Evaluation of Phobias

Reductionism:

Reductionism is the condensing of a complex set of ideas into more basic components.

A phobia is defined as the irrational, disproportionate fear of a situation, activity or thing that causes one to go to great lengths to avoid it. Phobias are one kind of anxiety disorders reduced only to fear. This definition of phobias includes situations, activities and objects.

Within itself phobias have three categories so we look at many various kinds of phobias. Agoraphobia is the type reduced only to the fear of being outside home or otherwise being in a situation from which one cannot escape. Social phobia is the category that is reduced to the fear of other people or social situations. Within itself social phobia includes generalized social phobia where the fear is of all social situations and specific social phobia where the fear is of one type of social situation such as public speaking. Specific phobias are those reduced to one specific object or phenomenon such as gear of heights or spiders. Within itself specific phobias include animal phobias, natural phobias, environment phobias, Blood-injection-injury phobias and others.

Causes for the development of phobias are divided into four models; Biological, Behaviourial, Psychodynamic and Cognitive. Each model is reductionist on its own but within itself they have multiple explanations and include many aspects.

The biological explanations include the genetic aspect which says that phobias are inherited. To support this studies have been conducted not only on the parent-child relationship but twins as well. However had studies been done on adopted children results would have been more holistic. The evolution theory reduces the cause of phobias to biological preparedness. It says that over the years due to evolution only the fittest have survived which means that humans have naturally developed a predisposition for phobias against certain unpleasant stimuli rather than pleasant stimuli. The biological model also puts forward the personality explanation which reduces the explanation for phobias to certain personality traits.

The psychodynamic model reduces the explanation for phobias to childhood anxieties produced due to a conflict between the id and the super ego. It focuses mainly on the defence mechanism of displacement where the fear of say male genitalia is displaced on snakes or neck ties. Other defence mechanisms are not incorporated in the explanation. However Fromm has another explanation where he blames the fear of the mother and not the father for the development of a phobia so we can say that this adds to the variety of explanations thus making the psychodynamic more holistic.

The behaviourial model is pretty holistic since it considers the social learning theory classical conditioning and operant conditioning. The social learning theory focuses on learning by observing so it would say that a child probably developed a phobia of spiders because his mother freaks out when she sees them. Classical conditioning focuses on unpleasant associations such as the case of little Albert where the child is actually scared of the sound of the hammer but associates it with the rat and develops

phobia of rats. Operant conditioning focuses only on consequences of a behavior. Eg Fromm states that the mothers threats of punishment made Hans develop the phobia. Mowrer’s two-factor approach is a more holistic behaviourial aspect as it accommodates classical and operant conditioning both and looks at the two components of a phobia; acquisition and maintenance holding associations ie classical conditioning responsible for acquiring fears and consequences ie operant conditioning for maintaining the fear. Because this model is reductionist it is unable to explain why it is easier to become afraid of some things eg spiders and not others eg flowers.

The cognitive model reduces its explanation to negative perceptions saying that people with phobias overestimate the threat of the feared object. However it is successful at explaining all three types of phobias which makes it holistic. The cognitive description is reduced to the symptoms of a phobia but fails to explain the causes as to why people overestimate the threat.

Treatments for phobias are again categorized into behaviourial treatments, biological treatments, and cognitive behaviourial treatments. On their own these are again reductionist as each looks at a certain treatment technique. Systematic desensitization and flooding focus on exposure to the feared stimuli to get used to it. When used along with modeling ie watching a model play with the feared stimulus this becomes a holistic method as it incorporates all the senses to sense the stimulus.

Cognitive behaviourial therapy is a pretty holistic method as it takes into account negative thoughts and overestimation of the threat along with learning phobias from associations consequences and observing. It does not only eliminate the symptoms of a phobia but the cause of it too ie negative cognitions.

Biological treatments focus solely on drugs such as sedatives that reduce the stress levels.

Overall while phobias may have a biological component, the behaviourial model provides the most comprehensive explanation which is why it is the most widely used treatment approaches combined with the cognitive approach. A combination provides more holistic and fruitful results.

1) Definition of Anxiety Disorders: non-reductionist because it takesinto account several different factors that lead to it for exampleworrying and excessive rumination. It is also been sub-divided intoseveral different disorders such as OCD and Phobia and is therefore aholistic definition.2) Definition of Phobia: Non-reductionist in that it is categorizedinto three different types covering several different types of phobiaswithin them.a. Agoraphobia: this type of phobia is reductionist as it is onlyassociated with fear of being outside.b. Social phobia: although it focuses on phobia caused by socialsituations, it looks at both general social phobia as well as specificsuch as fear of public speaking.c. Specific Phobia: covers several thousand different types of phobiasthat can be experienced.

MODELS:1) Biological Explanation of Model: This is reductionist as It onlytakes nature factors into account. However, within it, it looks atgenetic factors, personality type and biological preparedness asexplaining phobia which is holistic.Findings of Ost (1992), Torgerson (1983) and Lader and Mathews (1968)were reductionist as they only looked at genetic factors such asconcordance rates, arousal and whether or not relatives inherit asimilar fear, as explaining phobias.Seligman (1971) also only looked at biological preparedness andevolutionary stance at explaining phobias, and was hence reductionist.It also did not explain all types of phobia, but rather only specificphobias that can be considered as frightening such as snakes andspiders.

