Abstract
24 snake-phobic undergraduate volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups, three flooding and one placebo. All subjects were provided rationales describing the treatment procedures in either positive, neutral, or negative terms, intended to induce differential expectancies for improvement. However, an analysis of expectancy scores at pre-treatment indicated that appropriate expectancies were not induced. Comparisons between the treatment and placebo groups on all outcome measures (behavioral, subjective, physiological) indicated no differences between groups. In a supplementary study identical descriptions of various procedures were administered to an independent group of 85 snake-phobics, who rated them as equally credible. Another independent group of 18 highly fearful snake-phobics, who did not expect to participate in treatment, rated their expectancy induced by reading one of the three original flooding rationales. The manipulation was successful in altering expectancy in the predicted direction. Taken as a whole, the findings reflect on the typical lack of adequate strategies of assessment in this area of research, and the need to extend investigations to different populations is considered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
