THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH TO EXPLAINING PHOBIAS
AO1
Classical conditioning + operant conditioning
Orval Hobart Mowrer (1960) argued that phobias are learned by classical conditioning and then maintained by operant conditioning i.e. two processes are involved
How they acquired the phobia through classical conditioning
UCS triggers a fear response (fear is a UCR) e.g. being bitten creates anxiety
NS is associated with the UCS e.g. being bitten by a dog (the dog previously did not create anxiety
Classical conditioning involves association
NS becomes CS producing fear (which is now the CR) The dog becomes a CS causing a CR of anxiety/fear following the bite
Little Albert conditioned fear
Watson and Raynor (1920) showed how a fear of rats could be conditioned in 'little albert'
Whenever Albert played with a white rat, a loud noise was made close to his ear. The noise (UCS) caused a fear response (UCR)
Albert showed a fear response (CR) every time he came into contact with the rat (now a CS)
Rat (NS) did not create fear until the bang and the rat had been paired together several times
Generalisation of fear to other stimuli
For example, Little Albert also showed a fear in response to other white furry objects including a fur coat and a Santa Claus mask
Maintenance by operant conditioning (negative reinforcement)
Operant conditioning takes place when our behaviour is reinforced or punished
Negative reinforcement - an individual produces behaviour that avoids something unpleasant
When a phobic avoids a phobic stimulus they escape the anxiety that would have been experienced
This reduction in fear negatively reinforces the avoidance behaviour and the phobia is maintained
Example of negative reinforcement
If someone has morbid fear of clowns (coulrophobia) they will avoid circuses and other situations where they may encounter clowns
The relief felt from avoiding clowns negatively reinforces the phobia and ensures it is maintained rather than confronted
AO3
TWO PROCESS MODEL IS AN INCOMPLETE EXPLANATION
We easily acquire phobias of things that were a danger in our evolutionary past e.g. fear of snakes or the dark. This is biological prepardeness - we are innately prepared to fear some things more than others
The phenomenon of biological preparedness is a problem for the two process model because it shows there is more to aquiring phobias than simple conditioning
Even if we accept that classical and operant conditioning are involved in the development and maintenance of phobias, there are some aspects of phobia behaviour that require further explaining
NOT ALL BAD EXPERIENCES LEAD TO PHOBIAS
However, sometimes people have bad experiences, such as being bitten by a dog and don't develop a phobia, DiNardo et al 1988
This suggests that conditioning alone cannot explain phobias. They may only develop where a vulnerability exists
Sometimes phobias do appear following a bad experience and it is easy to see how they could be the result of conditioning
IT HAS GOOD EXPLANATORY POWER
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
It has important implications for therapy. If a patient is prevented from practising their avoidance behaviour then phobic behaviour declines
This application to therapy is a strength of the two process model
The two-process model went beyond Watson and Rayner's simple classical conditioning explanation of phobias
Research support - Little Albert, Pavlov's dogs
This shows behaviour can be learnt through classical and operant conditioning
It is likely that phobias can be learnt in the same way