A Level Psychology of Abnormality: Explanation of Phobias

Welcome! This post presents and illustrates the Explanation of Phobias:
i) Behavioral Explanation of Phobias (classical conditioning, Watson, 1920);
ii) Psychological Explanation of Phobias (Freud, 1909);
iii) Biomedical/Genetic Explanation of Phobias (Ost, 1992);
iv) Cognitive Explanation of Phobias (DiNardo et.al., 1988);

as per the requirements of the IB IGCSE A 9990 syllabus including summaries of the studies mentioned in the section, and an evaluation of the explanations from the point of view of the issues and debates as outlined in the syllabus. It also includes an explanation of key terms from an operational point-of-view. Included in the last sections are specimen, model answers to paper 3 and paper 4 pertaining to this study.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specialization -Psychology and Abnormality

Syllabus Reference -  3.2.1. (d),  pgs. 22 & 23 of the CIE 9990 syllabus found here.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*Please click on any image to enlarge it)
  

Explanations of Phobias

Syllabus Based Understanding and Analysis 

i) Behavioral Explanation of Phobias

The Explanation

The behavioral approach focuses on how different actions of people are learnt from the environment. Accordingly, it assumes that phobias may acquired by a person by learning to associate environment stimuli with fear responses.

Classical Conditioning

The classical conditioning model, as proposed and demonstrated by Pavlov, explains how people can learn to give responses to a stimulus that are not naturally evoked by the stimulus.

In his classic study with a dog, Pavlov first presented the dog with food and noted that its natural response was to salivate on sight of the food. Then, Pavlov made a sound with a tuning fork before presenting the dog with food. After a number of repetitions of this procedure, Pavlov found that the dog began to salivate upon hearing the sound of the tuning fork, even before the food could be presented. This was not a natural response to the sound of the tuning fork. Pavlov had successfully caused a natural response (salivation) - associated with a natural/unconditioned stimulus (food) - to be associated with a previously neutral, and now conditioned stimulus (sound of tuning fork). Salivation was now a conditioned response since it was associated with a conditioned stimulus.

Pavlov's Classic Study of Classical Conditioning

Watson (1920)

Phobias could be learnt through the process of classical conditioning - that is, by an involuntary association the person would make between a given stimulus and the experience of fear. This was demonstrated by Watson and Rayner (1920) in their series of experiments -

Aim - Watson and Rayner conducted a series of experiments over long periods with Little Albert, a 9-month old infant with the aim of inducing into him, fear of harmless stimuli. These stimuli included a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey and different masks.

Procedure - To induce fear into Albert - who at the beginning showed no fear of these stimuli - a hammer was struck to a steel bar behind Albert's head whenever he was shown a white rat. The loud sound created by this procedure caused Albert to burst into tears. Several such trials were conducted over seven weeks.

Results - Soon, during the trials, it was found that Albert had associated the stimuli with the loud noise, and cried as soon as the white rat was shown to him, even before the loud sound could occur. Also, Albert responded by crying to some stimuli that shared characteristics with the white rat - white beards such as the one worn by Santa Claus, a fur coat worn by Dr. Watson, white rabbits, etc. This is known as stimulus generalization which plays an important role in the development of phobias.

Understanding the little Albert experiment from a Classical Conditioning Paradigm

Stimulus Generalization - Little Albert learnt to associate fear with white, furry objects

Conclusion - Little Albert had developed a phobia of white and furry objects due to his implicit association of the rat with the loud sound which naturally produced fear in him. For phobias in general, the findings of this study imply that learning to associate a stimulus with fear, can cause a person to develop a phobia of that stimulus.

In sum, the behavioural explanation of phobias in that they are conditioned responses to stimuli.

--- 

Application of Issues and Debates:

• The Application of Psychology to Everyday Life
• The behavioral explanation i.e. classical conditioning view of phobias is highly relevant to common phobias of people. For example, a child often fears his father to the extent that he might refuse to enter the room his father is in. This is because he has learned to associate the presence of his father with the pain of some punishment - say, severe spanking - given to him by his father on a previous occasion.

• The concept of stimulus generalization is particularly relevant. In the previous example, the child may generalize the fear of his father to all authority figures around him such as his teachers because he implicitly associates all of them to the experience of punishment.

•  Individual and Situational Explanations
• The behavioural explanation i.e. classical conditioning explanation takes a completely situational view of phobias. 
• The classical conditioning approach proposes that phobias are a result of repeated association between a stimulus that does not naturally evoke fear, and one that does. If the environment does not present such associations to the individual, then he will not develop phobia.

• This is useful in understanding individual differences in phobia development - for example, a child who was severely punished in childhood would show a fear of authority figures but not a child who was not punished in such a manner.

• On the flipside, however, it is seen that not everyone who is exposed to harsh parenting develops a phobia of authority. Besides, the intensity of fear responses differ from individual to individual. Such phenomena are not explained in this perspective.

•  Nature versus Nurture
• Though the classical conditioning view assumes that phobias are acquired through repeated stimulus pairings in the environment, it also assumes that fear for certain stimuli are natural i.e. there are some unconditioned stimuli that universally evoke fear. For example, it assumes that loud sounds or pain from being beaten up cause a natural reaction of fear in any person.

• Thus, it takes a comprehensive approach by taking the position that some fears are present by birth while others are acquired through circumstances.

•  The use of Children in Psychological Research
• Watson (1920) performed his series of experiments on a nine-month old infant - little Albert. From an ethical standpoint, the exposure of such a young child to several hours of experimentation is undesirable.

• More importantly, Watson made the child repeatedly undergo experiences of fear which caused him distress, apparent from his crying. Since a child is in his formative years, even temporary traumatic experiences can have long lasting impressions on his life.

• Also, though counter-conditioning i.e. reversing the fear associated with the conditioned stimuli by associating it with pleasant stimuli was possible, the process was not undertaken in the case of little Albert.

•  The use of Animals in Psychological Research

(Though Pavlov used a dog in his research, since the Pavlov study is not directly mentioned in the syllabus, and classical conditioning in the present syllabus requires only a brief introduction, this issue is not applicable here.)

•  Cultural Bias
• The classical conditioning explanation is not culture-specific since it does not make any cultural presumptions or use any culture-specific elements in its research.

•  Reductionism
• The classical conditioning view proposes that all fear is attained through a single mechanism - the repeated pairing of a neutral stimulus to a fear-evoking stimulus. This explanation is insufficient since many phobias cannot be explained in this way. 

• For example, many people have stage fright - phobia of speaking in front of a crowd. Many of them have never spoken in front of a crowd before, and have never had an opportunity to form negative associations with the experience. Also, many of these people are found to be comfortable in interacting with many others during social gatherings, so the question of generalization does not arise. Neither is a crowd a naturally fear-evoking stimulus.

• Some people develop stage-fright when they see or hear about someone else being ridiculed for poor performance. This is a case of vicarious reinforcement, which is beyond the scope of classical conditioning.

•  Psychometrics

• The classical conditioning approach, just like any behavioural approach relies on observation to determine whether fear of a stimulus has been established in a person's beahviour. It takes into account the visible symptoms - such as crying, sweating, screaming, etc. to determine fear. This is an objective and largely error-free approach.

•  Determinism
• The classical conditioning approach takes a deterministic view to the development of phobias. It assumes that if a person is exposed to fear-evoking associations between stimuli, he will unconditionally develop fear, irrespective of any personal factors.

•  Longitudinal Research

• Watson (1920) used a longitudinal design - a series of experiments lasting about seven weeks in his study of little Albert. This was very desirable since conditioning takes place over a period of time and not immediately. 

• Also, the pattern of development of little Albert's phobia for white, furry objects was traced through the period of study since it took place over a period of time.

Applying Issues and Debates to the Behavioural Explanation of Phobias

  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii) Psychoanalytic Explanation of Phobias

The Explanation

The psychoanalytic approaches traces all behaviour to the unconscious, which consists of impressions that a person has drawn from his childhood experiences. 

Accordingly, it assumes that some traumatic experience in the person's childhood is the cause of the person's phobia.

Freud (1909)

Freud published his case study of Little Hans, a boy with a  phobia of horses in 1909. The study is summarized below:

Aim - Freud wished to show that phobias have roots in the early developmental experiences of a person.


Procedure - By means of indirect observation - through the letters written by by little Hans' father, Freud studied the case of little Hans over a period of several years, starting from age 3.

Observations and Interpretations - It was noted that Hans showed an interest in his 'widdler' from age 3, and touched it which led his mother to threaten him to have it cut off from the family doctor. Freud believed that this marked the development of the Oedipus complex - the sexual attraction of a boy for his mother - in Hans.

Following the development of the complex, Hans reported having some fantasies which Freud interpreted as symbolizing his desire to have his mother for himself, and eliminate his father. However, since his father was much larger than him, Hans was afraid that his father would castrate him in the competition.

Little Hans often saw horses near his house, and he was seen to be afraid in particular of horses with black marks around their mouth. Freud interpreted this as Hans' projection of his father's fear onto the horses which resembled his father since the black marks resembled his father's moustache. Also, the large size of the horses reminded Hans of his father who was much larger than him.

Conclusion - Freud concluded that Hans' fear of being castrated by his father had been projected on the horses that symbolized his father, which caused his phobia. In general, this implies that phobias are the product of projection of childhood traumas on stimuli that symbolize some aspect of the trauma.

For little Hans, white horses symbolized his father whom he feared

---

Application of Issues and Debates:

• The Application of Psychology to Everyday Life
• Though many phobias are found to have their roots in childhood experiences, they can be directly traced to specific events. For example, adults who fear the dark are sometimes found to have been punished by confinement in a dark room as children. However, the development of phobia through concepts like projection, symbolism, Oedipus complex, etc. are very difficult to trace or prove. The child who undergoes such experiences is not consciously aware of them, and any related discovery in his adulthood is entirely subject to the interpretation of the therapist. Thus, the applicability of the psychoanalytic theory is highly restricted.

•  Individual and Situational Explanations
• The psychoanalytic explanation of phobias is largely individual in nature. It assumes that phobias are associated with the development of the individual, that is, with his progression through psychosexual stages.  The development of fixation or complexes in any of these stages can cause the individual to develop a phobia. 

• Nature versus Nurture 
• The psychoanalytic view of phobias supports the explanation of nature as well as nurture. It assumes that by birth, every person must undergo psychosexual stages of development. So, there is a potential to develop phobia given the conflicts that occur in these stages. However, as in the case of Hans (his castration anxiety due to the threat by his given by his mother), a given nurturing prevents the conflict from being resolved peacefully, causing the phobia.

•  The use of Children in Psychological Research
• The participant of Freud's case study was little Hans - a minor. However, Hans was not subject to any adverse situations for the purpose of the study. On the contrary, Freud protected his confidentiality by giving him a pseudo-name. Besides, Freud had informed consent from the boy's father who constantly corresponded with Freud for the study.

•  Since Freud's theory of Oedipus Complex is based on childhood development, the study of a child was most appropriate to the study.

• The use of Animals in Psychological Research
• No animals were used in the present study and therefore, this issue is not applicable here.

•   Cultural Bias
• Most of Freud's psychoanalytic concepts, such as that of Oedipus Complex are often argued to be specific to middle-class Austrian families, given the nature of parent-child interactions in the said culture. Freud's interpretations of Hans' behaviour were completely based on the assumption that Hans was undergoing the Oedipus Complex at the time of the study. Hence, the relevance of the results of Freud's study in other cultures is questionable.

•  Reductionism
• The psychoanalytic view proposes that all phobias emerge from projection of traumatic experiences in childhood. This explanation is insufficient, since many phobias cannot be explained in this way.
• Many times, a phobia emerges after a person's childhood, and the causative event is very visible. for example, a person may develop a phobia of fire-related objects after being grievously injured in a fire-related accident in adulthood.

• Some phobias also develop out of direct childhood experiences, with no involvement of complexes, symbols or projection. For example, a person may have a phobia of the stage after being mocked for a poor stage performance in school.

• Also, some natural phobias shared by people - such as the phobia of snakes or insects cannot be explained from this perspective. Many people may have never had direct contact with these creatures in childhood, yet they fear them in adulthood.

•  Psychometrics
  • The psychoanalytic approach to phobias uses the interpretation of the psychoanalyst to determine which childhood experiences led to the onset of the phobia. The psychoanalyst relies on various narratives of the client such as dream reports, free association, etc. to acquire the content to be interpreted. Both these aspects make the process highly subjective, and unreliable.
   
• Determinism
  • The psychoanalytic approach takes a deterministic view to the development of phobias. It assumes that phobias emerge in the process of natural development of a child, due to certain parent-child experiences. Thus, the individual does not play a role in the development of his own phobia.
   
•  Longitudinal Research
• Freud's study of Hans took place roughly from when Hans was three years old to when he was 5 years old. This made the study longitudinal in nature. 

• Such longitudinal research is very useful since it helps in tracing the development of the phobia. In the present study, this was the period of Hans' phallic stage of psychosexual development which lasts from 3 to 6 years of age. Since Freud interpreted Hans' phobia as emerging from the Oedipus Complex, it was useful to study the events in his life during this corresponding stage of development.

Applying Issues and Debates to the Behavioural Explanation of Phobias

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii) Biomedical/Genetic Explanation of Phobias

The Explanation

 

The biomedical/genetic approach focuses on how people inherit various traits from by birth. Accordingly, it assumes that phobias may acquired by a person by inheritance of fear for certain stimuli.

Ost (1992)

Aim - The original purpose of the Ost (1992) study was to examine the relationship between blood  and injection phobia, and various cognitive, physiological and behavioural variables.

Procedure - Ost  made a case history analysis of large samples of blood-phobic and injection-phobic individuals. 

Results - Ost found no difference between the samples on demographic variables like age of onset, marital and occupational status, degree of impairment, etc. establishing that these were not key factors in the determination of these phobias. However, he did find a significant positive relationship between having first-degree relatives with the phobia, and having the phobia oneself. 61% of the sample with blood phobia had first degree relatives with the same disorder, while 29% of the sample with injection phobia had first degree relatives with the same disorder. 

Conclusion - Since psychological disorders are a major cause of concern, even small rates of inheritance are taken to be significant in the understanding of these disorders. Ost established a fairly large relationship between the genetic makeup of an individual, and his possession of a phobia.

Some phobias are found to run in families

Application of Issues and Debates:

• The Application of Psychology to Everyday Life
• Genetic/biomedical explanations are very useful in understanding a person's predisposition to develop a psychological disorder. If a person knows how likely (s)he is to develop a phobia, (s)he can take active preventive measures in a timely manner to avoid developing the disorder.

• Individual and Situational Explanations
• The genetic/biomedical explanation of phobias is individual in nature because it assumes that the individual's genetic makeup is responsible for his/her development of phobia. 

•  Nature versus Nurture
• The genetic/biomedical explanation completely takes the nature perspective in the nature versus nurture debate. It assumes that phobias are naturally acquired by the individual through the genes (s)he inherits from his/her parents.

• The use of Children in Psychological Research
• No animals were used in the present study and therefore, this issue is not applicable here.

• The use of Animals in Psychological Research
• No animals were used in the present study and therefore, this issue is not applicable here.

• Cultural Bias
• There were no culture-specific elements involved in the present study, and hence this issue is not applicable here. 

•    Reductionism
• The biomedical/genetic explanation of phobias is highly insufficient since by itself, it proposes a likelihood of the development of a phobia, such as shared percentage between first degree relatives in the case of the Ost (1992) study. If the shared percentage is 69% and not 100%, as in the case of blood/injury phobia, then this itself indicates that there are factors other than nature that determine the development of a phobia.

•  Psychometrics 
• The biomedical/genetic approach uses analysis of case history data i.e. facts and figures from such data to determine the rate of inheritance of a disorder, or  the percentage of sharing between siblings. Such data is generally found to be free of errors since it relies on numerical facts. 

• Determinism
• The biomedical/genetic approach is highly deterministic in nature because it assumes that a person with a genetic predisposition will develop a phobia, and factors related to inheritance are definitely out of the individual's control. 

• Longitudinal Research
• Determination of predisposition does not require longitudinal research since it is only needed to be investigated whether a person has developed a phobia or not and hence, this issue is not applicable to the present study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii) Cognitive Explanation of Phobias

The cognitive approach focuses on how people's patterns of thinking and underlying beliefs cause them to acquire disorders. Accordingly, it assumes that phobias may acquired by a person's fear-producing thoughts emerging from beliefs about the potential harm that can come from a stimulus.

DiNardo (1988)

Aim -DiNardo and co. aimed to show that exposure to a traumatic event such as a dog bite does not automatically lead to development of phobia. Rather, a person's thoughts and beliefs about the encounter cause the development of phobia.

Procedure - DiNardo and co. compared participants with dog phobia to those who had no such phobia. They asked all participants to report any childhood experiences with dogs, and state their beliefs regarding encountering dogs.

Results - The study found that contrary to common belief, a greater percentage of participants (66%) who had no dog phobia (56%) reported having had some frightening experience with dogs than did those who had such phobia. Further, all participants with dog phobia believed that fear and physical harm would be the consequences of encountering a dog, while very few participants with no phobia reported such beliefs.

Conclusion - The researchers concluded that holding exaggerated beliefs regarding the physical harm that could come from an encounter with dogs caused dog phobia, and not frightening experiences with dogs themselves.

Not past experiences with stimuli, but beliefs associated with them cause people to experience phobia

Application of Issues and Debates:

• The Application of Psychology to Everyday Life
• Cognitive explanations are very useful in empowering the individual, since they place the responsibility of the disorder on the individual's thoughts and beliefs which are under the control of the individual. Thus, if phobias are the product of the irrational beliefs of an individual, then that individual can work on changing his beliefs to get rid of the phobia.

• Individual and Situational Explanations
• The cognitive explanation of phobias is individual in nature because it assumes that the individual's beliefs are responsible for his/her development of phobia. 

• Nature versus Nurture

• Since the cognitive perspective on phobias does not specify how an individual develops beliefs i.e. through acquisition or by birth, this issue is not applicable here.

• The use of Children in Psychological Research
• No animals were used in the present study and therefore, this issue is not applicable here.

• The use of Animals in Psychological Research
• No animals were used in the present study and therefore, this issue is not applicable here.

• Cultural Bias
• There were no culture-specific elements involved in the present study, and hence this issue is not applicable here. 

•    Reductionism
• The cognitive explanation of phobias is not sufficient by itself, it cannot account for every type of phobia. Firstly, there are certain phobias such as those for loud noises and falling, that are found even in babies. Babies are not cognitively advanced enough to form beliefs regarding the potential danger of stimuli. Secondly, there are phobias that are shared in families, and have been established through adoption studies - such as social phobias. Beliefs are not transmitted genetically, and hence the cognitive explanation fails to explain such patterns of inheritence.

•  Psychometrics 
• The cogntive approach typically uses self-reports i.e. individuals' narratives regarding their beliefs and thoughts about stimuli. This technique is most suitable to the approach since the individual himself can best report his underlying beliefs about a situation or stimulus.

• Determinism
• The cognitive approach is based on free-will since it assumes that individuals can choose to work upon their thoughts and beliefs and change them to eventually overcome their phobia.

• Longitudinal Research
• Longitudinal research is desirable to the cognitive approach since it would help trace the development of fear-related beliefs, giving better insight to how phobias can be prevented from development. However, the DiNardo study was not longitudinal in nature, and relied on immediate self-reports of individuals regarding the beliefs they possessed at the given time of the study.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answering the Question Paper

The candidate must be able to effectively use the information above to answer the question papers. I present some examples of how this can be done in the following sections. The candidate can go through these sections to get an idea of how (s)he can answer questions in the paper, making note of the terminology and precision used, especially in accordance with the weightage given to the question. The best approach would be for the candidate to first try to answer the question himself or herself, and then view the specimen answer proposed, so that the following sections work as practice for the candidate.

---

Answering Paper 3

 1. (a) What is meant by the 'cognitive explanation of phobia?' [2]

(This is a straightforward two-mark answer and while being precise, the candidate should link it to the research in the syllabus and not provide a very generic answer)

Specimen Ans.  Cognitive explanations of schizophrenia investigate the relationship between a persons thought patterns and his development of a phobia. DiNardo (1988) demonstrated that exaggerated beliefs about the physical harm that a person can incur from encountering a dg leads to the development of dog phobia.

 ---

1. (b) Describe the psychoanalytic explanation of phobia, as outlined by Freud (1909). 

(A 'describe' answer must be non-evaluative, while being sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of the marks allotted to it.)

Specimen Ans. The psychoanalytic explanation of phobia as presented by Freud (1909), explained that the cause of phobia is the projection of a fear onto a given stimulus in childhood. In his famous case study of Hans, Freud investigated how little Hans projected his fear of being castrated by his father onto a black horse he saw near his home. Hans was undergoing the Oedipus complex, and he feared that due to the attraction he felt for his mother, his father would punish him severely by castrating him. Since the horse in his neighborhood symbolized his father in terms of its large size, and the black marks around its face resembling his father's moustache for Hans, Hans began to fear the horse.

 ---

1. (c)  Compare the psychoanalytic explanation of phobia with one other explanation of phobia. [6]

(The candidate is free to choose any explanation for comparison here. Comparison is not the same as contrasting, and therefore, can include similarities as well as differences. Also, when it comes to choosing which issues and debates to compare, the candidate should try and compare the most prominent ones.)

Specimen Ans. The psychoanalytic explanation of phobia can be compared with the cognitive explanation of phobia.

The psychoanalytic approach, as given by Freud (1909) proposes that phobia is the result of projection of a person's fears to a given stimulus. The cognitive approach, as investigated by Dinardo (1988) proposes that phobia is the result of one's exaggerated belief of harm that can be caused by a stimulus. Thus, while in the psychoanalytic approach phobia is considered to be the outcome of an unconscious association of a stimulus and fear, in the cognitive approach it is considered to be the outcome of an irrational evaluation of a stimulus.

The psycholanalytic approach also places the time of phobia development in the childhood of the individual, as (s)he undergoes the psychosexual stages of development. This makes the approach deterministic in nature, because firstly, it assumes that phobia emerges from the unconscious fears of an individual, over which (s)he has no direct control. Besides, anxiety - such as castration anxiety - is assumed to be a natural part of the development of an individual. The cognitive approach, on the other hand, proposes that phobia can emerge at any time in a person's life, out of his own mental analysis of the danger posed by a situation. The approach assumes the free will of an individual in how he chooses to think about a stimulus, thereby placing the responsibility for dealing with his phobia on his own decision to do so.

Thus, the psychoanalytic and cognitive explanations of phobia are very different from each other.

 ---

2. (a) Describe explanations for phobia. [8]

(This question requires a summarization of the entire section on explanations of phobia. Since there are four explanations, we can estimate that each has been allotted a total of 2 marks, indicating the need for a very precise description. The key here is demonstrating accuracy of understanding and consistent organization).

Specimen Ans. The most well-known explanations of phobia include the following:

The psychoanalytic explanation of phobia, as proposed by Freud (1909) through his case study of little Hans proposes that phobia develops out of projection of fear onto a stimulus which symbolizes the original source of fear. In the case of little Hans, he projected his fear of his father - which he developed out of castration anxiety while undergoing the Oedipus complex - onto a black horse that symbolized his father. 

The behavioural explanation of phobia, as demonstrated by Watson (1920) through his series of experiments with little Albert suggests that phobia develops out of classical conditioning - the association of a stimulus that does not evoke fear with a stimulus that naturally evokes fear. In the case of little Albert, he was conditioned to fear a white rat by its association to loud noise.

The biomedical/genetic explanation of phobia, as investigated by Ost (1992) assumes that phobia develops by inheritance and runs in families. In this investigation of patients suffering from blood-injury and injection phobias, it was found that 61% and 29% respectively, of those suffering from these phobias had first-degree relatives suffering from these disorders. 

The cognitive explanation of phobia, as researched by Dinardo and colleagues (1988) suggests that phobia comes from beliefs regarding the harm that can be caused by coming in contact with a stimulus. In the case of dog phobia, the researchers found that exaggerated beliefs regarding the physical harm that could come from coming in contact with a dog was the cause of the dog-phobia.

---

2. (b) Evaluate explanations of phobia, including a discussion of reductionism of the different approaches. [10]

(Though a number of points are available in the syllabus for the evaluation of any approach, the candidate must choose only as many points as justifies the allotment of maximum marks to the answer. With this end, the prominent issues and debates common to all approaches are desirable. The candidate should also focus strictly on evaluation and not get into description of any kind.)

Specimen Ans. The most prominent explanations of phobia include the psychoanalytic, behavioural, biomedical/genetic and cognitive explanations. 

On the application of these theories to everyday life, it can be said that all the theories have their own unique usefulness in dealing with phobia. The psychoanalytic approach lays emphasis on childhood experiences, while the biomedical approach focuses on the role of genetics in the development of phobia. Thus, both these approaches lend themselves to the early prevention of phobia. These approaches are however, limited when it comes to treatment because they do not lend to the cure of phobia once they have developed. The behavioural and cognitive approaches are useful in treatment post development of phobia and have led to the development of specific curative techniques such as systematic desensitization and cognitive restructuring respectively.

On the debate of individual versus situational explanations, the psychoanalytic and behavioural explanations of phobia emphasize the role of situations in the development of phobia. The psychoanalytic approach assumes childhood experiences of parenting ; and the behavioural explanation assumes a person's environment is responsible for the development of phobia. The biomedical/genetic and cognitive explanations see individual factors as responsible for the development of phobia. The biomedical/genetic approach holds that the heredity of the individual leads to development of phobia, while the cognitive explanation sees the individual's own beliefs regarding danger of a phobic stimulus as responsible for the same. 

Regarding determinism, the psychoanalytic, behavioural, and biomedical/genetic approaches are all deterministic in nature. The psychoanalytic approach assumes that the development of phobia is contingent on the approach taken by the parents towards the development of their child, the behavioural approach assumes that it is dependent on the association of neutral and fear-evoking stimuli in the individual's environment, and the biomedical approach assumes that it is dependent on the genetic makeup of the individual. All these factors are beyond the individual's control. The cognitive approach, however, assumes that the development of phobia is contingent on the individual's own beliefs which are the creation of the individual, and hence, takes the side of free-will.

Finally, on the issue of reductionism, all of these approaches are reductionist in nature. The psychoanalytic approach accounts for phobias that develop during the childhood of the individual, but not those that emerge in later life. The behavioural approach explains acquired phobias, but not natural ones, or for those stimuli that are novel to the individual. The biomedical/genetic approach accounts for phobias seen by birth but not those that are unique to a given individual in a family. Finally, the cognitive approach accounts for phobia which develop out of exaggerated beliefs regarding a stimulus of an individual, but not for those which are encountered for the first time by an individual.

This evaluation tells us that though all explanations of phobia are very useful to the understanding of phobia, they must all be considered to obtain a comprehensive picture of the development of phobia. None is sufficient by itself to understand the nature of phobia.

---

Answering Paper 4

Section A

 

1. A  study (Ost, 1991) identified the causes of blood and injection phobias. The following table shows the percentage of participants in each category. (*This question is from the specimen paper 4 released by the CIE)

(a) Give one conclusion that can be drawn from this table [2]

(The key point while answering this question is that the candidate must not blindly write down the conclusions he has learnt for the given paper. (S)he must strictly interpret the information on the given table. 'Give' indicates the demand for a factual, to-the-point answer. Any figures given must always be quoted as evidence for the conclusion drawn.)

Specimen Ans. The chief cause of phobia is conditioning for both, blood phobia (49.4%), and injection phobia (57.1%).

---

(b) Give two advantages of the treatment of applied tension for blood phobia. [4]

(This question is asked from the section on treatment of phobias, which is beyond the scope of the present post. However, the candidate must note that not all questions will be asked from the table itself. I am replacing this question from the specimen paper with one relevant to the present post.)

(b) Give two uses of the biomedical/genetic explanation for blood phobia. [4]

(This is again a give question, demanding factual answers)

 

Specimen Ans. The biomedical/genetic explanation can help predict a person's likelihood of developing a phobia, thereby helping in prevention of development of the phobia. Besides, it can also help in formulating medicine or surgery-based intervention to help in the treatment of the disorder.

---

(c) Fear of blood and injection are common phobias. Describe how a different phobia can be explained through conditioning. [4]

 (Though the candidate is free to explain any phobia of choice, it is advisable to write about little Albert's phobia of the white rat, since the candidate is expected to have practiced that study very well. The 'describe' command term calls for sufficient details corresponding to the allotted marks.)

Ans. Dr. Watson (1920) in his famous series of experiments with little Albert, demonstrated how the fear of any stimulus can be induced in a person through the use of classical conditioning. He presented Albert with a white rat and Albert initially showed no fear of it. After many experiments, however, when Watson repeatedly paired the presentation of the white rat with a loud sound - that caused a fear response of crying in Albert, he began to cry upon the sight of the rat itself. Thus, little Albert had been conditioned to fear the white rat.

---

(d) Discuss the evidence suggesting that phobias are learned. You should consider both sides of the argument and include a conclusion. [5]

('Discuss' calls for arguments, as is explicitly stated in the given question. Evidence pertaining to 'for' arguments come from the research study linked to the asked topic in the syllabus, and also from indirect studies, such as those based on the treatment derived from an explanation. Evidence for 'against' arguments come from studies that exemplify other explanations than the one in the question. A conclusion is important, and must be based on evidence and not opinion. Many candidates fail to include a conclusion - be careful.)

Specimen Ans. Behavioural psychologists believe that phobias are learned in different ways, one of which is classical conditioning. Dr. Watson (1920) in his famous series of experiments with little Albert, demonstrated how the fear of any stimulus can be induced in a person through the use of classical conditioning. He presented Albert with a white rat and Albert initially showed no fear of it. After many experiments, however, when Watson repeatedly paired the presentation of the white rat with a loud sound - that caused a fear response of crying in Albert, he began to cry upon the sight of the rat itself. Thus, little Albert had been conditioned to fear the white rat.

A widely used treatment for phobias - systematic desensitization - developed by Wolpe in 1958 is based on the principles of classical conditioning. In this treatment, the individual with phobia is made to dissociate the connection (s)he has established between a stimulus and the fear response.Through a gradual step-wise intervention, the individual is taught this dissociation. This treatment has a high rate of success, and is popularly used. 

However, there are also other explanations of phobia which suggest that phobia might not be learnt. For example, Ost (1992) showed that blood-injury phobia, and injection-phobia have high rates of sharing with first degree relatives having the same disorder. This suggest that phobias may be inherited.

Another research, by DiNardo and colleagues (1988) established that a stimulus is not feared unless an exaggerated belief regarding its potential harm is formed in the mind of the individual. Thus, it is not the exposure to a fear-inducing stimulus, but the belief of the individual, that is at the root of the phobia.

In conclusion, it can be said that though the conditioning view of phobia is empirically established and has a high degree of usefulness, it cannot explain every instance of phobia.

--- 

Section B

5. (a) Design a study to investigate whether the biomedical/genetic explanation phobia is a valid explanation of blood-injury and phobia. [10]

(The first point the candidate must note what type of study is to be designed. This question mentions no particular type, and hence, the candidate is free to choose from the types (s)he has practiced best. The next point is what is to be measured, and the answer to that is validity. Since psychometrics are one issue to be studied, the candidate must have an idea of the reliability and validity of the explanation in question. For a theory to be valid, the most commonly tested validity is its predictive validity. Finally, the explanation that must be the candidate's central focus of discussion is the biomedical/genetic explanation).

Specimen Ans. I would perform a longitudinal study of comparison in the following manner to test whether the biomedical/genetic explanation of phobia is valid:

Aim - To test whether the genetic/biomedical explanation phobia is valid.

Sample - At least 30 newborns with at least one first-degree relative suffering from blood-injury phobia, and at least 30 newborns around the same time, with no such relatives.

Hypothesis - It would be expected that approximately 61% or more than half of the newborns with a first-degree relative with a blood-injury phobia would also develop the same phobia, as established by the Ost (1992) study. Also, among those with no relatives suffering from the phobia, this percentage should be significantly less.

Method -  I would request psychiatric hospitals across the study to help me with the research, by providing names of people with blood-injury phobia so that I could find out whether there are any newborns among their first-degree relatives, and seek their permission for the study from the guardians of the newborn. I would also consult some nursing homes to find parents with newborns at the same time, and seek their permission for study of their newborns.

I would then keep a record of the contacts of these persons, and contact them again after 10 years, by when their phobia, if any, should have been established. I would then. with the help of a psychology expert, diagnose all these participants with criteria presented in the DSM V for specific phobia to determine what percentage of participants from each group have developed blood-injury phobia.

Data-Analysis - I would note the percentages of people in both groups of children of the sample - those with first degree relatives having the disorder, and those not having such relatives. I would then compare this data to the proposed hypothesis and present the final results.

---

5. (b) Discuss the psychological and methodological evidence on which your study is based.  [8]

(The candidate must give equal coverage to psychological and methodological evidence. Also, it is advisable to cover these sections separately for clarity. While presenting psychological evidence, the candidate should avoid blindly presenting everything from the relevant section. (S)he should modify the content as adapted to the answer.)

Ans. The psychological evidence on which the above study is based is the study by Ost (1992). Ost conducted a study to investigate the role of genetics in blood-injury and injection phobias. Accordingly, he studied the patterns of phobia in the family of participants suffering from these phobias. He found that a significant percentage of participants in both groups had first-degree relatives suffering from the same disorder as them. In view of these findings, in the study I designed, I predicted that participants who had first-degree relatives suffering from blood-injury phobia would be more likely than the general population to develop the same phobia. Also, the percentage of participants suffering from blood-injury phobia having first-degree relatives suffering from the same was found to be 61%. Accordingly, in my study, I predicted that approximately 61% of participants having blood-injury phobia should be found to have relatives suffering from the same. 

The methodological evidence on which the study is based is that the validity of a theory is best understood from a prospective study, in which the tenets of an explanation can be verified in terms of whether they manifest as predicted. In the case of a disorder, experimental manipulation is not possible on an ethical ground, and hence, a controlled observational study is useful. In my study, I recommended that the observation of development of phobia be done through a DSM-V diagnosis with the help of an expert to ensure accuracy of diagnosis. Besides, I also included a comparison group as discriminatory evidence, for if the theory is valid, then it's predictions should hold true only for the population for which the predictions are made.

---

Section C

11. "Conducting laboratory experiments is the only valid way to find out about phobias."

To what extent do you agree with this statement? Use examples of research you have studied to support your answer. [12]

(The candidate here, is expected to present the advantages and disadvantages of the laboratory experiment with the help of the studies in the relevant section of the syllabus. It should also be obvious that studies using the laboratory experiment can be used to support the method as well as refute it, while studies not using the laboratory experiment can be useful examples of other types of research that are also useful. 'To what extent' is a higher order command term that involves thorough evaluation.)

Specimen Ans - A laboratory experiment is a valid research method because of its following characteristics:

1) Researchers can exert a high degree of control over the factors influencing the dependent variable. For example, in the experiment with little Albert, Dr. Watson first introduced the white rat to the infant to check that he did not have a pre-existing phobia of the rat. Also, care was taken by Dr. Watson to hide behind a curtain while making the loud sound to frighten Albert, so that Albert would associate only the sound with the white rat and not the researcher himself.

2) Laboratory experiments also help establish a clear cause-effect relationship, since they exert a high degree of control. In the case of little Albert, it was apparent that it was the loud sound and no other factor that caused him to fear the white rat. Thus, it was established that phobias can be developed by the pairing of a fear-invoking stimulus with a neutral stimulus. This lends to construct validity i.e. the behavioural theory of phobia learning was verified in the experiment.

3) Laboratory experiments are also easily replicated, because they are very precisely conducted. The greater the number of times that the same results are found, the more valid that they are. In the little Albert experiment, the neutral stimulus i.e. the white rat, the unconditioned stimulus i.e. the loud sound, and stages of the experiment are clearly stated, and the experiment can be repeated to check the development of phobia with the same or other stimuli by other researchers.

However, laboratory experiments do have their drawbacks, which reduce their validity, including the following:

1) Laboratory experiments are highly artificial, they do not match real-life situations. Therefore, they have poor ecological validity. For example, the way that loud sounds were created in the little Albert experiment, is not the way that stimuli are found to occur in real life. Stimuli rarely occur in isolation from the occurrence of other stimuli, making it difficult to pin-point which stimulus is being associated with which other. Besides, one stimulus may not compulsorily occur with another on every single occasion.

2) The findings of laboratory research are also difficult to generalize, and are often restricted to the case of a given sample. For research on phobia in particular, ethics have to be considered before inducing phobia in an individual. Most of such research would not be permitted today. The experiment on little Albert, for example, was conducted on a single infant, and it cannot be said whether all infants would react in the same way to the experiment. This limited generalizability also limits the validity of the study.

3) Laboratory experiments are not the only valid means to study phobia. Other techniques have also been found to be valid. For example, the Ost (1992) study established that about 61% people with blood-injury phobia have a first-degree relative suffering from the same; while 29% of people suffering from injection phobia have such relatives. These findings could not have been established in a laboratory given that genetic inheritance cannot be deliberately manipulated. Nonetheless, such a correlational study is also valid because these findings established through formal diagnoses. 

In conclusion, it can be said that while laboratory experiments hold good internal validity, they suffer from poor external validity. Also, there are other methods besides laboratory experiments that are valid means of explaining phobias.

---

Explanation of Phobias : Quick Review

 

A brief synopsis of the Explanations of Phobias

-----x-----