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

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,869 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
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. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes IŠ: stolhofi{at}natur.cuni.cz; TH: hladikote{at}natur.cuni.cz; MJ: janovcom{at}natur.cuni.cz; ŠP: peleskovasarka{at}seznam.cz; DF: frynta{at}centrum.cz;

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00