The evidential link between Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a matter of on-going debate. Foody et al. (2013) is frequently cited as evidence for ACT’s concept of Self-as-Context and as evidence for the ties between ACT’s middle level clinical terms and the more basic account of language and cognition provided by RFT. However, the failed replication study by Foody et al. (2015) typically goes uncited. Given their importance, I critically re-evaluate the results of both articles. I found several issues, the most important of which was that the central claim does not correspond with the reported analyses. When I extracted summary statistics from both studies and used them to conducte a multiverse analysis, that mapped directly onto the original claim (i.e., that the hierarchy condition reduced distress more than the distinction condition), null results were found under every set of conditions. Taken together, results illustrate how weak or flawed research practices and uncritical citation of results can hinder cumulative science and evidence based clinical practice.