2024
No evidence of attentional prioritization for threatening targets in visual search
ZSIDO, Andras N.; Michael C. HOUT; Marko HERNANDEZ; Brian WHITE; Jakub POLÁK et. al.Basic information
Original name
No evidence of attentional prioritization for threatening targets in visual search
Authors
ZSIDO, Andras N. (guarantor); Michael C. HOUT; Marko HERNANDEZ; Brian WHITE; Jakub POLÁK (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution); Botond L. KISS and Hayward J. GODWIN
Edition
Scientific reports, London, Nature Publishing Group, 2024, 2045-2322
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Article in a journal
Field of Study
50103 Cognitive sciences
Country of publisher
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Confidentiality degree
is not subject to a state or trade secret
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 3.900
Organization unit
AMBIS University
UT WoS
001185083700056
Keywords in English
Visual search; Snake; Treat detection; Visual feature; Afective feature; Negative valence
Tags
Changed: 31/3/2025 17:20, Ing. Kateřina Lendrová
Abstract
In the original language
Throughout human evolutionary history, snakes have been associated with danger and threat. Research has shown that snakes are prioritized by our attentional system, despite many of us rarely encountering them in our daily lives. We conducted two high-powered, pre-registered experiments (total N = 224) manipulating target prevalence to understand this heightened prioritization of threatening targets. Target prevalence refers to the proportion of trials wherein a target is presented; reductions in prevalence consistently reduce the likelihood that targets will be found. We reasoned that snake targets in visual search should experience weaker effects of low target prevalence compared to non-threatening targets (rabbits) because they should be prioritized by searchers despite appearing rarely. In both experiments, we found evidence of classic prevalence effects but (contrasting prior work) we also found that search for threatening targets was slower and less accurate than for nonthreatening targets. This surprising result is possibly due to methodological issues common in prior studies, including comparatively smaller sample sizes, fewer trials, and a tendency to exclusively examine conditions of relatively high prevalence. Our findings call into question accounts of threat prioritization and suggest that prior attention findings may be constrained to a narrow range of circumstances.