Sara and the Science Block
Sara is 11. In March a fire alarm sounded during a science practical while she was using a Bunsen burner. It was a real small fire: there was smoke, a teacher shouted, and Sara was pushed against a bench in the rush to leave. She was not hurt. Since then she has refused to enter the science block. At first only science lessons triggered distress, with sweating, trembling and nausea, but by May the same reaction appears at the school gate in the morning. She has missed 23 days. Her parents and school have tried reassurance: her mother sits in the car park, her father drives her in every day, and her teacher has excused her from all practicals. Sara says she is not scared of science, but becomes tearful and says she just cannot. Her GP rules out physical illness.
1. Use classical conditioning to explain how Sara's fear developed and generalised. Identify the unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, conditioned stimulus and conditioned response.
Read the worked answer
Before the fire, the alarm, the smell of gas and the benches were neutral for Sara. During the incident the alarm, the smoke, the shouting and being pushed acted as the unconditioned stimulus and produced an unconditioned response of fear: sweating, trembling, nausea and the urge to escape.
Through pairing, cues that were present at the time became conditioned stimuli: the smell of gas, the benches, the door, the corridor. These now produce a conditioned response of fear. Because the event was intense and effectively single-trial, conditioning was fast; strong aversive events often condition after one pairing.
Generalisation then occurred. Stimuli similar to the original cues, such as the school gate, the car park and the journey in, began to elicit the same response. This is why the reaction now appears before she reaches the block.
Her statement that she is not scared of science is not a contradiction. The conditioned response is a bodily reaction that can occur without a matching conscious belief, which is one reason reassurance does not remove it. Extinction requires new learning in the presence of the feared cues, not argument.
2. Explain from an operant perspective how the responses of her parents and the school may be maintaining her avoidance.
Read the worked answer
Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant, and it strengthens whatever behaviour removed it. Sara's distress at the gate is unpleasant. When her mother sits in the car park, or her father drives her in, or the teacher excuses her from practicals, Sara's distress drops quickly. The behaviour that produced that relief, going to the gate or refusing to go further, is therefore reinforced and becomes more likely next time.
The adults are being reinforced too. The mother who sits in the car park gets relief from seeing Sara calmer, and the teacher who excuses her avoids a confrontation. Their kindness is maintained by the same short-term relief.
The key point is that the short-term relief is the long-term maintaining factor. Each time Sara avoids, she never gets the disconfirming experience that would allow extinction to occur. This is the avoidance paradox: avoidance works immediately and fails over time. Twenty-three days of absence means the school gate has had many more pairings and the avoidance has had many more reinforcements.
3. Design a graded exposure plan for Sara and explain one ethical safeguard and one practical rule that must be followed.
Read the worked answer
Build a hierarchy with Sara, using a fear rating from 0 to 10. A workable sequence might be: look at a photograph of the science block from the car (2); walk to the school gate and back (3); walk past the science block door (4); stand in the corridor outside for two minutes (5); enter the empty laboratory with the teacher and the door open (6); stay five minutes with no equipment out (7); sit in on a normal lesson near the door (8); watch a demonstration from the back of the room (9); complete a practical with the teacher nearby (10).
Each step is repeated until the rating falls to about 3 out of 10 before moving on, and early sessions should be short and predictable.
Practical rule: exposure must be repeated, gradual and prolonged enough for the fear to fall within the session. Leaving while still highly anxious reinforces the fear, so Sara should stay until her rating drops rather than escape at the peak. Distraction and safety behaviours that let her avoid the feared stimulus should not be used.
Ethical safeguard: informed consent from Sara and her parents, a written plan shared with the GP or an educational psychologist, a clear right to stop at any point, and an explicit agreement that nobody will force her into the laboratory.