Behavioural approach to explaining phobias

• What is the 2 process model

  Mowrer (1960) argued that phobias are learned by classical conditioning and maintained by operant conditioning
• acquisition by classical conditioning -involves association

  1. UCS triggers a fear response (fear is a UCR) e.g. being bitten creates anxiety
  2. NS is associated with the UCS e.g. being bitten by a dog (the dog didn’t previously create anxiety)
  3. NS becomes a CS producing fear (which is now the CR). the dog becomes a CS causing a CR of anxiety/fear following the bite
• Little Albert - conditioned fear


  Watson and Rayner (1920) showed how a fear of rats could be conditioned in Little Albert

  1. whenever Albert played with a white rat, a loud noise was made close to his ear. the noise (UCS) caused a fear response (UCR)
  2. Rat (NS) didnt create fear until the band and the rat had been paired together several times
  3. albert showed a fear response (CR) every time he came into contact with the rat (now a CS)
• generalisation to other stimuli


  little Albert also showed a fear in response to other white furry objects including a fur coat and a santa claus beard
• maintenance by operant conditioning (negative reinforcement)

  • operant conditioning takes place when our behaviour is reinforced or punished
  • negative reinforcement - an individual produces behaviour that avoids something unpleasant
  • when a person with a phobia avoids a phobic stimulus they escape the anxiety that would have been experienced
  • this reduction in fear negatively reinforces the avoidance behaviour and the phobia is maintained
• an example of negative reinforcement

  • if someone has a morbid fear of clowns they will avoid circuses and other situations where they may encounter clowns
  • the relief felt from avoiding clowns negatively reinforces the phobia and ensures its maintained rather than confronted
• one strength of the 2 process model it its real world application


  the idea that phobias are maintained by avoidance is important in explaining why people with phobias benefit from exposure therapies. once avoidance behaviour is prevented it ceases to be reinforced by the reduction of anxiety. avoidance behaviour therefore declines. this shows the value of the 2 process approach because it identifies a means of treating phobias
• one limitation is the inability to explain cognitive aspects of phobias 


  behavioural explanations like the 2 process model are geared towards explaining behaviour - in this case the avoidance is the phobic stimulus. however, we know that phobias also have a significant cognitive component e.g. people hold irrational believes about the phobic stimulus. this means that the 2 process model doesn’t fully explain the symptoms of phobias
• another strength is evidence linking phobias to bad experiences

  De Jongh (2006) found that 73% of dental phobia had experienced trauma (mostly involving dentistry), evidence of a link between bad experiences and phobias. further support came from the control group of people with low dental anxiety, where only 21% had experienced a traumatic event. this confirms that the association between the stimulus (dentistry) and an unconditioned response (pain) does lead to the phobia
• another strength is evidence linking phobias to bad experiences: counterpoint


  not all phobias appear following a bad experience. snack phobias still occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes. also, not all frightening experiences lead to phobias. this meant that behavioural theories probably do not provide an explanation for all cases of phobia