The theories of classical conditioning and operant conditioning were first combined as a single explanation for phobia by Mowrer in the 2-process model.
Phobia is acquired through an association between something we previously didn't fear (neutral stimulus) and something that triggers a fear response (unconditioned stimulus)
Eg: a child with no previous fear of dogs (NS) gets bitten by a dog (US), and from this moment, associates the dog (CS) with fear and pain (CR).
Due to the process of generalisation, the child isn't only afraid of the dog who bit them but shows a fear of all dogs.
There is empirical support to show how classical conditioning leads to the development of phobias.
Prior to the experiment, little Albert showed no fear response to white rat - neutral stimulus.
Watson and Rayner paired a white rat (neutral stimulus) with a loud bang (unconditioned stimulus) resulting in the unconditioned response of fear towards the rat, even without the sound.
- induced this fear response by hitting a metal bar with a hammer behind his head every time he went to reach for the ray. They did this 3 times.
This conditioning could be generalised to similar objects. Little Albert also showed fear in response to furry objects including a fur coat and a Santa Claus beard.
This demonstrates that the fear response can be induced in humans through classical conditioning.
This explanation fails to consider evolutionary factors which play an important role in the development of phobias.
Seligman suggests that humans have a 'biological preparedness,' an innate preparedness to acquire certain phobias, because they were adaptive in our evolutionary past.
suggests it's adaptive to acquire fear - can help us survive dangers.
weakens appropriateness if the behavioural explanation, there is more to the development of phobias than simple conditioning.