Emotional variability and sustained arousal during exposure
Abstract
Background and objectives In traditional exposure therapy for phobias and anxiety disorders, reduction of fear responding is used as an index of learning. However, recent evidence in animal models suggests that sustained arousal and enhanced fear responding throughout exposure may actually predict better long-term outcomes (Rescorla, 2000). Methods The effects of sustained arousal during exposure were investigated in a clinical analog sample of 59 participants fearful of public speaking. Participants completed exposure with or without the presence of additional excitatory stimuli which were intended to enhance arousal and fear responding throughout exposure. Results Group assignment (exposure versus exposure with additional excitatory stimuli) did not significantly predict outcome at 1-week follow-up testing, as measured physiologically, subjectively, and behaviorally. A set of regression analyses investigating whether any exposure process measures predicted outcome indicated that sustained arousal throughout exposure as well as variability in subjective fear responding throughout exposure (e.g., Kircanski et al., 2011) predicted lower levels of fear at follow-up testing (p Limitations The excitatory stimuli used failed to produce the intended effects. However, some participants did maintain elevated arousal throughout exposure and this predicted better outcomes at 1-week follow-up testing. Conclusions Sustained arousal throughout exposure as well as variability in subjective…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In public-speaking fear, higher emotional variability during exposure predicted greater fear reduction one week later.
“Consistent with this view, a study of individuals with public-speaking fear found that those who experienced higher emotional variability during exposure had greater reduction of fear at follow-up one week later (Culver, Stoyanova, & Craske, 2012).”
From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Culver, Stoyanova, & Craske, 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 42 · Cited by 106
- Authors
- Culver, N. C., Stoyanova, M., & Craske, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Culver, Najwa C.
- ORCID
- Craske, Michelle G.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 787-793
- ISSN
- 0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006874565
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R21 MH722 59-01)
- 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, emotional variability, public speaking anxiety, phobia treatment, treatment outcome prediction, habituation, anxiety disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Arousal, Fear, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Speech, Young Adult, Self Report
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