Describe explanations of phobias.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. [criterion] Explanations of phobias, including the following: behavioural (classical conditioning, Watson, 1920)
2. [criterion] Explanations of phobias, including the following: psychoanalytic (Freud, 1909)
3. [criterion] Explanations of phobias, including the following: biomedical/genetic (Ost, 1992)
4. [criterion] Explanations of phobias, including the following: cognitive (DiNardo et al., 1988)
5. [criterion] Behavioural (classical conditioning, Watson, 1920): A phobia develops as the neutral stimulus is paired with something the person is afraid of (the unconditioned stimulus). If enough pairings occur or the initial UCS is very frightening the person will end up with a fear of the NS. The NS then becomes the CS. Candidates may describe the case of the little Albert who was conditioned to be afraid of a rat by Watson banging an iron bar behind the baby which made him cry. Eventually just the sight of the rat was enough to cause the crying.
6. [criterion] Psychoanalytic (Freud, 1909): A fear is repressed into the unconscious to protect the ego. The phobia can be a redirected fear during an intensely frightening experience (e.g. a physical attack) onto an object. Candidates can also summarise the case of little Hans.
7. [criterion] Biomedical/genetic (Ost, 1992): Ost found that blood-phobic subjects had more first degree relatives with the same phobia compared to injection-phobic participants (61% vs 29%). In addition, the blood-phobic patients were more likely to fear they would faint in the phobic situation (77% vs 48%). Concluded that there appears to be a strong genetic link and more likely to lead to a strong physiological response (fainting).
8. [criterion] Cognitive (DiNardo et al., 1988): We have irrational thoughts about an object due to a previous experience that we believe will be repeated. DiNardo and his colleagues studied a group of people with dog phobias and found a matched group who did not suffer from that phobia. They found that over 50% of people with dog phobias could recall being bitten or having a frightening past experience with a dog. However, 50% of the group with no dog phobia also had memories of being bitten by dogs and yet had not developed any anxiety about seeing dogs in the future. This shows that not everyone who is exposed to conditioning would end up developing a phobia, and it may be explained more through our thought processes after an event than the event itself.
9. [Table A] Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table A.
10. [criterion] Other appropriate responses should also be credited.
11. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: Names issue – Determinism. All of the explanations of phobias are deterministic. E.g. The behavioural explanation suggest phobias are learned. This is deterministic because the person who develops the phobia has no choice but to develop it due to their learning experience. For example, Little Albert learned to be afraid of the white rat because of the noise he associated with the rat not because he chose to be afraid.
12. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: nature versus nurture debate with reference to the various explanations. E.g. biomedical is nature and behavioural is nurture.
13. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: comparisons of different explanations
14. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: Application of psychology to everyday life (with reference to explanations) – Useful as the explanations can then be used to help someone understand their phobia better and feel reassured by the explanation. In addition, the explanations lead on to the treatments.
15. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: reductionist nature of the explanations – biomedical is reductionist and psychodynamic is more complex/holistic/less reductionist.
16. [criterion] A range of issues could be used for evaluation here. These include: Evidence to support the explanations (and an evaluation of this evidence if linked back to explanation) e.g. the case study approach used by Watson and Freud, just people with dog phobias (or no phobia) studied by DiNardo.
17. [Table B] Mark according to the levels of response descriptors in Table B.
18. [criterion] Other appropriate responses should also be credited.