A learning-theory-based method of psychotherapy (implosive therapy), which integrates psychodynamic concepts into its theoretical model and leads to a new technique of treatment, is described. The technique has been applied to a wide variety of psychopathology with apparent success. Treatment time ranges from 1 to 30 1-hr, sessions with marked changes in symptomatology usually occurring within 1-15 implosive sessions.1 This paper is not intended as a complete presentation of the theoretical framework of implosive therapy. Unfortunately, the complexities of features involving both the learning model and certain subtleties associated with the therapeutic technique precluded a completely exhaustive treatment of these issues in the space limitations of this article.The senior author especially wishes to express his great debt to George Golias, of Hawthornden State Hospital, and Robert Hogan, of Illinois State University, for their help in extending the technique used in the therapy in its early stages of development. The authors also would like to thank

No abstract

At the present stage of development within psychology, a periodic need exists for the introduction of a bold, catalytic viewpoint that challenges the foundation of contemporary thinking by placing stress upon the interpretive boundary conditions of existing models. In addition it should offer an alternative model with integrative and predictive powers. The learned helplessness theory described in the preceding article by Maier and Seligman (1976) fulfills the above objectives. These authors are not only responsible for pioneering new areas of research but have simultaneously challenged, both on empirical and theoretical grounds, the existing infrahuman S-R models and dynamic clinical models of depression. Their extensive review of the literature represents a perceptive critical analysis of their opponents' positions as well as a serious attempt to state the weakness of their own viewpoint. The heuristic value of their position is reflected in the fury of research activity which has been generated over a wide variety of issues. They have succeeded in stimulating both interest and support as well as arousing disbelief and resistance. By pitting cognitive theory against S-R positions, ingenious experimentation has emergedThe author is very grateful for the aid of Thomas L. Boyd who not only helped in the literature review but provided a stimulating source of feedback throughout the preparation of this manuscript. He was especially helpful in the formulation of the section dealing with the discussion of the triadic design and is responsible for preparing the section on the Church (1964) criticisms of the yoked control procedure.

Experiments were carried out to determine the effect of certain variables on rats' preference for signal-shock vs. shock-signal. 136 Ss were run daily for 11-hr, periods during which they received unavoidable shock at predetermined intervals. When S was in one end of the experimental box the shock was preceded by a signal (light), in the other, S received shock-signal. The most marked preference for signal-shock was obtained with a 500-v. shock delivered 12-60 times per hour using a shock of .5-or S-sec. duration and an 18-sec. signal. Significantly less time was spent on the signal-shock side with a decrease in signal duration to 3 or .5 sec. or a decrease in shock frequency to 2 per hour. A reversal of side preference followed a reversal in the sequence of signal and shock. A significant preference for signal-shock was obtained even when shock was delivered through ear clips in such a way that S's responses could not affect the part of S's body in contact with the electrodes.

No abstract

No abstract

Sixteen rats were run in a tilt box for 11 hr. on each of three successive days, and then three more days with conditions reversed. On one side, Ss received 3 sec. light followed immediately by .5 sec. shock. On the other side, they received the same stimuli in reverse order. Six shocks were presented each half hour regardless of Ss' behavior. A reliable preference for signal-shock was acquired during pre-reversal training. There was some tendency for Ss to shift their preference to the new signal-shock side during reversal, but this did not differ reliably from chance at the end of the reversal training. The results are interpreted as supporting a preparatory response interpretation of classical conditioning and of the acquisition of observing responses in the absence of differential external reinforcement.

The main focus of this article is the paradoxical issue of why nonadaptive behavior or symptom maintenance persists over extended periods of time in the absence of any apparent unconditioned stimulus. Recent critics have challenged accounts of this phenomenon that rely on the classical two-factor avoidance interpretation formulated from the principles developed in the infrahuman conditioning laboratory. They argue that human symptoms persist over extended periods of time, yet infrahuman researchers have only infrequently conditioned avoidance behavior that has resulted in extreme resistance to extinction. Furthermore, laboratory data suggest that classical conditioned fear behavior extinguishes rapidly following conditioned stimulus (CS) exposure. In those few cases in which persistent avoidance behavior was noted, there has been a failure to document the presence of fear as the elicitor of such behavior. In an attempt to address these criticisms, a model of symptom formation and maintenance is outlined that extends the conservation of anxiety hypothesis to incorporate the concept of CS complexity and sequencing of cues. Two infrahuman avoidance studies are presented that focus on the critical issues raised at this level of analysis. The data are supportive of the model proposed. The principles underlying the model are believed to be operating at the human level and responsible for symptom maintenance.The paradoxical perpetuation of nonadaptive behavior in the absence of any apparent necessity still remains a central theoretical problem in our quest to understand human psychopathology. Infrahuman models of experimental neurosis have been especially helpful in suggesting learning mechanisms that may account for the paradox (Kimmel, 1971;Maser & Seligman, 1977). Despite the various procedural methods designed to produce experimental neurosis, considerable evidence exists suggesting that the resulting symptom formation can be viewed best as behavior designed to reduce or avoid conditioned emotional stimulation. This conclusion is in agreement with Freud's (1936) clinical ob-