Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Kate Cavanagh
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
This study tests two alternative hypotheses about how phobic information is processed in spider fearful and nonfearful individuals: (1) the threat-related cognitive set hypothesis and (2) the dimensions hypothesis. Counter to the traditional cognitive model of fear, the dimensions hypothesis predicts that spider fearful individuals tend to prioritise the harm–safety dimension when evaluating animal stimuli, and the consequent stretching of that evaluative dimension will confer advantage to the accessing of harm information when confronted with phobic stimuli, but conversely safety information when encountering FI stimuli. Spider fearful and nonfearful participants generated lists of reasons why spiders, fear relevant (e.g. tigers, snakes) and fear irrelevant (e.g. rabbits, kittens) animals might be harmful and might be safe. The findings indicate that, in comparison to a nonfearful group, spider fearful participants have facilitated access to both harm and safety information which is context dependent: spider fearful participants were able to generate more reasons why spiders may be harmful and fewer why they might be safe than nonfearful participants, but conversely were able to generate more reasons why fear irrelevant animals might by safe and fewer reasons why they might be harmful than the nonfearful group. The implications of these findings for our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying fears and phobias are discussed.
Author(s): Cavanagh K; Davey GCL
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Year: 2003
Volume: 34
Issue: 3-4
Pages: 269-281
ISSN (print): 0005-7916
ISSN (electronic): 1873-7943
Publisher: Pergamon
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.10.003
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2003.10.003
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
