A stimulus in need of a response: A review of relational frame theory: A post-skinnerian account of human language and cognition.
RFT grew from a wish-list into manuals and models once researchers followed the 2003 advice to tie it to basic EAB and child data.
01Research in Context
What this study did
McIlvane (2003) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.
The paper tells RFT fans to run tighter lab studies and to test young children who are just learning language.
No new data were collected; it is a road-map for future work.
What they found
The author found that RFT sounded good in theory but lacked the hard evidence that basic EAB demands.
Without child data and stricter controls, RFT would stay a “plausible story” instead of proven science.
How this fits with other research
Enoch et al. (2020) extends this call. Their survey shows that 303 BCBAs now see ACT/RFT as part of ABA, yet 90% still want training—proof the field listened and wants the tools the 2003 paper said were missing.
Reed et al. (2016) is a direct successor. The PEAK curriculum gives practitioners a ready-made, RFT-based program for verbal behavior—exactly the usable technology McIlvane (2003) said was needed.
Johansson (2025) also answers the plea. A computer model now mimics the core RFT processes (mutual entailment, transformation of function) that the 2003 paper wanted tested under strict EAB methods.
Why it matters
You no longer have to wait for “someday” RFT tools. PEAK is on the shelf, AI models can preview your stimulus sets, and CEU courses are popping up. Start small: pick one PEAK lesson, pre-check the relations in a quick matching game, and take data. You will be doing the basic-lab plus applied-child work that McIlvane (2003) said was missing.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open PEAK or any RFT-based protocol, run one relational trial with a young learner, and graph the derived relations that appear.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In this commentary, I describe relational frame theory (RFT) as an analysis of complex human behavior that has been insufficiently addressed within contemporary behavior analysis. The theory is described as having an exceptionally ambitious vision of the type that will render behavior analytic accounts more generally acceptable within the broader behavioral and cognitive sciences. In my own view, inductive empirically-driven analyses derived from current data on relational learning (including my own) have not been comparably ambitious; they have not addressed the full range of phenomena to which they might be profitably applied. By contrast, researchers in the RFT tradition have ambitious; they have not addressed the full range of phenomena to which they might be profitably applied. By contrast, researchers in the RFT tradition have tended to project their analyses to encompass a variety of plausible, attractive applications that are arguably within the reach of their current data or data that may be reasonably anticipated in the future. In order for RFT researchers to have its maximum impact, however, I suggest that certain critical steps must be accomplished. First, the theory must be reconciled with the basic behavioral processes that are the core of the experimental analysis of behavior. Second, certain experiments must be conducted that have thus far not been emphasized in the RFT tradition. In particular, I suggest that the current practice of studying college students and verbal school-aged children must be supplemented with comparably intensive studies of populations with developmental limitations (e.g., typically developing children who are just acquiring language). Absent such experimentation, it seems likely that RFT will remain a plausible account that merely competes with other plausible accounts without promoting ultimate resolution of the critical issues.
The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2003 · doi:10.1007/BF03392980