The Rise of Psychological Acceptance and Mindfulness JAMES D. HERBERT AND EVAN M. FORMAN
So it is too that in the eyes of the world it is dangerous to venture. And why? Because one may lose. But not to venture is shrewd. And yet, by not venturing, it is so dreadfully easy to lose that which it would be difficult to lose in even the most venturesome venture, and in any case never so easily, so completely as if it were nothing ... one's self. —Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death (1849)
Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) has now become the dominant force in psychotherapy in much of the world, including North America, the United Kingdom, much of Europe, and increasingly throughout Asia and Latin America. The rise of CBT is due to the confluence of several factors, primary among which is the increased focus on evidence-based practice and associated calls for accountability in the delivery of behavioral health services (Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2009). Throughout its history, CBT has been committed to a scientific perspective to the study of psychopathology and its treatment. Hundreds of studies have evaluated various cognitive behavioral theories of psychopathology, and hundreds more have assessed the efficacy of CBT interventions. This scientific literature has placed CBT in a unique position to dominate the field of psychotherapy.
This extraordinary growth immediately raises the question: What exactly is CBT? Does the term refer to a specific model of psychopathology or psychotherapy? Or perhaps to a domain of treatment, either in terms of targeted processes or pathologies? In fact, the term CBT has become so broad as to defy clear definition. The Web site of the Association for Advancement of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, the premier multidisciplinary, international organization devoted to CBT, avoids a specific definition of the term, instead describing the organization's mission as "the advancement of a scientific approach to the understanding and amelioration of problems of the human condition." Various theories, principles, models, and techniques fall under the general rubric of CBT, and these approaches have been applied to the full range of human experience, from the assessment and treatment of severe psychopathology and profound developmental delays to primary prevention efforts to enhancing peak performance among athletes. CBT has become largely synonymous with empirically supported, evidence-based psychological theories and technologies aimed at improving the human condition (Wittchen & Gloster, 2009).
Despite this broad plurality, some features are common to the various CBT approaches. For example, CBT therapists tend to focus primarily on the present rather than the past, to emphasize parsimony in theoretical explanations, to use learning principles (including principles related to how we interpret the world and/or how we relate to our own experience), and to espouse epistemological empiricism. In fact, the term is perhaps most useful as a way of contrasting what CBT is not rather than what it is. For example, CBT does not encompass psychotherapies that focus primarily on the supposed curative properties of insight into intrapsychic conflicts rooted in historical developmental events, nor those that posit that a supportive therapeutic relationship alone is sufficient for fundamental change of difficult problems. Although this broad perspective on the discipline can be frustrating to scholars who seek clear categories to demarcate schools of psychotherapy, it has the advantage of fostering a dynamic exchange of perspectives within a broad marketplace of ideas.
Like all scientifically-based disciplines, CBT is not static, but continuously evolving. Established theories and technologies continuously and inevitably give rise to new developments. There is a general recognition that current technologies are imperfect, awaiting refinement or even radical new developments, and that even our best current theories are incomplete or even "wrong," although we do not yet know precisely how. This progressive, natural evolution is evident today in the dramatic rise of theories and associated assessment, treatment, and prevention technologies that highlight psychological acceptance and mindfulness. The past decade has witnessed a veritable explosion in interest in these concepts by CBT scholars and practitioners alike, and theoretical formulations and intervention techniques targeting mindfulness and acceptance figure prominently in several novel models of CBT. While building on the foundation of traditional approaches to CBT, these developments have taken the field in new, exciting, and sometimes surprising directions.
ACCEPTANCE AND MINDFULNESS IN CONTEXT
These developments have not been without controversy, however. The most contentious issues center on the degree to which they are truly novel, and whether or not they add incremental value to more traditional CBT models. Although acknowledging their roots in earlier models, some proponents of acceptance-based approaches view them as paradigmatically distinct from earlier, established forms of CBT.
Hayes (2004) proposes that the history of CBT can be divided into three overlapping but distinct generations. The first generation, commencing with the groundbreaking work of Skinner (1953), Wolpe (1958), and Eysenck (1952), spanned the 1950s and into the 1960s, and developed largely in reaction to the perceived weaknesses of psychoanalytic theory and therapy. The approach was based on carefully delineated learning principles, many of which were developed and refined through experimental work with animals, and there were close connections between basic scientific developments derived from the laboratory and applied technologies. The focus was on behavior modification using techniques derived from classical and operant conditioning principles.
According to Hayes, the second generation, beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the 1990s, highlighted the importance of language and cognition in the development and treatment of psychopathology. The emphasis shifted toward exploration of the ways in which one's interpretations of the world, and especially the interpretation of emotionally relevant situations, shapes experience. Groundbreaking developments included Ellis' (1962) rational emotive behavior therapy, and Beck and colleagues' cognitive therapy (CT; Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). Although still committed to a scientific perspective, the focus of research shifted from the development and applied translation of basic psychological principles to clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of multicomponent treatment programs. Although the concept of psychological acceptance occasionally figured in cognitive models, especially with respect to anxiety disorders, it played a relatively minor and secondary role with respect to direct cognitive restructuring (Dozois & Beck, this volume).
According to Hayes' analysis, the third generation of CBT began in the 1990s and reflects the emphasis of psychological acceptance and mindfulness principles in CBT. Like second-generation perspectives, third-generation approaches acknowledge the importance of cognitive and verbal processes in theories of psychopathology and its treatment. Rather than striving to change one's distressing thoughts and feelings, however, third-generation approaches focus instead on cultivating an attitude of nonjudgmental acceptance of the full range of experience to enhance psychological well-being. In addition, while not abandoning clinical trials, the third generation of CBT has seen a renewed interest in the field's traditional emphasis on links between basic theoretical principles and applied technologies.
Many CBT scholars, especially those interested in mindfulness and acceptance-based approaches, find Hayes' historical description to be a useful heuristic (e.g., Eifert & Forsyth, 2005). Others, however, believe that this analysis overstates the distinctiveness of these new developments relative to established theories and technologies (Arch & Craske, 2008; Hofmann & Asmundson, in press, 2008; Leahy, 2008). While acknowledging the increased interest in, and possible clinical utility of, acceptance and mindfulness techniques, these critics believe that they are not fundamentally distinct from existing approaches, especially at the theoretical level. Some of these scholars prefer the metaphor of a branching tree, with new developments deriving from older ones (Hofmann, 2010), or a stream, growing ever stronger and picking up stones as it flows downhill (Martell, 2008), rather than the metaphor of evolving generations. Another metaphor, that of three "waves," has generated especially heated rhetoric, with manuscripts espousing a revolutionary "third wave" (Hayes, 2004) and others ridiculing the term and suggesting the newer approaches are "old hat" (Hofmann & Asmunsdon, 2008). Such debates may be useful to the extent that they highlight specific issues that merit clarification. However, they are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
It is important to keep in mind that Hayes' analysis is not intended to represent "truth," but rather is a historical narrative aimed at illuminating broad trends in the field. The ultimate fate of this analysis cannot be determined immediately, and must await the judgment of historians. It is unwise to place too much stock in demarcations of historical periods that include contemporary events. A certain temporal distance from the developments in question often affords a less biased perspective that is more likely to stand the test of time. Thus, heated arguments over the validity of a particular narrative that includes current developments are premature.
Despite differing perspectives on this issue, there are two general points of agreement. First, it is undeniable that the past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in interest, among scientists, scholars, and clinicians alike, in acceptance and mindfulness based theories and clinical approaches. For example, although the first major publication on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) only occurred in 1999 (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999), by the beginning of 2010 the electronic psychological index PsycInfo listed over 363 scholarly papers with the keywords "acceptance and commitment therapy." Similarly, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy's first PsycInfo listing is in 2000, and a recent search produced 150 references. Similar growth in the professional literature has occurred with other acceptance-based models, such as dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Second, as noted above, the term CBT does not represent a specific theoretical or therapeutic model, but rather a broad family of theories and interventions that includes both traditional as well as acceptance-based models alike (Forman & Herbert, 2009). Although some scholars use the term CBT interchangeably with CT (e.g., Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008), most recognize that CBT encompasses a wide range of approaches. Thus, contrasting "CBT" with a specific therapeutic model such as CT, ACT, or DBT (Linehan, 1993) represents a category error, analogous to comparing "trees" with "oaks." Instead, meaningful comparisons require juxtaposing specific models within the broad CBT family.