2) Psychodynamic Explanation: Reductionist as it only explains phobiasas being developed due to events experienced in childhood, ignoringother possible factors. In the case of little Hans, Freud’s theory ofOedipus complex creating the phobia of horses could have beenexplained differently for e.g. association of horses and other eventscreating the phobia.

3) Behavioural Explanation: Only looks at how phobias are learnt,hence making it reductionist. It also explains a complex behavior insimple terms. However, it is non-reductionist too as it explains thisin three ways that is through Bandura’s social learning, PavolvianClassical Condition and Skinner’s Operant Conditioning.a. Watson and Raynor (1920): only looked at classical conditioning asa way of inducing fear, making the study reductionist. They also onlytested this on one child, so findings cannot be generalized to all.b. Mowrer’s 2 factor approach: this is not reductionist within thebehavioural model as it explained both development and maintenance ofphobias through classical and operant conditioning.

4) Cognitive Explanation:Tomarkent et al (1989): this study is reductionist as it only lookedat how people with phobias tend to over-estimate the fear present. Itdid not look at the reason behind this, and the fear of specificphobias of snakes and spiders was only studied.TREATMENTS:1) Behavioural treatment:

Joseph Wolpe (1958) reduced treatment of phobia down to only threesteps. However, it is not reductionist if these three steps covereverything in removing one’s phobia. This treatment however,concentrates only on relaxation techniques and does not deal with theroot cause of the phobia, making it reductionist.2) Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: a holistic treatment as it treatsboth the way a patient thinks about the phobia as well as learningbehavioural techniques.Ost and Wesling (1995): their study was holistic as they compared theeffectiveness of two different treatment methods i.e. behavioural andCBT. The sample was also not reductionist, as both people with andwithout agoraphobia were chosen.

Reliability:

Definition of phobias: . reliable because the 3 components (irrationality, disproportionate fear and avoidance) hold true for all 3 types of phobias (social phobia, specific/simple phobia and agoraphobia) . Phobias strike 7-13% of the population in western countries which is a very high number compared to the 1% population struck by shizophrenia. The fact that all people with phobias show the three characteristics outlined in the definition makes it reliable but at the same time phobias may be under reported because people continue to find ways to avoid the thing, activity or situation they have a phobia of. It can be possible that these unreported cases exhibit different characteristics so the definition may not be totally reliable. . Billington's study proves that women are more empathizing than men who are systemizing and therefore it explains why women are twice as likely as men to have phobias. Phobias are irrational and men being rational and logical are therefore less likely to have phobias.Biological: Ost (1992) proved reliable by Torgenrsen (1983)- both stressing genetic explanation. DZ twins have 0% concordance which shows that although DZ twins are reared similarly learning does not play a part in phobias. . Lader and Mathews (1968) supported by diathesis stress model. They conclude that phobia itself is not inherited but infact the high arousal is inherited. It can be said that this high arousal is triggered by situation which is supported by diathesis stress model. . Seligman is reliable in the sense that Ohman supports his explanation of biological preparedness. Still, from a behavourist perspective it can be argued that it is not evolution but rather our social conditioning since childhood to be afraid of spiders, snakes and so on. . Personality Type: Useful in explaining other abnormal behaviour like addiction and also stress so high reliability of personality being a factor.Psychodynamic: poor reliability as Freud's ideas are highly subjective + retrospective approach + possible restructuring of details. Other interpretations of Hans' fear of horses possible like Fromm (1970).Behavioural: . HIgh reliability because all 3 (operant conditioning, classical conditioning, social learning)

are evidence of learning phobias rather than having a genetic predisposition or unconscious conflict leading to it. . Reliable cause supported by Watson and Raynor (1920) , Mowrer's 2 factor theory, Barlow and Durand (1995) and even Mineka (1984) but dinardo (1988) however finds the behavioural approach as not considering individual differences and this compromises on reliability.cognitive explanation; . reliable, supported by Tomarken's (1989) study.Behavioural treatment: . reliable cause both Flooding an Systematic desensetization focus are more or less based on th esame framework that suggests teaching coping skills and then exposing the person to scary stimuli. . Ost (1989): systematic desensitization has been commonly used to treat specific phobia and in some cases results can be achieved in a single therapeutic session- so reliable. CBT: . reliable as shown in Ost and Westling's study (1995). The sample is relatively small (38 people) but includes males and females both from variety of occupations and marital statuses which makes it generalizable and also helps improve reliability because similar results were found in males and females (cbt worked better for both). The baseline assessment was done through variety of questionnaires making it reliable.

Reliability refers to standardization of procedure. It refers to the evidence found in follow up research.

The biological model is high in reliability as it is well researched and explains phobias through three main factors. The genetic explanation according to Torgersen (1983) reports the following concordance rates for agoraphobia: MZ twins: 31%, DZ twins: 0%reliability is high as the same study replicated will give similar results. Ost (1992) supported it too. Biological preparedness refers to an evolutionary advantage to have certain phobias meaning that we are more likely to develop some phobias than others. Ohman et al (1975) suggested that we may be predisposed to acquire phobias to situations or objects that are life-threatening. Reliability is high as it is present in everyone. Personality type also plays a major role. At first this seems out of place in a biological explanation. However social phobia may be caused by the personality characteristic of excessive shyness or introversion. Perhaps we inherit the personality type that then makes it more likely that we will become a social phobic. Hence, reliability is high. However, the extent to which personalities are determined by genes and environment is debatable. Reliability goes down. The fact that there Is no biological treatment for phobias suggests that very little has been proved about the cause of the phobia to be able to treat it.

The psychodynamic model explains phobias through the famous Little Hans study. Reliability is extremely low as it has been carried out on only one subject, only once and no direct interviews of Hans were taken. Rather, the father was in constant contact with the researcher, Freud. This model however provides a good explanation for phobias. And that is displacement. It has little research to back it up.

The behavioral model talks about operant and classical conditioning along with the Social Learning Theory. Little Albert’s study by Watson was reliable because the effects stayed for long. However a study done on one subject is hardly said to be reliable. Hence, there were a lot of follow up studies. DiNardo et al (1988) reported that only about half of all people that have had frightening experiences of dogs go on to develop a phobia of dogs. Behaviorists are unable to explain this sort of individual difference using

stimulus response theory. One question that is still left unanswered is that everyone who goes through operant conditioning doesn’t develop phobias and this refutes the hypothesis put forward by this model. We know that something more is involved because with this model alone we cannot assume a cause and effect relationship.

The cognitive model suggests that the same event can lead to different psychological reactions according to how each individual perceives it. A lot of studies lead to the same finding hance reliability is

high. Tomarken et al (1989) took participants that were frightened of snakes and/or spiders and

compared them to people not afraid of these creatures. The participants with phobias drastically overestimated the number of times the snake, spider etc. would be followed by an electric shock. Other studies have shown that phobics over-estimate the threat being posed. As often happens with the cognitive theory of abnormal behavior it is almost impossible to separate out cause and effect since it treats symptoms and causes as being alike. Does the warped perception cause the disorder or does the disorder lead to an over-estimate of the threat? This is why it is low in reliability.

The biological model may have a lot research behind it and be the best in explaining phobias, a cognitive-behaviour approach is best to treat the phobia.

Validity:

Validity is the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure. It is vital for a test to be valid in order for the results to be accurately applied and interpreted. Validity isn’t determined by a single statistic, but by a body of research that demonstrates the relationship between the test and the behavior it is intended to measure. Moreover it is when the results of an experiment provide evidence for its original hypothesis. It is important to note that generalizability, reliability etc. all effect the validity of a study or an experiment.

Biological –

Ost (1992) found that 62% of people with a blood + injection phobia have a 1st-degree relative who shares the same disorder, while the prevalence rate for the general population is just 3%. Moreover Torgersen (1983) cemented this discovery and moreover explanation for phobia when he reported the following concordance rates for agoraphobia: MZ twins: 31%, DZ twins: 0%.

The differences in the percentages and the concordance rate proves that the biological model is valid as it gives proof that people do tend to be biologically predisposed towards phobia. However one can say that other factors may have also influenced this discovery; the validity of these studies can questioned by the environment the twins and the family are nurtured in. It is important to realize that people from the same family especially twins seem to share the same background, culture, tradition ethnicity etc. and thus obviously they would be more prone suffer from the same problems (phobia) since they maybe nurtured in a certain way that is similar.

Some people are more easily aroused than others. Since arousal is controlled by activity in the sympathetic branch of the ANS (autonomic nervous system), it could be that there is a biological predisposition to phobias. Thus one can say that that the study conducted by Lader& Mathews (1968) in which they did find that agoraphobics and social phobes have a higher level of arousal is infract valid. Clearly this could be tied in with the genetic argument since a higher state of physical arousal like this is probably inherited.

Ohman et al (1975) used classical conditioning to induce a fear of either snakes and spiders or houses and flowers. They did this in the time honoured way of pairing the stimulus with electric shocks. After a shock-free period the fear for houses and flowers extinguished (died out) very quickly, whereas the fear of snakes and spiders persisted. This suggests that we may be predisposed to acquire phobias to situations or objects that are life threatening. Therefore one can say that he has proved that it is easier for people to develop phobia of snakes and spiders than to acquire a phobia of houses and flowers. This shows that people have learnt through evolution that something’s are more threatening than others. Moreover this makes the biological model valid. However it is also important to realize that people may have learnt this through the social learning theory and from an early age they might be afraid of something more than others. Our personality can also be a likely cause of developing a phobia , but it is difficult to determine whether biology or social environment determines personality. Thus one can conclude that while these studies are valid to a certain extent, we cannot completely look at phobia from a biological perspective as obviously other factors are also influencing the development of phobia in a person.

Psychodynamic model:

Freud’s theory of phobia was that conflict between the id and the ego causes anxiety. The id is the source of your selfish urges. These can be a source of anguish, embarrassment and stress so they tend to be repressed into the unconscious mind by one of a variety of defense mechanisms.One of the defense mechanisms, is displacement. Anxiety caused by an object may be displaced onto something else. The specific case of Little Hans (1909) studied and explained by Frued is the main example through which Frued illustrated this theory.Freud concluded that Hans’ fear of horses had come about because of an unresolved Oedipus complex. During the Phallic stage of development little boys develop an unconscious desire of their mother and become fearful that the father will find out. This fear is caused by castration anxiety, the worry that the father will chop off their ‘wedding tackle.’ In the case of Little Hans, his unacceptable fear of his father had been displaced onto horses who bore some striking resemblances to his father. Hans’ father wore glasses (similar to a horse’s blinkers), he had a moustache (similar to a horse’s reigns) , and Hans used to ride on his dad’s back and his dad had once told him to ‘trot away.’

This approach cannot be looked upon as valid at all as it offers not firm proof that conflict was the sole reason behind the phobia. Moreover it is not generalizable as it may be true specifically for little Hans but since its not been tested or applied on other children of similar age it can not be viewed as valid. Moreover it is important to note that environmental factors and the way one is nurtured may have caused the development of phobia as well. The social learning theory is applicable is here as Hans may

have been afraid because people around him may haven afraid and he was brought up to be scared of horses. It maybe also innate and biologically predisposed.

Thus the psychodynamic model should not be seen as valid at all

Behavioral explanation:

Watson and Raynor (1920) classically conditioned a fear of white rats in an 11 month old boy, Albert. Over a period of weeks, each time he plays with a toy white rat, an iron bar is struck. At first this causes hesitation when dealing with the rat and eventually after 10 days or so (the third trial) he becomes distressed when the rat is seen.

This study is clear proof of that nurturing a child a specific way may lead to them developing a phobia, moreover the fact that its been looked at extensively for a long period of time (10 days) and has been done on a child (11 month) that is still being nurtured and has yet not developed phobia contributes to this study being valid. Though we cannot completely define it as valid since other factors do obviously affect the child. The child may be genetically inclined to be frightened of rats and this may have triggered the phobia. Moreover it isn’t also generalizable as it has only be tested on one child and thus is not totally valid.

Mowrer’s ‘two-factor’ approach: Mowrer believed that both classical and operant conditioning are involved in acquisition and maintenance of phobias.Classical conditioning explains how we acquire the fear while operant conditioning therefore explains why a phobia is maintained. While this approach seems valid as it can be applied to many situations, but since its not widely tested and mowrer hasn’t provided signicant evidence for this theory. Thus since its not generalizable and not that reliable either it can be looked upon as completely valid

Other studies such as that of Barlow & Durand (1995),Mineka et al (1984), DiNardo et al (1988)etc can be looked upon as valid, it is important to consider they don’t look at the genetic and cognitive aspect of phobia and do not provide significant evidence aswell.

Thus this theory can be looked upon as reductionist (explains a complex behavior in very simple terms) and ignores biological or genetic factors. It is unable to explain why it is easier to become afraid of some things (snakes, spiders) than others such as flowers and houses. While it is mostly valid, we cannot define the behavioral explanation as absolutely valid.

Cognitive explanation:

The theory is descriptive but lacks explanatory power. It is able to describe the symptoms of phobias but unable to explain how these have come about. Why do some people over-estimate the threat from one particular creature and not others.As often happens with the cognitive theory of abnormal behavior it is almost impossible to separate out cause and effect since it treats symptoms and causes as being alike.

An example of this can be the study conducted by Tomarken et al (1989). He took participants that were frightened of snakes and/or spiders and compared them to people not afraid of these creatures. They would show them slides of snakes, spiders and non-fear provoking creatures. After each slide there would either be a tone, silence or an electric shock. The participants with phobias drastically overestimated the number of times the snake, spider etc. would be followed by an electric shock.

This study gives a logical explanation and provides proof that the cognition can help and moreover cause the development of phobia. Thus since it is generalizable as many people were tested and more over reliable (controlled setting) we can deduce that the explanation is valid. However since it is reductionist since does not look at other reasons (biological, behavioral etc) and not ecologically valid one cannot label it as fully valid.

Behavioral treatment:

Behavior therapy (Marks, 1987)systematic desensitization and flooding are the two key treatments used by behavioral psychologists.

Systematic desensitization was first used by Joseph Wolpe (1958). This desensitization involves three steps: (1) training the patient to physically relax, (2) establishing an anxiety hierarchy of the stimuli involved, and (3) counter-conditioning relaxation as a response to each feared stimulus beginning first with the least anxiety-provoking stimulus and moving then to the next least anxiety-provoking stimulus until all of the items listed in the anxiety hierarchy have been dealt with successfully. Since it has been tested and has been successful (Ost, 1989; Zinbarg et al, 1992) one can say that it is valid, since it is to a certain extent generalizable and reliable. However since there is no evidence of a follow up one can assume the patients can have a relapse and thus the treatment can not be completely relied.

The other two treatments also seem ecologically valid, reliable and generalizable since they have been tried and tested, but just like SD they also may not be fully valid as a patient may have a relapse. Moreover all these treatments concentrate on one part of a person’s personality and don’t really cure the thought process and certainly the biological aspect.

Cognitive treatment:

The Key study that looks at this treatment was conducted by Ost and Westling (1995). The aim of the study was to compare cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) with applied relaxation as therapies for panic disorder. The study was longitudinal with patients undergoing therapy for panic disorder. Moreover they found that Applied relaxation showed 65% panic-free patients after the treatment, 82% panic-free after one year.CBT showed 74% panic-free patients after the treatment and 89% panic-free after a year, but these differences were not significant. Complications such as generalised anxiety and depression were also reduced to within the normal range after one year.

Since both CBT and applied relaxation worked at reducing panic attacks, they were obviously successful and valid to a certain extent. The study is generalizable (38 patients), ecologically valid since its longitudinal and obviously reliable because of the quantatave and qualitative data is collected. These

factors make the treatment seems more valid. Moreover this treatment can also be looked upon as the most valid amongst all treatments for phobia since the follow-up proves that it has a long lasting affect (1 year) which means less chances of a relapse. It obviously is reductionist so can not be termed as completely valid but as the ‘most’ valid amongst other cognitive and behavioural treatment.

While the research done on phobia is pretty valid, in terms of generalizability, reliability etc, all the explanations do lack certain aspects that make them less valid.

Definition: very subjective. Works for some people. But, mental health is on a spectrum. The definition is subjective, and therefore we can not decide what is irrational and what kind of behaviour maybe disproportionate.

Types of phobias:valid because its true for some people, and its categorised separately from each other. But at the same time it's a man-made definition so it may not be valid.

The biological explanation holds in the case of many people who have inherited the tendency to develop a phobia, or have a medical problem, but it does not take into account other factors, such as environmental, behavioural and psychodynamic. Thus, it is valid and not valid at the same time.

The psychodynamic explanation takes into account a person's history, but leaves out other biological issues. This, valid and not valid.

The behavioural explanation explains phobias through the concept of social, classical and operant conditioning, but leaves out the medical factors.

The cognitive explanation bases everything on the way a person thinks, and completely ignores the person's history, medical conditions and the environment he was born in. Thus, valid and not valid.

The behavioural treatment focuses on just changing the behaviour via the systematic desensitisation and flooding. This may work in some cases, but in other cases, people may not have a behavioural issue, but instead a deep rooted problem which may be connected to his or her history or medical condition.

So valid and not valid.

The cognitive-behavioural treatment focuses on just mental processes and behavioural issues, but ignores medical conditions and a person's history. Thus, valid and not valid.

Nature vs. Nurture:

Phobias are primarily the products of nurture; they are learned overtime. People are not born with phobias.

Women tend to be twice as likely to suffer from phobias. This highlights the nurture aspect of the debate. While growing up, women generally learn to be more timid than men. Gender roles and social learning dictate that it's usually the damsels who are ^in distress.

Ost (1992) found that 62% of people with blood/injection phobias have a 1st degree relative with the same disorder. Nature; runs in the family.

Torgersen (1983) concordance rate for DZ twins 0% while MZ twins 31% - Nature

Biological preparedness; Seligman, 1971

Evolution has instilled in us certain instinctive fears that may develop into phobias overtime. Know what to be afraid of and what not to be afraid of. Nature

Personality type; inherit certain personalities that it make it more likely to develop social phobias. Nature

Psychodynamic explanation - using defense mechanism displacement that leads to the development of phobias. Nurture; people learn coping methods and defense mechanisms. Learn to displace unconscious feelings/fears onto something less threatening. Usually triggered by a traumatic incident (not nature)

Phobias often learned through social learning, operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Nurture; eg: Watson and Raynor, 1920. Teaching little Albert the fear of rats.

Nurture helps maintain phobias with the help of classical/operant conditioning, Mawrer.

Cognitive = nurture, because overtime you gain irrational thoughts about certain things. You are not born with such irrationality of thought; they usually develop after having experienced a traumatic incident.

Flooding, systematic desensitization focus on the nurture aspect of phobias. Patients are taught relaxation/coping methods, alternate reactions/perceptions to deal with the fear.

Biological treatments - both nature and nurture. Medications trigger biological changes to reduce anxiety. In addition, patients believe that medication will help which automatically reduces anxiety (placebo effect).

•biological explanation-genetic factors: phobias tend to run in families OST 1992-62% of people with A blood and injection phobia had a first degree relative who did,thus this is NATURE as its due to family genes.Phobias are more likely to be due to nature i.e genetics,this means that its more likely to be inherited.Lader and matthews 1968 found that agoraphobics and social phoics have a higher level of arousal and since arousal is controlled by activity in the sympathetic branch of the ANS it could be that there is a biological predisposition of phobias and thus this is probably inherited.•seligman 1971 : we are more likely to develop some phobias than others,eg the fear of snakes and spidersmthus here we see a NURTURE aspect to phobias as they aren't just solely inherited but developed and influenced by environmental factors as well.•ohman et al 1975 classical conditioning.this suggested that we may be pre disposed to acquire phobias to situations or objects that are life threatening,thus nurture again has a big role to play

in this as throughout our lives we may learn and associate fear or danger with certain objects/situations or animals and thus develop a phobia of them.from an early age we are made aware of the dangers of such creatures through stories books and films and simply by being warned and thus its nurture.•personality type-eg personality charecteristics of excessive shyness or introversion.perhaps we inherit the personality type.to some extent personalities are determined by genes and the environment however to some extent it can be inherited genetically.•physcodynamic explanation-nature as well as nurture,as it looks at a person from birth to manhood.The I'd is nature as its a biological instinct however the ego is nurture as its what we've learnt,the values that we've learnt throughout our life thus its influenced by our environment and what we learn to associate things with.•behavioural explanation-nurture as it tells us how phobias are learnt through classical,operant and social learning as Watson and raynor 1920 classically conditioned a fear of white rats in an 11 month old little Albert.

