WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
Thirty-one people between the age of 7 and 48, were surveyed in order to investigate the relationship between fear of animals and time spent outdoors. Age was also taken into consideration to test for a connection between age and fear. Subjects were questioned about age, type of area they grew-up in, time spent outside, observation of natural occurrences, preference of transportation, and reaction to several types of animals. Researched showed a lack of correlation between area in which the subject grew-up and the time spent outside, as well as a correlation between time spent outside and a fear of animals. The data did provide a correlation between increase in age and an increasing fear of snakes. The lack of correlation in all other aspects shows a need for more investigation before any conclusions can be made.
Introduction
There exists a correlation between the time spent outside and fear of certain aspects of nature. Because of fears either real or imagined, people spend less time outdoors. This study hopes to recognize the relationship between the limitation of time spent outside and fears, which correlate to some aspect of the outdoor experience. Confined my the topic of Biophilia, this lab was created in order to provide some insight into why some people find spending time in nature more appealing than others. This research may help to recognize the differences in time spent outdoors creating a reason for the disparity between those people who are recognized as “nature lovers,” preferring to spend time outside and those who would rather spend their free time indoors. While the difference in preference may seem miniscule it affects appearance, health, and the group of people with whom the subject spends time. For some the relationship between themselves and their love of the outdoors, or avoidance of it, are considered to be major aspects of their personality. Considering these components of the subjects life, a fear which would have some power over time spent outside, would be important to investigate in order to better understand the reasoning behind the numerous features impacting the subject’s existence. Once the existence of the two preferences in people is tested, it is also important to question whether or not the preference for environment affects observation and appreciation of the natural environment. This study hopes to show that there exists within the group of people who prefer to spend time outdoors, a better likelihood of observaton of surroundings, while a general appreciation of nature remains consistent within both groups.
While research regarding the relationship between phobias of and within nature, and time spent in the natural environment is limited or nonexistent, information concerning fear is abundant. “Phobias are persistent fears in an abnormal context” (Marks, 13). Fears are thought to have originated as a survival mechanism. “It has been said that “evolution favors anxious genes.” It is better to have “false positives” (false alarms) than “false negatives” (which miss the danger) in an ambiguous situation” (Beck, 4). There exist three essential forms of fear, those that are innate, those developed during maturation, and those learned through social interaction (Rachman). While the question of whether or not the fears affecting the amount of time spent outdoors are innate, developed through maturation, or learned, it is important to recognize all possible causes of fear. Much has been brought in to question concerning the reliability of any research in the area of innate behavior, including fear. “Man is not a species rich in inborn reactions and has evolved more as a learning machine” (Marks, 14). Because of the human species removal from the need for innate behavior, the evolution of speech and social interaction, many researchers believe that human’s original innate beliefs are unlearned through social experience (Marks, 13). Along these same lines, behavior and thought process can be manipulated through the same interaction and experience.
“On first glance Biophilia would seem to mean something like “love of nature,” or at least something that accentuates a positive affiliation. Yet most proponents of Biophilia agree that people at times find nature unlikable and unfriendly, if not threatening and harmful, and that such negative affiliations comprise a part of Biophilia” (Kahn, 25). The connection between humans and nature is obviously very complex, ranging from love to hate. In his research, Peter H. Kahn uses the idea of Biophilia to explain the human relationship with nature. “There exists a fundamental, genetically based human need and propensity to affiliate with life. That is Biophilia. It is important because if the Biophilia hypothesis has merit – and I think it does- it could provide a unifying framework across numerous disciplines to investigate the human relationship with nature” (Kahn, 9). It is the Biophilia hypothesis that lead to the basis for this lab.
If in fact the relationship between fears of certain features within nature and the time spent in the outdoors correlate to one another, in the long run, by focusing on the fear, and providing some method of desensitizing the subject to the fear, perhaps it is possible to influence certain aspects of personality. Affecting change within one aspect of personality, relationship to the natural environment, may lead to the discovery of other means of changing behavior through the desensitizing of fear. As society and the scientific community search for ways in which to affect change within an individual, a relationship between fear and personality may prove to exact far reaching consequences.
Methods
31 people were surveyed from various home environments (city, suburban, country) with a wide range of ages (18-24), concerning the amount of time they spend outside, whether it is voluntary (v) or mandatory (m) (in transit to class or to other areas), likelihood of observing aspects of their surroundings, preferred method of transit for short distances (walking, bus, car, bike) and relationship to creatures encountered in the outdoors (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, birds, arachnids, fish). In order to provide this study with numerical data, questions concerning preference, likelihood, and “relationship” will be placed on a numerical scale. (Survey attached at end)
After collecting the data, the information will be entered into the data analysis program Stat View. Variables included in the analysis will include home environment, time spent outdoors and for what reason ((v) or (m)), likelihood of observation, preferred method of transit, and relationship to different creatures. Group t-tests, distribution charts, line graphs, and pie charts are used to analyze the data.
The following survey was used to question the subjects:
How old are you? ___
(Please circle)
In what type of area did you grow up? Country Suburbs City
How much time do you spend outdoors on a weekly basis?
During the summer 0-5 hrs 5-10 hrs 10-15 hrs 15 or more hrs
During the winter 0-5 hrs 5-10 hrs 10-15 hrs 15 or more hrs
During the spring/fall 0-5 hrs 5-10 hrs 10-15 hrs 15 or more hrs
Is this time generally voluntary or mandatory (in transit to other areas)?
