Relational Frame Theory (RFT): How Language Shapes Human Thought

Have you ever wondered why simply hearing the word “lemon” can make your mouth water, or why a song on the radio can suddenly bring you to tears over a breakup that happened years ago?

For centuries, philosophers and psychologists have tried to understand the unique power of human language and thought. While animals learn primarily through direct experience—a cat learns a stove is hot only by touching it—humans can learn simply by being told. Our ability to use language has allowed us to build cities, write symphonies, and travel to space. Yet, this exact same ability is also the reason we can be kept awake at night by a thought, paralyzed by self-doubt, or overwhelmed by anxiety about a future that hasn’t happened yet.

To understand this paradox, we need to look at Relational Frame Theory (RFT). RFT is a modern, scientifically backed psychological theory of human language and cognition. It explains not only how we learn to speak and think, but also how our minds can inadvertently trap us in suffering—and how we can break free.

Key Definition:

Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a psychological theory of human language and cognition that explains how we learn to relate symbols, words, and concepts in complex mental “frames,” allowing our thoughts to trigger the same emotional and physical responses as actual events.

What is Relational Frame Theory?

To understand RFT, we have to take a quick step back into the history of psychology. Traditionally, behaviorists like B.F. Skinner believed that human behavior, including language, was shaped purely by direct rewards and consequences (Törneke, 2010; Skinner, 1953). However, this didn’t fully explain the incredible, generative explosion of human language.

RFT, developed in the 1980s as a “post-Skinnerian” behavioral account, proposes a missing link: the core of human language and cognition is our learned ability to relate things to one another arbitrarily (Bach & Moran, 2008).

When someone tells the child that a nickel “is smaller than” a dime in terms of worth, they are putting these coins into a comparative relational frame. This relationship is completely arbitrary because the physical size of the dime does not actually match its higher value. Once this relational frame is established, the child will begin to prefer the physically smaller dime. The coin’s psychological function has been transformed in the child’s mind purely through an arbitrary language cue, entirely overriding what their physical senses tell them (Hayes & Lillis, 2012)..

Another simple, everyday example is how we learn the names of objects by putting them into a frame of coordination (sameness). If you teach a child that the spoken sound “nectarine” goes with a specific round, red and orange fruit, the child will automatically derive the reverse: the physical fruit also represents the sound “nectarine”. If you then teach the child that the written letters N-E-C-T-A-R-I-N-E correspond to the spoken word, their mind will instantly connect all the dots. Without ever needing to be directly taught, the child will derive that the written word also represents the physical fruit (Bach & Moran, 2008).

By putting these separate pieces of information into a relational frame, humans effortlessly generate entire networks of meaning from just a few directly learned connections.

The Three Building Blocks of Language

According to RFT, any time we use language to relate things, three specific processes are happening:

1. Mutual Entailment (A two-way street)

If you learn that A relates to B, your brain automatically deduces that B relates to A. For example, if a child is taught that the English word “chair” is the same as the Spanish word “silla,” the child will automatically know that “silla” means “chair”. Animals do not do this naturally; it is a uniquely human skill (Hayes et al., 2001).

2. Combinatorial Entailment (Connecting the dots)

This takes mutual entailment a step further. If A relates to B, and B relates to C, humans will automatically derive a connection between A and C. If the child learns that “silla” is the Spanish word for “chair,” and “stol” is the Swedish word for “silla,” the child instantly understands that “stol” also means “chair,” even though no one directly taught them that. Out of two trained relationships, a whole network of meaning is born (Hayes et al., 2001).

3. Transformation of Stimulus Functions (The power of words)

This is where RFT gets truly fascinating—and clinically important. When things are networked together in our minds, the psychological function of one thing transfers to the others. Imagine you’ve never encountered an “asp” before, but you read in a magazine that it is a highly venomous snake. You’ve never been bitten by one, and you’ve never even seen a picture of one. Later, you are walking in the woods and a friend points to the ground and shouts, “Look, an asp!” You will immediately feel a surge of fear and jump back. The word “asp” has been transformed; it has taken on the frightening properties of the actual snake, purely through the arbitrary network of language (Bach & Moran, 2008).

What makes the transformation of stimulus functions so powerful is that it doesn’t just happen with things that are the ‘same.’ It also occurs across comparative frames, like more than or less than (Dougher et al., 2007). For example, if you learn that a small dog is dangerous and elicits fear, and you are later told that a wolf is ‘bigger and meaner than’ that dog, your fear doesn’t just transfer—it transforms. You will naturally experience a much larger fear response to the wolf, even if you have never encountered one (Dougher et al., 2007).

This uniquely human ability to extrapolate and infer meaning across different relationships explains how we can have intense emotional reactions to entirely novel situations

The Different “Frames” We Use

We don’t just relate things as being the “same.” RFT identifies several families of relational frames we use to organize our world (Hayes, 2005):

• Coordination (Sameness or Similarity): This is the most fundamental type of relational frame, where we learn that one thing is equivalent to or goes together with another. For example, we learn that the spoken word “apple” represents the physical fruit (Hayes et al., 2001).
• Distinction (Difference): This frame involves responding to one event in terms of how it differs from another. For instance, knowing “a tree is not a stone,” or understanding that a liquid is “not warm” (even if you don’t yet know if it is ice cold or boiling) (Hayes et al., 2001).
• Opposition: This involves relating things as polar extremes along a specific dimension, such as understanding that young is the opposite of old, or hot is the opposite of cold (Bach & Moran, 2008).
• Comparison: This frame relates things quantitatively or qualitatively along a specific dimension, such as bigger/smaller, faster/slower, or better/worse. For example, learning that a dime is physically smaller than a nickel, yet more valuable (Hayes & Lillis, 2012).
• Hierarchical (Class Membership): This frame allows us to understand that something is an “attribute of” or “part of” something else. For example, we derive that an apple is “round” (an attribute) or that a banana belongs to the broader class of “fruit” (Hayes et al., 2001).
• Spatial: This involves arranging objects relative to each other in space, using relations like in/out, front/back, or over/under (Hayes et al., 2001).
• Temporal, Conditional, and Causal: These frames are essential for problem-solving, planning for the future, and understanding consequences. Temporal frames relate events in time (e.g., old people were born before young people). Conditional frames establish “if/then” scenarios (e.g., if you are younger than eighteen, then you cannot vote). Causal frames link events directly (e.g., oxidation causes silver to turn black) (Bach & Moran, 2008).

Deictic (Perspective-Taking)

These frames are incredibly unique because they are based entirely on the observational perspective of the speaker rather than any physical dimensions in the environment (Vilardaga, 2009). They encompass relationships of I/You, Here/There, and Now/Then.

The Relational Roots of Empathy

Deictic frames are the behavioral core of human empathy. They are crucial because they allow us to transcendent the limiting sense of “Self”. Through countless social interactions, we learn that “I” am always observing from “Here” and “Now,” while “You” are experiencing the world from “There” and “Then” (Vilardaga, 2009; Hayes et al., 2001).

When someone asks you, “How would you feel if you were me?”, they are prompting you to shift your “I-Here-Now” perspective to their “You-There-Then” perspective (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001; Vilardaga, 2009). Because of the transformation of stimulus functions, stepping into this relational frame actually evokes congruent emotions. If the speaker is experiencing sadness, the listener can literally feel a measure of that sadness themselves, prompting compassionate and socially coordinated behavior (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001).

From an RFT perspective, empathy is not a mystical inner force, but a highly developed relational skill that can be practiced and trained.

Theory of Mind

Traditional psychology often talks about children developing a Theory of Mind—the understanding that other people have different thoughts, visual perspectives, and beliefs than they do (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001). RFT provides a functional explanation for how this actually happens: it is the result of mastering deictic relational frames. When a child learns that they see a toy right-side up, but a person across the table sees it upside down, they are learning complex “Here vs. There” and “I vs. You” relational networks (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001). .

Understanding another person’s false belief isn’t a magical cognitive leap; it relies on combining the frames of I/You, Here/There, and Now/Then to conclude, “I did not see inside the box there and then, but I do see inside it here and now

According to RFT, these effects happen because they are learned instrumental actions. What is learned is a pattern of derived relational responding regulated by certain cues—a relational frame.

~Steven C. Hayes & Jason Lillis (2012, p. 29)

How Relational Framing Develops

Humans aren’t born with a fully formed ability to relate everything to everything else; these skills are acquired gradually throughout childhood (Kirsten & Stewart, 2022). Research tracking the development of relational framing in children aged 3 to 7 shows a predictable sequence: we master basic frames of coordination (sameness) first. It isn’t until around age 5 that children begin to grasp more complex concepts, such as temporal frames (before/after) or analogical reasoning (the ability to relate one relationship to another) (Kirsten & Stewart, 2022).

