UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 5.4 Free with a free account
Behavioral Therapy in Action: Desensitization and Graduated Exposure
Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 5: Behavioral and Learning Models of AbnormalitySection 5.4 · lesson 22 of 9712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Abnormal Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Abnormal Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Behavioral Framework →← Learning Through Observation, Modeling and Self-EfficacyNext lesson: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Behavioral Framework →
In this lesson
Desensitization, graduated exposure, and why avoidance has to be blocked.
- Describe the behavioral treatment logic and the assessment it rests on
- Explain systematic desensitization and graduated exposure
- Identify the principal techniques and the conditions each suits
- State what the evidence supports and where exposure is not appropriate
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,625 words). Read along, or search it.
Behavioral and Learning Models of Abnormality
Behavioral Therapy in Action
This material is educational: it explains how behavioral treatments work, and why. It is not a protocol, not a basis for diagnosis, and not written for a reader to follow. Exposure is planned and delivered by a trained clinician, and that is not a formality. Self-directed exposure to trauma or severe fear can worsen the condition. Badly graded, too brief, or abandoned at the peak of distress, an exposure attempt teaches the opposite of what it is meant to teach. We cover why avoidance must be blocked, and what defeats a course that looks complete. Then the shift in how the treatment is explained, which changed how it is delivered. And an honest statement of where these treatments work, and where they do not.
The Logic
What Maintains It, Not What Began It
The reasoning follows directly from five point one, and it is short. If a problem behavior was learned, new learning can change it. What maintains a pattern is operating now, and can be identified from current circumstances. The aim is observable change. What the person can do, how often, in which situations. Functional analysis is the assessment method, and it is the three-term contingency applied. The distinctive move is asking what maintains the behavior, rather than what began it. Those are different questions, and only the first is reliably answerable and actionable now. A fear that began fifteen years ago is maintained this week by something specific. Baseline measurement records how often and how long the behavior occurs, before treatment. It establishes whether the problem is as frequent as it feels. It provides the comparison against which change is judged. And it frequently reveals patterns neither the person nor the clinician had noticed.
The Predecessor
An Effective Treatment With a Mistaken Rationale
Systematic desensitization is the treatment modern exposure descends from. It was developed in the nineteen fifties, and it has three components. Relaxation training. The person is taught a method of reducing physical tension. Hierarchy construction. A graded list of feared situations, from least to most distressing. And graded pairing. Working up the hierarchy while maintaining the relaxed state. The rationale offered was reciprocal inhibition. The proposal that relaxation and anxiety are incompatible states. So pairing the feared stimulus with relaxation prevents the anxiety response. It was an elegant application of conditioning principles. And it was probably wrong. Because the relaxation component turns out not to be necessary. Which suggests the treatment worked for a different reason than the one proposed. That is an instructive case. An effective treatment with a mistaken explanation.
Exposure
Contact, Plus Prevention of Escape
Exposure therapy is the modern successor, and it is defined tightly. Planned, repeated, sustained contact with what is feared. Without escape. Until the feared outcome fails to occur, and the person learns something new. What remained is contact plus prevention of escape. That is the active part. In vivo exposure is contact with the actual situation. It is the most effective, and the default wherever the situation can be arranged safely. Imaginal exposure is sustained, detailed imagining of the feared situation. Used where the situation cannot be arranged, or approaching it directly would be inappropriate. Simulated exposure uses a constructed representation of the situation. Now, why must escape be prevented? This is the two-factor loop read backwards. Avoidance maintains fear by producing relief and preventing disconfirmation. So treatment must arrange contact in which neither of those happens.
Covert Avoidance
Why a Complete-Looking Exposure Teaches Nothing
The complication is that avoidance is not always obvious. A safety behavior is an action taken inside a feared situation, believed to prevent the feared outcome. Sitting near an exit. Keeping a phone in hand. Carrying an item. The person is present, so the exposure looks complete. And it is not. Here is the mechanism, and it is worth stating carefully. When nothing bad happens, the person credits the safety behavior. So the fear is protected from disconfirmation by the very presence meant to disconfirm it. And the belief that gets stronger is that the situation is dangerous without the precaution. Reassurance-seeking works identically. Asking whether it will be all right produces relief, and the relief reinforces the asking. So the diagnostic question is attribution. What would have happened without the precaution? If they say something bad would have, nothing was learned.
Why It Works
From Habituation to Inhibitory Learning
The account of why exposure works has changed, and the change altered practice. The older rationale was habituation. Anxiety declines with sustained contact, and falling distress is the measure of success. The current account is inhibitory learning. The original fear association is not erased. It competes with a new association that the situation is safe. The evidence for the shift is spontaneous recovery, from five point one. Extinguished fear returns after a delay, which it could not do if the learning were erased. And within-session distress reduction predicts long-term outcome less well than assumed. Distress reduction within a session is no longer the goal. What matters is that the expected catastrophe fails to occur, and the person notices. Second, variation is deliberately introduced across settings, times, and forms. Third, expectancy violation is targeted directly.
