The behavioural approach to explaining phobias

The two-process model

- Mowrer (1960) proposed this based on the behavioural approach to phobias. This states that phobias are acquired (learned in the first place) by classical conditioning and then continue because of operant conditioning

Acquisition by classical conditioning

- Learning to associate something of which we initially have no fear (neutral stimulus) with something that already triggers a fear response (unconditioned stimulus)

Acquisition by classical conditioning: Research

- Watson and Rayner (1920) created a phobia in a 9-month-old baby (Little Albert). He showed no unusual anxiety at the start of the study, trying to play with a rat that was shown to him. After this, whenever the rat was presented the researchers made a loud noise by banging an iron bar close to Albert. Noise=UCS which creates fear=UCR. Rat=NS and the UCS encountered close together the NS becomes associated with the UCS and both now produce a fear response (Albert displayed fear when he saw the rat, meaning it is now a CS that produces a CR).

- This conditioning was generalised to similar objects, with Little Albert displaying distress at the sight of all of these

Maintenance by operant conditioning

- Responses acquired by classical conditioning tend to decline over time. However, phobias are long-lasting. Mowrer has explained this as the result of this. This takes place when our behaviour is reinforced (rewarded) or punished. Reinforcement increases the frequency of behaviour, which is true of both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. Negative reinforcement means an individual avoids a situation that is unpleasant. Such a behaviour results in a desirable consequence, meaning the behaviour will be repeated

Maintenance by operant conditioning: Phobias

- Whenever we avoid a phobic stimulus we successfully escape the fear and anxiety that we would have experienced if we had remained there. This reduction in fear reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained

Evaluation: Strengths

- Real-world application in exposure therapies (such as systematic desensitisation). The distinctive element of the two-process model is the idea that phobias are maintained by avoidance of the phobic stimulus. This explains 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

- This shows the value of the two-process approach because it identifies a means of treating phobias

Evaluation: Weaknesses

- Does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias. 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, e.g. people hold irrational beliefs about the phobic stimulus (e.g. thinking a spider is dangerous). The model explains avoidance behaviour but does not offer an explanation for phobic cognitions

- This means the two-process model does not completely explain the symptoms of phobias

Evaluation: Strengths

- Evidence for a link between bad experiences and phobias. De Jongh et al (2006) found that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had experienced a traumatic experience, mostly involving dentistry. This can be compared to a control group of people with low dental anxiety where only 21% had experienced a traumatic event

- This confirms the association between stimulus (dentistry) and an unconditioned response (pain) does lead to the development of the phobia

Evaluation: Weaknesses

- Not all phobias appear following a bad experience. 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 the association between phobias and frightening experiences is not as strong as we would expect if behavioural theories provided a complete explanation