Skip to main content
Log in

Training Non-Threatening Interpretations in Spider Fear

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognitive Therapy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To evaluate a causal relationship between biased information processing and fear responding, as posited by many cognitive models of anxiety disorders, spider-relevant interpretations were trained to be non-threatening in an analog phobic sample. Participants high in spider fear (N = 61) were randomly assigned to a ‘Positive training’ condition, or to a ‘Neutral training’ or ‘No training’ control condition. ‘Positive training’ involved learning to ascribe non-threatening meanings to emotionally ambiguous scenarios. Results suggested this training was successful at inducing interpretation biases to be non-threatening, as indicated by faster responses to positive (versus negative) word fragments, as well as more positive and less negative interpretations of novel scenarios (relative to control conditions). Notwithstanding, the impact of training on subsequent avoidance and fear when presented with a live spider was minimal. No differences across training conditions were found; however, faster responding to positive word fragments predicted less avoidance and fear for participants receiving ‘Positive training’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was a non-significant trend for higher baseline fear ratings in the Neutral training condition relative to the No training condition.

  2. Note that the alternate analytic approach—conducting a three-way repeated measures MANOVA with training condition as the between-subjects factor, and valence (positive, negative) and spider-relevance (spider, non-spider) interpretation options as two separate within-subjects factors—was also significant (F(2, 58) = 34.63, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.54).

  3. Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for this interesting suggestion.

References

  • Beard, C., Brady, R., & Amir, N. (2003). Malleability of interpretation bias in social anxiety. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA.

  • Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997). An information processing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 49–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. I. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory—II manual. San Antoino, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambless, D. L., & Gillis, M. M. (1993). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 248–260.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, P. J., Merckelbach, H., & Arntz, A. (1995). Covariation bias in phobic women: The relationship between a priori expectancy, on-line expectancy, autonomic responding, and a posteriori contingency judgment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 55–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, P. J., & Muris, P. (2002). Spider phobia: Interaction of disgust and perceived likelihood of involuntary physical contact. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16, 51–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986). Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, S., & Mathews, A. (2000). Effects of training on interpretation of emotional ambiguity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 1143–1162.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. M., & Menzies, R. G. (1998). Changing attentional bias: Can it effect self-reported anxiety? Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 11, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, P. T., Mathews, A., Peterson, S., & Kintner, K. (2003). Transfer of training emotionally biased interpretations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 775–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klorman, R., Weerts, T. C., Hastings, J. E., Melamed, B. G., & Lang, P. J. (1974). Psychometric description of some specific-fear questionnaires. Behavior Therapy, 5, 401–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., & Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: Assessing the causal basis of their association through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 107–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B. (2000). Induced emotional interpretation bias and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 602–615.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2002). Induced processing biases have causal effects on anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realini, J. P., & Katerndahl, D. A. (1993). Factors affecting threshold for seeking care. Journal of American Board of Family Practice, 6, 215–223.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, J., & O’Donohue, W. (1995). Fear of Spiders Questionnaire. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 31–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Teachman, B. A., Gregg, A., Woody, S. (2001). Implicit attitudes toward fear-relevant stimuli in individuals with snake and spider fears. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 226–235.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Teachman, B. A., & Woody, S. (2003). Automatic processing among individuals with spider phobia: Change in implicit fear associations following treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 100–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vasey, M. W., Hazen, R., & Schmidt, N. B. (2002). Attentional retraining for chronic worry and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Paper presented at the 36th annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Reno, NV.

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule (expanded form). IA: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2nd ed.). Chichester, England, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpe, J., & Lang, P. J. (1964). A fear survey schedule for use in behaviour therapy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 2, 27–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yiend, J., Mackintosh, B., & Mathews, A. (2005). Enduring consequences of experimentally induced biases in interpretation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 779–797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Bundi Mackintosh for sharing study materials, and for the research assistance provided by members of the Teachman Program for Anxiety, Cognition, and Treatment (PACT) Lab.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bethany A. Teachman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teachman, B.A., Addison, L.M. Training Non-Threatening Interpretations in Spider Fear. Cogn Ther Res 32, 448–459 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9084-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9084-z

Keywords

Navigation