Learning Theories and Phobias (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Learning Theories and Phobias
Introduction to phobias
A phobia represents an extreme and disabling fear response to a specific object, location, scenario, sensation, or creature. According to the NHS (2015), phobias constitute anxiety disorders characterised by complex behavioural patterns that produce wide-ranging emotional and social consequences. Estimates suggest approximately 10 million individuals in the UK experience some form of phobia.
Phobias can be categorised into three main types:
- Specific phobia: Fear responses directed towards particular animals (e.g., snakes), inanimate objects, heights, or illness/injury (e.g., cancer)
- Social phobia: Anxiety associated with social interactions, such as eating in public spaces or public speaking
- Agoraphobia: Fear of assemblies or crowded environments
The three main phobia types can be remembered using the mnemonic "SSA": Specific, Social, and Agoraphobia. Each type involves distinct fear triggers and affects individuals differently, though all share the common feature of producing overwhelming anxiety responses.
Explanatory approaches to phobias
Learning theories, including those examined earlier in this topic, provide one framework for understanding phobias. However, multiple factors may contribute to phobia development, including biological predispositions (genetic composition), personality characteristics, and cognitive approaches involving unconscious fears and distorted cognition.
The focus here examines how three learning theories—classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning theory—account for phobia acquisition and maintenance.
Classical conditioning as an explanation for phobias
Classical conditioning offers an explanation for how phobias are initially acquired. This process involves pairing a neutral stimulus (one that does not naturally provoke fear) with an unconditioned stimulus (one that naturally produces fear), ultimately creating an unconditioned response.
Worked Example: Classical Conditioning in Action
Consider how a person might develop a fear of wind:
Step 1: A loud noise such as a slamming door (unconditioned stimulus) typically causes people to jump (unconditioned response).
Step 2: When an individual repeatedly hears wind howling (neutral stimulus) before a door slams, they begin to associate the wind with the frightening noise.
Step 3: Eventually, they may begin to jump upon hearing the wind alone, as they anticipate the frightening noise that follows. The wind has now become a conditioned stimulus producing a conditioned fear response.
The Little Albert study
The classic demonstration of classical conditioning in phobia acquisition comes from the 'Little Albert' experiment. This study illustrated how a rat phobia could be established through repeatedly pairing a loud noise with the presentation of a white rat.
Evidence from naturalistic observations
Research examining whether classical conditioning explains phobia development has produced mixed findings. Dollinger, O'Donnell and Staley (1984) compared child survivors of a lightning strike with a control group, finding that survivors demonstrated more frequent and intense fears of thunder, lightning and tornadoes. However, not all phobias can be traced to conditioning experiences.
Limited Support for Classical Conditioning
Several studies challenge the universal application of classical conditioning to phobias:
- Kleinknecht (1982) investigated members of the American Tarantula Society and found that amongst those reporting tarantula fears, none described direct traumatic experiences consistent with classical conditioning
- Hekmat (1987) examined students with various animal phobias and found only 23% reported direct conditioning experiences
- DiNardo et al. (1988) studied 16 individuals with dog phobias and noted that 56% reported conditioning experiences
These findings suggest classical conditioning provides only modest support as a comprehensive explanation for phobia development.
Operant conditioning as an explanation for the maintenance of phobias
Whilst classical conditioning may explain initial phobia acquisition, operant conditioning accounts for how phobias persist over time. This theory examines how response behaviours change in relation to reward and punishment conditions, including positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment.
Operant conditioning has been particularly linked to social phobias such as social anxiety disorder.
Worked Example: Negative Reinforcement in Social Phobia
Consider someone fearful of social situations like parties:
The Scenario: One coping strategy involves avoiding or escaping such anxiety-provoking scenarios. These avoidance and escape actions reduce or eliminate the unpleasant anxiety symptoms experienced.
The Mechanism: These behaviours demonstrate negative reinforcement—the removal of unpleasant emotions reinforces the avoidance behaviour, increasing its likelihood in future situations.
The Result: When pressured to attend a party despite reservations, experiencing a panic attack whilst there may lead to immediate escape from the situation. This escape quickly lessens anxiety feelings and rewards the escape behaviour through rapid anxiety reduction.
These avoidance and escape patterns exemplify negative reinforcement, as removing unpleasant emotions increases avoidance behaviour.
Why Phobias Are Difficult to Treat
This negative reinforcement mechanism explains why phobias prove difficult to treat and maintain their intensity. Each avoidance behaviour is immediately rewarded by anxiety reduction, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that strengthens the phobia over time rather than allowing natural extinction to occur.
Social learning theory as an explanation for phobias
Bandura (1986) emphasised that learning occurs through observing others, particularly by 'observing the consequences of others' behaviour'. For common phobias such as arachnophobia (spider fear), social learning theory can be understood through four key components.
Worked Example: Social Learning of Spider Phobia
The development of arachnophobia through social learning involves four key stages (remembered by the mnemonic "OVIR"):
1. Observation: A child watches an older sibling respond to discovering a spider in their bed, potentially running from the bedroom, screaming, and displaying fear and shaking
2. Vicarious reinforcement: Parents may comfort the older sibling, making them feel better. The child observes that the fear response leads to positive attention and comfort.
3. Imitation: Subsequently, when the observing child encounters a spider in their own bed, they replicate the behaviour they witnessed earlier, screaming, shouting, and shaking
4. Reinforcement: The observing child's parents provide comfort, which reinforces the fear response and makes it more likely to occur again in the future
Supporting research
Several studies provide evidence for vicarious reinforcement in phobia development.
Key Research Findings
Mineka and Zinbarg (2006) described a case involving a boy who developed severe vomiting phobia after witnessing his grandfather vomit whilst dying. His phobia became so intense it prompted contemplation of suicide when he felt nauseous and feared becoming sick.
Dubi et al. (2008) observed toddlers aged 15-20 months, documenting their fear and avoidance behaviours towards both 'fear-relevant' objects (such as rubber spiders or snakes) and 'fear-irrelevant' objects (such as rubber mushrooms) following observation of negative maternal reactions. They concluded that maternal modelling influenced young children's fear and avoidance behaviour.
Treatments for phobias
Proponents of learning theories argue that phobias result from 'maladaptive learning'. Treatment therefore focuses on observable behaviour modification and unlearning or deconditioning the maladaptive behaviour associated with the phobia. Learning theorists do not assume internal or biological causes for the behaviour and consequently disregard mental or physical causes.
Treatments based on learning theories fall into two main categories:
- Exposure treatments (based on classical conditioning principles)
- Modelling
Systematic desensitisation
Systematic desensitisation involves gradually confronting the phobic object through a hierarchy of exposure, progressing from least fearful to most fearful situations. This technique builds upon the concept of reciprocal inhibition—the principle that simultaneous anxiety and relaxation cannot occur.
Through maladaptive learning, a learned response developed to a particular stimulus. Therefore, just as fear can be learned, it can be unlearned by relaxing when encountering the phobic object. Desensitisation refers to relaxation techniques taught before confronting the phobic object.
The therapist and client initially establish a target aim for therapy (for example, handling an insect). The client receives instruction in relaxation techniques. Across several sessions, depending on phobia severity and the client's relaxation ability, the client faces the phobic object until desensitised to it. This process can occur either in vivo (exposure to actual objects) or in vitro (literally 'in glass', referring to imaginary exposure to objects).
