On the verbal behavior of relational frame theory: A post-skinnerian account of human language and cognition.

Salzinger (2003) wrote a theory paper. He asked, "What if we stop using Skinner's old verbal operants?"

Instead, he said we should talk about 'relational frames.' These are word links people build in their heads.

He urged researchers to test this new way of talking about language.

The paper does not give data. It gives a new map.

The map says meaning lives in the relations between words, not in single words alone.

Glenn (1983) drew the old map. That paper used Skinner's mand, tact, and intraverbal units. Salzinger (2003) redraws the map, so the 2003 paper supersedes the 1983 view.

Belisle et al. (2022) took the new map into therapy rooms. They show you can twist relational frames during ACT to boost client flexibility.

Barnes-Holmes et al. (2026) still use the map but add a second lens. They swap 'frame' for 'interbehavioral field' to clear up confusion.

Jones et al. (1998) stretched the map into a new land: sexual arousal. They show how word relations can turn neutral words into turn-ons.

You now have a fresh way to talk about client language. When a teen says, "I'm dumb," you don't just count it as a tact. You track the relation: teen-dumb-bad. You can then break that link with RFT drills or ACT exercises. Try it next time a client fuses with a painful story.