Interestingly, a child’s ability to navigate these arbitrary relational frames—particularly comparison and hierarchy—strongly correlates with their overall intellectual potential and IQ. In short, learning to network words and concepts isn’t just a byproduct of intelligence; it is a foundational building block of it.

The Dark Side of Human Languaging

Because our minds are incredible relational machines, we have become the dominant species on the planet (Hayes, 2005). We can plan for the future, learn from the past, and solve complex problems (Bach & Moran, 2008). However, this same ability creates a trap. Our broadened interface with language means we have a broadened interface with pain.

Niklas Törneke,

“Things seem pleasant or unpleasant based on their resemblance to things we have encountered earlier, or because, through respondent learning, they have been associated with something pleasant or unpleasant” (Törneke, 2010).

A non-human animal generally only feels fear when a predator or aversive stimulus is physically present. Because of relational framing, a human being can sit in a perfectly safe, warm room and experience intense agony just by remembering a past failure or imagining a feared future (Wilson et al., 2001).

Dermot Barnes-Holmes and his colleagues emphasize that this is due to the “bidirectional transformation of functions”—meaning that our verbal reports and memories of past pain can produce actual pain in the present (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001a). We cannot simply avoid physical situations to avoid pain; our own language allows us to judge ourselves, reconstruct the past, and worry about the future, making psychological suffering uniquely pervasive for humans.

This leads to two major psychological traps:

Cognitive Fusion:

This happens when we treat our thoughts as if they are absolute reality (Harris, 2019). If you have the thought, “I am a failure,” and you are fused with it, you experience that thought as a literal truth rather than just a string of words your mind generated. You begin to look from your thoughts rather than at them (Hayes & Lillis, 2012). Recent conceptual advances in RFT by Barnes-Holmes and colleagues—known as the hyper-dimensional multi-level (HDML) framework—explain this through the “ROE” unit (Relating, Orienting, and Evoking) (Barnes-Holmes & McEnteggart, 2024).

When you are fused with a relational network like “I am broken” or “I am a failure,” that self-relating pattern becomes highly coherent and inflexible. It dominates your orienting and evoking functions, causing you to experience the thought as a deep, fixed instinct about yourself that dictates your behavior (Barnes-Holmes & McEnteggart, 2024).

See Thoughts and Emotions for more on this topic

Experiential Avoidance:

Because words and thoughts can conjure up real pain, humans naturally try to avoid or suppress them. We apply our external problem-solving skills to our internal world (Harris, 2019). If we don’t like the cold, we put on a coat (which works). But if we don’t like anxiety, we try to suppress it, avoid social events, or numb it (Hayes, 2005).

Kelly G. Wilson and her colleagues explain:

“Human language has transcended its function as a simple signaling and warning system for use by a community. The aversive functions that humans avoid are now aspects of their own selves. As a result, humans avoid self-knowledge of past pain or abuse the way nonhumans would avoid the abuse itself” (Wilson et al., 2001).

In their research, Barnes-Holmes and other behavioral scientists have shown that because language networks work by addition rather than subtraction, trying not to think of something only links it to more things, amplifying the pain (Bach & Moran, 2008). This avoidance acts as an emotional safety behavior that provides short-term relief but ultimately keeps us disconnected from a rich and meaningful life (Harris, 2019).

ACT regards the mind as a double-edged sword. It’s very useful for all sorts of purposes, but if we don’t learn how to handle it effectively, it will hurt us.

~Russ Harris (2019, p. 7)

Primary and Secondary Appraisals in the Context of RFT

A significant branch of emotion theory incorporates the role of appraisal of emotional arousal that was triggered by the environment. The arousal is considered a primary appraisal of the trigger. For instance, we see a snake on the trail in front of us and our muscles tense and heart beat accelerates. This is also referred to as the fight-or-flight response. It is the adaptive response to prepare to address danger.

However, our response to danger doesn’t stop there. Our cognitive processes continue to evaluate by now incorporating the internal feeling experience into the appraisal. This more complex appraisal is referred to as secondary appraisals. We not only have the event, but also our anger, fear, or joy associated with the event to sort through.

Michael A. Tompkins, Ph.D., warns:

“Secondary judgments only make things worse. You feel not only anxious, but also guilty, ashamed, or depressed, and then you try to avoid these emotions the same way you avoid your anxious response” (Tompkins, 2013).

