Exposure and fear-reduction

Boyd and Levis (1983, this issue, pp. 143–149) have contested the main argument of our earlier paper on exposure and fear-reduction (de Silva and Rachman, 1981). In this reply, our original argument is briefly restated and the position explained. Boyd and Levis' argument that exposure is necessary, is critically examined and it is concluded that the search for alternative (and additional) explanations of fear-reduction is a valid and useful exercise. Further investigations of the mechanisms of exposure and of non-exposure methods, are warranted.