Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:33:08.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlled Comparison of Single-session Treatments for Spider Phobia: Live Graded Exposure Alone versus Computer-aided Vicarious Exposure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Katharine Heading ,
Kenneth C. Kirkby ,
Frances Martin ,
Brett A. Daniels ,
Lisa J. Gilroy  and
Ross G. Menzies
Katharine Heading
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania.
Kenneth C. Kirkby*
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania. [email protected]
Frances Martin
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania.
Brett A. Daniels
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania.
Lisa J. Gilroy
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania.
Ross G. Menzies
Affiliation:
University of Sydney.
*
*Address for correspondence: Professor Kenneth C. Kirkby, Discipline of Psychiatry, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-27, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

The efficacy of prolonged single sessions of live graded exposure (LGE) and computer-aided vicarious exposure (CAVE) for spider phobia was examined in a single-blind, controlled trial. Forty participants diagnosed with specific phobia (spiders) received a prolonged single-session treatment of either therapist-aided LGE comprising exposure only or CAVE, or were assigned to a waiting list. Phobic symptomatology was measured at pre- and post-treatment, and at 1-month follow-up on a range of behavioural and subjective assessments. The results showed that the single-session therapist-aided LGE was superior to both CAVE and the waiting-list control. In contrast with previous findings of comparability between LGE and CAVE, and superiority of CAVE over placebo, the present study found no significant differences between the CAVE and waiting-list groups, with the exception of subjective units of distress, providing little support for single-session CAVE treatment.

Type
Articles
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , 01 June 2001 , pp. 103 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)