Psychopathology - Explaining phobias Flashcards
AO1 (two process model)
- The two process model is an explanation for the onset and persistence of disorders that create anxiety
- Mowrer proposed the Two process model as an explanation for the behavioural characteristics of phobias
- Phobias are acquire in the first place through classical conditioning and then maintained because of operant conditioning
- Behavioural (behaviourist) approach – A way of explaining behaviour in terms of what is observable and in terms of learning
- Two process model – An explanation for the onset and persistence of disorders that create anxiety, such as phobias. The two processes are classical conditioning for onset and operant conditioning for persistence
- Classical conditioning – Learning by association. Occurs when two stimuli are repeated paired together – an unconditioned (unlearned) stimulus (UCS) and a new ‘neutral’ stimulus (NS). The neutral stimulus (NS) eventually produces the same response that was first produced by the unconditioned (unlearned) stimulus alone
- Operant conditioning – a form of learning in which behaviour is shaped and maintained by its consequences. Possible consequences of behaviour include positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment
AO3 (two process model)
- A strength of the two process model is its real-world application
- For example, this works well in exposure therapies such as systematic desensitisation which is effective in curing phobias
- This is a strength because the two process model displays the idea that phobias are maintained by the avoidance of the phobic stimulus, which helps to explain why people with phobias benefit from being exposed to the phobic stimulus in real life.
- However, it can be argued that therapies like exposure therapies cannot work for everyone so the two process model may not have any effect on clinical treatment for some patients, showing it cannot be generalised to everyone
- Despite this, the two process model identifies the means of treating phobias, showing its value
- Thus increasing the validity of the two process model
- Another strength of the two process model is the evidence of traumatic event
- For example, evidence from a study showed that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had had experienced a traumatic experience, mostly involving dentistry, compared to a control group of people with low dental anxiety where only 21% experienced a traumatic event.
- This is a strength because it shows a frightening experience/traumatic event involving a stimulus can lead to a phobia of that stimulus, which is shown through the two process model as it is evidence for a link between experiences and phobias
- However it can be argued that not all phobias appear following a bad experience and in some cases the most common phobias like phobias of snakes occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes let alone traumatic experience, suggesting that the association between phobias and experience isn’t as strong as we expect
- Despite this, it confirms that the association between stimulus and an unconditioned response can and does lead to the development of the phobia.
- Thus increasing the validity of the two process model
- A weakness of the two process model is that it does not account for other aspect of phobias like cognitive factors
- For example, behavioural explanations, including the two-process model are geared towards explaining behaviour, however it is known that phobias are not simply an avoidance response and also have a significant cognitive component like holding irrational beliefs about the phobic stimulus
- This is a weakness because the two process model explains avoidance behaviour but does not offer an adequate explanation for phobic cognitions, reducing the usefulness of the model as it lacks information.
- However, it can be argued that the two process model narrowing down its focus onto research methods helped to explain acquisition and maintenance of phobias in greater detail, showing its reliability
- Overall, the two process model does not completely explain the symptoms of phobias
- Thus decreasing the validity of the two process model
AO1
- Phobias – An irrational fear of an object or a situation
- Behavioural – ways in which people act (actions we complete)
Crying, screaming, running away, remaining in the presence of that behaviour - Emotional – related to a person’s feelings or mood (feelings we have)
Anxiety, fear of seeing object, emotional reactions that are unreasonable - Cognitive – refers to the process of ‘knowing’, including thinking, reasoning, remembering, believing (mental processes we think)
Beliefs about the world are distorted, abnormal processing of the object, individuals hold irrational beliefs, anxious thoughts, difficulty divert attention - Behavioural (behaviourist) approach – A way of explaining behaviour in terms of what is observable and in terms of learning
- Two process model – An explanation for the onset and persistence of disorders that create anxiety, such as phobias. The two processes are classical conditioning for onset and operant conditioning for persistence
- Classical conditioning – Learning by association. Occurs when two stimuli are repeated paired together – an unconditioned (unlearned) stimulus (UCS) and a new ‘neutral’ stimulus (NS). The neutral stimulus (NS) eventually produces the same response that was first produced by the unconditioned (unlearned) stimulus alone
- Operant conditioning – a form of learning in which behaviour is shaped and maintained by its consequences. Possible consequences of behaviour include positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment
AO3
- A weakness of behaviourist explanation of Phobias is that it ignores other approaches
- For example, ignores psychodynamic approach which uses the unconscious to explain phobias.
- This is a weakness because it doesn’t take all factors into account showing it lacks reliability by ignoring other approaches.
- However, the behaviourist approach uses lab studies unlike the psychodynamic approach showing evidence to back it up
- Despite this, phobias stem from the mind/cognition which behaviourists are not concerned in investigating
- Thus decreasing the validity for the behaviourist explanation of Phobias
- A strength of behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it shows acquisition through case studies
- For example, Little Albert’s case study displays phobias through classical conditioning
Rat (NS) > no response (NR)
Loud Noise (UCS) > crying (UCR)
Loud noise (UCS) + rat (NS) > crying (NR)
Rat (CS) > crying (CR) - This is a strength because Little Albert demonstrates how a frightening experience involving a stimulus can lead to a phobia of that stimulus through the behaviourist approach
- However, this could be argued as an unhelpful case study as it is based on a child and cannot be generalised to adults as they won’t react the same way.
