Explaining Phobias Flashcards
The two-process model
Mowrer (1960) proposed the two-process model based on the behavioural approach to phobias. This states that phobias are acquired by classical conditioning and then maintained by operant conditioning.
1) Classical = Acquisition
- Learning through association.
- Little Albert - John Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920).
- Albert showed no unusual anxiety at the start of the study - he would happily play with the white lab rat.
- However, whenever presented with the rat, a loud noise was made by banging an iron bar. This noise is an unconditioned stimulus which creates an unconditioned response of fear.
- When the rat, the neutral stimulus, becomes associated with the unconditioned stimulus, they both produce fear. The rat then becomes the conditioned stimulus and the fear the conditioned response.
- This conditioning then generalised to similar objects - Albert showed fear at a Santa Claus beard, cotton wool and a non-white rabbit.
2) Operant = Maintenance
- Learning through reinforcement.
- Responses learned via classical conditioning usually decline over time. However, phobias are long-lasting due to operant conditioning.
- Negative reinforcement: A person avoids an object or situation that is unpleasant. Such a behaviour results in a desirable consequence, meaning that it will be repeated in the future.
- When we avoid a phobic stimulus, we escape the fear and anxiety we would have otherwise felt. This negatively reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained.
Strength
point: The behaviourist explanation of phobias is supported by research evidence.
evidence: John Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920) successfully demonstrated the process of classical conditioning in the formation of a phobia in Little Albert. Albert was conditioned to fear white rats by the pairing of the rat with a loud, frightening noise. Over time, Albert’s fear response generalised to similar stimuli, such as a Santa Claus beard, cotton wool and a non-white rabbit.
justification: As a result, this strengthens the validity of the behaviourist explanation of phobias as it provides strong evidence for the role of classical conditioning in the acquisition of phobias and supports the idea that phobias can be developed through associations.
counter-argument: However, the study’s methodology raises important concerns.
evidence: The study takes on an idiographic approach by using the case study of one individual and generalising the findings to phobia acquisition as a whole. It doesn’t consider the possibility that Little Albert’s responses may have been influenced by factors unique to him, such as the environment or simply the fact that he was a child.
justification: As a result, this limits the applicability of this study as findings cannot be generalised to other children or adults due to the unique nature of the investigation.
Strength
point: A strength of the behaviourist explanation is its application to therapy.
evidence: These ideas have been used to develop treatments, including systematic desensitisation and flooding which aim to reduce and eliminate phobias. Systematic desensitisation helps people to unlearn their fears through gradual exposure combined with relaxation techniques, using the principles of classical conditioning. This helps the individual to associate the phobic stimulus with calmness rather than fear. Flooding exposes the individual to their phobia in a more immediate and intense manner preventing them from avoiding it which in turn prevents negative reinforcement from taking place, which occurs during operant conditioning. These therapies have been successfully used to treat people with phobias, supporting the effectiveness of the behaviourist explanation in helping people to overcome their phobias.
justification: This increases the external validity of the behaviourist explanation of phobias as it demonstrates how the principles of classical and operant conditioning can be effectively incorporated into treatments, such as systematic desensitisation and flooding to eradicate a learned and maintained phobia.
Weakness
point: One limitation of the behavioural explanation of phobias is that it may not provide a complete explanation.
evidence: Bounton (2007) highlights the fact that evolutionary factors could play a role in the development of certain phobias, especially if the encounter of a stimulus (e.g. snakes) could have caused pain or even death to our ancestors. Consequently, evolutionary psychologists suggest that some phobias are not learned but in fact innate, as they act as a survival mechanism for our ancestors. This aligns with Seligman’s (1971) theory of biological preparedness, which suggests that humans are innately predisposed to fear certain stimuli because these fears were evolutionarily advantageous. This casts doubt on the two-process model proposed by Mowrer as it suggests that not all phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning but that some are biologically hardwired in us for survival.
justification: As a result, this implies that the behaviourist explanation of phobias is reductionist, as it oversimplifies phobia acquisition by focusing solely on learning mechanisms. To develop a more holistic approach, it is essential to integrate evolutionary and biological perspectives to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how phobias develop.
Weakness
point: A limitation of the behaviourist explanation for phobias is its failure to account for the role of cognition.
evidence: Phobias may arise as a result of irrational thinking rather than simply through learned associations. For example, sufferers of claustrophobia may think: ‘I am going to be trapped in this life’, which is an irrational cognitive distortion. These cognitive elements are not addressed by the behaviourist explanation, which focuses exclusively on learning mechanisms. This argument is supported by the success of cognitive therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which aim to challenge and restructure irrational thoughts. Research, such as that by Ougrin (2011), suggests that CBT is more effective than behaviourist treatments like systematic desensitisation and flooding, especially in treating phobias where cognitive distortions are a major contributor.
justification: Consequently, the behaviourist explanation has been criticised for being environmentally reductionist as it reduces human behaviour to a simple stimulus-response association and neglects the possibility of cognitive factors.
