Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias

Fredrikson, Mats; Annas, Peter; Fischer, Håkan; Wik, Gustav

doi:10.1016/0005-7967(95)00048-3

Cited by 469 publications

(375 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

307

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The main self-report fear measures included in our study were based on a questionnaire developed by us (25). Subjects were asked to rate the intensity of their fears of 16 different objects and situations on a Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) scale from 0 (no fear) to 100 (maximal fears).…”

Section: Self-report Fear Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Covariation Between Fear Conditioning and Self-Report Fears

Hettema

Annas

Neale

et al. 2008

Biological Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background-Fear conditioning is a traditional model for the acquisition of phobias, while behavioral therapies utilize processes underlying extinction to treat phobic and other anxiety disorders. Furthermore, fear conditioning has been proposed as an endophenotype for genetic studies of anxiety disorders. While prior studies have demonstrated that fear conditioning and self-report fears are heritable, no studies have determined whether they share a common genetic basis.

show abstract

Section: Self-report Fear Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Genetic Covariation Between Fear Conditioning and Self-Report Fears

Hettema

Annas

Neale

et al. 2008

Biological Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prepared stimuli such as the snakes and spiders we used here are thought to draw on basic evolutionarily conserved mechanisms (Seligman 1971;Mineka and Ohman 2002). They elicit preferential attention and enhanced learning early in development in human infants (LoBue and DeLoache 2010) and primates (Cook and Mineka 1989;Kalin et al 2001;Murray and Izquierdo 2007), and the specific phobia rate for such stimuli is elevated relative to nonprepared stimuli (de Silva et al 1977;de Silva 1988;Fredrikson et al 1996). Consistent with these population-based findings, experimental work has shown that prepared stimuli elicit increased arousal and preferential attention relative to neutral stimuli (for review, see Ohman and Mineka (2001)).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prepared stimuli enhance aversive learning without weakening the impact of verbal instructions

Atlas

Phelps

2018

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fear-relevant stimuli such as snakes and spiders are thought to capture attention due to evolutionary significance. Classical conditioning experiments indicate that these stimuli accelerate learning, while instructed extinction experiments suggest they may be less responsive to instructions. We manipulated stimulus type during instructed aversive reversal learning and used quantitative modeling to simultaneously test both hypotheses. Skin conductance reversed immediately upon instruction in both groups. However, fear-relevant stimuli enhanced dynamic learning, as measured by higher learning rates in participants conditioned with images of snakes and spiders. Results are consistent with findings that dissociable neural pathways underlie feedback-driven and instructed aversive learning.[Supplemental material is available for this article.]Human emotion and behavior is influenced by evolutionarily adapted mechanisms that are conserved across organisms. However, humans also learn directly from language and rule-based knowledge. A growing body of research aims to dissociate conserved, biologically prepared processes from those that are sensitive to higher-order influences, such as verbal instruction. The goal of the present study was to test formally how biological preparedness influences aversive learning and its modulation by instructions.Fear-relevant stimuli such as snakes and spiders are thought to engage biologically prepared mechanisms that shape responses and behavior (Seligman 1971;Mineka and Ohman 2002). The extant literature on fear conditioning suggests two main ways in which preparedness can impact conditioning. First, fear-relevant stimuli enhance fear acquisition and retention. Relative to fearirrelevant stimuli (e.g., flowers, mushrooms), fear-relevant stimuli have been shown to facilitate classical conditioning (Ho and Lipp 2014) and slow extinction learning (Fredrikson et al. 1976; Ohman et al. 1975a,b). Work in nonhuman primates suggests that innate responses to fear-relevant stimuli are mediated by the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex (Meunier et al. 1999;Kalin et al. 2001;Murray and Izquierdo 2007). These structures play crucial roles in fear acquisition (Davis 1992; Maren 2001), extinction (Schiller andDelgado 2010;Milad and Quirk 2012), and value-based learning (Schoenbaum et al. 1998;Holland and Gallagher 2004), and thus their preferential recruitment by prepared stimuli might enhance dynamic aversive learning.Second, a distinct literature indicates that fear-relevant stimuli may be less responsive to instructions about safety. Studies of instructed extinction (Hugdahl and Ohman 1977;Hugdahl 1978) indicate that when individuals are informed that shocks will no longer be delivered following standard Pavlovian conditioning, conditioned responses are abolished immediately in people exposed to neutral stimuli, whereas conditioned responses remain elevated in those conditioned with biologically prepared stimuli. A dominant interpretation of these findings is that fearrelevant stimuli preferentia...

show abstract

“…However, the use of these animals has been little explored in science classes. Spider phobia is one of most common animal phobias in Western society (Kirkpatrick, 1984;Fredrikson et al, 1996;Muris, Merckelbach, & Collaris 1997). This fear is attributed either to genetic, social and cultural differences, or personal experiences (Fredrikson et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%