Conditional reasoning and phobic fear: evidence for a fear-confirming reasoning pattern.

In two experiments we explored the role of subjects' reasoning performance in the persistence of phobic fear. More specifically, we investigated whether (phobic) subjects are prone to selectively search for danger-confirming information when asked to judge the validity of conditional rules in the context of general and phobic threats. In both experiments, participants were presented with Wason Selection Tasks (WST) pertaining to general and phobic threats. The WSTs contained safety rules (if P then no danger) and danger rules (if P then danger). In Experiment 1 participants were high (n = 20) and low (n = 20) spider fearful students, whereas in Experiment 2 participants were untreated (n = 38) and treated (n = 27) spider phobic women and a group of non-fearful controls (n = 27). Both experiments showed that in the context of general threat, subjects predominantly rely on confirming information regarding danger rules and on falsifying information regarding safety rules. This reasoning strategy was not particularly pronounced in high fear or phobic subjects. However, only clinically diagnosed spider phobics displayed a similar reasoning strategy in the context of phobia-relevant threats. Thus, the present data seem to suggest that the mere perception of threat is already sufficient to activate a danger-confirming reasoning strategy and in case of phobic threats such a reasoning pattern logically serves to maintain or even enhance phobic fears.