Mannion N E, Levine B A
Br J Clin Psychol. 1984 Feb;23 ( Pt 1):1-7. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1984.tb00620.x.
The present study was an attempt to examine the role of cue category level (symptom-contingent vs. hypothesized cues) and mode of stimulus presentation (in vivo vs. imaginal) in exposure (flooding) therapy. Sixty-four speech phobics were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. Exposed to either one of the two cue category conditions, subjects received either two sessions of in vivo exposure, two sessions of imaginal exposure, or two sessions consisting of either an imaginal followed by an in vivo exposure or vice versa. Results support the predictions of Levis & Hare (1977) that the inclusion of hypothesized cues is not necessary in the treatment of analogue phobias or simple clinical cases. These data also support and extend several previous findings that in vivo exposure produces more rapid anxiety decrement than imaginal exposure. Finally, a variant of the usual in vivo procedure is described which apparently is effective, yet does not require the assemblage of a large audience for each in vivo exposure.
本研究旨在探讨线索类别水平(症状相关线索与假设线索)和刺激呈现方式(现场暴露与想象暴露)在暴露(满灌)疗法中的作用。64名言语恐惧症患者被随机分配到八个条件之一。在两种线索类别条件中的任一种条件下接受暴露,受试者接受两次现场暴露治疗、两次想象暴露治疗,或者两次由一次想象暴露接着一次现场暴露组成的治疗,或者相反顺序的治疗。结果支持了莱维斯和黑尔(1977年)的预测,即在模拟恐惧症或简单临床病例的治疗中,包含假设线索并非必要。这些数据还支持并扩展了先前的几项研究结果,即现场暴露比想象暴露能更迅速地减轻焦虑。最后,描述了一种常规现场治疗程序的变体,该变体显然有效,而且每次现场暴露不需要召集大量观众。