Cited by 1Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Advancing the treatment of anxiety disorders in transition‐age youth: a review of the therapeutic effects of unconscious exposure.

Open access
Siegel, Paul, Peterson, Bradley S.·2025·Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The real‐world effectiveness of exposure‐based therapies for youth depends on the willingness and ability of young people to tolerate confronting their fears, which can be experienced as highly aversive and create problems with treatment engagement and acceptance. Recently, neuroscientific research on the nonconscious basis of fear has been translated into novel exposure interventions that bypass conscious processing of feared stimuli and that thus do not cause phobic youth to experience distress. We present a review of these unconscious exposure interventions. Methods: A PRISMA‐based search yielded 20 controlled experiments based on three paradigms that tested if fear‐related responses could be reduced without conscious awareness in highly phobic, transition‐age youth: 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 5 fMRI studies (1 was also an RCT), 4 psychophysiological studies (3 were also RCTs), and 1 ERP study. We conducted meta‐analyses of outcomes where feasible. Results: Unconscious exposure interventions significantly (1) reduced avoidance behavior (range of Cohen's d = 0.51–0.95) and self‐reported fear (d = 0.45–1.25) during in vivo exposure to the feared situation; (2) reduced neurobiological indicators of fear (d = 0.54–0.62) and concomitant physiological arousal (d = 0.55–0.64); (3) activated neural systems supporting fear regulation more strongly than visible exposure to the same stimuli (d = 1.2–1.5); (4) activated regions supporting fear regulation that mediated the reduction of avoidance behavior (d = 0.70); (5) evoked ERPs suggesting encoding of extinction memories (d = 2.13); and (6) had these effects without inducing autonomic arousal or subjective fear. Conclusions: Unconscious exposure interventions significantly reduce a variety of symptomatic behaviors with mostly moderate effect sizes in transition‐age youth with specific phobias. fMRI and physiological findings establish a neurophysiological basis for this efficacy, and suggest it occurs through extinction learning. Unconscious exposure was well tolerated, entirely unassociated with drop out, and is highly scalable for clinical practice. However, a number of limitations must be addressed to assess potential clinical impacts, including combining unconscious exposure with exposure therapy to boost treatment acceptance and efficacy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpp.14037

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

1 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Method

    The review used a systematic PRISMA-guided search to identify published studies testing whether unconscious exposure to phobic stimuli reduced fear-related responses in phobic youth participants.

    “We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a 27-item checklist to ensure high-quality systematic reviews (Page et al. 2021). The PRISMA guidelines enabled us to identify every published study, as recently as February 1, 2024, that tested the hypothesis that unconscious exposure to phobic stimuli reduced fear-related responses in phobic youth participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Page et al. 2021 source

      The Abstract and “How to use PRISMA 2020” identify PRISMA as a 27-item guideline for reporting systematic reviews, supporting the citation’s identification of the checklist. But the “Scope of the guideline” says PRISMA is not intended to guide review conduct or assess methodological quality. It therefore does not establish that following PRISMA ensured a high-quality search or identified every study; the phobic-youth search is the citing authors’ own account, not a finding of this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Finding

    The paper reports that the DecNef intervention eliminated baseline amygdala activity and skin conductance responses to feared animals in phobic participants.

    “The 5 daily sessions of DecNef eliminated baseline levels of amygdala activity (Cohen’s d=0.62) and SCRs (Cohen’s d=0.55) to pictures of other feared animals from the reinforced category.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The discussion concludes that 19 of the 20 included studies suggest unconscious exposure is efficacious for specific phobia in transition-age youth.

    “Although the studies and investigative teams in this review are relatively few, 19 of the 20 included studies suggest that unconscious exposure is an efficacious intervention for Specific Phobia in transition-age youth.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The paper reports that visible exposure induces autonomic arousal and fear, whereas masked VBE reduces avoidance without inducing arousal or fear.

    “Whereas visible exposure to spider images induces considerable autonomic arousal, causes phobic participants to experience fear, and does not affect their avoidance of the tarantula, VBE has precisely the opposite effects: it reduces avoidance without inducing either arousal or fear in phobic participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The discussion argues that unconscious exposure induces new learning of non-aversive 'Stimulus→No fear' associations that facilitate fear extinction.

    “Thus, these multiple dissociations between the effects of conscious versus unconscious exposure on autonomic arousal, subjective fear, and fear of the tarantula suggest that unconscious exposure induces new learning of “Stimulus→No fear” associations to facilitate fear extinction.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified

Statistics that don’t add up

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

  • Inconsistent p-value: r(8)= −.73, p = .03

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .03 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .017 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .017

1 of 1

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 upr(8) = -0.73reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .017

    “r(8)= −.73, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 342) = 32.5reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,342)=32.5, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 235) = 26.3reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,235)=26.3, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 134) = 11.3reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1,134)=11.3, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 134) = 21.8reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,134)=21.8, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 136) = 3.93reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(1,136)=3.93, p = .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 134) = 27.5reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,134)=27.5, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 63) = 7.67reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1,63)= 7.67, p = .007”

  • ConsistentF(1, 277) = 36.8reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,277)=36.8, p = .0001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 63) = 0.75reported p = .39 · recomputed p = .390

    “F(1,63)=.75, p = .39”

  • Consistentr(8) = 0.82reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “r(8)= .82, p = .01”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

11 of 11

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.

  • The claimed exclusive focus on Specific Phobia omits a social-anxiety study

    Minor

    The limitations section says studies focused only on Specific Phobias, whereas the results include participants diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder.

  • The abstract and body give different numbers of paradigms

    Minor

    The abstract says the experiments used three paradigms, while the methods and results say they used four.

  • The same ABM study is assigned different publication years

    Minor

    The description identifies the Maoz study as published in 2013, then cites it as a 2023 study in the next paragraph.

  • The no-arousal conclusion conflicts with an observed SCR increase

    Minor

    The abstract says the interventions had their effects without inducing autonomic arousal, but the ERP results report increased skin conductance responses during subliminal exposure.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hoge C.W., 2013, Risks associated with untreated PTSD in combat veterans: Implications for improving mental health care engagement and treatment, Federal Practitioner, 30, 5
  2. Snodgrass M., 2023, Unconsciously formed memories may be smarter than you think: Subliminal event‐related theta synchonization moderates extinction, Emotion

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siegel, P., & Peterson, B. S.
Affiliations
  • Purchase College (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Siegel, Paul
Venue
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-08-11
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
98-121
ISSN
  • 0021-9630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7610
OpenAlex
W4401497246
Cited by
1
References
119
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (7R21MH101564‐02)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
anxiety disorders, transition-age youth, specific phobia, avoidance behavior, fear extinction, memory extinction, fear regulation, autonomic arousal
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Fear

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.

Claims read (extract-v1) on 2026-09-24.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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