THEORY & STUDY
Strengths - The Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias:
- There is supporting evidence for the role of classical conditioning in developing phobias. WATSON & RAYNER (1920) conducted an experiment on an 11 month old boy known as Little Albert, a calm child with no fears at the start of the study. They attempted to condition a phobia of rats by presenting Albert with a rat. When he reached for it they struck a steel bar behind his head to make a loud noise. They repeated this 3 times and did the same a week later. After this, when they showed the rat to Albert, he began to cry. They had conditioned a fear response in him using classical conditioning.
- Other studies have found overall mixed evidence for the importance of classical conditioning. DINARDO et al (1988) found that 60% of dog phobics could recall a frightening experience with a dog, supporting the behavioural approach.
- The behavioural approach to phobias has resulted in effective treatment for phobias. These treatments work on the basis that if phobias are learned via conditioning, they can be unlearned in the same way. This useful practical application is an advantage for the theory.
Limitations - The Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias:
- Other studies have found overall mixed evidence for the importance of classical conditioning. Although DINARDO et al (1988) found that 60% of dog phobics could recall a frightening experience with a dog, in a control group of participants without a phobia of dogs, the same percentage reported a frightening experience of dogs! This suggests that some people develop phobias without a frightening association, and also that a frightening association does not cause a phobia in everyone. Such individual differences pose a problem for behaviourism, since the two-process model is unable to explain them. It may be that other factors are involved eg: a genetic vulnerability to developing a phobia.
- The behaviourist approach is unable to explain to explain why some phobias are more common than others. In particular, phobias of spiders, snakes and heights are common, yet frightening experiences with these are uncommon, compared to frightening encounters with threats, such as traffic, knives or electricity (for which phobias are rare!). SELIGMAN (1970) proposed that the two-process model was incorrect in its force on learning as the sole factor causing phobias. Seligman believed that evolutionary factors are also important: we are genetically 'primed' to quickly learn to fear objects and situations that were life threatening to our distant ancestors. Modern day threats haven't had time for us to evolve this response, hence phobias of cars etc. are rare. This suggests that there is more to explaining phobias than simple classical conditioning.
- The two-process model fails to take into account cognitive factors. EG: irrational beliefs may cause a phobia without the need for a frightening encounter.