In Harm’s Way: On Preferential Response to Threatening Stimuli

Abstract

Given the evolutionary significance of survival, the mind might be particularly sensitive (in terms of strength and speed of reaction) to stimuli that pose an immediate threat to physical harm. To rectify limitations in past research, we pilot-tested stimuli to obtain images that are threatening, nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral. Three studies revealed that participants (a) were faster to detect a threatening than nonthreatening-negative image when each was embedded among positive or neutral images, (b) oriented their initial gaze more frequently toward threatening than nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images, and (c) evidenced larger startle-eyeblinks to threatening than to nonthreatening-negative, positive, or neutral images. Social-psychological implications for the mind's sensitivity to threat are discussed.

(Why) Do You Like Scary Movies? A Review of the Empirical Research on Psychological Responses to Horror Films

“…Individuals are faster at detecting images of spiders and snakes among innocuous stimuli than they are innocuous stimuli placed in an array of threatening stimuli (Öhman et al, 2001). This predisposition facilitates vigilance (occasionally, over-vigilance and we see threat in ambiguous situations) to sources of threat or danger with greater attention paid to some stimuli (Clasen, 2014; March et al, 2017). It is a self-protection and survival-enabling mechanism motivating us to confront (and, therefore, remove the potential source of threat) or flee (thereby, removing us from the context in which a threat could result in endangerment).…”

“…In humans, much of our understanding of the neurology of fear has derived from neuroimaging research and studies of brain injury. One of the brain regions involved in fear recognition and experience is the amygdala (Martin, 2008; March et al, 2017), and a considerable literature exists examining the role of this structure in the conditioning and maintenance of fear.…”

State anxiety reduces working memory capacity but does not impact filtering cost for neutral distracters

“…However, the ability to filter out neutral distracters in state anxiety is likely beneficial, as these stimuli do not present any motivationally relevant information. Thus, efficiently ignoring neutral distracters allows individuals in an anxious state to continue to dedicate cognitive resources to ongoing goal-directed tasks (Cowan, 2001;Kane, Bleckley, Engle, 2001;March, Gaertner, & Olson, 2017;Plebanek & Sloutsky, 2019;Vogel et al, 2005;Vogt, De Houwer, Crombez, & Van Damme, 2013. ) Behaviorally, state anxiety did not affect our primary behavioral measures (i.e., accuracy, Pashler's K scores, and RTs).…”

A critique of prospect theory and framing with particular reference to consumer decisions

“…What Kahneman and Tversky call loss aversion has long been known in the perception literature as the “negativity bias” (for a comprehensive historical review, see Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, , and for a recent experimental demonstration, see March, Gaertner, & Olson, ). Everyone learns almost from birth that it pays off behaviorally to be more perceptually sensitive to negative stimuli than to positive stimuli (for a comprehensive historical review, see Vaish, Grossmann, & Woodward, ).…”