We feel emotion and then the experience of that emotion conjures up our history with the that particular emotion (relational frames).

Secondary Appraisals and the RFT Framework

The “Struggle Switch” and Dirty Discomfort

In RFT and ACT (the primary therapy built on the theoretical foundation of RFT), the cycle of secondary appraisal is frequently described using the metaphor of the “struggle switch” (Harris, 2022). When you experience a primary emotion like anxiety, this is considered a natural, baseline level of emotional discomfort, referred to as “clean discomfort”. However, if your mind’s “struggle switch” is turned on, that primary emotion is deemed completely unacceptable. Your mind immediately begins generating secondary emotions: you might feel anger about your anxiety, guilt about your anxiety, or anxiety about your anxiety. All of this additional, self-generated pain is what ACT calls “dirty discomfort” (Harris, 2022).

Evaluation and the Transformation of Functions

RFT explains why this happens through our uniquely human ability to put things into relational frames. We don’t just feel an emotion; we verbally evaluate it (Hayes, 2005). When you experience anxiety, your mind quickly puts that feeling into a frame of coordination with the concept of “bad” or “dangerous”. Because of a process called the transformation of stimulus functions, the physical sensation of anxiety actually takes on the terrifying properties of a literal threat. The internal feeling itself becomes an enemy that you believe must be eliminated or avoided (Wilson et al., 2001; Bach & Moran, 2008).

Experiential Avoidance as the Trap

People try to avoid these secondary emotions the same way they avoid the primary anxious response. In RFT, this is called experiential avoidance—the attempt to escape, suppress, or get rid of unwanted private experiences like thoughts and feelings (Hayes & Lillis, 2012; Harris, 2019).

While avoiding a physical threat in the real world works well, RFT shows that applying this “fix-it” mentality to our inner world backfires entirely (Hayes, 2005). Because our language networks work by addition rather than subtraction, actively trying to suppress or run from a feeling like anxiety only links it to more contexts in your brain (Wilson et al., 2001). The more importance you place on avoiding anxiety, the more you develop anxiety about your anxiety, establishing a vicious, self-amplifying loop that sits at the very core of a panic attack.

RFT in Practice: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

You might be wondering: if our minds are rigged to trap us, what is the cure? Relational Frame Theory forms the direct scientific foundation for Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (Bach & Moran, 2008; Harris, 2019).

ACT doesn’t try to change the content of your thoughts (which RFT tells us is nearly impossible because you can’t just delete a relational network). Instead, it changes the context of your thoughts (Bach & Moran, 2008).

ACT utilizes techniques to promote:

• Cognitive Defusion: Learning to step back and see thoughts just as words or pictures. Instead of saying “I am a total failure,” you might learn to say, “I am having the thought that I am a total failure.” This simple shift breaks the illusion of language and reduces the thought’s power over your behavior (Hayes, 2005).
• Acceptance: Dropping the struggle against your own inner experiences. Instead of experiential avoidance, you learn to make room for painful feelings so they no longer dictate your life (Bach & Moran, 2008).
• Committed Action toward Values: Clarifying what you truly want your life to be about, and taking steps in that direction, even if your mind is chattering at you to stop (Bach & Moran, 2008).

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In conclusion, Relational Frame Theory (RFT) offers profound insights into the complexities of human language and cognition. Just as the opening paragraphs highlighted the paradoxical nature of our linguistic abilities—where words can evoke strong emotional responses that influence our thoughts and behaviors—RFT elucidates how these very same capabilities can lead to psychological suffering.

By understanding how we construct relational frames, we gain a clearer perspective on why experiences such as anxiety or self-doubt arise from mere thoughts rather than direct experiences. Ultimately, RFT not only illuminates the intricacies of our mental processes but also empowers us through Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) to navigate these challenges more effectively.

Through the lens of RFT—and the practical tools of ACT—we can learn to thank our minds for the stories they weave, while choosing to gently step out of the web and into a rich, meaningful life.

Last Edited: March 17, 2026

References:

Bach, P. A.; Moran, D. J. (2008). ACT in practice: Case conceptualization in acceptance & commitment therapy. New Harbinger Publications. ISBN: 9781572244788; APA Record: 2008-01148-000
(Return to Main Text)

Barnes-Holmes, Y.; Barnes-Holmes, D.; Roche, B.; Smeets, P. (2001). The Development of Self and Perspective-Taking: A Relational Frame Analysis. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 10(1), 42-45. DOI: 10.1037/h0100482
(Return to Main Text)

Barnes-Holmes, Dermot; Yvonne Barnes-Holmes, Yvonne; Roche, Bryan; Hayes, Steven C. (2001a). Social Processes. In: Steven C. Hayes and Dermot Barnes-Holmes Bryan Roche (eds.), Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Plenum Publishers. ISBN: 9780306466007; APA Record: 2001-06976-000
(Return to Main Text)

Barnes-Holmes, Y.; McEnteggart, C. (2024). Process-Based Behavior Therapy (PBBT®): Where Relational Frame Theory Meets Clinical Practice. The Psychological Record, 74(4), 573-589. DOI: 10.1007/s40732-024-00615-y
(Return to Main Text)

Dougher, M. J.; Hamilton, D. A.; Fink, B. C.; Harrington, J. (2007). Transformation of the discriminative and eliciting functions of generalized relational stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88(2), 179–197. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2007.45-05
(Return to Main Text)

Harris, Russ (2019). ACT Made Simple: An Easy-To-Read Primer on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (The New Harbinger Made Simple Series). New Harbinger Publications; 2nd edition. ISBN-10: 1684033012; APA Record: 2012-17248-000
(Return to Main Text)

Harris, Russ (2022). The Happiness Trap: How to Stop Struggling and Start Living (Second Edition). Shambhala. ISBN-10: 1645471160; APA Record: 2008-00854-000
(Return to Main Text)

Spotlight Book:

Hayes, Steven C.; Lillis, Jason (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Theories of Psychotherapy Series). American Psychological Association; 1st edition. ISBN-10: 1433811545
(Return to Main Text)

Hayes, Steven C.; Fox, Eric; Gifford, Elizabeth V.; Wilson, Kelly G.; Barnes-Holmes, Dermot; Healy, Maynooth; Healy, Olive (2001). Derived Relational Responding as Learned Behavior. In: Steven C. Hayes and Dermot Barnes-Holmes Bryan Roche (eds.), Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Plenum Publishers. ISBN: 9780306466007; APA Record: 2001-06976-000
(Return to Main Text)

Hayes, Steven C. (2005). Get out of your mind and into your life: The new acceptance and commitment therapy. New Harbinger Publications. ISBN: 9781572244252
(Return to Main Text)

Kirsten, E.; Stewart, I. (2022). Assessing the Development of Relational Framing in Young Children. The Psychological Record, 72(2), 221-246. DOI: 10.1007/s40732-021-00457-y
(Return to Main Text)

Murphy, C.; Barnes-Holmes, D. (2017). Establishing Derived Manding for Specific Amounts with Three Children: An Attempt at Synthesizing Skinner’s Verbal Behavior with Relational Frame Theory. The Psychological Record, 59(1), 75-91. DOI: 10.1007/BF03395650
(Return to Main Text)

Ooshima, Y.; Mitamura, T. (2025). Effects of perspective-taking training based on relational frame theory for cognitive empathy and emotional empathy: Differences in perspective-taking according to various theoretical approaches. PLoS ONE, 20(5),  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323120
(Return to Main Text)

Skinner, B.F. (1974/2011). About Behaviorism. Vintage; 1st edition. ISBN: 9780394716183; APA Record: 1975-00035-000
(Return to Main Text)

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. ISBN: 9780029290408; APA Record: 1954-05139-000
(Return to Main Text)

Tompkins, Michael A. (2013). Anxiety and Avoidance: A Universal Treatment for Anxiety, Panic, and Fear. ‎New Harbinger Publications. ISBN-10: 1608826694
(Return to Main Text)

Spotlight Book:

Törneke, Niklas (2010). Learning RFT: An introduction to relational frame theory and its clinical application. New Harbinger Publications. ISBN: 9781572249066
(Return to Main Text)

Vilardaga, R. (2009). A Relational Frame Theory Account of Empathy. Psychological Test Adaptation and Development, 5(2), 178-184. DOI: 10.1037/h0100879
(Return to Main Text)

Wilson, Kelly G.; Hayes, Steven C.; Gregg, Jennifer; Zettle, Reno; Zettle, Robert D. (2001). Psychopathology and Psychotherapy. In: Steven C. Hayes and Dermot Barnes-Holmes Bryan Roche (eds.), Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition. Plenum Publishers. ISBN: 9780306466007; APA Record: 2001-06976-000
(Return to Main Text)