behavioural explanations for phobias Flashcards
(8 cards)
intro
Behaviourism
• All behaviour is learnt via interaction with our environment.
• Classical Conditioning
• Operant Conditioning
Orval Mowrer (1947)-phobias are learnt and maintained through operant and classical conditioning-two process model
classical conditioning:acquisition
Phobias are acquired through an association.
• Classical conditioning.
• NS is associated with an US
• Produces a CS and CR.
• Watson & Raynor (1920) - Little Albert
• Conditioned Little Albert to be afraid of the white rat.- Every time Albert went to reach for rat they would make loud banging behind Albert.
-noise is US which creates an UCR of fear. When rat(NS) and UCS are encountered close together in time the NS becomes associated with the UCS and both now produce the fear response. Rat now CS and produced a CR.
-Conditioning then generalised to similar objects-eg furry objects like non-white rabbit.
examples of classical conditioning
• Being bitten (UCS) produces fear (UCR)
• Dog (NS) associated with being bitten (UCS)
• Dog (CS) produces fear (CR)
Another example:
• Social situations after having a panic attack when out.
stimulus generalisation
scared of associated things in general eg rat-fluffy things
operant conditioning:maintenance
-avoidance of/ escape from stimulus
-rewarding->negative reinforcement
-behaviour that is rewarded is repeated/learned
Responses acquired by classical conditioning usually tend to decline over time. However, phobias are often long-lasting. Mower has explained this as the result of operant conditioning.
Operant conditioning takes place when our behaviour is reinforced (rewarded) or punished Reinforcement tends to increase the frequency of a behaviour. This is true of both negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement. In the case of negative reinforcement an individual avoids a situation that is unpleasant. Such a behaviour results in a desirable consequence, which means the behaviour will be repeated
Mower suggested that whenever we avoid a phobic stimulus we successfully escape the fear and anxiety that we would have experienced if we had remained there. This reduction in fear reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained.
strength-application to therapy
One strength of the two-process model is its real-world application in exposure therapies (such as systematic desensitisation, described on the next spread).
The distinctive element of the two-process model is the idea that phobias are maintained by avoidance of the phobic stimulus. This is important in explaining why people with phobias benefit from being exposed to the phobic stimulus. Once the avoidance behaviour is prevented it ceases to be reinforced by the experience of anxiety reduction and avoidance therefore declines.
In behavioural terms the phobia is the avoidance behaviour so when this avoidance is prevented the phobia is cured.
This shows the value of the two-process approach because it identifies a means of treating phobias.
strength-research support for classical conditioning
A further strength of the two-process model is evidence for a link between bad experiences and phobias.
The Little Albert study (facing page) illustrates how a frightening experience involving a stimulus can lead to a phobia of that stimulus. More systematic evidence comes from a study by Ad De Jongh et al. (2006) who found that 73% of people with a fear of dental treatment had experienced a traumatic experience, mostly involving dentistry (others had experienced being the victim of violent crime). This can be compared to a control group of people with low dental anxiety where only 21% had experienced a traumatic event.
This confirms that the association between stimulus (dentistry) and an unconditioned response (pain) does lead to the development of the phobia.
Counterpoint Not all phobias appear following a bad experience. In fact some common phobias such as snake phobias occur in populations where very few people have any experience of snakes let alone traumatic experiences. Also, considering the other direction, not all frightening experiences lead to phobias.
This means that the association between phobias and frightening experiences is not as strong as we would expect if behavioural theories provided a complete explanation and explained every case.
weakness-avoids cognitive aspects to phobias
One limitation of the two-process model is that it does not account for the cognitive aspects of phobias.
Behavioural explanations, including the two-process model, are geared towards explaining behaviour. In the case of phobias the key behaviour is avoidance of the phobic stimulus. However, we know that phobias are not simply avoidance responses - they also have a significant cognitive component.
For example people hold irrational beliefs about the 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.
This means that the two-process model does not completely explain the symptoms of phobias.
