University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization

(USC Thesis Other)

Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 71- 1 6 ,1+23
McLEMORE, C lin to n W h itf ie ld , 191+6-
IM AGERY A N D RESPONSE STYLES IN DESENSITIZATION.
U n iv e rs ity o f S o u th ern C a lif o r n ia , P h .D ., 1971
P sychology, c l i n i c a l
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
(3) Copyright by
CLINTON W HITFIELD M cLEM O R E
1971
TH IS DISSERATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED ECACTLY AS RECEIVED
IMAGERY AND RESPONSE STYLES IN
DESENSITIZATION
by
C lin to n W h itfie ld McLemore
A D i s s e r t a t io n P resented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t o f the
Requirements f o r the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
February 1971
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LO S ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 8 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
C lin to n W h itfield McLemore
under the direction of h.i.?..... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
DOCTOR OF P H IL O SO P H Y
'7n>
W -.......
Dean
Date February 1971
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
f \ O *»— '-V -v * V s . «. | t
Chairman
To P ro fe sso r P h ilip Morton K itay,
F rien d , Mentor, and
R enaissance Man
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Members of my Guidance and D is s e r ta tio n Committees
have played a major r o le in sharpening my c r i t i c a l a b i l i
t i e s . They a re my Chairman, Dr. Norman T ib e r, and Dr.
Norman C l i f f , Dr. Gary G a lb ra ith , and Dr. Murray Wexler.
My c lo s e s t a s s o c ia tio n has been w ith Dr. L. Douglas DeNike
who d ire c te d t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and who has given f r e e ly of
h is time and keen i n s i g h t .
The a s s is ta n c e o f s e v e ra l other people has been
a p p re c ia te d . Dr. P h ilip A. Smith has c o n trib u te d much to
my s c i e n t i f i c and p r o fe s s io n a l ed u catio n . He has been very
su p p o rtiv e. The Reverend Dan L. B a llin g e r and I have spent
many hours i n f r u i t f u l d is c u s s io n . His f r ie n d s h ip and
p e r c e p tiv ity have been in e stim a b ly valued. Dr. James P.
Robinson and Dr. Donald Spector have a ls o been h e lp f u l.
S i s t e r Mary F rederick Arnold of Mount S t. Mary's College
has helped me in innumerable ways.
I ex p ress s p e c ia l g r a t it u d e to my w ife, A l i c i a , who
has generously and com petently a s s is te d in t h i s re se a rc h .
She has been most su p p o rtiv e throughout my graduate c a re e r.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................ i i i
LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................................................... vi
Chapter
I . INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM........................................ 1
Background and C urrent S ta tu s of
D e s e n s itiz a tio n ............................................................... 1
A lte r n a tiv e E x p lan a tio n s: D econditioning
or C o gnitive R e s tru c tu rin g ................................... 7
N ec e ssity of a M ediational Approach to
D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ................................................... •. . . 13
H isto ry of Imagery Research .................................. 15
Imagery M ediation in Learning and
Psychotherapy .................................................................... 17
Imagery Measurement and C onstruct
V a l i d i t y .............................................................................. 20
Social D e s i r a b i l i t y and D e s e n s itiz a tio n . . 23
I I . HYPOTHESES............................................................................... 25
Hypotheses about Imagery S cales ......................... 25
Hypotheses about Imagery M ediation in
D e s e n s itiz a tio n ............................................................... 27
Hypothesis about S o c ia l D e s i r a b i l i t y
and D e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ...................................................... 30
I I I . PSYCHOMETRIC STUDIES OF IMAGERY .............................. 32
Method: Study I ........................................................... 32
Method: Study I I ........................................................... 34
R e s u l t s ................................................................................... 36
IV. DESENSITIZATION MEDIATION ............................................. 44
M e t h o d ................................................................................... 44
R e s u l t s ................................................................................... 51
iv
Chapter Page
V. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................120
Dimensions of Imagery ( F a c t o r i a l V a lid ity ) . 120
Treatment E ffe c ts .......................................................... 125
Psychometric Scores and I n i t i a l
Phobic Measures ............................................................... 126
Changes on Imagery S cales ....................................... 129
Imagery and Treatment E fficacy ............................... 130
Response S ty le s as D e s e n s itiz a tio n
M e d i a t o r s ................................................................................... 133
Commitment and Level of A s p ira tio n
as M e d i a t o r s ...............................................................................134
VI. SUMMARY...............................................................................................135
REFERENCES............................................................................................................139
APPENDIX................................................................................................................ 147
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts from S tu d ies
I and I I .................................................................................. 37
2. O rthogonally Rotated Factor M atrix:
Study I .................................................................................. 41
3. O rthogonally Rotated F actor M atrix:
Study I I .................................................................................. 42
4. Means and Standard D e v ia tio n s: S tu d ies
I and I I .................................................................................. 43
5. Key to V aria b le s 1-12 in T ables th a t
F o l l o w ....................................................................................... 58
6. C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts o f Psychometric
B a tte ry Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t and
Change Scores: Group I (In d ig o -In d ig o ) . . 59
7. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts of Psychometric
B a tte ry Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t and
Change Scores: Group I I (Indigo-K ing) . . . 61
8. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts o f Psychometric
B a tte ry Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t and
Change Scores: Group I I I (King-King) . . . 63
9. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts of Psychom etric
B a tte ry Change Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t
and Change Scores: Group I .................................... 65
10. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts of Psychom etric
B a tte ry Change Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t
and Change S cores: Group I I .................................... 66
11. C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts of Psychometric
B a tte ry Change Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t
and Change Scores: Group I I I ............................... 67
vi
Table Page
12. Weighted Mean C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
Combining R e su lts of Groups I , I I , and
I I I : Psychom etric B a tte ry and P re
treatm en t Scores . . . . . 68
13. Weighted Mean C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
Combining R esu lts of Groups I and I I I :
Psychometric B a tte ry and Change Scores . . . 70
14. Weighted Mean C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
Combining R esu lts of Groups I , I I , and
I I I : Psychometric B a tte ry Change and
P re -tre a tm e n t Scores ..................................................... 72
15. Weighted Mean C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
Combining R e s u lts of Groups I and I I I :
Psychometric B a tte ry Change and Phobic
Change Scores .................................................................... 74
16. Pre-change C o rre la tio n s for Groups I , I I,
and I I I ................................................................................... 75
17. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among M easures: Group I . . 76
18. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among M easures: Group I I . 77
19. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among M easures: Group I I I . 78
20. F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
fo r Group I : S elected Psychometric Scores
and Change Scores w ith P re -tre a tm e n t Level
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 80
21. F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
fo r Group I I : S elected Psychometric
Scores and Change Scores w ith Pre
tre a tm e n t Level C o n t r o l l e d ....................................... 81
22. F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts
for Group I I I : Selected Psychometric
Scores and Change Scores w ith Pre
tre a tm e n t Level C o n t r o l l e d ....................................... 82
23. Weighted Mean F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l
C o r r e la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts f o r Groups I and
I I I : S elected Psychometric Scores and
Change Scores with P re -tre a tm e n t Level
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 83
vii
ge
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e ffic ie n ts for Group I : Imagery
Q u estio n n aire Scores and Change Scores
with S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y (SDS) Scores
C o n trolled ....................................................................
F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e ffic ie n ts fo r Group I I : Imagery
Q u estionnaire Scores and Change Scores
with S ocial D e s i r a b i l i t y (SDS) Scores
C o n trolled ....................................................................
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e ffic ie n ts for Group I I I : Imagery
Q u estionnaire Scores and Change Scores
with S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y (SDS) Scores
C on tro lled ....................................................................
Weighted Mean F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l
C o rre la tio n C o e ffic ie n ts f o r Groups I and
I I I : Imagery Q u estio n n a ire Scores and
Change Scores w ith S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y
(SDS) Scores C on tro lled ..................................
F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e ffic ie n ts for Group I : Imagery
Q u estionnaire Scores and Change Scores
with Response Bias (RBS) Scores
C o n trolled ....................................................................
F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e ffic ie n ts fo r Group I I : Imagery
Q u estio n n a ire Scores and Change Scores
with Response Bias (RBS) Scores
C on tro lled ....................................................................
F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts fo r Group I I I : Imagery
Q uestio n n aire Scores and Change Scores
w ith Response Bias (RBS) Scores
C o n trolled ....................................................................
Weighted Mean F ir s t- o r d e r P a r t i a l
C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts fo r Groups I
and I I I : Imagery Q u estio n n a ire Scores
and Change Scores w ith Response Bias
(RBS) Scores C on tro lled ..................................
viii
Table
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Page
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts for Group I : Imagery
Q u estio n n a ire Scores and Change Scores
w ith Verbal Comprehension (VCT) Scores
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 94
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts for Group I I : Imagery
Q u estio n n a ire Scores and Change Scores
w ith Verbal Comprehension (VCT) Scores
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 95
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts for Group I I I : Imagery
Q u estio n n a ire Scores and Change Scores
with Verbal Comprehension (VCT) Scores
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 96
Weighted Mean F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l
C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts for Groups I and
I I I : Imagery Q u estio n n a ire Scores and
Change Scores with Verbal Comprehension
(VCT) Scores C o n tro lled ............................................ 97
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts fo r Group I : Verbal
Comprehension (VCT) and Change Scores
w ith Imagery Q u estio n n a ire Scores
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 98
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts for Group I I : Verbal
Comprehension (VCT) and Change Scores
with Imagery Q uestio n n aire Scores
C o n t r o l l e d .............................................................................. 99
F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l C o rre la tio n
C o e f f ic ie n ts for Group I I I : Verbal
Comprehension (VCT) and Change Scores
with Imagery Q u estio n n aire Scores
C o n t r o l l e d ....................................................................................100
Weighted Mean F i r s t - o r d e r P a r t i a l
C o rre la tio n C o e f f ic ie n ts f o r Groups I and
I I I : Verbal Comprehension (VCT) and
Change Scores w ith Imagery Q u estio n n a ire
Scores C o n tro lled .......................................................... 101
ix
age
103
104
105
106
107
108
110
111
112
113
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n for Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estionnaires
P re d ic tin g Behavior Change Scores
(V a ria b le 12): Group I ..................................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estionnaires
P r e d ic tin g Behavior Change Scores
(V a ria b le 12): Group I I .............................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estionnaires
P re d ic tin g Behavior Change Scores
(V a ria b le 12): Group I I I .............................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n f o r Scores on
th e Ten Psychometric Scales P re d ic tin g
Behavior Change Scores (V ariab le 12):
Group I .........................................................................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
th e Ten Psychometric Scales P re d ic tin g
Behavior Change Scores (V ariab le 12):
Group I I ....................................................................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
th e Ten Psychometric Scales P re d ic tin g
Behavior Change Scores (V ariable 12):
Group I I I ....................................................................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estio n n a ires
P re d ic tin g A ttitu d e Change Scores
(V a ria b le 7 ): Group I ..................................
Stepwise R egression S olu tio n f o r Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estio n n aires
P re d ic tin g A ttitu d e Change Scores
(V a ria b le 7 ): Group I I ..................................
Stepwise R egression S o lu tio n f o r Scores on
th e Five Imagery Q u estio n n aires
P re d ic tin g A ttitu d e Change Scores
(V a ria b le 7 ): Group I I I ..............................
Stepwise R egression S olution f o r Scores on
th e Ten Psychometric Scales P r e d ic tin g
A ttitu d e Change Scores (V ariab le 7):
Group I .........................................................................
x
Table Page
50. Stepwise R egression S olu tio n fo r Scores on
the Ten Psychometric S cales P r e d ic tin g
A ttitu d e Change Scores (V ariab le 7 ) :
Group I I ........................................................................................ 114
51. Stepw ise Regression S o lu tio n fo r Scores on
the Ten Psychometric Scales P r e d ic tin g
A ttitu d e Change Scores (V ariab le 7 ) :
Group I I I ....................................................................................115
52. F T ests fo r S ig n ific a n c e of th e D iffe re n c e
Between R Based on Five Imagery
Q u e stio n n a ire s and R Based on A ll Ten
Psychometric Scales ...................................................... 116
53. Psychometric Raw Data for Study........I ...........................148
54. Psychometric Raw Data fo r Study II
( P re -tre a tm e n t) ................................................................ 152
55. Psychometric B a tte ry Scores
( P o s t-tre a tm e n t) ............................................................... 156
56. Psychometric B a tte ry D iffe re n c e Scores
(P o st-tre a tm e n t Minus P re -tre a tm e n t) . . . . 159
57. P ercentage D is tr ib u tio n s for Imagery
M odality Q u estio n n a ire (IMQ) Scores . . . . 162
58. P r e -tr e a tm e n t, P o s t- tre a tm e n t, and
D ifferen ce Scores on Snake-A ttitude
Measure, Fear Survey Schedule (FSS) Less
Snake Item, and FSS Snake Item : Group I . . 165
59. P r e -tr e a tm e n t, P o st-tre a tm e n t, and
D ifferen ce Scores on Snake-A ttitude
Measure, Fear Survey Schedule (FSS) Less
Snake Item, and FSS Snake Item : Group II . 166
60. P r e -tr e a tm e n t, P o s t- tre a tm e n t, and
D ifferen ce Scores on S nake-A ttitude
Measure, Fear Survey Schedule (FSS) Less
Snake Item, and FSS Snake Item : Group I I I . 168
61. P r e te s t 1, P r e te s t 2, P o s t t e s t , and
D ifferen ce ( P o s t t e s t Minus P r e te s t 2 )
Scores fo r S u b je c t’s S e lf - r a tin g of
A nxiety and Research A s s i s t a n t ’s (RA)
Rating of S u b je c t's A nxiety: Group I . . . 170
xi
Table
6 2 .
63.
64.
65.
6 6 .
67.
68 .
69.
Page
P r e te s t 1, P r e te s t 2, P o s t t e s t , and
D ifferen ce ( P o s t t e s t Minus P r e te s t 2)
Scores for S u b je c t's S e l f - r a t i n g of
A nxiety and Research A s s i s t a n t 's (RA)
Rating of S u b je c t’s A nxiety: Group II . . . 171
P r e te s t 1, P r e te s t 2, P o s t t e s t , and
D iffe re n c e ( P o s t t e s t Minus P r e te s t 2)
Scores for S u b je c t's S e l f - r a t i n g of
A nxiety and Research A s s i s t a n t 's (RA)
Rating of S u b je c t's A nxiety: Group I I I . . 173
Within Group Rank Scores on Behavioral
P r e te s ts and P o s t t e s t : Group I ......................... 175
Within Group Rank Scores on Behavioral
P r e te s ts and P o s t t e s t : Group II ......................... 176
Within Group Rank Scores on Behavioral
P r e te s t s and P o s t t e s t : Group I I I .................... 178
Rank Scores fo r Group I on Behavioral
P r e te s t s and P o s t t e s t (S u b je c ts from
A ll Three Groups Combined fo r Ranking) . . . 180
Rank Scores fo r Group I I on Behavioral
P r e te s ts and P o s t t e s t (S u b je c ts from
A ll Three Groups Combined fo r Ranking) . . . 181
Rank Scores fo r Group I I I on Behavioral
P r e te s t s and P o s t t e s t (S u b je c ts from ■
A ll Three Groups Combined fo r Ranking) . . . i83
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM
Background and C urrent S ta tu s of
D e s e n s itiz a tio n
Behavior th e r a p ie s , of which d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n te c h
niques are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , have been in vogue for l i t t l e
more than a decade. Their h i s t o r y , however, extends back
to the beginning of the cen tu ry . Wolpe (1961) c r e d i t s
S herrin g to n (1906) w ith th e o r ig in a l statem ent of r e c i p r o
cal i n h i b i t i o n , the t h e o r e t i c a l c o rn ersto n e of Wolpefs
tre a tm e n t. And, of co u rse, the voluminous work of Pavlov
(1927) and h is su ccesso rs provided the foundation fo r a l l
l a t e r experim ental le a rn in g re se a rc h , which in tu rn led to
th e a p p lic a tio n of co n d itio n in g p r in c ip le s fo r the r e l i e f
of m aladaptive human behav io r. J o n e s ’ work (1924) as w ell
as P ro g ressiv e R elaxation by Jacobson (1938) were other
landmarks on the way to contemporary behavior therapy.
Masserman (1943) was f i r s t to e x te n s iv e ly employ d econdi
tio n in g methods, in h is work w ith experim ental n e u ro s is .
But i t was l e f t to D o llard and M ille r (1950) and Wolpe
(1958) to p u b lish such techniques to the g eneral
1
2
p ro fe s s io n a l p u b lic .
D e s e n s itiz a tio n of one s o r t or another has alread y
been used to t r e a t a wide v a r ie ty of d is o r d e r s . To name
j u s t a few, common phobias such as fe a r of snakes (Wolpe,
1958; Wolpin and P e a r s a ll, 1965), anorexia nervosa
(H a lls te n , 1965), chronic f r i g i d i t y (Lazarus, 1963), sexual
impotence (Wolpin, 1966) and chronic b lu sh in g (Gibbs, 1965).
Benign vocal nodules, la y e rs of e p i t h e l i a l c e l l s b u i l t up
in the th ro a t as a r e s u l t of vocal s t r a i n , have been sim i
l a r l y tr e a te d (Gray, England and Mahoney, 1965). T his i s a
noteworthy accomplishment sin ce such nodules are custom ar
i l y tr e a te d by s u rg ic a l removal or long p e rio d s of vocal
i n a c t i v i t y .
D esp ite t h i s bread th of a p p lic a tio n , disagreem ent
remains over who should be d e s e n s itiz e d . Wolpe (1961)
s t a t e s th a t although a l l n e u ro tic s are accepted fo r
sy stem atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , p sy ch o tic persons do not
respond to t h i s th erap y . By d e s e n s itiz in g an o b sessio n al
p a t i e n t s u ff e rin g a phobic a n x ie ty s t a t e , Haslam (1965)
contends he has dem onstrated the use of r e c ip r o c a l i n h i b i
tio n for d is o r d e r s o th er than pure phobias, and Wolpin and
Raines (1966) have shown th a t b o rd e rlin e p sychotic
d is o rd e rs can be e f f e c t i v e l y tre a te d w ith d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
Stampfl and Levis (1967) go s t i l l f u r t h e r , claim ing th a t
even p sy c h o tic s are a p p ro p ria te r e c i p i e n t s o f im plosion.
Lazarus (1961) has s u c c e s s fu lly used d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n in
gro u p s.
Debate a lso e x is ts over how much formal tra in in g
t h e r a p i s t s r e q u ire . Some would l i m i t such p r a c t i c e to
c l i n i c a l p sy c h o lo g ists and p s y c h i a t r i s t s , in th e medical
t r a d i t i o n . O thers suggest i t i s n ec e ssa ry only th a t th e r a
p i s t s be supervised by a p ro fe s s io n a l f a m ilia r w ith condi
tio n in g and th a t persons rendering d i r e c t s e rv ic e s need not
hold advanced degrees (Ramsay, Barends, Breuher and
Kruseman, 1966). More d e f i n i t i v e g u id e lin e s w i l l undoubt
edly develop as experience accumulates reg ard in g the
e f fe c tiv e n e s s of "behavior technicians.**
Since Wolpe i s the foremost proponent of d e s e n s i t i
z a tio n , h is approach w i l l be o u tlin e d in some d e t a i l , using
h is 1961 sy n o p tic a l p u b lic a tio n as a guide. Wolpe*s
c e n tr a l concept i s th a t i f a response i n h i b i t o r y to an x iety
occurs i n the presence of anxiety -p ro d u cin g s tim u li, the
connection between th ese stim u li and a n x ie ty i s weakened.
He accepts Jaco b so n ’s (1938) prem ise th a t a n x ie ty does not
occur w ithout muscular involvem ent, so he uses muscle
r e la x a tio n as h is a n x ie ty i n h i b i t o r . Wolpe has done most
of h is work w ith phobias and p o in ts out th a t phobic
symptoms have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y considered r e s i s t a n t to
tre a tm e n t (Curran and C a rtrid g e , 1955).
Wolpe begins therapy w ith r e la x a tio n t r a in in g which
takes h a l f of about s ix se ssio n s plus p r a c t i c e a t home.
During th e se i n i t i a l in te rv ie w s, he a lso begins
c o n s tru c tin g an a n x ie ty h ie ra rc h y , a graded l i s t of s tim u li
evoking a n x ie ty in the p a r t ic u la r c l i e n t - Wolpe in d ic a te s
t h i s to be the most taxing p a r t of the e n t i r e procedure and
c au tio n s th a t i t is im portant to u nderstand the tru e
sources o f d isco m fo rt. He says t h a t re p o rte d fe a r of
a tte n d in g p a r t i e s , fo r example, might a c tu a lly r e p re s e n t a
more g e n e ra liz e d fe a r of r e j e c t i o n .
System atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n proper involves the
c l i e n t re la x in g w hile f i r s t imaging item s low on the
h ie ra rc h y ( i . e . , those low in a n x ie ty e l i c i t i n g p ro p e rtie s ).
As the p a t i e n t becomes able to image each item w ithout
a p p re c ia b le d isc o m fo rt, Wolpe i n s t r u c t s him to image th e
stim ulus c o n fig u ra tio n next h ig h e st on th e l i s t . Thus,
treatm en t in c lu d e s: (1) t r a in in g in deep muscle relax atio n ,
(2) s e tt i n g up an a n x ie ty h ie ra rc h y , and (3) having th e
p a tie n t r e la x w hile imaging successiv e anxiety-evoking
s tim u li from th e h ie ra rc h y .
According to Wolpe, h is method h as a number of
advantages over t r a d i t i o n a l v e rb a l psychotherapy. The
sources of n e u ro tic anxiety can be d efin ed and d e lim ite d
and the goals of treatm ent c l e a r l y s t a t e d . Improvement can
be noted during the d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n hour, and th e re i s no
o b je c tio n to conducting therapy b efo re an unconcealed
audience. T h e ra p is ts can a ls o be interchanged i f d e s ire d .
Lazarus has proposed a number of a l t e r n a t iv e s to
Wolpe*s procedure. For example, he suggests th e
5
s u b s t i t u t i o n of ’’emotive imagery" for r e la x a tio n (1963) and
claim s th a t having a person image p le a s a n t experiences
along with anx iety -p ro d u cin g s tim u li w i l l work as w ell as
having him r e la x . Lazarus (1963) a lso advocates using
fo rc e f u l muscular a c t i v i t y in l i e u of r e la x a tio n and says
th a t both emotive imagery and muscular c o n tra c tio n may be
u s e fu l for those unable to p r o f i t from r e la x a tio n . These
m o d ific a tio n s bear on s e v e ra l t h e o r e t i c a l is s u e s d iscu ssed
in th e next s e c tio n of t h i s c h a p te r.
Stampfl i s the o r ig in a to r of im plosive th erap y , a
technique o p p o site to Wolpe’s i n th a t the p a t i e n t i s
encouraged to image feared s tim u li w ithout attem pting to
r e la x (Stam pfl, e£ a l ., 1967). In f a c t , Stampfl t r i e s to
induce maximal a n x ie ty , since i t has become a response-
produced cue for a d d itio n a l a n x ie ty . He d e s c rib e s scenes
to th e p a t i e n t in which he images him self unable to make
avoidance re sp o n se s. Stampfl contends th a t t h i s w ill
r e s u l t in a n x ie ty responses dropping out and a consequent
red u ctio n of avoidance m o tiv atio n and b eh av io r. This p r o
gram i s based on th e p r in c ip le th a t responses e x tin g u ish ,
i f n o t re in fo rc e d ( i . e . , i f c o n d itio n a l fe a r s tim u li a re
re p e a te d ly p resen ted w ithout noxious unconditioned s tim u li
follow ing them, conditioned a n x ie ty w i l l d im inish and
e v e n tu a lly d is a p p e a r). The s tro n g e r the em otional re a c tio n
occurring i n the presence of c o n d itio n a l s tim u li w ithout
p r e s e n ta tio n of noxious consequences, the f a s t e r ex tin c tio n .
6
Wolpin has a lso experimented with marked d e p a rtu re s
from system atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Not only has he abandoned
use of a formal h ie ra rc h y , but has d isc a rd e d re la x a tio n
tr a in in g as w e ll. His r e s u l t s have proved s t a r t l i n g in
view of the importance Wolpe a tta c h e s to both gradual
movement up a h ie ra rc h y and deep r e l a x a t i o n , and the f a c t
th a t he r e p o rts having t r i e d im plosion only to d isc a rd i t
as of no value to the person w ith whom he was working C 1966tX
In 1965, using a middle-aged n e u ro tic d e p re ssiv e woman in a
snake re d u c tio n experim ent, Wolpin and P e a r s a ll demon
s tr a te d th a t c o n tra ry to c u rre n t opinion as many as twenty
ste p s in the h ie ra rc h y could be taken in one se ss io n . In
f a c t , they achieved im pressive r e s u l t s in only e ig h t
se ss io n s, fa r fewer than the usual twenty or t h i r t y . At
th a t time, Wolpin a lso questioned muscle r e la x a tio n as the
major v e h ic le of th e ra p e u tic change. The follow ing year he
and Raines (1966) rep o rted success w ith th re e p a t i e n t s ,
each of whom had a d i f f e r e n t problem, having them immedi
a te ly v is u a liz e scenes a t the top o f the h ie ra rc h y w ithout
using r e la x a tio n or im plosion. Wolpin*s work has the
p r a c t i c a l consequence of dem onstrating t h a t a much sm aller
number of se ssio n s may be n e cessary than i s commonly sup
posed, and th a t i t may be unnecessary to deeply r e la x or
implode the p a t i e n t .
T h is, in a n u t s h e l l , i s the h is to r y and p re se n t
s t a t e of the a r t . Many q u estio n s remain unanswered.
7
A lte r n a tiv e E xplanations: D econditioning
or C ognitive R e stru c tu rin g
D e s e n s itiz a tio n i s u s u a lly assumed to be a decondi
tio n in g or co u n te rc o n d itio n in g th erap y and, viewed th i s way,
i s fra u g h t w ith a l l the t h e o r e t i c a l am b ig u ities of b asic
re se a rc h in e x tin c tio n . At f i r s t g lan ce, i t would appear
th a t Wolpe’s sy stem atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and S tam pfl’s
im plosion diverge t h e o r e t i c a l l y . For example, Wolpe’s
r e c ip r o c a l i n h i b i t i o n h y pothesis seems to lead to the
p r e d ic tio n th a t im plosive treatm en t w i l l worsen anxiety
r a th e r than a l l e v i a t e i t . However, both sy stem atic desensi
t i z a t i o n and im plosion f i t n ic e ly i n to an in te r f e r e n c e
framework, such as th a t suggested by G uthrie (1935, 1952).
G uthrie speaks of s e v e ra l means of f a c i l i t a t i n g the
occurrence of c o n d itio n a l s tim u li a t times when the occur
rence p r o b a b ility of unwanted co nditioned responses i s very
low but the occurrence p r o b a b i li t y of new, competing
responses i s high. One method i s to p re se n t c o n d itio n a l
s tim u li su b lim in a lly and g ra d u a lly in c re a se t h e i r magnitude.
Since the c o n d itio n a l s tim u li a re below th re sh o ld a t the
o u ts e t, they do not evoke the co nditioned resp o n ses. Small
increm ents are to le r a te d and do not e l i c i t conditioned
responses e i t h e r , j u s t as a horse i s tra in e d to saddle by
f i r s t using only a l i g h t b la n k e t and slow ly working up to
f u l l gear (Deese and Hulse, 1967). System atic d e s e n s i t i z a
tio n could be considered an a p p lic a tio n of th i s t o l e r a ti o n
te c h n iq u e .
Another of G u th rie ’s e x tin c tio n models employs
response f a tig u e . The c o n d itio n a l s tim u li are presented
u n t i l the co nditioned responses are exhausted and so no
longer occur. This allow s new resp o n ses, such as decreased
muscle tonus and parasym pathetic dominance in the case of
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , to be paired w ith the c o n d itio n a l s tim u li.
Implosion might be thought of as t h i s s o r t of f a tig u e -
in te r f e r e n c e p ro cess.
