Review of Flooding Procedures (Implosion) in Animals and Man

Abstract

The literature involving the use of flooding procedures to achieve fear reduction in both human and infra-human Ss is critically reviewed with reference to techniques, important parameters and theoretical explanations. Much of the research has produced variable and conflicting results due to poor experimental control and confounding, yielding difficulties in interpretation. The following representative conclusions are suggested: (a) stimulus flooding, appropriately administered, appears an effective method of fear reduction; ( b ) the theoretical importance of hypothesized sequential cues is questioned on the basis that the construct serves as neither an explanatory nor a predictive vehicle; (c) parameters accounting for change are not well delineated, but duration of the flooding scene, the quality of its aversiveness to S, and S's initial degree of avoidance behavior appear important; ( d ) extinction as an explanatory principle is seriously overused and alternative constructs from adaptation level theory, modeling theory, and cognitive rehearsal may be involved. Innovative modifications suggest new and interesting research on elicitation of affect and interpretation.

Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure

“…An alternative approach to systematic desensitization used a technique termed “flooding,” in which stimuli that evoke intense fear responses are presented to the client immediately, without progression up a hierarchy and without pairing an incompatible response (Marks, 1972; Morganstern, 1973). The literature on the effectiveness of flooding techniques is more mixed than that of systematic desensitization, partly due to the confounding of flooding with implosive therapy, which involves imaginal exposure to extreme and unrealistic stimuli (Morganstern, 1973; Smith, Dickson, & Sheppard, 1973). Some studies have demonstrated the relative effectiveness of flooding over systematic desensitization (Boulougouris, Marks, & Marset, 1971; Marks, Boulougouris, & Marset, 1971; Marshall, Gauthier, Christie, Currie, & Gordon, 1977; see Smith, Dickson, & Sheppard, 1973 for a review), while others have reported mixed results and raised ethical concerns over the use of flooding in anxious clients (Morganstern, 1973).…”

Use of Mental Imagery in Psychotherapy: A Critical Review

“…This procedure, a prototype of counterconditioning, appears to be the most widely used form of behavioral treatment for any given irrational fear (Smith, Dickson, & Sheppard, 1973). Wolpe (1958Wolpe ( , 1969 has generally been given the credit for the development of this technique; however, contrary to common opinion, references to this technique go as far back as 1922, if not farther.…”

A comparison of response prevention and massed-trials extinction in deconditioning avoidance

“…After training, avoidance responses may be extinguished by presenting the CS without the US, but many investigators have found that avoidance responses are resistant to extinction when this procedure is used (Kimble, 1961; Mackintosh, 1974). If, however, between acquisition and extinction the subject is given a period of forced exposure to the CS without the US occurring, while being prevented from making the avoidance response, subsequent avoidance extinction is facilitated (for reviews see Baum, 1970Baum, , 1976; Smith, Dickson, & Sheppard, 1973).…”