Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 11:21 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 9:04 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT07048756
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2025-08-20
First Post:
2025-06-24
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Psychotherapeutic Imagery Techniques
Sponsor:
University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Enhancing the Efficacy of Psychotherapeutic Imagery Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2025-08
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
JM2019a
Brief Summary:
This randomized controlled trial (RCT) examines the efficacy of Imagery Exposure (IE), Imagery Rescripting (ImRs), and Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) in individuals with a high fear of failure. Participants (N=220) were randomly assigned to IE, ImRs, ImRs with a 10-minute break (ImRs-DSR), or CFT-based Imagery Rescripting (CFT\_ImRs). Due to funding constraints, the CFT\_ImRs group included a reduced sample (N=40, targeting 30 completers).
The two-week intervention consists of four structured imagery sessions. IE involves exposure to criticism-related memories without modification. In the ImRs group memory reactivation to criticism-related memories is followed by positive reappraisal. ImRs-DSR introduces a 10-minute delay before reappraisal to enhance memory updating. CFT\_ImRs incorporates Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) principles into reappraisal, emphasizing self-compassion.
Primary outcomes include skin conductance level (SCL) and subjective emotional responses to criticism-related (and control) memories, changes in fear of failure and dysfunctional beliefs. All these variables are assessed pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Results will be analyzed separately for:
IE vs. ImRs (rescripting vs. exposure and physiological predictors), ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR (memory reconsolidation effects), IE vs. CFT\_ImRs (CFT vs. exposure efficacy).
The two-week intervention consists of four structured imagery sessions. IE involves exposure to criticism-related memories without modification. In the ImRs group memory reactivation to criticism-related memories is followed by positive reappraisal. ImRs-DSR introduces a 10-minute delay before reappraisal to enhance memory updating. CFT\_ImRs incorporates Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) principles into reappraisal, emphasizing self-compassion.
Primary outcomes include skin conductance level (SCL) and subjective emotional responses to criticism-related (and control) memories, changes in fear of failure and dysfunctional beliefs. All these variables are assessed pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Results will be analyzed separately for:
IE vs. ImRs (rescripting vs. exposure and physiological predictors), ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR (memory reconsolidation effects), IE vs. CFT\_ImRs (CFT vs. exposure efficacy).
Detailed Description:
This study aims to investigate the efficacy and underlying psychological mechanisms of Imagery Rescripting (ImRs), Imagery Exposure (IE), and Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) in individuals with high fear of failure. The project is designed as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing four intervention conditions: Imagery Exposure (IE), standard Imagery Rescripting (ImRs), Imagery Rescripting with a 10-minute break (ImRs-DSR), and CFT-based Imagery Rescripting (CFT\_ImRs). The addition of the CFT\_ImRs condition was based on the decision to explore whether compassion-focused elements provide additional benefits in reducing criticism-related subjective and autonomic responses.
The study enrolled 220 participants, randomly assigned to one of the four groups (IE, ImRs, ImRs-DSR, CFT\_ImRs) in a 3:3:3:2 allocation ratio. Due to funding limitations for CFT\_ImRs, recruitment for this group has been capped at 40 participants, with the goal of obtaining a final sample of 30 subjects for the study phase. The treatment phase takes two weeks starting just after pre-treatment assessments and consisting of four treatment sessions. Each of them involves exposure to autobiographical memories of childhood criticism, presented in an audio format. The IE condition involves prolonged exposure to the criticism scene without modifications. In the ImRs condition, the reactivation of memory is followed by a positive reappraisal, where an imagined caregiver acknowledges the participant's needs. In ImRs-DSR, a 10-minute break separates the memory reactivation from the positive reappraisal, aiming to enhance memory updating by increasing memory trace destabilization. In the CFT\_ImRs condition, the part aiming at positive reappraisal differs from the one used in ImRs condition by incorporating some principles of Compassion-Focused Imagery Rescripting.
Primary outcome measures include physiological arousal (skin conductance level, SCL), subjective ratings, and changes in self-reported fear of failure and dysfunctional beliefs. Treatment effects will be evaluated at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. The efficacy and stability of each intervention will be assessed using renewal, reacquisition, and reinstatement paradigms, as they are known from behavioral studies.
Due to the broad scope of this study, the results will be reported separately for different comparisons, as each addresses distinct research questions:
IE vs. ImRs: Examines whether rescripting differs from exposure and how the dynamics of physiological arousal influences treatment outcomes.
ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR: Investigates whether adding a mechanism for interrupting memory reconsolidation improves the efficacy of ImRs.
IE vs. CFT\_ImRs: Evaluates the efficacy of Compassion-Focused Therapy in comparison to exposure-based treatment.
This study seeks to determine whether standard ImRs is better than IE and whether ImRs-DSR or CFT\_ImRs provide additional benefits in reducing criticism-related subjective and autonomic responses, and whether the dynamics of physiological arousal during imagery predicts treatment responses. The findings may contribute to optimizing imagery-based therapeutic techniques for individuals with pathological fear of failure.
Due to human error in study planning, the retrospective registration for the ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR condition has already been registered in another repository under the following code: NCT06537284.
The study enrolled 220 participants, randomly assigned to one of the four groups (IE, ImRs, ImRs-DSR, CFT\_ImRs) in a 3:3:3:2 allocation ratio. Due to funding limitations for CFT\_ImRs, recruitment for this group has been capped at 40 participants, with the goal of obtaining a final sample of 30 subjects for the study phase. The treatment phase takes two weeks starting just after pre-treatment assessments and consisting of four treatment sessions. Each of them involves exposure to autobiographical memories of childhood criticism, presented in an audio format. The IE condition involves prolonged exposure to the criticism scene without modifications. In the ImRs condition, the reactivation of memory is followed by a positive reappraisal, where an imagined caregiver acknowledges the participant's needs. In ImRs-DSR, a 10-minute break separates the memory reactivation from the positive reappraisal, aiming to enhance memory updating by increasing memory trace destabilization. In the CFT\_ImRs condition, the part aiming at positive reappraisal differs from the one used in ImRs condition by incorporating some principles of Compassion-Focused Imagery Rescripting.
Primary outcome measures include physiological arousal (skin conductance level, SCL), subjective ratings, and changes in self-reported fear of failure and dysfunctional beliefs. Treatment effects will be evaluated at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. The efficacy and stability of each intervention will be assessed using renewal, reacquisition, and reinstatement paradigms, as they are known from behavioral studies.
Due to the broad scope of this study, the results will be reported separately for different comparisons, as each addresses distinct research questions:
IE vs. ImRs: Examines whether rescripting differs from exposure and how the dynamics of physiological arousal influences treatment outcomes.
ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR: Investigates whether adding a mechanism for interrupting memory reconsolidation improves the efficacy of ImRs.
IE vs. CFT\_ImRs: Evaluates the efficacy of Compassion-Focused Therapy in comparison to exposure-based treatment.
This study seeks to determine whether standard ImRs is better than IE and whether ImRs-DSR or CFT\_ImRs provide additional benefits in reducing criticism-related subjective and autonomic responses, and whether the dynamics of physiological arousal during imagery predicts treatment responses. The findings may contribute to optimizing imagery-based therapeutic techniques for individuals with pathological fear of failure.
Due to human error in study planning, the retrospective registration for the ImRs vs. ImRs-DSR condition has already been registered in another repository under the following code: NCT06537284.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: