Running head: PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

Various Treatments for Public Speaking Anxiety:

Including Virtual Reality Therapy, Desensitization, and Exposure
Kayla Lord
Pennsylvania State University

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

Various Treatments for Public Speaking Anxiety:

Including Virtual Reality Therapy, Desensitization, and Exposure
Public speaking anxiety is a specified form of social anxiety disorder (SAD), also known
as social phobia. SAD is a prevalent anxiety disorder that consists of extreme fear of
embarrassment, humiliation, and judgment by others in social situations. Most sufferers of SAD
fear certain social situations to the point that they will avoid the feared situation, such as public
speaking (Kashdan & Herbert, 2001). The fear of public speaking, formally known as
glossophobia, is a widespread condition. With a 6.8% 12-month prevalence rate in adults and 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, He, Burstein, Swanson, Avenevoli, Cui, Benjet, Georgiades, &
Swendsen, 2010). Social phobia is more common in the female adolescent population and
prevalence rates increase with age from 13 to 18 years old (Merikangas et al., 2010). Social
phobia is especially common in adolescents who have less freedom to avoid social situations
than adults do for social and nonsocial purposes. Adolescents are typically students, and students
have to participate in class, ask for help, and perform public speaking tasks. Being forced to
enter undesirable social situations leads to severe distress and impairment for those that suffer
from SAD. The affects of social phobia, if left untreated, are chronic and will continue into
adulthood. Yet, most research on the subject uses adult samples. It is pertinent to study and find
the most effective treatment for adolescents with social phobia because adolescent SAD is
associated with various negative outcomes such as lower perceived social support and close
relationships, higher levels of negative affect, social pessimism, and alcohol abuse (Kashdan &
Herbert, 2001).

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

The three research articles discussed in this paper use samples of college students in late
adolescence and early young adulthood. This is important because little research has been done
using adolescents in the sample. The following three experiments not only used adolescent
samples, but also utilized three treatments that have been found to be exceptionally successful in
treating speaking anxiety. Virtual reality therapy is an important treatment to study because it is a
non-intrusive, less distressing way to treat speech anxiety than actually entering the participants
into public speaking situations (Harris, Kemmerling, & North, 2002). Exposure, when
accompanied with rhythmic eye movements, may be more effective than exposure alone, which
is why it is important to study eye movement desensitization (Foley & Spates, 1995). Finally,
studying continuous versus intermittent exposure builds upon the results of the earlier study on
eye movement desensitization. Additionally, the study is the first to examine behavioral indices
between dosed and prolonged exposures (Seim, Waller, & Spates, 2010). Together, all three
articles serve to transform my hypothesis into a logical extension of the research articles
hypotheses combined. If treated with dosed exposure to public speaking situations accompanied
by psychotherapy, the negative physiological and psychological symptoms of speech anxiety will
decrease.
Virtual Reality Therapy
The primary research topic of this study is how virtual reality therapy (VRT) affects
public speaking anxiety in university students. VRT treats phobias and other psychiatric
conditions by immersing patient into computer-generated virtual reality treatment environments
(Harris, Kemmerling, & North, 2002). A previous study utilizing VRT as the independent
variable, and acrophobia, the fear of heights, in college students as the dependent variable found
a significant decrease in levels of anxiety, avoidance, and distress six weeks post-treatment. In

