Panic disorder results from a panic attack (false alarm) becoming associated with either an interoceptive or exteroceptive cue through the conditioning process (Mineka and Barlow 2001). Furthermore, it is apparent that the more intense of a panic attack, the greater likelihood of developing panic disorder (Mineka & Oehlberg 2008). Based on literature, a panic attack represents emergent reactions to prepare for impending or ongoing threats (Bouton et al., 2001). This is unlike illness phobias primarily because the interoceptive cue associated with the anticipatory anxiety is generally specific to a specific type of reaction (e.g., cardiac-type phobia reacting to heart related issues such as chest pain or tachycardia) whereas panic disorder
…show more content…
For the latter, this defies the concept of equipotentiality. For example, some studies have found that some non-phobic individuals do not report fear acquisition after having a traumatic experience (e.g., Poulton & Menzies, 2002). Using the diathesis-stress model, some, if not all, of the differences can be understood. There seems to be a genetic vulnerability that contributes to the fear conditioning. This seems to be mediated by traits such as the neuroticism trait that increases the levels of anxiety further affecting the acquisition and resilience of the fear conditioning (Hettema, & Annas, 2003). Similarly, those who are categorized as behaviorally inhibited (e.g., shy or timid) are at a higher risk of acquiring phobic disorder and/or panic disorder (Mineka & Zinbarg, …show more content…
This is best explained using evolutionary theory. Having a phone phobia is not as adaptive as having a phobia of heights because a phone is much less likely to cause you any grave danger whereas heights could pose a threat to a person. Indeed, heights would be regarded as ‘fear relevant’ and the hammer would be referred to as ‘fear irrelevant.’ While earlier it was stated that humans have some genetic vulnerabilities such as neuroticism, it should also be noted that there are implications that there are genetic predispositions for fear of some
For the latter, this defies the concept of equipotentiality. For example, some studies have found that some non-phobic individuals do not report fear acquisition after having a traumatic experience (e.g., Poulton & Menzies, 2002). Using the diathesis-stress model, some, if not all, of the differences can be understood. There seems to be a genetic vulnerability that contributes to the fear conditioning. This seems to be mediated by traits such as the neuroticism trait that increases the levels of anxiety further affecting the acquisition and resilience of the fear conditioning (Hettema, & Annas, 2003). Similarly, those who are categorized as behaviorally inhibited (e.g., shy or timid) are at a higher risk of acquiring phobic disorder and/or panic disorder (Mineka & Zinbarg, …show more content…
This is best explained using evolutionary theory. Having a phone phobia is not as adaptive as having a phobia of heights because a phone is much less likely to cause you any grave danger whereas heights could pose a threat to a person. Indeed, heights would be regarded as ‘fear relevant’ and the hammer would be referred to as ‘fear irrelevant.’ While earlier it was stated that humans have some genetic vulnerabilities such as neuroticism, it should also be noted that there are implications that there are genetic predispositions for fear of some