Explanations of Phobias 16 marks
Mowrer suggested the two-process model explanation for phobias. This suggests that
phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant
conditioning. For example a phobia of dogs may have been acquired through the association
of dogs (the neural stimulus) with being bitten (the unconditioned stimulus) producing the
response of fear (unconditioned response), this led to the dog becoming the conditioned
stimulus producing the conditioned response of fear. This phobia was then maintained
through operant conditioning as seeing a dog made the person nervous and so avoiding
dogs negatively reinforced the phobia. A real-life example of this is Watson and Rayners
case study of Little Albert where they conditioned a phobia of white rats by pairing white
rats with a loud noise causing the fear response. Little Alberts fear generalised to other
animals such as a white rabbit, also causing the fear response.
One limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it doesn’t explain why some
phobias are more common between family members. For example, Ost found that 62% of
people with a blood injection phobia had a first degree relative with the same phobia
however this phobia was only present in 3% of the population suggesting an underlying
biological element to phobias. This implies that phobias cannot be completely explained via
the behaviourist approach and that there may be some underlying biologically inherited
factor making a person more likely to develop a phobia.
However, a strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it has practical
application. Systematic desensitisation and flooding are both effective treatments of
phobias. In fact Wolpe found that 80-90% saw improvements after 24-30 sessions of
systematic desensitisation showing the effectiveness of these therapies. This is positive of
this explanation of phobias.
A limitation of this explanation of phobias is that it is unethical to test empirically. Watsons
and Rayners experiment of Little Albert can be criticised for being unethical due to the
psychological distress caused to the infant. As well as this the results cannot be generalised
as they only represent the subjective experience of Little Albert himself. Due to the inability
to ethically scientifically test this explanation causality is hard to determine.
Still, a strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it is supported by
evidence. DiNardo found that 56% of people with a dog phobia had a previous traumatic
experience with a dog. However, this still doesn’t account for the 44% with a dog phobia
who had not experience trauma and suggests that this explanation may lack explanatory
power.
Mowrer suggested the two-process model explanation for phobias. This suggests that
phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant
conditioning. For example a phobia of dogs may have been acquired through the association
of dogs (the neural stimulus) with being bitten (the unconditioned stimulus) producing the
response of fear (unconditioned response), this led to the dog becoming the conditioned
stimulus producing the conditioned response of fear. This phobia was then maintained
through operant conditioning as seeing a dog made the person nervous and so avoiding
dogs negatively reinforced the phobia. A real-life example of this is Watson and Rayners
case study of Little Albert where they conditioned a phobia of white rats by pairing white
rats with a loud noise causing the fear response. Little Alberts fear generalised to other
animals such as a white rabbit, also causing the fear response.
One limitation of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it doesn’t explain why some
phobias are more common between family members. For example, Ost found that 62% of
people with a blood injection phobia had a first degree relative with the same phobia
however this phobia was only present in 3% of the population suggesting an underlying
biological element to phobias. This implies that phobias cannot be completely explained via
the behaviourist approach and that there may be some underlying biologically inherited
factor making a person more likely to develop a phobia.
However, a strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it has practical
application. Systematic desensitisation and flooding are both effective treatments of
phobias. In fact Wolpe found that 80-90% saw improvements after 24-30 sessions of
systematic desensitisation showing the effectiveness of these therapies. This is positive of
this explanation of phobias.
A limitation of this explanation of phobias is that it is unethical to test empirically. Watsons
and Rayners experiment of Little Albert can be criticised for being unethical due to the
psychological distress caused to the infant. As well as this the results cannot be generalised
as they only represent the subjective experience of Little Albert himself. Due to the inability
to ethically scientifically test this explanation causality is hard to determine.
Still, a strength of the behaviourist explanation of phobias is that it is supported by
evidence. DiNardo found that 56% of people with a dog phobia had a previous traumatic
experience with a dog. However, this still doesn’t account for the 44% with a dog phobia
who had not experience trauma and suggests that this explanation may lack explanatory
power.
