Human eyetracking reveals a general avoidance of spider images but a bias toward spider-specific features

Many people are afraid of spiders and consider them to be both dangerous and disgusting, which can negatively impact their mental well-being as well as their relationship with nature. Very few studies have examined what characteristics draw visual attention toward or away from spiders, or have assessed the impact of arachnophobia and sex on attentional biases. Here, 118 undergraduate students freely viewed single and paired images of spiders and other arthropods in their natural environments while having their eye movements monitored. Participants also completed a survey measuring spider phobia and attitudes toward spiders. Multiple eyetracking metrics (total dwell time, first run dwell time, first fixation time, and run count) were used as indicators of attentional bias. Findings suggest a general avoidance of spider images in the presence of other non-spider arthropod images as well as avoidance of scorpion images in the presence of non-scorpion arachnid images. Presentation of image pairs with two kinds of spiders elicit attention toward spider-specific features. These effects were occasionally, though not often, moderated by sex and phobia levels. Across all metrics, there was a tendency to record longer first fixation times, shorter dwell times, and lesser run counts toward images of spiders. Images of jumping spiders and insects received considerably more and faster attentional allocation relative to other spiders. Understanding how general body form versus specific spider features influence visual attention provides insight into visual factors that may motivate spider phobia, providing evidence-based knowledge that could be useful in treatments. Additionally, knowledge of potentially appealing features of spiders may provide useful perspectives for communicating the usefulness of spiders in our ecosystem.

Introduction

What is it about spiders that evokes fear and disgust for some and curiosity and fascination for others? Arachnophobia is one of the most common animal-related phobias in western countries, and many people consider spiders to be more dangerous and disgusting than other arthropods such as beetles, roaches, wasps, and butterflies (Gerdes et al., 2009; Polák et al., 2020). These views likely negatively affect human mental health, human interactions with the natural world, and even effectiveness of spider conservation efforts (Castillo-Huitrón et al., 2020; Lemelin and Yen, 2015; Zvaríková et al., 2021). As a consequence, it would be useful to better understand how and why people are afraid of, or turned off by, spiders and their relatives. Such knowledge could lead to better treatments for spider phobia and to increased efficacy of public communication around spiders.

One way to assess human phobias is through attentional biases. Attentional biases – how certain stimuli capture and hold attention - have been studied using a variety of threatening stimuli to better understand the impact of anxiety and phobias on attention. While anxiety is considered a response to vague or uncertain threats - with phobias being a type of anxiety disorder - fear is considered to be an adaptive response to threats or danger (American Psychological Association, 2018). In individuals with anxiety disorders, there is often an initial reflexive attention toward a threat followed by voluntarily avoidance of visual attention (vigilance-avoidance hypothesis, see Mogg et al., 2004). Other research, however, has suggested that individuals that show more vulnerability to anxiety exhibit relatively greater selective attention toward, and difficulty disengaging from, threatening stimuli (Fox et al., 2001; Yiend and Mathews, 2001). These differing patterns of attentional bias when viewing emotional and threatening stimuli indicate that more data are needed on attentional biases in response to a range of perceived threats.

The most direct measure of visual attention involves the tracking of continuous eye movements, with gaze patterns reflecting attentional capture and disengagement (Hoffman and Subramaniam, 1995; Posner, 1980). Certain elements of oculomotor behavior have been shown to correlate with visual attention and emotional states – e.g., the order, number, and duration and timing of fixations (gaze being maintained on one location) and length of saccades (movement of the eyes between fixation points) (Skaramagkas et al., 2023). Moreover, physiological stress responses influence eye movement behavior and function, manifesting as increased emotional arousal, and this arousal is correlated with changes in the number, duration, and stability of fixations, increased involuntary saccades, increased frequency and a distinct pattern of eye blinks, and increased pupil size (Skaramagkas et al., 2023). Finally, measurement of saccades more accurately captures the modulation of attentional capture by rapidly presented fearful faces compared to the use of manual button press responses (Bannerman et al., 2010).

Visual attention has been used previously to explore human reactions to emotionally salient image content. Dodd et al. (2012), for example, assessed the visual attention of individuals who identified as either liberal or conservative. Subjects engaged in the free viewing of collages made up of four images (one in each quadrant of the screen) that varied in terms of whether they projected positive or negative content. While both conservatives and liberals oriented to negative stimuli first, conservatives were more likely to return to these stimuli and spent an overall longer time viewing them relative to liberals, who later preferred to focus on positive images. Moreover, conservatives tended to be faster to orient to negative images. Cumulatively these data suggest that conservatives had a stronger attentional bias toward negative stimuli than their more liberal counterparts. Similarly, socially anxious individuals’ eyetracking responses differed when viewing faces representing different emotions (angry, non-angry, and neutral (Singh et al., 2015). The current study uses a similar approach to look at attentional patterns of young adults to images of spiders and other arthropods.

Both pictures of emotional faces and threatening animals trigger fear responses and avoidant behavior, but these seem to differ in their attentional response patterns. In spider phobic individuals, one prior study showed that frequency of first fixation occurred more often on a spider image, but overall less time was spent looking at the spider (Rinck and Becker, 2006). Miltner et al. (2004) utilized a visual search task for images of threatening spiders and neutral mushrooms as either targets or distractors within a matrix of flower images, measuring both manual responses and first fixation time among spider phobic and control participants. Control participants were more distracted and took longer to find spider targets among a matrix of flowers compared to participants with spider phobia. When the target was mushrooms, participants with spider phobia had significantly delayed first fixation times for the mushroom in the presence of a spider distractor, as the threatening presence of a spider seemed to capture their attention. When directly comparing threat-related content (spiders or angry faces) and neutral content (butterflies or neutral faces) among spider phobic, socially anxious, and non-anxious participants, pictures of spiders and angry faces captured initial attention more but did not hold attention longer compared to those of butterflies and neutral faces (Berdica et al., 2018). Together, these studies provide evidence of facilitated visual attention for spider images but suggest varied difficulty in disengagement with spider images among individuals with spider phobia. This behavior may be explained by the concept of biophobia, an irrational fear and disgust expressed toward wild animals; in which a cycle is created where intentional exposure to nature is reduced due to anxiety surrounding possible exposure to wild animals (Soga et al., 2023).

Few studies have examined human visual attention related to preference for spiders with distinct characteristics in comparison with other arthropods. One such study (Shipley, 2017) examined levels of familiarity and interest in “bugs” (the authors’ collective term for arthropods that we will similarly use when discussing this paper). They explored specific traits that were considered interesting and compared visual attention between images of self-rated “interesting” and “non-interesting” bugs. The images used were biologically and morphologically diverse, and included insects and small arthropods such as caterpillars, beetles, butterflies, scorpions, grasshoppers, and wasps. Spiders were rated as among some of the most familiar and harmful “bugs” as well as the least interesting and attractive (Shipley, 2017). Overall, “bugs” that were colorful and ambiguous in shape were more likely to be rated as interesting and received longer fixation times, and participants fixated faster on the heads of interesting “bugs”. This study, however, did not include a direct comparison of the traits of spiders to other arthropods or insects. Furthermore, a free view paradigm like that used in Dodd et al., 2012 is more ideal for assessing attention to spiders and their relatives, as it provides a measure of which stimulus people prefer to view first, how long they choose to view each respective stimulus, and how frequently they return to it. Free-viewing paradigms also provide a useful proxy for attentional allocation in the real world, as individuals do not necessarily view or attend to arthropods with any specific task set when naturally encountering them.

There have been a limited number of experimental investigations exploring what specific aspects of spiders provoke fear responses and how they relate to spider phobia. Previous research suggests that the leg movement pattern and size of spiders are the primary characteristics that people perceive as frightening (Lindner et al., 2019). A recent study used prior findings of the different feared characteristics of spiders from participant ratings and self-disclosure to create digitally manipulated spider images that emphasized either the presence of body hair, and large black eyes, chelicerae (mouth), legs, or abdomen (Zvaríková et al., 2021). Results from participant ratings of pairs of these images suggested that color, hairiness, and level of realness have an impact on levels of fright and disgust toward spiders. Results from this study also suggested that among Female participants, spider chelicerae were significantly more associated with the fear of spiders and that hairiness was more associated with disgust than they were by Male participants. Among spider-adverse entomologists, similar dislikes are shared with arachnophobes in the general public (Vetter, 2013). The aspects of spiders that were found to be disliked by spider-adverse entomologists included physical appearance (hairiness, dark color, and number of legs), their behavior (unpredictable, fast, and jerky movement), and their perceived potential danger (presence of fangs and ability to bite). Despite extensive exposure to insects in their profession, arachno-adverse reactions in these entomologists were often present at a young age and were generally not overcome through habituation. All this prior research on attitudes toward (sometimes exaggerated) features of spiders were useful in better informing what areas of interest and kinds of images to include in our own study.

While most studies examining attention to threat and spider phobia collapsed their results across sex, one study (Cornelius and Averill, 1983) used a live spider to compare physiological and psychological responses between Female and Male participants. Results suggested that Female participants experienced more subjective unpleasantness and tension, had higher heart rates, and displayed greater reluctance to be close to the spider than did Male participants. These putative sex differences are important to document, as recent research has indicated that sex-related hormones and menstrual cycle phase may influence the effectiveness of exposure therapy treatment in women (Graham et al., 2018; Nillni et al., 2021).

The current study

Like previous eyetracking studies, the present study examines the influence of phobia on visual attention using an eyetracking methodology that allows for the continuous assessment of visual attention across time. Unlike the aforementioned studies, this study uses paired images of spiders and other arthropods in their natural environments to examine what characteristics draw attention toward or away from spiders, which spider features tend to receive preferential processing, which image participants opted to view first and most, and the impact of spider phobia and sex on attentional biases.

Given the large number of animals and variety of features present in the Phylum Arthropoda, it is helpful to identify specific groups and salient traits that can lead to interesting comparisons. Arthropods include insects (e.g. butterflies, beetles, bees, dragonflies, and grasshoppers), crustaceans (e.g. crabs and lobsters), myriapods (e.g. centipedes and millipedes), and arachnids (e.g. spiders and scorpions). Comparing spiders to other groups of arthropods allows us to further examine how fear of spiders is linked to specific traits – e.g. number of legs - by comparing eight-legged spiders to multi-legged centipedes or millipedes. Additionally, comparisons between different kinds of spiders, the presence or absence of color in spiders, and the features of spiders considered disgusting or fearful can grant us a better understanding of how people perceive spiders and the contexts in which they may be considered interesting or aversive.

While not wanting to read too much into the pattern of visual behavior in each individual category type, a goal of the current study was to obtain converging evidence across image pairs of when and how spiders are attended to. While no specific a priori predictions were made, in general, it was expected that visually salient arthropods such as butterflies, colorful jumping spiders, and myriapods would be of greater visual interest to individuals regardless of phobia level, while viewing features of spiders considered disgusting or fearful, including the presence of webs, fangs, eggs, hair, or eating would be avoided by individuals with high scores of spider phobia. It is important to note that when using paired images, it can be difficult to discern between attentional bias toward one image versus avoidance of the other image, thus the use of multiple different image types and comparisons were intended to provide converging insight into these distinct intents.

Methods

Participants

Participants consisted of 118 University of Nebraska-Lincoln undergraduate students (85 Female, 33 Male). All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Analyses focused on the impact of sex and phobia on eye movement behavior.

Eye-tracking design and measures

The images used in the study were all realistic photographs taken by an arachnologist (MH) and were selected based on the features of common species of insects that were of greatest interest to entomologists (photographs chosen by LS). Given the foundational nature of this study, we purposefully used realistic images without manipulation of luminance or contrast or the use of image salience algorithms so as to record as “natural” of responses as possible.

We created 13 image pairs to make three types of comparisons of attentional bias. In the first set of pairings, we looked at how participants split their attention between spiders and other arthropod groups: including (1) spider versus butterfly, (2) spider versus insect, (3) spider eyes versus insect eyes, (4) spider versus non-spider arachnid, and (5) spider versus myriapod (centipedes and millipedes) (Figure 1). The spiders in these images were selected from diverse families representing different numbers of eyes, degrees of hairiness, conspicuousness of fangs, and the presence of features like eggs, webs, and food. Second, we compared (6) scorpion versus non-scorpion arachnid (Figure 1), which provided preliminary insight into how people perceive spiders compared to other venomous arachnids. We added this comparison because it has been suggested that fear of spiders is a generalized response to arachnids, with scorpions being the original stimulus for danger (Frynta et al., 2021).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Example of paired images used during free-view eyetracking study. These image pairs focused on participant reactions to spider versus other arthropods – (A) spider versus butterfly, (B) spider versus insect, (C) spider eyes versus insect eyes, (D) spider versus non-spider arachnid, and (E) spider versus myriapod. We also included a paired image of (F) scorpion versus non-scorpion arachnid to gain insight into whether participants respond differently to spiders versus scorpions (e.g., d vs. f).

