Phobia And Classical Conditioning

According to the DSM V, a phobia is a type of anxiety disorder characterised by an excessive and persistent fear that is displayed by the presence of a phobic stimulus. A phobia is defined as an irrational fear of an objectively ‘harmless’ stimulus or situation. Phobias can be categorised into three types; agoraphobia, social phobia and specific phobias. In particular a specific (simple) phobia is a fear of a distinct object or situation, they typically occur during childhood/adolescence (Magee et al, 1996). Simple phobias can be further categorised into five types for example, animals or natural environment. This essay will evaluate the extent to which behaviourism can explain the development of a phobia and contrast it against an evolutionary perspective- preparedness theory. In addition, it will evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural treatments using research as evidence.

Firstly, the behavioural approach assumes that all behaviour is learnt through stimulus response associations and through interactions with our environment. Phobias are learnt through a process known as classical conditioning; a phobic stimulus is paired with a traumatic event. The most acknowledged example is ('Little Albert'), primarily the boy showed no fear of any objects such as rabbits, monkeys, masks (CS). The next time the rat was presented with a loud noise (US) causing him to cry (UR), after frequently pairing these two stimuli Albert began to cry (CR) at just the sight of a rat. Suggesting that phobias are the result of conditioned fear. Generalisation can also occur, stimuli which are similar to the phobic stimulus can also produce a fear response, Little Albert was also afraid of rabbits and Santa’s beard. Following this, Mower proposed the two-process theory- this was the idea that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning (negative reinforcement), by avoiding the phobic stimulus the fear associated is averted, therefore this behaviour is more likely to be repeated and prevent extinction of the conditioned fear.

Research by (Yule, Udwin, & Murdoch, 1990) compared twenty-five girls who survived a sinking cruise ship with three control groups of girls. They were all were asked to complete a fear survey schedule, the findings showed that the group of survivors were more fearful of ships and also had additional fears to swimming and water, their fear of ships had also been generalised to fear of other types of transport. Further research was also led by (Dollinger, 1984) a fear survey was given to a group of control children and twenty-nine child survivors of lightning strikes, the survivors again showed intense fear of thunderstorms and lightening. These pieces of research support the idea that one negative experience can cause extreme fear of the traumatic and relating stimuli.

However, there are criticisms about this approach, conditioning relies on a traumatic event in order to produce an irrational fear, but it has been argued that not all phobias are caused by one. Research by (Davey, 1992) found that many spider and snake phobics have no recollection of an aversive conditioning incident. This is further supported by (Menzies & Clarke, 1993) who also found that water phobics have no memory of a traumatic experience, 56% of parents stated that their child’s apprehension to water had always been present since their first contact with water and only one parent could recall classical conditioning events. In addition to this, not all fearful situations result in a phobia, (Liddell & Lyons, 1978) studied 10 females who experienced extreme thunderstorms during their childhood and found that none of them had a phobia, although many did report related sensitiveness such as an overreaction to abrupt loud noises. Similarly, (Aitken, Lister, & Main, 1981) found no significant difference when they compared two groups of aircrews, there was a control group and another group which had had treatment for high anxiety levels when flying. These pieces of evidence show that a traumatic event is not always necessary for the development of a phobia.

On the other hand, the development of phobias can be explained from an evolutionary perspective known as the preparedness theory - particular stimulus response associations are evolutionally predisposed to produce fear responses in certain animals. This theory was proposed by (Seigman, 1971) and was an adaption of the conditioning model. The main assumptions of the theory are; neutral stimuli operate along a continuum of biological predispositions certain stimuli are more likely to become phobic than others. Secondly, preparedness is a result of evolution and natural selection, stimuli which are highly prepared are those deemed as dangerous (snakes and spiders). Lastly, phobias develop through classical conditioning a previous neutral stimulus is paired with an unconditioned stimulus to produce a conditioned response. This theory helps explain the uneven distribution of phobias for example, why fears of spiders are much more common than fears of plug sockets. Research into this was conducted by (Ohman et al, 1971) they compared classical conditioning of electrodermal responses with fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant stimuli. Images of neutral stimuli such as mushrooms and flowers and images of common phobias such as snakes and spiders were paired with mild electric shocks. It was predicted that the fear of the snake should be more resistant to cognitive influences, extinction and fear should be attained more quickly. During the extinction period common phobic stimuli still produced fear whilst neutral stimuli did not, suggesting extinction of conditioned fear is much lower in contrast to fear-irrelevant stimuli. This implies that we may be predisposed to acquire phobias to objects or situations that pose danger or are a threat to survival.

The principles of classical conditioning can also be used to explain the treatments for phobias. There are two main types; systematic desensitisation and flooding the intention of these are to replace a person’s phobia with a relaxation response. (Wolpe, 1958) used Mowrer’s two-process theory to develop systematic desensitisation. Patients work with a therapist to produce a fear hierarchy, next the patient is taught various relaxation methods such as muscle relaxation strategies and breathing techniques. The final stage is where the patient works through the hierarchy overcoming each stage using the relaxation methods until they are calm with the most feared stimuli. Systematic desensitisation works because of reciprocal inhibition- a person cannot feel anxious and relaxed at the same time therefore, eventually the fear is extinguished.

A strength is there is evidence to support the effectiveness this comes from (McGarth et al, 1990) they found 75% of patients with phobias had been successfully treated. It also produces long term effects for phobias (Gillroy et al, 2002) 42 patients with arachnophobia participated in three forty-five-minute sessions, they were examined three and thirty-three months after and it was found that the group were less fearful than the control group. However, a limitation of systematic desensitisation is that it’s not effective at treating evolutionary phobias for example, heights are believed to be a result of evolution as it provides a survival advantage as opposed to a personal experience through classical conditioning, therefore systematic desensitisation is ineffective in all types of phobia.

In addition, the other type of behavioural therapy is flooding, this is an extreme version of systematic desensitisation, rather than a gradual build up to the phobic stimulus the person is exposed to most feared stimulus straight away, as a result anxiety levels decline as they are unable to negatively reinforce their phobia. Flooding has shown to have some success (Marks, 1975) found that it was a rapid and effective procedure. This is further supported by (Keane et al, 1989) soldiers who suffered from PTSD received fourteen to sixteen flooding sessions and were tested before and after six months later for symptoms. The results showed that the flooding group experienced fewer distressing flashbacks as well as a reduction in anxiety and depression compared to the control group.

Nevertheless, it has been argued that flooding can be considered as unethical because of the high levels of anxiety it produces, (Wolpe, 1969) reported an incident with a patient who experienced such extreme levels of anxiety that she had to be hospitalised. Although, flooding has shown some success a study was done by (Willis & Edwards, 1969) using fifty-five female students, which assessed the effectiveness of these therapies; there were three treatment groups systematic desensitisation, flooding and a control. Six measures were used to assess the effectiveness and follow-up study was conducted two months later after finishing the treatment. The results implied flooding was significantly less effective than systematic desensitisation in reducing avoidant behaviour linked with mice. Furthermore, flooding was no more effective than control actions.

In summary, this essay has considered the behaviourist approach to explaining the development of phobias - the principle of classical conditioning is fundamental, learning through stimulus-response associations. Furthermore, behaviourism has provided a strong basis which allowed two major therapies to arise; systematic desensitisation and flooding. In addition, research has been used effectively to highlight strengths, despite conflicting evidence no approach is faultless as demonstrated through an evolutionary perspective.

References

1. Aitken, R. C. B., Lister, J. A., & Main, C. J. (1981). Identification of features associated with flying phobia in aircrew. British Journal of Psychiatry, 139(1), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.139.1.38
2. Behaviourism Phobias - Psychology4A.com. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from http://www.psychology4a.com/behaviourism-phobias.html
3. Classical Conditioning | Simply Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html#little
4. Coelho, C. M., & Purkis, H. (2009). The Origins of Specific Phobias: Influential Theories and Current Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017759
5. Field, A. P. (2006). Is conditioning a useful framework for understanding the development and treatment of phobias? ☆. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.05.010
6. Flooding - PSYCHOLOGY WIZARD. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from http://www.psychologywizard.net/flooding.html
7. King, N. J., Muris, P., & Ollendick, T. H. (n.d.). Childhood Fears and Phobias: Assessment and Treatment.
8. Liddell, A., & Lyons, M. (1978). Thunderstorm phobias. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 16(4), 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(78)90035-9
9. Magee, W. J., Eaton, W. W., Wittchen, H. U., McGonagle, K. A., & Kessler, R. C. (1996). Agoraphobia, simple phobia, and social phobia in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830020077009
10. McNally, R. J., & Reiss, S. (1982). The preparedness theory of phobias and human safety-signal conditioning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(82)90114-0
11. Menzies, R. G., & Clarke, J. C. (1993). The etiology of childhood water phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31(5), 499–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(93)90131-D
12. PsycNET. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1985-14598-001
13. Treating Phobias - Systematic Desensitisation | Psychology | tutor2u. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/treating-phobias-systematic-desensitisation
14. Willis, R. W., & Edwards, J. A. (1969). A study of the comparative effectiveness of systematic desensitization and implosive therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 7(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(69)90069-2
15. Yule, W., Udwin, O., & Murdoch, K. (1990). The ‘Jupiter’ Sinking: Effects on Children’s Fears, Depression and Anxiety. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(7), 1051–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00845.x