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.
2.
3.
4.
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
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.
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.


Demand characteristics


Previous evidence had shown gender differences in fears.
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 QUESTIONS
Section A
1. Outline the procedures of Bennett-Levy and
Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals:
what is prepared?’. [12] 2010
Section B
1. Evaluate the methodology of Bennett-Levy and
Marteau’s (1984) research ‘Fear of Animals:
what is prepared?’. [12] 2011
2. With reference to alternative evidence, critically
assess Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984)
research ‘Fear of Animals: what is prepared?’.
[12] 2010