Voluntary Mandatory
On a typical day, how likely are you to observe for five minutes or more:
A sunrise/sunset
Not likely at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely
Clouds
Not likely at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely
Animals
Not likely at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very likely
Given the choice on a nice day and a distance of less than 1 mile, would you prefer to travel by:
1= lowest preference
5= greatest preference
CAR: 1 2 3 4 5
BUS: 1 2 3 4 5
BIKE: 1 2 3 4 5
WALK : 1 2 3 4 5
What is your relationship to these creatures:
-3= fear
0= no opinion
3= love
Dogs -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Cats -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Rats -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Mice -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Squirrels -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Coyote -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Wolf -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Bears -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Raccoon -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Deer -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Snakes -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lizards -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Fish -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Birds -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Frogs -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Toads -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Moths -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Butterflies -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Mosquitoes -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Flies -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Bees -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Wasps -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Yellow Jackets -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Daddy Long Legs -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Large Spiders -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Small Spiders -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Results
The research data is found in 1. Data Spread Sheet. Group t-tests from graph A-1 show a surprising number of significant figures among the data. In graphs A-4 (line chart), the area distribution shows I high concentration of suburbanites, while the number of city and country dwellers was significantly smaller. In the line chart graph A-5, the increasing age of the subjects correlated with an increasing negative reaction to snakes. This was the only animal relationship, which provided this information. Graph A-6 line chart shows no correlation between a negative reaction with snakes and the area in which the subject grew-up. In Graphs A-7 thru A-10, the pie charts indicate the subject’s preference of transportation (if the distance is less than a mile), which requires interaction with nature, such as walking and biking. In line graphs B-1 thru B-6, the graphs show no relationship between neither the age of the subject and the time they spend outside by season, nor the area in which the subject grew-up and the time they spend outside by season. In the line graphs C-1 and C-2, the graphs show that there is no relationship between the negative reactions of the subjects to yellow jackets and their time spent outside during the seasons in which yellow jackets are prevalent.
Discussion
As my results indicate, I was unable to discover a connection between the time individuals spent outside and their fear of animals. There was also a lack of association between the time spent outside and the likelihood of observing natural occurrences. Because of the lack of research on this particular subject, it was difficult for me to make any kind of comparison between my own research and the research of others. However, based on my own findings, I can only conclude that the lack of research in this area is due to the lack of corresponding findings in the relationship between time spent outside and fear of animals found in nature. On the findings of the relationship between age and fear of snakes, my findings correspond with the findings of Jenny Germano and Leslie Blaha in their lab “A Case Study in Biophobia: Changes in Ophidiophobic Tendencies Throughout Life.” Because of the lack of findings and the lack of research with which to compare my hypothesis’s assumption, there is need for further research to discover if a correlation does exist. In order for further research to be conducted, and to result in further findings, there must be a higher number of subjects to which a survey or perhaps the study of actual interaction of the subjects with animals and their corresponding time spent outside, area in which they grew-up, and their connection to wild and domestic animals. Within the higher number of subjects, there must also be a greater variety in the age range and a higher number of subjects who grew-up outside of the suburbs.
I was actually amazed to find the high number of people who spent a great deal of time outside, despite several extremely negative reactions to animals they would likely come into contact with in nature. I assume that the continuation of spending time outdoors is due to the higher percentage of positive experiences outside. There is also a decreased likelihood, within the areas that my subjects would spend time, for interaction with predatory animals, which would prove more of a threat. Before I would continue research, there is a distinct need for the survey to be tweaked, if indeed the survey method was to be attempted again. Further investigation into the actions of the subjects in a natural environment as well as interaction with animals in the wild could possibly yield different results.
Literature Cited:
1. Baker, Rodger, ed. Panic Disorder : Theory, Research and Therapy. New York: Wiley, 1989.
2. Beck, Aaron T. Anxiety Disorders and Phobias. New York : Basic Books, 1985.
3. Blaha, Leslie and Jenny Germano. “A Case Study in Biophobia: Changes in
Ophidiophobic Tendencies Throughout Life.” NS Website. 2001.
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/humannature01/FinalArticles/ACaseStudyinBiophobia.Cha.html
4. Davey, Graham C. L., ed. Phobias : A Handbook of Theory, Research, and
Treatment. New York : Wiley, 1997.
5. Durham, William H. Coevolution : Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University Press, 1991.
6. Gold, Mark S. The Good News about Panic, Anxiety, and Phobias. New York : Villard Books, 1989.
7. Goodwin, Donald W. Phobia : The Facts. New York : Oxford University Press, 1983.
8. Kahn, Peter H. The Human Relationship with Nature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1999.
9. Marks, Isaac Meyer. Fears and Phobias. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
10. McNab, Beulah. Perceptions of Phobia and Phobics : The Quest for Control. San Diego, CA : Academic Press, 1993.
11. Rachman, Stanley. Phobias: Their Nature and Control. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas,1968.
12. Williams, Melvin D. Race for Theory and the Biophobia Hypothesis : Humanics,
Humanimals, and Macroanthropology. Westport, Conn. : Praeger, 1998.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
|
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or