Capafons (1998, contemporary)

• aim?

  investigate effects of systematic desensitisation as treatment programme to treat the fear of flying
• sample?

  41 Ps recruited via media campaign. treatment group= 20 Ps (8 male 12 female) mean age 29. Waiting list/control had 21 Ps (9 male 12 female) mean age 34.
• what materials were used?

  • IDG-FV: obtain data about patients life history and aspect of fear of flying
  • EMV: measures degree of anxiety in relation to different flight situations
  • EPAV-A and EPAV-B: measure freq. of catastrophic thoughts/the occurrence of different physiological manifestation that may present self in flight situation
  • videotape of plane trip beginning from packing suitcase to touching down destination
  • psychophysical recording instruments: muscular tension
• procedure?

  1: all Ps interviewed individually, completing IDG-FV. rest of measures taken using self rep method in other sessions.

  2: Ps called to watch video of plane while doing psychophysical measurement. room temp=22.5%, chair positioned 1.8m away from TV. measured for 3 min period

  3: end of video another appointment made for treatment.

  4: Ps had one hour sessions per week as standardised individual desensitisation programme, min 12 max 15. treatment combines imagination/in vivo element.

  5: after 8 weeks Ps retake qnaire/video test to see if fear declined
• results from treatment analysis?

  pre treatment analysis, no difference between 2 groups on variables, similar in fear of flying. post treatment analysis, difference. 2 self reported measures: fear during flight/avoidance behaviour. objective measures: heart rate/muscle tension.
• results via intragroup analysis?

  control in self rep, interview, physio reactions showed no reduction in fear levels. So mere passing of time doesn't lead to quantitative changes

  treatment in self rep before vs after indicate significant changed and reduction in fear responses, treatment is effective !
• results from intergroup analysis?

  control and treatment group were similar on self rep fear levels before therapy, after therapy scores are significantly different.
• generalisability?

  • low, sample is 41 and 2 used in each group.
  • self rep sample may be biased eg people who volunteered may have really wanted to cure phobia so sample is not representative.
  • can this be generalised to other phobias?
• reliability?

  • high, standardised procedures like room temp and space between TV and chair means high replicability (credible).
• applications?

  effective therapy in helping people with fear of flying and widely applied to help individuals with said phobia but individual differences are important and therapy doesn't work every time (10% treatment showed little improvement)
• validity?

  • internal= good. scientific method carried out using strict controls from extraneous variables.
  • objective quantitative measures like heart rate and muscle tension allows presice measures.
  • self report= may have not given true response as it's only a fixed response.
  • ecological? artificial task like costs but simulation seems legit.
• ethics?

  all Ps gave consent and supported throughout study