Explaining Phobias Flashcards
(6 cards)
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.
Weakness
Point: A limitation of Watson and Rayner’s study (1920) is its lack of generalisability.
Evidence: The study was conducted with a single participant, Little Albert, who was a 9-month-old infant. As a result, the findings cannot be easily generalised to other children, adults, or individuals with different experiences and backgrounds.
Justification: Since the study involved only one subject, it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the universality of classical conditioning in phobia development. Each individual may react differently to fear-inducing stimuli, and emotional responses cannot be assumed to be consistent across all people.
Implication: This idiographic approach means that the study’s findings might not be applicable to a larger, more diverse population. To improve the generalisability of research on phobia development, future studies would need to involve a larger and more varied sample to ensure the findings are relevant to a broader group of individuals.
Point: Although Watson and Rayner’s (1920) study has been criticized for its idiographic approach, it remains relevant and applicable to understanding phobia development.
Evidence: While the study involved only one participant, Little Albert, and the findings may not extend to all individuals, the basic principles of classical conditioning, such as the formation of conditioned emotional responses, are widely supported in psychology. Many subsequent studies have replicated similar findings, demonstrating that phobias can indeed be learned through association.
Justification: The principles demonstrated in the study align with modern understanding of conditioned fear responses. Such findings reinforce the applicability of Watson and Rayner’s work in broader contexts.
Implication: As a result, the consistency of results across studies reinforces the reliability of the behaviourist explanation of phobias, highlighting the valuable contribution of Watson and Rayner’s study to our understanding of how phobias develop.
Strength
Point: One strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is its real-world application to therapy.
Evidence: The principles of classical and operant conditioning have been used to develop effective behavioural treatments, such as systematic desensitisation and flooding. Systematic desensitisation involves gradually exposing individuals to their phobic stimulus while using relaxation techniques to counter-condition their fear response. Flooding, on the other hand, exposes individuals to the phobia in an immediate and intense way, preventing avoidance and thus stopping the negative reinforcement cycle that maintains the phobia.
Justification: The success of these therapies demonstrates that the behaviourist explanation has practical value. It shows that fears can be unlearned, supporting the idea that phobias are learned and maintained through conditioning.
Implication: This increases the practicality and credibility of the behaviourist explanation, as it shows how conditioning principles can be applied to develop effective treatments that improve the lives of those with phobias.
Counterargument: On the contrary, a limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it only explains phobias that have been learned through the process of conditioning, this doesn’t account for phobias that have a cognitive or evolutionary basis.
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. Research by Ougrin even identified a greater level of success of CBT in comparison to behaviourist treatments like systematic desensitisation and flooding, especially in treating phobias where cognitive distortions are a major contributor. Additionally, Bounton 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 imposed a threat to 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.
Justification: 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 arise from cognitive distortions or are biologically hardwired in us for survival.
Implication: 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 and environmental factors, thereby limiting its usefulness for individuals with phobias that stem from factors aside from conditioning.
Weakness
Point: Counter-research by DiNardo and Mendes & Clark challenges the behaviourist explanation of phobias, suggesting that conditioning experiences may not fully account for their development.
Evidence: DiNardo found that conditioning events like ‘dog bites’ were reported by 56% of participants with dog phobias, but interestingly, these experiences were also reported by 66% of participants with no dog phobia. Similarly, Mendes and Clark discovered that only 2% of children with a phobia of water could recall a negative experience related to water, and 56% of parents indicated that the phobia had been present since the child’s first encounter with water, without any clear traumatic event.
Justification: These findings present a challenge to the behaviourist model of phobias, which suggests that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning. The fact that many individuals with phobias do not report relevant negative experiences calls into question the centrality of conditioning in the development of all phobias, suggesting that phobias could be influenced by other factors, such as genetic predisposition, cognitive processes, or even evolutionary mechanisms, which are not fully addressed by the behaviourist perspective.
Implication: These findings imply that the behaviourist explanation may be too narrow to account for the complexity of phobia development. While the behaviourist model may explain certain types of phobias, it overlooks other potential factors.