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

comparison, the control group showed no change in levels of anxiety, avoidance, or distress.
Additionally, experimental group subjects heart rates and blood pressures decreased over the
duration of the experiment. Furthermore, 90% of the subjects were capable of ascending 15
stories in a glass-enclosed elevator post-treatment, showing the criterion validity of the
experiment (Rothbaum, Hodges, Kooper et al., 1995). Similarly, VRT has been successfully used
to treat the fear of flying (North, North, & Coble, 1997B; Rothbaum, Hodges, Watson, et al.,
1996; Wiederhold, Gevirtz, & Spira, 2003). These comparison studies show that VRT is
successful in treating other phobias in college students and therefore, should be successful in
treating glossophobia in college students (Harris, Kemmerling, & North, 2002).
With technology constantly and consistently advancing in our society, it is important to
use all the resources available to try to decrease adolescent speech anxiety. Computer-based
therapy is a good option for college students with public speaking anxiety because they do not
have to enter undesirable social situations. Instead, they can receive treatment comfortably alone
without the stress of physically entering the feared social situation. VRT is an up and coming
treatment method for the whole spectrum of anxiety, and in this study is utilized as the
independent variable, while public speaking anxiety is the dependent variable. The researchers
hypothesize that completing VRT treatment will cause a reduction in public speaking anxiety
(Harris, Kemmerling, & North, 2002).
This study consisted of eight students in the experimental group, and six students in the
control group. The control group was a Wait-List for treatment. Those in the control group
completed pre-testing and post-testing but received no treatment. Pre-testing consisted of various
self-report measures. First, students at a large state university filled out the Personal Report of
Confidence as a Speaker (PRCS) inventory (Paul, 1966). Those whose scores were higher than

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

16 were randomly assigned to the control or experimental group. 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, 1997A). 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, Kemmerling, & North, 2002).
The independent variable, VRT, was operationalized into four sessions of VRT, 12-15
minutes in length, once per week, using software of an auditorium scene and a head-mounted
display with head-tracker. The dependent variable was operationalized into physiological
measures, such as heart rate, and various self-report measures of anxiety levels utilized during
pre-testing, post-testing, and throughout the experiment. Present during the sessions as the
therapist was the first author. Each session consisted of different manipulations to the auditorium
scene with heart rate measures taken throughout each session and Subjective Units of Distress
Scale (SUDS) ratings taken before, during, and after each session. During Session 1, subjects
viewed an empty auditorium scene and were asked to talk about their respective anxiety
experiences in relation to giving public speeches. They were asked to prepare a two-minute
speech for Session 3. During Session 2, subjects said the Pledge of Allegiance twice, while the
therapist gradually filled the auditorium scene with people and used applause during and at the
end of the recitation to encourage the subjects. During Session 3, the subjects read their twominute speech twice while the therapist again gradually filled the auditorium scene with people
and added manipulations as follows: audience members talking to each other, not paying
attention, laughing, continuously asking the speaker to speak louder, and applauding. During

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

Session 4, the same manipulations were made as in Session 3 and the subjects gave the same
two-minute speech. Immediately after, the subjects completed post-testing, which consisted of
the same measures as pre-testing (Harris, Kemmerling, & North, 2002).
The researchers found that results on self-report and physiological measures indicated
that VRT was successful in reducing glossophobia in college students. Specifically, when preand post-testing measures were compared, the experimental groups scores significantly differed
on the PRCS, the ATPS, the heart rate during speaking tasks, and the resting heart rate after
Session 2 when compared to the heart rate after Session 4. Results approached significance on
the LSAS, but there were no significant differences on the STAI, nor on SUDS ratings at the end
of Session 2 as compared to at the end of Session 4. For the control group there was a significant
difference on the ATPS but no other differences on any other measures. When the control and
experimental groups were compared to each other, the results indicated significant increases on
the PRCS in the experimental group, as compared to the control group. Also, results approached
significance between groups on the ATPS, on heart rate during speaking tasks, and on the LSAS.
Overall, the subjects that completed four sessions of VRT showed a significant reduction in the
public speaking anxiety while the subjects of the control group did not (Harris, Kemmerling, &
North, 2002).
This study correlates with other studies on VRT in the respect that VRT in comparison
studies was successful in treating anxiety, which makes the hypothesis plausible. However, the
results were not as significant as is necessary to make predictions based off of the research. So,
these results are not generalizable to all college students. They cannot be applied to those from
small universities, or even to those that receive a different VRT treatment than the one described.
However, if the sample size was bigger it is probable that there would be a much greater

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

significance in the results, aiding in the problem with generalizability. Furthermore, a possible
confounding variable exists: all of the participants were enrolled in an introductory public
speaking class during the study. For example, the control group showed a significant difference
on ATPS scores. This could have been caused by participating in class (exposure to public
speaking situations), which means that the results found in the experimental group could have
been influenced by participating in class as well. Plus, the operationalization of the independent
and dependent variables could have been much simpler. The VRT treatment contains many
manual manipulations by the researcher that may be inconsistent between subjects and are not
easily replicable. If the researchers had used a program that was created to be manipulated
equally for each participant by the software instead of by the researcher, the research would be
more valid. Additionally, the reliability and validity of the experimental procedure were not
reported in the article.
In the context of my hypothesis, this research shows that exposure to a virtual audience
while speaking for 12-15 minutes, once a week, for four weeks may be enough to cause a
reduction in speaking anxiety. This gives an idea of how many sessions are necessary and how
often those sessions should be scheduled. One cannot assume that a real audience will have the
same effect that a virtual audience did, but one can hypothesize that exposure leads to a reduction
in fear and avoidance. Additionally, it is inferred that participants cannot be enrolled in a speech
course during the experiment and that a larger sample than was used in this experiment is
necessary. Finally, the dependent variable in my prospective study will be measured in a similar
way, with physiological measures, such as heart rate and blood pressure, as well as self-report
scales.

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

Eye Movement Desensitization

The primary purpose of this research study is to investigate the relevance of eye
movement desensitization (EMD) in regards to treating public speaking anxiety. The secondary
purpose was to discover if two alternatives to eye movement when compared to the standard
procedure are as effective. EMD was originally used to treat posttraumatic stress disorder but the
briefness of the procedure and the successful outcomes led researchers to apply the treatment to
other disorders, such as social phobias (Shapiro, 1989). In this specific research experiment,
EMD is the independent variable and public speaking anxiety is the dependent variable. Studying
EMDs effectiveness in relation to treating public speaking anxiety is important because it allows
individuals to be treated without having to enter undesirable social situations. Instead, they are
treated alone and are desensitized to their social phobia before they have to enter situations of
public speaking. EMD in general 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
outcomes of the treatment. This study reflects 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). The researchers hypothesize that EMD treatment will cause a reduction in public
speaking anxiety in college students (Foley & Spates, 1995).
The independent variable was operationalized into three separate treatments all applied
while focusing on a feared image or negative emotion in relation to public speaking. The
dependent variable was operationalized into various standardized self-report measures, namely
The Personal Report of Communication Anxiety-24 (PRCA-24) (McCroskey, 1982), the

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

Personal Report of Public Speaking Anxiety (PRPSA) (McCrosky, 1970), a behavioral measure
consisting of two trained observer scores on the Behavioral Assessment of Speech Anxiety
(BASA) (Mulac & Sherman, 1974), and a psycho-physiological measure consisting of measuring
pulse rate and blood pressure to determine heart rate. The three treatment groups were also
measured using Subjective Units of Discomfort (SUDs) and Validity of Cognition (VOC) scores
during treatment. 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 four groups, three treatment groups, and one control group (Foley &
Spates, 1995).
During pre-testing and post-testing, all participants were surveyed using the PRCA-24,
and the PRPSA. Then, they gave a speech while being observed through a two-way mirror by the
two trained observers who scored their speech according to the BASA. Additionally, their heart
rates were measured while resting and while giving speeches during pre- and post-testing. The
control group received no treatment. Experimental subjects attended one or two treatment
sessions based upon whether or not treatment was considered completed. Treatment was
considered completed either when there was a significant change in SUDs or VOC, or after two
sessions. Initially, each experimental subject identified a specific image of public speaking
anxiety, a negative cognition in association with the image, a desired cognition, VOC rating in
relation to desired cognition, a specific emotion elicited by the public speaking anxiety image,
SUDs rating, and location of body sensation. The subjects were then instructed to think about the
specific image, emotion, and/or negative cognition they identified. While thinking of the

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

10

incident, Group 1 subjects were instructed to follow the therapists fingers as he moved them left
and right across the field of vision at a rate of approximately one full cycle per second. While
thinking of the incident, Group 2 subjects were exposed to an audio stimulus (white noise) that
was manually manipulated at a rate of approximately one full left or right cycle per second.
While thinking of the incident, Group 3 subjects were instructed to rest 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. After post-testing, subjects were surveyed using a questionnaire
about their evaluation of the treatment (Foley & Spates, 1995).
All treatment groups improved significantly on PRCA-24 scores, while the control group
showed no significant difference. There was a significant reduction in SUDs and a significant
positive change in VOC for each treatment group. There was a tendency toward significant
difference between the experimental and control groups on the PRPSA. Additionally, a
significant reduction in BASA scores for the treatment groups existed. Finally, there was no
significant difference in heart rate measures found in any group. The results overall, indicate that
EMD (Group 1) and both alternative treatments (Groups 2 and 3) had significant effects in
treating public speaking anxiety in college students. However, EMD was rated equally as
effective as the resting eyes condition, while the audio stimulus condition was rated the least
effective (Foley & Spates, 1995).
Due to the fact that EMD was rated equally as effective as the resting eyes condition but
that there was a significant difference in all of the treatment groups, it seems that the eye
movement has little to do with the desensitization. Rather, it is due to the dosed flooding part
of the treatment that the subjects showed reduction in speech anxiety. So, a more logical primary
hypothesis would have been that dosed flooding causes a reduction in public speaking anxiety,

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

11

instead of EMD. This further justifies the hypothesis that exposure to public speaking will reduce
the negative effects of speech anxiety in adolescents. It helps justify the hypothesis further by
realizing that even being exposed to memory of a public speaking situation leads to
desensitization; therefore, being physically exposed to the stimulus will most likely cause an
even greater reduction of public speaking anxiety. Additionally, it informs me that my
experiment should include a pre- and post-testing behavioral measure for the sake of criterion
validity. A draw back of this research is the fact that the sample consisted of nine males and 31
females (Foley & Spates, 1995). The results may not be generalizable to males due to the fact
that less than a fourth of the participants were males. To have generalizable results, it is
necessary to have an equally representative sample of males and females. Though, the article
does report measures of high concurrent and interrater reliability.
Continuous and Alternating Exposure
This research study serves to be the basis for further studies on the effectiveness of dosed
exposure treatment when compared to a prolonged exposure treatment. It has been found that
exposure, whether imagined or real, is effective at treating anxiety, fear, and avoidance reactions.
However, it has yet to be established what the most effective duration of exposure is. A previous
study compared 20-minute imagined exposure treatments on four subsequent days to 40-minute
imagined exposure treatments with intervals of four days between each session. The study
concluded that shorter exposures were the most effective (Ramsay, Barends, Breuker, &
Kruseman, 1966). Another previous study compared 20-minute versus 40-minute imagined
exposure and 20-minute versus 40-minute real life exposure for the treatment of agoraphobia.
The conclusions of the study were that only real life exposure was effective and that the longer
exposures were the most effective (Stern & Marks, 1973). So, there are mixed findings on which

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

12

duration is the most effective. What is interesting is that most of the studies that found dosed
exposure to be less effective considered dosed to mean ten minutes or more in length. While,
the studies that found dosed exposure to be more effective considered dosed to mean eight
minutes or less, and some treatments lasting under two minutes were considered effective. In this
specific research study, the independent variable is the length of exposure treatment, while the
dependent variable is public speaking anxiety. The researchers hypothesize that dosed exposures
are more effective than prolonged exposures in causing a reduction in public speaking anxiety in
college students (Seim, Waller, & Spates, 2010).
All participants attended a baseline and treatment session. During the baseline session
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 after the baseline session, the subjects attended the treatment session. They were
surveyed again using the PRCA-24 and STAI-State measures. 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 the BAT, Subjective Units of
Discomfort (SUDs) were also measured. Treatment began 15 to 45 minutes after the BAT. The
researchers conceptualized the independent variable into dosed exposure (DE) and prolonged
exposure (PE) respectively. They did not have a control group, but instead considered the
prolonged exposure group as the standard treatment. Those subjects randomly assigned to the PE
treatment entered the lab individually and were asked to choose three to five topics to speak on

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

13

to an audience of three people he or she did not know and the researcher. The participant 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, Waller, & Spates, 2010).
The researchers found that there was a significant increase in the DE groups mean score
on the BAT, while there was not a significant increase in the PE groups mean score. In regards
to heart rates during the pre- and post-treatment BAT measures, the heart rates of the PE group
increased, while the heart rates of the DE group decreased. However, there was no significant
change in heart rate between groups during the treatment. Additionally, though there were
significant decreases in SUDs for both groups, the difference in anxiety reduction between the
two treatment groups was not significant. 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, Waller, & Spates, 2010).
Though the results could not support the hypothesis, this research is important because it
serves as the first research done comparing behavioral indices of stress between different periods
of exposure. The researchers found mixed results that make it hard to render conclusions. This is
most likely due to the small sample size (six participants) (Seim, Waller, & Spates, 2010). If

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

14

there was a larger sample size then there may be more statically significant results and more
evident changes over the duration of the treatment. These results are not generalizable to all
college students because of the small sample size, and the less than conclusive results.
Additionally, while the subjects were college students, they were between the ages of 18 and
41 years old. I am less interested in studying adults, so this research serves as a reminder to set
age boundaries for my participants. I would like my participants to be typical college age,
meaning between 18 and 22 years old. This study helps narrow the hypothesis by understanding
that duration and type of exposure does matter. Even an in vivo exposure of just five minutes can
successfully reduce public speaking anxiety. This made me consider how I will actually expose
participants to public speaking situations in vivo. Utilizing a small audience seems to be the best
option. It allows the audience interaction to be real, without overwhelming the participant. My
hypothesis serves as a basis to further investigate the claims made in this research article by
comparing dosed and prolonged exposure accompanied by psychotherapy.
Conclusion
Treating speech anxiety with frequent dosed exposure accompanied by sessions of
psychotherapy will cause a reduction in the negative symptoms of public speaking anxiety. My
two independent variables will be exposure and psychotherapy, while my independent variable
will be public speaking anxiety. Exposure as an independent variable will consist of three levels:
dosed exposure, prolonged exposure, and no treatment. Psychotherapy as an independent
variable will consist of two levels: treatment and no treatment. Indices of public speaking anxiety
will be measured using self-report scales. Instead of using virtual exposure, my experiment will
utilize in vivo exposure. Though virtual reality therapy is successful in treating glossophobia,
real life exposure seems to cause greater reduction than virtual exposure. Additionally, it is the

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

15

exposure, not other circumstances, such as eye movements that cause a reduction in speech
anxiety, which is why the participants will be treated with exposure without any other
manipulations. This is also to ensure that the differences between groups, if any, are caused by
the duration in exposure instead of other variables. This research will serve to study what
duration of exposure accompanied with what certain duration of psychotherapy will best treat
speech anxiety by causing a decrease in levels of anxiety, avoidance, and distress.

References

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

16

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.

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

17

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/socialphobia-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. (1997A). Virtual reality therapy: An effective treatment for the
fear of public speaking. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 3, 2-7.
North, M., North, S., & Coble, J. (1997B). Virtual reality therapy for fear of flying. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 130.
Paul, G. (1996). Insight versus desensitization in psychotherapy. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Ramsay, R. W., Barends, J., Breuker, J., & Kruseman, A. (1966). Massed versus spaced
desensitization of fear. Behavior Research and Therapy, 4, 205-207.
Rothbaum, B., Hodges, L., Kooper, R., et al. (1995). Effectiveness of computer-generated
(virtual reality) graded exposure in the treatment of acrophobia. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 152, 626-628.
Rothbaum, B., Hodges, L, Watson, B., et al. (1996). Virtual reality exposure therapy in the
treatment of fear of flying: A case report. Behavior Research and Therapy, 34, 477-481.
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

PUBLIC SPEAKING ANXIETY

18

Shapiro, F. (1989). Eye movement desensitization: A new treatment for post-traumatic stress
disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 20, 211-217
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 StateTrait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y Self-Evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stern, R., & Marks, I. (1973). Brief and prolonged flooding: A comparison in agoraphobic
patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 28, 270-276.
Wiederhold, B., Gevirtz, R., & Spira, J. (2001-3). In: Riva, G., & Galimberti, C. (eds.), Towards
cyberpsychology: mind, cognition, and society in the Internet age. Amsterdam: IOS
Press.