Bennett-Levy and Marteau

1. Bennett-Levy and Marteau

2. Phobias • Think back to PY1. What explanation of phobias did we have? • Classical conditioning • Operant conditioning • Social Learning Theory • Which animal phobias are most common?

3. Evolutionary Psychology • A type of biological psychology • Characteristics which give an animal an advantage will be passed on. • Characteristics which put the animals at a disadvantage will not be passed on. • What does this have to do with phobias?

4. 1. Context • Bennett-Levy and Marteau (BL&M) noticed that many of their patients had phobias of the same sorts of animals. • Non-random distribution of phobias • Could be classical conditioning…

5. 1. Context • Seligman (1971) • Conditioned phobias of plants and animals by presenting pictures and giving an electric shock. • Seems to support classical conditioning, but…? • Humans are predisposed to fear certain stimuli more readily than others.

6. 1. Context • Marks (1969) • If all phobias were learned, the distribution of animal phobias would be random, and each person would be able to trace the fear to a specific event. • However, distribution is non-random, and not everyone with a phobia has had a bad experience.

7. 1. Context • The evidence suggests that humans have a predisposition to fear some animals more than others. • Would provide an advantage • Promote survival • But how does it work?

8. 1. Context • Seligman • Biological preparedness • Prepared template • Specific to each animal, or more general like movement and appearance?

9. 1. Context • Mineka (1980) • Lab and wild monkeys given real and toy snakes • Wild monkeys showed more fear. Lab monkeys showed little. • Suggests fear of snakes has to be learned.

10. 1. Context • Mineka (1980) • However BL&M disagreed. Lab monkeys showed most fear when the snake moved • Suggests…? • …prepared to fear snake-like movements

11. 1. Context • Scnheirla (1965) • Certain combinations of movement produce a fear response • Abrupt, irregular in timing and high magnitude • Aversive stimulus configuration

12. 1. Context • Hinde (1974) • Novelty and strangeness provoke fear • The discrepancy from the human form (the discrepancy principle) • BL&M noted that many of their patients focused on the look and feel of animals. • In the UK, most animals are harmless, but people still have phobias

13. 1. Aims • Seligman’s biological preparedness offers no real explanation. • BL&M wanted to investigate the underlying mechanism of animal fears • Are humans biologically prepared to fear certain stimulus configurations in small harmless animals (mainly movement and appearance) • These characteristics would meaningfully be related to the distribution of animal phobias.

14. 2. Procedures • 113 participants • 59 females, 54 males • Sampling method? • Questionnaire and informal interview • Results analyzed with correlations • Variables • Characteristics of animals • Reactions to animals

15. 2. Procedures • Two groups given one of two questionnaires • 29 small harmless animals • If an animal may have been perceived as dangerous, a note was made that it was harmless.

16. 2. Procedures • Questionnaire 1: Self reported fear of the animal • Fear Scale:1=not afraid, 2=quite afraid, 3=very afraid • Nearness scale: 1=enjoy picking it up, 2=would pick it up but unpleasant, 3=touch it or go within 15cm, 4=stand 30-180cm away, 5=move further than 180cm away • Have a go at answering. Any issues?

17. 2. Procedures • Questionnaire 2: perceptual characteristics • Ugly, slimy, speedy, sudden movement • 1=not, 2=quite, 3=very • Have a go at answering. Any issues? • After, data was compared in a correlational analysis

18. 3. Findings • Which 3 animals are most feared? • Rat: 2.08 • Jellyfish: 1.81 • Spider: 1.64 • Which 3 animals do people want to be furthest from? • Rat: 3.90 • Cockroach: 3.25 • Jellyfish: 2.95

19. 3. Findings • Disproportionate fear of the rat • Perceived as more harmful • Effects of potential harm were not removed

20. 3. Findings • Gender differences • Females less likely to approach or pick up 10 of the animals than males, and showed more fear • No difference between genders on perceptual characteristics • Men rated themselves less fearful than women, but there was a 0.96 correlation in nearness ranking • Men and women fear the same animals in the same order, but men claimed to be less afraid

21. 3. Findings • Correlation Matrix • All variables are measured against each other to produce correlation coefficients. • Using the correlation matrix on pg 40 of the article, look up the coefficient, and draw a rough line of best fit on the graphs. • Initially there was no relationship between nearness and sudden movement. However, when ugliness was removed, coefficient was 0.61

22. 3. Findings In sum, each of the four ratings of the perceptual characteristics is significantly related to both fear and nearness ratings as predicted. Ugliness and sliminess predominate in these relationships, but when their effects are removed, speediness and suddenness of movement are both seen to exert a significant influence. The hypothesis that the perceptual characteristics of the animals rated by one group of subjects should be relate to the fear and nearness ratings of a second group is clearly supported. James Bennett-Levy and Theresa Marteau

23. 3. Conclusions • General conclusions • Perceptual characteristics of animals are important in how we think and feel about them. • Ugly, slimy, fast, sudden moving animals are less approachable and more fear inducing • Potential harm is clearly an important factor when rating fear, as it could not be removed from the questions

24. 3. Conclusions • Implications for the theory of biological preparedness • Discrepancy Principle: supported as ppts said their judgment of ugliness was based on sliminess, hairiness, colour, number of limbs and antennae. • Aversive stimulus configurations: supported as speed and abrupt movement correlated with fear. Also, touch and sound combined to create fear.

25. 3. Conclusions • Implications for the theory of biological preparedness The results from this study indicated that humans are probably not prepared specifically to fear animals of biological significance to the species. Rather, the degree to which humans are prepared to approach or fear an animal depends not only on its objective harmfulness, but also on the presence of certain fear evoking perceptual properties, and it’s discrepancy from the human form.

26. 3. Conclusions • Implications for clinical phobias • If people fear particular characteristics of an animal, therapy could help overcome these specific fears • Could we use systematic desensitisation to overcome a fear of sliminess? • BL&M conclude however, that generally the population is non-phobic

27. 3. Conclusions • BL&M concede that this research can not really tell us how phobias start in the first place. Two possible ways to investigate • Investigate clinical patients directly • Validity issues • Compare fear ratings from the general population and compare with therapy rates for phobias.

28. 4. Evaluate the Methodology • Evaluate the following • Method • Reliability • Validity • Sampling • Ethics

29. 5. Alternative Evidence • FR (fear relevant) FI (fear irrelevant) stimuli • Fear should be learned quicker for FR (rapid learning) • When FR fear is acquired, it is harder to extinguish • 1: Rapid Learning: What evidence from the context would be relevant here?

30. 5. Alternative Evidence • 2. Extinction • Ohman (2000) ppts were quick to lose conditioned fear responses to houses and plans, but not to snakes and spiders.

31. 5. Alternative Evidence • Studies with animals • Cook and Mineka (1990) monkeys would show a fear response to a toy snake or crocodile if they had seen a video of another monkey showing fear to it, but not toy flowers or rabbits. • Mineka and Cook (1986) monkeys could be inoculated against fear if they saw a non-fearful monkey with a snake.

32. 5. Alternative Evidence • Studies with humans • Regan and Howard (1995): FR and FI stimulus paired with white noise. Ppts more likely to show fear to white noise if it was paired with FR stimuli.

33. 5. Alternative Evidence • Alternative explanation: The Expectancy Bias • An expectation that a FR stimuli will produce negative consequences in the future. • No need for evolutionary explanations • Could explain modern phobias such as flying or needles! • Use three colours to highlight research that supports, contradicts,or develops Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s research.