In plain language
By the mid-2000s, a new “third wave” of cognitive behavior therapies had become popular—approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) that use mindfulness, acceptance, and paradox rather than trying to argue clients out of their negative thoughts. This raised a practical question for therapists trained in traditional cognitive behavior therapy: can the two approaches be combined, or do they contradict each other? This paper, the first of a two-part series, compares the philosophical and theoretical foundations of one traditional approach (Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy, REBT) and one third-wave approach (ACT).
The authors show that the two therapies rest on different worldviews. Traditional CBT often works from a mechanistic view, in which suffering is caused by irrational beliefs stored somewhere in the mind that must be identified and restructured. ACT works from functional contextualism, which asks not whether a thought is true or rational, but what the thought does to a person's behavior in a given context. Drawing on Relational Frame Theory (RFT), the authors argue that whether a thought is “believed”—whether it actually drives behavior—depends on context, and that the power of a troublesome thought can sometimes be reduced quickly by changing that context, without changing the thought itself.
Despite their differences, the paper highlights a striking common ground: both REBT and ACT aim to help people unconditionally accept themselves, others, and life. The authors conclude that techniques from each tradition can be usefully integrated, but only if the therapist works from a consistent philosophical and theoretical framework—otherwise mixing techniques risks being haphazard and even counter-therapeutic.
Key findings
- Third-wave therapies such as ACT differ from traditional CBT in that they largely avoid trying to change the form or frequency of dysfunctional thoughts, focusing instead on changing the person's relationship to those thoughts.
- REBT and ACT, despite different methods, share one core goal: helping people unconditionally accept themselves, others, and life.
- The therapies rest on different philosophical assumptions—a mechanistic worldview (suffering caused by irrational beliefs as internal parts) versus functional contextualism (thoughts judged by their workability in context, not their truth).
- From a Relational Frame Theory perspective, “believing” a thought is not evidence of an underlying cognitive structure; it depends on the context, and believability can sometimes be altered quickly by changing context rather than the thought's content.
- The ACT model locates human suffering in ordinary language processes, summarized by the acronym F.E.A.R.: Fusion, Evaluation, Avoidance, and Reason-giving.
- Integration of traditional and mindfulness-based CBT is possible, but techniques should be driven by a common philosophical orientation (e.g., functional contextualism) and theory (e.g., RFT) to prevent inconsistent or counter-therapeutic use.
How to cite
APA
Ciarrochi, J., Robb, H., & Godsell, C. (2005). Letting a little nonverbal air into the room: Insights from acceptance and commitment therapy. Part 1: Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-005-0005-y
BibTeX
@article{ciarrochi2005letting,
author = {Ciarrochi, Joseph and Robb, Hank and Godsell, Claire},
title = {Letting a little nonverbal air into the room: Insights from acceptance and commitment therapy. Part 1: Philosophical and theoretical underpinnings},
journal = {Journal of Rational-Emotive \& Cognitive-Behavior Therapy},
year = {2005},
volume = {23},
number = {2},
pages = {79--106},
doi = {10.1007/s10942-005-0005-y}
}
Related work
- All publications by Joseph Ciarrochi (searchable, with free PDFs)
- Process-Based Therapy & Idionomic Analysis
Author: Joseph Ciarrochi (ORCID 0000-0003-0471-8100). Free copy hosted with permission for scholarly use. Please cite the published version via the DOI above.