Topic D Why do we have phobias?

Key studies
Jones (1924):
Cuin! a boy"s phobia
#ennett$%evy and
&ateau (19'4): (ea o)
ani*a+s
,einichs et a+ (2--.):
Cu+tua+ di/eences in
)eas
0i*:
To investigate whether a phobia in a
little boy could be deconditioned and
whether this would generalize to
other objects.
0i*:
To see whether we are more afraid of,
or avoid, animals that move quickly,
move suddenly and look very
diferent from people.
0i*:
To see if being brought up in diferent
cultures afected social anxiety and
fear of blushing.
1ocedue:
eter was !yrs "#mths old when
$ones started the observations.
%he watched eter playing with beads
in his cot while the experimenter
showed him a white rat.
eter screamed and moved away.
&hen the rat touched eter's beads
he protested but didn't when another
child touched his beads.
(ext day ) eter's reaction to
diferent objects was observed which
showed that his fear of the rat had
generalized to other objects. eter
was also shown a rabbit and was
more afraid of this than the rat so a
rabbit was used for deconditioning.
The therapy* used both C%0223C0%
C45D3T345356 + 24C30%
%7085356 T,7489 to help sure
eter's phobia: 2he developed a
T4%7805C7 278372 whereby eter
would gradually get closer to the
rabbit.
1ocedue:
They used two questionnaires ) both
asked questions about the same !,
animals. They were told that none of
the animals were dangerous.
-uestionnaire " ) fear scale ) ". not
afraid, / . very afraid and nearness
scale 0"123 " . enjoy picking it up,
2. move more than ! metres away.
-uestionnaire ! ) how the
participants felt about each animal
rated on a /1point scale for each of
the following ) ugliness, sliminess,
speediness and how sudden they
moved.
/# men and /4 women answered the
questionnaires.
%ome participants were also
interviewed.
1ocedue:
,#, university students were the pps
0they volunteered3. They were from 5
diferent universities in 5 diferent
countries.
They were divided into two groups )
collectivist or individualist cultures,
based on the cultures they lived in.
They were shown a short description of
a social situation and asked to say how
they would react.
6f the participants said they would
speak up, this would be a low social
anxiety answer.
6f they said they would do nothing, this
was a high social anxiety answer.
They also completed a social anxiety
and blushing questionnaire which
measured their individual fear of social
situations and interaction with other
people and their fear of
embarrassment.
7ood gave eter pleasure and he felt
relaxed 0;C2 ()ood) $ ;C8
(p+easue)3
8s he took steps to moving along the
tolerance series he was given food.
%he was aiming to get eter to
0224C30T7 pleasure with the rabbit.
%he was trying to use classical
conditioning to reverse the phobia.
eter also had daily play sessions
with / children and the rabbit 0the
others weren't scared of the rabbit3.
9e saw the other children being
happy around the rabbit, and being
praised. 02%T3
(ew situations were used to get eter
closer to the rabbit.
8esu+ts:
The changes in eter's behavior were
not steady or continuous or equally
spaced in time
eter's behavior improved and
worsened e.g. when he was scratched
by the rabbit.
The tolerance series were created by
six people's descriptions of the
improvement in eter's behavior.
The other children acted as role
models which helped eter move
closer to the rabbit.
9e also lost his fear of cotton, the
coat and feathers.
9e also accepted new animals such
as frogs, worms and a mouse.
8esu+ts:
:ost feared animals were* rat,
cockroach,
jelly;sh, spider, slug etc.
%ome animals were rated as more
ugly and
these were quite diferent in
structure from
humans. 0e.g. cockroaches have
antennae,
spiders have 5 legs and are hairy all
over3.
They found that people were more
afraid of
some animals and less likely to get
near them.
8esu+ts:
articipants from collectivist cultures
often responded to the descriptions in
a way that showed high social anxiety
) they gave answers that avoided
public interaction or speaking. They
were also more fearful of blushing.
9ighest %ocial
8nxiety

<owest %ocial
8nxiety
$apan
=orea
%pain
>%8
?anada
8ustralia
The
(etherlands
@ermany
&hen interviewed, participants
described ugly
animals as slimy, hairy and dirty,
with
antennae, eyes in odd places and a
strange
number of legs.
:en + women judged ugliness in
similar
ways. &omen were less likely to
approach
many of the animals.
eople were less likely to approach
ugly or slimy, speedy or suddenly
moving
animals.
They were afraid of ugly, slimy,
speedy of
suddenly moving animals
%peedy animals move suddenly.
Conc+usions:
#oth c+assica+ conditionin! and
socia+ +eanin! he+ped to
decondition 1ete.
The deconditioning also reduced
generalized fears and helped eter to
cope with new animals.
Conc+usions:
The features of ugliness, sliminess,
speediness
and sudden movement all make
animals move
frightening.
>gliness is judged by how diferent
an animal
is from a human. :any animals
which cause
phobias are ugly, slimy, speedy or
sudden
Conc+usions:
?ollectivist cultures show greater
social anxiety and fear of blushing
than individualistic cultures.
eople in collectivist cultures will hold
back through fear of letting the group
down if they are wrong. %ocial norms
are important for collectivist cultures
as the behavior of an individual afects
the whole group.
6n individualistic cultures it is
important to stand out from the crowd
and shyness could actually be a
burden.
movers, which supports the idea that
preparedness relates to an animal's
features.
2ten!ths:
Aetailed observations over a long
period. These showed eter's
progress.
2ten!ths:
Aiferent participants answered the
two questionnaires. This helped to
make sure they didn't know what the
study was about:
Co**ents:
This study relates to the development
of fears and phobias.
2ten!ths*
$ones asked other people to order the
tolerance series so avoided bias.
2ten!ths*
They used men and women as their
phobias are diferent, so the ;ndings
apply to both genders.
Co**ents*
6t is clear that phobias of snakes and
spiders probably originate from
classical conditioning or evolutionary
preparedness, this study suggests a
link to culture.
2ten!ths*
>sed diferent ways to help eter.
2ten!ths:
The pps did not see the animals so
they weren't frightened by them, thus
avoiding ethical problems. The
;ndings are useful as they can
explain why fears are not always
linked to actual experiences with
animals.
7ew people are scared of rabbits yet
lots of people are bitten by rabbits
when they are young. This is
because rabbits do not have scary
features.
Co**ents:
?ulture determines how we think and
actB family and friends teach us social
norms.
Wea<nesses:
The gaps between sessions were
variable so progress could be due to
time rather than deconditioning.
Wea<nesses*
The participants were told the
animals were not dangerous but still
many thought the rats were harmful,
so the instruction was not very
successful.
Co**ents:
?ulture can make us con;dent or
anxious in
social situations ) this supports the
nurture side of the debate.
Wea<nesses*
$ones used two diferent techniques
Wea<nesses*
The questionnaires only asked about
0?? and %<3, as well as other people
who made eter feel con;dent. This
makes it diCcult to tell which was
most efective.
D factors. 6n the interviews, the pps
said other things about what makes
an animal scary. Enly a few people
were interviewed, this should have
been added to the questionnaire.