Contextual Behavioral Science- ACT

Throughout the Hays (2004) article, the author discusses the history of the different waves of psychological therapy and conceptualizes ACT as a broader theory that encompasses some contextual issues missed in therapies such as pure behaviorism or cognitive behavioral therapy. Toward the end of the paper, I was struck by how many different disorders ACT seems to apply to. In this way, I can understand how many from the traditional CBT camp feel threatened. However, I wonder what the similarities are between something like the Unified Protocol and ACT as they both seem to be cross cutting in a way that is effective. I really like ACT, however I need to keep in mind that it is one of the first theories I really dove into. Therefore, I want to use this class as an opportunity to distinguish familiarity from a more theoretical position that I agree with. In addition, ACT does not seem to follow as much of a logical analysis of each an every thought that a client has. Rather, it relates it to larger topics such as psychological flexibility or values. If I decide to integrate ACT into my practice, I will need to keep this in mind as I am someone who often relies on segmented logical analysis to understand things. Toward the beginning of an ACT protocol, the idea of creative hopelessness is brought up, and the client is encouraged to brainstorm what they have tried so far. I wonder what would happen if the client does not necessarily see problems with their thoughts or behaviors? For example, those who are ordered court-ordered therapy may see it as a necessary to complete their requirements, but may not be as engaged with the process. This is not to say that these clients are necessarily anti-social and have morally corrupt values, but instead that I feel like it may be challenging to work with a client with few resources for change who has not thought about their internal life very much. I enjoyed how this article discussed relational frame theory overall, there are good resources and connections to other theories. Lastly, I think ACT seems to align with more functional emphasis in terms of the debate between common factors and theory. Not that ACT is not a theory, but ACT itself does not seem to ascribe to any one truth that would govern psychological evidence. However, this may be a misinterpretation of the therapy in practice with a client and the therapy overall. 

 In the Hays (2008) article, the author lays out a response to an article about the hastiness of ACT and its conclusions. Throughout the paper, the author seems to lay out reasons against points made in the other paper. By not providing these arguments however, the paper itself has an interesting way of conceptualizing ACT. In addition, the author seems to take a moral high ground, stating that each theory is playing its own game. However, later in the paper, the author enumerates different reason as to why some CBT procedures should be abandoned. Some of these include the issues with cognitive reframing and the dangers that it holds. This was a good argument made by the author, and made me think about the impact of bias in a therapy session. One of the key pieces surrounding ACT seems to be context, or the way in which people relate to the world and the world in which they live. The lack of emphasis in CBT on this type of contact has always seemed like a bit of a missed opportunity, and one that to me seems similar to CBT's adaptation of mindfulness techniques. Although we will read about CBT in another week, I do like the point that Hays makes concerning the lack of a traditional CBT if it is adopting these techniques. This article also made me think of Meehl's idea of a risky theory. In the Hays article toward the end, the author seems to argue that CBT in its current state is not risky at all, for it assumes many other new ideas that come up and thus does not have a firm base that can be proved wrong or right on. Toward the conclusion of the paper, the author speaks to the idea of comparing a theory to itself. I feel like this is a key step CBT is missing, for it only compares "itself" (defined in a loose way) to other therapies that it may subsequently assume or to biomedical models. Overall, I agree with the author in many of his premonitions, however, I am having trouble separating his logical arguments from the voice the paper holds. 

In the Herbert & Padovani (2015) paper, the authors speak to the difference between mechanistic theories and contextual theories. The paper goes on to detail the difference between functional contextualism and descriptive contextualism. Here, he classifies historians as under descriptive contextualism and engineers as under functional contextualism. This comparison helped me understand the difference between these theories and helped emphasize the difference between an emphasis on context and a lack of structure. Overall, functional contextualism emphasizes use and if something is successfully working in a certain time and context. In this way, functional contextualism is compatible with not the discovery of one truth from an certain position, but instead the discovery of what works within a given context that can be applied. I wonder what functional contextualists would have to say about the pursuit of theories as proposed by Meehl? Meehl seems to appreciate theories that are very widely applicable and can stand up to many tests. This does not seem to be the goals of functional contextualism. Because RNR seems to sit with an epistemology framework, I wonder if this lack of functional components could be the reason that cross-cultural RNR models seem to be non-existent. Further, this may be why the idea of cross-cultural interventions may have issues in the literature for the inherent drive-by of context and yet the requirement that it should be considered for individuals. 

Grade 24/25