DESCRIPTION OF THE STRATEGY

Modeling is said to occur when a child learns by observing others. A young boy pretends to
smoke a cigarette like his father and get ready for work in the morning like his mother.
Similarly, a teenager swaggers down the street like his or her favorite actor or actress. As
noted early on by Albert Bandura, modeling is based on the principles of vicarious or
observational learning. Research conducted within the broad framework of cognitive social
learning theory, a theory pioneered by Bandura, shows that virtually all learning that results
from direct experiences can also result from vicarious ones (i.e., as a function of observing the
behavior of others and the consequences associated with that behavior). Children acquire new
responses, both appropriate (e.g., dressing oneself, social skills, play a musical instrument)
and inappropriate (e.g., hitting a sibling, being afraid of dogs), through observing others. In
addition, Bandura described how previously acquired responses can be facilitated, inhibited,
or disinhibited through vicarious learning or modeling procedures. For example, a girl who
observes her older brother engage in fearful behaviors toward dogs may subsequently inhibit
approach behavior toward dogssomething in the past that she seemed to do and enjoy.
Likewise, a boy who is fearful of novel social situations and observes a close friend engage in
nonfearful social interactions may disinhibit avoidant responses and subsequently engage in
approach behavior to the previously feared situations. With fearful children, this disinhibiting
effect is believed to play a particularly critical role. That is, as the child observes appropriate
positive interaction with the feared stimuli without undue negative consequences, extinction
of the fear is facilitated, thus making approach possible.
With modeling, it is important to distinguish between learning the response and subsequently
performing the response. In the examples cited above, the child might learn the various
responses vicariously but not actually exhibit them. For example, a girl might learn how to
dress herself and brush her teeth by observing her parents each morning but, much to the
dismay of her parents, not exhibit the dressing and care skills. The distinction between
learning and performance has been demonstrated in many research studies. In one such study,
preschool children observed a film in which a model exhibited verbal and physical aggression
to a Bobo doll. For one group of children, the model was rewarded for aggressive behavior
toward the doll, in a second group the model was punished for the same behavior, and for a
third group the model received no consequences for the aggressive behavior. Although
children in all three groups learned the aggressive response, children who observed the model
being punished inhibited the response, whereas those who saw the model reinforced actively
displayed the aggressive response. Of most interest here, those children in the group who saw
the model neither punished nor reinforced learned the response, even though they initially
failed to display aggressive behavior. However, they clearly had acquired the actual behaviors
depicted in the film as evidenced when they were subsequently reinforced for display of those
behaviors. They simply failed to display them until reinforced for doing so. Thus,
consequences to the model during the vicarious learning and subsequently administered to the
child determine whether the response is actually displayed. Such findings are the cornerstone
for societal concerns about violence and other inappropriate behaviors depicted in films
more broadly. Learning occurs but might not find its expression until a later point in time.

RELEVANT TARGET POPULATIONS AND

EXCEPTIONS

Modeling procedures have been used in the treatment of many different types of behaviors,
including the acquisition of language, the development of self-care, and the attainment of
academic and social skills. Here their relevance to the treatment of fears and phobias will be
highlighted, inasmuch as social skills training and modeling procedures in the treatment of
aggressive behaviors are presented elsewhere in this volume.
Several different types of modeling have been employed in the treatment of childhood fears
and phobias. Videotape modeling consists of having the child view a filmed version of a
model (ideally a model with similar characteristics to the observing child) demonstrating
successively greater interactions with the feared stimulus. For example, a boy afraid of dogs
might observe another child on videotape enter a room with a dog on a leash at the other end
of the room, walk halfway up to the dog and look at it, approach the dog closer, bend over,
and let the dog sniff his hand, pet the dog, feed the dog a snack, and finally pick up the leash
and walk the dog for a brief period of time. The same procedures are followed with live
modeling; however, in this instance the child observes the interactions directly and in real life
rather than on film. As a result, the child is in closer contact with the feared object and is able
to more directly observe the subtle nuances of the model's approach behavior. The child is not,
however, asked to interact directly with the feared object; rather, the child is simply requested
to observe the model.
Participant modeling generally consists of three stages: observation of live modeling,
therapist-guided interaction, and unaccompanied interaction. During the first stage, the
therapist or model demonstrates gradually successive nonfearful but coping approaches
toward the feared stimulus. For a dog-phobic child, this might entail the following successive
steps: having the model walk toward the dog with an outreached hand, letting the dog sniff the
model's hand, petting the dog on the back and then head, and sitting on the ground and
playing with the dog. During this stage of live modeling, it is important that the child observe
only positive consequences and appropriate coping skills. In the second stage, the therapistmodel uses physical contact to guide the child through the behavioral approach tasks
previously demonstrated. Continuing with the example of a dog-phobic child, this process
might involve having the therapist hold the child's hand while the two of them approach the
dog together, having the child place his or her hand on top of the therapist's hand while they
pet the dog, and sitting next to the therapist on the ground while the therapist plays with the
dog. During this stage, the therapistmodel offers encouragement and support while physically
assisting the child approach the feared stimulus. Finally, the third stage consists of the child
performing the same behavioral approach tasks without physical assistance from the therapistmodel. During this stage, the therapist would again accompany the child through the dogapproach and interaction tasks; however, the child would be requested to perform these tasks
alone. Furthermore, throughout these procedures, the child would be reinforced profusely or
praised for initiating nonfearful approach and imitation behaviors.

RESEARCH BASIS
As noted above, modeling has been used primarily to treat children and adolescents with fears
and/or phobic avoidance of specific stimuli. As indicated by Bandura, the goals of modeling
are to reduce fear and facilitate new skill acquisition. Accordingly, modeling is often
combined with other behavioral treatment strategies (e.g., reinforcement, sequential learning).
Empirical studies employing modeling have been conducted with individuals of all ages,
including children of preschool and early elementary school grades.

Although modeling procedures have been used with a diverse array of childhood fears,
research is presently lacking regarding the long-term maintenance of treatment gains attained
with this approach. In an early review, Thomas Ollendick and Jerome Cerny reported
differential short-term outcomes (i.e., posttreatment with up to 1-year follow-up) with the
various forms of modeling. The findings demonstrated the superiority of participant modeling
over both live and filmed modeling. Efficacy for filmed modeling was reported to range from
25% to 50%, live modeling from 50% to 67%, and participant modeling from 80% to 92%.
Based on these findings, childhood treatment of fears and phobias with participant modeling
has received well-established status, according to the guidelines set forth by the Task Force
for Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, as reviewed recently by
Chambless and Ollendick.
Ollendick and King have provided more extensive details of studies demonstrating the
effectiveness of modeling, in general, and participant modeling in particular. To illustrate
these findings, two prominent studies will be described and a third will be briefly mentioned.
In an early study, 44 elementary school-age children identified as snake avoidant were treated.
A 29-item behavioral avoidance task (BAT) was constructed, and only those children who
were unable to hold a snake for a few seconds with gloved hands were selected for treatment.
Children were matched based on their level of snake-avoidant behavior and randomly
assigned to one of three groups. The modeling-only treatment group simply observed an adult
and five peers demonstrate progressive interactions with a harmless snake. The participant
modeling treatment group observed the same modeling procedures, were then assisted by the
adult in completing the interactive tasks, and finally completed the interactions with the snake
alone. The control group of children completed only the preand posttreatment BAT. At
posttreatment, children from both the live modeling and participant modeling groups
indicated less snake fearfulness than the control group. In addition, the children who were
treated with participant modeling demonstrated superior gains than those in the live modeling
group. At posttreatment, 80% of the children from the participant modeling treatment
condition were able to complete the entire 29-item BAT compared with 53% of the children
from the live modeling-only condition, and none of the control children.
In another early study, the superior efficacy of participant modeling to filmed modeling-only,
participationonly, and a control condition was demonstrated. Forty African American boys
(aged 512) who displayed water-avoidant behaviors were individually assessed using a 16item BAT of progressively greater interactions in a swimming pool. Children were matched
based on their level of water avoidance and randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
In the modeling-only treatment group, children observed a videotape of three peers modeling
each of the approach behaviors from the BAT and then played a game with an adult model.
The participation-only group of children viewed a neutral videotape and were subsequently
accompanied to the pool by an adult who physically aided them in performing the behavioral
approach tasks in the pool (but in the absence of modeling). The participant modeling group
of children first viewed the videotape of peers performing the BAT task; subsequently, the
group was physically assisted in completing the tasks by the adult. Finally, the control group
of children viewed the neutral videotape and then played a game with an adult.
Results from this study revealed less fearfulness and greater involvement regarding water
activities for the three treatment groups when individually compared to the control condition.
Furthermore, greater changes were reported for children who received the participation
component in their treatment as compared with those from either the modeling-only or control
conditions. Finally, comparison of the participant modeling treatment and participation-only

treatment revealed greater changes for the former, suggesting that the combination of
modeling and assisted participation was superior to either of the conditions alone.
Presently, Ollendick and his colleague in Sweden (Professor Lars-Goran Ost) are undertaking
an NIMH-funded project examining the relative effects of an intensive exposure-based
intervention that combines participant modeling and reinforced practice. The study will enlist
120 phobic children in Virginia and 120 phobic children in Sweden. Early findings suggest
the clear superiority of this treatment over an education/support treatment and a wait-list
control condition.

CASE ILLUSTRATION
Prior to initiating treatment, fearful and avoidant children are assessed using a behavioral
avoidance task (BAT). The BAT consists of predetermined and progressively intimate
interactions with the feared stimulus or situation. The child's ability to progress through the
tasks is assessed, and often the child is asked to indicate his or her subjective distress or
discomfort (e.g., on a 08 scale) during each of the interactions. These tasks are then
incorporated into treatment with the goal of having the child progress through the BAT
without significant distress or anxiety. In addition, prior to treatment, children are frequently
asked to report their overall level of fear on an instrument such as the Fear Survey Schedule
for Children developed by Ollendick. This survey consists of 80 fear stimuli to which the
children are asked to indicate whether their fear level is none, some, or a lot. The
stimuli include items such as snakes, dogs, putting on a recital, meeting new people,
and getting an injection. Thus, both fear in general and fear in particular are tapped by this
measure.
Jimmy (11 years of age) was very afraid of dogs. His phobia developed following the
observation of his mother being attacked by a large dog when the family was on an evening
walk in the neighborhood. Jimmy and his father tried to pull the dog away, but they were only
successful after considerable injury had occurred. His mother received lacerations on her right
arm, shoulder, and face. Subsequently, they rushed her to the emergency room, where minor
surgery was undertaken. Jimmy and his father were not injured in the attack.
Although Jimmy had apparently been fond of dogs prior to this attack and in fact played quite
nicely with his grandmother's collie and his aunt and uncle's German shepherd, he developed
a strong and persistent fear and aversion of dogs, even miniature ones. About 7 months
following the incident, his parents brought him in to treatment. On the BAT, he was not able
to open the door to a room where a dog was tethered at the other end. Moreover, he reported
his distress level to be very high (7) on the 0 to 8 point scale. He also reported a high level of
general fearfulness on the Fear Survey Schedule for Children (FSSC), with excessive fears of
danger and death, as well as numerous animal fears. Since the event, it was reported that he
also developed a sense of sadness and that he stopped doing many of the things he once
enjoyed (e.g., playing with friends, riding his bicycle, going to the swimming pool). He met
diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder as well as specific phobia of dogs on the
basis of the clinical interview. Of importance, his mother and father did not appear to be
phobic of dogs, even though both had a newfound respect for them. They had tried numerous
things to help him deal with his fear, but none of them seemed to work. He refused to go on
walks with them and continued to seclude himself in his room. His phobia appeared primary
and his depression to be a reaction to the avoidance and fear of dogs. His quality of life had
become compromised.

Jimmy was treated with participant modeling and reinforced practice, and his parents were
instructed in parenting strategies to help expose him to those situations that he was avoiding
and to reinforce him upon those exposures. Treatment was conducted over 10 sessions, spread
over a 4-month period of time. Initially, participant modeling was enacted with a small dog,
then a midsize dog, and then a large dog. Sessions were conducted in the clinic, and then his
parents were encouraged to conduct similar sessions outside the clinic at home and throughout
the neighborhood. All parties were highly motivated to engage in treatment, given the level of
interference and discord associated with the fear. At the end of treatment, Jimmy was
readministered the BAT and was able to approach the dog, pet him, and take him for a walk in
the clinic and on a street outside the clinic. His parents reported that he had begun to be more
of his old self and that he had begun to do some of the activities he had avoided earlier in the
summer (e.g., go to friends' homes, stay overnight, and go for walks with them).
Jimmy and his parents were followed up 1 and 2 years posttreatment. At both points in time,
he failed to meet diagnostic criteria for either specific phobia or major depressive disorder.
Although his parents bought him a dog about 10 weeks following treatment (a collie like his
grandmother's) and he played appropriately and frequently with the dog, he remained
generally fearful, as reported on the FSSC-R, and somewhat aloof and isolated. His parents
reported that he had been seemingly scarred by the eventan observation with which the
therapist agreed. They were advised that the healing process would take some time but to be
encouraged by the significant gains he had made in therapy with their assistance. They were
quite satisfied with the treatment outcome, as was Jimmy.
Thomas H. Ollendick and Amie E. Grills
Further Reading

Entry Citation:
Ollendick, Thomas H., and Amie E. Grills. "Modeling." Encyclopedia of Behavior
Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy. 2007. SAGE Publications. 15 Apr. 2008.
<http://sage-ereference.com/cbt/Article_n2078.html>.