Relational frame theory clearly aims to provide an account of derived relational responding in terms of generalized operant response classes. Nevertheless, the question still remains: How exactly does RFT define the concept of the generalized operant? To answer this question, it should first be noted that for RFT a response class with an infinite variety of topographies is a defining property of operant behavior.

．．．The key point here, is that for RFT these qualifiers are not used in this instance as technical terms, and they do not imply the existence of mediational processes leading to the formation of operants of this type. Instead, these qualifiers emphasize that a specific operant class cannot be defined by its response forms, a fact that is true in principle for all operant classes. In short, the prefix "generalized" is not used by RFT to make a technical distinction between two types of operant classes. Instead, it serves merely to emphasize the purely functional nature of specific operant classes, of which relational framing is but one example.