A reply to "Critique of 'Treatment of Insomnia by Relaxation Training': relaxation Training, Rogerian Therapy, or Demand Characteristics".

In his recent critique of our article (Kahn, Baker, & Weiss, 1968), Eisenman (1970) noted "three major weaknesses." His first, the confounding of our relaxation treatment with "Rogerian therapy," is based on our report that part of the preinterview asked 5 about other problem areas. To call such an interviewdiscussion Rogerian therapy seems an unfair representation of that treatment approach; to ascribe our insomniacs' improvement to this reveals a remarkable view of the power of a brief discussion. In any case, our 5s did not report improvement between the preinterview and the first treatment session. Eisenman's other 2 points—the problems of self-report and demand characteristics in a therapy study —were both considered in our own discussion. However, these are important issues and do deserve a careful look. Our paper reported a clinical study of the use of relaxation training to treat insomnia. Our only measure of success or failure was our 5s' report. The objection to such data, of course, is the impossibility of knowing whether or not your 5 is consciously or unconsciously "fudging" for you. The customary solution offered is to use behavioral measures—have 5 hold the snake, climb the ladder, sleep 8 hr. right there in front of you. The apparent beauty of this kind of measure is worth examining.