Behavioural Approach To Treating Phobias - A03 Flashcards
Systematic desensitisation
A strength of SD as a treatment for phobias is that is it has supportive empirical evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness.
E – McGrath et al (1990) reported that 75% of patients with phobias responded to systematic desensitisation. Particularly, it’s effective due to the in vivo techniques such as actual contact with fear stimulus is more effective than in imagery-based techniques.
E – Gilroy et al (1990) used 3x45 minute sessions to examine 42 patients with arachnophobia. They found their fear had reduced 33 months later, compared to a control group (which was relaxation techniques only).
L – the empirical evidence increases the treatment’s validity as a way to overcome phobias.
Systematic desensitisation
A strength of systematic desensitisation compared to flooding is that it is often preferred as a treatment for phobias by patients due to it being more ethical.
E – this is because it doesn’t cause the same levels of distress that appear when presented with the fear-inducing stimulus immediately. As a result, there are low attrition rates.
E – therefore, it’s considered more of an appropriate treatment for individuals who might suffer from severe anxiety disorders since learning the relaxation techniques can be a positive experience.
L – therefore, systematic desensitisation might be seen as a more ethical treatment for these patients.
Systematic desensitisation
A strength of SD is that it can be used to help people who may not be able to access other treatments, such as patients with learning disabilities.
E – Some people who require treatment for phobias also have a learning disability. However, other systematic desensitisation alternatives aren’t suitable. People who have learning disabilities typically struggle with cognitive therapies that require complex rational thought.
E – in addition, they may feel distressed and confused by the traumatic experience of flooding.
L – this means that systematic desensitisation is typically the most appropriate treatment for people with learning disabilities who have phobias.
Systematic desensitisation
A strength of SD is that it can be used in conjunction with virtual reality, rather than in person in a real-world setting.
E – exposure through virtual reality can be used to avoid dangerous situations, such as heights. Also, it is cost-effective because the psychologist and client don’t need to leave the consulting room.
E – on the other hand, there’s some evidence to suggest that virtual reality exposure might be less effective than real exposure for social phobias, as it lacks realism (Wescler et al. 2019).
L – this means that the advantages of virtual reality based systematic desensitisation may be suitable for some phobias, but not all of them.
Systematic desensitisation
A limitation is that systematic desensitisation is not effective in treating all phobias.
E – patients with phobias who haven’t developed though a personal experience (which is classical conditioning), like having a fear of snakes, aren’t treated effectively using systematic desensitisation as it can’t be that their phobia has been learnt. Therefore, it can’t be unlearnt.
E – some psychologists may believe that certain phobias have an evolutionary survival benefit and aren’t a result of learning.
L – this highlights the limitation of SD, which is not effective when treating evolutionary phobias, which have an innate basis.
Flooding
A strength of flooding as a treatment of phobias is that it is at least as effective as other treatments for specific phobias but more cost effective.
E – Ougrin (2011) found that flooding is highly effective and quicker than alternatives as Ougrin compared flooding to cognitive therapies. This quick effect is a strength because it means that patients are free or their symptoms sooner, which makes the treatment more cost effective.
E – this evidence has suggestions for the economy because it could reduce the NHS’s financial burden by offering a cheaper and quicker treatment for phobia sufferers.
L – therefore, flooding could be seen as a useful treatment. Perhaps it should be the first kind of treatment for NHS patients to overcome their phobias.
Flooding
A limitation of flooding is that it is not appropriate for all patients due to how traumatic it can be.
E – Schumacher (2015) found out that therapists and patients rated flooding as increasingly more stressful than systematic desensitisation. The issue isn’t that flooding is unethical as it gives patients informed consent, but that patients are often unwilling to see it through to the end due to the extreme distress.
E – the intense experience can lead to high attrition rates (people who drop out) and could make the phobia even worse if them treatment isn’t completed.
L – this shows that individual differences could be a limitation of how effective flooding is as a treatment for phobias.
Flooding
A limitation of flooding is that it is not appropriate for phobias that involve high level of cognition, such as social phobias.
E – an example of this is how a sufferer of social phobias doesn’t just experience an anxiety response but thinks negative thoughts about a social situation.
E – therefore, it may be more beneficial for the more complex phobias to be treated with cognitive therapies as these therapies tackle the irrational thinking.
L – therefore, flooding might be appropriate in some situations, but it may not be suitable for all phobias. So, this reduces its usefulness as a treatment.
