behavioural approach-explaining phobias

• Mowrer proposed the two-process model based on the behavioural approach to phobias. This states that phobias are acquired by classical conditioning and then continue because of operant conditioning.
• Watson and Rayner created a phobia in a 9-month-old baby called ‘Little Albert’.
• 'Little Albert' showed no unusual anxiety at the start of the study. When showed a white rat he tried to play with it. However, the experimenters then set out to give Albert a phobia.
• Whenever the rat was presented to Albert the researchers made a loud, frightening noise by banging an iron bar close to Albert's ear. This noise is an unconditioned stimulus which creates an unconditioned response of fear.
• When the rat (a neutral stimulus) and the loud bang (the unconditioned stimulus) are encountered close together in time the NS becomes associated with the UCS and both now produce the fear response.
• Albert now displayed fear when he saw a rat. The rat is now a learned or conditioned stimulus that produces a conditioned response. This conditioning then generalised to similar objects. They tested Albert by showing him other furry objects (such as a fur coat, Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard). Little Albert displayed distress at the sight of all of these.
• Responses acquired by classical conditioning usually tend to decline over time. However, phobias are often long-lasting. Mowrer has explained this as the result of operant conditioning.
• Operant conditioning takes place when our behaviour is reinforced or punished. Reinforcement tends to increase the frequency of a behaviour. This is true of both positive and negative reinforcement.
• Mowrer suggested that whenever we avoid a phobic stimulus we successfully escape the fear and anxiety we would have experienced if we had remained there. This reduction in fear reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained.
• One strength of the two-process model is its real-world application in exposure therapies. The main element of the two-process model is the idea that phobias are maintained by avoidance of the phobic stimulus. This is important in explaining why people with phobias benefit from being exposed to the phobic stimulus. Once the avoidance behaviour is prevented it won't be reinforced by the experience of anxiety reduction and avoidance therefore declines. In behavioural terms the phobia is the avoidance behaviour so when this avoidance is prevented the phobia is cured.
• one strength of the two-process model is it identifies a means of treating phobias.
• A limitation of the two-process model is that it does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias. Behavioural explanations are geared towards explaining behaviour. In the case of phobias the key behaviour is avoidance of the phobic stimulus. However, we know that phobias are not simply avoidance responses-they also have a significant cognitive component (e.g. people hold irrational beliefs about the phobic stimulus). The two-process model explains avoidance behaviour but does not explain phobic cognitions so it does not completely explain the symptoms of phobias.
• Another strength is the evidence for a link between bad experiences and phobias. The Little Albert study illustrates how a frightening experience involving a stimulus can leas to a phobia of the stimulus. Ad De Jongh et al. found that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had experienced a traumatic experience , mostly involving dentistry. Out of a control group of people with low dental anxiety only 21% had experienced a traumatic event. This confirms that the association between stimulus and an unconditioned response does lead to the development of a phobia.
• However, not all phobias appear following a bad experience. Some common phobias such as snake phobias occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes let alone traumatic experiences. Also not all frightening experiences lead to phobias. This means that the association between phobias and frightening experiences is not as strong as we would expect if behavioural theories provided a complete explanation.