Exposure Combined With Psychotherapy: A Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety

Running Head: EXPOSURE COMBINED WITH PSYCHOTHERAPY 1

Exposure Combined With Psychotherapy:

A Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety

Kayla Lord

The Pennsylvania State University

EXPOSURE COMBINED WITH PSYCHOTHERAPY 2

Abstract

Exposure treatment and psychotherapy were examined as treatments for public speaking anxiety.

Students from a large university, between the ages of 18 to 22-years-old, that qualify for public

speaking anxiety according to their PRPSA scores (McCroskey, 1970) were treated with

exposure, psychotherapy, or both. Those in the control group were put on a wait-list for

treatment. It is expected that exposure treatment will cause a decrease in public speaking anxiety

symptoms. It is also expected that psychotherapy will cause a decrease in public speaking

anxiety. Finally, it is expected that the effect of exposure on public speaking anxiety will depend

up receiving psychotherapy. These expected results would indicate that psychotherapy and

exposure treatment are successful in treating public speaking anxiety and are even more effective

in combination.


Dosed Exposure as a Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety

Public speaking anxiety is a specified form of social anxiety disorder (SAD), which is a

prevalent anxiety disorder that consists of extreme fear of embarrassment, humiliation, and

judgment by others in social situations (Kashdan & Herbert, 2001). The fear of public speaking,

formally known as glossophobia, is a widespread condition. With a 5.5% lifetime prevalence rate

in 13 to 18 year olds, SAD is the third most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorder in the

United States (Kashdan & Herbert, 2001; Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005; Merikangas,

et al., 2010). Social phobia prevalence rates increase with age from 13 to 18-years-old

(Merikangas et al., 2010). It is especially common in adolescents who have less freedom to avoid

social situations than adults do because they are typically students who have to participate in

class, ask for help, and perform public speaking tasks. Being forced to enter undesirable social

situations leads to severe distress. The effects of social phobia, if left untreated, are chronic. Yet,

most research on the subject uses adult samples (Kashdan & Herbert, 2001). It is pertinent to find

the most effective treatment for adolescents with public speaking anxiety because their well

being as a student and as an adult in social situations depends on it. It has been found in previous

studies focused on treating glossophobia that there are multiple ways to successfully treat it. The

three research articles discussed in this paper use samples of college students in late adolescence

and early young adulthood. The following three experiments not only used adolescent samples,

but also studied three of the most common, successful treatments for speech anxiety.

First, virtual reality therapy (VRT) treats phobias and other psychiatric conditions by

immersing patient into computer-generated virtual reality treatment environments (Harris,

Kemmerling, & North, 2002). Students at a large university filled out the Personal Report of

Confidence as a Speaker (PRCS) inventory (Paul, 1966). Those whose scores were higher than


16 were randomly assigned to the control or experimental group resulting in a sample size of 14

students, eight receiving treatment. The six in the control group completed pre-testing and post-

testing and were put on a wait-list for treatment. All subjects attended initial interviews in which

they were surveyed using the Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, STAI form X-1 (STAI)

(Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS)

(Liebowitz, 1987), and Attitudes Towards Public Speaking Questionnaire (ATPS) (North, North,

& Coble, 1997). Additionally, physiological measures of heart rate, using a pulse oximeter, were

taken while the participants answered an open-ended question, read a paragraph, and completed

a brief relaxation exercise (Harris, et al., 2002).

Each participant in the treatment group received four VRT sessions 12-15 minutes in

length, once per week, using software of an auditorium scene and a head-mounted display with

head-tracker. Present during the sessions as the therapist was the first author. Each session

consisted of different manipulations to a virtual auditorium scene with heart rate measures taken

throughout and Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) ratings taken before, during, and after

each session. Immediately after, the subjects completed post-testing, which consisted of the same

measures as pre-testing (Harris, et al., 2002). The researchers found that results on self-report

and physiological measures indicated that VRT was successful in reducing glossophobia

symptoms in college students. Specifically, when pre- and post-testing measures were compared,

the experimental group’s scores significantly differed on the PRCS, the ATPS, the heart rate

during speaking tasks, and the resting heart rate after Session 2 compared to the heart rate after

Session 4. The results indicated significant increases on the PRCS in the experimental group,

when compared to the control group. Overall, the group that received VRT showed a significant

reduction in the public speaking anxiety while the control group did not (Harris, et al., 2002).


