Physiological Psychology

1. Physiological Psychology Bennett-Levy & Marteau (1984) Fear of animals: What is prepared?’

2. ContextEvolutionary roots of phobias Phobic responses, like the stress response, may have roots in evolutionary mechanisms. Why?

3. Video Clips

4. ContextPhobias • Beneficial – adaptive as it makes us avoid things that are potentially dangerous. • Seligman (1971) we have evolved to become afraid of some stimuli more readily than others. (preparedness)

5. Bennett-Levy & Marteau 4 pieces of evidence in favour of preparedness: • Children are more likely to become afraid at 4years old, suggesting that the appearance of these fears has innate origins. • A phobic’s individual fears persist despite their knowledge that the feared animal is harmless. This suggests that there may be basic aspects of the species that elicit the response.

6. 3) Fears are not related to actual negative experiences with a species. This suggests that characteristics of the species, such as being very different in form from humans, may be more important than its actual dangerousness. 4) Not all species are likely to elicit phobic responses. This suggests that there is something particular about those species that are the focus of a phobia, such as moving quickly or suddenly.

7. Explanations of Phobias Hinde, 1974 Discrepency – the strangeness of an animal. Animals with a highly unfamiliar form would be more likely to lead to phobias. Schneirla 1965 Fear-provoking properties of animals as stimuli. These could include having a threatening or unpleasant sound, touch or smell.

8. Hebb (1946) & Tinbergen (1951) Monkeys are more likely to fear model snakes than many other objects. Evidence for an evolutionary origin of phobias as these primates are closely related to humans & show similar fears. • Mineka et al (1980) Lab raised monkeys were more afraid of model snakes if they moved. Innate fear of the kind of movement exhibited by snakes.

10. Core Study Aims • To investigate whether people are more likely to be afraid of and avoid animals that: • Move quickly or abruptly • Are very different in form from humans • Prediction : perceptual characteristics of small harmless animals will be related to ratings of fear and avoidance.

11. Procedures • 113 patients at a local health clinic • Randomly allocated to one of two questionnaires. • 34 female & 30 male (mean age 35.5 years) completed questionnaire 1. • 25 female & 24 female (mean age 35.1) completed questionnaire 2. • Made clear to pp’s that the animals listed were not harmful.

12. Questionnaire 1 • Fear: pp’s rated how afraid they were of each species on a scale of 1-3. (1=not afraid, 2=quite afraid, 3=very afraid) • Nearness: pp’s rated how they would respond to being close to each species on a scale of 1-5 (1=enjoy picking up, 2=would pick it up, but unpleasent, 3=touch it or go within 6 inches 4=stand 1-6 feet away, 5=move further away than 6 feet.

13. As some animals would be difficult to pick up in the wild, pp’s were asked to imagine that they were injured e.g. a bird with a broken wing. There was also some informal follow-up questioning.

14. Questionnaire 2 • Asked about pp’s perceptions of the characteristics of the same 29 species. They rated each one on a three-point scale. (1=not, 2=quite, 3=very) on 4 characteristics. • UGLY • SLIMY • SPEEDY • How SUDDENLY they appear to MOVE • There was also some informal follow-up questionning.

15. Findings • PP’s were more fearful of rats than any other species & also rated them as speedy & likely to move suddenly. • When questioned informally, pp’s reported perceiving rats as potentially harmful, even though the questionnaire had specified that they were not. • Sex differences in results for 10 species. (jellyfish, cockroach, ant, moth, crow, worm, beetle, slug, mouse, spider) • In these, females were less likely to pick up or approach the animals than males.

16. Findings • No sex differences were found in ratings of ugliness, sliminess, speediness or suddenness of movement. • Men were generally less fearful than women. Characteristics of animals to which they respond appear to be the same.

17. FindingsCorrelation Matrix

18. Key Findings • Suddenness of movement was linked to nearness: animals were less likely to be approached closely if they might move suddenly. • Suddenness of movement was linked to fear: people were more afraid of animals if they might move suddenly. • Ugliness was linked to nearness: ugly animals were less likely to be approached closely. • Ugliness was linked to fear: more ugly animals elicited more fear. • Sliminess was linked to nearness: slimy animals were less likely to be approached closely. • Sliminess was linked to fear: more slimy animals elicited more fear.

19. Conclusions • Findings supported the hypothesis that the perceptual characteristics of the animals rated by one group of participants are related to the fear & nearness ratings of the other. • This suggests that what an animal looks like determines how a person judges it. • Ugly, slimy & suddenly-moving animals are more likely to be feared and avoided than ones without these characteristics.

20. Conclusions • Discrepancy is supported by animals that are feared and the similar responses in men & women. • This implies that it is not particular species that evolution has prepared us to fear, but certain perceptual aspects of animals. • Findings also support Schneirla (1965s) idea that some animals have particular fear-provoking properties. (speediness & suddenness of movement) Informal interviews indicated that the feel & sounds they made were also important.

21. ConclusionsClinical Phobias • Clinical Phobia : excessive fear, professionally diagnosed, seriously impairs functioning • Clinical phobia can be treated by helping patients deal with their fear of key characteristics

22. ConclusionsBiological Preparedness • The Discrepancy Principle (Hinde 1974) • Explains connection between : • a) Ugliness and sliminess • b) fear and nearness • Judgement of ugliness based on: sliminess, hairiness, colour, number of limbs, antennae, eyes to head ratio. (ie fear related to difference)

23. ConclusionsBiological Preparedness Aversive Stimulus Configurations • All significantly correlated with fear once the effects of other variables were removed • Other features contributed to fear eg feel of a spider, hiss of a snake. • Humans not specifically prepared to fear particular species. • Key factors : objective harmfulness, properties and difference from human form

24. Evaluation Methodology Method • Questionnaires used • Mean scores used • Correlations • Different participants answered questionnairs 1&2 • Give an advantage and disadvantage of each point above

25. Evaluation Methodology Reliability • Were the questionnaires reliable? Ie would they get the same answers from the same person twice? Validity • Supported by Merckelbach et al (1987) • Is asking about fear the same as testing it?

26. Evaluation Methodology Sampling • 113 fairly evenly split – why important? • Opportunity sample at a health centre – sound? Ethical Issues • What issues are important here?

27. Evaluation Alternative evidence Biological Preparedness : Predictions • Fear response learned more rapidly to species dangerous in the EEA • Such fears hard to EXTINGUISH • CONTRAPREPAREDNES – it should be harder to condition fear of harmless things.

28. Evaluation Alternative evidence Seligman (1971) Ohman(2000) • J McNally & Reiss(1982) • N

29. Evaluation Alternative evidence Cook& Mineka(1990) • J • n Mineka & Cook (1986) • N • n

30. Evaluation Alternative evidence Studies with Humans • Regan & Howard(1995) • n Expectancy Bias • McNally(1987) • Davey(1995)