Thus, as was seen above, through cognitive development, we can understand how:
- Familiar animals are feared less, and
- If a feared animal is experienced repeatedly, that fear will gradually fade away.
Therefore we are able to understand the decline and peak of phobias at particular ages. (Agras et al, 1969).
Treatment of Phobias:
There are a number of other approaches to the treatment of phobias. Here we briefly describe three of them:
- The Psychodynamic Perspective
Animal phobias belong to the family of anxiety disorders, referred to as neurosis, by psychodynamic writers. The goal of the psychodynamic therapy is to expose and neutralize the material that the ego is defending against, so that the ego will be free to spend its energy in more useful tasks. This can be achieved through the process of free association. During the past few decades, psychoanalysts have moved toward a more emotion-focused therapy.
- The Behavioural Perspective
Behaviourists have evolved a set of techniques aimed at reducing anxiety through confrontation with the feared stimulus. One of the methods of achieving this is through systematic desensitisation. Alternatively the client can approach the feared stimulus in vivo. The effectiveness of exposure therapy might be increased when combining it with cognitive therapy.
- The cognitive perspective
Cognitive therapy is designed to change maladaptive beliefs. The therapist helps people control disturbing emotional reactions by teaching them more effective ways of interpreting and thinking about their experiences.
- The eclectic approach
Most psychotherapists do not adhere strictly to one single method. Instead they take an eclectic approach, selecting from different techniques the ones that seem most appropriate given the clients’ personality and specific symptoms.
As was already mentioned, preparedness to build up a fear can be clarified by an inherited perspective or a learnt perspective. “Inherited” implies going back to our ancestors by means of evolution, where as “learnt” implies learning from direct negative experiences (CC), by watching other people show fear (vicarious conditioning), through repeated warning, and maintaining fears (OC). Bennett-Levy and Marteau view their data as from the innate perspective proposed by Seligman (1971).
HYPOTHESIS
This study aims to test the following three hypotheses:
- There is a significant positive correlation between perceived fear and the perceived harmfulness of a range of animals and insects.
- There is significant positive correlation between perceived harmfulness and perceived strangeness of a range of animals and insects.
- There is a significant positive correlation between perceived fear and strangeness of a range of animals and insects, even when the effects of perceived harmfulness have been controlled for.
The null hypothesis predicts that there will not be any significant positive correlation between the factors studied, and that any relationship observed will be due to the operation of chance factors.
METHOD
Materials and Apparatus
During this research, three questionnaires were used in order to identify an individual’s perceived fear, strangeness and harmfulness towards 29 animals and insects.
All questionnaires were based on a 3-point Likert scale, as follows:
1 = minimum effects
2 = relatively small effect
3 = maximum effect
The three questionnaires measured the relative amount of fear, strangeness and harmfulness experienced towards twenty-nine animals and insects.
Subjects
Opportunity Sampling is the way subjects were chosen for this study. The total sample size was one of 126 subjects.
They ranged from 18 years of age to 55 years of age, with the age group of 18-25 year olds being the highest percent of individuals interviewed (47.62%), followed by that of 26-35 year olds (23.02%). Subjects of 56 years and over were the smallest group interviewed; only being 3.17% of the whole sample. Females also tended to be the higher portion of individuals interviewed. Despite the fact that most of the subjects were drawn from a Maltese population (92.86%), a small amount of foreigners were also included.
Most subjects had a level of tertiary education (50%), followed by those who had only obtained a secondary level of education, and finally the smallest group of individuals had received post-secondary education. The occupation of the various individuals varied drastically, ranging from students, who made up 34.92% of the population, those involved in office and computer work, teachers, and we also had a relatively small number of sales persons (3.17%).
Design
Being a non-experimental research, a correlation study was carried out.
To measure the way individuals perceived the animal characteristics mentioned above (i.e. fear, harmfulness, strangeness), they were told to circle one of the three responses; that which most closely corresponded to their feelings.
In order to assess the third hypothesis directly (predicted positive correlation between perceived fear and strangeness), perceived harmfulness was controlled for. This was done in the following two ways:
- Removing each of the animals and insects having an average harmfulness rating of two or more, and
- Carrying out a first order partial correlation.
Procedure
Within this research, a variety of animals were investigated on the three above mentioned variables.
Subjects had to assess the animals and insects on all three, therefore stating how afraid, harmful, or “ugly” (for strangeness) each and every animal is. This was done to compare with the original study of Bennett-Levy and Marteau.
Since one rating of a questionnaire might have had an effect on the following one, questionnaires were given out in six different orders to cancel out the bias. Since our sample was that of 126 subjects, this counterbalance was possible. The order of presentation can be seen below:
All members of the research team carried out the data collections. The questionnaires were administered in various settings, and at various times. Subjects were thanked before filling in the questionnaire, and were told that there was no right or wrong answer. They were also informed to circle the first characteristic that came to mind, when associating it with the animal in question. They were told that they could fill them in at their own time and pace; in addition to the fact that their name will not be used, and that the results would be confidential.
After collection of questionnaires subjects were debriefed. The team informed all members that animal phobias are relatively common, and told the subjects thank you once again for their cooperation.
RESULTS
Nonparametric Correlations
Partial Correlation Coefficients
From a theoretical point of view: assessing whether the correlation between fear and harmfulness is greater than that between fear and strangeness is crucial. This was done as follows:
Using a test for correlations that are themselves correlated; also derived from Guilford and Fruchter.
The equation used is:
td = (r12 - r13) (N-3) (1+r23)
2(1 - r223 – r212 – r213 + 2r23r12r13)
Working:
r12= 0.665 r23= 0.546 r13= 0.843
With N=29, df = 26
One tailed
Alpha = 0.05
t critical = 1.706
Therefore reject null hypothesis: no difference and conclude that the correlation between fear and strangeness is greater than that between fear and harmfulness.
DISCUSSION
An explanation of how well our data fit our original hypothesis
Our original hypothesis and results:
Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive correlation between perceived fear and the perceived harmfulness of a range of animals and insects.
Hypothesis 2: There is a significant positive correlation between perceived harmfulness and perceived strangeness of a range of animals and insects.
Results for Hypothesis 1 & 2 were similar: Our results show that both these hypotheses show a medium to potentially positive linear relationship existing between fear and harmfulness, as well as between harmfulness and strangeness. Thus both relationships are statistically significant at the 0.01 level of significance.
Hypothesis 3: There is a significant positive correlation between perceived fear and strangeness of a range of animals and insects, even when the effects of perceived harmfulness have been controlled for.
Results for Hypothesis 3: The result here was very close to our hypothesis, that is there was an extremely strong positive linear relationship that reached statistical significance at p <0.01. However, the correlation was still the same when the effects of perceived harmfulness were controlled for, where the correlation reduced from 0.843 to 0.713.
An explanation of whether the data supports or compliments previous research
Our study differed slightly from the original study of Bennett-Levy and Marteau, due to the fact that we only included ratings of fear, harmfulness and strangeness. In the original study, closeness, sliminess, speediness and mode of movement were also included.
Throughout our study we found that the strongest correlation was between perceived fear and perceived strangeness. This is in accordance with the results of the original study. As in this earlier study, we also tried to remove the effects of perceived harmfulness, but this failed just as theirs did. Therefore, our study supports that carried out by Bennett-Levy and Marteau.
A statement of our conclusions
As previously mentioned, our replication of Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s research on the fear of animals, brought out the fact that that there was a strong positive correlation for all of the three originally stated hypothesis.
Thus, these results suggest that it is a person’s perception of the visual presentation of the animal in question that plays an important part in determining the way that the particular animal is being appraised, rather than the level of harm discerned (eg. the extent to which they differ from the human form, rather than the objective threat they pose).
It seems that this could play an important part in many phobias; as people who suffer from such animal phobias actually do fear the perceptual characteristics of an animal, regardless of its potential harm or even mass.
However, in 1971, Seligman and Gray put forward the theory of a biological pre-disposition that is innate in humans; stating that we are all susceptible to fear certain animals. This would mean that there is an equal distribution of fear related to certain animals that is inherent in everyone, regardless of any traumatic experiences. Seligman believed this to be part of our evolutionary origins, as a means of helping us survive certain threats.
One must also account for the sex differences in the ratings of fear. If, as Seligman proposed, we are innately prepared to fear certain animals, then it should be applied equally among both men and women. Yet, our research shows that females rated certain animals as more fear inducing than men.
A discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of the results
A summing up of all our results brings out the fact that human perception plays a great part in our fear of animals. This suggests that that there is a cognitive component related to animal phobias, and that the fear could be reduced if a persons maladaptive cognitions about the animal are changed. In fact, cognitive therapy (joined with behavioural techniques) has proved to be most effective in modifying false beliefs.
Limitations of the research
As a result of the fact that we were not too experienced in carrying out research, we acknowledge that the matter researched and the way the research was carried out, had a number of limitations, which if looked at properly, could have been avoided and improved on. Such limitations include:
- Reliability: With regards to our study, external reliability could not be checked, due to the fact that test-retest reliability was not checked. This resulted in the fact that we could not know if participants were honest and would answer the same way if they were administered the same questionnaire at a later point in time. This resulted in a lack of stability.
.
- Validity: Our study lacked face validity, for the simple reason that the nature of the animals was not clear to the test-taker, as this was not explained well to them. It also lacked content validity, in that our study only tested fear across three variables, therefore not being able to generalize fear to other aspects.
- Sampling method: Our use of opportunistic/convenience sampling, may have resulted in a biased sample. As a result of choosing the participants because they were easily available, our sample may have been limited to a group of individuals who we might have known, therefore not representing the true population.
