Phobic dimensions: III. factor analytic approaches to the study of common phobic fears; An updated review of findings obtained with adult subjects

Findings from factor analytic studies of self-assessed fears are important for theoretical reasons and for clinical and applied practice. The present review gives a survey of some 38 studies published between 1957 and 1990 that were concerned with analyses of the self-ratings of adult Ss on multi-item measures of fear (Fear Survey Schedules). The question of central importance was whether, on the basis of the studies surveyed, there would be any evidence of the emergence of a general descriptive model of self-assessed fears. The studies were carried out in 12 different countries, with samples comprising either students, other community Ss, (potential) psychiatric patients, non-institutionalized phobic club members, or a combination of the first two groups. Based on previous reviews and data, four a priori major classes of fears were defined: (I) Interpersonal events or situations, (II) Death, injuries, illness, blood and surgical procedures, (III) Animals, and (IV) Agoraphobic fears. In addition, a subsidiary category was used for classifying dimensions falling outside the scope of the a priori categories. Leaving unreliable studies aside, a total of 194 factors were identified in 25 studies: 62 (32%) type I, 58 (29.9%) type II, 31 (16%) type III and 27 (13.9%) type IV dimensions, with only 16 factors (8.2%) falling in the residual category. All 25 studies were able to identify one or more type I or type II dimensions of fear; 88% yielded one or two Animal factors, while three out of four (75%) produced one or more factors relating to Agoraphobic fears. The fact that slightly over 90% (i.e., the great majority) of the dimensions could be classified under one or more of the four a priori categories supports the argument (e.g., Eysenck, 1987) that the sources of phobic fear constitute a very restricted sample of potentially phobic stimuli. The findings are discussed in the context of the preparedness hypothesis. Suggestions for further research in this area are given, as are references to guidelines to conducting valid factor analyses in order to maximize the validity of further findings.