The systematic desensitisation process
Systematic desensitisation comprises four key stages (remembered by the mnemonic "FARD-G"):
The Four-Stage Systematic Desensitisation Process
1. Functional analysis: A conversation between therapist and client to identify the anxiety's nature and possible triggers
2. Developing an anxiety hierarchy: Working collaboratively, client and therapist construct a fear hierarchy from the least anxiety-provoking situation to the most fearful. Input from both parties proves important here, as they determine the treatment progression speed and the hierarchy stages
3. Relaxation training: The client learns relaxation methods that suit them best, such as deep breathing exercises or visualisation of peaceful settings
4. Gradual exposure: Working through the established anxiety hierarchy, the phobic object is slowly and progressively introduced according to scenarios agreed in the hierarchy. The therapist consistently works at the client-agreed pace
Effectiveness of systematic desensitisation
Systematic desensitisation has demonstrated effectiveness as a treatment approach. Most studies report that individuals receiving systematic desensitisation therapy show greater improvement than non-treatment groups.
Success Rates
McGrath et al. (1990) found 75% of individuals with phobias responded to the therapy. This represents a significant success rate compared to no treatment at all.
Practical Advantages: Behavioural therapies require considerably less time and effort compared with other therapies. Individuals can also self-administer the therapy through computer simulations. The therapy poses no notable ethical concerns as the techniques employed, such as the fear hierarchy and relaxation techniques, ensure clients do not face high anxiety situations.
Limitations of systematic desensitisation
Systematic desensitisation has several limitations. Firstly, it can only treat certain anxiety disorders. Situations or objects must be clearly identifiable for the therapy to function effectively. Systematic desensitisation would prove inappropriate for individuals with generalised anxiety disorder who worry about numerous imprecise situations.
Evolutionary Limitations
Systematic desensitisation appears less effective at treating phobias with underlying survival components, such as fear of darkness or dangerous animals. One possible explanation suggests these deep-rooted fears may have enabled our ancestors to survive by maintaining vigilance against danger. Consequently, removing such fears from our evolutionary past proves very challenging.
Flooding and implosion
The flooding technique was developed by Thomas Stampfl in 1967. It involves the phobic individual being physically placed in a situation with their feared object/situation for an extended time period with no means of escape. Through continual exposure to the feared stimulus, the client eventually perceives it as less fear-producing.
The treatment's effectiveness depends on the feared stimulus being presented quickly, continuously, and in situations where escape proves impossible. This facilitates extinction, perhaps because the individual becomes too physically exhausted for the conditioned response to occur, or perhaps it prevents avoidance responses from developing.
Flooding vs Implosion
Flooding: Direct, prolonged exposure to a fearful situation with the actual phobic stimulus present
Implosion: Prolonged exposure by imagining the feared stimuli rather than experiencing them physically
Both techniques aim to remove the maladaptive (phobic behaviour). According to Wolpe, the therapy operates through reciprocal inhibition, which has both psychological and biological components. It suggests two incompatible psychological states cannot occur simultaneously, for example anxiety and relaxation.
A major advantage of flooding is its considerably faster operation compared with other therapies. A major disadvantage involves the therapy's risk of increasing the conditioned response strength to the feared object/situation rather than extinguishing it.
Ethical Concerns with Flooding
The ethical status of flooding as a treatment for phobics is questionable. Joseph Wolpe (1973) notably conducted an experiment involving a girl afraid of cars, continuing to drive her around for several hours. Whilst initially hysterical, she eventually calmed down.
However, two issues arise for psychologists:
- Ethics and morals: Is it acceptable to treat a phobic by deliberately placing them in great distress?
- Social control: Is it appropriate for a therapist to control a client's behaviour in this manner?
When an individual experiences anxiety, the sympathetic nervous system activation inhibits the parasympathetic nervous system action. The deep muscle relaxation exercises involved in the therapy increase parasympathetic activity and therefore reduce sympathetic activity, thus reducing arousal.
Effectiveness of flooding and implosion
Some clients reportedly improve following implosion therapy, whilst others acquire more anxiety.
Mixed Research Evidence
Barrett (1969) employed implosion therapy for treating snake phobias in college students. In one student, the snake images became associated with having her eyes shut (as occurred during treatment). She then consistently pictured snakes when shutting her eyes, resulting in insomnia and inability to attend lectures.
The literature and research on implosion presents mixed findings. Determining the results of different implosion therapies proves obviously difficult due to the different practitioners involved and the variety of problems their clients face.
Modelling
Although its origins lie in social learning theory, this treatment incorporates a cognitive element to the behavioural treatments of flooding and systematic desensitisation. It aims to treat phobias using vicarious reinforcement. An individual with a snake phobia observes another person (for example, an older sibling or parent) interacting happily and fearlessly with the snake.
The underlying principle suggests that if the phobic person observes another person acting in a relaxed and stress-free manner around the phobic stimulus, then the phobic individual will vicariously learn that the stimulus will not harm them, thus reducing their fear.
Mary Cover Jones's Little Peter Study (1924)
Peter was a three-year-old boy afraid of rabbits. Cover Jones treated Peter's fear through direct conditioning and modelling.
The Process: Each day, Peter and three other children were brought to the laboratory for a play period. A rabbit was always present during part of the play period. Peter observed the other children interacting playfully and fearlessly with the rabbit. New situations requiring closer rabbit contact were gradually introduced.
The Result: It became apparent that Peter showed progressive improvement from almost complete terror at the rabbit's sight to a completely positive response, allowing the rabbit to nibble his fingers.
Significance: This study was undoubtedly a defining landmark in behavioural therapy and clear evidence of how behaviour could be studied and manipulated in the laboratory via conditioning processes.
Application to developmental psychology
Social learning theory can explain how children learn their gender identity from observing the world around them. Firstly, children are more likely to imitate someone perceived as similar to themselves and therefore more likely to model the behaviour of a same-sex role model. Through vicarious reinforcement, if this behaviour is reinforced the child will be motivated to imitate it in future, or if punished they will avoid it.
Research Evidence for Social Learning in Gender Development
Beverly Fagot (1978) conducted an observational study of toddlers playing at home with their parents and noted the praise and punishments received. She found boys were reinforced for playing with gender-appropriate toys and girls for playing with dolls, thereby lending support to the idea that gender role behaviour is learned from the child's environment.
Margaret Mead (1935) studied three tribes in Papua New Guinea and discovered notable differences in gender roles. Amongst the Arapesh, both men and women were peaceful and avoided warfare. The Mundugumor saw both men and women as warlike, and amongst the Tchambuli the men decorated themselves whilst the women worked. This offers strong evidence for observational learning's role in gender development.
However, Fagot's study was conducted in the 1970s and it is possible to argue that gender socialisation has changed considerably in the last 30 to 40 years. Neither can social learning theory account for cognitive influences on gender development such as preparedness to imitate a role model. Additionally, cultural differences exist and there are similarities in gender behaviours throughout the world, which would suggest the influence of biology or genetics at work.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Phobia Types: Phobias represent extreme fear responses that can be categorised as specific phobias, social phobias, or agoraphobia, affecting approximately 10 million people in the UK
-
Classical Conditioning: Explains phobia acquisition through association of neutral stimuli with fear-producing stimuli, though naturalistic research suggests only 23-56% of phobias can be linked to direct conditioning experiences
-
Operant Conditioning: Accounts for phobia maintenance through negative reinforcement of avoidance and escape behaviours, which reduce anxiety and thus become self-perpetuating
-
Social Learning Theory: Explains phobias through observation of others' fear responses, vicarious reinforcement, and imitation—supported by studies showing children develop phobias after observing parental reactions (remember the mnemonic OVIR: Observation, Vicarious reinforcement, Imitation, Reinforcement)
-
Treatment Approaches:
- Systematic desensitisation: 75% effectiveness rate, gradual exposure with relaxation (mnemonic: FARD-G)
- Flooding/implosion: Rapid exposure but ethically questionable with mixed evidence
- Modelling: Observing others interact safely with the feared stimulus, as demonstrated in the Little Peter study