Posts

Showing posts with the label Explaining Phobias

A final limitation of using the behavioural approach to explain phobias is that not all phobias follow traumas. Explain.

A final limitation of using the behavioural approach to explain phobias is that not all phobias follow traumas. Explain. Some phobias do follow a bad experience, but some develop without one. Some phobias may come about by social learning: child sees their parent frightened of a phobia and so imitate. Behaviour is reinforced by reducing own anxiety and parent's anxiety. Psychodynamic approach may explain phobias with displacement. Possible that phobias are a result of displacement of anxiety onto something more manageable. Alternative explanations suggest that not all phobias are from classical conditioning.

A weakness of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias is that it is an incomplete explanation. Explain.

A weakness of the behavioural approach to explaining phobias is that it is an incomplete explanation. Explain. Even if we accept classical and operant conditioning are involved in phobias, there's still some aspects that require further explanation. Bounton (2007) points out that evolutionary factors have some significance, but two-process model doesn't mention this. E.g. we easily get phobias of things that were dangerous in our evolutionary past like the dark and snakes. It's adaptive to have these fears. Seligman (1971) called this biological preparedness - innate predisposition to acquire such fears. But, it's much more unlikely to have a fear of cars or guns, even though these are more dangerous to us now. This is presumed to be because they haven't existed for long so we're not biologically prepared to learn fear responses to them. This is a problem for the two-process theory as it shows there's more to learning phobias than simple conditioning.

A limitation is that there may be alternative explanations for avoidance behaviour. Explain.

A limitation is that there may be alternative explanations for avoidance behaviour. Explain. Not all avoidance of phobias is the result of anxiety reduction, at least for more complex phobias like agoraphobia. There's some evidence to suggest that some avoidance behaviour appears to be motivated more by positive feelings of safety. Basically, the motivating factor in not wanting to leave the house is not to avoid the phobic stimulus, but to stick with the factor of safety. This explains why some agoraphobics can leave the house with a trusted person with little anxiety, but cannot leave alone (Buck 2010). This is a problem for the two-process model, which suggests that avoidance is motivated by anxiety reduction.

Why does the behavioural approach in explaining phobias have good explanatory power?

Why does the behavioural approach in explaining phobias have good explanatory power? The two-process model was a step forward in 1960 to Watson and Rayner's classical conditioning. It explained how phobias were maintained over time and this had important implications for therapies because it explained why patients needed to be exposed to their phobia. Once someone is prevented from practising their avoidance behaviour, the behaviour stops being reinforced and so declines. Application to therapy is a strength of the two-process model.

Explain the concept of operant conditioning in terms of phobias.

Explain the concept of operant conditioning in terms of phobias. Positive and negative reinforcement encourage our behaviour. In negative reinforcement, someone avoids a situation that's unpleasant. The behaviour results in a desirable consequence, which means the behaviour will be repeated. Mowrer suggest that when we avoid a phobia, we escape the fear and anxiety that would've occurred if we remained there. The reduction of fear reinforces the avoidance behaviour and so the phobia is maintained.

Phobias are long lasting. Why?

Phobias are long lasting. Why? Mowrer said that responses through classical conditioning would decline over time. But, operant conditioning maintained the phobia.

Explain what stimuli and responses were involved in the case of Little Albert.

Explain what stimuli and responses were involved in the case of Little Albert. The noise was an unconditioned stimuli producing an unconditioned response of fear. The rat, the neutral stimulus, was paired with the noise and so Albert associated them together. The unconditioned stimulus - the rat - now produced a fear response. Albert was now afraid of the rat. The rat became a conditioned stimulus that produced the conditioned response of fear.

Explain the case study of Little Albert.

Explain the case study of Little Albert. Watson and Rayner (1920) created a phobia in 9 month old Albert. He showed no anxiety at the start. When he was showed a white rat, he tried to play with it. However, the experimenters tried to give him a phobia: whenever the white rat was present, they'd make a frightening noise by banging an iron bar close to his ear. The conditioning generalised to similar objects like a non-white rabbit, a fur coat, and Watson dressed as Santa. Albert was distressed at all of these.

Who proposed the two-process model and what exactly is it?

Who proposed the two-process model and what exactly is it? Proposed by Mowrer (1960). The two-process model is based on the behavioural approach to phobias. States that phobias are learnt through classical conditioning but maintained through operant conditioning.