Between laboratory and clinic: Paving the two-way street

Bandura's (1978) article "On paradigms and recycled ideologies" is criticized from several perspectives. In essence, Bandura argues that the dichotomy between laboratory treatments and clinical behavior therapy is not only false but also reflects grave ideological misconceptions. We analyze what we regard as several flaws in this argument. Bandura's imputation of an implicit medical model to critics of "analogue" research seems to be ill-founded and of questionable relevance. We underscore how Bandura inadvertently argues for the very thesis that he attempts to refute-namely, that clinic patients and phobic subjects do differ in fundamental ways. In our view, when estimating the clinical significance of his research, Bandura tends to extrapolate beyond his data. Our chief objection to Bandura's (1978) position is that it overlooks certain realities of clinical practice. By hypothesizing some essential differences between clinical fears and snake phobias, we hope to place laboratory research in its proper context and thus to facilitate productive dialogues between practitioners and experimenters.