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.

Even prey that successfully evade attack incur costs when responding to predators. These nonlethal costs can impact their reproductive success and survival. One strategy that prey can use to minimize these costs is to adjust their antipredator behavior based on the perceived level of risk. We tested whether humans adopt this strategy by presenting participants with photographic arrays of predators (lions) that varied in their level of risk. While their eye movements were recorded, the participants searched for a forward-facing predator (signifying potential predator interest; high-risk target) among an array of inattentive predators that were facing away (low-risk distractors) or searched for a predator that was facing away from them among an array of forward-facing predators. As a control, participants also searched through similar arrays that displayed a potential prey species (impalas) rather than predators. Participants detected forward-facing predators more quickly than predators facing away from them. Unexpectedly, they were also quicker at detecting forward-facing prey versus prey facing away from them, but slower to detect these forward-facing prey compared with forward-facing predators. They were slower to detect predators and prey facing away from them because they spent more time looking at the forward-facing distractors and looked at more of those distractors. The results indicate that human attention is drawn toward dangerous predators with forward-facing orientations, and this could allow humans to quickly assess predator intentions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Predation is a major source of natural selection on primates and may have shaped attentional processes that allow primates to rapidly detect dangerous animals. Because ancestral humans were subjected to predation, a process that continues at very low frequencies, we examined the visual processes by which men and women detect dangerous animals (snakes and lions). We recorded the eye movements of participants as they detected images of a dangerous animal (target) among arrays of nondangerous animals (distractors) as well as detected images of a nondangerous animal (target) among arrays of dangerous animals (distractors). We found that participants were quicker to locate targets when the targets were dangerous animals compared with nondangerous animals, even when spatial frequency and luminance were controlled. The participants were slower to locate nondangerous targets because they spent more time looking at dangerous distractors, a process known as delayed disengagement, and looked at a larger number of dangerous distractors. These results indicate that dangerous animals capture and maintain attention in humans, suggesting that historical predation has shaped some facets of visual orienting and its underlying neural architecture in modern humans.