Cited by 2,339Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural MechanismsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach

Open access
Craske, Michelle G., Treanor, Michael, Conway, Christopher C., Zbozinek, Tomislav, Vervliet, Bram·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Exposure therapy is an effective approach for treating anxiety disorders, although a substantial number of individuals fail to benefit or experience a return of fear after treatment. Research suggests that anxious individuals show deficits in the mechanisms believed to underlie exposure therapy, such as inhibitory learning. Targeting these processes may help improve the efficacy of exposure-based procedures. Although evidence supports an inhibitory learning model of extinction, there has been little discussion of how to implement this model in clinical practice. The primary aim of this paper is to provide examples to clinicians for how to apply this model to optimize exposure therapy with anxious clients, in ways that distinguish it from a ‘fear habituation’ approach and ‘belief disconfirmation’ approach within standard cognitive-behavior therapy. Exposure optimization strategies include 1) expectancy violation, 2) deepened extinction, 3) occasional reinforced extinction, 4) removal of safety signals, 5) variability, 6) retrieval cues, 7) multiple contexts, and 8) affect labeling. Case studies illustrate methods of applying these techniques with a variety of anxiety disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, social phobia, specific phobia, and panic disorder.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006

Cites

106 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Both unlearning old catastrophic interpretations and learning a wide range of new associations form the key to therapeutic change.

    “According to this rationale, both unlearning old catastrophic interpretations and learning a wide range of new associations form the key to therapeutic change.”

    From Personalized exposure and experience sampling method feedback versus exposure as usual for obsessive–compulsive disorder: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    The “Inhibitory Learning Model of Extinction” section (page unavailable) says the original fear association is not erased; it remains intact while a new inhibitory association develops. This contradicts the claim that unlearning old catastrophic interpretations is a key part of the paper’s therapeutic rationale, although the paper does emphasize new learning. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The mechanisms of change in exposure therapy remain poorly understood, especially for eating disorders.

    “However, the mechanisms of change in exposure therapy are still not well understood, especially in exposure therapy for EDs”

    From Are within- and between-session changes in distress associated with treatment outcomes? Findings from two clinical trials of exposure for eating disorders (2024) · cites this paper as Craske et al., 2014

    The Abstract describes inhibitory learning as a mechanism believed to underlie exposure therapy, and the Summary says further research is needed to clarify how best to enhance and implement it. Those passages support some uncertainty about exposure processes, but the paper addresses anxiety disorders, not the claim that mechanisms are especially poorly understood for eating disorders. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Emotional states serve as powerful retrieval cues, and varying fear may make the safety association more salient.

    “Emotional states are strong retrieval cues, and variation in fear may increase the salience of the association between a previously feared object or situation and a lack of extreme negative consequences (Bjork & Bjork, 1992, 2006; Craske et al., 2014).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Craske et al., 2014

    In “Therapeutic Strategies,” section (5) Variability (page unavailable), the paper proposes that fear level may serve as a retrieval cue and that varying it may enhance learning of inhibitory associations. It does not establish that emotional states are strong retrieval cues; it also describes increased salience of the feared stimulus, not specifically of the safety association. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Varying the exposure hierarchy may increase expectancy violation, which is thought to improve exposure outcomes.

    “Variability in the exposure hierarchy may also enhance expectancy violation, which is proposed to maximize exposure therapy outcomes (Craske et al., 2014).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Craske et al., 2014

    The ‘Variability’ section describes selecting hierarchy items out of order and reports long-term benefits. The ‘Expectancy Violation’ section proposes designing exposures to maximize the mismatch between expected and actual outcomes. Our copy does not say that varying the hierarchy itself increases expectancy violation; it presents variability and expectancy violation as distinct strategies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Variability might be introduced after a few graded, lower-difficulty exposures once the client has gained confidence in staying in the distressing situation.

    “Instead of starting exposure with the premise of random progression through the exposure hierarchy, variability might be introduced after a few graded exposures of lower difficulty once the client has gained confidence in his or her ability to stay in the distressing situation (Craske et al., 2014).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Craske et al., 2014

    The “Variability” section (page not provided) says variable exposure usually begins with the least anxiety-producing hierarchy item to avoid treatment refusal. It does not recommend several graded, lower-difficulty exposures before introducing variability, or make the client’s confidence in staying in the situation the criterion for doing so. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ponnusamy R Zhuravka I Poulos AM Huang J Wolvek D O’Neil PK Fanselow MS 8 2011 Retrieval vs Reconsolidation accounts of deepened extinction with reminder treatments Poster presented at the Gordon Research Conference

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Craske, M. G., Treanor, M., Conway, C. C., Zbozinek, T., & Vervliet, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Craske, Michelle G.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
58
Pages
10-23
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057906075
Cited by
2,339
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 304 · 2025: 247 · 2024: 265 · 2023: 196 · 2022: 233 · 2021: 245 · 2020: 213 · 2019: 175 · 2018: 156 · 2017: 124 · 2016: 107 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 12
FWCI
139.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH101359, R21MH081299, R01MH065651)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (T32HG002536)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
exposure therapy, inhibitory learning, extinction learning, anxiety disorders, treatment optimization, expectancy violation, safety signals, retrieval cues, affect labeling, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, panic disorder
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Extinction, Psychological, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Inhibition, Psychological, Learning, Male

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.

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