For a third comparison, we wanted to assess how different spider morphologies or features draw attention, so we compared: (7) larger-eyed jumping spider versus smaller-eyed spider, (8) colorful jumping spider versus neutral-colored jumping spider, (9) spider on a web versus spider on the ground, (10) spider with eggs versus spider without eggs, (11) spider with fangs prominent versus spider without fangs prominant, (12) spider eating versus spider not eating, and (13) more hairy spider versus less hairy spider (Figure 2). Trials always presented paired images with counterbalanced location of each image type on the right and left sides of the screen.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Example of paired images used during free-view eyetracking study. These image pairs focused on specific spider-related traits and their impact on human visual attention. Types of paired images pictured included: (A) larger-eyed jumping spider versus smaller-eyed spider, (B) colorful jumping spider versus neutral-colored jumping spider, (C) spider on web versus spider on ground, (D) spider with eggs versus spider without eggs, (E) spider with conspicuous fangs versus spider without conspicuous fangs, (F) spider eating versus spider not eating, and (G) more hairy spider versus less hairy spider.

Eye-movements were recorded with a desktop mounted SR Research EyeLink 1000 (SR Research Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). Chin and forehead rests were used to maintain the participant’s viewing position and distance. For all participants, their visually dominant eye – determined through calibration and validity tests - was monitored. Thresholds for detecting the onset of saccadic movements were accelerations of 8000°/s², velocities of 30°/s, and a minimum amplitude of 0.5°. Movement offset was detected when velocity fell below 30°/s and remained at that level for 10 consecutive samples. Calibration entailed a nine-point accuracy test followed by a nine-point validity test and was repeated if any point was in error by more than 1° or if the average error for all points was greater than 0.5°.

Eye-tracking procedure

Upon participant arrival, a trained research assistant reviewed the informed consent and procedures. For the eyetracking task, participants were seated approximately 44 cm from a computer screen and were instructed to freely view 40 novel and randomly ordered single images of spiders and butterflies for 2.5 s each. These initial data are not included in this study. This was followed by 130 novel and randomly ordered paired image trials for 4 s each. During the paired image trials, each type of image appeared (e.g. spider eyes versus insect eyes) on the right and left sides of the screen with equal frequency, and each stimulus pairing appeared with equal frequency (10 image pairs for each of the 13 research questions). At the end of the viewing period, a fixation point appeared on the screen until the space bar was pressed by the participant to initiate viewing of the next image. Following completion of the eyetracking experiment, participants completed the spider phobia and attitudes survey. At the conclusion of the study, participants were debriefed and thanked. All procedures were approved by the university Institutional Review Board.

Eye-tracking analyses

We analyzed four eyetracking measures from our exploratory study:

1. Dwell Time: the amount of time participants spent attending to each type of image on paired image trials during the total duration of each trial. Longer dwell times are considered indicative of greater attentional bias.

2. First Run Dwell Time: the amount of time participants spent attending to an area of interest the first time they visit it. First run dwell time aids in separating the amount of time spent on the image the first time it is visited relative to over the duration of a trial.

3. First Fixation Time: the amount of time that elapses following the start of each trial until the first fixation on an image. A fixation was defined as when the eye is relatively stationary (i.e., moving less than 308/s) for at least 100 ms. Faster first fixation times are considered indicative of greater attentional bias.

4. Run Count: the number of times the participants returned to an image over the course of a trial. Larger run counts are considered indicative of greater attentional bias.

We calculated mean values and standard deviations across all trials for each participant and pair type for first fixation time, total dwell time, first run dwell time, and run count. For each of the 13 sets of paired images, we conducted repeated measures ANOVAs using the mean values of each metric (i.e. dwell time, first run dwell time, first fixation time, and run count). For each model, we used the aov_ez function from the afex package in R, specifying the image type as a within-subjects factor and sex and phobia level as between-subject factors. Participant ID was included as the repeated-measures identifier. We conducted pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with a Tukey adjustment. Since these tests relied on average participant responses across 10 randomized trials, we validated the results with a follow-up negative binomial generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) across all trials using the glmmTMB package with a log link function to account for overdispersion. These models included image type, sex, and phobia level as fixed effects, and their interactions, along with a random intercept and slope for image type by subject (e.g., glmmTMB(Dwell_Time ~ Image * Sex * PhobiaRank + (1 + Image | Subject), ziformula = ~1, family = nbinom1, data = butterfly_rm). For model diagnostics, we used the simulated residuals from the DHARMa package to confirm no evidence of zero-inflation, overdispersion, or deviation from uniformity. The code used for these analyses and their diagnostics can be found at: https://github.com/brandipessman/Eyetracking.

Given the exploratory nature of the present study and the large number of paired image categories, we focus on the results of the averaged participant responses (i.e., the repeated measures ANOVAs), though we summarize the statistical results of the negative binomial GLMMs for all comparisons in the supplemental material (Supplementary Tables S1-13).

Spider phobia survey

A Qualtrics survey measuring spider phobia and attitudes was coded based on the PsyToolkit survey code for Klorman et al.’s (Klorman et al., 1974) Spider Fear Questionnaire using an abbreviated, validated 15-item scale (see Olatunji et al., 2009) and a modified version of the Spider Attitudes Questionnaire (see Prokop et al., 2010). The survey consisted of 15 True/False statements addressing spider phobia (e.g. “I am terrified by the thought of touching a harmless spider.”, “I dislike looking at pictures of spiders in a magazine”, “I feel sick when I see a spider.”) with “True” being coded as 1 and “False” being coded as 2, as well as seven 5-point Likert scale statements addressing attitudes toward spiders (e.g. “Spiders are interesting animals.”, “I would like to know more about spiders.”, “Greater attention should be given to spider protection.”), with 1 being “Strongly disagree” and 5 being “Strongly agree”. Phobia level was calculated by the researchers based on the average numerical score corresponding to the True/False survey statements, with lower scores indicating more identification, and higher scores indicating less identification with statements of spider phobia. Scores between 1 and 1.4 were considered “High” phobia, scores between 1.47 and 1.67 were considered “Medium” phobia, and scores between 1.73 and 2 were considered “Low” phobia. Participants were also asked to describe their sex identity in additional surveys.

