A Follow-up Analogue Study on the Effectiveness of the Cognitive Rationale

Abstract

Cognitive Therapy (CT) for depression presents a rationale for symptom reduction early in treatment. The rationale is described in lay terms as an ABC sequence, such that A represents a recent event, B represents automatic thoughts about the event, and C represents the resulting affective response. A previous study (Kanter, 229) that compared the CT rationale to an alternative (by flipping the terms of ABC into an ACB theory in which affect is assumed to proceed and cause cognition) suggested that the CT rationale may operate through demand characteristics because the alternative was equally influential. However, that study did not allow for the possibility that demand characteristics were differentially operative (perhaps one rationale produced real changes in identification of automatic thoughts while the other produced demand responding). The current study extended the previous study by manipulating demand characteristics directly and by adding a 1-week follow-up condition. Results indicate that the influence of the cognitive rationale is robust and, in contrast to the previous study, may not be dependent on demand characteristics.

Why Ineffective Psychotherapies Appear to Work

“…In one study, participants informed that thoughts precede affect in response to images (i.e., a cognitive therapy rationale) were more likely to report thoughts first compared with participants informed that affect precedes thoughts. Differences between the two rationales were especially apparent in response to highly arousing images (Kanter, Kohlenberg, & Loftus, 2004) and were maintained at a 1-week follow-up (Busch, Kanter, Sedivy, & Leonard, 2007).…”

Frightened by an Old Scarecrow: The Remarkable Resilience of Demand Characteristics

“…Examining those 49 articles revealed first some authors (e.g., Armitage, 2007Armitage, , 2009Armitage & Arden, 2008;Chapman & Armitage, 2010;Chapman, Armitage, & Norman, 2009) seem drawn to demand characteristics, evidenced by their referencing it in multiple articles. Second, a broad range of topics was investigated in the 49 articles, from cognitive therapy for depression (Busch, Kanter, Sedivy, & Leonard, 2007), to gender differences in mate selection (Evans & Brase, 2007), to the effects of violent video games (Hasan, Begue, & Bushman, 2013). Third, ways to address demand characteristics were extraordinarily varied, from altering the research's cover story, manipulating the timing or frequency of the administering of the dependent measure, making use of active control conditions, suggesting subjects participate in a second supposedly unrelated study, reordering of the sequence of treatments, presenting material subliminally, administering implicit or physiological measures, alternating withinand between-subjects designs, exaggerating the experimenter's presence, investigating effects thought to be unknown to subjects, and deceiving subjects (and in Laney et al, 2008, double deceiving subjects).…”

“…First, as artifacts, it is justified to declare some experiments and some paradigms free of demand characteristics (e.g., Armitage & Arden, 2008;Khemlani & Johnson-Laird, 2012;Noreen & MacLeod, 2013). Second, as artifacts, it follows some experiments and some paradigms must be contaminated by demand characteristics (e.g., Busch et al, 2007;Gackenbach, Rosie, Bown, & Sample, 2011;Mallard & Bryant, 2006). Third, as artifacts, it is beholden on researchers to control or eliminate demand characteristics.…”