| Course | PS 101 Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Psychological disorder overview |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 101 Unit 7
Specific Phobia as the DSM-5-TR Describes It: An Introductory Overview of the Category, How Common It Is and What Treatment Research Shows, With the Questions This Paper Declines to Answer
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 101: Psychology
Instructor Name
February 25, 2026
Specific Phobia as the DSM-5-TR Describes It: An Introductory Overview of the Category, How Common It Is and What Treatment Research Shows, With the Questions This Paper Declines to Answer
Scope
This paper is an overview of one category in a psychiatric classification system, specific phobia, written as a report on what published sources say. It is not a description anyone could use to decide whether they or someone else has the condition, and it does not reproduce diagnostic criteria. Every claim below is attributed to its source. The paper ends by naming the questions an introductory paper should decline to answer.
The Category and the Classification System
The classification used here is DSM-5-TR, the 2022 text revision of the fifth edition of the diagnostic manual (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022). The edition matters, because these systems are revised: earlier editions organized some anxiety-related conditions differently, and an overview written from an older edition would describe a slightly different category.
The manual places specific phobia among the anxiety disorders. In paraphrase, the category describes intense fear or anxiety about a particular object or situation, fear that is out of proportion to the actual danger, that leads to avoidance or to enduring the situation with great distress, and that persists and interferes with a person's life (APA, 2022). The manual groups the feared objects and situations into broad types, such as animals, aspects of the natural environment, blood or injections, and situations such as flying or enclosed spaces.
How It Differs From Neighboring Categories
Specific phobia is distinguished from nearby categories mainly by what the fear is about. In social anxiety disorder, the fear centers on being judged or embarrassed by other people. In agoraphobia, it centers on situations where escape might be difficult or help unavailable, often several different situations. In panic disorder, the central feature is recurrent unexpected panic attacks and worry about having more. Specific phobia, as the name suggests, is tied to a particular object or situation, and the fear typically appears when the person encounters or anticipates it (Eaton et al., 2018). These distinctions are made by trained clinicians using the full criteria and an assessment, not by matching a description.
How Common It Is and How It Develops
Specific phobia is among the most common anxiety-related conditions in population surveys. The National Comorbidity Survey Replication interviewed a representative national sample of U.S. adults in the early 2000s and estimated that about 12.5 percent of adults met criteria for specific phobia at some point in their lives (Kessler et al., 2005). That figure comes from structured interviews with a large sample, which is a strength, but it reflects the diagnostic definitions of that period, the fourth edition of the manual, and a single country.
The same survey found that specific phobia typically begins early in life, often in childhood (Kessler et al., 2005). Eaton et al. (2018) review evidence that it is more often reported by women than by men, that many people with a specific phobia never seek treatment, and that it frequently occurs alongside other conditions. They also note that estimates vary across countries and studies, partly because of differences in how the condition is assessed.
How the Evidence Was Gathered
The two kinds of evidence in this overview come from very different studies, and the difference matters for how much weight each can bear. Prevalence figures come from population surveys, in which trained interviewers ask a large, randomly selected sample of adults a structured set of questions and a computer program applies the manual's definitions to the answers. That method can estimate how common a condition is across a population, but it relies on people remembering and reporting their own experiences, sometimes from decades earlier. Treatment findings come from clinical trials, in which people who already sought help are assigned to different treatments and their fear is measured before and after. That method can compare treatments, but its participants are not a random sample of everyone with the condition, since many people with specific phobia never seek treatment at all. An overview has to keep those differences in view rather than combining the numbers into a single story.
What Treatment Research Shows
Treatment is reported here as evidence, not as advice. Wolitzky-Taylor et al. (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of psychological treatments for specific phobias. Across the studies they analyzed, treatments based on exposure, in which a person gradually and repeatedly faces the feared object or situation in a planned way with a trained therapist, produced large improvements compared with no treatment and outperformed placebo conditions. Exposure delivered in person to the actual object or situation tended to produce better results at the end of treatment than other forms of delivery, such as imagined exposure, though some differences narrowed at follow-up.
Two cautions apply. A meta-analysis summarizes the studies available, and many treatment studies of specific phobia have small samples. And these are results from structured treatment with trained clinicians, which is very different from a person trying to force themselves to face a fear alone.
Questions This Paper Declines to Answer
An introductory overview should be clear about its limits. This paper does not say how to tell whether someone has specific phobia; that requires a professional assessment. It does not suggest how anyone should treat a fear on their own. It does not interpret any individual's experience, including the writer's own or a family member's. Fears of spiders, heights or needles are common and are not, by themselves, a disorder, and nothing in this paper should be read as suggesting otherwise. Anyone troubled by a fear that limits their daily life would be best served by speaking with a doctor or a licensed mental health professional.
What the Overview Shows About Classification
Studying one category closely shows how classification works in psychology more generally. The category is defined by a pattern of experience and its effect on a person's life, not by a test result. Its boundaries with neighboring categories depend on what the fear is about. And the numbers attached to it depend on which edition of the manual was used and how the survey asked its questions. Those features make classification useful for research and treatment, and they are also the reasons an overview should report categories carefully rather than turning them into labels.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Eaton, W. W., Bienvenu, O. J., & Miloyan, B. (2018). Specific phobias. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(8), 678-686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30169-X
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593-602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Horowitz, J. D., Powers, M. B., & Telch, M. J. (2008). Psychological approaches in the treatment of specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(6), 1021-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.007
PS 101 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
The seventh PS 101 unit asks for an overview of one psychological disorder category drawn from published sources. Expect to name the category as the classification system names it, credit and date the edition, paraphrase how the source defines it and distinguishes it from neighboring categories, report prevalence and course from epidemiological studies with their populations, and summarize treatment research as evidence. Diagnostic criteria should not be quoted or listed; paraphrase at the level the source uses. Writing about treatment means reporting what studies found, never advising. Writing about your own diagnosis or a family member's is not appropriate for this assignment. A closing note on what the overview will not do is a common and sensible addition.
Inside the PS 101 Unit 7 example
The paper opens by stating its scope and the limits it sets for itself. A classification section credits the DSM-5-TR, explains why the edition matters and paraphrases the category and its broad types. A section distinguishes specific phobia from three neighboring categories by the focus of the fear. A methods section explains how surveys and clinical trials produce different kinds of evidence. Prevalence and development are reported from Kessler and colleagues and Eaton and colleagues with their limits. Treatment evidence comes from Wolitzky-Taylor and colleagues with two cautions. The paper ends with the questions it declines to answer and what studying one category shows about classification.
PS 101 Unit 7 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the disorder overview usually allots points to accurate, attributed description of the category, distinctions from neighboring categories, prevalence and course with sources, treatment reported as evidence and responsible handling of the topic. Description earns credit when the system and edition are named and the category is paraphrased accurately. Distinctions score when they rest on the source's own terms. Prevalence earns points when populations and limits accompany the figures. Treatment is judged on whether findings are reported with study type rather than turned into advice. Responsible handling is weighted throughout, and papers that state what they will not do tend to score well. Distinguishing survey evidence from trial evidence is often credited as well.
PS 101 Unit 7 help: mistakes that cost points
Disorder overviews lose points when they reproduce criteria lists or read like a self-test. Another frequent problem is citing an outdated edition without saying so. Students often report prevalence with no source or population. Some write treatment sections as advice, such as telling readers to face their fears. Others drift into personal stories about themselves or relatives. Using stigmatizing language or turning a category into a label for a person costs credit. Mixing figures from different editions of the manual without saying so is a quieter error that markers catch. If you need help keeping an overview accurate and responsible, our writers can draft one for the category your section assigns.
Get a PS 101 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Share the Unit 7 instructions, the PS 101 rubric and whichever category and source your classroom assigns. We write a custom example that dates the classification, paraphrases the source with citation throughout, reports prevalence and treatment evidence as findings, and states its own limits in the closing. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 101 papers and psychology samples
- PS 101 Unit 1: Discussion post on a course concept
- PS 101 Unit 2: Research methods explanation
- PS 101 Unit 3: Biological basis short paper
- PS 101 Unit 4: Learning and conditioning application
- PS 101 Unit 5: Memory paper
- PS 101 Unit 6: Development or personality paper
- PS 101 Unit 8: Final applied paper
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 130 Unit 7: Ethics and professional conduct paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 323 Unit 7: Intersectionality analysis
PS 101 Unit 7 questions, answered
Can I quote the diagnostic criteria directly?
Generally no, and most sections do not want it. The manuals are copyrighted publications, and reproducing a criteria set at length is both a permissions problem and a missed opportunity, since paraphrase with citation is the skill the rubric is measuring. Describe how the source frames the category in your own words, cite it properly, and keep the paper at the level of description the course uses.
How do I write about treatment without giving advice?
Keep the verbs in the past and the subject on the research. A sentence saying that a trial reported an outcome for a group describes evidence; a sentence telling a reader what would help them does something else entirely. Report what was studied, in whom, and what the reviews concluded, then stop. An introductory paper is describing a literature, not writing for anybody's situation.
Can I write about my own diagnosis or a family member's?
Please do not put that into a graded file. Your own records, a relative's history and anything a clinician has written are protected material, and a paper submitted for points is read outside any of the protections around them. There is a second reason as well: an introductory overview is not a place to reach conclusions about a real person, including yourself. Write about the literature.
Where can I find a free PS 101 Unit 7 sample paper?
The complete PS 101 Unit 7 overview of specific phobia appears on this page at no cost, with its sources and margin notes. Assigned a different category? Send the instructions and an overview written to the same standard follows free, often within two days.
Can I quote the diagnostic criteria in PS 101 Unit 7?
It is better not to. The sample paraphrases the category at the level the manual uses and explains that criteria are applied by trained clinicians, not by readers matching a description.