Therapist warmth as a factor in automated systematic desensitization.

Abstract

The present study examined the role of therapist warmth in an automated systematic desensitization procedure. Twenty-three female snake-phobic subjects were each assigned to one of three treatment conditions: warm automated therapist procedure, cold automated therapist procedure, or no-treatment control. All groups were equated with respect to their pretest behavioral avoidance scores, and in addition the two desensitization groups were equated in their pretherapy instructions, number of therapy sessions, and automated procedure. The only procedural difference between the two desensitization groups was the manner in which the taped therapist verbalized the treatment procedure. The results showed that the subjects in the warm automated therapist group improved significantly more than the subjects in either the cold automated therapist or control groups, and that there was no significant difference between the cold automated therapist and control groups. This relationship was largely maintained during the follow-up evaluation. The results are discussed in terms of the role of relationship variables in successful systematic desensitization.

Helping Others and Helping Yourself: An Evaluation of Two Training Modules in a College Course

“…In terms of need, students frequently express concern wrth increas~ng study time, reducing t'est anxiety, being less inhibrted In social situations, etc. In terms of application, research has demonstrated successful behavior modification procedures which require little individual time from a therapist or are completely self-administering (Donner, 1967;Krapfl & Nawas, 1969;Morris & Suckerman, 1974). The use of such procedures with a large group has been facilitated by the publication of a step-by-step manual on self-directed behavior change by Watson and Tharp (1972).…”

The Therapist as Conditioned Stimulus

“…Must we conclude that the relationship is of no importance or that a good relationship with a computer is also possible, if a computer and a therapist do just as good a job?3 If the computer very clearly does not do as well – and let us assume this for the sake of our profession – does this then mean that the relationship is an added value to the technique, or that the computer is not sufficiently capable of applying the technique? A study that applied SD through both a “cold” and a “warm” therapist appears to have a similarly fuzzy method in our view (Morris & Suckerman, 1974a, 1974b). The reasoning was the following: the technique is present in both conditions, but the relationship is added only by the warm therapist.…”

Therapeutic factors in treating anxiety disorders

“…Also, in response to group therapy, highly cohesive groups had better immediate outcome than less cohesive groups in an anxiety sample (Hand, Lamontagne, & Marks, 1974) and in a mixed depression and anxiety sample (Budman et al, 1989), and clients from highly cohesive groups showed continuous and further improvement during 6-month follow-up (Hand et al, 1974). Other studies have found that therapist warmth (Morris & Suckerman, 1974a, 1974bRabavilas, Boulougouris, & Perissaki, 1979;Ryan & Moses, 1979), caring and involvement (Williams & Chambless, 1990) as well as acceptance, respect, interest and liking (Rabavilas et al, 1979) were predictive of positive outcome. Likewise, there is support for outcome's association with therapist empathy (Emmelkamp & Van der Hout, 1983;Rabavilas et al, 1979), positive regard (Bennun, Hahlweg, Schindler, & Langlotz, 1986; Schindler, 1988;Emmelkamp & Van der Hout, 1983;Rabavilas et al, 1979), guidance (Bennun & Schindler, 1988), verbal encouragement (Mathews et al, 1976;Rabavilas et al, 1979), feedback (DeVoge, Minor, & Karoly, 1981;Leitenberg, Agras, Allen, & Butz, 1975), helping the client feel understood (Hansen, Hoogduin, Schaap, & de Haan, 1992;Rabavilas et al, 1979), reinforcement (Wilkins, 1971), and congruence (Emmelkamp & Van der Hout, 1983) in the treatment of anxiety disorders.…”