Of guns and snakes: testing a modern threat superiority effect

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that ancient (i.e. evolutionary-based) threats capture attention because human beings possess an inborn module shaped by evolution and dedicated to their detection. An alternative account proposes that a key feature predicting whether a stimulus will capture attention is its relevance rather than its ontology (i.e. phylogenetic or ontogenetic threat). Within this framework, the present research deals with the attentional capture by threats commonly encountered in our urban environment. In two experiments, we investigate the attentional capture by modern threats (i.e. weapons). In Experiment 1, participants responded to a target preceded by a cue, which was a weapon or a non-threatening stimulus. We found a larger cuing effect (faster reaction times to valid vs. invalid trials) with weapons as compared with non-threatening cues. In Experiment 2, modern (e.g. weapons) and ancient threats (e.g. snakes) were pitted against one another as cues to determine which ones preferentially capture attention. Crucially, participants were faster to detect a target preceded by a modern as opposed to an ancient threat, providing initial evidence for a superiority of modern threat. Overall, the present findings appear more consistent with a relevance-based explanation rather than an evolutionary-based explanation of threat detection.

Does Threat Have an Advantage After All? – Proposing a Novel Experimental Design to Investigate the Advantages of Threat-Relevant Cues in Visual Processing

“…Taken the above findings together, it seems to be that the confound and mixed results of previous experiments using the VST, as previous research (Quinlan, 2013; Quinlan et al, 2017; Subra et al, 2017) pointed out, could possibly originate from a pop-out effect, i.e., the interaction between the context and different subtypes of target stimuli. In conclusion, the results of our first experiment suggest a relevance superiority effect (Sander et al, 2003, 2005; Fox et al, 2007; Brown et al, 2010; Subra et al, 2017; Zsido et al, 2018a) over the evolutionary fear-module (Öhman et al, 2001; Mineka and Öhman, 2002; Öhman and Mineka, 2003), i.e., threatening targets are found faster compared to neutral targets regardless of their evolutionary relevance. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the current behavioral results say little about the underlying mechanisms that might be different for the evolutionary and modern threatening stimuli (Fang et al, 2016; Zsido et al, 2018c).…”

“…Consequently, an alternative theory was proposed, namely, the relevance superiority effect (Sander et al, 2003, 2005; Fox et al, 2007; Subra et al, 2017; Zsido et al, 2018a, c). The relevance superiority effect suggests that people perceive fear-relevant – threatening in this context – stimuli faster than neutral ones regardless of evolutionary relevance.…”

“…Nonetheless, the VST has been challenged (Rinck et al, 2005; Quinlan, 2013; Quinlan et al, 2017; Subra et al, 2017; Zsido et al, 2018a). After surveying a large body of literature Quinlan (2013) argued that it is unclear whether distractors or targets caused the results, i.e., the results are due to faster detection of the target, or a faster rejection of the distractors (see also Rinck et al, 2005; Fox et al, 2007).…”

“…After surveying a large body of literature Quinlan (2013) argued that it is unclear whether distractors or targets caused the results, i.e., the results are due to faster detection of the target, or a faster rejection of the distractors (see also Rinck et al, 2005; Fox et al, 2007). Furthermore, it was also shown (Subra et al, 2017) that since respondents need to process all the simultaneously presented pictures and select one of them, this task does not quite resemble the originally intended process of attention capturing. Finally, there is growing evidence (Cave and Batty, 2006; Notebaert et al, 2011; Quinlan, 2013) suggesting that controlling for potential perceptual confounds such as luminance, contrast and spatial frequency is crucial in studies dealing with VSTs.…”

Are Humans Prepared to Detect, Fear, and Avoid Snakes? The Mismatch Between Laboratory and Ecological Evidence

“…Previous research has shown (see e.g. Subra et al, 2018; Zsido et al, 2018a) using various paradigms that a modern threatening stimulus could lead to similar behavior as an evolutionary relevant one. For instance, when modern (e.g., gun) and evolutionary (e.g., snake) targets are compared directly in the classical visual search task proposed by Öhman and colleagues (see e.g., Öhman et al, 2001), the modern threatening target caught participants attention faster than evolutionary ones (Zsido et al, 2018b).…”