Bennett-Levy, J. and Marteau, T. (1984) ‘Fear of animals:
What is prepared?’ British Journal of Psychology, 75: 37-42
What could I be asked?
1. Summarise the aims and context of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984)
study (12)
2. Outline the procedures of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) study (12)
3. Describe the findings and conclusions of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984)
study (12)
4. Evaluate the methodology of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s (1984) study (12)
5. With reference to alternative evidence, critically assess Bennett-Levy and
Marteau’s (1984) study (12)
What do you need to know about the study?
aims and context
procedure
findings and
conclusion
• Why was this study carried out? What had happened
in society recently? Had there been related research
already carried out? What were they trying to find
out?
• What type of study was this? What did they actually
do? Where was it carried out? Who took part? How did
they measure outcomes?
• What did they find out? What conclusions did they
draw from this?
evaluation of the
methodology used
• What were strengths and weaknesses of the way this
study was carried out? Think about sampling issues,
reliability, ethics, ecological validity etc.
assessment using
alternative evidence
• What do other studies suggest about this study? Do
they support, contradict it, or perhaps suggest there is
something important the researchers didn't think of?
Putting it into context…
Definition
Context
Many more people have phobias of snakes and spiders than cars, in spite of their greater
exposure to cars (making an association with that stimulus more likely). According to
Seligman (1971), the objects or situations forming the basis of most phobias were real
sources of danger thousands of years ago,
and those individuals who were sensitive
to these stimuli were favoured in natural
selection. This ‘readiness’ or
predisposition to fear some stimuli but not others is called preparedness.
With regards to fear of animals, Bennett-levy and Marteau identify four important pieces of
evidence in favour of preparedness:
1.
The pattern of animal phobias is non-random: not all species are equally likely to
elicit phobic responses. This suggests that there is something particular about those
species that are commonly the focus of phobia, such as moving quickly or suddenly.
2.
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 dangerous
3.
Children are most likely to become afraid at about four years: this consistency would
be unlikely to arise if their developing fears were related to their encounters, suggesting
instead that the appearance of these fears has innate origins.
4.
A phobic individual’s fears persist despite their knowledge that the feared animal is
harmless, (e.g. fear of tame rat): this suggest that there may be basic aspects of the
species that elicit the response.
Exercise: give examples of species that move suddenly or quickly.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Give examples of species that are very different from humans.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Give examples of species that we may be wary about even when we know they are
harmless.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Discrepancy
Since phobias are, by definition, irrational, any evolutionary explanation needs to be able to
account for such fears. One possible explanation is the notion of discrepancy.
The discrepancy principle is the extent to which a species differs in form from the
characteristics exhibited by humans. This suggests that animals with a highly
unfamiliar form would be more likely to lead to phobias.
An alternative explanation depends on the fear-provoking properties of animals as stimuli.
These could include having a threatening or unpleasant sound, touch or smell. It could also
relate to what an animal does, such as moving unpredictably or touching us.
Contextual Research
Mineka et al (1980) conducted research into this area by giving lab reared and wild
monkeys real, toy and model snakes. While the wild monkeys showed considerable fear of
all three stimuli, the lab reared monkeys showed only a very mild response. Mineka
suggests that the fear of snakes has to be learned (through either classical or operant
conditioning, or possibly through observational learning).
The lab reared monkeys would not have had the
opportunity to learn to be scared of snakes.
However, Bennett-Levy and Marteau disagreed with this
conclusion. They noted that on the occasions when the
laboratory reared monkeys showed the most fear, it was when the real snake showed the
greatest movement. They suggested therefore that monkeys (and presumably humans) may
not have a ‘prepared template’ to fear snakes per se, but they may be prepared to fear
‘snake like movements’.
Summarise the following possible explanations for phobias.
Preparedness _____________________________
___________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Discrepancy _________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Learning ____________________________
_________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Aim
Bennett-Levy and Marteau aimed to explore the importance of perceptual characteristics of
animal phobias. Based on the criteria for evidence for preparedness, Bennett-Levy and
Marteau aimed to test several hypotheses, that:

Fear is related to an animal’s perceptual characteristics

The acceptable distance from an animal is related to its perceptual characteristics

Animals with greater discrepancy will be perceived as more ugly

Animals with greater discrepancy will be perceived as more frightening.
Method
Sample
Size:
Sampling method:
This was a
study because it
looks at the relationship between 2 variables.
How were they recruited?
It used a
method because
participants responses were measured using a
type of self-report.
Sample characteristics:
One variable was…
The other was…
Procedure
The participants’ responses, to a range of 29 small, harmless animal species, were
investigated. Participants were asked to complete one of two questionnaires. It was made
clear on both questionnaires that the animals listed were not harmful and this was written
beside species for which there could be any doubt (e.g. ‘grass snake’ instead of just ‘snake’)
Questionnaire 1 asked participants about fear and avoidance:
 Participants rated the animals on two scales:
o Fear scale: participants were asked to rate their fear of the animal on a three
point scale (1=not afraid, 2=quite afraid, 3=very afraid)
o Nearness scale: participants rated their avoidance by completing a five point scale
of nearness (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)
Why did the experimenters use 2 different scales to measure fear?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Participants were instructed that “as some animals and insects are difficult to pick up in the
wild, imagine that they have been injured in some way. For instance, the birds have a broken
wing, or the squirrel a broken foot, etc”...
Questionnaire 2 asked about participants’ perception of the characteristics of the same
29 species.
o The participants were asked “We would like you to consider how UGLY, SLIMY
and SPEEDY the animals are, and how SUDDENLY they appear to MOVE.”
The participants rated these characteristics on a three point scale (1=not, 2=quite, 3=very).
Informal questioning
Participants were interviewed by the researchers on the motivation behind their answers.
These were open questions.
What was the purpose of these questions?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Findings
Animal
Fear
Nearness
Ugly
Slimy
Speedy
Rat
Spaniel
Jellyfish
Spider
Grass snake
Squirrel
Lamb
2.08
1.64
1.81
1.64
1.55
1.11
1.00
3.90
2.88
2.95
2.88
2.78
2.03
1.16
2.24
2.43
2.00
2.43
1.80
1.02
1.02
1.10
1.06
2.47
1.06
1.78
1.02
1.00
2.35
2.25
1.39
2.25
2.12
2.44
1.61
Moves
suddenly
2.53
2.52
1.51
2.52
2.42
2.71
1.90
From the above extract from Bennett-Levy and Marteau (1984) results:
Which three animals are the most feared (include mean)?
1. ______________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________
Which three animals do people want to be the furthest away from (include mean)?

