Emotionally salient objects activate the survival circuits of the brain and are given priority in cognitive processing, even at the cost of inhibiting ongoing activities. These circuits arouse and prepare the organism to take swift action when needed. Previous studies have suggested, however, that not all emotional dimensions are equally prioritized. Threatening stimuli may have greater prominence than other emotional categories. Thus, we sought to compare the effects that stimuli of varying emotions would have on orienting and executive attentional processing. We performed two experiments to broaden our understanding of the attentional consequences of threats through the monitoring of participants' eye movements. Participants were exposed to emotionally charged (threatening, nonthreatening negative, positive) and neutral pictures as task-irrelevant distractors while performing a primary visual search task (under conditions of varying cognitive load). Behavioural results showed that participants found the first target number more slowly when the distractor image was threatening, but overall task completion times were actually speeded in this condition (relative to other valences). Further, participants fixated on threatening distractor images earlier and observed them longer than other valences. Results were more pronounced when the primary task was harder. These biases were not evident for positive and nonthreatening images, presumably because participants were able to ignore them, providing further support to the contention that threatening stimuli hold greater prominence than other emotional categories. Together, our results are in line with previous studies suggesting that the processing of threatening stimuli is speeded, potentially because of differences in the brain circuits involved.

How people experience nature influences their attitudes and actions towards it. Having had a negative encounter with an animal may facilitate avoidance and freezing responses which may encourage negative feelings towards it and the environment in which it is found. Animals associated with fear, such as snakes, are often the victims of hunting and killing, possibly in part due to an overperception of their inherent danger. Past research has shown that fear affects approach–avoidance response at both the preparatory and executive stages of movement. However, the way one reacts to different threats may also depend on its proximity and how fearful one is of that specific threat. We employed a mouse‐tracking paradigm where participants (N = 40) categorized pictures of threatening and non‐threatening animals (snakes and butterflies respectively). The picture could appear at the middle, top or bottom of the screen. Participants initiated the movement from the centre of the screen and the category labels appeared on the top of the screen. Participants therefore had to either move towards the picture on the top or move away from the picture (presented centrally or at the bottom). Participants were split into fearful and non‐fearful groups based on self‐report snake fear. Non‐fearful participants were generally slower when a threat was present. But, in the fearful group, we found longer movement initiation times for central threats and shorter initiation times for off‐centre threats (compared to neutral targets). Fearful participants were also slower to initiate movement when moving away from the threat, but faster when moving towards it (compared to neutral targets). The slower start and execution may be due to the lack of active planning and/or may imply the presence of a passive temporary freezing response. Strong negative emotions towards nature and animals serve as crucial factors both in animal phobias and anti‐animal behaviours (i.e. the purposeful decimation of certain species). Understanding the action dynamics of approach–avoid behaviours in response to threatening animals may help to inform both the prevention and treatment of phobias, and relatedly, the promotion of conservationist endeavours. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

No abstract

No abstract