Advertisement

Animals in Upright Postures Attract Attention in Humans

  • Jessica L. YorzinskiEmail author
  • Richard G. Coss
Research Article

Abstract

Individual predators differ in the level of risk they represent to prey. Because prey incur costs when responding to predators, prey can benefit by adjusting their antipredator behavior based on the level of perceived risk. Prey can potentially assess the level of risk by evaluating the posture of predators as an index of predators’ motivational state. Like other prey species, humans might evaluate predator body posture as a prominent cue for assessing danger. We tested whether human participants adjusted their visual attention based on the postures of predators by presenting participants with photographic arrays of predators (lions) that varied in postures while we recorded the participants’ gaze behavior. The participants searched for a standing lion (representing a high-risk target) among an array of reclining lions (representing low-risk distractors) or searched for a reclining lion among an array of standing lions. They also searched through similar arrays consisting of non-threatening prey (impalas) standing or reclining, rather than predators. Participants detected standing lions and impala faster than reclining lions and impala. Surprisingly, they detected standing lions at similar latencies as standing impala. They detected the reclining lions and impala more slowly because they spent more time looking at the standing lion and impala distractors and looked at more of those distractors. These results show that upright animals, regardless of whether they are predators or prey, attract attention in humans, and this could allow humans to rapidly evaluate predatory threats or the flight readiness of hunted game.

Keywords

Attention Humans Delayed disengagement Posture Predator detection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Maria Tovar and Monica Dooley helped run the trials.

Funding Information

JLY was funded by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The current research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Texas A&M University (protocol #2016-0575D).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40806_2019_209_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 3.45 mb)

