Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
(USC Thesis Other)
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PROGNOSTIC EXPECTANCY EFFECTS IN THE DESENSITIZATION
OF ANXIETY OVER INVASION OF BODY BUFFER ZONES
by
Henry Neil Weber
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
June 1971
72-3805
WEBER, Henry Neil, 1943-
PR0GN0STIC EXPECTANCY EFFECTS IN THE
DESENSITIZATION OF ANXIETY OVER INVASION
OF BODY BUFFER ZONES.
University of Southern California, Ph.D.,
1971
Psychology, clinical
University Microfilms, A X ER O X Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan
PCOPYRIGHT BY
Henry Neil Weber
1971
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
.......l e n r y . . . W . e c l l . . . W . e b . e r . ........
under the direction of /l.I.S. Dissertation C om
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The G radu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE a
Chairman
...
PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have i n d i s t i n c t
p r i n t . Filmed as r e c e i v e d .
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the considerable amount of time spent on this
project, several debts of gratitude have accumulated.
First of all, I would like to acknowledge the
members of my committee, Drs. Frankel, DeNike, Wolpin, and
Slucki, for their thoughtful suggestions and assistance
throughout various stages of this study. Dr. DeNike has
been my chairman for most of my stay at the University of
Southern California, and deserves special mention for his
guidance and, no doubt, patience over this period. I am
also especially indebted to Dr. Frankel for his kind
acceptance of the chair when a technicality of Graduate
School policy necessitated the appointment of a new chair
man. His warmth and encouragement, as well as his techni
cal assistance in the latter stages of the dissertation
are greatly appreciated.
Maureen Degnon, my research assistant, lightened
the load of this work considerably through her faithful
and consistent service. Thank you, Maureen.
Dee Shepherd deserves special thanks for her
generous contribution of time and effort in helping me to
obtain pilot subjects, and in her expert assistance as a
computer consultant during the statistical analysis. She
is also a good friend.
A special debt of gratitude is due my father, for
lending moral support as well as financial assistance,
uncritically, when they were needed.
And finally, I want to thank Judy, my wife. Her
positive contributions to me, and to this project, are too
numerous, and too personal, to mention here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................... ii
LIST OF TAB L E S ........................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................... X
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................... 6
Systematic Desensitization and the
Concept of Reciprocal Inhibition
Modifications of Systematic Desensitization
and Inadequacies of Experimental Designs
Relationship of Prognostic Expectancies
to Psychotherapy Outcome
Manipulation of Subject Expectancy as an
Independent Variable
Human Territorial Behavior and the
Concept of Body Buffer Zone
Body Buffer Zones and Interpersonal
Distance: Relationship to Pathology,
Personality and Anxiety
The Locus of Control Measure
III. M E T H O D.................................... 45
Summary of Experimental Design
Experimenter and Research Assistant
Subjects
Setting and Apparatus
Screening on Basis of Body Buffer
Zone Size
Procedure
iv
Chapter
XV. RESULTS
Page
61
V.
VI.
Body Buffer Zone Scores
Pretreatment Equivalence of Groups
Treatment Effects Hypotheses
Locus of Control Scale
Questionnaire Responses
DISCUSSION................................. 92
Summary of Results
The Desensitization Treatment
The Pseudotreatment
The Failure of the Pseudotreatment:
A Cognitive Interpretation
The High and Low Expectancy Desensitiza
tion Groups: Failure of the Expectancy
Manipulation
The Interaction Hypothesis
Implications, Suggestions for Future
Research
SUMMARY.................................... 122
APPENDICES 126
A. Manual of Procedures for Research
Assistant ....................... 127
B. Sample Data Sheet for Research
Assistant .................... 129
C. High Expectancy Desensitization Group
Instructions ....................... 130
D. Low Expectancy Desensitization Group
Instructions ....................... 132
E. Desensitization Condition— Treatment
Room Instructions ................ 134
v
Appendices Page
F. Content of Desensitization Tape
Recording......................... 135
G. High Expectancy Pseudotreatment
Group Instructions............... 140
H. Low Expectancy Pseudotreatment
Group Instructions................ 142
I. Pseudotreatment Condition— Treatment
Room Instructions................ 145
J. Sample Worksheet— Pseudotreatment
Condition......................... 146
K. Postexperimental Questionnaires . . 147
L. Debriefing Format— Desensitization
Condition......................... 154
M. Debriefing Format— Pseudotreatment
Condition.......................... 155
N. Number of Correct and Incorrect Responses
to Questionnaire Item 9 in the Four
Experimental Groups ................. 156
O. Number of Yes, No, and Other Responses
to Questionnaire Item 11 in the Four
Experimental Groups ................. 157
P. Number of Subjects Scoring Positive,
Neutral, and Negative in Response to
Treatment in the Four Experimental
Groups............................. 158
Q. Number of Positive, Neutral, and Negative
Ratings of Responses to Questionnaire
Item 2 in the Four Experimental Groups 159
R. Raw D a t a .......................... 160
vi
Page
REFERENCES...............................................165
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Analysis of Variance on Baseline Body
Buffer Zone Scores........................... 62
2. Analysis of Covariance on Pre- and Post
treatment Body Buffer Zone Scores . . . 64
3. Number of Subjects with Decreasing and
Nondecreasing (or Increasing) Body Buffer
Zones in the High and Low Expectancy
Pseudotreatment Groups (HP and LP) . . . 66
4. Analysis of Variance on Subjective Measure 67
5. Mean Subjective Change-in-Anxiety Scores for
the High and Low Expectancy Desensitization
Groups (HD and LD) and the High and Low
Expectancy Pseudotreatment Groups (HP
and L ^ ) ....................................... 69
6. Number of Subjects Reporting Subjective
Decrease and No Change or Increase in
Anxiety in the High and Low Expectancy
Pseudotreatment Groups (HP and LP) . . . 70
7. Number of Subjects Scoring High (External)
and Low (Internal) on the Locus of Control
Scale and Changing (Yes) or Not Changing
(No) Body Buffer Zone Scores in the
Direction of the Expectancy Manipulation . 72
8. Number of Positive, Neutral, and Negative
Evaluations of the Experimenter, the
Research Assistant, and the Experiment . 74
viii
Table
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Page
Number of Correct and Incorrect Responses
to Questionnaire Item 9 in the Desensitiza
tion and Pseudotreatment Conditions . . . 76
Number of Yes and No Responses to Question
naire Item 11 by Subjects Reducing or Not
Reducing Body Buffer Zone Size .... 78
Number of Yes and No Responses to Question
naire Item 11 by Subjects Reporting Subjec
tive Improvement or No Subjective Improve
ment ............................................80
Number of Subjects Undergoing Desensitiza
tion or Pseudotreatment and Scoring Positive,
Neutral, or Negative in Response to that
T r e a t m e n t .....................................81
Number of Subjects in the Pseudotreatment
Condition Reducing (Yes) or Not Reducing
(No) Body Buffer Zone Scores and Scoring
Positive or Neutral and Negative in
Response to that Treatment....................83
Number of Subjects in High or Low Expect
ancy Levels and Scoring Positive, Neutral,
or Negative in Response to Treatment . . 84
Number of Positive and Negative Ratings of
Responses to Questionnaire Item 2 in the
Desensitization and Pseudotreatment
Conditions.....................................86
Number of Positive and Negative Ratings of
Responses to Questionnaire Item 2 in the
High and Low Expectancy Levels . . . . 87
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Mean pretest and posttest body buffer zone
scores for the High and Low Expectancy
Desensitization groups and the High and
Low Expectancy Pseudotreatment groups .
Page
65
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In the years since the publication of Wolpe's
(1958) book on reciprocal inhibition, a controversy has
developed in which various theoretical models have been
offered as alternatives to reciprocal inhibition theory
in explaining the effects of phobia reduction treatments.
Techniques for the reduction of fear and avoidance behavior
which have been utilized in a number of studies (reviewed
in the next chapter) have omitted presumably essential
elements of Wolpe's systematic desensitization procedure,
yet have achieved results comparable to those reported by
Wolpe. Explanations of such findings are not readily
available within the framework of reciprocal inhibition
theory. Advocates of other models, such as extinction
and operant conditioning, have offered what appear to be
viable alternative theories as well as shorter, more
economical behavior modification procedures.
In 1967, Efran and Marcia achieved reductions in
avoidance behavior through the utilization of a genuine-
appearing, but theoretically inert (from the standpoint
of the popular models) pseudotreatment, which they called
T-scope therapy. To account for their results, they
proposed a "cognitive expectancy" model. According to
their formulation, treatment is successful as a result of
changes in the subject's expectations about his ability to
face feared situations, rather than as a result of counter
conditioning or extinction. Jaffe (1968) compared the
effects of a modification of T-scope therapy with the
effects of a deconditioning treatment under conditions of
high and low expectation of relief. He concluded that
successful treatment outcome in desensitization was a
result of a combination of specific treatment factors and
"nonspecific effects" such as prognostic expectancy.
Essentially, the present design may be seen as an
extension of Jaffe's three celled design into a two by two
factorial design. The primary aim of this study was to
investigate the nature of the interaction between the
effects of desensitization and the expectancy manipula
tion embodied in the version of T-scope therapy utilized
by Jaffe. The desensitization procedure used was
fashioned after Wolpin's (1969) visual imagery model, with
a preconstructed common hierarchy for all subjects, and
without special relaxation instructions. Subjects were
treated individually or in groups ranging from two to six
members, and both desensitization and pseudotreatment
procedures were completed in one session. In addition,
the locus of control scale (Rotter, 1966) was utilized to
check the possibility that the susceptibility of individ
ual subjects to expectancy manipulation is a function of
their internal-external orientation. Experimental treat
ments were aimed at the reduction of the size of "body
buffer zones" (Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton, 1964). A
body buffer zone is operationally defined as the area
around a person within which he reports anxiety if another
person enters. Treatment effect was assessed through a
behavioral index of anxiety in response to the invasion
of personal space in a dyadic situation, and through sub
jective report of relief from anxiety after treatment.
The literature on invasion of personal space in
dyadic situations is small, and to this author's knowledge
there are no published studies in which the modification
of the size of body buffer zones has been attempted.
Thus, a secondary aim of the present research is to
explore the susceptibility of body buffer zones to reduc
tion in size through the use of treatments which have
4
been shown to be effective in the reduction of fear and
avoidance behaviors. A discussion of the concept of
personal space and a review of relevant investigations
will be presented in the next chapter.
The formal experimental hypotheses were as follows.
It was predicted .that:
(Hypothesis I): In general, subjects undergoing
the visual imagery treatment would show a greater reduc
tion in size of body buffer zones between pre- and post
treatment measures than would subjects undergoing the
pseudotreatment.
(Hypothesis la): In general, subjects undergoing
the visual imagery treatment would report more subjective
relief from anxiety about invasion of personal space after
treatment than would subjects undergoing the pseudo
treatment.
(Hypothesis II): In general, subjects in both
treatment groups who receive high expectancy instructions
prior to treatment would show greater reduction in body
buffer zone size than would subjects receiving low expect
ancy instructions.
(Hypothesis Ila): Subjects in the high expectancy
condition would, in general, report more subjective relief
from anxiety about having their body buffer zones invaded
than would subjects in the low expectancy condition.
(Hypothesis III): The interaction between expect
ancy effects and treatment effects would be such that
expectancy effects would be more pronounced under the
pseudotreatment condition than under the treatment condi
tion, for the behavioral (body buffer zone) measure.
(Hypothesis Ilia): The interaction between
expectancy effects and treatment effects would be such
that expectancy effects would be more pronounced under
the pseudotreatment condition, for the subjective relief
from anxiety measure.
(Hypothesis IV): Across all conditions, the
performance of those subjects scoring highly external on
the locus of control scale would more often be in the
direction suggested by the expectancy inducing instruc
tions than would the performance of those subjects scoring
highly internal.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Systematic Desensitization and the
Concept of Reciprocal Inhibition
Systematic desensitization is a form of behavior
therapy commonly applied in the treatment of phobias. The
method was developed by Joseph Wolpe and grew out of his
observations of laboratory research on experimentally
induced neuroses. The method is described in detail in
Wolpe (1958) and Wolpe and Lazarus (1967). It consists
of presenting to a deeply relaxed subject (S) imaginary
scenes graded by their ability to elicit anxiety in him.
Repeated exposure to a feared object or situation while
relaxed (a physiological state incompatible with anxiety)
results in inhibition of the anxiety response. This
process, by which anxiety is inhibited and finally
replaced by the relaxation response, is called reciprocal
inhibition. As described by Wolpe and Lazarus (1967,
Chapter 5), the technique of systematic desensitization
involves three stages. The first consists of training in
muscle relaxation (Jacobson, 1938), generally accomplished
in about six,sessions. The second phase consists of con
struction, with the aid of the patient, of one or more
anxiety hierarchies. An anxiety hierarchy is a list of
fear-graded stimuli, at the top of which is the target
fear, for instance, the situation in which the snake phobic
S holds a live snake in his hands. Items lower on the
hierarchy are successively less anxiety-evoking and more
remote from the phobia, as the situation in which S_ walks
toward the snake from across the room. In the desensi
tization phase of treatment, the patient, or S, is
instructed to relax (sometimes relaxation training is
facilitated with the aid of light hypnosis or drugs),
close his eyes, and begin visualizing the scenes beginning
at the bottom of the hierarchy. As the relaxation
response to each scene replaces the anxiety response, the
S proceeds through the hierarchy over a number of
sessions. Theoretically, when the hierarchy is mastered
the new response (relaxation) generalizes from the
imagined scenes to the real situation, and the phobia is
overcome.
Modifications of Systematic Desensitization
and Inadequacies of Experimental Designs
Wolpe's reciprocal inhibition therapy has been
established as an effective treatment mode. Rachman
(1967) reviews a number of experimental investigations
and comments that
. . . there are ample data to show that the imposi
tion of antagonistic responses (feeding, relaxa
tion, etc.) upon anxiety will, in definable circum
stances, reduce the intensity of the anxiety
reaction. (1967, p. 93)
The results cited by Rachman appear to point to reciprocal
inhibition as the central factor in the behavior modifica
tion process.
Rachman's review includes studies which compared
desensitization based on relaxation to other forms of
treatment for phobias, including nonbehavioral therapy,
pseudotherapy, relaxation alone, desensitization alone,
and no treatment (Lang and Lazovik, 1963; Paul, 1966;
Rachman, 1965; and others). The general consensus of
these experiments is that desensitization based on relaxa
tion is the most effective treatment for phobias. How
ever, there are a number of studies which indicate that
other treatment methods achieve comparable results.
9
Cooke (1968) found that although desensitization
was more effective in the reduction of fears of rats than
was relaxation only, hierarchy construction only, or no
treatment, there were no significant differences in
treatment outcome between Ss treated by desensitization
with relaxation and those treated by desensitization
without relaxation. Wolpin and Raines (196 6) explored
the possibility that neither relaxation nor the hierarchy
are essential elements in fear reduction. Using a 20-
step hierarchy, they compared desensitization based on
relaxation with desensitization based on muscle tension.
A third treatment group had no training in either relaxa
tion or muscle tension, and underwent desensitization at
the top of the hierarchy only. Marked reduction in phobic
symptoms was observed under all three conditions.
Myerhoff (196 8) obtained similar results in another
"desensitization with muscle tension" group. In a case
report involving the desensitization of a snake phobia,
Wolpin and Pearsall (1965) demonstrated that a 20-step
hierarchy could be completed in one session, and that the
entire procedure could be successfully conducted by an
untrained undergraduate. In discussing their results,
Wolpin and Raines acknowledge that in each case the first
10
part of each session prior to the deconditioning proper
was used to talk to and get to know each S. They reason
that "... we conveyed to the S that a certain procedure
would work, we were trusted and the procedure worked,
i.e., people fulfilled our expectations" (1966, p. 38).
In the Wolpin and Pearsall study, also, the E-S relation
ship was described as personal and informal, and the
therapy was conducted in a hospital setting.
It is unfortunate that most investigators in this
area do not specify the nature of their extra-therapy
interactions with their Ss, nor do they describe the
attitudes and expectations of their Es and Ss. An example
of the influences of such factors may be seen in one of
the few studies reporting only modest symptom reduction
through the use of systematic desensitization. In this
investigation, Weinberg and Zaslove (1963) treated phobic
S_s duplicating Wolpe's method except that sessions were
conducted in an academic, impersonal setting. With the
intent of reducing the effects of "suggestion," the
authors explained the experimental nature of the treatment
to the Ss, and were careful to give no assurance of
success. They devote their discussion to an account of
"resistance to systematic desensitization." Wagner and
11
Cauthen (1968) report equal phobia reduction through
reciprocal inhibition based on relaxation and through a
positive social reinforcement procedure without relaxa
tion. They suggest that the relationship between E and S,
in which E becomes a positive social reinforcer, may
account for the fact that drastic procedural variations
lead to similar outcomes. They consider
. . . the possibility that being administered
positive social reinforcement may induce a
state in the S which is much the same as the
relaxation response. (1968, p. 227)
In a 1968 article, Rachman reconsiders his (1967)
position on the role of relaxation. While he still holds
that relaxation is a necessary element in desensitization,
his revised view acknowledges that this does not neces
sarily involve muscle relaxation or the development of
"muscle sense," but may simply be a state of subjective
relaxation induced by a "comforting, reassuring thera
peutic setting." Ramsey, Barends, Breuker, and Kruseman
(1966) and Cooke (1966) reported that the simple repeti
tion of the suggestion that £[ was relaxed and calm was
sufficient to induce a feeling of calm in many Ss.
Whether this "feeling of calm" represented cognitive
activity only, or was actually thought to influence
12
muscle relaxation, was not specified by these authors.
This more casual definition of relaxation may be relevant
to the treatment process, it does not do much to strength
en the theory of reciprocal inhibition, and perhaps
suggests an attempt to cling to a theory in the face of
accumulating contrary evidence.
Implosive therapy (Levis and Carrera, 1967;
Stampfl and Levis, 1967) is yet another approach to
anxiety and phobia reduction. Its reported success has
been interpreted as supportive of an extinction model.
In this method, the objective is to allow the S to an
experience as much anxiety as possible while imagining
the scenes, where the goal in reciprocal inhibition is to
have the S remain relaxed throughout the hierarchy pre
sentation. In addition, while reciprocal inhibition
treatment requires a formal hierarchy representing a
gradual approach to the feared object, implosive treatment
concentrates visual imagining "above the top" of the
hierarchy in (sometimes psychoanalytically derived) scenes
representing extremely frightening interactions with the
feared object. Hogan and Kirchner (1967) report rat
phobia reduction by this method in only one session.
They did not conduct pretreatment interviews or rapport-
13
building sessions with Ss. A control group, treated with
neutral, "relaxing" imagery showed significantly less
improvement than the imploded group. One serious weak
ness of the study lies in the fact that the author treated
both groups. In view of the accumulating evidence for
covert communication of expectancies from E to S
(Rosenthal, 1966), it seems possible that the E differen
tially influenced the expectancies of S between groups.
Thus, this type of study does not lend as much support
as it might to the extinction model.
A model based on learning theory cannot make its
point by ignoring cognitive factors such as expectancy.
The situation where setting, E-S relationship variables
and E and £[ expectancies are unspecified or uncontrolled,
is far too common in the research literature. In a
review of studies comparing the relative efficacy of
drugs and placebos, D. Rosenthal and Frank (1956) conclude
that
. . . improvement under a special form of psycho
therapy cannot be taken as evidence for: (a)
correctness of the theory on which it is based;
or, (b) efficacy of the particular technique used,
unless improvement can be shown to be greater than
or qualitatively different from that produced by
the patient's faith in the efficacy of the thera
pist and his technique— "the placebo effect."
(1956, p. 300)
14
Andrews (1966) , in a review of psychotherapy of phobias,
refers loosely to this general class of variables as
"suggestion" and observes that it is unfortunate
. . . that both Wolpe and his critics appear to
share the assumption that it must be either
suggestion or desensitization that is at work
. . . without any consideration of the possi
bility that both may be necessary. (1966, p. 451)
It would appear, then, that reciprocal inhibition, operant
conditioning, extinction, and expectancy models are all
applicable, at least in part, to the explanation of a
number of desensitization studies.
Before leaving this section, it should be noted
that various modifications of desensitization have been
successfully applied in groups (Donner, 1970; Ihli and
Garlington, 1969; Kondas, 1967; Lazarus, 1961; Paul and
Shannon, 1966; Ritter, 1968). Also, automated and semi
automated procedures with minimal therapist contact have
been demonstrated effective by Lang, Melamed, and Hart
(1970) , Kahn and Baker (1968), Krapfl and Nawas (1969),
Meliea and Nawas (1970), and Migler and Wolpe (1967). In
addition to tape recorded hierarchy presentations reported
above, other modes of hierarchy presentation such as
ascending and descending order of scene presentation
(Krapfl and Nawas, 1970) and photographic and in vivo
15
enactments of scenes (O'Neil and Howell, 1969) have been
shown to be as effective as more conventional methods.
In the following section, experiments focusing
on the effects of prognostic expectancy will be reviewed.
Relationship of Prognostic Expectancies
to Psychotherapy Outcome
Goldstein (1962) reviews a number of studies
relating patient and therapist prognostic expectancies
(i.e., the degree to which it is expected that the goals
of treatment will be achieved), to outcome. It is impor
tant to note, however, that in none of the investigations
cited by Goldstein was expectancy subjected to experi
mental manipulation as the independent variable. It has
generally been the case that treatment mode served as
the independent variable, and typically, results have been
derived through correlation of the difference between pre-
and posttherapy measures of improvement with pretherapy
expectation of relief.
With regard to patient prognostic expectancies,
the trend of results suggests that a relationship exists
between patient expectation of relief and actual relief,
and that this relationship may be curvilinear. That is,
patients reporting moderate prognostic expectations
16
appear to experience greater symptom reduction than those
reporting extremely high or low expectations. Lipkin
(1954) found a significant correlation between outcome of
client-centered therapy (outcome in terms of pre- and
posttherapy comparison of TAT protocols) and expectation
(measured by quantitative analysis of interview protocols).
No precautions were taken, however, against the biasing
effect of the experimenter's use of himself as interviewer
and therapist. Frank (1959) and Gliedman, Nash, Imber,
Stone, and Frank (1958) found no relationship between
amount of symptom reduction and frequency or type of
treatment. They suggest that belief in the efficacy of
the treatment may be a significant contributor to favorable
outcome regardless of the forms of treatment used.
Goldstein and Shipman (1961) found a curvilinear relation
ship between expected and perceived change over the course
of only one interview. Such studies as those cited above
tend to support the contention that patient expectancies
are somehow related to outcome. This evidence does not,
however, address itself to the question of whether a
causal relationship exists between expectancy and outcome.
Hard experimental evidence for the effect of
psychotherapist prognostic expectancy on treatment outcome
17
is, to the best of this writer's knowledge, nonexistent.
Strongly suggestive of such a relationship, however, are
drug studies demonstrating the powerful effect of placebos
(Honingfeld, 1964; Rosenthal and Frank, 1956; Shapiro,
1964), studies of the bias phenomenon as manifested in
psychological test administration (Friedman, 1967, Chapter
6; Masling, 1960), and the Rosenthal studies on the
experimenter bias phenomenon, referred to in a previous
section. Although the present research does not deal
directly with experimenter or therapist expectancy
effects, such studies are relevant to the extent that the
possible influence of such effects must be acknowledged
and controlled for in any psychology research. Goldstein
(1962) reports studies by Chance (1959) and Goldstein
(1960) which indicate a positive relationship between
therapist expectancy and treatment outcome. He comments
that
Implicit in this position . . . is the assumption
that the significant difference discussed . . .
does not simply represent accuracy of prognosis.
. . . It is assumed, instead, that such psycho
therapist expectancies are in fact communicated to
the patient . . . and, thus, affect the degree of
patient improvement. (1962, p. 39)
Rosenthal (1966; 1967) provides evidence for his
view that unintended covert communication between S and E
18
is the norm in psychological experiments. He makes the
point that, theoretically, the function of the E is to
control the stimulus input into the S but that, in fact,
he unintentionally transmits cues which substantially bias
the experimental results. He has demonstrated a variety
of expectancy effects in research on animal learning
(Rosenthal and Fode, 1963; Rosenthal and Lawson, 1964),
verbal conditioning (Rosenthal, Persinger, Vikan-Kline
and Fode, 1963), and the intellectual growth of school
children (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 196 8) . A general con
clusion to be drawn from this research is that the expect
ancies held by the experimenter, or teacher, are often
more influential in determining the experimental results
than are the identified independent variables. Such
nonclinical experimental evidence seems consistent with
speculations arising from clinical observation and therapy
outcome studies such as those reported above. Rosenthal
and Jacobson's findings that teacher expectancies in
large part determine student performance may be analogous
to the therapist-patient situation. The current view of
psychotherapy as a learning process would appear to
strengthen the analogy. However, the technical and pro
cedural difficulties involved in the design and execution
19
of such research in the area of psychotherapy outcome
per se has thus far discouraged the attempt.
In research dealing with patient expectancies,
experimenter bias effects may be lessened or controlled
by keeping experimenters "blind" to hypotheses concerning
the performance of experimental groups where possible,
or by manipulating experimenter expectancies in such a
way as to minimize the possibility of confounding E and S
expectancy. Stringent application of this principle may,
in some experiments, require employment of several experi
menters and research assistants (as in McGlynn and Mapp,
1970) or automated procedures. Rosenthal (1966) and
Friedman (1967) offer methodological suggestions for
handling such problems.
Manipulation of Subject Expectancy
as an Independent Variable
Recently, investigators observing the high rates
of success reported in behavior therapy research with
various, often contradictory, methods of treatment have
begun to explore the consequences of induction of differ
ing prognostic expectancies in Ss undergoing treatment
for phobias. Although the literature in this area is
small, and there are some conflicting results, in general,
20
such investigations tend to suggest that patient prognos
tic expectancy is a significant determinant of treatment
outcome. The few published studies in this area may be
placed into three general categories.
First of all, there are studies in which all
experimental groups undergo the same deconditioning treat
ment for fears or phobias, the difference between treat
ments consisting of differential expectancy inducing
instructions. For example, Leitenberg, Agras, Barlow,
and Oliveau (1969) treated snake anxious Ss by means of
systematic desensitization with graded hierarchy and
relaxation training. In one experimental group, "thera
peutic" instructions (to the effect that Ss were under
going an established therapy for snake fears) were given,
as well as verbal reinforcement (praise) for each scene
visualized without anxiety. In the second group, instruc
tions stated only that £s were in an experiment on the
visualization of snakes, and reinforcement was omitted.
As expected, the first group improved significantly on
posttesting, while the second group did not differ from
a no-treatment control group. Obviously, the specific
role of the expectancy manipulation is obscured here
because of confounding with the effect of reinforcement;
however, the results indicate that the imposition of
antagonistic responses on anxiety is not all that is
involved in desensitization. The authors claim that the
reinforcement served as self-improvement "feedback" which
was consistent with the instructions and that this had a
greater role in mediating behavioral change than did the
reciprocal inhibition process, however, reinforcement
also led to the completion of more hierarchy items by the
reinforcement group. They correctly conclude that the
question of cognitive mediation "remains to be investi
gated" (p. 118).
Oliveau, Agras, Leitenberg, Moore, and Wright
(1969) refined the above study through the use of four
groups: desensitization with therapeutic instructions
and praise, with instructions and no praise, with praise
and no instructions, and with neither. Although all four
groups improved significantly in ability to approach the
snake, an analysis revealed that only instructions had a
significant effect, and that there was no interaction with
reinforcement. Systematic desensitization alone produced
a significant treatment effect, leading to the conclusion
that expectancy manipulation does influence the outcome
of systematic desensitization but that desensitization
alone does produce behavioral change. A follow-up study
(Oliveau, 1969) revealed that all four groups had main
tained the original gains, and that the relationships
between groups had remained stable. It should be noted
that although this type of design does shed light on the
role of instructions, it cannot distinguish other elements
of expectancy manipulation which may be inherent in the
desensitization procedure.
In a second class of studies investigating the
role of expectancy effects, the outcomes of various types
of "pseudotherapies1 1 are compared with bonafide treatment
methods. "Pseudotherapy" is placed in quotation marks
for this group because there is some question as to
whether the techniques used can actually be classified
as placebos. To be effective for the purposes of research,
a pseudotherapy must have a high degree of face validity
from the standpoint of the S^, but must include no specific
"therapeutic" elements save the expectancy manipulation
itself. A moment's thought about the current prolifera
tion of theories reveals the difficulty involved in
designing such a treatment. It must omit such elements
as relaxation and social reinforcement, and it must
preclude any contact with the feared object or situation,
in vivo or in imagination. Also, as. mentioned in a
previous section, the therapist expectancy variable must
be controlled. D. Rosenthal and Frank (1956) make the
point that when the effects of placebo therapy are com
pared to those of other therapies, the factor of patients'
"equal faith and expectation of relief" across experimen
tal groups must be maintained. It would appear that too
little effort has been expended in this direction in
several investigations. The following studies are
reviewed in some detail by Jaffe (19 6 8), but will be
included, briefly, here for illustrative purposes. In a
study of the effectiveness of directive group therapy with
institutionalized mentally defective delinquents, Snyder
and Sechrest (1959) found that the treatment group
improved significantly over a no-treatment control group,
but that the placebo group did not. In this case, the
placebo group was an unstructured group meeting which did
not deal with patients1 emotional problems and there were
no statements made by the therapist to the effect that
improvement was expected as a result of attending. In
addition, therapist expectancy was found to be lower for
placebo group members than for those in the treatment
group. Paul (1966), and Paul and Shannon (1966) presented
public speaking anxious Ss with a placebo treatment which
consisted of picking specified noises out of a tape
recording of mixed noises. They were told that this was
a stress task used in astronaut training and that it would
help them overcome their anxiety. A placebo tranquilizer
was also administered to this group. Outcome was compared
to that of a short term conventional group treatment for
alleviation of fear of public speaking, and a desensitiza
tion group. From the description of the placebo treat
ment, it appeared that Ss found it relaxing rather than
"stressful," and were not provided with a convincing
sounding rationale for its supposed effectiveness. Also,
therapist expectancy was observed to be lower for the
placebo than for the treatment group. It is notable that
in spite of these apparent weaknesses, the placebo group
improved as well as the conventional group and half as
well as the desensitization group. At follow up (Paul,
1967) the placebo group had maintained their gains.
Zeisset (196 8) failed to achieve comparable improvement
with the same placebo treatment minus the placebo pill.
Thus, the effective placebo in the Paul studies may have
been the pill rather than the "pseudotherapy.1 1
25
The third category of studies focusing on the role
of prognostic expectancy utilizes elaborate pseudotreat
ments and provides scientific sounding rationales for
their claimed effectiveness. One experiment (Valins and
Ray, 1967) deserves mention here by virtue of the cogni
tive manipulations utilized, although the experimental
treatment was not presented to Ss as a "therapy," nor were
expectancy manipulations per se employed. In spite of
these factors, it bears a strong resemblance to the Efran
and Marcia expectancy studies to be reviewed in this
section. The authors tested the hypothesis that modifica
tion of avoidance behavior by systematic desensitization
is dependent upon the manipulation of cognitions about
internal reactions. They exposed snake-anxious Ss to
snake slides and mild electric shocks. The experimental
group was given false "heart rate feedback" through an
amplifier, and thus led to believe that their heart rates
increased when they were warned that a shock was coming,
but remained the same when snake slides were shown. The
control subjects were exposed to the same audio feedback,
but instructed to ignore it, because the sounds were
"meaningless." Results indicated that the experimental
group had improved significantly over the control group
26
on the behavioral (snake approach) measure, when the data
of "experienced" Ss (those who reported having touched
a snake sometime in the past) in both groups were omitted
from the analysis. These results were interpreted as
evidence for a "cognitive restructuring" analysis of
desensitization, consistent with the authors' hypothesis.
A serious weakness in the design, however, was that Ss
were selected only on the basis of a fear questionnaire,
and no pretest of avoidance behavior was administered.
Efran and Marcia (1967) devised a treatment (for
snake and spider phobias) similar to desensitization in
which the pairing of relaxation and hierarchy images was
prevented by the administration of a mild electric shock.
The actual stimulus situation consisted of the tachisto-
scopic presentation of blank cards and electric shocks.
Both experimental groups were administered this same
treatment, but the high expectancy group was instructed
that slides of the phobic stimuli were being presented
at a rate of speed which would prevent conscious percep
tion of them, but which would make a subliminal impact.
The electric shock would ostensibly suppress the "uncon
scious phobic responses." The other treatment group was
informed that a crucial part of the treatment was missing.
27
There was also a no-treatment control group. From the
standpoint of conditioning theory, such a treatment should,
at best, have no effect on avoidance behavior. At worst,
it might increase avoidance behavior due to the pairing of
electric shocks with what Ss believed to be hierarchy
images. On the contrary, results showed that signifi
cantly more Ss improved on the behavioral measure in the
high expectancy group than in the other two groups. Also,
even the low expectancy treatment group improved signifi
cantly over the no treatment group. Subjective fear
ratings indicated no treatment effect, but postexperimen-
tal interviews administered by a psychologist ignorant
of Ss' group membership corraborated the observed treatment
effects. Although no conclusions could be drawn with
respect to the effectiveness of systematic desensitiza
tion, this study demonstrated for the first time that
expectancy manipulation alone can reduce specific avoid
ance behavior. Small group sizes and unequal assignment
of Ss to groups (ten to seven S_s per group) were seen as
causing some difficulty in interpretation of results.
Marcia, Rubin, and Efran (1969) compared the
effectiveness of the same pseudotherapy (labeled "T-scope"
therapy by the authors) with that of systematic
desensitization. This time, in addition to high and low
expectancy T-scope therapy groups, a desensitization group
was included. Desensitization Ss constructed individual
hierarchies and were trained in relaxation. Perhaps
unfortunately in terms of the design, Ss in the high
expectancy T-scope groups were given bogus GSR "improve
ment" records at the end of each session, thus confounding
the effects of expectancy instructions and feedback.
This is similar to the confounding of expectancy and
reinforcement in the Leitenberg study cited above. For
the low expectancy T-scope group, polygraph feedback was
omitted. It should be noted that no provision was made
for keeping therapists "blind." Results on the behavioral
measure indicated no significant difference in improvement
on the behavioral measure between the high expectancy
T-scope and desensitization groups, and that both of
these groups had improved significantly above the controls
and the low expectancy T-scope Ss. An additional improve
ment measure (a five-point posttreatment scale on which
Ss rated their own improvement) supported the behavioral
findings. While these results do not conclusively show
that expectancy manipulating instructions are the prime
ingredient in systematic desensitization, they do point
29
up the importance of cognitive factors.
Jaffe (1968), using Wolpin1s method of desensiti
zation without relaxation (Wolpin, 1969; Wolpin and Pear
sall, 1966; Wolpin and Raines, 1965), induced positive
expectancies in a deconditioning group and a pseudo
therapy group, and negative expectancies in a second
deconditioning group. Controls for E expectancy were not
employed, since Jaffe himself served as E for all groups.
The method of inducing expectancies (whether oral or
written) is unclear. His pseudotherapy treatment was a
modification of T-scope therapy, in which electric shock
and false GSR feedback were omitted. The details of the
procedure are included in the procedure section of this
study, since the present author utilized the same pseudo
treatment. Differences between pre- and posttreatment
responses on behavioral and subjective fear measures
indicated, in general, that positive expectancies con
tribute to positive outcomes, but that this effect is
more apparent on subjective fear measures than on behav
ioral ones. All groups showed significant fear reduction,
with the high expectancy treatment group improving sig
nificantly more on all measures than the low expectancy
group, and on all but one subjective measure than the
30
pseudotherapy group. The pseudotherapy group improved
significantly more than the low expectancy treatment group
on subjective measures. Thus, it appeared that both
effects attributable to the deconditioning treatment and
to the expectancy manipulation were operative. In this
sense, Jaffe's results are consistent with those of Marcia,
Efran, and Rubin. The fact that Jaffe's pseudotreatment
group did not reach the same level of behavioral improve
ment as his high expectancy desensitization group, while
Marcia's did, is difficult to account for. A possible
explanation may lie in Jaffe's omission of bogus GSR feed
back. It may be that such feedback enhances the "cognitive
restructuring" that the expectancy manipulation only
begins.
It would appear, on the basis of the research
reviewed thus far, that expectancy effects and specific
treatment effects interact in some way to produce positive
outcomes. The nature of this interaction is a focus of
interest in the present study. In the next section, the
literature on body buffer zones (the "target behavior" in
the present study) will be reviewed.
31
Human Territorial Behavior and the
Concept of Body Buffer Zone
For the purpose of this research, the concept of
body buffer zone has been operationally defined as the
area around a person within which he reports anxiety if
another person enters (Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton,
1964) . This general definition has also been utilized
in experiments by Frankel and Barrett (in press), Kinsel
(1969), Levine (19 70), and others. The term suggests a
defensive or protective function for the individual facing
a perceived threat, and may be likened to an invisible
membrane separating the "inner" world of a person from
the outer. It should be noted here that other operational
definitions have been utilized in studies of personal
space. Little (19 65) has measured the phenomenon through
Ss' placement of silhouette figures; Sommer (1959) has
observed near and distant seating preferences; and
Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton (1964) have observed Ss
approaching E. Dosey and Meisels (1969) used all three
of the above with the same Ss and found little consistency
between the three measures. They therefore cautioned
investigators against discussion of personal space without
specification of the measures used.
32
In a small pilot study, the present author found
that body buffer zones (measured by approach of a research
assistant to S from six directions) had a high test-retest
reliability (r = .82, N = 16). A slight (nonsignificant)
upward trend was observed between the first and second
trials. Subjects with small space zones (less than two
feet in more than three directions) were not included in
this sample. Horowitz, Duff, and Stratton (1964) per
formed a series of experiments in which they had schizo
phrenic and nonschizophrenic Ss approach a male E, a
female E, and an inanimate object. In general, their
findings indicated that all Ss display larger body buffer
zones in response to persons than to objects. Body buffer
zones (in response to objects and persons) tended to be
greater for the schizophrenic than for the nonschizophrenic
groups. Female groups (schizophrenic and nonschizophrenic)
tended not to differ in their approaches to males versus
females, however, nonschizophrenic males put greater
distances between themselves and a male E than between
themselves and a female. In general, schizophrenics dis
played more within group variability than did nonschizo
phrenics.
33
Discussions of body buffer zones and reactions to
invasion of personal space are frequently found to be
imbedded in the broader context of works on human terri
toriality and the utilization of space in social relation
ships, and in architecture and city planning (Hall, 1966;
Sommer, 1969). However, as Altman (1970) points out,
there is, as yet, little theoretical rationale for the
inclusion of the concept of body buffer zone within the
territoriality rubric. His main point is that there is,
for the broader concept of territoriality itself, a press
ing need for an analytic framework which recognizes its
complexity. He reviews the available definitions of human
territoriality, analyzes the dimensions of the concept,
and arrives at the following "definitional framework":
. . . 1. Exclusive access to and use of space,
areas, objects, people and ideas . . . 2. for
variable lengths of time . . . 3. via anticipa
tory and reactive behaviors . . . 4. of a verbal,
nonverbal and environmental prop nature . . .
5. which vary in degree of energy expenditure
. . . 6. in the service of certain motivational
states . . . 7. of individuals and groups.
. . . and which are keyed off by anticipated or
actual encroachment by others. (1970, p. 9)
Thus, it appears that inclusion or exclusion of the con
cept of body buffer zone under this definition depends on
whether "the self" is considered a territorial object, and
34
whether data gathered on the invasion of personal space
are consistent with data obtained in studies of other
aspects of territoriality. While the resolution of this
question is clearly beyond the scope of the present dis
cussion, it should be noted that the same questions are
applicable to the closely related phenomenon of "inter
personal distance" (Lett, Clark and Altman, 1969) , which
is concerned with the use of physical distance in social
relationships. The relationship and distinction between
body buffer zone and interpersonal distance is not
perfectly clear. However, research on interpersonal
distance frequently treats it as an instrumental behavior
in social interactions, while the idea of a body buffer
zone is more often seen as reactive, or defensive.
