Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

1963, Vol. 66, No. 6, 519-525

EXPERIMENTAL DESENSITIZATION OF A PHOBIA1

PETER J. LANG AND A. DAVID LAZOVIK
University of Pittsburgh

24 snake phobic Ss participated in an experimental investigation of systematic

desensitization therapy. Ss who experienced desensitization showed a greater
reduction in phobic behavior (as measured by avoidance behavior in the
presence of the phobic object and self-ratings) than did nonparticipating
controls. Ss tended to hold or increase therapy gains at a 6-month follow-up
evaluation, and gave no evidence of symptom substitution.

In recent years there has been increasing
interest in the development of psychothera-
peutic techniques based on learning theory
models. These efforts are not limited to the
translation of accepted psychotherapeutic
practice into a laboratory language, in the
manner of Shoben (1949) and Bollard and
Miller (1950), but are attempts to extra-
polate from laboratory findings to new
methods of treatment. The most promising of
these techniques with respect to clinical find-
ings, is Wolpe's (1958) systematic desensi-
tization therapy of phobic reactions. In a
recent article Wolpe (1961) reported that
desensitization was effective in the treatment
of 35 of 39 phobic patients. Similar results
have been reported by Lazarus (1961) utiliz-
ing group desensitization.
In a pilot project Lazovik and Lang (1960)
demonstrated that desensitization could be
successfully carried out under controlled lab-
oratory conditions. This result opens the way
not only to a more precise evaluation of
treatment outcomes, but also makes it pos-
sible to test conflicting theories of the treat-
ment process.
According to Wolpe (1958), desensitiza-
tion is effective to the extent that subjects
learn to make responses to phobic objects
which reciprocally inhibit (are incompatible
with) fear. Specifically, the treatment is
designed to substitute muscular relaxation for
anxiety. It is assumed that this processnot
suggestion, "hello-goodbye" effects, or trans-
ferenceis the agent of behavior change. It
iThis research is supported by Grant M-3880
from the National Institute of Mental Health,
United States Public Health Service. The main
content of this paper was presented by A. David
Lazovik at the meeting of the American Psy-
chological Association in New York, September 1961.
519
is further assumed that explorations with the
patient of the genesis of the fear are not
necessary to the elimination of a phobia.
Wolpe proposes that the unlearning of a
phobia follows the rules of what is generally
called association learning theory. He there-
fore expects that therapy will be more dif-
ficult, the more generalized the anxiety re-
sponse, but that "symptom substitution" is
not a consequence of successful behavior
therapy.
A very different set of predictions would
be made.by psychoanalytic therapists. This
frame of reference expects little positive re-
sult unless the background of the phobia and
its symbolic meaning, is elucidated and
worked through with the subject. If this ap-
proach is not employed, only a temporary,
"transference cure" may be anticipated. It
is further assumed that the difficulty of the
case is related to the importance of the
symptom in the individual's "psychic econ-
omy," and that its temporary removal can
only lead to the substitution of some new
symptom.
The current experiment is designed to
evaluate these two interpretations of desensi-
tization therapy. The procedure developed
previously (Lazovik & Lang, 1960), while it
submits to the rigid control of the laboratory,
is nevertheless sufficiently flexible that it can
be employed in the treatment of actual
phobic behavior. In this experiment snake
phobic individuals served as subjects. This
fear was chosen because it is frequent in a
college population, approximately 3 in 100
students are to some degree snake phobic, and
also because of the symbolic, sexual signifi-
cance attributed to this fear by psycho-
analytic theory (Fenichel, 1949, p. 49). The
520 PETER J. LANG AND A. DAVID LAZOVIK
fact that snake phobias are held to reflect
conflict in more fundamental systems of the
personality, suggests that this is good ground
for a stringent test of behavior therapy.
