My Spider-Sense Needs Calibrating: Anticipated Reactions to Spider Stimuli Poorly Predict Initial Responding Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Burger, Sarah Beth Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 02/10/2021 20:22:20 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/222891 1 My Spider-Sense Needs Calibrating: Anticipated Reactions to Spider Stimuli Poorly Predict Initial Responding by Sarah Beth Burger _____________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Sarah Beth Burger entitled “My Spider-Sense Needs Calibrating: Anticipated Responses to Spider Stimuli Poorly Predict Initial Responding” and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _________________________________________________Date: 04/17/2012 W. Jake Jacobs _________________________________________________Date: 04/17/2012 Alfred Kaszniak _________________________________________________Date: 04/17/2012 David Sbarra _________________________________________________Date: 04/17/2012 Richard Bootzin Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 04/17/2012 Dissertation Director: W. Jake Jacobs _________________________________________________Date: 04/17/2012 Dissertation Director: Alfred Kaszniak 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department of the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Sarah Beth Burger 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -Mark Twain I would like to thank Dr. W. Jake Jacobs for his substantial theoretical contributions to this project. I would also like to thank my committee, Dr. W. Jake Jacobs, Dr. Alfred Kaszniak, Dr. David Sbarra, and Dr. Richard Bootzin for their invaluable constructive criticism and feedback, which further strengthened this work. I would also like to thank the outstanding group of undergraduate research assistants who have worked with me on this project, without whom completion would have been impossible. In particular, I would like to thank Matthew Kleinman, Sean Whitson, and David Sawyer for their theoretical contributions to the design of this project following pilot procedures. I would also like to thank Sean Whitson and his father for building the track used within this investigation, and Todd Burgess for his frequent assistance with maintenance and upkeep of the track during the investigative period. Finally, I would like to thank my committee and Dr. W. Jake Jacobs in particular for the outstanding mentorship and support I’ve received throughout my graduate career. It has been refreshing to be both stretched and nurtured by the brilliant minds that compose my dissertation committee; I will forever be grateful for the opportunity I had to study here, and for the friendships, collegial and collaborative relations I made along the way. 5 DEDICATION The culmination of this work celebrates a wonderful phase of my life, and ushers in another. I could never have finished this without the love and support of so many I am blessed to call family. I can’t possibly mention everyone who has helped me get here in this short paragraph, but there are a few whose contributions to both my development and my happiness demand mention. I dedicate this to “Grandpa Jake,” who created an environment supportive of both research and motherhood. I dedicate this to my husband Shaun, who loves me for me and keeps me grounded. I dedicate this to my daughter Bethany, whose enthusiasm for learning and naturalistic observation skills have given me enough research ideas to fill three careers. I dedicate this to my sister Tracey, who inspires me to be better and understands me like no other. I dedicate this to my twin Amy, the one I entrusted to nurture Bethany’s brain in my absence while I wrote this thing up! I dedicate this to my father, who I am more like than I used to realize. Finally, and most importantly, I dedicate this to my mother, who instilled in me a wonderful sense of independence and fostered a drive that has taken me further than either of us imagined I would go; I love you mom. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................9 LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................10 ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................11 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................13 Overview........................................................................................................................13 Expectancies…………………………………………………………………………..15 Arachnophobia ……………………………………………………………………….15 Prevalence……………………………………………………………………….16 Behavioral vs. Cognitive-Behavioral Models of Fear Learning and Avoidance..16 Neo-Behavioral Models of Specific Fear………………………………..17 Cognitive Models of Overprediction of Fear……………………………18 The Match-Mismatch Hypothesis.……………………...………..19 Summarized Predictions for the Two Primary Questions of Interest…………………22 Spider Fear in Focused Review……………………………………………………….23 The Nature of Fear: Latent or Emergent Construct?…...…………………………24 Revised Conceptualizations of Fear……………………………………..24 A Potential Role for Implicit Measures of Fear ………………………...25 Spider-Fearful vs. Spider-Phobic: A Meaningful Distinction?………………….25 A Matter of Context……………………………………………………………...26 Perceived Danger vs. Perceived Probability of Unwanted Physical Contact ….28 Predictability and Control…………………..………………………………………….29 Empirically Supported Treatment……………………………………………….30 Systematic Desensitization…………………………...………………….30 In Vivo vs. In Vitro Exposure, and Everything In Between…….………31 Toward a Unified Fear Hierarchy………………………………………..33 Specific Aims………………………………………………………………………….33 Specified Hypotheses …………………………………………....................................34 METHOD...…………….……………………………………………………………..…36 Participants...………………………………………………………………………….36 Recruitment Method...…………………………………………………………………36 Measured Sample Characteristics ……………………………………………………37 Materials...…………………………………………………………………………….37 Spider and Spider-Stimuli….………………………………………………….....37 Spider Track and Platform………………………………………………………38 AZ-Live Immersive Environment ………………………………………………..39 Physiological Recording Equipment .……………………………………………39 Predictive Measures .…………………………………………………………………39 Self-Report Measures of Fear .…..……..…….…………………………………39 Diagnostic Clinical Interview ..…………………………………………39 Spider Questionnaire (SPQ) .……………………………………….……40 Fear of Spiders Questionnaire (FSQ)……………………………….……40 7 Self-Report Affective Measures……………………………………….………….41 Spielberger State and Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI)..………....….…41 Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II)…………………………..……...…41 Implicit Measure of Spider Fear Intensity……….……………………..…..……42 Teachman’s Implicit Association Test (IAT)…………………..…..……42 Measures of Trial-Specific Fear Predictions……….………………………..…..……43 Self-Report Predictions of Distance, Heart Rate, GSR, and Fear…..…….....…..43 Measures of Trial-Specific Fear Reactions……………………………………....……43 Self-Report Measures of Distance, Heart Rate, GSR, and Fear….……………..43 Direct Observation of Distance………………………….………………....……44 Procedure ……………………………………………………………………………44 Statistical Analysis: ANOVAs with Follow-Up GLMS …………………………....…49 Our GLM Predictor Model Variables: Hierarchical Variance Partitioning…....49 RESULTS.……………………………………………..………………………………..51 Sample Characteristics by Group….…………..……………….……………..…..…51 Relations among Measured Constructs………………………………………......….51 Learning Trials (1-7) Results……………………………………………………..…52 Expectation Accuracy.……..…………………………..……....……...……..….52 Match-Mismatch Data………………………………………………..…52 Statistical Analyses of Expectation Accuracy across Domains…..…..…53 Utility of Expectation Accuracy……………………………………...…54 Directly Observed