Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Psychopathology - Behavioural Approach to Phobias (Evaluation of…
Psychopathology - Behavioural Approach to Phobias
Explanation: 2 Process Model
classical conditioning: acquisition of phobias
neutral stimulus triggers no response
unconditioned stimulus triggers unconditioned fear response
NS becomes associated with a UCS which triggers UCR
NS becomes the conditioned stimulus and triggers the conditioned fear response without the unconditioned stimulus
operant conditioning: maintenance of phobias
fear response is reinforced which makes the individual more likely to repeat the fear response (e.g. avoidance behaviour)
most likely maintained through negative reinforcement as behaviour removes discomfort and anxiety and encourages avoidance behaviour to occur again
phobia becomes resistant as the avoidant behaviour means the phobic will be unlikely to confront fear
Evaluation of Explanation
Supporting evidence
:red_flag: DiGallo et al: supports classical conditioning. reported around 20% of people experiencing traumatic car accidents developed a phobia of car travelling. NS of car became associated with fear response to a crash.
:red_flag: DiGallo et al: further supported operant conditioning as people tended to stay home rather than travel. avoidant behaviour was negatively reinforced
:red_flag: Watson and Rayner: Little Albert, paired white rat (NS) with loud sound (UCS) to create a fear response to the white rat
Strengths
treatments for phobias based on the 2 process model have been proven very effective
Weaknesses
not everybody who experiences a traumatic event develops a phobia
reductionist approach: reduces the causes of phobias to simple stimulus-response associations
doesn't take into account influence of biology (e.g. genes)
:red_flag: Bounton: criticised 2 stage model for not taking into account evolutionary explanations for development/maintenance (e.g. safety)
Treatment:
Systematic Desensitisation
classical conditioning
aims to cause extinction of the fear response and replace it with feelings of calm and relaxation
stage 1:
relaxation training (teaches individual how to relax using muscle and breathing techniques)
stage 2:
heirarchy construction (graded series of anxiety provoking situations from least anxiety to most)
includes
in vitro
desensitisation (imagined situations) and
in vivo
desensitisation (real life)
stage 3:
treatment (working through heirarchy whilst practicing stage 1)
if client starts to feel fear/no relaxation, client + patient move back a step and try again. complete once able to finish entire hierarchy without fear
reciprocal inhibition: not physically being able to experience a fear response and relaxation at the same time (fear response will disappear if stage 1 is maintained)
usually takes a month to complete
Flooding
involves instant, full exposure to the most feared scenario rather than a step-by-step process
usually in vivo, as it can he hard to maintain imagination of in vitro
the client is prevented from the fear response, extreme anxiety experiences cannot physically be maintained at high levels for long. eventually subsides and disappears.
Evaluation of Treatment
Supporting evidence
:red_flag: Brosnan and Thorpe: SD is effective in treating technophobia. reduction of anxiety was 3x greater in treated patients
:red_flag: Wolpe: found same for flooding in reference to a phobia of cars
:red_flag: Barlow: made reports that flooding was equally as effective as SD, but SD is better tolerated by patients
Strengths
long-term benefits outweigh short-term costs of distress
Weaknesses
SD and flooding raise ethical issues as it involves exposing patients to things that cause psychological harm. flooding can also cause physical harm
behavioural treatments such as SD and flooding are not effective for all types of phobias
use of in vitro desensitisation has limitations as learning to cope with imagined fears does not mean patients can do so in real life