Two Kinds Of Change
Watch Where Each Session Starts
Picture distress plotted across a course of sessions. Within each session, the curve rises and then falls. That is within-session change, and it is what the habituation account watched. Now look instead at where each session starts. The starting peak is lower each time. That is between-session change, and it is the one that matters most. It is an idealized pattern drawn to illustrate two kinds of change. It is not data. And under the inhibitory learning account, one more thing is true. A session whose distress stayed high can still have been a good session. Provided the expected outcome failed to occur.
Graded Or Not
Why Flooding Is Not the Default
Graded exposure works up a hierarchy, from manageable situations to difficult ones. Flooding begins with the most feared situation directly, sustained until distress subsides. Both have evidence of effectiveness. And flooding is not the clinical default, despite being faster in principle. Dropout is higher, because the treatment demands a great deal at the outset. Consent is harder to make meaningful when a person cannot know what they will endure. And the graded approach builds efficacy along the way. A treatment that is tolerable and completed outperforms a faster one that is abandoned. Pacing is a clinical judgment. Steps too small produce no expectancy violation. Steps too large produce escape, which reinforces avoidance and sets the work back. And between-session practice is the strongest single predictor of outcome. One last thing. Ask what was done, not how it felt.
Illustration
A Hierarchy for an Ordinary Fear of Public Speaking
Here is an illustrative hierarchy for an ordinary fear of public speaking. It is a teaching illustration, and not a template to use. Step one, reading a short passage aloud alone at home, rated ten. Step two, reading the same passage to one trusted person, rated twenty. Step four, a two-minute update to four familiar colleagues, fifty. Step six, presenting for five minutes to a familiar team, seventy. Step eight, a large group with questions afterwards, ninety-five. Look at the size of the gaps between adjacent ratings. They are roughly even. The ratings here are invented; in practice they are the person's own, not the clinician's. And notice that every step varies one thing at a time. Audience size, familiarity, or duration. Which is what lets a stalled step be diagnosed.
The Toolkit
The Principal Behavioral Techniques
Now the wider toolkit, beyond exposure itself. Participant modeling builds on the observational learning of five point three. The person watches, then performs with the clinician's support, then performs alone. That sequence converts the second strongest efficacy source into the strongest. Contingency management arranges consequences so desired behavior is reliably reinforced. The skill lies in identifying what actually functions as a reinforcer for this person. Token systems deliver an exchangeable reinforcer, used in structured settings. They carry documented risks of coercion where participation is not genuinely voluntary. Differential reinforcement reinforces an alternative rather than punishing the problem behavior. Finally, aversive procedures, described here historically and non-operationally. Punishment suppresses behavior without teaching an alternative. They were also used on people who could not consent, and in discredited orientation-change attempts.
The Evidence
Strong, and Not Universal
Now the evidence, stated plainly, because this one should not be hedged. Exposure-based treatment has among the strongest evidence bases in psychological treatment. For specific phobia. For panic with agoraphobic avoidance. For social anxiety. Substantial randomized trial evidence supports it. And many clinical guidelines recommend it as a first-line psychological treatment. Where avoidance maintains a fear, these treatments work. Exposure is not a first-line response to acute crisis. It is not the primary treatment for psychosis or severe mood disorder. And where the feared situation is a genuine ongoing danger, exposure is not merely ineffective. It is wrong. The fear is accurate, and the right response addresses the danger. A substantial minority do not respond, and dropout is a real problem. That reluctance is understandable, and it withholds an effective treatment.
Composite Cases
Hannah, 31, and George, 44
Two composite cases, constructed for instruction. Neither describes a real person. Hannah is thirty-one, with a fear of dogs that has narrowed her life over six years. The maintaining contingency is negative reinforcement: avoiding drops her anxiety immediately. Two weeks of baseline showed route changes on eleven of fourteen days. Two safety behaviors, gripping her partner's arm and looking away, were identified and dropped. After eleven sessions she walks routes she previously avoided. She remains uneasy near unleashed dogs, and that is a good outcome, not a partial failure. Second case. George is forty-four, with panic episodes. He completed every step over nine sessions, and still could not enter a supermarket alone. Here is the error. He carried a bottle of water, and kept his brother waiting in the car park. So on every occasion nothing bad happened, and he credited the water and his brother. The belief that got stronger was that supermarkets are safe provided he has both. George did everything asked of him. The omission was in the assessment.
About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Behavioral Therapy in Action: Desensitization and Graduated Exposure
What is systematic desensitization?
What is the difference between graded exposure and flooding?
Why do safety behaviors interfere with exposure therapy?
What is the inhibitory learning model of exposure therapy?
About the Abnormal Psychology course
How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.
97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →