title: The status of expectancy-arousal theory: comparative credibility of systematic desensitization and rational-emotive therapy in the treatment of anxiety about study.
abstract: 96 university students were asked to imagine that they were suffering from study anxiety to the point of wishing to receive help with the problem. They were then asked to read a booklet detailing either (a) the rationale for systematic desensitization or Rational-Emotive Therapy and (b) told that counselling lasted for 5 or 15 weeks. They then assessed the credibility of the therapy using Borkovec's credibility rating method. Meta-analysis has shown that systematic desensitization has superior outcomes when compared to other treatments, but this could be attributed to the different expectations of benefit that the therapies arouse. This notion has been called the expectancy-arousal hypothesis. Results from the present experiment did not support Shapiro's 1981 findings that systematic desensitization was more credible than Rational-Emotive Therapy, which disconfirms the expectancy-arousal hypothesis, but the basis for this remains unclear.
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Dryden
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Dancey
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Goldsmith
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001007:Anxiety / Q000523:psychology / Q000628:therapy*; D001143:Arousal; D001290:Attitude; D001521:Behavior Therapy; D003887:Desensitization, Psychologic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007206:Individuality; D008297:Male; D011613:Psychotherapy; D011617:Psychotherapy, Rational-Emotive; D012718:Set, Psychology