References

  1. Baladrón, A. V., Cavalli, M., Pretelli, M. G., & Bó, M. S. (2016). Time- activity budgets and hunting behavior of the roadside hawk (Rupornis magnirostris) and the long-winged harrier (Circus buffoni). Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 24(3), 197–203.Google Scholar
  2. Bannerman, R. L., Milders, M., de Gelder, B., & Sahraie, A. (2009). Orienting to threat: faster localization of fearful facial expressions and body postures revealed by saccadic eye movements. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Science, 276, 1635–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannerman, R. L., Milders, M., & Sahraie, A. (2010). Attentional cueing: fearful body postures capture attention with saccades. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
  5. Benoni, H. (2018). Top-down prioritization of salient items may produce the so-called stimulus-driven capture. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchette, I. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: how specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1484–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, N. V., Pargeter, H. M., & Templeton, C. M. (2017). Sparrowhawk movement, calling, and presence of dead conspecifics differentially impact blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) vocal and behavioral mobbing responses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 71, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, J. M., & Lima, S. L. (2012). Heat-conserving postures hinder escape: a thermoregulation–predation trade-off in wintering birds. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coss, R. G. (2017). Drawings of representational images by Upper Paleolithic humans and their absence in Neanderthals might reflect historical differences in hunting wary game. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 1(2), 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coss, R. G., & Moore, M. (2002). Precocious knowledge of trees as antipredator refuge in preschool children: An examination of aesthetics, attributive judgments and relic sexual dinichism. Ecological Psychology, 14, 181–222.Google Scholar
  11. Dugatkin, L. A., & Godin, J.-G. J. (1992). Prey approaching predators: a cost-benefit perspective. Annals Zoologici Fennici, 29, 233–252.Google Scholar
  12. Elliot, J. P., Cowan, I. M., & Holling, C. S. (1977). Prey capture by the African lion. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 55, 1811–1828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fallow, P. M., & Magrath, R. D. (2010). Eavesdropping on other species: mutual interspecific understanding of urgency information in avian alarm calls. Animal Behaviour, 79, 411–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ficken, M. S., Ficken, R. W., & Witkin, S. R. (1978). Vocal repertoire of the blackcapped chickadee. Auk, 95, 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FitzGibbon, C. D. (1989). A cost to individuals with reduced vigilance in groups of Thomson’s gazelles hunted by cheetahs. Animal Behaviour, 37, 508–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FitzGibbon, C. D. (1990). Why do hunting cheetahs prefer male gazelles? Animal Behaviour, 40, 837–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2002). Attentional basis for threat: evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert, T., Martin, R., & Coulson, M. (2011). Attentional biases using the body in the crowd task: are angry body postures detected more rapidly? Cognition and Emotion, 25, 700–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griesser, M. (2008). Referential calls signal predator behavior in a group-living bird species. Current Biology, 18, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hampton, R. R. (1994). Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behaviour, 130, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hilton, G. M., Cresswell, W., & Ruxton, G. D. (1999). Intraflock variation in the speed of escape-flight response on attack by an avian predator. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kralj, A., Jaeger, R. J., & Munih, M. (1990). Analysis of standing up and sitting down in humans: definitions and normative data presentation. Journal of Biomechics, 23, 1123–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyle, S. C., & Freeberg, T. M. (2016). Do Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) attend to the head and body orientation of a perched avian predator? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lima, S. L. (2002). Putting predators back into behavioral predator–prey interactions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lipp, O. V., & Waters, A. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombard, M. (2005). Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a multianalytical approach. Journal of Human Evolution, 48, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mukherjee, S., & Heithaus, M. R. (2013). Dangerous prey and daring predators: a review. Biological Reviews, 88, 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Muposhi, V. K., Gandiwa, E., Makuza, S. M., & Bartels, P. (2016). Trophy hunting and perceived risk in closed ecosystems: flight behavior of three gregarious African ungulates in a semi-arid tropical savanna. Austral Ecology, 41, 809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 466–478.Google Scholar
  30. Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penkunas, M. J., & Coss, R. G. (2013a). Rapid detection of visually provocative animals by preschool children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penkunas, M. J., & Coss, R. G. (2013b). A comparison of rural and urban Indian children’s visual detection of threatening and nonthreatening animals. Developmental Science, 16, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Preisser, E. L., Bolnick, D. I., & Benard, M. F. (2005). Scared to death? The effects of intimidation and consumption in predator-prey interactions. Ecology, 86, 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rieucau, G., Boswell, K. M., De Robertis, A., Macaulay, G. J., & Handegard, N. O. (2014). Experimental evidence of threat-sensitive collective avoidance responses in a large wild-caught herring school. PLoS ONE, 9, e86726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti lion: a study of predator-prey relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Scheel, D., & Packer, C. (1991). Group hunting behaviour of lions: a search for cooperation. Animal Behaviour, 41, 697–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Setsaas, T. H., Holmern, T., Mwakalebe, G., Stokke, S., & Røskaft, E. (2007). How does human exploitation affect impala populations in protected and partially protected areas? – a case study from the Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 136, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shen, J., & Reingold, E. M. (2001). Visual search asymmetry: the influence of stimulus familiarity and low-level features. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 464–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stankowich, T., & Coss, R. G. (2006). Effects of predator behavior and proximity on risk assessment by Columbian black-tailed deer. Behavioral Ecology, 17, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: the fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Treisman, A., & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Treves, A., & Palmqvist, P. (2007). Reconstructing hominin interactions with mammalian carnivores (6.0-1.8 Ma). In S. L. Gursky & K. A. I. Nekaris (Eds.), Primate anti-predator strategies. Developments in primatology: progress and prospects (pp. 355–381). Boston: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Turesson, H., Satta, A., & Domenici, P. (2009). Preparing for escape: anti-predator posture and fast-start performance in gobies. Journal of Experimental Biology, 212, 2925–2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Willenbockel, V., Sadr, J., Fiset, D., Horne, G. O., Gosselin, F., & Tanaka, J. W. (2010). Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox. Behaviour Research Methods, 42, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson, D. R., & Evans, C. S. (2012). Fowl communicate the size, speed and proximity of avian stimuli through graded structure in referential alarm calls. Animal Behaviour, 83, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: an introduction. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ydenberg, R. C., & Dill, L. M. (1986). The economics of fleeing from predators. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 16, 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeakel, J. D., Patterson, B. D., Fox-Dobbs, K., Okumura, M. M., Cerling, T. E., Moore, J. W., Koch, P. L., & Dominy, N. J. (2009). Cooperation and individuality among man-eating lions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 106, 19040–19043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yorzinski, J. (2019). Animals in upright postures attract attention in humans. Harvard Dataverse, V1.  https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OS4NJO
  52. Yorzinski, J. L., Penkunas, M. J., Platt, M. L., & Coss, R. C. (2014). Dangerous animals capture and maintain attention in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 534–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yorzinski, J. L., Tovar, M. E., & Coss, R. G. (2018). Forward-facing predators attract attention in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 132, 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations