Constructs, Events, and Acceptance and Commitment Training

Fryling et al. (2022) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.

They asked: when BCBAs use ACT, do we treat words like ‘values’ or ‘acceptance’ as real things or as labels for things we can see?

The paper urges us to write down the exact actions that will count as ‘acceptance’ before we start coaching clients.

The authors found confusion in our field.

Some ACT manuals talk about constructs as if they are hidden causes.

They show how to turn each ACT buzz-word into an observable event so our data stay anchored in behavior, not guess-work.

Udhnani et al. (2025) did the leg-work Fryling wanted. They tracked daily counts of ‘experiential avoidance’ and ‘clinically relevant behavior’ during ACT with college students. Their counts jumped around, but they proved you can watch ACT processes in real time.

Ni et al. (2025) and Fung et al. (2018) ran parent groups and saw stress drop. They used ACT forms that already list parent actions (deep breath, saying ‘I can handle this’). These studies show Fryling’s idea works once you pin the actions down.

Morris et al. (1982) and McIlvane (2003) warned against mentalistic terms decades ago. Fryling echoes them, but updates the warning for today’s ACT craze.

If you coach ACT without clear behavior labels, you will drift into guessing. Take one minute before each session and finish this sentence: ‘Today I will see acceptance when the client ___.’ Write the action, count it, and stay a behavior analyst instead of a mind-reader.