Thaon de Saint André · Behaviour research and therapy 2025 · secondary cohort analysis of clinical trial data · n=516

Same same but different: Threat expectancy change and fear reduction as readouts of exposure rationales are only weakly associated and contribute differentially to treatment outcome in anxiety disorders.

Cited 3 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Secondary cohort analysis of prognostic/process variables from a clinical trial

PubMed 41067133 · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2025.104856 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Researchers analyzed data from 516 patients with anxiety disorders who completed at least 10 exposure exercises within a clinical trial. The study evaluated the relationship between two distinct exposure therapy process readouts—within-session fear reduction (decline from peak to end fear during an exercise) and threat expectancy processes (expectancy violation, expectancy change, and learning rate)—and their ability to predict overall treatment success.

What was found

Threat expectancy measures and within-session fear reduction were only weakly correlated within exposure exercises. No significant differences were observed in their time courses across therapy. Both processes independently predicted overall treatment success: specifically, a higher learning rate and greater relative fear reduction were each associated with better outcomes. The abstract reports directional associations and statistical independence but does not provide specific numerical correlation coefficients, effect sizes, or p-values.

Why it matters

These findings suggest that traditional habituation models (fear reduction) and modern inhibitory learning models (threat expectancy violation) represent distinct, non-redundant processes that each contribute to exposure therapy efficacy. Monitoring both readouts may assist clinicians in optimizing and tailoring exposure interventions.

Limits

The abstract omits exact numerical values, correlation statistics, and effect sizes. The analysis was restricted to patients completing at least 10 exposure exercises, introducing potential selection bias by excluding non-adherent patients or early dropouts. Specific anxiety disorder diagnoses, intervention protocols, and long-term follow-up outcomes were not detailed in the abstract.

Cited by