You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
If the learning approach is right that a phobia is acquired and maintained by conditioning, then its most striking implication is that a phobia can also be unlearned. This is exactly the logic behind the two behavioural therapies for phobias on the Edexcel specification: systematic desensitisation and flooding. Both are exposure therapies — they work by having the client confront the feared stimulus rather than avoid it — but they apply learning principles in strikingly different ways. Systematic desensitisation is gradual: it uses classical-conditioning principles to replace fear with relaxation, step by careful step. Flooding is immediate and total: it exposes the client to the full force of the feared stimulus at once, preventing escape until the fear burns itself out. This lesson explains how each therapy works, which learning mechanism it exploits, and how the two compare on effectiveness, suitability and ethics. It follows directly from the two-process model of the previous lesson, turning that model's central prediction — that blocking avoidance allows the fear to extinguish — into practical treatment.
This lesson addresses the Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 1, Topic 4: Learning Theories content on the application of learning theories to treating phobias, specifically the two behavioural therapies of systematic desensitisation (Wolpe, 1958) and flooding. You are required to understand the procedures of each therapy, the learning principles on which each rests — reciprocal inhibition and counterconditioning for systematic desensitisation, and extinction (through the blocking of avoidance) for flooding — and to evaluate their effectiveness, their comparative strengths and limitations, and the ethical issues they raise. In assessment-objective terms, you should be able to describe each therapy and its underlying mechanism (AO1), apply them to novel cases and select an appropriate treatment (AO2), and evaluate their effectiveness and ethics, including comparison between them (AO3).
Connects to…
Both therapies rest on a single idea taken from the two-process model. A phobia is maintained because the person avoids the feared stimulus; avoidance reduces anxiety and is therefore negatively reinforced, but it also stops the person ever discovering that the stimulus is harmless, so the conditioned fear never extinguishes. It follows that the way to defeat a phobia is to prevent avoidance and keep the person in the presence of the feared stimulus until the fear subsides. This is why both therapies are forms of exposure. Where they differ is in how the exposure is delivered — gradually and paired with relaxation (systematic desensitisation), or all at once and without escape (flooding) — and in which learning mechanism does the therapeutic work.
Key Definition: Exposure therapy — any treatment that reduces a conditioned fear by having the client confront the feared stimulus, rather than avoid it, so that the fear response can be extinguished or counterconditioned.
Joseph Wolpe developed systematic desensitisation (SD) and grounded it in the principle of reciprocal inhibition — the observation that it is physiologically impossible to be deeply relaxed and intensely anxious at the same time, because the two states are incompatible. If the client can be kept relaxed in the presence of the phobic stimulus, then relaxation inhibits the fear response; and if this is done repeatedly, a new association is learned in which the stimulus comes to evoke calm rather than fear. This is counterconditioning: the phobic stimulus, previously a conditioned stimulus for anxiety, is reconditioned as a signal for relaxation. SD is therefore classical conditioning deployed therapeutically and in reverse.
Key Definition: Reciprocal inhibition — the principle that two incompatible responses (such as relaxation and anxiety) cannot occur simultaneously, so that inducing one response suppresses the other; systematic desensitisation uses relaxation to inhibit fear.
SD proceeds in three stages.
graph TD
A[Stage 1: Relaxation training<br/>learn deep relaxation on cue] --> B[Stage 2: Build anxiety hierarchy<br/>rank feared situations low to high]
B --> C[Stage 3: Graduated exposure]
C --> D[Expose to lowest item<br/>while staying relaxed]
D --> E{Relaxed and calm<br/>at this level?}
E -->|Yes| F[Move up one step<br/>on the hierarchy]
E -->|No| D
F --> G{Top of hierarchy<br/>reached calmly?}
G -->|No| D
G -->|Yes| H[Fear counterconditioned:<br/>stimulus now evokes calm]
The therapeutic mechanism is best held together as a mapping from theory to procedure.
| SD element | Learning principle | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Relaxation training | Establishes a response incompatible with fear | Provides the "calm" that will replace fear |
| Anxiety hierarchy | Graded exposure, controlling the strength of the CS | Allows fear to be inhibited manageably at each level |
| Graduated exposure + relaxation | Reciprocal inhibition and counterconditioning | Re-pairs the phobic stimulus with calm, so a new CR (relaxation) replaces the old CR (fear) |
Flooding takes the opposite approach. Instead of a gentle graded ascent, it exposes the client immediately and continuously to the most feared version of the stimulus, with escape and avoidance prevented, and keeps them in that situation until the fear response subsides of its own accord. A person with a spider phobia might have a large spider placed in their hands and be kept in the room, unable to leave, until the terror passes. There is no hierarchy and no relaxation training; the exposure is total from the outset.
The mechanism is extinction. Because avoidance is blocked, the maintaining negative reinforcement is removed: the person cannot escape to reduce their anxiety, so the anxiety, which is physiologically impossible to sustain indefinitely, eventually declines on its own. As the fear subsides in the continuing presence of the stimulus, the person learns that the stimulus is not in fact followed by any harm — the conditioned stimulus no longer predicts the unconditioned stimulus — and the conditioned fear response is extinguished. Flooding can achieve this in as little as a single long session, because it does not build up gradually but confronts the fear at full strength immediately.
