The purpose of this study was to investigate the divergent viewpoints regarding fearful stimuli in young children by analyzing variations in eye movement tracking and detection rates when confronted with the sudden appearance of either snakes or lizards. A total of 137 five to six-year-old Chinese children (43.8% male) participated in the study, which utilized the inattentional blindness paradigm. The results indicated that young children did not display any attentional bias toward snakes when compared with lizards, as evidenced by their detection rates and eye movement tracking. Interestingly, the children fixated on lizards earlier than snakes. These findings suggest that the notion of an evolution bias toward ancestral threats may not be as credible as previously believed.
ArmstrongT.BilskyS. A.ZhaoM.OlatunjiB. O. (2013). Dwelling on potential threat cues: An eye movement marker for combat-related PTSD. Depression and Anxiety, 30, 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22115
2.
BeanlandV.PammerK. (2010). Looking without seeing or seeing without looking? Eye movements in sustained inattentional blindness. Vision Research, 50, 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.02.024
3.
BeanlandV.TanC. H.ChristensenB. K. (2018). The unexpected killer: Effects of stimulus threat and negative affectivity on inattentional blindness. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 1374–1381. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2017.1394269
4.
BrailsfordR.CatherwoodD.TysonP. J.EdgarG. (2014). Noticing spiders on the left: Evidence on attentional bias and spider fear in the inattentional blindness paradigm. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19, 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.791306
5.
ChenH.WybleB. (2015). Amnesia for object attributes: Failure to report attended information that had just reached conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 26, 203–210. httpsss://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614560648https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614560648
6.
ChenH.WybleB. (2016). Attribute amnesia reflects a lack of memory consolidation for attended information. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 42, 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000133
7.
ChenH.YanN.ZhuP.WybleB.EitamB.ShenM. (2019). Expecting the unexpected: Violation of expectation shifts strategies toward information exploration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000622
8.
ChenL.ZhuP.LiJ.SongH.LiuH.ShenM.ChenH. (2023). The modulation of expectation violation on attention: Evidence from the spatial cueing effects. Cognition, 238, 105488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105488
9.
DerakshanN.KosterE. H. W. (2010). Processing efficiency in visual search in anxiety: An eye-movement registration study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1180–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.08.009
10.
DitrichL.SassenbergK. (2024). Threat and reactions to violated expectations in groups: Adding control to the equation. European Review of Social Psychology, 35, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2211463
GaoH.JiaZ. (2017). Detection of threats under inattentional blindness and perceptual load. Current Psychology, 36, 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9460-0
13.
HoehlS.HellmerK.JohanssonM.GredebäckG. (2017). Itsy bitsy spider…: Infants react with increased arousal to spiders and snakes. Frontier in Psychology, 8, 1710. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01710
14.
HuijdingJ.MayerB.KosterE. H. W.MurisP. (2011). To look or not to look: An eye movement study of hypervigilance during change detection in high and low spider fearful students. Emotion, 11, 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022996
15.
HutchinsonB. T.PammerK.BandaraK.JackB. N. (2022). A tale of two theories: A meta-analysis of the attention set and load theories of inattentional blindness. Psychological Bulletin, 148, 370. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000371
16.
HutchinsonB. T.WilkinsonN.RobertsonG.BuddA.NichollsM. E. R.GriffithsO. (2023). An investigation of inattentional blindness using gaze and frequency tagging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49, 1310–1329. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001143
17.
IrvingE. L.SteinbachM. J.LillakasL.BabuR. J.HutchingsN. (2006). Horizontal saccade dynamics across the human life span. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science, 47, 2478–2484. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-1311
KoivistoM.HyönäJ.RevonsuoA. (2004). The effects of eye movements, spatial attention, and stimulus features on inattentional blindness. Vision Research, 44, 3211–3221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bisres.2004.07.026
20.
LeeH. J.TelchM. J. (2008). Attentional biases in social anxiety: An investigation using the inattentional blindness paradigm. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 819–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.04.001
21.
LippO. V.WaterA. M. (2007). When danger lurks in the background: Attentional capture by animal fear-relevant distractors is specific and selectively enhanced by animal fear. Emotion, 7, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.192
22.
LoBueV. (2014). Deconstructing the snake: The relative roles of perception, cognition, and emotion on threat detection. Emotion, 14, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035898
MackA.RockI. (1998). Inattentional blindness. MIT Press.
25.
MemmertD. (2006). The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 620–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.01.001
26.
MostS. B.SimonsD. J.SchollB. J.JimenezR.CliffordE.ChabrisC. F. (2001). How not to be seen: The contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science, 12, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00303
27.
MunozD. P.BroughtonJ. R.GoldringJ. E.ArmstrongI. T. (1998). Age-related performance of human subjects on saccadic eye movement tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 121, 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050473
28.
NewJ. J.GermanT. C. (2015). Spiders at the cocktail party: An ancestral threat that surmounts inattentional blindness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.08.004
29.
PenkunasM. J.CossR. G. (2013a). Rapid detection of visually provocative animals by preschool children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.001
30.
PenkunasM. J.CossR. G. (2013b). A comparison of rural and urban Indian children’s visual detection of threatening and nonthreatening animals. Developmental Science, 16, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12043
31.
QinJ.ChenC. (2011). The influence of the unexpected stimulus’ color and shape on inattentional blindness. Psychological Research, 4(4), 38–43.
RattanA.EberhardtJ. L. (2010). The role of social meaning in inattentional blindness: When the gorillas in our midst do not go unseen. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1085–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.010
34.
RichardsA.HannonE. M.VitkovitchM. (2012). Distracted by distractors: Eye movement in a dynamic inattentional blindness task. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.013
35.
SimonsD. J.ChabrisC. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059
36.
SunZ.FirestoneC. (2021). Curious object: How visual complexity guides attention and engagement. Cognitive Science, 45, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12933
37.
TongY.WangF. (2017). Attentional biases are not always specific to fear-relevant stimuli: Snakes versus lizards. Psychological Development and Education, 33, 524–534. https://doi.org/https://dx.https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2017.05.02
38.
TreismanA.GormicanS. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.1.15
39.
Van StrienJ. W.IsbellL. A. (2017). Snake scales, partial exposure, and the Snake Detection Theory: A human event-related potentials study. Scientific Reports, 7, 46331. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46331
40.
WaechterS.NelsonA. L.WrightC.HyattA.OakmanJ. (2014). Measuring attentional bias to threat: Reliability of dot probe and eye movement indices. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-013-9588-2
41.
WangF.LiW.YanZ.DuanZ.LiH. (2015). Children’s attention detection to snakes: Evidence from eye movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47, 774. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00774
42.
WiemerJ.GerdesA. B. M.PauliP. (2013). The effect of an unexpected spider stimulus on skin conductance responses and eye movements: An inattentional blindness study. Psychological Research, 77, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0407-7
43.
World Medical Association (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama, 310, 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
44.
ZhangH.HeC.YanC.ZhaoD.XieD. (2019). The developmental difference of inattentional blindness in 3-to-5-year-old preschoolers and its relationship with fluid intelligence. Consciousness and Cognition, 69, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.01.014
45.
ZhangH.WangJ. L.LiuY.YanC. C.YeX. H. (2022). Threat-relevant stimuli cannot be better detected by preschoolers in an inattentional blindness task. Psychological Research, 86, 823–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01530-5