Behavioural Model :Operan Conditioning, Classical Conditioning and Social learning all support nurture. Little Albert was taught to fear a rat through association. This is a prime example of how a phobia can be learnt, hence this model supports nurture.More over Mowrers two factor approach favours both nature and nurture. It initially shows that we acquire a phobia through an association therefore we learn it. This was seen with the case of Little Albert, thus showing that classical conditioning can lead to the development of aphobia.Mowrers view on how we maintain a phobia supports nature however. Since we associate fear with a particular object this causes anxiety. Anxiety naturally has physical symptoms such as increased heart rate and sweating. To relax these we avoid our phobia's. Hence showing that phobia's are maintained through avoidance of the phobia in order to relieve ourselves of the stress/anxiety.Barlow and Durand also discovered that those who has a fear of driving associated it with a previously unpleasant experience. Hence showing phobia's can be learnt. Nurture is supported here.

Cognitive explanation : This has both nature and nurture aspects. It is nature because people have an irrational thought process about a particular phobia. Their mind percieves and emits negative thoughts resulting in fear. However the nurture bit is the fact that we learnt the fear in the first place through association, which results in our irrational thought process. Thus it can be said that the cognitive model is better at explaining how we maintain a phobia rather than how we acquire it. As it is a past experience which causes negative thoughts in our mind. Hence we avoid the object of our fears due to this.

BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT:

1. Systematic Desensitization: NURTURE

Nurture because you are taught to cope with phobias. It is not internal. One has to learn to overcome phobias by different step-by-step methods

2. Flooding: NURTURE

Taught to overcome phobia – coping skills etc. No nature component

STUDY BY OST AND WESTLING (1995)

APPLIED RELAXATION:

NURTURE –taught coping skills

Generate alternative cognition in response to physical symptom

Showed a significantly reduced figure but the CBT showed an even significantly reduced figure +generalized anxiety and depression also reduced

Also because one is not born with coping skills but taught through social learning – behavioral therapy

Since behavioral model provides most comprehensive explanation – NURTURE because it depends on social learning and therefore also focus on NURTURE component.

Individual vs. Situational:

When explaining behaviour psychologists usually offer either an individual or a situational explanation. An individual explanation is when something about the person is used to explain behaviour whereas when behaviour is explained in terms of the situation the person is in it is situational explanation.

A phobia can be defined as the irrational, disproportionate fear of a situation, activity or thing which can cause one to go great lengths to avoid it. Psychologists have identified both individual and situational factors that can lead to the development of phobias.

Phobias can be categorized in to three types, Agoraphobia, Social phobia and Specific phobia. Agoraphobia is the fear of being outside home, the theory where develops from a situation (being outside residence) this is accompanied by the inability to handle the situation and suffer panic attacks. Social Phobias are cause by social factors and are therefore completely triggered by the situation. Specific Phobias can be explained via both individual and situational factors.

The Biomedical model of psychology explains phobias mostly as being a result of individual factors as identified by Ost (1992) and Torgersen (1983) who found that relatives have high concordance rates of phobias, hence highlighting genetics as the primary cause. However, as these concordance rates are not 100% there is a possibility that genetic factors need the support of situational stimuli to develop phobias.

Seligman (1971) hypothesized that the likely-hood of being scared of some objects (e.g. snakes) to other (e.g. flowers) varies due to evolution which is again experiences passed on by previous generations within the individual. Another biological explanation is the type of personality a person possesses which again are exclusive in individuals.

The Psychodynamic model identifies phobia as a defense mechanism against childhood fixations. These fixations can occur due to situational factors such as traumatic events in the psychosexual stages, or be innate such as the Oedipus/Electra complex, which according to Freud is found in every child.

Behavioral explanations of Phobias are only based on situational factors, according to Bandura all behavior is learnt through models and hence phobias are a result of imitating others. Another explanation was provided by Watson and Raynor (1920) who found that a person can be taught to fear an object, once again identifying situational factors. However, DiNardo (1988) found that all individuals who have had traumatic experiences do not develop a phobia, hence suggesting that situational factors alone cannot cause the phobia to develop.

Cognitive Explanations identify faulty thought patterns as the cause of phobias, stating that a phobic individual overestimates the probability of being negatively influenced by the object he is afraid of. While the faulty thought patterns occurs within the individual, it is assumed that such thought may be product of dreadful experiences, hence identifying both situational and individual factors.

The largely used formats of treatment of phobias are behavioral treatment and CBT. Behavioral treatment mostly deals with changing the situational factors by bringing the affected individual closer to the object feared, however, at the same time it is accompanied by the teaching of coping skills hence altering the individual itself to a certain extent. CBT on the other hand uses both situational stimuli from behavioral treatment and at the same time tries to substitute the irrational thought pattern within the individual with rational thought.

Based on the research of Psychologists, phobias are caused by both individual and situational factors and the treatment used can also be deduced from both view points.

Individual differences in psychology believe that an individual’s certain behavior is due to his personality or dispositions whereas situational explanation believes that a person’s behavior is a result of the situation a person is in, the environment and other reasons such as peer pressure

Phobia is defined as the irrational, disppropiant fear of a situation, activity or thing that causes one to go to great lengths to avoid it. it has been researched that people who have phobias will try to avoid the situations they are afraid of. This approach supports the situational explanation as phobics will be afraid from certain situations and will try to avoid it. For example people who have social phobia will try to

avoid situations where they will have to interact with others. Phobia has been mainly categorized into 3 sub categories. Agoraphobia is a fear of being outside or otherwise being in a situation from which one either cannot escape or from which escaping would be difficult or humiliating. This idea supports the situational explanation where people with agoraphobia will try to avoid situations where they are away from their households however it also believes in individual differences because some people may develop agoraphobia because of the way they are brought up and the type of personality they have .Similarly it has been identified that there may be a genetic link which further supports individual differences. Social phobia is the fear of other people or social situations such as performance anxiety or fears of embarrassment by scrutiny of others, such as eating in public. By its definition it is pretty clear that this category of phobia believes in the situational explanation. Furthermore being in uncomfortable situations might trigger social phobia. Specific phobia is the fear of a single specific panic trigger such as spiders, snakes, dogs, water, heights, flying, catching a specific illness, etc. this category supports both individual and situational hypothesis because a person may develop specific phobia because of the way his personality is or may also be triggered by being in a certain situation.

The biological explanation of phobia looks at genetics and biochemistry in explaining phobias. The biological model supports the individual explanation as it believes that phobias tend to run in families and have a genetic component to it, for example Ost (1992) found that 62% of people with a blood + injection phobia have a 1st-degree relative who shares the same disorder, while the prevalence rate for the general population is just 3%.Similarly Lader & Mathews (1968) did find that agoraphobics and social phobias have a higher level of arousal. Clearly this could be tied in with the genetic argument since a higher state of physical arousal like this is probably inherited .however it can be said that situational factors will also lead to the development of phobias for e.g. .children who are brought up in a family where their mother or father may have a of something will might also develop phobia of the same thing. The evolutionary explanation suggests that it could be an evolutionary advantage to have certain phobias meaning that we are more likely to develop some phobias than others. This explanation also supports the individual difference as we are predisposed to acquire phobias to situations or objects that are life-threatening.

The psychodynamic approach believes that the conflict between the id, super ego and ego leads to anxiety and the defense mechanism uses displacement as a coping strategy. For example in the case of Little Hans, his unacceptable fear of his father had been displaced onto horses that bore some striking resemblances to his father. The behavioral model over all supports the situational explanation as it looks phobias through a process of learning. Watson and ryner classically conditioned little Albert to be afraid of rats which showed that being in a situation can lead to fear from a very young age. The cognitive model believes that People with phobias tend to focus on the negative aspects of situations having experienced a negative event, this negative focus means they are more likely to believe that it will reoccur in the future. This supports the situational hypothesis for example Tomarken et al (1989) took participants that were frightened of snakes and spiders and compared them to people not afraid of these creatures. They would show them slides of snakes, spiders and non-fear provoking creatures. . The participants with phobias drastically overestimated the number of times the snake, spider etc. would be followed by an electric shock.

There are three types of phobias:

-Agoraphobia is a fear of being outside or otherwise being in a situation from which one either cannot escape or from which escaping would be difficult or humiliating. It is a generalized fear of leaving home or a small familiar safe area. This can be a situational explanation as this phobia has to do with the situation an individual is in, the fear is triggered by one or a series of panic attacks in a public place

-Social phobia is the fear of other people or social situations such as performance anxiety or fears of embarrassment by scrutiny of others. This is again a situational explanation because a person feels extreme anxiety and fear about how he or she will perform in a social situation.

-Specific phobia is the fear of a single specific panic trigger such as spiders, snakes, dogs, water, heights, flying, catching a specific illness, etc. This can again be said to be a situational explanation as a person develops a fear when he sees a specific panic trigger.

MODELS OF PHOBIA:

-Biological explanation: Phobias tend to run in families, for example Ost (1992) found that 62% of people with a blood + injection phobia have a 1st-degree relative who shares the same disorder, while the prevalence rate for the general population is just 3%. This is an individual situation as a persons genestic factor can be used to explain the phobia.

Ohman et al (1975) used classical conditioning to induce a fear of either snakes and spiders or houses and flowers. They did this in the time honoured way of pairing the stimulus with electric shocks. After a shock-free period the fear for houses and flowers extinguished very quickly, whereas the fear of snakes and spiders persisted. This can be explained in terms of a situational explanation as it suggests that we may be predisposed to acquire phobias to situations or objects that are life-threatening.

However, phobia can also be explained in terms of an individual explanation as phobias of spiders and snakes could just be because of social conditioning. From an early age we are made aware of the dangers of such creatures through stories, books and films and simply by being warned, which is an individual is frightened whenever he/she sees them.

Personality type : social phobia may be caused by the personality characteristic of excessive shyness or introversion. This is an individual explanation as it is something about the person that can be used to explain behaviour.

-Psychodynamic explanation:

The psychodynamic model of phobia can be explained in terms of an individual explanation. Hans fear can be described using his own behaviour. Freud concluded that Hans had developed a fear of horses because of an unresolved Oedipus complex.

Hans case can also be explained in terms of a situational explanation as Fromm (1970) believes that the fear was not of the father but instead provides evidence for the fear being of the mother. On catching

Hans playing with his ‘widdler’ (or ‘wi-wi-maker), his mother had threatened to take him to the doctors to have it chopped off! It was also his mother who on a number of occasions had threatened to leave Hans. It was situations like these that made Hans develop this fear.

-Behavioural explanation:

Watson and Raynor (1920) classically conditioned a fear of white rats in an 11 month old boy, Albert. Over a period of weeks, each time he plays with a toy white rat, an iron bar is struck. At first this causes hesitation when dealing with the rat and eventually after 10 days or so (the third trial) he becomes distressed when the rat is seen. Now this model can be explained in terms of a situational explanation as it was the situation of seeing the rat and the sound of the iron bar at a time that led to Albert developing this fear.

Barlow & Durand (1995) report that 50% of people with a phobia for driving could remember a specific incident that had triggered the fear again supporting the theory that phobias are learned following some incident or incidents (Situational explanation, people develop a fear after they have witnessed a particular incident)

However, about 50% of people with phobias cannot recall a specific event that triggered the fear.

Dinardo et al (1988) reported that only about half of all people that have had frightening experiences of dogs go on to develop a phobia of dogs.

-Cognitive explanation:

cognitive theorists argue the way people think about, judge and appraise situations affects the likelihood of a fearful response. People with phobias tend to focus on the negative aspects of situations – having experienced a negative event, this negative focus means they are more likely to believe that it will reoccur in the future. Again a situational explanation as the participants with phobias in Tomarken et al’s study drastically overestimated the number of times the snake, spider etc. would be followed by an electric shock.

Treatments:

Behavioural treatment:

The most successful and researched treatments on Phobia are behavioral. Systematic desensitization was first used by Joseph Wolpe (1958). This desensitization involves three steps: (1) training the patient to physically relax, (2) establishing an anxiety hierarchy of the stimuli involved, and (3) counter-conditioning relaxation as a response to each feared stimulus beginning first with the least anxiety-provoking stimulus and moving then to the next least anxiety-provoking stimulus until all of the items listed in the anxiety hierarchy have been dealt with successfully.

The Behavioural treatment is again explained in terms of a situational explanation as systematic desensitization allows an individual to gradually challenge their fears, build confidence, and master skills

for controlling panic through exposure of different situations. Flooding where an individual is taught the coping skills and flooded with the scray stimuli is also based on a situational explanation.

Cognitive Behavioural Treatment:

Ost and Westling’s study(1995) found that Applied relaxation showed 65% panic-free patients after the treatment, 82% panic-free after one year.

CBT showed 74% panic-free patients after the treatment and 89% panic-free after a year, but these differences were not significant.

Cognitive theraphy examines how negative thoughts or cognitions contribute to anxiety. This treatment can be explained in terms of an individual explanation as it addresses negative patterns and distortions in the way one looks at the world and himself. In other words, it’s not the situation an individual is in that determines how he/she feels but it is the perception of the situation.

Generalizability:

Bio: all of us have the same biological makeup so generally these studies can be applied to wider groups. ost; only talks about a specific phobia ie blood injection phobia so cannot be generalized to other types of phobias, torgerson; twin studies provide genetic explanation for twins only, laden and Mathews; talk about arousal in social phobes and agoraphobics only, Seligman; all of us born with biological preparedness so generalizable, ohman et al; predisposed to get certain phobias, personality explanation bit not generalizable as it varies between individuals, not all shy people become social phobes. Psychodynamic: generalizable as all of us go through psychosexual stages and have id/ego, however not all individuals use defense mechanisms in response to anxiety. behavioral ; SLT, CC, OC, all of us can learn though imitation, associations and reinforcement so generalizable but individuals vary in the degree to which they absorb from environment. Watson and raynors study done with very young boy at learning age, not generalizable to adults, mineka et al; monkeys so not generalizable to humans, cognitive : lacks explanatory power and cause/effect issue so not generalizable, all studies done are western so not generalizable to other non western countries.

As for the treatments, remember, no treatment is 100%, and while behavioral treatment is awesome, CBT is even better, but none cures 100%, so gen is high, but not entirely. Also, not everyone can be exposed directly, some have a phobia so intense, they need in vivo treatment. Hence, there are individual differences, therefore limiting generalizability.