Is ACT Just a Fad?

Addressing the Critics

James D. Herbert, Ph.D.
Drexel University
 Emergence of Criticism
 As ACT has moved into the mainstream, a
variety of criticisms have emerged from
within the academic community
 As ACT becomes more popular, we can
anticipate even more criticism from even
more voices
 Common theme: ACT is merely the latest
therapeutic fad to litter the mental health
landscape
Let’s outline the criticisms so far,
examine them critically and
honestly, and explore how we as
a community may respond
 Complaints about ACT
 Overly-hyped claims; “getting ahead of
the data”
 Excessive enthusiasm among those
interested; the C-word
 Grandiose visions
 Proselytizing; ACT as a “way of life.”
 Promotes “undue influence” by seeking to
identify principles and technologies that
could be used to impact behavior without
their explicit consent
 More Criticisms…
 Experiential exercises in ACT training
are coercive & manipulative
 There’s “nothing really new” here

 Premature dissemination to the

public via self-help books
 Both ACT and especially RFT are
plagued by obscurantist jargon
Let’s look at each of
these in turn…
 Getting Ahead of the Data
 Must examine evidential warrant of specific
claims
 Ratio of theoretical to empirical papers isn’t a
proxy. Nor are dreams/visions
 Some critics are clearly unaware of the data
that exist; those who are correctly note that it’s
limited, but don’t generally compare specific
claims with evidence
 ACT proponents have in fact been appropriately
cautious in claims
 Our response: Continue to be clear about
specific claims
 Excessive Enthusiasm
 Largely based on reactions to
listserv, and to reactions of some
professors to their students returning
inspired from workshops
 But enthusiasm per se is only a
problem if it interferes with critical
thinking. Any evidence of this?
 Our response: Make sure not to be
blinded by enthusiasm
 The “C” word: Is ACT a Cult?
 “Cult” label usually evoked by:
– A closed system
– a charismatic leader
– a strong profit motive
– financial and/or sexual exploitation of vulnerable
populations
– a hierarchy of secretive levels to pass through in
order to gain special knowledge or status
– intolerance of dissent
 Such groups also:
– challenge the status quo
– offer a grand vision
– engender high levels of enthusiasm
 Is ACT a Cult?

 The first set of features don’t apply,

but the second set clearly do
 However, these latter features are
poor discriminators of science vs.
pseudoscience or cults
 Our response: This is silly; ignore it
 Grandiose Visions
 Rightly or wrongly, ACT does indeed aspire to great
things
 Helps to understand history of behavioral analysis to
appreciate the historical context
 Critical to distinguish specific claims from distal
goals/dreams; the former are subject to direct
examination via evidential warrant; the latter are not
 Compare biotechnology conference last month in
Philadelphia
 Problem is that mainstream psycho-therapies are
cautious about big claims, whereas many dubious
ones are not
 Our response: Clarify explicitly the distinction
between specific claims and distal visions
 Proselytizing ACT as a “Way of Life”
 Two variations: Clinicians must adopt an ACT
perspective to their own life, & the focus of the
client’s presenting problem is inappropriately
shifted to ACT-consistent goals
 Although ACT does suggest that clinicians try out
some principles on themselves, it doesn’t require
them to adopt any particular belief system
 Re. clients, again this is not unique to ACT, as all
psychotherapies attempt to socialize the client to
their model. The key in all cases is informed
consent
 Our response: We could probably be clearer on
these points
 ACT Seeks “Undue Influence”
 Familiar criticism to radical behaviorists
 Ethics surrounding parameters of informed consent
is an important cultural value, and like all values,
must be decided independent of science per se
 Extreme Libertarian stance rules out all public
health interventions (e.g., programs promoting
smoking cessation, safe sex to prevent STDs,
routine diagnostic procedures like mammograms
and prostate exams, childhood vaccinations)
 The fact that a technology could possibly be
misused is no reason to stifle science
 Our response: Participate in the broader public
ethical dialogue
 ACT Offers “Nothing New”
 Generally argued by those with minimal
familiarity with ACT. Ironically, CBT folks who
make this argument have themselves been on
the receiving end of this allegation from
psychoanalysts & others
 Many (though not all) techniques and strategies
are indeed openly borrowed, and so aren’t new
 What is new is the organizing model, and
especially the close link with theory & philosophy
 Our response: Point this out when challenged
 Experiential Exercises in Training
Are Coercive & Manipulative
 Experiential exercises used to highlight
consciously self-reflective nature of ACT
 But must remember audience, and be very
careful to avoid coercion, even implicitly
 Degree of focus on experiential exercises
remains an unresolved issue
 Our response: Examine this issue openly
within the community
 Self-Help Books
 Legitimate debate over appropriate threshold for
direct dissemination via popular literature
 One extreme: must have strongly supportive
data, not only of general approach, but its
effectiveness in the self-help format and for
the specific problem in question
 Other extreme: Anything goes
 Reasonable people can disagree about this, but it
is in no way unique to ACT
 Our response: Encourage authors to be
appropriately cautious, while participating in the
broader dialogue
 Obscurantist Jargon
 The problem is that one person’s
obscurantist jargon is another’s technical
vocabulary
 Ironic, in that all other areas of natural
science have technical languages
 To evaluate jargon, must look at things like
theoretical coherence, precision, scope, and
connectivity
 Our response: Develop the language as
necessary, but be mindful of Occam’s razor.
Distinguish scientific talk from clinical talk
Bottom Line: Criticisms Fall into
Four Camps
 Those based on ignorance
 Those based on style

 Those in reaction to a challenge to the

status quo
 Those that address substantive issues

 Critical to distinguish these, as each calls

for different responses
Criticisms Based on Ignorance

Educate (e.g., journals, workshops,

books, presentations), with a
sensitivity to the audience
 Criticisms Based on Style

Attempt to understand the reaction,

and decide how to respond. We are
not obligated to address every
stylistic criticism. But we should be
mindful of our audience and our
purpose
Criticisms Based on Challenges
to the Status Quo:
 Continue to do good science,
including modifying theories and
technologies based on data
 Science is inherently self-correcting,
so if ACT lives up to its promise it
will eventually win hearts and minds
 But be wary of striking the pose of
Galileo; it isn’t enough to be novel –
we must also be “right”
 Substantive Criticisms
 Carefully consider substantive
criticisms, especially those
challenging the evidential warrant of
specific claims and specific
theoretical issues
 Then, offer a thoughtful response,
and remain open to change when
appropriate based on arguments and
data