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________
The mean ratings show that participants were more fearful of rats than any other species and
also rated them as speedy and likely to move suddenly. After the questionnaire, the
researchers conducted informal interviews, and found that it was because rats were
perceived as more harmful, even though the questionnaire had specified that they were not.
Gender differences
In the ratings for nearness, it was found that females were less likely to approach or pick up
10 of the animals than males. These animals were (in descending order) jellyfish, cockroach,
ant, moth, crow, worm, beetle, slug, mouse and spider.
No gender differences were found in ratings of ugliness, sliminess, speediness or suddenness
of movement. So, although men were generally less fearful than women, the characteristics
of animals to which they respond appear the same. For example, there was no significant
difference between ‘ugliness’ ratings given by men and women.
Draw a scatter graph showing the link b/t fear and sudden movement.
Correlational analysis
Combinations of characteristics were analysed using correlations. The key findings were
that:

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.
Conclusions
The results suggest that the perceptual characteristics of animals are important in determining
the way people think and feel about them. Animals that have the four perceptual characteristics
(ugly, slimy, speedy or sudden moving) are experienced as less approachable and more fear
provoking than other animals without these qualities. The animals most feared (after the rat)
have long antennae, tentacles etc.
What theory does this support?...............................................................................................
This study also supports the idea that as speediness and abruptness of movement were all
significantly correlated with fear. The informal interviews identified that the sounds that
animals make and the tactile properties are also important variables in evoking fear.
Comments from participants included: “The hissing of snakes, the darting movements of their
tongue….” And “spiders can run very fast and I couldn’t stand the thought of one running up my
leg”.
What theory does this support? ………………………………………………………………………………………….
Overall, animal phobias seem to be linked to two kinds of variables:

Firstly, the strangest of an animal’s physical structure in comparison to the human form

Secondly, certain important threatening stimulus properties, including visual, tactile
(e.g. feeling unpleasant), and auditory characteristics.
Recap
Aim
•
•
Procedure
•
•
Findings
•
•
Conclusions
•
•
Alternative evidence
Mineka et al. (1980)
Mineka et al. conducted research into this area by giving lab reared and wild monkeys real,
toy and model snakes. While the wild monkeys showed considerable fear of all three
stimuli, the lab reared monkeys showed only a very mild response. Mineka suggests that the
fear of snakes has to be learned. The lab reared monkeys would not have had the
opportunity to learn to be scared of snakes.
This study
Bennett-Levy & Marteau’s conclusions that fear is
prepared (innate), suggesting that it is due to nurture instead. However, Bennett-Levy
proposed that it is not specific animals we are prepared to fear; instead, we fear certain
characteristics these animals have in common. Therefore, Mineka’s study cannot discount
that lab monkeys may not have responded to the snake because they did not know it could
move rapidly. Mineka also highlights a strength of Bennett-Levy’s study, that it used human
participants, rather than animals that are difficult to
. On the other
hand, unlike Mineka, Bennett-Levy used a correlation study, which doesn’t show cause and
effect.
Cook & Mineka (1989)
Cook & Mineka carried out another study on lab raised monkeys and fear response to
snakes. They showed moneys videos of other monkeys reacting fearfully towards toy snakes
and crocodiles, or flowers and rabbits. Monkeys could learn to fear snakes and crocodiles
through observation, but not flowers and rabbits.
This study
Bennett-Levy & Marteau’s conclusions that species have
evolved a preparedness to fear certain potentially dangerous stimuli. However, this study
used an
sample of monkeys, whereas Bennett-Levy used a more
representative human sample. Cook & Mineka highlights a strength of Bennett-Levy, in its
attempt to discover how we are prepared to fear certain animals: through discrepancy or
aversive stimulus properties.
Ohman & Soares (1998)
Humans conditioned faster to fear relevant (pictures of snakes/ spiders) stimuli,
paired with electric shocks, than fear irrelevant stimuli (pictures of flowers/
mushrooms.
This study
Bennett-Levy & Marteau because it supports
preparedness. It also uses humans, like Bennett-Levy, which highlights a strength of
Bennett-Levy sample, in it’s
. However, it again highlights the
weakness of a correlation study, which cannot show cause and effect as Ohman &
Soares could.
UCS
CS
UCS
CR
CS
CR
What can we conclude from alternative evidence?
Alternate evidence largely
Bennett-Levy and the theory
of preparedness. Support comes largely from lab studies, and helps
demonstrate cause and effect, which cannot be determined from BennettLevy’s correlation study. However, this research has not distinguished between
aversive stimulus and discrepancy explanations; which is correct remains
inconclusive, as Bennett-Levy’s informal questioning, which supports aversive
stimulus, was poorly
.