1. Bennett-Levy and Marteau (1984) Fear of animals

2. 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: • Pattern of animal phobias is non-random. Some animals evoke more phobic responses than others. Common feature that causes response? • Fears not related to actual negative experiences with species. Characteristic that is more important for fear response than dangerousness. • Children likely to become afraid approx. 4 yrs. Appearance has innate reasons. • Phobias persist regardless of knowledge that the animal is harmless. Basic aspects of the species that elicit response.

3. 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.

4. Aim • Investigate the importance of perceptual characteristics of animal phobias. • Fear is related to an animal’s perceptual (visible) characteristics. • Acceptable distance from an animal is related to its perceptual characteristics. • Animals with greater discrepancy (differences to us) will be perceived as uglier. • Animals with greater discrepancy will be perceived as more frightening.

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Past Exam Questions Section A • Outline the procedures of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2010 Section B • Evaluate the methodology of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2011 • With reference to alternative evidence, critically assess Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’. [12] 2010