See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232506384

A factor analysis of personality and fear variables in

phobic disorders

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · October 1981
DOI: 10.1037/h0081205

CITATIONS READS

9 895

3 authors, including:

Leslie Richard Atkinson

Ryerson University
244 PUBLICATIONS   7,525 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The developmental pathway for attachment View project

Parent mental health and the early childhood environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leslie Richard Atkinson on 11 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A factor analysis of personality and fear variables in
phobic disorders
STEPHEN NEIGER
Queen Street Mental Health Centre, Toronto
LESLIE ATKINSON AND BRUCE QUARRINGTON
York University

ABSTRACT

Taking into account the methodological failings of past factor analytic research in the area, this
investigation explores certain fears and personality traits of 225 individuals experiencing one of four
phobic conditions - agoraphobia, claustrophobia, social phobia, or some other specific phobia. Several
Fear Survey Schedule variables and the personality scales of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey were factor analyzed. Five factors were extracted which are in large part consistent with
previous findings. These factors were related to each of four independent variables, treatment
subgroup, diagnosis, age, and sex.
Clinic and private clients did not differ significantly on any factor, nor did age account for any
meaningful change in factor scores. The diagnostic groups scored discrepancy on two factors, Social
Activity and Cognitive Introversion and Fear of Sensory Stimuli. Females differed significantly from
males on one factor, "Femininity and Miscellaneous Fears." These results are discussed both in terms
of past research and in terms of possible ramifications for the clinical practice of behavior therapy.

The present study was prompted by considerations both methodological and

theoretical. As regards method, Wade (1978) recently published a revealing
critique of factor analytic research on Fear Survey Schedules (FSS). He
admonishes, "Many ... investigations failed to employ an adequate ratio of
subjects to variables, most failed to provide means of determining the number of
interpretable factors or the replicability of results, and none reported adequate tests
of the appropriateness of factor analysis" (p. 923). Wade concludes, "Because of
the serious statistical limitations and inadequacies in reporting methods and
analyses evident in the studies reviewed, the factor structures obtained cannot be
used with confidence in other research on common fears" (p. 925). Illustrating the
danger of doing so, several critics have intentionally factor analyzed random
data; yet they obtained apparently meaningful results (Lykken, 1971). The neces-
sity of more soundly factor analyzing FSS'S is obvious.
The conceptual rationale for this inquiry involves three research lacunae in the
study of phobias. Firstly, Hersen (1973) reports the existence of at least six FSS'S,
both published and unpublished. Although they are extensively employed by
behavior therapists in the treatment of phobic individuals, the schedule perform-
ance of these clients has rarely been investigated. Moreover, with a single recent
exception (Arrindell, 1980), the little work that has been done (Hallam & Hafner,
1978; Meikle & Mitchell, 1974) is methodologically flawed according to Wade's
(1978) reasoning. Additionally, although the defining fear variable clusters of
CANAD. J. BEHAV. SCI./REV. CANAD. SCI. COMP. 13(4), 1981
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 337

different types of phobia are relatively well known, we are ill-informed as to how
the individuals in question relate to other possibly fear-inducing stimuli. Marks
(1970) says of agoraphobia, for example, "The literature shows impressive
agreement about the ... clinical features of agoraphobia. Disagreement appears ...
when the boundaries of the disorder have to be defined" (p. 539). Yet the very
strength of behavior therapy lies in the specificity of its treatment. If we are
ignorant as to the peripheral features of a condition, this advantage becomes a
limitation because these features are then neglected.
Secondly, Marks (1970) observed the paucity of systematic research addressing
the topic of personality traits among phobic individuals, and Shafar (1976) has
noted the lack of accord which characterizes speculation on the subject. Moreover,
the relationship of fears to other phenomena, such as personality characteristics, is
little defined (Marks, 1969), though such characteristics might fruitfully be used to
match client with treatment. If, for instance, Tucker (1956) is correct in his
suggestion that agoraphobics are particularly imaginative, then perhaps they are
more responsive to imaginal techniques than are other individuals. Or again,
knowledge of personality traits would likely help in the prediction of treatment
efficacy. Thus Roberts (1964), testing a host of variables "not altogether typical"
of the phobic anxiety state, argued that the variables he discovered to be associated
with good prognosis might reflect "evidence of some characteristic of personality,
a quality of determination or resilience favouring recovery" (p. 196).
Thirdly, we are almost totally ignorant about how phobics differ across
diagnosis, age, and sex. We do know however, that such differences likely exist
(Arrindell, 1980; Hallam & Hafner, 1978; Hersen, 1973). For the reasons
mentioned above, these discrepancies should be explored further.

METHOD

Subjects
Our sample consisted of 225 individuals diagnosed as phobic. All participants voluntarily sought
treatment as out-patients either at a publicly supported behaviour therapy clinic (1S4) or at the first
author's private practice (71). The subjects were divided into four groups depending on whether they
were diagnosed as agoraphobic, claustrophobic, socially phobic or as experiencing some other
specific phobia. While the first two and, to a lesser extent, even the third group may be considered
reasonably homogeneous as regards to disorder, the fourth is a heterogeneous collection whose phobias
are specific but diverse. Diagnosis is based on the following criteria:

(1) Agoraphobia. These persons' primary complaint was somatized anxiety or panic attacks, usually
when walking any distance from home (or some other place perceived as "safe," such as hospital,
parents' home, the family car). The likelihood and the severity of the attack tend to increase in direct
proportion to the distance from the "safe place." While this walking problem was a sine qua turn
condition for the diagnosis of agoraphobia, agoraphobics also suffered from great difficulties while
engaging in at least three of the following activities: shopping, driving away from home, being
a passenger in a car driven by someone other than, perhaps, "the most trusted person" (see below), using
public transportation, and/or attending public gatherings. For all agoraphobics there is usually at least
338 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON
one "safe person" (almost always the spouse, but it could be a parent or sibling, a close friend, and,
eventually, the therapist) whose presence will nullify or greatly decrease the likelihood and/or intensity
of an anxiety or panic attack in situations which would otherwise affect the patient. The diagnosis of
agoraphobia took precedence over all other diagnostic labels used in this study, since almost all
agoraphobics also have most claustrophobic traits, at least some social phobic characteristics, and in
many cases, may also experience some specific phobia (driving, hypochondria, snake phobia, etc.).

(2) Claustrophobia. Claustrophobics suffer anxiety or even panic attacks, similar to those experienced
by agoraphobics, when they feel confined by small spaces (e.g., elevators, barbers' chairs, etc.).
Although claustrophobic difficulties are often suggestive of agoraphobia also, three criteria were
employed to distinguish the two groups in the present study: (1) Claustrophobics never have trouble
walking out in the fresh air (except, possibly, in foggy or snowy conditions or other circumstances in
which they feel "locked in") while agoraphobics inevitably do, if such a walk takes them away from
home; (2) the claustrophobic's difficulties remain unaffected by distance from home, while
agoraphobic problems are aggravated by increasing distance from home or "safe place"; (3) perhaps
most importantly, the presence of a "safe person" doesn't help reduce the likelihood of claustrophobic
manifestations, in contrast to agoraphobic difficulties. For the purposes of this study, the diagnosis of
claustrophobia took precedence over social phobia and specific phobia, although the former may share
difficulties characteristic of the latter two.

(3) Social Phobia. This is a more mixed group whose common denominator may be described as
anxiety and possibly panic attacks merely because of the presence of other people. The core group
shows excessive hand tremor, blushing, and perspiration when attention is directed at them in social
situations such as speaking in public (sometimes even to one or two people), working while others are
observing, signing their names in public, writing exams and so forth. The diagnosis of social phobia
took precedence over that of any specific phobia, with which it may have characteristics in common.

(4) Other Specific Phobias. This is the most heterogeneous group of all. It contains, for example,
individuals who experience: excessive phobic preoccupation with their bodily functioning and
hypochondriacal manifestations, including fear of hospitals, doctors, and death; excessive fear of
vomiting, to the extent they do not allow themselves to vomit and may even avoid public places for fear
that they may vomit there; snake phobias, all of them so severe they avoided the outdoors entirely; dog
phobias, driving phobias, thunder phobias, etc. Fears were usually specific, and all were sufficiently
severe that treatment was sought. This diagnosis was used only if the criteria of agoraphobia,
claustrophobia, and social phobia were absent.
To obtain inter-judge reliability estimates we selected 40 files, representing our four diagnostic
groups. The diagnosis and anyreferencewhich might have led to identification of the participant were
deleted from the records. Two raters (recent trainees), who had no direct contact with the clients in
question, independently made diagnosis based only on the information contained in the assessment
notes. The three judges (the senior author and two trainees) agreed on 86% of the cases rated. Scott's
(195S) coefficient of reliability varied from .63 to .93 with a mean of .74. Although the mean
coefficient is less than satisfactory, it must berememberedthat two of the raters, who were used for
reliability purposes only, never had personal contact with the clients.
A test of diagnostic generalizability, which also served as a second index ofreliability,was obtained
statistically. We have outlined the criteria by which clients were diagnosed. For the purposes of this
study, the 40 clients in the above-mentioned subsample were diagnosed also according to a second set
of criteria. From an FSS (discussed below) IS variables were selected that reflect what are widely
considered to be the core fears of our three homogeneous phobic groups. The variables are: being alone,
being afraid, being in a big open space, being in strange places, and crossing a street, all manifestations
of agoraphobia; being watched working, dealing with strangers, entering a room where others are
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 339

TABLE 1
Subject sample characteristics

Other
Social specific
Subjects Agoraphobics Claustrophobics phobics phobics

Number 97 17 76 35
Age: mean 36.2 32.7 28.7 32.4
s 9.9 8.5 7.6 9.1
Sex: male 14 6 23 13
female 83 11 53 22

already seated, and giving a speech to a group of coworkers, all reflecting social phobia; and being
locked in a room, being in an elevator, in crowds of people, or in underground places, feeling sur-
rounded, and being trapped in a small place, all manifestations of claustrophobia. These variables
were scored for each of our subsample clients and entered into a discriminant analysis. The derived
functions were then used to predict group membership as it was originally diagnosed for these same
clients. Eighty-five percent agreement was obtained between actual and predicted diagnosis, despite
the divergent diagnostic methods. Scott's (1955) coefficient showed 81% agreement between the two
approaches. This indicates that not only are the diagnoses reliable, but the classificatory criteria
originally used are in accord with other diagnostic approaches.
Table 1 presents details concerning the sex and age of our sample. Analysis of variance revealed a
highly significant age discrepancy amongst the groups (F(3, 221) = 10.03, p < .0001). A modified
least significant difference a posteriori contrast (Winer, 1971) showed a significant difference in age
between agoraphobics and social phobics (p < .05).

Data Source
An FSS along the lines of those developed by Wolpe and Lang (1964) and others (see Hersen, 1973)
provided the source of fear data, but methodological restrictions limited the number of variables that
could be incorporated into the present study. Wade (1978) states that an absolute minimum ratio of
subjects to variables is five to one. This ratio becomes very prohibitive when one considers the
necessity of splitting the sample in two, as Wade recommends, in order to evaluate its internal
consistency. Clearly then, availability of subjects precluded our using the FSS in its entirety. Two
strategies were therefore employed to maximize information yield without compromising high
methodological standards. First, rather than analyse the FSS by item, as is usual, we utilized the
composite scores provided by their subclassifications. For instance, we pooled each participant's
scores on "noise of vacuum cleaners", "sudden noises", etc., and entered them into the analysis under
"noises." And secondly, working under the above-mentioned assumption that the defining fear variable
clusters of our homogeneous phobic groups are well known, we chose only those fears that are
mechanically unrelated to the homogeneous phobic syndromes. These fears are not directly involved in
the presenting phobias, either as cause or effect. Thus, for example, fear of "being alone" is irrelevant
to this examination because it is an inherent part of agoraphobia. On the other hand, "flying insects" is
included as a variable that is not integral to social phobia, agoraphobia, or claustrophobia.
Given these criteria, 16 measurements of fear were selected. Each is a composite score based on
items thatrespondentsratedon a scale of feeling ranging from "pleasant" (— 1) to "extreme negative
feeling" (6). For clinical purposes, on the assumption that some people have a stronger audio sense of
imagination, and others a more powerful visual sense, some of the fear measurements had been divided
into their visual and auditory components. To exemplify: "Darkness" is a visual component, whereas
"hearing creaking in the night" is an auditory one. On the basis of clinical experience, and in accord
340 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON
with Marks' (1969) opinion that "the range of fears covered in survey schedules so far is too small" (p.
79) (especially for factor analytic work, where the constituent items determine what dimensions can
emerge), some new fear dimensions had also been added. Although clients were required to complete
the entire FSS, 16 fear measurements are used here: colour, fire, noise, love-closeness (auditory),
night-dark (auditory), sex, violence, death, love-closeness (visual), night-dark (visual), precision,
deviant sex, raw sex, heterosexual sex, terrestrial animals, and flying animals. The item makeup of
those composites that successfully discriminate between groups is listed below.
All 10 trait ratings of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS) (Guilford &
Zimmerman, 1949) were used: General Activity, Restraint, Ascendance, Sociability, Emotional
Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness, Thoughtfulness, Personal Relations, and Masculinity. Trait
scores, as opposed to item scores, were used to minimize the number of variables, for the reasons
mentioned above. All dependent variables were measured in terms of self-reported raw scores.

Method of Analysis
The foregoing variables were intercorrelated and factor analyzed. Prior to factor extraction the
psychometric adequacy of the correlation matrix was assessed using Bartlett's test of sphericity
(Bartlett, 1950). The test gave clear indication that the matrix is appropriate for factor analysis (x2(351)
= 2,762). The extremity of the p valuerenderssuperfluous the use of other tests suggested by Dziuban
and Shirkey (1974). Principal factoring with iteration was chosen as the mode of analysis (Kim,
1975). Six of the extracted factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. A scree test (Cattell, 1966) also
revealed a break between the sixth and seventh factors. A terminal solution was reached through
oblique rotation, with delta equal to zero (Kim, 1975).
The analysis was then replicated using an alternative factor extraction technique, alpha, and a
differentrotationprocedure, varimax (Kim, 1975). Coefficients of congruence (Armenakis, Field, &
Wilmoth, 1977) were computed to measure the degree of similarity between the factor structures
provided by the two analyses. "Coefficients of .9 or more indicate good correspondence; from .8 to .9
... fair correspondence; from. 7 to. 8... poor correspondence; while less than. 7 indicates practically no
correspondence" (Evans, Note 1, p. 5). All but one coefficient were above .80. The exception, factor6,
which in any case involved only 4.0% of the accountable variance, had a coefficient of .74. It was
therefore excluded from the analysis. The coefficients of the remaining five factors varied from .88 to
.98, with a mean of .95.
The replicability of results was evaluated by randomly splitting the sample in two and factor
analyzing each half (principal factoring with oblique rotation). The groups yielded seven and eight
factors, with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, respectively. For the five factorsretained,coefficients of
congruence ranged from .59 to .9, with mean of .73. This indicates, on average, only poor
correspondence between the factors. Each analysis was also compared to that of the mother sample.
The coefficients ranged from .59 to .98, with a mean of .82. Although the mean coefficient seemingly
suggests fair correspondence, it is not particularly impressive, considering the statistical dependence of
the samples involved.
In explanation of this poor factor correspondence we can only suggest that the drop in the subject:
variable ratio caused high variability. Our original sample involves a ratio of 8:1. The split sample
ratios slip below the recommended minimum at 4:1. That no single factor consistently emerges across
all three split sample comparisons Anther implies excessive variability. Given that certain GZTS factors
arerepeatedlyreported in the literature, as discussed below, we might at least have expected then-
consistent emergence. Because they did not emerge reliably in the split samples, the explanation of
excessive variability seems more likely than does that of internal inconsistency.
Ideally, we might have divided our subjects by sex, andrepeatedthe above procedures to determine
whether the same factors emerge for both males and females. Arrindell (1980) made such an attempt
despite a male subject to variable ratio of only 2:1. Because our male participant to variable ratio is well
below the suggested minimum, we did not make such an analysis.
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 341
An attempt was made to determine the association between subject factor scores and each of four
independent variables — diagnosis, sex, treatment subsample (private vs. clinic), and age — while
controlling the effects of the other three. Multivariate analyses of covariance, followed by univariate
covariance analyses were used when the independent variable was categorical in nature (diagnosis, sex,
and treatment subsample). A posteriori contrasts were performed using the modified least-significant
difference test. Since the grouping necessary to an analysis of covariance results in a loss of information
when the independent variable is continuous, the relationship between age and each participant's factor
scores was measured with a partial correlation analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As mentioned, five factors were retained. The present discussion is based

specifically upon the factor pattern matrix calculated through principal factoring
with iteration, oblique rotation, delta equals zero. Variables with a loading of .35
or greater, and no higher loading on any other factor, are listed here. In three of the
factors, high loading variables are survey-specific: FSS variables alone form the
core of one factor, and GZTS measures are alone central to two others. The
remaining factors are comprised of high loading variables from both GZTS and FSS
(see table 2). Table 3 gives factor intercorrelations.
The pure FSS factor is F3 (11.9% of the accountable variance) — Fear of sex, raw
sex, and heterosexual sex. F3 is clearly a "Fear of Sex." According to Marks
(1970), sexual dysfunction is common among phobics. Despite the fact that many
forms of FSS contain at most only a few sex variables, sex related fear factors have
repeatedly been reported across a wide range of populations. With his predom-
inantly agoraphobic sample, Arrindell (1980) discovered a "Fearful Images with
Regard to Sex and Aggression" factor. Meikle and Mitchell (1974), employing a
sample of mixed phobics, found a "Fear of Nude Bodies" factor. So too did
Holmes, Roths tein, Stout, and Rosecrans (1975), with their sample of psychiatric
in-patients. Using a sample of psychotic, neurotic, and behaviorally disordered
individuals, Lawlis (1971) found that sex fears loaded on a factor interpreted as
"Fear of Disease and Wounds." With their sample of undergraduates, Rubin,
Lawlis, Tasto, and Namenek (1969) reported a factor composed of "Sexual Fears
and Moralistically Related Fears."
The pure GZTS factors are:
(1)F2(15.1% of the variance) — Emotional Stability, Objectivity, Friendliness,
and Personal Relations. In a review of the literature Guilford, Zimmerman, and
Guilford (1976) identified three clusters that consistently emerge across a variety
of subjects on trait score factor analyses of the GZTS . The four traits of F2 compose
what Guilford et al. term "Emotional Maturity vs. Neuroticism and Paranoid
Disposition." We therefore labelled F2 "Emotional Maturity."
(2) F4 (10.4% of the accountable variance) - General Activity, Ascendance, and
Sociability. Guilford et al. labelled this combination "Social Activity." We did
likewise.
342 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON

TABLE 2
Factor pattern after principal factoring with iteration, oblique rotation

Factors
1 2 3 4 5

Colour .14 .02 .15 .16 .36

Fire .41 .14 .04 .06 .29
Noise .33 -.09 .13 .11 .38
Love-closeness (audio) .22 -.18 .30 .04 .17
Night-dark (audio) .32 .04 .06 -.09 -.04
Sex .28 -.08 .38 -.02 -.02
Violence .29 .02 -.08 .02 .25
Death .25 -.02 -.01 -.01 -.04
Love-closeness (visual) -.10 .06 .32 -.02 .06
Night-dark (visual) .27 .02 -.03 .02 -.15
Precision .61 -.21 .03 -.08 -.05
Deviant sex .50 .14 .05 -.05 .11
Raw sex -.03 .02 .90 -.04 -.02
Heterosexual sex .09 .01 .87 -.05 -.09
Terrestrial animals .83 -.05 -.01 -.01 .03
Flying animals .77 .07 .01 -.03 .02
General activity -.13 .05 -.11 .49 -.14
Restraint .04 .23 -.03 -.23 .53
Ascendence -.06 -.16 -.02 .79 .14
Sociability -.04 .11 -.08 .69 -.22
Emotional stability .04 .53 -.03 .40 -.15
Objectivity -.04 .71 -.02 .33 .01
Friendliness -.02 .69 .08 -.25 .03
Thoughtfulness -.07 -.16 -.08 -.09 .47
Personal relations -.12 .64 -.12 .01 .01
Masculinity -.49 .15 -.03 .20 .12

The factors with high loadings on both GZTS and FSS elements are:
(1) Fl (52.4% of the accountable variance) - Masculinity, Fear of Fire, Precision,
Deviant Sex, Terrestrial Animals, and Flying Animals. According to Guilford et
al. "Masculinity" does not emerge sufficiently often to be considered a higher-
order factor in its own right, but when it does, it is relatively independent of the
other nine traits measured by the GZTS, as is the case in Fl. The fears included in Fl
are miscellaneous.
It should be pointed out that the correlation between the rating of femininity and
the animal fear measures can to some extent be explained as an artifact of test
content: the GZTS femininity rating is in part based upon a fear of vermin.
Nevertheless, the fear of animals manifest in Fl is meaningful, not only because of
its high loadings, but also in light of earlier findings. Animal dominated fear
factors have been discovered across a wide variety of subjects, including phobics
(Arrindell, 1980; Hallam & Hafner, 1978; Meikle & Mitchell, 1974). At any rate,
Fl is labelled "Femininity and Miscellaneous Fears." Note that it includes over
half of the accountable variance.
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 343

TABLE 3
Factor correlations

Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor 1 -.13 .28 -.18 .24

Factor 2 -.10 .10 -.12
Factor 3 .18 .12
Factor 4 -.20

(2) F5 (6.3% of the accountable variance) - Restraint, Thoughtfulness and fear of

colour and noise. The first two components form the higher order factor of
"Introversion-Extraversion," which has continually manifested itself in factor
analyses of the GZTS (Guilford et al., 1976). Guilford et al. are referring here to an
Introversion-Extraversion of thought, rather than the social Extraversion-
Introversion of Eysenck.
If we consider colour and noise as sensory stimuli, it may be argued that F5
involves a fear of intense sensory stimulation. F5 may be comparable to
Arrindell's (1980) "Noise" factor. It seems intuitively sensible that the thought-
introverted person would have a distaste for strong external sensory stimulation.
F5 is termed "Introversion and Fear of Vivid Sensory Stimuli."
How then, do these factors relate to the four independent variables? It might be
stated immediately that they in no way discriminate our private from our clinic
sample. And although a partial correlation analysis revealed significant changes in
Emotional Maturity and Social Activity with age (p < .006, .025, respectively), in
neither case were the partial r's meaningfully great (. 18,. 15, respectively). Since
age does not account for much of the variance in either factor, it will not be
discussed further.

Relationship of Factors to Diagnosis

The multivariate analysis of covariance revealed a significant effect for diagnosis
of subject (F(5, 216) = 4.29, p < .002). As shown by subsequent analyses of
covariance, the factor scores of the four diagnostic groups emerge as significantly
different on two factors: F4, Social Activity (F(3,218) = 6.54, p < .001) and F5,
Introversion and Fear of Vivid Sensory Stimuli (F(3, 218) = 4.33, p < .005).
Social phobics score lower on Social Activity than do agoraphobics (p < .05),
claustrophobics (p < .05), and other specific phobics (p < .10). The reason is
clear: social phobics are fearful of social activity by definition. Table 4 gives the
adjusted mean factor scores of each diagnostic group.
Table 4 also shows the adjusted mean factor scores by diagnosis on Introversion
and Fear of Intense Sensory Stimuli. The specific phobias group is significantly
less intellectually introverted and afraid of sensory stimulation than are the
344 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON

TABLE 4
Adjusted mean factor scores by diagnostic group

Mean factor score

Introversion and
fear of sensory
Diagnosis Social Activity stimuli

Agoraphobia .09 .08

Claustrophobia .25 -.23
Social phobia -.38 .14
Specific phobia .42 -.40

claustrophobic and social phobic groups (p < .05). The claustrophobics are
significantly less so than are the agoraphobics (p < .05). Nothing in the literature
explains the relationship between diagnosis and F5. Nevertheless, the association
may have direct clinical implications, as discussed below.
The reader will remember that the sensory stimuli aspect of F5 consisted of two
FSS composites, "Noise" and "Colour." Because these variables proved useful in
diagnostic discrimination, we list their component items. "Noise" consists of:
noise, noise of vacuum cleaners, hearing a raucous clatter, thunder and lightning,
sudden noises, and squeaky sounds. Comprising "Colour" are: bright colours,
colourful lights, bright red, loud, colourful clothing, psychedelic lights, and
watching colourful fireworks.

Relationship of Factors to Sex

A second multivariate analysis of covariance disclosed a significant difference
across subject sex (F(5, 216) = 8.09, p < .0001). Females score significantly
higher than males on F l , Femininity and Miscellaneous Fears(F(l, 220) = 36.92,
p < .001). As regards F l , the male-female differences on the femininity rating
hardly merit comment. Nor is it surprising that more fear variables cluster with the
femininity rating than in any other single factor. This corroborates earlier work in
that women have consistently been found to produce higher total FSS scores than
men. The phenomenon manifests itself across a wide variety of subjects,
irrespective of FSS form utilized (Hersen, 1973). It has usually been assumed that
male-female differences disclosed by FSS reflect cultural influences that inhibit
men from admitting fear, but research seems to indicate otherwise. Geer (1965)
found that women avoid dogs if they report being afraid of the animal. Men, on the
other hand, will approach a dog even if they report intense fear. As Marks (1969)
points out, this finding makes it unlikely that men conceal their fears in self
reports. Marks's hypothesis has since been confirmed by Farley and Mealiea
(1971). Using a sample of male and female university students, they obtained low
correlations between two widely employed measures of dissimulation and social
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 345

desirability and scores on one form of the FSS. Farley and Mealiea concluded that
"the results unequivocally demonstrate the lack of social desirability response set
and dissimulation, as measured in the FSS—W score" (p. 102). Again as Hersen
(1973) postulates, this result implies that FSS male-female discrepancies do reflect
actual fear level differences.
The above findings suggest several lines of speculation concerning the clinical
practice of behavior therapy, some of which are considered here. Eysenck (1957)
and Eysenck and Rachman (1965) hypothesized a positive correlation between
conditionability and introversion. "Introverts would form conditioned responses
more quickly, more strongly, and more lastingly than would extraverted people"
(Eysenck & Rachman, 1965 p. 36). Hence, these investigators argue, we can
expect a higher degree of recalcitrance to conditioning oriented therapies by
introverts. And, indeed, several studies have found this to be the case (Gelder,
Marks, & Wolff, 1967; Hallam 1976; Matthews, Johnston, Shaw, & Gelder,
1974). The work of Borgatta (1962) indicates that the GZTS scale of Social Activity
can be interpreted as a measure of social introversion. Since social phobics score
significantly lower on Social Activity than do other groups, then, other things
being equal (such as extent of disturbance), social phobics should be most
vulnerable to phobic conditioning. Theoretically, therefore, behavior therapies
ought to be less effective with these individuals than with clients suffering from
other phobias.
Theoretical considerations also suggest a special relationship between intellect-
ual introversion and conditionability. "Incubation" (Eysenck, 1968) and "cogni-
tive rehearsal" (Bandura, 1969) theories indicate that the cognitive reexperiencing
of an aversive (or possibly appetitive) cs, even without reinforcement, strengthens
the CR. Feldman and MacCulloch (1971) posit that "persons differ in the frequency
and intensity of the cognitive rehearsal of their behavioral experiences, that is they
differ in the extent to which an increment of strength is added by incubation to the
habit acquired during training" (p. 175). It seems intuitively sensible, therefore,
that cognitive introverts are more likely to engage in cognitive rehearsal than are
other persons. Furthermore, Eysenck (1968) argues that in light of the incubation
process, implosion and flooding techniques may actually be counterproductive
and that systematic desensitization should be practised with care. If particular
diagnostic groups such as social phobics are especially cognitively introverted,
then Eysenck's hypotheses may be of particular import to their treatment.
On the other hand, it might be conjectured that social phobics, who may be
particularly fearful of vivid sensory stimuli, might better initially be desensitized
through imaginal techniques in preparation for "in-vivo" deconditioning, the latter
involving a welter of uncontrolled sensory stimuli that might impede ameliorative
efforts. Moreover, the possibility that these individuals are particularly thought
introverted may further recommend their treatment by imaginal methods.
In closing we might add a few words on the FSS form utilized here. The form
346 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON

includes many more items than other schedules and its administration involves
more time for both client and therapist. However, we have little reason to suppose
that this version is more effective than established schedules in making diagnostic
discriminations. The miscellaneous fears of Fl are tapped by other schedules, and
the sensory stimuli aspect of F5 would likely be suggested by, say, the Noises
items of FSS HI (Wolpe & Lang, 1964). Although research on varied FSS'S is
prerequisite to developing a better instrument, the prospective researcher should
weigh the advantages of using a new and extended FSS with those of employing an
older schedule with greater generalizability.

Compte tenu des lacunes methodologiques des recherches factorielles en ce domaine, I'etude ici
presentee explore certaines peurs et certains traits de personnalite' de 225 personnes souffrant de quatre
types de phobie (agoraphobie, claustrophobic, phobie sociale, ou quelque autre phobie specifique).
L'analyse factorielle porte sur plusieurs variables d'un questionnaire sur les phobies et sur les echelles
de personnalite' du Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. On a pu identifier cinq facteurs
largement consistants avec les recherches anterieures. Ces facteurs sont relies a chacune des quatre
variables independantes: sous-groupe de traitement, diagnostic, age, et sexe.
Les patients priv£s et les patients en clinique ne different pas significativement entre eux sur aucun
des facteurs, et I'age ne produit pas de changement significatif dans les cotes factorielles. Les groupes
diagnostiques ont des cotes differents sur deux facteurs: activity sociale, introversion cognitive et peur
des stimuli sensoriels. Les femmes se distinguent significativement des hommes sur un facteur,
feminit£ et peurs diversifies .La discussion compare ces resul tats aux recherches anterieures et suggere
des ramifications possibles en pratique clinique et en the'rapie behaviorale.

