BENNETT-LEVY AND MARTEAU (1984)Fear of animals

CONTEXT Classical Conditioning- Little Albert’s phobia of

white rats. Evolution (Seligman, 1971)- evolved to fear certain

stimuli more than others because it is adaptive (preparedness). Evidence:

1. Pattern of animal phobias is non-random. Some animals evoke more phobic responses than others. Common feature that causes response?

2. Fears not related to actual negative experiences with species. Characteristic that is more important for fear response than dangerousness.

3. Children likely to become afraid approx. 4 yrs. Appearance has innate reasons.

4. Phobias persist regardless of knowledge that the animal is harmless. Basic aspects of the species that elicit response.

CONTEXT CONT. Explanations

Discrepancy: strangeness of the animal. How different it is to us.

Aversive stimulus properties of the animal E.g. Making threatening or unpleasant sounds/ smell/

touch or unpredictable movements Mineka et al. (1980). Lab raised monkeys more afraid

of model snakes that moved. Supports that there is an innate fear of the way snakes move.

AIM Investigate the importance of perceptual

characteristics of animal phobias.1. Fear is related to an animal’s perceptual

(visible) characteristics.2. Acceptable distance from an animal is related

to its perceptual characteristics.3. Animals with greater discrepancy (differences

to us) will be perceived as uglier.4. Animals with greater discrepancy will be

perceived as more frightening.

PROCEDURE- SAMPLE 113 patients from local health clinic:

Group 1: 64 (34 female; 30 male) Mean age: 35.5yrs

Group 2: 49 (25 female; 24 male) Mean age: 35.1yrs

PROCEDURE- METHOD Questionnaires on responses to 29 small, harmless

animal species. Made clear animals were harmless. Written next to

ambiguous species, e.g. jellyfish/ snake. Participants randomly allocated to Group 1

(Questionnaire 1) or 2 (Questionnaire 2). Questionnaire 1: Fear and Avoidance

Fear: Rated how afraid they were of each species on a scale of 1-3 (1= not afraid; 2= quite afraid; 3= very afraid).

Nearness: Rated how they would respond to being close to each species on a scale of 1-5 (1= enjoy picking it up; 5= move further away than 6ft)

Followed by informal follow-up questions.

PROCEDURE- METHOD CONT. Questionnaire 2: Participant’s perceptions of

the characteristics of same 29 species. Rated animals on a scale of 1-3 (1=not; 2=quite;

3=very) for 4 characteristics… Ugly Slimy Speedy How Suddenly they appear to Move

FINDINGS Participants most fearful of rats

Speedy/ likely to move suddenly. Informal questioning: Perceived rats as

potentially harmful even though questionnaire stated they were not.

Sex differences for 10 species on: Women less likely to pick up or approach. Jellyfish, cockroach, ant, moth, crow, worm,

beetle, slug, mouse, spider. No sex differences for ratings on

characteristics. Characteristics of animals to which they respond

is the same.

FINDINGS Analysis of combinations of characteristics

using Correlations… Animals less likely to be approached if they

moved suddenly. People were more afraid of animals that moved

suddenly. Uglier animals less likely to be approached

closely. Uglier animals elicited more fear. Slimy animals less likely to be approached

closely. Slimy animals elicited more fear.

CONCLUSIONS What an animals looks like determines how a

person judges it. Supports discrepancy (dissimilarity to us)

E.g. fear animals with antennae, tentacles, eight legs, and no legs more.

Support ideas of aversive stimulus properties Characteristics such as speediness and

suddenness of movement are fear evoking. Informal questions: Identified that participants

found the feel of an animal to be important in fear response.

EVALUATION- STRENGTHS Generalisable

Approx. equal numbers of men and women. Previous evidence had shown gender differences in fears.

Demand characteristics Independent measures: Less likely to have realised aim

of the experiment than if they completed both questionnaires.

Validity Controlled for dangerousness of animals. Not harmless. Some participants mentioned potentially harmful as

factor for answers. Reliability

Quantitative and qualitative data. Similar responses for men and women.

EVALUATION- WEAKNESSES Validity

Did not systematically record info on important characteristics participants identified in informal questioning. E.g. Feel or sound of an animal

Self-report Accuracy of participant’s beliefs about their

responses to animals. Lack of ecological validity.

Unethical to test participant’s responses to real animals, if it will incite fear.

Representativeness Opportunity sample Does not generalise to clinical population.

PAST EXAM QUESTIONSSection A1. Outline the procedures of Bennett-Levy and

Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2010

Section B2. Evaluate the methodology of Bennett-Levy

and Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2011

3. With reference to alternative evidence, critically assess Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2010