This paper evaluates the extent to which the therapeutic effects of systematic desensitization may be attributed to a specific therapy ingredient beyond nonspecific treatment effects. The vast majority of studies have not determined empirically whether desensitization and nonspecific treatment control conditions are equal in credibility and expectancy for improvement generated in the clients. Recent research suggests that control conditions commonly employed in desensitization research are less credible than desensitization and generate less expectancy for improvement on the part of the clients, and that desensitization is not superior to control groups that unambiguously rule out as a rival hypothesis differential expectancies across treatment and control conditions. A review of the research that has controlled for expectancies for improvement does not support the proposition that desensitization has a specific therapeutic ingredient. This review does not impugn the efficacy of desensitization. However, on purely methodological grounds, it appears that nonspecific treatment effects, at least at present, cannot be ruled out in accounting for the effects of desensitization. Strategies to control for differential credibility and expectancies for therapeutic change generated by treatment and comparison groups are presented.Numerous articles on systematic desensi-cific therapeutic ingredients beyond nonspetization have appeared, including extremely cific treatment factors account for behavior valuable reviews of the empirical literature as change. We examine from a purely methodowell as theoretical and conceptual treatises logical standpoint whether this assumption is (

Thirty-three undergraduate students (11 males, 11 females taking oral contraceptives, and 11 females not taking oral contraceptives) filled out daily self-reports on pleasant activities, stressful events, moods, and somatic changes for 35 consecutive days. By randomly assigning each male a "pseudo" cycle, the data were analyzed to compare the three samples across the three phases of the menstrual cycle. The results indicated that males reported somewhat more stable but less positive experiences than females. While males reported a stable, low level of pain and water retention throughout the study, both female samples reported increases during the premenstrual and menstrual phases. Reports of negative affect, impaired concentration, and stressful events did not differ by samples, but significant sample by cycle interactions reflected differential increases in the two female samples during the premenstrual and menstrual phases. Subsequent analyses indicated that the experience of stressful events accounted for more of the variance than did cycle phase for these negative mood factors, but not for pain and water retention.

No abstract