The p o in t of a l l th is i s th a t d i f f e r e n t d e s e n s i t i
z a tio n methods can be f i t t e d in to a common schema by
p o s itin g d i f f e r e n t e x tin c tio n mechanisms, a l l o rie n te d
towards the same o b je c tiv e , response com petition for
in sta n c e . One could a lso p o s tu la te more than one e x tin c
tio n theory and m ain tain th a t d i f f e r e n t modes of d e s e n s i t i
za tio n o p erate on d i f f e r e n t modes of e x tin c tio n . Perhaps
im plosion works through i n h i b i t i o n d e c o n d itio n in g , such as
the response-produced i n h i b i t i o n p ro cesses th e o riz e d by
Hull (1943). System atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n might work through
com petition p ro c e sse s. But t h i s kind of t h e o r e t ic a l
lib e ra lis m does not c o n tr ib u te to parsimony and is t y p i
c a lly eschewed, e s p e c ia lly s in c e i n h i b i t i o n th e o r ie s of
e x tin c tio n have no t fared w ell over the long haul (Deese,
e t a l . , 1967). Before leav in g the to p ic of e x tin c tio n , i t
should be mentioned th a t
9
. . . we a re l e f t w ith t h i s b asic q u e stio n . Does
e x tin c tio n a c tu a lly e lim in a te the old response,
does i t simply supplant the old response w ith other
resp o n ses, or does i t do both?
(Deese, jet a l ., 1967, p. 141)
E ffo rts to match d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n p r a c tic e s with
e x tin c tio n th e o rie s should not be s lig h te d and are valuable
sin c e they endeavor to lin k c l i n i c a l treatm en t to la b o ra
to ry re se a rc h and theory. However, i t must be remembered
th a t procedures f a l l i n g under the r u b r ic " d e s e n s itiz a tio n "
may r e a l l y have l i t t l e in common, and may not r e ly on
d eco n d itio n in g for t h e i r e f f ic a c y . I t may be h e lp f u l a t
th i s p o in t to sketch some a l t e r n a t i v e e x p la n a tio n s.
P a tie n t ex p ectan cies of one s o r t or another may
c o n trib u te s i g n i f i c a n t l y to d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n outcome. The
p a t i e n t may e n t e r t a i n b e l i e f s about the g en eral e f f e c t i v e
ness of the tre a tm e n t, competence of the t h e r a p i s t ,
r e s i s ta n c e of h is symptoms to cure, and s u i t a b i l i t y of the
p a r t i c u l a r tre atm e n t and t h e r a p i s t to h is s p e c i f i c tro u b le s
—a l l of these may in flu e n c e tre atm e n t success. Of course,
the t h e r a p i s t may hold a s im ila r a r ra y of b e l i e f s , which
could in flu e n c e outcome d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y by a l t e r in g
the p a tie n t* s b e l i e f s . Such re c ip ro c a l e f f e c t s between
p a t i e n t and t h e r a p i s t may be exceedingly complex
(R osenthal, 1966). J a f f e (1968) in v e s tig a te d Ss* expectan
c ie s reg ard in g e ffic a c y of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and found th a t
although p o s itiv e p a t i e n t e x p e c ta tio n did augment improve
ment, a l l of th e treatm en t e f f e c t in h is study could not be
10
a t t r i b u t e d to expectancy. But, i t has a ls o been demon
s t r a t e d th a t phobias can be tre a te d by expectancy m anipula
tio n alone (Efran and Marcia, 1967).
C e rta in t r a i t s and s t a t e s may a lso modulate r e s u l t s .
A person high on the need for s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y dimension
might be expected to improve more than a person low on
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y , a l l e ls e being eq u al. S o c ia l d e s i r a
b i l i t y im plies heightened r e c e p t i v i ty to experim enter
e f f e c t s , and i t might be hypothesized th a t most d e s e n s i t i
z a tio n procedures serve to tap i n to t h i s d r iv e , th a t
d e s e n s itiz a tio n i s p rim a rily a means of g e ttin g a person to
put on a performance fo r h im self and h is t h e r a p i s t . Seen
so, d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n may be a method of inducing s p e c ia liz e d
kinds of r o le p lay in g , a l b e i t d e s ir a b l e r o le behavior which
may m aintain overtim e. Research in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n has
conspicuously n eg lected s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y as a v a r ia b le .
Another p o s s i b i l i t y , somewhat r e la te d to the
expectancies a lre a d y d isc u sse d , i s th a t the c o g n itiv e
and/or b e h a v io ra l a c t i v i t i e s in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n a l t e r a
p e rso n ’s b e l i e f s about h is own c a p a b i l i t i e s , and th a t such
s e lf-c o n c e p t change m ediates behavior change. The
d isc u s s io n of expectancy e f f e c t s p resen ted above t r e a t s
b e l i e f s as m odulators of o th e r, more b a sic treatm ent
p ro c e sse s. But expectancies may fu n c tio n more c e n t r a l l y
than t h a t . A lte r a tio n s in b e l i e f s may be the most
im portant and fundamental treatm ent mechanism. For
11
example, a person s u ffe rin g from severe s o c ia l a n x ie ty may
b e lie v e h im self unable to speak in a group w ithout over
whelming d isco m fo rt. Via d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , he may come to
regard him self capable of relax ed s o c ia l exchange, which in
tu rn may reduce h is autonomic r e a c t i v i t y and allow him to
v a lid a te h is new b e l i e f . This i s l i k e l y to lead to changes
in h is overt behavior ( i . e . , he may a tte n d more p a r t i e s and
trem ble a good d eal le s s in the p ro c e s s ). I t i s no longer
s c i e n t i f i c a l l y fa rfe tc h e d to p r e d ic t c o g n itiv e c o n tro l of
autonomic f u n c tio n s , sin ce Kamiya and h is a s s o c ia te s
(Stoyva and Kamiya, 1968) have come up with stro n g em piri
cal evidence for the operant co n d itio n in g of EGG p a tte r n s .
Following such t r a in i n g , many are able to e x e rc ise
s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tro l over t h e i r own EEG rhythms.
Temporary m o tiv a tio n a l changes may a lso a l t e r
outcome. I t may be th a t conscious decision-m aking has a
g re a t d eal to do w ith how w ell d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n works,
e s p e c ia lly in re se a rc h s e t t i n g s . Persons a c t i v e l y e n l i s t
ing th e aid of t h e r a p i s t s are probably more homogeneously
m otivated to improve than Ss in experim ents. Research Ss
are l i k e l y to be more whimsical in t h e i r m otivations
reg ard in g treatm en t and, no doubt, show g re a te r varian ce in
t h e i r d e c is io n s . A c l i n i c a l p a t i e n t may be l e s s in c lin e d
to avow M Youf l l never get me to do t h a t ? ” than a S. But
r e g a rd le s s of the d iffe re n c e s between p r a c tic e and research,
decision-m aking qua decision-m aking may a f f e c t treatm ent
12
e f f e c tiv e n e s s . C ognitions can o v errid e conditioned
b eh av io r, or a t l e a s t a l t e r c o n d itio n in g as i t occurs. The
is s u e of whether or no t c o g n itio n s themselves come about by
s t r i c t chaining can be ignored fo r the moment.
I t i s convenient to c o n cep tu alize human fu n ctio n in g
as d e riv in g from th re e p a r t i a l l y c o r r e la te d system s. Two
of th e s e — c o g n itio n and the autonomic nervous system (ANS)
- - a r e c o v e rt, w hile the th ir d - - m u s c u lo - s k e le ta l b eh a v io r--
is o v e rt. Since the systems are im p e rfe c tly c o r re la te d ,
a c t i v i t y in one may not always be e x a c tly m irrored in the
o th e rs , but on the whole one would expect s u b s t a n t i a l
correspondence or '‘congruence.** As an a s id e , i t f i t s
decades of c l i n i c a l d a ta to m aintain th a t the i n t e r c o r r e l a
tio n s among th ese th re e systems a re in d ic e s of psychologi
c a l w e ll-b e in g . At any r a t e , although the autonomy of the
ANS has f a l le n i n to q u estio n r e c e n tly (M ille r, 1969; DiCara,
1970), a c t i v i t y in t h i s system i s l e a s t su b je c t to purpose
f u l r e g u la tio n . This i s why d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n has seemed so
prom ising, the f a c t th a t i t i s geared towards d i r e c t l y
a l t e r i n g ANS m ed iato rs. Whether or not d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
t r u l y does d i r e c t l y a l t e r the ANS, changes in troduced a t
any one of the th re e le v e ls a re bound to be r e f l e c t e d in
th e o th er two, and so a l t e r a t i o n s a t the c o g n itiv e le v e l
can be expected to produce n o n -co g n itiv e changes. The
q u e stio n i s , how im portant are th e se c o g n itiv e changes to
the tre atm e n t?
13
The whole m atter of how d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n works is
complicated a t b e s t. I t may be th a t the major modes of
treatm ent operate a t a l l th re e l e v e l s , bu t each somewhat
d i f f e r e n t l y , and w ith in those l i m i t s , even d i f f e r e n t l y w ith
d i f f e r e n t people and problems. This d i s s e r t a t i o n attem pts
to make an advance in to th i s complex and b a f f l i n g t e r r i t o r y .
N ec e ssity of a M ediational Approach
to D e s e n s itiz a tio n
I t might be argued th a t we should abandon a l l hopes
of extending the domain of p r e d ic to r v a r ia b le s to in clu d e
c o g n itiv e ev en ts. The guiding p r in c ip l e of t h i s d i s s e r t a
tio n has been th a t i n d i r e c t measurement i s c l e a r l y p r e f e r
able to no measurement, so long as one reco g n izes the
t e n t a t i v e n a tu re of h is co n clu sio n s. C lin ic ia n s a re prone,
i t seems, towards e ith e r of two extrem es, staunch non-
m ediational behaviorism or c a p ric io u s s p e c u la tio n , a kind
of t h e o r e t i c a l p ro m iscu ity . And, by and la rg e , they have
ignored the w ealth of s o p h is tic a te d psychometric methodol
ogy s p e c i f i c a l l y su ite d to th e s o lu tio n of i n d i r e c t
problems, techniques such as f a c to r a n a ly s is and other
covariance-based methods. C lin ic ia n s admire what i s viewed
as the measurement p s y c h o l o g i s t s p re c is io n but tend to
n e g le c t h is b e s t m u ltiv a r ia te procedures. Research
c lin ic ia n s need to understand co v ert p ro c e sse s, s in c e th e se
probably account fo r a g re a t deal o f treatm ent v a ria n c e .
A nalysis of m ed iatio n al events not only improves p r e d ic tio n
14
for a s p e c i f i c outcome, say how w ell the tre atm e n t w ill
work for a p a r t i c u l a r p a t i e n t ’s d i f f i c u l t i e s . I t i s a lso
the key to t h e o r e t i c a l development ( i . e . , f i t t i n g the
tre atm e n t in to a la r g e r network of fundamental p sy c h o lo g i
c al c o n s tr u c ts ) .
D e s e n s itiz a tio n has been the focus of much th e o r e t
i c a l d e b a te , but r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e evidence has been
published in support of any of the r i v a l v iew p o in ts. In
f a c t , i t i s yet to be shown th a t d eco n d itio n in g p la y s the
major r o le , d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t le a rn in g t h e o r i s t s
developed d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n tech n iq u es. One might even
conclude th a t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n methods are r a th e r divorced
from t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l r o o ts . Perhaps c o g n itiv e v a r ia b le s
are most im portant. But, i f so, what c o g n itiv e v a r ia b le s ?
And what are the i n t e r a c t io n s among c o g n itiv e m ediators,
p e r s o n a lity p a tte r n s and s t a t e s , contexual v a r ia b le s , and
d eco n d itio n in g ? I t i s v alu ab le to know th a t d e s e n s i t i z a
tio n works. But i t would be much more v alu ab le to under
stand how. Knowing how i t works a ffo rd s n o t only th e p os
s i b i l i t y of improving i t by a l t e r a t i o n and/or rew eighting
of i t s components, but a ls o the p o t e n t i a l for extending the
c r u c i a l v a r ia b le s to oth er tre a tm e n ts . Ignoring i n t e r n a l
m ediation may be a c c e p ta b le for studying pigeons in Skinner
boxes, but i t i s f o o lis h to even attem p t most human
re se a rc h a t h e o r e t i c a l l y . P h y sio lo g ic a l re s e a rc h e rs are
working from the in s id e o u t, so to speak. Behavioral
15
p sy c h o lo g ists should work from the o u tsid e i n , hoping to
meet th e i r co lle a g u e s somewhere in between.
H isto ry of Imagery Research
H olt (1964) c a l l s the renewed prominence of imagery
M The r e tu r n of the o s tr a c iz e d ” (p. 254), and tra c e s th e
course of imagery re se a rc h from i t s formal beginnings in
the n in e te e n th cen tu ry . He p o in ts to the f lo u r is h in g
concern with imagery around the tu rn of the cen tu ry and
mentions th a t a t l e a s t th e c l i n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e shows
continued i n t e r e s t in imagery u n t i l World War I . Between
th e two World Wars, i n t e r e s t dim inished, only to be rev iv ed
in the e a rly 1950's. Holt d e t a i l s t h i s h is to r y as fo llo w s.
The psychology of the l a t e 1800’s was a scie n c e of
mind, and imagery was a major datum of in tr o s p e c tio n .
Images seemed the b u ild in g blocks of more complex th in k in g
p ro c e sse s and, in the t r a d i t i o n of T itc h e n e r, p sy c h o lo g ists
sought fo r fundamental u n its of m ental a c t i v i t y . In the
e a r ly tw e n tie th cen tu ry , th e foundations of i n t r o s p e c t i v e
methodology began to crumble a t the hands of Kiilpe and h is
fo llo w e rs , who emphasized the need fo r a psychology not
centered in th e study of consciousness. The emerging
schools of Watsonian behaviorism and p sy ch o an aly sis, each
in i t s own way, dism issed imagery as u n r e lia b le , and so
discouraged i n t e r e s t in th e to p ic .
S everal r e l a t i v e l y independent developments
16
c o n trib u te d to the re-emergence of imagery re se a rc h about
twenty years ago. One o f these was in c re a se d concern over
the sudden appearance of viv id images to persons whose
sensory in p u t was r e s t r i c t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y persons engaged
in monotonous a c t i v i t i e s such as d riv in g fo r long periods
a t n ig h t, extended m onitoring of ra d a r scopes, and operating
v e h ic le s in the snow-covered polar reg io n s (Bexton, Heron
and S c o tt, 1954). Another impetus to imagery study was the
p se u d o h allu c in a to ry experiences generated by c o n c e n tra tio n
camp e x iste n c e (P alo szi-H o rv ath , 1959). Other r e la te d
in flu e n c e s were new i n t e r e s t in h a llu c in o g e n ic drugs (Clark,
1963; Himwich, 1958), and the re c o g n itio n th a t non
h o s p ita liz e d persons may h a llu c in a te even w ithout psycho
tomimetic ag en ts, as suggested by the myriad of u n id e n ti
fie d fly in g o b ject r e p o r ts . The study of imagery has a lso
been fo s te r e d by re c e n t advances in b ra in re se a rc h , such as
electroencephalography ( B a r r a t t , 1956; L e ib o v itz , 1968;
S h o rt, 1953), d i r e c t c o r t i c a l s tim u la tio n (P e n fie ld and
J a s p e r , 1954), and work on the r e t i c u l a r a c tiv a tin g system
(Magoun, 1963). R elated to t h i s , the re c e n t i n t e r e s t in
dreams (Dement and Kleitman, 1957) has encouraged imagery
re s e a rc h , as has th e growing concern w ith c o g n itiv e
p ro c e sse s, evidenced by the number of c e n te rs fo r c o g n itiv e
study which have been e s ta b lis h e d r e c e n tly . F in a lly ,
c r e a t i v i t y re se a rc h (Barron, 1963) has a ls o led to
in creased i n t e r e s t in imagery, s in c e s e l f - r e p o r t s on
17
c r e a t i v i t y have o fte n pointed to images as v e h ic le s of
in n o v atio n . D espite th ese developments, i t was not u n t i l
1969 th a t a survey of the re c e n t imagery l i t e r a t u r e was
published (R ichardson, 1969).
Imagery M ediation i n Learning
and Psychotherapy
Although t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s concerned w ith the
r o le of imagery in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , i t may be h e lp fu l to
h ig h lig h t the probable fu n c tio n s o f imagery in verb al
le a rn in g , as w ell as the ra p id ly in c re a s in g use of imagery
in psychodynamic th erap y . Robinson (1969) p re s e n ts a
comprehensive review of imagery in r e l a t i o n to human
le a rn in g .
S everal s tu d ie s of p a ir e d - a s s o c ia te le a rn in g have
shown th a t speed of a c q u is itio n v a rie s p o s it i v e l y w ith the
imagery-producing power of s ti m u l i , e s p e c ia lly on the
stim ulus sid e of stim u lu s-re sp o n se p a ir s (Dominowski and
G adlin, 1967; P a iv io , 1968; P aiv io and Madigan, 1968;
Smythe and P a iv io , 1968; Y u ille , 1968). This i s r e l a t e d to
what P aiv io (1970) c a l l s the "conceptual peg" h y p o th esis,
the id ea th a t images can serve as memory anchors.
An im portant iss u e in le a rn in g i s whether people
with r e l a t i v e l y v iv id imagery le a rn v ia d i f f e r e n t p ro cesses
from those w ith r a t h e r vague imagery. Both Sheehan (1967b)-
and Stew art (1966) have conducted s tu d ie s from which they
conclude th a t v iv id imagers r e ly le s s on coding o f s tim u li
18
than do poor im agers. The read er i s again r e fe r r e d to
Robinson (1969) for a thorough d isc u s s io n of coding and
imagery. This a rea of re se a rc h i s of some importance
sin c e , i f le a rn in g i s or can be la r g e l y mediated by imagery,
then perhaps people could be tra in e d to c u l t i v a t e v iv id
imagery to in c re a s e t h e i r le a rn in g c a p a c itie s .
This i s the reasoning behind a l l the i n t e r e s t in
e id e tic imagery, a t l e a s t as i t appears in Europe. E id e tic
imagery i s d efin ed as ” . . . a v is u a l image p e r s i s ti n g
a f t e r s tim u la tio n , r e l a t i v e l y a c c u ra te in d e t a i l , colored
p o s it i v e l y , and capable of being scanned . . . M (Haber and
Haber, 1964, p. 131). Haber (1969) c o n cep tu alizes t h i s as
a d i f f e r e n t process from ro u tin e memory and, as su p p o rt,
c i t e s the fin d in g th a t e i d e t i c im ag ers’ memory of a
stim ulus was not much b e t t e r than n o n -e id e tic im ag ers’
a f t e r the image had faded (Haber, £ t a l ., 1964). Doob
(1965) a ls o found th a t e i d e t i c imagery did not aid lo n g
term r e c a l l . Dueker (1965), on the other hand, argues
a g a in st p o s itin g a s p e c ia l e i d e t i c a b i l i t y and claim s th a t
rep ro d u ctio n s of p e rc e p tu a l co n ten t must be a t t r i b u t e d
s o le ly to normal memory p ro c e sse s. T r a x e l’s (1962)
research lead s him to conclude lik e w ise , and he c r i t i c i z e s
previous s tu d ie s on th e grounds th a t s u it a b l e c o n tro ls for
s u g g e s t i b i l i t y in young Ss were not employed. A g e n e ra l
c r i ti q u e of e i d e t i c imagery re se a rc h w ith p rim itiv e
c u ltu re s i s p resen ted by Feldman (1968). Richardson (1969)
19
a lso surveys th i s l i t e r a t u r e .
On the ap p lied s id e , imagery has been used both as
an ad ju n ct to understanding the psychotherapy p a t i e n t and
as a to o l for tr e a tin g him. A number of t h e r a p i s t s , who
p r a c t i c e from an in tra p s y c h ic model of abnormal behavior,
suggest th a t c l i e n t s ’ imagery y ie ld s in form ation h e lp fu l in
understanding p e r s o n a lity dynamics (Horowitz, 1968;
J e l l i n e k , 1949; Kanzer, 1958; Warren, 1961). Reyher and
Smeltzer (1968) re p o rt an experiment by which they claim to
have dem onstrated the s u p e r io r ity of v is u a l imagery over
verb al a s s o c ia tio n as an uncovering technique. Although
sk in conductance was one of t h e i r dependent v a r ia b le s , the
o th e rs were s o f t measures such as amount of primary process
m a te ria l and e f fe c tiv e n e s s of ego d efen ses.
R e p resen tativ e of th e r a p e u tic approaches which
focus on imaging are Reyher’s (1963) and L euner’s (1969).
From a p sy ch o an aly tic frame of re fe re n c e , Reyher (1963, p.
455) uses imagery as a v e h ic le of expression fo r uncon
scio u s c o n te n t, the t h e r a p i s t rem aining M . . . a b s o lu te ly
s i l e n t except fo r in fre q u e n t comments designed to
enhance . . .'* the tre a tm e n t. Leuner, although also
immersed in dynamic co nceptions, seems to emphasize having
p a tie n ts u n ify dynamic m a te ria l through symbolic imagery as
w e ll as through more t r a d i t i o n a l modes of achieving in sig h t.
For example, in what appears to be founded on a hybrid of
Freudian psychodynamics and Ju n g ian a rch ety p es, the p a tie n t
2 0
might be encouraged to give food to an imagined m onster.
This i s p u rp o rted to f a c i l i t a t e cure of the n e u ro sis ,
e s p e c ia lly i f the imaged c r e a tu re changes in some p o s itiv e
manner such as becoming le s s frig h te n in g or sh rin k in g .
Leuner has a r a th e r e la b o ra te form at fo r h is therapy, which
in clu d es ten standard im aginary s i t u a t i o n s , for example,
follow ing a brook to i t s source or meeting a lio n .
Imagery Measurement and C o n stru ct
VaCTTfy-----------------
Techniques to measure imagery may be c l a s s i f i e d on
two dim ensions: s u b je c tiv e versus o b je c tiv e and r e l a t i v e
versus a b s o lu te w ith re fe re n c e to sensory m odality
s tre n g th . S u b je c tiv e in d ic e s r e ly on S s' r e p o rts of t h e i r
imagery, w hile o b je c tiv e methods i n f e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
S s’ imagery from behavior samples, u s u a lly performance on
t e s t s assumed to re q u ire imaging a b i l i t i e s . R e la tiv e
imagery in stru m en ts a re those which attem pt to determ ine
a t t r i b u t e s of S s' imagery in one sense m odality compared
w ith th o se of oth er m o d a litie s . A bsolute imagery techniques
attem pt t o measure th e dimensions of S s * imagery compared
to imagery of other Ss.
Most imagery re se a rc h has used s e l f - r e p o r t s ,
u s u a lly in the form o f a se v en -p o in t r a t in g s c a le , o r i g i
n a lly developed by B e tts (1909), based on work by Galton
(1883). R atings go from "no image p re se n t a t a l l " (seven)
to " p e r f e c tly c le a r and v iv id " (o n e ). B e t t s ' Q u estio n n a ire
21
Upon Mental Imagery c o n s is ts of 150 item s to be r a te d , each
item p e r ta in in g to one of seven sensory m o d a litie s . For
example, an a u d ito ry item i s "th e sound of escaping steam.**
The d i f f i c u l t i e s w ith t h i s technique in c lu d e th o se of any
s e l f - r e p o r t r a t in g s c a le . Used a lo n e, th e re i s no way of
knowing whether the image lead in g one S to a ssig n a r a tin g
of f iv e ("vague and dim") i s even roughly e q u iv a le n t in
v iv id n ess to th a t le a d in g another S to make the same r a tin g .
The v e rb a l la b e ls fo r each of the seven p o in ts on the
r a tin g s c a le no doubt h elp , bu t they cannot be taken as a
f u l l s o lu tio n to the su b je c tiv ism problem, a t l e a s t not
w ithout supporting d a ta .
This problem i s not q u ite as s e rio u s fo r r e l a t i v e
v iv id n e ss of m o d a litie s re s e a rc h , sin c e one would expect at
l e a s t crude equivalence of i n t r a - s u b j e c t r a t i n g s , acro ss
sense m o d a litie s . But th e use of such a procedure to
measure in d iv id u a l d iff e r e n c e s in a b s o lu te v iv id n e ss of
imagery needs v a lid a tio n .
B ehavioral in d ic e s of a b s o lu te v iv id n e ss of imagery
have included a v a r ie ty of t e s t s supposedly tapping a
hypothesized g en eral a b i l i t y to image v is u a l s tim u li.
C h ris tia n s e n and Stone (1968), fo r example, used the
Guilford-Zimmerman S p a tia l V is u a liz a tio n T est along w ith a
memory fo r d esig n s t e s t . However, Sheehan (1966b) p o in ts
out th e d i s p a r a te r e s u l t s obtained in the "m a jo rity of
s tu d ie s which have c o r re la te d s u b je c tiv e r e p o r t s of imagery
22
w ith experim ental b ehavior" th a t have used "problem -solving
ta sk s to evoke imagery" (p. 1012). Sheehan goes on to say,
"There i s no evidence th a t problem -solving task s v a lid ly
and r e l i a b l y i n d ic a te the type of q u a lity of imagery used
in t h e i r s o lu tio n " (p. 1012). Another c r i t i c i s m of t h i s
approach seems w arranted as w e ll. A b i l i t y t e s t s are
o rie n te d towards maximum performance r a t h e r than ty p ic a l
performance, and i t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s ib le th a t a person
whose u su al imagery i s r a t h e r im proverished might be ab le
to m uster v iv id imagery to f a c i l i t a t e t e s t perform ance. He
might not muster such v iv id imagery during d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ,
but then again he m ight. I t i s worth mention th a t even
techniques to c o n tro l "g e n e ra l i n t e l l i g e n c e " e f f e c t s , such
as a n a ly s is of covariance w ith i n t e l l i g e n c e as the c o v a ri-
a te , do not so lv e the t y p ic a l versus maximal problem.
A fte r review ing the l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s sa fe to say
th a t no comprehensive s tu d ie s of the imagery measurement
is s u e s have been re p o rte d . What i s needed now i s a s e r i e s
of s tu d ie s i n t e r r e l a t i n g th e se d i f f e r e n t kinds of imagery
measurement tech n iq u es. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) d isc u s s
the a p p ro p ria te a p p lic a tio n of four types of v a l i d i t y
and say th a t " c o n s tr u c t v a l i d i t y must be in v e s tig a te d
whenever no c r i t e r i o n or u n iv e rse of co n ten t i s accepted
as e n t i r e l y adequate to d e fin e th e q u a l i t y to be meas
u red ” (p. 282). C e r ta in ly t h i s i s the case w ith imagery
—no adequate c r i t e r i o n i s a v a ila b le and the concept
does n o t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y lend i t s e l f to simple o p e ra tio n a l-
ism. The f i r s t s tu d ie s rep o rted in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n
concern the r e la tio n s h ip s among se v e ra l q u e s tio n n a ire s and
t e s t s assumed to be imagery r e le v a n t.
S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y and D e s e n s itiz a tio n
As mentioned p re v io u sly , ten d en cies to p re s e n t
o n e se lf in a fav o rab le l i g h t may la r g e ly determ ine d e s e n s i
t i z a t i o n outcome. That i s , the need to ob tain p o s itiv e
regard from the t h e r a p i s t or experim enter may play a
s ig n i f i c a n t ro le i n improvement. In f a c t , sk ep ticism
towards deco n d itio n in g ex p lan atio n s of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
might lead one to hypothesize th a t e x te n t of th e ra p e u tic
gain i s almost e n t i r e l y governed by such needs. This would
mean th a t c o u n terco n d itio n in g c o n tr ib u te s l i t t l e , i f
anything, and th a t m o tiv atio n al v a r ia b le s are of primary
s ig n if ic a n c e . D e s e n s itiz a tio n , as i t i s c l i n i c a l l y
p r a c tic e d , may be l i t t l e more than th e newest mumbo jumbo,
whose th e ra p e u tic e ffe c tiv e n e s s r e l i e s on S v a r ia b le s lik e
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y and an adm ixture of suggestion and
expectancy.
The d i f f i c u l t i e s in measuring imagery also apply to
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Is i t one t r a i t or s e v e ra l, and how
i s i t to be measured? T r a its may be f i c t i t i o u s concepts,
as M ischel (1968) su g g ests, but a w ealth of c l i n i c a l and
s o c ia l o b serv atio n make th i s a tough conclusion to swallow.
24
But even i f one concedes the e x iste n c e of f is h in the sea,
he cannot immediately be sure he has n e tte d one, or th a t
the one n e tte d i s the one sought--even i f t r a i t s abound, i f
behavior £S t r a n s - s i t u a t i o n a l l y r e l i a b l e , i t must be
dem onstrated th a t one i s measuring what one th in k s he i s .
I f one hypothesizes a s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y t r a i t , he must
show (1) th a t i t e x i s t s , and (2) th a t he can v a lid ly and
r e l i a b l y measure i t . U sually th e se two o b je c tiv e s are
undertaken sim u ltan eo u sly .
F o rtu n a te ly , s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y has been
research ed comprehensively (Edwards, 1957, 1970).
Experimental and f a c to r a n a ly tic s tu d ie s have in d ic a te d i t
a r a t h e r circum scribed t r a i t . Edwards (1970, p. 123) says,
In o th er words, we may e n te r ta in the h y pothesis th a t
in d iv id u a l d iff e r e n c e s in r a t e s of SD (s o c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y ) responding re p re s e n t a g en eral and
r e l i a b l e p e r s o n a lity t r a i t and th a t th is t r a i t is
o p e ra tiv e whenever an in d iv id u a l i s asked to
d e s c rib e h im self in terms of any given s e t of
p e r s o n a lity sta te m e n ts.
Furtherm ore, s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y seems to be r e l a t i v e l y
independent of other response te n d e n c ie s, such as s e ts or
t r a i t s o f acquiescence, and i t can be measured with many
d i f f e r e n t s c a le s .
I t seems c le a r th a t much remains to be researched
concerning d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . The hypotheses p resented in
the next ch ap ter were form ulated in the hope of f i l l i n g in
some of the p re se n t gaps i n our knowledge.
CHAPTER II
HYPOTHESES
Hypotheses about Imagery S cales
Measurement remains the major o b s ta c le to th e
adequate study of imagery. Contemporary i n v e s t i g a t o r s
s t i l l h e a v ily r e l y on the seven-point r a tin g sc a le
o r ig i n a l l y c o n stru c te d by B etts (1909), based on e a r l i e r
work by G alton (1880). This alarms the p sy ch o m etrically
o rie n te d r e s e a r c h e r .
On the other hand, the use of a b i l i t y t e s t s ,
assumed to re q u ire imaging, as in d ic e s of im aginal a t t r i
butes has been g e n e ra lly u nsuccessful because r e s u l t s on
such t e s t s do not c o r r e l a t e w ell with S s ’ own r e p o r ts of
t h e i r imagery (A ngell, 1910; F ernald, 1912; Sheehan,
1966a). This dilemma has encouraged development of
promising p h y s io lo g ic a l m easures, but th ese have y e t to
e lim in a te many measurement problems and are cumbersome for
general use (R ichardson, 1969). I t , th e r e fo r e , seems
tim ely to tr y to determ ine the value of t r a d i t i o n a l imagery
q u e s tio n n a ir e s —n e ith e r accepting s e l f - r a t i n g s on f a i t h ,
nor d isc a rd in g them on p re ju d ic e i s s c i e n t i f i c a l l y
26
d e fe n s ib le .
HYPOTHESIS I : S e l f - r a t i n g s of im aginal v iv id n ess
w i l l c o r r e la te h ig h ly and p o s i t i v e l y a c ro ss sensory
m o d a litie s , but w i l l n o t c o r r e l a t e a p p reciab ly w ith
s e l f - r a t i n g s of imagery c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y .
This hy p o th esis i s based on R ich ard so n 's (1969)
a s s e r tio n th a t viv id n ess and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y are two
primary dimensions of imagery. Furtherm ore, they are
assumed to be, for th e most p a r t , independent. I f response
bias a f f e c t s s e l f - r e p o r t s of th e se a t t r i b u t e s , they should
c o r r e l a t e p o s it i v e l y sin c e response b ia s components would
provide shared v arian ce.
