capafons

• What is the aim of Capiphon's study?

  To assess therapeutic effectiveness of systematic desensitization
• How many people participated in Capiphon's study?

  41 people
• How were participants assigned to groups in the study?

  Randomly assigned to treatment or control group
• How many participants were in the treatment group?

  20 participants
• How many participants were in the weight and control group?

  21 participants
• What characteristics were balanced between the two groups?

  Age, gender, self-reported fear, physiological measures
• How were participants recruited for the study?

  Through a campaign for free intubation programmes
• What was the gender distribution in the treatment group?

  8 males and 12 females
• What was the gender distribution in the weight and control group?

  9 males and 12 females
• What types of interviews were conducted to assess fear severity?

  Physical interviews
• What physiological measures were included in the study?

  Temperature, muscle tension, heart rate
• What situations were used to measure fear of flight?

  Queuing at the airport and checking in
• What psychological measures were assessed during the simulated flight?

  Catastrophic thoughts and perception of arousal
• How does systematic desensitization aim to help individuals with a fear of flying?

  By gradually exposing them to flight-related stimuli
• How many sessions per week did the treatment group have?

  Two one-hour sessions
• How many sessions did the treatment group have in total?

  Between 12 and 15 sessions
• What techniques did the treatment group receive?

  Breathing, progressive relaxation, imagination, vivo exposure
• What type of study design was used in this research?

  Independent groups and repeated measures
• What was the outcome of the treatment regarding temperature and fear?

  No significant difference in temperature and fear
• What was the effect on fear during flight and avoidance behavior?

  Fear and avoidance behavior halved
• What did the control waiting group show regarding phobic response?

  No significant changes due to time passing
• How many participants in the treatment group did not show improvement?

  Two out of 20 participants
• generilsability

  • Reasonable sample males and females, variety of ages – no gender bias.​
  • Volunteers were willing to undergo treatment – may not generalise to all with a fear of flying (less motivated, more anxious about flying).​
  • Difficult to generalise to other phobias.​
• reliability-

  • Measures of physiological arousal (e.g. heart rate, temperature) should be consistent – doesn’t matter who does it.​
  • Responses to questions in interviews used to measure fear of flying may not be high in reliability – interviewer characteristics, etc.​
• internal validity

  • Variables controlled (groups balance for fear of flying, etc.) to reduce confounding variables.​
  • Physiological measures of anxiety (e.g. heart rate) are objective.​
  • Possible demand characteristics – participants may exaggerate the effectiveness of treatment.​
• ecological validity

  -weakness

  • Success of treatment was assessed in a simulated situation (shown a video), not an actual flight.​
• applications

  strength-

  benefits individuals and families affected by phobias, but also to businesses that will benefit from more people using air travel.​