Irrationality of Phobias
Laboratory fear conditioning seems very rational. When a signal predicts shock, the subject learns to expect shock and fear develops. When the signal predicts no shock (extinction or "inhibition"), the subject gradually learns to expect no shock, and fear accordingly is eliminated. When a signal is redundant and tells the subject no more than she already knows about when the shock will occur, no learning occurs (Rescorla and Wagner, 1972).
Phobias, in contrast, are not so rational. The elevator phobic, when far away
from the elevator, may believe that the probability ofthe cable snapping is
negligible. But, as she approaches and gets on, in her mind the probability
grows to 1/100, then to 1/2, then to certainty and panic sets in.
This irrationality is at the heart of what has been called "the neurotic paradox"
(Mowrer, 1950; Eysenck, 1979). This paradox characterizes not only
phobias but all the neurotic conditions. Neurotic behavior is self-perpetuating
and self-defeating. How can theories like the behavioral theory of fear
conditioning, calling Onthe rationality ofhuman beings, explain it? Put another
way, "Common sense holds that a normal, sensible man, or even a
beast to the limits of his intelligence, will weigh and balance the consequences
of his acts: if a net effect is favorable, the action producing it will be
perpetuated; if a net effect is unfavorable, the action producing it will be inhibited,
abandoned. In neurosis, however, one sees actions that have predominantly
unfavorable consequences, yet they persist over a period of
months, years, or a lifetime" (Mowrer, 1950).
A phobic's life may be so impoverished by avoiding the phobic object that she cannot even leave her house. Why doesn't she merely give up the avoidance behavior and change
her beliefs so that they match the realities ofthe danger? Any considerations
that will help us out of the neurotic paradox in the case of phobias will also
help us out of the neurotic paradox for all the other neuroses; we present one
such consideration now.
Unprepared classical conditioning may be rational, but prepared classical
conditioning is not. Taste aversions do not seem to be phenomena that accurately
reflect the actual probability of danger. Once an aversion to Sauce
Bernaise is learned-based on vomiting after eating the sauce-merely
knowing that a stomach virus rather than the Sauce Bearnaise caused the
vomiting will not change the acquired distaste for Sauce Bearnaise. Instead,
taste aversions are better seen as examples of blind, irrational conditioning
(Garcia and Koelling, 1966; Rozin and Kalat, 1971; Seligman and Hager,
1972). If prepared conditioning is more like phobic fear than is unprepared
fear conditioning, phobias should be irrational.
Kenneth Hugdahl and Arne Ohman (1977) have provided the relevant
evidence for this conclusion. Swedish students were conditioned to fear either
snakes and spiders or houses and faces by pairing each CS with shock.
At the end of the conditioning, the electrodes were removed, and the subjects
were told that shock would not be delivered anymore. Fear extinguished
immediately to houses and faces, but remained full-blown to snakes
and spiders. Similarly, it is utterly futile to try to convince a cat phobic by
arguing that cats aren't dangerous, while it is quite easy to convince the very
same phobic that the building he works in has been effectively fireproofed.
In general, the irrationality of neurotic behavior may be due to the fact that
it is prepared, rather than unprepared, learning (Eysenck, 1979).-
Non-traumatic Phobias
Classical fear conditioning requires an explicit pairing of the CS with a traumatic
event. Sometimes phobias have such a history (e.g., Hilda's snow
phobia), but frequently they do not (Lazarus, 1971). For example, a phobia
may develop gradually with minor impetus: the phobic's mother was always
afraid of birds, when the patient was a child she saw a film in which people
were attacked by flocks of birds, and she came to develop a phobia to birds.
Can the behavioral analysis based on traumatic conditioning also account
for non-traumatically induced phobias? It turns out that prepared fear conditioning,
unlike unprepared, can occur with minimal relations between CS
and US. In fact, this is the definition of prepared conditioning. Even if sixhour
delays occur between taste and illness, the taste aversion will still form
(Garcia, Ervin, and Koelling, 1967).
Arne Ohman and his collaborators have also provided the direct evidence
that prepared fear conditioning can occur without the experience of trauma
paired with the signal. Verbal threat of shock alone produced robust fear
conditioning following prepared signals, but fear conditioning did not follow
unprepared signals (Hygge and Ohman, 1978). In addition, social modeling
alone (without threat ofshock) was more effective in producing robust
fear conditioning to pictures of snakes and spiders than to flowers, mushrooms,
and berries (Bandura, 1969; Hygge and Ohman, 1978).
