Response to Nadlerʹs Commentary on Arch and Craskeʹs (2011) “Addressing Relapse in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Panic Disorder: Methods for Optimizing Long-Term Treatment Outcomes”

Nadler (this issue), in his commentary of our article, “Addressing Relapse in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Panic Disorder: Methods for Optimizing Long-Term Treatment Outcomes” (Arch & Craske, 2011), argues that we misrepresent the role of panic attacks within learning theory and overlook cognitive treatment targets. He presents several case studies that he argues demonstrate how to target fears regarding the consequences of panic itself. We appreciate his raising these issues and creating the opportunity for discussion. We take issue, however, with two aspects of his commentary. First, his case studies beautifully illustrate a central point we make in our article regarding the importance of violating patient expectancies, and as such, exemplify our recommendations rather than illustrate what we may have overlooked. Second, Nadlerʹs argument that we misidentify the role of panic attacks contradicts itself in ways that reveal his misunderstanding of the complexity of panic attacks from the perspective of learning theory (e.g., ), and disregard an important point we make in our article.