This month, we’ve been talking about love—one of, if not the most, powerful forces driving human behavior. In the world of psychotherapy we know that love can bring great joy, but it can also be the cause of immense pain and suffering. As the authors of ACT & RFT in Relationships point out early in their book, much of the research done in hopes of better understanding love has been focused on neurological phenomena. Today, we’re taking a look at some of this research.
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 past few weeks, we’ve published a series of posts presenting an overview of Relational Frame Theory (RFT) in terms of history and theoretical foundations. We’ve aimed to provide a basis for understanding the necessity of a theory that can help us understand how language connects us to our environment.
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.
Two weeks ago we published a question and answer session with the editors of Advances in Relational Frame Theory: Research and Application, Simon Dymond, PhD, and Bryan Roche, PhD. Their edited collection, which published in May of this year, provides a comprehensive overview of the foundations, nature, and implications of RFT, alongside the most up-to-date, cutting-edge research from leaders in RFT and the cognitive and behavioral sciences.
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