Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:17:54.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Stimulus Elaboration Potentiate Exposure in vivo Treatment? Two Forms of One-Session Treatment of Spider Phobia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Arnoud Arntz  and
Edith Lavy
Arnoud Arntz
Affiliation:
Limburg UniversityThe Netherlands
Edith Lavy
Affiliation:
Limburg UniversityThe Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The hypothesis that elaboration of the phobic stimulus potentiates exposure in vivo treatment was put to the test in a clinical experiment. Forty-one female spider phobics, who applied for treatment, were randomly allocated to one of two conditions. In both conditions a 2.5 hour therapist-directed exposure treatment was given. In the elaboration condition Ss were required to attend to and describe the objective features of the spider constantly. In the non-elaboration condition the therapist tried to prevent this. A manipulation check suggested that Ss in the elaboration condition had indeed elaborated more extensively on the objective features of the spiders during exposure than Ss in the non-elaboration condition. However, Ss in the elaboration condition practised with somewhat fewer spiders than Ss in the non-elaboration condition, probably because of the time the elaboration took. Contrary to the hypothesis, elaboration did not potentiate either short-term or long-term effects of the exposure treatment. It seems superfluous to let patients elaborate on the phobic stimulus during exposure in vivo treatment: the processing of phobic stimulus information which is needed for an effective treatment seems to occur spontaneously when the patient engages in exposure in vivo exercises.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arntz, A., Eck, M. Van and Heijmans, M. (1990). Predictions of dental pain: the fear of any expected evil is worse than the fear itself. Behaviour Research and Therapy 28, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arntz, A., Lavy, E. and Berg, G. Van Den (1992). Negative beliefs of spider phobics. In preparation.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. J., Houston, B. K., Holmes, D. S. and Burish, T. G. (1977). The effectiveness of attentional diversion and situation redefinition for reducing stress due to a nonambiguous threat. Journal of Research in Personality 11, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkovec, T. D. and O'Brien, G. T. (1980). Relation of autonomic perception and its manipulation to the maintenance and reduction of fear. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 86, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., Rosenthal, S. and Szpiler, J. (1978). The influence of attention upon anticipatory arousal, habituation, and reactivity to a noxious stimulus. Journal of Research in Personality 12, 30–40.Google Scholar
Eysenck, M. W. (1988). Anxiety and attention. Anxiety Research 1, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, E. B. and Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin 99, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grayson, J. B., Foa, E. B. and Steketee, G. (1982). Habituation during exposure treatment: distraction versus attention-focussing. Behaviour Research and Therapy 20, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N. S. and Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, 12–19.Google Scholar
Klorman, R., Weerts, Th. C., Hastings, J. E., Melamed, B. G. and Lang, P. J. (1974). Psychometric description of some specific fear questionnaires. Behavior Therapy 5, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, R. J. (1980). The role of semantic schemata in phobic word interpretation. Cognitive Therapy and Research 4, 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1977). Imagery in therapy: an information processing analysis of fear. Behavior Therapy 8, 862–886.Google Scholar
Öst, L.-G. (1989). One-session treatment for specific phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy 27, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öst, L.-G., Salkovskis, P. M. and Hellström, K. (1991). One-session therapist-directed exposure vs. self-exposure in the treatment of spider phobia. Behavior Therapy 22, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartory, G., Rachman, S. and Grey, S. J. (1982). Return of fear: the role of rehearsal. Behaviour Research and Therapy 20, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steketee, G., Bransfield, S., Miller, S. M. and Foa, E. B. (1989). The effect of information and coping style on the reduction of phobic anxiety during exposure. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 3, 69–85.Google Scholar
Wachtel, P. L. (1968). Anxiety, attention and coping with threat. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 73, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, J. P. and Marks, I. M. (1971). Relevant and irrelevant fear in flooding – a crossover study of phobic patients. Behavior Therapy 2, 275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, F. N. (1986). Cognitive processing in phobias. Behavioural Psychotherapy 14, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, F. N., Trezise, L. and Sharrock, R. (1986). Processing of phobic stimuli. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 25, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.