Relational Frame Theory: An Overview of the Controversy

Abstract

Although Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957) was published over 50 years ago, behavior-analytic research on human language and cognition has been slow to develop. In recent years, a new behavioral approach to language known as relational frame theory (RFT) has generated considerable attention, research, and debate. The controversy surrounding RFT can be difficult to fully appreciate, partly because of the complexity of the theory itself and partly because the debate has spanned several years and several journals. The current paper aims to provide a concise overview of RFT and a summary of key points of debate and controversy.

The Dominance of Associative Theorizing in Implicit Attitude Research: Propositional and Behavioral Alternatives

“…Over the past two decades this relational account of human language and cognition has gained momentum and stimulated a growing body of empirical research (e.g., O'Hora et al, 2008;Weinstein, Wilson, Drake & Kellum, 2008), applications (e.g., Hayes, 2004;Hayes, luoma, Bond, Masuda, & lillis, 2006), and conceptual controversy (see gross & Fox, 2009, for an overview).…”

Holding on to our functional roots when exploring new intellectual islands: A voyage through implicit cognition research

“…Over the past 20 years RFT has emerged as a coherent, parsimonious and progressive functional theory that has gained empirical momentum and stimulated a rapidly growing body of research (see Dymond & Roche, in press), clinical applications (Gaudiano, 2011;Rehfeldt & Barnes-Holmes, 2009), and conceptual controversy (Gross & Fox, 2009). Derived relational responding is argued to represent the fundamental behavioral unit underpinning a wide range of psychological phenomena including language and cognition , intelligence (O'Toole & Cassidy, Roche, & Hayes, 2011) perspective taking and the self (McHugh & Stewart, 2012).…”

Constructs and Events in Verbal Behavior

“…These concerns are now well known and accepted within groups of behavior analysts who embrace RFT. (See Gross & Fox, 2009; S. C. Hayes & Barnes-Holmes, 2004; or S. C. Hayes et al, 2001 for a more thorough description of the concerns with Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior.) Central to this commentary is the specific criticism of Skinner's definition of verbal behavior.…”

“…The concerns with Skinner's (1957) definition of verbal behavior are well known and widely cited by those who do work related to RFT (e.g., Gross & Fox, 2009; S. C. Hayes & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). In fact, there may be somewhat of a theoretical divide between some behavior analysts and their approaches to language and cognition (e.g., see a recent discussion, Dymond & Alonso-Á lvarez, 2010;Schlinger, 2008).…”

“…Criticism surrounding Skinner's (1957) analysis of verbal behavior is now common, not only within the general fields of linguistics and psychology, but also within the behavior analytic community itself (see Gross & Fox, 2009). In this paper I will address criticisms regarding Skinner's definition of verbal behavior, and also review recent responses from advocates of Skinner's analysis of verbal behavior.…”