Cited by 74Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Anxiety-control strategies: Is there room for neutralization in successful exposure treatment?

Parrish, Chris L., Radomsky, Adam S., Dugas, Michel J.·2008·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Cognitive-behavioral theory suggests that anxiety-control strategies such as neutralization, distraction and various forms of safety behavior have the potential to diminish the effectiveness of and/or interfere with exposure treatment. Yet, it is common practice when treating individuals with anxiety disorders to employ various anxiety-control strategies as a means of assisting clients/patients with difficult exposure situations. Questions surrounding the issue of which anxiety-control strategies help vs. hinder exposure-based treatments (and under which circumstances) have been a topic of much investigation and continue to be a focus of theoretical debate. The present article reviews several key studies which collectively shed some light on this debate. The evidence suggests that clients' anxiety-control strategies may be less likely to become counter-productive when: (i) they promote increases in self-efficacy, (ii) they do not demand excessive attentional resources, (iii) they enable greater approach behavior and integration of corrective information (via 'disconfirmatory experiences'), and (iv) they do not promote misattributions of safety. Theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed, and future directions for research in this area are suggested.

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.cpr.2008.07.007

Cites

88 of 88 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?

  • Previous experimental and clinical findings demonstrate that patients adopting distraction, rituals, suppression, or just getting through exposures have reduced extinction learning, thereby interfering with treatment outcome.

    “Previous experimental and clinical findings demonstrate that patients adopting these approaches have reduced extinction learning, thereby interfering with treatment outcome (for review, see Parrish, Radomsky, & Dugas, 2008).”

    From How willing are you? Willingness as a predictor of change during treatment of adults with obsessive–compulsive disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Parrish, Radomsky, & Dugas, 2008

    The review reports that some demanding distractions can hinder exposure, but it rejects the claim that anxiety-control strategies generally impair treatment. In “Distraction vs. Focused Attention During Exposure” (page unavailable), it reports lasting treatment gains with conversational distraction; the Discussion (page unavailable) says some strategies may improve outcomes and treats their effects on extinction learning as speculative. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mathews, A., Gelder, M., & Johnston, D. (1981). Agoraphobia . London: Tavistock Press.
  2. Mowrer, O.H. (1939). Stimulus response theory of anxiety. Psychological Review, 46, 553-565.
  3. Shafran, R., Thordarson, D., & Rachman, S. (1996). Thought-action fusion in obsessivecompulsive disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10, 379-392.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parrish, C. L., Radomsky, A. S., & Dugas, M. J.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Corresponding author
Radomsky, Adam S.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
1400-1412
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032140365
Cited by
73
References
89
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
neutralization, exposure therapy, anxiety disorders, safety behavior, distraction, self-efficacy, attentional resources, approach behavior
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Anxiety Disorders, Arousal, Attention, Culture, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Internal-External Control, Phobic Disorders, Reality Testing, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Panic Disorder, Self Efficacy

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