↓ Skip to main content

Understanding animal fears: a comparison of the cognitive vulnerability and harm-looming models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding animal fears: a comparison of the cognitive vulnerability and harm-looming models
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-244x-7-68
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason M Armfield

Abstract

The Cognitive Vulnerability Model holds that both clinical and sub-clinical manifestations of animal fears are a result of how an animal is perceived, and can be used to explain both individual differences in fear acquisition and the uneven distribution of fears in the population. This study looked at the association between fear of a number of animals and perceptions of the animals as uncontrollable, unpredictable, dangerous and disgusting. Also assessed were the perceived loomingness, prior familiarity, and negative evaluation of the animals as well as possible conditioning experiences. 162 first-year University students rated their fear and perceptions of four high-fear and four low-fear animals. Perceptions of the animals as dangerous, disgusting and uncontrollable were significantly associated with fear of both high- and low-fear animals while perceptions of unpredictability were significantly associated with fear of high-fear animals. Conditioning experiences were unrelated to fear of any animals. In multiple regression analyses, loomingness did not account for a significant amount of the variance in fear beyond that accounted for by the cognitive vulnerability variables. However, the vulnerability variables accounted for between 20% and 51% of the variance in all animals fears beyond that accounted for by perceptions of the animals as looming. Perceptions of dangerousness, uncontrollability and unpredictability were highly predictive of the uneven distribution of animal fears. This study provides support for the Cognitive Vulnerability Model of the etiology of specific fears and phobias and brings into question the utility of the harm-looming model in explaining animal fear.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 33%
Environmental Science 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,068,675
of 19,555,311 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,098
of 4,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,356
of 378,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,555,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them