Abstract
The efficacy of imaginal and in vivo exposure was compared in 19 obsessive-compulsives who manifested checking rituals. Response prevention was not instituted in either group. No difference between the two procedures was detected either at posttreatment or at follow-up; both were moderately effective in ameliorating obsessive-compulsive symptoms. There appears to be a tendency for patients treated with in vivo exposure to improve further at follow-up, whereas those treated with imaginal exposure maintained the level of gains achieved at posttreatment. In comparison with a treatment regimen which includes both exposure and response prevention, the exposure procedures in vestigated here yielded inferior outcomes. The finding of no difference between in vivo and imaginal exposure modalities is incongruent with studies on phobics. Possible explanations for this discrepancy are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
