”Grounded in an empirical, principle-focused approach, the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapy is particularly sensitive to the context and functions of psychological phenomena, not just their form, and thus tends to emphasize contextual and experiential change strategies in addition to more direct and didactic ones. These treatments tend to seek the construction of broad, flexible and effective repertoires over an eliminative approach to narrowly defined problems, and to emphasize the relevance of the issues they examine for clinicians as well as clients. The third wave reformulates and synthesizes previous generations of behavioral and cognitive therapy and carries them forward into questions, issues, and domains previously addressed primarily by other traditions, in hopes of improving both understanding and outcomes.” (quote from Hayes, 2004).

These are very broad characterizations and there is no clear dividing line between various historical aspects of the behavior therapy tradition.

That question is a huge one. RFT seeks a broad understanding of cognition. In the long run it could be more important than ACT because if it works the whole of psychology could change.

RFT is developmental, contextual, and behavioral. It gives you ideas about what to change to make things happen. It is so basic that it goes all the way down to animal behavior and human infants; and yet so broad in scope that it has clear implications for our understanding of social processes or such human activities as religion.

We have never had an empirically adequate behavioral, contextual account of cognition. Now we have at least the beginnings of one and it seems to be braking down the artificial barriers between cognitive and behavioral science.

The theories underlying CBT and CT are not like that. They have relatively low scope and they emerged typically from clinical concerns. They do not pretend to be the functional equivalent in cognition for what “behavioral principles” are in non-verbal behavior.

You have to be impressed with what the traditional behavior therapists were able to do with traditional behavioral principles, in part because these principles emphasized manipulable contextual variables. Imagine what we might do with a theory of cognition that emphasized manipulable contextual variables, if the theory was relatively adequate. Maybe a lot.

Originally submitted by user dixonph on 7/30/2014:

Edward Hagen's paper: Delusions as Exploitative Behavior
http://bit.ly/1ppVlnu echoes themes of ACT theorists. ACT is held by the founders as a possible aid for even severe psychotic disorders. Contextual behavior theory is not mentioned as such in Hagen's paper. I don't know if Hagen is involved with mental illness treatments, or ACT specifically. The paper seems to be very much in line with ACT principles. That is why I mention it here. I see a connection.

If even severe mental illness is an evolutionary adaptive survival mechanism manifested as a result of a failed social context, then how can ACT help reintegrate the modern sufferer into more successful social connections?

Can there be communities where ACT functions to create an experience of acceptance and support for sufferers even outside the therapeutic setting?

I am looking to see if Edward Hagen is involved with ACBS/ACT. His paper states that he believes anti-psychotic medication will not really help someone with what is called delusional disorder (semi-plausible delusions, continued day to day routine functioning), which is distinct from the bizarre delusions of schizophrenia. He also mentions the harmful side effects of the medications.

I am interested in the potential for ACT in supportive community for mental health sufferers.

Any known efforts among ACT practioners?