RFT

Last week we launched the first post of our series examining the definition of love from a unique ACT perspective drawn from the authors of ACT & RFT in Relationships.  Today, we’re summarizing the two types of romantic love as defined in the 1970s by Elaine Hatfield and William Walster. We’ll also explore Ellen Berscheid’s more recent definition of attachment love; and Robert Sternberg’s triangular theory of love.

Therapeutic interventions based on ACT are effective in both increasing worker resilience and enhancing innovation and performance. Circling back to our previous discussions of Relational Frame Theory, understanding how ACT interventions work is a crucial part of understanding the role of relational framing in this context. ACT interventions are designed to impact an individual’s psychological flexibility, that is, one’s ability to contact the present moment without avoidance, enabling persistence of change in behavior in pursuit of values or goals (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Lillis, & Masuda, 2006).

Over the last several weeks we’ve been blogging about relational frame theory (RFT), an approach to understanding the link between human language and behavior. In our RFT 101 series, we've gone over the history, background, and theoretical foundations.

Last week, we took a brief look at the last sixty-plus years of research in language and experience that have provided the bedrock for current research and development of relational frame theory (RFT) and the link between language and stimulus equivalence.

One of the key differences between cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is that ACT does not seek to change the content, frequency, or intensity of people’s unwanted thoughts, feelings and sensations