The results show that exposing those with glossophobia to the feared situation effectively lessens

their fear of the situation, even if the situation is computer generated.

Another study conducted with the primary goal of treating glossophobia involved using

eye movement desensitization (EMD). This study is meant to discover if exposure, when

accompanied with rhythmic eye movements, may be more effective than exposure alone (Foley

& Spates, 1995). The secondary purpose is to discover if two alternatives to eye movement are as

effective. EMD consists of concentrating on the feared situation accompanied by rhythmic eye

movements. It has been theorized that the eye movements are not necessary to the treatment and

that it is the “dosed flooding” of the memory to be desensitized that causes the decrease in

symptoms. This study investigates this “dosed flooding” theory by having the subjects actively

confront images of the feared situation for short periods of time, followed by short periods of

relief from images of the feared situation during EMD treatment (Foley & Spates, 1995).

Forty subjects were recruited form college classes by means of soliciting. They were self-

chosen in the event that they suffered from speech anxiety to the point that they avoided public

speaking at all costs or experienced extreme distress in public speaking situations and only

accepted as a participant if they scored higher than an 18 on the PRCA-24. They were randomly

assigned to one of the three treatment groups or to the control group that received no treatment

(Foley & Spates, 1995). Initially, the subjects were instructed to identify and think about a

specific image, emotion, and/or negative cognition regarding public speaking anxiety. While

thinking of the incident, Group 1 subjects followed the therapist’s fingers as he moved them left

and right across the field of vision. Group 2 subjects were exposed to an audio stimulus (white

noise) that was manually manipulated back and forth between the left and right ear. Group 3

subjects rested their eyes on their hands in their lap. Each set lasted 20-30 seconds and was


followed by a brief period of “blanking out” the image and deep breathing. During pre-testing

and post-testing, all participants were surveyed using the Personal Report of Communication

Anxiety-24 (PRCA-24) (McCroskey, 1982), and the Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety

(PRPSA) (McCroskey, 1970). Then they gave a speech while being observed and rated by two

trained observers on the Behavioral Assessment of Speech Anxiety (BASA) (Mulac & Sherman,

1974), and while having their heart rate measured. The three treatment groups were also

measured using Subjective Units of Discomfort (SUDs) and Validity of Cognition (VOC) scores

during treatment.

All treatment groups improved significantly on PRCA-24 scores, and VOC ratings. There

was a significant reduction in SUDs and in BASA scores for the treatment groups. Additionally,

there was a tendency toward a significant difference between the experimental and control

groups on PRPSA scores. The results indicate that all three groups had significant effects in

treating public speaking anxiety in college students. However, due to the fact that EMD was

rated equally as effective as the resting eyes condition, it seems that the eye movement has little

to do with the desensitization (Foley & Spates, 1995). Rather, it is due to the “dosed flooding”

that the subjects showed reduction in speech anxiety. This further justifies the theory that

exposure to public speaking will reduce the negative effects of speech anxiety in adolescents.

Finally, the third study serves to be the basis for future studies on the effectiveness of

dosed exposure treatment when compared to a prolonged exposure treatment (Seim, Waller, &

Spates, 2010). It has been found that exposure is effective at treating anxiety, fear, and avoidance

reactions. However, it has yet to be established what the most effective duration of exposure is.

All of the participants attended a baseline and treatment session. During the baseline and training

sessions they were surveyed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory – State subscale (STAI-


State) (Spielberger, Gorusch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), and the Personal Report of

Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) (McCroskey, 1982), and were scored by trained

assessors on the Social Phobia subscale of the Anxiety Disorders Interviews Schedule (ADIS-IV)

(Brown, Dinardo, & Barlow, 1994). All participants met the criteria for public speaking anxiety.

One week later, the subjects attended the treatment session. A baseline heart rate was measured,

and they completed a Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT) measured according to the Time

Behavioral Checklist (TBCL) (Paul, 1966), during which SUDs were measured as well.

Treatment began 15 to 45 minutes after the BAT. There were two treatment groups: dosed

exposure (DE) and prolonged exposure (PE). A control group did not exist because prolonged

exposure is considered the standard treatment. Those subjects randomly assigned to the treatment

groups were asked to choose through three to five topics to speak on to an audience of three

people he or she did not know and the researcher. Those in the PE group cycled through these

topics continuously until either his or her SUD level reached zero or dipped below 20 points

during two subsequent measurements, the participant spoke for three hours, or the participant

refused to continue or exhibited signs of extreme distress. Heart rate, SUDs, and behavioral

indices of distress were measured after every five-minute interval. The DE group participants

followed the same procedure but were instructed to speak and rest in 30-second intervals, instead

of speaking continuously (Seim, et al., 2010).

The researchers found that there was a significant increase in the DE group’s mean score

on the BAT, while there was not a significant increase in the PE group’s. Additionally, there

were significant decreases in SUDs for both treatment groups. Plus, participants in the PE group

performed a greater amount of behavioral indices of distress during treatment than did the DE

group participants. Scores on the PRCA-24 indicate that all participants in the DE group


experienced reductions while only some of the members of the PE group experienced reductions.

In conclusion, the results are sporadic, but they show that DE treatment is just as effective as PE

treatment is. In fact, some measures show that DE treatment is more effective (Seim, et al.,

2010).

Similarly to the previously discussed study, my two independent variables will be

exposure and psychotherapy, while my dependent variable will be public speaking anxiety.

Exposure will consist of three levels: dosed, prolonged, and no treatment. Two types of exposure

are included because research shows that dosed exposure is just as effective as prolonged

exposure, which is the standard, while being less stressful. The breaks in between speaking allow

the individual to dispel stress. This study’s secondary goal is to determine whether or not one

type of exposure treatment is more effective. Psychotherapy as an independent variable will

consist of two levels: treatment and no treatment. Indices of public speaking anxiety will be

measured using scores on the PRPSA, which is the most commonly used self-report measure of

public speaking anxiety (McCroskey, 1970). I expect there to be a negative main effect of

exposure treatment. Receiving exposure will cause a decrease in PRPSA scores reflecting

decreased glossophobia symptoms. I also expect there to be a negative main effect of

psychotherapy treatment. Receiving psychotherapy will cause a decrease in PRPSA scores

reflecting decreased glossophobia symptoms. Most importantly, I hypothesize that there will be

an interaction between exposure treatment and psychotherapy treatment. I hypothesize that the

effect of exposure will depend upon receiving psychotherapy treatment because in order to

totally relinquish a fear, one must understand why they fear what they do, and why they no

longer have to fear what they do, which is what psychotherapy will help the participants do

(American Psychological Association, 2004). I also expect that dosed exposure paired with


psychotherapy treatment once a week will cause the largest decrease in public speaking anxiety

symptoms because it is less stressful.

Method

This study will be a 3 (exposure: dosed, prolonged, control) X 2 (psychotherapy: once a

week, control) pre-test/post-test between subjects factorial design, with public speaking anxiety

symptoms as the dependent variable. Those placed in one or both control groups will be placed

on a wait-list for treatment. Ethically, those that are included in this study must receive both

treatments because they score high for anxiety, so if they are in a control group they will receive

whichever treatment they do not receive during the study after the study has been completed. The

study will be between subjects to avoid order effects. The study cannot be conducted within

subjects or as a mixed design because the effect on public speaking anxiety symptoms could then

not be attributed to one single treatment combination due to residual effects of prior treatments.

Participants

Participants will be solicited at a large university with the stipulations that they must be

between the ages of 18 and 22-years-old and may not be enrolled in a public speaking class. This

study is targeting college students because minimal research has been done utilizing them in the

sample. Subjects may not be enrolled in a public speaking class during the study because it may

act as a confounding variable by affecting speech anxiety symptoms. Flyers will be posted

around the campus advertising this study as a treatment regimen for public speaking anxiety for

those that experience high levels of speech anxiety and avoid public speaking at all costs or

suffer through it when they have too. Once self-selected, the subjects will complete the Personal

Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) as a screening measure (McCroskey, 1970). If they

score above the threshold for high anxiety (131), they will be randomly assigned into one of the


six treatment groups until each treatment group consists of 50 participants. They must score high

to qualify for public speaking anxiety and be eligible for treatment.