Phobias, in contrast, are not so rational. The elevator phobic, when far away
from the elevator, may believe that the probability ofthe cable snapping is
negligible. But, as she approaches and gets on, in her mind the probability
grows to 1/100, then to 1/2, then to certainty and panic sets in.
This irrationality is at the heart of what has been called "the neurotic paradox"
(Mowrer, 1950; Eysenck, 1979). This paradox characterizes not only
phobias but all the neurotic conditions. Neurotic behavior is self-perpetuating
and self-defeating. How can theories like the behavioral theory of fear
conditioning, calling Onthe rationality ofhuman beings, explain it? Put another
way, "Common sense holds that a normal, sensible man, or even a
beast to the limits of his intelligence, will weigh and balance the consequences
of his acts: if a net effect is favorable, the action producing it will be
perpetuated; if a net effect is unfavorable, the action producing it will be inhibited,
abandoned. In neurosis, however, one sees actions that have predominantly
unfavorable consequences, yet they persist over a period of
months, years, or a lifetime" (Mowrer, 1950).
A phobic's life may be so impoverished by avoiding the phobic object that she cannot even leave her house. Why doesn't she merely give up the avoidance behavior and change
her beliefs so that they match the realities ofthe danger? Any considerations
that will help us out of the neurotic paradox in the case of phobias will also
help us out of the neurotic paradox for all the other neuroses; we present one
such consideration now.
Unprepared classical conditioning may be rational, but prepared classical
conditioning is not. Taste aversions do not seem to be phenomena that accurately
reflect the actual probability of danger. Once an aversion to Sauce
Bernaise is learned-based on vomiting after eating the sauce-merely
knowing that a stomach virus rather than the Sauce Bearnaise caused the
vomiting will not change the acquired distaste for Sauce Bearnaise. Instead,
taste aversions are better seen as examples of blind, irrational conditioning
(Garcia and Koelling, 1966; Rozin and Kalat, 1971; Seligman and Hager,
1972). If prepared conditioning is more like phobic fear than is unprepared
fear conditioning, phobias should be irrational.
Kenneth Hugdahl and Arne Ohman (1977) have provided the relevant
evidence for this conclusion. Swedish students were conditioned to fear either
snakes and spiders or houses and faces by pairing each CS with shock.
At the end of the conditioning, the electrodes were removed, and the subjects
were told that shock would not be delivered anymore. Fear extinguished
immediately to houses and faces, but remained full-blown to snakes
and spiders. Similarly, it is utterly futile to try to convince a cat phobic by
arguing that cats aren't dangerous, while it is quite easy to convince the very
same phobic that the building he works in has been effectively fireproofed.
In general, the irrationality of neurotic behavior may be due to the fact that
it is prepared, rather than unprepared, learning (Eysenck, 1979).-
Non-traumatic Phobias
Classical fear conditioning requires an explicit pairing of the CS with a traumatic
event. Sometimes phobias have such a history (e.g., Hilda's snow
phobia), but frequently they do not (Lazarus, 1971). For example, a phobia
may develop gradually with minor impetus: the phobic's mother was always
afraid of birds, when the patient was a child she saw a film in which people
were attacked by flocks of birds, and she came to develop a phobia to birds.
Can the behavioral analysis based on traumatic conditioning also account
for non-traumatically induced phobias? It turns out that prepared fear conditioning,
unlike unprepared, can occur with minimal relations between CS
and US. In fact, this is the definition of prepared conditioning. Even if sixhour
delays occur between taste and illness, the taste aversion will still form
(Garcia, Ervin, and Koelling, 1967).
Arne Ohman and his collaborators have also provided the direct evidence
that prepared fear conditioning can occur without the experience of trauma
paired with the signal. Verbal threat of shock alone produced robust fear
conditioning following prepared signals, but fear conditioning did not follow
unprepared signals (Hygge and Ohman, 1978). In addition, social modeling
alone (without threat ofshock) was more effective in producing robust
fear conditioning to pictures of snakes and spiders than to flowers, mushrooms,
and berries (Bandura, 1969; Hygge and Ohman, 1978).
Treating Social Anxiety
Generalized Anxiety Treatment
Treating Panic Disorder
Agoraphobia Treatment
More at:
http://social-anxiety-treatment-cure.weebly.com/
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
END
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Generalized Anxiety Treatment
Treating Panic Disorder
Agoraphobia Treatment
More at:
http://social-anxiety-treatment-cure.weebly.com/
Of course you know the treatment method I recommend!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
END
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~