Laboratory research, treatment innovation, and practice guidelines: A reply to Enns (2001) and Courtois (2001).

Abstract

In response to "Guided Imagery and Memory" by K. D. Arbuthnott, D. W. Arbuthnott, & L. Rossiter (2001), C. Z. Enns (2001) andC. A. Courtois (2001) elaborated on implications for the use of guided imagery techniques in psychotherapy, particularly for the treatment of trauma. In general, the authors endorse these elaborations and the practice guidelines recommended by the American Psychological Association task force for working with clients who may have experienced delayed memories for child abuse. However, they disagree with statements about the limited utility of laboratory research to inform clinical practice and discuss what they consider to be a more productive rapprochement between laboratory and clinical research. As an example of how practice guidelines can evolve with developing knowledge from laboratory studies, the authors discuss emerging evidence that is relevant to the mechanisms underlying guided imagery misattributions, which may significantly influence the caution necessary when using realistic imagery in psychotherapeutic treatment.

Imagery Induction Processes Differentially Impact Imagination Inflation

“…In clinical settings, for instance, the source or author(s) of imagery scripts varies widely, with professionals often inviting individuals (or clients) to participate in the creation of the imagery scripts (e.g. Arbuthnott et al, 2001;Hackmann & Holmes, 2004;Pitman, Orr, Forgue, de Jong, & Claiborn, 1987;Wild, Hackman, & Clark, 2008). Providing a script for clinical interaction, versus simply asking clients to imagine past experiences, may impact the veracity of the remembered event.…”