Materials

This study requires at least three paper copies of the PRPSA per subject (900 copies), to

be utilized during screening, pre-testing, and post-testing. The PRPSA is the most commonly

used self-report measure of public speaking anxiety because it has excellent reliability (alpha

estimate > 0.90) (McCroskey, 1970). Additionally, there will need to be audience members that

the participants do not know, three per exposure treatment session. They will be undergraduate

research assistants from the university. They will sit at a table facing the participants who will

stand at a podium at the front of the laboratory. The audience members will be trained to remain

neutral while the participants speak. They are only allowed to nod encouragingly if the

participant stops for five or more seconds. A psychologist will also be present at the exposure

sessions and will be trained similarly. The need for neutral reaction is so that the reaction of the

audience does not affect the anxiety of the participant as a confounding variable. All audience

members will be trained before the study begins and again at two weeks in to ensure constant

neutrality. Psychologists who specialize in speech anxiety will be necessary for psychotherapy as

well and will not know the hypothesis of the study to combat experimenter effects.

Procedure

Pre-testing will take place immediately before the first exposure treatment session or first

psychotherapy treatment session respectively. Post-testing will take place immediately after the

last exposure treatment session or last psychotherapy treatment session respectively. Pre-testing

and post-testing will consist of participants filling out a paper form of the PRPSA (McCroskey,

1970) alone in the laboratory to avoid observer effects.


The exposure treatment sessions will take place on weekdays, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Four

participants, one from each combination treatment group that includes exposure, will receive

treatment individually per hour. The participants will be randomly assigned to a weekday and

hour slot. They will attend an exposure treatment session weekly for four weeks with a different

audience present each time. This is to simulate the act of speaking to a different audience in real

life, while the psychologist must be present to terminate the session in case of extreme distress.

Psychotherapy sessions will take place weekdays from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Three participants, one

from each combination treatment group that includes psychotherapy, will receive treatment

individually per hour. Participants will attend psychotherapy treatment the hour after they

complete their exposure treatment. Those receiving psychotherapy but no exposure will be

randomly assigned to a time slot for psychotherapy treatment. They will attend a psychotherapy

session weekly for four weeks with the same therapist each time. These complex assignments are

meant to ensure that the effect of time of exposure treatment and time of psychotherapy

treatment do not affect the scores on the PRPSA during post-testing.

During exposure treatments, the participant will enter the laboratory and be greeted by

the audience. The participant will be instructed to introduce themselves and give information

about themselves in a speech format at the beginning of the first session. This is to ease them

into the exposure treatment. At the end of the first session, they will be asked to write a speech

about their favorite memory for the second session. While the speech will be more structured, it

will be about something they are comfortable talking about, again to ease them into speaking in

the laboratory setting. At the end of the second session, they will be asked to choose a historical

event to prepare a speech about for the third session. This topic will challenge the participants.

At the end of the third session, the participants will be asked to prepare a speech on a social


issue. This topic is the final topic because it is complex and requires skillful delivery. Those

experiencing dosed exposure will speak on their topics of choice for one minute and then take a

15 second break and repeat up until ten minutes has passed. Those experiencing prolonged

exposure will speak on their topics of choice for ten minutes straight. During psychotherapy

sessions, the therapist will begin by asking the participant to identify a negative image or

cognition related to public speaking. Then the sessions will consist of talk psychotherapy to

allow the participants to discuss and work through their individual fear of public speaking with

professional help.

A pilot test with a small number of participants will be performed to ensure that the

manipulations are working properly and that the participants are not feeling extreme distress

during exposure treatment. This will also ensure the quality of the psychologists by showing if

the participants improve equally across all of the different psychologists.

