Week 1: Mineka & Zinbarg (2006) – A contemporary learning theory perspective on
the etiology of anxiety disorders
Advantages new of the new contemporary learning approach over the two other approaches:
▪ Learning approaches are better grounded in the theories and methods of experimental
psychology
▪ They provide more comprehensive formulations of the etiology of anxiety disorders
▪ They provide a more explicit analysis of factors promoting or inhibiting the development of
different anxiety disorders.
Specific phobia
Individuals with specific phobias show intense and irrational fears of certain objects or situations that
they usually go to great lengths to avoid. Originally it was argued that phobias are simply intense
classical conditioned fears that develop when a neutral stimulus is paired with a traumatic event.
It was thought that people with phobias recall a traumatic conditioning event when their phobia began,
however this straightforward view of phobia acquisition was later criticized for several reasons:
1. The first criticism of early conditioning approaches centered on the observation that many
people with phobias do not appear to have any relevant history of classical conditioning. →
Simply observing others experiencing a trauma or behaving fearfully could be sufficient for
some phobias to develop, this is called vicarious learning/conditioning.
2. Another criticism is on how to explain why many individuals who do undergo traumatic
experiences do not develop phobias as many non-phobic individuals reported having had
traumatic experiences in the presence of some potentially phobic object without having
acquired a fear or phobia.
Rhesus monkey experiment (Mineka & Cook)
Young adult rhesus monkeys who initially were not afraid of snakes served as observers who watched
unrelated wild-reared model monkeys reacting very fearfully in the presence of live and toy snakes.
These lab-reared observer monkeys showed rapid acquisition of an intense phobic-like fear of snakes
that did not diminish over a three-month follow-up period. This vicarious conditioning also occurred
simply through watching videotapes of models behaving fearfully, suggesting that humans are also
susceptible to acquiring fears vicariously simply through watching movies and TV.
They also showed that most monkeys who had initially simply watched a non-fearful model monkey
behaving non-fearfully with snakes were completely immunized against acquiring a fear of snakes when
subsequently exposed to fearful monkeys behaving fearfully with snakes.
Why do some develop phobias, and some don’t?
▪ Diathesis-stress perspective: there seems to be a modest genetically based vulnerability for
phobias. This genetic vulnerability may well be mediated through genetic contributions to fear
conditioning, which may in turn be mediated through personality variables such as high trait
anxiety that also seem to serve as vulnerability factors, affecting the speed and strength of
conditioning.
▪ Children categorized as behaviourally inhibited (excessively timid, shy, etc.) at 21 months of
age have been found to be at higher risk for the development of multiple specific phobias (an
average of three to four per child) by 7-8 years of age than were uninhibited children.
, ▪ Differences in life experiences among individuals can also strongly affect the outcome of
conditioning experiences. Such experiential factors may serve as vulnerability (or
invulnerability) factors for the development of phobias. The relevant differences in life
experiences may occur before, during, or following a fear-conditioning experience, and they can
act singly or in combination to affect how much fear is experienced, acquired, or maintained
over time.
▪ Someone’s history of control over important aspects of his/her environment. Infants and
children raised in environments in which they gain a sense of control over their environment are
less frightened by (and better able to cope with) novel and frightening events. Such research
suggests that children reared with a stronger sense of mastery over their environments should
be more invulnerable to developing phobias following traumatic experience.
▪ Having control over a traumatic event (such as being able to escape it) has a major impact
on how much fear is conditioned to CSs paired with that trauma. Far less fear is conditioned
when the aversive event is escapable than when it is inescapable.
▪ The impact of post-event variables. A person who is exposed to a more intense traumatic
experience (not paired with the CS) after conditioning of a mild fear is likely to show an increase
in fear of the CS → Inflation effect: this suggests that a person who, for example, acquired a
mild fear of automobiles following a minor crash might develop full-blown driving phobia if
he/she were later physically assaulted even though no automobile was present during the
assault.
▪ Impact of prior experiences → Latent inhibition: a simple prior exposure to a CS before the
CS and the US are ever paired together reduces the amount of subsequent conditioning to the
CS when paired with the US.
Example: Children who have had more previous nontraumatic encounters with a dentist are
less likely to develop dental anxiety if subsequently traumatized at the dentist’s office than are
those with fewer prior encounters when they are traumatized.
▪ When a person receives verbally or socially transmitted information about the US being
more dangerous than when she or he originally experienced it paired with the US. This can
result in an inflated level of fear to the CS.
▪ Simple mental rehearsal of CS–US relationships can lead to enhanced strength of the
conditioned fear response.
Why are we afraid of spiders/snakes but not so much of guns or cars?
Early conditioning models predicted that fears and phobias would occur to any random group of objects
associated with trauma. However, clinical observations show that people are much more likely to have
phobias of snakes, water, heights, and enclosed spaces than of bicycles, guns, or cars, even though
today the latter objects (not present in our early evolutionary history) may be at least as likely to be
associated with trauma.
Primates may be evolutionarily prepared to rapidly associate certain kinds of objects (such as snakes,
spiders, water, heights) with aversive events. This is because there may have been a selective
advantage in the course of evolution for primates who rapidly acquired fears of certain objects or
situations that posed threats to humans’ early ancestors. Consistent with this, studies have shown that
the content of most phobias is rated by independent raters as “prepared” in the sense that it was
probably dangerous to pretechnological humans. Thus, prepared fears are not seen as inborn or innate
but rather as very easily acquired and/or especially resistant to extinction.
the etiology of anxiety disorders
Advantages new of the new contemporary learning approach over the two other approaches:
▪ Learning approaches are better grounded in the theories and methods of experimental
psychology
▪ They provide more comprehensive formulations of the etiology of anxiety disorders
▪ They provide a more explicit analysis of factors promoting or inhibiting the development of
different anxiety disorders.
Specific phobia
Individuals with specific phobias show intense and irrational fears of certain objects or situations that
they usually go to great lengths to avoid. Originally it was argued that phobias are simply intense
classical conditioned fears that develop when a neutral stimulus is paired with a traumatic event.
It was thought that people with phobias recall a traumatic conditioning event when their phobia began,
however this straightforward view of phobia acquisition was later criticized for several reasons:
1. The first criticism of early conditioning approaches centered on the observation that many
people with phobias do not appear to have any relevant history of classical conditioning. →
Simply observing others experiencing a trauma or behaving fearfully could be sufficient for
some phobias to develop, this is called vicarious learning/conditioning.
2. Another criticism is on how to explain why many individuals who do undergo traumatic
experiences do not develop phobias as many non-phobic individuals reported having had
traumatic experiences in the presence of some potentially phobic object without having
acquired a fear or phobia.
Rhesus monkey experiment (Mineka & Cook)
Young adult rhesus monkeys who initially were not afraid of snakes served as observers who watched
unrelated wild-reared model monkeys reacting very fearfully in the presence of live and toy snakes.
These lab-reared observer monkeys showed rapid acquisition of an intense phobic-like fear of snakes
that did not diminish over a three-month follow-up period. This vicarious conditioning also occurred
simply through watching videotapes of models behaving fearfully, suggesting that humans are also
susceptible to acquiring fears vicariously simply through watching movies and TV.
They also showed that most monkeys who had initially simply watched a non-fearful model monkey
behaving non-fearfully with snakes were completely immunized against acquiring a fear of snakes when
subsequently exposed to fearful monkeys behaving fearfully with snakes.
Why do some develop phobias, and some don’t?
▪ Diathesis-stress perspective: there seems to be a modest genetically based vulnerability for
phobias. This genetic vulnerability may well be mediated through genetic contributions to fear
conditioning, which may in turn be mediated through personality variables such as high trait
anxiety that also seem to serve as vulnerability factors, affecting the speed and strength of
conditioning.
▪ Children categorized as behaviourally inhibited (excessively timid, shy, etc.) at 21 months of
age have been found to be at higher risk for the development of multiple specific phobias (an
average of three to four per child) by 7-8 years of age than were uninhibited children.
, ▪ Differences in life experiences among individuals can also strongly affect the outcome of
conditioning experiences. Such experiential factors may serve as vulnerability (or
invulnerability) factors for the development of phobias. The relevant differences in life
experiences may occur before, during, or following a fear-conditioning experience, and they can
act singly or in combination to affect how much fear is experienced, acquired, or maintained
over time.
▪ Someone’s history of control over important aspects of his/her environment. Infants and
children raised in environments in which they gain a sense of control over their environment are
less frightened by (and better able to cope with) novel and frightening events. Such research
suggests that children reared with a stronger sense of mastery over their environments should
be more invulnerable to developing phobias following traumatic experience.
▪ Having control over a traumatic event (such as being able to escape it) has a major impact
on how much fear is conditioned to CSs paired with that trauma. Far less fear is conditioned
when the aversive event is escapable than when it is inescapable.
▪ The impact of post-event variables. A person who is exposed to a more intense traumatic
experience (not paired with the CS) after conditioning of a mild fear is likely to show an increase
in fear of the CS → Inflation effect: this suggests that a person who, for example, acquired a
mild fear of automobiles following a minor crash might develop full-blown driving phobia if
he/she were later physically assaulted even though no automobile was present during the
assault.
▪ Impact of prior experiences → Latent inhibition: a simple prior exposure to a CS before the
CS and the US are ever paired together reduces the amount of subsequent conditioning to the
CS when paired with the US.
Example: Children who have had more previous nontraumatic encounters with a dentist are
less likely to develop dental anxiety if subsequently traumatized at the dentist’s office than are
those with fewer prior encounters when they are traumatized.
▪ When a person receives verbally or socially transmitted information about the US being
more dangerous than when she or he originally experienced it paired with the US. This can
result in an inflated level of fear to the CS.
▪ Simple mental rehearsal of CS–US relationships can lead to enhanced strength of the
conditioned fear response.
Why are we afraid of spiders/snakes but not so much of guns or cars?
Early conditioning models predicted that fears and phobias would occur to any random group of objects
associated with trauma. However, clinical observations show that people are much more likely to have
phobias of snakes, water, heights, and enclosed spaces than of bicycles, guns, or cars, even though
today the latter objects (not present in our early evolutionary history) may be at least as likely to be
associated with trauma.
Primates may be evolutionarily prepared to rapidly associate certain kinds of objects (such as snakes,
spiders, water, heights) with aversive events. This is because there may have been a selective
advantage in the course of evolution for primates who rapidly acquired fears of certain objects or
situations that posed threats to humans’ early ancestors. Consistent with this, studies have shown that
the content of most phobias is rated by independent raters as “prepared” in the sense that it was
probably dangerous to pretechnological humans. Thus, prepared fears are not seen as inborn or innate
but rather as very easily acquired and/or especially resistant to extinction.