There is a physiological reason the fear must eventually decline. A fear response is driven by activation of the body's acute stress ("fight-or-flight") system, which floods the body with adrenaline; but this state is metabolically expensive and cannot be maintained indefinitely, so once the feared catastrophe fails to materialise, arousal falls away and the client is left calm in the very situation that previously terrified them. This is why escape must be prevented: if the client were allowed to flee at the peak of their fear, escape would once again be negatively reinforced and the phobia would be strengthened rather than cured. Flooding therefore depends absolutely on the client remaining in the situation past the point of peak anxiety — the moment of therapeutic learning is the client's discovery, in their own body, that the terror passes and no harm comes. This is also why a session that is ended too early can be counter-productive, and why flooding is undertaken only in a controlled setting with a trained therapist and the client's prior agreement to see the session through.
Key Definition: Flooding — a behavioural therapy for phobias in which the client is exposed immediately and continuously to the most feared stimulus, with escape prevented, until the fear response extinguishes; it works by removing the avoidance that maintains the phobia.
An important safeguard is that flooding is conducted only with the client's fully informed consent: because it deliberately induces intense anxiety, the client must understand in advance exactly what the session involves and must freely agree to it, and they retain the ethical right to withdraw. Flooding is never carried out by surprise or against a client's wishes.
Because both are exposure therapies derived from the same model, questions frequently ask you to compare them, and a clear grasp of the differences — and the single shared principle — is essential.
| Feature | Systematic desensitisation | Flooding |
|---|---|---|
| Exposure | Gradual, up an anxiety hierarchy | Immediate, at maximum intensity |
| Core mechanism | Reciprocal inhibition / counterconditioning (fear replaced by relaxation) | Extinction (fear subsides when avoidance is blocked) |
| Relaxation training | Central — relaxation is counterconditioned to the stimulus | None — the client is not kept relaxed |
| Client control / pace | High — the client controls progression up the hierarchy | Low — exposure is total and escape is prevented |
| Speed | Slower — many sessions | Faster — sometimes a single long session |
| Anxiety induced | Kept low at every step | Deliberately intense |
| Shared principle | Both prevent avoidance and force exposure so the fear can subside | Both prevent avoidance and force exposure so the fear can subside |
The crucial point of similarity, worth stating explicitly in a comparison answer, is that both therapies work by defeating the avoidance that the two-process model identifies as the maintaining process — they simply differ in how they deliver the exposure and in whether they replace the fear with relaxation (SD) or let it extinguish directly (flooding).
An AO2 stem typically describes a client and asks you to explain how a therapy would work for them, or to choose and justify a therapy. Consider Priya, who has a severe phobia of dogs that stops her leaving the house when neighbours are walking their pets. To explain systematic desensitisation for Priya: she would first be taught progressive muscle relaxation until she could relax on cue; she and her therapist would build an anxiety hierarchy running from, say, looking at a photograph of a dog, through hearing a dog bark on a recording and seeing a small dog on a lead across a park, up to stroking a large dog; and she would then work up this hierarchy in vivo, staying relaxed at each level before progressing, until the presence of a dog evoked calm rather than fear. The mechanism to name is reciprocal inhibition and counterconditioning — relaxation is substituted for fear as the response to the dog.
Selecting between the therapies is a higher-level AO2 skill. The choice turns on the client's characteristics and circumstances. Systematic desensitisation is generally preferable where the client is anxious about treatment itself, is young or vulnerable, or has a physical condition (such as a heart problem) that makes intense anxiety dangerous, because SD keeps arousal low and gives the client control — flooding's deliberately extreme anxiety could be harmful or intolerable for such clients. Flooding may be preferable where speed matters — for instance, a client with a flying phobia who must travel for an urgent family reason within days, and who can give informed consent — because it can resolve a phobia far more quickly, and it is also more cost-effective as it needs fewer sessions. A strong AO2 answer names the client features in the stem that point towards one therapy, matches them to that therapy's properties, and — crucially — justifies the choice by reference to the mechanism and to suitability and ethics, rather than merely asserting a preference.
To see the flooding choice justified in a concrete case, consider Tom, a physically healthy adult with a spider phobia who has been offered a job abroad that requires him to relocate within a fortnight to a region where large spiders are common, and who says he wants the fastest possible treatment. Several features of this stem point towards flooding: the urgency (he has only two weeks, which rules out the many sessions SD requires), his physical fitness (with no cardiovascular problems, the intense arousal of flooding poses no medical danger), and his own stated preference for rapid results, which supports genuinely informed consent. A good answer would recommend flooding, explain that it would expose Tom immediately to a spider with escape prevented so that his fear extinguishes once he learns no harm follows, and explicitly note the ethical safeguard that he must consent in advance and be supported to remain in the situation past peak anxiety. The contrast with Priya's case above — where SD suited a client whose phobia was disabling but not urgent — shows that therapy selection is not about which therapy is "better" in the abstract, but about matching the therapy's speed, intensity and demands to the particular client's needs, health and circumstances.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.