Background: There is a debate among researchers and clinicians regarding whether the judicious use of safety behaviours (SBs) during exposure therapy is helpful or detrimental. Central to this debate is the premise that SBs may interfere with one's ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence.
Aims: No study to date has assessed how SB use may impact cognitive mechanisms implicated during an exposure-like task. We investigated multiple cognitive, emotional, psychophysiological and behavioural underpinnings of exposure with and without SBs.
Method: Speech anxious participants (n = 111) were randomly assigned to deliver an evaluated speech with or without SBs. Self-reported anxiety ratings and psychophysiological arousal measures were recorded at baseline, in anticipation of the speech, and following the speech. Measures of working memory, ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence, speech duration, objective and subjective speech performance, and speech task acceptability were administered.
Results: There were no differences between conditions on working memory, self-reported anxiety, psychophysiological arousal, ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence, speech duration, or objective and subjective speech performance. All participants were able to gather disconfirmatory evidence. However, condition did influence willingness to deliver future speeches. Our sample was largely female undergraduate students, and we offered only a small number of specific safety behaviours.
Conclusions: Judicious SB use may not necessarily be detrimental, but clients may believe them to be more helpful than they actually are.
Keywords: anxiety; cognitive behavioural therapy; exposure therapy; safety behaviours.