Contrasting The Factors of The Biological and Behavioural Approach in Psychology

Introduction

Psychology, like any subject, has displayed drastic changes and improvements over past decades as well as means of improving day-to-day life. The subject evolved from the psychodynamic approach, which focuses on what goes on in the mind, where it is believed that our behavior is established due to unconscious thoughts. However, due to a lack of scientific evidence, many criticized psychodynamic theorists such as Freud and turned to behaviorist psychologists like Watson (1913), who revolutionized the subject by encouraging observable behavior in the early 20th century, which was considered more scientific than the psychodynamic theories on the unconscious and conscious mind. Eventually, this led to the introduction of the Cognitive approach, which focused on the thought processes in the mind, enabling psychologists to acquire understanding and knowledge through aspects such as thought, senses, and experiences. Recent advances in technology have allowed us to approach the subject in a more reductionist, scientific manner, such as the interactions between neurons in the brain, known now as the Biological approach. This essay will focus on comparing and contrasting the factors of the biological and behavioral approaches by discussing, for example, abnormalities and comparing the different explanations each of the approaches has.

Contrasting The Factors of The Biological and Behavioral Approach in Psychology

The contrasting and diverse approaches help psychologists take each case as its own and analyze it fully by looking at all the possible reasons behind behavior and actions. According to Marshelle Thobaben (2004), a phobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by an extreme irrational fear of a situation or object, which eventually results in life-changing consequences due to avoidance. For example, agoraphobia is a fear of going places where one may panic and feel trapped. Mowrer (1947) used both classical and operant conditioning to explain the development of a phobia, which is now commonly referred to as avoidance conditioning. This concept stems from the behaviorist approach. This theory states that through classical conditioning, the feared object/situation is associated with being panicked and fearful. Therefore, through operant conditioning, the fear is regulated and continues as the individual becomes versed with the fact that their fear is reduced by avoiding the situation/object causing the panic. This is an example of negative reinforcement, as when the individual doesn’t come in contact with the stimulus, there is little or no anxiety.

Similarly, Watson and Rayner (1920) found that by using classical conditioning, they were able to associate Little Albert's (9-month-old) fear of loud noises with a white rat, which he was not previously afraid of. They wanted to test the notion that by the following procedure—classical conditioning—they could use the unconditioned response to condition a child to fear a distinctive stimulus that normally would not be feared by a child. This proved that a phobia could develop through association. Additionally, this study also concluded that the phobia can be further generalized to objects of a similar nature. In Little Albert's case, he went on to fear furry white objects similar to the rat, such as cotton wool. However, in contrast, the biological explanation has proved genetics to have a cause towards phobias. The biomedical/genetic approach explains phobias by asking questions such as: Could it be that humans are pre-programmed to fear certain objects? Öst (1992) found that those with a specific phobia for blood injuries had 60% of first-degree relatives who had the same phobia.

Similarly, a twin study conducted by Torgersen (1983), as stated in "The Heritability of Common Phobic Fear" (2000), found concordance rates of 31% in monozygotic twins in comparison to significantly lower rates for dizygotic twins. It was established that close relatives of agoraphobics were more likely to suffer from the phobia as opposed to relatives of those who didn’t. As stated above, the behavioral and biological approaches differ dramatically in their conclusions of the development of phobias. However, despite the fact that the two approaches seem to differ so much, they do have their similarities.

Similarities and Conclusion

Both approaches are able to collect objective data in order to make conclusions, resulting in deterministic and reductionist outcomes from results. This is due to the failure to recognize free will or consider other factors that may be influencing the individuals suffering. Although due to the reductionist prospect of the two, clear predictions can be made using the scientific supported evidence, giving the approaches huge assets in comparison to others. Furthermore, the integration of both approaches can provide a more comprehensive understanding of phobias, as they offer insights from both genetic predispositions and environmental influences, thus allowing for more effective therapeutic interventions.

In conclusion, while the biological and behavioral approaches offer distinct perspectives on the origins of phobias, their integration could pave the way for more holistic treatment strategies. By acknowledging both genetic and environmental factors, psychologists can develop more nuanced and effective approaches to understanding and treating phobias.