Behavioral literature on childhood fears, including conceptual models, normative research, and fear-reduction studies is reviewed. The main conclusions are as follows: (a) The information value of nearly 60 years of normative studies is meager, and their continuation is of doubtful value; (b) most research has been limited to laboratory studies of mildly to moderately fearful children, and few data exist on severe fears studied in the child's natural environment or on the clinical prevalence of fear; (c) cognitive and developmental factors have been largely ignored; (d) modeling is the most frequently used and reliably effective fear-reduction strategy; (e) a cognitive, verbal-mediation approach is promising, but is not yet sufficiently researched; (f) there is little evidence that systematic desensitization or contingency management strategies are effective. Implications for large-scale fear reduction and prevention are discussed. The need for research that recognizes the complex paradigms of children's fears is suggested.This article is a selective review of behavioral treatment of children's fears, an area relatively neglected by behavior therapists and researchers despite their considerable attention to adult fear reduction (Graziano, 1975). Adults seem to minimize the importance of children's fears, viewing them as common and transitory and thus not a particularly serious part of normal development. But children's fears may not always be transient, and some, such as specific animal phobias (Jersild, 1968; Jersild & Holmes, 1935a;Marks & Gelder, 1966) and fear of physical injury or psychic stress (L. C. Miller, Barrett, Hampe, & Noble, 1972b) may persist as adult problems. Children do experience fears, often intense and disturbing, and the psychological suffering of a fearful child, even if it remits in a few years, is at least as worthy of professional concern as is the suffering of adults. There seems good reason for urging more study of fear reduction in children.Because of this review's behavioral focus, the large psychoanalytic literature is not in-Requests for reprints should be sent to Anthony
This paper documents widespread failure of the clinical and research literature to differentiate assertiveness from coercive aggressive behavior. Confusion with aggression is tied to early theoretical models, semantic errors, and differential value judgments. Recent concepts and research bearing upon the differentiation of assertion and aggression are reviewed. Standard self-report and behavioral measures of assertion are evaluated in terms of (a) confounding with aggression, and (b) failure to provide separate assessment of aggression. Adequate evidence of discriminant validity (in this case, the ability to discriminate between the constructs of assertion and aggression) is lacking for all measures reviewed. However, particular instruments have considerable promise. Recommendations are made for improving discriminant validity of self-report and behavioral methods of assessing assertion.
This study investigated the generally neglected effects of the cotrainer relationship in studies of the outcome of couples communication training. Male‐female cotrainer pairs modeled verbal dominance patterns similar or dissimilar to those of client couples. As hypothesized, changes in couples' speaking patterns after a two‐hour workshop mirrored their trainers' models. Female‐dominated couples exhibited greater modeling of dominance patterns, and male‐dominated couples exposed to a dominant female trainer reported relatively negative impressions of both trainers. The need for cotrainers to be aware of the relationship models they present and clients' responses to these models is discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.