The behavioural approach to explaining phobias Flashcards
Learning and evolution
On one hand, it does seem that behavioural models of phobias, like the two-process model, provide credible individual explanations for phobias, i.e. they can explain how a particular person develops and maintains a particular phobia. So someone who has an experience which is fearful (e.g. being trapped in a lift or being bitten by a dog) then learns anxiety about that object and may go on to develop a phobia.
On the other hand phobias have some general properties that are perhaps better explained by evolutionary theory than by behavioural models. The concept of preparedness (Seligman) suggests that we tend to acquire phobias of things that have presented a danger in our evolutionary past such as animals and the dark. In this explanation we develop a phobia not because of an association with anxiety but because it is an adaptive advantage to fear such objects, thus predisposing (or ‘preparing’) us to develop such fears. We are much less likely to develop phobias of highly dangerous things like guns and cars that have, in evolutionary terms, only become part of our world very recently and therefore we are not so readily predisposed to developing such fears.
Therefore the two-factor model only provides a partial explanation for phobias.
Real-world application
One strength of the two-process model is its real-world application in exposure therapies (such as systematic desensitisation, described on the next spread).
The distinctive element of the two-process model is the idea that phobias are maintained by avoidance of the phobic stimulus. This is important in explaining why people with phobias benefit from being exposed to the phobic stimulus. Once the avoidance behaviour is prevented it ceases to be reinforced by the experience of anxiety reduction and avoidance therefore declines.
In behavioural terms the phobia is the avoidance behaviour so when this avoidance is prevented the phobia is cured.
This shows the value of the two-process approach because it identifies a means of treating phobias.
Cognitive aspects of phobias
One liritation of the two-process model is that it does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias.
Behavioural explanations, including the two-process model, are geared towards explaining behaviour. in the case of phobias the key behaviour is avoidance of the phobic stimulus. However, we know that phobias are not simply avoidance responses - they also have a significant cognitive component.
For example people hold irrational beliefs about the phobic stimulus (such as thinking that a spider is dangerous. The two-process model explains avoidance
This means that the two-process model does not completely explain the symptoms of phobias.
Phobias and traumatic experiences
A further strength of the two-process model is evidence for a link between bad experiences and phobias.
The Little Albert study (facing page) illustrates how a frightening experience involving a stimulus can lead to a phobia of that stimulus. More systematic evidence comes from a study by Ad De Jongh et al. (2006) who found that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had experienced a traumatic experience, mostly involving dentistry (others had experienced being the victim of violent crime). This can be compared to a contn-group of people with low dental anxiety where only 21% had experienced a traumatic event.
This confirms that the association between stimulus (dentistry) and an unconditioned response (pain) does lead to the development of the phobia.
Counterpoint
Not all phobias appear following a bad experience. In fact some common phobias such as snake phobias occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes let alone traumatic experiences. Also, considering the other direction, not all frightening experiences lead to phobias.
This means that the association between phobias and frightening experiences is not as strong as we would expect if behavioural theories provided a complete explanation.
