Relational frame

The comparison frame

Relating stimuli along a graded dimension: more, less, bigger.

What it looks like

Comparison is asymmetric in a way coordination is not. If A is bigger than B, the entailed relation is not that B is bigger than A but that B is smaller than A. The relation reverses rather than repeating.

Combinatorial entailment is strong and transitive: A bigger than B, B bigger than C, therefore A bigger than C, and C smaller than A.

Worked example

A learner is taught that coin A buys more than coin B, and that coin B buys more than coin C.

Without further teaching they derive that A buys more than C, and that C buys least of the three. Transformation of function follows: if buying more is currently valuable, A becomes the preferred coin even though its physical size may be smallest.

How to build a lesson for this frame

  1. Use a single dimension

    Fix one comparative dimension per lesson: size, quantity, or speed. Do not vary the dimension inside a trial block.

  2. Train adjacent pairs

    Teach A-to-B and B-to-C explicitly, both directions, so that the reversal is in repertoire before you probe.

  3. Probe transitivity

    Test the A-to-C relation and its reverse. This is the derived relation the lesson exists to produce.

  4. Probe function transfer

    Attach a function to one end of the scale and test whether preference reorganises across the untrained members.

Common pitfalls

Letting physical magnitude co-vary with the trained relation is the classic confound: if the bigger-valued item is also the physically larger picture, you have taught a non-arbitrary discrimination, not a relational frame. Randomise physical properties against the arbitrary relation.

Build a comparison lesson

Draft the trial structure in RFT App, then edit it into the program you actually want.

See how it works

Other relational frames

Common questions

What is a comparison frame?
A relational frame that relates stimuli along a graded dimension such as more, less, bigger, or faster.
Why is comparison harder than coordination?
Because the entailed relation reverses rather than repeats. If A is bigger than B, the derived relation is that B is smaller than A, which requires tracking direction as well as relation.