Evaluating Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

Never let it be said that we are biased!

Of course, ACT is not perfect. Neither is it without its detractors.

This research article in The International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy
(2011, Vol. 7, No. 1, 55–67) evaluates a recent critique of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.

Written by Brandon A. Gaudiano, it concludes that:

In their critique, Hofmann and Asmundson (2008) attempt to provide a rebuttal to Hayes et al.’s (2006) supposed misrep-resentations of CBT. They also offer a model of emotion reg-
ulation that they claim could account for both CBT and ACT. Thus, it is not surprising that Hofmann and Asmundson fail to find Hayes’ (2004b) argument convincing that ACT rep-
resents a truly novel approach that deserves recognition as the “third wave” of behavior therapy. By providing a more detailed analysis of Hofmann and Asmundson’s claims, I attempted to clarify some of these issues. Although these critics understandably attempted to provide a more nuanced understanding of CBT compared with the sometimes over-simplified depictions presented by Hayes et al. (1999), at least as they appeared in early ACT writings, Hofmann and Asmundson ultimately fail to contradict the actual merits of the original critiques of CBT in the majority of cases.

Regardless of your perspective, it’s an interesting read and a valuable contribution to the analysis of ACT.

Comments are closed