The non-associative, Darwinian theory of fear acquisition proposes that some individuals fail to overcome biologically-relevant fears (e.g. height) because they (1) do not have sufficient safe exposure to the relevant stimuli early in life or (2) are poor habituators who have difficulty 'learning not to fear'. These two hypotheses were tested in a longitudinal birth cohort study. Study 1 found evidence for reduced exposure to height stimuli in childhood for individuals with a fear of heights compared to study members without fear. Study 2 found evidence for higher levels of stress reactivity (a proxy for habituation) in childhood and adolescence among 18-year-old height phobics compared to study members with dental phobia and those with no fear. The results were discussed in relation to recent findings suggesting that some evolutionary-relevant fears may appear in the absence of traumatic 'learning' experiences. The merits of adding a fourth, non-associative pathway to Rachman's [Rachman, S. (1977)]. The conditioning theory of fear acquisition: a critical examination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 15, 375-387) three pathways model of fear acquisition were briefly considered.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2024.
All research outputs
#12,345,171
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#1,974
of 3,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,104
of 161,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behaviour Research & Therapy
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
