Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 105–117 | Cite as

On paradigms and recycled ideologies: Analogue research revisited

  • Alan E. Kazdin
  • Todd Rogers


Bandura discusses how the traditional disease model, explicitly rejected by proponents of behavior modification, has been unwittingly endorsed in several different ways. The dichotomization of clinical and nonclinical populations, the global assessment of therapy outcome, and the methods of treatment delivery all embrace the traditional approach toward deviant behavior. Bandura illustrates how the notion of “analogue research” implies an adherence to the disease model. Analogue research ordinarily is viewed as a distinct category of research secondary to investigations with clinical populations in treatment settings. Yet, controlled research has several unique advantages, well illustrated by Bandura, and is central to developing effective therapy techniques. The present paper uses Bandura's position as a point of departure to elaborate the nature of so-called analogue research. The problems seemingly peculiar to analogue research are considered to characterize all experimental research. To criticize analogue studies in behavior modification is to fail to appreciate the purposes of experimental research in general. Moreover, laboratory investigation of a particular phenomenon does not entail any inherent restrictions on the external validity of the findings. External validity, or the generalizability of the results, is always an empirical question.


External Validity Experimental Research Behavior Modification Global Assessment Disease Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review 1977,84 191–215.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. On paradigms and recycled ideologies.Cognitive Therapy and Research 1978,2 79–103.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, D. A., & Paul, G. L. Some comments on therapy analogue research with small animal “phobias.”Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 1971,2 225–237.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research and teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
  5. Eysenck, H. J. Learning theory and behaviour therapy.Journal of Mental Science 1959,105 61–75.Google Scholar
  6. Kazdin, A. E. Evaluating the generality of findings in analogue therapy research.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Kazdin, A. E., & Wilson, G. T.Evaluation of behavior therapy: Issues, evidence, and research strategies. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Krasner, L. Behavior therapy. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Annual review of psychology (Vol. 22). Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L. Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that “everyone has won and all must have prizes”?Archives of General Psychiatry 1975,32 995–1008.Google Scholar
  10. Marks, I. M. Behavioral treatments of phobic and obsessive-compulsive disorders: A critical appraisal. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.),Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.American Psychologist 1962,17 776–783.Google Scholar
  12. Paul, G. L.Insight vs. desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment in anxiety reduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  13. Sloane, R. B., Staples, F. R., Cristol, A. H., Yorkston, N. J., & Whipple, K.Psychotherapy versus behavior therapy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. Ullmann, L. P., & Krasner, L. (Eds.),Case studies in behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.Google Scholar
  15. Weber, S. J., & Cook, T. D. Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference.Psychological Bulletin 1972,77 273–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan E. Kazdin
    • 1
  • Todd Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations