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.