Ethical Issues When Considering Exposure

  • Kate B. Wolitzky-Taylor
  • Megan A. Viar-Paxton
  • Bunmi O. Olatunji
Part of the Autism and Child Psychopathology Series book series (ACPS)


Exposure-based treatments are arguably among the most successful and efficacious psychological treatments for the anxiety disorders (Deacon and Abramowitz, Journal of Clinical Psychology 60: 429–441, 2004). Unfortunately, despite decades of empirical support from clinical trials, the administration of these treatments in real-world clinical practice continues to lag considerably. Although there are a number of reasons for this gap between research and practice (e.g., lack of competently trained therapists, restrictions and insufficient resources in community clinics), misinformation about exposure-based treatments has emerged as a clear barrier and has led to a “public relations problem” for this effective treatment (Richard and Gloster, Comprehensive handbook of the exposure therapies pp. 409–425, 2007). The public relations problem is based on the erroneous belief that exposure treatment is cruel and unethical because it causes undue harm. The present chapter aims to address the ethical issues involved in considering and implementing exposure, including addressing whether exposure therapy causes harm, clinician competency, supervision and training, ethical issues surrounding public exposures, safety issues, disclosure during treatment planning, and the use of exposure therapy with children.


  1. Abramowitz, J. S. (1996). Variants of exposure and response prevention in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis. Behaviour Therapy, 27, 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowitz, J. S. (2006). Understanding and treatment obsessive-compulsive disorder: A cognitive-behavioral approach. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Accessed 9 Aug 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Barnett, J. E., Lazarus, A. A., Vasquez, M., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., & Johnson, W. B. (2007). Boundary issues and multiple relationships: Fantasy and reality. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouton, M. E. (2002). Context, ambiguity, and unlearning: Sources of relapse after behavioral extinction. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 976–986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, A., Deacon, B. J., Abramowitz, J. S., Dammann, J., & Whiteside, S. P. (2007). Parents’ perceptions of pharmacological and cognitive-behavioral treatments for childhood anxiety disorders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cash, T. F., & Hrabosky, J. I. (2003). The effects of psychoeducation and self-monitoring in a cognitive-behavioral program for body-image improvement. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 11, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, B. J., Fergus, K. D., & Swinson, R. P. (1994). Patient satisfaction with behavioral treatments for panic disorder with agoraphobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craske, M. G., Dirk, H., & Vansteenwegen, D. (2006). Fear and learning: From basic processes to clinical implications. Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craske, M. G., Kircanski, K., Zelikowski, M., Mystowski, J., Chowdhury, N., & Baker, A. (2008). Optimizing inhibitory learning during exposure therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 5–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deacon, B. J., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2004). Cognitive and behavioral treatment for anxiety disorders: A review of meta-analytic findings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 429–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deacon, B. J., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2005). Patients’ perceptions of pharmacological and cognitive-based treatments for anxiety disorders. Behavior Therapy, 36, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feeny, N., Hembree, E., & Zoellner, L. (2003). Myths regarding exposure therapy for PTSD. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 10, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foa, E. B., Zoellner, L. A., Feeny, N. C., Hembree, E. A., & Alverez-Conrad, J. (2002). Does imaginal exposure exacerbate PTSD symptoms? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1022–1028.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabbard, G. O. (1994). Teetering on the precipice: A commentary on Lazarus’s “How certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness”. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris, S. R. (2002). Dual relationships and university counseling center environments. In A. A. Lazarus & O. Zur (Eds.), Dual relationships and psychotherapy (pp. 337–347). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hembree, E. A., Foa, E. B., Dorfan, N. M., Street, G. P., Kowalski, J., & Tu, X. (2003). Do patients dropout prematurely from exposure therapy for PTSD? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 552–562.Google Scholar
  19. Hofmann, S. G., & Smits, J. A. J. (2008). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 621–632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamphuis, J. H., & Telch, M. J. (2000). Effects of distraction and guided threat reappraisal on fear reduction during exposure-based treatments for specific fears. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 1163–1181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lazarus, A. A. (1994). How certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lazarus, A. A. (1998). How do you like these boundaries? The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 22–25.Google Scholar
  23. Lazarus, A. A. (2007). Restrictive draconian views must be vigorously challenged. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 405–406.Google Scholar
  24. Mineka, S., Mystkowski, J. L., Hladek, D., & Rodriguez, B. I. (1999). The effects of changing contexts on return of fear following exposure therapy for spider fear. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 599–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Norton, G. R., Allen, G. E., & Hilton, J. (1983). The social validity of treatments for agoraphobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21, 393–399.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Öst, L. G., Stridh, B. M., & Wolf, M. (1998). A clinical study of spider phobia: Prediction of outcome after self-help and therapist-directed treatments. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 17–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Olatunji, B. O., Deacon, B. J., & Abramowitz, J. S. (2009). The cruelest cure? Ethical issues in the implementation of exposure-based treatments. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16, 172–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pope, K. S., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2008). A practical approach to boundaries in psychotherapy: Making decisions, by passing blunders, and mending fences. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 64, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Powers, M. B., Smits, J. A. J., & Telch, M. J. (2004). Disentangling the effects of safety-behavior utilization and safety-behavior availability during exposure-based treatment: A placebo-controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 448–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prochaska, J., & Norcross, J. (1999). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  31. Richard, D. C. S., & Gloster, A. T. (2007). Exposure therapy has a public relations problem: A dearth of litigation amid a wealth of concern. In D. C. S. Richard & D. Lauterbach (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of the exposure therapies (pp. 409–425). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salkovskis, P. M., Clark, D. M., Hackman, A., Wells, A., & Gelder, M. G. (1999). An experimental investigation of the role of safety behaviours in the maintenance of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 559–574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sloan, T., & Telch, M. J. (2002). The effects of safety-seeking behavior and guided threat reappraisal on fear reduction during exposure: An experimental investigation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stewart, S. H., & Watt, M. C. (2008). Introduction to the special issues on interoceptive exposure in the treatment of anxiety and related disorders: Novel applications and mechanisms of actions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wolitzky, K. B., & Telch, M. J. (2009). Augmenting in vivo exposure with fear antagonistic actions: A preliminary test. Behavior Therapy, 40, 57–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zur, O. (2001). Out of-office experience: When crossing office boundaries and engaging in dual relationships are clinically beneficial and ethically sound. The Independent Practitioner, 21, 96–98.Google Scholar
  37. Zur, O. (2005). The dumbing down of psychology: Faulty beliefs about boundary crossing and dual relationships. In R. H. Wright & N. A. Cummings (Eds.), Destructive trends in mental health: The well-intentional path to harm (pp. 252–282). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate B. Wolitzky-Taylor
    • 1
  • Megan A. Viar-Paxton
    • 2
  • Bunmi O. Olatunji
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California-Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations