Behavioural Approach To Explaining Phobias - A03 Flashcards
A strength of the behavioural approach as an explanation of phobias is that there is supportive empirical case study evidence.
E – Watson and Rayner (1920) used classical conditioning in order to create a phobia in Little Albert, an infant. The researchers initiated the phobia with a white rat; he learned to associate the rat (NS) with a loud noise (UCS). This phobia was generalised to other furry, white items such as a Santa Claus beard.
E – this supports the explanation for classical conditioning as Little Albert didn’t have any phobias prior to the experiment and it was only by exposing him to the loud noise (UCS) paired with the white rat (NS) that Little Albert developed these fears.
L – this evidence increases the theory’s validity that phobias aren’t learnt and aren’t innate as proposed by the evolutionary explanation, as the theory predicted the research findings.
A strength of the two-process model is evidence for a link between bad experiences and phobias.
E - De Jongh (2006) found that 73% of people with dental phobias had experienced previous trauma, mostly involving dentistry.
E – More support occurred from the control group of the people who experienced low dental anxiety, where only 21% had experienced a traumatic event.
L – Thus supports the idea that the association between stimulus (dentistry) and an unconditioned response (pain) can lead to a phobia.
A strength of the two-process model is its real-world application in exposure therapies (such as systematic desensitization).
E – when avoidance behaviour is prevented it ceases to be reinforced by the reduction of anxiety.
E – therefore, avoidance behaviour declines. In terms of behaviour, the phobia is the avoidance, so when avoidance is prevented, the phobia is cured.
L- this shows the value of a 2-stage approach as it identifies the means of treating phobias.
A limitation of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias is that it does not offer a complete explanation of phobias.
E - Bounton (2007) highlighted that evolutionary factors could play a role in phobias, particularly if the effects of a specific stimulus (such as snakes) could’ve caused our ancestors death. Therefore, evolutionary psychologists suggest that some phobias (like heights) aren’t learnt but are innate. These phobias act as a survival mechanism for our ancestors.
E – this innate predisposition to having certain phobias is called biological preparedness (Seligman, 1971) and creates doubt on the two-process model as it suggests that there’s more to phobias than learning.
L – the behavioural explanation of phobias might explain the development of some phobias, but it doesn’t explain one’s that seem to be innate and haven’t been learnt through experience.
A limitation of the behavioural explanation for the development of phobias is that it ignores the role of cognition (thinking).
E – cognitivists argue that phobias develop due to irrational thinking, not solely learning. An example of this is sufferers of claustrophobia might think ‘I’m going to get trapped in this lift and I’ll suffocate’, which is an irrational thought that’s not been taken into consideration in the behaviourist explanation.
E – cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a treatment for phobias. It’s suggested to be a more successful treatment than the behaviourist treatments, which may indicate that the cognitive component of developing phobias is more significant than the stimulus-response link.
L – this challenges the behavioural explanation’s validity and suggests that the cognitive explanation of phobias may be a more appropriate one.