Relevant studies concerned with body buffer zones and
interpersonal distance will now be reviewed.
Body Buffer Zones and Interpersonal Distance;
Relationship to Pathology, Personality and
Anxiety
In the present study, an attempt is made to reduce
the size of body buffer zones through the use of a proced
ure (desensitization) formerly used only to treat mal
adaptive or "pathological" behavior patterns. Thus, the
35
appropriateness of the application of desensitization to
this class of behavior might be questioned. It is the
intent of this section to answer that question by pre
senting evidence that the size of body buffer zones and
the use of interpersonal distance are affected by, and may
in turn influence, certain personality traits, motiva
tional states, and behavior pathology.
First of all, there are a number of studies which
demonstrate that certain diagnostic groups, as well as
normals with defined personality characteristics, utilize
personal space in idiosyncratic ways. Levine (1970)
measured the body buffer zones of psychopathic and non-
psychopathic prisoners (defined by MMPI profiles) and
found that psychopaths exhibited larger body buffer zones
than did nonpsychopaths. Body buffer zones were measured
by approaching £s from eight different directions, one
step at a time and stopping when S reported an "internal
response" to the approach. No relationship was found
between pre-incarceration history of violent behavior and
body buffer zone score. Kinsel (1969) found a positive
relationship between size of body buffer zone and violence
(while in prison) in a similar population, through the use
of a similar measurement procedure. It is of interest to
36
note here that Kinsel observed a gradual decrease in size
of body buffer zones in both groups over repeated measures
(although the violent-nonviolent group difference remained
significant). Kinsel notes that several Ss referred to
the procedure as
. . . "Doc's treatment" and indicated improved
sense of well being and less predisposition to
violence at the end of the experiment, although
treatment was not consciously intended by the
experimenter. Despite the decrease in the size
of the zones, the violent group maintained larger
zones even at twelve weeks. They appeared to
maintain permanently larger zones, regardless of
the fact that the intruder had clearly come to
be perceived more as friend than foe. (1969,
p. 8)
Frankel and Barrett (in press) tested and supported
their hypotheses that largest areas of personal space would
be used by Ss both high in authoritarianism and low in
self-esteem, and that such individuals would exhibit
larger personal space zones in response to the approach of
black stimuli than to whites. Their procedure was similar
to those used in the studies reported above, but their
population consisted of university undergraduates.
Leipold (1963) found that males (but not females)
scoring high on the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale main
tained greater distances from E than did low scorers.
Dosey and Meisels (1969) , partially on the basis of
37
Leipold's findings and partially based on the theoretical
formulations of Fisher and Cleveland (1958) and Horowitz
(1966) , investigated the notion that Rorschach measures
of body image boundaries and anxiety were related to the
size of body buffer zones. Although this hypothesis was
not supported, they did find a tendency for stress
(arousal of anxiety about social competence and attrac
tiveness) to increase spatial usage when Ss were asked to
approach E. Felipe and Sommer (1966) reported two experi
ments dealing with reaction to invasion of personal space.
In one experiment the Ss invaded were inpatients at a
mental hospital. In the other experiment, Ss were
students seated alone in a library. In both cases, E sat
beside S without saying anything, and in both cases Ss
were observed to leave or to show clear signs of dis
comfort significantly sooner than a group of (uninvaded)
control Ss. The authors conclude that their results
. . . show clearly that spatial invasions have a
disruptive effect and can produce reactions rang
ing from flight at one extreme to agonistic dis
play at the other. (1966, p. 21)
Kleck, Buck, Goller, London, Pfeiffer, and Vukcevic (1968)
used the projective-like silhouette placement task and
preferred seating distances to investigate the hypothesis
38
that the discomfort reported by people interacting with
stigmatized individuals would be manifested in their use
of personal space. The stimulus person was stigmatized
by telling Ss that he was interacting with an epileptic.
The hypothesis was supported by both measurement tech
niques. Baxter and Deanovich (1970) investigated the
hypothesis that invasion of personal space would produce
anxiety measurable by a projective test (the MAPS). In
the invasion condition, E sat beside S, with less than six
inches between their shoulders. A more socially appro
priate distance of approximately four feet was maintained
in the noninvasion condition. Not only was the hypothesis
confirmed, but it was also observed that S s' anxiety
increased with the duration of the invasion. McBride,
King, and James (1965) found that emotional arousal
(measured by GSR) was positively related to closeness of
seating position to and approach by E.
Lett, Clark, and Altman (1969) sampled a large
number of findings from studies on personal space, and
categorized them with respect to certain "propositions"
which they labeled "well established," "tentative," or
"inconclusive," depending on the number and consistency
of supportive findings, and the methodology used. A few
39
of their relevant findings will be noted here, as they
serve to summarize and supplement the studies reported
above.
Proposition 1 (p. 13) states that "personality
abnormality is associated with use of large interpersonal
distance." The variety of situations and techniques
utilized in studies supportive of this proposition led to
its label of "well established." The authors add that
there is a small amount of evidence to the effect that
abnormality may be associated with "inappropriate" use of
personal space, i.e., very large or very small, rather
than just large.
"Tentative" propositions to the effect that such
personality characteristics as friendliness, originality,
high achievement, dominance (pp. 15-17) are related to
personal space usage are also presented.
The proposition (p. 30) dealing with physiological
arousal in response to close interpersonal distance is
considered tentative and supported only by the McBride
et al. study reported above.
Of special interest to the present research
design, are two propositions which when taken together
suggest the utility of reducing body buffer zone through
specialized treatments. Proposition 16 (p. 24), well
established, states that "The more group members like or
know each other the closer their interpersonal distance."
Proposition 23 (p. 28), also well established, states,
"The closer the interpersonal distance between people the
greater their social contacts and bonds." While many of
the studies supporting these propositions, especially the
second one, are conducted in naturalistic, or uncontrolled
situations, taken together, the propositions nevertheless
suggest a two-way relationship between physical and emo
tional closeness. Simply stated, it may be that a treat
ment which results in closer physical interactions with
others, may also lead to improved interpersonal relations.
Horowitz (1963) and others' observation that certain
classes of schizophrenic patients choose secluded places
and become disturbed when their space is entered is in
line with this notion. It has also been observed that
verbal interaction and expression of feeling are accel
erated in sensitivity groups where group members are
encouraged into close physical contact (Schutz, 1967).
It may be that such procedures can be viewed as in vivo
"deconditioning" sessions for anxiety about invasion of
personal space. The subjective reports of Kinsel's Ss
41
(reported above) who perceived his measurement of body
buffer zones as a treatment are also called to mind in
this context. The behavior therapy literature on treat
ment of homosexuality may also provide support for the
notion that reduction of body buffer zones through desensi
tization is therapeutic. Kraft (1969) discusses the
importance of "heterophobic anxiety" in homosexuality,
rather than the desire to have homosexual relations, and
suggests that desensitizing the patient to anxiety asso
ciated with heterosexual activity is an effective treat
ment. One method of accomplishing this is to encourage
heterosexual masturbation fantasies. Another is to impose
the relaxation response onto visual images of heterosexual
objects (Mandel, 1970). If these treatments improve
heterosexual functioning by decreasing anxiety about
physical contact, then an (imprecise) analogy may be drawn
with respect to the effect of desensitization of "invasion
anxiety" in other populations. Our language also contains
many expressions concerning "emotional touching" and
"getting through to people" which seem to express this
relationship between physical and emotional closeness.
In summary, there is evidence from several sources
that the use of personal space in social interactions is
42
associated with certain pathological states and personality
dimensions and that the invasion of body buffer zones
results in responses including flight, physiological
arousal, anxiety, and various defensive maneuvers. Thus,
its study through methods previously applied to fears and
avoidance behavior appears justified.
The Locus of Control Measure
A short discussion of Rotter's (1966) locus of
control variable and its place in the present study will
now be presented. Locus of control is a personality con
struct which grew out of Rotter's social learning theory.
It refers to the extent to which an individual perceives
his life and destiny as under his personal control, through
his own actions (internal control). The scale consists of
twenty-nine items (including six "fillers";. Each item
forces a choice between two statements, one in the direc
tion of internal control and one in the external direction.
A high score on the measure is taken to mean that the
individual perceives his life as controlled externally,
that is by fate, luck, or powerful others. A recent
factor analysis (Mirels, 1970) of the scale, based on a
population of college males and females, indicated the
43
presence of two factors. One reflected degree of per
ceived control over political institutions; the other
concerned control of personal destiny. Harrow and Ferrante
(1970) studied locus of control in psychiatric inpatients.
They found that schizophrenics were more external than
nonschizophrenics, older patients were more internal than
younger patients, and I-E (internal-external) scores
correlated significantly with self-confidence (negative
correlation) and frustration (positive correlation).
Also, results indicated that depressives tended to become
more internal as their depressive symptoms subsided. The
authors review a number of studies of normal populations
relating the I-E scale to social and behavioral factors
such as ethnic background, educational level, and con
formity and passivity. Smith (1970) found that I-E scores
of crisis patients tended to reduce (become more internal)
after resolution of major life crises. He also found that
noncrisis patients were more internal than those in crisis.
The experimental hypothesis (Chapter I) concerning
this scale grew out of the definition of the internal-
external dimension. If externally oriented Ss believe
their destinies to be in the hands of powerful others,
then it may be that they will attribute this power to an
44
experimenter-therapist fulfilling what they believe to be
his expectancy concerning treatment outcome.
However, this prediction is admittedly a "shot in
the dark." The case might also be made that since exter
nality is associated with psychiatric disability as well
as with severe pathology, then externally oriented people
may be less accessible to any form of treatment, regard
less of the expectancies induced. Schizophrenics, after
all, are notoriously poor risks for psychotherapy. Whether
this is a function of therapist expectation, I-E orienta
tion, or other combinations of variables is, as yet,
unclear.
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Summary of Experimental Design
The experiment consisted of a two by two factorial
design; two main treatments (desensitization and pseudo
treatment) and two levels of S expectancy (high and low)
were employed. Dependent variables were a) the difference
between pre- and posttreatment measurements of body buffer
zones, and b) a posttreatment self-report measure of change
in anxiety level. A postexperimental written interview
was included to gather subjective data for possible post
hoc analysis. Finally, a locus of control scale was
administered, and a debriefing session was conducted.
Experimenter and Research Assistant
The present author, a Caucasian, male, 27-year old
graduate student in clinical psychology served as experi
menter (E) .
A research assistant (RA) was paid to conduct the
body buffer zone measurement task. A 21-year old,
45
46
Caucasian, undergraduate woman was selected. This choice
was based largely on her "average" height and build (5 feet
4 inches tall, approximately 115 pounds), and relatively
conventional appearance.
Subjects
Sixty University of Southern California under
graduate female volunteers served as Ss in this study.
Approximately two-thirds of these were enrolled in an
undergraduate psychology course, and received academic
credit for their participation. The remainder of the Ss
were obtained through classified advertisements in the
campus newspaper, publicity from a campus newspaper
article, signs posted on campus bulletin boards, and post
cards mailed to undergraduate women on a list obtained
from the registrar's office. All Ss were informed only
that the study dealt with "the need for personal space,"
and all were offered from $1.00 to $2.50 (depending on
the length of time required) for their participation. No
psychological treatment or help with problems was implied
in pre-experimental communications with Ss. No upper
division psychology majors or students who had partici
pated in other "personal space" experiments were accepted.
47
Subjects who knew the RA were eliminated. Appointments
were arranged by E, over the telephone.
Setting and Apparatus
The entire experiment took place at the University
of Southern California Psychological. Research and Service
Center.
The "approach room," in which pre- and postmeasure
ments were made of body buffer zones, was a closed,
carpeted room approximately 16 feet long by 11 feet wide.
Three intersecting strips of masking tape were placed on
the carpet in such a way as to connect the diagonal corners
and the far walls. The tape ends were labeled A through
F, and each of the six segments of tape was clearly marked
off in feet, from the center. When E led S into the
approach room, RA was positioned, holding a clipboard, in
the corner furthest from the door, ready to conduct the
measurement task. The RA dressed in conventional campus
clothing, i.e., a skirt and blouse.
Prior to treatment (and after the first measure
ment of body buffer zones), Ss were asked to wait in
individual "waiting rooms." These were study cubicles in
each of which several magazines had been placed.
48
Typewritten, Xeroxed instructions, contained in blank
envelopes were brought to Ss by E while they waited in
these rooms. These instructions comprised the expectancy
manipulation.
Desensitization and pseudotreatment sessions were
conducted in a "treatment room" approximately 16 feet long
by 11 feet wide. The room was furnished with two long
tables and several plain, wooden chairs. Postexperimental
written interviews and debriefing sessions were also con
ducted in the treatment room.
In the desensitization condition (D) the tables
were placed along the walls, lengthwise, and chairs were
arranged so that Ss faced away from each other, separated
by a distance of approximately 5 to 7 feet, depending on
the number of Ss being treated in that session. The E was
seated in one corner of the room, with a portable tape
recorder (Craig, model 212) on a chair next to him. The
room was darkened when the tape was played.^ The desensi-
^It may be worthy of mention here that the experi
ment was conducted in the late afternoon and evening hours
of the fall semester. Thus, lighting conditions for the
desensitization group varied over the course of the experi
ment. Although the shades were drawn, the room was dimly
illuminated by daylight early in the experiment. As the
tization treatment employed was similar to that used by
Jaffe (196 8) and based on the treatment model employed by
Wolpin (1969), Wolpin and Pearsall (1965), and Wolpin and
Raines (1966). It consisted of a tape recording of two
neutral scenes, followed by four narrative descriptions of
RA approaching £ from each of four directions (front; rear
right front diagonal; left rear diagonal; in that order).
Owing to the differences between the body buffer zone
approach situation and the animal "runway test" utilized
by Jaffe, construction of hierarchies is, of necessity,
somewhat different. In this case, visualizations dwelt
relatively longer at the "top" of the hierarchy, and con
centrated on S's perceptual, rather than motor, responses.
The scenes were related to implosive scenes in the sense
that they went "over the top" when £s were asked to
visualize RA breathing on them, radiating body heat, and
so on. Subjects in the treatment groups, by virtue of the
screening criterion, had never been that close to RA. No
relaxation instructions were administered. The tape
recording was approximately 25 minutes long, and treatment
season progressed into winter, the desensitization was
conducted in progressively more darkness.
was completed in one session.
The pseudotreatment was the same as that utilized
by Jaffe. In the pseudotreatment condition (P), the two
long tables were arranged so that Ss could be seated behind
them, all facing the same wall, separated from each other
by a distance of 4 to 6 feet, depending on the number of
Ss participating in that session. On the table in front
of each S was a "work sheet" (Appendix J) and two pencils.
The experimenter was seated at the end of one table,
approximately 6 to 7 feet from the nearest S. On the table
in front of E was a slide projector (Carousel 800) . The
projector light was set on "dim." A camera shutter,
exposure time set at 1/100 of a second, with the diaphragm
2/3 closed served to project the slides (onto one wall of
the room) tachistoscopically. The room lights remained on
during the slide presentation. Two slide trays, holding
80 slides each were used. Half of the slides were land
scape scenes, and half were addition problems typewritten,
Xeroxed onto clear plastic, and fitted into standard slide
frames. They consisted of pairs of two-digit and one-digit
68 73
numbers, e.g., _2, _6. Landscapes and addition problems
were arranged in the slide trays in no particular order.
51
The projector and shutter settings were such that slides
were projected at the rate of one every 5 seconds, with
arithmetic slides just barely visible and landscape slides
unrecognizable. The pseudotreatment took approximately
15 minutes and was completed in one session.
9
The postexperimental questionnaire (Appendix K)
was adapted from the interview format used by Jaffe (1968).
In addition to assessing such subjective data as feelings
about E, RA, the experiment in general, and the treatment,
items were included to test recall and recognition of
instructions, to assess ability to visualize the scenes
(for the D group), and to assess whether the landscape
slides could be distinguished (P group). There were also
questions designed to assess whether S knew RA, what £
might have heard about the experiment from friends,
whether she had expected to be helped by the treatment,
and whether she had ever suspected that she was not
receiving a bona-fide treatment.
The reader is asked to note that the questionnaire
for the D and P groups differ only from item 13 to the
end; both questionnaires are therefore combined in
Appendix K.
52
Imbedded in the questionnaire (item 6) was a scale
on which Ss were to rate subjective change in anxiety
between pre- and posttreatment measurements of body buffer
zone. This was essentially the same scale utilized by
Marcia, Rubin, and Efran (1969) to assess subjective
improvement. It is a five-point scale ranging from "a lot
less anxiety" to "a lot more anxiety."
The I-E scale (discussed in Chapter II) was
attached to the questionnaire.
Screening on Basis of Body Buffer Zone Size
On arrival at the Psychological Research and
Service Center, the body buffer zone of each £ was
measured. Those Ss with small zones (less than 2 feet in
more than 3 directions) were paid $1.00 and eliminated
from the study. Those meeting or exceeding the criterion
were offered $2.50 to stay for approximately one hour.
For the latter, the screening procedure served as the pre
treatment measure.
Procedure
Measurement of body buffer zones. On arrival for
the study, each S was led to the closed door of the
53
approach room by E. After knocking on the door (to warn
RA that he was entering with S), E opened the door and
invited £ in. If she was holding a purse, books, or other
articles, she was asked to put them on the floor along
one wall. She was then asked by E to stand at the inter
section of the tape strips, facing the wall farthest from
the door. The E then positioned himself in front of her,
approximately 6 feet away, and began reading the following
instructions:
In experiments like this one, it's been shown that
most people define an area around themselves that
researchers call a zone of personal space. The
first sign that someone approaching them has
crossed into this area is a feeling of anxiety
or discomfort.
In this part of the experiment, we are going to
map out your zone of personal space. My research
assistant is going to approach you from the end
points of each of these strips of tape you see on
the floor. Now, what I'd like you to do is this:
As she approaches you along each strip of tape,
as soon as you begin to feel that shei's coming
too close for you, that is, as soon as you begin
to feel some anxiety or discomfort, I'd like you
to indicate that by just saying "now."
When she approaches from the rear, you may turn
your head to see where she is, if you want to,
but please keep your body facing the way it is
now. Now, the research assistant's not supposed
to talk to you or to answer any questions, so
. . . do you understand the instructions?
Most questions could be answered by repeating a
portion of the instructions. Occasionally, an S would
ask, "What if I don't feel anything when she approaches?"
To this, E replied, "Most people experience some anxiety
or discomfort. Let's see if you do." At this, E handed
a data sheet to RA and left the room, closing the door
behind him. After E left the room, RA began her approach
from the end of the strip of tape indicated on the data
o
sheet (see Appendix B for sample data sheet and Appendix
A for manual of procedures for RA). She was instructed
to avoid eye contact during the instruction reading phase,
then to make eye contact briefly, if possible, position
herself at the starting point, and to say, "I'm starting
now." Then she was to look at her feet, take the first
step (one foot), pause to look at S, and continue in like
fashion until S indicated that she wanted her to stop, or
until she came within one foot of S. In either case, she
was to record the distance and then proceed to the next
strip of tape, and so on. Her instructions include stand
ard responses to questions from S. When all six directions
3
Starting direction for any one S was determined
by rotation in the clockwise direction, beginning with
tape-end A for S #1. Pre- and posttreatment measures were
started from the same direction for each S.
55
were completed, she opened the door for £, and asked her
to step outside the room. The E then took the data sheet
from RA and determined whether £ had met or exceeded the
screening criterion. Subjects who met the criterion and
agreed to stay for the duration of the experiment were led
by E to individual waiting rooms, where they were asked to
wait until all other Ss had undergone the same procedure.
Subjects were not informed of the screening criterion.
Assignment to main treatment conditions. It was
generally the case that Ss were scheduled for the experi
ment in groups ranging in size from 4 to 6. Since treat
ment in groups was planned to immediately follow screening,
and E had no control over the number of Ss who would pass
screening on a given day, it was deemed necessary to
devise a method of counterbalancing group size for the two
main treatment groups (D and P). This was accomplished
by assigning a given group of Ss to the D condition or the
P condition on the basis of the number of Ss in each
group. Thus, if 4 Ss passed screening on a given day,
and 4 Ss had been run in the P condition on the previous
day, the 4 new Ss would be assigned to the D condition.
56
Assignment to expectancy levels. In order to
control for the potentially confounding effects of E
expectancy within main treatment conditions, it was neces
sary to keep E ignorant of the expectancy level induced in
each £3. This was accomplished by placing high and low
expectancy instructions in unmarked envelopes, randomizing
them, and presenting them to Ss in the order in which they
passed screening. Thus, while E was aware of the main
treatment condition for each S, he was ignorant of the
expectancy condition.
To control for the possibly biasing effects of
RA1s expectancies, she was kept ignorant of both the
nature and number of experimental conditions, and the
hypotheses.
Prior to the treatment, E presented the unmarked
envelope containing the instructions to each S, in the
individual waiting rooms. They were told to read the
instructions carefully, to replace them in the envelope,
and to sign the envelope, since it would be used to hold
some other materials later. Actually, the combination of
signature and instructions was used to identify the cell
assignment of each £ after the experiment was over. Seat
ing Ss in individual waiting rooms served to prevent the
possibility that they would compare instructions and
discover the expectancy manipulation. For the same
reason, Ss were asked not to converse until treatment and
posttesting had been accomplished.
Desensitization condition. Approximately 10
minutes after the written instructions had been handed
out, E brought all Ss to the treatment room.
The written instructions for Ss in the high expect-
ancy-desensitization condition (HD) and the low expectancy-
desensitization condition (LD) are included in Appendices
C and D, respectively.
The HD instructions informed Ss that they would
be undergoing a treatment, based on visual imagination,
the aim of which was to reduce the anxiety they had experi
enced in the approach room. According to the instructions,
this treatment was still being "refined," and had thus far
yielded "quite promising results." A rationale for the
treatment, based on an extinction model, was included.
The LD instructions, on the other hand, presented
the treatment as having met with little success in the
past, and characterized the experiment as a "replication."
It was emphasized that ethical considerations necessitated
58
informing Ss of the treatment's low rate of success. A
rationale for the treatment's lack of effectiveness was
offered. This rationale was based on the "common sense"
notion that facing one's fears is the best way to overcome
them, while merely going over them in imagination as this
treatment required, and thus avoiding the real situation
is rarely effective.
After Ss had been seated, E read the "treatment
room instructions" (Appendix E), darkened the room, and
turned on the tape recorder. About halfway through the
recording, E turned off the recorder and offered Ss the
4
opportunity to "stretch" for a moment or two.
Pseudotreatment condition. In the same manner as
for D group Ss, Ss in the P condition were brought to the
treatment room after approximately 10 minutes had elapsed
from the time they were given the written instructions.
The written instructions presented to Ss in the
high expectancy pseudotreatment condition (HP) and the
low expectancy pseudotreatment condition (LP) are
4
This step was included because some Ss m a pxlot
study had reported a tendency to doze off during the
second half of the recording.
59
presented in Appendices G and H, respectively.
The HP instructions informed Ss that they were to
undergo treatment aimed at reducing the anxiety they
experienced in the approach room. Although still being
"refined by research," the treatment was said to have met
with "quite promising results." An elaborate rationale
for the treatment was included, to the effect that they
would be seeing "subliminal" anxiety stimuli and simul
taneously working arithmetic problems which would
"reciprocally inhibit" the "unconscious" fear responses.
The LP instructions were designed to induce a low
expectancy in the same manner as did the LD instructions:
"Ethical considerations" necessitated informing Ss of the
poor past record of the treatment, the experiment was
presented as a "replication," and the elaborate rationale
(presented to the HP group) was discredited in the low
expectancy condition.
After Ss had been seated, E read the "treatment
room instructions" (Appendix E), and started the slide
projector.
Posttest. After completing the treatment, E
accompanied Ss back to the approach room, one at a time,
60
in the order that they had taken the pretest. Posttesting
was conducted in the same manner as pretesting, with the
exception that instructions were not repeated. Subjects
were simply told that the procedure was the same as for
the first time, and "Remember, when you feel that she's
coming too close for you, just say 'now. 111
Questionnaire and debriefing. After completing
the posttest, each S was instructed to return to the
treatment room and begin filling out the questionnaire
and locus of control scale. When these were completed,
a debriefing session was conducted by E. Debriefing
formats for D and P groups may be seen in Appendices L
and M, respectively. After debriefing, questions were
answered, and Ss were cautioned not to discuss the
experiment with other students. Subjects in all but the
HD group were offered an opportunity to undergo the "real"
treatment under optimal conditions. None expressed
interest in doing so.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Body Buffer Zone Scores
Each of the six approach directions measured for
each S was considered one trial. The total for the six
trials (in feet) comprised the body buffer zone score for
that S. This derivation of body buffer zone score is
consistent with the methods used by other investigators
(Frankel and Barret, in press; Levine, 1970). Pre- and
posttreatment body buffer zone scores for Ss in all experi
mental groups are presented in Appendix R.
Pretreatment Equivalence of Groups
In order to assess whether assignment of S^s to
groups resulted in groups which were statistically equiva
lent on the criterial measure (body buffer zone score) a
one-way analysis of variance was performed on the baseline
scores (Table 1). This disclosed no significant differ
ences between the four experimental groups (F = .21;
df = 3, 56).
61
62
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON BASELINE
BODY BUFFER ZONE SCORES
Source df MS F
P
Between 3 5.20 .21 n.s.
Within 56 25.02
Total 59 30.22
Treatment Effects Hypotheses
A two-way analysis of covariance (Table 2) on pre-
and posttreatment body buffer zone scores was performed to
test Hypotheses I, II, and III (Chapter I). Only the
main treatment effect reached significance (F = 9.61;
df = 1, 55; p < .01). Thus, results of this analysis
supported Hypothesis I, that the visual imagery desensiti
zation treatment would result in greater reductions in
body buffer zone size than would the pseudotreatment;
however, the hypothesized expectancy effects (Hypothesis
II) and interaction (Hypothesis III) did not occur.
Figure 1 presents the data in graphic form, and illustrates
a slight upward (increased body buffer zone scores) trend
for the LP group, and a slight downward trend in the HP
group. A chi-square analysis based on the behavioral
change scores for these two groups (Table 3) indicated
that the difference between them was not significant
(X2 = 1.25; df = 1).
An analysis of variance (Table 4) was performed
on the subjective measure as a test of Hypotheses la, Ila,
and Ilia. The main treatment effect was found to be sig
nificant beyond the .01 level (F = 16.48; df = 1, 14),
64
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ON PRE- AND POSTTREATMENT
BODY BUFFER ZONE SCORES
Source df MS F p
Treatments (T) 1 104.81 9.61 < .01
Expectancy (E) 1 0.07 .01 n.s.
Interaction (T x E) 1 0.26 .24 n.s.
Within Cells 55 10.94
65
•-------• HIGH EXPECTANCY - DESENSITIZATION (N=15)
o-------o LOW EXPECTANCY - DESENSITIZATION (N=15)
•- • HIGH EXPECTANCY - PSEUDOTREATMENT (N=15)
o-------o LOW EXPECTANCY - PSEUDOTREATMENT (N=15)
LU
LU
L i .
cn
LU
O'
o
o
CO
LU
2
o
N
O'
LU
Li.
L i .
13
CO
>
o
o
CO
<
LU
17
— o
16
o-
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
PRETEST POST TEST
Figure 1. Mean pretest and posttest body buffer
zone scores for the High and Low Expectancy Desensitization
groups and the High and Low Expectancy Pseudotreatment
groups
66
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS WITH DECREASING AND NONDECREASING
(OR INCREASING) BODY BUFFER ZONES IN THE HIGH
AND LOW EXPECTANCY PSEUDOTREATMENT
GROUPS (HP AND LP)
Groups
High
Expectancy
Pseudotreatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudotreatment
Decrease 8 4
No change
or increase 7 11
X2 = 1.25, df = 1, n.s.
67
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON SUBJECTIVE MEASURE
Source df MS F
E
Treatments (T) 1 15.00 16.48 < .01
Expectancy (E) 1 1.07 1.18 n.s.
Interaction (T x E) 1 4.27 4.67 < .05
Within Cells 14 .91
68
and there was a significant treatraent-expectancy inter
action (F = 4.67; df = 1, 14; p <, .05). Results of this
analysis supported Hypothesis la, that Ss undergoing the
visual imagery treatment would report more subjective
relief from anxiety than those undergoing the pseudo
treatment, and Hypothesis Ilia, that the effect of the
expectancy manipulation would interact with the treatment
effect. Hypothesis Ila, which predicted that Ss in the
high expectancy condition would report greater anxiety
reduction than low expectancy Ss, was not confirmed.
Table 5 presents the mean subjective change scores for all
four groups. Inspection of Table 5 reveals a slight trend
in the direction of increased anxiety for the LP group.
However, when the subjective change scores for this group
were compared with those of the HP group by chi-square
analysis (Table 6), the obtained of .55 (df = 1) failed
to reach significance.
In order to determine the extent of the relation
ship between change in body buffer zone size and reported
subjective change in anxiety, a Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient was computed. The obtained r = .74
was significant beyond the .01 level (t = 8.39; df = 58),
TABLE 5
MEAN SUBJECTIVE CHANGE-IN-ANXIETY SCORES FOR THE HIGH
AND LOW EXPECTANCY DESENSITIZATION GROUPS
(HD AND LD) AND THE HIGH AND LOW
EXPECTANCY PSEUDOTREATMENT
GROUPS (HP AND LP)
Groups
High Low High Low
Expectancy Expectancy Expectancy Expectancy
Desensiti Desensiti Pseudo Pseudo
zation zation treatment treatment
2.00 1.73 2.47 3.27
much less anxiety
a little less anxiety
no change
a little more anxiety
much more anxiety
70
TABLE 6
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS REPORTING SUBJECTIVE DECREASE AND
NO CHANGE OR INCREASE IN ANXIETY IN THE HIGH
AND LOW EXPECTANCY PSEUDOTREATMENT
GROUPS (HP AND LP)
Groups
High
Expectancy
Pseudotreatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudotreatment
Decrease 8 5
No change
or increase 7 10
X2 = .55, df = 1, n.s.
71
indicating that there was a strong positive relationship
between decrease in body buffer zone size and reported
decrease in anxiety.
Locus of Control Scale
In order to test Hypothesis IV, that there is a
positive relationship between externality and susceptibil
ity to expectancy manipulation, a biserial correlation
coefficient was computed. It was found that the correla
tion between locus of control score and whether or not
behavioral change was in the direction suggested by the
instructions was .015. Table 7 presents the number of Ss
changing or not changing in the expected direction who
scored high or low on the locus of control scale. Locus
of control scores are split into high (external) and low
(internal) at the mean of the distribution (M = 12.47).
9
The chi-square value on these data (X = .54, df = 1)
fails to reach significance. Locus of control scores
obtained by each S may be seen in Appendix R.
Questionnaire Responses
Ratings of liking for experimenter, research
assistant, and experiment. The number of Ss responding
72
TABLE 7
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS SCORING HIGH (EXTERNAL) AND LOW
(INTERNAL) ON THE LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE AND
CHANGING (YES) OR NOT CHANGING (NO) BODY
BUFFER ZONE SCORES IN THE DIRECTION
OF THE EXPECTANCY MANIPULATION
Groups
External Internal
Yes 17 14
No 17 11
X2 = .54, df = 1, n.s.
73
with positive, neutral, or negative evaluations of E, RA,
and the experiment in general are presented in Table 8.
The ratings made by each S may be seen in Appendix R.
In general, Ss in all experimental groups tended to like
E, and feel neutral toward or dislike RA. Of 59 Ss who
responded to these rating scales, only one indicated dis
like of E, and only five indicated that they liked RA.
Feelings about the experiment itself tended to be neutral
or positive, with most responses falling into the neutral
category.
Correctness of recall of expectancy manipulation.
Item 9 on the questionnaire was designed as a check on
whether Ss remembered the expectancy manipulation included
in the instructions. Responses were scored "correct" if
they were consistent with the instructions' statement of
the "past effectiveness" of the treatment ("little suc
cess" versus "quite promising"}. The magnitude of the
S's response (e.g., "very," "somewhat") was not taken into
account. Appendix R presents the score obtained by each
S_. Inspection of these data for the four experimental
groups (Appendix N) suggested that the distribution of
correct and incorrect responses over the four experimental
74
TABLE 8
NUMBER OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE EVALUATIONS
OF THE EXPERIMENTER, THE RESEARCH ASSISTANT,
AND THE EXPERIMENT
E RA Experiment
Positive 42 5 16
Neutral 16 32 36
Negative 1 22 7
75
groups did not differ significantly from what would be
expected by chance. In general, most Ss answered the
questions correctly, with a slight trend in the direction
of more incorrect answers evident in the HP group. When
the numbers of correct and incorrect responses for the
D group as a whole (combining high and low expectancy
conditions) are compared with those of the P group
(Table 9), a trend appears to be evident. It appears that
the Ss undergoing the P condition had somewhat more diffi
culty recalling the expectancy statements in the instruc-
tions than did Ss in the D condition. The obtained X of
2.29 (df = 1) failed to reach significance, however.
Suspicion that treatment was not bona fide.
Inspection of the questionnaire responses to Item 12
revealed that the number of Ss in each group who indicated
suspicion that the anxiety-reduction treatment might not
be a bona fide treatment was small and about the same in
each group (2 to 4 Ss). Only one S indicated that the
expectancy instructions made her suspect that "you might
have been planting an idea in my mind" about the treatment.
Recalled expectation of help (after reading
instructions). Item 11 of the questionnaire asked Ss to
76
TABLE 9
NUMBER OF CORRECT AND INCORRECT RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM 9 IN THE DESENSITIZATION
AND PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITIONS
Conditions
Desensitization Pseudotreatment
Correct 2 8 22
Incorrect 2 7
X2 = 2.29, df = 1, n.s.
77
recall whether or not they expected the treatment to
reduce their anxiety after reading the instructions but
prior to treatment. Responses were rated yes (regardless
of magnitude), no, or "other." Five responses fell into
the latter category; three of these were in the HP groups
and two were in the LP group. Each of these "other"
responses was a variation of a denial of having held any
expectation. Examples include, "I didn't think about what
it might do to me— I just continued the experiment"; "This
is an experiment. I could expect anything." Inspection
of the distribution of responses between the four groups
(Appendix 0) indicated that most Ss reported having had
positive expectations, and that there were no appreciable
differences between groups.
The possibility was considered that, since the
questionnaire was administered after the second approach
test, Ss1 responses might be more closely related to
their actual performance than to treatment group member
ship. Chi-square analysis relating numbers of yes and no
responses to numbers of Ss actually reducing body buffer
zone size (Table 10) indicated that the two response
measures were not distributed significantly differently
from what would be expected by chance (X = .50) . The
78
TABLE 10
NUMBER OF YES AND NO RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEM 11 BY SUBJECTS REDUCING OR NOT REDUCING
BODY BUFFER ZONE SIZE
Reduced Body Buffer Zones
Yes No
Yes 24 13
No 8 8
X2 = .50, df = 1, n.s.
79
same was true (by inspection) for the relationship
between yes or no responses and subjective improvement
(Table 11) .
Feelings during treatment. Items 14 (P group
questionnaire) and 15 (D group questionnaire) asked Ss to
choose from a list of positive, neutral, and negative emo
tional words'*" to describe how they felt during the treat
ment. The total response of each S was scored positive,
negative, or neutral depending on the sum of the positive,
negative, and neutral words chosen or volunteered. The
scores for each S may be seen in Appendix R. The distri
bution of positive, negative, and neutral Ss between the
four experimental groups is presented in Appendix P.
Inspection of these data suggest that, in general, Ss
undergoing the pseudotreatment described it in negative
terms, while Ss in the D condition tended to describe it
more often in positive terms. A chi-square analysis
(Table 12) comparing the responses of Ss in the D and P
conditions resulted in a value of 6.06 (df = 2, p< .05) ,
Three independent judges rated each word for
positive, negative, or neutral value and arrived at per
fect agreement.
80
TABLE 11
NUMBER OF YES AND NO RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEM 11 BY SUBJECTS REPORTING SUBJECTIVE
IMPROVEMENT OR NO SUBJECTIVE IMPROVEMENT
Subjective Improvement
Yes No
Yes 21 16
No 10 6
81
TABLE 12
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS UNDERGOING DESENSITIZATION OR
PSEUDOTREATMENT AND SCORING POSITIVE, NEUTRAL,
OR NEGATIVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT TREATMENT
Condition
Desensitization Pseudotreatment
Positive 16 7
Neutral 2 2
Negative 12 21
X2 = 6.06, df = 2, £ <. .05
Note: With
2
neutral Ss eliminated, X =6.06,
df =1, £ < .02.
82
supporting the above observation.
As a check on whether a relationship existed
between positive ratings of the treatment and improvement
among Ss undergoing the P condition, a Fisher's exact test
was computed for that data (Table 13). The resultant
probability indicated that reduction of body buffer zone
size in the P group was not related to positive ratings of
feelings during treatment.
In an attempt to determine whether words chosen
were related to expectancy condition, the numbers of posi
tive, neutral, and negative scores were compared between
high (HD and HP) and low (LD and LP) expectancy levels
(Table 14). The obtained X2 of 1.44 failed to reach
significance, indicating that words chosen were not related
to expectancy level.
Attitudes toward the treatment. Questionnaire
Item 2 ("What did you think of the anxiety reduction treat
ment . . . ?") elicited Ss1 assessments of the perceived
effectiveness and face validity of the desensitization and
pseudotreatment procedures. Appendix Q presents the
o
Three independent judges rated each S's response
83
TABLE 13
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS IN THE PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITION
REDUCING (YES) OR NOT REDUCING (NO) BODY BUFFER
ZONE SCORES AND SCORING POSITIVE OR NEUTRAL
AND NEGATIVE IN RESPONSE TO THAT TREATMENT
Reduction of Body Buffer Zone Scores
Yes . No
Positive 4 3
Neutral or Negative 8 15
£ = .19 8, n.s.
84
TABLE 14
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS IN HIGH OR LOW EXPECTANCY LEVELS
AND SCORING POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, OR NEGATIVE IN
RESPONSE TO TREATMENT
Expectancy
High
Level
Low
Positive 10 13
Neutral 3 1
Negative 17 16
X2 = 1.44, df = 2, n.s.
85
numbers of positive, negative, and neutral ratings in the
four experimental groups. In general, it appears that
more positive statements were made about the D condition
than about the P condition and more negative statements
were made about the P condition. A chi-square analysis
(Table 15) revealed that the observed distribution of
positive and negative statements was indeed significantly
2
different from what would be expected by chance (X =
12.92, df = 1, £ < .001). Inspection of the data sug
gested a trend in the direction of more positive responses
for the high expectancy level £s under both treatment
conditions and more negative responses in the low expect
ancy level. When the distribution of positive and negative
responses was analyzed from the standpoint of expectancy
level (HD plus HP versus LD plus LP, Table 16) a non-
significant chi-square value resulted (X = 1.91, df = 1).
Thus, while numbers of positive and negative responses
were not significantly different between expectancy levels,
there was a significant difference between numbers of
positive and negative statements between main treatment
positive, negative, or neutral. Where differences could
not be resolved unanimously by discussion between judges,
the statement was rated neutral.
86
TABLE 15
NUMBER OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RATINGS OF RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM 2 IN THE DESENSITIZATION
AND PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITIONS
Conditions
Desensitization Pseudotreatment
Positive 15 1
Negative 7 16
= 12.92, df = 1, p < .001
87
TABLE 16
NUMBER OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE RATINGS OF RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM 2 IN THE HIGH AND LOW
EXPECTANCY LEVELS
Expectancy Levels
High Low
Positive 10 6
Negative 8 15
X2 = 1.91, df = 1, n.s.
