Studies (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Capafóns et al. (1998) Desensitisation for Fear of Flying

Study overview

Researchers: Juan Capafóns, Carmen Sosa and Pedro Avero (1998)

Title: Systematic desensitisation in the treatment of fear of flying

This study examined whether systematic desensitisation could effectively treat individuals suffering from a fear of flying. The research tested a specific therapeutic approach combining multiple behavioural techniques to reduce phobic responses to air travel.

Participants

A total of 41 participants were recruited through a media campaign that advertised a free treatment programme for fear of flying. The sample consisted of:

• Treatment group: 20 participants (8 males and 12 females) who received systematic desensitisation therapy
• Control group: 21 participants (9 males and 12 females) who were placed on a waiting list for future treatment

Participants were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition. All individuals who came forward had self-identified concerns about flying and were seeking help for this specific phobia.

Aim

The study had two primary objectives:

1. To establish whether systematic desensitisation works effectively as a therapy for individuals with a fear of flying
2. To evaluate the therapeutic success rate of systematic desensitisation when applied to this particular type of specific phobia

Procedure

Assessment measures

The researchers employed multiple assessment tools to measure fear of flying comprehensively:

Diagnostic scales:

• IDG-FV: A Spanish general diagnostic information tool specifically designed to assess fear of flying. This scale was administered before and after treatment to measure overall change.

EMV scales measured three distinct aspects of fear:

1. Fear displayed during the actual flight
2. Fear of flight preliminaries (situations leading up to the flight, such as going to the airport or obtaining a boarding card)
3. Fear without involvement (containing four elements not directly related to flying, such as seeing a plane)

EPAV scales assessed:

• Catastrophic thoughts (such as fears about the engine catching fire or wings falling off)
• General anxiety responses

Physiological measures recorded actual bodily arousal:

• Heart rate
• Palm temperature
• Muscular tension

Pre-treatment procedure

All participants completed the IDG-FV diagnostic questionnaire individually. They then watched a video showing a plane trip, filmed from a passenger's perspective travelling by plane to her destination.

Before viewing the video, participants underwent a habituation session. This process allows a response to a given stimulus to decrease through repeated exposure. During this three-minute period, participants' heart rate, temperature and muscular tension were recorded. Participants were instructed to 'feel as involved as possible' whilst watching the video.

Following the video presentation, the treatment group received appointments for their therapy sessions, whilst the control group were scheduled for their next assessment session. The interval between pre-test and post-test was approximately eight weeks for both groups.

Treatment protocol

The treatment group received a comprehensive eight-week programme involving two one-hour sessions per week. The therapy incorporated multiple components:

Progressive muscle relaxation: In each session, the therapist guided clients to tense and relax specific muscle groups, creating awareness of the difference between tension and relaxation states. This technique was practiced between sessions 12 and 15.

Breathing techniques: Traditional training methods were used to help participants control their breathing patterns during anxious situations.

Imagination exercises: Participants practiced imagining flight-related situations in a controlled therapeutic environment (in vitro exposure).

Real-life exposure: The treatment combined imagined situations with exposure to actual flight-related situations (in vivo elements) when the phobic stimulus was present.

Cognitive techniques: The therapy systematically used stop thinking techniques and brief relaxation methods in natural situations where the phobic stimulus occurred.

After eight weeks, both the treatment and control groups completed the same questionnaires and video test to measure any changes.

Findings

Pre-treatment baseline

Before any intervention, scores between the treatment and control groups were fairly similar across all measures. This indicated that both groups had comparable levels of fear initially and represented a fairly homogenous sample.

Post-treatment results

For the control group, the mere passage of time without any treatment did not lead to any reduction in participants' self-reported fear of flying or objective measures of arousal. Their scores remained relatively stable across the eight-week period.

For the treatment group, with the exception of two participants, there were considerable reductions in participants' self-reported levels of fear as well as objective physiological measures. The reduction in fear measures following systematic desensitisation was statistically significant, with many changes being highly significant.

Conclusions

Capafóns et al. concluded that, given the lack of improvement in the control group and the notable improvement in the experimental group, systematic desensitisation represents an effective treatment for decreasing or eliminating fear of flying.

However, the researchers noted an important limitation: systematic desensitisation is not infallible, as 10 per cent of participants were incorrectly classified as having improved when they had not. This finding suggests that future research should investigate why the therapy was successful for some patients but not for others, and why it achieved varying degrees of success across different individuals.

Understanding 'not significant'

Evaluation: Strengths

Application of scientific assessment methods: The study demonstrates strong scientific rigour through its use of quantifiable data. Measures of fear and anxiety were obtained through validated scales such as the IDG-FV for assessing fear of flying. Objective measures including heart rate and body temperature provided concrete data to determine the fear response. The use of multiple validated scales enhanced the reliability of the findings.

Inclusion of a control group: The presence of a control group provided an advantageous baseline comparison between the two groups. This design allowed researchers to analyse differences between the groups in terms of the dependent variables and test for statistical significance. The control group gave researchers greater confidence in attributing the improvements specifically to the systematic desensitisation treatment rather than to other factors such as time passing or placebo effects.

Standardised procedure: Undertaking the research within a consistent, laboratory-based environment meant that every participant experienced the initial stages of the study identically. Such standardisation in procedure minimised the effect of any extraneous variables that could have influenced the study. This controlled approach strengthened the internal validity of the research by reducing confounding variables.

Practical application: The findings have considerable practical value. If participants benefit notably from the therapy, then systematic desensitisation should be offered as one of the main treatment options for fear of flying. By successfully addressing this phobia, the treatment brings measurable personal, social and economic benefits. Individuals are no longer prevented from flying for business purposes or to visit distant relatives, improving their quality of life and professional opportunities.

Evaluation: Weaknesses

Limited sample size: The study is somewhat restricted by its small sample size of 41 participants. This creates a problem of generalisability, meaning there are limitations in the ability to apply conclusions from the study to a wider population. To address this issue, researchers could increase the sample size in future studies and perhaps seek consistency of findings with other groups of participants, possibly in different regions or countries.

Reliance on self-reporting methods: One of the main assessment methods involved interview questioning. Whilst this represents a logical approach to gathering data, it may limit the validity of the responses provided. Techniques such as interviews rely on participants accurately reporting their own views and feelings. When closed-ended questions are used, and particularly where preset response options are given (as in the IDG-FV system used in this study), respondents often select a response that 'best fits' rather than one that accurately describes their true experience. This means the validity of response is limited, as the respondent's genuine view might not be 'best matched' by the available options.

Cultural and regional limitations: The study was conducted in Spain using a Spanish-specific diagnostic tool (IDG-FV). This raises questions about whether the findings would generalise to other cultures or countries. Future research could benefit from replicating the study in different regions to test the consistency of the treatment's effectiveness across various populations.

Remember!