What you'll learn

• How systematic desensitisation treats phobias such as fear of flying.
• What Capafóns et al. (1998) did, found, and concluded.
• How to evaluate the study using AO3 points: validity, reliability, generalisability, ethics and applications.
• How to apply the study to exam scenarios about treating phobias.

Where this study fits

Capafóns et al. (1998) is the contemporary study for the clinical psychology topic. It links closely to the classic study by Watson and Rayner (1920), where Little Albert learned a fear response through classical conditioning.

The big storyline is:

• Watson and Rayner showed that fear can be learned.
• Capafóns et al. showed that learned fear can be treated using behavioural therapy.

Fear of flying is a specific phobia because the feared situation is clearly identifiable: being on, near, or thinking about aircraft and flights.

Prerequisite: how fear of flying can be maintained

A fear of flying may begin after a frightening experience, such as turbulence, a panic attack on a plane, or hearing about crashes. It can also develop through observation or information, such as seeing frightening news reports.

A key behavioural idea is avoidance. Avoidance means staying away from the feared situation. This feels helpful in the short term because anxiety drops, but it can maintain the phobia because the person never learns that flying can be safe.

The treatment: systematic desensitisation

It is called systematic because the exposure is planned step by step. It is called desensitisation because the person becomes less sensitive to the feared stimulus over time.

The technique is easiest to see as a sequence:

The anxiety hierarchy

An anxiety hierarchy is a ranked list of feared situations, from least frightening to most frightening. For fear of flying, the lower steps might include looking at a picture of a plane, while the highest step might be taking an actual flight.

Reciprocal inhibition

The therapist does not start with the most frightening step. They begin with a mild trigger and only move up the hierarchy when anxiety has reduced.

Capafóns et al. (1998): AO1 description

Aim

The aim was to investigate whether a systematic desensitisation programme could reduce fear of flying.

In exam answers, keep the aim tightly linked to treatment: Capafóns et al. were not just describing fear of flying; they were testing whether a behavioural therapy could reduce it.

Participants and design

The study used a small clinical sample of adults with a marked fear of flying. Participants were assessed before treatment and after treatment, with follow-up used to check whether improvement lasted.

This makes it a clinical intervention study with a strong repeated-measures element, because the same people’s fear was measured across time.

Some descriptions of the study include a waiting-list or no-treatment comparison. A waiting-list control group is a group that does not receive treatment immediately, allowing researchers to see whether improvement is due to the therapy rather than simply time passing.

Procedure

The therapy programme followed the logic of systematic desensitisation:

1. Participants’ fear of flying was assessed.
2. They were taught relaxation techniques.
3. They constructed a hierarchy of flying-related fears.
4. They were gradually exposed to flying-related stimuli while using relaxation.
5. Their fear was reassessed after treatment and at follow-up.

The exposure could include imagined flight situations and realistic flight-related stimuli. The important feature is that the feared material was introduced gradually, not all at once.

Measures

Capafóns et al. used quantitative measures of fear, such as questionnaire scores about flying anxiety. A questionnaire is a set of written questions used to measure thoughts, feelings or behaviour in a standardised way.

They also looked at whether participants could manage flying-related behaviour more successfully after therapy, which is important because a therapy should improve real-life functioning, not just questionnaire scores.

Findings

The main finding was that fear of flying reduced after the systematic desensitisation programme. Participants showed lower fear scores after treatment, and improvements were generally maintained at follow-up.

The conclusion is that systematic desensitisation can be an effective treatment for fear of flying, supporting behavioural explanations and treatments of phobias.

AO2: applying the study

If a scenario describes someone who avoids holidays, work trips or family visits because they are terrified of planes, you can apply Capafóns et al. directly.

A strong AO2 answer would say the therapist should:

• assess the person’s specific flying triggers;
• teach relaxation first;
• build a hierarchy from mild to severe flight situations;
• expose the person gradually while relaxed;
• measure improvement using fear ratings and real-life flying behaviour.

AO3: evaluating Capafóns et al.

Strength: real-world application

A major strength is that the study has clear practical value. Fear of flying can restrict holidays, family contact and work opportunities. If systematic desensitisation reduces this fear, the treatment can improve everyday life.

This gives the study strong real-world application, because it informs actual therapy for phobias.

Strength: structured and measurable treatment

The treatment followed a structured behavioural programme, and fear was measured before and after therapy. This improves reliability because the procedure and outcome measures can be repeated.

Using standardised fear questionnaires also makes the findings easier to compare across participants.

Weakness: small and self-selected sample

A limitation is that the sample was small and likely self-selected. Self-selection means participants volunteered, often because they were motivated to receive treatment.

This reduces generalisability. People who volunteer for therapy may be more motivated than people with severe avoidance who never come forward.

Weakness: self-report data

Questionnaires can be useful, but they rely on self-report. Participants may understate or overstate their fear, especially if they want to please the therapist or show improvement.

This may reduce validity, because lower scores do not always prove the person is fully comfortable flying in real life.

Weakness: treatment package problem

Although the study is linked to systematic desensitisation, therapy programmes can include several elements, such as education, reassurance, relaxation practice and therapist support.

This makes it harder to know whether improvement was caused specifically by systematic desensitisation, or by the wider therapeutic package.

Ethics

Capafóns et al. involved people with a real fear, so ethical care was essential. Under the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009), researchers should consider consent, protection from harm, right to withdraw, confidentiality and debriefing.

The therapy was potentially beneficial, but exposure to feared stimuli could cause distress. This is why gradual exposure, informed consent, monitoring, and the right to stop are important.

How to write this in an essay

For AO1, describe the study clearly: aim, participants, procedure, measures, findings and conclusion.

For AO3, do not just list “small sample” or “ethical issues”. Explain why each point matters. For example, a small self-selected sample matters because the findings may not generalise to all people with fear of flying.