Flooding

• Is an example of exposure therapy
• Less ethical than sd
• Has classical conditioning principles and as with sd the idea is to replace the fear response with a different response (non-fear)
• The principle is biological in that someone can only experience an alarm reaction for a certain length of time and then it would subside
• The alarm reaction is a biological reaction giving the organism energy to fight or flee the situation.
• Blood sugar is made available other activities in the body cease and the body is on high alert
• As the energy is used and no more is available the body will calm. This is the parasympathetic past of the nervous system bringing the calm with the alarm reaction being the action of the sympathetic part of the nervous system
• Might seem a long way from learning theories. However fear is an autonomic reaction and body reflexes are the unconditioned responses in classical conditioning
• If they are exposed to the feared object of situation then the fear response will be triggered which is the alarm reaction. In the body
• That will then subside. So the person. Will learn by association that a calmer response links to the previously feared object or situation
• Calmer response has been forced whereas in SD it is brought about the individual as they relax
• The feared situation or object is there for them to endure until the fear reaction subsides anf they become calm
• Flooding can demonstrate that the phobia is irrational because after flooding the person can see that they have calmed down and the worst didn't happen
• Mott et al (2013) looked at the effectiveness of flooding for Ptsd. 20 veterans exposure therapy group therapy. Partcipants were highly satisfied and found therapy helpful. 85% felt they had experienced reduction in their symptoms. The patients felt that hearing others relive the experience face them a normalising effect. Just 5% dropped ouy
• In 1969 Willis and Edwards tested 50 female participants who showed a fear of mice and used 3 conditions. Used systematic desensitisation, flooding and control group. Founf that systematic desensitisation was more successful than flooding in reducing the fear of mice the 2 therapist using sd produced similar effects from therapy. Flooding was no more effective than no therapy as experienced by control group. They found that the effects of systematic desensitisation were still present after about 7 weeks
• Flooding can be stressful if not traumatic but it is quick because the alarm reaction can joy he maintained for long. For some peuple with a very strong phobia it can be more successful for them to endure this quick though very frightening experience perhaps because they are not successful in maintaining relaxation so systematic desensitisation doesn't work for them
• Wolpe 1973 provided evidence for flooding being successful as he took a girl who was scared if cars on a drive until she calmed down and it is said that this procedure dud work avdn though she was extremely upset at start. When there is evidence for a treatment working that helps to show it's effectiveness
• It rests on strong theory and cc principles as well as biological knowledge are both used to explain the treatment and how and why it works. The underpinning theory is clear and well evidences
• The treatment can be frightening and perhaps not ethical. Sd with its focus on gradual exposure to the feared object seems less distressung
• Cc involves extinction and a phobia can be extinguished using flooding because the association would no longer be made between the phobic object or situation and the fear response. However there can be spontaneou recovery. This can happen with sd less likely as process over time with. Stronger disconnection. Between phobic object of situation as relaxation is stronger than simply non fear. This suggests treatment may be short-lived
• If flooding starts to use imagination rather than the live situation of object it becomes similar to sd. Might be more to it than simply immersing someone un their fear. Idea of using imagined situations might be better from an ethical. Viewpoint though. In order to help with ethics of treatment it starts ti turn unto another treatment which is a weakness in the original treatment