REFERENCE NOTE
1. Evans, G. J. Congruence transformations: Procedures for comparing the results of factor
analysis involving the same set of variables. Toronto: OISE, 1970.

REFERENCES

Annenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., & Wilmoth, J.N. An algorithm for assessing factor structure
congruence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1977, 37, 213-214.
Arrindell, W.A. Dimensional structure and psychopathology correlates of the Fear Survey
Schedule (FSS-ni) in a phobic population: A factorial definition of agoraphobia. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 229-242.
Bandura, A. Principles of behaviour modification. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
1969.
Bartlett, M.S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 1950, 3,
77-85.
Borgatta, E.F. The coincidence of sub-tests in four personality inventories. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1962, 56, 227-244.
Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966,
7,245-276.
VARIABLES IN PHOBIC DISORDERS 347
Dziuban, C D . , & Shirkey, E.C. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis?:
Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 358-361.
Eysenck, H.J. The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1957.
Eysenck, H.J. A theory of the incubation of anxiety fear responses. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1968, 6, 309-321.
Eysenck, H.J., & Rachman, S. The causes and cures of neurosis. San Diego: Robert R.
Knapp, Publisher, 1965.
Farley, F.H., & Mealiea, W.L. Dissimulation and social desirability in the assessment of fears.
Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 101-102.
Feldman, M.P., & MacCulloch, M. J. Homosexual behaviour: Therapy and assessment.
Toronto: Pergamon Press, 1971.
Geer, J.H. The development of a scale to measure fear. Behavior Research & Therapy, 1965, 3,
45-53.
Gelder, M.G., Marks, T.M., & Wolff, H.H. Desensitization and psychotherapy in the treatment of
phobic states: A controlled inquiry. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1967, 113, 53-73.
Guilford, J.P., & Zimmerman, W. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Beverley
Hills, Calif.: Sheridan Supply Co., 1949.
Guilford, J.S., Zimmerman, W.S., & Guilford, J.P. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament
Survey Handbook: Twenty-five years of research and application. San Diego: Ed Its, Publishers,
1976.
Hallam, R.S. The Eysenck personality scales: Stability and change after therapy. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1976, 14, 369-372.
Hallam, R.S., & Hafner, R.J. Fears of phobic patients: Factor analysis of self report data.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 16, 1-6.
Hersen, M. Self-assessment of fear. Behaviour Therapy, 1913,4, 241-257.
Holmes, G.R., Rothstein, W., Stout, A.L., & Rosecrans, C.J. Comparison of four factor
analyses of the Fear Survey Schedule. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 31, 56-61.
Kim, J.O. Factor analysis. SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1975.
Lawlis, G.F. Response styles of a patient population on the fear survey schedule. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1971, 9, 95-102.
Lykken, D. J. Multiple factor analysis and personality research. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 1971, 5, 161-170.
Marks, I.M. Fears and phobias. London: William Heineman Medical Books, 1969.
Marks, I.M. Agoraphobic syndrome (phobic anxiety state). Archives of General Psychiatry,
1970, 23, 538-553.
Matthews, A.M., Johnston, D.W., Shaw, P.M., & Gelder, M.G. Process variables and the
prediction of outcome in behaviour therapy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 125, 256-264.
Meikle, S., & Mitchell, M.S. Factor analysis of the fear survey schedule with phobics. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1974, 30, 44-46.
Roberts, A.H. Housebound housewives: A follow-up study of a phobic anxiety state. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1964, 110, 191-197.
Rubin, S.W., Lawlis, G.F., Tasto, D.L., & Namenek, J. Factor analysis of the 122 item fear
survey schedule. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 381-386.
Scott, W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal coding. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 1955, 19, 321-325.
Shafar, S. Aspects of phobic illness - a study of 90 personal cases. British Journal of Medical
Psychology, 1976, 49, 221-236.
348 NEIGER, ATKINSON, & QUARRINGTON
Tucker, W. J. Diagnosis and treatment of the phobic reactions. American Journal of Psychiatry,
1956, 112, 825-830.
Wade, J.C. Factor analytic approaches to the investigation of common fears: A critical appraisal
and reanalysis. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 923-935.
Winer, B.J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Wolpe, J., & Lang, P.J. A fear survey schedule for use in behaviour therapy. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1964, 2, 27-30.

First received 23 December 1980

View publication stats