Behaviourist approach to explaining phobias

• What is the behaviourist explanation of phobias based on?

  Phobias are learned through experience
• How are phobias learned according to the behaviourist perspective?

  Through classical and operant conditioning
• What is classical conditioning?

  Learning through association of stimuli
• How does classical conditioning explain the acquisition of phobias?

  A neutral stimulus becomes associated with fear
• What is the neutral stimulus (NS) in classical conditioning for phobias?

  A stimulus that initially elicits no response
• What is the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in classical conditioning?


  A stimulus that naturally elicits a response
• What is the unconditioned response (UCR) in classical conditioning?

  A natural reaction to an unconditioned stimulus
• What is the conditioned stimulus (CS) in classical conditioning?

  A previously neutral stimulus that elicits a response
• What is the conditioned response (CR) in classical conditioning?

  A learned response to a conditioned stimulus
• What is the famous study that supports classical conditioning in phobias?

  The Little Albert study by Watson and Rayner
• What was the outcome of the Little Albert study?

  A child developed a phobia of a white rat
• In the Little Albert study, what was the UCS?

  Loud noise
• In the Little Albert study, what was the UCR?

  Fear
• In the Little Albert study, what was the NS?

  White rat
• In the Little Albert study, what was the CS?

  White rat
• In the Little Albert study, what was the CR?

  Fear of white rat
• How does operant conditioning explain the maintenance of phobias?

  Through negative reinforcement of avoidance behavior
• What is negative reinforcement in the context of phobias?

  Removal of anxiety when avoiding phobic objects
• How does avoidance behavior reinforce phobias according to operant conditioning?

  It reduces anxiety, strengthening avoidance behavior
• How is there maintenance by operant conditioning?

  Through negative reinforcement. The individual avoids a situation that is unpleasant. Such behaviour results in the desirable consequence of not having the fear associated with the phobia so the behaviour is not repeated.
• One strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it is supported by evidence from the Little Albert study. In this study, Watson and Rayner conditioned a baby to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud bang, which caused distress. Over time, Albert began to show fear towards the rat alone, even without the noise. This supports the idea that phobias can be learned through classical conditioning, where a neutral stimulus becomes associated with something frightening. The study gives the theory high internal validity as it clearly demonstrates how a phobia can form. Therefore, this research provides strong evidence that supports the behaviourist explanation of phobias.
• What is stimulus generalisation in the context of phobias?

  It's when a fear response spreads from the original feared object to similar objects or situations.
• One strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it has led to real-life applications, particularly in the development of effective treatments like flooding and systematic desensitisation. These therapies are grounded in classical conditioning principles and aim to replace the conditioned fear response with relaxation through repeated exposure to the phobic stimulus. This has clear societal benefits, as it improves individuals' quality of life by reducing debilitating fear and avoidance behaviours. For example, people with severe social phobia or agoraphobia may regain independence and daily functioning. Therefore, the behaviourist approach is not only theoretically useful but also practically valid and beneficial for treating mental health issues.
• A limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it does not account for the evolutionary factors that may influence phobia development. Seligman (1971) proposed the concept of biological preparedness, suggesting we are genetically predisposed to fear things that posed a threat to our ancestors, such as snakes (ophidiophobia) or heights. This explains why phobias of modern dangers like cars or electrical sockets are less common, despite their real danger. The behaviourist theory struggles to explain these patterns because it relies solely on learning through association or reinforcement. Therefore, the explanation lacks explanatory power and ecological validity in accounting for phobias that appear to have innate, evolutionary roots.
• A limitation of the behaviourist explanation for phobias is that it cannot account for why some individuals do not develop a phobia despite experiencing traumatic events. For example, not everyone involved in a serious car accident goes on to develop vehophobia (fear of driving), which contradicts the idea that phobias are always acquired through classical conditioning. This inconsistency suggests that other factors, such as biological predisposition or individual differences in resilience and cognition, may play a role. As a result, the explanation lacks validity because it cannot fully account for the variation in how people respond to fear-inducing experiences.