88
conditions, regardless of the expectancy manipulation.
Visual imagery. All Ss undergoing desensitization
reported having been able to visualize the neutral and
hierarchical scenes with varying degrees of ease. Several
reported becoming bored in the second half of the tape
recording and having difficulty keeping their minds from
"wandering."
Travel slides. Questionnaire Item 13 (condition P)
was designed to assess whether any Ss undergoing the
pseudotreatment could actually see the travel slides, and
determine that they were not, as the instructions had
stated, "anxiety slides." There were five Ss who gave
some sort of affirmative answer to this question. Some
thought they saw one or two slides that looked like
"trees," "a forest," or "mountains and gorges." In addi
tion, one thought she saw a skeleton and one reported
seeing "some sort of face." "Patterns of light and dark"
was another response. None of the responses were judged
to indicate awareness of the actual content of the slide
presentation as a whole.
Desire to undergo optimal treatment. None of the
89
Ss in the LD, HP, or LP groups indicated an interest in
undergoing the "real treatment" or repeating the desensi
tization treatment under optimal conditions, in spite of
the fact that a large proportion of P group £s had either
not improved or reported increased anxiety as a result
of treatment. In general, they appeared to be satisfied
by the explanation offered during debriefing, and related
to the situation as an experiment, rather than as a therapy
which had either failed or succeeded.
Cooperation with regard to discussing experiment
with other subjects. Questionnaire Item 3 was designed
to assess whether new Ss had received information about
the nature of the experimental task or hypotheses from
former Ss. Fifty-nine of the 60 Ss indicated that they
had not heard anything (except in a few cases that it
might be interesting or fun). One £ indicated that she
had been told that her "bust would be measured" and that
then she would be excused. It was not determined whether
she felt disappointed in the actual nature of the task.
Miscellaneous questionnaire responses and remarks
made during treatment and debriefing. In general, Ss
undergoing the pseudotreatment reported experiencing
90
anxiety in response to doing the addition problems. Many
appeared overly concerned with whether or not they were
putting their answers in the correct spaces, and several
made self-deprecating remarks about their mathematical
abilities. Several Ss indicated feeling self-conscious
about "taking such a long time" to fill out the post-
experimental questionnaire, remarking that they are
"always the last in the class to finish an exam." In
addition, their remarks about the slide presentation led
E to the impression that many of these Ss did not read
carefully or fully comprehend the rationale for the P
treatment as presented in the instructions. For example,
several complained that the slides should have been slowed
down or brightened so they could be seen clearly (indicat
ing lack of understanding of the rationale of "subliminal"
perception). Moreover, a large proportion of Ss in both
groups displayed little curiosity about the rationale or
design of the experiment. Several indicated a desire to
leave before the debriefing. These Ss were allowed to go
after being cautioned not to discuss the experiment with
classmates. Each of these Ss was given E's phone number
and invited to call and receive a full explanation of the
procedures, but none actually telephoned. Two Ss actually
91
remarked, in response to the question about their prog
nostic expectation, that they had come for course credit,
not for anxiety reduction.
Among the general impressions gained from these
and similar observations were the following. Many Ss were
unmotivated to reduce their "approach anxiety"; many Ss
in the P condition perceived the experiment more as an
unpleasant task, or even an academic examination, than as
a therapeutic situation; few Ss in either the P or D con
ditions displayed intellectual curiosity about the experi
mental design or hypotheses; many Ss in the P condition
displayed a lack of understanding of the rationale pre
sented in the instructions; many Ss under both experimental
conditions were primarily interested in receiving course
credit rather than benefiting in any other way from their
participation.
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Summary of Results
This study is, to the author's knowledge, the
first formal experimental attempt to apply an anxiety
reduction technique to the reduction of the size of body
buffer zones and associated "invasion anxiety." As pre
dicted, Ss undergoing the visual imagery desensitization
treatment did reduce their body buffer zone scores and
did report reductions in anxiety after treatment. Con
trary to the experimental hypotheses, as well as to the
results of other recent studies, the expectancy manipula
tions neither resulted in differences between the desensi
tization groups, nor did they produce positive pseudo
treatment effects. The predicted interaction between
treatment and expectancy effects materialized only on the
subjective, postexperimental measure. No relationship was
found between locus of control score and susceptibility
to expectancy manipulation; which is not surprising in
view of the absence of significant expectancy effects.
92
93
The implications of these results in the light
of similar recent studies will be discussed below. Since
the present design is essentially an extension of Jaffe's
(1968) research, special attention will be devoted to the
reconciliation of differences between these two sets of
data. Implications of other aspects of these results, as
well as suggestions for future research will also be
presented.
The Desensitization Treatment
The marked success of the visual imagery-based
desensitization treatment utilized here is consistent with
the claims made for it in Wolpin's (1969) paper on guided
imagining. Wolpin presents some informal hypotheses
regarding the effective elements in the treatment. He
suggests that, in addition to the elements of extinction
inherent in the procedure, the effects of reinforcement
(both by E and self-reinforcement by £) of visualization
of the desired behavior may generalize to the actual per
formance of that behavior. This process is referred to as
"latent learning" (1969, p. 124). It is also suggested
by Wolpin that "self-image" changes may come about as a
result of visualizations. What follows is a brief dis
94
cussion of the procedural modifications of Wolpin's method
utilized in the present study, and some additional specu
lations concerning the intervening variables involved.
The procedure utilized in this study, although
modeled closely after the Wolpin procedure, differs from
it in one respect. Wolpin stresses the importance of Ss1
imagining themselves engaged in overt motor behavior. In
the present study, however, the nature of the imagined
situation (invasion of body buffer zone) is such that
overt motor behavior is at a minimum. The S's task is
essentially, to stand still and say nothing. It is akin
to a snake approach task in which it is the snake which
is moved toward the S, rather than the £ approaching the
snake. Thus, in the interest of £ involvement in the
treatment, as well as vividness of imagery, scenes were
constructed which laid heavy emphasis on the imagination
of perceptual experience. For example, throughout the
recorded scenes, the £ was asked to imagine herself seeing
the physical characteristics of the approach room, and
experiencing the sensations of touch, smell, vision, and
hearing which would be associated with the extremely close
approach of the research assistant.
95
While Wolpin"s procedure reinforces Ss for
visualizing themselves engaged in motor behavior, the
present method may be seen to reinforce (imagined) atten
tion to perceptual experience (body heat and scent of
approacher, blurred vision at close proximity, sound of
approacher's clothing rustling, and so on). Attention to
these sensations may serve to change Ss' perception of
the approach situation as an uncomfortable experience.
Valins and Ray (1967) hypothesize that cognitions about
internal responses can serve as behavior modifiers. In
this context, the cognition "this approach situation is
an interesting perceptual experience" may be seen to
replace the cognition "this approach situation is fright
ening." This concept is consistent with the contention
of Efran and Marcia (1967) and Marcia, Rubin, and Efran
(1969) that desentization modifies the subject's "expecta
tions" regarding his internal response to the feared
situation, although the term "expectancy" has a somewhat
expanded meaning in this context. Muscle relaxation (or
muscle tension: see Myerhoff, 1967) in Wolpeian desensiti
zation may be seen as serving this same function: changing
the S"s cognitions about his internal responses. In anec
dotal support of this model are the remarks of several Ss
96
in the present experiment after posttesting. One £
reported that during the posttreatment approach she found
herself being much more observant of her senses and of the
physical surroundings. Another remarked that, prior to
the posttest, she was interested in seeing whether or not
the vivid descriptions presented on the tape were accurate
and thus was eager to reenter the approach room. Others
thought that "awareness" might have something to do with
the effectiveness of the treatment.
The writings of Viktor Frankl (1969) are brought
to mind here; the essential idea being that although one
may not be able to change the circumstances which elicit
anxiety in him, it is always possible to change one's
attitude toward those circumstances, and thus cease to be
a victim of the anxiety.
The model presented here has two implications
which will be elaborated upon in the following sections
of this chapter. First of all, if the success of the
desensitization treatment can be accounted for in terms
of operations which establish cognitive changes of the
sort discussed above, then it should be possible to
account for the failure of the pseudotreatment in terms of
the absence of those operations. It should also be
97
demonstrable that those operations are present in the
successful pseudotreatments reported in the literature.
Secondly, a cognitive model would appear to require a more
detailed examination and precise definition of the concept
of expectancy than that offered by Marcia et al. (1969).
The Pseudotreatment
Of the 30 Ss who made up the high and low expect
ancy pseudotreatment groups, 18 (or three-fifths) either
did not change their behavior after treatment, or actually
"got worse" (increased body boundaries). The body buffer
zones of high expectancy pseudotreatment subjects, as a
group, remained virtually unchanged after treatment.
Previous studies aside, an "obvious" explanation appears
to be that the pseudotreatment, with its ostensibly
"anxiety evoking" slides and arithmetic problems, made
£s tense and stimulated performance anxiety which was
reflected in lack of improvement (and in some cases nega
tive change) on the posttest. There is evidence to support
this notion in Ss1 questionnaire responses and negative
statements about the pseudotreatment. However, the fact
remains that other studies (e.g., Efran and Marcia, 1967;
Jaffe, 1968; Marcia et al., 1969) have utilized similar
high expectancy pseudotreatments and obtained marked
reductions in phobic behavior. Why, then, did the pseudo
treatment fail in this study? One possible approach to
this question may lie in the nature of the target behavior
another may have to do with inadequacies in the presenta
tion of instructions; a third may be related to experi
menter bias.
With regard to the target behavior (body buffer
zone size), it may be that Ss were simply not motivated
to improve on this measure. Goldstein (1962) presents
evidence which suggests that expectancy effects are
enhanced by the patient's need for confirmation of his
expectation of improvement. It is conceivable that animal
phobic subjects used in other studies suffer some dis
comfort, at least in terms of negative self-image, from
their fears, and find it desirable to overcome them. Thus
even if a treatment has marginal face validity and elicits
some anxiety in them, Ss who perceive the experiment as a
clinical treatment situation with potential personal
benefits may (through a dissonance reduction process) be
willing to attribute therapeutic "power" to that treat
ment. On the other hand, £s in the present study were not
solicited on the basis that they would be receiving a
99
"treatment," but only on the basis that this was an oppor
tunity to be in an experiment on "the need for personal
space," a presumably "normal" trait, and were therefore
not inclined to attribute any therapeutic value to a treat
ment which, in fact, had none anyway. Thus, the failure
of the pseudotreatment to facilitate behavioral change may
be attributable to low subject motivation and/or question
able desirability of the suggested change.
With regard to the presentation of expectancy
instructions, it may be that the rationale for the pseudo
treatment was unclear, that the instructions would have
been more effective if presented orally rather than in
written form, or that expectancy manipulating statements
should have been somehow reinforced or repeated. Although
the posttreatment questionnaire did not contain questions
designed to assess comprehension of the pseudotreatment
rationale, it was the impression of E, based on remarks
made by several Ss (see Chapter IV, "Miscellaneous Ques
tionnaire Responses") that, in fact, the P group instruc
tions demanded more attention or concentration than Ss
were willing to give. The P group instructions were
longer and more complicated than the D group instructions.
If this impression is valid, then it might have been
helpful to present instructions orally, rather than in
written form. However, this is only speculation, since
it is not clear how instructions were presented by Jaffe
and other investigators. In the present study the written
form was chosen as a means of keeping E ignorant of
expectancy level, and thereby reducing the possibility of
bias. Finally, there was no provision made for reinforc
ing the expectancy manipulation. Other investigators have
accomplished this through repetition of expectancy manipu
lating statements. This did not seem feasible in the
present study, since the entire experiment was completed
in only one short session, and it was feared that repeti
tion within such a short span of time would result in
suspicion on the part of Ss. Another approach has been
the use of bogus physiological feedback consistent with
the expectancy manipulating statements. This technique
will be discussed at length in the following section.
The fact that the length of time required for the
desensitization treatment was greater than for the pseudo
treatment may account for some of the outcome difference
between the two experimental groups. However, although
this time difference is acknowledged as a deficiency in
the design, it cannot be held totally accountable for the
101
failure or the pseudotreatment to result in positive
behavioral change, or for the gross discrepancy between
the present results and those of Jaffe.
Finally, since there was only one E who conducted
both pseudotreatment and desensitization sessions, and
therefore knew the treatment group membership of Ss, the
possibility that E bias contributed to the poor performance
of the pseudotreatment groups cannot be ruled out. This
is seen as somewhat unlikely, however, because previous
experimental results had led E to expect at least some
improvement among pseudotreatment Ss. Of course, it could
be argued that some "paradoxical" bias effect may have
been operating to influence Ss1 performance in a direction
opposite to the hypothesis (see Rosenthal, 1966, p. 193,
on "entrenchment effects"). Unfortunately, this issue
cannot be resolved through the available data.
The Failure of the Pseudotreatment;
A Cognitive Interpretation
Thus far, the discussion of the failure of the
high expectancy pseudotreatment to reduce body buffer zone
size has largely centered around two general ideas: 1)
that the expectancy manipulating operations were somehow
inadequate to communicate the expectancy and rationale of
102
the pseudotreatment (due to length of instructions, mode
of presentation, or other factors), or 2) that Ss were
not sufficiently motivated to respond favorably to the
pseudotreatment or the written instructions. The purpose
of the following discussion is to present an alternative
interpretation which is not inconsistent with the first
two, but which is based on a more detailed look at the
components of successful expectancy manipulations.
It will be recalled from the introductory chapter
of this paper that Efran and Marcia's cognitive expectancy
model is based on the idea that treatment is successful
when it results in changes in the S's expectations about
his ability to face feared situations. The articles by
Efran and Marcia and Marcia et al. seem to imply that this
can be accomplished through the use of a pseudotreatment
providing that the pseudotreatment has face validity and
that a positive prognostic expectation is communicated by
the instructions. What these investigators do not appear
to acknowledge is the theoretical significance of the
bogus physiological feedback presented to subjects at the
end of each session. This feedback is characterized as
supplemental and subordinate to the pretreatment instruc
tions. In contrast, bogus physiological feedback in the
103
Valins and Ray experiment was presented to Ss without any
pretreatment "therapeutic" instructions, with the result
that the feedback group improved significantly over those
Ss not receiving feedback. The results of these studies
taken together suggest that the feedback, and not pre
treatment instructions, may be the essential change agent
in these successful pseudotreatments. If this is true,
then a closer look at the meaning of the term "expectancy"
in the context of these studies is warranted. What is
being suggested here is that when pretreatment instruc
tions and feedback are employed, two kinds of expectancy
manipulation are involved. The pretreatment statements
appear to be aimed at establishment of a "therapeutic"
rather than strictly experimental aura around the proced
ures and implies that Ss are expected to "get better."
The feedback, however, introduces specific cognitions
(or "expectancies") regarding the Ss' internal responses
to the feared situation. They are provided with a new
perception of themselves (based on their physiological
responses) with which to encounter that situation. In
effect, they are told that they already have "gotten
better" internally. The impact of such "scientific
evidence" of internal change appears powerful enough in
104
itself (as demonstrated by Valins and Ray) to promote
change in a therapeutic direction. In terms of cognitive
dissonance theory (Cohen, 1964, Chapter 5) such behavioral
change comes about in the service of dissonance reduction,
or to avoid dissonance. If Valins and Ray's Ss had
accepted the physiological "evidence" as valid and then
still had not changed, they would have experienced an
unpleasant state of dissonance. Thus, their posttreatment
changes may be seen as dissonance avoiding in function.
What appears to have happened with the Ss in the
present study is the following: They were given written
instructions to the effect that they were about to undergo
an effective anxiety reduction treatment. They were then
exposed to a treatment which was actually somewhat anxiety
producing, or at least unpleasant, for many of them (note
Table 12, Chapter II). Dissonance reduction theory states
that ". . .by and large, there appears to be an over
whelming pressure for people to keep their cognitions
consistent with reality"(Cohen, 1964, p. 74). In this
case, the "reality" was that the treatment stimulated,
not reduced, anxiety. Therefore, the cognition, "I'm not
getting better," was quite consistent with most Ss'
experience of reality. The presence of physiological
105
feedback, on the other hand, would have added a new element
of "reality," that internal, perhaps "unconscious," changes
were occurring. Behavioral change in such a case, could
have been seen by Ss as consistent with the physiological
reality, and therefore would have been more likely to
occur.
Parenthetically, it should be pointed out that
although the omission of physiological feedback is thought
to be responsible for the lack of pseudotreatment effects,
it is not being suggested here that such feedback is the
only operation which will activate a pseudotreatment. For
example, if Ss had been told that the pseudotreatment was
designed to "drain" them of anxiety through subjecting
them to a tension producing situation, they would probably
have been able to view the "reality" of the experience as
consonant with the instructions. The point, once again,
is that where the S's experience of reality is inconsist
ent with E's claims for the treatment, E's statements will
be disregarded.
It is also important to note that this principle
is meant to encompass a wide range of types of cognitions
which might contribute to the face validity of a pseudo
treatment, and thus to the effectiveness of an expectancy
106
manipulation. Bogus physiological feedback is seen only
as one (apparently quite powerful) possibility. Another
might be bogus social feedback.
Of relevance here is the work of Schachter and
Singer (1962). These authors present an analysis of emo
tional state as a combination of physiological arousal
and cognitive activity. They test and support the general
proposition that given a state of physiological arousal,
S will label his emotional experience in terms of the most
appropriate cognitions available to him. Thus, when these
investigators injected Ss with what was ostensibly a
vitamin supplement, and in fact a solution of adrenalin,
the Ss were easily manipulated into labeling their physio
logical arousal (tremors, flushing, etc.) in terms of
widely divergent emotional experiences (euphoria versus
anger). This was accomplished by manipulating the social
context in which Ss received the injection. In this way,
it was demonstrated that cognitions exert a "steering
function" (p. 380). In other words, it was the cognition
which determined whether the state of physiological
arousal was labeled anger or happiness. Social context
was manipulated through the use of "stooges," ostensibly
injected with the same substance, and observed by Ss to
107
be acting either euphoric or angry, depending on the
experimental condition. In this case it was bogus social
(rather than physiological) information which mediated
behavioral changes.
In view of Schachter and Singer's results, it
appears likely that the present pseudotreatment could have
been made more effective by similarly providing "stooges"
who Ss could observe apparently benefiting from the proced
ure. Thus, the point is made, once again, that the present
pseudotreatment failed to provide cognitions which could
be seen by Ss as consistent with E's claims for its effec
tiveness. Although experiments on pseudotherapies per se
have utilized physiological feedback for expectancy mani
pulation, the research of Schachter and Singer suggests
that social feedback might also be used to enhance pseudo
treatment effects.
In summary, then, it has been argued that Ss in
the Efran and Marcia, Valins and Ray, and Marcia et al.
studies changed their behavior neither to fulfill E's
expectations, nor as a result of "faith" in the efficacy
of the treatment. They changed in accord with their cog
nitions about their internal and external reality. Thus,
if the term "expectancy manipulation" is used to describe
108
the effective elements in a pseudotreatment, it should be
borne in mind that there are many kinds of cognitive ele
ments which combine to create expectancy, and that certain
elements carry more weight than others. The implications
of this formulation will be discussed in the context of
suggestions for future research.
If the above explanation of the failure of the
pseudotreatment is valid, the question remains: "Why,
then, did Jaffe's (operationally similar) P group im
prove?" The probable answers are provided in his discus
sion.
First of all, Jaffe describes a '"Jewish Mother
Effect1" operating in his approach room situation. The
research assistant employed to run pre- and posttreatment
behavioral avoidance tests (BATs) in his study was
described as a. warm, supportive, middle-aged Jewish woman
who may have been at least partially responsible for
improvement made by P group subjects by providing
. . . an atmosphere of testing more comfortable,
more therapeutic, less fearful and more full of
implicit demands for improvement than that
present in most other testing situations. Any
such effect would have ample opportunity to
operate since administration of the BAT included
a standard degree of urging and assuring sub
jects. Many of the students felt pressure on
109
them to approach the phobic object and some even
seemed to feel that the testing situation was a
part of the treatment that had been promised them.
(P. 81)„
This is in contrast to the present study, in which no
support was provided by the research assistant, toward
whom Ss indicated an almost unanimously negative emotional
response (Questionnaire Item 4a). While there were sig
nificant outcome differences between Jaffe's experimental
groups, it should be noted that all groups did improve on
behavioral and subjective measures. Again, this is in
contrast to the results of the present study.
Secondly, and this has been mentioned previously
in another context, it seems reasonable to assume that
Jaffe's Ss were more motivated to improve than were the
Ss in this study. Snake and rat fear, characterized for
Ss in Jaffe's study as an "irrational" fear, is presumably
a more unpleasant state of affairs than the presence of
a body buffer zone, presented to Ss as a phenomenon
exhibited by "most people."
Thus, a combination of social reinforcement,
heightened desire for improvement on the part of Ss, and
other "therapeutic" elements were present in Jaffe's
pseudotreatment condition and absent in the present study.
110
It is suggested that without these elements, Jaffe's P
group would not have shown the same degree of improvement.
Before concluding this section, a note regarding
the low expectancy pseudotreatment group is in order. One
would predict that a low prognostic expectancy combined
with a therapeutically inert pseudotreatment would result
in no therapeutic change. The slight trend toward increase
in body buffer zone size and the trend toward increased
anxiety in this group only underlines the statements of
Orne (1962) and others that Ss rarely see an experiment
the way E wishes them to. In this case, it may be that
the combination of low expectancy instructions and an
unpleasant, anxiety producing pseudotreatment led these
Ss to feel exploited, confused, or otherwise dysphoric
and that these feelings mediated negative change in some
cases.
In the following section, this cognitive analysis
of expectancy effects will to be applied to the perform
ances of the high and low expectancy desensitization
groups.
Before going on, however, it should be noted that
the present experimental design did not provide for an
assessment of the face validity of the pseudotreatment in
Ill
comparison with that of the treatment. Aside from the
issues of bogus feedback and instructions, a case could
be made that the pseudotreatment procedure simply did not
have the credibility of the desensitization procedure,
and that this factor influenced the difference in outcome
between the two groups. This issue will be touched upon
again in a later section on suggestions for future
research.
The High and Low Expectancy Desensitization
Groups; Failure of the Expectancy
Manipulation
To this author's knowledge, there have been two
attempts (Jaffe; Marcia et al.) beside the present one to
induce low prognostic expectancies in a desensitization
group. In all three studies, the technique consisted of
presenting Ss with pretreatment low expectancy instruc
tions, and then administering desensitization. When Marcia
et al. compared the results of this group to those in a
high expectancy desensitization group, they found the data
from the two groups not significantly different. Both had
improved. The authors explained these results on the basis
that the low expectancy instructions had been followed by
so much "new information" (two practice sessions and
112
fourteen desensitization sessions) that they had been
forgotten or ignored.
In Jaffe's experiment, both the high and low
expectancy groups improved, although positive changes were
significantly greater for the high expectancy group. In
the present study, both groups showed significant treatment
effects; however, there were no significant expectancy
effects. Jaffe (p. 94) has commented on the difficulties
involved in engendering low or negative expectancies in
desensitization Ss. He proposes a dissonance reduction
explanation based on the notion that Ss undergoing a
treatment with high face validity will tend to disregard
or forget negative expectancy instructions. Nevertheless,
on the basis of the outcome differences between his high
and low expectancy desensitization groups, he concludes
that his expectancy manipulation was successful. The fact
that his measures of expectancy did not indicate differ
ences between the two groups he interpreted as attributable
to the crudity of the measuring instruments themselves.
However, it is quite possible that his knowledge of the
treatment group membership of Ss (1968, p. 9 3) resulted
in an experimenter bias effect sufficient to influence
treatment outcome.
113
The differences in target behavior, motivation,
number of treatment sessions, and wording of instructions
between the desensitization groups in the present study
and those in Jaffe's make it difficult to reconcile the
conflicting results of the two experiments. In both
studies, however, positive treatment effects were observed
in the low expectancy desensitization groups. This sug
gests that Jaffe's dissonance reduction hypothesis is quite
valid. In the design stages of the present study, it was
thought that since desensitization was to be completed in
only one session (versus 3 for Jaffe and 16 for Marcia
et al.) that the impact of the pretreatment instructions
would be relatively greater here. In the light of the
results, however, as well as the pseudotreatment results
discussed in the previous section, it would appear that
improvement in low expectancy groups is attributable to
the absence of appropriate (negative) cognitions regarding
internal responses to the feared situation. In other
words, it is suggested here that if Ss in the low expect
ancy desensitization group had been provided with bogus
physiological feedback which was consistent with the low
expectancy instructions (i.e., indicating that visual
imagery was not affecting physiological processes), then
114
they would not have improved as a result of treatment.
The physiological "evidence" would have been seen as con
sonant with the low expectancy instructions, and behav
ioral changes would not have been "necessary," because
there would have been only a minimal dissonance effect;
the face validity of the treatment would have been "over
ridden" by the negative feedback.
It is recognized that the above is only an hypoth
esis, and cannot be asserted unequivocally on the basis
of the available data. It is, however, quite consistent
with the results of the Valins and Ray experiment, which
indicated that cognitions about internal responses can
function as behavior modifiers. It has yet to be demon
strated that positive or negative prognostic statements
alone are sufficient to modify behavior in the direction
of the prognosis.
It is also recognized that, strictly speaking, it
is not possible to assert that it was the desensitization
per se, in the present study, which accomplished the
behavioral changes. The question of the relative weights
of expectancy, or placebo, effect and treatment effect
remains unresolved.
The Interaction Hypothesis
It will be recalled that the predicted interaction
between treatment and expectancy effects was evident only
on the subjective, postexperimental measure. This sug
gests that subjective change indices are more sensitive
to expectancy effects than are behavioral indices. That
the high expectancy pseudotreatment group showed a trend
(Chapter IV, Table 5) in the direction of decreased
anxiety may be interpreted as indicating that the cogni
tion supplied by the instructions (positive prognosis)
was "registered" by at least some Ss, although it was not
sufficient to produce significant behavioral changes.
This is consistent with the findings of Jaffe, who reported
that his pseudotreatment group improved more than his low
expectancy group only on the subjective fear measures.
This phenomenon is reminiscent of the reports of patients
in conventional psychotherapy who claim to "feel better,"
but who nevertheless do not appear to change behaviorally.
It may also represent a submission to the demand character
istics implicit in the high expectancy instructions. That
even this interaction effect was relatively weak (reaching
only the .05 level of significance), only serves to under
line the previously discussed inadequacies of the
116
expectancy manipulation. The results of this study are
now interpreted as indicating that an adequate test of
the interaction hypothesis must await further research
into the nature of expectancy effects and the operations
which mediate them.
Implications, Suggestions for Future Research
Elements of expectancy manipulation. The arguments
presented thus far can be summarized as follows: Of the
four studies reporting significant treatment effects
through the use of a pseudotreatment (Efran and Marcia;
Marcia et al; Jaffe; Valins and Ray), three employed bogus
physiological "feedback" which supplied Ss with cognitions
regarding their internal responses. Jaffe did not employ
such feedback. An attempt by the present author to obtain
pseudotreatment effects in the same manner as Jaffe,
without feedback, met with failure. On examination of the
differences between the present study and Jaffe's, it
appears that his results may be attributable to extraneous
variables such as experimenter expectancy effects and
uncontrolled interactions between his Ss and research
assistant. It therefore seems likely that in the present
study it was the omission of feedback (or cognitions about
117
internal responses) which was responsible for the failure
of the pseudotreatment. It has been further speculated
that the use of negative feedback in the low expectancy
desensitization group would have facilitated that expect
ancy manipulation. Positive and negative prognostic
statements alone were not a sufficient condition for the
production of expectancy effects.
The distinction between "external" expectancies
(cognitions about external events) and "internal" expect
ancies (cognitions about internal responses) would appear
to be an important one, and has parallels in clinical
practice. For example, the passive-dependent client in
psychotherapy may initially hold the positive expectation
that his therapist will "cure" him. This is what has been
referred to here as a positive "external" expectancy, but
does not, in itself, constitute a positive prognostic
sign. It still remains for the therapist to use the
client's "faith" as leverage in an attempt to focus him on
the internal feeling states which are the consequences of
his actions. If the client feels depressed, for example,
he may find that assertive behavior helps him to feel
better. However, if he views assertive behavior only as
something demanded by the therapist, and lacks the intro
118
spective orientation needed to supply himself with feed
back, he may never incorporate assertive behavior into his
repertoire. If cognitions about internal responses are
as important as the present research suggests, then one
would predict that therapists who explain their strategies
to clients in detail, and teach them to monitor their own
internal responses while trying out new behaviors will be
most successful in establishing therapeutic gains.
A research hypothesis generated by the present
research concerns the relative contributions to the opera
tion of effective pseudotreatments and therapies of
a) cognitions about the efficacy of the treatment; b) about
the competence of the therapist; and c) about changes in
internal responses. One can easily imagine a multicelled,
multileveled design in which these factors are varied
systematically to assess their effects and their inter
actions. The interaction hypothesis which the present
experiment originally aimed to test is now seen as having
been based on an incomplete understanding of the nature
of the cognitive elements embodied in expectancy manipula
tions. It is suggested here that an understanding of these
elements should be a goal of future research. A theoreti
cal model which embodies concepts from cognitive theory
119
would appear to be fruitful in terms of understanding the
processes underlying all the reported variations of desen
sitization as well as the pseudotherapies.
The failure of the pseudotreatment in the present
study raises yet another issue; that is, the comparative
face validities of the treatment and pseudotreatment
procedures. It is seen as a weakness of the present
design that an assessment of this factor was not included.
This might have been accomplished by having panels of
independent judges rate the two sets of procedures for
credibility or apparent effectiveness without actually
undergoing either treatment. It is suggested that in
future research projects employing pseudotreatments, more
emphasis be placed on equating experimental procedures
for face validity.
It also deserves special mention here that
research on expectancy effects should be conducted with
"blind" controls whenever possible. To the extent that
the present experiment and Jaffe's did not employ such
controls, the conclusions which may be drawn from them
are limited. Additionally, the discrepancies between the
results of the present research and Jaffe's underlines
the necessity of replicating experiments in psychology.
120
In even the most rigorously controlled studies, replica
tion under slightly different circumstances can bring into
focus variables which might otherwise have been overlooked.
This point is discussed at length by Smith (1970) and need
not be belabored here.
Body buffer zones. The potential utility of
experimentation with the modification of body buffer zone
size has been explored at some length in Chapter II. The
need for a theoretical framework within which to study
personal spacing phenomena has also been discussed. In
the present study, body buffer zone scores were utilized
primarily as a device for testing hypotheses in another
conceptual area, and thus the contribution to the personal
space literature per se is limited. However, it has been
demonstrated that body buffer zone size and reported
"invasion anxiety" within a defined subject population
can be reduced through a simple, one session desensitiza
tion procedure. The failure of the pseudotreatment to
affect changes in this spacing behavior has been charac
terized as attributable to certain inadequacies of the
pseudotreatment itself, however, it can also be inter
preted as a testimony to the relative stability of the
121
body buffer zone phenomenon. To the extent that these
observed treatment effects can be understood in cognitive
terms, perhaps the body buffer zone phenomenon can be
similarly analyzed. In any case, the major theoretical
and definitional questions concerning personal spacing
must await further research in that area.
Locus of control. It will be recalled that the
hypothesis (relating locus of control scores to suscepti
bility to expectancy manipulation) was based on the idea
that externally oriented Ss believe their destiny to be
controlled by powerful others. Thus, it was reasoned that
they would attribute this power to E and his treatment,
fulfilling his stated expectations. On the basis of the
results, it is now thought that Ss fulfill E's stated
expectations only if these expectations are perceived as
consonant with their (Ss') internal state. If this is
true, then the strength of the relationship between locus
of control orientation and susceptibility to expectancy
manipulation would depend on the degree to which locus of
control determines the weight, or importance, a subject
assigns to information about his internal processes. It
must be concluded that the present design does not consti
tute an adequate test of that relationship.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY
Patient prognostic expectancy has recently come
under the scrutiny of investigators in the field of behav
ior therapy. Such interest has been stimulated by the
consistent success reported by proponents of behavior
modification approaches with differing, sometimes contra
dictory, theoretical underpinnings. Expectancy-manipulat
ing "pseudotherapies1 1 have been developed which reportedly
reduce anxiety and avoidance behavior to an extent formerly
achieved only by learning-theory based behavior therapies.
A pseudotherapy is a procedure which, although it resembles
behavior therapy, embodies none of the learning-theory
based operations (e.g., reciprocal inhibition, extinction,
operant conditioning) which have thus far been held to
mediate therapeutic change. A pseudotherapy does, how
ever, have expectancy-manipulating characteristics similar
to those of the accepted therapies. It has been speculated
that if expectancy manipulation alone leads to therapeutic
gains, then the positive prognostic expectancies held by
122
123
subjects may be a "common denominator" underlying thera
peutic gains across various behavior modification
approaches.
The present study was based on the notion that
prognostic expectancy effects and the specific effects of
behavior modification procedures interact in some way to
influence treatment outcomes. The aim of the experiment
was to assess the nature of the interaction and relative
contributions of these factors to the outcome of a visual
imagery-based desensitization procedure.
The subjects were 60 female undergraduate college
students. Treatment was focused on the reduction of body
buffer zone size (the area around a person within which
he experiences anxiety if another person enters) and
associated "invasion anxiety." Body buffer zones were
measured by having a female research assistant approach
subjects from each of six directions. Subjects indicated
the approach distances at which they experienced anxiety.
A screening procedure selected only those subjects whose
body buffer zone size exceeded the predetermined criterion.
After screening, subjects were assigned to one of four
treatment conditions: High Expectancy-Desensitization,
Low Expectancy-Desensitization, High Expectancy-
124
Pseudotreatment, or Low Expectancy-Pseudotreatment. All
treatment conditions were completed in one session.
Treatments were administered individually, and in groups
ranging in size from two to six subjects. The visual
imagery based desensitization was a modification of
Wolpin's procedure. The pseudotreatment was a modifica
tion of Efran and Marcia's "T-scope therapy" which had
also been utilized by Jaffe. Those subjects in the high
expectancy conditions were presented with a written
rationale for the treatment they were receiving, including
statements to the effect that the treatment had had a past
history of success. The low expectancy subjects were
presented with instructions to the effect that the theo
retical rationale for the treatment was questionable, and
that it had met with little success in past applications.
After treatment the body buffer zone of each sub
ject was reassessed, and each was asked to estimate her
change in anxiety along a five-point scale ranging from
"a lot more anxiety" to "a lot less anxiety."
The results indicated that the desensitization
treatment had been effective in reducing body buffer zone
size and anxiety but, in contrast to the results of pre
vious studies, the pseudotreatment had not. Analysis of
125
the data indicated that there had been no significant
expectancy effect. The hypothesized interaction between
treatment and expectancy effects materialized only on the
subjective change-in-anxiety measure. It was concluded
that the absence of expectancy effects had rendered the
experiment inadequate as a test of the interaction hypoth
esis. An explanation of the results was presented in
terms of cognitive dissonance theory. Some implications
of the results for the practice of psychotherapy were
discussed. Suggestions were offered for future research.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
MANUAL OF PROCEDURES FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANT
The experimenter will knock on door to approach
room as signal that he is bringing in a subject.
1. Stand in far corner (from door) holding clipboard.
2. E will hand you data sheet.
3. Avoid eye contact with S while E gives instructions
4. When E leaves room, walk to starting point, make
eye contact with £ if possible, say "I'm starting
now."
5. Look at feet, step to first mark on tape, make
eye contact (or look at S), wait a second, look at
feet and step to second mark on tape, look up at
£, etc.
6. If S makes no response, proceed as far as closest
mark (one foot), look at S, then go to next start
ing point, say "I'm starting now," and proceed in
same manner.
7. If S says "now" or "stop," mark point in feet on
data sheet.
8. When all six approach directions have been com
pleted, open door for S and say, "Please wait for
Mr. Weber in the hall."
9. Close door behind S.
127
128
10. RESPONSE TO ANY QUESTIONS: "I've been instructed
not to answer any questions."
IF SUBJECT PERSISTS: "Please do your best to fol
low Mr. Weber's instructions," or "Mr. Weber will
answer your questions later."
11. If you have ever seen £ before, indicate this on
the data sheet under "Remarks," and explain
circumstances.
12. If subject says "now" or "stop" while you are
moving from one tape mark to the next, score the
LOWER number on the data sheet.
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE DATA SHEET FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANT
Name
S#
Date
Trial 1 or 2
S?
( D
q
*1 M D o W > Start
p u
SV
t n
tt
Stop
H 1
NJ
U )
U1
< Ti
00
V O
APPENDIX C
HIGH EXPECTANCY DESENSITIZATION GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
Experiments have shown that people can be halped
to overcome their anxiety by the process of visual imagi
nation. In other words, practicing an anxiety evoking
task in imagination tends to reduce the amount of anxiety
that you feel when you are in the real situation. For
example, people who feel anxious when asked to speak in
front of a group have been helped to overcome their stage
fright by repeatedly imagining themselves performing as
public speakers. Performing the task in imagination has
been shown to be just as effective as practicing it in the
real life situation. When the person goes back into the
real situation, such as public speaking for example, he
finds he is more comfortable than he was before because
the anxiety is no longer paired in his mind with public
speaking. The technical term for this phenomenon is
"extinction" of anxiety. Now there is good reason to
believe that the same principle applies to the kind of
anxiety you experienced when you were approached by the
research assistant.
In this experiment, you will be asked to undergo
a brief treatment based on this principle of visual imagi
nation. The treatment will be aimed at reducing the
anxiety which you experienced upon being approached. You
will not be asked to enter the approach room again until
the treatment is over.
This treatment, while still being refined by
research, has been employed in other laboratory investi
gations of anxiety reduction with quite promising results.
The treatment consists of a tape recording on which
you are asked to go through the approach experience again
in your imagination. You will be asked to place yourself
in imagination into certain scenes which will be presented
on the tape.
130
131
Now, please put these instructions back into the
envelope and write your name on it. It will be used to
hold some other written material. Please wait here for
a few moments until the experimenter calls you into the
treatment room. He will answer any questions you may have
about the experiment only after the treatment has been
completed.
Please remember that your concentrated effort to
place yourself in imagination into the scenes that will
be presented is essential to the treatment.
APPENDIX D
LOW EXPECTANCY DESENSITIZATION GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
Experiments have shown that people can be helped
to overcome their anxiety by repeatedly practicing the
task or behavior which evokes the anxiety. For example,
people who feel anxious when asked to speak in front of
a group have been helped to overcome their stage fright by
joining public speaking classes and repeatedly practicing
speaking in front of a group over a long period of time.
On the other hand, people who attempt to overcome
their anxiety by going over the task in imagination and
avoiding the real situation are rarely successful in over
coming their anxiety. Research indicates that the method
of choice for overcoming anxiety is to physically practice
the real situation over and over again, over a considerable
period of time. There is reason to believe that the same
principle applies to the kind of anxiety you experienced
when you were approached by the research assistant.
In this experiment you will be asked to undergo a
brief treatment based on imagination only. This treatment
will be aimed at reducing the anxiety which you experienced
upon being approached by the research assistant. You will
not be asked to enter the approach room again until the
treatment is over.
For ethical reasons, we must inform you that this
treatment has been tried in other settings and has met
with little success. It is important, however, to try it
with various types of people (college students, out
patients, etc.) under various conditions (research set
tings, hospitals, etc.) to be sure that its limited effec
tiveness is due to the inadequacies of the theory itself,
rather than to the particular conditions under which one
experiment was performed. This method of validating the
results of previous experiments by repeating the process
132
133
in different settings is called "replication."
The treatment consists of a tape recording on
which you are asked to go through the approach experience
again, but only in your imagination. You will be asked
to place yourself in imagination into certain scenes which
will be presented on the tape.
Now, please put these instructions back into the
envelope and write your name on it. It will be used to
hold some other written material. Please wait here for
a few moments, until the experimenter calls you into the
treatment room. He will answer any questions you may have
about the experiment only after the treatment has been
completed.
Please remember that although this treatment has
not been very successful in the past, your full partici
pation and your concentrated effort to place yourself in
imagination into the scenes that will be presented is very
important.
APPENDIX E
DESENSITIZATION CONDITION— TREATMENT ROOM INSTRUCTIONS
Okay, we're ready to start. I'd like to ask you
to please not talk to each other while you're in this
room. Your chairs are facing away from each other as much
as possible so that you won't be distracted by each other.
I'm going to darken the room for the same reason. All
you have to do is close your eyes and listen to the tape
recording I'm going to play. You'll be asked to visualize
certain scenes which will be presented to you. You'll be
hearing my voice. About halfway through the tape, there
will be a short break so you'll have a chance to stretch
if you want to.
134
APPENDIX F
CONTENT OF DESENSITIZATION TAPE RECORDING
As you recall from the written instructions, this treat
ment requires you to place yourself in imagination into
the scenes that I will describe to you. Please try to
imagine these scenes as vividly as possible. What you
feel is not as important as how well you are able to see
in imagination the situations I will present on the tape.
Now I'm going to demonstrate the idea by presenting a
couple of scenes to you just for practice.
Okay, now please close your eyes, get into a comfortable
position in your chair so that you won't be distracted
and just concentrate on my voice. Now, what I would like
you to start with is to imagine the outside appearance of
the house you live in, whether it is a -private house or an
apartment house, whether it is one story, or two stories
or more. I'd like you to picture in your mind the arrange
ment of windows on the outside walls, what the walls are
made of, what color they are, what shape roof the house
has, what color the roof is-, whether or not you can even
see the roof. I'd like you to imagine that you are stand
ing across the street from the house, and I'd like you to
imagine yourself starting to cross, starting to approach
the house to go inside. You've just come home from a long
day at school and you are heading for the entrance of the
house and I'd like you to try and picture the entrance way
or the doorway. What it looks like, whether or not there
are any shrubs around, as many details as you can. I'd
like you to just concentrate on picturing that house, pic
turing what it looks like. And picturing as many charac
teristics of that house as you can.
Okay, good. Now I would like you to try one more thing
for practice. I'd like you to imagine a cube. A geomet
rically perfect cube, perfectly straight sides, sharp
corners. I'd like you to imagine there is a knife coming
135
136
down on the top of the cube and slicing it right down the
middle, slicing it in half. And I'd like you to see that
knife now coming at the cube from the side and slicing it
in half again from the side. I'd like you to just keep
that picture in your mind for a few moments.
Okay, I'd like you to picture yourself standing with me
in the hall at the closed door to the room across the hall.
I'd like you to imagine that you can see the door and that
you glance around briefly and notice the somewhat dim
rather drab hallway you are standing in. Now I'd like you
to imagine that I am opening the door and you can see
inside. Imagine yourself looking in at the bright green
carpet, the green curtains. Imagine that you can see the
strips of tape as they intersect in the center of the
room. Picture yourself looking at the research assistant
standing in the far corner looking back at you. Now
imagine yourself walking into the room and standing in the
center where the strips of tape cross. Picture yourself
facing that beige colored wall with the green curtain off
to the right. Picture yourself standing there, straight,
quiet looking at the wall. And imagine that as you are
standing there, positioned at the center of the room, that
you are aware of me closing the door, leaving you alone in
the room with my research assistant. Picture her walking
along the wall that you are facing and stopping at the end
of the strip of tape in front of you, standing next to the
wall looking directly at you down that strip of tape a few
feet away. Just imagine that you can see her, and picture
yourself standing there facing her. Now imagine that she
is telling you that she is going to start, that she
glances briefly down at her feet then back up at you and
takes the first step toward you. Picture yourself stand
ing there facing her as she begins to walk toward you.
Imagine that she pauses and takes another step toward you.
Imagine that now she is three feet away from you looking
directly into your face. Picture yourself standing there
facing her in the middle of the room. Perhaps you imagine
yourself swaying just slightly and shifting your weight
from one leg to another to better balance yourself. Ima
gine yourself being aware of your own breathing and of the
silence in that little room. Imagine that you can see her
take another step and that now she is only two feet away
from you. Imagine that she is close enough that you can
hear her breathing. Picture yourself standing there in
137
the center of the room with her only two feet away staring
directly into your face, getting ready to take another
step. Just picture yourself standing there. Imagine now
that she takes that last step and stands so close to you
that her shoes just barely touch yours. Picture yourself
standing there in the center of that quiet empty room,
standing toe to toe with her. Imagine that you can feel
her breathing on your face and imagine that you are aware
of a faint perfume-like odor coming from her. Perhaps you
are even aware of some body heat coming from her. Picture
her very, very close. Imagine that you can hear your own
breathing as well as hers. Picture yourself just standing
there facing her only inches away, with her in the center
of the room, very, very, close.
Okay, now let's try a slightly different scene. Imagine
that once again you find yourself standing in the center
of the room facing the wall, this time with the research
assistant standing at the rear wall, directly behind you.
Picture her standing there a few feet away, directly
behind you staring at the back of your head. Imagine your
self standing there, quiet except for the sound of your
own breathing. Now, imagine that you hear her tell you
that she is starting. Imagine her taking the first step,
directly in back of you a few feet away. Imagine yourself
standing there quietly trying to sense her location as she
moves toward you from the rear. Perhaps you picture your
self listening for sounds of her progress. Perhaps you
see yourself trying to hear her as she moves down that
strip of tape toward you. Imagine that you can hear the
faint rustle of her clothes as she moves toward you.
Imagine yourself listening for the faint muffled sound of
her foot steps on the carpet as she approaches your back.
Perhaps you picture yourself turning your head to see her.
Picture yourself trying to keep track of how close she is
getting. Imagine that she is only two feet away now,
directly in back of you. See yourself standing in that
room with her taking another step toward your back, staring
at you. Imagine now, that as you stand there, that she is
taking that final step and imagine that now you can barely
feel the toes of her shoes touching the backs of your
shoes. Imagine that now she is directly in back of you.
Very, very close. And imagine yourself just standing there
not saying anything. Try to imagine that she is so close
138
that you can feel her breathing on you. Picture yourself
just standing there with her immediately behind you, very,
very close, in the center of that room.
Okay, let's try another scene now. Please remember that
it is important to concentrate on my voice and to try very
hard to see yourself in the scenes that I am presenting to
you. Try hard to imagine that you are aware of your sur
roundings as you stand in the center of that room on the
green carpet where the strips of tape come together.
Okay, picture yourself once again standing in the same
position in the center of that room. This time the
research assistant is standing in the corner off at an
angle to your right, at the end of the diagonal strip of
tape that leads across the carpet to the corner that you
can see out of your right eye. Try to imagine her stand
ing there next to the green curtain, looking at you from
an angle, from the end of that strip of tape. Imagine
that now she is saying she is starting and now she is
taking the first step toward you. Imagine yourself stand
ing there seeing her approach in your right field of
vision, more aware of her approach through your right eye
than your left. Imagine her looking at the side of your
face, as she approaching slowly, one step at a time. Just
imagine yourself standing there feet together, facing that
wall with her approaching you from the side. Imagine that
now she is three feet away looking at the right side of
your face. Picture yourself seeing her through your right
eye as she takes another step toward you. Imagine that
you are very much aware of the quiet in the room, that you
are watching her mostly through your right eye as she
approaches. Now only two feet away. Picture her now,
only one foot away. Imagine that you are continuing to
stand still, feet together, facing straight ahead as she
gets ready to take that final step, to close the distance
between you. Picture her taking that final step. Picture
yourself now, standing there with her right next to you,
looking straight into your right eye and at the side of
your face. Imagine that you can feel her presence very
close to you. Imagine yourself standing there, aware of
the heat coming from her body, aware that you can smell
a faint scent of her standing there very, very close to
you; staring at the right side of your face, in the center
139
of the room. Imagine that she is so close to you that the
image of her through your right eye is a little bit
blurred.
Okay, we have one more scene to imagine. Please try and
use your imagination to put yourself as vividly as possible
into the scene which I am going to present to you. Again,
imagine yourself standing in the center of the room facing
the wall. This time picture the research assistant stand
ing behind you and to your left, in the left corner of the
room, looking at the left side of the back of your head.
Imagine that she is telling you now that she is going to
start and picture her taking that first step toward your
left side from the rear, down the diagonal strip of tape.
And picture yourself standing there, quiet except for the
sound of your own breathing. Perhaps you imagine yourself
shifting your weight a bit so you can maintain your balance
and keep standing straight and still. Imagine yourself
standing there quietly, aware of the silence in the room,
trying to sense her location as she moves toward you from
the rear. Perhaps you see yourself listening for sounds
of her progress down that diagonal strip of tape toward
you. Imagine that you are standing there listening for
the muffled sound of her clothing rubbing against itself
and her feet moving across the carpet as she comes closer
to you. Perhaps you see yourself turning your head
slightly to the left and catching a glimpse of her out of
the corner of your left eye. Picture her taking another
step toward you. Imagine that she is now three feet away,
staring at the side and the back of your head. Imagine
that you are aware of the silence in the room. Imagine
that now she is taking that final step and you can barely
feel the toe of her shoe touch the left side of your shoe.
Imagine that she is very, very close now. Imagine that
you can feel her breathing; that you can feel her breath
on your left ear. Picture yourself just standing there in
the middle of the room with her very, very close to you.
APPENDIX G
HIGH EXPECTANCY PSEUDOTREATMENT GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
In this experiment you will be asked to undergo a
brief treatment aimed at reducing the anxiety which you
experienced upon being approached by the research assist
ant. You will not be asked to enter the approach room
again until the treatment is over. This treatment, while
still being refined by research, has been employed in
other laboratory investigations of anxiety reduction with
quite promising results. It is based upon two well estab
lished principles. One is the state of reciprocal inhibi
tion which exists between central and autonomic nervous
system impulses. An example of a central nervous system
impulse is the kind of abstract thinking that goes into
solving arithmetic problems. An example of an autonomic
nervous system impulse is anxiety. Now, the theory of
reciprocal inhibition states that these impulses inhibit
each other so that, for example, if you are concentrating
your attention on a problem in a careful, orderly manner
you will not be anxious. If, on the other hand, you are
really anxious about something, it is impossible to con
centrate on a task like solving arithmetic problems.
The other principle upon which this treatment is
based is the unconscious nature of the anxiety response.
An example of this principle is that you cannot will to be
anxious. In line with this principle the anxiety arousing
stimuli to which you will be exposed will be perceptible
only unconsciously, in other words, they will be subliminal
stimuli— below the threshold of conscious awareness.
Though each slide has been judged as above the median in
anxiety arousing potential, the exposure times will be too
short for them to become consciously perceptible so that
though you will not be perceiving the slides consciously,
they will be making an impact unconsciously.
By the way, these anxiety stimuli will not include
140
141
pictures of the research assistant, the approach room,
or the situation in which you experienced anxiety.
As part of your treatment you will be doing addi
tion problems. These problems will appear on the screen
just long enough to be consciously perceptible. Doing
these problems activates central nervous system impulses
and counteracts the unconscious anxiety responses.
When you come into the treatment room, the experi
menter will hand out a sheet of paper on which you are to
write your answers to the addition problems. You may not
see some of the addition problems at first and you may not
be sure you are putting down an answer in the right place,
but you will soon get used to the idea and as long as your
answers are in the right order they will be scorable.
Don't skip any spaces unless you think you missed a prob
lem.
Now, please put these instructions back into the
envelope and write your name on it. It will be used to
hold your answer sheet when the treatment has been com
pleted. Please wait here for a few moments, until the
experimenter calls you into the treatment room. He will
answer any questions you may have about the experiment
only after the treatment has been completed.
Please remember that you concentrated effort to
solve the addition problems is essential to the treatment.
APPENDIX H
LOW EXPECTANCY PSEUDOTREATMENT GROUP INSTRUCTIONS
Contemporary psychological theory and research
indicates that the concept of "unconscious learning" has
little value or utility in the treatment of anxiety. The
bulk of the experimental evidence indicates that learning
(in this case, learning to benless anxious about a particu
lar life situation) takes place only when the subject is
aware of the learning process and feels some conscious
control over what is being learned.
In this experiment, you will be asked to undergo
a brief treatment based on a theory of unconscious learn
ing. The treatment will be aimed at reducing the anxiety
which you experienced upon being approached by the
research assistant. You will not be asked to enter the
approach room again until the treatment is over. The
rationale for this treatment will be explained below.
For ethical reasons, we must inform you that this
treatment has been tried in other settings and has met
with little success. It is important, however, to try it
with various types of people (college students, out
patients, etc.) under various conditions (research set
tings, hospitals, etc.), to be sure that its limited
effectiveness is due to the inadequacies of the theory
itself, rather than to the particular conditions under
which one experiment was performed. This method of vali
dating the results of previous experiments by repeating
the process in different settings is called "replication."
The treatment you will be receiving is based upon
two theories. One is called "reciprocal inhibition"; the
other is a theory of "unconscious learning." The first
theory refers to the state of reciprocal inhibition which
exists between central and autonomic nervous system
activity. An example of a central nervous system impulse
142
143
is the kind of abstract thinking that goes into solving an
arithmetic problem. An example of autonomic nervous system
impulse is anxiety. Now, the theory of reciprocal inhibi
tion states that these impulses inhibit each other so that,
for example, if you are concentrating your attention on a
problem in a careful orderly manner you will not be anx
ious. On the other hand, if you are really anxious about
something, it is impossible to concentrate on a task like
solving arithmetic problems. (It should be noted that
this theory is called into question by such common experi
ences as examination anxiety. Many students experience
relatively severe anxiety about taking exams, but this
often serves to motivate them to concentrate on the exami
nation questions rather than inhibiting their effective
ness, as the theory would predict.)
The theory of unconscious learning comes into this
treatment in the following way: The anxiety arousing
stimuli to which you will be exposed in the course of this
treatment will not be consciously perceptible. They will
be presented on slides which have been judged to be above
the median in anxiety arousing potential, but the exposure
times will be too short for you to see them. The theory
of unconscious learning maintains that they will make an
unconscious impact, however, at the present time there is
no evidence to support this view.
By the way, these anxiety stimuli will not include
pictures of the research assistant, the approach room, or
the situation in which you experienced anxiety.
As part of this treatment you will be doing addi
tion problems. These problems will appear on the screen
just long enough to be perceptible, and will be mixed in
with the anxiety stimuli.
When you come into the treatment room, the experi
menter will hand out a sheet of paper on which you are to
write your answers to the addition problems. You may not
see some of the addition problems at first and you may not
be sure you are putting down an answer in the right place,
but you will soon get used to the idea and as long as your
answers are in the right order they will be scorable.
Don't skip any spaces unless you think you missed a prob
lem.
144
Now, please put these instructions back into the
envelope and write your name on it. It will be used to
hold your answer sheet when the treatment has been com
pleted. Please wait here for a few moments, until the
experimenter calls you into the treatment room. He will
answer any questions you may have about the experiment
only after the treatment has been completed.
Please remember that although this treatment has
not been very successful in the past, your full partici
pation and your concentrated effort to solve the addition
problems is very important.
APPENDIX I
PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITION— TREATMENT ROOM INSTRUCTIONS
Okay, we're ready to start. I'd like to ask you
please not to talk to each other while you're in this room.
I'm going, to flash a total of 80 slides on the wall in
front of you. Half of them will be anxiety slides, and
half will be arithmetic slides. You are to watch all of
them. Each time you see an arithmetic slide you should
add the numbers and put your answer in the appropriate
place on the work sheet. Don't skip any spaces unless you
think you missed seeing an arithmetic problem. If you
follow these instructions, your answers will be scorable.
After the first slide tray was completed, E said:
I'm changing the slide tray now. Please remember
that it's important to look at all the slides, and to
answer as many of the addition problems as possible.
145
APPENDIX J
SAMPLE WORKSHEET— PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITION
1. ______ 21. 41. 61. _____
2. ______ 22. 42. 62. _____
3. ______ 23. 43. 63. _____
4. ______ 24. 44. 64. _____
5. ______ 25. 45. 65. _____
6. ______ 26. 46. 66. _____
7. ______ 27. 47. 67. _____
8. ______ 28. 48. 68. _____
9. ______ 29. 49. 69. _____
10.________ 30. 50. 70.______
11.________ 31. 51. 71. _____
12.________ 32. 52. 72. ______
13.________ 33. 53. 73.______
14. ______ 34. 54. 74.______
15.________ 35. 55. 75.______
i
16.________ 36. 56. 76.______
17.________ 37. 57. 77.______
18.________ 38. 58. 78.______
19.________ 39. 59. 79.______
20.________ 40. 60. 80.______
146
APPENDIX K
POSTEXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES
The following questions are designed to tell us
some things about your experiences during various parts of
the experiment. Your honest and complete answers will be
greatly appreciated as possible guidelines for modifying
later versions of this experiment.
After this questionnaire has been completed the
experimenter will answer any question you may have.
Please use the backs of these pages if you need
extra writing space.
1. Please make a short statement indicating what you think
this experiment was all about.
2. What did you think of the anxiety reduction treatment
you received?
3. What did you hear about the experiment, before your
participation, from any source other than the experimenter
and his research assistant?
147
148
4. Please make a mark through each of the lines below
indicating how you felt about
a. the research assistant:
+1 -1
extremely extremely
positive neutral negative
b. Mr. Weber:
+1 -1
extremely extremely
positive neutral negative
c. the experiment in general:
+1 -1
extremely extremely
positive neutral negative
Comments or explanations:
5. How well did you know the research assistant (the
person who approached you) before the experiment?
a. never saw her before
b. saw her but never spoke to her
c. was acquainted with her slightly
d. knew her well
149
6. If the center of the scale below represents the amount
of anxiety you experienced your first time in the approach
room with the research assistant, please put a mark
through the scale indicating how you felt your second time
in the approach room.
(If you experienced no change, please draw a mark
through the center of the scale.)
first
time
a lot less a little a little a lot more
anxiety less more anxiety
anxiety anxiety
7. If you experienced a change in anxiety level from the
first to the second times, what factors (whether in or out
of the experimental situation) do you think were responsi
ble?
8. Did you ever get the idea that you were supposed to
change your performance (how close you allowed the
research assistant to come) from the first time in the
approach room to the second time?
If so, what gave you that idea?
Do you feel that this may have affected your perform
ance in any way?
How?
150
The following questions are designed to check on
the clarity and impact of the written instructions you
received just before beginning the treatment:
9. According to the instructions, how effective has this
treatment been in reducing anxiety in previous experi
ments?
a. very effective
b. somewhat effective
c. ineffective
d. not mentioned.
10. What method, if any, do the instructions mention as
an effective means of reducing anxiety?
11. After reading the instructions, how helpful did you
expect the treatment to be in reducing your anxiety about
being approached by the research assistant?
a. very helpful
b. some help
c. no help
d. other — please explain
12. At any point during the experiment, did you think
you were not receiving a bona-fide treatment?
Please explain.
151
(THIS PAGE ADMINISTERED TO D GROUP ONLY)
13. How easily were you able to imagine the house that
you live in?
a. I could visually imagine it very clearly _______
b. somewhat clearly________
c. not at_all________
d. If you answered b or c, please describe what you
did experience.
14. Were you able to imagine yourself in the scenes
involving the research assistant? How easily? How
clearly? How consistently? Were any particular parts of
the tape easier or more difficult than others? Please
explain.
15. Please circle the words below which best describe
your feelings during the tape recording.
self-conscious angry relaxed
annoyed calm tense'
bored interested anxious
happy critical neutral
comfortable other
Can you pair the feelings you circled with particular
taped scenes or particular characteristics of the tape
recording?
152
(THIS PAGE ADMINISTERED TO D GROUP ONLY)
16. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for
improving the experiment?
Please fill out the following short questionnaire
by marking either (a) or (b) on the accompanying answer
sheet. Please note that the numbers on the answer sheet
go across, not down, the page.
153
(THIS PAGE ADMINISTERED TO P GROUP ONLY)
13. During the treatment itself, could you identify any
of the anxiety arousing slides?
If so, what did you see?
14. Please circle the words below which best describe
your feelings during the treatment (slide presentation)
self-conscious angry relaxed
annoyed calm tense
bored interested anxious
happy critical neutral
comfortable other
Can you pair the feelings you circled with particular
parts or characteristics of the slide presentation?
15. Do you have any other comments or suggestions for
improving the experiment?
Please fill out the following short questionnaire by
marking either (a) or (b) on the accompanying answer
sheet. Please note that the numbers on the answer sheet
go across, not down, the page.
APPENDIX L
DEBRIEFING FORMAT— DESENSITIZATION CONDITION
The experiment was concerned with answering this
question: To what extent is a treatment which is known
to be effective in reducing anxiety effective because
patients "believe in it"? In order to obtain an answer
to this question, two groups were set up which received
the same treatment, which is a bona fide treatment. One
group was informed, correctly, that it was a bona fide
treatment. The other group was told that they were getting
an effective treatment. Since both groups received the
same treatment, any difference between the two groups
should be due to expectation. This factor— expectation—
is what we were interested in measuring.
An additional concern of the experiment had to do
with anxiety about invasion of personal space, and whether
this anxiety can be reduced by methods which have been
effective in the reduction of other kinds of anxiety.
Now you may have some feelings about what I've
said— perhaps about being misled as to the treatment you
received (allow subjects to ventilate).
Do you have any questions?
If you were a member of the low expectancy group
and you would like to receive the treatment again, under
optimal conditions, please tell me before you leave.
Please be sure not to discuss the experiment till after
the semester is over. Thank you.
154
APPENDIX M
DEBRIEFING FORMAT— PSEUDOTREATMENT CONDITION
You may have heard about placebos. Placebos are
inert substances which are sometimes given to patients
with the understanding that they are actually beneficial.
Actually, the placebos have been found to be quite effec
tive in medical treatment, in many cases as effective as
the "real" medicine.
Now, what you received was a placebo treatment.
There were no "fear stimuli"— the scenes flashed on the
screen at high speed were travel scenes. The people
receiving this placebo treatment were divided into two
groups. One group was led to believe that it was a bene
ficial treatment, the other that it was not. Since both
groups got the same treatment, any difference in improve
ment between the two groups should be attributable to a
difference in expectation that the treatment would be
beneficial. This was the factor we were interested in
measuring— expectation.
An additional concern of the experiment was to see
whether anxiety about invasion of personal space could be
reduced by administration of a placebo treatment.
Now, you may have some feelings about what I've
said— perhaps about being misled (allow subjects to
ventilate).
Do you have any questions?
There is a "real" treatment which has been estab
lished to be effective in reducing various types of fears
and anxiety. If you are interested in knowing more about
this treatment, or you would like to receive it, please
let me know before you leave. Please be sure not to dis
cuss the experiment until after the semester is over.
Thank you.
155
APPENDIX N
NUMBER OF CORRECT AND INCORRECT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEM 9 IN THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Groups
High
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
Low
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
High
Expectancy
Pseudo-
treatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Correct 14 14 9 13
Incorrect 1 1 5 2
156
APPENDIX O
NUMBER OF YES, NO, AND OTHER RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEM 11 IN THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Groups
High
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
Low
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
High
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Yes 11 8 9 9
No 3 7 2 4
Other 0 0 3 2
157
APPENDIX P
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS SCORING POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE
IN RESPONSE TO TREATMENT IN THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Groups
High
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
Low
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
High
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Positive 6 10 4 3
Neutral 2 0 1 1
Negative 7 5 10 11
158
APPENDIX Q
NUMBER OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE RATINGS OF
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM 2 IN THE FOUR
EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS
Groups
High
Expectancy
Desensiti
zation
Low
Expectancy
Desensiti-
zation
High
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Low
Expectancy
Pseudo
treatment
Positive 9 6 1 0
Neutral 4 4 8 5
Negative 2 5 6 10
159
APPENDIX R
RAW DATA
Subject number
Pretest body buffer zone score
Posttest body buffer zone score
Subjective change in anxiety score
Locus of control score
Rating of liking for experimenter:
positive (+), neutral (N), or negative (-)
Rating of liking for research assistant:
positive (+), neutral (N), or negative (-)
Rating of liking for experiment: positive
(+), neutral (N), or negative (-)
Questionnaire Item 9: correct (c) or
incorrect (i)
Questionnaire Item 11: yes, no, or other
(o)
Questionnaire Item 14 (P condition) and
15 (D condition): positive (+), neutral
(N), or negative (-)
Questionnaire Item 2: positive (+),
neutral (N), or negative (-)
161
HIGH EXPECTANCY— DESENSITIZATION GROUP (HD)
N=15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
10 18 11 2 7 + N N c o + +
14 18 8 1 15 + N N c yes
-
+
16 10 3 1 15 + N + c yes + +
18 11 4 1 12 + N N c no + +
24 15 15 2 13 + N N i no - N
25 7 4 3 16 N - N c yes
-
N
32 10 7 1 5 N - + c no + +
48 20 15 2 18 + N N c yes N +
535 17 0 1 12 + + + c yes N +
70 16 8 2 15 + - + c yes + +
72 17 21 3 14 + -
N c yes
-
N
73 19 14 2 10 + N N c yes
-
N
74 18 10 1 11 + N + c yes
- +
75 15 10 2 10 + + N c yes
- -
77 9 6 4 9 + - - c yes + -
162
LOW EXPECTANCY— DESENSITIZATION GROUP (LD)
N=15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
15 11 2 1 8 +
_
N c yes N
17 10 5 1 3 + - + c yes
- +
26 15 10 2 11 N N N c no + -
33 11 10 2 18 N N N c yes - -
34 9 10 3 8 N N + c no + -
35 14 6 1 10 N -
N c yes + N
36 31 29 4 14 N N N c no
- -
37 17 5 1 15 + N N i yes + -
46 15 2 1 14 N N
-
c no + N
47 15 7 2 13 + N
-
c no
- +
50 14 20 3 10 + N N c no + +
52 14 5 1 14 + N + c yes + +
65 23 17 1 12 + - N c yes + +
66 11 2 1 8 N + + c yes + +
68 12 8 2 9 + —
N c no + N
163
HIGH EXPECTANCY— PSEUDOTREATMENT GROUP (HP)
N=15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3 13 14 1 16 4* N i no N
4 13 10 2 8 N
-
N c yes
-
N
5 22 24 4 11 + - 4* c yes
-
N
9 17 11 1 16 + - + i no + N
19 15 19 3 16 +
-
N i yes
-
N
22 10 6 2 18 N N N i yes
- -
23 14 12 1 13 + N N c yes - N
27 13 22 4 5 + N N c o + -
30 17 22 5 15 + N N c yes
- -
31 16 13 1 11 + N N
-
N
41 14 7 1 14 N + N i o + +
54 20 15 3 10 + - - c o
- -
55 8 13 4 10 c yes N -
59 18 15 2 10 + N N c yes + N
63 10 13 3 16 N N N c yes
164
LOW EXPECTANCY— PSEUDOTREATMENT GROUP (LP)
N-15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
6 17 18 5 14 + c yes +
7 28 35 5 21 N - N c yes
- -
20 13 13 2 14 + - + i o - -
21 21 28 5 9 + - -
c yes
- -
28 13 14 4 11 N N N c yes
- -
40 8 6 1 6
- + N i o + N
42 12 17 5 20 +
- + c no
- -
43 7 3 1 14 N N N c yes
-
N
45 15 8 3 16 + N N c yes - N
56 27 31 3 11 + N N c yes
-
N
57 11 6 3 14 + - + c yes N -
83 18 25 5 14 + N + c yes
- -
85 18 20 2 13 + N N c no
-
N
86 16 18 3 8 + - N c no
- -
88 14 14 2 17 + N + c no +
-
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Altman.,
Andrews
Baxter,
Chance,
Cohen, J
Cooke, <
Cooke, i
Donner,
Dosey, I
Efran, i
I. Territorial behavior in humans: An analysis
of the concept. Unpublished manuscript. University
of Utah, undated.
, J. D. Psychotherapy of phobias. Psychological
Bulletin, 1966, 66, 455-480.
J. C. and Deanovich, B. F. Anxiety arousing
effects of inappropriate crowding. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35,
174-178.
E. Families in treatment. New York: Basic Books,
1959.
l. R. Attitude change and social influence. New
York: Basic Books, 1964.
1. The efficacy of two desensitization procedures:
An analogue study. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1966, 4, 17-24.
i. Evaluation of the efficacy of the components of
reciprocal inhibition psychotherapy. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 464-467.
L. Automated group desensitization— a follow-up
report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1970, 8,
241-247.
[. A. and Meisels, M. Personal space and self
protection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1969, 11, 93-97.
'. and Marcia, J. E. Treatment of fears by expect
ancy manipulation: An exploratory investigation.
Proceedings, 75th Annual Convention of the APA,
1967, 239-240.
166
167
Felipe, Nancy J. and Sommer, R. Invasions of personal
space. Social Problems, 1966, 14 (2), 206-214.
Fisher, S. and Cleveland, S. E. Body image and personal
ity. Princeton: Van Nostrand Press, 1958.
Frank, J. D. The dynamics of the psychotherapeutic
relationship: Determinants and effects of the
therapist's influence. Psychiatry, 1959, 22,
17-40.
Frankel, A. S. and Barrett, J. Variations in personal
space as a function of authoritarianism, self
esteem, and racial characteristics of a stimulus
situation. Journal of Clinical and Consulting
Psychology, in press.
Frankl, V. The will to meaning— foundations and applica
tions of logotherapy. New York: World, 1969.
Friedman, N. The social nature of psychological research.
New York: Basic Books, 1967.
Gliedman, L. H., Nash, E. H., Imber, S. D., Stone, A.R.,
and Frank, J. D. Reduction of symptoms by pharma
cologically inert substances and by short-term
psychotherapy. American Medical Association
Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 1958, 79,
345-351.
Goldstein, A. P. Therapist and client expectation of
personality change in psychotherapy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1960, 7, 180-184.
Goldstein, A. P. Therapist-patient expectancies in psycho
therapy . New York: Macmillan, 1962.
Goldstein, A. P. and Shipman, W. G. Patients' expect
ancies, symptom reduction and aspects of the
initial psychotherapeutic interview. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1961, 17, 129-133.
168
Hall, E. T. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday,
1966.
Harrow, M. and Ferrante, A. Locus of control in psychiat
ric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1969, 33, 586-589.
Horowitz, M. J. Graphic communication: Study of inter
action painting with schizophrenics. American
Journal of Psychotherapy, 1963, 117, 230-237.
Horowitz, M. J. Body image. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 1966, 14, 456-460.
Horowitz, M. J., Duff, D. F., and Stratton, L. O. Body
buffer zone. Archives of General Psychiatry,
1964, 11, 6, 651-656.
Hogan, R. A. and Kirchner, J. H. Preliminary report of
the extinction of learned fears via short-term
implosive therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1967. 72, 106-109.
Honigfeld, G. Non-specific factors in treatment.
Diseases of the Nervous System, 1964, 25, 145-156.
Ihli, K. L. and Garlington, W. K. A comparison of group
vs. individual desensitization of test anxiety.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 207-209.
Jacobson, E. Progressive relaxation. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1938.
Jaffe, L. W. Non-specific treatment factors and decondi
tioning in fear reduction. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1968.
Kahn, M. and Baker, B. Desensitization with minimal
therapist contact. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1968, 73, 198-200.
169
Kinsel,
Kleck, :
Kondas,
Kraft, '
Krapf1,
Krapfl,
Lang, P
Lang, P
Lazarus
Leipold
A. Body buffer zone in violent prisoners. Paper
presented to the annual convention of the American
Psychiatric Association, Miami, Florida, 1969.
t., Buck, P. L., Goller, W. C. , London, R. S.,
Pfeiffer, J. R., and Vukcevic, D. P. Effect of
stigmatizing conditions on the use of personal
space. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 111-118.
0. Reduction of examination anxiety and "stage
fright" by group desensitization and relaxation.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 275-281.
\ Treatment for sexual perversions. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 215.
J. E. and Nawas, M. M. Client-therapist relation
ship factor in systematic desensitization. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33,
435-439.
J. E. and Nawas, M. M. Differential ordering of
stimulus presentation in systematic desensitiza
tion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 75,
333-337.
J. and Lazovik, A. D. Experimental desensitiza
tion of a phobia. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 66, 519-525.
J., Melamed, B. G., and Hart, J. A psycho-
physiological analysis of fear modification using
an automated desensitization procedure. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 220-234.
A. A. Group therapy of phobic disorders by
systematic desensitization. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 504-510.
W. E. Psychological distance in a dyadic inter
view. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer
sity of North Dakota, 1963. Cited by R. Sommer,
Personal space; The behavioral basis of design.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969. P. 30.
170
Leitenberg, H., Agras, W. S., Barlow, D. H., and Oliveau,
D. C. Contribution of selective positive re
inforcement and therapeutic instructions to
systematic desensitization therapy. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 113-118.
Lett, E., Clark, W., and Altman, I. A propositional
inventory of research on interpersonal distance.
Technical Report No. 1, Naval Medical Research
Institute, Bethseda, Md., May, 1969.
Levine, S. E. Personal space responses in psychopathic
and normal prisoners. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Southern California, 1970.
Levis, D. J. and Carrera, R. Effects of 10 hours of
implosive therapy in the treatment of outpatientsr
A preliminary report. Journal of Abnormal Psychol
ogy, 1967, 72, 504-508.
Lipkin, S. Client's feelings and attitudes in relationship
to the outcome of client-centered therapy.
Psychological Monographs, 1954, 68, 1-30.
Little, K. B. Personal space. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 237-247.
Mandel, K. H. Preliminary report on a new aversion
therapy for male homosexuals. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 1970, 8, 93-95.
Marcia, J. E., Rubin, B. M., and Efran, J;. S. Systematic
desensitization : > Expectancy change or counter
conditioning? Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
74, 382-387.
Masling, J. The influence of situational and inter
personal variables in projective testing.
Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 65-85.
McBride, G., King, M. G., and James, J. W. Social Prox
imity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult
humans. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 61, 153-157.
171
McGlynn, F. D. and Mapp, R. H. Systematic desensitization
of snake-avoidance following three types of
suggestion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1970,
8, 197-201.
Mealiea, Jr., W. L. and Nawas, M. M. Systematic desensi
tization versus implosive therapy. Proceedings,
78th Annual Convention, American Psychological
Association, 1970, 511-512c
Migler, B. and Wolpe, J. Automated self-desensitization:
A case report. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1967, 5, 133-135.
Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external
control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1970, 34, 226-228.
Myerhoff, L. Tension and anxiety in deconditioning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1967.
Oliveau, D. C. Systematic desensitization in an experi
mental setting: A follow-up study. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 377-380.
Oliveau, D. C., Agras, S. W. , Leitenberg, H., Moore, R. C.,
and Wright, D. E. Systematic desensitization,
therapeutically oriented instructions and selected
positive reinforcement. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1969, 7, 27-33.
O'Neil, D. G. and Howell, R. J. Three modes of hierarchy
presentation in systematic desensitization
therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1969, 7,
289-294.
Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological
experiment: With particular reference to demand
characteristics and their implications. American
Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783.
172
Paul, G. L. Insight versus desensitization in psycho
therapy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press,
1966.
Paul, G. L. Insight versus desensitization in psycho
therapy two years after termination. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 333-348.
Paul, G. L. and Shannon, D. T. Treatment of anxiety
through systematic desensitization in therapy
groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71,
124-135.
Rachman, S. Studies in desensitization: I. The separate
effects of relaxation and desensitization.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1965, 3, 245-251.
Rachman, S. Systematic desensitization. Psychological
Bulletin, 1967, 67, 93-103.
Rachman, S. The role of muscular relaxation in desensiti
zation therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1968, 6, 159-166.
Ramsey, R. W., Barends, J., Breuker, J., and Kruseman, A.
Massed versus spaced desensitization of fear.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1966, 4, 205-207.
Ritter, B. The group desensitization of children's snake
phobias using vicarious and contact desensitiza
tion procedures. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1968, 6, 1-6.
Rosenthal, D. and Frank, J. D. Psychotherapy and the
placebo effect. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53,
294-302.
Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavior research.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Rosenthal, R. Covert communication in the psychological
experiment. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67,
356-367.
173
Rosenthal, R. and Fode, K. L. The effect of experimenter
bias on the performance of the albino rat.
Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 183-189.
Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. F. Teacher expectations
for the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 196 8,
218, 19-23.
Rosenthal, R. and Lawson, R. A longitudinal study of the
effects of experimenter bias on the operant
learning of laboratory rats. Journal of Psychiat
ric Research, 1964, 2, 61-72.
Rosenthal, R., Persinger, G. W., Vikan-Kline, L., and
Fode, K. L. The effect of experimenter outcome-
bias and subject set on awareness in verbal con
ditioning experiments. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 275-283.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (1, Whole No.
609) .
Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social, and
physiological determinants of emotional state.
Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399.
Schutz, W. C. Joy. New York: Grove, 1967.
Shapiro, A. K. Factors contributing to the placebo
effect. Behavioral Science, 1964, 18, 73-88.
Smith, Jr., N. C. Replication studies: A neglected
aspect of psychological research. American
Psychologist, 1970, 25, 970-975.
Smith, R. E. Changes in locus of control as a function
of life crisis resolution. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1970, 75, 329-332.
174
Snyder, R. and Sechrest, L. An experimental study of
directive group therapy with defective delin
quents . American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
1959, 64, 117-123.
Sommer, R. Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 1959,
22, 247-260.
Sommer, R. Personal space: The behavioral basis of
design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1969.
Stampfl, T. G. and Levis, D. J. Essentials of implosive
therapy: A learning-theory based psychodynamic
behavior therapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1967, 72, 496-503.
Valins, S. and Ray, A. A. Effects of cognitive desensi
tization on avoidance behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7,
345-350.
Wagner, M. K. and Cauthen, N. R. A comparison of recipro
cal inhibition and operant conditioning in the
systematic desensitization of a fear of snakes.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 225-227.
Weinberg, N. H. and Zaslove, M. "Resistance" to system
atic desensitization of phobias. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1963, 19, 179-181.
Wolpe, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Palo
Alto: Stanford University Press, 1958.
Wolpe, J. and Lazarus, A. A. Behavior therapy techniques.
New York: Pergamon Press, 1967.
Wolpin, M. Guided imagining to reduce avoidance behavior.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,
1969, 6 (2), 122-124.
Wolpin, M. and Pearsall, L. Rapid deconditioning of a
fear of snakes. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1965, 3, 107-111.
175
Wolpin, M. and Raines, J. Visual imagery, expected roles
and extinction as possible factors in reducing
fear and avoidance behavior. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 1965, 4, 25-37.
Zeisset, R. M. Desensitization and relaxation in the
modification of psychiatric patients' interview
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968,
73, 18-24.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance
PDF
Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction
PDF
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
PDF
The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns
PDF
Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children
PDF
Strategies Of Marital Communication
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
PDF
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
PDF
The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics
PDF
The Effect Of Anxiety And Frustration On Muscular Tension Related To The Temporomandibular-Joint Syndrome
PDF
A Behavioral Assessment Of The Reinforcement Contingencies Associated With The Occurrence Of Suicidal Behaviors
PDF
Human Operant Eye Blink Conditioning, Awareness, And The Extraversion-Introversion Dimension Of Personality
PDF
Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest
PDF
Anxiety Level And The Repression-Sensitization Dimension In Desensitization Therapies
PDF
The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows
PDF
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
PDF
Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization
PDF
The Effect Of Dissonance In Self-Esteem On Susceptibility To Social Influence
PDF
Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations
Asset Metadata
Creator
Weber, Henry Neil
(author)
Core Title
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee chair
), De Nike, L. Douglas (
committee member
), Slucki, Henry (
committee member
), Wolpin, Milton (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-545447
Unique identifier
UC11362391
Identifier
7203805.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-545447 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7203805
Dmrecord
545447
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Weber, Henry Neil
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
psychology, clinical