Specifically, the study is designed to:
evaluate the changes in snake phobic behavior
that occur over time, particularly the effects
of repeated exposure to the phobic object;
compare these changes with those that follow
systematic desensitization therapy; determine
the changes in behavior that are a direct
function of the desensitization process, as
opposed to the independent effects (when not
part of desensitization) of hypnosis, training
in deep muscle relaxation, and the establish-
ment of a good patient-therapist relationship.
In addition, an attempt is made to isolate
factors which determine the success or failure
of this method with individual subjects.
METHOD
Systematic Desensitization
The experimental treatment consists of two
sequential parts, training and desensitization proper
(Lazovik & Lang, 1960). The former- procedure
requires five sessions of about 4S minutes each.
At this time an anxiety hierarchy is constructed.
This is a series of 20 situations involving the
phobic object, which each subject grades from most
to least frightening. The actual items vary from
subject to subject. However, the following scenes
are typical: "writing the word snake," "snakes on
display at the zoo (moving within a glass case),"
"stepping on a dead snake accidentally."
The subject is then trained in deep muscle re-
laxation, following the method presented by Jacob-
son (1938). He is further instructed to practice
relaxation 10-15 minutes per day at home. In the
final phase of the training period the subject is
introduced to hypnosis, and an effort is made to
teach him to visualize vividly hypnotic scenes.
Following training, there are 11 45-minute ses-
sions of systematic desensitization. In this, the
subject learns to respond with relaxation to
stimuli that originally evoked anxiety. At the begin-
ning of the first session the subject is hypnotized
and instructed to relax deeply. He is then told to
imagine the hierarchy item which he previously
rated as least distressingthe smallest "dose" of
anxiety. If relaxation is undisturbed by this experi-
ence, the subsequent item is presented. Items which
induce small amounts of anxiety are repeated, fol-
lowed by deep relaxation, until the subject reports
he is undisturbed by the scene. In this way succes-
sive items are presented from session to session.
The goal of treatment is the presentation of the
item originally ranked as most frightening without
impairing the individual's calm state. At this point
a new response (relaxation) has been attached to
the imagined representative of the fear inducing
stimulus, and clinicians working with the method
assume that it will readily transfer to actual life
situations.
In the experimental treatment described here,
just these operations were carried out. No attempt
was made to induce change through direct hypnotic
suggestion, nor was an effort made to alter motiva-
tion. Subjects were informed that the experimenter
was trying to evaluate a new method of treatment,
and that he was much more interested in accurate
findings than therapeutic successes. A majority of
the therapist's actual verbalizations, as well as the
step by step description of the training and
desensitization procedures, was contained in a
mimeographed program which guided the treatment
of all subjects.
Subjects
A total of 24 subjects participated in this re-
search. They were all college student volunteers,
attending undergraduate psychology courses. The
experimental groups included a total of four males
and nine females. The control groups consisted of
three males and eight females. None of these sub-
jects presented evidence of a severe emotional dis-
turbance on the basis of MMPI and interview data.
Subjects were selected on the basis of a classroom
questionnaire which asked students to list their
fears and rate them as mild, moderate, or intense.
All subjects who participated in this experiment
were afraid of nonpoisonous snakes, and rated this
fear as "intense." Furthermore, the two authors
interviewed all subjects who met this criterion. If
despite the high self-rating on the screening question-
naire the subject's fear was judged to be weak, he
was not asked to participate in the project. Sub-
jects who formed the final experimental sample
were characterized by most of the following be-
haviors: They reported somatic disturbance as-
sociated with the fear"I feel sick to my stomach
when I see one." "My palms get sweaty. I'm tense."
They habitually avoided going anyhere near a live
snake. They would not enter the reptile section of
the zoo or walk through an open field. They be-
came upset at seeing snakes at the motion pictures
or on the television screen, and would leave, close
their eyes, or turn off the set. Even pictures in
magazines or artifacts such as a snake skin belt
were capable of evoking discomfort in many of
these subjects.
