In plain language
In the mid-2000s, psychology saw a lively debate between two influential approaches to therapy: Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), the classic “second wave” approach founded by Albert Ellis that teaches people to dispute irrational thoughts, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), a newer “third wave” approach developed by Steven Hayes that teaches people to step back from their thoughts rather than argue with them. This concluding commentary, written after Hayes and Ellis had each responded to a special journal issue on the topic, asks whether the two therapies can genuinely be integrated.
The authors argue that much of the disagreement comes down to how language works. Drawing on Relational Frame Theory (RFT) — the account of language underlying ACT — they suggest the real issue is not what people think, but whether a thought is “believed”, that is, whether it takes on a controlling role over behavior. Simply labelling a thought a “belief” or invoking “schemas” explains nothing about why it is believed. They then draw a key technical distinction: REBT-style disputing changes believability by putting thoughts into new relational frames (changing the context of relation, or Crel), while ACT-style defusion changes the function of thoughts directly (changing the context of function, or Cfunc).
Their conclusion is conciliatory but pointed: an integrated therapy could legitimately use both kinds of moves, with empirical tests deciding when each works best. If ACT errs, they write, it will be by being too afraid of talk; if REBT errs, it will be by not being afraid enough. The paper matters as an early, careful attempt to put second- and third-wave cognitive behavioral therapies on the same theoretical page.
Key findings
- Trouble arises not when negative thoughts merely occur, but when they are “believed” — when they acquire a controlling role over other behavior.
- Calling a thought a “belief”, or invoking “irrational beliefs” and “dysfunctional schemas”, names the problem without explaining why a thought is believed; Relational Frame Theory offers an explanation grounded in how language processes work.
- On the RFT view, overgeneralizing is not humans misusing language but humans being misused by language processes, since thoughts typically appear without conscious effort.
- REBT disputing works by changing the context of relation (Crel) — reframing a thought (e.g., “It is not awful, only bad”) to reduce its believability — whereas ACT defusion works by changing the context of function (Cfunc), so words are experienced as just words.
- An integrated “third wave” practice could legitimately include both Crel- and Cfunc-based strategies, with empirical evidence determining when each is preferable.
- Contrary to Ellis’s claim that meditation is mainly distraction, some forms of meditation function as defusion — noticing that thoughts are only thoughts — rather than distraction.
How to cite
APA
Robb, H., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Some final, gulp, “words” on REBT, ACT & RFT. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-005-0009-7
BibTeX
@article{robb2005some,
title = {Some Final, Gulp, ``Words'' on REBT, ACT \& RFT},
author = {Robb, Hank and Ciarrochi, Joseph},
journal = {Journal of Rational-Emotive \& Cognitive-Behavior Therapy},
year = {2005},
volume = {23},
number = {2},
pages = {169--173},
doi = {10.1007/s10942-005-0009-7}
}
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.