Cited by 531Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: A meta-analysis

Wolitzky-Taylor, Kate B., Horowitz, Jonathan D., Powers, Mark B., Telch, Michael J.·2008·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Data from 33 randomized treatment studies were subjected to a meta-analysis to address questions surrounding the efficacy of psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobia. As expected, exposure-based treatment produced large effects sizes relative to no treatment. They also outperformed placebo conditions and alternative active psychotherapeutic approaches. Treatments involving in vivo contact with the phobic target also outperformed alternative modes of exposure (e.g., imaginal exposure, virtual reality, etc.) at post-treatment but not at follow-up. Placebo treatments were significantly more effective than no treatment suggesting that specific phobia sufferers are moderately responsive to placebo interventions. Multi-session treatments marginally outperformed single-session treatments on domain-specific questionnaire measures of phobic dysfunction, and moderator analyses revealed that more sessions predicted more favorable outcomes. Contrary to expectation, effect sizes for the major comparisons of interest were not moderated by type of specific phobia. These findings provide the first quantitative summary evidence supporting the superiority of exposure-based treatments over alternative treatment approaches for those presenting with specific phobia. Recommendations for future research are also discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.007

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 99 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Horowitz, J. D., Powers, M. B., & Telch, M. J.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Telch, Michael J.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-07
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1021-1037
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003047492
Cited by
530
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 25
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
specific phobia, exposure therapy, psychotherapy efficacy, placebo effect, in vivo exposure, imaginal exposure, virtual reality exposure, number of treatment sessions, single-session intervention
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Phobic Disorders, Psychotherapy, Placebo Effect, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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