Explaining Phobias

• What do behaviourists believe?

  behaviour (including phobic behaviour) is learned from interacting with the environment, so from experience
• What is the two-process model?

  - developed by Mowrer

  - phobias are acquired through classical conditioning (learning through association)

  - phobias are maintained through operant conditioning (learning from consequences/reinforcement)
• The Two-Process Model: Acquisition of a Phobia (Classical Conditioning)

  - a phobic object e.g. a bee, starts as a neutral stimulus (NS). This causes a neutral response (NR) (no response)

  - an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) e.g. the pain of being stung, produces an unconditioned fear response (UCR). Unconditioned stimulus-response links are automatic (they don't need to be learnt)

  - an association is formed when a NS is paired with the UCS

  - the object (bee) becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), now producing the conditioned response (NR) (fear)

  - phobias can be generalised, so a conditioned fear response is also experienced in the presence of stimuli that are similar to the confirmed stimulus (so fear of bees can be generalised to other small flying objects)
• The Two-Process Model: Maintenance of a Phobia (Operant Conditioning)

  - operant conditioning is a form of learning that occurs through learning the consequences of our actions

  - a person with a phobia is aware of their phobia and will try to avoid the phobic object and the situations that put them into contact with it

  - this avoidance behaviour leads to a reduction in anxiety, which is a pleasant sensation

  - this reinforcement strengthens the phobia, making the person more likely to avoid the phobic object in the future

  - this can impact an individual's ability to engage with their social life - it normally affects their day-to-day life, meaning they are failing to function
• STRENGTH of the behaviourist approach to explaining phobias: Little Albert

  EVIDENCE - Watson and Rayner (1920) introduced a rat to a Little Albert (a young child) for the first time - he showed no phobic response

  EXP - however, Watson paired the rat with hitting a large metal pole behind a child's head, creating a loud noise and scaring the child. A phobic response formed (a fear response), demonstrating phobias can be acquired through association

  EVAL - Little Albert also showed generalisation, displaying a fear response to other similar objects such as small dogs and furry blankets
• STRENGTH of the behaviourist approach to explaining phobias: Practical applications

  EVIDENCE - behaviourist theories of phobia acquisition and maintenance have been practically applied to counter-conditioning therapies

  EXP - for example, systematic desensitisation and flooding

  EVAL - as these treatments are effective, this suggests the behaviourist principles they are based on are valid
• WEAKNESS of the behaviourist approach to explaining phobias: counter-research

  EVIDENCE - DiNardo showed while conditioning events like 'dog bites' were common in pps with dog phobias (56%), they were just as common in pps with no dog phobia (66%)

  EXP - Also, Mendes and Clark found that only 2% of children with a phobia of water could recall a negative experience of water, and 56% of parents told the researchers the phobia had been present from the child's first encounter with water

  EVAL - these findings suggest the behaviourist approach does not fully explain all phobias
• WEAKNESS of the behaviourist approach to explaining phobias: Evolution may be a better theory

  EVIDENCE - humans don't often display phobic responses to objects that cause the most pain in day-to-day life, such as knives or cars, however phobias of snakes and spiders are more common

  EXP - these phobias may be better explained by evolutionary theory, as these are dangers that many of our evolutionary ancestors faced

  EVAL - those with a natural, instinctual fear would have been more likely to survive and reproduce, suggesting phobias are hereditary