1. HEALTH & CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
DISORDERS
Clinical Characteristics
Explanations
Treatments
HEALTH & CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
G543

2. Behavioural: Watson & Rayner Cognitive: DiNardo
3. Treatments for Phobia
Biological: Ohman
Behavioural: Watson & Rayner
Cognitive: DiNardo

3. EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ) Treatments
BIOLOGICAL
June 2010
Outline how the biological approach would explain one of the following disorders: affective, anxiety, psychotic. (10 marks)
Evaluate the explanations of the disorder you referred to in part (a). (15 marks)
BEHAVIOURAL
January 2011
Outline a behavioural explanation of one disorder (affective, anxiety or psychotic). (10 marks)
Compare explanations of the disorder you referred to in part (a). (15 marks)
COGNTIVE
Example
How might cognitive psychologists explain phobia? [10]
Assess the appropriateness of different explanations of phobia [15]

4. Resources: Information Booklet PowerPoint Essay Help Booklet
Exam Style Questions (ESQ)

6. Activity 1 Worksheet 1: KEY WORDS
Complete the key terms related to this topic
You can use the resources and internet to help
Each definition should be at least two sentences long
You should use these terms where appropriate in your essays

8. Worksheet 2: Summary Notes
Activity 2
Worksheet 2: Summary Notes
Complete summary notes for each section
Biological Approach
Behavioural Perspective
Cognitive Approach
You can use the resources and internet to help

9. Biological Approach

10. Biological Approach Explanation
Disorders have a biological cause
Mental disorders are the same as physical disorders
Genetics: Families are pre-disposed
Evolution: Phobia has an evolutionary purpose (biological preparedness)
Mental disorders can be treated in the same way as physical disorders e.g. drugs, surgery

11. Biological explanations of PHOBIAS - Evolution
The Theory - Biological Preparedness Seligman (1971) Fear of harmful animals and situations would provide an evolutionary advantage and therefore be passed on by natural selection.
The Evidence – Most people rate as most fearful those animals which move unpredictably and are slimy.
Cook & Mineka (1990) found it easier to condition monkeys to fear toy snakes than cuddly teddies.
Ohman (1996) found it easier to condition humans to fear snakes rather than flowers.

12. Biological explanations of PHOBIAS - Genetics
Theory – Genetics could explain why some individuals inherit the condition. Specific (but not Social) phobias seem to run in families to some existent but this behaviour could be learnt by imitation.
Twin Studies could separate nature from nurture. Shields & Slater (1969) showed concordance rates of MZ (identical) twins to be higher (49%) than that of DZ (fraternal) twins (4%). Only 45 pairs of twins!
Evaluation: Concordance rate would have to be 100% if entirely genetic. Also identical twins could be emotionally closer than non-identical.

13. Biological Approach Evaluation of Explanation
These theories are all compatible and are supported by evidence but …
The evidence is subject to alternate explanations and can be criticised methodologically (lack ecological validity etc)
The theory does not explain why individual people develop a phobia of particular objects / situations.
Does not work so well with Social Phobias and Agoraphobia – what is the evolutionary advantage?
However it does explain why phobias persist even when unhelpful, evolution need thousands of years to work.

14. 2a. Summary Questions: BIOLOGICAL ohman, 1975
Aims
Method & Procedures
What was the aim of this study?
What research method was used in this study?
What type of design was used?
What is the DV? What measurements were taken?
What happened to the experimental groups?
What happened in the control group?
What happened?
Background
What would evolutionary psychology predict?
What is at the heart of human behaviour?
Sample
Results
Outline the skin conductance rates between the groups.
What are the details of the sample? Total sample, age range

16. Behavioural Perspective

17. Behavioural Perspective Explanations
Classical Conditioning (CC)
Association
Operant Conditioning (OC)
Reward/Punishment
Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Observation

18. Behavioural Study: Watson & Rayner (1920) Condition Emotional Reaction
Little Albert

19. Behavioural Perspective Classical Conditioning
Association
UCS NS
UCR CS CR

20. 1 – Classical Conditioning
Behavioural explanations of PHOBIAS
– Classical Conditioning
The Theory – Watson (1920) claimed that most emotional responses including fear of objects are learnt by C.C.
The Evidence – He demonstrated a “rat phobia” in little Albert by pairing a loud bang (UCS) with a white rat (CS) the fear response was generalised to similar stimuli – ??
Evaluation – Does not show that “real life” phobias happen this way. DiNardo (1988) found over half of “dog phobic's” could recall being bitten (but what about the rest?) but over half of those who reported been bitten did not go onto develop a phobia of dogs.

21. 3 – Social Learning Theory
Behavioural explanations of PHOBIAS
3 – Social Learning Theory
Bandura (1986) showed that modelling and observational learning provides a better explanation for many behaviours.
Mineka (1984) found that monkeys could develop snake phobias just by watching another monkeys fear.
Could explain children learning to fear some objects from their parents or role models but in most cases of phobias there is little evidence of this.
Despite this emphasis on behaviour to understand phobias in humans we need to what is going on their minds.

