RFT

In acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), it is acknowledged that overidentification with literal language leads to psychological inflexibility, which is at the core of human suffering. To address some of the tricks that language often plays on people, therapists need to use language in an experiential way, and this is the path chosen by ACT and other third-wave therapies.

Whether you are a novice or advanced practitioner in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), you know that metaphors and exercises play a crucial role in its successful delivery. These powerful tools go far in helping clients connect with their values, and give them the motivation needed to make a real, conscious commitment to change.

As we have discussed in previous posts, psychologists have offered many different perspectives on love. Most of these, however, revolve around love as a feeling, sometimes conflating it with cognitions and behaviors as well. As the authors of ACT and RFT in Relationships point out, even the “father of behaviorism,” John Watson, succumbed to this romantic view of love when writing to his mistress: “Every cell I have is yours, individually and collectively. My total reactions are positive and towards you.

Editor's Note: This is the second part of a two-part Q&A with one of the authors of ACT and RFT in Relationships, JoAnne Dahl, PhD. If you missed part one, catch up here.

In the book, you talk about self-as-content being a particularly hazardous perspective for people in romantic relationships. Can you elaborate on that?

If you haven’t logged on to the blog in awhile, you may have missed our past three posts about love. What is love, from an ACT therapist’s perspective? How has it been defined by researchers before ACT? Physiologically speaking, what is it? Today, we’re continuing the discussion because frankly, we’re intrigued.