EXPLAINING PHOBIAS
Real world application
SD and Flooding are based on the idea of counter conditioning, and breaking down the association between the stimulus and fear, replacing it with a positive association.
these exposure therapies also prevents the ppts from practicing the avoidance response. phobias are maintained by avoidance of the phobic stimulus. once the avoidance behaviour is prevented the behaviour stops being reinforced and therefore the phobic response begins to decline.
the two process models principles have helped develop effective treatments/exposure therapies.
this shows that the two process model is valuable as it helps the treatments of phobias.
Cognitive aspects
the two process model does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias
the two process model focuses on the behavioural elements towards explaining behaviours. the key behaviour in the two process model is the avoidance response of the phobic stimulus.
however, phobias are not just avoidance responses, there is a significant cognitive component . it odes not expose irrational beliefs about about phobic stimulus (such as thinking that a spider is dangerous)
the two process model explains avoidance behaviour but does not offer an adequate explanation for phobic cognitions.
certain stimuli
'Biological preparedness' offers an alternative explanation proposes that animals (including humans) are genetically programmed to rapidly learn an association between life threatening stimulus and fear
these stimuli are know as ancient fears that would of been dangerous in the past and that fear is adaptive to survival
The two process model cannot explain why we seem to be pre-prepared to fear certain stimuli e.g. heights, spiders, snakes
biological preparedness explains why people are less likely to develop fears of modern objects ie. cars which are more of a threat than spiders.
behavioural explanations cannot fully explain the development of phobias
research support
the case of little albert (Warson and Rayner 1920s) supports the two process model as they were able to condition Albert to develop a fear of white fluffy animals/objects by pairing a previously neutral stimulus (white rat) with an anxiety provoking stimulus, a UCS (a loud noise)
ethical issues
there is research support for the role of classical conditioning in the acquisition on phobias
the two process model - 1960
acquisition by classical conditioning
Maintenance of operant conditioning
the behavioural approach emphasises the role of learning in the acquisition of behaviour
Watson and Rayner (1920) created a phobia in a 9 month old baby called 'little albert'. whenever the rat (no initial signs of anxiety) was presented to albert the researchers made a loud frightening noise.
the noise is an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which creates an unconditioned response (UCR). when the rat (NS) and the UCS are encountered close together, the NS become associated with the UCS and both now produce the fear response.
classical conditioning involves learning to associate something of which we initially have no fear - neutral stimulus - with something that already triggers a fear response - unconditioned stimulus
the rat is now learned or conditioned stimulus (CS) and produces a conditioned response (CR)
the condition then generalised to similar objects
this is true of both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement
in the case of negative reinforcement an individual avoids a situation that is unpleasant. this results in a desirable consequence, which means the behaviour will repeated
operant conditioning takes place when our behaviour is reinforced or punished. reinforcement increases the frequency of a behaviour.
if we avoid a phobic stimulus we successfully escape the fear and anxiety that we would of have experienced if we had remained there. this reduction in fear reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained