Self-As-Context & Core Beliefs

Self-As-Context & Core Beliefs in CBT. How do these two approaches differ?

In the early days of learning ACT, the differences between Self-As-Context interventions and Core Belief work in CBT may not seem that obvious. 

The concepts can look similar, and you may wonder how they differ.  It’s a natural reaction, but as you delve deeper into ACT, you notice some significant distinctions. 

Once identified, these distinctions invite you to target the Self dimension differently.  You use different exercises because you understand that Self-As-Context and Core Belief interventions have different intentions. 

In this article, I’ll describe some critical differences so you can select and implement your interventions in a more ACT-consistent manner.  This will be helpful for beginners and more experienced ACT therapists who want to stay on track.

Form V Function

The primary difference between the two interventions is a conceptual one.  While ACT and CBT are behavioural approaches, they differ in their basic ideas. 

CBT is concerned with truth and form.  It is based on elemental realism, which is a traditional medicalised viewpoint.  It believes that the “truth is out there”; we just need to investigate it thoroughly and construct a model that accurately describes it. 

In Core Belief work, CBT practitioners usually target the accuracy of a self-belief.  For example, for the client who says, “I am unlovable”, you would seek to examine the evidence for and against its validity.  You would identify cognitive bias, such as over-generalisation and use your discoveries to establish a new, more balanced reflective core belief. 

ACT takes a different approach.

The ACT therapist draws on different principles rooted in functional contextualism.  Rather than seeking to find the “truth”, you would focus on the function of ‘seeing’ (judging, evaluating or criticising) yourself in the way you have learned. 

Rather than asking, “Is it true that you are unlovable to your children?” you would be more likely to ask, “What happens when your mind judges you like that?  What do you tend to do, and is that what you’re aiming for?”. 

Both questions invite curiosity.  However, the former is more concerned with changing the narrative to be more balanced.  The latter aims to explore workability. 

Unconditional Beliefs V Contextual Learning

In CBT, core beliefs are defined as unconditional.  In other words, they are not situation-specific. The literature often refers to them as Negative Core Beliefs, implying that the problem is one of structure. They suggest that by use of Guided Discovery, you can find a new alternative “truth” that is less negative.

By contrast to ACT, context is minimised in CBT.

In ACT, context is always present.  It wouldn’t be consistent to call self-narratives unconditional because they are connected to and influenced by the ongoing chain of events.  For example, what shows up in the current setting and the learning history that determines what happens.

For the client who says, “I am unlovable”, the ACT therapist would often acknowledge their perspective from a compassionate stance by saying, “Given your past experiences and what you’ve learned, that makes sense you’d see yourself that way.” 

Such a validating response is ACT consistent because it recognises the ACT-in-Context, the root metaphor in Functional Contextualism.  Rather than needing to change the belief, the ACT consistent therapist allows it to be present. 

Unlearning V Adding New Learning

CBT takes a stance that negative beliefs are incorrect and they require modification. However, for the ACT therapist, a person’s identity is a natural consequence of their life experiences.  It wouldn’t be helpful to call it ‘maladaptive’, ‘inaccurate’ or ‘disordered’. 

CBT interventions such as Core Belief Continuums and Positive Data Logs seek to disrupt attachment to the negative belief and build up a new, more positive belief.  The hope is that the new one can replace the old belief. 

ACT is rooted in behaviour analysis and Relational Frame Theory (RFT).  RFT shows us how unlearning is not possible because we learn by addition.  Thus, attempting to replace a long-lasting belief about the self with another one is often futile. 

While a person may recognise the damage from evaluating oneself negatively, they may be reluctant to abandon it.  Humans like coherence.  We need it.  Rather than have no identity, we’d prefer to hold on to one that is negative because it gives us something to cling to.

The ACT therapist uses perspective-taking to add new ways of relating to the self.  We do this in multiple ways, such as:

• An Observer view of the self
• A Container perspective of the self
• A Compassionate view of the self  

We seek not to arrive at a new truth but to add complexity and flexibility.  It is helpful to define the self in many ways rather than one single way.  By being an observer of different perspectives, you can transcend them.  You needn’t adopt a new belief or abandon an old one.  You can do what you want regardless of how you see yourself.

Causation V Complex Fields

Another significant difference to mention is one of causation versus fields. 

In CBT, it’s assumed that changes in belief cause different emotions, which lead to new behaviours.  It states that the cause of feeling and action is thinking. 

In some ways, this is similar to Skinner’s Stimulus and Response paradigm.  For example, it may be said that the antecedent “I am unlovable” causes a person to avoid relationships. However, this is inconsistent with Functional Contextualism, Interbehaviourism and RFT.

A post-Skinnerian account that draws on this work would describe behaviour as occurring in a relational field.  Rather than function being defined as cause, it is described as “what happens” in a context.  The context contains many events and patterns, and settling on accurate, simplified causational reasons is impractical and rarely possible.

ACT seeks to alter the context and the function of activity.  When you adjust the context significantly enough, it changes the function, i.e., what happens.  A field perspective acknowledges that you can’t possibly see all the subtleties of verbal and non-verbal behaviour; there is so much happening that you could never observe it.

And…that’s OK, as we don’t need to. 

You can take a more experimental approach by putting causational ideas aside.  You can try out different interventions to discover what happens. 

This doesn’t make it shoot and hope; it is not scatter-gun.  If anything, you develop a functional analysis from the bottom up and select interventions that suit the client’s difficulties and goals. 

I cannot guarantee what will be observed when a client and I play with perspective-taking.  We are exploring.  We may have accurate predictions, but they might not be. Whether they are ‘right’ is not important.  It’s often more helpful to experience life from the feet up than to overthink it in advance.

Life as outcome v process

Many of us crave certainty.  We want reassurance that things will get better or be OK. This desire can take control of your life as you get caught up worrying and problem-solving in an attempt to eliminate doubt.  However, it rarely works because life is full of uncertainty.

Western medicine is based on germ theory; the existence of a single pathogen to explain a disease. In the physical health context, it tends to work quite well until it encounters systemic problems like ME, fibromyalgia and long-covid. 

Similarly, reductionistic approaches struggle when attempting to improve mental health. CBT has aligned itself with a psychiatric philosophy and seeks to eliminate so-called symptoms of anxiety and depression.  On the surface, this seems logical.  However, when you dig a little deeper, it can be problematic.

Clients in psychological distress are often highly experientially avoidant.  Naturally, they attempt to isolate the cause of their suffering and eliminate it.  The assumption is that there is healthy normality and pain or unhappiness is abnormal. 

CBT and psychiatry support this assumption by promising a person that they can “overcome” their anxiety. Every day, human experiences get pathologised, and the striving to create a different outcome continues. 

The ACT therapist approaches life differently.  Rather than trying to reach a destination called happiness, it invites you to approach life as a process.  It has joy, sorrow, enthusiasm, apathy, shame, pride, fear, and calm. 

We are born, we live, and we die.  The whole of life can be seen as a process.  You can’t predict what will happen, so why try controlling it?  Instead, what if you breathe it in – all of it?  Noticing, allowing and opening your heart to it.  Engaging with as many opportunities as possible so that when you reach the end, you might be less regretful and more comforted that “I lived in the best way I knew how.” 

So, to conclude, the CBT and ACT approach targets struggles with identity in vastly different ways. How you choose to approach it is your choice.  It’s not right or wrong, as everyone is free to make their own decision.  It’s just helpful to be consistent, that’s all.

---

---