12 Mindfulness and Acceptance The Perspective of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy MICHAEL LEVIN AND STEVEN C. HAYES
S
cience is inherently conservative. When claims are made that deviate from the mainstream, scientists are naturally skeptical. Any scientific field would quickly become chaotic if theories could be adopted or revised merely because claims were made. Even data from well-controlled studies can be insufficient without adequate replication and extensions. Yet progressive science naturally entails and requires change. If a field is progressing, new discoveries are made, and old theories are found to be false. Though skepticism is a central feature of science, it is important to explore developments when they do occur, especially if they are unexpected or have broad implications. Failures to recognize new developments can significantly slow progress and may lead to worthwhile innovations being mislabeled, mischaracterized, or even passed over. By recognizing potentially important developments, challenges to existing theoretical models can be more thoroughly explored and new directions for research can be identified. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on the use of acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches within cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Many of the treatments discussed in this book have incorporated such technologies, including mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993), integrative behavioral couples therapy (IBCT; Jacobson & Christensen, 1996), and metacognitive therapy (Wells, 2008). Some of these approaches (along with many others that might be named) focus exclusively on the application of mindfulness and acceptance technologies, while others integrate them with additional behavior therapy or cognitive therapy components. With these newer treatments has come the question: Is this different from traditional CBT? We have previously discussed these treatments as part of a larger, generation change of the core assumptions underlying CBT (Hayes, 2004). This claim has since been the subject of significant criticism (Arch & Craske, 2008; Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008; Leahy, 2008). The question of whether these treatments represent a change in CBT is important, but also poses certain challenges. 291
JWBT357c12_p291-316.indd 291
10/6/10 11:43:01 AM
