QuestionQuestion

Emily has recently become so afraid Emily has recently become so afraid of social situations that she hardly of social situations that she hardly ever goes out of the house. Even ever goes out of the house. Even harmless everyday situations, like harmless everyday situations, like meeting friends in a café, are meeting friends in a café, are terrifying for Emily. terrifying for Emily.

Identify Identify three three characteristics of characteristics of phobias shown by Emily. phobias shown by Emily. (3 marks) (3 marks) [AO1 = 0, AO2 = 3][AO1 = 0, AO2 = 3]

answeranswer Credit up to 3 marks as follows:Credit up to 3 marks as follows:

Emily’s fear is extreme/severe emotional response Emily’s fear is extreme/severe emotional response (terrified of going out) (1)(terrified of going out) (1)

Emily’s fear is irrational (she fears everyday situations) (1)Emily’s fear is irrational (she fears everyday situations) (1) Emily shows avoidance (she goes out as little as possible) Emily shows avoidance (she goes out as little as possible)

(1)(1) Emily’s fear is disproportionate (fears everyday situations) Emily’s fear is disproportionate (fears everyday situations)

(1)(1) Candidates should identify the characteristics of phobias Candidates should identify the characteristics of phobias

and not gain credit for simply repeating the stem. and not gain credit for simply repeating the stem.

Biological explanations Biological explanations of phobiasof phobias

TaskTask

On a scale of 1 – 10 rate how much On a scale of 1 – 10 rate how much anxiety the following pictures anxiety the following pictures

cause you to feel. cause you to feel.

1 - no anxiety to 10 - most anxiety1 - no anxiety to 10 - most anxiety

Ohman et al (2006) : PreparednessOhman et al (2006) : Preparedness

The researchers were interested in The researchers were interested in

whether people are genetically whether people are genetically

predisposed to be afraid of certain predisposed to be afraid of certain

objects/situations that could be objects/situations that could be

potentially threatening and so as a potentially threatening and so as a

consequence develop phobias!consequence develop phobias!

MethodMethod Participants were put into two groups – in one Participants were put into two groups – in one

condition they were given an electrical shock when condition they were given an electrical shock when looking at pictures of a house or face. In the looking at pictures of a house or face. In the second condition they were given an electric shock second condition they were given an electric shock when looking at pictures of a snake or spider.when looking at pictures of a snake or spider.

Both groups showed fear when subsequently Both groups showed fear when subsequently shown pictures they had experienced with an shown pictures they had experienced with an electric shock. This was measured by their skin electric shock. This was measured by their skin reaction on the galvanic skin response monitor.reaction on the galvanic skin response monitor.

Following a period where p’s received no electric Following a period where p’s received no electric shock it was found that the GSR was still higher for shock it was found that the GSR was still higher for those when shown pictures of snakes or spiders. those when shown pictures of snakes or spiders.

Preparedness theoryPreparedness theory Seligman (1971) says that we have Seligman (1971) says that we have

developed phobias to objects or developed phobias to objects or situations that are potentially situations that are potentially threatening to us thousands of years threatening to us thousands of years ago. ago.

Those individuals who developed have a Those individuals who developed have a phobia today were those people who phobia today were those people who avoided those situations in hunter avoided those situations in hunter gatherer times and so the behaviour to gatherer times and so the behaviour to avoid certain objects or situations has avoid certain objects or situations has evolved over time and been past on evolved over time and been past on through genetics.through genetics.

Preparedness theoryPreparedness theory

He continued that there was a He continued that there was a biological preparedness – a biological preparedness – a predisposition to be sensitive to predisposition to be sensitive to certain stimuli. It is not the fears certain stimuli. It is not the fears themselves that are inborn but themselves that are inborn but rather the innate tendency to rapidly rather the innate tendency to rapidly acquire a phobia to potentially acquire a phobia to potentially harmful phenomena.harmful phenomena.

Are all these phobias biologically Are all these phobias biologically innate?innate?

To have a fear of:To have a fear of:

ClownsClowns DarknessDarkness PlanesPlanes HeightsHeights GunsGuns open spacesopen spaces The no 13 or 666The no 13 or 666 BacteriaBacteria strangersstrangers

ThinkThink

Can you write a disadvantage of Can you write a disadvantage of Seligman’s theory?Seligman’s theory?

GenesGenes

Some people are more Some people are more susceptible to developing susceptible to developing phobias than others and phobias than others and therefore a genetic account therefore a genetic account can be used to explain this can be used to explain this idea.idea.

How does a psychologist How does a psychologist easily study genetic easily study genetic inheritance?inheritance?

Family studies and twin studiesFamily studies and twin studies

Fryer et al found that those who Fryer et al found that those who had first degree relatives with a had first degree relatives with a specific phobia were much more specific phobia were much more likely to have a specific phobia likely to have a specific phobia themselves.themselves.

However there was no high However there was no high concordance rate for social concordance rate for social phobias.phobias.

What does this suggest once What does this suggest once again about biological again about biological explanations of phobias?explanations of phobias?

Family studies and concordance Family studies and concordance rates!rates!

Torgensen (1983) investigated Torgensen (1983) investigated pairs of identical (MZ – pairs of identical (MZ – monozygotic) twins. They have monozygotic) twins. They have 100% similar genetic makeup 100% similar genetic makeup (DZ- Dizygotic twins) have 50% (DZ- Dizygotic twins) have 50% similar genetic makeup.similar genetic makeup.

They investigated twins where They investigated twins where at least one pair had at least one pair had agoraphobia and found there agoraphobia and found there was a much higher likelihood was a much higher likelihood for the MZ twins to both have it for the MZ twins to both have it than the DZ twins. than the DZ twins.

VulnerabilityVulnerability Some people are more vulnerable Some people are more vulnerable

to experience anxiety than othersto experience anxiety than others

Eysenck proposed that some Eysenck proposed that some people are more easily frightened people are more easily frightened by fear provoking stimuli i.e. by fear provoking stimuli i.e. movies, heights, bugs etcmovies, heights, bugs etc

The autonomic nervous system The autonomic nervous system controls our emotional responses controls our emotional responses and so it seems that some people and so it seems that some people have higher autonomic reactivity have higher autonomic reactivity which makes them more likely to which makes them more likely to develop a phobia.develop a phobia.

Exam questionExam question

Briefly describe one biological Briefly describe one biological explanation for phobias. (3 marks)explanation for phobias. (3 marks)

EvaluationsEvaluations

People with different anxiety People with different anxiety disorders, i.e. phobias, OCD, disorders, i.e. phobias, OCD, agoraphobia etc suffer from different agoraphobia etc suffer from different symptoms as a result of the ANS. symptoms as a result of the ANS. Thus the link between the ANS and Thus the link between the ANS and anxiety is much more complicated anxiety is much more complicated than Eysenck suggested.than Eysenck suggested.

EvaluationsEvaluations

Findings by genetic studies could as Findings by genetic studies could as easily be explained by SLT. For easily be explained by SLT. For example, close relatives could example, close relatives could observe and then imitate the phobia observe and then imitate the phobia suffered within their families. It is suffered within their families. It is difficult to disentangle the env from difficult to disentangle the env from genetics. genetics.

EvaluationsEvaluations Support from the conditioning theory comes Support from the conditioning theory comes

from conditioning studies on humans and from conditioning studies on humans and animals in lab situations. Ohman found that animals in lab situations. Ohman found that humans are more likely to be conditioned to humans are more likely to be conditioned to fear particular stimuli such as snakes ‘fear fear particular stimuli such as snakes ‘fear relevant’ than stimuli such as flowers ‘fear relevant’ than stimuli such as flowers ‘fear irrelevant’. irrelevant’.

This was also the same for monkeys…Cook This was also the same for monkeys…Cook and Mineka (1990) conditioned monkeys to and Mineka (1990) conditioned monkeys to fear toy snakes but not toy rabbits and fear toy snakes but not toy rabbits and because the monkeys had no previous of any because the monkeys had no previous of any of these stimuli – we can rule out learningof these stimuli – we can rule out learning

EvaluationsEvaluations

There is evidence that the fears There is evidence that the fears acquired under lab conditions isn’t acquired under lab conditions isn’t true to real life. Usually conditioned true to real life. Usually conditioned fears can be removed by verbal fears can be removed by verbal instruction and so these fears are instruction and so these fears are unlike the fears developed in real lifeunlike the fears developed in real life