Cited by 161Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 16 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Does habituation matter? Emotional processing theory and exposure therapy for acrophobia

Open access

Abstract

Clinically, there is wide subscription to emotional processing theory (EPT; Foa & Kozak, 1986) as a model of therapeutic effectiveness of exposure therapy: EPT purports that exposure is maximal when (1) fear is activated (IFA), (2) fear subsides within sessions (WSH), and (3) fear subsides between sessions (BSH). This study examined these assumptions, using in vivo exposure therapy for 44 students scoring high on acrophobia measures. Results indicated that no EPT variables were consistently predictive of treatment outcome. No support was found for IFA or WSH; measures of BSH were predictive of short-term change, but these effects were attenuated at follow-up. Furthermore, EPT variables were not predictive of each other as previously hypothesized, indicating the variables are not functionally related.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2010.07.009

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

3 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

15 Own result · 12 Not checked yet · 4 Own interpretation · 2 Supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 14 references — free account

Show all 12 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 11
21 of 21
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Heart rate is a valid index of fear responding during exposure and the behavioral avoidance test.

    “Heart rate data were collected continuously throughout the 2-minute anticipatory phase and the BAT using a Polar Vantage NV that provides wireless heart-rate monitoring with ECG-accurate continuous measurement, sampling once every five seconds.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    SUDS ratings are a valid measure of subjective fear during exposure and the behavioral avoidance test.

    “Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS; 0–100) and self efficacy (0–100) (confidence in being able to complete the task successfully) were each rated after a 2-minute anticipatory period and before initiating the BAT.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The operationalization of IFA, WSH, and BSH using peak or quartile differences in HR and SUDS adequately captures the theoretical constructs.

    “IFA was operationalized as the peak in HR or SUDS score in the first quartile, or minute whichever was longer, of the first exposure session.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 2) = 62.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .016

    “F (1,2) = 62.32, p < .001”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 2) = 64.46reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .015

    “F (1,2) = 64.46, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 2) < 1reported p = .58 · recomputed p = .423

    “F (1,2) < 1, p = .58”

3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
Baker, A., Mystkowski, J., Culver, N., Yi, R., Mortazavi, A., & Craske, M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Claremont Graduate University (US)
Corresponding author
Baker, Aaron
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
48
Issue
11
Pages
1139-1143
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093146307
Cited by
161
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH072259)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
emotional processing theory, exposure therapy, acrophobia, fear extinction, in vivo exposure, treatment outcome prediction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Desensitization, Psychologic, Emotions, Female, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review