This investigation focused on an empirical evaluation of the efficacy of preventative systematic desensitization, a recently developed psychotherapeutic technique intended to preclude the formation of a phobic or adverse autonomic reaction. While earlier research suggested the therapeutic viability of this technique, various methodological difficulties inherent in the experimental designs negated any clear an unequivocal statements regarding therapeutic efficacy. The design of the experiment central to this dissertation was developed expressly to avoid the methodological problems which characterized prior research, expand upon the hypothesis of earlier investigators, and evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic desensitization. The following results were obtained: (a) the experimental group did not show an increase in fear on the dependent measures following conditioning, (b) the placebo control group did show a significant increase in fear on the dependent measures following conditioning, (c) the group that received traditional systematic desensitization showed a significant fear increase after conditioning which was reduced to baseline following systematic desensitization, and (d) the measurements control group confirmed the above result and showed no significant differences in fear at retests. The major conclusion of this experiment is that within the context of the laboratory, it would appear that preventive systematic desensitization is an efficient psychotherapeutic technique. Further research designs and therapeutic strategies are discussed with regard to clients who may be expected to develop significant clinical phobias.

No description available.

The present research was undertaken to investigate the effects of two independent variables considered potentially important to the reduction of fear through systematic desensitization. The first independent variable investigated was the importance of making covert motor responses when instructions were given to imagine motor behavior. Electromyographic measures were obtained on subjects' covert muscular activity as they imagined themselves raising their arms. The subjects were then classified, on the basis of their average electromyographic responsiveness, as high-responders (those showing relatively high levels when imaging movement) and low-responders. A 2 X 2 analysis of covariance showed a significant difference in the posttreatment scores of the high- and low responders on performance measures, the high-responders performing better. The difference between the two instruction groups was not statistically significant. Additional analyses indicate the importance of the instruction variable is mitigated by the extent to which subjects actually follow the particular instructions given. These data imply electromyography may be used in clinical practice as an assessment tool to determine which subjects are likely to respond to systematic desensitization. They also suggest the possibility of using response measures to train self-monitoring of imagery. Concerning the imagery construct, the present study offers an empirical alternative to the traditional conceptualization. The data obtained support the utility of the analysis of imagery advanced in this paper.

The problem of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of systematic desensitization on test anxiety, general anxiety, and attitude toward school among fifth-grade elementary-school children.

Systematic desensitization and implosive therapy have surfaced as two of the primary behavioral therapy techniques to decrease phobic responses during the past decade. Although attempts have been made to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of these two techniques, results have been unclear because of the failure of researchers to duplicate the procedures as described by their respective originators. This experiment is designed to explore the joint effects of the therapies and level of therapeutic aspiration. A second objective, and a byproduct of the data produced in achieving the primary objective, was to analyze the goal discrepancy and attainment discrepancy scores accruing throughout the therapy sessions. Several hypotheses were advanced. Further analysis of the three criterion measures by means of ANOVA resulted in significant main sessions effects for each of the three independent analyses. Results suggest that all subjects, regardless of treatment subgroup, did make significant therapeutic gains in their approach scores, fear thermometer scores, and speed of approach scores from the first to the last session. Possible explanations for results were discussed. Furthermore, approach test absolute goal discrepancy, fear thermometer absolute goal discrepancy, approach test absolute attainment discrepancy, and fear thermometer absolute attainment discrepancy scores were calculated for all goal-setting subjects. Results from independent ANOVA suggest that the typical university student is able to make fairly accurate and consistent predictions concerning his future behavior, based on his past experiences.

There is a scarcity of objective criteria upon which to select among the available therapies for those most likely to benefit specific patients. Comparative research has suggested that the outcomes of alternative and competitive therapies are equivalent. There are few facts available concerning which patients benefit most from even the more popular therapies. The purpose of this study was to find a type of patient for which differential improvement could be predicted. Neither therapy decreased checklist scores or increased speaking time significantly more than the other. Repressors and sensitizers responded equally to therapy. When dropout rates were analyzed there were also no significant differences between the therapies or between repressors and sensitizers. When posttherapy scores from both therapies were compared to pretherapy scores, no significant changes were found. The latter finding was important for understanding the absence of support for the hypotheses. Since the subjects did not improve as a result of either desensitization or rational-emotive therapy, there was no opportunity to observe the hypothesized differential changes. Given this hindsight, it was concluded that speech anxiety may not be a desirable disorder with which to study the prediction that repression-sensitization is related to the outcome of rational-emotive therapy and desensitization. It was recommended that future research of this relationship utilize a disorder for which therapeutic effectiveness is more firmly established.