explaining phobias behavioural approach

• The two process model – 


  Mowrer proposed the two process model and argued that phobias are learned by classical conditioning and maintained by operant conditioning Phobias are learnt through classical conditioning fear is acquired when a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a frightening event.
• One key study relating to phobias is the Little Albert experiment conducted by Watson and Rayner in 1920. The study aimed to demonstrate how a fear response could be learned through classical conditioning. Little Albert, a 9-month-old infant, initially showed no fear of a white rat (neutral stimulus, NS).
• However, when the rat was repeatedly paired with a loud noise (unconditioned stimulus, UCS), which naturally caused fear (unconditioned response, UCR), Albert began to associate the rat with the fear-inducing noise. After several pairings, the rat alone became a conditioned stimulus (CS), producing a conditioned response (CR) of fear. This demonstrated that phobias could be acquired through classical conditioning.
• Additionally, the study showed stimulus generalization when Albert developed a fear of other white, furry objects, such as a rabbit, fur coat, and even a Santa Claus mask. This generalization highlights how phobias can extend to similar objects. The study is significant in the context of phobias because it provides evidence that they can be learned, not just inherited, and this finding has influenced behavioural therapies, such as systematic desensitization, which is used to treat phobias by gradually unlearning the conditioned fear response.
• Mowrer's two-factor theory suggests that phobias are maintained through operant conditioning after they have been acquired through classical conditioning. According to Mowrer, once a fear response has been conditioned to a particular stimulus (such as a spider or a dog), the individual may engage in avoidance behaviour to escape or prevent the feared situation. This avoidance is reinforced through negative reinforcement, which occurs when the individual experiences relief from anxiety by avoiding the feared object or situation.
• The reduction in anxiety reinforces the avoidance behaviour, making it more likely that the individual will continue to avoid the situation in the future. Additionally, positive reinforcement can also play a role if the avoidance leads to desirable consequences, such as social approval or the individual’s sense of safety. This reinforcement makes it more likely that the avoidance behaviour will be repeated, thereby maintaining the phobia over time.
• In summary, Mowrer's theory highlights that, while phobias may initially be acquired through classical conditioning, they are often sustained through operant conditioning, where the avoidance behaviour is negatively reinforced, perpetuating the fear response.
• Evaluation Research evidence supports the behavioural explanation of phobias, particularly through the process of classical conditioning. Watson and Rayner's (1920) study with Little Albert demonstrated how a neutral stimulus (a white rat) can be associated with an unconditioned stimulus (a loud noise), leading to the development of a phobia.
• Little Albert learned to fear the white rat, and the fear generalized to other white, furry objects, such as a fur coat and a Santa Claus mask. This supports the idea that classical conditioning is involved in acquiring phobias in humans and that phobias can generalize to similar stimuli. However, one limitation of this study is that it was a case study, focusing on a single child. As a result, the findings may not be easily generalized to other children or adults due to the unique and specific nature of the investigation.
• The small sample size and ethical concerns also limit the ability to draw broad conclusions about phobia development based solely on this research.
• A further strength of the two-way process model of phobia development is the evidence supporting the link between bad experiences and the onset of phobias. Ad De Jongh et al. (2006) found that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had experienced a traumatic event, most commonly related to previous dental procedures. Others in the study had experienced traumatic events, such as being victims of violent crime. In contrast, only 21% of individuals in a control group, who had low dental anxiety, reported experiencing a traumatic event.
• This evidence supports the idea that classical conditioning plays a significant role in phobia development. The association between the stimulus (e.g., dental treatment) and the unconditioned response (e.g., pain) appears to lead to the development of the phobia. These findings strengthen the two-way process model, showing that bad experiences, particularly those involving pain or fear, can lead to the conditioning of a phobia.
• However, not all phobias arise as a result of a bad experience, suggesting that behavioral explanations alone may not fully account for their development. For example, Bounton (2007) highlights the role of evolutionary factors in phobia formation. Evolutionary psychologists argue that certain phobias, such as fear of snakes or spiders, may be innate rather than learned, as these fears would have increased our ancestors’ chances of survival by helping them avoid potentially life-threatening situations.
• These phobias are thought to have developed as part of an evolutionary survival mechanism, allowing individuals to stay safe from predators or dangerous environments. This challenges the behavioral explanation by suggesting that not all phobias are learned through conditioning. The evolutionary perspective implies that some phobias are biologically hardwired, weakening the argument that frightening experiences alone lead to the formation of phobias. Thus, while behavioral theories provide valuable insights, they may not offer a complete explanation for all phobias.
• A strength of the behavioral explanation of phobias is its practical application in exposure therapies, which are highly effective in treating phobias. For example, systematic desensitization helps individuals unlearn their fears by gradually exposing them to the phobic stimulus while teaching them relaxation techniques, using the principles of classical conditioning. On the other hand, flooding prevents individuals from avoiding their phobias, thereby stopping the negative reinforcement that maintains the phobia, as described in operant conditioning.
• These therapies have been widely successful in reducing or eliminating phobias, providing strong support for the effectiveness of the behavioral explanation. This demonstrates the value of the two-process model, as it not only explains how phobias are acquired and maintained but also identifies practical and effective treatments for individuals suffering from phobias.
• One limitation of the two-process model is that it does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias. The behavioral explanation focuses solely on learning through conditioning and neglects the role of irrational thinking in the development and maintenance of phobias. For example, individuals with claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces) may develop their fear due to irrational beliefs such as, “I am going to be trapped in this lift and suffocate.
• These maladaptive thoughts can contribute significantly to the phobic response, which the behavioural explanation fails to address. Consequently, the two-process model does not provide a complete explanation for phobic cognition or fully account for the psychological symptoms associated with phobias. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach, incorporating both behavioural and cognitive elements, may be necessary to understand and treat phobias effectively.