You are on page 1of 3

1

http://ethology.eu/fearful-behavior-genetics-and-the-environment/
Fearful behaviorgenetics and the environment
by Roger Abrantes

Dog showing fearful behavior. Paw lifting indicates a beginning of pacifying behavior (photo by Mark Taylor).


Two important aspects of fear: (1) Fearful behavior has genetic and learned components, and (2) our
pets may show fearful behavior because we have taught them that without being aware.
We usually distinguish between rational or appropriate, and irrational or inappropriate fears. The latter
are called phobias, fears that are disproportional to the dangers in question, although some phobias do have
a survival value.

Fear serves the survival of organisms by producing appropriate behavioral responses. Hence, it has been
preserved and subject to adaptive changes throughout evolution according to the posed environmental
challenges. From an evolutionary point of view, the particular fear behaviors of a species may be an
adaptation that was useful at some point in the past. The distinctive responses to fear stimuli may have
emerged and developed during different periods. For example, fear of heights, common to most mammals,
has probably developed during the Mesozoic period; and fear of snakes, usual in simians, during the Cenozoic
period. Claustrophobia, agoraphobia and aquaphobia may also have their origins in evolutionary adaptations.

Predator and prey have different strategies to deal with threats. Their behavioral strategies evolved
throughout millennia under the constant struggle for survival. Predators avoid dangerous stimuli by creating
distance, flight being the favored strategy. Prey animals freeze preferentially when the predator is still at a
distance, but when that distance decreases to a critical value, the animal flees. Flight appears to be a
genuine unconditional response to the unconditional stimulus that is a predator at a critical distance.

Fearful responses and their intensity seem to be a consequence of predisposing traits, resulting from
many gene-environment interactions during the development of the individual. The latest research has
clearly established a genetic basis for fear behavior. These studies were conducted with humans as well as
other animals. In humans, researchers have been able to study the effect of genetics (family lines and twins)
and environment (adoption cases).

Fleeing is the first strategy when facing a threat. Horses seldom gallop in nature
except when fleeing from a predator.
2


Flight is the primary strategy that animals use in the face of a threat. This behavior is associated mainly
with the sympathetic nervous system, which function is to mobilize the organism for the so-called fight-or-
flight response originally described by Cannon. While flight is an active coping strategy when facing
danger, freezing (immobilization) and hiding is a passive coping strategy. Depending on species, such a
strategy is the next-best option to flight. Animals freeze and hide when escape is impossible. Freezing is
characterized by an inhibitory activity in the autonomic system (hypotension, bradycardia), formerly
described by Engel and Schmale as a conservation-withdrawal strategy.

Thanatosis, or tonic immobility, is an extreme form of freezing behavior. For example, white-tailed deer
fawns (Odocoileus virginianus) can lower their heart rate to 38 beats per minute (from about 155) for up to
two minutes.

Whether an animal shows a preference for an active or a passive defense strategy is not solely a
question of the context. Research shows that some animals do have a preference for one strategy rather
than the other. In exactly the same situation, two animals may respond differently. The interesting point is
that these patterns, both behavioral and neuro-endocrinal seem to be consistent. Some researchers suggest
that this may explain why some individuals are more resistant to stress and stress-induced malfunctions than
others. Researchers found the tendency to react one way rather than the other to run in families, which
suggests a genetic component. The experiments were conducted with rats and mice, but we have no reason
to suspect that studies of other species would not show the same results.

Fear is probably experienced similarly in many species. All mammalian species show three different
sites in the brain where electrical stimulation will produce a complete fear response: (1) the lateral and
central regions of the amygdala, (2) the anterior and medial hypothalamus, and (3) areas of the PAG, the
periaqueductal gray, which is the gray matter in the midbrain involved in the modulation of pain and
defensive behavior. Researchers have also studied defensive strategies in various species and concluded that
human reactions to threatening stimuli are not qualitatively different from those of nonhuman mammals.

The early development has a critical influence on how animals will respond to challenges,
stress and fear eliciting stimuli.

The amygdala seems particularly relevant. We suspect that it may have a significant function in
regulating many facets of social behavior. It also appears that threatening stimuli activate the amygdala,
which in turn has a decisive influence on the cognitive mechanisms of the individual, including perception of
the environment, selective attention (relevant for learning), and memory.

Conclusion: Not surprisingly and in line with many other behavioral traits, it seems that fearful behavior
depends upon two different factors: (1) a genetic predisposition, and (2) the influence of the
environment. Environmental factors during the development of the young individual may be critical in its
ability to cope with stress and fear eliciting stimuli. Early experiences appear to affect the neural and
biochemical systems involved in fearful behavior and in coping with stressas well as learning processes and
the capacity to deal with threatening stimuli in adulthood. Maternal prenatal stress also seems to produce
changes in the brain morphology of the fetus and consequently in its way of reacting to stress and fear
eliciting stimuli later on.
3


While some fear responses are innate other are learned. Conditioned fear provides a critical survival-
related function in the face of a threat by activating a range of protective (or defensive) behaviors. Therefore,
we can presume that all animals will have a readiness to identify and retain the memory of any stimulus or
situation they have perceived as potentially dangerous or threatening. This means that it is easy for animals
to develop fearful behavior.

Watson demonstrated how fear can be a conditioned response with his famous (or infamous)
experiments on Little Albert in 1920 who learned to fear a white rat. Some of the fear behavior of our pets,
particularly dogs and cats, are created by us. An event that in itself might pass mostly unnoticed may be
blown up to a disproportionate relevance if associated with a strong reaction of the owner. Dogs (and
children) often face situations with unexpected and somehow aversive results, which would soon be
forgotten if it werent for the exaggerated reaction of the owners (parents). All living organisms are, in
principle, prepared to deal with discomfort, aversive experiences and failure. The problem is when these
assume proportions out of context because that are additionally reinforced. Many dogs fear strangers
because their owners fear that the dogs fear strangers and their reactions reinforce the dogs disposition to
be cautious about strangers. Often, and unaware of it, the owner is reinforcing the fear while attempting and
believing that he/she is reassuring the dog. This is conditioned (learned) fear behavior.

We saw it clearly in the 1980s when we performed some experiments at the Ethology Institute. A litter of
puppies from a suspected line of dogs prone to show fearful behavior exhibited entirely distinct behaviors one
year after they were placed in six different homes. The dogs reflected, indeed in a significant degree, the
attitude of their owners toward novelty and challenges. We repeated the experiment with another litter, this
time from a confirmed non-fearful line, and the eight puppies showed the same tendency again when we
tested them one year later. Even though there was a tendency for the dogs from the fearful line to be on
average more cautious and the others to be bolder, they overlapped one another in the middle range of
responses. Our tests did not include enough animals to enable us to draw a conclusive answer to the
question of genetics versus environment in this aspect. However, they pointed out the importance of the
environment, at least in what concerns the average domestic settings in which we can expect dogs to grow
up.

References
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage. New York, NY: Appleton.
Engel, G. L. and Schmale, A. H. (1972). Conservation withdrawal: a primary regulatory process for organic
homeostasis. In: Physiology, Emotions and Psychosomatic Illness. New York, NY: Elsevier; 1972:5795.
Kavaliers, M. and Choleris, E. (2001). Antipredator responses and defensive behavior: ecological and
ethological approaches for the neurosciences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2001;25:577586.
Koolhaas, J. M. et al. (1999). Coping styles in animals: current status in behavior and stress-
physiology. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999;23:925935.
McFarland D. (1987). The Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). The sources of fear and anxiety in the brain. In: Panksepp J, ed. Affective
Neuroscience.New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998:206222.
Parmigiani, S., Palanza, P., Rodgers J. and Ferrari, P. F. (1999). Selection, evolution of behavior and
animal models in behavioral neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1999;23:957970.
Perrez, M. and Reichert, M. (1992). Stress, Coping, and Health. Seattle, Wash: Hogrefe & Huber
Publishers.
Steimer, T. (2002). The biology of fear- and anxiety-related behaviors. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. Sep
2002; 4(3): 231249.
Watson, J. B. (1970). Behaviorism. 7th ed. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Weinstock, M. (2001). Alterations induced by gestational stress in brain morphology and behaviour of
the offspring. Prog Neurobiol. 2001;65:427451.