Results

Eyetracking results

Spiders versus other arthropods

Participants did not differ in dwell time, first run dwell time, or run count between images of spiders and butterflies (Tables 1–3, Figures 3A, B, D). However, participants were faster to fixate on images of butterflies than spiders (Table 4, Figure 3C). Participants exhibited significantly longer dwell times, longer first run dwell times, and shorter first fixation times on images of non-butterfly insects, non-spider arachnids, and myriapods compared to images of spiders (Tables 1-4, Figures 3A–C). Images of non-butterfly insects and non-spider arachnids were also returned to (i.e., had higher run counts) more than spider images (Table 3, Figure 3D).

Table 1

Table 1. Results of repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric for dwell time across paired images.

Table 2

Table 2. Results of repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric for first run dwell time across paired images.

Table 3

Table 3. Results of repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric for run count across paired images.

Figure 3

Figure 3. A comparison of eyetracking metrics across 13 image pairs. Top row includes spiders (or scorpion) versus other arthropods, bottom row includes spider-specific trait pairs. For all paired images, we show results of dwell time (A, E), first run dwell time (B, F), first fixation time (C, G), and run count (D, H). Overall, across most measures, visual attention tended to be biased away from spiders (top row). For spider-trait specific comparisons, visual attention was biased toward larger eyes, more color, and additional features (except hairiness) sp sp. Error bars = SEM, raw datapoints included; analysis involved a repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric, with follow-up pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with a Tukey adjustment. Results were validated with a follow-up negative binomial GLMM across all trials. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05.

Table 4

Table 4. Results of repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric for first fixation time across paired images.

We found several significant interactions between image type and sex (Tables 1-3). Female participants (hereafter Females) dwelled for longer (MD = -389.7, SE = 93.7, t₁₁₂ = -4.159, p < 0.001, Figure 4A) and returned more frequently to (MD = -0.131, SE = 0.031, t₁₁₂ = -4.180, p < 0.001, Figure 4B) images of butterflies than images of spiders, while Male participants (hereafter Males) spent more time than Females viewing images of spiders when paired with butterflies (MD = -286.6, SE = 105.0, t₁₁₂ = -2.729, p = 0.036, Figure 4A). In addition, both Males and Females spent more time viewing images of non-spider arachnids (dwell time, Males: MD = -659.83, SE = 96.14, t₁₁₂ = -6.863, p < 0.001, Females: MD = -339.8, SE = 48.5, t₁₁₂ = -7.006, p < 0.001, Figure 5A) and myriapods (first run dwell time, Males: MD = -396.1, SE = 104.0, t₁₁₂ = -3.826, p = 0.001, Figure 4C, Females: MD = -157.8, SE = 52.2, t₁₁₂ = -3.020, p = 0.016, Figure 4C) than images of spiders, but Males spent more time than Females viewing images of non-spider arachnids (dwell time, MD = -224.27, SE = 80.1, t₁₁₂ = -2.799, p = 0.030, Figure 5A) and myriapods (first run dwell time, MD = -285.2, SE = 90.2, t₁₁₂ = -3.160, p = 0.011, Figure 4C). No other spider versus other arthropod group pairings showed significant interactions between image type and sex (Tables 1-3).

Figure 4

Figure 4. A comparison of eyetracking metrics across image pairs influenced by sex. Females dwelled longer [(A) spider versus butterfly, Female data] and returned more frequently [(B) spider versus butterfly, Female data] to butterflies versus spiders sp while Males looked at spiders longer than Females [(A) within spider, Female versus Male]. When comparing spiders versus myriapods, both Females and Males had higher dwell times on myriapods [(C) spider versus myriapod, Female and Male data] and Males had higher dwell times versus Females on myriapods [(D) myriapod, Female versus Male data]. Finally, with scorpions versus non-scorpion arachnids, Females had higher first run dwell times on non-scorpion arachnids versus scorpions [(D) non-scorpion arachnid versus scorpion, Female data]. Error bars = SEM, raw datapoints included. We used a repeated measures ANOVA with the mean values of each metric, with follow-up pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with a Tukey adjustment. Results were validated with a follow-up negative binomial GLMM across all trials. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05.

Figure 5

Figure 5. A comparison of eyetracking metrics for image pairs of spider versus non-spider arachnid, influenced by both sex and phobia level sp. Overall, Males dwelled longer on non-spider arachnids versus spiders regardless of phobia level, while Females only showed this pattern at Low and High Phobia scores [(A) Male and Female data]. When limiting to the first run, only Low phobia Females and Medium phobia Males dwelled longer on non-spider arachnids versus spiders [(B) Male and Female data]. We use a repeated measures ANOVA using the mean values of each metric, with follow-up pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with a Tukey adjustment. Results were validated with a follow-up negative binomial GLMM across all trials. *** = p <.001, ** = p <.01, * = p <.05. Error bars = SEM, raw datapoints included. For Males, Low phobia N = 16, Medium phobia N = 14, and High phobia N = 3. For Females, Low phobia N = 17, Medium phobia N = 29, and High phobia N = 39.

For the spider versus non-spider arachnid pairing, we found a significant three-way interaction by image type, sex, and phobia for dwell time and first run dwell time (Tables 1, 2, Figure 5). Males of all phobia levels spent more time viewing non-spider arachnid than spider images (Low: MD = -441.08, SE = 105.48, t₁₁₂ = -4.181, p = 0.003, Medium: MD = -575.87, SE = 112.77, t₁₁₂ = -5.107, p < 0.001, High: MD = -962.53, SE = 243.60, t₁₁₂ = -3.951, p = 0.007). Similarly, Females with Low (MD = -482.12, SE = 102.33, t₁₁₂ = -4.711, p < 0.001) and High (MD = -306, SE = 67.56, t₁₁₂ = -4.529, p < 0.001) phobia levels, but not Medium (MD = -231.4, SE = 78.4, t₁₁₂ = -2.953, p = 0.137) dwelled longer on non-spider arachnid images compared to spider images. Overall, for participants with Low, Medium, or High spider phobia, there were no significant differences across sex in dwell time. In the first run, Females with Low spider phobia (MD = -413.07, SE = 81.16, t₁₁₂ = -5.090, p < 0.001) and Males with Medium spider phobia (MD = -427.72, SE = 89.4, t₁₁₂ = -4.783, p < 0.001) also dwelled on non-spider arachnids longer than spiders (Figure 5B). For the Medium phobia level, Males dwelled longer in the first run on non-spider arachnids than Females (MD = -364.73, SE = 108.5, t₁₁₂ = -3.361, p = 0.047, Figure 5B).

Scorpion versus non-scorpion arachnid

Participants dwelled significantly longer for the first run on non-scorpion arachnid images than scorpion images (Figure 3B), but did not differ in dwell time, first fixation time, or run count (Tables 1-3). We found a significant interaction between image type and sex for first run dwell time – Females spent more time viewing images of non-scorpion arachnids than images of scorpions (MD = 179.13, SE = 38.4, t₁₁₂ = -4.666, p < 0.001; Figure 4D). For dwell time, first run dwell time, and first fixation, we found a significant interaction between image type and phobia level (Tables 1-4). Low phobia participants spent more time viewing images of non-scorpion arachnids than images of scorpions overall (MD = 283.8, SE = 77.5, t₁₁₂ = -3.663, p = 0.005; Figure 6A) and in the first run (MD = 246.5, SE = 58.2, t₁₁₂ = -4.239, p < 0.001; Figure 6B). For the first fixation image type by phobia interaction, however, no post-hoc comparisons were significant. We found a significant three-way interaction for dwell time by image type, sex, and phobia (Table 1), but post hoc comparisons were also not significant.

Figure 6

Figure 6. A comparison of eyetracking metrics across image pairs influenced by spider phobia level. Participants with low phobia had lower dwell time and first run dwell time on scorpion versus non-scorpion images [(A, B) low phobia, scorpion versus non-scorpion] and longer dwell time on colorful jumping spiders versus neutral-colored jumping spiders [(C) low phobia, less color versus more color]. Error bars = SEM, raw datapoints included. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using the mean values of each metric, with follow-up pairwise comparisons using estimated marginal means with a Tukey adjustment. Results were validated with a follow-up negative binomial GLMM across all trials. *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, * = p < 0.05.

Comparing different traits among spiders

Participants dwelled longer (overall and in the first run, Figures 3E, F, Tables 1, 2) on images of larger-eyed jumping spiders (compared to smaller-eyed spiders), colorful jumping spiders (compared to neutral-colored jumping spiders), spiders on a web (compared to spiders on the ground), spiders with eggs (compared to spiders without eggs), spider with conspicuous fangs (compared to spiders without conspicuous fangs), spiders eating (compared to not eating), and spiders with less hairiness (compared to more hairiness). Interestingly, participants spent more time viewing spiders with enlarged eyes, more coloration, or additional features, apart from hairiness which showed the opposite pattern. Similarly, participants were faster to fixate on larger-eyed jumping spiders, colorful jumping spiders, spiders with a web or eggs, and spider eating, while fixating faster on less hairy spiders compared to their counter-images (Figure 3G, Table 4). There was no difference in first fixation time between spiders with or without fangs (Figure 3G, Table 4). Lastly, colorful jumping spiders were returned to more frequently than neutral-colored jumping spiders, but no other image type significantly differed by run count (Figure 3H, Table 3).

No image types had a significant interaction by sex. Only colorful jumping spider versus neutral-colored jumping spider had a significant interaction by image type and phobia for first run dwell time. Tukey HSD post hoc analysis revealed that participants with a Low phobia level (MD = 246.51 SE = 60.2, t₁₁₂ = -4.087, p = 0.001) – but not Medium (MD = -42.1, SE = 56.3, t₁₁₂ = -0.749, p = 0.975) nor High (MD = -33.0, SE = 103.6, t₁₁₂ = -0.318, p = 0.999) – dwelled for more time on colorful jumping spiders compared to neutral-colored jumping spiders (Figure 6C, Table 2). Though we found a significant three-way interaction between image type, sex, and phobia for run count of spider with fangs versus spider without fangs (Table 3), post hoc analyses did not reveal any significant pairwise comparisons.

Discussion

In the present study, we examined attentional biases for paired images of spiders with a variety of other arthropods. The goal of this study was to examine the way people allocate attention and process images of arthropods as a function of image content. This was accomplished under free viewing conditions with no specific instructions to examine attentional allocation. We also examined whether attentional allocation was moderated by sex and phobia level, and though there was some influence of sex and phobia level, the strongest and most pronounced effects were based solely on image preference.

Attentional bias is usually seen with shorter first fixation time, larger run count, and more overall dwell time, with first run dwell time often affording additional insight (Skaramagkas et al., 2023). While not every image comparison used in this study found differences across all four metrics, the overall results indicated a general avoidance of spider images when any other non-spider arthropod image is present, but also a bias toward specific spider features when paired images comparing two kinds of spiders were presented. The findings from the paired images of spiders with non-spiders will be discussed initially, followed by discussion of the paired images of spiders versus other spiders.

Spider versus other arthropods

We found that when people received a paired image of an arachnid versus another arthropod, they strongly prefer looking at the non-spider arthropods. This held true even when the non-spider image was very spider-like (e.g. non-spider arachnids) or contained characteristics that people often attribute spider aversion to (e.g. myriapods received more attention despite having even more legs than spiders). While participants did spend time looking at both images in a trial - meaning there was not complete avoidance of spiders (these were always fixated) - there was a clear preference for non-spiders given that first fixation time often favored the non-spider image. This likely means that participants were actively avoiding the spider image and would suggest that the spider image may have been attended to but not immediately fixated on.

Prior human studies have examined attentional bias toward contamination threat, which has an emotional response that involves both fear and disgust, and have found differing patterns of attentional biases including faster orienting toward threatening or disgusting stimuli, often tested with facial expressions (Armstrong et al., 2010; Fink-Lamotte et al., 2021). Our findings are like those seen in Dodd et al., 2012. In that study, they were able to determine that angry faces were avoided, suggesting that individuals tend to attend to emotional stimuli more rapidly than neutral stimuli. Like our findings, first fixation tended to occur on the neutral images, suggesting that emotional faces were actively attended first then subsequently avoided. In the current study, we presume a similar initial awareness of aversive spider stimuli but an overall avoidance early in the trial. While our findings do not directly link to emotions of fear or disgust, there a rich scientific literature demonstrating that emotional arousal directly shapes perception, attention and memory (Brosch et al., 2013; Lemaire, 2021; Yiend, 2010; Zsidó et al., 2024). The present study lays the foundation for future studies linking physiological responses with eye-tracking responses and/or assessments of spider phobia.

Our results share some differences and similarities with other spider visual attention studies. One study conducted through an online experiment, for example, explored attention to images of spiders and other arthropods and their association with negative emotions. They found that spiders and close relatives formed a “spider-like cognitive category” that they proposed was rooted in fear rather than disgust (Landová et al., 2021). Similarly, another eyetracking experiment found that participants with spider phobia were distracted by spiders and crabs, suggesting a generalization based on similar morphology (Landová et al., 2023), and further supporting the notion of a “spider-like cognitive category”. In our experiment, however, participants appeared readily able to distinguish spiders from non-spider arachnids, as we found significant differences in multiple visual attention metrics. It is possible that our findings differ due to the direct pairing of images in our experiment. Regardless, our results do not directly support a generalized “spider-like category”, as spiders seemed readily differentiated from other arthropods, even other arachnids.

Scorpion versus non-scorpion arachnid

Our addition of a scorpion versus non-scorpion arachnid pairing revealed some distinct patterns. First, we only saw an overall difference in first run dwell time between the images. As with our spider versus arthropod results, we suggest that this reflects an aversion to scorpions, with higher aversion in Females and individuals with low spider phobias. The relationship between low spider fear and distinct reactions to scorpion images is similar to that found by Landová et al. (2023) in which participants with low spider fear were most distracted by scorpions (and snakes). The authors of that study suggest that these animals are prioritized as evolutionarily relevant stimuli. Similarly, snakes and scorpions emerge as the strongest elicitors of fear and disgust (Frynta et al., 2021). Notably, the Landová study found no evidence for a generalized fear response between scorpions and spiders (Landová et al., 2023). While our results suggest a visual aversion to both spiders and scorpions, a direct comparison between scorpions and spiders was not possible.

Fear of scorpions is often discussed as reasonable due to the danger they pose to humans, whereas fear of spiders is suggested to be unreasonable because spiders are mostly harmless (Frynta et al., 2021). In support of the differences in danger level, a literature review by Hauke and Herzig (2017) found that only 0.5% of all spiders versus 23% of all scorpion species are potentially dangerous. Nonetheless, our study, like many others, finds a strong aversion to spiders and scorpions alike. Future research using a paired design and comparing visual attention to spiders versus scorpions directly, combined with physiological data recording reactions to images of spiders and scorpions, would add to our understanding of generalized fear responses and the prioritization of fear responses between spiders and scorpions.

Spider versus spider traits

Given that individuals tended to avoid spider images and showed preferential engagement to the non-spider image pairs in the previous comparisons, it might logically follow that when spider images are paired with other spider images, individuals may opt to avoid images that provide additional spider “cues”. Though a limited number of the paired spider images contrasted different spider types against each other (e.g. larger eyed jumping spiders versus smaller eyed spiders), the bulk of these image pairs compared spiders with the presence or absence of various features such as webs, eggs, fangs, eating, and hair. If these additional characteristics might also be considered fearful or disgusting, it might logically follow that when images of spiders are paired together, individuals should be more likely avoid images of spiders with these additional characteristics. This pattern is precisely what we found for hairy spiders, which generally received less attention and a slower first fixation time relative to non-hairy spiders. This result is also consistent with other studies suggesting an aversion to spider hairiness (Zvaríková et al., 2021).

Somewhat surprisingly, however, except for hairiness, attention otherwise seemed to be drawn toward images with spider relevant cues that could suggest the presence of spiders (web), the imminent presence of more spiders (eggs), and potentially distressing features indicating danger (fangs) or behavior indicating a predator (eating). These paired images were selected to contain a balanced size, contrast level, and color, with the presence or lack of an additional spider cue being the main difference between image pairs. While we expected attentional avoidance of the spider-salient cues, we found the exact opposite. One potential explanation for this pattern is that when confronted with paired images of spiders, attention is simply biased toward the image with additional factors to attend.

Another possible explanation for our results relates to the participants’ expectations regarding stillness versus unpredictable movement. While the stimuli used in this study were still images, they may have been viewed with expectations regarding subsequent movement. It is possible, for example, that prior knowledge of the unpredictable movement of spiders had an impact on viewing preferences. Preference for images of spiders with additional cues like webs and eggs, for example, may reflect a participant’s knowledge that spiders are more likely to stay still when they are on their webs or guarding their eggs but may pose more of a threat when they are on the ground where their movement can be unpredictable. Indeed, in many of our image pairs in which additional spider characteristics were highlighted (on webs, with eggs, eating), it could be argued that spiders would be more likely to stay in place rather than move unpredictably. Prior research has shown that the unpredictable, fast, and jerky movement of spiders is one of the factors that contribute to spider anxiety and phobia (Lindner et al., 2019; Vetter, 2013). Our observed preference for images of spiders with additional characteristics that might be interpreted as more predictable aligns with this prior research indicating that predictability of movement patterns contribute to human reactions to spiders.

In addition to movement itself, animal postures and orientation are well known to influence human visual attention (Yorzinski et al., 2018; Yorzinski and Coss, 2020). Focusing mostly on responses to large mammals, Yorzinski and colleagues (Yorzinski et al., 2018, 2020) used eyetracking experiments to demonstrate that forward-facing animals and those in upright positions are more readily detected. In reference to spiders, those images that were forward facing and/or with legs in raised positions may have influenced visual attention differently. Future studies should build on what is known about animal postures and orientation in mammals and apply them to arthropod studies exploring orientation and posture specifically.

One additional factor that may be influencing attentional allocation beyond fear of spiders is potential anthropomorphizing of certain arthropods over others. Though eyetracking metrics were only compared within each pair of images and not across categories, it is worth noting that when spider images were paired with non-spider images, overall dwell time was longer, and first fixation time was generally shorter for two-eyed insects relative to other non-spider comparison images (see Table 4). The two-eyes of insects may be more likely to be anthropomorphized relative to their paired multi-eyed spider images. For arthropods with two prominent eyes, participants perhaps ascribed faces to them based on their shared features with human faces. Human faces are evolutionarily relevant social cues, and attention to faces is holistic, with research indicating that correctly oriented and arranged faces are attended to more readily than incorrect faces or nonface objects (Farah et al., 1998). It seems that arthropods with two distinct eyes such as two-eyed insects (and jumping spiders which will be discussed in turn) may still draw attention despite conflicting emotions due to perception of these traits as being somewhat like human faces.

To continue the discussion of anthropomorphism, it is worth considering the images pairs of larger eyed jumping spiders versus smaller eyed spiders, with jumping spiders receiving considerably more and faster attentional allocation relative to smaller eyed spiders. This is notable as while jumping spiders still possess eight eyes, they are unique in that they have two principal eyes which are larger and more human-like in appearance relative to other spider types. When spider images are the only option to attend to, there seems to be a greater bias to the more human-like arachnid. Additionally, jumping spiders that were colorful were favored more over regular jumping spiders across all measures, likely due to a combination of both anthropomorphizing and the saliency of color in guiding attention (Alexander et al., 2019). The “neoteny barrier” is an evolutionary human preference for and positive emotional response toward physical traits that are associated with infants, such as being young, and having cute faces, chubby bodies, and large innocent looking eyes (Estren, 2012). This extends to animals with those same characteristics; however, this is not relevant to most arthropods as they do not possess those likeable traits. One exception to this is the jumping spider, which is perceived as less frightening than other spiders and possesses neotenic traits such as two larger eyes and very short legs (Bixler et al., 2015). Due to the attentional preference among study participants and the perceived “cuteness” of jumping spiders and two-eyed insects, this interesting pair may be useful in changing initial perception of arthropods from fear and toward curiosity.

Given that anthropomorphism may influence attentional allocation for some spider pairs, this leads to an interesting alternative explanation for why participants were biased toward spiders in webs, with eggs, with conspicuous fangs, and which are eating. It may be that seeing spiders and their distinct features up-close may be both a feared and novel experience given the size and elusiveness of most spiders, leading to greater attentional bias for these features. This view is consistent with findings that people orient first to negatively valenced and feared stimuli (Dodd et al., 2012). Though it is not clear whether attentional allocation was influenced more by visual stimulus factors relative to anthropomorphizing factors, it is important to consider both possibilities. It would be possible to dissociate between these possibilities in a future study where images are selected based on the likelihood they could be successfully anthropomorphized.

Conclusion

Together, our findings demonstrate that human visual attention to spiders is characterized by a nuanced pattern of early avoidance coupled with selective engagement with spider-specific features. While spiders were generally avoided when paired with other arthropods, attention was reliably drawn toward distinctive morphological or contextual cues—such as enlarged eyes, coloration, webs, eggs, and feeding behavior—when spiders were the sole available targets. These patterns were only modestly influenced by sex and spider phobia, suggesting that low-level perceptual features and stimulus salience play a dominant role in shaping attentional allocation under free-viewing conditions.

By integrating eyetracking metrics across a diverse set of ecologically relevant image pairings, this study contributes to our foundational understanding of how threat, curiosity, anthropomorphism, and predictability interact to guide visual attention to spiders. Importantly, identifying the spider traits that elicit engagement rather than avoidance also offers a promising avenue for improving science communication, conservation messaging, and potentially exposure-based interventions by leveraging features that naturally capture attention and foster curiosity rather than fear.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by University of Nebraska Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The manuscript presents research on animals that do not require ethical approval for their study.

Author contributions

EB: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. KS: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. HA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. HB: Writing – review & editing. BP: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. LH: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. MH: Writing – review & editing. MD: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Software, Supervision.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frchs.2025.1717365/full#supplementary-material

References

Alexander R. G., Nahvi R. J., and Zelinsky G. J. (2019). Specifying the precision of guiding features for visual search. J. Exp. Psychology: Hum. Percept. Perform. 45, 1248. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000668

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

American Psychological Association (2018). APA dictionary of psychology. (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association). Available online at: https://dictionary.apa.org/anxiety (Accessed December 02, 2025).

Google Scholar

Armstrong T., Olatunji B. O., Sarawgi S., and Simmons C. (2010). Orienting and maintenance of gaze in contamination fear: Biases for disgust and fear cues. Behav. Res. Ther. 48, 402–408. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2010.01.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bannerman R. L., Milders M., and Sahraie A. (2010). Attentional bias to brief threat-related faces revealed by saccadic eye movements. Emotion 10, 733. doi: 10.1037/a0019354

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Berdica E., Gerdes A. B., Bublatzky F., White A. J., and Alpers G. W. (2018). Threat vs. Threat: attention to fear-related animals and threatening faces. Front. Psychol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01154

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bixler R. D., Crosby C. L., Howell K. N., and Tucker T. W. (2015). Choosing illustrations of spider (Faces) for best first impressions in natural history interpretive programs A program component analysis. J. Interpretation Res. 20, 7–17. doi: 10.1177/109258721502000202

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brosch T., Scherer K., Grandjean D., and Sander D. (2013). The impact of emotion on perception, attention, memory, and decision-making– Swiss Medical Weekly. Eur. J. Med. Sci. 143, w13786–w13786. doi: 10.4414/smw.2013.13786

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Castillo-Huitrón N. M., Naranjo E. J., and Santos-Fita D. (2020). The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Front. Psychol. 11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01277

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cornelius R. R. and Averill J. R. (1983). Sex differences in fear of spiders. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 377. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.377

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dodd M. D., Balzer A., Jacobs C. M., Gruszczynski M. W., Smith K. B., and Hibbing J. R. (2012). The political left rolls with the good and the political right confronts the bad: connecting physiology and cognition to preferences. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 367, 640–649. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0268

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Estren M. J. (2012). The neoteny barrier: Seeking respect for the non-cute. J. Anim. Ethics 2, 6–11. doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.2.1.0006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Farah M. J., Wilson K. D., Drain M., and Tanaka J. N. (1998). What is" special" about face perception? Psychological review 105, 482. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.105.3.482

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fink-Lamotte J., Widmann A., Sering K., Schröger E., and Exner C. (2021). Attentional processing of disgust and fear and its relationship with contamination-based obsessive–compulsive symptoms: stronger response urgency to disgusting stimuli in disgust-prone individuals. Front. Psychiatry 12, 596557. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.596557

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fox E., Russo R., Bowles R., and Dutton K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? J. Exp. Psychology: Gen. 130, 681–700. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.681

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Frynta D., Janovcová M., Štolhoferová I., Peléšková Š., Vobrubová B., Frýdlová P., et al. (2021). Emotions triggered by live arthropods shed light on spider phobia. Sci. Rep. 11, 22268. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01325-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gerdes A. B., Uhl G., and Alpers G. W. (2009). Spiders are special: fear and disgust evoked by pictures of arthropods. Evol. Hum. Behav. 30, 66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.08.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Graham B. M., Li S. H., Black M. J., and Öst L. G. (2018). The association between estradiol levels, hormonal contraceptive use, and responsiveness to one-session-treatment for spider phobia in women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 90, 134–140. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.02.019

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hauke T. J. and Herzig V. (2017). Dangerous arachnids—Fake news or reality? Toxicon 138, 173–183. doi: 10.3758/BF03206794

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hoffman J. E. and Subramaniam B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Percept. Psychophys. 57, 787–795. doi: 10.3758/BF03206794

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klorman R., Weerts T. C., Hastings J. E., Melamed B. G., and Lang P. J. (1974). Psychometric descriptions of some specific fear questionnaires. Behav. Ther. 5, 401–409. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(74)80008-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Landová E., Janovcová M., Štolhoferová I., Rádlová S., Frýdlová P., Sedláčková K., et al. (2021). Specificity of spiders among fear-and disgust-eliciting arthropods: Spiders are special, but phobics not so much. PloS one 16, e0257726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257726

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Landová E., Štolhoferová I., Vobrubová B., Polák J., Sedláčková K., Janovcová M., et al. (2023). Attentional, emotional, and behavioral response toward spiders, scorpions, crabs, and snakes provides no evidence for generalized fear between spiders and scorpions. Sci. Rep. 13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-48229-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemaire P. (2021). Emotion and cognition: an introduction (London: Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9781003231028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lemelin R. H. and Yen A. (2015). Human-spider entanglements: Understanding and managing the good, the bad, and the venomous. Anthrozoös 28, 215–228. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.11435398

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindner P., Miloff A., Reuterskiöld L., Andersson G., and Carlbring P. (2019). What is so frightening about spiders? Self-rated and self-disclosed impact of different characteristics and associations with phobia symptoms. Scandinavian J. Psychol. 60, 1–6. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12508

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miltner W. H. R., Krieschel S., Hecht H., Trippe R., and Weiss T. (2004). Eye movements and behavioral responses to threatening and nonthreatening stimuli during visual search in phobic and nonphobic subjects. Emotion 4, 323–339. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.4.4.323

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mogg K., Bradley B. P., Miles F., and Dixon R. (2004). Time course of attentional bias for threat scenes: testing the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis. Cogn. Emotion 18, 689–700. doi: 10.1080/02699930341000158

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nillni Y. I., Rasmusson A. M., Paul E. L., and Pineles S. L. (2021). The impact of the menstrual cycle and underlying hormones in anxiety and PTSD: what do we know and where do we go from here? Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 23, 8. doi: 10.1007/s11920-020-01221-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Olatunji B. O., Woods C. M., de Jong P. J., Teachman B. A., Sawchuk C. N., and David B. (2009). Development and initial validation of an abbreviated Spider Phobia Questionnaire using item response theory. Behav. Ther. 40, 114–130. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2008.04.002

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Polák J., Rádlová S., Janovcová M., Flegr J., Landová E., and Frynta D. (2020). Scary and nasty beasts: Self-reported fear and disgust of common phobic animals. Br. J. Psychol. 111, 297–321. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12409

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Posner M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 32, 3–25. doi: 10.1080/00335558008248231

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Prokop P., Tolarovičová A., Camerik A. M., and Peterková V. (2010). High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Spiders: A cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1665–1688. doi: 10.1080/09500690903253908

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rinck M. and Becker E. S. (2006). Spider fearful individuals attend to threat, then quickly avoid it: evidence from eye movements. J. Abnormal Psychol. 115, 231. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.231

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shipley N. J. (2017). The bee’s knees or spines of a spider: what makes an “Insect” Interesting? (Master’s thesis). Clemson, South Carolina, United States: Clemson University.

Google Scholar

Singh J. S., Capozzoli M. C., Dodd M. D., and Hope D. A. (2015). The effects of social anxiety and state anxiety on visual attention: Testing the vigilance–avoidance hypothesis. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 44, 377–388. doi: 10.1080/16506073.2015.1016447

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Skaramagkas V., Giannakakis G., Ktistakis E., Manousos D., Karatzanis I., Tachos N., et al. (2023). Review of eye tracking metrics involved in emotional and cognitive processes. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 16, 260–277. doi: 10.1109/RBME.2021.3066072

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Soga M., Gaston K. J., Fukano Y., and Evans M. J. (2023). The vicious cycle of biophobia. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 512–520. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.12.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vetter R. S. (2013). Arachnophobic entomologists: when two more legs makes a big difference. Am. Entomologist 59, 168–175. doi: 10.1093/ae/59.3.168

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yiend J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information–. Cognition and Emotion 24, 3–47. doi: 10.1080/02699930903205698

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yiend J. and Mathews A. (2001). Anxiety and attention to threatening pictures. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54, 665–681. doi: 10.1080/713755991

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yorzinski J. and Coss R. G. (2020). Animals in upright postures attract attention in humans. Evolutionary psychol. Sci. 6, 30–37. doi: 10.1007/s40806-019-00209-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yorzinski J. L., Tovar M. E., and Coss R. G. (2018). Forward-facing predators attract attention in humans (Homo sapiens). J. Comp. Psychol. 132, 410. doi: 10.1037/com0000126

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zsidó A. N., Kiss B. L., Basler J., and Labadi B. (2024). Arousal and social anxiety but not the emotional category influence visual search performance when using task-irrelevant emotional faces. Visual Cognition 32, 423–441. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2025.2451368

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zvaríková M., Prokop P., Zvarík M., Ježová Z., Medina-Jerez W., and Fedor P. (2021). What makes spiders frightening and disgusting to people? Front. Ecol. Evol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.694569

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar