Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Contextual Behavioral Science: Examining the Progress of a Distinctive Model of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy

Abstract

A number of recent authors have compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). The present article describes ACT as a distinct and unified model of behavior change, linked to a specific strategy of scientific development, which we term “contextual behavioral science.” We outline the empirical progress of ACT and describe its distinctive development strategy. A contextual behavioral science approach is an inductive attempt to build more adequate psychological systems based on philosophical clarity; the development of basic principles and theories; the development of applied theories linked to basic ones; techniques and components linked to these processes and principles; measurement of theoretically key processes; an emphasis on mediation and moderation in the analysis of applied impact; an interest in effectiveness, dissemination, and training; empirical testing of the research program across a broad range of areas and levels of analysis; and the creation of a more effective scientific and clinical community. We argue that this is a reasonable approach, focused on long-term progress, and that in broad terms it seems to be working. ACT is not hostile to traditional CBT, and is not directly buoyed by whatever weaknesses traditional CBT may have. ACT should be measured at least in part against its own goals as specified by its own developmental strategy.

Concurrent effects of different psychological processes in the prediction of depressive symptoms – the role of cognitive fusion

“…Individuals in fusion with their cognitions take their thoughts literally, lose flexible contact with both their experience and contextual contingencies, and have their behavior overly regulated by verbal processes (Hayes 2004;Hayes et al 2006Hayes et al , 2013. In turn, this results in an incapacity to take values-based actions in the presence of unpleasant internal events (Blackledge and Hayes 2001;Bond et al 2011;Hayes et al 1999), conducts to psychological inflexibility and, ultimately, to psychopathology.…”

“…ACT proposes that most of human suffering results from psychological inflexibility (Hayes et al 1999(Hayes et al , 2006, which is established through six key processes: cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, loss of flexible contact with the present, attachment to a conceptualized self, lack of values clarity, and inaction, impulsivity, or avoidant persistence (Hayes et al 2006(Hayes et al , 2013.…”

“…In particular, cognitive fusion consists in an excessive influence and dominance of the literal meaning of thoughts over awareness, emotion and action, making behavior insensitive to contextual contingencies and behavioral responses progressively more rigid and inflexible (Blackledge and Hayes 2001;Hayes 2004;Hayes et al 1999Hayes et al , 2006Hayes et al , 2013Levin and Hayes 2011).…”

Fear Generalization in Humans: Systematic Review and Implications for Anxiety Disorder Research

“…It shows how semantic-like, symbolic categories may be readily formed in language-able humans and how "meaning" or, in this instance, conditioned fear and avoidance functions, alter and spread to networks of related stimuli. The relational basis of this view of psychopathology forms the basis of relational frame theory (RFT; Dymond & Roche, 2013;Dymond, Roche, & Bennett, 2013), a functional contextual account of human language and cognition that informs several third-wave behavior therapies such as acceptance and commitment therapy (Hayes, Levin, Plumb-Vilardaga, Villate, & Pistorello, 2013).…”

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Individuals with Disabilities: A Behavior Analytic Strategy for Addressing Private Events in Challenging Behavior

“…ACT is a form of contextual cognitive behavior therapy (Twohig 2012) that applies the theory and philosophy of behavioral science to a wide variety of psychopathologies (Hayes et al 2013). ACT assumes that many human struggles and problematic behaviors are products of our language abilities (Hayes et al 2012) and assumes that language is a product of relational framing.…”