New meta-analysis highlights CBS laboratory research

The utility and importance of laboratory studies within Contextual Behavioral Science (CBS) has recently been highlighted in a new paper by Levin, Hildebrandt, Lillis, and Hayes. The psychological flexibility model – which underlies Acceptance and Commitment Therapy -- was evaluated in this meta-analysis of 66 laboratory studies. This unique meta-analysis evaluates components and processes such as acceptance, defusion, present moment, values, mixed mindfulness components, and more. Significant positive effects were found. In this interview, author Michael Levin answers a few questions, and provides recommendations for future research. 

Doug: How does this paper fit into the big picture of CBS?
Michael: There is a large and growing number of lab-based component studies relevant to ACT and this is the first meta-analysis we know of that has reviewed this literature within the framework of the psychological flexibility model.

Doug: What is unique and special about this meta-analysis?

Michael: In addition to providing an overall summary of the effect sizes for each component, there are enough varied studies now that we could  explore important theoretical questions such as whether they impact outcomes in ways consistent with our theory and whether there are differences between rationale-alone vs. more experiential interventions.This paper also gave us a chance to discuss the CBS approach and outline how lab-based studies can fit within theory/treatment development and testing.

Doug: What were some challenges that you faced?

Michael: Early into the meta-analysis we realized that, due to different approaches taken by authors and the varied audiences they were speaking to, the interventions were not necessarily labeled in a way that consistently reflected the psychological flexibility model. Many were labeled as "acceptance" or "mindfulness", the meaning of which varied somewhat across articles. However, we were able to reliably code these interventions ourselves for the meta-analysis and found a number of studies testing each component in isolation as well as combined. 

Doug: What sorts of component studies do you hope to see in the future?

Michael: We didn't find any lab-based studies testing self-as-context alone and there is a clear need for research in this area. Also, more careful comparisons are needed to examine the impact of combining specific components (i.e., acceptance vs. acceptance + values). We also recommend generally not using rationale-alone manipulations, unless there is a specific theoretical question, given our finding that such interventions are fairly inert. As we begin to build upon and expand our research questions with lab-based studies a broader range of behavioral measures (i.e., implicit measures, behavioral flexibility, delayed discounting) and measures with more applied relevance to the participant are needed.

Article by ACBS Staff Member Douglas M. Long