Defining Verbal Behavior: Two Conflicting Approaches.
Skinner and RFT give different but compatible lenses—pick the lens that fits the clinical job, not the camp.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Schoneberger (2025) looked at two ways behavior analysts define 'verbal behavior.' One way comes from Skinner's 1957 book. The other comes from Relational Frame Theory, or RFT.
The paper is a think-piece, not an experiment. It maps how each camp talks about the same word. Then it asks if the two maps fight each other.
What they found
The two maps do not fight. Skinner gives a 'lexical' definition: verbal means mediated by a listener who has been trained by a community. RFT gives a 'persuasive' definition: verbal means participating in arbitrarily applicable relational responding.
Because the goals differ, the definitions answer different questions. Ted says the twenty-year turf war can stop. Use Skinner when you track reinforcers. Use RFT when you track how stimulus relations spread without direct training.
How this fits with other research
Merrill (2004) flatly contradicts the peace treaty. That review says RFT still owes the field a new principle and that Skinner already covers relational data. Ted answers: no new principle is needed because the accounts sit at different levels.
Osborne (2003) and Najdowski et al. (2003) paved the way. Grayson argued RFT extends Skinner rather than replaces him. C et al. urged the field to face RFT data head-on. Ted picks up both threads and adds the cease-fire: stop treating the views as rivals.
Fushimi (1990) used the same tool—conceptual analysis—to untangle earlier verbal-behavior fights. The method repeats; only the players change.
Why it matters
If you write task analyses, you can stay with Skinner's three-term contingency labels. If you teach derived relations such as analogies or perspective-taking, you can borrow RFT terms without betraying Skinner. You no longer need to pick a side in team meetings. Just match the definition to the clinical question at hand.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Label your next mand or tact session with Skinner terms; label your next equivalence or analogy drill with RFT terms—same kid, same day, no conflict.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Verbal Behavior, Skinner (1957) defined verbal behavior as "behavior reinforced through the mediation of other persons" (p. 2) in which the delivery of reinforcement has been "conditioned precisely in order to reinforce the behavior of the speaker" (p. 225). By contrast, as part of relational frame theory (RFT), S. C. Hayes and colleagues instead defined verbal behavior as "the action of framing events relationally" (Hayes, Fox, et al., 2001, p. 43). The central task of this article is to clarify and resolve or dismiss this definitional dispute. Specifically, I investigate the nature of this dispute by determining what kind of definition each offers. As a result, I conclude that Skinner's serves as a lexical definition-an assertion about the customary usage of the term verbal behavior (and its cognates). On the other hand, RFT's qualifies as a type of persuasive definition; namely, a hybrid possessing some features of both stipulative and lexical definitions. As such, I argue that the two definitions serve different goals and are, therefore, not in conflict. Given that juxtaposing these two disparate definitions constitutes an "apples and oranges" comparison, I conclude that this faux dispute requires no resolution. Instead, I propose its dismissal. Lastly, RFT's proponents raised three principal objections to Skinner's definition. The fact that the two definitions are not in conflict does not absolve Skinner's definitions of these objections. Therefore, after reviewing these three arguments, I offer counterarguments and conclude that Skinner's definition survives largely unscathed.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2025 · doi:10.1086/525632