5708350
| Question | Answer |
| Explanations of phobias; | Biological explanations and psychological explanations. |
| Biological explanation of development of phobias; Ao1- Genetic explanation Genetic explanations of development of phobias can be demonstrated by research from family and twin studies. Phobias tend to run in families. Ost found that 64% of people with blood and injection phobias had a first degree relative with the same phobia compared to only 3% of the general population. Also, twin studies are used which involves comparing concordance rates between Mz and Dz twins (if phobias have genetic bias, there would be a higher rate in Mz twins). Torgerson found that 31% in Mz and 0% in Dz for panic disorders and agoraphobia. As such, there is supporting evidence for the use of genetics in explaining the biological side of phobias. | Ao2- Studies into genetic causes of phobias provide some evidence that inherited factors play a role in the development of the disorder. Evidence for this assumption comes from studies that indicate relatives are likely to share the same phobia. Reich and Yates found that when categorizing phobias into animal types and non-animal types, there was a higher frequency of the same type of phobia in relatives compared with a group of controls. On the other hand research indicates differently, Fryer et al carried out a study on 49 first-degree relatives with specific phobias and found that the 31% of relatives who were diagnosed with phobias, only 2 pps had the same type as their relatives. This shows that there is moderate support for the contribution of genetic factors in the development of phobias however they do not necessarily cause them. |
| Ao1. | Ao2- Genetics may not be directly the cause of phobias but instead predispose people to the disorder making individuals more vulnerable to developing during fear-inducing life experiences. Enviromental triggers may also be neccesary for phobias to develop. E.g. an individual may inherit some faulty genes but there probably needs to be an important life event/ traumatic experience to trigger responses. It is also important to remember that there is comorbidity between phobias and depression suggests that the existence of general genetic vulnerability to a range of mental disorders. As such, it is clear that phobia disorders aren't solely genetic and have experiential components therefore supporting the diathesis-stress model. |
| Ao1-Biochemical explanation According to the biochemical explanation for phobias, the ANS is more easily aroused in some people as they've inherited more sensitive fear response (individual differences in neuroanatomy and neurophysiology). Some individuals are thus sensitive to environmental stimuli and more vulnerable to developing phobias. The GABA hypothesis has been proposed specifically for phobic disorders and generalised anxiety. Anxiety develops from a dysfunction of neurons that produce GABA, GABA is released automatically in response to high arousal which helps reduce anxiety. If there is a malfunction, GABA neurons won't produce enough to reduce arousal. Thus a phobic person will react more anxiously. | Ao2- There is supporting evidence for physiological differences in ANS comes from effective treatment using anti-anxiety drugs called BZ's and BB's. BZ's work by binding the GABA neuro-receptors and opening a channel which increases the flow of chloride ions into the neuron which makes it harder for other neurotransmitters to stimulus it thus slowing down the activity and making the person feel relaxed. These drugs have been found to be effective in reducing feeling of anxiety. They combat symptoms of phobias. In addition, BB's have been found effective in managing behavioural inhibitions in children. These drugs reduce the activity of adrenaline and noradrenalne. They bound to the receptors of cells of the heart that are stimulated during arousal by blocking that the heart beats slower with lower force and lower blood pressure leading to lower anxiety. As such, the effectiveness of drugs support the sound biochemical explanation of development of phobias. |
| Ao1- | Ao2- There is a question whether high levels of arousal are the cause or the consequence of a phobia. Lader and Mathews found that higher levels of arousal are more significant only in cases of social phobia whereas conditioning is more significant in the case of development of specific phobias. In contrast, Asso and Beech suggested that a high level of physiological arousal is significant because it makes it easier to acquire a conditioning response. They claim that it's easier to experience anxiety response with oversensitive ANS than to maintain phobia. In conclusion, this conflicting evidence makes biochemical explanation inconclusive as we are not able to establish whether the oversensitive ANS leads to phobias or is a result of someones phobia. |
| Ao1- Evolutionary explanation Seligman's prepardness theory suggests humans have genetically based tendency to response quickly to danger as it means we are more likely to espace potential threats and survive. Fear and anxiety are adaptive and have evolutionary advantages (triggering FFR). Many of the more common phobias are based on things which may have threatened humans survival e.g. snakes, heights etc. Ohman et al demonstrated the evolutionary explanation. One group of pps were conditioned to fear snakes and spiders by paring slides of them with an electric shock. A second group were conditioned to fear flowers and houses, after a shock-free period the 2nd group lost their fears whereas the 1st group kept their fears. This shows the evolutionary explanations for phobias. | Ao2- There's some research support for the idea that certain fears are harder to unlearn but little evidence that certain fears are learnt more rapidly.. McNally concluded that although there was firm evidence for enhanced resistance to extinction of fear responses conditioned by preparedness stimuli evidence for rapid acquisition was unclear. Furthermore, the results of experiments and the idea of preparedness in general may have nothing to do with genes and evolution but experimental situation itself. Davey suggested the expectancy bias as an explanation; an expectation that fear relevant stimuli will produce negative consequences in the future. This suggests that the preparedness theory is unable to explain why we do not develop quicker phobias for more threatening things than those non-threatening things. |
| Ao1- | Ao2- The preparedness theory cannot explain why some people develop clinical phobias of non-threatening objects/situations that don't help surivavl and don't have an evolutionary component. E.g. fear of books or clowns is not adaptive and an anxiety response to these objects won't be necessary for aiding survival. Preparedness theory fails to account for clinical phobias Merkelback et al found that most of the clinical phobias in their sample were rated as non-prepared rather than prepared. As such, most phobias are from non-threatening objects therefore unable to be explained by the preparedness/evolutionary theory. |
| Psychological explanations of phobias; Freud sees phobias as conscious expression of the repressed conflict between the Id and the Ego. The Id is the part of the mind which has unacceptable impulses-usually sexual or aggressive. The fear that these desire might be discovered causes anxiety and as a result these impulses are repressed by the Ego. Moreover, repressed conflicts continue to anxiety which is often displaced-the anxiety is transferred to an object or situation resulting in a manifest phobia. The phobia could represent the original source of anxiety and it's explained by the defence mechanisms of repression and displacement. E.g. a woman's fear of snakes may represent her fear of male genitalia. By avoiding the phobic object or situation the person avoids having to face to and deal with the repressed conflict. | Ao2- The case study of Little Hans was unusual and unreliable for a number of reasons and Hans phobia could explained in other, simplier ways. The horse phobia originally developed after Hans had seen the horse fall down-this could be explained by using behavioural principles e.g classical conditioning. It was Freud's only analysis of a child, yet most of Freud's analysis was indirect. Almost all of the interviews and observations were made by the boy's father and passed on to Freud. He only met hans in 2 occasions-the results from this case study were unique and therefore cannot be generalise to wider population. Hans father was a supporter of Freud and a member of the psychoanalytic society. This is a problem of objectivity of data as both Hans fathers and Freud interpreted the evidence according to their expectations about the origins of phobias. As such, this case study lacks in valid evidence and isn't that useful in backing up Freud's theory. |
| Ao1- | Ao2- The psychodynamic explanation of phobias has received research support for the idea that strict upbringing in early childhood could lead to development of phobias. Firstly, Bowlby found that agoraphobics often had early experience with family conflict. He suggested that conflict leads to young children feeling anxious when separated from their parents (separation anxiety). Secondly, although there's no empirical evidence to support Freud's theory, cross-cultural studies indicate anxieties and phobias are more common in cultures characterized by strict upbringing and punishment. The idea is that stricter upbringing might lead children to use defence mechanism of repression thus supporting psychodynamic explanation. This supports psychodynamic theory of phobias as use of defence mechanisms to deal with desires and anxiety may lead to manifest phobia. |
| Ao1- Behavioural explanations of phobias; Classical conditioning explains development of phobias through the idea of learning by association-phobias are the result of an association between a neutral stimulus and fear response. E.g. Watson and Rayner's study of Little Albert- while he played with the white rat a loud noise was made. After a while an association was formed between the white rat and the loud noise thus resulting in Albert developing a phobia of white rats. Secondly, operant conditioning states that behaviour is learned through rewards avoidance and punishment. OC can explain the maintenance of phobias because avoidance of the feared object/situation is reinforced by the reduction of anxiety. This is a form of negative reinforcement, by avoiding the feared stimulus, it cannot be overcome; therefore, avoidance maintains the fear and preserves the phobia. Lastly, abnormal behaviour is learned through observation and imitation of others. This is known as vicarious learning/modelling. Mineka aimed to determine whether phobias can be learned through observation- | Ao2- There is some evidence to support the behavioural view that phobias are learned and that classical and operant conditioning are important processes involved in the development of phobias. Barlow and Burand reported that about 50% of those with a specific phobia of driving remembered a traumatic experience while driving as having caused their phobia. However, many people have frightening exeriences and do not develop phobias. DiNardo et al's study of people who ave had traumatic experience with dogs showed that some developed a phobia of dogs and others did not. This can be better explained by diathesis-stress. Only those with a genetic vulnerability for developing anxiety disorders would become a phobia. This suggests that there is inconclusive evidence as the behavioural explanation can only account for some phobias. |
| Moneys born to parents who had an intense fear of snakes were observed, these money's initially showed no signs of fear which concluded phobias are not genetically inherited. After 6 observational learning sessions, adolescent monkeys showed fearful behaviour equivalent to that of their parent. | Many people have phobias which are not preceded by any frightening experiences, which suggests they did not learn to be afraid. E.g. people with phobias of snakes, flying and heights often report they cannot recall any previous frightening experience with objects/situations they fear. Therefore, it can be claimed that the biological preparedness theory is a better explanation for phobias. Bregman failed to condition a fear response in infants 8-16 months by pairing a loud bell with wooden blocks. As a result, learning theory of phobias isn't the most valid explanation of phobias. |
| Ao1- cognitive explanations of phobias. Beck argues that the way people think about and assess situations affects the development of phobias. People with phobias tend to have 'cognitive biases'. According to the approach it is not the initial exposure to a fearful situation that's responsible for the phobia but person's irrational thought and interpretations of the experience. People with phobias know how on a rational level that danger is minimal, yet they also truly believe that the feared object/situation will cause them physical or psychological harm. Clark et al found that patients with panic disorder showed a cognitive bias for their own bodily sensations-they tended to interpret an increase in heart rate as indicating something was wrong with their hear. This shows that the cognitive explanation assumes phobias are triggered by an individuals perception. | AO2- There is clear evidence that people with phobias have a range of cognitive biases and dysfunctional assumptions that contribute to development of phobias. Gourney found that phobics were more likely than normal people to overestimate risks which means that they're generally more fearful and this results in them being more predisposed to developing a phobia. In addition, CBT is successful as a treatment for phobias which can be seen as support for this explanation, CBT changed dysfunctional assumptions which reduces their phobia. As such, cognitive approach to phobias is a plausible explanation of phobias. |
| Ao1- | Ao2- All major theoretical approached have an explanation for phobic disorders however they are all flawed in some way. The biological approach provides a reasonable account of phobias however it cannot cause phobias and cannot be the only factor influencing phobias. The behavioural model can explain and take individual differences in the idea of phobias explained however cannot explain true reasons. In conclusion, there is no single explanation to account completely for explanations of all phobias therefore, is a complex mix of approaches may be more useful. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.