Behuc. RCA. & Tlwapy. Vol. 17. pp 489 IO 493 Q Perpamon Press tld 1979. Printed ux Great Br~tatn
THE ORIGINS
OF FEAR OF SNAKES
EDWARD J. MURRAY
and FRANK
FOOTE
Department of Psychology, University of Miami. Coral. Gabies, FL 33124. U.S.A.
Summety-In
the present study. a questionnaire about the nature and origin of fear of snakes was administered to 60 Phobic, 82 Low Fear and 35 High Fear college students. Phobic and High Fear subjects reported greater fear on a variety of components of snake fear. There was little evidence supporting the role of direct conditioning experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. Rather, the results suggested a variety of observational and instructional learning experiences as related to the acquisition of snake fear. Although preparedness for direct conditioning does not seem relevant, a preparedness for observational and instructional learning is possible.
According to the conditioning theory of neurosis, fears are acquired through the association of previously neutral stimuli with stimuli that evoke pain or fear on an innate basis (Watson and Rayner, 1920). Recent evidence, however, on the role of preparedness for the conditioning of certain fears, the incubation of fears without the unconditiuned stimulus, and the roIe of modeling has motivated a reconsideration and reformulation of the conditioning model (Eysenck, 1976). Rachman (1977, 1978) has gone even further in suggesting that direct conditioning of any kind accounts for relatively few phobias. Rather, many fears are acquired on the basis of information transmitted through observation and instruction. Rachman concedes, though, that the evidence supporting his views is sparse. Fear of snakes is commun in both college student and phobic patient populations (Agras et al., 1972; Hallam and Hafner, 19%). Furthermore, snake fear is often used as a model neurosis for the evaluation of a variety of behavioral treatments fur phobias (Lott and Murray, 1975; Bandura, 1978; &t, 1978). Yet, little is known about the origin of snake fear. Although it has been suggested that fear of snakes is innate, such fear is not present in very young children but develops subsequently (Marks, 1969). One possibility is that fear of snakes is conditioned, but that the human organism is biologically prepared for such conditioning (Seligman and Hager, 1972; Rachman and Seligman, 1976). It is also possible that fear of snakes develops on the basis of observational and instructional learning (Rachman, 1977, 1978). The purpose of the present study was to obtain information about the acquisition of fear of snakes through the use of a questionnaire about the nature and origins of such fears. A similar method was used by Rimm cl al. (1977), in a study of the acquisition of a heterogeneous group of phobic fears. They found more reported experiences suggestive of direct ~unditioning than vicarious experience or informative instruction. However, many subjects could recall no relevant experiences. In the present study, a systematic set of rating scales was used in relation to the specific fear of snakes. Furthermore, two samples were utilized. The first was a group of subjects in a systematic desensitization experiment who were behaviorally as well as verbally phobic. The second was a normal population including non-fearful as well as fearful subjects. METHOD
Subjects The subjects in the first sample consisted of 60 undergraduates, about half male and half female, who were fulfilling an introductory psychology research experiment. They had checked one of the top three itetis indicating fear of snakes on the Fear Survey
EDWARD J. MURRAY and
490
Table
Snake fear question 1. General
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
fear Being bitten Being poisoned Entwining arm Entwining neck Cold skin Slimy skin Enter body Penis-like Other
1. Components
FRANK FOOTE
of fear of snakes
Phobic 5.39 5.22 4.83 5.33 4.05 3.44 4.17 2.00 1.31 2.78’
Subject group Low Fear 3.08* 3.7s 3.63* 2.63* 2.7f* 1.w 2.00’ 1.46’ 1.20
1.77
High Fear 5.60 5.33 5.28 4.88 5.01 3.25 3.67 2.58 1.65 2.02
Schedule II (Geer, 1965). They were also unable to touch a snake in a behavioral avoidance test. After participating in a systematic desensitization experiment (Lott and Murray, 1975), they were asked to fill out the Snake Fear Questionnaire, answering in terms of how they felt before the experiment. This group was labeled Phobic. The subjects in the second sample consisted of 117 undergraduates, about half male and half female, who were asked to fill out the Snake Fear Questionnaire in several undergraduate psychology classes. Subsequently, they were divided into a Low Fear group (N = 82) and a High Fear group (iv = 35) on the basis of their response to the first item on the Snake Fear Questionnaire. Low Fear subjects checked 4 or lower (average or less fear of snakes), While High Fear subjects checked above 4. The Snake Fear Questionnaire consisted of 20 questions to be answered with seven point scales. The first 10 questions dealt with the Components of Fear of Snakes and are summarized in Table 1. The second question, for example, was: “To what extent was your general fear of snakes based on the specific fear of being bitten?” The scale for answering the first 10 questions ran from 1 (no fear at all) through 4 (average fear) to 7 (extreme fear). The second 10 questions dealt with the Origin of Fear of Snakes and are summarized in Table 2. The first of these questions, for example, was “How much actual direct experience have you had with snakes?” The scale for answering the second 10 questions ran from 1 (none at all) through 4 (average) to 7 (a great deal). Subjects were also asked to elaborate on their answers in a comments section at the end of the questionnaire.
RESULTS The results for the first 10 questions dealing with Components of Fear of Snakes are presented in Table 1. The mean scale values are presented for each question for the Phobic, Low Fear and High Fear groups. Each question was first evaluated with an analysis of variance across the three groups. There was a significant effect at the 0.001 level for all but Question 9 which was not significant at a conventional level. An internal analysis was performed with a Duncan test. Each group followed by an asterisk in Table 1 differed from the other two groups at the 0.05 level. The overall pattern in Table 1 shows that the Low Fear group was significantly lower in most of the components of snake fear than the Phobic or High Fear groups, which generally did not differ from each other significantly. Thus, the two different methods of selecting subjects with snake fear seem to produce comparable groups. In general, subjects afraid of snakes are specifically afraid not only of the realistic possibilities of being bitten or poisoned but also of the less realistic possibilities of having the snake entwine itself around an arm or neck to the point of suffocation. Finally, these subjects are afraid of the cold and slimy skin of snakes, an expectation that does not accord with reality. The ‘Other’ factors suggested in Question 10 and elaborated upon in the Comments included a specific fear of the silent and stealthy movements
The origins
of fear of snakes
491
of snakes as well as a variety of vague concerns about their ugliness, meanness and unfamiliarity. Questions 8 and 9 were included in an attempt to get at the symbolic meaning of snakes as suggested by the Freudians. The fear of a snake entering a bodily opening was significantly higher in the Phobic and High Fear groups than in the Low Fear groups, but it was extremely low on the fear scale for all groups. The question about the fear based on the similarity between a snake and a penis was the only one failing to discriminate between groups. All groups rated this extremely low on the fear scale. Therefore, at least on a conscious level, there is little evidence that the fear of snakes is based on sexual symbolism. The results of the questions concerning the Origins of Fear of Snakes are presented in* Table 2. An analysis of variance showed that only five of the questions (2, 3, 6, 8 and 10) showed significant variation across groups (p < 0.01 or better). A supplementary Duncan analysis showed that the Low Fear group was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the other two groups on Questions 2, 8 and 10 (shown by a double asterisk). The Low Fear group was also significantly lower than the Phobic group on Questions 3 and 6 (shown by a single asterisk). In no case was the Low Fear group significantly higher than either of the other two groups. The first two questions were designed to get at direct experiences that would be relevant to the conditioning theory. In general, the subjects had little experience with snakes with no signi~cant difference between the Low Fear and the other two groups. The results for the second question, however, show that, to the extent the subject had any direct experience, it was negative and frightening significantly more for Phobic and High Fear group than for the Low Fear group. In elaborating on this question in the Comments, most of the frightening experiences were either of being startled, but not touched or injured by a snake, or of observing another person or animal being attacked by a snake. There were only three subjects in this sample of 117 people who reported actually having been bitten by a snake and all of these were in the Low Fear group. Two more subjects reported near bites and perhaps a half dozen more reported being touched or had bizarre experiences that might be construed as conditioning. The next group of questions were designed to evaluate the role of vicarious experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. The Phobic group reported si~ificantiy more observations of another person having a negative experience than the Low Fear group. Questions 4 and 5 dealing with father’s fears of snakes showed no group effects. But the Phobic group reported a significantly higher fear of snakes on the part of their mothers than did the Low Fear group. On the other hand, their mothers had no more negative direct experiences with snakes than did the mothers in the other groups. In general, this analysis presents only marginal evidence of vicarious experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. Questions 8 and 9 were designed to evaluate the role of instruction or informational transmission in the acquisition of fear of snakes. The Phobic and High Fear groups Table 2. Origins
Origin 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO.
