“…Noting obvious problems, critics have challenged the appropriateness of using response prevention procedures with humans in therapy situations. Most recent among such critics, Morganstern (1973Morganstern ( , 1974 has charged advocates of implosive therapy with a lack of experimental rigor. Indeed, Eysenck (1968) has called for the postponement of response prevention procedures until more detailed and reliable guides have been provided by analogous studies.…”
Studies employing response prevention (RP) are reviewed. Considering assessment difficulties and conflicting findings, it is questionable whether RP actually reduces fear to a conditioned stimulus (CS). This study measured fear after RP via a conditioned emotional response (CER) paradigm. Hypotheses were that fear of an auditory CS (conditioned in an avoidance paradigm) is reduced during RP, and that fear conditioning would occur to aspects of the conditioning environment per se. Also evaluated was the effectiveness of RP when fear had been learned under two different conditions: (a) avoidance or (b) classical defensive conditioning. Seven groups of 10 experimentally naive female rats were run. Animals were initially trained to bar press for food pellets on a variable interval (VI) 2 schedule. Three groups were then avoidance trained in a two-way shuttle box to a criterion of 10 successive avoidances. Immediately following acquisition, one group received RP (blocking) in the shuttle box (Condition A-B). This consisted of placing a door between the two sides of the box and presenting the 85 dB (A) white noise CS for 15 20-sec periods with a variable 1-min interstimulus interval. One group did not receive RP (nonblocked) and was instead immediately returned to its home cage (Condition A-NBHC). The third group was treated as was A-B except the CS was not presented (Condition A-NBSB). Two other groups were trained in a classical defensive paradigm. These animals were matched to A-B animals in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. Following conditioning, one group received the same treatment as A-B (Condition CD-B), and the other received the same treatment as A-NBHC (Condition CD-NBHC). Two groups served as controls. A backward control (Condition BC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. A sensitization control (Condition SC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CS presentations. Immediately following conditioning trials, control animals received the same treatment as A-NBHC animals. After differential treatments all animals were immediately returned to the lever box in which they had learned to bar press, a VI 2 schedule was reinstated, and the CER was measured. A-B showed significant suppression initially but significantly less than A-NBHC, suggesting that although RP was effective in reducing fear to the CS, some fear remained. Controls showed essentially no suppression and did not differ. A-B did not differ from A-NBSB, suggesting that conditioning of fear did occur to the environment and that this fear was subsequently reduced in A-NBSB. A-B suppressed significantly more than CD-B, suggesting that RP was more effective when fear was learned in a classical as compared to an avoidance paradigm. Theoretical implications and generalizations to implosive therapy are discussed.
“…Noting obvious problems, critics have challenged the appropriateness of using response prevention procedures with humans in therapy situations. Most recent among such critics, Morganstern (1973Morganstern ( , 1974 has charged advocates of implosive therapy with a lack of experimental rigor. Indeed, Eysenck (1968) has called for the postponement of response prevention procedures until more detailed and reliable guides have been provided by analogous studies.…”
Studies employing response prevention (RP) are reviewed. Considering assessment difficulties and conflicting findings, it is questionable whether RP actually reduces fear to a conditioned stimulus (CS). This study measured fear after RP via a conditioned emotional response (CER) paradigm. Hypotheses were that fear of an auditory CS (conditioned in an avoidance paradigm) is reduced during RP, and that fear conditioning would occur to aspects of the conditioning environment per se. Also evaluated was the effectiveness of RP when fear had been learned under two different conditions: (a) avoidance or (b) classical defensive conditioning. Seven groups of 10 experimentally naive female rats were run. Animals were initially trained to bar press for food pellets on a variable interval (VI) 2 schedule. Three groups were then avoidance trained in a two-way shuttle box to a criterion of 10 successive avoidances. Immediately following acquisition, one group received RP (blocking) in the shuttle box (Condition A-B). This consisted of placing a door between the two sides of the box and presenting the 85 dB (A) white noise CS for 15 20-sec periods with a variable 1-min interstimulus interval. One group did not receive RP (nonblocked) and was instead immediately returned to its home cage (Condition A-NBHC). The third group was treated as was A-B except the CS was not presented (Condition A-NBSB). Two other groups were trained in a classical defensive paradigm. These animals were matched to A-B animals in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. Following conditioning, one group received the same treatment as A-B (Condition CD-B), and the other received the same treatment as A-NBHC (Condition CD-NBHC). Two groups served as controls. A backward control (Condition BC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CSs and USs. A sensitization control (Condition SC-NBHC) was matched to A-NBHC in terms of number, order, and duration of CS presentations. Immediately following conditioning trials, control animals received the same treatment as A-NBHC animals. After differential treatments all animals were immediately returned to the lever box in which they had learned to bar press, a VI 2 schedule was reinstated, and the CER was measured. A-B showed significant suppression initially but significantly less than A-NBHC, suggesting that although RP was effective in reducing fear to the CS, some fear remained. Controls showed essentially no suppression and did not differ. A-B did not differ from A-NBSB, suggesting that conditioning of fear did occur to the environment and that this fear was subsequently reduced in A-NBSB. A-B suppressed significantly more than CD-B, suggesting that RP was more effective when fear was learned in a classical as compared to an avoidance paradigm. Theoretical implications and generalizations to implosive therapy are discussed.
“…Although great caution should be exercised in extrapolating results of animal research to a clinical setting, research with the subhuman analogue of implosive therapy may contribute relevant guidelines and suggestions. The relevancy of such research logically follows the pending controversy surrounding the use of implosive therapy (Levis, 1974;Morganstern, 1973Morganstern, , 1974. Animal research showing residual fear following response prevention should not be used as conclusive evidence against the use of implosive therapy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baum, 1970) appears to be a technique originally called forced reality testing (Solomon, Kamin, & Wynne, 1953) and presently called response prevention. The technique has been extended to clinical applications under the names of vmplosive therapy, flooding, and response prevention (Ayer & Frankel, 1972;Baum & Poser, 1971;Hodgson & Rachman, 1970;Hogan, 1968Hogan, , 1969Levis, 1966Levis, , 1970Levis, , 1974Morganstern, 1973Morganstern, , 1974Rachman, 1969;Smith, Dickson, & Sheppard, 1973;Stampfl, 1966;Stampfl & Levis, 1967Staub, 1968).…”
Theoretical formulations of avoidance behavior and response prevention are presented. Inherently problematic methodologies are reviewed. The first purpose of this study was to improve a fear assessment methodology and to reassess the effectiveness of response prevention. A multivariate analysis of several topographically different behaviors was employed. This allowed comparison between approach and avoidance measures of fear. A second purpose was to formally examine "safetytest" behavior. Opportunity to engage in safety-test behavior was manipulated by varying the height of a one-way platform-avoidance apparatus relative to the grids.The subjects were 120 experimentally naive male rats randomly assigned to a 3x4 factorial design. The procedure included avoidance training, response prevention (blocking), and finally, fear assessment. Eighty avoidance-trained subjects were assigned to blocked or nonblocked treatments, and the remaining nonshocked subjects served as controls. Ten subjects from each treatment were assigned to one of four platform heights.The results showed that response prevention leads to only partial fear elimination. Differential sensitivities of various fear-assessment variables were found. A principal-components analysis allowed examination of the relationship between the variables. The hypothesis that safety-test behavior was indicative of fear was confirmed. Platform height had an effect on the durability of response prevention. The results are discussed within a cognitive interpretation of avoidance behavior. Implications of these methods and findings to implosive-therapy theory and research are discussed.Avoidance behavior is operationally de-component consists of the instrumental refined as a learned response that terminates inforcement of the avoidance response via a previously neutral stimulus. Among sev-fear reduction. As seen from the animal anaeral theoretical approaches used to explain logue paradigm, the animal first learns to the acquisition of avoidance behavior, a dual-fear a stimulus, and whatever the animal process explanation appears to be the most does to terminate that stimulus is operantly popular (Monti & Smith, 1976; Testa, reinforced. 1976). One of these explanations, Mowrer'sThe definition of an avoidance response (1950) two-factor theory, postulates that requires that an organism escape a warning there are two components or processes stimulus that would otherwise terminate in thought to be involved in the learning of the presentation of a noxious stimulus. In avoidance behavior. The first factor involves the laboratory, the classical extinction proa classically conditioned fear response ac-cedure is to discontinue the presentation of quired by pairing a previously neutral stim-shock while the CSs continue to be preulus, the conditioned stimulus (CS), with a sented. Consequently, since the organism is primary noxious or aversive stimulus, the already avoiding consistently, the extinction unconditioned stimulus (UCS). The second procedure does not introduce a discriminate
“…She cites Francis and Radka () as referring to flooding interventions with phobic children as “extremely stressful.” She is not alone in voicing these concerns (Deacon, ; Olatunji, Deacon, & Abramowitz, ; Wolitzky‐Taylor et al., 2012). Morganstern (, p. 382) summarizes concisely, stating:Even if implosion is effective and even if there are no detrimental outcome effects (both of which are questionable), the emotional cost to the patient during treatment is an extremely important ethical consideration ……”
Section: Flooding and Desensitization Proceduresmentioning
Children who are triangulated into their parents' conflicts can become polarized, aligning with one parent and rejecting the other. In response, courts often order families to engage mental health professionals to provide reunification interventions. This article adapts empirically established systematic desensitization and flooding procedures most commonly used to treat phobic children as possible components of a larger family systems invention designed to help the polarized child develop a healthy relationship with both parents. Strengths and weaknesses of these procedures are discussed and illustrated with case material.
Family law and psychology agree that children should have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents
Adult conflict can polarize a child's relationships, including rejection of one parent
Existing clinical and forensic “reunification” strategies often prove inadequate
Reliable and valid cognitive behavioral methods can be adopted to facilitate this process
A cognitive‐behavioral “exposure‐based” reunification protocol is discussed
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
