Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9990 · 1.4.2

Explanations of fear-related disorders — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9990 Explanations of fear-related disorders. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

A child develops a dog phobia after being bitten. They now avoid all dogs and feel immediate relief when crossing the street to avoid one.

(a) Explain this phobia using Mowrer's two-process model. Refer to Watson & Rayner (1920). [5 marks] (b) Evaluate the preparedness theory of phobias using Seligman and Öhman. [5 marks]

Show solution outline

(a) AO1 — Two-process model applied:

  • Process 1 (classical conditioning): Dog (CS) paired with bite pain/fear (UCS) → conditioned fear response to dogs — parallels Watson & Rayner pairing white rat with loud noise in Little Albert.
  • Process 2 (operant conditioning): Avoidance of dogs prevents fear → negative reinforcement → avoidance behaviour strengthened and phobia maintained.

(b) AO3 — Preparedness evaluation:

  • AO1 — Seligman: Some fears (snakes, heights) acquired faster and resist extinction — evolutionarily prepared because they threatened ancestral survival.
  • AO1 — Öhman: Faster autonomic responses to phobic stimuli than neutral ones — biological pre-wiring of fear circuits.
  • Strengths: Explains why not all traumatic events produce phobias; why animal/nature phobias are common.
  • Limitations: Does not explain modern phobias (buttons, clowns); Watson & Rayner used neutral stimulus — contradicts strict preparedness for rats; cultural variation in feared objects.

Judgement: Dog phobia fits two-process well; preparedness adds evolutionary explanation for why animal phobias are common — accounts are complementary, not competing.

Worked example 2

A cognitive psychologist investigates attentional bias in 15 participants with a specific phobia of snakes. They use a dot-probe task where a snake image (threat) and a flower image (neutral) are shown simultaneously. The reaction time (RT) to a dot replacing one of the images is recorded. The mean RT for dots replacing the flower was 620ms. The mean RT for dots replacing the snake was 545ms.

(a) Calculate the attentional bias score for the group. [2 marks] (b) Explain what this result suggests about the cognitive processes in phobias. [3 marks]

Show solution outline

(a) Calculation of Attentional Bias Score:

  • Formula: Attentional Bias Score = RT (probe at neutral location) - RT (probe at threat location)
  • Step 1: Substitute the values into the formula. Bias Score = 620 ms - 545 ms
  • Step 2: Calculate the final answer. Bias Score = 75 ms

(b) Explanation of the Result:

  • A positive bias score of 75 ms indicates that, on average, participants with a snake phobia responded 75 milliseconds faster when the dot appeared in the location previously occupied by the snake image compared to the flower image.
  • This demonstrates an attentional bias. Their attention was automatically and selectively drawn towards the threatening (snake) stimulus, allowing them to respond more quickly to a probe in that location.
  • This result supports the cognitive explanation of phobias. It suggests that phobic individuals are hypervigilant and have biased information-processing systems that prioritise threat-related stimuli. This constant monitoring for danger helps to maintain the phobia by reinforcing the belief that the stimulus is a significant and present threat.
Mark a 9990 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio