Abstract

Individual reactions to danger in humans are often characterized as antisocial and self-preservative. Yet, more than 50 years of research have shown that humans often seek social partners and behave prosocially when confronted by danger. This research has relied on post hoc verbal reports, which fall short of capturing the more spontaneous reactions to danger and determine their social nature. Real-world responses to danger are difficult to observe, due to their evanescent nature. Here, we took advantage of a series of photographs freely accessible online and provided by a haunted house attraction, which enabled us to examine the more immediate reactions to mild threat. Regarding the nature and structure of affiliative behaviour and their motivational correlates, we were able to analyse the distribution of gripping, a behaviour that could either be linked to self- or other-oriented protection. We found that gripping, an affiliative behaviour, was common, suggestive of the social nature of human immediate reactions to danger. We also found that, while gripping behaviour is quite stable across group sizes, mutual gripping dropped dramatically as group size increases. The fact that mutual gripping disappears when the number of available partners increases suggests that gripping behaviour most probably reflects a self-preservative motivation. We also found age class differences, with younger individuals showing more gripping but receiving little reciprocation. Also, the most exposed individuals received little mutual gripping. Altogether, these results suggest that primary reactions to threat in humans are driven by affiliative tendencies serving self-preservative motives.

Highlights

  • How do humans collectively react to danger? The resurgence of terrorist attacks around the world has shown that this question is urgent in today’s research agenda

  • To examine our first hypothesis, we looked at gripping behaviour as a function of group size

  • We were interested in two hypotheses: first, and against the common belief that reactions to 6 threat are antisocial [2], affiliation is a primary reaction to danger [5]; second, and reactions to danger are thought to be self-preservative, prosocial motives may prevail under those circumstances

Read more

Summary

Introduction

How do humans collectively react to danger? The resurgence of terrorist attacks around the world has shown that this question is urgent in today’s research agenda. Human reactions to danger are commonly characterized as antisocial and self-preservative in nature (an assumption embraced by a large array of audiences [2]), research has shown that affiliation is a main drive during exposure to danger, and prosociality is a common response, even when people’s life is directly at risk (see [1] for a review) Behavioural responses in such contexts have been explained by the maintenance of social norms [3,4], the fact that affiliation is a primitive response to danger [5] and the emergence of a social identity among endangered individuals [6]. If laboratory experiments [7,8] have shown similar affiliation and prosocial responses in yet urged individuals, the ecological validity of those data remain to be corroborated by real-time measures of responses to danger

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.