typically appears as subscript, which is difficult to implement in HTML).

A context that controls framing events relationally. While these can include nonarbitrary features of the relata in some circumstances, the same relational behavior must also be controlled by arbitrary contextual cues in other circumstances in order to define the response as arbitrarily applicable. Pronounced "cee rel." (Note: the "rel" portion of this term typically appears as subscript, which is difficult to implement in HTML).

Acceptance is defined in ACT as "actively contacting psychological experiences -- directly, fully, and without needless defense -- while behaving effectively." (Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996, p. 1163)

Organized sets of behavioral principles emerging from coherent sets of functional analyses that are used to help predict and influence behaviors in a given response domain.

Learned relational responding that can come under the control of arbitrary contextual cues, not solely the formal properties of relata nor direct experience with them.

By social whim or convention. It is arbitrary, for example, that English speakers use the word "apple" to refer to a particular type of fruit. Speakers in other language communities choose entirely different words to refer to that type of fruit.

A form of rule-governed behavior controlled by relational networks that alter the degree to which events function as consequences. The rule itself is called an augmental.

A natural science of behavior that seeks the development of an organized system of empirically-based verbal concepts and rules that allow behavioral phenomena to be predicted and influenced with precision, scope, and depth. By studying the current and historical context in which behavior evolves, behavior analysts strive to develop analytic concepts and rules that are useful for predicting and changing behavior in a variety of settings. The most well-established behavioral principles of this sort are those related to classical and operant conditioning, such as B. F. Skinner's principles of reinforcement. The core analytic unit of behavior analysis is the operant (or multiterm contingency). An operant analysis defines behavior in terms of its relation to antecedent events and consequences, and learning is understood to be a function of the inherent interdependence between these features. This contextual approach to studying behavior has resulted in a robust science with many powerful applications in nearly every area of human endeavor. Behavior analysis is supported by a philosophy of science known as functional contextualism. See the Association for Behavior Analysis (www.abainternational.org) and the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (www.behavior.org) for more information.

Ways of speaking about behavioral interactions that are high in precision and scope. Reinforcement theory is based on a set of principles that meet these criteria.

A defining feature of relational frames that refers to the ability to combine mutually related events into a relational network under forms of contextual control that can include arbitrary contextual cues.  Combinatorial entailment applies when in a given context A is related in a characteristic way to B, and A is related to C, and as a result a relation between B and C is now mutually entailed. The specific form of the network does not matter. It would be as correct to say that combinatorial entailment applies when in a given context A is related in a characteristic way to B, and B is related to C, and as a result a relation between A and C is now mutually entailed. Combinatorial entailment can be represented by the formula below.

Networks of events containing Crel terms that set the occasion for the relational activity necessary to specify a relation between the events in the network.

Contextual Psychology refers to the study of organisms (both human and non-human) interacting in and with a historical and current situational context. It is an approach based on contextualism, a philosophy in which any event is interpreted as an ongoing act inseparable from its current and historical context and in which a radically functional approach to truth and meaning is adopted. This website is devoted to the development of a progressive psychological science based on functional contextualism, a variant of contextualism focused on the construction of practical, scientific knowledge. This scientific form of contextual psychology is virtually synonymous with the field known as behavior analysis.

Although this term has more general meanings, as applied in RFT it refers to a philosophy of science based on the root metaphor of an going historical act in context as its analytical unit, and utilizing a truth criterion of successful working as tied to a specific set of analytic goals.

The assumption that more recent life forms contain the features of older life forms within the same evolutionary stream.

The frame of coordination is perhaps the most common type of relational responding. It incorporates the relation of identity, sameness, or similarity. This relational frame is probably the first to be abstracted sufficiently to enable its application to become arbitrary, in part because it is the only relation in which derived and trained relations are the same, regardless of the number of stimuli that participate in relational networks consisting purely of this response frame. Naming is an example of the frame of coordination at its simplest.

