Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Capafóns et al. (1998) Systematic desensitisation. - Coggle Diagram
Capafóns et al. (1998) Systematic desensitisation.
Aim
To validate the effectiveness of systematic desensitisation as a treatment for the fear of flying.
Sample
They were recruited via a media campaign which is volunteer sampling, which informed them of the opportunity to take part in a free-of-charge intervention programme aimed at treating the fear of flying.
Total of 41 participants
8 males and 12 females were randomly assigned to the treatment group.
9 males and 12 females were assigned to the control group.
What diagnostic scales were used to assess participants' fear of flying
IDG-FV
A Spanish general diagnostic information tool on the fear of flying. Three key questions in the IDG-FV were allowed measurement before and after treatment.
EMV
Measures for assessing the dependant variables pre and post-treatment :
fear displayed during the flight
fear of flight preliminaries, e.g. going to the airport, obtaining booking card, etc.
fear without involvement - e.g. seeing a plane.
EPAV
Scales of Expectation of Danger and Anxiety.
Measured the occurrence of catastrophic thoughts, such as the fear of the engine catching fire.
procedure
Participants were interviewed individually and completed the IDG-FV. Came back to watch a video of a plane trip. Just before watching the video, there was a habituation session, it was here that the participants' heart rate, temperature and muscle tension were measured for three minutes prior to the showing of the video.
An interview appointment was made either for presenting the treatment to be followed or for the next assessment session. The interval between pre and post- test sessions was about eight weeks. For the treatment group this involved two one-hour sessions a week and 12 to 15 sessions in total. The session used traditional training techniques of breathing, progressive muscle relaxation and imagination. After eight weeks, the treatment and control group were invited back to retake the questionnaire and simulated video test.
Results
For the control group without any form of treatment did not lead to any reduction in the participants' assessment of their own fear of flying or objective measures of arousal. Yet, for the treatment group, there was a significant reduction in the participants' self-reported levels of fear as well as in objective physiological measures.
Conclusion
Systematic desensitisation is an effective treatment for decreasing or eradicating fear of flying. He noted however that systematic desensitisation is not infallible given that 10 percent of participants were wrongly classified.
Grave
A
pplications
18/20 Participants who received the treatment had a decrease in fear of flying which shows that systematic desensitisation can be used to treat phobias
V
alidity
Low ecological validity because participants were in an unnatural environment exposed to their phobia through watching a video of flying which may not reflect their real life display of their aerophobia on an actual flight.
Low internal validity because questionnaires involved self-report data so participants may show elements of social desirability
R
eliability
Standardised procedure, such as distance from screen
Easy to replicate
Uses quantitative data, such as heart rate which makes it easy to measure and makes the results objective and so easier to test for consistency in comparisons
E
thics
Systematic desensitisation is much more ethical than flooding, because the participants are only exposed gradually to the thing that they fear and they only move on to greater exposure when they feel ready.
G
eneralisability
Balanced in age and sex
Can generalise to many different groups
Volunteer sample of only 41 which is a small sample where all share similar characteristics and aerophobia and so cannot generalise to people without aerophobia