Can Specific Phobias Be Cured? Exposure, Learning, and Relapse
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 1, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Yes—specific phobias can often be treated to the point that fear and avoidance no longer control daily life, and some people no longer meet diagnostic criteria after treatment. Exposure-based psychological treatment has the strongest direct evidence. A meta-analysis of randomized studies found large benefits for exposure-based treatment, and a later meta-analysis found large effects for both single-session and multisession in vivo exposure. Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008; Odgers et al., 2022.
The word “cured,” however, needs precision. Specific-phobia research does not use one universal cure definition, and successful treatment does not require the biological capacity for fear to disappear. A person can recover clinically while still feeling a brief, proportionate fear response. The more useful outcomes are durable reductions in phobic fear and avoidance, restored functioning, greater ability to approach the feared situation, and—when formally reassessed—loss of the diagnostic pattern.
This matters because exposure is better understood as powerful new learning than as a guaranteed erasure of every older fear association. Fear can return after successful treatment through processes studied as spontaneous recovery, renewal, reinstatement, and reacquisition. A return of fear is not automatically a full clinical relapse, and a difficult encounter after treatment does not erase everything learned in therapy. Vervliet, Craske, and Hermans, 2013; Craske et al., 2014.
This article owns the prognosis, recovery, and relapse question. For the full clinical picture of the disorder, see Specific Phobia: Symptoms, Types, Diagnosis, and Treatment. For the broad treatment evidence, see Specific Phobia Treatment: Exposure Therapy and What Evidence Shows. The step-by-step treatment process belongs to Exposure Therapy for Specific Phobia: How It Works and What to Expect.
Can a specific phobia actually be cured?
In everyday language, “cured” often means that the feared object or situation no longer dictates choices. Someone who once avoided elevators may use them normally; someone with a dog phobia may walk through a park without detouring; someone with flying phobia may take a needed flight without days of anticipatory avoidance. Those are clinically meaningful outcomes even if a small amount of fear occasionally appears.
In research, outcomes are usually more specific. Studies may measure self-reported phobia severity, a behavioral approach test, avoidance, distress during contact with the feared cue, functional interference, clinician-rated severity, or whether diagnostic criteria are still met. Because studies use different measures and follow-up periods, there is no single scientifically defensible percentage that means “the cure rate for all specific phobias.” Böhnlein et al., 2020 emphasized substantial heterogeneity across exposure studies, including variation in how treatment success is defined.
The clinically useful answer is therefore stronger than “phobias can only be managed,” but more precise than “exposure permanently cures everyone.” Specific phobia is highly treatable, substantial improvement can happen quickly, and gains can last. Individual response varies, and fear can return.
What recovery means
Recovery is not the same as zero fear
Fear is an adaptive defensive system. A person treated for a height phobia should still respond to an objectively dangerous ledge; a person treated for an animal phobia should still respect a genuinely threatening animal. Treatment aims to change disproportionate fear, avoidance, and impairment in situations that are safe enough to approach—not to eliminate ordinary risk perception.
That distinction also protects the boundary between a normal fear response and a clinical disorder. The English Hub’s Anxiety Disorders: Symptoms, Types, Diagnosis, and Treatment explains why a symptom or fear response is not, by itself, a diagnosis.
Recovery is behavioral as well as emotional
A person may make important progress before fear feels completely quiet. Being able to remain in the situation, reduce avoidance, stop relying on unnecessary safety behaviors, and carry out valued activities can represent major recovery even if the body still produces some anxiety. Modern exposure models therefore do not require anxiety to fall to zero during every exercise. Craske et al., 2014 argued for optimizing expectancy violation and inhibitory learning rather than treating within-session fear reduction as the sole target.
Diagnostic remission is a stronger outcome than feeling better for a day
A transient reduction in fear after one good encounter is encouraging but is not equivalent to formal remission. A diagnostic assessment asks whether the broader pattern of marked fear or anxiety, avoidance or distressed endurance, persistence, disproportionality, and clinically significant distress or impairment remains present and whether another condition better explains it. A screening score or a single successful exposure cannot establish that by itself.
How effective is exposure-based treatment for specific phobia?
