Hello All!
Warning: this is quite a long post! I will also paste a copy of this as a blog post.
…
To my understanding, “values” in ACT can be adequately/generally defined as “chosen qualities of action/being/doing”.
From this, if one was to attempt to make a distinction between “types” of values (from a ACBS/ACT perspective), then there must be a good, function-based reason/purpose for which this is done.
Recently, it was pointed out in a post that there can be seen to be types of values that represent ongoing, continuous qualities of action/doing/being (i.e., the way one travels in any direction) as opposed to other types that are not necessarily ongoing, continuous qualities of action/doing/being (i.e., the directions one chooses to travel).
In the following, I will attempt to make a function-based case for the relevance of identifying and exploring this distinction between types of values.
…
To my understanding, ACT therapists currently largely utilize (unique) contextual information that is relevant to the life of an individual/client to identify (likely) “meaningful” values that pertain to that specific individual. In performing an individualized values assessment for/with a client, a clinician attempts to identify these “meaningful” values that would be expected to be more likely to be effective/functional for the purposes that values serve rather than, for example, just recommending that clients follow general, non-individualized values as life directions.
From an ACT perspective, in what way/s would individualized/personalized values be more likely to be effective/functional than non-individualized values? There may be other/different answers to this question, but a basic answer that I think most, if not all, would likely agree with is that following individualized/freely chosen values would be more likely to function to produce better (quality/quantity) outcomes/experiences in the life of the client (i.e., the fundamental reason clients seek therapeutic services). Thus, personalized values would be expected, as compared to non-personalized values, to increase the probability, for that individual, of leading to better quantity/quality life/experiences (long term at least, if not also short term).
Individualized values, in a clinical setting, are generally derived from the unique contexts relevant/important to the life of an individual/client. Thus, these values are likely to specify the unique context/s to which they pertain and be highly unlikely to be identical between people/clients; for example, one could choose to value being a “type” of parent, spouse, sibling, student, professional, hobbyist, etc while another could choose to value being different “types”. Since these types of individualized/personalized values pertain to a given context apart from other contexts, then they are not necessarily ongoing, continuous qualities of action/doing/being; for instance, one can choose to be a loving parent and a dedicated hobbyist, but is not likely to be valuing (through the quality of continuing actions) both in each and every moment of their life.
For convenience, I will be referring to these type of values that are NOT necessarily ongoing, continuous qualities of action as “context-specifying values”.
…
In contrast to context-specifying values, people/clients may choose to value qualities of action/doing/being that do not vary across contexts. Since these types of values would represent ongoing, continuous qualities of action/doing/being, then this means that they would be inevitably tied/attached to the context that spans contexts: the very person/human/being that traverses through all of life’s various contexts/environments. For convenience, I will be referring to these types of values that are ongoing, continuous qualities of action “context-spanning values”.
Thus, while context-specifying values attempt to ask and answer the fundamental question “What type of parent/spouse/sibling/etc. do I desire and choose to be?”, context-spanning values can be seen as asking/answering the fundamental question “What type of human being do I desire and choose to be?”
Since context-spanning values focus on a fundamental contextual variable that is common to all clients/people (i.e., being a human being), then this provides an opportunity that context-specifying values do not. Specifically, context-spanning values may allow for the identification of values that are important/meaningful to being a human/person and thus identify values that are likely to be effective/functional for the purposes of having a value before ever conducting an individualized values assessment with a specific client.
To me, ACT already recommends a (general) context-spanning value to all clients across contexts and lifespan: the ongoing, continuous quality of action of “valuing” (without regard to the actual values themselves). “Valuing”, in ACT, as a context-spanning value, is recommended generally to all humans/clients and is expected to increase the probability of living a better quality life for those who engage in this context-spanning value.
The question that identifying context-spanning values allows us to ask and answer is therefore: are there any other values that apply generally to humans that are likely to improve quality of life/experiences for those who do so?
To me, this is where the idea of “yearnings” come into relevance/use. For example, though some yearnings (as “deep desires”) may vary across people, time, and place, there may also be deep desires that are fundamental to being a human and therefore do not (for the most part) vary across people, time, and place. Since such deep desires (yearnings), if they exist, would represent relatively universal/enduring deep desires, then, for the sake of convenience, I will refer to these “type” of yearnings as “core yearnings”.
…
Currently, I can think of two core yearnings, relevant to most (if not all) humans most (if not all) of the time, that likely fit this description:
1. The desire to live and continue living (i.e., life itself), and
2. The desire to not suffer/experience relative pleasure/contentment/happiness (i.e., eudaimonia).
…
Valuing “safety/precaution”, to me, is an example of context-spanning values that are fundamentally in the service of these core yearnings. Getting out of the way of a falling piano would (likely) be just as valued an action in a theatre as in a parking lot, as would avoiding dangerous/infectious diseases/viruses.
I also have the (function-based) belief that wholesome/moral qualities of action/doing/being, defined functionally by their (probable) desirable effects of qualities of conditions/environment/stimuli one traverses through, can also be seen in the same way (i.e., likely increasing the quality of life of the individuals who value them). A deeper look at how exactly they can be seen to function in this manner can be found in a blog post I wrote (on this website) entitled “The Value of Morality” (click my username and look for “blogs”).
I will save further exploration of these concepts for another time, as this post is already long enough at this point.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. As always, any dialogue on these topics is welcome and appreciated.
Jesse
“In Values We Trust”