
John Bennett-
AIMS: Evolutionary Psychology suggests phobias are once adaptive behaviours which
helped our ancestors to survive; if we are extremely fearful of an animal and we
try to get away from the animal, we are unlikely to get hurt by it. If the fearfulness
becomes inherited by an individual’s offspring -
Martin Seligman (1971) proposes that humans are biologically predisposed to fear
certain animals such as snakes. He found that 2-
Susan Mineka, Richard Keir & Veda Price (1980), however, found that wild-
So Bennett-
PROCEDURE (METHOD):
113 participants who were attending a British health centre were asked to fill in one of two questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed in a random order.
Group 1 (completed Questionnaire 1) included 34 females and 30 males. The mean age of group 1 was 35.5 years; standard deviation: 16.9.
Group 2 (completed Questionnaire 2) included 25 females and 24 males. The mean age of group 2 was 35.1 years; standard deviation: 16.4.
Questionnaire 1 was designed to measure self-
Participants rated their avoidance by completing a 5-
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”. Where the animals might have been thought of as being harmful (e.g. grass snakes, jellyfish), the instruction ‘not harmful’ was included.
Questionnaire 2 was designed to measure self-
The 29 animals and insects included in both questionnaires were: rat, cockroach, jellyfish (not harmful), spider, slug, grass snake (not harmful), beetle, lizard, worm, frog, moth, ant, crow, mouse, grasshopper, squirrel, caterpillar, baby seal, blackbird, hamster, baby chimpanzee, butterfly, spaniel (dog), tortoise, robin, lamb, cat, ladybird and rabbit.
FINDINGS (RESULTS): The first table shows the mean ratings of animal characteristics, fear and nearness ratings.
Rats were feared more than any other animal. Informal questioning suggested that it was because they were perceived as potentially harmful.
In the ratings for nearness, females were found to be less willing 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. Similar differences were found in the fear ratings. Group 1 men rated themselves as less fearful than the women but seemed just as responsive to the animal characteristics. The rank order correlation between nearness ratings of animals in men and women was r = 0.96 with p<0.001.
There were no notable sex differences in ratings of ugliness, sliminess, speediness and suddenness of movement.
The second table is a correlation matrix of animal characteristics, fear and nearness measures (p <0.01 except * where p<0.001).
Ratings of ugliness and sliminess were significantly correlated with nearness and fear measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Bennett-
“The results from the 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-
|
|
Fear |
Nearness |
Ugly` |
Slimy |
Speedy |
Moves Suddenly |
|
Rat |
2.08 |
3.9 |
2.24 |
1.1 |
2.35 |
2.53 |
|
Cockroach |
1.58 |
3.25 |
2.53 |
1.2 |
1.96 |
2.04 |
|
Jellyfish |
1.81 |
2.95 |
2 |
2.47 |
1.39 |
1.51 |
|
Spider |
1.64 |
2.88 |
2.43 |
1.06 |
2.25 |
2.52 |
|
Slug |
1.19 |
2.84 |
2.63 |
2.9 |
1.04 |
1.02 |
|
Grass snake |
1.55 |
2.78 |
1.8 |
1.78 |
2.12 |
2.42 |
|
Beetle |
1.33 |
2.5 |
2.1 |
1.18 |
1.55 |
1.57 |
|
Lizard |
1.25 |
2.45 |
1.88 |
1.54 |
2.53 |
2.78 |
|
Worm |
1.16 |
2.39 |
2.18 |
2.45 |
1.14 |
1.2 |
|
Frog |
1.17 |
2.28 |
1.88 |
2.24 |
1.8 |
2.31 |
|
Moth |
1.25 |
2.27 |
1.53 |
1.09 |
2.04 |
2.32 |
|
Ant |
1.14 |
2.22 |
1.86 |
1.04 |
2.04 |
2.14 |
|
Crow |
1.22 |
2.14 |
1.67 |
1.02 |
2.02 |
2.08 |
|
Mouse |
1.27 |
2.13 |
1.35 |
1.02 |
2.35 |
2.56 |
|
Grasshopper |
1.16 |
2.06 |
1.76 |
1.12 |
2.48 |
2.77 |
|
Squirrel |
1.11 |
2.03 |
1.02 |
1.02 |
2.44 |
2.71 |
|
Caterpillar |
1.05 |
1.84 |
1.65 |
1.24 |
1.14 |
1.12 |
|
Baby seal |
1.03 |
1.63 |
1.06 |
1.42 |
1.5 |
1.48 |
|
Blackbird |
1.08 |
1.59 |
1.1 |
1 |
2.04 |
2.2 |
|
Hamster |
1 |
1.5 |
1.02 |
1 |
1.98 |
2.23 |
|
Baby Chimpanzee |
1.09 |
1.48 |
1.33 |
1 |
1.63 |
1.73 |
|
Butterfly |
1 |
1.33 |
1.06 |
1.02 |
2.08 |
2.36 |
|
Spaniel (dog) |
1.08 |
1.31 |
1.08 |
1.02 |
2.06 |
1.84 |
|
Tortoise |
1 |
1.31 |
1.41 |
1.08 |
1.08 |
1.06 |
|
Robin |
1 |
1.31 |
1.02 |
1 |
2.1 |
2.29 |
|
Lamb |
1 |
1.16 |
1.02 |
1 |
1.61 |
1.9 |
|
Cat |
1.03 |
1.14 |
1.02 |
1 |
2.17 |
2.31 |
|
Ladybird |
1.02 |
1.14 |
1.1 |
1 |
1.71 |
1.88 |
|
Rabbit |
1.02 |
1.13 |
1.04 |
1 |
2.35 |
2.65 |
|
|
Ugly |
Slimy |
Speedy |
Moves suddenly |
Fear |
Nearness |
|
Ugly |
|
0.75 |
- |
- |
0.82 |
0.87 |
|
Slimy |
0.75* |
|
- |
- |
0.61 |
0.77 |
|
Speedy |
- |
- |
|
0.95 |
0.17 |
- |
|
Moves suddenly |
- |
- |
0.95* |
|
0.92 |
0.05 |
|
Fear |
0.82* |
0.61* |
0.17 |
0.02 |
|
0.90 |
|
Nearness |
0.87* |
0.77* |
- |
0.05 |
0.90* |
|
CRITICISMS (EVALUATION): An effort was made to avoid fear-
In 1987 Harald Merckelbach, Marcel van den Hout & Margo van der Molen repeated Bennett-
Useful applications were suggested as a result of Bennett-
Various research with animals has shown that animals such as rhesus monkeys can acquire fears by observing the reactions of
of other animals to novel stimuli, ie through social learning. In relation to prepared
fears, Michael Cook & Susan Mineka (1989) found that rhesus monkeys could acquire
fear through social learning to fear-
Although published prior to Bennett-
More recently, M Regan & R Howard (1995) have shown that people can be more readily
conditioned to fear-
The findings of Merckelbach, De Jong, I Leeuw & van den Hout (1995) provide further
evidence for the idea of preparedness but also suggest that there are flaws in some
of the research in this area. Merckelbach et al compared a range of stimuli used
in tests of preparedness and asked student participants to rate them for fearfulness,
dangerousness and movement, and expert biologists to rate them for 'survival relevance'
ie the genuine level of threat they present. Fear correlated with survival relevance,
dangerousness and unpredictability of movement -
This view was supported by Öhman (2000) who found, in a neo-