See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317802469

Reciprocal Inhibition

Chapter · January 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_938-1

CITATIONS READS

0 1,544

2 authors:

Lovina Bater Sara Sytsma Jordan

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center University of Southern Mississippi
4 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   743 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

John B. Watson View project

Selective Attention View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sara Sytsma Jordan on 08 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

R
Reciprocal Inhibition
Lovina R. Bater and Sara S. Jordan
University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg,
MS, USA
Synonyms
Counterconditioning
Definition
A phenomenon originally identified through the
field of physiology whereby activation of reflexes
in the body stimulate one group of muscles and
concurrently inhibit an antagonistic or opposite
set of muscles (Sherrington 1906). Reciprocal
inhibition was a foundation for initial psycholog-
ical theories that formed the basis for systematic
desensitization as a treatment for anxiety. Wolpe
(1954) applied the concept of reciprocal inhibition
by proposing that one cannot be simultaneously
anxious and relaxed. Therefore, an antagonistic
response to counter anxiety would be a state of
relaxation. From this, the technique of systematic
desensitization for treatment of anxiety was
borne.
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_938-1
Introduction
The term Reciprocal Inhibition was first coined by
the British physiologist Sir Charles Sherrington
(1906). Sherrington suggested and demonstrated
that “in the end-effect of certain reflexes, for
instance the scratch-reflex, there supervenes on a
phase of excitatory state a state refractory to exci-
tation – a refractory phase. This refractory phase
is, if we seek to put it into the class of physiolog-
ical phenomena to which it must obviously
belong, a state of inhibition” (Sherrington 1906,
p. 83). More simply put, if a reflex is activated
stimulating one group of muscles, an antagonistic
group of muscles is thereby also inhibited (Wolpe
1981). An example that is commonly reported is
the opposite actions of the bicep and tricep mus-
cles; when one is flexed the other is simulta-
neously extended and vice versa.
From Sherrington’s work, psychologists then
began proposing theories about reciprocal inhibi-
tion’s role in psychology (Heriot and Pritchard
2004). However, it was not until 1954 when
Joseph Wolpe, a behavioral psychologist, exam-
ined the theory and mechanistic role of reciprocal
inhibition in the treatment of anxiety and neuroses
(Heriot and Pritchard 2004; Wolpe 1954). Wolpe
posited that reciprocal inhibition is the process of
replacing conditioned maladaptive responses to
anxiety-provoking stimuli with more adaptive
and incompatible responses (Wolpe 1954, 1958).
He used conditioning theories proposed by other
2 Reciprocal Inhibition
behavioral psychologists such as Pavlov, Watson,
and Skinner to develop this behavioral theory.
Similar to other learning-based theories, Wolpe
used animal experiments to provide the basis of
the reciprocal inhibition theory in the treatment of
neuroses (Heriot and Pritchard 2004; Wolpe 1954,
1958). Across several studies, Wolpe demon-
strated that strong anxiety could inhibit starving
animals from eating which suggested that anxiety
and feeding have a reciprocal relationship (Wolpe
1958). Wolpe then demonstrated that animal’s
anxiety could be diminished by feeding animals
while systematically presenting them with gradu-
ally increasing anxiety-evoking stimuli.
Reciprocal Inhibition in the Treatment of
Anxiety
As the research grew, Wolpe and other psycholo-
gists began to test reciprocal inhibition as a treat-
ment for anxiety on humans. In Wolpe’s 1958
book, Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition,
he explains three types of responses that are inhib-
itory of neurotic anxiety in humans: assertive
response, sexual response, and relaxation
response (Wolpe 1958). The assertive responses
are suggested to be counter to conditioned anxiety
to social interactions whereas positive sexual
responses are suggested to be counter to sexual
dysfunction rooted in anxiety. Of particular inter-
est to the literature of reciprocal inhibition therapy
is the relaxation response.
Wolpe (1958, 1981) stated that the autonomic
effects of practicing muscle relaxation are the
exact opposite, or antagonistic, to the physiolog-
ical feelings of anxiety. Therefore, muscle relaxa-
tion became a primary focus of reciprocal
inhibition therapy on anxiety and neuroses
(Cooke 1968; Heriot and Pritchard 2004; Wolpe
1958). However, Wolpe also stated that intense
muscle relaxation could not independently coun-
teract high levels of anxiety due to the person’s
inability to completely relax to the level they
would need in order to make the therapy success-
ful (Wolpe 1958). It was then that he proposed the
systematic desensitization with relaxation
procedure.
The systematic desensitization with relaxation
procedure, also known as reciprocal inhibition
therapy, consisted of several steps (Cooke 1968;
Wolpe 1958). First, the client would be given
relaxation training without the presentation of
anxiety-provoking stimuli. Then, the client
would be asked to construct a hierarchy of
anxiety-provoking stimuli. This hierarchy would
range from low anxiety-provoking to extremely
intense anxiety-provoking stimuli. The client
would then be systematically exposed with the
stimuli on his/her hierarchy and instructed to use
relaxation until desensitized to the stimuli. The
use of relaxation in this situation is theorized to
be an anxiety inhibitor and would eventually con-
dition a new response to the anxiety stimuli,
opposing the original anxiety response. Wolpe
also proposed that the gradual exposure technique
is essential in this therapy because the stimuli
highest on the hierarchy are often too anxiety
provoking to allow for relaxation, or any other
incompatible response, to be successful.
Rejection of Reciprocal Inhibition
Although Wolpe continuously attempted to assert
reciprocal inhibition’s role in the treatment of
anxiety and neuroses, other opposing psycholo-
gists discounted reciprocal inhibition as the mech-
anism through which systematic desensitization
works (Cooke 1968; Kazdin and Wilcoxon
1976; Lomont 1965). Further research found that
systematic desensitization did not depend on mus-
cle relaxation independently (Kass and Gilner
1974; Marshall et al. 1972) or on simply creating
an anxiety hierarchy (Cooke 1968; Marshall et al.
1972). Other dismantling studies also showed that
a reduction in fear and anxiety could be produced
with and without the pairing of relaxation (Cooke
1968; Marshall et al. 1972). This was ultimately
what disproved reciprocal inhibition as the mech-
anism through which systematic desensitization
decreases anxiety.
Several other alternative explanations were
posited as possible mechanisms for this relation-
ship (Kazdin and Wilcoxon 1976). First, Kazdin
and Wilcoxon (1976) explain counterconditioning
Reciprocal Inhibition
as a possible explanation which suggests that
pairing any nonanxiety responses, muscle relaxa-
tion or otherwise, with an anxiety-provoking stim-
ulus would change the conditioned response to the
conditioned stimuli. Although Kazdin and
Wilcoxon (1976) attempt to explain why counter-
conditioning is different from reciprocal inhibi-
tion, Wolpe (1981) argues that this is how
reciprocal inhibition is theorized to work
(Kazdin and Wilcoxon 1976; Wolpe 1981).
Another alternative explanation is expectancy, a
nonspecific therapeutic effect of the client’s rela-
tionship with the therapist (Kazdin and Wilcoxon
1976). Wolpe also argues against this explanation
because there is no empirical evidence to prove
that this concept is ever therapeutically beneficial
and that this is not a mechanism through which a
relationship occurs but instead a psychological
event (Wolpe 1981). Finally, the most common
and best supported alternative explanation is
extinction.
Extinction maintains that continuous presenta-
tion of an anxiety-provoking stimulus, without the
feared result, reduces anxiety; however, the
extinction theory also posits that the presentation
itself is the mechanism through which systematic
desensitization diminishes anxiety (Kazdin and
Wilcoxon 1976; Lomont 1965). Although Wolpe
(1958, 1981) discounts the extinction theory
based on the slow elimination of neurotic anxiety
in animals, Lomont (1965) points out that Wolpe’s
(1958) studies often lack an extinction control
group. As mentioned, other researchers have
conducted dismantling studies that have shown
that a reduction in fear and anxiety could be pro-
duced with and without the pairing of relaxation
(Cooke 1968; Kass and Gilner 1974; Marshall
et al. 1972). It is now commonly accepted that
extinction is the active mechanism rather than
reciprocal inhibition. As Kass and Gilner (1974)
state, relaxation may be the incentive to persist
with the fearful exposure activities facilitating the
extinction mechanism.
3
Conclusion
Reciprocal inhibition was initially discovered
through the field of physiology in the early
1900s but was applied to psychology, and specif-
ically the treatment of anxiety, by Joseph Wolpe in
the 1950s. Wolpe (1958, 1981) theorized that
autonomic effects of anxiety and muscle relaxa-
tion are antagonistic actions; therefore, condi-
tioned effects of anxiety could be reciprocally
inhibited by inducing a state of relaxation. This
concept served as the basis of his ground-breaking
work on systematic desensitization for treatment
of anxiety. Although modern research suggests
that it is the exposure and subsequent extinction
rather than reciprocal inhibition that serves as the
mechanism of action for anxiety reduction in sys-
tematic desensitization, the concept of reciprocal
inhibition has heuristic value in the history of
behavior therapy.
Cross-References
▶ Extinction (Conditioning)
▶ Systematic Desensitization
References
Cooke, G. (1968). Evaluation of the efficacy of the com-
ponents of reciprocal inhibition psychotherapy. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 73(5), 464–467. doi:10.1037/
h0026202.
Heriot, S. A., & Pritchard, M. (2004). ‘Reciprocal inhibition
as the main basis of psychotherapeutic effects’ by Joseph
Wolpe (1954). Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
9(2), 297–307. doi:10.1177/1359104504041928.
Kass, W., & Gilner, F. H. (1974). Drive level, incentive
conditions and systematic desensitization. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 12(2), 99–106. doi:10.1016/
0005-7967(74)90098-9.
Kazdin, A. E., & Wilcoxon, L. A. (1976). Systematic
desensitization and nonspecific treatment effects:
A methodological evaluation. Psychological Bulletin,
83(5), 729–758. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.729.
Lomont, J. F. (1965). Reciprocal inhibition or extinction?
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 3, 209–219.
doi:10.1016/0005-7967(65)90029-X.
Marshall, W. L., Strawbridge, H., & Keltner, A. (1972).
The role of mental relaxation in experimental
4 Reciprocal Inhibition
desensitization. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
10(4), 355–366. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(72)90058-7.
Sherrington, C. S. (1906). The integrative action of the
nervous system. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wolpe, J. (1954). Reciprocal inhibition as the main basis of
psychotherapeutic effects. American Medical Association
Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 72, 204–226.
doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1954.02330020073007.
View publication stats
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wolpe, J. (1981). Reciprocal inhibition and therapeutic
change. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimen-
tal Psychiatry, 12(3), 185–188. doi:10.1016/0005-
7916(81)90044-6.