2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does the judicious use of safety behaviors improve the efficacy and acceptability of exposure therapy for claustrophobic fear?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
55
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
55
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We are aware of two studies that investigated the acceptability of CBT with safety behaviour. Deacon, Sy, Lickel, and Nelson (2010) compared the acceptability of exposure and exposure with the judicious use of safety behaviour and found no between-group differences. How ever, treatment acceptability was assessed using a single-item prompt with unknown psychometric properties.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are aware of two studies that investigated the acceptability of CBT with safety behaviour. Deacon, Sy, Lickel, and Nelson (2010) compared the acceptability of exposure and exposure with the judicious use of safety behaviour and found no between-group differences. How ever, treatment acceptability was assessed using a single-item prompt with unknown psychometric properties.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concretamente, el uso de toallitas higiénicas después de exposiciones en individuos con miedo a la contaminación no condujo a mayor recuperación espontánea de miedo o asco que la exposición sin toallitas higiéni-cas. De modo similar, Deacon y colaboradores no han conseguido replicar los efectos perjudiciales de seguir realizando conductas de seguridad (incluyendo la disponibilidad de la conducta de seguridad pero sin llegar a llevarla a cabo) durante la exposición, en este caso en la claustrofobia (Deacon et al, 2010;Sy, Dixon, Lickel, Nelson, y Deacon, 2011). A pesar de ello, la capacidad de las conductas de seguridad de mitigar el aprendizaje de extinción probablemente varía en función de la "ratio" entre inhibición y extinción en un ensayo determinado.…”
Section: Estrategias Terapéuticas Para Potenciar El Aprendizaje Inhibunclassified
“…Although research shows that safety behaviors do have the potential to be counter-productive if they promote a misattribution of safety, or interfere with the development of self-efficacy or other mechanisms of emotional processing during exposure practices (Parrish, Radomsky, & Dugas, 2008), there is evidence that these strategies are not always detrimental to treatment outcome. In fact, some researchers (e.g., Deacon, Sy, Lickel, & Nelson, 2010) have found no reliable benefits or drawbacks associated with the judicious use of safety behaviors in exposure therapy, while others (e.g., Milosevic & Radomsky, 2008;Rachman, Radomsky, & Shafran, 2008;Rachman, Shafran, Radomsky, & Zysk, 2011;Sy, Dixon, Lickel, Nelson, & Deacon, 2011) have found that the judicious use of safety behaviors during graduated exposure exercises may present advantages over traditional exposure-based treatments by allowing clients to: (a) approach their feared situation more rapidly; and (b) stay in that situation for a longer period of time relative to those individuals who are told to drop their use of safety behaviors -both of which may serve to enhance the exposure practice rather than interfere with it. For example, research suggests that safety behaviors that focus on impression management (e.g., behavioral rehearsal, feigning friendly behavior towards others) rather than avoidance (e.g., avoiding eye contact, not speaking) are not typically associated with negative perceptions by others in a social context (Hirsch, Meynen, & Clark, 2004).…”
Section: Safety Behaviors-friend or Foe?mentioning
confidence: 99%