Improving imagery rescripting treatments: Comparing an active versus passive approach

Abstract

Background and objectivesIn imagery rescripting (ImRs), aversive mental images are modified to reduce symptoms in a variety of psychological disorders. However, uniform guidelines on how to optimally implement ImRs do currently not exist. It remains unclear whether therapists should stimulate patients to imagine themselves to actively intervene within the new image, or whether they may imagine helpers to change the situation. We aimed to compare these two variants of ImRs within an analogue experimental setting. MethodsAfter having watched an aversive film, one-hundred participants were randomly assigned to active ImRs (ImRs-A), passive ImRs (ImRs-P), imagery rehearsal (IRE), or no-intervention control (NIC). Participants were either instructed to rescript the film by imagining themselves intervening in the new script (ImRs-A) or encouraged to imagine helpers to intervene in the imagined situation (ImRs-P). ResultsBoth ImRs increased mastery and elicited less distress than IRE with ImRs-P being experienced as less distressing than ImRs-A. Only ImRs-A led to a stronger increase in positive affect than IRE, whereas groups did not differ with respect to negative affect and self-efficacy. Conditions did not differ regarding the number of film-related intrusive memories. LimitationsAs a convenience sample was investigated, results cannot be generalized to clinical samples. ConclusionEven though differences regarding symptomatic outcome could not be detected, ImRs-P was experienced as less distressing than ImRs-A. Results suggest that both ImRs lead to different processes during the intervention than mere exposure. Compared to IRE, ImRs increases mastery with ImRs-A and ImRs-P being equally effective.