Behavioural Approaches in explaining phobias
CORE IDEAS: phobias learnt through conditioning or social learning.
A01
A02
Classical Conditioning: Phobias can be acquired through by pairing a NS with something that really causes pain.
Background knowledge – just to recap: PAVLOV’S DOG (don’t include Pavlov in phobia answers as it’s not about phobias!).
Associative learning was first demonstrated when Pavlov was studying canine digestive processes. He discovered that they salivated before they received their food; in fact, after repeated pairing of the lab attendant and food, the dogs
started to salivate at the sight of the lab assistants! He said the dogs were not only responding to a biological need (hunger), but also a need developed by learning. He did a similar thing by pairing a BELL (neutral stimulus or NS) with
food (unconditioned stimulus or UCS) and after numerous repetitions turned the NS into the CS (conditioned stimulus); ultimately turning the unconditioned (reflexive) salivation into a conditioned response.
A01…
A02…
Include the following…
Empirical Evidence

In Classical conditioning, fears are acquired when an individual associates a
One strength of the classical conditioning explanation is that there is empirical evidence to support
neutral stimulus e.g a fluffy bunny with a fear response. This was demonstrated
its claim that phobias can develop through association. For example, Sue et al (1994) found that
people with phobias often recall a specific incident when their phobia appeared e.g. being bitten by
by Watson & Rayner (1921) who experimented on an 11-month-old infant ‘Little
Albert’. The goal was to condition Albert to fear a white rat by pairing the white
a dog or experiencing a panic attack in a social situation. This supports classical conditioning
rat (NS) with a loud bang (UCS). Initially, Albert showed no fear of rats, but once
because it verifies the suggestion that phobias occur when a person associates a previously neutral
stimuli (e.g. a dog) with a fear response. As a result this strengthens this explanation and its
the rat was repeatedly paired with the loud noise (UCS), Albert developed a fear
of rats (CS). The noise (UCS) induced fear (UCR). After pairings between the loud
explanatory power in explaining phobias.
noise (UCS) and the rat (NS), Albert started to fear (CR) the rat (CS). Watson
Diathesis-Stress Model
showed that classical conditioning could cause phobias.
However, not everyone who has a phobia can recall such an incident, though it may be that such
traumatic incidents have been repressed (Ost, 2001). For example, Di Nardo (1998) suggests that

Furthermore, Bagby (1922) reports of a 7 year old girl who trapped her foot between some large rocks and experienced great
pain and terror. Whilst trapped, she could hear a nearby waterfall and later became so terrified of running water she had to
not everyone who is bitten by a dog develops a phobia of dogs. It could be that only those with a
genetic vulnerability for phobias would be affected by such events (diathesis-stress model).
be held down to be bathed and dared not look out of the window of a train for fear of seeing a stream. By classical
conditioning the running water has become associated with the extreme fear response which was originally caused by being
Therefore this reduces the support for classical conditioning as an explanation for phobias which
reduces the credibility of it overall because it doesn’t offer a full explanation.
painfully trapped.

Phobia responses can be permanent unless we go through the extinction process, where one must confront the fear without
the presence of the UCS. Little Albert’s phobia could have been extinguished by repeatedly exposing him to the white rat
without the loud bang. Another way to extinguish a phobia is through counter-conditioning where the CS is paired with a
pleasant stimulus. Little Albert could have extinguished his phobia just with food!
NB – you must link in MAID here where appropriate
Operant Conditioning: Phobias can be acquired through operant conditioning by reinforcement

Phobias can be learned through operant conditioning by repeatedly reinforcing avoidance of a mildly fearful situation. For
example, if a person has a mild fear of flying and his/her spouse agrees to drive instead of fly, the person's fear of flying has
been reinforced and may develop into a phobia.

Phobias can be maintained by operant conditioning through negative reinforcement. When a person is confronted with the
object or situation of his/her phobia, the person tends to get anxious and avoid the object or situation. The anxiety is
reduced, but by avoiding the object or situation, the avoidance behaviour is negatively reinforced and the phobia is
maintained. For example, a person who has a phobia of flying will maintain that phobia until he/she flies.

Furthermore, Mower (1947) proposed the Two-Process theory, suggesting that phobias are acquired through 1) Classical
conditioning (where the fear is established) and 2) maintained through operant conditioning. For example, 1) a person goes
to a party throws up and gets humiliated. They associate humiliation with parties. 2) When they are confronted with future
parties, they become anxious and avoids them. As a result, their anxiety is reduced, but by avoiding parties, the avoidance
behaviour is negatively reinforced (makes their avoidance of parties stronger by taking away a negative stimulus – anxiety).
As a result, their social phobia is maintained and they avoid future parties.
Application of the two-process theory: Freuds’ case study - ‘Little Hans’
One strength of the two-process theory is that it can be applied to the famous Freudian Little Hans
experience of phobias. For example, Hans’ reported that his fear of horses started when he saw an
accident with a horse. The horse (NS) falls down and makes a noise. This noise constitutes danger
which is an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that automatically produces an unconditioned response
(UCR) – a fear reaction. The UCS (noise and danger) is associated with the horse which has now
become a conditioned stimulus (CS) producing the conditioned response (CR) of fear. This
represents stage 1, classical conditioning. Furthermore, Hans now stays at home to avoid seeing
horses which reduces his anxiety. Therefore this behaviour is negatively reinforced and his phobia
of horses is maintained. This represents stage 2 of the two-process theory – operant conditioning.
This means that the explanatory power of the two-process theory is strengthened and provides a
credible explanation in the development of phobias.
NB – you must link in MAID here where appropriate
Social Learning Theory: Phobias are developed through indirect or vicarious reinforcement. (OROM)
Social learning theory argues that rather than DIRECT experience leading to phobia development, that INDIRECT or
One strength of the behavioural approach is that the role of social learning has been demonstrated
associated vicarious learning can be the cause. Here, imitating what we see a role model do is the key. The 4 main areas are
experimentally. For example, Bandura and Rosenthal (1966) showed that an observer, who
watched a model apparently experiencing pain every time a buzzer sounded, later demonstrated an
observing the feared behaviour, remembering it, having the opportunity to reproduce the feared behaviour and then the
motivation to do it (vicarious reinforcement). For example, seeing a parent responding to a spider with extreme fear may lead
emotional reaction to that sound. This appears to show that phobias can also be learnt via
a child to acquire a similar behaviour because the behaviour appears rewarding i.e. the fearful person gets attention.
observation, and that direct experience of a traumatic event is not always necessary for the
development of fear associations. This strengthens the support for social learning theory as an

There is a lot of evidence to support this argument. Cook & Mineka, for instance, studied infant rhesus monkeys and found
explanation for phobias and as a result its credibility overall.
that their fear of snakes was correlated with having observed their parent interacting fearfully with real and toy snakes.

In another study, Batson found that participants who watched a confederate writhing in pain whenever a buzzer was
NB – you must link in MAID here where appropriate
sounded soon showed a fear response whenever they heard the buzzer!
A02 Behaviourist Approaches overall – contextualised to classical/operant conditioning and Social Learning Theory. THE ALL IMPORTANT MIGHTY MAID!!!! YOU MUST WRITE IN FULL EFFECTIVE PEELs for A02!!!
A nice conclusion…
Overall, the behaviourist approach as an explanation for phobic disorders is good because it is easy to understand as it is a logical process but simple as the same time. There is also lots of supporting evidence which makes it a more reliable
viewpoint. Behaviourist studies are also easy to falsify because we can measure how a person forms a phobia by manipulating their environment – which not only satisfies test-retest reliability requirements but also strengthens the validity
of its claims. However not all people who have a phobia have experienced a trauma – directly or indirectly – so it’s impossible to say that is conditioning or social learning are the only cause. In addition, if the event occurred when a person
was young it’s likely they won’t remember the event at all, which is more suggestive of psychodynamic rather than behaviourist links. Finally, another problem is that many phobias aren’t encountered in real life. For example if a person had
a phobia of snakes but have never come into contact with them they cannot have formed a phobia on the basis of a bad experience; which undermines the ‘direct’ experience argument and weakens explanatory power.

Reductionism
The behaviourist approach can be accused of being a reductionist argument. It reduces the acquisition of phobias down to either conditioning or vicarious reinforcement (SLT). Under classical conditioning, fears are said to be acquired
purely when an individual associates a neutral stimulus with a fear response. With regards to operant conditioning, phobias are reduced to operant conditioning through negative reinforcement. For example, when a person is
confronted with the object/situation of his/her phobia, the person tends to get anxious and avoid the object/situation. The anxiety is reduced, but by avoiding the object/situation the avoidance behaviour is negatively reinforced and the
phobia is maintained. Although being reductionist allows researchers to study phobias in greater depth, it fails to consider the individual as a whole person. It fails to recognise other factors which could cause phobic disorders such as
abnormal levels of neurotransmitters in the body. An aspect of the biological approach states that too little serotonin means we are unable to calm down after a phobic situation and too much dopamine means we over-react to a phobic
situation. By being reductionist, this element of the individual – along with many others is ignored and the whole person is not considered. However, the behaviourist approach also considers social learning theory to explain the onset of
phobias. This theory states that phobias can be acquired through modelling the behaviour of others, especially those who are the same sex role models. Social learning theory incorporates both the behaviourist approach and the
cognitive approach and because of this it can be argued – to an extent, that it is not a reductionist argument. It not only focuses on the person’s behaviour but it also takes into account an individuals thought processes when faced with
a fearful situation and how their irrational thinking can make them more vulnerable to phobias. In conclusion, it can be said that the behaviourist approach in explaining phobic disorders is a reductionist argument because it reduces all
behaviour down to classical and operant conditioning. However, because it also considers social learning theory, the opposite can be argued to some extent and said to look at the person as more as a whole because it looks at both their
behaviour and cognitions. Nevertheless, a more useful explanation would include the background of the individual, their genetics and their unconscious thoughts – a more interactionist approach, when explaining phobias.
Not Culturally Biased!
One strength of the behaviourist view, is that it is not culturally biased or ethnocentric. This is because the occurrence of phobias can be explained in terms of specific social and cultural attitudes that differ from one social group to
another. For example, Whiting et al (1966) studied the occurrence of phobias in many cultures and concluded they were more common in societies that had a structured form of child-rearing. The reason maybe that due to this stricter,
structured upbringing, this led children to imitate their same sex role models in order to develop their phobias. Or it maybe that children associated being home late with fear (because they were told off), that led to agoraphobia
eventually. This would support the two-process model in terms of classical conditioning (associating the fear) and operant conditioning (avoiding going out, which is negatively reinforced). Therefore this suggests that SLT has wide
applicability in explaining phobias across different cultures.
Ethical considerations.
One problem with the behavioural explanation for explaining phobias is that it poses some ethical issues. Research which has been used to support the explanation mainly involves triggering a phobic reaction. This causes issues with
psychological harm as the participants could become very distressed. This could be overcome through the right to withdraw at any point during the study, and the opportunity for every participant to receive counselling afterwards.
Conducting sensitive research is often questioned however conducting a cost benefit analysis prior to the experiment would enable the researcher to justify the potential harm caused. For example, the participants may experience
some distress, however the findings of the experiment could benefit a much greater number of people who suffer with phobias or prevent phobias. In addition, it can also lead to future research and explanations for the development of
phobias. Therefore, despite the ethical issue which research into the behavioural explanation may pose, the overall benefit may be worth these. This therefore strengthens the credibility of the behavioural explanation for explaining
phobias.
Nature Vs Nurture
The behaviourist explanation in explaining phobias suggests they are down to nurture as opposed to nature. For example, social learning theory states that behaviour is learnt through imitation; therefore phobias can be developed
through copying behaviour. For instance, if a child sees a parent scared of something and screaming, they may then copy this behaviour and scream in fear of the same object. In addition, it could be the result of classical conditioning
which is an association between an unconditioned stimulus e.g. a loud noise and a neutral stimulus e.g. a fluffy rabbit which leads to the conditioned response which is the fear. Alternatively, it could be operant conditioning when there
is a rewarding feeling of safety if the object is avoided (positive reinforcement) or a decrease in anxiety if the object is avoided (negative reinforcement). However, the behaviourist approach does not consider the nature side of the
debate such as the GABA hypothesis. This states that anxiety is developed from a dysfunction of neurones that produce GABA (a natural calming agent in the brain). People with phobias tend to have lower levels of GABA; therefore
they are likely to be more reactive to anxiety provoking situations. Therefore an interactionist approach of both nature and nurture (diathesis stress model) should be considered when explaining the development of phobias.
Exam Question: Discuss Behavioural Explanations of Phobic Disorders (8 + 16 marks) This is 8 A01 marks and 16 A02 marks. Make sure you write double the amount for A02 and link in effective MAID paragraphs where appropriate!!