Skip to main content
Log in

Some limiting factors in reciprocal inhibition therapy

  • Published:
The Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary and Conclusions

This paper makes no claim to be an exhaustive discussion of influential variables in the reciprocal inhibition treatment of phobias. Had it been, it would have also mentioned, at length and in detail, such considerations as lack of faith in the method, insufficient motivation to get well, obsessive-compulsive neurosis, the number of conditioning sessions, and the duration and intensity of phobias, all of which apparently play a role in the final outcome4.

The paper concentrates on other of the more important or intriguing limiting factors, as follows: the non-utilization of hypnosis, deficiencies in visualization and relaxation, the presence of free-floating anxiety, severe environmental stress, and the amount of secondary gain.

The improvement rate in 26 phobic patients immediately after desensitization therapy was 42%. Follow-up, 16 months to three years later, showed a decline in the improvement rate to 31%.

Considering the well-recognized and enormous difficulty in successfully treating phobic patients, one should not be too hasty in condemning these results. The rather meager therapeutic achievement merely points up the complexity of factors intervening between stimulus and response, mainly in the person of the patient, that “black box” of almost infinite variegation. In this respect, conditioning therapy faces the same difficulties as any other and in the field of symptom removal probably does better than most. Reciprocal inhibition treatment is a worthwhile addition to the psychiatrist's armamentarium and should be used wherever indications and expectations warrant it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wolpe, J.: Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Glick, B. S.: Conditioning therapy by an analytic therapist. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 17: 577–583, (Nov.) 1967.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. —: Conditioning: a partial success story. Int. J. Psychiat., 7: 504–507, (July) 1969.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. —: Conditioning therapy: success and failure. Am. J. Psychother., 24: 92–101, (Jan.) 1970.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lazarus, A. A.: The results of behavior therapy in 126 cases of severe neurosis. Behav. Res. Ther., 69–79, (May) 1963.

  6. Burnett, A., and Ryan, E.: Conditioning techniques in psychotherapy. Canad. Psychiat. Assn. J., 9: 140–146, (Apr.) 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper, J. E.; Gelder, M. G., and Marks, I. M.: Results of behavior therapy in 77 psychiatric patients. Brit. Med. J., 1: 1222–1225, (May 8) 1965.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper was submitted to theQuarterly on December 12, 1969.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Glick, B.S. Some limiting factors in reciprocal inhibition therapy. Psych Quar 44, 223–230 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01562970

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01562970

Keywords

Navigation