Snakes vs. Guns: a Systematic Review of Comparisons Between Phylogenetic and Ontogenetic Threats

Abstract

Objectives

The potential differences between phylogenetic threats (e.g., snakes) and ontogenetic threats (e.g., guns) can have a wide-ranging impact on a variety of theoretical and practical issues, from etiology of specific phobias to stimulus selection in psychophysiological studies, yet this line of research has not been systematically reviewed.

Methods

We summarize and synthesize findings from fear conditioning, illusory correlation, attention bias, and neuroimaging studies that have compared these two types of threats to human survival.

Results

While a few brain imaging studies reveal preliminary evidence for different brain networks involved in the processing of phylogenetic and ontogenetic threats, attention bias studies tentatively show faster reaction time for modern threats, illusory correlation bias is evident for both types of threats, and fear conditioning studies are far from conclusive.

Conclusions

The results of behavioral experiments, especially attention bias research, pose a challenge to established theories like biological preparedness and fear module, as they show faster reaction time to modern threats, which is the opposite of what some evolutionary theories predict. We discuss the findings in terms of other theories that might explain the same results and conclude with potential future directions.