JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR 2004, 81, 189±204 NUMBER 2(MARCH) DATA IN SEARCH OF A PRINCIPLE: A REVIEW OF RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY: A POST-SKINNERIAN ACCOUNT OF HUMAN LANGUAGE AND COGNITION DAVID C. PALMER SMITH COLLEGE Responding to derived relations among stimuli and events is the subject of an accelerating research program that represents one of the major behavior analytic approaches to complex behavior. Rela- tional Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001) offers a conceptual framework for this work and explores its implications for verbal behavior and a variety of other domains of complex human behavior. The authors dismiss Skinner's interpretation of verbal behavior as unproductive and conceptually ¯awed and suggest a new de®- nition and a new paradigm for the investigation of verbal phenomena. I found the empirical phe- nomena important but the conceptual discussion incomplete. A new principle of behavior is prom- ised, but critical features of this principle are not offered. In the absence of an explicit principle, the theory itself is dif®cult to evaluate. Counterexamples suggest a role for mediating behavior, perhaps covert, thus raising the question whether a new principle is needed at all. The performance of subjects in relational frame experiments may be a mosaic of elementary behavioral units, some of which are verbal. If so, verbal behavior underlies relational behavior; it is not de®ned by it. I defend Skinner's de®nition of verbal behavior and argue that an account of relational behavior must be integrated with Skinner's analysis; it will not replace it. Key words: equivalence classes, de®nition of verbal behavior, private events, relational frame theory, relational frames, verbal behavior Relational frame theory made its debut in requires that, whatever our biases, we weigh 1985 in a paper presented by Steven Hayes it carefully. and Aaron Brownstein at a meeting of the The 13 chapters in the book are separate Association for Behavior Analysis and has fos- papers, written by shifting subsets of the 19 tered considerable empirical work, concep- authors. These subsets overlap considerably, tual discussion, and controversy ever since. It however, with either Barnes-Holmes, Hayes, has emerged as one of several major threads or both, contributing to every chapter, and it in the analysis of complex human behavior is evident that the chapters are intended not within behavior analysis, and the pace of ac- to represent separate theses but to be tivity has continually accelerated. Steve Hayes, smoothly integrated into a uni®ed position. at the University of Nevada in Reno, is the Therefore, I will simply refer to the contrib- principal architect of the theory, and Dermot utors as ``the authors,'' without distinction, as Barnes-Holmes and Bryan Roche at the Na- though each endorsed the whole. I will use tional University of Ireland in Maynooth are the abbreviation RFT to refer to the book; the its most active researchers and exponents, but italics differentiate it from RFT, which is com- their work has been supported by dozens of monly used in the literature as an abbrevia- colleagues and students. Relational Frame The- tion for the theory itself. To avoid confusion, ory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Lan- I write out the term relational frame theory guage and Cognition (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & whenever I have occasion to mention it, ex- Roche, 2001) presents an overview of the the- cept when it appears in quotations. ory, discusses its role in language, develop- The purpose of the book is to provide a ment, and cognition, and shows how it might conceptual consolidation of work that has be extended to education, therapy, social pro- been evolving and expanding for over a de- cesses, and even religion. The scope of the cade. It is written for a broad audience, both book is ambitious, its tone con®dent and en- within and beyond behavior analysis; conse- thusiastic. That it is so vigorously advanced by quently, the authors use technical terms spar- such prominent and active behavior analysts ingly, and the experimental literature is re- viewed only lightly. Nevertheless, the book is Address correspondence to the author at Department controversial, for it suggests that we add a of Psychology, Smith College, Northampton, Massachu- new analytic tool to the workshop of the be- setts 01063 (e-mail: [email protected]). havior analyst. 189 190 PALMER Small changes in one's conceptual tools Chapter 3 discusses what I regard as one of can have far-reaching effects. Unfortunately, the most important problems in our ®eld, the the immediate effects are likely to be disrup- transformation of stimulus function. Succes- tive: Imagine trying to replace one brick in a sive chapters extend the analysis to analogical wall with a slightly larger brick. You can't sim- reasoning, thinking, problem solving, under- ply rearrange the neighboring bricks; if you standing, rule following, and ®nally the con- move one brick aside you must move the cept of self. Chapter 8 offers a summary and whole row. Perhaps most of the wall must overview of the ®rst seven chapters and come down and be rebuilt if you are to re- stands on its own. It is wisely inserted here to place that brick. Similarly, RFT suggests that permit the reader to rehearse and review the we replace some of our current concepts in main points of the preceding chapters. The the domain of verbal behavior with new and ®nal ®ve chapters discuss possible applica- different ones, but such terms cannot simply tions and extensions of the theory. Topics in- be squeezed into the hole left by discarded clude development, education, social pro- terms. Our entire conceptual edi®ce may cesses, psychopathology, therapy, and ®nally need to be recon®gured. For this reason, new religion and spirituality. The book, then, will concepts in science are generally resisted, appeal in different ways to different audi- particularly by those satis®ed with the status ences. Those with any interest in the concep- quo. Relational frame theory has already tual foundations of behavior analysis will want faced plenty of opposition, and whatever its to read the ®rst three chapters, whatever they merits, it is likely to continue to do so, for it think about relational frame theory, for there requires that we reexamine and perhaps is plenty of grist here. As I read the book in change some familiar fundamental concepts preparation for this review, I underlined and analytic tools. The authors do not shrink statements that I wanted to consider more from this task; rather, they embrace it with carefully. At the end of two chapters I found revolutionary zeal. that I had underlined nearly every passage; Consequently RFT is partly expository, part- moreover, I found myself turning to various ly polemical. The authors open the book with other sources to review foundational con- a vigorous attempt to persuade the reader cepts. Those who wish only to ®nd out what that the current conceptual tools of the be- relational frame theory is all about will want havior analyst are inadequate to an under- to read chapters 2 through 8, and can even standing of complex behavior. In particular, get by with reading chapter 8 alone. Those those concepts developed by Skinner in Verbal with strictly applied interests will be drawn to Behavior (1957) are described as insuf®cient the last ®ve chapters. In short, even if one is and sterile, an inevitable consequence of his skeptical of the authors' thesis, this book is erroneous de®nition of verbal behavior itself. likely to ®nd a place in one's behavioral li- They offer an alternative de®nition arising brary. from relational frame theory that they assert My repeated allusions to skepticism may is both adequate and productive. However, have already alerted the reader to my own they are emphatic that their new proposal lies reaction to the book. I was not persuaded by squarely within the scope of behavior analysis. the authors' conceptual analysis, and I will That is, they do not suggest that one must ¯y close this review by discussing some of my ob- to a more permissive paradigm but that re- jections. But I should reveal my biases. I am lational frame theory is a natural develop- an ardent fan of Skinner's Verbal Behavior. My ment within our own ®eld. This opening own speculations on the topic, however mod- chapter, which I will discuss again at the end est, are dear to me, and they are straightfor- of this review, touches on some of the most ward extensions of Skinner's position. I be- important concepts in our ®eld and will be lieve that his analysis is sound and serves as of very general interest, whether one is per- an excellent foundation for subsequent work; suaded by the authors or not. it is not a sacred text but a remarkable ®rst The next six chapters discuss the theory approximation to an operant analysis of ver- and its implications for our understanding of bal behavior. Despite my disagreement on language and cognition. Chapter 2 introduc- this score, however, I regard relational frame es technical terms and outlines the theory. theory with equanimity. The proponents of REVIEW OF RFT 191 the theory have been extraordinarily active glossy thoroughbred with weak legs. But the and are addressing some of the most formi- authors want to arouse our excitement with- dable questions in our ®eld. Moreover, the out simultaneously arousing our suspicious empirical work is important, however one scrutiny, and that can't be done. chooses to interpret it. Science is a selection- The preface trumpets the dawning of a ist enterprise, and variability is fundamental new day, and chapter 1 asserts that it is time to progress.