Therapist factor in the treatment of insomnia

This quasi-experiment attempted to replicate the finding of Turner and Ascher (1979) in contrasting progressive relaxation, stimulus control and paradoxical intention therapies for the treatment of insomnia using clinicians-in-training as therapists. Progressive relaxation and stimulus control were again shown to be effective, paradoxical intention instructions were not. A significant therapist effect was found which is discrepant with previous findings in the field.     

Employing paradoxical intention in the treatment of agoraphobia

The present study assessed the efficacy of paradoxical intention in ameliorating the travel restriction of agoraphobics. A combined score indicating proximity to two difficult target locations represented the dependent variable. A multiple baseline across subjects was used with each of two groups of five clients. This was accomplished by sequentially staggering introduction of treatment. At the conclusion of baseline phase. Group A received 6 weeks of gradual exposure followed by paradoxical intention to criterion. Group B received paradoxical intention to criterion immediately after baseline. Results indicated that paradoxical intention produced greater movement toward targets for clients in Group B when compared both with their baseline and with the performance of Group A following an equal period of gradual exposure.     

Comparison of three cognitive strategies in altering pain behaviors on a cold pressor task

The efficacy of three cognitive strategies for coping with pain was examined in a cold-water pressor task in a sample of college students. Subjects were pretested and then randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions (Paradoxical Intention, Rational Self-statement, or Self-observation) or to an expectancy control group. Following training in the respective cognitive strategies, all groups were given a posttest in the cold-water pressor to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. Pain thresholds, tolerances, and discomfort ratings were recorded for subjects in each condition. No differences were found between the Paradoxical Intention or Rational Self-statement groups and the Expectancy Control on any of the pain measures. The Self-observation treatment condition, however, had significantly higher pain tolerance scores than the Expectancy Control group. The findings were attributed to the subjects' dissociating the sensory aspects of the pain experience from the anxiety when focusing upon the coldness and wetness of the cold water.     

The case of Piaget's group INRC

What is it that distinguishes Piaget's transformations N, R, and C from the rest of the 16! transformations of the 16 binary propositional operations? Here Piaget's INRC is considered as a subgroup of the group $\text{M}$₂ of all automorphisms and dual automorphisms of the free Boolean algebra with two generators. This group is isomorphic to S₄ × C₂. Its elements are given explicitly. Many other psychologically relevant subgroups of $\text{M}$₂ play an important role. They are discussed and their connections shown. Particular attention is given to involutions, even if the view that they constitute the sole representation of reversibility is abandoned. Piaget's transformation R turns out not to be the inverse operation of relations. The group of automorphisms, dual automorphisms, anti-automorphisms of the algebra of binary relations on a finite set is found. A crystallographic presentation of these groups is given and related work by Bart (Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1971, 5, 539–553), Leresche (Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales, 1976, 14, 219–241), and Pólya (The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1940, 5, 98–103) is discussed.     

A comparison of two methods for the administration of paradoxical intention

Recent research in the treatment of insomnia by paradoxical intention has utilized two different methods of instruction. Studies utilizing the random assignment of subjects to treatment groups employ a procedure in which clients are provided with a straight-forward explanation based on the present authors' understanding of the use of paradoxical intention with insomnia (type A administration). In contrast, controlled case studies have employed reframing, a procedure which explains the need for the paradoxical intention in a manner which best suits the specific understanding of the individual client (type B administration). The present study employed the type B method in a design employing the random assignment of clients to groups. Three additional groups (type A administration, placebo control, no-treatment control) completed the design. The results indicated that the type A method was superior to the type B procedure when the same method for administering paradoxical intention was applied to a randomized group of individuals.     

Paradoxical intention in the treatment of urinary retention

Although most cases of psychogenic urinary retention can be ameliorated by a program composed of various behavioral techniques, there is a small percentage of cases which resists the behavioral treatment of choice. The present multiple case paper focused on the treatment of several resistant cases of functional urinary retention. Following a two week baseline period, each individual was exposed to eight weekly behavioral sessions. Whereas most cases of urinary retention have significantly improved by this time, the five individuals chosen for the present study were dissatisfied with their progress. Thus, following the eighth week, paradoxical intention was employed. Within six weeks treatment for the urinary problem was terminated as all clients were comfortable with this aspect of their daily behavior. It was hypothesized that cases of psychogenic urinary retention which resist behavioral techniques are possibly exacerbated by performance anxiety. Such anxiety can be efficiently handled by paradoxical intention.     

Lack of free choice reveals the cost of multiple-target search within and across feature dimensions

Having to look for multiple targets typically results in switch costs. However, using a gaze-contingent eyetracking paradigm with multiple color-defined targets, we have recently shown that the emergence of switch costs depends on whether observers can choose a target or a target is being imposed upon them. Here, using a similar paradigm, we tested whether these findings generalize to the situation in which targets are specified across different feature dimensions. We instructed participants to simultaneously search for, and then fixate, either of two possible targets presented among distractors. The targets were defined as either two colors, two shapes, or one color and one shape. In one condition, only one of the two targets was available in each display, so that the choice was imposed. In the other condition, both targets would be present in each display, which gave observers free choice over what to search for. Consistent with our earlier findings, switch costs emerged when targets were imposed, whereas no switch costs emerged when target selection was free, irrespective of the dimension in which the targets were defined. The results are consistent with the operation of different modes of control in multiple-target search, with switch costs emerging whenever reactive control is required and being reduced or absent when displays allow for proactive control.     

Risky choice with heuristics: reply to Birnbaum (2008), Johnson, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and Willemsen (2008), and Rieger and Wang (2008)

E. Brandst?tter, G. Gigerenzer, and R. Hertwig (2006) showed that the priority heuristic matches or outperforms modifications of expected utility theory in predicting choice in 4 diverse problem sets. M. H. Birnbaum (2008) argued that sets exist in which the opposite is true. The authors agree--but stress that all choice strategies have regions of good and bad performance. The accuracy of various strategies systematically depends on choice difficulty, which the authors consider a triggering variable underlying strategy selection. Agreeing with E. J. Johnson, M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and M. C. Willemsen (2008) that process (not "as-if") models need to be formulated, the authors show how quantitative predictions can be derived and test them. Finally, they demonstrate that many of Birnbaum's and M. O. Rieger and M. Wang's (2008) case studies championing their preferred models involved biased tests in which the priority heuristic predicted data, whereas the parameterized models were fitted to the same data. The authors propose an adaptive toolbox approach of risky choice, according to which people first seek a no-conflict solution before resorting to conflict-resolving strategies such as the priority heuristic.