HYPOTHESIS I I : S e l f - r a t i n g s o f im aginal v iv id n ess
and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y w i l l not r e f l e c t s u b s ta n tia l
response b ia sin g e f f e c t s of acquiescence or s o c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y , as measured by standard s c a le s .
I f s e l f - r e p o r t imagery s c a le s a re in v a lid a te d by
strong response b ia s e f f e c t s , measures of acquiescence and
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y might be expected to a s s o c ia te
p o s itiv e ly w ith th ese s c a le s . Such a fin d in g would c a st
doubt on much previous re se a rc h sin ce s e l f - r e p o r t imagery
sc a le s have been used r o u ti n e l y . I f , on the other hand,
response b ia s s c a le s and s e l f - r e p o r t s of imagery do not
c o r r e l a t e , im p l i c i t support would be generated fo r sub
j e c t i v e imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s . For th e sake of the
accumulated l i t e r a t u r e , one would hope t h i s to be the case.
27
HYPOTHESIS I I I ; Verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e measures w ill
not c o r r e l a t e p o s it i v e l y w ith measures of im aginal
v iv id n e ss and c o n tr o l.
Since t e s t s of v e rb a l a b i l i t y , lik e vocabulary
le v e l, are often taken as the s in g le b e s t measure of
g en eral i n t e l l i g e n c e , t h i s i s perhaps a way of saying th a t
i n t e l l i g e n c e and imagery are u n re la te d . A n e g a tiv e r e l a
tio n s h ip might be p re d ic te d on the assumption th a t imaging
i s a more p rim itiv e type of in form ation p ro cessin g than
v e rb a liz in g ( i . e . , as a person le a rn s to economize cogni
t i v e l y through use of v erb al l a b e l s , c a p a c ity to image
d im in is h e s ) .
HYPOTHESIS IV: Scores on a b i l i t y t e s t s which
r e ly on s h o rt-te rm sto ra g e of v is u a l images w i l l
c o r r e l a t e p o s it i v e l y w ith each o th e r, but w i l l not
c o r r e l a t e w ith imagery q u e s tio n n a ire sco res.
S e l f - r a t i n g imagery s c a le s do no t depend on immedi
a te memory and would not n e c e s s a r ily c o r r e l a t e w ith
measures th a t do. This h y pothesis i s grounded in another
h y p o th e sis, th a t sh o rt-te rm memory i s r e l a t i v e l y independ
ent o f longer term info rm atio n sto ra g e and r e t r i e v a l . The
e i d e t i c imagery is s u e a r t i c u l a t e s w ith th i s one.
Hypotheses about Imagery M ediation
in D e s e n s itiz a tio n
The r o le of imagery i n d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n i s no t w ell
understood. N onetheless, some c l i n i c i a n s hold stro n g
28
opinions on the m a tte r. Lazarus (1961), fo r example,
m ain tain s th a t e f f e c t i v e d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n re q u ire s the
a b i l i t y to conjure up v iv id v isu a l images which e l i c i t
em otional responses s im ila r to th o se experienced in the
r e a l s i t u a t i o n . Wolpe (1961) also b e lie v e s i t n ecessary
for v is u a liz in g to be a t l e a s t m oderately c l e a r . Wolpin
(p e rso n a l communication, 1967) has suggested th a t imagery
may be the s in g le most im portant f e a tu r e in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
And London (1964, p. 130) s t a t e s th a t imagery may f a c i l i
t a t e "a d is c r im in a tio n s e t such t h a t the p a tie n t le a rn s to
d i s t i n g u i s h between the im ag in ativ e, c o g n itiv e , a f f e c t i v e
asp e c ts o f experience and the sensory and overt muscular
a s p e c t s .u D avis, McLemore and London (1970) r e p o rt th a t
although v is u a l imagery v iv id n ess c o r r e la te d -.4 0 w ith a
b e h a v io ra l measure of p re -tre a tm e n t f e a r , improvement
c o r r e la te d n e g lig ib ly w ith v iv id n e ss of v isu a l imagery.
Their measure of v iv id n e ss i s su sp e c t, however, and S
a t t r i t i o n was high. Imagery measurement was a lso made
a f t e r tre atm e n t and p o s t - t e s t , and th e r e fo r e might have
been a ffe c te d by th ese procedures.
HYPOTHESIS V: D ecreases in avoidance behavior
a f t e r d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n are not p o s it i v e l y c o rre la te d
w ith v iv id n e ss of ta s k - r e le v a n t imagery.
This h y pothesis i s c o n tra ry to ex p ert opinion but
accords w ith the D avis, jet a l . (1970) study. Lack of
p o s it i v e a s s o c ia tio n between the two would be c o n tra ry to
29
d eco n d itio n in g theory s in c e one would expect c o u n terco n d i
tio n in g to be more e f f e c t i v e w ith le s s ambiguous conditional
s tim u li. A fin d in g of no support for p o s itiv e c o r r e l a t i o n
would a lso be out of agreement with some c o g n itiv e
r e s t r u c t u r i n g th e o r ie s , because imagery might be assumed
the prim ary r e s t r u c t u r i n g agent.
HYPOTHESIS VI: C o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of v is u a l imagery
i s not p o s it i v e l y a s so c ia te d w ith d ecreases in
avoidance behavior in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
Assuming Richardson (1969) c o r r e c t in h is assump
tio n th a t v iv id n e ss and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y are p r in c ip a l
imagery dim ensions, d a ta consonant w ith t h i s and th e l a s t
h y pothesis would suggest th a t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n i s not
dependent on e i t h e r of th e se imagery c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
HYPOTHESIS VII: Imaginal v iv id n ess i s le s s
p o s i t i v e l y (or more n e g a tiv e ly ) a s so c ia te d w ith
d ecrease s in avoidance behavior when d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
e f f e c t s must be g e n eralized to new s tim u li.
This hy p o th esis d e riv e s from the secondary p ro p o si
tio n d iscu ssed under H ypothesis I I I , th a t im aginal
v iv id n e ss and r e l ia n c e on v e rb a l info rm atio n p ro cessin g are
in v e rs e ly r e l a t e d . G e n e ra liz a tio n of treatm ent e f f e c t s
would probably be g re a te r for a v e r b a liz e r than a
v is u a liz e r s in c e words a re a b s tr a c t and c a te g o r ic a l whereas
images a re more r e s t r i c t e d to t h e i r o r ig in a l s tim u li.
Consequently, those Ss w ith viv id v is u a l imagery would be
30
r e l a t i v e l y d e f i c i e n t in g e n e r a liz a tio n m ediators ( i . e . ,
v e r b a l i z a t i o n s ) . This would a tte n u a te any p o s it i v e c o r r e
l a t i o n between v is u a l imagery v iv id n e ss and treatm ent
e f f e c t s and would in c re a se a n e g a tiv e r e l a t io n s h i p .
HYPOTHESIS V III: Verbal a b i l i t y i s p o s it i v e l y
r e l a t e d to g e n e r a liz a tio n of tre a tm e n t e f f e c t s .
The reasoning behind th i s h y p o th esis follow s th a t
given above. Verbal a b i l i t y , i f taken as an index of
v e rb a l m ediation, ought to p r e d ic t g e n e r a liz a tio n .
R e la tio n sh ip s between imagery v a r ia b le s and t r e a t
ment e f f e c t s n o t only bear on t h e o r e t i c a l is s u e s , but a lso
p re se n t p o t e n t i a l for m eaningful c l i n i c a l p r e d ic tio n . I t
may prove p o s s ib le to a c c u ra te ly f o r e c a s t how w ell an
in d iv id u a l w i l l respond to d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n by measuring h is
imagery.
H ypothesis about S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y
and D e se n sitiz a tio n
HYPOTHESIS IX: S o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y s c a le sco res
are p o s it i v e l y a s so c ia te d w ith p re -tre a tm e n t
performance and w ith d ecre a se s in avoidance behavior
in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ( p re -tre a tm e n t performance
c o n t r o l l e d ) .
D esire of the p a t i e n t fo r s o c ia l approbation may
fe a tu re s i g n i f i c a n t l y in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Such a fin d in g
would have im portant t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l im p lic a tio n s.
Perhaps d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n i s p rim a rily a mode of p ersu a sio n ,
31
a way of convincing the p a tie n t to behave d i f f e r e n t l y . I f
so, th e ra p e u tic impact might be in creased by c a p i t a l i z i n g
on p ersu asiv e techniques which ta p i n t o s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y
m o tiv atio n .
CHAPTER III
PSYCHOMETRIC STUDIES OF IMAGERY
Method: Study I
SUBJECTS—Three undergraduate c la s s e s of psychology
s tu d e n ts , t o t a l i n g seventy fem ales, served as Ss.
A ttendance was n e a rly p e r fe c t in a l l th re e c la s s e s .
MEASURES--The fiv e item s from each of th e v is u a l, p r o p rio
c e p tiv e , and k in e s t h e t i c p a r ts of Sheehan's (1967) a t t e n u
ated v e rsio n of B e t t s ' Q u estio n n a ire Upon Mental Imagery
(1909) were ad m in istered , as w ell as fiv e a d d itio n a l v isu a l
item s dev ised by the w r ite r which were appended to the
o th er v is u a l item s. This yielded a s u b je c tiv e v iv id n e ss of
imagery sco re for v is u a l (SVI-V), p ro p rio c e p tiv e (SVI-P),
and k i n e s t h e t i c (SVI-K) imagery. Gordon's (1949) C ontrol
of V isual Imagery Q uestionnaire (ICQ) was a lso adm inistered,
as w ell as a verbal comprehension t e s t (VCT) composed o f
th e tw e n ty -fiv e most d i f f i c u l t item s from th e Shipley
I n s t i t u t e of Living Vocabulary S cale (1939) and the Verbal
Comprehension Test o f the Employee A ptitude Survey (1963).
A memory for ambiguous fig u re s t e s t (AMT) designed for th is
study was a ls o used. Subjects viewed a composite
32
33
arrangement of nine ink b lo ts fo r f i f t e e n seconds, and then
t r i e d to r e c o n s tr u c t t h i s composite by using a lo c a tio n
c h art w ith chromatic re p ro d u c tio n s. They were in s tr u c te d
to f i l l in the a p p ro p ria te Roman numerals in a th re e -b y -
th ree m atrix answer sh e e t drawn to s c a le from the composite.
The response b ia s s c a le (RBS) of the MMPI was adm in istered ,
as w ell as Form A of th e Employee A ptitude Survey Space
V is u a liz a tio n Test (SVT).
PROCEDURE—A d m in istratio n of s c a le s was accomplished during
r e g u la rly scheduled c la s s p e rio d s and re q u ire d about f i f t y -
f iv e m inutes per c l a s s . Measures were given in the order
l i s t e d above. A ll but SVT were d i s t r i b u t e d in a b o o k let;
SVT was adm inistered a f t e r c o l l e c t i o n of b o o k le ts. The
follow ing statem en ts appeared on the f ro n t of each b o o k let,
as w ell as a booklet number which Ss l a t e r recorded on SVT
forms.
This study i s being conducted to in v e s tig a te the
i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among s e v e ra l q u e s tio n n a ire s and
t e s t s . I t i s not p o s s ib le to say anything f u r th e r
about th e study a t th is time because th a t could
conceivably in flu e n c e th e r e s u l t s . However, when
the re se a rc h i s completed, i t w i l l be d iscussed w ith
you in more d e t a i l .
W rite th e i n i t i a l s o f your f i r s t and l a s t names
in the space provided below.
NOTE: I t i s very im portant to t h i s study th a t
you do not see th e q u e s tio n n a ire s and t e s t s b e fo re
they a re ad m in istered . This i s because "preview s"
could (and p robably would) b ia s the r e s u l t s . There
f o re , p le a s e tr y to be extrem ely c a r e f u l in handling
the b ooklet and in follow ing the d i r e c t io n s .
None of the measures were tim e -lim ite d , except SVT and VCT,
both of which were timed a t f iv e m inutes. A ll Ss did each
34
task to g e th e r. I f a S f in is h e d a p a r t i c u l a r s c a le b efo re
the oth er Ss, she w aited q u i e t l y u n t i l they were done or
u n t i l the time lim i t was up.
Method: Study II
SUBJECTS—S ev en ty -six Ss completed th e s c a le s fo r t h i s
study as p a r t o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the re search
re p o rte d in the n ex t c h a p te r. A ll were female v o lu n te e rs,
claim ing to be snake phobic, and were r e c r u ite d from the
stu d e n t body of a women's c o lle g e v ia campus newspaper
ad v ertisem en t, classroom s o l i c i t a t i o n , and ad hoc i n v i t a
tio n .
MEASURES—As in the l a s t stu d y , SVI-V, SVI-P, SVI-K, and
ICQ were used. The VCT and RBS were each shortened to
twenty-one item s and, in s te a d of a l l Ss tak in g Form A of
SVT, they were randomly assigned e i t h e r Form A or B. These
forms are in te rc h a n g e a b le (Ruch and Ruch, 1963). Edward's
(1957) S o cial D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (SDS) was a lso adm inis
te r e d , as w ell as th e t a c t i l e item s (SVI-T) of Sheehan's
(1967a) t e s t . Rather than using ink b l o t s as in AMT,
p i c t u r e s of common o b je c ts were employed fo r a lo c a tio n
memory t e s t (LMT). Twenty p i c t u r e s , cut out from maga
z in e s , were mounted on a t h i r t y - b y - f o r t y - i n c h p o ster board
in a fo u r-b y -fiv e a rra y . A ll were about the same s iz e ,
f i f t e e n to twenty square in c h e s. C r i t e r i a fo r s e le c tio n o f
o b je c ts were: (1) th ey appeared easy to name, (2) they
35
were c h ro m a tic a lly a c c u ra te , and (3) they were not over
lapped by oth er o b je c ts . R ep re se n ta tiv e of o b je c ts used
were c a r , v i o l i n , j e t , sewing machine, and s u itc a s e .
S u b je c ts were given a l i s t of the twenty o b je c ts in random
order and were i n s t r u c t e d to f a m ilia r iz e themselves w ith i t
to e lim in a te any sy ste m a tic b ia s which might have r e s u lte d
from d i f f e r e n t i a l naming f a c i l i t y among Ss. The composite
was shown for t h i r t y seconds, b e fo re which Ss, as in Study
I , were asked to c o n c e n tra te as b e s t they could on the
s ti m u l i . S u b jects attem pted to reproduce the composite by
w r itin g in th e number o f the o b je c t which appeared in each
of th e twenty p o s itio n s of the composite p i c t u r e in the
same p o s itio n in a fo u r-b y -fiv e m atrix provided fo r the
purpose. The numbers were p aire d w ith o b je c ts which were
l i s t e d in a d i f f e r e n t random order from th a t of the fa m il
i a r i z a t i o n l i s t . As in the p rev io u s study, guessing was
encouraged s in c e only r i g h t answers were counted.
PROCEDURE—A d m in istra tio n of s c a le s re p re se n te d the second
p a r t i c i p a t i o n s e ss io n of th e d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n re s e a rc h , and
was accomplished in groups of four to f i f t e e n . Procedures,
in clu d in g p re lim in a ry i n s t r u c t i o n s , were e s s e n t i a l l y th e
same as fo r Study I , except th a t Ss wrote in an answer
b o o k let r a t h e r than on the q u e s tio n n a ire s h e e ts . They also
w rote t h e i r f u l l names r a t h e r than i n i t i a l s .
36
R esu lts
Table 1 co n ta in s the product-moment c o r r e la tio n
c o e f f i c i e n t s from both s tu d ie s . In sp e c tio n of these
c o e f f i c i e n t s in d ic a te s the fo llo w in g r e s u l t s .
Scores for SVI acro ss d i f f e r e n t sensory m o d a litie s
i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d p o s it i v e l y , w ith c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from
.37 to .79. This r e f l e c t s a range of estim ated shared
v arian ce from .14 to .62. A veraging, based on F ish er £
tra n sfo rm a tio n s , yield ed a mean i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f fic ie n t
of .54, re p re s e n tin g a shared v a ria n c e e stim a te of .29. In
other words, on the average, p a ir s of SVI s u b te s ts shared
about 30 p e rc e n t common v a ria n c e . Some s t a t i s t i c a l l i b e r t y
i s taken in perform ing such av erag in g , b u t the procedure
does serve as a rough in d i c a t o r .
S u b jectiv e v iv id n ess of imagery s c a le sco res
c o r re la te d p o s it i v e l y w ith ICQ, w ith c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging
from .06 to .53. None of the seven in d ic e s were n e g a tiv e
and the F ish e r z based mean c o e f f i c i e n t was .34. C o rre la
tio n s between SVI s u b te s ts and ICQ were n o tab ly higher for
Study I I , a l l four being in th e .40s and .50s. Averaging
the c o e f f i c i e n t s from both s tu d ie s for each SVI m odality
shows th a t SVI-V c o r re la te d l e s s p o s i t i v e l y w ith ICQ than
did SVI-P, SVI-K, or SVI-T. The same tre n d i s noted when
comparing c o r r e la tio n s from each study s e p a r a t e l y — SVI-V
c o r r e l a t e s l e a s t w ell with ICQ.
TABLE 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM STUDIES I AND II*
SVI-P SVI-K SVI-T ICQ VCT AMT LMT RBS SDS SVT
SVI-V (I)* * 79 43 06 -01 18 04 -04
SVI-V ( I I ) 39 44 44 47 17 -12 -04 08 -15
SVI-P ( I ) 62 20 -03 07 -01 -18
SVI-P ( I I ) 41 37 46 12 -01 16 24 -11
SVI-K ( I ) 21 06 04 18 -13
SVI-K ( I I ) 74 53 09 -16 -10 30 -02
SVI-T ( I I ) 41 10 -16 00 38 -17
ICQ ( I ) -14 -26 -12 -02
ICQ ( I I ) 26 06 -07 44 -07
VCT ( I ) 19 -10 14
VCT ( I I ) 19 -05 08 -04
AMT ( I ) -17 31
LMT ( I I ) 08 05 08
O J
-^ 1
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
SDS SVT RBS AM T LMT ICQ VCT SVI-T SVI-P SVI-K
-09
RBS ( I )
-10
RBS ( I I )
-27
07
SDS ( I I )
* Decimal p o in ts omitted
** Numerals I and I I r e f e r to Study I or II
G J
00
39
In sp e c tio n of th e Pearson £ c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t i n g
VCT to SVI s u b te s ts and to ICQ re v e a ls th a t c o r r e la tio n s
were n e g l i g i b l e . R esu lts on the t e s t of v e rb a l a c q u is itio n
did not a s s o c ia te , p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a tiv e ly , with r e s u l t s
on the s u b je c tiv e imagery q u e s tio n n a ir e s .
The same is tr u e of RBS. C o r r e la tio n s between the
s u b je c tiv e imagery s c a le s and the acquiescence measure were
n e g lig ib le . Such was not th e case fo r SDS from Study I I .
S o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y sc o re s c o r r e la te d p o s itiv e ly w ith a l l
imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s . C o rre la tio n c o e f f ic ie n ts ra n from
a low o f .08 to a high of .44, the m id-range c o e f f ic ie n ts
being .24, .30, and .3 8 . The overlapping v a ria n c e fo r the
l a r g e s t of th e se fiv e c o e f f i c i e n t s , however, is estim ated
a t only 19 p e rc e n t. Keying d i r e c t io n s for th e response s e t
s c a le s probably account fo r the - .2 7 c o r r e la tio n between
RBS and SDS ( i . e . , a l l scored RBS item s are tru e , w hile
most scored SDS items a re f a l s e ) .
C o rre la tio n s between what th e w r ite r has d esig n a te d
sh o rt-te rm memory t e s t s (AMT, LMT, and SVT) and th e imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire s were a l l sm all. S ev eral s p e c if ic fin d in g s
are worth mention. T h irte e n of th e fo u rte e n c o e f f i c i e n t s
r e l a t i n g LMT or SVT to the s u b je c tiv e imagery s c a le s were
n e g a tiv e . But LMT and SVT c o r r e la te d only .08; AMT and SVT
c o r re la te d .31. The c o e f f i c i e n t of -.2 6 between AMT and
ICQ i s a lso of i n t e r e s t . Both AMT and LMT c o r r e la te d .19
w ith VCT.
40
Since both s tu d ie s employed a small number of
t e s t s , many of which were f a c t o r i a l l y ambiguous to begin
w ith , r e s u l t s of f a c to r analyzing th e se d ata must be con
sidered highly t e n t a t i v e . The dubious n a tu re of the f a c to r
analyses i s f u r th e r h ig h lig h te d by only moderate c o rre s
pondence between r e s u l t s of th e two s tu d ie s . Tables 2 and
3 p re se n t r o ta te d f a c to r m a tric e s and cum ulative propor
tio n s of v arian ce for S tu d ies I and I I , r e s p e c tiv e ly .
P r in c ip a l component analyses were performed u sin g squared
m u ltip le c o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s for communality estim ates,
as recommended by Harman (1967). Four f a c to rs were
o rth o g o n a lly r o ta te d according to verimax c r i t e r i a for each
study.
Table 4 co n ta in s the rem aining im portant d a ta ,
means and standard d e v ia tio n s o f measures used in both
s tu d ie s . C e n tra l tendency and d is p e rs io n r e s u l t s were very
s im ila r acro ss th e two where comparable, except for SVT.
S u b jects in Study II scored h ig h er and showed l e s s v a r i a
b i l i t y than Ss in Study I .
41
TABLE 2
ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR
MATRIX: STUDY I*
Study I
Measures 1
F actor
2 3 4
SVI-V 84 02 -04 08
SVI-P
90 -07 02 -17
SVI-K 58 07 30 -31
ICQ 12 -21 -13 -46
VCT
00 36 00 03
AM T 16 51 -15 24
RBS 03 -14 43 08
SVT -11 41 -19 06
Cumulative
P ro p o rtio n of
T o tal Variance 25 35 39 41
* Decimal p o in ts om itted
42
TABLE 3
ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR
MATRIX: STUDY II*
Study I I
Measures 1
Factor
2 3 4
SVI-V 37 -13 -23 50
SVI-P 49 -24 07 30
SVI-K 75 04 -29 22
SVI-T 77 -05 -29 13
ICQ 57 08 14 50
VCT 09 03 19 34
SDS 51 39 19 07
RBS -03 -50 09 -07
LMT -08 00 42 08
SVT -06 24 13 -12
Cumulative
P ro p o rtio n of
T o tal Variance 27 33 38 40
* Decimal p o in ts omitted
43
TABLE 4
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS:
STUDIES I AND I I
Study I Study II
Scale Mean SD Scale Mean SD
SVI-V 58.70 8.62 SVI-V 59.21
5.50
SVI-P 28.37 4.71 SVI-P 29.01 3.59
SVI-K 28.24 3.91 SVI-K 27.62 4.45
SVI-T 27.29 4.98
ICQ 9.24 2.89 ICQ 9.05 2.19
VCT 12.03 4.01 VCT 11.07 3.13
RBS* 29.01 5.71 RBS 10.57 2.49
SVT 21.87 9.07 SVT 27.75 5.81
AMT 4.04 1.70 LMT 12.66 3.86
SDS 27.75 5.81
* RBS sco res fo r the two s tu d ie s a re not comparable, sin ce
the s c a le was s i g n i f i c a n t l y shortened fo r Study I I .
CHAPTER IV
DESENSITIZATION MEDIATION
Method
SUBJECTS— Subjects were r e c r u i t e d as d escrib ed fo r Study II
in the l a s t c h a p te r. S ev en ty -six Ss d id the p r e t e s t s , but
only s i x t y - f i v e completed th e b eh av io ra l p o s t t e s t ; s ix ty
went on to complete th e second a d m in is tra tio n o f the paper
and p e n c il b a t t e r y , a f t e r the p o s t t e s t . Eleven treatm ent
and th re e n o -tre a tm e n t c o n tro l Ss comprised Group I
(In d ig o -In d ig o ). One treatm ent S was dropped fo r i n s u f f i
c ie n t phobic behavior a f t e r the second se ss io n , a d m in istra
tio n of the paper and p e n c il b a t t e r y . F ifte e n treatm ent
and four n o -treatm en t Ss made up Group I I (In d ig o -K in g ).
None were d i s q u a l i f i e d . T h irty -fo u r treatm ent and nine
c o n tro l Ss were in Group I I I (King-K ing). Ten Ss, nine
tre atm e n t and one c o n tr o l, were l o s t from the group,
through d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n or f a i l u r e to complete the
re se a rc h se ssio n s b e fo re th e end of th e academic year.
Within groups, Ss were assigned to tre atm e n t or no
treatm en t co n d itio n s a t random.
44
45
OVERVIEW OF DESIGN—Demise of the Indigo snake n e c e s s ita te d
form ation of Group I I I , but only two c o n d itio n s were of
prim ary i n t e r e s t , one in which the p r e t e s t and p o s tt e s t
phobic s tim u li were i d e n t i c a l (no-sw itch c o n d itio n ) and one
in which p r e t e s t and p o s t t e s t s tim u li were d i f f e r e n t
(sw itch c o n d itio n ). Treatment and c o n tro l Ss took:
P re lim in a ry s c a le s to measure a t t i t u d e s towards snakes and
p r o c l i v i t y fo r fe a r a ro u sa l; two b e h a v io ra l p r e t e s t s
in c lu d in g s e l f - r a t i n g s of ongoing a n x ie ty se p a ra te d by
re c e p tio n of c e r t a i n fa c tu a l in form ation reg a rd in g snakes;
a b a t t e r y of r e le v a n t paper and p e n c il s c a le s (Study I I ,
Chapter I I I ) ; b e h a v io ra l p o s t t e s t and r a t in g s of ongoing
a n x ie ty ; the second a d m in istra tio n of the fe a r a ro u sa l and
a t t i t u d e s c a le s ; and the second a d m in istra tio n of the t e s t
b a t t e r y . Treatment Ss received two se ssio n s of d e s e n s i t i
z a tio n between th e f i r s t a d m in istra tio n o f the paper and
p e n c il b a t t e r y and the p o s t t e s t , w hile c o n tro l Ss did n o t.
PROCEDURE—Treatment Ss p a r t ic ip a te d in a l l s ix s e s s io n s ,
but c o n tro l Ss om itted the th ird and fo u rth s e ss io n s.
A c t i v i t i e s fo r each o f the s ix se ssio n s were as fo llo w s:
S ession # 1 . S u b jects came to the ex p erim e n te r’s
o f f ic e and were adm inistered an a t t i t u d e s toward snakes
q u e s tio n n a ire (ATS) and a fe a r survey schedule (FSS).
A ttitu d e s were co n ceptualized as e v a lu a tiv e responses
(Bandura, R i t t e r and Blanchard, 1969) and were measured by
having Ss r a t e , on a seven-point s c a le ranging from stro n g
46
d i s l i k e to stro n g enjoyment, f iv e item s such as handling
snakes and encountering a snake while walking. The FSS
c o n siste d of seventeen item s, in response to each of which
Ss in d ic a te d th e degree of f e a r i t aroused in them.
Examples of item s were f i r e , i n s e c ts , and snakes. R atings
were made on a f iv e - p o in t s c a l e , from no f e a r a t a l l to
very much f e a r . The FSS was geared towards asse ssin g
proneness to fe a r and concom ittant changes in other areas
of a n x ie ty than the one t r e a t e d . B andura's ( e t a l . , 1969,
p. 178) p o s itio n i s endorsed:
I t should be noted in p assin g t h a t a t t i t u d e s ,
defined as e v a lu a tiv e resp o n ses, are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
from fe a r a ro u s a l. These two s e t s of measures are
d is tin g u is h e d on th e grounds th a t people can be
a t t r a c t e d to th in g s they f e a r , as evident in
approach-avoidance c o n f l i c t s ; c o n v e rse ly , i t i s not
uncommon fo r people to d i s l i k e th in g s they do not
f e a r .
A fter completing ATS and FSS, Ss were taken to a
nearby conference room and received by a re se a rc h a s s i s t a n t
(RA). The room was k ep t i d e n t i c a l as much as p o s s ib le from
te s t i n g to t e s t i n g , both in terms o f o b ject placement and
l i g h t i n g . The RA wore a w hite la b o ra to ry c o at for a l l
t e s t i n g s , and Ss wore a lig h tw e ig h t, ja c k e t s ty l e smock to
in su re th a t they would not be s o ile d by the snake and a lso
to prevent i t from craw ling in s id e c lo th in g . I t a lso
c o n trib u te d to t e s t s ta n d a rd iz a tio n .
A g la s s te rra riu m c o n tain in g the snake was on the
flo o r a t the f a r end of the room. T his was covered by a
47
la rg e f a b r i c so th a t th e snake was no t v i s i b l e w hile RA was
reading p re lim in a ry i n s t r u c t i o n s . S u b jects were asked to
s i t in a chair fo u rte e n fe e t from the te rra riu m as RA read
th ese s ta te m e n ts:
I am going to ask you to do a number of d i f f e r
ent th in g s. Do n o t do anything you do no t want to
do. Do only what i s com fortable fo r you.
Before you do each ta s k , I want you to in d ic a te
how a f ra id you are to do i t . Do t h i s by r a t in g your
fe a r on a s c a le from one to seven. One stands for
no fe a r w hatsoever, and seven sta n d s fo r extreme
f e a r . I f you were only m oderately a f r a i d you would
say a number between one and seven, maybe th re e ,
fo u r or f i v e , depending on your le v e l of f e a r .
A fter you complete each ta s k , I w i l l again ask
you to give me a r a tin g , t h i s time how a f r a i d you
were w hile you were doing the ta s k . P le a se give me
a number from one to seven fo r t h i s a ls o .
Do you have any q u e stio n s? ( I f yes, RA read the
re le v a n t sta te m e n ts again, avoiding excess inform al
t a l k i n g . )
The RA then removed th e covering from the te rra riu m and
proceeded with phobia t e s t i n g .
There were eleven s e l f - r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty , f i t t e d
to the follow ing b ehavioral ta s k s . I f a S was term inated
b e fo re g e ttin g to one or more r a t i n g s , she was given a
score o f seven fo r those r a t i n g s . Tasks were broken down
in to f iv e s e c tio n s , and Ss were advanced to th e next task
only i f they s u c c e s s fu lly completed the ta sk they were
doing. The f i r s t s e c tio n c o n siste d of the S approaching
the cage as c lo s e ly as she could, and then being
encouraged to go f u r th e r i f p o s s ib le . I f she went up to
th e cage she was s ta r t e d on ta s k two, which began with
s li d i n g the screen top o ff th e te rra riu m . She then
48
touched the snake and withdrew her hand. Task th re e
c o n siste d of th e S l i f t i n g p a r t of the snake in the cage
but not taking i t o ut. I f she did t h i s , she was asked to
remove the snake from the cage and immediately r e tu r n i t
for task four. Task f iv e involved removing the snake and
holding i t as long as p o s s ib le , up to a maximum of two
m inutes. A ll i n s t r u c t i o n s were s t r i c t l y sta n d a rd iz e d , as
were RA’s re q u e sts fo r a n x ie ty r a tin g s . A fte r the S had
l e f t the t e s t i n g room, the RA rated S’s c o o p erativ en ess and
an x iety on a s c a le from one to seven.
A fter th e f i r s t p r e t e s t , the S went back to the E’s
o f f ic e and read the fo llow ing inform ation or a s l i g h t
m o d ificatio n of i t to f i t a King snake, i f she was in Group
I I I .
The snake being used in th i s re se a rc h is a
F lo rid a Indigo snake. I t is about f iv e fe e t long,
and has been handled f re q u e n tly . Indigo snakes are
e s p e c ia lly f r i e n d l y and a re not a t a l l prone to
b i t i n g . They become tame almost a t once upon cap
tu r e . The snake, of c o u rse, is not poisonous.
You should a ls o know th a t snakes a re r a th e r dry
not slim y, th a t they f e e l cool to th e touch because
they take on the tem p eratu re of t h e i r surroundings,
and th a t they o fte n f l i c k out t h e i r tongues which
h elp s them sense t h e i r environment. A snake’s
tongue cannot harm you, and co ntrary to popular
b e l i e f , does no t s t i n g . I t is j u s t a tongue. A lso,
Indigo snakes are r e l a t i v e l y a c tiv e , and u su a lly
keep on th e move w hile being held.
The S then r e tu rn e d to the conference room fo r the second
p r e t e s t , which was th e same as the f i r s t except t h a t the
p relim in ary i n s t r u c t i o n s were d e le te d . As much as p o s s i
b le , th e i n t e r v a l between P r e te s t #1 and P r e te s t #2 was
49
k ep t to around ten m inutes. A fter the second p r e t e s t , the
S was given her next appointment time and exhorted not to
d is c u s s the re se a rc h w ith anyone.
S essio n # 2 . This re se a rc h phase has a lre a d y been
d e s c rib e d in th e previous c h a p te r, and c o n s is te d of the
a d m in is tra tio n of a b a t t e r y of s e l f - r a t i n g s of imagery,
vario u s a b i l i t y t e s t s , and measures of acquiescence and
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y .
Sessions #3 and # 4 . These s e ss io n s involved Ss
l i s t e n i n g to a th irty - m in u te d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ta p e , espe
c i a l l y made fo r th i s study by a p r a c t i c i n g p sy ch o lo g ist who
was tra in e d by Wolpin. Of any d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n technique
a v a i l a b l e , Wolpin’s seems to make the p u re s t use of imagery,
as d iscu ssed i n Chapter I . On th e ta p e , th e t h e r a p i s t
i n s t r u c t e d Ss to imagine them selves perform ing many d i f
f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s w ith a snake, from walking up to i t to
allow ing i t to crawl over her arms and body. S ubjects were
encouraged by the t h e r a p i s t to "se e the snake" w ith th e ir
im agination and to " f e e l and experience" what was being
imaged. Hence, the th erap y was n o t r e s t r i c t e d to v isu a l
imagery, but a ls o provided encouragement fo r somatic
imagery. The tape was played in th e same room each time,
as Ss s a t around a la rg e square t a b l e . During th e therapy,
th e room was k e p t dimly l i t to f a c i l i t a t e imagery and avoid
i n te r f e r e n c e from b r ig h t l i g h t . S u b je c ts were in s tr u c te d
to c lo se th e ir eyes w hile imaging, but to keep t h e i r heads
o f f th e ta b le to p revent in a d v e rte n t drowsing.
Session # 5 . This se ssio n was a b e h a v io ra l p o s tt e s t
id e n t i c a l to the f i r s t p r e t e s t , and a second a d m in istra tio n
of ATS and FSS. S u b jects were a lso asked to w r ite down
th e i r n o tio n s of what the re se a rc h was intended to do, and,
i f they were in the treatm ent c o n d itio n , what value they
judged the tape to have been to them in helping a l l e v i a t e
the phobia. At t h i s time, other d a ta were g athered such as
S 's age, n a tio n a l background, and any previous experience
w ith d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
Session # 6 . Tasks of the second se ssio n were
re p e a te d . S u b jects who had taken Form A of SVT, however,
were given Form B, and v ice v e r s a . An a d d itio n a l s c a le was
a lso given, an imagery m odality q u e s tio n n a ire (IMQ). This
c o n siste d of f i f t e e n item s, th re e l i k e l y to evoke imagery
fo r each of f iv e sensory m o d a litie s : s ig h t , sound, touch,
t a s t e and sm ell, and movement. Examples were rainbow,
sn o rin g , sand, bacon and eggs, and s k a tin g . Subjects were
asked to r a t e t h e i r prim ary, secondary, and t e r t i a r y
imagery, or however many of the th re e e x is te d , fo r each of
the f i f t e e n item s. The procedure was a m o d ific a tio n of
L e ib o v itz 1 (1968) tech n iq u e, and was p re v io u sly used by
Davis, McLemore and London (1970). I t is designed to
measure the r e l a t i v e dominance of imagery sense m o d a litie s .
R e su lts
51
Equivalence o f S u b jects on I n i t i a l P r e t e s t . To
determ ine the j u s t i f i a b i l i t y of comparing r e s u l t s of t r e a t
ment and n o -treatm en t Ss, Mann-Whitney comparisons,
co rrected fo r t i e s , were made. None of the th re e groups
showed a s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e between treatm ent and
c o n tro l Ss on P r e te s t #1. The £ fo r Group I was 0.59, fo r
Group I I , 1.33, and f o r Group I I I , 1.53. For the three
groups to g e th e r, comparing tre a tm e n t and no -treatm en t Ss on
P r e te s t #1 y ielded a £ of 1 .5 7 , a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t .
T herefore, i t can be assumed th a t tre atm e n t and c o n tro l Ss
demonstrated comparable avoidance behavior at th e o u tse t of
the study. The rank scores used in th ese c a lc u la tio n s can
be found in the Appendix.
I n i t i a l C om parability of Groups I and I I I .
Although th e measurement d esig n was the same fo r Groups I
and I I (using the same phobic stim u lu s fo r the p r e t e s t s and
the p o s t t e s t ) , an Indigo snake was used fo r Group I , and a
King snake for Group I I I . Consequently, b efo re pooling
c o r r e la tio n a l r e s u l t s for th e two groups, i t was d e s ir a b le
to a s s e s s t h e i r c o m p a ra b ility on P r e t e s t #1. Using both
treatm ent and n o -treatm en t Ss, a Mann-Whitney t e s t for
independence of the two samples, c o rre c te d fo r t i e s ,
yielded a £ of 0.9 9 , c l e a r l y not s i g n i f i c a n t . A le s s
s o p h is tic a te d , but more i n t u i t i v e l y meaningful way of
52
viewing these d a ta i s provided by in sp e c tin g t h e mean rank
of P r e t e s t #1 fo r each group. Mean rank for Group I was
20.4, and for Group I I I , 24.7 . These fin d in g s imply th at
Groups I and I I I were e q u iv a le n t b e fo re tre a tm e n t, and th a t
the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for th ese two groups may be
a p p ro p ria te ly weighted and averaged.*
P re -tre a tm e n t equivalence on imagery s c a l e s . I t
was d e s ire d to compare p re -tre a tm e n t imagery sc o re s o f
tre a tm e n t Ss i n Groups I and I I I w ith th o se of treatm en t Ss
in Group I I . For SVI-V, th e p r e -tre a tm e n t mean for t r e a t
ment Ss from Groups I and I I I combined was 58.94 and the
comparable mean for Group II treatm en t Ss was 58.07
(t^ = 0 .4 9 , d f = 48, n.s^.). For SVI-T, th e mean for Groups
I and I I I Ss was 27.06, and the mean fo r Group I I Ss was
27.47 (t^ = 0 .2 5 , df = 48, n . £ . ) . For SVI-K, t h e mean for
Groups I and I I I Ss was 27.14 and the mean fo r Group I I Ss
was 27.87 ( t = 0 .5 5 , d f = 48, n . s . ). For SVI-P, the Groups
I and I I I Ss* mean was 28.06 and the Group II Ss* mean was
29.80 (t^ = 1 .4 6 , d f = 48, n . £ . ). F in a lly , fo r ICQ, the
Groups I and I I I Ss* mean was 8.69 and th e Group II Ss*
*A r e l a t e d problem deserves mention. Even though
Ss were assig n ed to tre atm e n t or n o -treatm en t c o n d itio n s a t
random, circum stances d ic t a t e d th a t th e order o f running
Groups I , I I , and I I I be fix ed in th a t sequence. P ro g res
s iv e e r r o r may have r e s u l t e d . However, since f in d in g s from
Groups I and I I I were combined, whatever l i n e a r p ro g re ssiv e
e r r o r e x iste d was no doubt reduced by what amounted to a
crude c o u n terb alan cin g procedure.
53
mean was 9.53 ( t = 1.22, d f = 48, n._s.). I t appears th a t
treatm ent Ss in Groups I and I I I did not d i f f e r from Ss in
Group I I on p re -tre a tm e n t imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s .
E fficacy o f Treatment in Reducing Avoidance
B ehavior. The most im portant p re lim in a ry r e s u l t i n th is
study concerned whether or not d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n was e f f e c
tiv e ( i . e . , did th e therapy work)? Using the P o s tte s t
minus P r e te s t #2, change in approach behavior rank as th e
main index of improvement, t^-tests were computed between
treatm ent and n o -tre a tm e n t Ss fo r each group. For Group I ,
the mean change in rank fo r the ten tre atm e n t Ss was 1.85,
and fo r the th re e n o -tre a tm e n t Ss, -3.33 (t^ = 1.12,
d f = 11, £ < .30, n . £ . ). For Group I I , the mean rank
change for the f i f t e e n treatm ent Ss was 0 .8 7 , and fo r th e
four no -treatm en t Ss, -10.75 (£ = 2 .2 6 , d f = 17, £ < .0 5 ).
For Group I I I , the mean fo r the tw e n ty -fiv e tre atm e n t Ss
was 4.6 0 , and for the e ig h t n o -tre a tm e n t Ss, -11.63
(£ = 2.65, d f = 31, £ < .0 5 ). For Groups I , I I , and I I I
combined, th e tre atm e n t S s 1 mean rank change was 2.9 3 ,
w hile the n o -tre a tm e n t Ss * mean change was -9.73 (t^ = 3.55,
df = 63, £ < .001). Ranks used in th ese c a lc u la tio n s
appear in the Appendix. W ithin group rankings a re a lso
p resented i n the Appendix. The above J ;- te s ts , when com
puted using w ith in group ran k s, y ie ld e s s e n t i a l l y th e same
r e s u l t s , w ith only s l i g h t l y m odified ^ - r a t i o s .
54
I t should be noted t h a t , from th e se r e s u l t s alone,
i t i s im possible to t e l l whether treatm en t Ss improved,
c o n tro l Ss got worse, or both. S c ru tin y of n o -tre a tm e n t
S s ’ b e h av io ral t e s t record forms c l e a r l y in d ic a te d th a t
tre atm e n t Ss* improvement accounted fo r the t_-test r e s u l t s ;
c o n tro l Ss n e ith e r improved nor worsened. The ip s a tiv e
n a tu re o f the rank sc o re s, not in c r e a s e s in avoidance,
r e s u lte d in n eg ativ e q u a n t i t i e s for th e c o n tro l subgroup
means. I t appears reasonable to conclude th a t d e s e n s itiz a
tio n reduced avoidance behavior.
E ffect of therapy on a t t i t u d e s toward snakes (ATS).
For Group I , the mean p o s t-tre a tm e n t minus p re -tre a tm e n t
change on the ATS s c a le for treatm en t Ss was 3.90. The
comparable value fo r n o -tre a tm e n t Ss was 2.67 (£ = 0 .3 7 ,
d f = 11, n . £ . ) . For Group I I , tre a tm e n t S s’ ATS mean
change was 1.73 and n o -tre a tm e n t Ss* change was 1.00
(£ = 0 .3 3 , d f = 17, £ . £ . ) . The Group I I I treatm ent S mean
was 3-00 and th e no-treatm en t S mean was -1.25 ( t = 2.84,
d f = 31, £ < .0 1 ). For the th r e e groups combined, th e
tre atm e n t £ mean was 2.80 and the c o n tr o l S mean was 0.13
(£ = 2 .2 0 , d f = 63, £ < .0 5 ). Therapy appears to have
induced in c re a se s in p o s itiv e p a p e r-a n d -p e n c il ev alu a tiv e
responses ( a t t i t u d e s ) toward snakes, a t l e a s t for Group
I I I .
55
Changes in fe a r survey schedule (FSS) s c o r e s . For
Group I , c o n tra ry to e x p e c ta tio n s, c o n tro l Ss showed
g re a te r red u c tio n in FSS scores than did treatm en t j5s. The
treatm ent S mean change was -1.10 and the n o -tre a tm e n t S
mean change was -10.00 (t^ = 3.50, dLf = 11, £ < .0 1 ). For
Group I I , the mean FSS change for tre a tm e n t Ss was -3 .4 7 ,
and fo r n o -tre a tm e n t S s, 1.75 = 1.0 3 , d f = 17, n . £ . ) .
For Group I I I , th e tre atm e n t £ mean was -2 .7 2 , and the
n o -treatm en t S mean was 0.63 = 1 .4 1 , d f = 31, n . £ . ) .
With a l l groups combined, the treatm ent S mean change was
-2.62 and the n o -tre a tm e n t S mean change was -1.20
(t^ = 0 .7 2 , d f = 63, n . £ . ). I t cannot be concluded th a t th e
treatm ent r e s u l t e d i n a g eneralized dim inution of rep o rted
f e a r s ; d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n to snakes did not appear to d ecrease
g eneral " s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to fe a r a ro u sa l" (Bandura,
Blanchard, and R i t t e r , 1969, p. 178).
Changes on th e FSS snake ite m . The FSS r e s u l t s
j u s t c ite d om itted the item p e r ta in in g to snakes. For
Group I , th e tre a tm e n t S mean change on t h i s item was -0.60
and th e n o -tre a fm e n t S mean was -0.33 (_t = 0.31, d f = 11,
n . s . ) . For Group I I , th e treatm ent S mean change was -0.33
and the n o -tre a tm e n t S mean change was 0.25 ( t = 1.29,
d f = 17, n . £ . ) . For Group I I I , treatm en t Ss showed a mean
change of -0 .4 4 and n o -treatm en t Ss, a mean change of -0.13
(t^ = 1.03, d f = 31, n . £ . ). With the th re e groups combined,
56
the tre atm e n t S mean was -0 .4 4 , and the c o n tro l S mean was
-0.07 (t^ = 1.48, d f = 63, £ < .20, n . s . ) . Although r e s u l t s
were in the p re d ic te d d i r e c t io n , i t cannot be concluded
th a t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n produced a d e crease in S s ’ rep o rted
f e a r of snakes on t h i s FSS measure.
Changes in s e l f - r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty w hile encoun-
t e r in g the phobic s tim u lu s . Changes in S s ’ r a tin g s of
t h e i r a n x ie ty w hile attem p tin g to approach or handle the
snake were ev a lu a te d . For Group I , th e P o s t t e s t minus
P r e te s t #2 mean change fo r tre a tm e n t Ss was -7 .1 0 , and fo r
n o -tre a tm e n t Ss, -3.67 (_t = 0.73, d f = 11, n . £ . ) . For
Group I I , the tre a tm e n t S mean change was -2.93 and the
c o n tro l S mean change was 5.75 (t^ = 2 .3 1 , d f = 17, £ < .05).
For Group I I I , the treatm en t S mean was -8.22 and the no
treatm ent S ^ mean was 1.38 (t^ = 2.3 7 , d f = 31, £ < .0 5 ).
With a l l groups combined, th e tre atm e n t S mean was -6.40
and th e n o -treatm en t S mean was 1.53 (t^ = 3.26, d f = 63,
£ < .0 1 ). I t appears th a t th e tre a tm e n t reduced S s ’
experience of a n x ie ty w hile encountering the snake, as
assessed by s e l f - r e p o r t s .
Changes in RA*s r a t in g s of su b je c t* s a n x ie ty . For
Group I , the P o s t t e s t minus P r e te s t #2 mean change in RA’s
r a t i n g s for treatm en t Ss was -0 .7 0 , and fo r n o -treatm en t
Ss, -0 .3 3 Ct^ = 0 .3 3 , d f = 11, n . £ . ) . For Group I I , the
treatm en t S mean change was 0.40 and th e n o -tre a tm e n t mean
57
change was 0.25 ( t = 0 .2 9 , d f = 17, n . s . ) . For Group I I I ,
the tre atm e n t S mean was -0.16 and the c o n tro l S > mean was
0.50 (_t = 3.00, d f = 31, £ < .0 1 ). With groups combined,
the tre atm e n t £ 3 mean change was -0.10 and the no -treatm en t
S mean change was 0.27 (_t = 1.1 9 , d f = 63, £ < .30, n . s u ).
I t cannot be assumed th a t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n reduced an x iety
r a t in g s by an observer, s in c e only Group I I I produced
s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s and t h i s appears to r e f l e c t in c re a se s
in an x iety r a t in g s for c o n tro l Ss r a th e r than red u c tio n s
fo r tre atm e n t Ss.
B asic g o r r e la tio n a l r e s u l t s . Table 5 gives the key
to v a r ia b le s 1-12 in Tables 6-8, which p re s e n t th e c o r r e l a
tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t i n g psychom etric b a tte r y scores
(p re -tre a tm e n t a d m in is tra tio n ) w ith p re -tre a tm e n t phobia
measures and w ith p o s t-tre a tm e n t minus p re -tre a tm e n t
changes on th ese measures. Note th a t th e Imagery Modality
Q u estio n n a ire (IMQ) was ad m inistered a f t e r therapy, during
the second psychometric t e s t i n g . Tables 9-11 show c o r r e l a
tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t i n g changes i n psychom etric b a tte r y
scores (p o s t-th e ra p y minus p re -th e ra p y a d m in is tr a tio n ) w ith
p re -tre a tm e n t phobic and phobic change s c o re s .
Weighted combinations of c o r r e la tio n s between
psychom etric scores and p re -tre a tm e n t phobic measures for
a l l th re e groups appear in Table 12. Of th e t h i r t y c o r re
l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t in g imagery q u e s tio n n a ire scores
58
TABLE 5
KEY TO VARIABLES 1-12 IN TABLES THAT FOLLOW
V ariable
D e sc rip tio n
1 P re -tre a tm e n t A ttitu d e Towards Snakes Scale
Score
2
P re -tre a tm e n t Fear Survey Schedule Score Less
Snake Item
3
Fear Survey Schedule Snake Item
4 S u b je c ts ’ S e l f - r a t i n g s of A nxiety During
Behavioral P r e te s t #1
5
Research A s s i s t a n t ’s Rating of S ’s Anxiety
During B ehavioral P r e te s t #1
6 S u b je c t's A ttainm ent Rank R e la tiv e to Other Ss
During B ehavioral P r e te s t #1
7 Change i n A ttitu d e s Towards Snakes Scale ( P o s t
treatm en t Minus P re -tre a tm e n t)
8 Change in Fear Survey Schedule (P o st-tre a tm e n t
Minus P re -tre a tm e n t)
9 Change i n Snake Item (P o st-tre a tm e n t Minus P re
tre a tm e n t)
10 Change in S e l f - r a t i n g s of A nxiety ( P o s tte s t
Minus P r e t e s t #2)
11 Change in Research A s s i s t a n t 's Ratings of
A nxiety ( P o s t t e s t Minus P r e te s t #2)
12 Change i n R e la tiv e A ttainm ent Rank ( P o s tte s t
Minus P r e t e s t #2)
TABLE 6
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY SCORES WITH PRE-TREATMENT
AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP I (INDIGO-INDIGO)*
Pre
1**
-tre a tm e n t
2 3
Scores
4 5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 23 54 11 -02 -72 07 13 -50 -36 -46 47 35
SVI-T 01 37 39 01 -70 08 27 -61 -60 -61 48 52
SVI-K 20 55 28 -01 -73 01 -07 -29 -23 -54 34 10
SVI-P -40 55 71 37 -35 -05 06 -36 -33 -46 -06 -01
ICQ -02 10 47 -02 -52 -14 06 -24 -46 -66 40 60
VCT 47 00 -22 -41 -35 48 00 -13 -14 -24 44 -09
SDS 23 -18 10 -34 -14 21 -03 01 -21 -46 23 08
RBS -52 -13 22 37 41 04 37 -46 -26 22 -40 12
LMT 47 32 -35 -33 -56 40 15 -50 -26 -04 58 02
SVT 38 -55 -19 -51 -14 -23 39 -03 -30 -63 12 76
TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
1**
P re -tre a tm e n t Scores
2 3 4 5 6 7
Change
8 9
Scores
10 11 12
IMQ %s:
V isual -26 21 44 20 -32 34 -05 -23 -17 01 03 -42
A u d it. -22 -02 62 -21 -52 36 54 -60 -84 -71 35 22
T a c tile 31 -34 -30 -24 06 -14 -06 50 31 -12 -09 08
Tas./Sm. 14 22 -14 -08 34 -21 02 -33 -02 -20 -47 -12
Movement 00 02 -40 19 36 -28 -19 24 33 58 11 28
* Decimal p o in ts om itted
** V ariab les 1-12 are l i s t e d in Table 5
O '
O
TABLE 7
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY SCORES WITH PRE-TREATMENT
AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP II (INDIGO-KING)*
1**
Pre-
2
treatm en t Scores
3 4 5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -07 -03 -09 -30 -57 23 -02 -37 01 -06 15 -29
SVI-T 03 -33 10 -07 -27 -20 -29 -25 27 14 -27 -57
SVI-K 11 -42 13 -29 -48 -05 05 -33 11 -10 -13 -20
SVI-P -04 23 22 -54 -52 27 -20 -66 00 20 -18 -51
ICQ 10 -34 -37 -26 -39 11 -03 -12 20 -19 -18 -42
VCT -22 06 -44 -24 -10 24 08 -03 11 -46 09 -28
SDS 16 -51 -16 -08 -18 -19 -30 -10 10 -25 -13 -13
RBS -32 27 25 20 -04 22 -10 11 -16 38 28 -24
LMT 05 -20 -04 08 17 22 04 55 -44 -10 42 27
SVT 05 -11 15 21 25 -44 10 -04 14 -29 07 52
o
H
TABLE 7 (CONTINUED)
1**
P re -tre a tm e n t Scores
2 3 4 5 6 7
Change
8 9
Scores
10 11 12
IMQ %s:
V isual -25 31 01 05 -06 11 24 -21 -41 -41 26 -12
A u d it. 49 -27 -28 10 15 -25 03 10 51 04 -55 06
T a c tile -16 11 39 18 18 07 -05 21 -11 72 -14 -56
Tas./Sm. 32 -13 -38 -20 -07 -02 -08 -04 14 -14 -04 38
Movement -02 -31 13 -17 -09 -02 -34 14 29 21 10 35
* Decimal p o in ts omitted
** V ariab les 1-12 are l i s t e d in Table 5
O '
C O
TABLE 8
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY SCORES WITH PRE-TREATMENT
AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP I I I (KING-KING)*
1**
Pre-
2
tre atm e n t Scores
3 4 5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 01 -27 25 -01 -06 00 02 32 08 27 -04 -29
SVI-T -03 -34 -23 -12 -07 23 28 -18 15 10 48 -19
SVI-K -18 -48 15 -03 22 -06 06 05 28 28 02 -09
SVI-P 00 -59 16 15 -01 -12 -32 06 06 25 06 17
ICQ -11 -36 19 38 14 -08 -06 01 -02 21 09 -03
VCT 14 -15 03 06 -25 22 -06 02 -25 00 19 19
SDS -30 -57 -07 14 16 -16 07 02 07 10 21 05
RBS 27 -18 -23 -15 -05 18 -11 -28 22 13 05 -07
LMT 25 -29 -11 14 -03 09 -05 11 -20 -18 -14 22
SVT -05 -23 21 24 33 -33 -38 14 15 08 -36 08
O '
O J
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
1**
Pre-
2
tre atm e n t Scores
3 4 5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
IMQ %s:
Visual -21 02 03 34 14 -08 01 -03 -08 05 00 -08
A udit. 12 31 -07 -15 -16 29 14 -37 47 11 -09 -15
T a c tile 25 14 -07 -22 -13 16 -05 -02 -07 -10 23 12
Tas./Sm. -23 -10 -08 -24 -10 -16 07 -03 -01 -11 02 00
Movement 05 -44 20 09 19 -25 -11 43 -16 06 -30 07
* Decimal p o in ts omitted
** V ariables 1-12 are l i s t e d in Table 5
O '
-p *
TABLE 9
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY CHANGE SCORES WITH
PRE-TREATMENT AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP I*
Change
in
1**
Pre-
2
tre atm e n t Scor
3 4
es
5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -22 -40 04 10 46 -03 14 11 12 09 -62 -18
SVI-T
40 -05 -76 -03 27 -11 -33 50 69 62 -09 -21
SVI-K 31 -14 -48 -14 01 02 19 -07 09 10 00 22
SVI-P 22 -45 -53 -49 25 35 55 -27 -26 16 14 13
ICQ -33 07 00 09 23 -14 33 17 05 21 -15 -10
VCT 07 -08 -37 05 51 -13 -01 -14 09 30 -15 24
SDS -47 23 75 39 -42 -06 -04 oi -19 -27 08 03
RBS 58 -09 -58 -32 -12 -20 00 -01 21 -04 -10 12
LMT 31 -09 -53 -51 26 15 15 29 19 16 00 -43
SVT 22 63 -13 -14 -36 22 12 -49 -25 -09 39 -11
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5 o
TABLE 10
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY CHANGE SCORES WITH
PRE-TREATMENT AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP II*
Change
i n
1**
Pre-
2
tre atm e n t Scores
3 4 5 6 7 8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -15 -38 -15 -02 15 -05 -06 32 22 11 -11 -06
SVI-T -35 -28 22 -04 01 22 52 26 -34 09 01 -04
SVI-K -38 06 -04 24 17 20 -16 45 -14 31 24 -38
SVI-P -21 -30 07 21 04 01 41 45 -23 -15 48 48
ICQ -45 29 40 17 04 12 15 11 -23 31 13 12
VCT -45 70 02 -38 -26 52 35 -36 -32 -14 -09 -31
SDS -34 21 14 09 21 12 20 40 -38 -09 40 44
RBS 14 -18 -23 -18 -19 -13 23 -21 27 -28 -22 19
LMT -42 -06 35 -31 -41 -03 16 -34 04 -08 -25 -43
SVT -46 52 -15 -14 18 25 48 10 -09 -22 -04 -06
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
Ov
O '
TABLE 11
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY CHANGE SCORES WITH
PRE-TREATMENT AND CHANGE SCORES: GROUP III*
Change
in
1**
P re-tre a tm e n t Scores
2 3 4 5 6 7
Change
8 9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -26 -15 26 -01 31 -35
00 -07 -04 -01 -24 06
SVI-T -05 25 31 06 45 -14 -01 06 17 01 -60 08
SVI-K -04 22 -22 -18 -20 35 34 -25 -13 -14 14 -25
SVI-P 23 38 -32 -27 10 39 44 -02 -15 -37 -08 -25
ICQ -06 -14 12 -14 28 -18 -30 18 -05 -05 -17 06
VCT -03 12 -19 18 -16 -02 14 -07 -01 -06 32 -02
SDS 15 -02 -06 -24 -02 16 05 -03 -01 -27 02 23
RBS 06 -02 06 02 29 07 15 01 06 00 -30 -38
LMT -21 14 23 06 43 -17 -29 03
20 28 -21 -20
SVT -30 -32 20 08 19 -06 15 34 11 04 -44 -06
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
o
TABLE 12
68
WEIGHTED MEAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS COMBINING RESULTS*
OF GROUPS I , I I , AND I l l s PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY AND
PRE-TREATMENT SCORES**
P re - treatm ent Scores
1***
2 3 4 5
6
SVI-V 03 -03 12 -10 -38 08
SVI-T 00 -21 00 -08 -29 07
SVI-K -03 -24 18 -10 -23 -04
SVI-P -09 -15 31 -03 -25 01
ICQ -03 -27 08 12 -17 -04
VCT 12 -06 -17 -13 -23 29
SDS -06 -54 -06 05 00 -10
RBS -09 -03 00 06 05 16
LM T 08 -15 -14 03 -09 20
SVT 06 -27 07 07 22 -35
IMQ %s:
Visual 24 15 11 23 -01 06
A uditory 18 09 03 -09 -15 14
T a c tile 15 03 03 -10 00 07
Taste/Sm ell 00 -06 -19 -20 00 -13
Movement 00 -33 06 03 -05 -19
* Fisher z transformations used for averaging
** Decimal”points omitted
*** Variables 1-6 are listed in Table 5
69
to p re -tre a tm e n t phobic measures, th re e reached s i g n i f i
cance: RA*s r a t in g s ( v a r ia b le 5) and SVI-V scores
( r = - .3 8 , £ < .0 1 ); RATs r a t in g s and SVI-T scores
( r = - .2 9 , £ < .0 5 ); and FSS snake item ( v a r ia b le 3) and
SVI-P scores ( r = .31, £ < .0 5 ). Several approached s i g
n i f i c a n c e : RA*s r a t i n g s and SVI-K scores ( £ = - .2 3 ) ; RA’s
r a t i n g s with SVI-P sco re s (£ = - .2 5 ) ; and FSS and SVI-T
sc o re s (£ = - .2 1 ) ; and FSS and SVI-K scores (£ = - .2 4 ) .
I n i t i a l avoidance behavior and accompanying s e lf - r e p o r te d
d isc o m fo rt, and i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e s toward snakes, were not
p r e d ic te d by th e psychom etric s c o re s , w ith the exception
t h a t SVT scores and i n i t i a l approach behavior were nega
t i v e l y r e la te d (£ = - .3 5 , £ < .05). I t was a lso noted th a t
Ss* r e p o rts of phobias (FSS) c o r re la te d - .5 4 w ith SDS
s c o re s ( £ < .0 0 1 ), in d ic a tin g th at th e commonly used fear
in v e n to rie s may be s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n r e l ia b le .
Table 13, which may be compared w ith Table 7
( r e s u l t s for Group I I ) , combines c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s
between psychometric b a t t e r y scores and changes on the
phobia measures fo r Groups I and I I I (Tables 6 and 8,
r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Comments on these r e s u l t s w i l l be d e fe rre d
to a l a t e r s e c tio n , except fo r IMQ r e s u l t s .
I t was d e s ir e d to a s se s s whether i n t r a - i n d i v i d u a l
p a t t e r n s of imagery dominance acro ss sensory m o d a litie s
c o r r e la te d with p re -tre a tm e n t phobic scores or changes
a f t e r therapy. From Table 12, i t seems t h a t IMQ p e rc e n ts
TABLE 13
70
WEIGHTED M EAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS COMBINING RESULTS*
OF GROUPS I AND I l l s PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY AND
CHANGE SCORES**
’ Jir/rk
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 05 08 -05 05 12 -10
SVI-T 28 -32 -09 -13 48 03
SVI-K 02 -05 13 02 12 -03
SVI-P -22 -06 -05 04 03 12
ICQ -03 -06 -15 -08 19 18
VCT -04 -02 -22 -07 27 11
SDS 04 02 -01 -07 22 06
RBS 03 -33 08 16 -09 -01
LMT 01 -23 -22 -14 09 16
SVT -16 09 02 -16 -23 33
IMQ %s:
Visual -16 -09 -11 04 01 -18
A uditory 27 -44 01 -18 04 -04
T a c tile -05 14 04 -11 14 11
T aste/S m ell 06 -12 -01 -14 -13 -23
Movement -13 37 02 23 -18 13
* Fisher z transformations used for averaging
** Decimal points omitted
*** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
d id n o t p r e d i c t p r e -tr e a tm e n t phobia l e v e l s . For Groups I
and I I I combined (T able 1 3 ), none of th e IMQ sc o re s s i g n i f
i c a n t l y p re d ic te d in c r e a s e s in p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s tow ards
sn a k e s, d e c re a se s in avoidance b e h a v io r, or d e c re a s e s in
s e l f - r e p o r t s o f a n x ie ty w h ile approaching th e sn ak e. For
Group I I (T ab le 7 ) , however, t a c t i l e IMQ sc o re s c o r r e la te d
.56 (£ < .05) w ith d e c re a se s in av o id an ce b e h av io r and .72
(p < . 01) w ith d e c re a se s in s e l f - r e p o r t s of ongoing a n x ie ty .
A lso f o r Group I I , a u d ito ry IMQ s c o re s c o r r e la te d .55
(p < .05) w ith d e c re a se s in RA’s r a t i n g s of S ’ s a n x ie ty .
I t must be remembered t h a t th e IMQ q u e s tio n n a ir e s were
a d m in iste re d a f t e r tre a tm e n t o n ly , d u rin g th e second psycho*,
m e tric b a t t e r y a d m in is tr a tio n . T h e re fo re , i t i s d i f f i c u l t
to know w hether tre a tm e n t outcome r e l a t e d to i n i t i a l ,
s ta b l e im agery p a t t e r n s , or w hether im agery p a t t e r n s were
a f f e c te d by tre a tm e n t.
T able 14 p r e s e n ts w eighted co m b in atio n s of c o r r e l a
tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s , f o r Groups I , I I , and I I I , r e l a t i n g
i n i t i a l ( p r e - tr e a tm e n t) phobia s c o re s and psy ch o m etric
b a t t e r y change s c o re s . These c o e f f i c i e n t s were low and
unrem arkable. Whatever m o d ific a tio n s of im agery or
resp o n se s t y l e s r e s u l t e d from d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n were n o t
p re d ic te d by i n i t i a l av o id an ce b e h a v io r, re p o rte d a n x ie ty ,
or a t t i t u d e s c o re s .
Weighted mean c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s fo r Groups I
and I I I , r e l a t i n g changes i n p sy ch o m e tric sc o re s to changes
72
TABLE 14
WEIGHTED M EAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS COMBINING RESULTS*
OF GROUPS I , I I , AND I I I : PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY
CHANGE AND PRE-TREATMENT SCORES**
Change in
P re -
2
tre a tm e n t
3
Scores
4 5 6
SVI-V -22 -25 09 01 30 -20
SVI-T -05 03 16 03
30 -03
SVI-K -08 10 02 -05 -05 24
SVI-P 10 01 -26 -18 11 28
ICQ -24 03 19 00 00 -18
VCT -15 30 -17 -02 -05 14
SDS -13 10 21 03 -04 10
RBS 20 -08 -17 -11 06 -04
LM T -17 03 11 -18 15 -06
SVT -25 15 03 03 08 09
* Fisher £ transformations used for averaging
** Decimal-points omitted
*** Variables 1-6 are listed in Table 5
73
i n phobic m easu res, appear i n T able 15, which can be com
p ared w ith T able 10 ( r e s u l t s f o r Group I I ) . These ta b le s
were examined to a s se s s th e p o s s i b i l i t y th a t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
m o d ifie s im agery along w ith o v e r t b e h a v io r, a t t i t u d e s , and
a n x ie ty r a t i n g s . Changes in im agery may, in f a c t , m ediate
tre a tm e n t e f f e c t s . For Groups I and I I I combined,
in c r e a s e s on SVI-V were p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c ia te d w ith RA*s
r a t i n g s o f improvement (i: = . 36, £ < .0 5 ) , as were in c re a s e s
on SVI-T ( r = .4 8 , £ < .0 1 ). I n c re a s e s on SVI-T were
n e g a tiv e ly a s s o c ia te d w ith improvement as m easured by the
FSS snake item <£ = - .3 5 , £ < .0 5 ). In c re a s e s on SVI-P
were p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c ia te d w ith a t t i t u d i n a l (ATS) im prove
ment ( £ = .47, £ < .0 1 ). Changes in ICQ d id n o t c o r r e l a t e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith any m easure of im provem ent, e i t h e r fo r
Groups I and I I I , or f o r Group I I . For Group I I , th e only
s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was betw een in c r e a s e s on SVI-T and
a t t i t u d i n a l (ATS) improvement (£ = .5 2 , £ < .0 5 ) . None of
th e c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t b o th f o r Groups I and I I I
and f o r Group I I . These f in d in g s w i l l be d isc u s s e d in th e
n e x t c h a p te r .
T able 16 p r e s e n ts c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t i n g
p r e - tr e a tm e n t phobic s c o re s to improvement on th e se meas
u re s a f t e r th e ra p y . T hese w ere used to c a l c u l a t e f i r s t -
o rd er p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . T ab les 17-19 p r e
s e n t supplem entary i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s among
m easures.
TABLE 15
74
WEIGHTED M EAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS COMBINING RESULTS*
OF GROUPS I AND I l l s PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY CHANGE
AND PHOBIC CHANGE SCORES**
Change in
7***
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 04 -02 01 02 -36 -01
SVI-T -11 20 35 22 -48 00
SVI-K 30 20 -07 -07 04 -11
SVI-P 47 -09 -18 -22 -02 -18
ICQ -11 18 -02 03 -16 01
VCT 10 -09 02 08 19 06
SDS 02 -02 -06 -09 04 17
RBS 11 01 10 03 -24 -25
LM T -16 10 20 19 -15 -27
SVT 14 09 01
05 -22 -07
* Fisher transformations used for averaging
** Decimal points omitted
*** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
75
TABLE 16
PRE-CHANGE CORRELATIONS FOR GROUPS
I , I I AND I I I *
V a ria b le s
C o rre la te d Group I Group I I Group I I I
1_7**
-17 -34 32
2-8 -08 -59 -42
3-9 -48 -33 14
4-10 38 37 21
5-11 -77 -53 -63
6-12 -45 04 -29
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
76
TABLE 17
INTERCORRELATIONS AM ONG MEASURES: GROUP I*
1** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-22
-82 18
-69 61 53
-44 -14 00 32
13 -32 -12 -54 -19
-17 -41 20 -48 -13 48
8 25 -08 -37 08 17 -44 -68
25 25 -48 33 31 -50 -87 83
10 -13 22 -37 38 50 04 -48 39 64
11 49 01 -29 -45 -77 41 11 -01 -21 -10
12 14 -15 11 -03 -40 -45 18 -10 -27 -53 28
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*
* *
TABLE 18
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG MEASURES: GROUP II*
1** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-25
-39 18
-05 -27 17
-07 -04 04 80
01 30 -23 -69 -61
-34 13 09 -05 -06 26
-04 -59 -20 50 40 -10 15
07 -31 -33 19 26 -55 -41 -04
12 -04 42 37 23 -01 -27 12 -09
-03 03 12 -31 -53 37 -02 05 -44 -11
29 -10 -14 -13 -28 04 08 07 -06 -29 60
)ecimal points omitted
Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
78
TABLE 19
INTERCORRELATIONS A M O N G MEASURES: GROUP I I I *
11
12
-55 -18
-56 -04
-26 -15 55
37 32
05 -27 -42
14 10 -22 01 21
-48 -21 61 21 20 60
11 41
04 06 -24 11 -29 34 12
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 1-12 are listed in Table 5
79
P a r t i a l C o r r e la tio n C o e f f i c i e n t s . S in c e c o r r e l a
t i o n s betw een p r e t e s t and improvement s c o re s can obscure
m ean in g fu l d a ta , T ab les 20-23 show c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s
between s e le c te d p sy ch o m etric s c o re s and p h o b ia improvement
s c o re s , w ith p r e -th e r a p y le v e l on p h o b ia m easures con
t r o l l e d .
Of p rim ary i n t e r e s t were th e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s
betw een p sy ch o m etric s c a l e sc o re s and phobic b e h a v io r
change ( v a r i a b l e 1 2 ). None o f th e im agery q u e s tio n n a ir e s
c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith b e h a v io r a l improvement fo r
Groups I and I I I combined. However, f o r Group I I th e c o r
r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were a l l n e g a tiv e , ra n g in g from -.20
to - .5 7 . The SVI-T ( r = - .5 7 , £ < .0 5 ) and SVI-P ( r = -.5 4 ,
£ < .0 5 ) r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t . I t a p p e a rs t h a t fo r
Group I I , th e re were in v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s betw een v i v i d
n e s s and c o n tr o l o f im agery, and t h e r a p e u tic g a in , w h ile
f o r Groups I and I I I combined, th e r e was no r e l a t i o n s h i p .
I t was a ls o d e s ir e d to t e s t w h e th e r, as p r e d ic te d ,
r e s u l t s from Group I I were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n e g a tiv e than
th o se f o r Groups I and I I I combined. A lthough a l l f iv e
d if f e r e n c e s were in th e p r e d ic te d d i r e c t i o n , none reached
s ig n i f i c a n c e . The f iv e com parison s t a t i s t i c s , which can be
r e f e r r e d to th e normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , w ere: 0 .5 2 f o r SVI-V,
1.6 7 (£ < .10) f o r SVI-T, 0.35 fo r SVI-K, 1.50 (£ < .20)
f o r SVI-P, and 1.35 ( £ < .20) f o r ICQ. Use o f o n e - t a i l
t e s t s b rin g s o n ly SVI-T to s ig n if ic a n c e (p < .0 5 ).
80
TABLE 20
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR
GROUP Is SELECTED PSYCHOMETRIC SCORES AND CHANGE
SCORES WITH PRE-TREATMENT LEVEL CONTROLLED*
7 * *
8
Change S co res
9 10 11 12
SVI-V 18 -55 -35 -49 -19 43
SVI-T 28 -63 -51 -66 -13 63
SVI-K -04 -30 -11 -58 -51 12
SVI-P -01 -38 02 -70 -55 -04
ICQ 06 -23 -30 -71 00 61
SDS 01 00 -19 -38 19 20
RBS 34 -48 -18 09 -15 16
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
81
TABLE 21
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP II:
SELECTED PSYCHOMETRIC SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
PRE-TREATMENT LEVEL CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change Scores
9 10 11 12
SVI-V -05 -48 -02 06 64 -31
SVI-T -30 -58 32 18 -61 -57
SVI-K 09 -79 16 01 -51
o
C M
1
SVI-P -23 -67 08 51 -64 -54
ICQ 00 -42 09 -11 -50 -43
SDS -27 -58 05 -24 -27 -13
RBS -23 35 -09 34 31 -26
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
82
TABLE 22
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
Ills SELECTED PSYCHOMETRIC SCORES AND CHANGE .SCORES
WITH PRE-TREATMENT LEVEL CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
S cores
10 11 12
SVI-V 02 24 05 28 -06 -29
SVI-T 31 -38 06 13 56 -13
SVI-K 13 -19 27 29 21 -11
SVI-P -32 -26 08 23 07 14
ICQ -03 -17 -05 14 23 -06
SDS 18 -29 08 07 41 00
RBS -22 -40 26 17 02 -02
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
83
TABLE 23
WEIGHTED M EAN FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS* FOR GROUPS I AND I I I : SELECTED
PSYCHOMETRIC SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
PRE-TREATMENT LEVEL CONTROLLED**
7 * * *
8
Change S cores
9 10 11 12
SVI-V 07 -01 -07 04 -10 -08
SVI-T 31 -50 -12 -14 41 12
SVI-K 08 -22 16 01 -01 -04
SVI-P -24 -30 06 -09 -13 09
ICQ 00 -19 -12 -16 16 16
SDS 13 -21 00 -07 35 06
RBS -05 -42 13 15 -03 03
* F is h e r £ tra n s fo rm a tio n s used f o r a v erag in g
** Decim al p o in ts om itted
*** V a ria b le s 7-12 a re l i s t e d in T ab le 5
84
P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s r e l a t i n g im agery
q u e s tio n n a ir e sc o re s to a t t i t u d e change ( v a r i a b l e 7) were
not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r Groups I and I I I , or f o r Group I I . The
same was tr u e of c o e f f i c i e n t s betw een im agery sc o re s and
FSS snake item change ( v a r i a b l e 9 ) . R ed u ctio n s in s e l f -
r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty ( v a r i a b l e 10) were n o t p r e d ic te d by th e
im agery q u e s tio n n a ir e s c o re s f o r Groups I and I I I ; and only
SVI-P p r e d ic te d a n x ie ty re d u c tio n fo r Group I I , but th e
r e l a t i o n was n e g a tiv e ( r = - .5 1 , £ < .0 5 ) . R eduction in
S ’s a n x ie ty as judged by RA ( v a r i a b l e 11) was n e g a tiv e ly
c o r r e la te d w ith SVI-T f o r Groups I and I I I combined
( r = - .4 1 , £ < .0 5 ), and w ith SVI-V f o r Group I I ( r = - .6 4 ,
£ < .0 5 ). On th e o th e r hand, r e d u c tio n s in RA’s a n x ie ty
r a t i n g s c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y w ith SVI-T (£ = .61,
£ < .0 5 ), SVI-K ( r = .5 1 , £ < .0 5 ) , SVI-P ( r = .64,
£ < .0 5 ), and ICQ (£ = .5 0 , £ < .1 0 , n.s_.) f o r Group I I .
D ecreases i n f e a r p ro n e n ess (FSS, v a r ia b le 8) were p o s i
t i v e l y c o r r e la te d w ith im agery s c o re s fo r Group I I ; SVI-T
( r = .5 8 , £ < .0 5 ) , SVI-K ( r = .7 9 , £ < .0 1 ) , and SVI-P
( r = .67, £ < .01) a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e . The same tre n d
seems to have been e v id e n t fo r Groups I and I I I combined,
b u t only SVI-T ( r = .5 0 , £ < .0 1 ) was s i g n i f i c a n t .
For Groups I and I I I , SDS sc o re s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
r e l a t e d to only one of th e s ix improvement m easures, RA's
r a t i n g s , and th e a s s o c i a t i o n was n e g a tiv e (£ = - . 35,
£ < .0 5 ). For Group I I , SDS s c o re s c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y
85
( £ = .5 8 , £ < .0 5 ) w ith re p o rte d d e c re a s e s in g e n e ra l fe a r
s u s c e p t i b i l i t y (F SS ). The a c q u ie sc e n c e s c o re s (RBS) c o r r e
la te d p o s i t i v e l y ( £ = .4 2 , £ < .05) w ith r e d u c tio n in fe a r
p ro n en ess (FSS) fo r Groups I and I I I . None of th e Group I I
c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s fo r RBS were s i g n i f i c a n t .
T a b le s 24-27 p r e s e n t f i r s t - o r d e r p a r t i a l c o r r e l a
tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s of im agery s c o re s and phobic improvement
s c o r e s , w ith SDS s c o re s c o n t r o ll e d . By com paring th e s e
ta b l e s w ith r e s u l t s in T a b le s 7, 13, 21 and 23, i t can be
n o ted t h a t p a r t i a l l i n g out SDS s c o re s does n o t a p p re c ia b ly
a l t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een im agery q u e s tio n n a ir e s c o re s and
im provem ent. The same i s tr u e when RBS s c o re s a re con
t r o l l e d , as p re s e n te d in T a b le s 2 8-31, and when VCT sc o re s
a re p a r t i a l l e d o u t, as in T a b le s 32-35. These fin d in g s
i n d i c a t e th a t w hatever r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t betw een im agery
s c o re s and th e r a p e u tic improvement a re n o t m ediated by
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y , v e rb a l com prehension, or a c q u ie sc e n c e .
T ab les 36-39 p r e s e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een VCT
s c o re s and improvement s c o r e s , w ith r e s u l t s on each o f th e
im agery q u e s tio n n a ir e s p a r t i a l l e d out in t u r n . These were
c a lc u la te d to o b ta in e s tim a te s of r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e
v e rb a l com prehension f a c t o r and p h o b ia change t h a t were
p u re o f im agery e f f e c t s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een VCT
s c o re s and r e d u c tio n s i n s e l f - r a t i n g s o f a n x ie ty fo r Group
I I a l l ranged from .43 to .50 ( n . s . ) . V erbal com prehension
d id n o t appear to r e l a t e to any o th e r m easure of
86
TABLE 24
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (SDS) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7* *
8
Change Scores
9 10 11 12
SVI-V 13 -50 -3 5 -50 46 35
SVI-T 28 -62 -53 -65 44 52
SVI-K -07 -30 -1 8 -47 29 11
SVI-P 06 -37 -31 -41 -12 -03
ICQ 05 -24 -42 -50 35 63
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
87
TABLE 25
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (SDS) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7 * *
8
Change
9
S cores
10 11 12
SVI-V 00 -37 01 08 16 -29
SVI-T -20 -23 25 21 -25 -56
SVI-K 15 -32 08 -02 -09 -17
SVI-P -14 -67 -02 32 -14 -50
ICQ 12 -09 17 -09 -14 -40
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
8 8
TABLE 26
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (SDS) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 02 32 08 27 -06 -29
SVI-T 27 -19 14 08 45 -21
SVI-K 04 -05 27 26 -04 -12
SVI-P -38 07 03 23 -02 -20
ICQ -10 01 -06 19 00 -06
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
89
TABLE 27
WEIGHTED M EAN FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS* FOR GROUPS I AND I I I : IMAGERY
QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY (SDS) SCORES CONTROLLED**
7***
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 05 08 -05 03 10 -10
SVI-T 27 -34 -07 -17 45 02
SVI-K 01 -12 14 04 06 -05
SVI-P -27 -06 -07 04 -05 -15
ICQ -06 -06 -17 -03 11 18
* F is h e r z tra n s f o rm a tio n s used f o r av erag in g
** D ecim al'"points o m itted
*** V a ria b le s 7-12 a r e l i s t e d in T ab le 5
90
TABLE 28
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH RESPONSE BIAS (RBS) SCORES CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
S co res
10 11 12
SVI-V 15 -58 -39 -47 49 35
SVI-T 29 -69 -63 -63 52 53
SVI-K -04 -39 -27 -54 33 11
SVI-P 00
-33 -31 -52 00
-03
ICQ 10 -31 -50 -66 41 61
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
91
TABLE 29
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH RESPONSE BIAS (RBS) SCORES CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -02 -37 00 -04 17 -31
SVI-T -29 -25 28 15 -28 -59
SVI-K 04 -34 09 -07 -11 -23
SVI-P -18 -69 03 15 -23 -50
ICQ -04 -11 19 -17 -17 -46
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
92
TABLE 30
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH RESPONSE BIAS (RBS) SCORES CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 02 32 08 28 -04 -29
SVI-T 28 -19 16 10 48 -19
SVI-K 05 02 31 30 03 -09
SVI-P -31 12 02 24 05 16
ICQ -06 -01 -04 22 09 -04
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
93
TABLE 31
WEIGHTED M EAN FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS* FOR GROUPS I AND I I I : IMAGERY
QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
RESPONSE BIAS (RBS) SCORES CONTROLLED**
7***
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 06 04 -06 05 13 -10
SVI-T 28 -36 -10 -14 49 04
SVI-K 02 -10 15 04 12 -03
SVI-P -23 -01 -08 00 04 10
ICQ -01 -10 -19 -07 19 23
* F is h e r £ tra n s f o rm a tio n s used fo r av erag in g
** Decimal p o in ts o m itted
*** V a ria b le s 7-12 a r e l i s t e d in T a b le 5
94
TABLE 32
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
Sc or es
10 11 12
SVI-V 13 -49 -35 -44 45 37
SVI-T 27 -61 -60 -61 49 54
SVI-K 07 -28 -22 -54 34 11
SVI-P 06 -35 -32 -45 -13 00
ICQ 06 -22 -44 -64 33 65
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
95
TABLE 33
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I : IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -03 -37 -01 -16 14 -26
SVI-T
-30 -25 26 21 -28 -57
SVI-K 04 -33 10 -07 -14 -18
SVI-P 19 -66 -01 29 -19 -50
ICQ -05 -12 18 -08 -21 -38
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
96
TABLE 34
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I l l s IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) SCORES
CONTROLLED*
7**
8
Change
9
S co res
10 11 12
SVI-V 03 32 13 27 -07 -33
SVI-T 29 -18 18 10 47 -21
SVI-K 07 05 31 28 00 -11
SVI-P -32 06 09 25 04 15
ICQ -05 01 05 21 04 -08
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
97
TABLE 35
WEIGHTED M EAN FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS* FOR GROUPS I AND I I I : IMAGERY
QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) SCORES
CONTROLLED**
7***
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 06 07 -02 06 09 -13
SVI-T 28 -33 -07 -13 52 03
SVI-K 07 -05 16 02 10 -05
SVI-P -22 -07 -03 04 -01 10
ICQ -02 -06 -10 -07 12 17
* F ish e r z tra n s fo rm a tio n s used f o r av e ra g in g
** Decimal p o in ts o m itted
*** V a ria b le s 7-12 a r e l i s t e d in T a b le 5
98
TABLE 36
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I : VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES CONTROLLED*
V a ria b le
C o n tro lle d
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -02 -05 -09 -19 41 -16
SVI-T -03 -09 -10 -23 45 -17
SVI-K 01 -11 -12 -23 44 -10
SVI-P -01 -09 -11 -21 45 -09
ICQ -01 -07 -02 -09 38 -32
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
99
TABLE 37
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I : VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES CONTROLLED*
V ariable
C o n tro lled
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V 09 04 10 -48 07 -25
SVI-T 11 -01 09 -49 12 -27
SVI -K 08 00 10 -44 10 -27
SVI-P 06 07 11 -50 11 -26
ICQ 09 00 06 -43 14 -20
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
100
TABLE 38
FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR GROUP
I I I : VERBAL COMPREHENSION (VCT) AND CHANGE SCORES
WITH IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES CONTROLLED*
V ariable
Con t r o l l e d
7**
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -06 -04 -27 -05 20 25
SVI-T -09 04 -27 -01 16 21
SVI-K -07 02 -29 -03 19 20
SVI-P -03 01 -26 -03 18 17
ICQ -05 02 -26 -06 17 21
* Decimal points omitted
** Variables 7-12 are listed in Table 5
1 0 1
TABLE 39
WEIGHTED MEAN FIRST-ORDER PARTIAL CORRELATION
COEFFICIENTS* FOR GROUPS I AND I l l s VERBAL
COMPREHENSION CVCT) AND CHANGE SCORES WITH
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES CONTROLLED**
V ariable
C o n trolled
7***
8
Change
9
Scores
10 11 12
SVI-V -05 -04 -21 -09 27 13
SVI-T -07 00 -22 -07 26 10
SVI-K -05 -02 -24 -09 27 11
SVI-P -04 -0 2 -22 -08 27 09
ICQ -04 01 -19 -07 24 05
* F ish er z tra n sfo rm a tio n s used for averaging
** Decimal p o in ts om itted
*** V ariab les 7-12 are l i s t e d in Table 5
102
improvement f o r Group II or fo r Groups I and I I I combined.
I t seems th a t th e higher a S ’s v e rb a l comprehension, the
more re d u c tio n in a n x iety she was l i k e l y to r e p o r t w hile
approaching th e snake under the Group I I ( g e n e r a liz a tio n )
c o n d itio n .
Before re p o rtin g r e s u l t s of re g re s sio n a n a ly se s,
one o th e r fin d in g d eserves mention. Scores on SVT c o r r e
la te d .52 with d ecrease in avoidance behavior fo r Group II
(p < .05) and .33 w ith avoidance d e c re a se fo r Groups I and
I I I combined (jo < .10, n . £ . ) . With p r e t e s t le v e l p a r t ia ll e d
o u t, th e r e s u l t s were s im ila r , .60 fo r Group II and .25 for
Groups I and I I I to g e th e r. These fin d in g s suggest t h a t of
th e ty p es of im aginal a t t r i b u t e s or a b i l i t i e s stu d ie d ,
s p a t i a l v is u a l i z a t i o n may be the one most c o r re la te d w ith
b e h a v io ra l improvement.
Regression A n aly ses. Another way of viewing the
d a ta h o l i s t i c a l l y i s provided by m u ltip le re g re s sio n
a n a l y s is . This technique allows th e re s e a rc h e r to d e t e r
mine i f p r e d ic tio n s , based on o p tim a lly weighted combina
tio n s o f v a r ia b le s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e w ith c r i t e r i o n
m easures. In s h o rt, even under the b e st co m b in ato rial
c o n d itio n s , do the psychom etric s c a l e s , in clu d in g imagery
q u e s tio n n a ir e s , p r e d ic t improvement?
Tables 40-42 p re se n t stepw ise re g re s s io n s o lu tio n s
f o r the fiv e imagery q u e s tio n n a ire r e s u l t s p r e d ic tin g
d e c re a se s in avoidance behavior. Tables 43-45 r e p o r t
103
TABLE 40
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP I
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R3
In c re a se
in R3
C o e ffi
c ie n t
1 ICQ .60 .36 .36 1 .2 0
2 SVI-K .66 .44 .08 -0 .3 5
3 SVI-V .80 .64 .20 0.37
4 SVI-T .81 .6 6 .0 2 -0 .2 5
5 SVI-P .81* .6 6 .00 -0 .0 3
E (Index o f f o re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 42%
Constant = -15.75
* Not significant at .05 level
104
TABLE 41
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP I I
Step #
V ariab le
Entered R R8
In crease
in R8
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVI-T .57 .32 .32 -1 .0 2
2 SVI-K .6 8 .46 .14 0.81
3 SVI-P .71 .51 .05 -0 .6 5
4 SVI-V .75 .56 .05 0.46
5 ICQ .77* .59 .03 -0 .9 3
E (Index of f o r e c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 36%
Constant - -1.19
* Not significant at .05 level
105
TABLE 42
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP III
Step #
V ariab le
Entered R R8
In crease
in R8
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVI-V .29 .08 •
©
0 0
-0.50
2 SVI-P
.36 .13 .05 0.38
3 SVI-T .40 .16 .03 -0.46
4 SVI-K .42 .17 .01 0.40
5 ICQ .42* .17 .00 0.18
E (Index of f o re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 9%
C onstant = 21.47
* Not significant at .05 level
106
TABLE 43
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP I
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R3
In c re a se
in R2
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVI .76 .58 .58 -0.04
2 SVI-T .85 .72 .14 1.32
3 VCT .91 .82 .10 -0.64
4 SVI-K .92 .84 .0 2 0.52
5 LMT .92 .84 .0 0 -0.80
6 SVI-P .97 .93 .09 -1.21
7 ICQ .99 .99 .06 -1.81
8 SDS 1.00* 1 .00 .0 1 0.27
E (Index of f o re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) =
Constant = 13.67
100%
* Significance table not applicable
107
TABLE 44
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP II
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R3
In crease
in Ra
C o e ffi
c ie n t
1 SVI-T .57 .32 .32
N
0 0
•
o
1
2 SVI-K .68 .46 .14 0.55
3 SVI-P .71 .51 .05 -0.73
4 SVI-V .75 .56 .05 0.73
5 VCT .81 .65 .09 -0.33
6 SVT .82 .67 .02 0.04
7 RBS .82 .67 .00 -0.54
8 ICQ .84* .70 .03 -1.33
E (Index of fo re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 6
C onstant = -1.13
•0%
* Not significant at .05 level
108
TABLE 45
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING BEHAVIOR CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 12): GROUP III
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R3
In crease
in R3
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVI-V .29 .08 .08 -0.82
2 VCT .43 .18 .1 0 0.94
3 RBS .49 .24 .06 -1.07
4 SVT .53 .28 .04 0 .1 0
5 SVI-P .54 .29 .0 1 0 .1 2
6 SVI-T .55 .30 .0 1 -0.57
7 SVI-K .58 .33 .03 0.71
8 LMT .59 .35 .0 2 0.30
9 SDS .59 .35 .0 0 0.16
10 ICQ .59* .35 .0 0 -0.21
E (Index of f o r e c a s tin g e f fic ie n c y ) = 36%
Constant = 36.82
* Not significant at .05 level
109
s im ila r a n a ly se s, but using a l l ten psychom etric s c a le
r e s u l t s . None of the Rs were s i g n i f i c a n t . Tables 46-51
p re se n t analogous re g re s s io n s o lu tio n s , but t h i s time p r e
d ic tin g to a t t i t u d e (ATS) change sc o re s. Again, the Rs
were not s i g n i f i c a n t . I t cannot be concluded, th e re fo re ,
th a t th ese measures, even in optim ally weighted combina
tio n s , p r e d ic t changes in avoidance behavior or a t t i t u d e s
toward snakes follow ing d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
I t was a lso d e s ire d to t e s t whether or not
in clu d in g r e s u l t s on a l l te n psychom etric s c a le s produced
s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r p r e d ic tio n s than r e s u l t s on the fiv e
imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s a lo n e . Table 52 p re se n ts F - te s t s of
the h y pothesis of no d if f e r e n c e in e ffic a c y of p re d ic tio n
fo r Groups I I and I I I , p r e d ic tin g to both a t t i t u d e and
behavior change. No F - t e s t s were p o s s ib le fo r Group I
sin ce the degrees of freedom were i n s u f f i c i e n t for the ten
v a r ia b le re g re s s io n s o lu tio n s .
Summary of R e s u l t s . For a l l th re e groups, t r e a t
ment and n o -tre a tm e n t Ss were found not to d i f f e r s i g n i f i
c a n tly in avoidance rank sco res on P r e te s t #1. A non
s ig n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e was a lso obtained when the th re e
groups were pooled, comparing a l l tre atm e n t w ith a l l no
treatm ent Ss. I t was assumed t h a t tre atm e n t and c o n tro l
Ss showed comparable avoidance behavior a t the beginning of
th i s study.
110
TABLE 46
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7): GROUP I
Step #
V ariab le
Entered
V ariable
Removed R R2
In crease
in Ra
C o e ffi
c ie n t
1 SVI-T .27 .08 .08 6.32
2 SVI-K .51 .26 .18 (0.78)
3 ICQ .55 .30 .04 -7.83
4 SVI-V .71 .51 .21 -3.35
5 SVI-K .71 .51 .00 (0.78)
6 SVI-P .73 .53 .02 -0.83
7 SVI-K .75* .57 .04 0.78
E (Index
C onstant
of fo re c a s tin g e f fic ie n c y )
= 106.81
= 34%
* Not significant at .05 level
Ill
TABLE 47
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7): GROUP II
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R3
In c re a se
in R3
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVI-T .29 .08 .08 -1.16
2 SVI-K .51 .26 .18 0.69
3 ICQ .59 .35 .09 0 .6 2
4 SVI-V .60 .36 .0 1 0.19
5 SVI-P .61* .37 .0 1 -0.15
E (Index of f o r e c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 21%
Constant = 1.65
* Not significant at .05 level
112
TABLE 48
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE FIVE
IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7 ): GROUP I I I
Step #
V ariable
Entered R Ra
In crease
in Ra
C o e ffi
c ie n t
1 SVI-P .32 .10 .10 -0.31
2 SVI-T .48 .23 .13 0.32
3 SVI-K .49 .24 .01 -0.21
4 ICQ .50 .25 .01 0.07
5 SVI-V .50* .25 .00 0 .0 2
E (Index of f o re c a s tin g e f fic ie n c y ) =
Constant = 7.32
13%
* Not significant at .05 level
113
TABLE 49
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON TOE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7 ): GROUP I
Step #
V ariab le
Entered R
R3
In crease
in R3
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVT .39 .15 .15 0.63
2 RBS .54 .29 .14 -2.35
3 LMT .60 .36 .07 1.60
4 SVI-P .64 .42 .06 2 .1 1
5 SVI-V .82 .6 8 .26 -4.48
6 SVI-K .91 .83 .15
0 0
0 0
•
o
1
7 ICQ .93 .87 .04 -11.94
8 SVI-T .99* .99 .12 7.43
E (Index of fo re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 97%
Constant = 121.68
* Significance tables not applicable
114
TABLE 50
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7): GROUP II
Step #
V ariable
Entered R R2
In crease
in R3
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SDS .30 .09 .09 -0.33
2 SVI-K .43 .19 .10 1.36
3 SVI-T .61 .37 .18 -1.24
4 ICQ .72 .52 .15 0 .2 6
5 SVI-P .74 .55 .03 -0.75
6
SVT .76 .58 .03 -0.25
7 LMT .78 .61 .03 -0.43
8 RBS .78 .61 .00
-0.25
9 SVI-V .78 .61 .0 0
0.07
10 VCT .79* .62 .01 0.06
E (Index of fo re c a s tin g e f fic ie n c y ) = 38%
C onstant = 36.11
* Not significant at .05 level
115
TABLE 51
STEPWISE REGRESSION SOLUTION FOR SCORES ON THE TEN
PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES PREDICTING ATTITUDE CHANGE
SCORES (VARIABLE 7): GROUP III
Step #
V ariab le
Entered R R*
In c re a se
in R3
C o e f f i
c ie n t
1 SVT .38 .14 .14 -0.13
2 SVI-P .45 .20 .06 -0.22
3 SVI-T .53 .28 .08 0 .2 6
4 SVI-K .55 .30 .02 -0.22
5 SVI-V .55 .30 .00 0 .1 0
6 LMT .56 .31 .01 0.09
7 SDS .56 .31 .00 0.04
8 ICQ .56 .31 .00 -0.11
9 RBS .56 .31 .00 -0.06
10 VCT .56* .31 .00 -0.04
E (Index of fo re c a s tin g e f f ic ie n c y ) = 17%
Constant = 5.45
* Not significant at .05 level
116
TABLE 52
F TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R
BASED ON FIVE IMAGERY QUESTIONNAIRES AND R BASED
ON ALL TEN PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES*
Group I I Group I I I
Dependent
V ariable d f F df F
Behavior
Change
(V ariab le 12) 5,4 .29** 5,14 .78**
A ttitu d e
Change
(V ariab le 7) 5,4 .53** 5,14 .24**
* F t e s t s fo r Group I not p o s s ib le because o f
” i n s u f f i c i e n t degrees of freedom.
** Does not approach significance at .05 level.
117
D e s e n s itiz a tio n was found to have s i g n i f i c a n t l y
reduced avoidance behavior and s e l f - r a t i n g s of an x iety
w hile approaching the snake; therapy seems a lso to have
in creased p o s itiv e e v a lu a tiv e responses ( a t t i t u d e s ) toward
snakes, but r e s u l t s were l e s s c o n firm a tiv e . D e s e n s itiz a tio n
did not appear to reduce g e n e ra l proneness to f e a r , phobia
fo r snakes as re p o rte d on the snake item of the FSS, or
r a tin g s of S ’s a n x ie ty by the RA.
Since the re s e a rc h d esig n was i d e n t i c a l fo r Groups
I and I I I , c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s of the two groups were
combined. The groups showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in
avoidance behavior on P r e te s t #1.
I n i t i a l avoidance b eh av io r, accompanying s e l f -
re p o rts of a n x ie ty , and i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e s toward snakes
were no t p re d ic te d by imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s c o re s.
S ubject*s anxiety, as i n i t i a l l y ra te d by the RA, and p re
treatm en t fe a r proneness (FSS) were p r e d ic te d by sev e ra l
of the imagery s c a l e s . S o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y (SDS) scores
p re d ic te d o u tse t FSS sco res beyond the .001 le v e l of
s ig n if ic a n c e , c a s tin g doubt on t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t
fe a r survey sch ed u les. Changes on the imagery q u e stio n
n a ir e s between the two a d m in is tra tio n s did not c o r r e la te
w ith b e h a v io ra l improvement sco res for Groups I and I I I or
for Group I I , but r e l a t i o n s h i p s obtained between changes on
se v e ra l q u e s tio n n a ire s and changes in RAfs r a t i n g s for
Groups I and I I I . A ttitu d e change was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
118
p re d ic te d by changes on one of the f iv e q u e s tio n n a ire s for
Groups I and I I I and fo r Group I I .
P a r t i a l c o r r e la tio n r e s u l t s , c o n tr o llin g for p r e
th erap y phobic sc o re s, d id n o t allow r e j e c t i o n of the n u ll
h y p o th esis of no r e l a t i o n between imagery q u e s tio n n a ire
sco res and d ecrease s i n avoidance b eh av io r. In f a c t , for
Group I I , the r e l a t io n s h i p s appeared m oderately high and
n e g a tiv e , than th o se fo r Groups I and I I I combined, even
though th re e of the f iv e comparisons approached s i g n i f i
cance. A ttitu d e change was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to
imagery s c a le s c o re s , nor was the FSS snake item . Reduc
tio n s in s e l f - r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty were not p r e d ic te d by
imagery sco res fo r Groups I and I I I to g e th e r, and were
n e g a tiv e ly c o r re la te d w ith one of the imagery q u e s tio n
n a ir e s fo r Group I I . Reductions in RA’s r a t in g s of a n x ie ty
c o r re la te d both n e g a tiv e ly and p o s it i v e l y w ith various
imagery s c a le s fo r Groups I and I I I and fo r Group I I .
Imagery s c a le sco res did p r e d i c t re d u c tio n s in g en eral
s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to fe a r (FSS s c o r e s ) . Of the ten psycho
m etric s c a le s , SVT scores r a t h e r than any of th e imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire s appeared to be most p o s i t i v e l y a s so c ia te d
w ith d e c re a se s in avoidance b eh av io r.
S o cial d e s i r a b i l i t y (SDS) sco res did no t c o r r e la te
s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y w ith any of the s ix improve
ment measures fo r Groups I and I I I combined, and c o r re la te d
s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y only w ith re d u c tio n in fear
119
proneness (FSS) fo r Group I I . Changes follow ing d e s e n s i t i
z a tio n do not appear to be mediated by e f f o r t s to look
s o c ia ll y a t t r a c t i v e . N either do changes seem to be medi
ated by an acquiescence tendency, w ith the p o ssib le
exception of f e a r survey schedule r e s u l t s .
Verbal comprehension did n o t appear to p r e d ic t
improvement on any measure except s e l f - r a t i n g s of ongoing
a n x ie ty fo r Group I I . Verbal a b i l i t y did not appear more
p o s it i v e l y a s so c ia te d w ith improvement for Group II than
fo r Groups I and I I I to g e th e r.
H o l i s t i c an aly ses of d a ta , v ia m u ltip le re g re s s io n ,
d id not support the assumption th a t psychometric s c a le
sco res s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r e d ic t d e crease s in avoidance
behavior or in c re a s e s in p o s it i v e a t t i t u d e s toward snakes.
The n e c e s s ity of v iv id or c o n tr o lla b le imagery to success
in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n remains to be dem onstrated— so does the
r o le of s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y or acquiescence a t t r i b u t e s and
v erb al f a c i l i t y .
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Dimen sio n s of Imagery
( F a c t o r i a l V a lid ity ) ’
The f a c to r m a tric e s from S tu d ies I and I I have been
t e n t a t i v e l y in t e r p r e t e d . For Study I , the f i r s t f a c to r
appears to be a g en eral v iv id n e ss of imagery a t t r i b u t e .
A ll th re e SVI q u e s tio n n a ire s load s u b s t a n t i a l l y on th i s
f a c t o r , w hile ICQ and th e other t e s t s do n o t . Factor two
appears to be sh o rt-te rm memory fo r v isu a l in fo rm atio n .
C apacity to remember th e lo c a tio n of in k b lo ts (AMT) was
most s a tu r a te d w ith t h i s f a c t o r . The th ird f a c to r seems to
be an acquiescence tendency, d efin ed by RBS, and the f a c to r
fo u r appears to be i n a b i l i t y to c o n tro l o n e 's imagery. The
loading of AMT on t h i s f a c to r might be explained by the
f a c t th a t in k b lo ts a re probably e a s ie r to remember once
they have been " re c o g n iz e d ,” and spontaneous (u n c o n tro lle d )
imagery would be expected to c o r r e l a t e w ith in k b lo t
re c o g n itio n p r o d u c tiv ity .
For Study I I , th e re appear to be two v iv id n ess of
imagery f a c t o r s , one weak and the o th er stro n g . Factor
120
1 2 1
four seems to be v iv id n e ss of v is u a l imagery, but t h i s
f a c to r c o n trib u te d n e g lig ib ly to th e o v e r a ll v a ria n c e .
Factor one appears to be impure, being predom inantly v iv id
ness of k i n e s t h e t i c and t a c t i l e imagery, bu t a ls o r e f l e c t
ing a notew orthy s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y component. The second
fa c to r appears to be e i t h e r s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y or a
tendency to answer ’’f a l s e " r a th e r than " t r u e . " I t i s
probably the l a t t e r , in view of the la r g e loading of SDS on
f a c to r one. Hence, f a c to r two in Study II seems to be
complementary to f a c to r th re e in Study I , each m irro rin g
the o th e r. F actor th re e appears to be a lo c a tio n memory
f a c t o r , d efin ed by the LMT lo ad in g . This f a c t o r would seem
s im ila r to f a c to r two in Study I , bu t the SVT loading seems
co n sid e rab ly la r g e r in th a t study.
With some r e s e r v a tio n , i t may be assumed th a t
v iv id n e ss of imagery i s a u n ita ry a t t r i b u t e . The o r ig i n a l
i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s as w ell as the f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s o lu tio n s
seem to support t h i s co n clu sio n . The r e l a t io n s h i p between
v iv id n e ss and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of imagery rem ains u n d e te r
mined. R e su lts from Study I s u s ta in the h y p o th e sis of
t h e i r independence, w hile fin d in g s from Study I I p o in t
towards a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two. The q u e stio n
cannot be decided a t t h i s p o in t. R ic h a rd so n 's (1969)
c o n te n tio n th a t v iv id n e ss and c o n tr o l are prim ary dimen
sio n s o f imagery cannot be m aintained w ithout r e s e r v a tio n .
I t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g secondary fin d in g th a t v is u a l imagery
1 2 2
v iv id n e ss sco res (SVI-V) c o r r e l a t e l e a s t p o s itiv e ly of the
v iv id n e ss measures w ith v is u a l imagery c o n tro l scores (ICQ).
I f th e re is more than one dimension of im aginal v iv id n e ss,
perhaps the a b i l i t y to m anipulate images in any sensory
m odality is more r e l a t e d to v iv id n ess of n o n -v isu a l,
somatic ( k in e s t h e t i c , p ro p rio c e p tiv e , and t a c t i l e ) imagery.
The r e la t io n s h i p s between imagery q u e s tio n n a ire
scores and response s ty l e s a r e of obvious importance sin ce
such q u e s tio n n a ire s may not measure what they are assumed
