Skip to main content

Psychologists Have Created A League Table Of Scary And Revolting Animals Phobias


#Psychology #MentalHealth #Phobias #Animalphobias #Spider #Snake #Dog

You may be best advised not to read this article late at night or before you eat. Psychologists at the National Institute of Mental Health and Charles University in the Czech Republic have surveyed a large sample of non-clinical volunteers to gauge their reaction to 24 creatures that are commonly the source of specific animals phobias.

The results, published in the British Journal of Psychology, contribute to our understanding of animal phobias and could prove incredibly useful to horror writers. Among the key findings is that spiders were unique in being both intensely fear- and disgust-inducing in equal measure. The researchers said this may be due to their mix of disgusting properties – including their “quirky ‘too-many-legs’ body plan” – combined with the fact they are “…omnipresent in our homes, often lurking in the hidden dark places and capable of fast unpredictable movement.” In other words, the intense fear partly arises from the prospect of coming into physical contact with a creature perceived by many as revolting.

Jakub Polák and his team recruited nearly 2000 people online and asked them to rate how frightening and disgusting they found 25 creatures, including – alongside the spider – a snail, dog, bull, maggot, cockroach, two kinds of a snake (a viper and a grass snake), and ant. See the image above for the full list.

Depicted in photographs on-screen, this particular selection of species – aside from the red panda, which acted as a non-fear-inducing control – was chosen because they are frequently the source of animal phobias.

Categorizing the creatures based on the levels of fear and disgust that they elicited, the researchers identified five groupings: fear-relevant, non-slimy small animals, such as cockroaches, ants and wasps; mouse-like animals, such as mouse, rat and bat, which scored low on elicited fear and disgust; snakes and lizards; parasites, such as lice and tapeworm, which triggered high disgust; and finally, farm or pet mammals, such as cat, dog and horse, which generally elicited low fear and disgust.

One explanation for common animal phobias is that they reflect an exaggerated, uncontrolled form of innate fears for certain creatures that we all share, particularly for creatures that imperiled our ancestors, such as spiders and snakes. Consistent with this evolutionary account, spiders and venomous snakes elicited the strongest fear reactions among the participants, while parasites elicited the strongest disgust reactions (consistent with the idea that disgust motivates a form of protective “behavioral avoidance”). However, less consistent with the evolutionary perspective on animal phobias is that 14 of the creatures elicited virtually no fear, including rats, mice, and lizards, even though these animals are commonly the source of phobias.

The researchers noted that similar to spiders, the parasitic creatures like tapeworms and roundworms were both highly disgust-inducing (even more than the spider) while at the same time being rated as highly fear-inducing (even more than, say, the wasp or grass-snake). Perhaps, the researchers reasoned, this combined fear and disgust reaction to intestinal parasites has evolved because they infect us with microscopic larvae meaning we rarely see them with our eyes, yet we are aware they are omnipresent. Once again, as with spiders, we cannot rely only on disgust (and behavioral avoidance) to protect us, and so we also fear unwanted physical contact. The maggot, by contrast, may elicit less fear because it can be seen and avoided more easily.   

Some other details to emerge from the study are that women generally gave higher fear and disgust ratings than men, and especially for non-slimy invertebrates and repulsive human parasites – this may be in line with evolutionary theory because “women as a sex with higher reproductive cost need to be extra careful of pathogens threatening not only their health but also the [health] of their children.”

Also, the researchers asked their participants about any past traumatic experiences with animals, such as being seriously bitten by a dog or scratched by a cat. Surprisingly perhaps, they found that fear ratings were lower among people with such a bad experience in their past. However, this correlation makes sense if you consider that people with a greater fear of animals may be more cautious and less likely to get hurt. “Our results … suggest that fear and disgust could protect subjects against harm even in our modern environment,” the researchers said. In excess, fear can be debilitating and unwelcome, but this last result is perhaps a reminder that it is also there to serve a purpose – including to protect us from the creatures that may bite us while we sleep or infect us from within.

By Christian Jarrett

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Strategies for practicing Radical Self-Acceptance

Radical Self-Acceptance Painting by Jennifer Mazzucco #mindfulness #self-judgment #RadicalSelfAcceptance #negativethinkingpatterns #thoughts Radical acceptance involves acknowledging how life unfolds without resistance, even if we don't like things at any given moment. It can take effort to apply this principle. How can we begin to accept our situation and ourselves despite experiencing anxiety, uncertainty, and fear? Why self-acceptance is not the same as complacency. It is essential now, more than ever, to practice radical self-acceptance. This means training ourselves to find inner stability despite unpredictable external circumstances. Ultimately, we are responsible for acknowledging our hidden wounds, which can lead to personal and collective growth. Radical self-acceptance is the opposite of avoiding responsibility or giving up in self-defeat. It requires pushing against old ways of being to open the door to deep healing. Embracing radical self-acceptance allows us to int...

Beyond the Cliff | Laura van Dernoot Lipsky -Watch this Video, if you are in a profession that is about caring for others.

#LauravanDernootLipsky # TraumaStewardship #V icarioustrauma #Self-Care Laura van Dernoot Lipsky is the founder and director of the Trauma Stewardship Institute and author of T rauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others. She has worked directly with trauma survivors for 28 years, including survivors of  Laura van Dernoot Lipsky  , and acute trauma of all kinds, and natural disasters. Laura has been active in community organizing and movements for social and environmental justice and has taught on issues surrounding systematic oppression and liberation theory. Trauma Stewardship: How do we reduce clinician burnout? What helps people develop resiliency so that the important work they do in the world isn’t hindered by vicarious trauma and their own lack of self-care? The cumulative aspect of ongoing exposure to suffering and trauma is largely ignored in health care, criminal justice, and other fields. Laura van Dernoot Lips...

Little, the upcoming comedy movie directed by Tina Gordon [Trailer]

#ReginaHall #IssaRae #MarsaiMartin #JustinHartley #ToneBell #RachelDratch #Little Girls Trip's Regina Hall and Black-ish's Marsai Martin both star as Jordan Sanders - Hall as the take-no-prisoners tech mogul adult version of Jordan and Martin as the 13-year-old version of her who wakes up in her adult self's penthouse just before a do-or-die presentation.  Insecure's Issa Rae plays Jordan's long-suffering assistant April, the only one in on the secret that her daily tormentor is now trapped in an awkward tween body just as everything is on the line. Little is an irreverent new comedy about the price of success, the power of sisterhood and having a second chance to grow up - and glow up - right.

Can Coffee Cut a Woman's Stroke Risk?

#Stroke  #Coffee #WomensHealth #HealthNews #Research A Swedish study shows even a cup a day reduces the risk; Experts say more proof needed Women who have at least one cup of coffee -- or even five cups -- daily may be reducing their risk of stroke by as much as 25 percent, new Swedish research shows. And women who don't drink coffee at all may actually be  increasing  their risk for stroke, the researchers noted. However, the researchers added, these findings are preliminary and should not cause any change in coffee-drinking habits. "Results from our study in women showed that consumption of 1 to 5 cups of coffee per day was associated with a 22 to 25 percent lower risk of stroke, compared with consumption of less than 1 cup a day," said lead researchers Susanna Larsson, from the National Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. "Even small amounts of coffee may reduce the risk of stroke," she added. ...