I really enjoyed this week's reading, probably because it was relevant to my research. I like when my homework doubles as being possible sources for future papers. :)
In the Mineka and Zinbarg (2006) article, one point really stood out to me. While discussing the trauma phase of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, they state that "survivors with PTSD were more likely than those without PTSD to retrospectively report having experienced mental defeat during their trauamatization" (p. 18). After reading this, I noted in the margin "good to know". In my opinion, this one sentence was one of the most important sentences I've read all year. I know that this statement was not supposed to be the part of the article that people walked away thinking about, but after reading this article, I couldn't stop thinking about how incredibly important this fact is. Mineka and Zinbarg are basically pointing out that not admitting defeat during a crisis can have serious psychological benefits. They are telling you, if you are in a crisis, DON'T GIVE UP. Do people know this??? If I am ever assaulted or in another traumatic situation, I now know what I should be thinking about in order to protect my psychological well being. I feel that I now have the power to help immunize myself from incapacitating psychological problems that I didn't have last week. This is amazing to me. I can't believe reading an article for class could empower me in such a way.
I found the Mineka and Zinbarg article to be extremely interesting and enlightening. I feel that I now have a good grasp on contemporary learning models, which I knew next to nothing about before I started reading this article. As a anxiety researcher with a cognitive background, I feel that I can incorporate what I learned from this article into my own person theories and ideas about anxiety. I do not feel like cognitive and learning models are incompatible. However, Mineka and Zinbarg do not seem to agree with me...
Now on to some complaining...
In the Conclusion of their article, Mineka and Zinbarg discussed why they felt contemporary learning theory models are better than other models (such as psychodynamic and cognitive). I give these guys full range to diss psychodynamic theories, but cognitive theories?? That's not okay with me. Why does the learning model have to be BETTER? Why can't the multiple models complement each other? I think it is very close minded of the authors to simply brush aside cognitive models (and okay...I suppose psychodynamic models probably have some good points too).
And also, if Mineka and Zinbarg are going to say that cognitive models are less comprehensive than contemporary learning models, I think they should get their facts straight. They stated that "the cognitive model is silent about the variety of different vulnerability factors that the learning theory approach explicitly addresses affecting which individuals with panic attacks are most likely to develop PD or PDA" (p. 22). This is simply not true. Cognitive researchers use questionnaire called the Anxiety Sensitivity Index to look at people's cognitions related to panic-related symptoms (it measures their fear of these symptoms). This questionnaire is a very helpful measure in identifying people who will develop PD. Nice try, Mineka and Zinbarg. Nice try.
Ok, see you all on Wednesday!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know if it's so much a matter of the learning model being better as it is of being more parsimonious, given that both the learning and cognitive models meet more or less sufficient conditions for the development of anxiety. On the other hand, I think the authors would argue that the learning model also presents a necessary> condition, while the cognitive model does not. That is, they would see distorted cognitions as concomitants but not causal mechanisms. That doesn't mean they can't be used to alter behavior--that they can't be mechanisms of change. But the authors probably would say that even at that level learning theory is preferable. I'm not saying I agree with them.
I don't know if it's so much a matter of the learning model being better as it is of being more parsimonious, given that both the learning and cognitive models meet more or less sufficient conditions for the development of anxiety. On the other hand, I think the authors would argue that the learning model also presents a necessary> condition, while the cognitive model does not. That is, they would see distorted cognitions as concomitants but not causal mechanisms. That doesn't mean they can't be used to alter behavior--that they can't be mechanisms of change. But the authors probably would say that even at that level learning theory is preferable. I'm not saying I agree with them.
Post a Comment