Back

Subjective and psychophysiological response to pictures of ancestral and modern threats: not all evolutionary threats are alike

Stolhoferova, I.; Hladikova, T.; Janovcova, M.; Peterkova, S.; Frynta, D.; Landova, E.

2026-01-16 physiology
10.64898/2026.01.15.699219 bioRxiv
Show abstract

After encountering a potentially dangerous stimulus, the human body and mind might react with a cascade of physiological, emotional, and cognitive responses to minimize impending harm. However, whether this system can be activated by modern (ontogenetic) threats to the same extent as by ancestral (evolutionary) threats remains uncertain, since the existing results are ambiguous. In this study, we aimed to compare the skin resistance (SR) response to ancestral and modern threats; the focal categories were venomous snakes, heights, airborne diseases, and firearms. We collected recordings of 119 participants, about 30 per threat category, supplemented by participants rating of the stimuli according to elicited fear. Results showed that participants reacted (SR change) with higher probability to all experimental categories than to control stimuli, with the most frequent reactions to photos simulating the threat of heights, followed by snakes, firearms, and airborne diseases. The largest amplitudes, indicating response intensity, were observed for heights but also for venomous snakes. Further examination showed that higher subjective fear corresponded to an increased probability of SR change. Although the results suggest a slight advantage for ancestral threats, responses to the threat of heights differed in several respects from responses to snakes, demonstrating that ancestrality-based categorisation cannot capture all aspects of the response. Moreover, both ancestral and modern threats can evoke similar electrodermal responses, depending on subjective stimulus salience and/or threat relevance.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.