Therapeutic rationale,monetary incentive and fear behavior: a methodological note on analogue research

Analogue research has been questioned as a means of evaluating clinical procedures (e.g. Cooper, Furst and Bridger, 1969). A major criticism has been the failure to include adequate controls. Placebo conditions have varied markedly in their similarity to active treatment procedures (Caputo, Nau and Borkovec, 1973), have not provided equally credible therapeutic rationales (Borkovec and Nau, 1972), and have thus generated differing expectancies and demands for improvement.To evaluate a therapy procedure, a comparison condition is needed in which no treatment intervenes between pre- and post-test measures, yet which provides adequate incentive for improvement. Rimm and Mahoney (1969) used a ‘contingent reinforcement’ placebo condition in which tokens, exchangeable for money, were dispensed for improvement in a graded approach to a feared stimulus. Little improvement occurred, suggesting a lack of effectiveness of money alone in improving approach behavior. However, as no therapeutic rationale was presented, it is likely that little expectancy for improvement occurred.The present study provided a ‘no treatment’ condition in which Ss participated in three test sessions with no intervening treatment procedure. Unlike Rimm and Mahoney (1969), two conditions provided a rationale explaining why Ss had maintained their fear and why no real therapy was needed to eliminate it. Also, monetary reward (a $5.00 bill rather than tokens) was dispensed only upon picking up the feared object. A follow-up session assessed the lasting effects of rationale and monetary incentive in the absence of extrinsic reinforcement. Thus, the present study attempted to determine the effect of therapeutic rationale and/or the possibility of receiving money, in the absence of ‘therapy’, on subclinical fear.