Technical Notation as a Tool for Basic Research in Relational Frame Theory
A core overarching aim of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) research on language and cognition is the prediction and influence of human behavior with precision, scope, and depth. However, the conceptualization and delineation of empirical investigations of higher-order language and cognition from a relational framing theoretical standpoint is a challenging task that requires a high degree of abstract reasoning and creativity. To that end, we propose using symbolic notation as seen in early RFT experimental literature as a possible functional-analytical tool to aid in the articulation of hypotheses and design of such experiments. In this article, we provide examples of aspects of cognition previously identified in RFT literature and how they can be articulated rather more concisely using technical notation than in-text illustration. We then provide a brief demonstration of the utility of notation by offering examples of several novel experiments and hypotheses in notation format. In two tables, we provide a “key” for understanding the technical notation written herein, which other basic-science researchers may decide to draw on in future. To conclude, this article is intended to be a useful resource to those who wish to carry out basic RFT research on complex language and cognition with greater technical clarity, precision, and broad scope.
KeywordsRelational frame theory Basic research Notation Experimentation Precision Future research
The study was not supported by any grant funding from any institution or organization.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
On behalf of all the authors the corresponding author confirms that no author has a conflict of interest to declare.
Not applicable as not an empirical study paper.
- Alonso-Álvarez, B., & Pérez-González, L. A. (2017). Contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence explains apparent arbitrarily applicable relational responding in accordance with sameness and opposition. Learning & Behavior, 45, 228–242. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13480.017.0258-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hussey, I., McEnteggart, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Foody, M. (2016). Scientific ambition: The relationship between relational frame theory and middle- level terms in acceptance and commitment therapy. In R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science (pp. 365–382). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Barnes-Holmes, Y., Kavanagh, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., Harte, C., Leech, A., & McEnteggart. (2018). Review: Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention by M. Villatte, J. L. Villatte, & S. C. Hayes. The psychological record. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0229.
- Binder, C., Haughton, E., & Bateman, B. (2002). Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. In Professional papers in special education (pp. 2–20). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Curry School of Special Education.Google Scholar
- Blackledge, J. T., & Drake, C. E. (2013). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Empirical and theoretical considerations. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application (pp. 219–252). Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- 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. 10.1901%2Fjeab.1986.46-243.Google Scholar
- Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2013). Advances in relational frame theory: Research and application. Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Dymond, S., Roche, B., & Bennett, M. (2013). Relational frame theory and experimental psychopathology. In S. Dymond & B. Roche (Eds.), Advances in relational frame theory & contextual behavioral science: Research and application (pp. 199–218). Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Dymond, S., Roche, B., Forsyth, J. P., Whelan, R., & Rhoden, J. (2007). Transformation of avoidance response functions in accordance with same and opposite relational frames. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2007.88-249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I., & Pereira, A. (2018). Piloting a brief relational operant training program: Analyses of response latencies and intelligence test performance. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2018.1507087.
- Moran, L., Walsh, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2015). Correlating derived relational responding with linguistic and cognitive ability in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.12.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paternò, F., Mancini, C., & Meniconi, S. (1997). ConcurTaskTrees: A diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In Human-computer interaction INTERACT’97 (pp. 362–369). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Peltomäki, M., & Salakoski, T. (2004). Strict logical notation is not a part of the problem but a part of the solution for teaching high-school mathematics. Proceedings of Koli Calling, 116–120.Google Scholar
- Sidman, M. (1994). Equivalence relations and behaviour: A research story. Boston: Authors Cooperative.Google Scholar
- Törneke, N. (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. Oakland: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Villatte, M., Villatte, J. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2015). Mastering the clinical conversation: Language as intervention. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar