Short-term desensitization therapy

R has raised the possibility that behavior therapy procedures can benefit from even further departures from traditional psychotherapy formats. Although behavioral approaches such as desensitization therapy are distinctive departures from the verbal psychotherapies, there is still an implicit commitment to one traditional approach: the reliance upon one or two weekly appointments. Clients being treated for phobias, for example, are typically seen for desensitization sessions twice weekly. Yet, both theory and current research argue for more frequent meetings as being more effective. Robinson and Suinn (1969) saw clients with spider phobia daily for five consecutive days, meeting one hr per day. Clients were tested on a behavioral task prior to and following massed treatment. Results showed that prior to therapy, none of 20 clients were able to place their hands near the spider; following massed treatment, all clients improved, 13 clients placed their hands within 12 in. of the spider, 2 touched the spider and 1 client stroked the 4 in. spider twice as it moved across the cage. Suinn and Hall (1970) relied upon an even shorter treatment period: students with test-taking anxiety were desensitized completely within 24 hr. These clients were trained to relax and exposed to hierarchy items from 1–4 p.m. on Friday and 8–12 noon the next day. Results showed that the marathon treated clients showed recoveries to the same degree as that achieved in a group treated over a course of 4 weeks. Theoretically, massed treatment should be more effective than spaced treatment. This is based on the view that massed practice would lead to the extinction of fear or anxiety responses since this method capitalizes upon two factors: (1) counterconditioning, whereby the fear stimulus becomes conditioned to relaxation instead of anxiety, and (2) conditioned inhibition, whereby the anxiety responses become ‘fatigued’ and non-responding is reinforced. Implosive therapy (Stampfl and Levis, 1967) appears to be basically a type of massed practice in which the client is continuously exposed to extremely frightening scenes to extinguish the fear. In implosive therapy the client is kept anxious during the treatment; in massed or marathon desensitization, the client is relaxed throughout the sessions. The purpose of this report is to summarize some results achieved through massed desensitization.     

Self-directed desensitization for acrophobia

Acrophobic outpatients received therapist- or self-directed (tape-recorded) desensitization in a study of (a) treatment effectiveness with diminished therapist contact ; (b) subject characteristics ‘predicting’ outcome; and (c) generalization of change. At Post-test, treated Ss (N=16) had improved significantly more than Waiting List Ss (N=13) on self-report measures of acrophobia and general anxiety, while the treatment methods were equally effective. An 8-month follow-up found that self-directed Ss had attempted more specific behavioral situations than therapist-directed Ss, and showed additional gains on self-report measures while therapist-directed Ss maintained post-test levels. Results suggested: (a) desensitization provides effective treatment even with reduced therapist contact; (b) some subject characteristics relate to outcome and (c) treatment effects generalize to other anxiety indices.     

Group desensitization of test anxiety

Following an orientation session in which test-anxious students were instructed in the theory and method of desensitization, 18 ISU undergraduates applied for a desensitization and counseling program for test-taking anxiety. All students committed themselves to attend 7 weekly meetings and to practice daily the relaxation exercises at home. Nine of these 18 subjects were assigned to the treatment group and 9 to the wait-list control group on the basis of a free class hour at program time. Treatment consisted of 7 desensitization and counseling sessions. The treatment and control groups did not differ significantly in initial Grade Point Average or scores on the A.C.T. Test. Both groups improved their G.P.A. in the program quarter but only the treatment group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement (p< 0.05). It is concluded that counseling and group desensitization in this 7-session model is an effective and efficient technique to modify anxiety responses to test taking situations.     

Vicarious desensitization of test anxiety

students fail in the university environment due to an inability to perform in testing situations because of anxiety associated with tests (Suinn, 1968). Systematic desensitization has been found to be effective in the treatment of test anxiety, and attempts are being made to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of this procedure (Mann and Rosenthal, 1969; Suinn and Hall, 1970). This study evaluates the relative effectiveness of four methods of systematic desensitization in the treatment of test anxiety. Specifically, two changes were investigated which may lead to: (a) more rapid forms of treatment (massed treatment versus distributed treatment); (b) more easily administered forms of treatment (vicarious desensitization versus active desensitization).