explanation of phobia

A01 (CLASSICALCONDITIONING)

The behavioural explanation of phobias is best described by Mowrer’s (1947) two-process model, which states that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning. Classical conditioning involves learning through association. A neutral stimulus (NS), which initially causes no fear, becomes associated with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that naturally triggers a fear response (UCR). After repeated pairings, the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) that elicits a conditioned response (CR) of fear. For example, if someone is bitten by a dog (UCS) and experiences fear (UCR), they may begin to associate all dogs (NS) with fear, leading to a fear of dogs. Similarly, if a person experiences a panic attack in a confined space, they may develop a fear of enclosed places. This learned fear can also generalise to similar situations or objects — for instance, a fear of one dog may extend to all animals with similar features — demonstrating stimulus generalisation.

A01 (OPERANT CONDITIONING)

Once a phobia has been acquired, it can be maintained through operant conditioning, which involves learning through the consequences of behaviour. Specifically, negative reinforcement plays a key role in maintaining phobias. When an individual avoids a feared object or situation, they experience relief from anxiety, which acts as a reward. For example, someone with a fear of spiders may avoid basements or sheds where spiders might be found. The relief they feel reinforces their avoidance behaviour, making it more likely to occur again in the future. Therefore, the phobia persists because the person continuously avoids the feared stimulus, preventing the fear from being extinguished.

LITTLE ALBERT STUDY

The Little Albert study by Watson and Rayner (1920) provides empirical support for the behavioural explanation of phobias.
Aim: To investigate whether a phobia could be acquired through classical conditioning in a human.
Procedure: An 11-month-old infant, Albert, was presented with a white rat (NS). Initially, he showed no fear. However, each time Albert reached for the rat, a loud noise (UCS) was made behind him, which startled and upset him (UCR).
Findings: After several pairings, Albert began to cry and show distress simply upon seeing the white rat, even without the noise. He also showed fear towards similar objects, such as a white rabbit and a fur coat — demonstrating stimulus generalisation.
Conclusion: This study supports the idea that phobias can be learned through classical conditioning and maintained through generalisation.

AO3 Paragraph 1 (PEEL) – Strength: Empirical Support

Point: One strength of the behavioural explanation is that it is supported by scientific research.

Evidence: Watson and Rayner’s (1920) Little Albert study showed that fear can be learned. Albert, an 11-month-old, was initially unafraid of a white rat (NS). Each time he reached for the rat, a loud noise (UCS) was made, causing distress (UCR). After several pairings, Albert cried at the sight of the rat alone (CR) and also feared similar objects, demonstrating stimulus generalisation.

Explanation: This supports the behavioural explanation because it demonstrates that phobias can develop through experience rather than being inherited, which is exactly what classical conditioning predicts.

Link: Therefore, the study increases the credibility of the behavioural explanation and shows it is a useful model for understanding how phobias form.

AO3 Paragraph – Limitation: Reductionist

Point: A limitation of the behavioural explanation is that it is reductionist.

Evidence: The approach explains phobias purely in terms of learned associations and reinforcement, ignoring the influence of cognitive factors, such as irrational thoughts about the feared object or situation.

Explanation: This is reductionist because it oversimplifies phobias. For example, someone may avoid flying not because of a traumatic flight experience, but because they think the plane might crash, showing that thoughts play a role as well as behaviour.

Link: Therefore, while the behavioural explanation is useful for understanding some aspects of phobias, it does not provide a complete account of how they develop.

AO3 Paragraph – Limitation: Deterministic

Point: Another limitation is that the behavioural explanation is deterministic.

Evidence: It suggests that phobias are entirely caused by experiences of classical and operant conditioning, implying that individuals have no control over the development of their fears.

Explanation: This is deterministic because it assumes behaviour is shaped solely by environmental factors. For example, two people might both be bitten by dogs, but only one develops a fear of dogs, showing that environmental conditioning alone does not fully determine phobic responses.

Link: Therefore, the approach may be seen as limited, as it cannot fully explain why some people develop phobias after a traumatic event while others do not.

AO3 Paragraph – Limitation: Not All Phobias Are Learned

Point: A limitation of the behavioural explanation is that not all phobias are learned through conditioning experiences.

Evidence: Some people develop phobias without ever having a frightening encounter, suggesting other factors may be involved. For example, many people are afraid of spiders or heights even if they’ve never been harmed by them.

Explanation: This suggests that learning alone cannot fully explain why certain fears develop, as other influences such as individual differences or past experiences may also play a role.

Link: Therefore, the behavioural explanation provides an incomplete account of phobias because it cannot explain why some people develop fears in the absence of direct learning.