Selectivity of Phobias
Phobias occur almost entirely to a highly restricted set of objects, whereas
ordinary classical conditioning of fear occurs to any object that happens to
be around at the same time as trauma.
Questions:
Why are phobias of the dark so common but phobias of pillows are nonexistent, although both are paired with night time trauma?
Why are phobias of knives so rare even though knives are often paired with injury?
Why have we never heard of a phobia of electric outlets?
Why are there rat, horse, dog, and spider phobias, but not lamb or kitten phobias?
Although Watson and Raynor had found it simple to condition Little Albert
to fear rats, E. L. Thorndike (1874-1949), the American learning
theorist, had difficulty trying to train his children to stay away from sharp
objects and to stay out ofthe street, even though such trespasses were paired
with spankings. In consequence, Thorndike decided to study this phenomenon
experimentally. He brought young children to his laboratory and presented
them with objects like curtains and wooden ducks which, unlike rats,
do not contort and move themselves. These objects were paired with traumatic
noise. No fear conditioning resulted, even after many pairings (Valentine,
1930; Bregman, 1934). Phobic conditioning, both in and out of the
laboratory, is highly selective. Can the behavioral analysis accommodate
this observation?
Yes, with some modification of its basic principles (Seligman, 1970; Eysenck,
1979). Although ordinarily laboratory conditioning may be nonselective
(as Pavlov claimed), there is a kind of classical conditioning that is
highly selective: prepared classical conditioning, such as the conditioning of
taste aversions. In an experiment by John Garcia, rats received sweet-tasting
water at the same time as being subjected to light and noise, all signaling radiation
sickness. They learned to hate the sweet taste in one trial, but the
light and noise did not become at all aversive. Rats who received the same
compound signals paired several times with shock, rather than stomach illness
learned to fear the light and noise, but they continued to love the sweet
taste (Garcia arid Koelling, 1966). Evolution seems to have selected rats who
learn aversions very readily when taste is paired with stomach illness, and
who do not learn to fear noise and light when they become sick.
Phobias of objects
The great majority of common phobias are of objects that were once actually
dangerous to pre-technological man (De Silva, Rachman, and Seligman,
1977). Natural selection probably favored those ofour ancestors who,
once they had minimal exposure to trauma paired with such signals, were
highly prepared to learn that strangers, crowds, heights, insects, large ani.
mals, and dirt were dangerous. Such primates would have had a clear reproductive
and survival edge over others who learned only gradually about
such real dangers. Thus, evolution seems to have selected a certain set of
objects, all once dangerous to man, that are readily conditionable to trauma,
and it seems to have left out other objects that are much more difficult to
condition to fear (such as lambs, electric outlets, knives), either because they
were never dangerous or because their origin is too recent to have been subject
to natural selection.
In an important series of experiments, Arne Ohman, Kenneth Hugdahl,
and their collaborators at the University ofUppsala in Sweden, created what
appears to be a close laboratory model of phobias (Ohman, Fredriksen,
Hugdahl, and Rimmo, 1976). Fear was conditioned in student volunteers
using a variety of prepared-once dangerous to Homo sapiens-or unprepared
fear CSs; pictures of snakes or spiders (prepared) versus pictures of
houses, faces, or flowers (unprepared). In a typical experiment, in the "prepared"
group, the pictures of snakes signaled that brief, painful electric
shock would occur ten seconds later. In the "unprepared" group, pictures of
houses signaled shock. Fear conditioning, as measured by galvanic skin response
(akin to sweating), occurred much more rapidly to prepared signals
than to unprepared ones when each was paired with shock.
In fact, conditioning took place in one pairing with snakes or spiders, but it took four or
five pairings with shock for fear of unprepared signals to be conditioned.
This study demonstrates that humans seem more prepared to learn to be
afraid ofcertain objects than of others. Consider guns, therefore, as a potentially
phobic object. Guns are too recent to have been prepared for fear conditioning
by evolution, but guns have had voluminous cultural preparation:
stories, TV shows, parental warnings. Does the fear conditioned to pictures
ofguns have the properties of snakes and spiders, or of houses and flowers?
Guns turn out to resemble houses and flowers, not spiders and snakes in
their conditioning properties. This indicates that the preparedness ofspiders
and snakes is biological, not cultural.
The behavioral reply to the selectivity of phobias is to assert that phobias
are not instances of ordinary classical conditioning, but rather they are instances
of prepared classical conditioning: certain evolutionarily dangerous
objects are prepared to become phobic objects when paired with trauma,
but others are not and require much more extensive and traumatic conditioning
to become phobic objects. Phobias to snow, knives, lambs, and the
like may be conditioned, but more trials and more intense trauma must
occur. Thus, such unprepared phobias are very rare.
One researcher tells the story of a four-year-old girl who saw a snake while
walking through a park in England. She found the snake interesting, but she
was not greatly frightened by it. Ashort time later, she returned to the family
car, and her hand was smashed in the car door. She developed a lifelong
phobia, not of cars or doors but of snakes (Marks, 1977).
So we see that phobias are selective, both in the laboratory and in real life.
to fear rats, E. L. Thorndike (1874-1949), the American learning
theorist, had difficulty trying to train his children to stay away from sharp
objects and to stay out ofthe street, even though such trespasses were paired
with spankings. In consequence, Thorndike decided to study this phenomenon
experimentally. He brought young children to his laboratory and presented
them with objects like curtains and wooden ducks which, unlike rats,
do not contort and move themselves. These objects were paired with traumatic
noise. No fear conditioning resulted, even after many pairings (Valentine,
1930; Bregman, 1934). Phobic conditioning, both in and out of the
laboratory, is highly selective. Can the behavioral analysis accommodate
this observation?
Yes, with some modification of its basic principles (Seligman, 1970; Eysenck,
1979). Although ordinarily laboratory conditioning may be nonselective
(as Pavlov claimed), there is a kind of classical conditioning that is
highly selective: prepared classical conditioning, such as the conditioning of
taste aversions. In an experiment by John Garcia, rats received sweet-tasting
water at the same time as being subjected to light and noise, all signaling radiation
sickness. They learned to hate the sweet taste in one trial, but the
light and noise did not become at all aversive. Rats who received the same
compound signals paired several times with shock, rather than stomach illness
learned to fear the light and noise, but they continued to love the sweet
taste (Garcia arid Koelling, 1966). Evolution seems to have selected rats who
learn aversions very readily when taste is paired with stomach illness, and
who do not learn to fear noise and light when they become sick.
Phobias of objects
The great majority of common phobias are of objects that were once actually
dangerous to pre-technological man (De Silva, Rachman, and Seligman,
1977). Natural selection probably favored those ofour ancestors who,
once they had minimal exposure to trauma paired with such signals, were
highly prepared to learn that strangers, crowds, heights, insects, large ani.
mals, and dirt were dangerous. Such primates would have had a clear reproductive
and survival edge over others who learned only gradually about
such real dangers. Thus, evolution seems to have selected a certain set of
objects, all once dangerous to man, that are readily conditionable to trauma,
and it seems to have left out other objects that are much more difficult to
condition to fear (such as lambs, electric outlets, knives), either because they
were never dangerous or because their origin is too recent to have been subject
to natural selection.
In an important series of experiments, Arne Ohman, Kenneth Hugdahl,
and their collaborators at the University ofUppsala in Sweden, created what
appears to be a close laboratory model of phobias (Ohman, Fredriksen,
Hugdahl, and Rimmo, 1976). Fear was conditioned in student volunteers
using a variety of prepared-once dangerous to Homo sapiens-or unprepared
fear CSs; pictures of snakes or spiders (prepared) versus pictures of
houses, faces, or flowers (unprepared). In a typical experiment, in the "prepared"
group, the pictures of snakes signaled that brief, painful electric
shock would occur ten seconds later. In the "unprepared" group, pictures of
houses signaled shock. Fear conditioning, as measured by galvanic skin response
(akin to sweating), occurred much more rapidly to prepared signals
than to unprepared ones when each was paired with shock.
In fact, conditioning took place in one pairing with snakes or spiders, but it took four or
five pairings with shock for fear of unprepared signals to be conditioned.
This study demonstrates that humans seem more prepared to learn to be
afraid ofcertain objects than of others. Consider guns, therefore, as a potentially
phobic object. Guns are too recent to have been prepared for fear conditioning
by evolution, but guns have had voluminous cultural preparation:
stories, TV shows, parental warnings. Does the fear conditioned to pictures
ofguns have the properties of snakes and spiders, or of houses and flowers?
Guns turn out to resemble houses and flowers, not spiders and snakes in
their conditioning properties. This indicates that the preparedness ofspiders
and snakes is biological, not cultural.
The behavioral reply to the selectivity of phobias is to assert that phobias
are not instances of ordinary classical conditioning, but rather they are instances
of prepared classical conditioning: certain evolutionarily dangerous
objects are prepared to become phobic objects when paired with trauma,
but others are not and require much more extensive and traumatic conditioning
to become phobic objects. Phobias to snow, knives, lambs, and the
like may be conditioned, but more trials and more intense trauma must
occur. Thus, such unprepared phobias are very rare.
One researcher tells the story of a four-year-old girl who saw a snake while
walking through a park in England. She found the snake interesting, but she
was not greatly frightened by it. Ashort time later, she returned to the family
car, and her hand was smashed in the car door. She developed a lifelong
phobia, not of cars or doors but of snakes (Marks, 1977).
So we see that phobias are selective, both in the laboratory and in real life.
More at:
http://social-anxiety-treatment-cure.weebly.com/
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
END
http://social-anxiety-treatment-cure.weebly.com/
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
END