What is Relational Frame Theory? A Definition
Relational Frame Theory, or RFT, was established to integrate a wide range of psychological phenomena into a cohesive theory of language based on contextual relationships. It proposes that human cognition and communication are founded in our capacity for identifying and creating relational links between stimuli, and made possible by our “arbitrarily applicable relational responding” ability (Cullinan & Vitale, 2009).
Relational Frame Theory “for Dummies”: RFT Made Simple
If this definition leaves you scratching your head, you’re not alone! It’s a complicated theory, one that even those who study it admit is difficult for non-experts to grasp quickly (Blackledge, 2003). We’ll try to break it down in more simple terms.
Basically, RFT is based on the idea that relating one concept to another is the foundation of all human language.
While many animals (including our four-legged furry friends) are able to connect the dots between a neutral event and a subsequent important event (e.g., hearing a bell and then getting food), humans are also able to connect a neutral event that follows an important event (e.g., hearing a bell after getting food, but still relating the bell with getting food).
Not only can humans connect events in this manner, they can also connect disparate words and their meanings across relational networks.
For example, if you always said the word “dinner” to a child before, during, or after their evening meal, he would connect the word “dinner” with eating his meal. If you then told the child that “supper” was another word for “dinner,” he would be able to easily connect the new word to the event of eating dinner. From that point forward, calls of “dinner time!” and “supper time!” would be treated with equal enthusiasm by the hungry child!
This ability is one of the amazing features of the human brain, and it lays the foundational bricks for language (verbal, written, and body). This method of relating is accomplished through the development of what researchers call relational frames or the relationships we form between concepts based on reinforcement.
For example, if a child sees many different kinds of birds and is told that each is a “bird,” she will be able to identify a species of bird she has never seen before as a bird, because she has developed a relational frame (e.g., “things with feathers and wings and beaks are birds”).
There are three properties of relational frames that detail how connections can be made and relationships formed (Blackledge, 2003):
- Mutual entailment: if an individual notices that A leads to B, then A will be connected to B in his mind, but B will also be connected to A.
a. Example: if an individual always brushes his teeth before bedtime, then going to bed will naturally make him think of brushing his teeth as well.
- Combinatorial entailment: if A is related to B, and B is related to C, then A is related to C and vice versa.
a. Example: if a child is told that “angry” is another word for “mad,” and that “upset” is another word for “angry,” she will be able to make the unspoken connection between “mad” and “upset.”
- Transformation of functions: if A and C are related and B, which is related to one or both A and C, is thrown into the mix, the relationship between A and C may change.
a. Example: a child associates an ice cream shop with tasty treats and a fun experience; if, one day, the cashier at the ice cream shop is mean to the girl, the relationship between going to the ice cream shop and her experience may change.
These three properties are what allow us to learn and develop new relational networks, and represents one of the unique abilities of our species.
Steven Hayes

Dr. Steven Hayes, a clinical psychologist, and professor of the University of Nevada’s Behavior Analysis program, developed the relational frame theory to help explain human cognition and language.
Hayes studied behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner, as do all psychology students at one point or another. While he appreciated the brilliance of Skinner explaining and describing behavior, he saw an opportunity to make a significant contribution to the discipline of behaviorism—a theory on language from the behaviorist perspective.
Once Hayes had developed a solid theory about relational framing and language, he began to expand his work to a very important goal:
“What we are seeking is the development of a coherent and progressive contextual behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenges of the human condition.”
(Hayes, n.d.).
Hayes goes on to say that RFT and related research is intended to develop
“useful basic principles, workable applied theories linked to these principles, effective applied technologies based on these theories, and successful means of training and disseminating these developments…”
(Hayes, n.d.).
One of the ways in which Hayes is working towards this goal is through contributing his research skills and knowledge to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). He has applied the theories and findings of RFT to cognitive and behavioral therapy and generated a large body of evidence to prove the efficacy of ACT’s techniques.
Relational Frame Theory and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (+PDF)
It might not be immediately clear how the relational frame theory of language and cognition is connected to a form of therapy, but you’ll see that ACT is firmly rooted within RFT.
According to the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science, an organization dedicated to the same goals as Dr. Hayes, ACT is:
“a unique empirically based psychological intervention that uses acceptance and mindfulness strategies, together with commitment and behavior change strategies, to increase psychological flexibility.”
Hayes describes ACT as
“a third wave therapy that combines approaches from different traditions in the service of improving psychological flexibility”
and
“an evidence-based psychotherapy that uses acceptance and mindfulness process, and commitment and behavior change processes…”
(Hayes, n.d.).
ACT is based on the idea that suffering is a natural and unavoidable condition for humans; however, that doesn’t mean we should simply throw in the towel and resign ourselves to suffering.