question
Direct experience Experience frightening Observing another Father’s fear Father’s experience Mother’s fear Mother’s experience Snake stories Biblical story Other
Phobic 2.84 3.73 3.26 2.64 2.38 4.9 I 2.64 3.77 4.63 2.85
of fear of snakes Subject group Low Fear 3.28 2.27+* 2.50* 2.67 2.46 4.05* 2.63 2.X2** 4.69 1.75**
High Fear 2.70 3.40 2.96 2.9 I 2.39 4.63 2.51 3.46 5.04 2.55
492
EDWARD J. MURRAY
Table
3. Product
Origin I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
moment
question
Direct experience Experience frightening Observing another Father’s fear Father’s experience Mother’s fear Mother’s experience Snake stories Biblical story Other
correlations
and
FRANK FOOTE
between questions Males
general
fear of snakes
Females
_ -0.30*
-
0.31* 0.19 0.32* - 0.04 0.47* 0.03 0.40* 0.0 I 0.35*
0.33* 0.32* 0.11 0.05 0.15 -0.01 0.34* 0.03 0.30*
0.10
and origin
Total - 0.25; 0.33* 0.26* 0.11 -0.01 0.24* - 0.01 0.34* 0.01 0.32*
reported significantly more influence of stories about the evils and dangers of snakes than did the Low Fear group. The groups were not differentiated on awareness of the Biblical story of the devil appearing as a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Phobic and High Fear groups were also significantly higher than the Low Fear group on ‘Other’ factors. As elaborated on in the Comments, these other factors consisted mostly of direct parental warnings about snakes and similar negative information from movies, television, books and newspapers. There appears to be a good deal of negative information transmitted about snakes. In a final analysis, the data on the Origin questions were correlated with the degree of general fear of snakes rated in the very first question. The results from this correlational analysis are shown in Table 3 for all subjects in the study. Correlations are presented for males, females and total subjects, with an asterisk indicating significance at the 0.05 level. The first question results indicate an inverse relationship between the amount of direct experience with snakes and fear of snakes. At the same time, the extent to which this experience was negative was related to genera1 fear of snakes. The pattern of results for the questions related to vicarious experience does suggest a positive relationship between fear of snakes and observed negative experiences of others, as well as the fearfulness of parents. There is little relationship between the actual experiences of the parents and fear of snakes. Finally, the question about snake stories and the ‘Other’ factor, which include movies, etc., show a positive relationship between snake fears and negative information provided about snakes. In general, the results from the correlational analysis support and strengthen the findings from the analysis of variance. DISCUSSION
The results from this study offer very little support for the idea that fear of snakes is acquired on the basis of direct conditioning. In fact, most people report that they have had very little persona1 experience with snakes. The more experience people have with snakes, the less they fear them. The relatively few direct experiences that the more fearful subjects have with snakes are more frightening and the degree of this fright is related to general fear of snakes. Even here, however, the direction of causality is not clear. Most of the negative experiences appear to be a startle reaction to chance encounters or the observation of a negative experience involving someone else. To some extent, these experiences may have been frightening because of a pre-existing general fear of snakes. Actual experiences that would clearly qualify as conditioning, such as being bitten, are extremely rare. Therefore, conditioning does not seem to account for the acquisition of snake fear. In contrast, the results suggest that fear may be acquired through a variety of observational and instructional experiences that communicate negative information about snakes. One such experience is observing a snake doing harm to another person or
