Who's afraid of Thelma and Louise?

This topic submitted by Jenny Germano and Leslie Blaha (blahalm@muohio.edu) at 12:02 pm on 2/28/01. Additions were last made on Tuesday, April 23, 2002. Section: Myers.

Influence of socialization on ophidiophobic response across ages

ÒThe objective is to teach the student to see the land, to understand what he sees, and to enjoy what he understands.Ó
-Aldo Leopold

Introduction
Aldo Leopold and many of todayÕs environmental educators, whether they are conscious of it or not, are acting on the idea that culture and society can change or intensify our natural innate connections with nature. Edward O. Wilson coined the term biophilia to define this Òinnately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organismsÓ(1993). ÒEmotional affiliationÓ encompasses the entire scope of human emotions from love and hate to fear and fascination with organisms and aspects of the natural environment. Though the term biophilia is often used to refer to both positive and negative reactions, these reactions can be further classified into biophilia/love of nature and biophobia/fear of nature. In using the term innate, we are referring to that which is Òhereditary and hence part of ultimate human natureÓ (Wilson 1993).
Is there really an innate connection between people and nature? Wilson has been greatly criticized for this theory; after all how can social and cultural attitudes towards the environment reside in genes? Which is stronger, an innate genetic affinity for nature or a culturally imposed response to the world around us? Can culture change a genetic predisposition? Can it intensify or diminish that predisposition? By changing cultural practices, can we influence our biophilic inclinations?
We suspect that people do have innate connections with nature, both positive and negative. We also believe that both genes and culture have entwined themselves in human predispositions. Our research is designed to further illustrate the idea that culture can intensify biophobic tendencies. We are going to explore biophobia by studying the reactions to and fears of snakes. We expect that through greater exposure to culture, a higher intensity of snake phobia will occur. We hypothesize that, through our test of fear of snakes in relation to age, older people will have a more heightened phobia than young children.
If our hypothesis proves correct, it could hold many implications for environmental education. It may show that biophilic and biophobic impulses can be actively influenced by social and cultural sources. In this case, by changing certain cultural beliefs and practices relating to the environment we can produce a nation of citizens who are more concerned and actively involved in preserving our natural resources.

Relevance
The America Psychiatric Association defines a phobia as an irrational fear, associated with the avoidance of objects or situations, that interferes with life (DSM-IV 1994). There are three categories of common phobias: social (people fear situations in which their actions are witnessed by other people), specific (a fear of a particular object or situation, such as hydrophobia, the fear of water), and agoraphobia (fear of being alone or trapped in an inescapable situation) (http://www.psych.org/public_info/phobias.cfm 1999). Although phobias are Òcommon in general population, they rarely result in sufficient impairment or distress to warrant diagnosisÓ (DSM-IV 1994). Since people recognize their phobias as unreasonable and excessive, they general take measures to confront or overcome those fears; therefore, only about 10 percent of reported cases are life-long phobias (DSM-IV 1994).
There is considerable evidence that, to some degree, there is an innate aversion to snakes in humans, as well as other primate species. Pathological fear of snakes is called ophidiophobia, and it falls into the category of specific phobias. Ophidiophobia is characterized by a Òfeeling of panic, cold sweat, and wave of nauseaÓ at the Òmere appearance of a snakeÓ (Wilson 1984).
Research on fear of snakes has been done to test the reactions of squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus. Conducted in Japan, this study examined the reactions of Òwild-born animals, laboratory-born animals who had been fed with small insects as well as fruits and monkey chow, and laboratory-born animals fed only with fruits and monkey chow,Ó and none of the groups were exposed to creatures other than the animals in that test group and humans (Masataka 1993). This experiment proved that wild-born animals and the animals fed small insects had more intense fear reactions to snakes than the animals that had no exposure to other creatures. Therefore, experience with any small creatures, and subsequently any aspect of nature, sensitizes a fear of snakes, another part of the natural environment (Masataka 1993). This study supports the idea that primates are biologically predisposed to fear the natural environment (biophobia).
In examining the fear of snakes in humans, differences in phobic reactions have been observed across gender and age lines. Specific phobias are more prevalent among woman than men (Fredrikson 1997; Fredrikson 1996), implying that either a difference in the genetic structure of women increases their biophobia, or they are taught to fear more than men are. One study showed that the fear of animals decreased with age, particularly when situational fears increased with age (Fredrikson 1996). People with a familial history of ophidiophobia are more prone to fearing snakes themselves, and the fear is probably passed down through some combination of genetic imprinting and education (Fredrikson 1997). These studies show that vulnerability to snake phobias is, in some manner, connected to the genetics of a person and, therefore, innate. They also imply that the intensity of the fear is a result of exposure and education.
The theory of gene-culture coevolution presents a means of explaining how genetics and culture can work together to produce biophilic and biophobic predispositions in humans. This theory is a branch of theoretical population genetics that synthesizes these two means of transmitting human characteristics through generations (Durham 1991). The two systems reflect each other; a certain gene will dispose a person to certain behaviors. If these behaviors are encouraged by the culture, then that gene will probably have a higher reproductive/survival rate and will begin to dominate. As a result, such behaviors will proliferate throughout the culture, encouraging further reproduction, and so forth. Hence, culture becomes encoded in the genes of humans (Durham 1991).
In the case of snakes, primate ancestors of humans who had harmful interactions with snakes developed a fear and aversion for them. In time, such aversion proliferated, and combined with other negative snake experiences. Therefore, as people evolved, they were genetically predisposed to fear snakes and born into a culture that strategically avoided them. As part of nature, humans are fascinated by snakes, too, which also developed in the primates and seen in their vocal warnings (Wilson 1993).
The gene-culture coevolution of snakes is clear in modern culture. Images of snakes and serpents fill stories, myths and dreams, such as the serpent that tested Adam and Eve in the Bible or the evil cobra in the Disney movie Aladdin. ÒThe mind is primed to react emotionally to the sight of snakes, not just to fear them but to be aroused and absorbed in their details, to weave stories about themÓ (Wilson 1984). These archetypal images are a part of the subconscious understanding that humans have of the world, serving to increase both the fascination with and fear of snakes. Thus, the process of socialization heightens a genetic predisposition.
If some of this fear is learned, then, can it be unlearned? Wilson argues that the process of socialization can be reversed. ÒIt is possible to turn the mind in the opposite direction, to learn to handle snakes without apprehension or even to like them in some special wayÉbut the adaptation takes a special effort and is usually a little forced and self-consciousÓ (Wilson 1984). But are people willing to devote the effort to unlearning a natural fear? Would they really be changing the nature of their relationship with snakes? Or are they merely temporarily subduing their phobia, which could resurface at any moment?
Developing an understanding of biophilia and gathering empirical data that proves the theory is key in understanding the role of humans in the natural world. If humans continue to think of themselves as separate from nature, then we need to, at least, position ourselves against the environment in some logical way; biophilia provides this logical means. Applications of the biophilia hypothesis could be integral in the preservation of the remaining natural resources of the planet. If people recognize their fundamental connection to and need for nature, they will be more reluctant to simply destroy it. Environmental education, as mentioned earlier, is one means of helping the general population understand its biophilia, and informed citizens make informed decisions, which is particularly important when the issues affect the fundamental characteristics of our species.

