4.3.4 - Capafons et al. (1998) Systematic desensitisation in the treatment of the fear of flying

Question 1

what was the aim of the study?

Answer 1

to validate the effectiveness of systematic desensitisation as a treatment or fear of flying , and assess its therapeutic success when applied to this type of specific phobia

Question 2

how were participants recruited for the study?

Answer 2

using a media campaign which informed them of the opportunity to take part in a free intervention programme aimed at treating fear of flying

Question 3

what was the sample for the study?

Answer 3

• 41 participants came forward
• 20 (8 males, 12 females) were assigned to the systematic desensitisation group
• 21 (9 males, 12 females) were assigned to the control group

Question 4

what measures were used to assess participant’s fear of flying?

Answer 4

• 3 questions from the IDG-FV (Spanish general diagnostic tool on fear of flying)
• 3 other fear of flying (EMV) scales - fear displayed during flight, fear of flight preliminaries eg. going to airport, fear without involvement eg. seeing plane
• 2 EPAV scales (Scales of Expectation of Danger and Anxiety) which measured occurence of catastrophic thoughts eg. wing falling off
• measures of subjective physiological anxiety
• measures of actual physiological arousal eg. heart rate, palm temperature

Question 5

what was the procedure for the study?

Answer 5

1. participants had an individual interview and completed the IDG-FV
2. participants came back to watch a video of a full plane trip (had a habituation session before - became acquainted to situation, had heart rate, temperature and muscular tension measured for 3 mins before video, were asked to feel ‘as involved as possible’ in video)
3. after video, appointment was made to present treatment to treatment group, and for next assessment session for control group
4. treatment group had 2x1 hour sessions a week (12-15 total) - used traditional techniques like breathing, progressive muscle relaxation and imagination and combined in vitro and in vivo elements
5. interval between pre and post test sessions was about 8 weeks for both groups - after this time they retook questionnaires and video test

Question 6

what were the results of the study?

Answer 6

• before treatment, both groups had similar mean scores for each measure of fear
• the control group experienced no reduction in participant’s assessment of their fear of flying or objective measures of arousal
• apart from two participants, the treatment group experienced significant arousal reduction in self-reporting fear levels and objective physiological measures
• eg. for treatment group, mean fear during flight score from EMV scale reduced from 25.6 to 13.25 after treatment
• only 10% of treatment group showed no significant reduction in fear measures

Question 7

what were the conclusions of the study?

Answer 7

• systematic desensitisation is an effective treatment to decrease or eradicate fear of flying
• it isn’t faultless though, so future research should look at why the treatment was more or less successful in certain patients

Question 8

evaluation - generalisability?

Answer 8

weaknesses:
* volunteers recruited through media campaign which would be less accessible to those who don’t look at media eg. older generations
* volunteer sample so pps may have been more willing and motivated to complete treatment whereas others may have been less committed and dropped out meaning treatment wouldn’t be effective for them

Question 9

evaluation - replicability/reliability?

Answer 9

strengths:
* standardised procedure used eg. same process of fear measures so findings could be replicated to show reliability
* data gathered using many measures (questionnaires, physiological measures, clinical interviews) ans results were consistent - triangulation increases confidence in findings as you don’t just have to take pp’s word for it

Question 10

evaluation - objectivity?

Answer 10

strengths:
* quantitative measurements of mean score for fear measurements were obtained
* objective measurements of physiological arousal were taken like heart rate

Question 11

evaluation - validity?

Answer 11

strengths:
* pps randomly assigned to control or treatment group so they had similar ages and fear levels - means only difference between groups was whether they had treatment or not so researchers can compare and be certain that treatment reduced fear
* controlled lab environment reduced extraneous variables

weaknesses:
* many measures of fear like diagnostic scales relied on self-report data so social desirability bias may be present

Question 12

evaluation - applications?

Answer 12

strengths:
* results suggest systematic desensitisation should be used as main treatment for fear of flying, which would have personal, social and economic benefits eg. allowing people to fly for work or to visit relatives