Explaining Phobias

Question 1

The two-process model

Answer 1

Mowrer (1960) proposed the two-process model based on the behavioural approach to phobias. This stated that phobias are acquired (learned in the first place) by classical conditioning and then maintained because of operant conditioning.

Question 2

1) Acquisition = Classical

Answer 2

• 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, they made a loud frightening noise 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.

Question 3

2) Maintenance = Operant

Answer 3

• 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 a situation that is unpleasant. Such a behaviour results in a desirable consequence, which means the behaviour will be repeated.
• 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.

Question 4

Strength

Answer 4

The behaviourist explanation of phobias is supported by research evidence. Watson and Rayner (1920) demonstrated the process of classical conditioning in the formation of a phobia in Little Albert, who was conditioned to fear white rats. This supports the idea that classical conditioning is involved in acquiring phobias in humans and that generalisation can occur to other phobic stimuli. However, since this was a case study, it is difficult to generalise the findings to other children or even adults due to the unique nature of the investigation.

Question 5

Strength

Answer 5

A strength of the behaviourist explanation is its application to therapy. These ideas have been used to develop treatments, including systematic desensitisation and flooding. Systematic desensitisation helps people to unlearn their fears, using the principles of classical conditioning, while flooding prevents people from avoiding their phobias and stops the negative reinforcement from taking place. 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.

Question 6

Weakness

Answer 6

The behaviourist explanation for phobias ignores the role of cognition: phobias may develop because of irrational thinking, not just learning. For example, sufferers of claustrophobia may think: ‘I am going to be trapped in this lift and suffocate’, which is an irrational thought that is not taken into consideration. Consequently, the behaviourist explanation for the development of phobias has been criticised for being environmentally reductionist, by reducing human behaviour to a simple stimulus-response association. Many psychologists, for example cognitive psychologists, would disagree with this explanation, as they argue that other cognitive factors (e.g. irrational thinking) also play an important role. Furthermore, the cognitive approach has also led to the development of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which is said to be more successful than behaviourist treatments.

Question 7

Weakness

Answer 7

There is a claim that the behavioural approach may not provide a complete explanation of phobias. For example, Bounton (2007) highlights the fact that evolutionary factors could play a role in phobias, especially if the avoidance 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 are in fact innate, as they acted as a survival mechanism for our ancestors. This is called biological preparedness (Seligman, 1971) and casts doubt on the two-process model since it suggests that there is more involved than learning and that some phobias (e.g. snakes) are not learned, but are in fact innate.