Revise Explanations of fear-related disorders for Cambridge 9990 (1.4.2)

The behavioural approach suggests phobias are learned behaviours. Mowrer's (1960) two-process model is the primary explanation. First, a phobia is acquired through classical conditioning. This occurs when a neutral stimulus (NS) becomes associated with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that naturally causes fear (UCR). After repeated pairings, the NS becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) that elicits a conditioned response (CR) of fear. For example, being bitten (UCS) by a dog (NS) leads to fear (UCR). The dog (now a CS) then provokes fear (CR). The second process, operant conditioning, explains why the phobia persists. The individual avoids the phobic stimulus, which reduces anxiety. This is negative reinforcement, as the removal of an unpleasant feeling strengthens the avoidance behaviour, preventing the fear from being extinguished.

The evolutionary explanation, proposed by Seligman (1971), posits the concept of 'biological preparedness'. This theory argues that we are genetically predisposed to learn fear associations for stimuli that posed a threat to our evolutionary ancestors. These 'ancient fears' include snakes, spiders, heights, and deep water. According to this view, it is not that we are born with these fears, but rather that we are 'prepared' to rapidly learn them with minimal exposure. This explains why phobias of these stimuli are significantly more common than phobias of modern, objectively more dangerous items like cars or electrical sockets. The persistence of these specific phobias in the population is seen as an adaptive trait that would have increased survival and reproduction rates in our ancestral environment.

The cognitive approach focuses on the role of faulty thinking in the development and maintenance of phobias. It suggests that it is not the object or situation itself that causes fear, but the individual's irrational interpretation of it. People with phobias exhibit specific cognitive biases. These include attentional bias, where they selectively focus on the phobic stimulus, and catastrophising, where they magnify the potential threat and believe the worst possible outcome will occur (e.g., 'If I see a spider, it will definitely bite me and I will die'). These maladaptive thought patterns create extreme anxiety, which triggers the physiological fight-or-flight response and reinforces the belief that the stimulus is genuinely dangerous, thus maintaining the phobic cycle.

Classical conditioning can also explain the development of generalised anxiety. While phobias are tied to specific stimuli, anxiety can be a more diffuse, free-floating state of apprehension. This can be explained through higher-order conditioning and stimulus generalisation. For example, a person who experiences a panic attack (UCR) in a crowded supermarket (UCS) may develop a fear (CR) of that specific supermarket (CS). Through stimulus generalisation, this fear may spread to other, similar situations, such as shopping centres, cinemas, or any crowded public space. Eventually, the anxiety may become so generalised that the person feels constantly 'on edge' without being able to pinpoint a single, specific trigger, which is characteristic of generalised anxiety disorder (GAD).