One-session group therapy of spider phobia: Direct versus indirect treatments

• Published in: Behaviour research and therapy Vol. 35; no. 8; pp. 721 - 732
• Main Authors: Öst, Lars-Göran, Ferebee, Ingela, Furmark, Tomas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.08.1997; Elsevier Science; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis of Variance; Animals; Behavior Therapy - methods; Behavior Therapy - standards; Behavior therapy. Cognitive therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Chi-Square Distribution; Fear & phobias; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Group therapy; Humans; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Phobic Disorders - therapy; Prospective Studies; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Psychotherapy, Brief - methods; Psychotherapy, Brief - standards; Psychotherapy, Group - methods; Psychotherapy, Group - standards; Spiders; Treatment Outcome; Treatments; Short term; Human; Phobia; Treatment efficiency; Anxiety disorder; Behavior therapy; Group psychotherapy; FEAR; ACROPHOBIA; BEHAVIORAL CHANGE; ANXIETY; DESENSITIZATION; SELF-EXPOSURE
• ISSN: 0005-7967; 1873-622X
• DOI: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00028-4

Forty-six patients with spider phobia, fulfilling the DSM-IV criteria for specific phobia, were assessed with behavioral, physiological and self-report measures. They were randomly assigned to three group treatment conditions: (1) direct treatment; (2) direct observation; and (3) indirect observation. All treatments were carried out in large groups of eight patients, and consisted of one 3 hr session of massed exposure and modelling. The results showed that on the behavioral test, measures and the specific self-report measures of spider phobia the direct treatment was significantly better than direct observation and indirect observation, which did not differ. On the physiological measures and the psychopathology self-report measures there were significant pre-post improvements, but no differences between the groups. The effects were maintained or furthered at the one year follow-up assessment. The proportion of clinically significantly improved patients were, at post-treatment, 75% in the direct treatment, 7% in the direct observation, and 31% in the indirect observation group. At follow-up, the corresponding figures were 75, 14, and 44%, respectively. The conclusion that can be drawn is that direct treatment is the treatment of choice.