Results

As previously mentioned, this study will be a 3 (exposure: dosed, prolonged, control) X 2

(psychotherapy: once a week, control) pre-test/post-test between subjects factorial design, with

PRPSA scores as the dependent variable. An ANOVA will be conducted to examine the impact

of exposure treatment and psychotherapy treatment on public speaking anxiety symptoms. The

ANOVA will compare the mean group differences between pre- and post-testing scores. Scores

on the PRPSA can range from 34-170 with less than 98 indicating low anxiety, and greater than

131 indicating high anxiety. 98-131 is considered the mid range, indicating moderate anxiety.

The results are expected to show that there is a main effect for exposure treatment, such that

those receiving dosed exposure will have a larger average reduction in PRPSA scores (M=70)

than those in the prolonged exposure group (M=45) and those in the control group (M=17.5;


p<.05). The results should also indicate a main effect for psychotherapy treatment, such that

those receiving psychotherapy will have a larger average reduction in PRPSA scores

(M=53.333) than those in the control group (M=35; p<.05). The results should also show that

there is a significant interaction between exposure treatment and psychotherapy treatment (p

<.05). Refer to Table 1 for the expected mean group differences.

In order to define the nature of the interaction, the mean difference for each condition

between post-testing and pre-testing PRPSA scores will be plotted and are expected to look like

Figure 1. It is expected that when paired with psychotherapy the dosed exposure treatment group

on average will have a larger reduction in PRPSA scores (M=80) than those in the prolonged

exposure group (M=50) and those receiving no exposure (M=30). Additionally, it is expected

that those not receiving psychotherapy will have smaller reductions in PRPSA scores across the

dosed exposure group (M=60), the prolonged exposure group (M=40), and the control group

(M=5). Therefore, when participants receive psychotherapy, receiving exposure treatment is

expected to decrease their public speaking anxiety symptoms more than if they received

exposure treatment alone.

Discussion

The expected finding of a main effect for psychotherapy would support the idea that

talking to a professional psychologist about one’s public speaking anxiety effectively reduces

symptoms. Again, this is because psychologists are specially trained to understand and help

patients work through complex problems and because they offer so much more than just dialogue

about the problem. Psychologists will help adolescents and young adults suffering from public

speaking anxiety understand why they fear public speaking anxiety, and help them move forward

proactively (American Psychological Association, 2014). The expected finding of a main effect


for exposure would support the idea proposed in preliminary research that not only is exposure

treatment an effective method for treating public speaking anxiety, but also that dosed exposure

is an equally if not more effective treatment as prolonged exposure. Dosed exposure is expected

to be more effective because it is less stressful and fear inducing for the participants due to the

fact that they are able to pause and relax during the treatment.

The expected finding of an interaction effect between psychotherapy and exposure

supports the theory that the effect of exposure treatment depends upon whether or not the

participant receives psychotherapy as well. While exposure treatment has been found effective in

desensitizing adolescents and young adults, and while it is true that practice makes a better final

performance, exposure treatment when accompanied with psychotherapy is expected to be more

effective. Not only do the participants get the opportunity to experience and overcome the feared

situation, they also have the opportunity to talk about their experiences with a professional

psychologist who will help them understand the problem in a way they had not previously and

ultimately, help them solve a complex problem. In conclusion, it is expected that the participants

in the group that receives psychotherapy combined with dosed exposure treatment will

experience the greatest decrease in their public speaking anxiety symptoms.

In regards to external validity, this study’s expected results could only applied to a certain

population. Due to the sample being composed of participants between the ages of 18 to 22-

years-old, the results can only be applied to those that fall between that age range. Additionally,

since the sample is composed of participants from a large university, it is not appropriate to

generalize to individuals that either attend small universities or state colleges, or do not attend

college at all. In regards to internal validity, it is extremely difficult to ensure that the

psychologists and psychotherapy sessions will be of equal quality. Since psychotherapy is


individualized by nature, it cannot be scripted and therefore, variations will exist. However, the

pilot test is meant to show if the psychologists and psychotherapy sessions are of relatively equal

quality.