- Despite the fact that we presented the questionnaires in different orders, to try to counterbalance the effect that answering one question might influence the others, it probably was not very successful. We noted this when analyzing the results, where we noticed that the way an individual responded to an animal on the first questionnaire (one variable), tended to remain very stable and similar on the questionnaires that followed.
- Since questionnaires were only constructed in English, foreigners taking the questionnaire might have had problems in understanding what some animals really were, thus leaving them confused about the nature of the animal. This may have resulted in them just circling an answer for the sake of not leaving out anything, thus not representing their true emotions.
- The individuals’ mood may have affected the way they responded. Questionnaires were handed out one after the other, without time intervals between them, thus the individuals mood was stable across all three.
Suggestions for future research in this area
After reviewing our work and bearing in mind the limitations it brought about, our team acknowledges that the matter researched could be looked at in much more breath and depth and from many different angles. Unfortunately we didn’t have the resources and experience needed to investigate further. Maybe future researches interested in the matter could do more. Here are some of our suggestions:
- Instead of administering questioners, examining the animals “in vivo” may be another possibilty. For example you could put participants in a room with the animal in question and take notes of reactions;
- Additional research could be done with people living in the country or more rural environments compared to inner city inhabitants;
- A pretest, followed by an intensive educational course about the animal(s) in questions should be carried out, after which one may compare the results with the posttest;
- Explore the phenomenon of Steve Irwin, Jeff Corbin, or any other animal lover capable of holding just about anything in their hands, and find out what exactly makes them immune to animal phobias.
An overall conclusion
After viewing our results, we came to the conclusion that individuals fear animals to different degrees. Therefore we think that animal phobias are more likely to be learnt; however we are not ruling out the possibility of it being innate.
REFERENCES
Goodwin, D.W. (1983). Phobia, the facts. London: Oxford Medical Publications
Ormrod, J.E. (1999) Human learning (third ed.). United States of America: Merrill Prentice Hall
Bennett-Levy, J., & Marteau, T. (1984). Fear of animals: what is prepared?. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 35-42.
Gross, R.D. (1990). Key studies in psychology. London: Hodder and Stoughton
Atkinson, R.L., & Atkinson, R. C., & Smith, E.E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen- Hoeksema, S. (1996). Introduction to pyschology (12th ed.). United states of America: Harcourt Brace
Atkinson, R.L., & Atkinson, R. C., & Smith, E.E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen- Hoeksema, S.
(2000). Introduction to psychology (13th ed.). United States of America: Harcourt Brace
Alloy, L.B., & Jacobson, N.S., & Accocella J. (1999). Abnormal Psychology (8th ed.). United States of America: McGraw-Hill College
Msn. (1993-2004). Encarta Encyclopaedia [On-Line]. Available:
http://encarta/msn/com/encylcopedia_761556088/Learning.html
[On-Line]. Available: http://www.bluejoh.com/dungeon/archives/000379.php
[On-Line]. Available: http://
[On-Line]. Available: http://www.phobialist.com
[On-Line].Available:
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaires
This questionnaire is about how UGLY you find certain animals. Please put a circle around the number which best describes your feelings on this:
This questionnaire is about how HARMFUL you think certain animals are. Please put a circle around the number which best describes your feelings on this:
This questionnaire is about how AFRAID you are of certain animals. Please put a circle around the number which best describes your feelings on this:
APPENDIX 3
Scattergrams
Anxiety: The fear of certain things when the person is not really sure of what he/she is afraid of, or why.
3 Phobia: An intense, persistent, or recurrent unreasonable fear of a specific object, activity or situation that results in a compelling avoidance of the dreaded object, activity, or situation.
Simple phobia: an isolated fear of a single object or situation, leading to avoidance of the object or situation.
Classical conditioning: Ivan Pavlov (1920), a type of learning caused by the association/ pairing of two stimuli - the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and the conditioned stimulus (CS), resulting in a conditioned response (CR).
Operant conditioning: B.F Skinner- by negative reinforcement i.e. by repeatedly reinforcing avoidance of a mildly fearful event.
Free association: Asking patients to relate anything which came into their mind, regardless of how apparently unimportant or potentially embarrassing the memory threatened to be.
Emotion-focused therapy: Where the patient is encouraged to pinpoint his/her feelings, confront them and understand how they trigger the neurosis.
Systematic desensitization: The client draws up a hierarchy of fears and then imagines them, one by one, in a state of deep muscle relaxation.
In vivo: Exposure or confrontation with the feared stimulus .
A sample of the three questionnaires (one on each characteristic) that we distributed to the subjects may be found in the appendix 1.
Opportunity sampling: A sampling method, whereby a sample is selected because they are easily available for testing.
Correlation study: a study in which two aspects of people are measured so as to see the extent to which the two measures would correlate
Debriefing: Informing participant about the full nature and rationale of the study they have experienced and attempting to reverse any negative influence.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the values from which such results were computed.
Refer to Appendix 3 for scattegrams