What does the behaviourist explanation say about how phobias are acquired and maintained?
Phobias are learned through classical conditioning and are maintained through operant conditioning
What is the two process model of explaining phobias?
(two prcss; clscl. cndntng. + oprnt. cndntng.)
The two process model that describes learning phobias through classical conditioning and maintaining operant conditioning through
What does classical conditioning state, when explaining phobias?
(clscl. cndntg. - phbs. dvlpd. thru. rptd. asctn. btwn. - nrtl. stmls. + uncdndtnd. stmls. - whr. nrtl. stmls. bcms. cndntd. stmls. - prod. fr. - cndntd. rspnse.)
Classical conditioning states phobias develop through the repeated associations between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus, where the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus that produces fear, a conditioned response
What evidence did John Watson provide to support the two process model?
(lil Albrt. - boy dvlpd. phba. whte. rts. - thru. clscl. cndntg. mdl, phba. dvlpd. aftr. cntns. prng. whte. rt. (ntrl. stmls.) + ld. nose. (uncnd. stmls.), ovrtme. bby. lrnt. asoc. fr. flt. w/ aprnc. rt, AAR rat bcme. cndntd. stmls. + crtd. cndntd. rspns. fer. frm. Lil. Albrt.)
The Little Albert study on a boy who developed a phobia of white rats, through the classical conditioning model. The phobia was developed after the continuous pairing of the white rat (neutral stimulus) and a loud noise (unconditioned stimulus). Overtime, the baby learnt to associate the fear felt, due to the loud noise, with the appearance of the rat. As a result, the rat became a conditioned stimulus and created the conditioned response of fear from Little Albert.
After becoming fearful of white rats, what did Little Albert start to do?
(strtd. gnrlse. frs. smlr. fry. objcts. {examples})
Little Albert started to generalise his fears to similar furry objects (a rabbit, fur coats and even Watson wearing a santa claus suit)
What does operant conditioning state when explaining phobias?
(phbs. mntntd. thru. rinfcrmng./pnshmnt. )
Operant conditioning states phobias are maintained through reinforcement or punishment
How are phobias maintained according to behaviourists?
(rnfrcmnt, prsn. w/ phba. - avd. sttns. ld. fr.)
Through operant conditioning, specifically negative reinforcement
What is negative reinforcement, and how does it strengthen phobias?
(avdnce. frd. stmls. rmvng. anx. - rinfcng. avdnc. bhvr, strngthns, phba. - rdcs. fer. - mkng. bhvr. >lkly. rptd )
The avoidance of the feared stimulus removing anxiety, reinforcing avoidance behaviour. It strengthens the phobia, as it reduces fear, making the behaviour more likely to be repeated
What is a limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias?
(bhvrst. exp. lck. cltrl. val, asme. phba. bhvrs. (avdnce./endrnc.) = unvrsl. - thse. vry. acrs. cltrs, EG. wstrn. cltrs. avdnce. ky. bhvrl.m rspns. phbs. - whrs. Afrcn. cltrs. endrc. encrgd. wy. cpng/ovrcmng. fer, sgsts. expltn. ethncntr. + cnt. flly. gnrls. all. cltrs. - rdng ovrll. vldty.)
The behaviourist explanation may lack cultural validity. It assumes phobia behaviours (e.g. avoidance or endurance) are universal, but these vary across cultures. For example, in some Western cultures, avoidance is seen as a key behavioural response to phobias, whereas in some African cultures, endurance may be encouraged as a way of coping or overcoming fear. This suggests that the explanation is ethnocentric and cannot be fully generalised to all cultures, reducing its overall validity
What is a strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias?
(strngth. suprtng. rsrch. evdnce. LAS, stdy. dmsntd. phba. acqurd. clscl. cndntg. - Lil Alb. dvlpd fr. whte. rt. pard. cont. w/ ld. nse, frthr. suprt. cmes. frm. stds. shwng. indvdls. w/ phbs. oftn. rpts. pst. trmtc. expenrs, EG. stdy. fnd. ppl. w/ fr. dntl. trtmnt. hd. prvs. trmtc. exprncs, inc. val. bhrvst. explntn. - shws. phbs. lrnd. thru. cndntng.)
One strength of the behaviourist explanation is supporting research evidence, such as the Little Albert study. This study demonstrated how a phobia can be acquired through classical conditioning, as Little Albert developed a fear of a white rat after it was paired continuously with a loud noise. Further support comes from studies showing that individuals with phobias often report past traumatic experiences. For example, a study found many of those who reported to have a fear of dental treatments also had previous traumatic experiences. This increases the validity of the behaviourist explanation, as it shows phobias can be learned through conditioning.
What is a limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias?
(cnt. expln. all phbs, phbs. nt. all. dvpld. thru. asoc. stmls. + trmtc. exp. - evol. thry. prvs, thry. stts. dvlpd. phbs. bsd. objcts prsntd. in evol. pst, expln. why. sme. phbs. >cmn. + dvlp w/o trma, thfre. argble. - bhvrst. explnt. incmplt. - ignrs. bio. inflnc. + cnt. fly. acnt. orgn. all. phbs.)
Another limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it cannot explain all phobias. Phobias are not all developed through the association of stimuluses and traumatic experiences, which the evolutionary theory proves. The theory states we have developed phobias based on objects that have been presented as a danger in our evolutionary past. This explains This explains why some phobias are more common and can develop without trauma. Therefore, arguable the behaviourist explanation is incomplete, as it ignores biological influences and cannot fully account for the origin of all phobias
What is an opposing argument to this limitation:
{all phobias not explained, evolution theory, danger in the past, no trauma, I.e snake - no bad past}
(evltny. exp. hs. lmttns, dfclt. tst. scntfcly. - evltnry. prcs. cnt. drctly. obsrvd./exprmntly. vrfd, mns. lmtd. emprcl. evdnce. fly. sprt. ida. phbs. inhrtd. adpttns, AAR. explnt. lck. scntf. vldty. - rdng. strngth. alt. bhvrst. acnt.)
However, the evolutionary explanation also has limitations. It is difficult to test scientifically, as evolutionary processes cannot be directly observed or experimentally verified. This means there is limited empirical evidence to fully support the idea that phobias are inherited adaptations. As a result, the explanation may lack scientific validity, reducing its strength as an alternative to the behaviourist account.
