Classical Conditioning: Phobia - Lab Report Example

ical Conditioning Affiliation Phobia for animals is dominant in many countries around the world. The current study’s main objective was to test if there was predicted that each of the variables (fear, strangeness, harmfulness) would be correlated with skewed of a number of animals. Twenty-two first year university students took part in the experiment on voluntary basis. Twelve were female and ten were male. Ethical approval was significant in the study. Both Kendall’s Tau-B Correlation and scatter-charts were used to test correlation between variables in the study. Introduction Fear for animals is dominant in many countries around the world. In United States, studies have indicated that about 50% of the entire population suffers from fear of animals such as snakes and spiders, while in Europe, 30% of adults report fear of snakes and 20% report fear of dogs (Hensman et al,. 1991). Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s aim of their study was to determine whether human being are born with preparedness to be afraid of animals and avoid them, animals that seem different from human beings and move suddenly and quickly. A great deal of research was done before Bennett-Levy and Marteau’s did their study. Seligman though that human fear and phobia was due to evolution. This depicts that our great parents were scared of specific threatening animals in order to survive and this perception has been replicated to us. He termed this as preparedness to fear certain animals. We are ready to be scared of other animals even without thinking sometimes. Many researches have also depicted that fear of animals is not related to the animal, but to the characteristics that the animal shows. In addition, if animals seem different from human beings, for example if it scares, we will instinctively be frightened and will not like to approach it. Phobia has two types of origin; the first is from a traumatic experience with animals. For example, being bitten by a dog. The second is from vicarious conditioning; this phobia from observation of other people reactions. The current study tested several hypothesis, 1: it was predicted that each of the variables (fear, strangeness, harmfulness) would be correlated with skewed of a number of animals. 2: it was proposed that the perception of fear, strangeness, harmfulness across a number of animals would show significant positive correlation with fear of the animals. An SPSS analysis was conducted to test for the significance of correlation. Review of Literature According to Seligman (1971), preparedness theory of phobia human are biologically prepared to learn how to fear objects and situations that intimidate the survival of these species. Biological preparedness is considered responsible for irrationality and resistance to characteristics of phobia. The most consistent evidence is the enhanced resistance to extinction to response established against fear-related stimuli. According to Bennett-Levy, characteristics of some specified animals are important in determining their negative or positive appraisal by human beings. There are several scholars who have noted that certain fears are innate and have been put forward to account for fears of dangerous animals. Davis, (1992) noted realistically painted snake elicited fear to monkeys than all other animals in the wild, but the monkeys were a mixture of wild and laboratory reared animals which may have been earlier exposed to snakes. There are other indications in literature that on animal fear such as particular qualities of movements. Hensman et al., (1991), identified that certain stimuli elicit withdrawal responses; such stimulus are abrupt, irregular and have high magnitude. They are effective in proprioceptive, tactile, and auditory modalities. For example, large animals such as lion that move impulsively and in enormous speed towards the onlooker should elicit maximal withdrawal responses. Methods 22 first year university students took part in the experiment on voluntary basis. 12 were female and 10 were male. The thoughts of the participants concerning 10 different animals were evaluated using Armfield and Mattiske has derived questionnaire type. The ten animals used in the study represent four animals occasionally known to create fear among United Kingdom population and six with elicit limited fear. The most feared animals were spider, mouse, cockroaches, and moth. The six less feared were Jellyfish, baby seal, slug, beetle, butterfly, and ant. The variables used were fear, and perception of strangeness and harmfulness. All the variables were tested using scores ranging from 1 to 3. Each item needed a rating for all the animals used. The participants were asked three questions to determine negative evaluation of each animal. Procedure Ethical approval was significant in the study and the participants were informed that the study was voluntary. In addition, there were informed that their identity would not be shared and that they were free to discontinue their engagement in the study at anytime. The students were given briefing information about what they will expect in the questionnaire. In order to reduce cases of demand characteristics, the participants were not informed about questions related to fear of animals. Analysis Kendall’s Tau-B Correlation was used to determine the association between each variable and the independent variables (IVs. Results Correlations Ugliness Harmfulness Fear Kendalls tau_b Ugliness Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .813** .934** Sig. (1-tailed) . .003 .001 N 10 10 10 Harmfulness Correlation Coefficient .813** 1.000 .873** Sig. (1-tailed) .003 . .002 N 10 10 10 Fear Correlation Coefficient .934** .873** 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .002 . N 10 10 10 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). The results of Kendall’s correlation indicates that there is a correlation between harm and fear at .873, a strong positive correlation and it is statistically significant (p=.002). The correlation between fear and strangeness is consistent .934, and is statistically significant (P=0.001). The correlation between harmlessness and strangeness is also consistent .813, and is statistically insignificant (P=0.003). The main effect of the analysis is that there is a correlation between harmfulness and fear at .873, a strong positive correlation and it is statistically significant (p=.004). In addition, there is also close correlation between fear and strangeness. It is evident from previous literature that animal with strange look create fear to individual especially children. For example, children have great fear in spider and jellyfish not because they have negative experience about the animals but from there look. The opposite of such depiction is that millipedes have strange look but are not feared by children since from their experience they are less harmful. Discussion The study hypothesized that the perception of animals as dangerous and harmful would be significantly related to fear of the specified animals. After undertaking the correlation the most significant relationship were found between fear, harmlessness, and strangeness. This means that very ugly and harmful animals elicited more fear. Despite the fact that these were significant findings, correlation was evident for phobia and all the three characteristics. It was also found that mouse were the most feared animal. Previous studies indicate that people with close experience mouse perceived mouse to be harmful, despite being told they were not. This is because mouse spread plague. In addition, other studies have indicated that among ten men and women 7 men would like to approach strange animals than female. This prediction was directly from other scholarly literature (Rushen, Taylor & de Passillé, 1999). This study found moderate to very high correlation between the three variables. However, the study did not miss limitation. First, there was biasness in the data presented since the participants were informed about the experiment. Secondly, the study was conducted in a laboratory, meaning that the study does not agree with other real dangerous animal stimulus (Mineka & Öhman, 2002). The use of correction analysis could not have significantly concluded the relationship between the variables. Future studies should come up with models that will help analyze information better, such models include, cognitive Vulnerability Model. Conclusion From this study, it can be concluded that, human beings do not have innate preparedness for specific phobia; rather they have preparedness to fear certain types of animals themselves. It is likely we are born with readiness to fear certain characteristics of animals instead. According to Bennett-Levy, characteristics of some specified animals are important in determining their negative or positive appraisal by human beings (Mineka & Öhman, 2002). The results of the study indicate that being is not always prepared to fear animals rather the degree the degree to which human prepare themselves to fear an animal depends on objective harmfulness. However, this study did not account how individual differences for example, individual do not fear animals that have certain characteristics. An example is a lizard that has threatening properties such a moving very fast, but it is not feared (MacCulloch & Feldman, 1996). Thus, the study proposes that future studies should consider incorporating animals with such characteristics. Despite the fact that the study has various limitations, it can be used to help individuals overcome their phobias and cop with animal characteristics. References Davis, M. (1992). The role of the amygdala in fear and anxiety. Annual review of neuroscience, 15(1), 353-375. Dunsmoor, J. E., Mitroff, S. R., & LaBar, K. S. (2009). Generalization of conditioned fear along a dimension of increasing fear intensity. Learning & Memory, 16(7), 460-469. Gottfried, J. A., ODoherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Appetitive and aversive olfactory learning in humans studied using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 22(24), 10829-10837. Hensman, R., Guimaraes, F. S., Wang, M., & Deakin, J. F. W. (1991). Effects of ritanserin on aversive classical conditioning in humans. Psychopharmacology,104(2), 220-224. MacCulloch, M. J., & Feldman, P. (1996). Eye movement desensitisation treatment utilises the positive visceral element of the investigatory reflex to inhibit the memories of post- traumatic stress disorder: a theoretical analysis.The British Journal of Psychiatry, 169(5), 571-579. Mineka, S., & Öhman, A. (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological psychiatry, 52(10), 927-937. Olsson, A., & Phelps, E. A. (2007). Social learning of fear. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 10(9), 1095-1102. Rushen, J., Taylor, A. A., & de Passillé, A. M. (1999). Domestic animals fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. The British Journal of Psychiatry 65(3), 285-303. Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Read More