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ACCEPTANCE AND MINDFULNESS
Although the concepts of psychological acceptance and mindfulness have increasingly captured the attention of psychologists in recent years, they have deep historical roots, both in psychology itself and more broadly in both Eastern and Western cultural traditions (Williams & Lynn, in press). Current conceptualizations of mindfulness tend to trace their origins to Buddhist traditions, which are themselves rooted in earlier Hindu beliefs and practices. A central tenant of Buddhism is that human suffering is the result of desiring "that which is not," that is, an attachment to specific material objects and states of mind that cannot always be present. As all things are transient, such attachment results in suffering. Contemplative meditative practices are undertaken to reduce this suffering and to achieve spiritual enlightenment. The impact of language in shaping perceptions is recognized, as is the tendency to confuse conceptual understanding with direct experience. Buddhist epistemology tends toward pragmatism, with the focus on spiritual enlightenment. Ethical concerns are also central to Buddhist traditions. Virtuous behavior, or Sila, is determined by the intentions behind actions rather than their outward appearances. These intentions drive one's Karma, or the force that determines happiness, spiritual enlightenment, and the process of reincarnation. Buddhism stresses the "Middle Way," or the importance of moderation between extremes of self-indulgence and self-deprivation. As discussed below, many of these Buddhist ideas are reflected to varying degrees in modern acceptance-based models of CBT (Kumar, 2002).
Although the concepts of psychological acceptance and mindfulness are typically traced to ancient Asian philosophies, it should be acknowledged that such concepts have also featured prominently in Western culture. Various Hellenic philosophies, such as Stoicism, stressed the virtue of fostering acceptance of distressing experiences (Williams & Lynn, in press). Later, monastic Christian practices renounced earthly attachments and stressed the acceptance of human suffering as a necessary condition of its amelioration.
Despite the increased interest in the concepts of psychological acceptance and mindfulness among psychologists over the past two decades, these notions have in fact figured in the psychological literature for over a century. Williams and Lynn (in press) trace the concept of acceptance across 20th-century psychology, beginning with the writings of Freud (1910/1965), who noted that clinging to past painful experiences precludes attention to real and immediate concerns. Subsequent psychoanalysts viewed acceptance of the self as a primary goal of psychoanalysis, setting the stage for self-acceptance to become a central theme in psychotherapy in subsequent decades. The 1940s saw the groundbreaking work of Carl Rogers (1940), who viewed self-acceptance as closely associated with mental health and as the primary target of psychotherapy. For Rogers, self-acceptance went beyond simple cultivation of self-esteem to include acceptance of the totality of one's experience. The decades of the 1950s and 1960s witnessed the beginning of the empirical study of psychological acceptance. Several studies documented the relationship between positive self-acceptance and acceptance of others, as well as negative correlations between self-acceptance and psychopathology (e.g., Berger, 1955). During the 1970s, relationships between self-acceptance and other concepts were explored, including locus of control (e.g., Chandler, 1976). In addition, scholars began discussing notions of acceptance beyond the domains of "self" and "other." The 1980s saw continued exploration of the association of various concepts with self-acceptance, as well as early developments of interventions targeting psychological acceptance, such as Morita therapy (Ishiyama, 1987).
The 1990s was a pivotal decade for research and theoretical developments related to psychological acceptance. Most noteworthy was the gradual shift in focus from self-acceptance to the acceptance of one's ongoing subjective experience, and especially distressing experience, often referred to as psychological or "experiential" acceptance. This shift reflected in part growing recognition of the problematic conceptual overlap of self-acceptance with self-esteem. Unlike self-esteem, and echoing Rogers' (1940) earlier work, experiential acceptance refers to accepting the totality of one's experience regardless of its emotional valence. In addition, a number of psychotherapy models based in the CBT tradition and that highlighted experiential acceptance as a key tool were initially developed during this period.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy by James D. Herbert Evan M. Forman Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Excerpted by permission of John Wiley & Sons. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.