The central evidence is unusually consistent: exposure-based treatment is the best-supported psychological treatment for specific phobia. The National Institute of Mental Health describes psychotherapy as the primary treatment approach for phobias and identifies exposure therapy as particularly effective. The American Psychological Association likewise describes exposure as structured confrontation with feared but sufficiently safe objects, activities, situations, or sensations.
In the randomized-study meta-analysis by Wolitzky-Taylor and colleagues, exposure-based treatments produced large effects compared with no treatment and also outperformed placebo conditions and alternative active psychotherapies. That finding supports more than spontaneous improvement: it indicates a specific treatment advantage.
A 2022 meta-analysis by Odgers and colleagues synthesized 30 multisession and 55 single-session in vivo exposure study arms involving 1,758 clinical participants. Both formats produced large effects on self-reported symptoms and approach behavior. Pooled effects did not significantly differ between single-session and multisession formats at post-treatment or follow-up, while single-session treatment required substantially less treatment time.
This does not mean every phobia is resolved in one appointment. Meta-analytic averages describe groups. Phobia subtype, number and variety of feared cues, comorbidity, developmental factors, willingness to engage, practical opportunities for exposure, medical considerations, and what happens after treatment can all affect an individual course. The important point is that specific phobia can respond strongly to a focused treatment rather than necessarily requiring months or years of therapy.
Why exposure can produce lasting change
Avoidance prevents corrective learning
Specific phobia is maintained partly by a simple behavioral advantage of avoidance: it works immediately. Leaving the elevator, declining the flight, crossing the street to avoid a dog, or postponing an injection often produces rapid relief. That relief can make the same strategy more likely next time. The person therefore receives less opportunity to discover what happens when the feared situation is approached safely and without escape.
The developmental and learning pathways into phobia—including direct learning, observation, information, temperament, and fear conditioning—are covered in What Causes Specific Phobias? Learning, Temperament, and Fear Conditioning. The prognosis question is the reverse side of that process: what can be learned when avoidance no longer controls every encounter?
Exposure creates opportunities for new learning
During well-designed exposure, the person approaches a feared but appropriately selected situation and learns from what actually occurs. The predicted catastrophe may not happen, may be less likely than expected, or may be more manageable than expected. The person may also learn something about their own capacity: “I can stay,” “I can act while anxious,” or “I do not need that ritual or reassurance to finish the task.”
Older descriptions often emphasized habituation, meaning that anxiety declines with repeated or prolonged contact. Habituation can occur and can be useful, but it is not the only plausible mechanism. Contemporary accounts emphasize extinction, inhibitory learning, expectancy violation, memory retrieval, changes in threat beliefs, self-efficacy, and approach behavior. Craske et al., 2014 is influential here, while Böhnlein et al., 2020 reviewed treatment-success factors and found that many proposed optimization variables still have an uneven evidence base.
New learning is not the same as deleting an old memory
The extinction model helps explain an apparent paradox: a person can genuinely improve and later feel fear again. In laboratory learning, extinction is generally understood as learning that competes with earlier threat learning rather than simply destroying it. Vervliet, Craske, and Hermans reviewed how extinguished fear can reappear after time, context change, new aversive events, or renewed threat learning.
This model should be treated as a powerful framework rather than a literal claim that clinicians can see one old “fear memory” and one new “safety memory” competing inside an individual patient. Exposure therapy is clinically established; the exact mechanisms by which it works in every person remain an active research area. In a 2025 randomized spider-phobia study, for example, one exposure session produced symptom reductions that persisted at 12 months, but measured behavioral and neural indices of laboratory extinction did not predict the long-term outcome. de Vos et al., 2025.
Why can fear return after successful treatment?
Return of fear is a research term for a resurgence of fear after it had been reduced. It does not automatically mean the full disorder has returned. Four learning phenomena are especially useful for understanding why fear can reappear.
Spontaneous recovery
Spontaneous recovery is the return of a previously reduced conditioned response after time has passed. In clinical language, someone may do well after treatment and later notice that a familiar fear feels stronger again even without an obvious new traumatic event.
The translational evidence needs care. Laboratory fear-conditioning paradigms are models of learning, not direct measures of whether a person with a specific phobia will relapse. A 2026 systematic review of 242 human fear-conditioning studies found substantial methodological variability and described the clinical translation of spontaneous-recovery paradigms as still incomplete. Anderson et al., 2026. That makes spontaneous recovery a plausible and well-studied mechanism, not a personal forecast.
Renewal
Renewal means fear returns when the context changes. A person may learn successfully in a therapist’s office, a particular building, or one predictable version of the feared situation, then experience more fear in a new setting. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of human fear-conditioning research found reliable context-dependent renewal and reported evidence that extinction learning across multiple contexts can reduce renewal in laboratory paradigms. Wang et al., 2024.
Clinically, this is one reason treatment aims for learning that generalizes beyond one carefully controlled exercise. The laboratory finding does not prove that every patient must practice in a prescribed number of contexts, but it supports the broader principle that recovery should transfer to real life.
Reinstatement
Reinstatement refers to return of fear after an aversive event, even when the event is not identical to the original learning episode. For example, a frightening but unrelated experience can increase general threat sensitivity and make an old phobic response more accessible. In real clinical life, stress and aversive events are more complex than laboratory reinstatement procedures, so the concept is explanatory rather than diagnostic.
Reacquisition
Reacquisition is the rebuilding of fear after a new negative experience with the feared cue. A person who improves after dog-phobia treatment and is later bitten has encountered genuinely new information. The appropriate response is not to insist that the earlier treatment “failed”; the threat environment changed, and reassessment may be needed.
Is return of fear the same as relapse?
No. A return of fear can be a brief emotional event. Relapse usually implies a clinically meaningful recurrence after improvement: avoidance expands again, distress becomes persistent or disproportionate, functioning narrows, or the person again meets the diagnostic pattern. Research definitions vary, which is another reason a single relapse percentage for specific phobia is not reliable.
A person can therefore feel anxious during a flight after months of improvement without having returned to the previous disorder. What matters is the pattern that follows. Does the person complete the flight and continue traveling, or does one frightening episode restart a cycle of cancellation, reassurance, escape, and widening avoidance?
The same diagnostic precision applies to panic. A panic attack can occur when someone encounters a phobic cue, but that does not automatically mean Panic Disorder. Panic Disorder has its own territory, centered on recurrent unexpected panic attacks and related persistent concern or behavior change. A phobia-linked surge of panic remains part of the specific-phobia presentation when the broader diagnostic pattern supports that formulation.
How durable are treatment gains?
The short- and medium-term evidence is strong
The 2022 meta-analysis of specific-phobia exposure found large pooled effects at follow-up for both single-session and multisession treatment. Odgers et al., 2022. A broader systematic review and meta-analysis of CBT for anxiety-related disorders found that, compared with control conditions, CBT benefits for specific phobia were evident through available follow-up periods. van Dis et al., 2020.
Very long-term evidence is thinner than headlines suggest
The long-term literature has an important gap. In the 2020 meta-analysis, randomized controlled data for specific phobia did not extend beyond six months after treatment, even though other anxiety-related disorders had longer follow-up data. Since then, disorder-specific work has continued. A 2025 randomized spider-phobia trial found that symptom reductions after a single exposure session were still evident at 12 months. de Vos et al., 2025.
Very long follow-up studies exist, but they are often small and come from older treatment eras. In one 1999 study, 28 previously treated adults were reassessed 10 to 16 years later; many earlier responders reported clinically significant fear or avoidance at some point after treatment. Lipsitz et al., 1999. That small study is valuable because it challenges the idea that improvement necessarily means permanent extinction, but it cannot supply a modern universal relapse rate.
The evidence therefore supports two statements at the same time: exposure treatment can produce substantial and durable improvement, and permanent absence of any future fear cannot be guaranteed.
Can one-session treatment produce long-lasting recovery?
Sometimes. One-session treatment is not a marketing slogan; it is a studied exposure-based format. The 2022 meta-analysis found no significant pooled difference between single-session and multisession exposure at follow-up. Odgers et al., 2022. In children and adolescents, a systematic review by Davis, Ollendick, and Öst, 2019 described One-Session Treatment as a well-established evidence-based intervention for youth with specific phobias.
Longer follow-up in youth also shows that brief treatment effects can persist, while reminding us that not every child responds the same way. A four-year follow-up study of 83 children treated with one-session treatment or educational support found stronger immediate reduction with one-session treatment, while trajectories later converged; ADHD symptom burden was associated with poorer outcomes across conditions. Halldorsdottir and Ollendick, 2016. These findings are clinically interesting but should not be turned into a prediction about one child.
A single concentrated session is best understood as one evidence-based format that can be sufficient for some presentations. It is not a rule that needing additional sessions means treatment has failed.
What makes relapse more or less likely?
There is no validated calculator that can tell an individual with specific phobia whether fear will return. Research has examined many candidate moderators—baseline anxiety, motivation, self-efficacy, disgust, cognitive change, sleep, physiological variables, context variation, and pharmacological enhancement—but findings are heterogeneous. Böhnlein et al., 2020 concluded that many factors have not been studied enough for firm, universal recommendations.
One pattern is conceptually consistent across learning models: treatment gains are easier to use when the person can retrieve them in the situations where they are needed. That makes generalization important. Practicing only in one narrow context may produce less transferable learning than encountering safe variations of the feared situation, although the optimal way to vary exposures is not settled for every phobia.
Avoidance also matters after treatment. If a person begins escaping again whenever fear rises, the immediate relief can re-strengthen avoidance. The useful maintenance target is not constant self-monitoring of anxiety; it is preserving the ability to approach ordinary safe situations instead of rebuilding life around the fear.
Does fear have to decrease during every exposure for treatment to work?
No. A strong decline in fear during an exercise can feel reassuring, but it is not a required certificate of learning. Contemporary exposure models emphasize what the person learns about the feared outcome, uncertainty, coping, and the need for safety behaviors. Craske et al., 2014. A person may finish an exposure still anxious and nevertheless learn that the predicted disaster did not occur, that anxiety was tolerable, or that approach was possible without escape.
This is one reason “I still felt afraid” is not enough to conclude that treatment failed. Outcomes should be judged across behavior, beliefs, avoidance, impairment, and repeated real-world functioning—not one momentary anxiety rating.
How are treatment gains maintained?
Continue ordinary approach rather than rebuilding avoidance
The most important maintenance principle is behavioral: keep doing safe, ordinary activities that recovery made possible. If someone successfully returns to elevators, flying, dogs, bridges, or medical procedures, ongoing real-life contact can keep the new learning accessible. This need not become a rigid daily exposure ritual. The goal is a life that is no longer organized around escape.
Practice across realistic contexts
Context variation is supported by learning theory and by human fear-conditioning research, including the 2024 renewal meta-analysis. Wang et al., 2024. In therapy, clinicians may therefore vary settings, examples, distances, times, or other features when clinically appropriate so that learning is not tied to one unusually controlled scenario.
Treat safety behavior as a clinical variable, not a moral failure
Safety behaviors are actions used primarily to prevent a feared catastrophe or make exposure feel possible—for example, excessive reassurance, keeping an escape route constantly available, or performing a ritualized checking behavior. Some can interfere with learning; others may be temporarily useful for engagement or genuine safety. Their role depends on function and context. Removing them indiscriminately can be unhelpful, especially when the activity carries real-world risk.
Use booster work when needed
If avoidance starts expanding again, a brief return to planned exposure work can sometimes restore approach behavior before the problem becomes entrenched. Evidence does not support one universal booster schedule. The decision can be individualized according to recurrence, impairment, and the safety of the feared context.
What if fear comes back after treatment?
A return of fear is information, not proof that recovery was imaginary. First ask what changed. Has there been a long period of avoidance? Is the person facing a new version of the situation? Was there a genuinely adverse event? Has a different problem become prominent, such as unexpected panic attacks, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, trauma-related symptoms, health anxiety, or a medical condition?
For a familiar, objectively safe phobic situation, returning to previously learned approach behavior may be enough. If fear has become severe again, avoidance is expanding, the diagnosis is uncertain, or the exposure would involve meaningful physical risk, professional reassessment is more appropriate than improvising increasingly intense self-exposure.
This is particularly important with heights, driving, water, animals, medical procedures, severe fainting risk, or any situation where the feared activity can be objectively dangerous. Exposure treatment targets disproportionate fear under appropriately controlled conditions; it does not require ignoring real hazards.
Can a specific phobia go away without treatment?
The natural course varies. Some fears lessen as circumstances change or as a person gains repeated safe experience. Specific phobia, however, can also be persistent. A major review in The Lancet Psychiatry described early onset and substantial persistence, with some phobias lasting years or decades. Eaton, Bienvenu, and Miloyan, 2018.
Waiting is therefore not a reliable treatment strategy when avoidance is restricting work, travel, health care, education, relationships, or daily functioning. The decision to seek treatment depends less on whether fear exists and more on how persistent, disproportionate, avoidant, and impairing the pattern has become.
Special cases that change the recovery picture
Blood-injection-injury presentations
Blood-injection-injury phobia can involve a vasovagal fainting pattern that differs physiologically from many other specific phobias. Treatment may include applied tension as well as exposure. Someone with fainting, medical risk, or uncertainty about the cause of loss of consciousness should not assume that every episode is “just anxiety.”
Children and adolescents
Developmental fear is common, so treatment decisions in children require attention to age, impairment, family accommodation, and whether the fear exceeds what is expected developmentally. One-session exposure-based approaches have a substantial pediatric evidence base, but parent involvement and treatment structure vary. For the dedicated developmental guide, see Specific Phobia in Children: Developmental Fears, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Davis, Ollendick, and Öst, 2019.
Comorbidity and differential diagnosis
Specific phobia can coexist with other conditions. OCD, PTSD, panic disorder, agoraphobia, illness anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder are not subtypes of specific phobia, and treatment evidence should not be transferred automatically between them. If the fear is embedded in a broader syndrome, treating only the most obvious trigger may leave the actual maintaining problem untouched.
What the evidence supports—and what it does not
Established evidence: exposure-based psychological treatment is effective for specific phobia; both single-session and multisession in vivo formats can produce large improvements; avoidance is a central treatment target; and treatment gains can persist beyond the immediate session. Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008; Odgers et al., 2022.
Well-supported learning framework: extinction and inhibitory-learning models explain why exposure can create strong new learning without guaranteeing deletion of older threat associations, and they account for recognizable routes by which fear can return. Vervliet et al., 2013; Craske et al., 2014.
Preliminary or incomplete evidence: the best way to optimize every exposure, predict individual relapse, prescribe booster timing, or infer clinical relapse from laboratory extinction measures remains uncertain. Newer human conditioning reviews strengthen our understanding of renewal and spontaneous recovery, but laboratory return-of-fear paradigms should not be treated as direct relapse rates for people with diagnosed specific phobia. Wang et al., 2024; Anderson et al., 2026.
Unsupported simplification: a fixed “success rate,” a promise that one session cures everyone, or a claim that treatment permanently erases a fear memory. The evidence is much better described as high treatability with variable individual response and an understandable possibility of return of fear.
Frequently asked questions
Can specific phobia be permanently cured?
Long-lasting recovery is possible, and exposure-based treatment can produce large and durable improvements. “Permanent cure” is not a standardized outcome that can be guaranteed. Fear can return after time, context change, stress, or a new adverse experience without erasing previous treatment gains.
Can exposure therapy cure a phobia in one session?
For some people, a single concentrated exposure session produces substantial improvement. A 2022 meta-analysis found no significant pooled difference between single-session and multisession exposure at post-treatment or follow-up. Individual treatment length still varies. Odgers et al., 2022.
How long does it take to overcome a specific phobia?
There is no universal duration. Specific phobia can improve in one intensive session or over several sessions. The number of sessions depends on the phobia, treatment format, complexity, response, real-world practice opportunities, and whether other clinical problems are present.
Can a phobia come back years later?
Yes. Long-term follow-up and learning research show that fear can return after substantial improvement. That can reflect renewed avoidance, a context change, spontaneous recovery, a new aversive experience, or other clinical changes. A return of fear is not automatically a full relapse.
Does a return of fear mean exposure therapy failed?
No. Exposure can produce genuine learning and functional recovery even when fear later resurges. The key question is whether the person can still use approach behavior and whether avoidance and impairment have returned. A booster session or renewed structured practice may sometimes be useful.
Can a phobia disappear on its own?
Some fears do lessen without formal treatment, but specific phobia can be persistent for years. When avoidance is impairing daily life, relying on spontaneous disappearance is uncertain. Eaton, Bienvenu, and Miloyan, 2018.
Do I need to feel completely calm before treatment is successful?
No. Successful treatment can include residual fear. Modern exposure approaches emphasize new learning, reduced avoidance, and greater behavioral freedom rather than requiring anxiety to reach zero in every situation.
Can medication prevent a phobia from coming back?
Medication is not the main disorder-specific treatment for specific phobia, and there is no standard medication that guarantees relapse prevention. Medication may have a role in selected clinical situations, but decisions about benefits, adverse effects, interactions, and dependence risk belong to individualized medical care.
Should I keep exposing myself to the fear forever?
Recovery does not require turning life into a permanent therapy exercise. The practical aim is continued ordinary contact with safe situations that matter, rather than rebuilding avoidance. Planned booster work can be added when clinically useful.
When should I seek professional help again after treatment?
Reassessment is reasonable when avoidance is expanding, functioning is narrowing, symptoms are severe or changing, the diagnosis is uncertain, a new traumatic or medical event occurred, or the feared situation carries real physical risk. Those circumstances call for renewed formulation rather than simply increasing exposure intensity.
The bottom line
Specific phobias are highly treatable. Exposure-based treatment can produce large improvements, sometimes in a single concentrated session, and gains can last. A clinically useful version of “cure” is recovery of ordinary functioning with markedly reduced fear and avoidance—not a promise that the nervous system will never generate fear again.
The reason relapse is possible is also the reason recovery can be rebuilt: fear and safety learning remain responsive to experience. Exposure creates new learning that can compete successfully with older threat expectations. When fear returns, the relevant question is not whether treatment was invalid, but whether avoidance and impairment are returning and whether the person needs renewed practice, a booster intervention, or a fresh clinical assessment.
Related Articles
References
Anderson, J., Wang, Y., Clark, D. L., Lipp, O. V., Jarvis, M., & Ney, L. J. (2026). A systematic review of spontaneous recovery in human fear conditioning. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 20, 1820847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2026.1820847
Böhnlein, J., Altegoer, L., Muck, N. K., Roesmann, K., Redlich, R., Dannlowski, U., & Leehr, E. J. (2020). Factors influencing the success of exposure therapy for specific phobia: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 796–820. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31830494/
Craske, M. G., Treanor, M., Conway, C. C., Zbozinek, T., & Vervliet, B. (2014). Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 58, 10–23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24864005/
Davis, T. E., III, Ollendick, T. H., & Öst, L.-G. (2019). One-Session Treatment of Specific Phobias in Children: Recent Developments and a Systematic Review. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095608
de Vos, J. H., Lange, I., Goossens, L., Leibold, N. K., de Cort, K., Bakker, J., et al. (2025). Long-term exposure therapy outcome in phobia and the link with behavioral and neural indices of extinction learning. Journal of Affective Disorders, 375, 324–330. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39889926/
Eaton, W. W., Bienvenu, O. J., & Miloyan, B. (2018). Specific phobias. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(8), 678–686. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30060873/
Halldorsdottir, T., & Ollendick, T. H. (2016). Long-term outcomes of brief, intensive CBT for specific phobias: The negative impact of ADHD symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(5), 465–471. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26900895/
Lipsitz, J. D., Mannuzza, S., Klein, D. F., Ross, D. C., & Fyer, A. J. (1999). Specific phobia 10–16 years after treatment. Depression and Anxiety, 10(3), 105–111. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10604083/
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Phobias and Phobia-Related Disorders. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/phobias-and-phobia-related-disorders
Odgers, K., Kershaw, K. A., Li, S. H., & Graham, B. M. (2022). The relative efficacy and efficiency of single- and multi-session exposure therapies for specific phobia: A meta-analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 159, 104203. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36323055/
van Dis, E. A. M., van Veen, S. C., Hagenaars, M. A., Batelaan, N. M., Bockting, C. L. H., van den Heuvel, R. M., Cuijpers, P., & Engelhard, I. M. (2020). Long-term outcomes of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety-related disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(3), 265–273. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31758858/
Vervliet, B., Craske, M. G., & Hermans, D. (2013). Fear extinction and relapse: State of the art. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 215–248. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23537484/
Wang, Y., Olsson, S., Lipp, O. V., & Ney, L. J. (2024). Renewal in human fear conditioning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 159, 105606. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38431150/
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Horowitz, J. D., Powers, M. B., & Telch, M. J. (2008). Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(6), 1021–1037. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18410984/