GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Bennett-Levy and Marteau

DauntlessAlpha Psychology A Levels English 37 cards

Cards in this deck (37)

  1. 1What did BL+M notice about their patients?Bennett-Levy and Marteau noticed a non-random distribution of animal phobias in their patients
  2. 2What is the theory that Seligman proposed?Seligman proposed the concept of biological preparedness which is that we have an inherited disposition to fear certain classes of animals (e.g. spider,snakes)
    This theory was based on evolutionary approach - where adaptive behaviors were developed that were advantageous to the individual’s likelihood of survival due to natural selection – fears were one of the adaptive characteristics
  3. 3What 3 observations were Seligman's beliefs supported by? Seligman’s belief supported by 3 observations:
    Non-random distribution of fears
    Fear not matched by traumatic experiences
    Fears appear early in life – peaks in childhood
  4. 4Explain the 2 factors that BL+M looked at to find a general mechanism responsible for biological preparednessBL+M wanted to find a general mechanism responsible for bio preparedness so looked at 2 factors:
    Movement: Mineka et al (1980) – wild monkeys + lab-reared monkeys were both shown real, toy + model snakes wild feared all 3, lab: mild response. Suggested: fear has to be learned through classical/operant conditioning/observational learning lab monkeys didn’t have a chance to do this.
    Bennett-Levy n Marteau – noticed lab monkey showed greatest fear of real snakes - greatest movement caused fear -(Schneirla 1965) – certain characteristics of movement produced fear response ASC (aversive stimulus configuration) – sudden abrupt movements.
     Discrepancy Principle: Hinde (1974) scariest animal look very diff to human form: large discrepancy between stimulus + organisms model of the world. Supported by BL+M patients whose descriptions of animal phobias were based on what animals looked and felt like.
  5. 5What did BL+M want to investigate?Wanted to investigate underlying mechanism of bio preparedness: Movement, Appearance
  6. 6What did they predict?Predicted that these characteristics relate to distribution and avoidance of these animals - very diff to human form, moves rapidly/abruptly would be more feared and therefore more avoided.
  7. 7How many participants overall and how many in each group and what were the mean ages of each group?2 questionnaires were given to 113 participants (opportunity sample) found at a British health centre:
    Group 1 (1st questionnaire): 34 females, 30 males – mean age: 35.5
    Group 2 (2nd questionnaire): 25 females, 24 males – mean age: 35.1
  8. 8What did the questionnaires concern?Questionnaires concerned:
    29 small harmless animals and insects.
    Reason for harmless – same perceptual characteristics that created fear in harmful animals should create fear in harmless animals even though they are of no bio significance to survival of humans.
    In cases where animals were considered harmful (grass snake, jellyfish) participants were asked to consider them as harmless
  9. 9What did Q1 consist of and what did it measure?Questionnaire 1 – measures self-reported fear and avoidance of the fears and insects. Rated on 2 scales:
    Fear scale: 3 point scale (1=not afraid, 2= quite afraid, 3= very afraid)
    Nearness scale: Rate their avoidance – 5 point scale (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)
  10. 10What did Q2 measure and what did it consist of?Questionnaire 2 – Designed to measure self-reported ratings of the same 29 animals and insects are used in Q1 but specifically along 4 perceptual dimensions – “We would like you to consider how UGLY, SLIMY and SPEEDY the animals are, and how SUDDENLY they appear to MOVE” – 3 point scale
  11. 11What 3 animals were most feared?Most feared: Rat – 2.08, Jellyfish – 1.81, Spider – 1.64
  12. 12What 3 animals were most avoided?Animals wanted far away: Rat – 3.90, Cockroach – 3.25, Jellyfish – 2.95
  13. 13What animal was feared considerably more than the others? Give an explanation for this..Rats feared considerably more than any other animal – perhaps due potential harm (e.g. disease) – their attempt to remove the effects of perceived harmfulness had failed.
  14. 14How did gender affect results?Women - less likely to pick up 10 of the animals than males
    Group 1 men rated themselves as less fearful than women but Correlation coefficients for both, the values were very close (0.96) – so men were scared of the same animals in the same order but claimed to be less scared
  15. 15What were the CC of the perceptual characteristics?Correlation Coefficients of perceptual characteristics:
    Ratings of Ugliness significantly correlated with nearness (0.87) and fear (0.82) - Discrepancy
    Ratings of Sliminess significantly correlated with nearness ( 0.77) and fear (0.61) – ASC
  16. 16What 2 conclusions were drawn about PC?PC of animals are important in determining positive or negative approach by humans
    animals with 4 PC are less approachable and more fear provoking
  17. 17What conclusion was drawn for effects of perceived harm?BUT despite effort to remove effect of anticipated harm by instructing pps to rate animals as harmless,perceived harm is important characteristic when it comes to rating fearfulness and other PC
  18. 18What were the 2 possible mechanisms by which fear is inherited and how are these supported by BL+M exp?BIOLOGICAL PREPAREDNESS - 2 possible mechanisms by which fears inherited:
    DISCREPANCY PRINCIPLE - (Hinde 1974) explains strong relationships between ugliness/sliminess ratings and fear/nearness ratings; pps said judgement of ugliness was based on sliminess, hair, colour, no/limbs; all characteristics fit in with discrepancy from human form.
    AVERSIVE STIMULUS CONFIGURATIONS (Schneirla 1965)
    all significantly correlated with fear when other variables removed; pps also reported other tactile and auditory cues contributed to fearfulness of animals (e.g. feel of spider)
  19. 19Why are self-report questionnaires a disadvantage?They used self-reported questionnaires – participants may lie/exaggerate due to social desirability.
  20. 20What's an advantage of questionnaires?However, questionnaire produce comparable quantitative data quickly, easily and cheaply and they are easy to replicate.
  21. 21How was reliability increased by Merckelbach?Reliability is quite high as Merckelbach et al replicated it to produce similar results which suggest there’s a high consistency and therefore reliability.
  22. 22How is internal validity lowered by the self-report questionnaire?There’s a low internal validity due to the social desirability bias which acts as a confounding variable that can’t be controlled (due to the self-report questionnaires).
  23. 23How effective is the questionnaire as a measuring tool?Also the questionnaire isn’t the best measuring tool as it’s dependant on participants ability to visualise scales accurately
  24. 24How does perceived harm affect internal validity?Bennett Levy and Marteau failed to extinguish expectancy of harmfulness (expectancy bias) (mean ratings showed disproportionate amount of fear for rats due to perceived potential harm(e.g disease) which further decreases internal validity.
  25. 25What increases internal validity?However, participants are not aware of the aims of the study so they can’t act according to the demand characteristics which increases the internal validity.
  26. 26How does sample composition affect generalisability and population validity?The sample included roughly the same number of males and females but generalisations can’t be made because sample is not representative of target population as the opportunity sampling consisted of all British people making it ethnocentric meaning it’s difficult to generalize to other countries/cultures therefore decreasing population validity.
  27. 27How does the questionnaire reduce ecological validity?The questionnaire asked participants about fear – the thought of an animal and the animal physically being there would produce very different responses therefore it has low mundane realism and low ecological validity as it would produce different results in a realistic setting.
  28. 28How were ethics approached?No ethical guidelines were breached – participants underwent no physical or psychological harm. No ethical guidelines were breached – participants underwent no physical or psychological harm and participants voluntarily consented to taking part.
  29. 29What did BL+M conclude?Bio preparedness – based on stimuli that have been dangerous to our ancestor - FR and those that weren’t – FI
    Conclusions:
    Fear learned quicker for FR stimuli
    Acquired FR fears harder to extinguish
  30. 30What did Seligman (1971) find?2-4 small electric shocks enough to induce phobia to pictures of spiders/snakes however larger series of shocks required to induce phobic response to pictures of flowers
  31. 31How do Seligman's findings support BL+M?SUPPORTS BL+M as suggests animals (stimuli) that are Fear Relevant (FR) are easier to associate with fear than Fear Irrelevant (FI) stimuli, consistent with preparedness, HOWEVER the research fails to identify which physical features increase preparedness or indicate FR, of modern phobias like syringes
  32. 32What did Ohman (2000) find?conditioned fears to FI stimuli like houses/flowers however became extinct when aversive stimuli (electric shock) stopped
    however fear response persisted after electric shocks stopped in FR stimuli like snakes/spiders
  33. 33How do Ohman's findings support BL+M?SUPPORTS as suggests association of FI stimuli made with aversive stimuli quickly lost (less
    survival value) but FR associations harder to unlearn as more survival value
  34. 34What did McNally (1987) find acquiring FI/FR?reviewed no. studies and suggest lots of evidence about extinction of FR stimuli (unlearning) was slower than FI stimuli
    however acquiring (learning) fear of FR or FI stimuli was no significantly different
  35. 35How does McNally contradict BL+M?Suggests we are not biologically prepared to learn to be scared of some stimuli more than
    others, but once learnt FR stimuli is harder to unlearn
  36. 36What did Davey (1995) find about the expectancy bias?suggests expectancy bias rather than evolutionary explanation of preparedness for certain stimuli
    expectancy bias is expectation that FR stimuli (such as dangerous situations, past unpleasant experiences) will produce negative consequences in future so is harder to unlearn, once learnt
  37. 37How does Davey's findings develop BL+M?DEVELOPS as explains inconsistent data, such as modern phobias, which would not be
    possible to inherit, as developed fairly recently in evolutionary past, doesn't rule out
    evolutionary explanations of certain stimuli

Information

Description
Aims and Context, Procedures, Findings and Conclusions, Methodology and Alternative Evidence
Created by
DauntlessAlpha
Views
47
Rating

More on Mental health, phobias and clinical case studies

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?