to , but r a th e r v ario u s answering te n d e n c ie s. I f imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire scores do not c o r r e l a t e w ith measures of
circum scribed response s t y l e s , th is i s p a r t i a l evidence fo r
th e ir v a l i d i t y . Both s tu d ie s yielded d e f i n i t i v e r e s u l t s
reg ard in g the r e l a t io n s h i p between acquiescence and imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire s . I t seems s a f e to assume th a t acquiescence,
or the tendency to answer yes r a th e r than no, does not
a p p reciab ly a f f e c t sco res on imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s of the
r a tin g type (SVI s c a le s ) or th e yes-no type (ICQ). Extrem
ism, th e tendency to respond w ith la r g e v a r i a b i l i t y from
th e n e u tr a l p o in t, may a f f e c t imagery r a t i n g s , but th i s
tendency was not measured in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n .
Findings reg ard in g e f f e c t s o f s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y
were l e s s su p p o rtiv e of the v a l i d i t y of t r a d i t i o n a l imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire s , such as B etts* (1909) and Gordon*s (1949).
Both th e o r ig in a l c o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s and the f a c to r
a n a ly tic r e s u l t s suggest a r e l a t i o n s h i p between scores on
123
imagery q u e s tio n n a ire s and the s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y response
s t y l e . However, the e f f e c t of s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y on th e se
measures appears sm all, judging from e stim a te s o f shared
v a ria n c e . The ICQ seems most in flu en c ed by th e s o c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y s t y l e (e stim ated shared v arian ce of 19 p e r
c e n t) . This i s not s u rp r is in g because the ICQ items a r e of
the form, ’’Can you imagine . . . ? , ” which seems more
ch allen g in g than a re q u e st fo r a seven-point r a t i n g .
Verbal comprehension, ty p i c a l l y measured by vocabu
la r y l e v e l , i s cu sto m arily considered an e x c e lle n t, i f not
the b e s t, measure of g e n e ra l i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t i s n o te
worthy th a t v e rb a l comprehension does n o t appear to r e l a t e
to any of the oth er psychom etric s c a le s used in th is
re se a rc h . Imaginal v iv id n ess and c o n tro l seem to be
u n re la te d to i n t e l l i g e n c e . The sh o rt-te rm memory t e s t s
(AMT, LMT, and SVT) a lso appear u n re la te d to i n t e l l i g e n c e .
I t i s s u rp r is in g th a t s p a t i a l v is u a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y does
not seem a s s o c ia te d with i n t e l l i g e n c e , s in c e th e task of
counting hidden blocks would seem to involve c o n sid e ra b le
re a so n in g .
There appears to be some j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r grouping
AMT, LMT, and SVT to g e th e r under the r u b r ic of s h o rt-te rm
v is u a l memory t e s t s . V ividness and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of
summoned up imagery do n o t seem r e la te d to sh o rt-te rm
v isu a l memory. This suggests th a t t e s t s o f maximum
im aginal c a p a c ity , such as sh o rt-te rm v is u a l memory t e s t s ,
124
may no t r e f l e c t ty p ic a l imagery s t y l e s . This p o in t was
d isc u sse d in th e In tro d u c tio n and a r t i c u l a t e s w ith the
older experim ental l i t e r a t u r e c ite d th e r e . There may be a
s p e c ia l s h o rt-te rm v is u a l memory a b i l i t y which i s not
c a lle d in to p la y when Ss are co n ju rin g up images fo r r a t in g .
Such a memory a b i l i t y might be s im ila r to e i d e t i c imagery,
but might in v o lv e co n sid e ra b ly more encoding and decoding
of s tim u li. However, t h i s p o s itin g of a s p e c ia l a b i l i t y i s
not t h e o r e t i c a l l y parsim onious and i s probably le s s p r e f e r
ab le to the maximum versus t y p ic a l e x p la n a tio n .
R e la tin g th e se fin d in g s to the o r ig in a l hypotheses,
i t appears th a t H ypothesis I was only p a r t l y supported.
The v iv id n ess of imagery q u e s tio n n a ire scores i n t e r r e l a t e d
p o s it i v e l y , bu t th ese sco res were i n c o n s is te n tly r e l a t e d to
imagery c o n tro l s c o re s . H ypothesis I I was a lso only p a r t l y
s u s ta in e d . Imagery q u e s tio n n a ir e sco re s do not seem to be
a f fe c te d by acquiescence te n d e n c ie s , but they do appear
r e l a t e d to s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y . This e f f e c t i s estim ated
to be weak however. Hypothesis I I I remains unchallenged.
Verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e does not seem r e l a t e d to imagery. The
d a ta a lso g e n e ra lly support H ypothesis IV. S hort-term
memory t e s t sco res do not c o r r e l a t e w ith imagery q u e s tio n
n a ir e sc o re s.
These r e s u l t s provide a framework w ith in which to
view the fin d in g s of the main experim ental study to fo llow .
The c l a s s i c a l imagery s c a le s stand up b e t t e r than one might
125
have p r e d ic te d , e s p e c ia lly in appearing r e l a t i v e l y fre e of
response b ia s e s . Much more re se a rc h i s re q u ire d to f u ll y
determ ine the exact n a tu re of th e se q u e s tio n n a ir e s , but the
r e s u l t s of th ese two s tu d ie s i n d ic a te th a t the s c a le s are
not to be dism issed out of hand.
Treatment E ffe c ts
D e s e n s itiz a tio n appears to have had c l e a r - c u t
e f f e c t s in reducing avoidance behavior and Ss* s e l f - r e p o r t s
of a n x ie ty w hile approaching the snake. Treatment a lso
s i g n i f i c a n t l y in c re a se d p o s it i v e a t t i t u d e s (e v a lu a tiv e
resp o n ses) toward snakes. These th re e v a r ia b le s are the
most im portant of the s ix improvement m easures, s in c e they
r e f l e c t changes in overt b eh av io r, s u b je c tiv e (re p o rte d )
d isc o m fo rt, and e v a lu a tiv e d i s p o s i t i o n s toward the phobic
o b je c t. C o n siste n t w ith th e c l i n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , d e s e n s i
t i z a t i o n appears to work. The concern in t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n
i s how.
I t was a lso noted th a t th e c o r r e l a t i o n s between
b e h a v io ra l and a t t i t u d i n a l changes were n e g l i g i b l e . This
i s c o n tra ry to r e s u l t s of Bandura, Blanchard, and R i t t e r
(1969), who found m oderately high p o s it i v e c o r r e la tio n s
between the two. No exp lan atio n fo r th i s d iscrep an cy i s
immediately a p p a re n t. I t i s a lso hard to i n t e r p r e t the
d iff e r e n c e between the two s tu d ie s in terms of fe a r survey
schedule (FSS) r e s u l t s . Bandura, e t a l . , found th a t
126
treatm en t r e s u lte d in s i g n i f i c a n t d ecrease s in FSS responses
on other (th an snake) item s. They r e p o r t t h a t **. . .
changes produced toward the phobic o b je c t were accompanied
by fe a r re d u c tio n toward th re a te n in g s it u a t i o n s beyond the
s p e c i f i c a l l y tr e a te d phobia . . (p. 173). No such
g e n eralized re d u c tio n in fear proneness was found in t h i s
study. This d i f f e r e n c e may have r e s u lte d from the use of
s l i g h t l y d i s s i m i l a r measuring in stru m en ts in the two
s tu d ie s . I t a ls o may be th a t Wolpin*s d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n ,
used in t h i s r e s e a r c h , i s le s s e f fic a c io u s in producing
such g e n e ra liz e d decrements than i s sy ste m a tic d e s e n s i t i z a
tio n , c o n ta c t d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , or modeling w ith guided
p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a l l of which were used in the Bandura, e t
a l ., study.
N eith er the FSS snake item nor the RA*s r a t in g s of
Ss* a n x ie ty showed s i g n i f i c a n t treatm ent e f f e c t s . This may
have occurred because of lim ite d s e n s i t i v i t y of the two
measures. The FSS snake item c o n siste d of only f iv e c a t e
g o rie s, and the RA*s r a t in g of a n x iety was done on a seven-
p o in t s c a le .
Psychometric Scores and I n i t i a l
Phobic Measures'
None of the ten psychom etric sco res p re d ic te d
i n i t i a l avoidance b eh av io r, accompanying s e l f - r e p o r t s of
an x iety , or i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e s toward snakes; the only
exception to t h i s was a s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a tiv e c o r r e l a t i o n
127
between s p a t i a l v i s u a l i z a t i o n sco res (SVT) and i n i t i a l
approach behav io r. This im p lie s th a t p re -tre a tm e n t phobic
i n t e n s i t y i s u n re la te d to v iv id n e ss or c o n tro l of imagery,
verb al i n t e l l i g e n c e , or the response s t y l e s of acquiescence
or s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y . The fin d in g reg ard in g i n t e l l i g e n c e
is not d i f f i c u l t to u n d erstan d , s in c e i t i s j u s t one more
b i t of evidence suggesting th a t le v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e i s no
p a r t i c u l a r a s s e t or l i a b i l i t y when i t comes to b eh av io ral
d i s o r d e r s .
That response s t y l e s do n o t appear to c o r r e l a t e
w ith p re -tre a tm e n t phobic le v e l i s c o n tra ry to e x p e c ta tio n .
Hypothesis IX embodied a p r e d ic tio n th a t the more the
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y s t y l e c h a ra c te riz e d a S, the le ss
i n i t i a l avoidance behavior she would dem onstrate. This was
not supported, suggesting t h a t i n i t i a l amount of phobic
behavior i s no t a ffe c te d by a tendency to "look good" or
p le a se the r e s e a rc h e r. One might have p re d ic te d th a t
i n i t i a l avoidance le v e l i s p o s i t i v e l y r e la te d to s o c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y on the assumption th a t Ss knew th a t the
re se a rc h re q u ire d them to be a f r a id of snakes. This was
not found e i t h e r . The obtained lack of ap parent r e l a t i o n
ship between s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y sco res and i n i t i a l av o id
ance behavior i s i n d i r e c t evidence fo r the v a l i d i t y of the
customary la b o ra to ry p r e te s tin g procedure in which the S i s
asked to approach and perhaps to handle a feared o b je c t.
The apparent lack of r e l a t io n s h i p between im aginal
128
v iv id n ess and c o n t r o l, and p re -th e ra p y phobic l e v e l i s
c o n tra ry to a p re lim in a ry r e s u l t re p o rte d by D avis,
McLemore, and London (1970), which suggested th a t the more
vivid the v is u a l imagery of a S, th e le s s i n i t i a l avoidance
behavior she dem onstrated. These w r i te r s hypothesized th a t
phobias of good imagers tend to be based on im ag in atio n ,
w hile th o se of poor imagers tend to be based on sensory
experien ce. The n e g a tiv e r e la tio n s h ip between s p a t i a l
v is u a l i z a t i o n and i n i t i a l approach behavior was in the
op p o site d i r e c t io n to the Davis, e t a l ., fin d in g ( i . e . , Ss
w ith b e t t e r s p a t i a l v i s u a liz a tio n sco res tended to show
more avoidance b e h a v io r). In a d d itio n , th e f a c t o r a n a ly tic
r e s u l t s p re v io u sly p resen ted suggest th a t s p a t i a l v i s u a l i
z a tio n i s a d i f f e r e n t c o n stru c t from v iv id n ess of imagery
which D avis, e£ a l ., attem pted to measure. No ex p lan atio n
is o ffe re d f o r th e d iscrep an cy between th e two s tu d ie s .
There were se v e ra l c o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c i e n t s which
suggested th a t im aginal v ividness i s in v e rs e ly r e l a t e d to
an x iety r a t in g s by an observer (RA). This may in d ic a te
th a t good imagers m anifest fewer e x p ressio n s o f tension
than poor im agers.
The o b tained r e la tio n s h ip between s o c ia l d e s i r a
b i l i t y sco res (SDS) and i n i t i a l f e a r survey schedule scores
(PSS) i s most i n t e r e s t i n g . In v e n to rie s , such as FSS, are
fre q u e n tly used to screen Ss for d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n re se a rc h .
S ubjects a re s e le c te d according to whether or no t they
129
endorse a s u b s ta n tia l degree of fe a r on the s c a le . The
f a c t th a t s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y sco res c o r re la te d markedly
n e g a tiv e ly w ith fe a r survey schedule scores im p lies th a t
th e l a t t e r may be of lim ite d i f not d e trim e n ta l value in
s e le c t in g Ss. Fear in v e n to rie s may tend to s e le c t Ss low
on s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y s t y l e r a th e r than Ss high in f e a r .
The lack of v a l i d i t y of FSS sco res i s f u r th e r h ig h lig h te d
by the apparent lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e se scores
and i n i t i a l avoidance behavior (see Tables 17-19).
Changes on Imagery S cales
I t i s conceivable th a t imagery might undergo some
change during the course of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . The therapy,
fo cu sin g as i t does on images, might modify Ss* im aginal
a t t r i b u t e s . I t was found th a t whatever m o d ific a tio n s of
imagery occur were not p re d ic te d by i n i t i a l avoidance
b eh av io r, accompanying s e lf - r e p o r t e d a n x ie ty , or i n i t i a l
a t t i t u d e s c o re s . This i s not s u r p r is in g .
As mentioned p re v io u sly , changes in imagery may
m ediate treatm en t e f f e c t s . C o v ariatio n between imaginal
changes and phobic changes would not n e c e s s a r i l y in d ic a te
t h i s , sin ce treatm ent may a f f e c t both d i r e c t l y r a th e r than
one m ediating th e o th e r. However, i f no s i g n i f i c a n t
c o r r e la tio n s between th e two o b ta in , i t would suggest th a t
im aginal changes do n o t play a m ediating r o le in behavior
change. R e su lts seem to support t h i s l a s t h y p o th esis.
130
A lte r a tio n s in Ss* imagery do not appear to u n d e r lie
d ecrease s in avoidance b eh av io r. There was th e su ggestion
from the d a ta th a t a t t i t u d i n a l change may be m ediated by
im aginal change, but r e s u l t s were not co n clu siv e. Since
a t t i t u d e s have been defin ed as e v a lu a tiv e resp o n ses, a
p o s it i v e r e l a t io n s h i p between in c re a s e s in im aginal v iv id
ness and in c re a se s in p o s it i v e a t t i t u d e s might imply th a t
the more v iv id the conjured-up stim u lu s image, the more
p o s it i v e l y the S r e a c ts toward i t . T his seems u n lik e ly .
Imagery and Treatment E fficacy
The prim ary r e s u l t of t h i s re se a rc h seems c le a r
c u t. There was no evidence of a p o s it i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between v iv id n ess of imagery and d ecre a se s in avoidance
b eh av io r. Hence, Hypothesis V appears to have gone
unchallenged. This conclusion accords with th a t of Davis,
e t a l . (1970), who f a i le d to fin d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la tio n
between v is u a l im aginal v iv id n e ss and avoidance decrem ents.
I t appears th a t the usu al view, th a t improvement in
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n depends on v iv id imagery, may be m istaken.
Imaginal c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and d ecrease s in avoidance
behavior do not appear to be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d e i t h e r .
T h e re fo re , Hypothesis VI a lso c o n tin u es unchallenged. The
fin d in g th a t n e ith e r im aginal c o n tro l nor v iv id n e ss appear
to be r e l a t e d to d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n outcome suggests th a t
e i t h e r some other dimension of imagery m ediates improvement
131
or th a t outcome depends on non-im aginal v a r ia b le s . S p a tia l
v is u a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y (SVT) looks as i f i t may r e l a t e to
decrease s in avoidance b eh av io r, but th i s i s d i f f i c u l t to
i n t e r p r e t m eaningfully. By i t s e l f , th i s i s weak support
for a hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p between imagery and d e se n si
t i z a t i o n outcome, and in view o f the f a c to r a n a ly tic f i n d
in g s, t h i s i s n e g l i g i b l e support for the n o tio n th a t
im aginal v iv id n ess p lay s a r o le in treatm ent e f fic a c y .
V ividness o f imagery appears n e g a tiv e ly r e l a t e d to
d e crease s in avoidance behavior when g e n e r a liz a tio n i s
req u ired ( i . e . , when d i f f e r e n t snakes are used for p r e t e s t
ing and p o s tte s tin g [Group I I ] ) . Although Ss were few in
Group I I , r e s u l t s were r e l a t i v e l y s tr i k i n g , though not
s ig n i f i c a n t . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y im portant because i t i s
usual fo r a t h e r a p i s t to want th e ra p e u tic e f f e c t s to
g e n e ra liz e to s tim u li s im ila r to the one used in tre a tm e n t.
H ypothesis V II, t h a t v iv id n e ss of imagery i s le s s p o s i
tiv e ly (o r more n e g a tiv e ly ) r e l a t e d to d ecrease s in av o id
ance behavior when r e s u l t s must be g e n e ra liz e d , appears
supported, although th e comparisons only approached s i g n i f
ican ce. I t would appear th a t the more viv id a S*s imagery,
the le s s she dem onstrated g e n eralized treatm ent e f f e c t s .
This su g g ests (but does n o t prove) th a t im aginal v iv id n e ss
may hinder g e n e r a liz a tio n and th a t i t may be in v e rs e ly
r e la te d to a v a r ia b le or s e t of v a ria b le s which them selves
mediate g e n e r a liz a tio n .
132
I t i s p o s s ib le th a t a l l or most Ss in the study had
the minimum n ecessary v iv id n ess of imagery to p r o f i t from
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Perhaps " e x t r a ” im aginal v iv id n e ss or
c o n tro l does n o t augment treatm en t e f f ic a c y . However, such
an e x p lan atio n would seem to be s tr e tc h in g th in g s a b i t
sin ce most, i f not a l l , t r a d i t i o n a l le a rn in g th e o r ie s would
p r e d ic t t h a t co u n te rc o n d itio n in g would be p o s i t i v e l y a sso
c ia te d w ith i n t e n s i t y ( d is c r im in a tiv e cue v alu e) of condi
ti o n a l s ti m u l i . Even i f t h i s minimum necessary v iv id n ess
e x p lan atio n i s c o r r e c t, i t s t i l l im p lie s the e x is te n c e of
a d d itio n a l tr.eatment e f f e c t m ediators to account for i n d i
v id u a l d if f e r e n c e s in improvement. A ll the w ith in Ss
v arian ce would no t seem to be random e r r o r .
One p o s s ib le m ediator of g e n e r a liz a tio n e f f e c ts
might be verb al l a b e l s . Perhaps Ss who make v e rb a l s t a t e
ments to themselves during d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n , and so who
become d e s e n s itiz e d to a categ o ry (such as " sn a k e s" ), show
most t r a n s f e r of th e ra p e u tic e f f e c t s . S u b je c ts may d i f f e r
in t h e i r r e l ia n c e e i t h e r on imagery or on la b e l s as
Richardson (1969) claim s ( i . e . , some Ss may be p rim a rily
v i s u a l i z e r s and o th e rs may be p rim a rily v e r b a l i z e r s ) .
R esu lts suggest th a t verb al comprehension, by and la rg e ,
does n o t p r e d ic t improvement. Only d e c re a se s in s e l f -
r a t in g s o f ongoing anxiety c o r r e la te d p o s i t i v e l y with
v erb al comprehension s c o re s. T h erefo re, except perhaps fo r
s e l f - r e p o r t s o f ongoing a n x ie ty , v e rb a l comprehension does
133
no t appear to r e l a t e to improvement. As an exp lan atio n of
the p o s itiv e fin d in g regarding s e l f - r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty , i t
may be th a t v e rb a lly f lu e n t Ss are more l i k e l y to i n t e r n a l l y
ta lk down th e ir a n x ie ty , which, however, may not a f f e c t
a c tu a l avoidance b eh av io r. I t i s , of c o u rse, p o s sib le th a t
r e lia n c e on verbal m ediators ( l a b e l s ) i s n o t measured by
t e s t s of vocabulary. This may be another in s ta n c e of the
ty p ic a l versus maximum performance is s u e .
Response S ty le s as D e s e n s itiz a tio n
M ediators
Hypothesis IX was not su p p o rted . There was no
evidence to suggest th a t s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y le v e l c o r r e
l a t e s w ith p re -tre a tm e n t phobic b ehavior or w ith treatm ent
e f f e c t s . I t was expected th a t Ss, who were in c lin e d to
p le a s e the re s e a r c h e r , would a lso tend to show the most
th e ra p e u tic g a in s. This does not appear to have been the
case. N either s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y nor acquiescence s ty l e s
appear to mediate d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n e f f e c t s . Since so c ia l
d e s i r a b i l i t y sco res are probably an index of s u s c e p t i b i l i t y
to experim enter e f f e c t s , t h i s i s another way of saying th a t
experim enter e f f e c t s may p lay a n e g l i g i b l e p a r t in d e t e r
mining th e amount of improvement which r e s u l t s from
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
The lack of support for hypotheses of im aginal and
response s ty l e m ediation in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n suggests th a t
m ediators other than th o se measured in t h i s study op erate
134
to f a c i l i t a t e phobia re d u c tio n .
Commitment and Level o f A s p ira tio n
as M ediators
I t may be th a t amount of improvement i s influenced
by the S’s e x p e c ta tio n of g ain , a kind of le v e l of a s p ir a
tio n . D ev iatio n s from t h i s ex p e c ta tio n may be experienced
as c o g n itiv e in c o n s is te n c y , u s u a lly assumed to be a nega
t iv e m o tiv a tio n a l s t a t e . Subjects may behave so to reduce
d isc re p e n c ie s between th e ra p e u tic a s p ir a t i o n le v e ls and
th e ra p e u tic g a in s . There was no measure of i n i t i a l expect
an cies on the p a r t of Ss in th is stu d y , but such a measure
might have proved e n lig h te n in g .
A p ro cess c lo s e ly r e la te d to a s p ir a t i o n le v e l i s
commitment. I t was observed in t h i s study t h a t se v e ra l Ss
made n e g a tiv e comments a t the beginning o f th e study, such
as ’'You’l l never get me to touch th a t t h i n g ." These Ss
seemed to show l i t t l e or no improvement a f t e r tre atm e n t.
No sy ste m a tic d a ta on spontaneous state m e n ts was c o lle c te d ,
but i t appears p l a u s ib le th a t commitment may play a major
r o le in determ ining tre a tm e n t outcome.
CHAPTER VI
SUM M ARY
E ffic a c y of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n has been assumed to
r e ly on v iv id n e ss of p a t i e n t s ’ imagery. A previous study
challenged t h i s assumption but was m ethodologically in a d e
q u ate. T his d i s s e r t a t i o n attem pted to e v alu ate the fo llo w
ing a t t r i b u t e s as p o s sib le m ediators of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n
outcome: im aginal v iv id n e ss and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y , verb al
in t e l l i g e n c e , and response s ty le s of acquiescence and
s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y . I t was p re d ic te d th a t imagery sco re s
would not be p o s it i v e l y a s so c ia te d w ith d ecre a se s in a v o id
ance behavior but th a t s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y sc o re s would.
Verbal comprehension scores were expected to c o r r e l a t e
p o s i t i v e l y w ith b e h a v io ra l g e n e r a liz a tio n of tre a tm e n t
e f f e c t s . No p r e d ic tio n was made reg ard in g acquiescence
sc o re s.
Before e v alu atin g th e above hypotheses, i t was
n ecessary to i n v e s tig a te th e f a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y of p ro c e
dures to measure imagery. Seventy female c o lle g e s tu d e n ts
completed a b a t t e r y of psychom etric s c a le s in c lu d in g s e l f -
r a tin g s of im aginal v iv id n e ss and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y , a
135
136
vocabulary t e s t , a v is u a l memory t e s t , an acquiescence
measure, and a t e s t of s p a t i a l v i s u a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t y . As
p a r t of the main experim ental study, s e v e n ty -s ix female
c o lle g e s tu d e n ts were adm inistered a s im ila r b a tte r y of
t e s t s plus a s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y s c a le . R e su lts of both
groups were f a c t o r analyzed. Im aginal v iv id n e ss appears to
be a u n ita ry a t t r i b u t e acro ss sensory m o d a litie s and may be
d i s tin g u is h a b le from imagery c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y . Verbal
i n t e l l i g e n c e sc o re s did not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith
any of the o th e r psychometric s c o re s . S e lf - r e p o r t imagery
s c a le s do n o t seem a ffe c te d by acquiescence ten d en cies, but
appear s l i g h t l y biased by s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y responding.
Im aginal v iv id n e ss and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y seem u n re la te d to
a b i l i t y to remember v is u a l s tim u li, or to s p a t i a l v i s u a l i
z a tio n a b i l i t y . The l a t t e r two seem p o s it i v e l y a s so c ia te d .
In the absence of more inform ation or su p e rio r in stru m en ts,
imagery r a tin g s c a le s were taken to be s a t i s f a c t o r y meas
u re s .
For th e main stu d y , Wolpinfs guided im agination
technique fo r d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n was given to fem ale, snake
phobic c o lle g e s tu d e n ts in one of two c o n d itio n s: (1) the
same snake was used fo r p r e te s tin g and p o s tt e s t i n g , and
(2 ) a d i f f e r e n t snake was used fo r p r e t e s t i n g and p o s t t e s t
in g , r e q u irin g g e n e r a liz a tio n of e f f e c t s to a new stim u lu s.
Demise of one of the snakes n e c e s s ita te d form ation of th re e
r a t h e r than two groups. Group I ( te n tre a tm e n t and th re e
137
n o -treatm en t Ss) were p r e te s te d and p o s tte s te d w ith an
Indigo snake. Group I I ( f i f t e e n tre atm e n t and four no
tre atm e n t Ss) were p r e te s te d w ith an Indigo snake and
p o s tte s te d w ith a King snake. Group I I I (tw e n ty -fiv e
tre atm e n t and e ig h t n o -tre a tm e n t Ss) were p r e te s te d and
p o s tte s te d with a King snake. R e su lts of Groups I and I I I
were weighted and combined for the f i r s t co n d itio n above.
S ubjects took a double b e h a v io ra l p r e t e s t , an a t t i t u d e
s c a le , a fe a r survey schedule, th e psychometric b a tte r y
d iscu ssed above, a b e h a v io ra l p o s t t e s t , and then rep eated
the a t t i t u d e s c a le , f e a r survey sch ed u le, and the psycho
m e tric b a t t e r y . Treatment Ss underwent two se ssio n s of
tap e-reco rd ed d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n .
Groups were no t found to d i f f e r in i n i t i a l a v o id
ance behavior or in p re -tre a tm e n t imagery sc o re s. D esen si
t i z a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced avoidance behavior and s e l f -
r a t in g s of a n x ie ty , and appeared to in c r e a s e p o s itiv e
e v a lu a tio n s ( a t t i t u d e s ) toward snakes. I t did not seem to
reduce g en eral fe a r proneness or the re se a rc h a s s i s t a n t ' s
r a tin g s of Sis' a n x ie ty w hile approaching the snake.
I n i t i a l avoidance b eh av io r, s e l f - r e p o r t s of a n x ie ty , and
i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e s were not p re d ic te d by psychometric
sc o re s. S o cial d e s i r a b i l i t y sco res p re d ic te d i n i t i a l fe a r
survey schedule sco re s beyond the .001 le v e l. Imaginal
v iv id n ess and c o n tro l did not appear p o s i t i v e l y r e la te d to
d ecrease s in avoidance b ehavior. When g e n e r a liz a tio n was
138
re q u ire d , im aginal v iv id n e ss appeared n a tiv e ly r e la te d to
decrease s in avoidance. A ttitu d e change and re d u c tio n s in
s e l f - r a t i n g s of a n x ie ty were not p r e d ic te d by imagery
q u e s tio n n a ire s c o re s . T herapeutic g ain s appear u n re la te d
to acquiescence or s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y te n d e n c ie s. Verbal
comprehension sco res did not p r e d ic t re d u c tio n s in avoid
ance behavior fo r e i t h e r c o n d itio n . M u ltip le re g re s sio n
an aly ses did not i n d ic a te th a t psychom etric scores s i g n i f i
c a n tly p r e d ic t behavior or a t t i t u d i n a l change. Im p lica
tio n s of these r e s u l t s are d isc u sse d , and o th e r p o s sib le
m ediators of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n a re mentioned.
R E F E R E N C E S
139
REFERENCES
A ngell, J . R. Report of the committee of the American
P sy ch o lo g ical A sso c ia tio n on the s ta n d a rd iz a tio n of
procedure in experim ental t e s t s . P sychological
Monographs, 1910, No. 53, 61-107.
Bandura, A .; Blanchard, E. B .; and R i t t e r , B. R e la tiv e
e f f ic a c y of d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n and modeling approaches
fo r inducing b e h a v io ra l, a f f e c t i v e , and a t t i t u d i n a l
changes. Jo u rn a l o f P e r s o n a lity and S o c ia l
Psychology, 1969, f T ; " I 7 3 - 1 9 9 .--------------------
B a r r a t t , P. E. Use of EEG in the study of imagery.
B r i t i s h Jo u rn a l of Psychology, 1956, 47, 101-114.
Barron, F. C r e a t i v i t y and p e rso n a l freedom . New J e rs e y :
D. Van N ostrand, I n c . , 1963.
B e tts , G. H. The d i s t r i b u t i o n and fu n c tio n s of mental
imagery. Columbia U n iv e rs ity C o n trib u tio n s to
E d u catio n , 1909, 26, 1-99.
Bexton, W. H .; Heron, W.; and S c o tt, T. H. E ffe c ts of
decreased v a r i a t io n in the sensory environment.
Canadian Jo u rn a l of Psychology, 1954, JJ, 70-76.
C h ris tia n s e n , T . , and Stone, D. R. V isual imagery and
le v e l o f m ediator a b s tr a c tn e s s in induced m ediator
paradigms. P e rc e p tu a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1968, 26,
775-779.
C lark, W. G. Psychotomimetic (h a llu c in o g e n ic ) drugs.
Mind, 1963, 1, 293-317.
Cronbach, L-, and Meehl, P. C o n stru ct v a l i d i t y of
p sy ch o lo g ica l t e s t s . P sychological B u lle tin , 1955,
52, 281-302.
Curran, D ., and C a rtrid g e , N. P sychological m ed icin e.
Edinburgh: L evingston, 1955.
140
141
D avis, D.; McLeraore, C. W.; and London, P. The ro le of
v is u a l imagery in d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1970, 8, 11-13.
Deese, J . , and Hulse, S. H. The psychology of l e a r n in g .
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Dement, W., and Kleitman, N. The r e l a t i o n of eye movements
during sle e p to dream a c t i v i t y : An o b je c tiv e
method fo r the study of dreaming. Jo u rn a l of
Experimental Psychology, 1957, 53^, 339-346.
Deuker, H. Hat Jaenschs Lehre von der E id e tik heute noch
Bedeutung? Psychologische B e itra e g e , 1965, 8,
237-253.
DiCara, L. V. Learning in the autonomic nervous system.
S c i e n t i f i c American, 1970, 222, 30-39.
D o lla rd , J . , and M ille r , N. E. P e r s o n a lity and psycho-
th e ra p y . New York: McGraw-Hill, l9 ? 0 .
Dominowski, R. L ., and G adlin, H. P a ire d -a s s o c ia te
le a rn in g as a fu n c tio n of stim u lu s-aro u sed imagery.
Psychonomic B u l l e t i n , 1967, 1_, 11.
Doob, L. W . Exploring e i d e t i c imagery among th e Kamba of
C e n tra l Kenya. Jo u rn a l of S o c ia l Psychology, 1965,
67, 3-22.
Edwards, A. L. The measurement of p e r s o n a lity t r a i t s by
s c a le s and in v e n to r ie s , rtew York: H o lt, R inehart
and Winston, 1970.
_________ . The s o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y v a r ia b le in p e r s o n a lity
a s s e s sment and r e s e a r ch. New York: H o lt, R inehart
and Winston, 1957.
Efran, J . S ., and M arcia, J . C. Treatment of f e a rs by
expectancy m an ip u latio n : An e x p lo ra to ry in v e s tig a -
tio n . Proceedings of th e 75th Annual Convention of
the American P sy ch o lo g ical A s so c ia tio n , 1967, 5,
539-240.------------- 6-----------------------------
Feldman, M. E id e tic imagery in Ghana: A c r o s s - c u l t u r a l
w ill-o * -th e -w isp ? Jo u rn a l of Psychology, 1968, 69,
259-269.
Fernald, M. R. The d ia g n o sis o f mental imagery.
Psychological Monographs, 1912, No. 58.
142
G alton, F. In q u ir ie s in to human f a c u lty and i t s
developm ent. London: MacMillan, 1883.
S t a t i s t i c s of mental imagery. Mind, 1880, 5,
300-318. ”
Gibbs, D. N. R eciprocal i n h i b i t i o n therapy of a case of
symptomatic erythema. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1965, 2, 261-266.
Gordon, R. An in v e s t i g a t i o n in to some of the f a c t o r s th a t
favour the form ation of stereo ty p ed images.
B r i t i s h Jo u rn a l of Psychology, 1949, 39^, 156-157.
Gray, B. B . ; England, G .; and Mahoney, J . L. Treatment of
benign vocal nodules by r e c ip r o c a l i n h i b i t i o n .
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1965, 3^, 187-194.
G uthrie, E. R. The psychology of l e a r n i n g . New York:
Harper and Row, 1935.
_________ . The psychology o f learn in g (Revised e d itio n ) .
New York: Harper and kow, T952.
Haber, R. N. E id e tic images. S c i e n t i f i c American, 1969,
220, 36-44.
Haber, R. N ., and Haber, R. B. E id e tic imagery: I .
Frequency. P erc e p tu a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1964, 19,
131-138.
H a lls te n , E. A. A dolescent anorexia nervosa tr e a te d by
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1965, 3, 87-92.
Harman, H. H. Modern f a c to r a n a l y s is . Chicago:
U n iv e rsity of Chicago i*ress, 1967.
Haslam, M. T. The tre atm e n t of an ob sessio n al p a t i e n t by
r e c ip ro c a l i n h i b i t i o n . Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1965, 2, 213-216.
Himwich, H. E. Psychopharmacologic d ru g s. Science, 1958,
127, 59-72.
H olt, R. R. Imagery: The r e tu rn of th e o s tr a c iz e d .
American P s y c h o lo g is t, 1964, 19, 254-264.
Horowitz, M. J . V isual thought images in psychotherapy.
American J o u rn a l of P sychotherapy, 1968, 22, 55-59.
143
H ull, C. L. P rin c ip le s of b e h a v io r. New York: A ppleton-
Cen t u r y - C r o f ts , 194?.
Jacobson, E. P ro g ressiv e r e l a x a t i o n . Chicago: U n iv e rsity
of Chicago P re ss, 1938.
J a f f e , L. W. N o n -sp ecific tre atm e n t f a c to r s and decondi
tio n in g in fe a r re d u c tio n . Unpublished d o c to ra l
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rsity of Southern C a lif o r n ia ,
1968.
J e l l i n e k , A. Spontaneous imagery. American Jo u rn a l of
Psychotherapy, 1949, 3, 372-5^1.
Jones, M. C. The e lim in a tio n of c h i l d r e n ’ s f e a r s . Jo u rn a l
of Experim ental Psychology
Kanzer, M. Image form ation during fre e a s s o c ia tio n .
P sychoanalytic Q u a r te r ly , 1958, 27, 465.
L azarus, A. A. Group th erap y of phobic d is o r d e r s by
system atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . Jo u rn a l of Abnormal
and S o c ia l Psychology, 1961, 63, 504-$lO.
. The treatm ent of chronic f r i g i d i t y by sy stem atic
d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n . The Jo u rn a l of Nervous and Mental
D ise a se , 1963, 136, 272-278.
L e ib o v itz , M. P. In d iv id u a l d if f e r e n c e s in imagery among
sensory m o d a litie s . Unpublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a
tio n , U n iv e rsity of Southern C a lif o r n ia , 1968.
Leuner, H. Guided a f f e c t i v e imagery (GAI): A method of
in te n s iv e psychotherapy. American Jo u rn a l of
P sychotherapy, 1969, 23, 4-22.
London, P. The modes and morals of psy ch o th erap y . New
York! rfo lf, R in eh art and wTinston, 1964.
Magoun, H. W. The waking b r a i n , 2nd e d i t i o n . S p r in g f ie ld ,
I l l i n o i s ! C. (j. Thomas, 1963.
Masserman, J . H. Behavior and n e u r o s i s . Chicago:
U n iv e rsity ot Chicago P re s s , 1943.
M ille r , N. Learning of v i s c e r a l and g la n d u la r resp o n ses.
S c ie n c e , 1969, 163, 434-445.
M ischel, W. P e rs o n a lity and a ssessm en t. New York: John
Wi1ey and Sons, 1968.
144
P a iv io , A. A f a c t o r - a n a l y t i c study of word a t t r i b u t e s and
v erb al le a rn in g . Jo u rn al o f Verbal Learning and
Verbal B ehavior, 1968, 7, 41-49.
On the fu n c tio n a l s ig n if ic a n c e of imagery.
P sy chological B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73, 385-392.
P a iv io , A ., and Madigan, S. A. Imagery and a s s o c ia tio n
value in p a ir e d - a s s o c ia te le a rn in g . Jo u rn a l of
Experim ental Psychology, 1968, 76, 35-39.
P aloszi-H ovath, G. The u n defeated. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown,
1959.
Pavlov, I . P. Conditioned r e f l e x e s . T ra n s la te d by G. V.
Anrep. Oxford: Oxford U n iv e rsity P re s s , 1927.
P e n fie ld , W., and J a s p e r , H. Epilepsy and th e fu n c tio n a l
anatomy of th e human b r a i n . Boston: L i t t l e ,
Brown, 1954.
Ramsay, R. W.; Barends, J . ; Breuher, J . ; and Kruseman, A.
Masses versus spaced d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n o f f e a r .
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1966, 4, 205-207.
Reyher, J . Free imagery: An uncovering procedure.
Jo u rn a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1963, 19, 454-459.
Reyher, J . , and Sm eltzer, W . Uncovering p r o p e r tie s of
v is u a l imagery and v e rb a l a s s o c ia tio n : A
com parative study. J o u rn a l of Abnormal Psychology,
1968, 73, 218-222.
Richardson, A. Mental im agery. New York: S p rin g e r, 1969.
Robinson, J . P. Verbal and im aginal p ro c e sse s in le a rn in g .
Unpublished d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rsity of
Southern C a lif o r n ia , 1969.
R osenthal, R. Experimenter e f f e c t s in b e h a v io ra l r e s e a r c h .
New YorlTI A ppleton-C entury-(5rofts, 1966.
Ruch, F. L ., and Ruch, W. W. Employee a p titu d e survey:
T echnical r e p o r t . Los A ngeles: P sy chological
S e rv ic e s, 1963.
Sheehan, P. W. Accuracy and v iv id n e ss of v is u a l images.
P e rc e p tu a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1966a, 23, 391-398.
145
Sheehan, P. W. F unctional s i m i l a r i t y of imagining to
p e rc e iv in g : In d iv id u a l d iff e r e n c e s in v iv id n ess of
imagery. P erceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1966b, 23,
1011-1033.
A shortened form of B e t t s 1 Q u estio n n a ire Upon
Mental Imagery. J o u rn a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology,
1967a, 23, 386-387:
V isual imagery and the o rg a n iz a tio n a l p r o p e r tie s
of p erceived s ti m u l i . B r i t i s h Jo u rn a l of Psychol-
ogy, 1967b, 58, 247-252.
S h errin g to n , C. S. The i n t e g r a t i v e a c tio n o f the nervous
system . London: C onstab le, 1906.
S hort, P. L. The o b je c tiv e study of mental imagery.
B r i t i s h Jo u rn al o f Psychology, 1953, 44, 38-51.
Smythe, P. D ., and P aivio, A. A comparison of the
e f fe c tiv e n e s s of word imagery and m eaningfulness in
p a ir e d - a s s o c ia te le a rn in g of nouns. Psychonomic
S c ie n c e , 1968, jUO, 49-50.
Stam pfl, T. G., and L evis, D. J . E s s e n tia ls of im plosive
th erap y : A le a rn in g theory based psychodynamic
behavior therapy. Jo u rn a l of Abnormal Psychology,
1967, 72, 496-503.
S tew art, J . C. An experim ental in v e s t i g a t i o n of imagery.
D i s s e r t a t io n a b s t r a c t s , 1966, 27, 1285.
Stoyva, J . , and Kamiya, J . E le c tro p h y s io lo g ic a l s tu d ie s of
dreaming as the p ro to ty p e of a new s tr a te g y in the
study of consciousness. P sy c h o lo g ical Review,
1968, 75, 192-205. ----------
T rax el, W. K r itis c h e Untersuchungen zur E id e tik . A rchives
of G e s ta lt Psychology, 1962, 114, 260-336.
Warren, M. The s ig n if ic a n c e of v is u a l images during the
a n a ly tic se ssio n . Jo u rn a l of the American
P sychoanalytic A s s o c ia tio n , 1961, 19, 5o4~518.
Wolpe, J . Psychotherapy by r e c ip r o c a l i n h i b i t i o n .
S ta n fo rd , C a l i f . : Stanford U n iv e rs ity P ress, 1958.
. The sy stem atic d e s e n s i t i z a t i o n tre atm e n t of
n e u r o s is . The J o u rn a l of Nervous and Mental
D isease, 1961, 132, 189-203.
146
Wolpin,
Wolpin,
Wolpin,
Y u ille ,
M. Guided imagining in reducing fe a r and avoidance
b eh av io r. Paper d e liv e re d a t the symposium,
Behavior Theory and Therapy in 1966, C am arillo
S ta te H o s p ita l, C am arillo, C a lif o r n ia , 1966.
M., and P e r s a l l , L. Rapid d ec o n d itio n in g of a fear
of snakes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1965,
3, 107-111.
M., and R aines, J . V isual imagery, expected ro le s
and e x tin c tio n as p o s s ib le f a c to r s in reducing fear
and avoidance b eh av io r. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1966, 4, 25-37.
J . C. Concreteness w ithout imagery in p a ir e d -
a s s o c ia te le a rn in g . Psychonomic S cience, 1968, 11,
55-56.
A P P E N D I X
147
S i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
148
TABLE 53
PSYCHOMETRIC RAW DA TA FOR STUDY I
n-v SVI-P SVI-K ICQ VCT AM T RBS SVT
64 29 26 5 12 6 22 28
10 8 22 8 9
2 27 23
44 28 33 11 14 4 19 28
45 18 22 9 9
3 35 29
54 26 25 8 15 5 35 24
58 25 28 11 10 5 34 24
55 28 29 11 13 3 20 8
58 28 24 11 15 3 27 26
55 27 26 8 7 2 29 8
62 33 34 12 21 7 27 34
67 34 35 12 16 3 36 23
61 33 30 8 13 4 32 30
61 29 29 7 14 2 33 12
44 17 20 7 16 4 31 35
66 33 29 7 8 3 32 43
53 27 27 5 18 7 32 14
62 27 26 9 17 1 26 23
55 28 21 9 18 2 26 11
57 24 33 6 23 4 35 20
58 28 29 9 8 4 46 3
60 32 27 7 11 4 26 12
S i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
149
SVT
32
18
20
11
6
22
34
23
30
29
21
10
12
14
18
15
34
17
31
28
25
32
17
TABLE 53 (CONTINUED)
VI -V SVI-P SVI-K ICQ VCT AM T RBS
59 25 25 11 17 2 32
61 34 32 10 12 1 29
54 27 32 12 10 4 27
62 34 33 12 8 1 35
58 30 30 12 12 5 25
66 31 24 9 17 7 26
57 30 30 10 12 4 34
69 32 33 10 13 4 21
64 31 34 7 15 6 32
62 34 29 9 17 4 26
58 27 31 9 13 3 25
68 31 31 8 13 2 30
68 33 31 12 12 4 29
60 30 26 9 11 3 33
61 26 22 8 12 7 22
61 27 27 8 11 5 24
62 24 29 11 9 4 35
69 35 32 12 13 4 21
68 33
34 12 8 5 28
45 22 24 3 12 6 23
63 25 27 7 11 8 30
67 34 27 6 10 7 35
62 33 33 6 5 6 26
150
s # SVI-V
TABLE 53 (CONTINUED)
SVI-P SVI-K ICQ VCT AMT RBS SVT
45 54 22 27 8 19 5 22 32
46 56 29 33 11 11 4 37 17
47 64 28 29 8 6 3 37 36
48 56 27 24 4 12 5 26 16
49 57 24 27 11 10 5 25 26
50 61 31 31 11 8 1 28 19
51 56 29 26 11 12 5 31 37
52 62 29 23 8
10
4 27 16
53 68 29 28 9 10 5 36 21
54 49 29 24 12 9 5 17 27
55 58 27 26 8 12 3 35 18
56 59 22 22 3 16 4 23 23
57 70 27 28 10 7 5 28 32
58 65 33 33 11 13 3 24 16
59 60 29 27 7 9 3 27 23
60 56 27 25 9 7 5 26 29
61 61 31 31 7 12 5 31 17
62 53 23 19 11 13 4 19 38
63 53 26 27 5 6 1 44 2
64 66 34 32 11 20 6 31 24
65 63 33 33 11 12 5 23 9
66 58 32 32 12 7 3 33 18
67 44 20 27 9 14 4 35 22
TABLE 53 (CONTINUED)
151
s # SVI-V SVI-P SVI-K ICQ VCT AMT RBS SVT
68 56 30 35 12 19 5 35 26
69 62 33 27 8 10 2 28 6
70 69 32
30 7 6 7 26 24
TABLE 54
152
PSYCHOMETRIC RAW DATA FOR STUDY II
(PRE-TREATMENT)
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
1 57 24 27 27 9 16 37 5 11 34
2 60 27 26 29 9 11 28 8 13 25
3 59 16 13 29 5 9 16 15 19 12
4 57 24 27 28 8 9 23 9 14 17
5 62 28 26 26 9 15 33 9 18 31
6 59 24 28 31 10 10 27 11 15 39
7 70 34 31 32 6 9 21 12 12 25
8 54 24 23 30 9 11 33 10 6 33
9 60 24 22 25 11 10 38 6 15 24
10 47 20 17 23 8 10 29 10 10 26
11 62 29 28 33 9 16 34 10 12 13
12 60 29 23 26 10 12 30 11 12 42
13 63 31 30
32 10
13 32 9 14 36
14 56 22 20 26 6
13 26 12 11 29
15 63 32 28 32 11 10 30 10 12 7
16 65 32 33 30 11 9 30 12 4 14
17 54 23 28 24 9 17 29 7 18 33
18 52 24 21 25 7 12 30 9 18 23
19 68 35 34 33 12 9 35 10 13 11
20 51 23 26 29 6 6 28 9 11 41
TABLE 54 (CONTINUED)
153
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
21 57 32 30 30 12 11 31 12 15 29
22 58 23 25 26 8 14 19 15 18 23
23 56 27 29 29 10 10 28 6 13 23
24 63 26 24 31 12 12 28 7 12 9
25 52 29 28 32 8 11 22 10 14 13
26 64 22 27 33 11 16 34 12 11 16
27 67 31 31 32 12 15 36 11 15 2
28 52 26 29 32 9 13 36 8 18 25
29 58 31 35 31 11 11 35 6 12 31
30 62 34 28 31 12 16 30 13 11 13
31 67 32 33 35 11 16 33 9 12 24
32 55 26 25 26 9 8 32 9 20 19
33 56 22 22 31 7 10 14 13 14 16
34 58 21 30 31 10 7 18 10 13 18
35 67 27 34 27 12 10 27 7 14 28
36 53 24 26 26 9 11 24 12 18 41
37 67 29 29 33 11 9 30 14 16
33
38 60 27 33 27 12 13 28 13 15 22
39 67 32 33 32 10 11 30 13 13 31
40 49 28 27 29 8 9 27 11 10 26
41 60 28 25 21 9 9 30 10 10 16
42 59 27 26 23 5 17 18 6 12 31
43 66 31 30 31 10 17 31 12 14 27
TABLE 54 (CONTINUED)
154
s# SVI-V SVI -T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
44 51 27 28 28 10 9 29 17 16 27
45 63 32 33 27 10 12 31 9 9 30
46 59 35 32 31 7 14 19 10 12 15
47 63 31 31 31 8 3 31 7 14 18
48 64 30 31 32 12 18 28 11 20 20
49 58 24 30 25 8 9 30 10 7 30
50 61 31 28 31 10 12 27 12 16 19
51 58 30 25 31 10 11 29 13 18 34
52 65 34 33 29 12 7 33 7 13 16
53 68 35 35 35 12 8 33 10 12 33
54 64 29 27 32 9 7 19 10 3 28
55 70
35 35 35 12 14 27 11 4 29
56 55 30 28 27 3 6 28 13 9 30
57 63 19 24 33 11 9 22 13 13 46
58 62 30 31 32 12 13 35 11 13 26
59 58 27 28 28 8 7 31 11 16 25
60 58 26 27 31 7 9
25 8 9 26
61 57 25 28 30 9 10 20 12 6 24
62 63 35 33 33 12 14 27 14 14 29
63 48 24 26 25 5 11 24 11 15 31
64 60
31 27 15 7 9 15 10 13 24
65 62 27 32 28 9 10 24 11 3 15
66 55 29 25 30 8 15 27 9 9 21
155
TABLE 54 (CONTINUED)
SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
67 51 27 24 27 6 6 34 10 8 25
68 63 32 28 22 6 8 28 13 5 12
69 62 28 31 31 7 15 22 13 17 27
70 51 24 29 28 11 9 33 11 14 40
71 49 21 28 28 7 8 22 15 14 14
72 53 26 24 29 9 13 22 16 10 6
73 53 23 24 28 5 9 34 11 13 35
74 56 29 30 30 10 13 29 10 11 11
75 64 5 15 22 6 12 10 8 12 29
76 61 23 19 32 7 8 31 13 16 15
156
TABLE 55
PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY SCORES (POST-TREATMENT)
S# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
1 59 28 29 27 9 14 37 6 18 39
2 58 29 27 31 12 11 29 8 20 40
3 59 20 26 28 7 6 18 15 13 2
4 59 27 27 26 8 7 25 12 14 25
5 60 30 30 32 10 15 32 8 20 44
6 58 22 27 32 7 11 24 12 13 41
7 69 31 28 29 10 14 28 8 18 35
8 61 24 24 30 10 13 33 10 9 35
9 64 33 26 29 10 12 36 5 13 33
10 50 21 15 28 9 11 28 10 15 37
11 65 29 30
32 9 15 38 8 11 22
12 62 31 30 30 10 15 30 12 9 44
13 65 26 31 34 11 10 35 10 17 48
14 66 32 34 33 9 15 23 14 18 33
15 66 28 28 29 8 10 30 11 13 14
16 67 31 33 23 10 11 29 13 7 22
17 60 28 29
32 8 17 31 10 20 48
18 55 18 24 28 6 8 32 8 11 32
19 69 35 35 35 12 7 34 11 20 14
20 53 26 23 29 9 8 29 12 14 47
21 66 29 26
25 12 12 33 13 18 24
TABLE 55 (CONTINUED)
157
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LM T SVT
22 53 20 28 30 9 14 19 14 13 30
23 69 35 28 32 10 7 28 9 14 34
24 60 23 22 27 12 15 28 8 11 24
25 53 26 28 31 8 12 22 10 20 26
26 65 25 32 33 8 16 35 12 16 30
27 68 34 34 35 12 17 35 11 20 11
28 63 32 30 31 9 14 36 10 20 29
29 58 31 30 30 9 9 30 10 13 31
30 68 33 35 29 12 17 27 14 15 21
31 67 33 32 35 10 17 31 10 18 33
32 52 32 25 28 10 6 34 6 18 27
33 57 27 26 31 9 14 15 13 12 30
35 65 29 30 27 12 7 23 8 20 36
36 55 29 29 26 8 11 24 12 20
42
37 67 28 30 35 8 10 33 12 18 31
40
51 35 30 27 8 9 28 9 11 30
41 54 26 26 26 6 14 24 11 11 25
42 55 28 27 25 7 18 20 8 14 43
43 68 33 32 23 11 16 30
13 14 40
45 66 30 33 30 10 12 27 7 16 35
48 63 31 30
31 12 19 30 12 20
33
49 61 30 29 29 11 7 28 13 18 44
50
63 31 31 32 10 10 26 16 15 32
158
TABLE 55 (CONTINUED)
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LM T SVT
51 59 31 33 32 12 13 32 13 18 47
52 65 33 29 26 12 13 25 13 15 26
54 67 30 27 32 10 7 17 10 11 31
55 69 35 35 35 12 13 29 11 8 36
56 52 24 26 30 5 10 29 10 12 34
57 61 23 21 31 10 10 19 15 15 43
58 67 33 34 33 11 15 34 13 13 42
59 63 31 26 28 10 8 31 12 16 33
64 60 34 32 29 9 12 18 13 17 33
65 68 28 35 29 9 8 25 15
10 23
66 54 28 27 29 10 14 25 8 18 14
69 57 32 32 31 8 14 19 12 20 38
71 54 26 26 22 9 6 28 14 17 36
72 52 20 23 26 9 16 21 15 10 8
73 56 25 24 28 8 10 36 9 11 47
74 58 30 30 30 11 12 30 9 13 21
159
TABLE 56
PSYCHOMETRIC BATTERY DIFFERENCE SCORES
(POST-TREATMENT MINUS PRE-TREATMENT)
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LM T SVT
1 02 04 02 00 00 -02 00 01 07 05
2 -02 02 01 02 03 00 01 00 07 15
3 00 04 13 -01 02 -03 02 00 -06 -10
4 02 03 00 -02 00 -02 02 03 00 08
5 -02 02 04 06 -01 05 -06 02 05 20
6 -01 -02 -01 01 -03 01 -03 01 -02 08
7 -01 -03 -03 -03 04 05 07 -04 06 10
8 06 00 01 00 01 02 00 00 03 02
9 04 07 04 04 -01 02 -02 -01 -02 07
10 03 01 -02 05 01 01 -01 00 05 11
11 03 00 02 -01 00 -01 04 -02 -01 09
12 02 02 07 04 00 03 00 01 -03 02
13 02 -05 01 02 01 -03 03 01
03 12
14 10 10 14 07 03 02 -03 02 07 04
15 03 -04 00 -03 -03 00 00 01 01 07
16 02 -01 00 -07 -01 02 -01 01 03 08
17 06 05 01 08 -01 00 02 03 02 15
18 03 -06 03 03 -01 -04 02 -01 -07 09
19 01 00 01 02 00 -02 -01 01 07 03
20 02 03 -03 00
03 02 01 03 03 06
TABLE 56 (CONTINUED)
160
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LM T SVT
21 09 -03 -04 -05
00 01 02 01 03 05
22 -05 -03 03 04 01 00 00 -01 -05 07
23 13 08 -01 03
00
-03 00 03 01 11
24 -03 -03 -02 -04 00 03 00 01 -01 15
25 01 -03 00 -01 00 01 00 00 06 13
26 01
03
05 00 -03 00 01 00 05 14
27 01
03 03 03
00 02 -01 00 05 09
28 11 06 02 -01 00 01 00 02 02 04
29 00 00 -05 -01 -02 -02 -05 04 01 00
30 06 -01 07 -02 00 01 -03 01 04 08
31 00 01 -01 00 -01 01 -02 01 06 09
32 -03 06 00 02 01 -02 02 -03 -02 08
33 01
05 04 00 02 04 01 00 -02 14
35 -02 02 -04 00 00
-03 -04 01 06 08
36 02 05 03 00 01 00 00 00 02 01
37 00 -01 01 02 -03 01 03 -02 02 -02
40 02 07 03 -02 00 00 01 -02 01
04
41 -06 -02 01
05 -03 05 -06 01 01 09
42 -04 01 01 02 02 01
02 02 02 -06
43 02 02 02 -08 01 -01 -01 01 00
13
45 03 -02 00
-03 00 00 -04 -02 07 05
48 -01 01 -01 -01 00 01
02 01 00
13
49 03 06 -01 04 03 -02 -02 03 11 14
TABLE 56 (CONTINUED)
161
s# SVI-V SVI-T SVI-K SVI-P ICQ VCT SDS RBS LMT SVT
50 02 00 03 01 00 -02 -01 04 -01 13
51 01 01 08 01 02 02 03 00 00 13
52 00 -01 -04 -03 00 06 -08 06 02 10
54 03 01 00 00 01 00 -02 00 08 03
55 -01 00 00 00 00 -01 02 00 04 07
56 -03 -06 -02 03 02 04 01
-03 03 04
57 -02 04 -03 -02 -01 01
-03 02 02 -03
58 05 03 03 01 -01 02 -01 02 00 16
59 05 04 -02 00 02 01 00 01 00 08
64 00 03 05 14 02 03 03 03 04 09
65 06 01 03 01 00
-02 01 04 07 08
66 -01 -01 02 -01 02 -01
-02 -01 09 -07
69 -05 04 01 00 01 -01
-03 -01
03 11
71 05 05 -02 -06 02 -02 06 -01 -03 22
72 -01 -06 -01
-03 00
03 -01 -01 00 02
73 03 02 00 00 03 01
02 -02 -02 07
74 02 01 00 00 01 -01 01 -01
02 10
s#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TABLE 57
162
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR IMAGERY MODALITY
QUESTIONNAIRE (IMQ) SCORES
V isu a l A u d ito ry T a c t i l e T a ste /S m e ll Movement
% % % % %
33 18 25 14 10
32 19 14 14 21
29 30 21 12 23
45 17 10 16 12
31 19
10 21 19
40 15 15 15 15
36 20 13 17 14
30 18 19 19 14
37 18 13 19
13
37 19 12 13 19
42 21 15 12 10
30 19 17 12 22
40 26 14 16 4
30 14 25 15 16
34 20 16 14 16
29 22 16 14 19
42 18 13 16 11
31 18 15 18 18
31 17 19 15 18
33 17 14 14 22
s#
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
40
41
42
43
45
48
TABLE 57 (CONTINUED)
163
V isu a l
%
38
37
15
36
20
34
39
30
34
37
44
39
38
45
32
30
38
40
37
47
29
30
A u d ito ry
%
17
19
22
19
25
19
17
15
25
18
13
15
14
12
16
22
25
23
19
16
20
21
T a c t il e
%
17
16
18
14
21
20
15
17
15
22
15
17
24
11
17
13
15
12
25
9
22
25
e/S raell
%
15
10
18
16
14
17
15
15
15
11
13
11
12
16
14
16
15
15
15
13
15
11
Movement
%
13
18
27
15
20
10
14
23
11
12
15
18
12
16
21
19
7
10
4
15
14
13
TABLE 57 (CONTINUED)
164
V isu al A u d ito ry T a c t i l e T a ste /S m e ll Movement
S# % % % % %
49 45 13 11 14 17
50
42 20 6 16 16
51 35 22 24 12 7
52 34 20 14 22 10
54 25 14 19 14 28
55 46 18 11 12 13
56 21 18 26 20
15
57 39 23 13 11 14
58 30 19 15 18 18
59 21 18 25 18 18
64 28 21 32 11 8
65 30 27 15 22 6
66 37 18 23 16 6
69 30 21 21 12 16
71 31 19 18 12 20
72 34 17 22 13 14
73 30 14 22 20 14
74 36 13 19 14 18
TABLE 58
165
PRE-TREATMENT, POST-TREATMENT, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES ON
SNAKE-ATTITUDE MEASURE, FEAR SURVEY SCHEDULE CFSS)
LESS SNAKE ITEM, AND FSS SNAKE ITEM: GROUP I
Pre--tre a tm e n t P o st- tre a tm e n t D if fe r e n c e
T reatm ent
A t t i
tu d e
Sift S cale
S u b je c ts
Snake
FSS Item
A t t i
tu d e
S ca le FSS
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S c a le FSS
Snake
Item
1 17 31 3 15 36 4 -2 5 1
2 8 52 4 11 53 4 3 1 0
4 10 46 4 7 46
5 -3 0 1
5 14 42 3 18 37 2 4 -5 -1
8 5 39 5 6 39 5 1 0 0
10 7 23 4 14 23 3 7 0 -1
11 6 46 5 7 43 4 1 -3 -1
12 11 31 4 15 30
3 4 -1 -1
13 9 33 5 25 26 1 16 -7 -4
14 11 33 3 19 32 3 8 -1 0
No- tre a tm e n t S u b je c ts
3 8 47 5 9 37 5 1 -10 0
7 11 62 5 15 47 4 4 -15 -1
9 12 35 4 15 30
4 3 -5 0
166
TABLE 59
PRE-TREATMENT, POST-TREATMENT, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES ON
SNAKE-ATTITUDE MEASURE, FEAR SURVEY SCHEDULE (FSS)
LESS SNAKE ITEM, AND FSS SNAKE ITEM: GROUP I I
Pre -tr e a tm e n t P o st- tre a tm e n t D iffe re n c e
T reatm ent
A t t i
tu d e
S# S ca le
S u b je c ts
Snake
FSS Item
A t t i
tude
S cale FSS
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S ca le FSS
Snake
Item
17 7 36 4 19 44 3 12 8 -1
18 13 43 4 6 44 4 -7 -1 0
19 11 26 5 11 24 4 0 -2 -1
20 7 46 5 9 35 5 2 -11 0
22 11 35 4 12 37 4 1 2 0
23 10 20 4 13 25 5 3 5 1
24 12 50 3 14 40 3 2 -10 0
25 9 49 5 11 42 5 2 -7 0
27 8 41 4 12 34 3 4 -7 -1
28 11 32 4 8 32 3 -3 0 -1
29 17 29 4 19 40 4 2 -11 0
30 7 31 4 5 37 5 -2 6 1
31 7 51 5 7 23 5 0 -28 0
32 9 27 5 12 36 4 3 9 -1
33 9 61 5 16 56 3 7 -5 -2
TABLE 59 (CONTINUED)
167
Pre -tre a tm e n t P o s t- tr e a tm e n t D iffe re n c e
No- tre a tm e n t S u b je c ts
S#
A t t i
tude
S ca le FSS
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S c a le FSS
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S cale FSS
Snake
Item
15 8 33 5 7 39 5 -1 6 0
16 10 49 5 11 52 5 1 3 0
21 10 45 4 11 50 5 1 5 1
26 13 39 4 16 32 4 3 -7 0
TABLE 60
168
PRE-TREATMENT, POST-TREATMENT, AND DIFFERENCE SCORES ON
SNAKE-ATTITUDE MEASURE, FEAR SURVEY SCHEDULE (FSS)
LESS SNAKE ITEM, AND FSS SNAKE ITEM: GROUP I I I
________ P r e -tr e a tm e n t P o s t- tr e a tm e n t________ D iffe re n c e
Treatm ent S u b je c ts
A t t i - A t t i - A t t i
tude Snake tu d e Snake tude Snake
S# S c a le FSS Item S c a le FSS Item S c a le FSS Item
39 15 27 4 23 24 3 8 -3 -1
40 7 64 4 13 46 4 6 -18 0
41 10 45 4 21 44 3 11 -1 -1
43 8 32 5 12 28 4 4 -4 -1
44 9 36 4 6 40 4 -3 -4 0
45 5 34 5 17 31 5 0 -3 0
48 16 34 4 18 30 4 2 -4 0
49 5 41 5 5 40 5 0 -1 0
50 17 35 3 25 28 2 8 -7 -1
51 5 30 5 5 31 5 0 1 0
52 5 38 5 5 39 5 0 1 0
55 7 33 5 7 36 5 0
3 0
56 11 33 4 12 32 4 1 -1 0
57 18 42 5 17 39 5 -1 -3 0
59 12 33 5 17 34 4 5 1 -1
64 17 59 4 26 51 3 9 -8 -1
65 10 43 5 15 35 5 5 -8 0
TABLE 60 (CONTINUED)
169
P r e -tr e a tm e n t P ost-•tre a tm e n t D iffe re n c e
T reatm ent S u b je c ts (C ontinued)
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S cale FSS
Snake
Item S#
A t t i
tude
S cale FSS
Snake
Item
A t t i
tude
S cale FSS
66 16 44 4 16 40 3 0 -4 -1
68 13 52 4 17 55 5 4 -3 1
69 13 44 5 14 46 5 1 2 0
71 11 36 5 12 38 5 1 2 0
72 14 50 4 18 33 3 4 -17 -1
73 12 40 4 16 36 3 4 -4 -1
74 9 40 5 16 49 3 7 9 -2
75 8 55 5 7 61 4 -1 6 -1
No- tre a tm e n t S u b je c ts
34 16 36 3 24 46 2 8 10 -1
36 20 38 4 14 39 5 -6 -1 1
42 17 61 3 13 65 4 -4 4 1
54 10 36 5 5 34 5 -5 -2 0
58 7 31 5 7 33 4 0 2 -1
60 8 39 5 6 39 4 -2 0 -1
61 9 50 5 11 46 4 2 -4 -1
67 16 42 3 13 38 4 -3 -4 1
TABLE 61
170
PRETEST 1, PRETEST 2, POSTTEST, AND DIFFERENCE (POSTTEST
MINUS PRETEST 2) SCORES FOR SUBJECT'S SELF-RATING OF
ANXIETY AND RESEARCH ASSISTANT'S (RA) RATING OF
SUBJECT'S ANXIETY: GROUP I
S u b je c t's R ating s RA's R atin g s
T reatm ent S u b je c ts
S# P re 1 Pre 2 P o st D if f . P re 1 Pre 2 P o st D if f.
1 56 45 34 -11 2 1 2 1
2 72 69 67 -2 3 3 4 1
4 75 77 75 -2 3 5 3 -2
5 61 37 31 -6 4 1 1 0
8 77 75 64 -11 7 7 2 -5
10 63 35 36 1 6 5 4 -1
11 76 76 73 -3 3 3 3 0
12 69 72 61 -11 2 2 3 1
13 58 44 19 -25 1 1 1 0
14 64 54 53 -1 5 4 2 -2
No- tre a tm e n t S u b je c ts
3 68 64 62 -2 3 3 3 0
7 71 70 63 -7 7 4 3 -1
9 66 60 58 -2 1 2 2 0
TABLE 62
171
PRETEST 1, PRETEST 2, POSTTEST, A ND DIFFERENCE (POSTTEST
MINUS PRETEST 2 ) SCORES FOR SUBJECT'S SELF-RATING OF
ANXIETY AND RESEARCH ASSISTANT’S (RA) RATING OF
SUBJECT'S ANXIETY: GROUP II
S u b je c t's R atin g s RA's R atin g s
Treatm ent S u b je c ts
S# Pre 1 Pre 2 Post D if f. Pre 1 Pre 2 Post D if f .
17 68 64 46 -18 3 3 4 1
18 74 68 69 1 4 3 4 1
19 65 63 64 1 1 1 3 2
20 72 67 63 -4 3 3 3
0
22 66 67 62 -5 2 2 4 2
23 67 62 65 3 3 3 3
0
24 59 64 50 -14 2 2 2
0
25 64 62 62 0 3 3 2 -1
27 65 56 56 0 2 2 2 0
28 58 53 48 -5 2 2 3 1
29 70 66 64 -2 3 4 3 -1
30 77 77 77 0 4 4 3 -1
31 59 65 56 -9 2 3 4 1
32 75 75 74 -1 4 3 3 0
33 68 49 58 9 3 2 3 1
TABLE 62 (CONTINUED)
172
S u b je c t’s R a tin g s RA’s R atin g s
N o -treatm en t S u b je c ts
S# Pre 1 Pre 2 P o st D if f . Pre 1 Pre 2 Post * D if f .
15 58 49 63 14 4 3 3 0
16 67 57 64 7 3 3 4 1
21 68 64 66 2 3 3 3 0
26 59 59 59 0 4 4 4 0
TABLE 63
173
PRETEST 1, PRETEST 2, POSTTEST, AND DIFFERENCE (POSTTEST
MINUS PRETEST 2) SCORES FOR SUBJECT’ S SELF-RATING OF
ANXIETY AND RESEARCH ASSISTANT’S (RA) RATING OF
SUBJECT’S ANXIETY: GROUP I I I
S u b je c t’ s R ating;s RA’s R atin g s
T reatm ent S u b je c ts
S# P re 1 P re 2 P ost D i f f . Pre 1 Pre 2 Post D if f .
39 60 59 48 -11 4 3 2 -1
40 74 67 53 -14 4 3 3 0
41 64 59 44 -15 3 2 2 0
43 72 71 62 -9 4 4 4 0
44 69 67 60 -7 4 4 4 0
45 74 73 78 5 4 4 4 0
48 71 72 56 -16 4 4 4 0
49 77 75 75 0 7 7 5 -2
50 60 43 19 -24 3 3 3 0
51 73 67 73 6 4 5 5 0
52 74 73 73 0 4 4 4 0
55 64 59 62 3 3 2 3 1
56 66 67 53 -14 4 3 3 0
57 73 68 62 -6 5 5 4 -1
59 60 57 55 -2 4 3 3 0
64 60 57 31 -26 4 3 3 0
TABLE 63 (CONTINUED)
174
S u b je c t *s R atin g s RA’s R atin g s
T reatm ent S u b je c ts (C o n tin u ed )
Pre 1 Pre 2 Post D i f f . S# P re 1 P re 2 P o st D if f .
65 56 59 53 -6 4 4 3 -1
66 57 43 30 -13 3 2 3 1
68 58 48 51 3 3 3 4 1
69 58 53 59 6 3 4 3 -1
71 62 62 55 -7 4 4 3 -1
72 68 63 60 -3 3 3 4 1
73 59 54 29 -25 3 3 3 0
74 72 67 47 -20 4 3 3 0
75 70 65 55 -10 3 5 4 -1
No- tre a tm e n t Subjec t s
34 37 23 32 9 3 1 2 1
36 55 36 47 11 3 3 3 0
42 62 57 62 5 3 3 4 1
54 58 56 62 6 3 3 4 1
58 61 59 52 -7 3 3 3 0
60 60 54 50 -4 3 2 3 1
61 59 59 51 -8 3 3 3 0
67 67 63 62 -1 4 4 4 0
175
TABLE 64
WITHIN GROUP RANK SCORES ON BEHAVIORAL PRETESTS
AND POSTTEST: GROUP I
Rank Rank Rank P o s t t e s t
T reatm ent on on on Minus
S# P r e t e s t #1 P r e te s t #2 P o s t t e s t P r e t e s t #2
1 0 0
•
13.0 13.0 0.0
2 5.0 4 .5 5.0 0 .5
4 5.0 2.0 1 .5 - 0 .5
5 11.0 12.0 12.0 0.0
8 1.0 1.0 1 .5 0 .5
10 13.0 11.0 10.0 - 1.0
11 3.0 4 .5 3.5
- 1.0
12 5.0 4 .5 8.0 3 .5
13 12.0 10.0 11.0 1.0
14 10.0 8 .5 9 .0 0 .5
No-
Treatm ent
S#
3
7
9
8 .5
2.0
7.0
8 .5
4 .5
7 .0
6 .5 - 2 .0
3 .5 -1 .0
6 .5 - 0 .5
TABLE 65
176
WITHIN GROUP RANK SCORES ON BEHAVIORAL PRETESTS
AND POSTTEST: GROUP II
T reatm ent
S#
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #1
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #2
Rank
on
P o s t t e s t
P o s t t e s t
Minus
P r e t e s t #2
17 8.0 13.0 19.0 6.0
18 3.0 8.0 4 .0 - 4 .0
19 8.0 5.5 9 .0 3.5
20 2.0 2.0 9 .0 7 .0
22 13.5 10.5 9.0
-1 .5
23 8.0 5 .5 9.0
3.5
24 13.5 14.0 1 7 .0 3.0
25 8.0 5 .5 2.0
-3 .5
27 18.0 17.0 14.0 - 3 .0
28 16.5 17.0 1 8 .0 1.0
29 4 .5 3.0 4 .0 1.0
30 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
31 8.0 10.5 9.0
- 1 .5
32 4 .5 5.5 4 .0
- 1 .5
33 16.5 17.0 16.0 - 1.0
No-
T reatm ent
S#
15 19.0 17.0 14.0 - 3 .0
TABLE 65 (CONTINUED)
177
No- Rank Rank Rank P o s t t e s t
T reatm ent on on on Minus
S# P r e t e s t #1 P r e t e s t #2 P o s t t e s t P r e t e s t #2
16 U .O 17.0 14.0 -3 .0
21 13.5 1 0 .5 9 .0 -1 .5
26 1 3 .5 1 0 .5 9 .0 -1 .5
TABLE 66
178
WITHIN GROUP RANK SCORES ON BEHAVIORAL PRETESTS
AND POSTTEST: GROUP III
Treatm ent
S#
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #1
Rank
on
P r e te s t #2
Rank
on
P o s t t e s t
P o s t t e s t
Minus
P r e te s t #2
39 9 .0 21.0 31.0 10.0
40 9 .0 6.0 26.0 20.0
41 2 7 .5 29.0 25.0 - 4 .0
43 4 .0 4 .0
8 .5 4 .5
44 13.5 9 .5 14.5 5.0
45 2.0 3.0
4 .5 1 .5
48 2 7 .5 9 .5 31.0 2 1 .5
49 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
50 33.0 30.0 27.0 - 3 .0
51 13.5 14.5 4 .5 - 10.0
52 3 .0 2.0 2.0 0.0
55 20.0
14.5 8.5 - 6.0
56 9 .0 9 .5 19.0
9 .5
57 9 .0 14.5 14.5 0.0
59 1 3 .5 21.0
14.5 - 6 .5
64 2 7 .5 31.0 28.0 -3 .0
65 20.0 14.5 8 .5 - 6.0
66 2 7 .5 2 7 .5 31.0 3.5
68 2 7 .5 2 5 .5 14.5 - 11.0
s#
69
71
72
73
74
75
No-
atm
S#
34
36
42
54
58
60
61
67
179
TABLE 66 (CONTINUED)
Rank Rank Rank P o s t t e s t
on on on Minus
P r e t e s t #1 P r e t e s t #2 P o s t t e s t P r e t e s t #2
2 7 .5 27 .5 20.0 -7 .5
13.5 9 .5 14.5
5.0
20.0 14.5 14.5
0.0
20.0 21.0 31.0 10.0
6.0 21.0 31.0 10.0
5.0 6.0 14.5 8 .5
32.0 33.0
2 1 .5 -1 1 .5
31.0 32.0
23.5 - 8 .5
20.0 21.0
8 .5 -1 2 .5
20.0 14.5 4 .5 - 10.0
20.0 21.0
2 1 .5 0 .5
20.0
2 5 .5 2 3 .5 - 2.0
20.0 21.0 14.5 - 6 .5
9.0 6.0
4 .5 - 1 .5
TABLE 67
180
r a n k : sc o r e s for group I on behavioral pretests and
POSTTEST (SUBJECTS FROM ALL THREE GROUPS
COMBINED FOR RANKING)
T a r e a .'tm e n t
SJT
Rank
on
P r e te s t #1
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #2
Rank
on
P o s t t e s t
P o s t t e s t
Minus
P r e t e s t #2
3 _ 32.0 63.0 61.5 -1 .5
2 14.5 14.5 14.5 0.0
14.5 3 .5 4 .5 1.0
- S 60.0 62.0 61.5 -0 .5
8 2.0 2.0 4.5 2.5
3-0 65.0 61.0 54.0 -7 .0
3 _ 3 _ 8.0 14.5 9.0 -5 .5
3 _ 2 14 .5 2 8 .5 43.0
14.5
3 _ 3 62.0 57.0 56.0 - 1.0
4 2 .5 35.0 51.0 16.0
N o -
T r e sl Irment
S 4 T
3 32.0 2 8 .5 23.0
- 5 .5
V 6 .5 14.5 9 .5 -5 .0
9 23.0 2 2 .5 23.0
0 .5
TABLE 68
181
RANK SCORES FOR GROUP I I ON BEHAVIORAL PRETESTS AND
POSTTEST (SUBJECTS FROM ALL THREE GROUPS
COMBINED FOR RANKING)
Rank Rank Rank P o s t t e s t
T reatm en t on on on Minus
S# P r e t e s t #1 P r e t e s t #2 P o s t t e s t P r e t e s t #2
17 2 3 .0 4 2 .5 61.5 19.0
18 9 .0 2 2 .5 14.5 - 8.0
19 2 3 .0 14.5 23.0 8.5
20 6 .5 5 .5 2 3 .0 17.5
22 4 2 .5 2 8 .5 23.0 - 5 .5
23 2 3 .0 14.5 23.0 8 .5
24 4 2 .5 4 7 .0 47.0 0.0
25 23 .0
14.5 9 .0 - 5 .5
27 60.0 51.0 35.0 -1 6 .0
28 53.5 51.0 53.0 2.0
29 14.5 9 .0 14.5 5 .5
30 4 .0 1.0 1 .5 0 .5
31 2 3 .0 2 8 .5 2 3 .0 - 5 .5
32 14.5 14.5 1 4 .5 0.0
33 5 3 .5 51.0 4 3 .0 - 8.0
182
TABLE 68 (CONTINUED)
No- Rank Rank Rank P o s t t e s t
T reatm en t on on on Minus
S# P r e te s t #1 P r e te s t #2 P o s t t e s t P r e te s t #2
15 63.0 51.0 35.0 -1 6 .0
16 32.0 51.0 35.0 -16.0
21 4 2 .5 2 8 .5 23.0 - 5 .5
26 4 2 .5 28.5 23.0 - 5 .5
TABLE 69
183
RANK SCORES FOR GROUP I I I ON BEHAVIORAL PRETESTS AND
POSTTEST (SUBJECTS FROM ALL THREE GROUPS
COMBINED FOR RANKING)
T reatm ent
S#
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #1
Rank
on
P r e t e s t #2
Rank
on
P o s t t e s t
P o s t t e s t
Minus
P r e te s t #2
39 23.0 4 2 .5 61.5 19.0
40 23.0 1 4 .5 52.0 37.5
41
53.5 5 8 .0 50.0 - 8.0
43 10.0 8.0 23.0 15.0
44 32.0
2 2 .5 35.0 12.5
45 2.0 7 .0 9 .0 2.0
48 5 3 .5 2 2 .5 6 1 .5 39.0
49 2.0
3 .5 1 .5 - 2.0
50 64.0 59.0 55.0 -4 .0
51 32.0 3 5 .0 9 .0 -2 6 .0
52 5.0
5 .5 3 .0
-2 .5
55 4 2 .5 3 5 .0 2 3 .0 - 12.0
56 2 3 .0
2 2 .5 4 1 .0
18.5
57 2 3 .0 3 5 .0 35.0 0.0
59 32.0
4 2 .5 35.0
- 7 .5
64 5 3 .5 6 0 .0 57.0 -3 .0
65 4 2 .5 3 5 .0 2 3 .0 - 12.0
66 53.5 5 5 .5 6 1 .5 6.0
184
T reatm ent
S#
Rank
on
P r e te s t
TABLE 69 (CONTINUED)
Rank Rank
on on
#1 P r e t e s t #2 P o s t t e s t
P o s t t e s t
Minus
P r e t e s t #2
68 53.5 51.0 35.0 -1 6 .0
69 53.5 55.5 43.0 -1 2 .5
71 32.0 22.5 35.0 12.5
72 42.5 35.0 35.0 0.0
73 42.5 4 2 .5 61.5 19.0
74 14.5 42.5 61.5 19.0
75 11.0 14.5 35.0 2 0 .5
No-
T reatm ent
S#
34 60.0 65.0 4 5 .5 -1 9 .5
36 58.0 64.0 48.5 -1 5 .5
42 42.5 42.5 23.0 - 1 9 .5
54 4 2 .5 35.0 9 .0 - 26.0
58 42.5 42.5 4 5 .5 3 .0
60 42.5 51.0
4 8 .5 - 2 .5
61 4 2 .5 4 2 .5 35.0
- 7 .5
67 23.0
14.5 9 .0
- 5 .5

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Experimenter Expectancy Effect Examined As A Function Of Task Ambiguity And Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement

PDF

The Effects Of Nonreward Dissonance And Secondary Reward On Extinction And Attractiveness

PDF

The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning

PDF

Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction

PDF

Effects Of Group Behavior Therapy Imagery On Basketball Performance

PDF

The Effects Of A Self Shock Procedure On Hallucinatory Activity In Hospitalized Schizophrenics

PDF

Stress Response Modification And Autohypnotic Techniques

PDF

The Enhancement Of Eeg - Alpha Production And Its Effects On Hypnotic Susceptibility

PDF

The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure

PDF

The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns

PDF

Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys

PDF

The Effect Of Anxiety And Frustration On Muscular Tension Related To The Temporomandibular-Joint Syndrome

PDF

A Temporal Approach-Avoidance Conflict In An Academic Test Situation

PDF

Verbal Reports Of Emotional States And Onsets And Offsets Of Conditioned Stimuli

PDF

Habituation Of The Multiple Unit Discharge Response To White Noise Stimulation In The Unanesthetized Rabbit

PDF

Psychomotor Performance And Change In Cardiac Rate In Subjects Behaviorally Predisposed To Coronary Heart Disease

PDF

Monocular Acquisition And Interocular Transfer Of Two Types Of Discriminations In Normal And Corpus Callosally-Sectioned Guinea Pigs

PDF

Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones

PDF

Individual Differences In Imagery Among Sensory Modalities

PDF

An Application Of A Two-Stage 'Attention' Model To Concept Formation In The Mentally Retarded

Asset Metadata

Creator Mclemore, Clinton Whitfield (author)

Core Title Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization

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 Tiber, Norman (committee chair), De Nike, L. Douglas (committee member), Galbraith, Gary C. (committee member), Wexler, Murray (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-467284

Unique identifier UC11362188

Identifier 7116423.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-467284 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7116423.pdf

Dmrecord 467284

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mclemore, Clinton Whitfield

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