22. Behavioural Explanation Evaluation
Strengths
Operationalised concepts
Falsifiable
Importance of rewards supported by research
Individual differences
Selective reinforcement
Context dependent learning
Effects of direct and indirect reinforcement
Cognitive factors
Social influence
Gender and cultural differences
Limitations
Non-human animal research
At best a partial account
Emotions, expectations, higher level motivation not included
Reductionist, prevents investigating other explanations
Determinist, encourage lack of personal responsibility
Other factors
Reinforcements not sufficiently consistent

23. 2a. Summary Questions: BEHAVIOURAL Watson & Rayner, 1920
Aims
Method & Procedures
What were the four aims of Watson and Rayner’s research on Little Albert?
What research method was used in this study?
Identify the conditioned and unconditioned stimulus and the conditioned and unconditioned response?
What happened?
What is meant by the term generalization in this study?
Background
What did Watson & Rayner want to find out about?
What theory did Watson and Rayner support?
Results
What happened in the first few weeks?
What other objects was the phobia transferred to?
How was Albert calmed down?
Why were Watson and Rayner unable to test the last question?
Sample
What are the details of the sample?

24. 2b. Summary Information: behavioural Watson & rayner, 1920
Aim
To see if a conditioned fear response could be created in a previously normal child by using classical conditioning. Would the fear transfer to other objects and what would happen over time? Could the fear later be removed?
Background
Watson & Rayner wanted to find out how simple emotional responses in childhood such as fear, rage, and love became the more complete adult range of behaviours and believed that classical conditioning had role to play.
Sample
A nine-month-old child, Albert, who has was the son of a wet-nurse employed at the hospital where Watson worked. He was described as ‘stolid’ which means calm and unemotional.

25. 2b. Summary Information: behavioural Watson & rayner, 1920
Method
A controlled experiment conducted as a case study.
Procedure
First fear response was discovered in Albert which was the sound of a mental bar being struck close to the child. Then this feared sound was paired with the presentation of a white rate which the child had previously played happily with. This process was repeated over approximately six weeks with variations.
Results & Conclusion
Within the first week, Albert showed fear towards the rate and this got worse over seven session so that just the rat with no noise produced a strong response. The fear then transferred to a rabbit, a dog, a seal-fur coat, some cotton wool, Watson’s hair and a Santa Claus mask to varying degrees. Building blocks were used as a neutral stimulus and they had the effect of calming Albert between the stressful presentations. He was removed from the hospital before they could test whether they could remove the fear.

26. Cognitive Approach

27. Cognitive explanations of PHOBIAS
Cognitive Bias (Beck 1985)
The Emotions we feel are the result of our interpretations of our experiences according to our existing SCHEMAS.
Phobic's are likely to
over exaggerate the negative consequences
under estimate their ability to cope.
show “Catastrophic Misinterpretation”
It’s poisonous !
I can’t escape !
I’m going to die !

29. Cognitive explanations of PHOBIAS
Evaluation
Better at explaining how phobias are maintained than how and why they appeared in the first place.
Can be applied to Social Phobia and Agoraphobia because of the emphasis on negative thinking about expectations.
They will all laugh at me!
Treatments based on this approach (eg: cognitive restructuring) have proved to be very effective.
Combined with the two process theory this provides best explanation yet but still weak on why some people develop phobias when others in similar situations do not.

30. 2c.Summary Questions: CoGNITIVE DiNardo, 1998
Aims
Method & Procedures
What was the aim of this study?
What research method was used in this study?
What was were administered to each group?
What happened?
How was data collected?
Background
What did DiNardo want to find?
Results
Sample
What was the top symptom suffered by most patients?
What did GAD patients report?
What are the details of the sample? Total sample, average age
How many had GAD?

31. 2c.Summary Questions: CoGNITIVE DiNardo, 1998
Aim
To see if excessive worry was a reliable symptom of Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and could be included in the revision of the DSM-III to version IV.
Background
When the diagnostic systems are revised, a lot of debate takes place over the experimental evidence available to include particular symptoms which will reliably distinguish one disorder from another. DiNardo wanted to find additional reliability for the inclusion of excessive worry in GAD.
Sample
The total sample was 145 patients, of whom 53 had GAD.

32. 2c.Summary Questions: CoGNITIVE DiNardo, 1998
Method/
Procedure
This was a quasi-experiment on patients attending one of three clinics in Eastern USA. Two independent interviews were administered to each patient using the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule or the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. Where interviewers agreed on a diagnosis of GAD after the interviews, correlation coefficients were calculated for reliability of agreement of the patient’s symptoms across the three clinics. The answers to two questions about excessive worry were separately examined.
Results & Conclusion
The top symptoms suffered by most patients across the three clinics were irritability, tension fatigue and feeling keyed up, GAD patients reported worry during a significantly higher percentage of the day (59.1%) than non-GAD patients (41.7%). Very few people with GAD said they did not worry excessively about minor matters.