The origins
493
of fear of snakes
The most dramatic example of this that was reported was the subject who saw a giant anaconda drown cattle. Nevertheless, only a few instances of this sort were reported. Perhaps more such experiences were observed in fictional form in movies, books, etc. So, vicarious conditioning, in the most concrete sense of seeing a snake inflict harm, may occur but does not seem to account for most of the acquisition of snake fear. Another kind of observational learning also may be involved. Subjects reported being influenced by the observation of fear in others. For example, one subject reported that as a child he became frightened of a harmless snake because the children he was with showed fear and jumped up on chairs at the sight of it. So, too, there appears to be some influence of the observation of parents’ fear of snakes, although the parents had few negative experiences with snakes themselves. Emotional modeling may be involved. Finally, fear of snakes appears to be influenced by the negative instruction provided about them by parents, stories and other sources of information. As one subject put it, “Basically my fear was ingrained by my parents and reinforced by TV and movies. They are always evil there.” Although information learning is clearly important, the factors determining the effectiveness of such instruction are not clear. Possibly the capacity of the communicator to display or arouse fear is involved. Could there be a preparedness to develop a fear of snakes? According to Rachman (1977), prepared fears are most likely learned on the basis of conditioning. But the present results indicate that so few direct conditioning situations occur, even of the degraded type described by Seligman and Hager (1972), that the concept of preparedness for conditioning does not even seem relevant. On the other hand, it is possible to extend the concept to a preparedness for learning from observation and instruction. That is, it may be easier for parents to instill a fear of snakes in children than a comparable fear of small furry animals who often carry disease. In conclusion, the results of this study on the origins of snake fears are consistent with Rachman’s (1977, 1978) critique of the conditioning model of fears and phobias. Observational and instructional learning, rather than direct conditioning, appear important in the acquisition of fear of snakes. animal.
REFERENCES AGRAS S.. SYLVESTER D. and OLIVEAIJ D. (1969) The epidemiology of common fears and phobia. Cornp. Psychiar. 10, 151-156. BANIXRA A. (1978) On paradigms and recycled ideologies. Cog. Thu. Rex 2, 70-103. EVSENCK H. J. (1976) The learning theory model of neurosis-a new approach. Bekav. Res. Thrr. 14, 251-267. GEER J. H. (1965) The development of a scale to measure fear. Brhao. Rrs. Ther. 3, 45-53. HALLAM R. S. and HAFNER, R. J. (1978) Fears of phobic patients: factor analyses of self-report data. tlel~ur. Res.
Thu.
16, l-16.
D. R. and MURRAY E. J. (1975) The effect of expectancy manipulation zation. Psychothertrpy: Theor. Res. Pratt. 12, 28-32. MARKS I. M. (1969) Fears and phobias. Academic Press, New York. OST L. G. (1978) Fading vs systematic desensitization in the treatment LOTT.
Res. Thu.
on outcome
of snake
in systematic
and spider
desensiti-
phobia.
Behov.
16, 379-389.
RACHMAN S. (1977) The conditioning theory of fear-acquisition: a critical examination. Be/m. Rrs. Thm 15, 375-387. RACHMAN S. (1978) Fear and Courage. Freeman, San Francisco. RACHMAN S. and SELIGMAN M. E. P. (1976) Unprepared phobias: Be prepared. Rehar. Res. T/w. 14, 333-3.;b. RIMM D. C., JAN~IA L. H., LANCASTER, D. W. NAHL, M. and DIT~MAN K. (19771 An exnloratorv investieation of the origin and maintainance of phobias. Behau. Res. Ther. 15, 2311238.’ ’ b ’ SEL~GMAN M. E. P. and HAGER J. (1972) Biological Boundaries of Learning. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. WATSON J. B. and RAYNER R. (1920) Conditioned emotional reactions. J. rup. Psychof. 3. I 14.
THE ORIGINS
OF FEAR OF SNAKES
EDWARD J. MURRAY
and FRANK
FOOTE
Department of Psychology, University of Miami. Coral. Gabies, FL 33124. U.S.A.
Summety-In
the present study. a questionnaire about the nature and origin of fear of snakes was administered to 60 Phobic, 82 Low Fear and 35 High Fear college students. Phobic and High Fear subjects reported greater fear on a variety of components of snake fear. There was little evidence supporting the role of direct conditioning experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. Rather, the results suggested a variety of observational and instructional learning experiences as related to the acquisition of snake fear. Although preparedness for direct conditioning does not seem relevant, a preparedness for observational and instructional learning is possible.
According to the conditioning theory of neurosis, fears are acquired through the association of previously neutral stimuli with stimuli that evoke pain or fear on an innate basis (Watson and Rayner, 1920). Recent evidence, however, on the role of preparedness for the conditioning of certain fears, the incubation of fears without the unconditiuned stimulus, and the roIe of modeling has motivated a reconsideration and reformulation of the conditioning model (Eysenck, 1976). Rachman (1977, 1978) has gone even further in suggesting that direct conditioning of any kind accounts for relatively few phobias. Rather, many fears are acquired on the basis of information transmitted through observation and instruction. Rachman concedes, though, that the evidence supporting his views is sparse. Fear of snakes is commun in both college student and phobic patient populations (Agras et al., 1972; Hallam and Hafner, 19%). Furthermore, snake fear is often used as a model neurosis for the evaluation of a variety of behavioral treatments fur phobias (Lott and Murray, 1975; Bandura, 1978; &t, 1978). Yet, little is known about the origin of snake fear. Although it has been suggested that fear of snakes is innate, such fear is not present in very young children but develops subsequently (Marks, 1969). One possibility is that fear of snakes is conditioned, but that the human organism is biologically prepared for such conditioning (Seligman and Hager, 1972; Rachman and Seligman, 1976). It is also possible that fear of snakes develops on the basis of observational and instructional learning (Rachman, 1977, 1978). The purpose of the present study was to obtain information about the acquisition of fear of snakes through the use of a questionnaire about the nature and origins of such fears. A similar method was used by Rimm cl al. (1977), in a study of the acquisition of a heterogeneous group of phobic fears. They found more reported experiences suggestive of direct ~unditioning than vicarious experience or informative instruction. However, many subjects could recall no relevant experiences. In the present study, a systematic set of rating scales was used in relation to the specific fear of snakes. Furthermore, two samples were utilized. The first was a group of subjects in a systematic desensitization experiment who were behaviorally as well as verbally phobic. The second was a normal population including non-fearful as well as fearful subjects. METHOD
Subjects The subjects in the first sample consisted of 60 undergraduates, about half male and half female, who were fulfilling an introductory psychology research experiment. They had checked one of the top three itetis indicating fear of snakes on the Fear Survey
EDWARD J. MURRAY and
490
Table
Snake fear question 1. General
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
fear Being bitten Being poisoned Entwining arm Entwining neck Cold skin Slimy skin Enter body Penis-like Other
1. Components
FRANK FOOTE
of fear of snakes
Phobic 5.39 5.22 4.83 5.33 4.05 3.44 4.17 2.00 1.31 2.78’
Subject group Low Fear 3.08* 3.7s 3.63* 2.63* 2.7f* 1.w 2.00’ 1.46’ 1.20
1.77
High Fear 5.60 5.33 5.28 4.88 5.01 3.25 3.67 2.58 1.65 2.02
Schedule II (Geer, 1965). They were also unable to touch a snake in a behavioral avoidance test. After participating in a systematic desensitization experiment (Lott and Murray, 1975), they were asked to fill out the Snake Fear Questionnaire, answering in terms of how they felt before the experiment. This group was labeled Phobic. The subjects in the second sample consisted of 117 undergraduates, about half male and half female, who were asked to fill out the Snake Fear Questionnaire in several undergraduate psychology classes. Subsequently, they were divided into a Low Fear group (N = 82) and a High Fear group (iv = 35) on the basis of their response to the first item on the Snake Fear Questionnaire. Low Fear subjects checked 4 or lower (average or less fear of snakes), While High Fear subjects checked above 4. The Snake Fear Questionnaire consisted of 20 questions to be answered with seven point scales. The first 10 questions dealt with the Components of Fear of Snakes and are summarized in Table 1. The second question, for example, was: “To what extent was your general fear of snakes based on the specific fear of being bitten?” The scale for answering the first 10 questions ran from 1 (no fear at all) through 4 (average fear) to 7 (extreme fear). The second 10 questions dealt with the Origin of Fear of Snakes and are summarized in Table 2. The first of these questions, for example, was “How much actual direct experience have you had with snakes?” The scale for answering the second 10 questions ran from 1 (none at all) through 4 (average) to 7 (a great deal). Subjects were also asked to elaborate on their answers in a comments section at the end of the questionnaire.
RESULTS The results for the first 10 questions dealing with Components of Fear of Snakes are presented in Table 1. The mean scale values are presented for each question for the Phobic, Low Fear and High Fear groups. Each question was first evaluated with an analysis of variance across the three groups. There was a significant effect at the 0.001 level for all but Question 9 which was not significant at a conventional level. An internal analysis was performed with a Duncan test. Each group followed by an asterisk in Table 1 differed from the other two groups at the 0.05 level. The overall pattern in Table 1 shows that the Low Fear group was significantly lower in most of the components of snake fear than the Phobic or High Fear groups, which generally did not differ from each other significantly. Thus, the two different methods of selecting subjects with snake fear seem to produce comparable groups. In general, subjects afraid of snakes are specifically afraid not only of the realistic possibilities of being bitten or poisoned but also of the less realistic possibilities of having the snake entwine itself around an arm or neck to the point of suffocation. Finally, these subjects are afraid of the cold and slimy skin of snakes, an expectation that does not accord with reality. The ‘Other’ factors suggested in Question 10 and elaborated upon in the Comments included a specific fear of the silent and stealthy movements
The origins
of fear of snakes
491
of snakes as well as a variety of vague concerns about their ugliness, meanness and unfamiliarity. Questions 8 and 9 were included in an attempt to get at the symbolic meaning of snakes as suggested by the Freudians. The fear of a snake entering a bodily opening was significantly higher in the Phobic and High Fear groups than in the Low Fear groups, but it was extremely low on the fear scale for all groups. The question about the fear based on the similarity between a snake and a penis was the only one failing to discriminate between groups. All groups rated this extremely low on the fear scale. Therefore, at least on a conscious level, there is little evidence that the fear of snakes is based on sexual symbolism. The results of the questions concerning the Origins of Fear of Snakes are presented in* Table 2. An analysis of variance showed that only five of the questions (2, 3, 6, 8 and 10) showed significant variation across groups (p < 0.01 or better). A supplementary Duncan analysis showed that the Low Fear group was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the other two groups on Questions 2, 8 and 10 (shown by a double asterisk). The Low Fear group was also significantly lower than the Phobic group on Questions 3 and 6 (shown by a single asterisk). In no case was the Low Fear group significantly higher than either of the other two groups. The first two questions were designed to get at direct experiences that would be relevant to the conditioning theory. In general, the subjects had little experience with snakes with no signi~cant difference between the Low Fear and the other two groups. The results for the second question, however, show that, to the extent the subject had any direct experience, it was negative and frightening significantly more for Phobic and High Fear group than for the Low Fear group. In elaborating on this question in the Comments, most of the frightening experiences were either of being startled, but not touched or injured by a snake, or of observing another person or animal being attacked by a snake. There were only three subjects in this sample of 117 people who reported actually having been bitten by a snake and all of these were in the Low Fear group. Two more subjects reported near bites and perhaps a half dozen more reported being touched or had bizarre experiences that might be construed as conditioning. The next group of questions were designed to evaluate the role of vicarious experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. The Phobic group reported si~ificantiy more observations of another person having a negative experience than the Low Fear group. Questions 4 and 5 dealing with father’s fears of snakes showed no group effects. But the Phobic group reported a significantly higher fear of snakes on the part of their mothers than did the Low Fear group. On the other hand, their mothers had no more negative direct experiences with snakes than did the mothers in the other groups. In general, this analysis presents only marginal evidence of vicarious experiences in the acquisition of fear of snakes. Questions 8 and 9 were designed to evaluate the role of instruction or informational transmission in the acquisition of fear of snakes. The Phobic and High Fear groups Table 2. Origins
Origin 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO.
question
Direct experience Experience frightening Observing another Father’s fear Father’s experience Mother’s fear Mother’s experience Snake stories Biblical story Other
Phobic 2.84 3.73 3.26 2.64 2.38 4.9 I 2.64 3.77 4.63 2.85
of fear of snakes Subject group Low Fear 3.28 2.27+* 2.50* 2.67 2.46 4.05* 2.63 2.X2** 4.69 1.75**
High Fear 2.70 3.40 2.96 2.9 I 2.39 4.63 2.51 3.46 5.04 2.55
492
EDWARD J. MURRAY
Table
3. Product
Origin I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
moment
question
Direct experience Experience frightening Observing another Father’s fear Father’s experience Mother’s fear Mother’s experience Snake stories Biblical story Other
correlations
and
FRANK FOOTE
between questions Males
general
fear of snakes
Females
_ -0.30*
-
0.31* 0.19 0.32* - 0.04 0.47* 0.03 0.40* 0.0 I 0.35*
0.33* 0.32* 0.11 0.05 0.15 -0.01 0.34* 0.03 0.30*
0.10
and origin
Total - 0.25; 0.33* 0.26* 0.11 -0.01 0.24* - 0.01 0.34* 0.01 0.32*
reported significantly more influence of stories about the evils and dangers of snakes than did the Low Fear group. The groups were not differentiated on awareness of the Biblical story of the devil appearing as a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Phobic and High Fear groups were also significantly higher than the Low Fear group on ‘Other’ factors. As elaborated on in the Comments, these other factors consisted mostly of direct parental warnings about snakes and similar negative information from movies, television, books and newspapers. There appears to be a good deal of negative information transmitted about snakes. In a final analysis, the data on the Origin questions were correlated with the degree of general fear of snakes rated in the very first question. The results from this correlational analysis are shown in Table 3 for all subjects in the study. Correlations are presented for males, females and total subjects, with an asterisk indicating significance at the 0.05 level. The first question results indicate an inverse relationship between the amount of direct experience with snakes and fear of snakes. At the same time, the extent to which this experience was negative was related to genera1 fear of snakes. The pattern of results for the questions related to vicarious experience does suggest a positive relationship between fear of snakes and observed negative experiences of others, as well as the fearfulness of parents. There is little relationship between the actual experiences of the parents and fear of snakes. Finally, the question about snake stories and the ‘Other’ factor, which include movies, etc., show a positive relationship between snake fears and negative information provided about snakes. In general, the results from the correlational analysis support and strengthen the findings from the analysis of variance. DISCUSSION
The results from this study offer very little support for the idea that fear of snakes is acquired on the basis of direct conditioning. In fact, most people report that they have had very little persona1 experience with snakes. The more experience people have with snakes, the less they fear them. The relatively few direct experiences that the more fearful subjects have with snakes are more frightening and the degree of this fright is related to general fear of snakes. Even here, however, the direction of causality is not clear. Most of the negative experiences appear to be a startle reaction to chance encounters or the observation of a negative experience involving someone else. To some extent, these experiences may have been frightening because of a pre-existing general fear of snakes. Actual experiences that would clearly qualify as conditioning, such as being bitten, are extremely rare. Therefore, conditioning does not seem to account for the acquisition of snake fear. In contrast, the results suggest that fear may be acquired through a variety of observational and instructional experiences that communicate negative information about snakes. One such experience is observing a snake doing harm to another person or
The origins
493
of fear of snakes
The most dramatic example of this that was reported was the subject who saw a giant anaconda drown cattle. Nevertheless, only a few instances of this sort were reported. Perhaps more such experiences were observed in fictional form in movies, books, etc. So, vicarious conditioning, in the most concrete sense of seeing a snake inflict harm, may occur but does not seem to account for most of the acquisition of snake fear. Another kind of observational learning also may be involved. Subjects reported being influenced by the observation of fear in others. For example, one subject reported that as a child he became frightened of a harmless snake because the children he was with showed fear and jumped up on chairs at the sight of it. So, too, there appears to be some influence of the observation of parents’ fear of snakes, although the parents had few negative experiences with snakes themselves. Emotional modeling may be involved. Finally, fear of snakes appears to be influenced by the negative instruction provided about them by parents, stories and other sources of information. As one subject put it, “Basically my fear was ingrained by my parents and reinforced by TV and movies. They are always evil there.” Although information learning is clearly important, the factors determining the effectiveness of such instruction are not clear. Possibly the capacity of the communicator to display or arouse fear is involved. Could there be a preparedness to develop a fear of snakes? According to Rachman (1977), prepared fears are most likely learned on the basis of conditioning. But the present results indicate that so few direct conditioning situations occur, even of the degraded type described by Seligman and Hager (1972), that the concept of preparedness for conditioning does not even seem relevant. On the other hand, it is possible to extend the concept to a preparedness for learning from observation and instruction. That is, it may be easier for parents to instill a fear of snakes in children than a comparable fear of small furry animals who often carry disease. In conclusion, the results of this study on the origins of snake fears are consistent with Rachman’s (1977, 1978) critique of the conditioning model of fears and phobias. Observational and instructional learning, rather than direct conditioning, appear important in the acquisition of fear of snakes. animal.
REFERENCES AGRAS S.. SYLVESTER D. and OLIVEAIJ D. (1969) The epidemiology of common fears and phobia. Cornp. Psychiar. 10, 151-156. BANIXRA A. (1978) On paradigms and recycled ideologies. Cog. Thu. Rex 2, 70-103. EVSENCK H. J. (1976) The learning theory model of neurosis-a new approach. Bekav. Res. Thrr. 14, 251-267. GEER J. H. (1965) The development of a scale to measure fear. Brhao. Rrs. Ther. 3, 45-53. HALLAM R. S. and HAFNER, R. J. (1978) Fears of phobic patients: factor analyses of self-report data. tlel~ur. Res.
Thu.
16, l-16.
D. R. and MURRAY E. J. (1975) The effect of expectancy manipulation zation. Psychothertrpy: Theor. Res. Pratt. 12, 28-32. MARKS I. M. (1969) Fears and phobias. Academic Press, New York. OST L. G. (1978) Fading vs systematic desensitization in the treatment LOTT.
Res. Thu.
on outcome
of snake
in systematic
and spider
desensiti-
phobia.
Behov.
16, 379-389.
RACHMAN S. (1977) The conditioning theory of fear-acquisition: a critical examination. Be/m. Rrs. Thm 15, 375-387. RACHMAN S. (1978) Fear and Courage. Freeman, San Francisco. RACHMAN S. and SELIGMAN M. E. P. (1976) Unprepared phobias: Be prepared. Rehar. Res. T/w. 14, 333-3.;b. RIMM D. C., JAN~IA L. H., LANCASTER, D. W. NAHL, M. and DIT~MAN K. (19771 An exnloratorv investieation of the origin and maintainance of phobias. Behau. Res. Ther. 15, 2311238.’ ’ b ’ SEL~GMAN M. E. P. and HAGER J. (1972) Biological Boundaries of Learning. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. WATSON J. B. and RAYNER R. (1920) Conditioned emotional reactions. J. rup. Psychof. 3. I 14.
