Association Between Fear and Beauty Evaluation of Snakes: Cross-Cultural Findings

Abstract

According to the fear module theory, humans are evolutionarily predisposed to perceive snakes as prioritized stimuli and exhibit a fast emotional and behavioral response toward them. In Europe, highly dangerous snake species are distributed almost exclusively in the Mediterranean and Caspian areas. While the risk of a snakebite is relatively low in Central Europe, Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has a high occurrence of the deadly venomous Levant viper (Macrovipera lebetina). We hypothesize that co-habitation with this dangerous snake has shaped the way in which humans evaluate snake species resembling it. For that purpose, we asked respondents from the Czech Republic and Azerbaijan to rank photographs depicting 36 snake species according to perceived fear and beauty. The results revealed a high cross-cultural agreement in both evaluations (fear r2 = 0.683, p < 0.0001; beauty: r2 = 0.816, p < 0.0001). Snakes species eliciting higher fear tend to be also perceived as more beautiful, yet people are able to clearly distinguish between these two dimensions. Deadly venomous snakes representing a serious risk are perceived as highly fearful. This is especially true for the vipers and allies (pit vipers) possessing a characteristic body shape with a distinct triangular head and thick body, which was found as the most fear evoking by respondents from both countries. Although the attitude toward snakes is more negative among the respondents from Azerbaijan, their fear evaluation is similar to the Czechs. For instance, despite co-habitation with the Levant viper, it was not rated by the Azerbaijanis as more fearful than other dangerous snakes. In conclusion, agreement in the evaluation of snake fear and beauty is cross-culturally high and relative fear attributed to selected snake species is not directly explainable by the current environmental and cultural differences. This may provide some support for the evolutionary hypothesis of preparedness to fear snakes.

Emotional Reaction to Fear- and Disgust-Evoking Snakes: Sensitivity and Propensity in Snake-Fearful Respondents

“…However, there are many snake species, differing in size, color, shape, texture, and also the actual dangerousness they present to humans (Kasturiratne et al, 2008; see also Rádlová et al, 2019 for a review). Previously, we have shown that human respondents are able to distinguish between various snake morphotypes and that they mostly fear vipers and allies (Landová et al, 2018;Rádlová et al, 2019) while simultaneously evaluating harmless fossorial species as not fear-eliciting at all. These findings raise a further question whether snakefearful participants distinguish particular snake morphotypes and respond comparably to non-fearful respondents, or evaluate all snakes in general negatively.…”

Scary and nasty beasts: Self‐reported fear and disgust of common phobic animals

“…This way, the following list of 23 animals (animal categories) has been devised (in the alphabetic order): ant, bat, bull, cat, cockroach, dog, fish, frog, horse, lizard, louse, maggot, moth, mouse, pigeon, rat, rooster, roundworm, snail, snake, spider, tapeworm, and wasp. Furthermore, a recent paper suggests that the snake is rather a heterogeneous category as different snake species strikingly vary in elicited fear or disgust (Landov a et al, 2018). Based on this finding, two kinds of snakes were used in our study, a venomous viper and a non-venomous grass snake.…”

“…Furthermore, this three‐factor solution was closely comparable across seven Western and Asian countries. Cross‐cultural agreement in perception of animals seems to be a general pattern, not only for fear (Landová et al ., ), but positive emotions too (Frynta, Marešová, Reháková‐Petrú, Šklíba, Šumbera, & Krása, ; Marešová, Krása, & Frynta, ).…”

Processing bias: extending sensory drive to include efficacy and efficiency in information processing

“…Importantly, however, not all stimuli that affect receiver fitness trigger a positive emotional evaluation. Aposematic traits, for example, facilitate the recognition and memorization of dangerous species [75] and are judged to be beautiful, but they trigger fear, a negative or aversive emotional evaluation (e.g., in snakes, see [76]; Box 1). Animals can form positive (aesthetic) judgments about stimuli that trigger an aversive emotional response or even about stimuli that are likely neutral with respect to fitness, like artwork or landscapes, suggesting a typical quality indicator model may not be a sufficient explanation.…”