Approaches / Compare
CBT and ACT
Acceptance and commitment therapy is often described as part of the wider cognitive behavioural family. People disagree about how distinct it is. This page sets out differences in emphasis as they are usually described, not which is better.
| Aspect | Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) | Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) |
|---|---|---|
| Main focus | How interpretations of events and behaviour relate to feelings. | How a person relates to thoughts and feelings, and acts on what matters to them. |
| Approach to thoughts | Thoughts are often examined and tested against experience. | Thoughts are often noticed and held more loosely, without needing to change their content. |
| Role of values | Goals are agreed, and values may be discussed, depending on the practitioner. | Values are a named, central process that guides chosen action. |
| Typical methods | Agendas, activity planning, testing beliefs, graded approach to avoided situations. | Mindfulness exercises, metaphors, values clarification, committed action. |
| Origins | Behaviour therapy from the mid twentieth century, joined with cognitive therapy from the 1960s onward. | Developed from the 1980s by Steven Hayes and colleagues, drawing on a behavioural account of language. |
| Open questions | Many forms exist, and the label does not guarantee a method. | Debate about how distinct its processes are, and about research from its own developers. |
This comparison describes emphasis. It does not say which approach is more effective, and it is not advice on treatment.
Sources are listed on the CBT and ACT entries. Back to all comparisons.
Educational draft · Subject review pending