Bennett-Levy and Marteau
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?
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?
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…
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.
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.

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?
1. Context

Seligman
Biological preparedness
 Prepared template
 Specific to each animal, or more general
like movement and appearance?

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.

1. Context

Mineka (1980)
However BL&M disagreed. Lab monkeys
showed most fear when the snake moved
 Suggests…?
 …prepared to fear snake-like movements

1. Context

Scnheirla (1965)
Certain combinations of movement produce
a fear response
 Abrupt, irregular in timing and high
magnitude
 Aversive stimulus configuration

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

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.

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

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.

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?
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

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

3. Findings

Disproportionate fear of the rat
Perceived as more harmful
 Effects of potential harm were not removed

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
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
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
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

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.

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.
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
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.
4. Evaluate the Methodology

Evaluate the following
Method
 Reliability
 Validity
 Sampling
 Ethics

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?
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.
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 nonfearful monkey with a snake.
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.
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.