Horror Fans Aren’t Heartless: The Science Behind Their Emotions

Horror fans have been painted with the same broad, bloody brush for decades: labeled as cold, emotionless thrill-seekers who delight in the suffering of others. Movie critics describe the movie’s fans and creators as follows: Friday the 13th and Saw as “very sick people.” Flat among scholars, a common explanation for why some people love horror is that they lack empathy or are simply adrenaline junkies. In my new book, I argue that all of these assumptions are wrong.

One of the most persistent misconceptions about horror fans is that they must lack empathy to enjoy a movie this painful. This claim is intuitive and, until recently, was ostensibly supported by evidence presented in a meta-analysis. But a meta-analysis is only as powerful as the studies it summarizes. In this case, the variables were poorly defined. For example, the two studies that showed the strongest associations with low empathy examined whether participants enjoyed short clips that ended in torture or brutal murder and had no satisfying resolution. These measures probably don’t tell us much about horror fans, but they may tell us something about sadists. Deep in the discussion section, the authors of the meta-analysis acknowledged that if these studies were removed, the link between empathy and the enjoyment of fear disappeared. Unfortunately, that warning wasn’t mentioned in the summary.

In 2024, a series of research studies directly addressed issues of horror fandom and empathy. The results were amazing. Using standardized ratings measuring empathy and compassion, we found no evidence that horror fans were lower on either scale. In fact, they scored higher on empathy and compassion on several measures.

Even if they don’t consider empathy, conventional wisdom suggests that horror fans are just looking for an adrenaline rush. Some old research will even show you the proof. However, the truth is more complex.

My colleagues and I looked into it. When we investigated the motivations of horror fans who visit haunted attractions, we found that “adrenaline junkies” are only a subset of horror enthusiasts. We also discovered a group we call “white knucklers.” They find horror really scary and hate feeling scared. Our research shows that horror offers these fans an opportunity to overcome their fears and learn something about themselves. We also found a group called “Dark Copers” who use horror as a way to process difficult emotions and experiences. They find a sense of catharsis in imaginary horror. These three types of models make it clear that many horror fans are not motivated solely by adrenaline. However, they have one thing in common.

My research has identified the following personality traits: morbid curiosity as the most powerful predictor of horror fandom. The tendency to seek information about dangerous, threatening, or death-related phenomena leads to a fascination with horror media. And that may be good for you. Research shows that people with high levels of morbid curiosity are better prepared for real crises and demonstrate increased resilience during stressful life events. Horror fans may practice emotional regulation—a time to toy with fear through terrifying entertainment.

This evidence paints a picture of horror fans as empathetic, curious, and psychologically sophisticated. Horror is a testament to human adaptability and our uncanny ability to find meaning, connection, and even growth in the face of our deepest fears. Recognizing this not only helps us understand horror fans more accurately but also reveals something deep about human nature itself.

Coltan Scribner is the author of Morbidly Curious: Scientists Explain Why You Shouldn’t Look Away.

Source: www.newscientist.com

“Humorous” Pet Videos of Stressed and Scared Animals Aren’t So Funny After All

The Internet loves cat videos, but how do cats feel?

westend61 gmbh/alamy

It appears to be quite amusing to give your cat or dog a genuine scare. At least, that’s the impression one gets from various viral videos on TikTok, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.

As a science journalist specializing in animal behavior, I assure you I’m not joking. Owners post clips of themselves wearing Halloween masks or using stuffed predator toys, suddenly popping out from behind doors or sofas.

Yet my perception may be skewed. These videos genuinely amuse their viewers, racking up millions of views, filled with laughing emojis and enthusiastic comments highlighting favorite moments.

While watching such videos isn’t my preferred form of procrastination, I recently encountered research by Alina Cunoll from the German Veterinary Medicine Hanover and her colleagues in their analysis of 162 “funny” pet videos on social media. They discovered that 82% of these clips showed animals exhibiting clear signs of stress, with 30% indicating potential pain. Taken aback by these statistics, I decided to scrutinize my own viewing habits.

I’ve spent a considerable amount of time observing supposedly hilarious pet videos online. Regrettably, I can confirm that those researchers aren’t overstating their findings. There seems to be an abundance of content where individuals intentionally scare pets in terrifying “boo” pranks, alongside many clips where animals accidentally injure themselves.

Once, I raised a rescue kitten that tragically slipped off the couch and landed poorly, leading to paralysis that required euthanasia. We’ve witnessed dogs enduring horrific injuries from concussions, nerve damage, and collisions with glass. But hey, isn’t it funny?

There’s also a trend of showcasing dogs’ “mysterious” actions. People snap pictures of piles of fluff taken from the couch while asking, “What did you do?” Although owners may revel in the social media success and their pets’ so-called “guilt,” the harsh truth is that destructive behavior often signals poor welfare, and a guilty expression in a dog is likely a reaction to anticipated punishment rather than true regret. In reality, the joke is on you, the owner.

Additionally, many pets depicted in these videos are severely overweight, struggling to navigate pet doors, and having difficulty moving or jumping onto furniture. Other animals showcased for entertainment are dealing with disorders like nerve damage, resulting in abnormal walking or movements.

Viewing these scenes, I can’t help but feel that modern technology has crafted a sick spectacle reminiscent of 19th-century circuses and sideshows, where audiences reveled in the fear, ridicule, and physical deformities of others.

It’s perplexing to consider the origins of this trend. I hope it stems from a significant misunderstanding—perhaps people don’t realize they are laughing at the suffering of other beings. Regardless, it raises significant concerns. Research suggests that repeated exposure to violence and cruelty online can dull our emotions. Such content may desensitize us to animal suffering while normalizing harmful scenes in our minds. (Indeed, this theory often plays out in reality, as those who comment against such content are frequently met with hostility and shame.)

The silver lining is that animals can be entertaining in their own right, without the need for pain, stress, or provocation. Just ask someone who’s witnessed a cat playing on a computer, splashing water from a sink faucet, or a dog joyfully leaping into a lake. It’s easy to find laughter in happy, healthy animals engaging in natural play and exploration without fear or discomfort.

Let’s suggest some new social media challenges instead. Show us videos of your pets having fun without stress, pain, or limitations. We dare you to make us laugh while you and your pets enjoy quality time together.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Leading Scientists Acknowledge They Aren’t Creating Truly Miserable Wolves

One of the modified grey wolves created by Colossal

Giant Biology

On April 7, a prominent biological science organization announced that the genetically altered wolf is “the world’s first successful animal.” Many appeared to take this claim seriously. New Scientist was one of the few outlets to refute this assertion, clarifying that these were grey wolves enhanced through gene editing.

In a later interview, Colossal’s chief scientist, Beth Shapiro, seemed to concur, stating: “We cannot recreate anything that is identical to the extinct species. Our animals are grey wolves with 20 cloned gene edits,” as reported by New Scientist. “We’ve always communicated this. The term ‘miserable wolves’ irritates some people.”

Richard Grenier from Oxford University noted a significant shift from Colossal’s earlier messaging, interpreting Shapiro’s statement as a clear reflection of their scientific approach. “I see a stark contradiction between the statement’s content and their past communications and promotional efforts,” he remarked.

He referred to a major press release announcing the birth of a gene-edited wolf, which repeatedly labeled them as “miserable wolves.” Shapiro defended this characterization during an interview with New Scientist on April 7.

“We employ the concept of morphological species, asserting that if they visually resemble this animal, they are classified as such,” she explained at the time.

The appearance of gene-edited wolves as “miserable” remains uncertain. For instance, some evidence suggests that the original wolves had a reddish hue, contrary to the white coat depicted. Claudio Cirero from Oxford University pointed this out.

Despite statements from Cirero and other experts declaring that the gene-edited grey wolf is not a true representation of the extinct species, Colossal maintained its stance. “[W]E continue to support our designation of Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi as ‘disastrous wolves’,” they affirmed in a statement on X.

In a more recent interview, Shapiro reiterated that Colossal had always clarified that the animal in question was simply a gene-edited grey wolf.

“We did not obscure this fact. The backlash arose from our labeling them as miserable wolves,” she explained. “We clarified that they are grey wolves modified with 20 edits. We communicated this from the outset.”

Shapiro also attempted to distance the project from any implication that the possibility of bringing back extinct species might lessen the urgency for conserving endangered ones, a notion supported by some factions of the Trump administration. “Now it’s linked to the idea that we need not be concerned about extinctions. This is problematic,” she remarked.

“The crucial point here is ‘sudden’,” states Grenier. He indicates that it has been long recognized that if the public perceives de-extinction as feasible, support for conservation may dwindle. Colossal, he argues, should recognize this risk. Their website declares: “Extinction is a critical issue we face… and the solution is not simply to reverse it.”

While Colossal has made significant strides in scientific innovation, Grenier asserts that their claims are fundamentally flawed. “This is transformative, groundbreaking science. It goes beyond merely reversing extinction,” he concluded.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Comprehensive Cost Analysis: Mad Cap Driving Games Aren’t Fast Anywhere

DEliver places you in the role of a delivery driver set in the late 1950s, and it visually impresses. Almost everything on the map can be destructed, allowing you to immediately indulge in chaotic escapades—whether it’s shaking your beach chairs, driving straight through a diner, or witnessing it spectacularly fall apart behind you. However, at the core of this game lies a void that could have served as a compelling hook.

You catch a glimpse of that potential during missions where you race against a rival delivery truck to reach your destination first. Your task is to press and hold a button, allowing the crane at the back of your truck to cleverly lift packages onto itself. Meanwhile, your rival attempts to force you off the road. After securing the package, you must deliver it while evading other drivers. This leads to amusing scenarios where you’re relieved to receive your commission while the hotel owner stands amidst the wreckage of his once-new establishment: collateral damage from your effort.




Keep Truckin’… Deliver at any cost. Photo: Konami

This one frantic mission stands out as the highlight of the game, and if subsequent deliveries followed a similar chaotic race against time, it might have thrived. Unfortunately, the quality and variety of each mission varies greatly. Some are enjoyable, like those capturing UFO images while dodging lasers, whereas others come across as tedious, such as balloon deliveries tied to a truck. Zany antics cannot compare to genuinely fun experiences.

While these side missions have their charm, they only serve as distractions. If the main game focused on rapidly delivering parcels, it might have resonated better. However, the sporadic enjoyment is overshadowed. By the storyline’s latter third, the premise of delivering goods fades away, replaced by uninspired narratives told through lackluster cutscenes. The protagonist, Winston Green, is a character weighed down by a murky past, facing off with his boss, Donovan, before the game veers into outright sci-fi absurdity involving Poe. Honestly, the perpetually irritable Winston ranks among the least appealing video game protagonists ever crafted.

Similar to Grand Theft Auto, you can jump out of your vehicle and explore the environment, but you’re likely to find little of interest aside from a few vantage points and some side quests. These quests range from enjoyable (like racing against parachutists down mountains) to mundane (tracking down a mayor lookalike). Although there are some unique vehicles to discover, most missions require a delivery truck, rendering the novelty of driving, say, a hot dog van short-lived. There are even wooden frames filled with cash waiting to be found, but they’re hardly worth the effort. The shop offers spare parts for truck gadgets, but apart from a jet engine that provides a speed boost, they’re largely unnecessary.

This situation is deeply frustrating. All the emphasis on delivery focuses on odd, half-baked stories that present a visually stunning, destructible landscape but fail to fully utilize it, leading instead to courtroom dramas. It feels akin to a conspiracy theorist at a lavish champagne reception, spending eight hours discussing the plot of their lame science fiction novel. What a waste.

May 22nd, deliver at any cost for £24.99

Source: www.theguardian.com