Close
today i learned (til)

The Psychology of Fear and Why We Seek it Out

November 24, 2024

If you’re a fan of Halloween, there’s a good chance you partook in one of America’s favorite passtimes this spooky season: watching a great horror movie. Something about getting cozy on the couch and watching a bloody zombie attack, or a thrilling ghost possession, and feeling all the fear and emotions that come with it can quite the thrill. If any of this resonates with you, I ask you to consider the question, “Why do you watch horror movies out?” In every other aspect of our lives, horror is an emotion we find undesirable and seek to avoid. So why do we, in special circumstances, purposely seek out these feelings of fear? If you love horror movies but have never deeply explored what draws you to them, I encourage you to keep reading. If you are one of those people that hates horror and can never understand how so many people get enjoyment out of watching scary movies, stick around and you might get a better understanding of why.

 

There are many different reasons that someone could enjoy horror movies, and the appeal can vary based on the individual. One common thread between horror-enjoyers, however, is the thrill that horror provides. Thrill is a difficult emotion to describe, as it can describe emotions associated with extremely positive or negative experiences. A thrill is often defined as a “pierce of emotion” and is often present in high-adrenaline activities, such as skydiving or riding rollercoasters. People who really enjoy this feeling, also known as thrill-seekers, are likely to be especially prone to enjoying horror movies. This relates to the similar concept of sensation-seeking, which is the phenomenon where people desire intense sensations and experiences. Sensation-seeking is a strong indicator of one’s enjoyment of horror films for both genders, but it is notably a stronger indicator for men’s enjoyment of horror films.

 

Men and women enjoy horror for different reasons. For men, thrill and adventure-seeking personalities are strong indicators for horror enjoyment, whereas for women, disinhibition is a stronger sensation-seeking indicator. Disinhibition refers to a lack of restraint, or a willingness to engage in risky or socially unacceptable behaviors. Women who have high levels of disinhibition are likely to find enjoyment in horror media.

 

On the topic of gender differences, there is strong evidence that men generally enjoy consuming horror more than women. Proposed reasonings for this are that women tend to be more prone to feelings of disgust and anxiety than men, and this can cause them to be turned off from horror. Additionally, studies have shown that women have higher levels of empathy than men, and will be less likely to find enjoyment in the suffering that typically occurs in horror films.

 

There are many reasons why people may be drawn to horror, but one of the most widely accepted theories is Dr. Dolf Zillmann’s excitation transfer theory, which poses that we are drawn to horror because of the feelings we get from witnessing high suspense and resolution. According to this theory, as we watch a negative, suspenseful buildup, we experience high emotions that are later converted into euphoria as the suspense ends and a resolution occurs.

 

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, “What about horror movies that feature suspense without a resolution? How could we find enjoyment in those?” This is an extremely relevant question, as many horror films do not have happy endings, and fill us with a sense of dread by their lack of a resolution, rather than the comfort that a happy ending would bring. I would argue that horror films without a true resolution still allow us to feel the same euphoria by providing a pseudo-resolution that lies within the realization that we are consuming media. Even if a horror movie has a horrible ending, with no hope for the characters or world, we are able to experience the joy of existing in the safety and comfort of our own world and realizing that the fear and discomfort we are feeling is not real. I would argue that this is a resolution in itself, from the perspective of the viewer.

 

This takes me to my final point about horror enjoyment, which I feel that many people can probably relate to. While we do not usually enjoy experiencing fear in most facets of our everyday lives, film and media give us a chance to experience these strong emotions which we typically avoid, in a safe and controlled environment. The contrast between the visceral fear our bodies are experiencing, and the mental certainty that we are not actually in danger allows us to enjoy an emotion that we usually hate. This embodies the same concept of how we feel riding roller coasters. Our bodies sense danger, but our minds know we are safe.

 

So, next time you sit down to watch a horror movie, think about what’s really pulling you in. Is it the thrill, the suspense, or the satisfaction of facing fear on your own terms? Whatever it is, remember: fear isn’t always something to avoid—it’s sometimes something to embrace.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Martin, G. N. (2019). (why) do you like scary movies? A review of the empirical research on psychological responses to Horror films. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02298

 

Neurominded. (2023, October 31). The Spooky Science of Horror Movies: Why Do We Enjoy Being Scared?. Inspire The Mind. https://www.inspirethemind.org/post/the-spooky-science-of-horror-movies-why-do-we-enjoy-being-scared

 

Zuckerman, E. (2017, February 24). Get Out is one of the most terrifying movies in years — because it’s so smart. Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/2/24/14698632/get-out-review-jordan-peele

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Neuromyths: What We Know, and What We Think We Know
today i learned (til)
Autonomous Vehicles: The Road Ahead
today i learned (til)
Sucrose V.S. Sucralose
Upward shot of a longleaf forest with sunlight shining through
today i learned (til)
Friendly Fires

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.