Contemporary study: Capafons et al. (1998)

Aims and participants

Aim: to test whether systematic desensitisation is an effective treatment for fear of flying.

Participants: 41 people with a fear of flying who volunteered after a media campaign. 20 were randomly allocated to the treatment group and 21 to a no-treatment (waiting) control group.

Procedure

• Before treatment: an interview and questionnaires measured fear of flying, fear of flight preliminaries, catastrophic thoughts and physical symptoms. Heart rate, muscle tension and skin temperature were recorded while participants watched a video of a whole plane journey (packing to landing), after 3 minutes of rest.
• Treatment: about two one-hour sessions a week, a standardised programme of at least 12 and at most 15 sessions, using relaxation, an anxiety hierarchy, exposure in imagination and in vivo, plus thought stopping.
• After treatment: both groups were assessed again with the same measures.

Results

• Before treatment the groups did not differ on any measure.
• After treatment, the treated group differed significantly from controls on all measures except fear when not directly involved in flying and skin temperature (e.g. fear of flying p ≤ .001, heart rate p ≤ .01, muscle tension p ≤ .05).
• Within the treated group, fear of flying, catastrophic thoughts and avoidance all fell significantly from before to after.
• Only 10% of treated patients did not show a significant reduction in fear.
• The control group did not improve.

Conclusions and evaluation

Conclusions: systematic desensitisation is effective in reducing fear of flying; the passage of time alone did not reduce the phobia.

Evaluation:

• Strengths: random allocation and a control group allow cause and effect; standardised programme supports replication; physiological measures (heart rate) add objectivity to self-report.
• Weaknesses: volunteers from a media campaign may be unusually motivated, limiting generalisation; the video is not a real flight (low ecological validity of the measure); no long-term follow-up; the control group received no attention at all, so placebo effects cannot be ruled out; withholding treatment from controls raises an ethical issue.

Worked example

2 of the 20 treated patients did not show a significant reduction in fear. Check the 10% figure and give the success rate.

1. 2 / 20 x 100 = 10%.
2. So 90% did show a significant reduction.

Answer: 10% unsuccessful; 90% successful.

Check yourself

1. How many participants took part in Capafons et al. (1998)?
   Show answer

   41 people. 20 treatment + 21 control = 41.

2. How were participants placed into groups?
   • By their sex
   • Randomly allocated to treatment or control
   • By the severity of fear
   • They chose their own group
   Show answer

   Randomly allocated to treatment or control. Random allocation: 20 treatment, 21 control.

3. What did participants watch during assessment?
   • A violent video game
   • An aggressive adult model
   • A slot machine
   • A video of a plane journey from packing to landing
   Show answer

   A video of a plane journey from packing to landing. The video simulated a whole trip.

4. What was the maximum number of treatment sessions?
   Show answer

   15 sessions. At least 12 and at most 15 sessions.

5. On which measure did the treated group NOT differ significantly from controls after treatment?
   • Fear of flying
   • Heart rate
   • Skin temperature
   • Catastrophic thoughts
   Show answer

   Skin temperature. Temperature (and fear with no involvement) showed no significant difference.

6. What does the lack of improvement in the control group show?
   • Time alone did not reduce the phobia
   • SD made fear worse
   • The measures were unreliable
   • The groups were different before treatment
   Show answer

   Time alone did not reduce the phobia. So the improvement was due to treatment.

7. Explain one weakness of Capafons et al. (1998).
   Show answer

   Participants were volunteers who answered a media campaign, so they may have been unusually motivated to overcome their fear, which limits generalisation; also there was no long-term follow-up.. Sample, follow-up, measures or ethics.

Practise with instant feedback Print this lesson

Sources

• Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Level in Psychology specification, Issue 5 (February 2021)
• Pearson IAL Psychology component guide: WPS02 (Issue 2, November 2024)
• Pearson IAL Psychology summary of studies: WPS02
• Simply Psychology: Systematic desensitization

Last updated 8 November 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.