Behavioural approach to explaining phobias
The two-process model
- By Mowrer.
- Focuses on behavioural approach- phobias are learned and
maintained.
Acquisition by classical conditioning
- Neutral stimulus is associated with fear, then becomes a phobic
object.
- Example by Watson and Rayner.
→ Little Albert, 9 months old.
→ Created a phobia of white rats for Albert.
→ Iron bar noise (UCS) = Fear (UCR)
→ UCS=Rat (NS) repeatedly paired.
- Rat (CS)= Fear (CR)- which was generalised to all white fluffy
objects.
Maintenance of operant conditioning
- Avoidance of stimulus acts as negative reinforcer (reward=reduction
of anxiety), this then reinforces the avoidance response.
Evaluation- Good explanatory power
- Holds important implications for therapies as the knowledge of how
phobias are maintained.
- Explains why patients need to be exposed to phobic stimulus in
order to eliminate phobia.
Evaluation- Alternative explanation for avoidance behaviour
- Suggests avoidance responses are motivated by anxiety reduction.
- HOWEVER, Buck suggests they are just as much motivated by the
safety factor.
→ E.g. Where agoraphobics tried to leave the house, they could
do it with low levels of anxiety if they were with a trusted
person.
→ Problem= suggests avoidance is motivated by anxiety
reduction.
Evaluation- Incomplete explanation of phobias
- Evolutionary factors have an important role in phobias- two-process
model doesn’t explain this.
- Seligman identified ‘biological preparedness’ as the innate
predisposition to acquire certain fears.
The two-process model
- By Mowrer.
- Focuses on behavioural approach- phobias are learned and
maintained.
Acquisition by classical conditioning
- Neutral stimulus is associated with fear, then becomes a phobic
object.
- Example by Watson and Rayner.
→ Little Albert, 9 months old.
→ Created a phobia of white rats for Albert.
→ Iron bar noise (UCS) = Fear (UCR)
→ UCS=Rat (NS) repeatedly paired.
- Rat (CS)= Fear (CR)- which was generalised to all white fluffy
objects.
Maintenance of operant conditioning
- Avoidance of stimulus acts as negative reinforcer (reward=reduction
of anxiety), this then reinforces the avoidance response.
Evaluation- Good explanatory power
- Holds important implications for therapies as the knowledge of how
phobias are maintained.
- Explains why patients need to be exposed to phobic stimulus in
order to eliminate phobia.
Evaluation- Alternative explanation for avoidance behaviour
- Suggests avoidance responses are motivated by anxiety reduction.
- HOWEVER, Buck suggests they are just as much motivated by the
safety factor.
→ E.g. Where agoraphobics tried to leave the house, they could
do it with low levels of anxiety if they were with a trusted
person.
→ Problem= suggests avoidance is motivated by anxiety
reduction.
Evaluation- Incomplete explanation of phobias
- Evolutionary factors have an important role in phobias- two-process
model doesn’t explain this.
- Seligman identified ‘biological preparedness’ as the innate
predisposition to acquire certain fears.