Materials and Methods
We are going to collect data concerning peopleÕs comfortableness and fear of snakes and compare our results among different age groups. The data will be collected in two ways: by a survey distributed to the participants and by reaction observations, which we will obtain through a video recording of participations reactions to Louise during a short presentation. In our reaction observations, we will be looking mainly for verbal and action responses. The verbal responses will be divided into positive, negative, and neutral categories. The action responses will be divided into movement toward the snake/comfortableness with touch (positive), movement away from the snake/fear (negative), and no movement (neutral).
The five age categories that we are studying are: preschool, elementary, college, adult, and elderly. We plan to obtain results from ten to twenty people in each age category. We plan on working with the Hanna House to observe preschool-age reactions, with some Talawanda Elementary School students for elementary-age, our NS class for college, a local Kiwanis or Rotary Club for the adult age, and with a retirement home or senior center for the elderly reactions.
Our statistical analysis will consist primarily of simple regression analyses to compare age and comfort level with snakes, based on the data from our survey. We can also do regressions to examine the comfort level around snakes compared to gender and location in which people were raised, as well as the comfort level around common household pets. These analyses will be done on the computer program StatView 5.0.

Survey

1. Age:

2. Gender: Female Male

3. How would you describe the place where you grew up? (Circle one)
Rural Suburb City

4. Do you have or have you had pets at home? (Circle one) Yes No

5. Have you had any experiences with snakes? (Circle one) Yes No

If yes, were those experiences good or bad? Explain.

6. How comfortable do you feel around snakes? (Circle one number)

Not Comfortable At All 1 2 3 4 5 Very Comfortable

7. Do you feel comfortable enough to handle a snake? Yes No

8. Do you feel comfortable handling common household pets such as cats and dogs? Yes No

Comments:

Time Line
Week 8 Ð Background research and post proposal
Week 9 Ð Arrange visits with the 5 test groups for after spring break, online progress report
Week 10 Ð Design and perfect our presentation for test groups
Week 11 Ð Online progress reports, test
Week 12 - Test
Week 13 Ð Poster presentation, online progress report, test
Week 14 Ð Statistical analysis and write up report
Week 15 Ð Submit Final Project Report including statistics and graphs

Sources
1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Press: 1994.
2. Durham, William H. Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991.
3. Fredrikson, Mats; Annas, Peter; Wik, Gustav. ÒParental history, aversive exposure and the development of snake and spider phobia in women.Ó Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume: 35, Issue: 1, January, 1997, pp. 23-28.
4. Fredrikson, Mats, et al. ÒGender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias.Ó Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume: 34, Issue: 1, January, 1996, pp. 33-39.
5. ÒLetÕs Talk Facts AboutÉPhobias.Ó American Psychiatric Association online. http://www.psych.org/public_info/phobias.cfm. 1999.
6. Masataka, Nobuo. ÒEffects of experience with live insects on the development of fear of snakes in squirrel monkeys, Saimiri sciureus.Ó Animal Behaviour, Volume: 46, Issue: 4, October 1993, pp. 741 Ð 746.
7. Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass: 1984.
8. Wilson, Edward O. ÒBiophilia and the Conservation Ethic.Ó From The Biophilia Hypothesis. Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, Eds. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 1993.

For Further Info on this Topic, Check out this WWW Site: http://animal.discovery.com/crochunter/media/stinksnake.htm . Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu