Threatening stimuli have differential effects on movement preparation and execution—A study on snake fear

Abstract

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.

Biophobia: What it is, how it works and why it matters

“…Before discussing the details of the included studies, we provide a brief overview of the overall contents of the special issue. As listed in Table 1, our special feature comprises seven papers: six empirical studies (Catapani et al, 2024;Correia & Mammola, 2024;Gish et al, 2024;Prokop et al, 2024;Puri et al, 2024;Zsidó et al, 2024) and one review article (Norberg et al, 2024). These studies explore diverse aspects of biophobia, which can be broadly categorised into four major themes: (1) exploring factors contributing to the development of biophobia (Drivers), (2) examining consequences for humans (e.g.…”

“…From a human standpoint, Norberg et al (2024) discuss the formation mechanisms, consequences for humans, and mitigation strategies of biophobia from a clinical psychology standpoint. Similarly, Zsidó et al (2024) explore the behavioural patterns of individuals with biophobia using a cognitive science approach. Additionally, Correia and Mammola (2024) investigate the spatial and temporal patterns of biophobia and their drivers from a culturomics perspective.…”

“…Indeed, several phobic responses have been identified, including apiphobia (fear of bees), arachnophobia (fear of spiders), batrachophobia (fear of amphibians), entomophobia (fear of insects), helminthophobia (fear of worm infestations), herpetophobia (fear of reptiles), hylophobia (fear of forests), ophidiophobia (fear of snakes), and selachophobia (fear of sharks) (Soga & Gaston, 2022b). This breadth of biophobia in humans is indeed reflected in this special feature, as the included studies focused on human negative responses towards a wide range of organisms, such as large carnivores (Prokop et al, 2024), anteaters (Catapani et al, 2024), foxes (Puri et al, 2024), bats (Correia & Mammola, 2024), snakes (Zsidó et al, 2024), arthropods (Gish et al, 2024, and spiders (Correia & Mammola, 2024).…”

“…To explore the detailed behavioural consequences of fear stimuli associated with wild animals, Zsidó et al (2024) sponses to a perceived escapable threat (Zsidó et al, 2024).…”

“…This limited understanding of biophobia is a cause for we will briefly explore what biophobia entails, how it operates, and why it is important in the context of the relationship between humans and nature. We will also highlight the findings of each of the included papers (Catapani et al, 2024;Correia & Mammola, 2024;Gish et al, 2024;Norberg et al, 2024;Prokop et al, 2024;Puri et al, 2024;Zsidó et al, 2024) in the most relevant sections.…”