I have been asked about this approach to therapy. It is a relatively new arrival in the therapy world (1980’s onward). ACT does contain elements that help readers design experiments for themselves. See –
as this provides some insight into this model and a web search will disclose a lot more!
In general, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) encourages you to accept what is out of your control and encourages you to commit yourself to action to improve your life. It is an approach intending to maximise your potential.
Here is a diagram summarising the elements in the ACT approach. I will need to explain myself a bit more, below, and this may help you research further.
Contact with the present moment relates to the Mindfulness perspective.
Acceptance is related to the ability to decide between what you can be change and what IS. ACT has useful things to say about our thought processes and how they can be harnessed to revise our behaviour.
Values: the model seeks to make explicit the values we possess and the ways in which our values help or hinder change.
Defusion is a specific technique rather similar to the experiment of “Just Noticing” or “Stepping Back”, included in my blog. Defusion assumes we can become over-focused on some aspect of our behaviour, particularly the language we use, and this restricts our ability to change that behaviour.
Committed Action: for me, this is ACT at its best as it is being very clear about doing something differently and noticing the outcome of your actions and being prepared to change once those outcomes become clear.
Self, as context: This element of the model is interesting. It places you and me at the centre of the process of change and respects our ability to notice and sustain changes we make. However, as with the Values element – see below – I am left uneasy about how this element works in actual practice.
The ACT model seems to help us to clarify what is important; it does inspire you to experiment. ACT helps by being action-oriented; it encourages you to find your own ways to change. Change is achieved through teaching skills gleaned from, among others, the cognitive behavioural approach (CBT) and Mindfulness. It is the view that skills need to be taught that starts me asking questions. What are those skills and who defines them?
ACT has joined the ranks of those models that initiate training programmes. That tends to slide down the slippery slope towards ‘this-is-the-way-to-do-it’. In my blog I have specified the way in which safe experiments can, even should, be designed. I hope I have made very clear who implements the experiment and who has to respond to the results generated.
There is an implicit assumption in the ACT model that it can define what is a ‘safe experiment’, and it places emphasis on having a guide to help you avoid a small defeat. It is possible to get it wrong. Personally, I dispute that inference.
The ACT view of Committed Action is troubling. The approach includes a commitment to values in its model. This includes a professed respect for education of the self, a view that one can be ‘trained’ toward some notion of personal growth. Sadly, that ‘education’ training perspective is not as closely focused on the individual’s path of learning as first appears. To be contentious, I’d suggest few training programmes are very focused on an individual learning about themselves, for themselves.
So, at this point, I become cautious and I look a little more closely at the model. When I do this, I find ACT seeks to be a coherent ‘whole’, when it is, in practice, a collection of approaches to safe experimenting. You do not need to be trained in ACT to explore those other models. Also, why are a few approaches selected over the many hundred available? That is not clear to me. I have no great love of traditional psycho-analytic approaches to creating change in the human condition, but I would be reluctant to say they have nothing to offer.
In short, the ACT perspective, when examined up-close, identifies a number of safe experiments already around from existing areas of psychology. For instance, Acceptance is an approach to ‘just noticing’ as touched on in my blog. Mindfulness, like Yoga, is one approach to experimenting that may help you, but you will not know that until you try it out. Also, it is a very large subject and you can go to Bangor University and do a post-graduate programme in Mindfulness practice!
ACT, in common with most models, is less explicit about the importance of you finding out what works for you, although it is willing to consider the possibility, see below. Like other models, it rather implies it can tell you what will work for you. It seems to be saying that you can only make progress if you integrate your approach to experiments according to an ACT perspective.
Consider this view from – https://www.actmindfully.com.au/upimages/Dr_Russ_Harris_-_A_Non-technical_Overview_of_ACT.pdf
Apart from failing to respect the possibility of learning from symptom reduction and management, the final statement is an assertion. Where is the evidence for symptom reduction worsening or even creating clinical disorders? The quotation sets up an almost neo-Freudian way of thinking: that effective therapy is full of unintended consequences that only a fully-trained expert can help you avoid. There is no respect for learning from our small defeats. This is combined with a Project Fear warning you off doing it yourself, lest you get it wrong. The best you can do is to accept the hurt that comes with getting it wrong.
My own blog encourages you to go your own way; going on the scenic route. Getting things wrong is an important aspect of making progress. In practice, if you do safe experiments, you will learn from small defeats and small victories. If a series of small defeats encourage you to seek a professional consultant, then so be it – but only for the duration.