evaluation of behaviourist explanation for phobias

Question 1

evidence against the idea that behaviour has to have an experience linked to it

Answer 1

-Menzies and Clarke (1993) found only 2% of individuals suffering from water phobia reported a direct unpleasant experience with actual water
-behaviourist is in the nurture side of nature nurture debate
-undermines behaviourist explanation as only a few had a negative experience
-biological preparedness theory (Seligman) - humans are genetically programmed to learn association between situation and fear as our evolutionary past

Question 2

evidence against behaviourist explanation linked to vicarious reinforcement

Answer 2

-Cook and mineka showed lab monkeys a video of fear responses to flowers and snakes
-monkeys learnt to fear flowers but not snakes, even though they hadn’t seen snakes or flowers before the video
-support for the SLT theory of phobia acquisition
-vicarious reinforcement as monkeys observed that the fear brings no harm from the snake
-some behaviours learnt through observation and that animals can become fearful of an object without encounting it

Question 3

evidence for the behaviourist explanation of two- process model

Answer 3

-research to support it
-Mowrer found by presenting a buzzer followed by an electric shock, he could produce a fear response in rats to sound of buzzer
-trained rats to escape after buzzer sounded
-supports CC: the rats learnt the phobia of the buzzer through classical conditioning- the NS (buzzer) paired with UCS (shock)
-supports OC: rats maintained phobia by avoiding shock (negative reinforcement)

Question 4

against behaviourist explanation (repeatable)

Answer 4

-evidence into the role of classical conditioning as explanation of acquisition of phobias is inconsistent- lacks reliability
-attempts to replicant watson and rayner have been unsuccessful
-lack validity as not all phobias can be explained by conditioning

Question 5

for behaviourist explanation (retrospective)

Answer 5

-retrospective data
-early experiences of phobic object not remembered due to poor memory recall/ repression (if traumatic)
-conditioning could have occurred but the individual cant remember the experience

Question 6

against behaviourist explanation (determisism)

Answer 6

-suggests phobias result of environmental experiences
-ignores individual ability to control own behaviour response
-not everyone whose has a bad experience will develop fear (Menzies and Clarke)
-we interpret and think about bad experience (cognitive) so isn’t purely controlled by conditioning

Question 7

against behaviourist explanation (Nature vs nurture)

Answer 7

-only accounts for nurture as it claims phobias are product of environmental learning
-weakness as evolutionary explanation of preparedness - we have an innate/biological predisposition to acquire fears to certain objects since they were dangerous in our past
-our preparedness to learn phobias more readily than others enhanced survival

Question 8

evidence against everyone who has a traumatic experience gets a phobia from it

Answer 8

-DiNardo et al- sample of healthy individuals, experienced an anxious encounter with a dog and 50% not phobic
-explained through diathesis- stress model - duality to acquisition of phobias = genetic vulnerability but will only manifest if triggered by an event

Question 9

against behaviourist explanation (not account for others- linked to determinism)

Answer 9

-doesnt account for cognitive
-behavioural explanations like 2 process model geared towards explaining behaviour e.g. avoidance of phobic stimulus
-but behaviour as significant cognitive component e.g. thinking it is dangerous
-doesnt offer adequate explanation for phobic cognitions
-is weakness because cognitive is scientific and reliable