Flipbook

CHAPTER 3 74 Table 1. Mean ( SD ) expectations and between-group comparisons regarding the effectiveness of the intervention for contamination, fear of contamination, danger, and disgust for the exposure plus response prevention (E+RP), exposure plus safety behavior (E+SB), and control condition. E+RP 1 E+SB 2 Control 3 Comparisons Contamination 61.59 (20.55) 66.14 (25.45) 44.55 (22.88) 1, 2 > 3 Fear 58.18 (25.57) 55.91 (21.42) 35.00 (26.55) 1, 2 > 3 Danger 62.18 (29.02) 57.05 (26.84) 35.91 (23.89) 1, 2 > 3 Disgust 42.73 (30.54) 52.05 (20.85) 36.82 (27.45) 1, 2, 3 Effects of the intervention CFDD Multivariate analyses. There was a pre- to post-test decrease in CFDD, F (4,60) = 62.65, p < .001, η p 2 = .81, which differed between conditions, F (8,122) = 6.27, p < .001, η p 2 = .29. CFDD decreases were larger in the E+RP and E+SB condition than in the control condition, see Figure 1. The main effect of Condition, F (8,122) = 3.66, p = .001, η p 2 = .19, appears to be caused by the lower scores at the post-test in the E+RP and E+SB conditions compared to the control condition. Univariate analyses. There was a main effect of Condition for contamination, fear of contamination, and disgust, F s(2,63) > 4.41, p s < .02, η p 2 s > .12, but not for danger, F (2,63) = 2.38, p = .10. Contamination, fear of contamination, danger, and disgust decreased from pre- to post-test, F s(1,63) > 130.50, p s < .001, η p 2 s > .67. For all four measures, this decrease differed between conditions, F s(2,63) > 19.26, p s < .001, η p 2 s > .37. Compared to the control condition, decreases were larger for the E+RP, t s(29.87) > 4.68, p s < .001, d s > 1.41, and E+SB condition, t s(42) > 5.51, p s < .001, d s > 1.66. They did not differ between the E+RP and E+SB condition, t s(42) < 1.18, p s > .25. Correlations between pre- to post-test changes in threat belief and CFDD ratings were medium to large, see Table 2.