Common factors and ACT?

I think you have said it well...the common factors model is vague and there is no mechanisms of action theory behind it. In contrast, ACT is pretty damn clear cut about how things work. One thing I dislike about the common factors model is that is places a lot of emphasis on relationship factors. If relationship factors account for more of the outcome in therapy, then don't clients have to get into a relationship or some kind to discuss their issues and "work it out?" I dislike the dependency inherent in this. It seems with mindfulness-based therapies, there is more emphasis on building long term skills that do not necessarily require a relationship with others.

Another interesting thing I wanted to discuss is found in The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods and Findings by Wampold. Wampold (2001) paraphrases Frank and Frank (1991) and says, "psychotherapy involves rationale, conceptual scheme or myth that provides a plausible explanation for the patient’s symptoms and prescribes a ritual or procedure for resolving them. According to Frank and Frank, the particular rationale needs to be accepted by the client and by the psychotherapist, but need not be 'true.' The rationale can be a myth in the sense that the basis of the therapy need not be scientifically proven" (p.25).

It seems to me there is something deceptive about therapy which comes from a common factors perspective. If one were to accept Frank and Franks perspective on therapy, then doesn't therapy simply become a plausible myth and set of rituals? Why don't common factors clinicians present it like this? For example, why not tell the client,

"I just want to let you know that the theory behind the therapy we will do together is a plausible myth and the treatment we will do together is merely a set of rituals and procedures. I would also like to let you know that statistically, 40% of well-being come from extra-therapeutic factors (non-therapeutic social support, ego strength, fortuitous events), 30% comes from my empathy, my warmth, my acceptance, and me encouraging you, 15% comes from my therapeutic techniques and skills I teach you, and 15% comes from the placebo effect. In other words, what we do in therapy won't account for much. Most well-being comes from things outside of therapy, from hope that things will work, and my wonderful personality."

If I were a client and psychotherapy being presented in this way (the way common factors psychotherapists know it), I would walk out the door and find a good friend to help me work things out. It's free and probably would accomplish the same thing over time.

As a therapist in training and one who favors mindfulness-based therapies, I cannot wholly accept the common factors theory of change. I believe that mindfulness-based therapies have more to offer clients than simply myth and ritual. How do ACT therapists perceive ACT and common factors theory?