From an ACT perspective, many of the psychological factors related to weight control that were discussed previously can be grouped into three categories:
- Persistence in the face of difficult emotions and thoughts or distress tolerance
- Cognitive rigidity
- Motivational factors
Persistence: Individuals who have difficulty maintaining weight loss typically report or have been found to eat in response to stress and other negative affective states, such as hopelessness, helplessness, anger, anxiety, or boredom. From an ACT perspective, this can be seen as a problem with persistence or distress tolerance. The ACT theory of psychopathology suggests that attempts to change or eliminate unwanted private experiences (experiential avoidance) result in a narrow set of behavioral responses. In this case, the presence of uncomfortable or undesirable emotions consistently occasions eating for comfort. The problem is that the short-term effects of reducing negative affect have little or no impact on an individual’s long-term ability to face discomfort and lead a healthy, vital life. Each instance strengthens the relationship between uncomfortable emotion and avoidance. In a sense, the individual becomes less able to deal with uncomfortable emotions over time and eating is required more and more as a coping response.
Rigidity: Individuals who have difficulty maintaining weight loss typically report or have been found to adhere to rigid thinking patterns and rigid control of eating behaviors. Unsuccessful maintainers frequently adhere to dichotomous “all or nothing” thinking, viewing a minor misstep as a total failure or discounting any gains that fall short of some imagined ideal as meaningless. These individuals are prone to alternating between total restriction of desirable foods and a complete lack of weight controls all together. From and ACT perspective, this can be viewed as cognitive fusion. Cognitive fusion refers to situations in which behavior is excessively regulated by verbal rules and is insensitive to direct experiences. Individuals may be responding to verbal formulations, such as, “I had cake therefore I blew it, so what’s the point” or, “I only lost 15 pounds. I’ll never get to where I want to be.” These private events are experienced as literal truth, not as experiences that can be noticed while not being believed nor disbelieved. Individuals respond as though this is a true state of affairs and engage in behaviors that are inconsistent with a healthy, vital life.
Motivational factors: Individuals who have difficulty maintaining weight loss typically report attempting to lose weight in response to pressure from friends, family members, or health professionals as opposed to personal reasons, such as caring for oneself, wanting to be more healthy, or less activity restriction. From an ACT perspective, this can be seen as a form of rule-governance called pliance. Pliance occurs when individuals engage in behaviors in an attempt to please others or “be good” (Hayes, Strosahl et al., 1999). When this function dominates over direct, personal experiences of what works, problems can occur. These externally based contingencies are often not enough to maintain behavior outside the presence of the contextual variables (e.g. family member telling them they are doing a good job). Given the lifelong nature of maintaining weight, it is unlikely that excessive pliance could be a successful long-term behavioral approach. From an ACT perspective, individuals do not need to engage in behaviors consistent with weight maintenance in order to be praised by others; they can do them as an expression of chosen personal values (also called augmenting) and doing what works in regard to those values (also called tracking). In this respect, weight maintenance behaviors are less rigid and are more likely to be tied to the direct contingencies necessary for success.
Motivation, then, can be viewed primarily as a values issue. People are often not connected to their values. It is possible that there is frequently a disparity between what people want in their lives and what they are actually doing. This disparity can be painful to contact, thus relegating the issue of values to the background. Acceptance and defusion can help create a context where this disparity can be noticed without attachment to the painful private events that can accompany this connection. From an ACT perspective, then, values work involves goal setting/ attainment and the willingness to say/ know what is truly wanted. This involves the ability to recognize and be in contact with the disparity between what is desired and what is currently being done.