Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:13:02.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Short Exposures to Phobic Material upon Subsequent Phobic Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Daniel F. Markus  and
A. G. M. Canavan
Daniel F. Markus
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Pyschology, University of Oxford
A. G. M. Canavan
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Pyschology, University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two theories have been advanced to explain the paradoxical increase in fear and avoidance seen after short unreinforced exposures to phobic stimuli. Incubation theory (Eysenck, 1968) and sensitization theory (Watts, 1971) are similar with regard to the conditions specified for enhancement of such responses. However, an incubated response is seen as specific to the CS in question, whereas sensitized responsiveness is a more generalized process. Subjects were either exposed or not exposed to a feared stimulus (cockroaches), and were then administered generalization tests to the same stimulus or to a non-feared stimulus (toad). Measures of subjective anxiety, behavioural avoidance and physiological activity were taken. No evidence was found for the enhancement phenomenon to either phobic material or non-feared material. The phenomenon does not appear to be a reliable one.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 218 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bersh, P. J. (1980). Eysenck's theory of incubation: a critical analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy 18, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, T. L. (1981). The effects of shock intensity on fear incubation (enhancement): a preliminary investigation of Eysenck's theory. Behaviour Research and Therapy 19, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J. (1968). A theory of the incubation of anxiety/fear responses. Behaviour Research and Therapy 6, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). The learning theory model of neurosis—a new approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy 14, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J. (1979). The conditioning model of neurosis. Behaviour and Brain Science 2, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, P. M. and Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychology Review 77, 419–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, B. and Levis, D. (1971). The effects of varying short visual exposure times to a phobic test stimulus on subsequent avoidance behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy 9, 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napalkov, A. V. (1963). Information process and the brain. In Progress in Brain Research, Wiener, N. and Schade, J. P. (eds) Vol. 2, pp. 59–69. Elsevier, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholaichuk, T. P., Quesnel, L. J. and Tait, R. W. (1982). Eysenck's theory of incubation: an empirical test. Behaviour Research and Therapy 20, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, N. M. and Borkovec, T. D. (1975). The paradoxical effect of brief CS exposure on analogue phobic subjects.’ Behaviour Research and Therapy 13, 51–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, F. (1971). Densensitization as an habituation phenomenon: I. stimulus intensity as a determinant of the effects of stimulus lengths. Behaviour Research and Therapy 9, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, F. (1979). Habituation model of densitization. Psychology Bulletin 86, 627–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.