- Despite this, Little Albert’s case study provides evidence for how a person can develop a phobia through acquisition by classical conditioning, showing its usefulness as evidence for explaining phobias
- Thus increasing the validity of phobias through the behaviourist explanation
- Another strength of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias is the evidence of traumatic event
- For example, evidence from a study showed that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had had experienced a traumatic experience, mostly involving dentistry, compared to a control group of people with low dental anxiety where only 21% experienced a traumatic event.
- This is a strength because it shows a frightening experience/traumatic event involving a stimulus can lead to a phobia of that stimulus, which is shown through the two process model as it is evidence for a link between experiences and phobias
- However it can be argued that not all phobias appear following a bad experience and in some cases the most common phobias like phobias of snakes occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes let alone traumatic experience, suggesting that the association between phobias and experience isn’t as strong as we expect
- Despite this, it confirms that the association between stimulus and an unconditioned response can and does lead to the development of the phobia.
- Thus increasing the validity of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias
two process model
acquisition-maintenance model
Mowrer (1947) proposed this model which suggests that phobias are first acquired through classical
conditioning and then maintained through operant conditioning.
Classical conditioning
Classical conditioning: How phobias are acquired.
Phobias are acquired by associating a neutral stimulus with a fear response.
case study - classical conditioning
The case study of Little Albert (Watson & Raynor, 1920)
Before conditioning:
When Albert was presented with a white rat, he showed no fear response.
White rat = neutral stimulus (NS)
Watson & Raynor found that Albert showed a natural fear response to loud noises (unconditioned stimulus
– UCS).
During conditioning:
Albert was presented with the white rat (NS) again and at the same
time the researchers struck a steel bar, making a loud noise (UCS) –
this led to Albert crying (unconditioned response -UCR)
This was repeated several times.
After conditioning:
Now, the white rat (previously the NS but is now the conditioned stimulus
– CS) alone makes Albert afraid/cry (conditioned response – CR)
Once a phobia has been acquired, it is maintained by operant conditioning
operant conditioning
How phobias are maintained
Operant conditioning states that if behaviours are reinforced they are likely to be repeated.
In the case of phobias, the phobic response is unpleasant and escaping from the object or situation causes a reduction in fear.
This is an example of negative reinforcement because you are removing/taking away something negative and are rewarded for doing so (you feel less anxiety).
For example: Peter is afraid of wasps, when he sees a wasp he becomes very anxious. He does not go out and play with his friends in the park which means he is able to avoid a situation where there may be a wasp. This leads to his anxiety being reduced as he no longer has to worry about coming into contact with
a wasp.
outline the two process model as an explanation of phobias
The two‐process model suggests that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning: learning by
association, and are maintained through operant conditioning: negative reinforcement.
According to the theory of classical conditioning, humans can learn to fear an object or stimulus, such as a
dog, by forming an association between the object and something which triggers a fear response, for
example being bitten. In this example, the dog, which was originally a neutral stimulus, becomes
associated with being bitten, which is an unconditioned stimulus. This pairing leads to the dog becoming a
conditioned stimulus, which when encountered will elicit fear, a conditioned response.
According to operant conditioning, avoiding the phobic stimulus acts as negative reinforcement because an
unpleasant consequence is removed. For example, if a person with a dog phobia sees one whilst out
walking, they might avoid it by crossing the road. This reduces the person’s anxiety and so negatively
reinforces their behaviour, making the person more likely to continue avoiding dogs, thus maintaining their
phobia.
evaluation of two process model
Supporting evidence for
the acquisition of
phobias via classical
conditioning
For example, the case of Little Albert (see above). Furthermore, Sue et al
(1994) found that people with phobias often recall a specific incident when
their phobia appeared e.g. being bitten by a dog or experiencing a panic
attack in a social situation. Both of these studies support the acquisition part
of the model through the principles of a stimulus-response association
(classical conditioning) however these studies do not tell us how these
phobias were maintained therefore we cannot conclude that they fully
support the two-process model
Challenging evidence
for the acquisition of
phobias via classical
conditioning
Not all phobias are acquired as a result of a negative experience. For example,
Ost (1987) notes that many people with severe fears of snakes, germs,
aeroplanes & heights have had no particularly unpleasant experiences with
any of these objects or situations. This challenges the two-process model as it
is based on the principle that phobias are learnt through experiences. This is a
limitation of the model as it suggests that it cannot explain how all phobias
are acquired.
Individual differences
Furthermore, some people have negative experiences without developing a
phobia. For example, Dinardo (1988) found participants in a control group
without a phobia of dogs, experienced a similar proportion of fearful
incidents with a dog but had not developed a phobia. This challenges the two-process model as it suggests that not everyone will learn a fear response after
a negative experience. This could mean that there may be individual
differences in, for example, cognition that may play a role in the development
of the phobia which the behaviourist approach does not consider
Extended evaluation
This model cannot fully explain why some phobias are more common than others; the
biological preparedness explanation could offer a better explanation for this. This
explanation originates from the evolutionary approach and describes the way that humans
are more likely to have phobias for stimuli that would have been a real threat to survival. For
example, fear of poisonous animals like spiders.
