Therapists today can’t seem to stop talking about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). It’s touted as the latest innovation in psychotherapy—a groundbreaking “third wave” approach that expands our capacity to guide clients through emotional distress, PTSD, anxiety, and interpersonal conflict.
The buzz is palpable, and the conferences are packed. But as I sift through the literature and hear ACT championed as the next big thing, I find myself asking:
Is ACT truly revolutionary, or is it just a new coat of paint on familiar therapeutic frameworks?
Breaking Down the Buzzwords
ACT markets itself as an integrative therapy that merges:
•Mindfulness practices to ground clients in the present moment
•Cognitive defusion to separate individuals from distressing thoughts
•Acceptance of internal experiences, even uncomfortable or painful ones
•Values-driven action to align behaviors with deeper personal goals and beliefs
Sounds impressive, right? At first glance, ACT feels like an elegant synthesis of everything modern psychotherapy stands for. But let’s take a moment to reflect:
•Mindfulness? We’ve been practicing and teaching that since the rise of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and long before, tracing back to Eastern contemplative practices.
•Self-acceptance? That’s practically session one in almost every therapeutic modality, whether we’re working with depression, anxiety, or trauma.
•Cognitive defusion? Therapists have been encouraging clients to observe their thoughts rather than identify with them since the early days of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
ACT isn’t inventing these concepts; it’s repackaging them in a new way—one that often feels more linguistically complex than clinically necessary.
The Problem with Reinventing the Wheel
ACT’s foundational tenets aren’t wrong, and they certainly aren’t without merit. However, their presentation feels less like innovation and more like a rebranding of principles therapists have been applying for decades.
When Carl Rogers preached unconditional positive regard and championed the importance of self-acceptance, wasn’t he already fostering the very psychological flexibility ACT claims to offer?
And cognitive defusion—teaching clients to detach from harmful thoughts—isn’t all that different from traditional CBT’s emphasis on challenging cognitive distortions. The language is shinier, sure, but the therapeutic essence remains the same.
In fact, I’ve witnessed therapists attempt cognitive defusion exercises too early in treatment, only to watch clients become agitated, emotionally flooded, or frustrated.
•Disrupting thought patterns isn’t always therapeutic.
•Sometimes, it’s just disruptive.
Insight alone doesn’t heal, and thought defusion without a solid therapeutic alliance can leave clients feeling disoriented rather than empowered.
Are We Chasing the Next Big Thing?
I wonder if the field’s fascination with ACT—and other trendy therapies—stems less from their inherent effectiveness and more from a collective insecurity about the limits of existing tools.
Therapy isn’t quick. It’s slow, deliberate, and often messy. Yet, the allure of new acronyms and methodologies promises something faster, something more efficient. It feeds into the fantasy of therapeutic shortcuts—one that seasoned clinicians know rarely exists.
No modality, no matter how innovative, transforms clients overnight. Healing doesn’t come from mastering the latest APA-sanctioned framework but from:
•The quiet consistency of the therapeutic relationship
•Empathetic listening
•Showing up fully, week after week
Returning to the Basics: What Actually Works?
Let’s be honest—the fundamentals of good therapy haven’t changed.
•Active listening
•Validation of lived experiences
•Building trust over time
•Empowering clients to sit with discomfort
These have always been the cornerstones of healing.
I’m not dismissing ACT entirely. There’s real value in refining techniques and drawing from multiple modalities to offer integrated, holistic care. But I worry that the hype around ACT diverts attention away from the simple, grounded work that already facilitates lasting change.
Therapists don’t need a new acronym to validate the work they’ve been doing all along. What they need is confidence in the basics—to trust that traditional methods, when applied with compassion and consistency, are just as powerful as the latest rebrand.
Key Takeaways: What to Focus On
1.Master the Fundamentals
•Therapy doesn’t need to be reinvented every five years. Deepen your existing skills—listening, reflecting, validating—and the rest will follow.
2.Know Your Client
•Not every client benefits from complex modalities. Some need simplicity, grounding exercises, and tangible coping strategies. Pay attention to the individual, not the trend.
3.Avoid the Therapy Trend Trap
•Buzzwords come and go, but core therapeutic principles endure. Focus on staying present with your clients, not staying ahead of the next big trend.
4.Context Over Hype
•ACT is valuable, but it’s not a magic bullet. Recognize that many of its elements already exist in CBT, DBT, psychodynamic therapy, and humanistic approaches.
5.Keep It Client-Centered
•Fancy terminology doesn’t build trust—authenticity does. Clients don’t care if you call it ACT, CBT, or DBT. They care that you’re listening and that you show up fully in their healing process.
Final Thoughts: Therapy Without the Gimmicks
Maybe I’m cynical. Or maybe I’ve been doing this long enough to know that good therapy doesn’t require a flashy rebrand.
ACT, DBT, CBT, EFT—call it whatever you want. At the end of the day, what matters most is that you:
•Hold space for your clients
•Honor their experiences
•Help them navigate life’s inevitable discomforts
Let’s not get distracted by buzzwords. Let’s keep showing up, one session at a time, and remember that the true power of therapy lies not in acronyms, but in connection, empathy, and the slow art of healing.
Author Info:
Max E. Guttman
Max E. Guttman is the owner of Mindful Living LCSW, PLLC, a private mental health practice in Yonkers, New York.
