Physiological PsychologyPhysiological Psychology

Bennett-Levy & Marteau (1984)Bennett-Levy & Marteau (1984)

Fear of animals: What is prepared?’Fear of animals: What is prepared?’

ContextContextEvolutionary roots of phobiasEvolutionary roots of phobias

Phobic responses, like the stress response, may Phobic responses, like the stress response, may have roots in evolutionary mechanisms.have roots in evolutionary mechanisms.

Why?Why?

Video ClipsVideo Clips

ContextContextPhobiasPhobias

Beneficial – adaptive as it makes us avoid Beneficial – adaptive as it makes us avoid things that are potentially dangerous.things that are potentially dangerous.

Seligman (1971) we have evolved to become Seligman (1971) we have evolved to become afraid of some stimuli more readily than afraid of some stimuli more readily than others. (preparedness)others. (preparedness)

Bennett-Levy & MarteauBennett-Levy & Marteau

4 pieces of evidence in favour of preparedness:4 pieces of evidence in favour of preparedness:1)1) Children are more likely to become afraid at Children are more likely to become afraid at

4years old, suggesting that the appearance of 4years old, suggesting that the appearance of these fears has innate origins.these fears has innate origins.

2)2) A phobic’s individual fears persist despite A phobic’s individual fears persist despite their knowledge that the feared animal is their knowledge that the feared animal is harmless. This suggests that there may be harmless. This suggests that there may be basic aspects of the species that elicit the basic aspects of the species that elicit the response.response.

3) Fears are not related to actual negative 3) Fears are not related to actual negative experiences with a species. This suggests that experiences with a species. This suggests that characteristics of the species, such as being characteristics of the species, such as being very different in form from humans, may be very different in form from humans, may be more important than its actual dangerousness.more important than its actual dangerousness.

4) Not all species are likely to elicit phobic 4) Not all species are likely to elicit phobic responses. This suggests that there is responses. This suggests that there is something particular about those species that something particular about those species that are the focus of a phobia, such as moving are the focus of a phobia, such as moving quickly or suddenly.quickly or suddenly.

Explanations of PhobiasExplanations of Phobias

Hinde, 1974 Hinde, 1974 DiscrepencyDiscrepency – the strangeness of – the strangeness of an animal.an animal.

Animals with a highly unfamiliar form would be Animals with a highly unfamiliar form would be more likely to lead to phobias.more likely to lead to phobias.

Schneirla 1965 Schneirla 1965 Fear-provoking propertiesFear-provoking properties of of animals as stimuli. These could include having animals as stimuli. These could include having a threatening or unpleasant sound, touch or a threatening or unpleasant sound, touch or smell.smell.

Hebb (1946) & Tinbergen (1951) Hebb (1946) & Tinbergen (1951)

Monkeys are more likely to fear model snakes Monkeys are more likely to fear model snakes than many other objects. Evidence for an than many other objects. Evidence for an evolutionary origin of phobias as these evolutionary origin of phobias as these primates are closely related to humans & show primates are closely related to humans & show similar fears.similar fears.

Mineka et al (1980)Mineka et al (1980)

Lab raised monkeys were more afraid of model Lab raised monkeys were more afraid of model snakes if they moved. Innate fear of the kind snakes if they moved. Innate fear of the kind of movement exhibited by snakes.of movement exhibited by snakes.

Core StudyCore Study

AimsAims To investigate whether people are more likely To investigate whether people are more likely

to be afraid of and avoid animals that:to be afraid of and avoid animals that:• Move quickly or abruptlyMove quickly or abruptly• Are very different in form from humansAre very different in form from humans• Prediction : perceptual characteristics of small Prediction : perceptual characteristics of small

harmless animals will be related to ratings of harmless animals will be related to ratings of fear and avoidance.fear and avoidance.

ProceduresProcedures

113 patients at a local health clinic113 patients at a local health clinic Randomly allocated to one of two Randomly allocated to one of two

questionnaires.questionnaires. 34 female & 30 male (mean age 35.5 years) 34 female & 30 male (mean age 35.5 years)

completed questionnaire 1.completed questionnaire 1. 25 female & 24 female (mean age 35.1) 25 female & 24 female (mean age 35.1)

completed questionnaire 2.completed questionnaire 2. Made clear to pp’s that the animals listed were Made clear to pp’s that the animals listed were

not harmful.not harmful.

Questionnaire 1Questionnaire 1

Fear: pp’s rated how afraid they were of each Fear: pp’s rated how afraid they were of each species on a scale of 1-3. (1=not afraid, species on a scale of 1-3. (1=not afraid, 2=quite afraid, 3=very afraid)2=quite afraid, 3=very afraid)

Nearness: pp’s rated how they would respond Nearness: pp’s rated how they would respond to being close to each species on a scale of 1-5 to being close to each species on a scale of 1-5 (1=enjoy picking up, 2=would pick it up, but (1=enjoy picking up, 2=would pick it up, but unpleasent, 3=touch it or go within 6 inches unpleasent, 3=touch it or go within 6 inches 4=stand 1-6 feet away, 5=move further away 4=stand 1-6 feet away, 5=move further away than 6 feet.than 6 feet.

As some animals would be difficult to pick up in As some animals would be difficult to pick up in the wild, pp’s were asked to imagine that they the wild, pp’s were asked to imagine that they were injured e.g. a bird with a broken wing.were injured e.g. a bird with a broken wing.

There was also some informal follow-up There was also some informal follow-up questioning.questioning.

Questionnaire 2Questionnaire 2

Asked about pp’s perceptions of the characteristics Asked about pp’s perceptions of the characteristics of the same 29 species. They rated each one on a of the same 29 species. They rated each one on a three-point scale. (1=not, 2=quite, 3=very) on 4 three-point scale. (1=not, 2=quite, 3=very) on 4 characteristics.characteristics.

1)1) UGLYUGLY2)2) SLIMYSLIMY3)3) SPEEDYSPEEDY4)4) How SUDDENLY they appear to MOVEHow SUDDENLY they appear to MOVE There was also some informal follow-up There was also some informal follow-up

questionning.questionning.

FindingsFindings PP’s were more fearful of rats than any other species PP’s were more fearful of rats than any other species

& also rated them as speedy & likely to move & also rated them as speedy & likely to move suddenly.suddenly.

When questioned informally, pp’s reported When questioned informally, pp’s reported perceiving rats as potentially harmful, even though perceiving rats as potentially harmful, even though the questionnaire had specified that they were not.the questionnaire had specified that they were not.

Sex differences in results for 10 species. (jellyfish, Sex differences in results for 10 species. (jellyfish, cockroach, ant, moth, crow, worm, beetle, slug, cockroach, ant, moth, crow, worm, beetle, slug, mouse, spider)mouse, spider)

In these, females were less likely to pick up or In these, females were less likely to pick up or approach the animals than males.approach the animals than males.

FindingsFindings

No sex differences were found in ratings of No sex differences were found in ratings of ugliness, sliminess, speediness or suddenness ugliness, sliminess, speediness or suddenness of movement.of movement.

Men were generally less fearful than women. Men were generally less fearful than women. Characteristics of animals to which they Characteristics of animals to which they respond appear to be the same.respond appear to be the same.

FindingsFindingsCorrelation MatrixCorrelation Matrix

UGLYUGLY SLIMYSLIMY SPEEDYSPEEDY MOVESMOVES

SUDDENSUDDEN

FEARFEAR NEAR-NEAR-NESSNESS

UGLYUGLY 0.750.75 -0.20-0.20 -0.16-0.16 0.820.82 0.870.87

SLIMYSLIMY 0.750.75 -0.29-0.29 -0.21-0.21 -0.61-0.61 0.770.77

SPEEDYSPEEDY -0.20-0.20 -0.29-0.29 0.950.95 0.170.17 -0.02-0.02

MOVESMOVES

SUDDENSUDDEN-0.16-0.16 -0.21-0.21 0.950.95 0.020.02 0.050.05

FEARFEAR 0.820.82 0.610.61 0.170.17 0.020.02 0.900.90

NEAR-NEAR-NESSNESS

0.870.87 0.770.77 -0.02-0.02 0.050.05 0.900.90

Key FindingsKey Findings Suddenness of movement was linked to nearness: animals Suddenness of movement was linked to nearness: animals

were less likely to be approached closely if they might move were less likely to be approached closely if they might move suddenly.suddenly.

Suddenness of movement was linked to fear: people were Suddenness of movement was linked to fear: people were more afraid of animals if they might move suddenly.more afraid of animals if they might move suddenly.

Ugliness was linked to nearness: ugly animals were less likely Ugliness was linked to nearness: ugly animals were less likely to be approached closely.to be approached closely.

Ugliness was linked to fear: more ugly animals elicited more Ugliness was linked to fear: more ugly animals elicited more fear.fear.

Sliminess was linked to nearness: slimy animals were less Sliminess was linked to nearness: slimy animals were less likely to be approached closely.likely to be approached closely.

Sliminess was linked to fear: more slimy animals elicited more Sliminess was linked to fear: more slimy animals elicited more fear.fear.

ConclusionsConclusions

Findings supported the hypothesis that the Findings supported the hypothesis that the perceptual characteristics of the animals rated perceptual characteristics of the animals rated by one group of participants are related to the by one group of participants are related to the fear & nearness ratings of the other.fear & nearness ratings of the other.

This suggests that what an animal looks like This suggests that what an animal looks like determines how a person judges it.determines how a person judges it.

Ugly, slimy & suddenly-moving animals are Ugly, slimy & suddenly-moving animals are more likely to be feared and avoided than ones more likely to be feared and avoided than ones without these characteristics.without these characteristics.

ConclusionsConclusions

Discrepancy is supported by animals that are feared Discrepancy is supported by animals that are feared and the similar responses in men & women.and the similar responses in men & women.

This implies that it is not particular species that This implies that it is not particular species that evolution has prepared us to fear, but certain evolution has prepared us to fear, but certain perceptual aspects of animals.perceptual aspects of animals.

Findings also support Schneirla (1965s) idea that Findings also support Schneirla (1965s) idea that some animals have particular fear-provoking some animals have particular fear-provoking properties. (speediness & suddenness of movement) properties. (speediness & suddenness of movement) Informal interviews indicated that the feel & sounds Informal interviews indicated that the feel & sounds they made were also important.they made were also important.

ConclusionsConclusionsClinical PhobiasClinical Phobias

Clinical Phobia : excessive fear, professionally Clinical Phobia : excessive fear, professionally diagnosed, seriously impairs functioningdiagnosed, seriously impairs functioning

Clinical phobia can be treated by helping Clinical phobia can be treated by helping patients deal with their fear of key patients deal with their fear of key characteristicscharacteristics

ConclusionsConclusionsBiological PreparednessBiological Preparedness

The Discrepancy Principle (Hinde 1974)The Discrepancy Principle (Hinde 1974) Explains connection between :Explains connection between : a) Ugliness and sliminessa) Ugliness and sliminess b) fear and nearnessb) fear and nearness Judgement of ugliness based on: sliminess, Judgement of ugliness based on: sliminess,

hairiness, colour, number of limbs, antennae, hairiness, colour, number of limbs, antennae, eyes to head ratio. (ie fear related to eyes to head ratio. (ie fear related to difference)difference)

ConclusionsConclusionsBiological PreparednessBiological Preparedness

Aversive Stimulus ConfigurationsAversive Stimulus Configurations All significantly correlated with fear once All significantly correlated with fear once

the effects of other variables were removedthe effects of other variables were removed Other features contributed to fear eg feel of Other features contributed to fear eg feel of

a spider, hiss of a snake.a spider, hiss of a snake. Humans not specifically prepared to fear Humans not specifically prepared to fear

particular species.particular species. Key factors : objective harmfulness, Key factors : objective harmfulness,

properties and difference from human formproperties and difference from human form

Evaluation Evaluation MethodologyMethodology

MethodMethod Questionnaires used Questionnaires used Mean scores usedMean scores used CorrelationsCorrelations Different participants answered questionnairs Different participants answered questionnairs

1&21&2 Give an advantage and disadvantage of each Give an advantage and disadvantage of each

point abovepoint above

Evaluation Evaluation MethodologyMethodology

ReliabilityReliability Were the questionnaires reliable? Ie would Were the questionnaires reliable? Ie would

they get the same answers from the same they get the same answers from the same person twice?person twice?

ValidityValidity Supported by Merckelbach et al (1987)Supported by Merckelbach et al (1987) Is Is asking asking about fear the same as testing it?about fear the same as testing it?

Evaluation Evaluation MethodologyMethodology

SamplingSampling 113 fairly evenly split – why important?113 fairly evenly split – why important? Opportunity sample at a health centre – sound?Opportunity sample at a health centre – sound?

Ethical IssuesEthical Issues What issues are important here?What issues are important here?

Evaluation Evaluation Alternative evidenceAlternative evidence

Biological Preparedness : PredictionsBiological Preparedness : Predictions Fear response learned more rapidly to species Fear response learned more rapidly to species

dangerous in the EEAdangerous in the EEA Such fears hard to EXTINGUISHSuch fears hard to EXTINGUISH CONTRAPREPAREDNES – it should be CONTRAPREPAREDNES – it should be

harder to condition fear of harmless things.harder to condition fear of harmless things.

Evaluation Evaluation Alternative evidenceAlternative evidence

Seligman (1971)Seligman (1971)

Ohman(2000)Ohman(2000) JJ

McNally & Reiss(1982)McNally & Reiss(1982) NN

Evaluation Evaluation Alternative evidenceAlternative evidence

Cook& Mineka(1990)Cook& Mineka(1990) JJ nn

Mineka & Cook (1986)Mineka & Cook (1986) NN nn

Evaluation Evaluation Alternative evidenceAlternative evidence

Studies with HumansStudies with Humans Regan & Howard(1995)Regan & Howard(1995) nn

Expectancy BiasExpectancy Bias McNally(1987)McNally(1987) Davey(1995)Davey(1995)