Measures of Phobic Behavior
All subjects filled out a Fear Survey Schedule
(FSS) at the beginning and end of the experiment,
and again at a 6-month follow-up evaluation. The
FSS is a list of SO phobias each of which is rated
by the subjects on a 7-point scale. An estimate
was thus obtained not only of the subject's snake
phobia, but of other related and unrelated fears.
A direct estimate of the subject's avoidance be-
 DESENSITIZATION OF A PHOBIA
havior was obtained by confronting him with the
phobic object. The subject was informed that a
nonpoisonous snake was confined in a glass case
in a nearby laboratory. He was persuaded to enter
the room and describe his reactions. The snake was
confined at a point IS feet from the entrance to
the room. On entering the room with the subject,
the experimenter walked to the case and removed a
wire grill that covered the top. The subject was
assured that the snake was harmless. The experi-
menter then requested that the subject come over
and look down at the snake as he was doing. If
the subject refused, he was asked to come as close
as he felt he could and the distance was recorded.
If the subject was able to come all the way to
the case, he was asked to touch the animal (a
5-foot black snake) after he had seen the experi-
menter do this. If the subject succeeded in this, the
experimenter picked up the snake and invited the
subject to hold it. After the avoidance test, the
subject was asked to rate his anxiety on a 10-point
"fear thermometer" (Walk, 1956). The subject's
degree of anxiety was also rated on a 3-point scale
by the experimenter.
In addition to the subjective scales and the
avoidance test, all subjects were extensively inter-
viewed concerning their fear. These interviews were
tape recorded. The experimenter who conducted the
interview and administered the avoidance test
participated in no other phase of the project.2
Procedure
Following an initial interview and the administra-
tion of Form A of the Stanford Hypnotic Suscepti-
bility Scale (SHSS; Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard,
1959), subjects were placed in the experimental or
control groups. Assignment was essentially random,
although an effort was made to balance roughly
these groups in terms of intensity of fear and mo-
tivation to participate in the experiment. All sub-
jects were administered Form B of the SHSS when
the experimental subjects completed the training
period, and before desensitization began.
The basic plan of the study is described in Table 1.
It consisted of two experimental and two control
groups. The subgroups were created so that the
effects of repeating the avoidance test, pretherapy
training, and desensitization itself could be separately
evaluated. Thus, the experimental groups E and Ea
both experienced the laboratory analogue of desensi-
tization therapy already described. However, sub-
jects assigned to Ei were administered the avoidance
test before the training period, prior to desensitiza-
tion, and again at the end of the experiment. E2
subjects, on the other hand, were tested before
desensitization and after, but did not participate in
the initial evaluation. The control subjects did not
participate in desensitization, but the Ci and 2
groups were evaluated at the same time as their
2 3
The authors would like to thank David
Reynolds, who acted as interviewer and conducted
the snake avoidance test.
521
TABLE 1
DESIGN OF THE EXPERIMENT, SHOWING THE TIMES AT
WHICH SUBJECTS WERE EVALUATED (the Snake
Avoidance Test, Experimenter's Rating,
Fear Thermometer, and Taped
Interview)
Group Experimental procedures
E! Test 1 Training Test 2 Desensitization TestS
E2 Training Test 2 Desensitization Test3
c, Test 1 Test 2 Test3
C2 Test 2 TestS
opposite numbers in the experimental series. All
available subjects were seen and evaluated 6 months
after the termination of therapy.
Four replications of this experiment are reported
here. They varied only in the therapists who were
assigned to the experimental groups. Four experi-
mental subjects and five controls participated in
the first replication. The authors each saw two of
the experimental subjects. In the second, third, and
fourth replications (which included three, four, and
two experimental subjects and two, three, and one
control subjects, respectively) three other therapists
participated.3 While two of these individuals are
engaged in full-time private practice, they had never
before attempted desensitization therapy. The third
therapist was an advanced clinical graduate student,
who also had his initial experience with the
desensitization method in this project.
RESULTS
Avoidance Test
The results of this test were evaluated in
two ways: an absolute criterion in which
touching or holding the snake constituted a
test pass, and scale scores based on the sub-
ject's distance in feet from the snake. Table 2
presents the number of subjects from the
separate experimental and control groups who
met the former criterion.
Note that the reliability of this test is
high. The control subjects show no appreci-
able change, even with three exposures to
the snake. Furthermore, the pretherapy train-
ing period does not affect the performance of
the experimental subjects: no more EI sub-
jects pass at Test 2 than at Test 1. How-
ever, following therapy, the incidence of test
passes goes up significantly in the experi-
mental group. The percentage of increase
The authors would like to thank Robert Romano,
Richard Miller, and James Geer, who participated
as therapists in this project.
522 PETER J. LANG AND A. DAVID LAZOVIK
TABLE 2
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS WHO HELD OR TOUCHED THE
SNAKE DURING THE AVOIDANCE TEST
Group N Test 1 Test 2 Test3
E, 8 1 1 5
E2 S 1 2 change.
Ct 5 0 0 0
C2 6
1 2
EI and 2 13 2 7
Ci and C2 11 1 2
from Test 2 to Test 3 yielded a t of 2.30,
/> < .05. A similar test of the control sub-
jects was not significant.4
The above analysis does not, of course,
measure subtle changes in behavior. In an
attempt to increase the sensitivity of the
avoidance test, subjects were assigned scores
on a 19-point scale which roughly corre-
sponded to their closest approach in feet to
the phobic object. Holding the animal was
equal to a scale score of 1; touching, 2; the
1-foot mark, 3; 2 feet, 4; and so on up to a
score of 19 for subjects who refused to go to
the testing room. The correlation between
the first two presentations of the avoidance
test (N = 19) yielded an r of +.63. Al-
though this statistic suggests some degree of
reliability, nothing is known about the rela-
tive distance between values at different
places on the scale. The control sample
employed in the experiment is too small to
make an adequate analysis. Nevertheless, it
is logical that the probability of a positive
increase in approach lessens the closer the
*A live snake varies to some extent in activity,
and this appears to be related to its effectiveness
as a stimulus. In order to determine whether this
factor influenced our results, the experimental as-
sistant's ratings of the snake's activity during tests
of the control and experimental subjects were sub-
jected to a * test. No significant difference in snake
activity for the two groups was found.
B
The sample (N = 19) used in estimating the
reliability of the avoidance scale and the other fear
measures includes the members of the control sample
plus the eight subjects of the Ei group. Although
the training period does intervene between the first
and second presentations of the fear measures for
the Ei group, it appears to have no appreciable effect
on the phobia. The Ea subjects could not, of course,
be included in a reliability estimate, as actual
therapy intervenes between their first and second
fear evaluation.
subject is to the phobic object, i.e., movement
from a score of 15 to 12 is more likely or
easier than movement from a scale score of
4 (2 feet away) to a score of 1 (holding a
live snake). Thus, a simple difference score
does not appear to be the best estimate of
The change score used in the following
analysis was the difference between pre- and
posttherapy scale scores divided by the pre-
therapy score. For example, a subject who
achieved a scale score of 12 on Test 2 and a
score of 5 on Test 3 was assigned a change
score of .58the solution to the equation:
12-5
change score =
12 '
The mean change score for the first two
avoidance tests (N = 19) was only +.03.
This suggests that the score has considerable
stability, and tends to minimize chance
fluctuations. The mean change scores for the
experimental and control subjects from Test
2 to Test 3 may be found in Table 3. Note
that the Mann-Whitney U test of the differ-
ence between groups is significant.
Fear Thermometer and the FSS Snake Item
The correlation between the first two tests
for the reliability sample (N = 19) was r =
+ .75. The average difference score (obtained
by subtracting the second fear thermometer
score from the first) was only + .63. As in
the case of the avoidance test, no significant
change was associated with the pretherapy
training period. The mean difference score
for the EI group from Test 1 to Test 2 was
+ .38, less than the group mean cited above.
The difference between Test 2 and Test 3
scores for the experimental and control groups
are presented at the top of Table 4. While
TABLE 3
MEAN SNAKE AVOIDANCE SCALE SCORES AT TEST 2
AND 3, MEAN CHANGE SCORES, AND THE
MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
Group Test 2 Teat3 Change U
score
Experimental 5.35 4.42 .34 34.5*
Control 6.51 7.73 -.19
* p < .05.
 DESENSITIZATION OF A PHOBIA
TABLE 4
MEAN RATING SCALE MEASURES or PHOBIC BEHAVIOR
BEFORE (Test 2) AND ASTER (Test 3)
DESENSITIZATION THERAPY
Group Teat 2 Tests Difference
Fear thermometer
Experimental 7.62 5.15
Control 6.45 5.45
FSS-subject'a rating of snake fear
Test 1" Test 3 Difference
Experimental 6.69 5.31
Control 6.27 5.73
The FSS was not administered at Test 2. The difference
score ia between a pretherapy interview and Test 3.
the therapy groups show a greater mean
change than the control subjects, this differ-
ence did not attain statistical significance
on the Mann-Whitney U test. The same trend
and statistical findings were obtained for the
snake item on the FSS. The experimenter's
rating of the subject's level of anxiety during
the avoidance test did not differentiate be-
tween experimental and control groups. In
this case, the failure to discriminate may be
attributed to the selection, prior to the experi-
ment, of a 3-point rating scale. The ex-
perimenter reported that this measure was
too gross for the behavior under observation.
Follow-Up Study
All subjects who were still available
(N = 20) were re-evaluated approximately
6 months after the experiment was com-
pleted. This included 11 members of the
original experimental group, 6 of whom
touched or held the snake at the final avoid-
ance test. Two of these subjects no longer
met this criterion 6 months later. However,
neither subject indicated an increase in self-
rated fear and one actually showed improve-
ment on this dimension. Furthermore, be-
cause of gains by others, the mean avoidance
test change score for the entire experimental
group indicates a slight reduction in phobic
behavior from Test 3 to the 6-month fol-
low up.
The therapy group showed even greater
523
gains on the fear thermometer. The increase
was sufficient that the difference between ex-
perimental and control subjects from Test 2
to the follow up was statistically significant
(U= 16.5, p<.05). Subjects who had ex-
perienced therapy also showed a significant
reduction in their overall estimate of the
intensity of their phobia as measured by the
2.47 snake item of the FSS. The change in this
1.00 score from pretherapy to the 6-month fol-
low up was significantly greater for experi-
mental than control subjects (U = 8.5,
1.38 Therapy Terminated and Unterminated
,54
The design of the current experiment
arbitrarily limited therapy to 11 sessions.
This resulted in subjects being tested for
change at varying points in the therapeutic
process. Fortunately, in desensitization therapy
it is possible to define a subject's degree of
progress by referring to the number of
hierarchy items successfully completed. It
will be recalled that all subjects started with
a 20-item hierarchy. This represented the
combined efforts of the therapist and the
subject to build an equal-interval scale, ex-
tending from a remote point where the sub-
ject felt little or no fear to a maximum fear
involving close contact with the offending
object. Normally, therapy would be termi-
nated when the twentieth item had been
passed. In the present experiment four sub-
jects achieved this goal. Seven subjects com-
pleted 16 or more items and six subjects
completed 14 or less items.
All subjects who completed their hierarchies
touched or held the snake at the final avoid-
ance test. Furthermore, subjects who com-
pleted over 15 items (N = 7) showed signifi-
cant improvement on nearly all measures em-
ployed in this experiment: subjects who com-
pleted under 15 items differed little from con-
trols. Table 5 presents the difference between
the two therapy groups on the snake avoid-
ance scale and the fear thermometer. Note
that the improvement of the over 15 items
group is significantly greater than that of
subjects completing less than 15 items. Sim-
ilar results were obtained for the FSS snake
item and they are presented in Table 6. Note
524 PETER J. LANG AND A. DAVID LAZOVIK

TABLE 5 DISCUSSION
AVOIDANCE TEST BEHAVIOR CHANGE FROM TEST 2 TO
TEST 3 FOR THERAPY SUBJECTS WHO COMPLETED The results of the present experiment
MORE THAN IS HIERARCHY ITEMS, FOR THOSE demonstrate that the experimental analogue
WHO COMPLETED LESS THAN 15, AND FOR of desensiti/ation therapy effectively reduces
THE MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
phobic behavior. Both subjective rating of
Number of hierarchy fear and overt avoidance behavior were modi-
items successfully Test 2 Test 3 Change score u fied, and gains were maintained or increased
completed
at the 6-month follow up. The results of
Snake avoidance scale objective measures were in turn supported
by extensive interview material. Close ques-
More than 15" 6.71 3.93 .49
5.0** tioning could not persuade any of the experi-
Less than 15b 4.17 5.00 -.07 mental subjects that a desire to please the
experimenter had been a significant factor in
Fear thermometer
their change. Furthermore, in none of these
interviews was there any evidence that other
More than 15s 7.57 4.00 3.57 8.0*
Less than 15b 7.67 6.50 1.17 symptoms appeared to replace the phobic
behavior.
Note.All scores are mean values. The fact that no significant change was
N = 7.
*>tf =6.
* p < .08.
associated with the pretherapy training argues
**p <.03. that hypnosis and general muscle relaxation
were not in themselves vehicles of change.6
in this same table that the mean rank of the Similarly, the basic suggestibility of the sub-
FSS also shows a significantly greater reduc- jects must be excluded. The difference be-
tion in the over IS items group, than in the tween the SHSS Form A scores of the ex-
group completing fewer items. This finding perimental and control groups did not ap-
suggests that the elimination of snake phobic proach statistical significance (U = 58).
behavior does not initiate an increase in other Clearly, the responsibility for the reduction in
fears, but in fact leads to a significant reduc- phobic behavior must be assigned to the
tion in overall anxiety. desensitization process itself. This is evi-
TABLE 6 denced not only by the differences between
experimental and control subjects but also
CHANGES IN THE FEAR SURVEY SCHEDULE (FSS) FOL-
LOWING DESENSITIZATION THERAPY FOR SUBJECTS by the relationship within the experimental
WHO COMPLETED MORE THAN 15 HIERARCHY groups between degree of change and the
ITEMS, FOR THOSE WHO COMPLETED LESS number of hierarchy items successfully
THAN 15, AND FOR THE MANN-WHITNEY
J/TEST completed.
One must still raise the question, how-
Number of
hierarchy items Pre- Post-
ever, why desensitization therapy could be
successfully therapy therapy Difference u accomplished in 11 sessions with some sub-
completed
jects and barely gotten underway with others.
Fear survey schedule The intensity of the phobia is obviously not
a relevant factor. The mean avoidance Test 2
More than 15 2.34 1.85 .49 score is actually higher for the experimental
Less than 15b 3.21 .01 4.5*
3.20 subjects who completed more than 15 items
than for those who completed less (see Table
FSS-subject's rating of snake fear
6
While these findings indicate that hypnotizing
More than 15 a
6.71 4.14 2.57 subjects or training them in muscle relaxation are
Less than 15b 6.67 6.67 0.00 3.0** not effective independent of desensitization, we do
not yet know if they are a necessary part of the
Note.All scores are mean ranks or mean rank differences. desensitization process, itself. Research currently
N = 7. underway, in which these procedures are included
*>N = 6. or omitted in different therapy groups, is designed to
*p < .02.
answer this important question.
 DESENSITIZATION OF A PHOBIA
5). The base FSS snake item rank and
the fear thermometer scores are almost ex-
actly the same in both groups. On the other
hand, a negative relationship (r = .58)
exists between the total FSS score at the first
testing and the number of hierarchy items
completed by individual members of the ex-
perimental group. The FSS is in turn posi-
tively related to the Taylor (1953) Manifest
Anxiety (MA) scale (r = + .80 for the ex-
perimental group). Thus, the degree of prog-
ress attained in therapy in a constant period
of time (11 sessions) appears to be a func-
tion of generalized anxiety, as measured by
both the MA scale and FSS. These data sug-
gest that desensitization therapy is more dif-
ficult, or at least slower, when many stimuli
in the subject's environment are capable of
eliciting anxiety responses. This is of course
consistent with the clinical findings of Wolpe
(1958) and the prediction of a learning
theory model.
The present experiment also reveals an
interesting connection between changes in
overt avoidance behavior and the subject's
verbal report. The relationship between these
two dimensions is generally positive. How-
ever, even when precisely the same event is
being evaluated, it is sometimes surprisingly
low (Test 3 avoidance scale and fear ther-
mometer r= + AO). Furthermore, initial
changes in phobic behavior seem to occur in
either one dimension or the other, rather
than in both simultaneously. Most frequently
subjective report lags behind overt behavior.
Thus, avoidance test scores differentiated be-
tween experimental and control subjects im-
mediately following the experiment, but it
was not until the follow-up interview that
the subjective scales yielded the same finding.
It will be interesting to observe in future
studies if this pattern continues, and to
what extent it is characteristic of any reduc-
tion in phobic behavior, or simply a function
of the desensitization technique.
The question of whether learning theory,
specifically counterconditioning, best explains
the desensitization process is not completely
answerable by the present investigation.
Certainly the theory is consistent with the
results, and some of the other possible ex-
525
planations have been eliminated. However,
further research, particularly the direct meas-
urement of changes in muscular tension dur-
ing the presentation of hierarchy items, is
necessary to an evaluation of theory.
But of the greatest immediate interest are
the implications of the present research for
traditional theories of clinical practice. The
findings suggest the following important
conclusions:
1. It is not necessary to explore with a
subject the factors contributing to the learn-
ing of a phobia or its "unconscious mean-
ing" in order to eliminate the fear behavior.
2. The form of treatment employed here
does not lead to symptom substitution or
create new disturbances of behavior.
3. In reducing phobic behavior it is not
necessary to change basic attitudes, values,
or attempt to modify the "personality as a
whole." The unlearning of phobic behavior
appears to be analogous to the elimination
of other responses from a subject's behavior
repertoire.
REFERENCES
BOLLARD, J., & MILLER, N. E. Personality and
psychotherapy: An analysis in terms of learning,
thinking and culture. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1950.
FENICHEL, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis.
New York: Norton, 1945.
JACOBSON, E. Progressive relaxation. Chicago: Univer.
Chicago Press, 1938.
LAZARUS, A. A. Group therapy of phobic disorders
by systematic desensitization. /. abnorm. soc.
Psychol, 1961, 63, 504-510.
LAZOVIK, A. D., & LANG, P. J. A laboratory demon-
stration of systematic desensitization psycho-
therapy. /. psychol. Stud., 1960, 11, 238-247.
SHOBEN, E. J. Psychotherapy as a problem in learn-
ing theory. Psychol. Bull., 1949, 46, 366-392.
TAYLOR, JANET A. A personality scale of manifest
anxiety. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953, 48, 285-
290.
WALK, R. D. Self ratings of fear in a fear-invoking
situation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 171-
178.
WEITZENHOFFER, A. M., & HILOARD, E. R. Stanford
Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Consulting Psychologists Press, 1959.
WOLPE, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition.
Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1958.
WOLPE, J, The systematic desensitization treatment
of neuroses. J, nerv. ment. Dis., 1961,132,189-203.
(Received April 13, 1962)