33. Worksheet 3: Evaluation
Activity 3
Worksheet 3: Evaluation
Part 1: Evaluation & Debates
* Write/type up your responses. Elaborate your responses fully.
Part 2: EVALUATION GRID

34. 3a. Evaluation Questions: biological
Identify strengths and weakness of the biological explanation for phobia
Is the sample in Ohman’s study representative?
Evaluate the research method used?
Is there any other support for this approach (other research)?
s there an alternative way to explain phobia?
Is there any other support for this approach?
Is there an alternative way to explain phobia?
Explain whether this fits in with the situational or individual debate?

35. 3a. Debate Questions: BIOLOGICAL
Nature/nurture debate. Contrast this study with Waston & Rayner’s study of Little Albert.
Usefulness – the study offers the possibility of providing an experimental means of testing different methods of treatment.
Reductionism

36. 3a. Evaluation & Debates: BIOLOGICAL
There is a strong expectancy effect here with the control group showing a strong response with no shock being given. If you take that away from the response of the experimental group, the results are less impressive. The method is reliable but probably lacks a lot of ecological validity because it is so artificial.
Nature/nurture debate. Contrast this study with Waston & Rayner’s study of Little Albert.
Usefulness – the study offers the possibility of providing an experimental means of testing different methods of treatment.

37. 3b. Evaluation Questions: BEHAVIOURAL
Identify strengths and weakness of the behavioural explanation for phobia
Is the little Albert study by Watson & Rayner ethical? Explain your answer
Does the behavioural approach suggest the roll of nature or nurture as an influence for our behaviour?
Based on the behavioural approach can we explain behaviour as dependent on the situation or the individual?
How can understanding the cause of phobia be useful?
Is there any other support for this approach?
Is there an alternative way to explain phobia?

38. 3b. Debate Questions: BEHAVIOURAL
Does this research show the influence of nature or nurture?
Is phobia related to individual factors or situational factors?
Could systematic desensitization offer a cure for phobias?

39. 3b. Evaluation & Debates: BEHAVIOURAL
Watson justified the stress on the child by saying sooner or later this sort of thing would happen to him in real life.
The study showed how powerful classical conditioning can be in explaining phobias.
Nature/Nurture debate could be used here. Watson’s work is clearly on the nurture side of this debate. Contrast with the evolutionary perspective of ‘preparedness’
Situational vs. Dispositional explanations of behaviour could also be discussed. Was Albert’s behaviour the results of his situation or his personality?
Usefulness – provides an explanation and through systematic desensitisation – a cure for phobia.

40. 3c. Evaluation Questions: COGNITIVE
Reliability?
Assess the sample?
Is the methodology used in DiNardo good?

41. 3c. Debate Questions: COGNITIVE
Does this research offer support for the role of nature or nurture?
Usefulness: Is this approach useful?
Ethnocentricism: Exactly what is excessive worry and would this be defined similarly elsewhere?
Free Will vs Determinism – Are our thoughts under conscious control?
Reductionism – How is behaviour oversimplified by this approach?

42. 3a. Evaluation & Debates: BIOLOGICAL
Good agreement between three samples suggest high reliability in the method. The quasi-experimental design is high validity. The responses to the interviews may have shown desirability bias but they were structured.
Psychology as a science? Once again the issue of accurate diagnosis is raised and the use of interview data opens up questions of experimenter effects and possible bias. Ethnocentricism – exactly what is excessive worry and would this be defined similarly everywhere? Usefulness – it helped to find criteria that could discriminate GAD from other anxiety disorders and contributed to increasing the reliability of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.

44. Worksheet 4: Essay Plans
Activity 4
Worksheet 4: Essay Plans
10 Mark Questions
15 Mark Questions

45. EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ) Treatments
BIOLOGICAL
June 2010
Outline how the biological approach would explain one of the following disorders: affective, anxiety, psychotic. (10 marks)
Evaluate the explanations of the disorder you referred to in part (a). (15 marks)
BEHAVIOURAL
January 2011
Outline a behavioural explanation of one disorder (affective, anxiety or psychotic). (10 marks)
Compare explanations of the disorder you referred to in part (a). (15 marks)
COGNTIVE
Example
How might cognitive psychologists explain phobia? [10]
Assess the appropriateness of different explanations of phobia [15]

48. Biological Treatment [10]
Introduction:
Explanation:
Ohman:
Conclusion:

49. Behavioural Perspective [10]
Introduction:
Explanation:
Watson & Rayner:
Conclusion:

50. Cognitive Approach [10] Introduction: Explanation: DiNardo:
Conclusion: