J 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.