1. Biological Preparedness
What is it?
How does it explain phobias?

2. Key Points Evolutionarily relevant (adaptive) Automatic
Can’t be cognitively controlled (at least not easily)
Separate from learned associations in the brain
Originates in the amygdala

3. Background
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 - ie: naturally selected - then that genetic line is more likely to survive than another genetic line that didn’t inherit that trait.

4. Aim
To see if phobias of snakes could be more easily conditioned than phobias of faces or houses (which would indicate a biological preparedness for phobias of certain stimuli)

5. Method Lab exp Machine Pics Deliver shocks after some of them GSR
Independent deisgn
1/3 conidtions
Snakes houses or face
64 paid volunteers yr
38 females 26 males
Psychology students university of Upsalla

6. Wired to machine
Measured skin conductance
Shock – uncomfortable not painful
Pics presented on coloured slides 8 seconds
If shock it was immediate
Seated comfortably and told they would experience shocks and see 3 types of pics
Order of pics randomised – why?
32 pps received shocks after snakes
16 after pics of houses
16 picks after human faces

7. Findings
All participants had a similar measure of skin conductance prior to stimulus and shocks
Snakes: av conductance to snakes
0.048 to houses and faces
Higher the conductance = more sweat
Physiological response to fear
Control group: to conditioned stimulus
0.03 to neutral (no shocks)
Micro mhos

8. Conclusions Pps more likely to show fear reactions to snakes
Biological preparedness to stimuli that may cause us danger e.g. snakes
Easier to use classical conditioning to treat phobias of non-evolutionarily relevant stimuli

9. Role Play In groups of 4, role play the procedure section.
If you finish this quickly, you can add in findings/conclusions.

10. Evaluation
You are all adept at evaluating studies. You will have had a go at your own evaluation, I’d like you to now pair up and share your ideas.

11. Evaluation G – relatively balanced gender wise Swedish – ethnocentric?
Psychology students – issues with this?
R – good controls, therefore easily replicable
Bennet-Levy & Marteu
Mineka et al showed how wild monkeys displayed fear of real, model and toy snakes, whereas laboratory-reared monkeys showed only a mild response to model and toy snakes, showing lab monkeys had an innate preparedness to fear certain characteristics of the snakes, e.g. their movement. If the ‘snakes’ were moving the lab monkeys showed fear.
A – helps us to understand the bio basis for phobias and also suggests that conditioning may be an effective treatment
Provides evidence for both nature (predisposition) and nurture (conditioned responses and treatments)
V – Good controls
Shows response, but doesn’t explain why to us (no qual. responses)
Lab: low ecological validity
E – unethical to expose people to potentially distressing stimulus and to condition fear responses?
Shocks uncomfortable but not painful

12. Extension/additional information
Bennet-Levy and Marteau
Overview, but you may research this in more detail if you wish
Characteristics not the animal itself that leads to fear – what kind mind they be?
Asked to rate animals on how they’d feel about certain things e.g. level of avoidance
Ugliness, speediness, sliminess and suddenness of movement rated also
Correlation between avoidance and how much of the above they were!
Most significant relationships were found between nearness and ugliness and nearness and sliminess.

13. APRCE Watson and Rayner’s Study
Homework
APRCE Watson and Rayner’s Study
Use the booklet + internet + text books at school. For weds