Deictic relations specify a relation in terms of the perspective of the speaker such as left/right; I/you (and all of its correlates, such as "mine"; here/there; and now/then. Some relations may or may not be deictic, such as front/back or above/below, depending on the perspective applied. For example, the sentence "The back door of my house is in front of me" contains both a spatial and deictic form of "front/back." Deictic relations seem to be a particularly important family of relational frames that may be critical for perspective-taking. An example is the three frames of I and YOU, HERE and THERE, and NOW and THEN. These frames are unlike the others mentioned previously in that they do not appear to have any formal or nonarbitrary counterparts. Coordination, for instance, is based on formal identity or sameness, and "bigger than" is based on relative size. In contrast, frames that depend on perspective cannot be traced to formal dimensions in the environment at all; instead, the relationship between the individual and other events serves as the constant variable upon which these frames are based.

Depth means that analytic concepts relevant to one level of analysis (e.g., the psychological level) cohere with (or at least do not contradict) well-established and workable concepts at other levels of analysis (e.g., the anthropological level).

The frame of distinction also involves responding to one event in terms of the lack of a frame of coordination with another, typically also along a particular dimension. Like a frame of opposition, this frame implies that responses to one event are unlikely to be appropriate in the case of the other, but unlike opposition, the nature of an appropriate response is typically not defined. If I am told only, for example, "this is not warm water," I do not know whether the water is ice cold or boiling hot. When frames of distinction are combined, the combinatorially entailed relation is weak. For example, without additional disambiguating information, if two events are different than a third event, I do not know the relation between these two beyond the fact of their shared distinction.

Relational frames can be roughly organized into families of specific types of relations. This list is not exhaustive, but serves to demonstrate some of the more common frames and how they may combine to establish various classes of important behavioral events.

• frames of coordination
• frames of opposition
• frames of distinction
• frames of comparison
• hierarchical frames
• deictic frames
• other families: other families of relations include spatial relations such as over/under and front/back, temporal relations such as before/after, and causal/contingency relations such as "if...then"

The foregoing families of relational frames are not final or absolute. If RFT is correct, the number of relational frames is limited only by the creativity of the social/verbal community that trains them. Thus the foregoing list is to some degree tentative. For example, TIME and CAUSALITY can be thought of as one or two types of relations. It is not yet clear if thinking of them as either separate or related may be experimentally useful, relative to the goals of RFT. Thus, while the generic concept of a relational frame is foundational to RFT, the concept of any particular relational frame is not. The purpose in constructing a list of frames is to provide a set of conceptual tools, some more firmly grounded in data than others, that may be modified and refined as subsequent empirical analyses are conducted. To see some brief examples of common families of relational frames, please watch the video families below. 

A form of rule-governed behavior controlled by relational networks that establish given consequences as reinforcers or punishers.

The family of comparative relational frames is involved whenever one event is responded to in terms of a quantitative or qualitative relation along a specified dimension with another event. Many specific subtypes of comparison exist (e.g., bigger/smaller, faster/slower, better/worse). Although each subtype may require its own history, the family resemblance may allow the more rapid learning of successive members. The different members of this family of relations are defined in part by the dimensions along which the relation applies (e.g., size; attractiveness; speed). Comparative frames may be made more specific by quantification of the dimension along which a comparative relation is made. For example, the statement "A is twice as fast as B and B is twice as fast as C" allows a precise specification of the relation within all three pairs of elements in the network.

The frame of coordination is perhaps the most common type of relational responding. It incorporates the relation of identity, sameness, or similarity. This relational frame is probably the first to be abstracted sufficiently to enable its application to become arbitrary, in part because it is the only relation in which derived and trained relations are the same, regardless of the number of stimuli that participate in relational networks consisting purely of this response frame. Naming is an example of the frame of coordination at its simplest.

The frame of distinction also involves responding to one event in terms of the lack of a frame of coordination with another, typically also along a particular dimension. Like a frame of opposition, this frame implies that responses to one event are unlikely to be appropriate in the case of the other, but unlike opposition, the nature of an appropriate response is typically not defined. If I am told only, for example, "this is not warm water," I do not know whether the water is ice cold or boiling hot. When frames of distinction are combined, the combinatorially entailed relation is weak. For example, without additional disambiguating information, if two events are different than a third event, I do not know the relation between these two beyond the fact of their shared distinction.

Opposition is another early relational frame. In natural language use, this kind of relational responding involves an abstracted dimension along which events can be ordered and distinguished in equal ways from a reference point. Along the verbally abstracted dimension of temperature, for example, cool is the opposite of warm, and cold is the opposite of hot. The specific relational frame of opposition typically (but not necessarily) implicates the relevant dimension (e.g., "pretty is the opposite of ugly" is relevant to appearance). Opposition should normally emerge after coordination because the combinatorially entailed relation in frames of opposition includes frames of coordination (e.g., if hot is the opposite of freezing and cold is the opposite of hot, then cold is the same as freezing).

Framing events relationally (or "framing relationally" or "relational framing") refers to a specific type of arbitrarily applicable relational responding that has the defining features in some contexts of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and the transformation of stimulus functions. Framing events relationally is due to a history of relational responding relevant to the contextual cues involved; and is not solely based on direct non-relational training with regard to the particular stimuli of interest, nor solely to nonarbitrary characteristics of either the stimuli or the relation between them. The action of framing events relationally is often referred to in the noun form of "relational frame." Various families of relational frames, or ways of framing events relationally, have been identified.

A specific form of contextualism with the a priori analytic goals of the prediction-and-influence of behavioral events, with precision, scope, and depth. "Prediction-and-influence" is hyphenated here to emphasize its fundamental inseverability in functional contextualism, even though in practical terms it is possible only to reach one goal and not the other. Functional contextualism supports the science of behavior known as behavior analysis.

Operants are purely functional units of analysis, organized by their common antecedent, consequential, and motivational sources of control. However, because topographical and functional classes of behavior-environment interactions often overlap, operants are sometimes thought of in topographical terms. The word "generalized" (or similar terms, such as "purely functional" or "overarching") is used to emphasize that this particular operant is not usefully thought of in topographical terms.

Hierarchical relations or hierarchical class memberships have the same diode-like quality of frames of comparison, but the combinatorially entailed relations differ because the hierarchical relation itself is the basis for a frame of coordination. For example, if Tom is the father of Simon and Jane, then Simon and Jane are known to be siblings. If Tom is taller than both Simon and Jane, however, the relative heights of Simon and Jane are unknown. Hierarchical relations are essential to many forms of verbal abstraction.

The responses of listeners that are based on framing events relationally.

A form of rule-governed behavior controlled by relational networks that alter the degree to which previously established consequences function as reinforcers or punishers.

A defining feature of relational frames that refers to its fundamental bidirectionality under forms of contextual control that can include arbitrary contextual cues. Mutual entailment applies when in a given context A is related in a characteristic way to B, and as a result B is now related in another characteristic way to A. Mutual entailment can be represented by the formula below.

 

Opposition is another early relational frame. In natural language use, this kind of relational responding involves an abstracted dimension along which events can be ordered and distinguished in equal ways from a reference point. Along the verbally abstracted dimension of temperature, for example, cool is the opposite of warm, and cold is the opposite of hot. The specific relational frame of opposition typically (but not necessarily) implicates the relevant dimension (e.g., "pretty is the opposite of ugly" is relevant to appearance). Opposition should normally emerge after coordination because the combinatorially entailed relation in frames of opposition includes frames of coordination (e.g., if hot is the opposite of freezing and cold is the opposite of hot, then cold is the same as freezing).

A form of rule-governed behavior under the control of a history of socially-mediated reinforcement for coordination between behavior and antecedent verbal stimuli (i.e., the relational network or rule), in which that reinforcement is itself delivered based on a frame of coordination between the rule and behavior. Stated another way, pliance requires both following a rule and detection by the verbal community that the rule and the behavior correspond. Mere social consequation does not define pliance. The rule itself is called a ply.

Framing events relationally under the control of abstracted features of the nonarbitrary environment that are themselves framed relationally. Stated in other words, pragmatic verbal analysis involves acting upon the world verbally, and having the world serve verbal functions as a result.

See below for an illustration of RFT's interpretation of pragmatic verbal analysis/problem solving. 

Precision means that there are relatively few ways to explain or describe a given phenomenon with a set of analytic concepts. The fewer ways a given phenomenon can be explained or described with a set of concepts the better.

Although problem-solving has both non-verbal and verbal connotations, in a verbal sense problem-solving refers to framing events relationally under the antecedent and consequential control of an apparent absence of effective actions. When the particular problem involves the stimulus functions of the nonarbitrary environment, verbal problem-solving can be said to be pragmatic verbal analysis that changes the behavioral functions of the environment under the antecedent and consequential control of an apparent absence of effective action.

See below for an illustration of RFT's interpretation of pragmatic verbal analysis/problem solving. 

Events that are in a relational network.

A specific type of arbitrarily applicable relational responding that has the defining features in some contexts of mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and the transformation of stimulus functions. Relational frames are due to a history of relational responding relevant to the contextual cues involved; and is not solely based on direct non-relational training with regard to the particular stimuli of interest, nor solely to nonarbitrary characteristics of either the stimuli or the relation between them. While used as a noun, it is in fact always an action and thus can be restated anytime in the form "framing events relationally." Various families of relational frames have been identified.

A relational frame is the smallest relational network that can be defined, although the term network is usually used to refer to combinations of relational frames, such as A is more than B, B is the same as C, C is less than D. The term network is also used to describe relations between or among relational frames, such as, if A is more than B, and C is more than D, then the relation between A and B participates in a frame of coordination with the relation between C and D.

Responding to one event in terms of another. See below for an illustration depicting the difference between relational responding and non-relational responding. 

a.k.a., RGB

In its most general terms, behavior controlled by a verbal antecedent. However, behavior controlled by verbal antecedents is more likely to be termed "rule governed" if the verbal antecedent forms a complete relational network that transforms the functions of the nonarbitrary environment.

See below for an illustration of RFT's interpretation of rule-governed behavior. 

Scope means that a broad range of phenomena can be analyzed with a given set of analytic concepts (the broader the range the better, so long as precision is not compromised).

Those verbal problems in which the problem solver has placed the desired goal or purpose into a relational frame.

Although thinking has both non-verbal and verbal connotations, in a verbal sense it is a reflective behavioral sequence, often private, of pragmatic verbal analysis that transforms the functions of the environment so as to lead to novel, productive acts.

A form of rule-governed behavior under the control of a history of coordination between the rule and the way the environment is arranged independently of the delivery of the rule. The rule itself is called a track.

A specific type of transformation of stimulus functions between two relata when they participate in a frame of coordination.

A defining feature of relational frames that refers to the modification of the stimulus functions of relata based on contextual cues that specify a relevant function (Cfunc) and the relational frame that these events participate in (Crel). The transformation of stimulus functions can be represented by the formula below.

Those verbal problems in which the goal is to place a desired goal or purpose into a relational frame.

Relational frames can be roughly organized into families of specific types of relations. This list is not exhaustive, but serves to demonstrate some of the more common frames and how they may combine to establish various classes of important behavioral events.

• frames of coordination
• frames of opposition
• frames of distinction
• frames of comparison
• hierarchical frames
• deictic frames
• other families: other families of relations include spatial relations such as over/under and front/back, temporal relations such as before/after, and causal/contingency relations such as "if...then"

The foregoing families of relational frames are not final or absolute. If RFT is correct, the number of relational frames is limited only by the creativity of the social/verbal community that trains them. Thus the foregoing list is to some degree tentative. For example, TIME and CAUSALITY can be thought of as one or two types of relations. It is not yet clear if thinking of them as either separate or related may be experimentally useful, relative to the goals of RFT. Thus, while the generic concept of a relational frame is foundational to RFT, the concept of any particular relational frame is not. The purpose in constructing a list of frames is to provide a set of conceptual tools, some more firmly grounded in data than others, that may be modified and refined as subsequent empirical analyses are conducted. To see some brief examples of common families of relational frames, click on the video below.

The action of framing events relationally.

Stimuli that have their effects because they participate in relational frames.