It is possible that the data will not support the hypothesis. If this occurs, it is possible that

there would be no interaction between psychotherapy and exposure treatment. In this instance,

there would be equal differences in the mean differences of PRPSA (McCroskey, 1970) scores

for those receiving psychotherapy and those not receiving psychotherapy across the exposure

groups, showing that the effect of exposure on public speaking anxiety symptoms does not

depend up receiving psychotherapy. In this instance, it is logical to predict that main effects for

both psychotherapy and exposure would still exist because both treatments have already been

found effective in previous research studies.

If the results support the hypothesis, the next step would be to conduct a similar study

and add a third independent variable: amount of exposure sessions per week. This future study

would serve to discover how many sessions of exposure a week causes the largest reduction in

glossophobia symptoms. This future study could also include dependent variable measures other

than a self-report measure, perhaps a behavioral measure, or physiological measure to

completely encompass the domain of symptoms. This research is important because

glossophobia is an extremely common disorder. Most people dismiss public speaking anxiety,

and believe that those that suffer from it will just grow out of it but speech anxiety continues into

adulthood if left untreated. It is exceptionally important to use adolescents in the sample, which

has not been done often up until this point. Adolescents make up a large proportion of the

population with public speaking anxiety. Research should focus on finding the best treatment for

adolescent speech anxiety so that it can be treated early.


References

American Psychological Association (APA). (2014). Psychotherapy: myths versus reality.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/psychotherapy-myths.aspx

Brown, T. A., DiNardo, P. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1994). Anxiety disorders interview schedule for

DSM-IV. Albany, NY: Center for Stress and Anxiety Disorders.

Foley, T., & Spates, C. R. (1995). Eye movement desensitization of public-speaking anxiety: A

partial dismantling. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(4),

321-329. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/618786319?accountid=13158

Harris, S. R., Kemmerling, R. L., & North, M. M. (2002). Brief virtual reality therapy for public

speaking anxiety. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 543-550.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493102321018187

Kashdan, T. B., & Herbert, J. D. (2001). Social anxiety disorder in childhood and adolescence:

Current status and future direction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(1),

37-61. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~tkashdan/publications/childsad.pdf

Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and

comorbidity of twelve-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey

Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 617-627. Retrieved from

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/social-phobia-among-adults.shtml

Liebowitz, M. (1987). Social phobia. In: Modern problems of pharmacopsychiatry. pp. 141-173.

McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall Inc.

McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37,


269-277.

Merikangas, K.R., He J., Burstein, M., Swanson, S.A., Avenevoli, S., Cui, L., Benjet, C.,

Georgiades, K., Swendsen J. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S.

adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent Supplement

(NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10),

980-989. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/social-

phobia-among-children.shtml

Mulac, A., & Sherman, R. A. (1974). Behavioral assessment of speech anxiety. The Quarterly

Journal of Speech, 60, 134-143.

North, M., North, S., & Coble, J. (1997). Virtual reality therapy: An effective treatment for the

fear of public speaking. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 3, 2-7.

Paul, G. (1966). Insight versus desensitization in psychotherapy. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Seim, R. W., Waller, S. A., & Spates, C. R. (2010). A preliminary investigation of continuous

and intermittent exposures in the treatment of public speaking anxiety. International

Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(2), 85-94. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/821483313?accountid=13158

Spielberger, C., Gorusch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety

Inventory (Self-Evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Spielberger, C., Gorusch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P., & Jacobs, G. (1983). Manual for the State-

Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y Self-Evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.


Figures and Tables

Table 1. Influence of Psychotherapy and Exposure Treatment on Public Speaking Anxiety

Exposure Treatment

Psychotherapy Dosed Exposure Prolonged Exposure Control

Once/Week 80 50 30

Control 60 40 5

Once/Week Control0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DosedProlongedControl

Psychotherapy

Mea

n D

iffe

ren

ce in

PR

PSA

Sco

res

Figure 1. Interaction Between Exposure Type and Reception of Psychotherapy

Exposure

Exposure Combined With Psychotherapy: A Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety

Documents

Transcript of Exposure Combined With Psychotherapy: A Treatment for Public Speaking Anxiety