The Dummies Guide to the Learning Approach

Dummies Guide to the Learning approach

Learning is a process that leads to a behavioural change. When we learn, we change the way we see
our environment, interpret information and how we interact. Pioneers in this approach (Watson,
Bandura, Pavlov etc.) dominated 20th century research and work on the assumption that the focus of
psychology should be on the behaviours observed rather than the subjective assumptions of what a
person may think or feel. The emphasis is ‘nurture’ and the importance of how the environment ‘shapes’ our behaviour.

Summary of Topic 4

Definition and key Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning theory, reward, punishment,
terms reinforcement, modelling,
Methodology Observations, content analysis, animal studies, Chi squared test
Content Explaining the acquisition and maintenance of phobias.
Treatments and solutions for phobias, (systematic desensitisation and flooding)
Two studies in detail Pavlov, Bandura, Skinner
Key Question Watson & Raynor (1920), Capafons et al (1998)
Practical Should airline companies offer treatment programmes for fear of flying?
Observing gender differences in behaviour

Key assumptions
1) Our environment shapes our behaviour. Environmental factors act as stimuli and we respond to them. We are born with a ‘blank
slate’ upon which our lives are written based on our experiences of the world. Experiences lead us to behave in particular ways, the
role of genetics is seen as relatively unimportant and does not for example restrict out ability to succeed, we all have equal potential to
be anything we want to be.

2) Behaviour is measurable. We can set up a stimulus and observe and measure the response. Therefore, learning is observable and
can be studied scientifically. This can lead to general laws about our behaviour such as the Law of Effect by Thorndike.

There are 3 types of learning:
 Classical conditioning (learning through association),
 Operant conditioning (learning through consequences of reward and punishment)
 Social Learning (learning through observation).

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING - PAVLOV (1927)

Only applies to reflexive natural responses. E.g. Pavlov’s dogs
The unconditioned stimulus (UCS) (e.g. food) produces an unconditioned response (UCR) (e.g. salivation). By pairing a neutral stimulus
(NS) (e.g. bell) with the UCS an association is established and after several trials the NS becomes the conditioned stimulus (CS) and now
produces the conditioned response (CR) (salivation) in its own right. Once the CR-CS link has been established it will need occasional
links back to the UCS+NS to maintain the response, otherwise extinction can occur.

UCS e.g. food --> UCR e.g. salivation
UCS e.g. food + CS e.g. sound of bell --> UCR e.g. salivation
CS e.g. sound of bell --> CR e.g. salivation

 Extinction occurs if UCS and CS not paired for a while, dog stops salivating.
 Generalisation means associating a similar stimulus with the CR
 Discrimination means associating only one stimulus with the CR
 Spontaneous recovery is when a CR recurs in response to the CS after extinction

1

Delayed conditioning is where the NS is presented before the UCS but is still present as the UCS is presented and is the most effective
method in experiments. Trace conditioning is where the NS again is present before the UCS but stops before the UCS is presented. The
time gap here is critical – if it is very short it can be moderately effective, the longer the time lapse the less effective. Simultaneous
conditioning is where the NS & UCS are presented simultaneously and is slightly effective. Backwards conditioning is where the NS
comes after the UCS and is considered not to work in non-human animals though it does in humans.
Evaluation:
Strength: reliable laboratory experiments
Strength: has practical applications for treatment such as systematic desensitisation and aversion therapy,
Weakness: validity and generalizability of findings weak as much research only done on animals, does not explain all behaviour.

Classical conditioning in humans: Specific phobias are seen as an example of classical conditioning in humans, for example it was
discovered that a child afraid of sand had a sand pit near a garden gate, a local dog when passing the gate snarled and snapped at the
child causing fear (UCS-UCR) because the child was in the sand pit sand was the NS and the phobia developed.

1) CLASSICAL STUDY WATSON & RAYNOR 1920 - Little Albert

Aim: to explore how classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia in humans using CC principles.
Method: Controlled study
Procedure: 11-month baby Albert, placid and emotionally stable. Banged metal bar to startle Albert and then associated the noise to
Albert playing with pet rat. The NS in Watson and Rayner’s experiment was a white rat. Trials before the experiment had shown that
Albert did not mind the rat and certainly did not object to it. The UCS in the experiment was the noise made by hitting an iron bar with
a hammer just behind Albert. This produced a loud noise that Albert found very upsetting. On a series of occasions, Watson and
Rayner presented Albert with the rat and, when he noticed it, struck the metal bar behind his head. Predictably, this caused Albert to
become quite upset. After a few trials, they presented the rat on its own. Even without the noise, Albert started crying. He had learned
to associate the rat with the noise, and this had produced a conditioned reflex:

Noise (UCS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Noise (UCS) + Rat (NS) = Anxiety (UCR)
Rat (CS) = Anxiety (CR)

Results: After a few trials Albert was agitated on seeing the rat; it became clear that it wasn’t just rats that made Albert upset. His
anxiety response had generalised to some other objects – white furry ones – that were similar to the white rat.

Conclusion: Watson & Rayner concluded that they had succeeded in conditioning in an infant fear of an animal the child would not
ordinarily be frightened of. Stimulus generalisation also was claimed in that Albert transferred the fear to other similar stimuli. From
the fact that the conditioned response was still present after 31 days, Watson & Rayner concluded it might last a lifetime. Ivan Pavlov
had shown that Classical Conditioning occurs in dogs but Watson & Rayner were the first to demonstrate it occurred in humans too.

Evaluation:  Supported Pavlov’s findings, good controls. The study was carefully documented; witnesses helped to record the data
and there were strict controls. Only one variable was changed at a time. The extensive documentation meant the study could have
been replicated and, therefore, tested for reliability but low ecological validity because it was carried out in an artificial setting.
 Ethical issues – Albert frightened. Albert’s mother appears not to have given fully-informed consent - though there clearly was some
degree of consent and an understanding of when he would be taken back by his mother.
The researchers deliberately exposed Albert to psychological harm - causing him distress. They allowed him to rest in between
exposures to frightening stimuli but continued even when it was clear he was distressed.

2

OPERANT CONDITIONING – SKINNER

Skinner suggest that to understand human behaviour it is important to apply scientific principles and
methods. He created a ‘Skinner box’ that could dispense food and electric shocks to animals such as
rats and pigeons.

OC is where a new behaviour is created or an existing behaviour removed as a result of selective use
of rewards and punishments. Behaviour is shaped by successive reinforcements until the animal is doing precisely what is wanted.
(Shaping).The principles of OC are as easy as ABC

A = antecedent – the skinner box presents a stimulus that triggers a behaviour
B = behaviour – the animal responds to the stimulus that can be observed and measured.
C = consequence – the reward/punishment (shock/food) that follows the behaviour

Positive reinforcement to increase behaviour something good is given (rewards, food)
Negative reinforcement to increase behaviour something bad is taken away (electric shock)
Negative Punishment to decrease behaviour something bad is given (smack, detention)
Positive punishment to decrease behaviour something good is taken away (XBox, mobile)

Schedules of reinforcement
Continuous reinforcement - the organism is reinforced every time the behaviour is performed is
not seen as a very effective as the behaviour will stop almost immediately if the reinforcer is
missed and the rate of responding is not very high for most reinforcers.

 Fixed ratio schedule –The reward is given for every nth time the action is performed
 Variable ratio - there is no predictability about when the reinforcer will occur. This produces the highest level of consistent

performance, is very resistant to extinction and is the reinforcement schedule produced by gambling.
 Fixed interval - rewarding after a set amount of time. The rate of responding rapidly increases as the time for the reinforcer is

approached; this is followed by inactivity after reinforcement and then a build up again as the next time point approaches.
 Variable interval - reinforcement comes after a period of time that varies but averages out at a certain level; it produces a

slow but very steady rate of responding and is resistant to extinction.

Extinction, generalisation and discrimination all occur in operant conditioning.

THORNDIKE (1911) – Law of effects
The law of effect suggests that when a response is followed by a pleasant consequence the behaviour tends to be repeated rather than
when a response is followed by an unpleasant consequence. Thorndike created a puzzle box, put a little kitten inside who had to solve
a puzzle in order to escape and get the food reward. At first little kitty went all over the box and accidently hit the latch to open the
door. As soon as the door opened it was given food. After several trial and error learning trials little kitty became very quick at figuring
out if it opened the door there would be treat waiting.

BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION
Behaviour modification is a therapy that uses the principles of operant conditioning by extinguishing undesirable behaviour and
shaping desirable behaviour through reinforcement. Behaviour modification can be used to treat ADHD, OCD and autism. The target
behaviour is identified and then rewards are given. It is also used very successfully in schools and institutions and even potty training.
Primary reinforcers: are linked to basic needs (food, water, sex and warmth),
Secondary reinforcers: something that can satisfy a basic need (money, tokens, stickers, praise, extra time)

3

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY – BANDURA

We learn from people we look up to and identify with. SLT recognises that behaviours often occur that have not been reinforced but
merely observed in others. The individual observes a behaviour being performed by a model (another person) and notes the
consequences of their actions.
The observer then imitates or models (copies) the behaviour that they have seen. There is no cognition or planning involved, it is just
as mechanistic as operant or classical conditioning, however the likelihood of the behaviour observed being imitated depends on the
consequences of the activity for the model. If the model was rewarded for their actions, then the likelihood of imitation is increased.
Whereas, if they are punished for a behaviour then reproduction is unlikely. (Athough research by Bandura showed that they could
reproduce the actions if requested to do so). Bandura suggests we are motivated to imitate in order to also gain the reinforcers that
we saw the model receive. Vicarious learning is carrying out a behaviour that was previously observed and the model was rewarded
for it.
For successful SLT to occur the learner needs to pay attention to the important parts of the observed action, retain that information in
memory, this can be difficult or beyond capability if the actions are complex and/or the observer young. The observer needs to be
motivated to both observe and imitate the actions and have the physical ability to copy the behaviour.

Mechanism:
 Observing - paying attention to what someone is doing
 Remembering - recording the information in memory
 Motivation – the consequences of the behaviour
 Imitation – whether it is repeated depends on whether the model was rewarded or
punished

The nature of the model and the perceived relationship between the model and the observer will also affect how likely imitation is to
occur. Models are more likely to be imitated if the observer can identify with them, respects, admires or looks up to them, if the model
and their actions are seen as relevant and if the behaviour observed is seen as consistent with instructions. Observers are more likely
to imitate a model if they have relatively low self-esteem and high dependency on those around them which is why SLT is a more
powerful explanation for children's behaviour.

Evaluation:  behaviour can be tested in experimental conditions and so are developed using objective scientific methods. Animal
studies show that SLT can also explain animal behaviour and therefore reliable. Incorporates operant
conditioning and cognition, considers motivation, reliable studies provide evidence.
 It should mean that different cultures show different gender behaviour but developmental behaviours are
similar between cultures. In newborn babies, there are gender differences that cannot be learned so not all
differences can be explained by learning theories, studies not valid, genetic elements not considered.

1) The Bobo Doll study, Bandura, Ross & Ross 1961

Aim: to see whether young children will imitate behaviour they have seen, especially if that behaviour was

rewarded or not

Method: Laboratory Experiment at Stanford University. 8 experimental groups in 4 conditions. (plus control group)

AGGRESSIVE NON-AGGRESSIVE

MALE ROLE MODEL FEMALE ROLE MODEL MALE ROLE MODEL FEMALE ROLE MODEL

6 BOYS 6 BOYS 6 BOYS 6 BOYS

6 GIRLS 6 GIRLS 6 GIRLS 6 GIRLS

Procedure: 72 children aged 3 –5 yrs matched for aggression before the study started. Some groups watched aggressive behaviour;

some non-aggressive behaviour and control group watched neither.

Children playing in a room when adult entered and either behaved aggressively or non-aggressively. Children then put in slightly

aggressive state by being told they could not play with certain toys. Then behaviour observed with access to a Bobo doll and child was

observed.

Results: Children in non-aggressive state showed almost no aggression, (70%). Those that watched aggressive models showed physical

and verbal aggression imitating model. Male model copied more overall but boys more physically aggressive.

Conclusion: Children watching adults behaving aggressively are more likely to imitate aggression so observational learning does take

place. Children also imitated non-aggressive behaviour, which led to less aggression. A male adult showing aggressive behaviour is

copied more than a female adult aggressive model. Girls are more verbally aggressive.

4

Evaluation:
 Controlled experiment with cause and effect conclusions. High reliability because of inter-rater observation by judges. One judge

did not know which condition a child had been in so bias was reduced.
 Limited sample, not valid because situation was not natural. Children may have thought they had to hit the doll. Ethical issues of

children observing verbal and physical aggressive acts and repeating them. How these were dealt with was not explained.

2) The Bobo Doll study, Bandura, Ross & Ross 1963

The 1961 study looked at gender and whether the children saw an aggressive or a non-violent model. The 1963 study looks t 3

conditions – a human model, a film or a human model or a cartoon model.

Mean total real-life Mean total human Mean total cartoon Mean total control

aggression film aggression aggression group aggression

83 92 99 54

The control groups aggression was nearly half of the ‘cartoon’ aggression and much lower than the ‘real life’ and ‘film’
Boys scored highest imitating real life male model (131.8 aggressive acts)
Girls scored lowest imitating real life male model (36.4 aggressive acts)
Boys showed more aggression overall compared to girls in all conditions

3) The Bobo Doll study, Bandura 1965

Similar to above studies but this time focuses on reinforcement. 3 conditions:
 model is punished for showing physical and verbal aggression
 model is rewarded (juice or sticker)
 No consequences

Rewards lead to more imitation of aggressive behaviour for both boys and girls

Applications and implications of social learning theory

 Copy cat hijackings. Air hijackings were unknown in the US prior to 1961. Then some Cuban airlines planes were
hijacked which sparked off a wave of hijackings culminating in a peak of 87 hijackings in 1969 (Mischel, 1986).
Phobias. Observing somebody else being scared of something is enough to start a phobia. Vicarious modeling can be used to remove
phobias.

Bandura Ross & Ross (61) Bandura Ross & Ross (63) Bandura (65)
Watched aggression, non-aggression, Real life human, filmed human, cartoon Model rewarded, punished, no
control group and control group consequences
Girls were verbally aggressive, boys Filmed and cartoon led to more aggression Model rewarded gives more aggression
more physically aggressive than in control group than if model punished but direct reward
for the ppt wipes out that difference

GENDER

Gender appropriate behaviour is shown in Children as they are reinforced for playing in appropriate ways and praised for gender
appropriate behaviour, e.g. girls showing caring and considerate behaviour, boys being assertive, it could be argued that the
acceptance of boys not concentrating on work but preferring to play football by the term "boys will be boys" is part of the operant
conditioning of this type of behaviour. Shaping is used by reinforcing behaviour gradually e.g. getting a child to tidy his/her room by
rewarding them every time they do it but changing the rewards (praise, chocolate, watching a film, little treat etc.).
According to SLT gender is shown by role models and imitated like other behaviour. Gender is one way of identifying with the model
and people are more likely to respond to the child positively if the behaviour was gender appropriate. Any other child watching the
behaviour being positively rewarded for gender appropriate behaviour is vicariously learning to do the same. For example, imagine
three siblings, James (4 years), John (5 years) and Sarah (6 years). Sarah and John play ‘dressing up’ and both put on dresses. Their dad
reinforces Sarah for this, by saying she looks pretty but punishes John by saying he looks silly and boys should not dress that way. In
future, Sarah is more likely to wear dresses and John is less likely. James, who has been watching all this, is unlikely to imitate the
behaviour of wearing a dress because he has seen his brother (who he perceives as similar to himself) getting punished for doing it.

5

Social learning theories use two main methods to studying gender development. Some have conducted laboratory experimental
studies, (Bandura) where they have manipulated various features of the behaviour of models children were shown and then measured
the effect on an aspect of the children’s behaviour. Other researchers have conducted naturalistic observations where they have
observed children and adults in their natural environment and recorded how the adults respond with reinforcement and punishment
to the children’s behaviour.

ANIMAL STUDIES

Non-human animals are used to discover the mechanisms involved in learning a new behaviour. These are usually lab experiments. It is
believed that the principles of learning can be extracted from such studies and applied to humans.

Ethical issues for using animals in laboratory experiments the BPS has published
guidelines based on the Animals (scientific procedures) Act 1986. The document refers
to the 3Rs – REPLACING; REDUCING AND REFINING.
NB: DO NOT use human ethical issues when discussing animals

Cost-benefit ANALYSIS: The Bateson’s decision cube is useful to decide when to use an
animal which is based around 3 issues;

 Usefulness of findings,
 distress to the animal,
 reliability of the research

The cost to the animal must be considered and the benefits of the study must be
weighed up against the costs. If the findings do not have validity, reliability or generalizability then perhaps it is not good research
and cannot be justified.

Guidelines for using animals

A Appropriate use of anaesthetic and pain killers to keep suffering to a minimum
N Non-animal methods can’t be done (REPLACING)
I Important enough to justify its use (REFINING)
M Minimum number of animals is used (REDUCING)
A Accommodation has the right facilities to look after the animals properly
L Legislation is followed from BPS and A(SP) Act
S Skills, experience and training of all competent staff involved

Practical issues
Advantage: animals are less complex and their environments more readily controlled than in humans so easier to establish what
is happening as there are fewer confounding variables, animals mature more quickly so long term effects seen sooner, animals
are relatively cheap and easy to use.
Disadvantage: only valid if believe that can apply animal learning to humans, humans are far more complex and generalisation
not always valid, humans bring emotion, values and more complex understanding to their learning situations, ethical issues, still
an artificial situation. Brains and genetic structure are not exactly the same making generalization difficult.

Ethical issues
Advantage: procedures can be conducted on animals that cannot be done on humans and seen as one way that does not harm
humans. Knowledge can also at times benefit animals. There are strong guidelines that must be followed.
Disadvantage: many animals feel pain and become distressed. Animals are not objects and we have an obligation to treat them
well.

PHOBIAS

A PHOBIA IS…An irrational and persistent fear of an object, activity or situation which creates an overwhelming urge to avoid it.
There are 3 main categories of phobias:
SPECIFIC PHOBIAS, of animals, events (flying), bodily (blood), situations (enclosed places). 13% experience a specific phobia at some
time.
SOCIAL PHOBIAS, of social situations, public speaking, parties, meeting new people. The most common is going to the toilet. Onset
15yrs+, Effects about 40% of population of which 70% of sufferers are female.

6

AGORAPHOBIA, of public crowded places (not open spaces), of leaving safety of home. Most debilitating of the 3 types of phobias
accounting for 60% of all phobic patients.

Key difference – Social phobics are fearful of people watching them whereas agoraphobics are fearful of themselves.
All phobias are more common in women than men, in particular, agoraphobia. Social Phobia is most prevalent in adolescence and
Agoraphobia in middle age. About 10 – 20% of the population will become phobic at some stage in their lives.

The learning approach assumes we are born with a blank slate and that what we learn we can unlearn, behaviourists suggest that
dysfunctional behaviours are not the result of genes, the unconscious or faulty thinking but are simply learned from the environment.
Mowrer (47) proposes a Two process theory of phobia, the acquisition-maintenance model in which phobias are acquired through
classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning.

1.Acquisition of phobia
 Through classical conditioning: Trauma can be experienced directly e.g. getting bitten by a dog or having a panic attack in a
lift.
 Through social learning (vicarious): Observing a fear in another indirectly e.g. by hearing about danger from another or
watching parent scream in sight of spider

2.Maintenance of phobic behaviour
 Through operant conditioning:
o Approaching phobic object/situation elicits conditioned anxiety response
o Retreat from phobic object reduces anxiety
o This acts as a (negative) reinforcer, so the more the person avoids the phobic object/situation the more likely they
will continue to do so.
o Others may unwittingly reinforce avoidance

Phobias should be traceable to an original learning experience and should center on situations/objects that are potentially harmful,
therefore it is possible to condition and de-condition phobias artificially.

OPERANT CONDITIONING AND PHOBIAS What is required to produce a phobia is a UCS that produces a strong emotional reaction,
pain, for example, and a situation where that UCS can become associated with a neutral stimulus. For example, suppose a person got
bitten by a dog when they were a child:
Pain (UCS) _ Anxiety (UCR)
Pain (UCS) + Dog (NS) _ Anxiety (UCR)
Dog (CS) _ Anxiety (CR)
If that anxiety response generalises from that particular dog to all dogs, then the result would be that the person became
anxious every time they saw a dog. In other words, they would have developed a phobia.
OPERANT CONDITIONING AND PHOBIAS is a form of learning in which behaviour is repeated if it is rewarded. Whilst CC is important
for explaining how phobias are acquired, OC is important in explaining how they are kept going. Reduction of anxiety reinforces the
avoidance behaviour which increases the likelihood of doing it again, and as such, the cycle continues. For example, fear of lifts.
Approaching the phobic object such as a lift (UCS) in an office building (CS) elicits conditioned anxiety response (CR). This acts as a
(negative) reinforcer, so the more the person avoids lifts and uses the stairs the more all lifts are avoided in the future. Using the
stairs reduces anxiety. (negative reward)) Avoidance of lifts maintains the fear and preserves the phobia
Others may unwittingly reinforce avoidance.

SOCIAL LEARNING AND PHOBIAS Learning occurs from observing others in particular the consequences of
behaviour. E.g. Arachnophobia (fear of spiders).
Observation: Sally watches her an older brother, Jack, respond to finding a spider in his bed. Jack runs out of the
bedroom and screams in fear.
Vicarious reinforcement: the parents then try to make the older sibling feel better by comforting him.
Imitation: sometime later Sally finds a spider in her bed. She repeats the behaviour witnessed earlier, screams, shouts and shakes.
Reinforcement: Sally’s parents provide comfort – although rewarding to get her parent’s attention it also reinforces the fear.

Mineka & Cook (1993)
In a study carried out by Mineka & Cook, monkeys raised in a laboratory were shown a video of another monkey, who either showed
fear of a snake or fear of a flower. Before viewing the film, they had never seen a snake, but showed a fear response when presented
with a snake after viewing, but no fear when presented with a flower.

7

Fear of snakes makes evolutionary sense while flowers are unlikely to be life threatening. This was a well-controlled study, and the
findings are consistent with an evolutionary explanation. However, there is a problem in generalising from monkeys to humans who
have a wide range of personal, social and cultural experiences

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Phobias can be developed through simply observing others. Doesn’t account for individual differences, not everyone develops
(Mineka) phobias in the same situations therefore can’t explain why some
Reliability: The explanation has been widely researched and situations/objects are more likely to form phobic responses than
supported on studies of both humans and animals Behaviourism others so difficult to generalise.
works well for phobias (it could be used as an alternative Ethical issues make Watson & Raynor’s study and some animal
explanation of Little Hans’ fear of horses), but less well for studies difficult to repeat today
disorders such as depression and schizophrenia
Certain objects or situations are more likely to induce phobic Classical conditioning suggests there has to be a DIRECT
reactions than others, therefore good at explaining specific experience for a phobia to occur
phobias but not so well with agoraphobia and social phobia. The fact that they can be produced in a laboratory experiment
does not prove that this is how they are acquired under normal
situations
Davy (92) found that only 7% of spider phobics recall having a
traumatic experience with a spider which suggests there could be
other explanations (biological?)
But just because you can’t remember doesn’t mean it didn’t
happen (cognitive)

TREATMENT

SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION
The learning approach assumes that all dysfunctional behaviour is learned through our experiences in the environment; therefore, it
can be unlearned by associating the phobic object with something nice. This is known as systematic desensitisation Techniques of
classical and operant conditioning can be applied to change behaviour and developed by Joseph Wolpe (58). It works by counter
conditioning so that the person learns to associate the phobic stimulus with relaxation rather than fear. (Because it is impossible to be
afraid and relaxed at the same time)

The procedure consists of 3 phases;
1. Construction of a fear hierarchy from least stressful to most stressful
2. Relaxation training (deep breathing)
3. Gradual exposure. At each stage the patient uses the techniques they have learned. Only when full relaxation has been
achieved do they move on to the next level of exposure in the hierarchy.

The duration depends on the strength of the phobia. (normally 6 – 8 sessions)

McGrath et al (1990)

Aim: To treat a girl with noise phobia using systematic desensitisation
Method: A case study of one girl
Participant: Lucy, a nine-year-old who had a fear of sudden loud noises like balloons, party poppers, cap-guns, cars
backfiring and fireworks. She had below average IQ, was not depressed, did not suffer from other anxiety disorders and was
not fearful as tested by psychometric tests.
Design: Case study of a single participant
Procedure: The programme was explained to Lucy and her parents who gave informed consent. At the first session Lucy
constructed a hierarchy of feared noises, which feature most prominently balloons and unexpected party poppers.

Lucy was taught breathing and imagery to relax and was told to imagine herself at home on her bed with her toys. She also
had a hypothetical ‘fear thermometer’ to rate her level of fear from 1 to 10. As she was given the stimulus of the loud noise
she paired her feared object (the loud noise) with relaxation, deep breathing and imagining herself at home with her toys.
This led her to feel calm. She then associated the noise with feeling calm.

8

Findings: At the end of the first session, Lucy was reluctant to let balloons be burst even at the far end of the corridor. When
the therapist burst the balloon anyway, Lucy cried and had to be taken away. She was encouraged to breathe deeply and
relax.

By the end of the fourth session, she had learned to feel calm when the noise was presented. She did not need to imagine
herself at home with her toys any more. Lucy could signal a balloon to be burst 10 metres away with only mild anxiety.

In the fifth session, Lucy held a deflated balloon and eventually could allow a small balloon to be burst in the consulting
room. At the end of the session Lucy could pop the balloons herself.

Party poppers were then introduced over the next three sessions, and Lucy went from not allowing them into the consulting
room to being able to pop one if the therapist held it.

By Lucy’s tenth and final session her fear thermometer scores had gone from 7/10 to 3/10 for balloons, and from 9/10 to
5/10 for party poppers.

Conclusion: The findings support the effectiveness of systematic desensitisation, especially the findings on associating
noise with feeling calm

EVALUATION OF SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
Can achieve results in a relatively short period of time According to psychodynamic approach the treatment is very
because it targets the specific symptoms superficial and does not get down to the root of the problem
Validity and Reliability. By using a mixture of methods, both Not reductionist behaviourism. McGrath’s research does support
the in-depth personalised therapy (valid) and the classical conditioning, but it also has a cognitive element. This can
psychometric tests and the fear thermometer (reliable), be seen when Lucy signals for a balloon to be burst and allows
McGrath gets both qualitative and quantitative data. But therapists to burst it. There is also a biological influence in the form
each can be questioned of the deep breathing which reduces the body’s stress response.
This shows that this research is not reductionist.
Ost et al (91) found that anxiety was reduced in 90% of Generalisability: case studies always have a problem with small,
patients with specific phobia after just one session unrepresentative samples which make it difficult to generalise to
other age groups, genders and levels of intelligence.
Brosnan & Thorpe (2006) used a 10-week programme on 16 Ethical issues as it causes some anxiety, if the patient drops out
technophobes, anxiety levels were significantly reduced. before the fear has been extinguished anxiety levels will be worse

Only treats the symptoms not the cause.

FLOODING

Flooding is an extreme form of behaviour therapy used to treat people with fears or phobias. In flooding, the person is exposed to the
thing that frightens them for a sustained period of time and cannot escape. According to Stampfl (67) This is a very stressful process,
but after a while the body naturally calms down and relaxes. This is because your body cannot sustain an anxious state for too long as
it would be too harmful. When we eventually do calm down we learn to associate the fear with relaxation.
This is because it is impossible to be anxious and relaxed at the same time, therefore the idea behind it is that, by exposing you to your
fear, you will eventually see it as less fear-producing because. For example, a therapist may take a person who is afraid of dogs into a
kennel to expose them to a large number of dogs in a controlled situation.

IMPLOSION
Exactly the same process as flooding but instead the person is asked to imagine it. Deep muscle relaxation exercises help to calm the
body and reduce arousal. However, doesn’t always work, Barett(69) used implosion therapy for the treatment of snake phobias in
college students. In one student, the images of snakes became associated with having her eyes shut which resulted in insomnia and
could not attend lectures.

EVALUATION OF FLOODING

9

Strengths Weakness
Faster than other therapies It runs the risk of reinforcing the fear
Works with PTSD Ethically questionable by putting people directly in a stressful
situation
Issues of social control
Not as ethical as systematic desensitization because the
person is not control

CONTEMPORARY STUDY - CAPAFONS ET AL 1998

SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION IN THE TREATMENT OF THE FEAR OF FLYING

• Flooding as a therapy doesn’t seem to work for this type of phobia, because someone with a fear might still manage to fly but
phobia hasn’t been cured.

• SD seemed more appropriate meaning therapy would continue
• Patient had more control over the situation
• Less dependent on the therapist
• Less stressful
• More practical application

• For most phobias, systematic desensitization developed by Joseph Wolpe, can be used to gradually expose the amygdala to a
phobic situation. By gradual exposure, the amygdala becomes accustomed to the situation and stops responding with the
release of stress hormones

• Even if an anxious flier is able to achieve desensitization, it will not hold up unless the person flies very frequently. For example,
A crew member's amygdala regards flying as routine since flight is a near-daily activity. However, most passengers do not fly
that often, therefore, if an anxious passenger goes too long without a flight, whatever desensitization has been accomplished
will be lost.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of SD as a treatment for this type of phobia

PROCEDURE:
 3 phases of the therapy; relaxation and visualization techniques, identifying the hierarchy, application
 Volunteer sample of Ppts taken from a waiting list and assigned to 2 groups (20 for treatment and 21 waiting) matched for
age, gender and strength of fear
 Measures included self-report scales (catastrophic thoughts and fear scales), interviews (life history), physical
(blood/cortisol levels)
 Treatment program;
o Initial Interview
o Fear of flying questionnaire
o Habituation session (Physical measures)
o Watch Video of a plane trip
o Physical measures
o Interview
o Allocated to a group
o 2 x 1 hour sessions per week for 8 weeks (12-15 sessions

FINDINGS:
• Both groups had similar scores before the treatment but showed significant differences after the treatment
• 10% (2 out of 20) of treatment group did not show any changes but estimated that fear will subside in 5% of patients overall

10

Before and after Treatment group Control group CONCLUSION:
treatment Significant changes No difference • Systematic desensitization works well
Fear during flight for this kind of phobia but does not
Fear of preliminaries 10.15 (25.60) 25.81 work for everyone all of the time.
Catastrophic thoughts 10.15 (21.50) 21.05 • Factors that contribute to the success
Heart rate 5.00 (10.30) 9.67 • Training was thorough
Temperature 0.99 (1.04) 1.31 • Hierarchy was carefully
1.01 (0.99) 1.01 designed for each individual
• Visualisations gradually led to
real situations meaning
patients were more in control
• ‘stop-think’ and relaxation
techniques were positive

Muscular tensions 1.02 (1.34) 1.31

CRITICISMS:
Strengths;
• RELIABILITY: good controls, (patients were matched for gender, age, strength of fear and physical measures, allowing them a

baseline measure for the phobia to measure the differences after treatment.
• In addition, they were able to triangulate data from a variety of measures to see if the phobia had reduced, such as; interviews,

self-reports and physiological measures. This means the study has scientific credibility
• VALIDITY: the study was designed to measure the effectiveness of fear of flying and the interviewers ensured that each patient

had this fear so there is good validity in the results.
• However, internal validity is weak because two measures did not show an improvement, suggesting that they did not represent

the experience of the phobia and were not appropriate for the study.
• In addition, gathering data by structured interview, which relies on self-reporting, limits the validity of the responses given

because most of the questions were closed and respondents often chose a response of ‘best fit’.
Weakness:
• GENERALISABILITY: The small sample size of 41 causes a problem for generalisation also the results cannot be easily generalized

to other fears other than fear of flying. To improve, the study would need to include another group of people with a different
phobia. Also, it was a volunteer sample which means they might not be representative of the target population. However, the
sample was matched to the control sample which means the results may not have been effected.
• APPLICATION: it didn’t work on 10% (2 out of 20) of the treatment group and 5% of the control group, which means they can
only claim that the treatment HELPS with the phobia not that it works. However, as there was a significant difference post
treatment SD should be offered as one of the main methods for treating this type of phobia which will bring significant
personal, social and economic benefits to individuals and their families.
Scientific credibility:
• Measures of fear and anxiety were achieved through quantifiable data such as the use of scales to assess fear of flying and
objective physiological measures such as heart rate.
• The control group acted as a baseline comparison allowing the researchers to statistically analyse the difference between them.
• Standardised procedures minimised the effects of any EV, for example, the research was undertaken in a lab based
environment which means that all ppts experienced the initial stages of the study in the same way.

KEY QUESTION

SHOULD AIRLIN COMPANIES OFFER TREATMENT PROGRAMMES TO PASSENGERS WITH A FEAR OF
FLYING?

AVIOPHOBIA – an intense fear provoked by the idea of or act of flying, often leading to avoidance of flying

There are different types of phobic flyers and it is often association with other fears. Therefore, the acquisition and maintenance of

each will be different.
• Fear of crashing
• Fear of vomiting
• feeling trapped and unable to escape
• Fear of heights
• Social anxiety
• Turbulence
• Deep water
• Fear of dark

11

• Don’t feel safe away from home
• Fear of hijacking

Fears are acquired through classical conditioning (associating anxious feelings) or from a pattern of reinforcements, (being cuddled when
flying) or from social learning (observation of someone else being afraid)
Fears are maintained through avoidance behaviours

The fear receives more attention that other phobias because Air travel is often unavoidable, especially in professional contexts.

Fear of flying has significant social, emotional and economic consequences, 1:6 people suffer even though fear of flying has little to do

with risk.

Fear of flying programmes were first developed in the 70s, their aims Typical programme
Stage 1. factual information presentations by Pilot and
are to help clients to: crew and tour of maintenance facility
• Education of planes and flying Stage 2. tour of an aircraft, cockpit or cabin simulate,
• Psychological coping skills visit to air traffic control
• Gradual exposure to planes and flying

How do companies benefit?
• More passengers – multiplier effect - If the phobic person is cured it means family and friends can also fly
• EFFICIENCY
– No need to offload panicky passengers
– No delays and taking off luggage
– Cheaper
• Increased reputation - Promotes a caring corporate image and Customer loyalty

Fear of flying treatment programs for passengers: an international review.[2000] - Van Gerwen LJ1, Diekstra RF.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
There are facilities established around the world for treating passenger flight anxiety, often as a joint activity of airlines and private
entrepreneurs or mental health professionals. In the scientific and professional literature, there is little information about how these
facilities operate and what the components of their treatment programs are. This paper is the first review to date to provide this
information.
METHOD:
There were 212 airlines and treatment facilities approached for information on treatment programs for flying phobia, 43 of which were
active in this field. Extensive information could be obtained from 15, which were the best known and well-developed. Information was
collected both with a questionnaire and by meeting representatives from 15 international fear of flying treatment facilities that
participated in the First International Conference on Fear of Flying (Feb. 1996).
RESULTS:
Fear of flying among passengers is a phenomenon with epidemic proportions, effecting roughly 10-40% of the adult population. All
treatment programs share two basic elements, an information component and a test flight. The programs vary considerably in terms of
treatment components. However, there is little available information on efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS:
To date there is a wide variety between facilities for the treatment for fear of flying in terms of methods and protocols used. Experts
agree on the clear-cut need for standardization of a "best" minimum protocol for fear of flying treatment programs for which the main
components where identified.

ISSUES AND DEBATES Use of animals. Skinner electrified the floor that could be turned off when the rat pressed a lever, also
Ethics some degree of food reduction is necessary to increase motivation which contravenes ethical
guidelines

Little Albert was deliberately distressed to create a fear but withdrawn before desensitization of the
phobia so unknown what the long-term effects are.
Bandura deliberately exposed children to aggressive models and causing distress and frustration in
young children.

12

Practical issues Generalizing animal research to human behaviour, animals are not self-aware and so behaviour is much
different.
Reductionism Highly reductionist: Basic units of stimulus-response learning which helps to identify cause and effect
Comparison with another but human behaviour is much more complex.
explanation Maintenance and acquisition of phobias or drug addiction can be explained using classical and operant
Psychology as a science conditioning and SLT can also go some way to explain phobias.
Behaviourism endeavours to be scientific in its methodology, they create testable hypothesis and
Culture and gender collect empirical data using objective methods. They are not interested in anything that can’t be
observed.
Nature-nurture Different behaviours are expressed in different cultures suggesting the role of nurture in learning.
Gender differences are due to socialization where children observe stereotypical behaviours of their
Development of psychological role model and gender appropriate behaviours are reinforced.
understanding Gender roles are learned rather than biologically determined. Learning theories lean towards nurture
Social control side of the debate
Behaviourism was dominant in early 20th century and today it is more applied in treatments of phobia,
Using psychology in society autism etc.
Deterministic principles suggest all behaviour can be shaped and therefore subject to social control.
Many therapies are used on vulnerable people giving the therapist power.
Learning theories principles are used in education, advertising, clinical and prison settings to shape
desired behaviour

13