ACT also holds the idea that some of the suffering we experience is unnecessary and even harmful to our mental health, and applies relational frame theory to changing and eliminating the thinking and language patterns we have that contribute to suffering.
One of the most common problems that clients present within therapy sessions is that of experiential avoidance. Experiential avoidance is a process of anticipating problems and coming up with solutions, which often involve getting rid of the problem or avoiding it (Harris, 2011). This works great for many of our external problems, but its effectiveness diminishes greatly when applied to internal problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, addiction).
ACT offers techniques to help clients stop trying to avoid or manipulate their own feelings, and learn how to accept their inner experiences and apply their energy toward actual solutions to their problems.
There are six core processes of ACT that apply the theories and findings of RFT to changing clients’ thought and language patterns.
Core processes
These six core processes are (Harris, 2011):
- Acceptance
- Cognitive Defusion
- Being Present
- Self as Context
- Values
- Committed Action
Acceptance is an alternative to the (very natural) human instinct to avoid negative, or potentially negative, experiences. Acceptance is an active choice to be aware of and allow these types of experiences without trying to avoid or change them. To be clear, acceptance is not a goal of ACT, but a method of encouraging action that will lead to positive results.
Cognitive Defusion refers to the techniques that are intended to change how an individual reacts to or interacts with their thoughts and feelings rather than the nature of these thoughts and feelings. ACT is not intended to limit our exposure to negative experiences, but to face them and come out the other side with a decreased fixation on these experiences.
Being Present is the practice of being aware of the present moment while declining to attach judgments to the experience. In other words, being present involves actively experiencing what is happening without trying to predict, change, or make value judgments about the experience.
“Self as context” is the simple idea that an individual is not his or her experiences, thoughts, or emotions. Instead of being one’s experiences, the “self as context” process rests on the idea that there is a “self” outside of one’s current experience. In other words, we are not what happens to us. We are the ones experiencing what happens to us.
Values are those qualities and ideals that we believe in, that we hold dear, and that we find fulfillment in when we choose to work towards and uphold them in our daily lives. We all hold values, consciously or unconsciously, that direct our steps.
In ACT, the therapist assists his clients in applying processes and techniques that help them live their lives according to the values they have identified as central to them.
In ACT sessions, the therapist will help clients commit to actions that will further their goals and facilitate their attempts to live a life that is consistent with their values. All of the exercises, techniques, and practices of ACT are intended to assist individuals in reaching their goals through positive behavior changes (Harris, 2011).
If you’re interested in learning more about RFT and ACT, check out Harris’ textbook ACT Made Simple. You can find it for purchase here, or get a free, inside look at an expanded version of the chapter on the connection between RFT and ACT in this PDF.
If you want a more academic-focused dive into RFT and ACT, this article from RFT developer Steven C. Hayes might be just what you’re looking for.
What our readers think
A brilliant, clear, helpful guide on RFT and ACT. Dr. Steven Hayes is a guru! Thank you for this article – it is saved in my favorites!
Great article although lots of misleading info about autistic folks.
Just one example to explain what I mean, eg where what has been said that could benefit from more inclusive and modern language is –
(Old sentence) – This deficit may also be at the root of another problem for people with ASD: lack of empathy and inability to take another’s perspective.
The better statement would be –
This difference may also be at the root of another potential problem for autistic people; difficulty processing emotions in the moment. This can be misconstrued as a lack of empathy or inability to take another’s perspective.
(I’d encourage interested people to check out Damien Milton’s double empathy problem’ to explain).
I have emailed with some suggestions.
Thanks for the really useful article however, my comments are made from the best of intentions.
KC
amazingly explained
Thanks for the very informative text!
Please include a review of studies that relate relational frame training and IQ increase. I have recently learned about these studies and have been very intrigued by this subject but am still very skeptical.
Hi Bruno,
Glad you found the post useful! We’ll keep IQ in mind as we look to update our posts in the future. But in the meantime, you’ll find a discussion of RFT as it relates to IQ in Cassidy et al’s (2010) article.
Hope this helps!
– Nicole | Community Manager
Please include “A Liberated Mind” by Steven C. Hayes in the list of ACT resources. It’s a remarkable book–warm, accessible, and comprehensive–with clear explanations and ACT exercises.
Finally, an article on ACT and RFT that I can use for my graduate students that are just becoming exposed to this treatment modality. Thank you!
Hi Jacob,
So glad you found this article helpful. Best of luck working with your students!
– Nicole | Community Manager
Thank goodness! A very well-written piece on RFT and ACT.
Hi Courtney,
Thanks for your RFT and ACT article, it is the most comprehensible I have come across. Just wondering if you have ever come across the theory of semiology and the theorist Saussure, as his work seems very similar to this theory to me,
Thanks again,
reshma
Your summary is clear and precise with ample resources for further exploration. The layout and format of your page is easy and inviting. Thank you.