Outline and Evaluate the Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias PDF

Preview

Summary

SHORT ESSAY ON EXPLAINING PHOBIAS...

Description

Outline and Evaluate the Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias The behavioural approach looks at the two process model, saying that we acquire phobias through classical conditioning, and maintain them through operant conditioning. We acquire them first by having a neutral stimulus such as a dog, which produces no response. Then the UCS (being bitten) gives an UCR (fear). Then during conditioning NS (dog) + UCS (bitten) gives UCR (fear). After conditioning CS (dog) gives CR (fear). If the conditioned stimulus is continually presented without the UCS then the conditioned response dies out, called extinction. Similarly, if the conditioned response is only produced by presenting the original stimulus, then there is discrimination. On the other hand, if the extension of the conditioned response has generalized to similar stimuli and situations, this is called generalization. If the CR is not reinforced and extinction occurs there may be spontaneous recovery. Operant conditioning is used to explain the maintaining of phobias. This is using either punishment or reinforcement. When an individual sees the stimulus, such as a dog, they will feel fear which is an example of punishment. This reduces the likelihood of them going near the dog again. If they avoid the dog, they will be rewarded by feeling calmer. This increases the likelihood of avoidance. The two process model explains how phobias could be maintained over time. This has had important implications for therapies, explaining why some patients need to be exposed to the feared stimulus; it has helped develop effective treatments, including systematic desensitization and flooding. SD helps people unlearn their fears using classical conditioning and flooding stops negative reinforcement occurring. Therefore, the therapies have successfully treated many people suffering from phobias, supporting the explanation and suggesting that it has useful application in therapies. Despite this, the approach ignores biology, as it is rare to develop fears of recently existing items such as cars, compared to snakes, which have been around a long time. This is because we are biologically prepared to learn fear responses to snakes, for example. They pose a threat, or may have for our ancestors, implying evolution has influenced our reactions. This would explain why people are less likely to develop fears of modern objects like cars that are more of a threat than spiders. This is supported by Bregman who failed to condition a fear of wooden blocks in infants, suggesting living animals must be used. Thus, acquiring phobias is more complex than simple conditioning, as suggested by this approach. Furthermore, it is reductionist as it only accounts for behavioural factors; evidence from Bregman showed this is not always accountable for phobias, and thus suggests the approach is limited in its understanding. Furthermore, it ignores cognitive factors; some aspects of phobias cannot be explained using behaviourism. For example, an irrational thought creates anxiety and may trigger a phobia; methods like CBT can help eradicate these beliefs and leads to more successful treatment. Thus, behaviourism cannot be used to solely explain phobias. There is evidence to suggests that some avoidance behaviour is more motivated by positive feelings of safety. This is suggested by Buck who gives the example that people with social anxiety phobias can venture into public, but only with a trusted friend, despite being exposed to many strangers, which would usually trigger the anxiety. The two-process model suggests that avoidance is motivated by anxiety reduction, thus Mowrer’s explanation of phobias is incomplete, and only applicable for some people....