A new study proposes that horror films are appealing because they offer a controlled environment for our brains to practice predicting and managing uncertainty. This process of learning to master fear-inducing situations can be an inherently rewarding experience, according to the paper published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

The authors behind the paper, published in 2013, sought to address why people are drawn to entertainment that is designed to be frightening or disgusting. While some studies have shown psychological benefits from engaging with horror, many existing theories about its appeal seem to contradict one another. The authors aimed to provide a single, unifying framework that could explain how intentionally seeking out negative feelings like fear can result in positive psychological outcomes.

To do this, they applied a theory of brain function known as predictive processing. This framework suggests the brain operates as a prediction engine, constantly making forecasts about incoming sensory information from the world. When reality does not match the brain’s prediction, a “prediction error” occurs, which the brain then works to minimize by updating its internal models or by acting on the world to make it more predictable.

This does not mean humans always seek out calm and predictable situations. The theory suggests people are motivated to find optimal opportunities for learning, which often lie at the edge of their understanding. The brain is not just sensitive to the amount of prediction error, but to the rate at which that error is reduced over time. When we reduce uncertainty faster than we expected, it generates a positive feeling.

This search for the ideal rate of error reduction is what drives curiosity and play. We are naturally drawn to a “Goldilocks zone” of manageable uncertainty that is neither too boringly simple nor too chaotically complex. The researchers argue that horror entertainment is specifically engineered to place its audience within this zone.

According to the theory, horror films can be understood as a form of “affective technology,” designed to manipulate our predictive minds. Even though we know the monsters are not real, the brain processes the film as an improbable version of reality from which it can still learn. Many horror monsters tap into deep-seated, evolutionary fears of predators by featuring sharp teeth, claws, and stealthy, ambush-style behaviors.

The narrative structures of horror films are also built to play with our expectations. The slow build-up of suspense creates a state of high anticipation, and a “jump scare” works by suddenly violating our moment-to-moment predictions. The effectiveness of these techniques is heightened because they are not always predictable. Sometimes the suspense builds and nothing happens, which makes the audience’s response system even more alert.

At the same time, horror films often rely on familiar patterns and clichés, such as the “final girl” who survives to confront the villain. This combination of surprising events within a somewhat predictable structure provides the mix of uncertainty and resolvability that the predictive brain finds so engaging.

The authors propose that engaging with this controlled uncertainty has several benefits. One is that horror provides a low-stakes training ground for learning about high-stakes situations. This idea, known as morbid curiosity, suggests that we watch frightening content to gain information that could be useful for recognizing and avoiding real-world dangers. For example, the film Contagion saw a surge in popularity during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as people sought to understand the potential realities of a global health crisis.

Another benefit is related to emotion regulation. By exposing ourselves to fear in a safe context, we can learn about our own psychological and physiological responses. The experience allows us to observe our own anxiety, increased heart rate, and other reactions as objects of attention, rather than just being swept away by them. This process can grant us a greater sense of awareness and control over our own emotional states, similar to the effects of mindfulness practices.

The theory also offers an explanation for why some people prone to anxiety might be drawn to horror. Anxiety can be associated with a feeling of uncertainty about one’s own internal bodily signals, a state known as noisy interoception. Watching a horror movie provides a clear, external source for feelings of fear and anxiety. For a short time, the rapid heartbeat and sweaty palms have an obvious and controllable cause: the monster on the screen, not some unknown internal turmoil.

The researchers note that this engagement is not always beneficial. For some individuals, particularly those with a history of trauma, horror media may serve to confirm negative beliefs about the world being a dangerous and threatening place. This can create a feedback loop where a person repeatedly seeks out horrifying content, reinforcing a sense of hopelessness or learned helplessness. Future work could examine when the engagement with scary media crosses from a healthy learning experience into a potentially pathological pattern.

The study, “Surfing uncertainty with screams: predictive processing, error dynamics and horror films,” was authored by Mark Miller, Ben White and Coltan Scrivner.

When people feel emotionally close, their bodies may start to act in tandem. A new study published in Biological Psychology offers evidence that this alignment can reach the level of the heart. Researchers found that married couples from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to show synchronized heart rate patterns than couples from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. The findings suggest that social and economic conditions may shape not only how people relate to one another emotionally, but also how their bodies respond during social connection.

Previous research has shown that people from lower-income and lower-education backgrounds tend to emphasize relationships more than their more affluent peers. Studies suggest that individuals from these environments often rely more on their social networks for support, given that they face more external challenges such as financial strain and limited access to resources. This emphasis on social interdependence appears in how people think, feel, and behave. But until now, little was known about whether this tendency might also appear in physical processes, such as heart rate.

“Social connection is essential for human well-being and survival. And how we connect with others is shaped by the resources and opportunities we have. When socioeconomic resources are scarce, social relationships can become a refuge and a resource, taking on a particularly important role in people’s lives,” said Tabea Meier, a postdoctoral scholar affiliated with the University of Zurich, and Claudia Haase, an associate professor at Northwestern University, the corresponding authors of the study.

“Prior research has shown that people from less privileged backgrounds tend to be more interdependent and attuned to others, for example, in experiencing greater empathy and compassion. This stands in contrast to the individualism that tends to dominate more privileged social contexts.”

“However, much less is known about whether this attunement to others goes beyond experiences and behavior—whether it shows up in people’s bodies or physiology. Our study of married couples examined this question by probing how socioeconomic status relates to physiological linkage – the way spouses’ heart rates rise and fall together when they interact. In moments of deep connection, people’s hearts can beat in sync.”

For their study, the researchers recruited 48 married couples living in the Chicago area, resulting in a sample of 96 individuals. The couples varied widely in terms of income and education. Some earned less than $20,000 per year, while others made over $150,000. Their education levels also ranged from less than high school to advanced degrees. The sample included people from several racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Each couple participated in a three-hour lab session. After some initial procedures, they took part in two ten-minute conversations: one focused on a topic of conflict in their relationship, and another centered on a mutually enjoyable subject. During these conversations, the participants wore sensors that tracked their heart activity in real time. The researchers focused on a measure called “interbeat interval,” which is the amount of time between heartbeats. These second-by-second measurements allowed the team to assess how each spouse’s heart rate changed throughout the conversation.

The researchers analyzed how closely the spouses’ heart rate patterns mirrored each other. When both people’s heart rates sped up or slowed down together, this was called “in-phase linkage.” When one person’s heart rate increased while the other’s decreased, that was labeled “anti-phase linkage.” In both cases, stronger linkage meant a tighter correlation between spouses’ heart rate shifts. The team looked at how these two types of linkage were related to the couple’s socioeconomic background.

Across both conflict and pleasant conversations, couples from lower socioeconomic backgrounds showed higher in-phase linkage. In other words, their heart rates were more likely to change in the same direction. At the same time, they showed lower anti-phase linkage, meaning their heart rates were less likely to change in opposite directions.

This pattern suggests that less affluent couples tend to experience a stronger bodily connection during interpersonal interactions. Their heart rhythms moved more in unison, regardless of whether they were arguing or sharing positive memories. The difference was particularly strong for anti-phase linkage, which was much lower in lower-income and lower-education couples compared to their more privileged peers.

“When people connect, it’s not just their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that can align – their bodies can, too,” Meier and Haase told PsyPost. “Our study found that couples’ socioeconomic backgrounds may shape how this connection unfolds at a physiological level. Specifically, the heart rates of spouses from less privileged backgrounds were more likely to change in the same direction (i.e., speeding up or slowing down together) and less likely to change in opposite directions (i.e., one speeding up while the other is slowing down) compared to those from more privileged backgrounds.”

These results held even after the researchers controlled for several other factors, including age and racial background. The effect was also more strongly tied to education than income, although both contributed to the findings.

Importantly, the level of synchrony did not appear to be linked to the emotional tone of the conversation or to how many times the couples used inclusive words like “we.” That suggests that the physiological linkage observed may be operating somewhat independently of what the spouses said or how they rated their emotions.

“These findings build on a long line of research showing that people from less privileged backgrounds tend prioritize relationships and are more attuned to those around them,” the researchers said. “Our study suggests, to our knowledge for the first time, that this connection may not only appear in feelings or behaviors, but also at a physiological level in the form of linked heart rates between spouses. It is a reminder that our social worlds live within us.”

There are a few caveats to consider. The sample size, although consistent with similar lab-based studies, was relatively small. It also focused on heterosexual married couples with children in the United States, which limits how broadly the results can be applied.

The study also did not look at how these heart rate patterns affect the couples over time. It remains unclear whether higher in-phase linkage leads to better relationship satisfaction, improved health, or other benefits. Some previous research suggests that synchrony may be helpful in many cases, but not always. For example, when couples are arguing, syncing up physiologically might sometimes make things worse by escalating conflict. On the other hand, moving in opposite directions might help one partner stay calm while the other is distressed.

“It is important not to oversimplify these results,” Meier and Haase explained. “Linked heart rates do not necessarily mean “better” or healthier relationships. Whether physiological linkage is beneficial or not may really depend on the context in which it occurs, for example, whether spouses are cracking up about an inside joke, are throwing harsh words at each other, or comforting each other in sadness. Future research can explore when and how different heart rate linkage patterns support or harm relationship satisfaction, well-being, and health.”

“Our study is a first step and there are many open questions that we would love the research community to pursue. While we worked hard to recruit a diverse sample of couples from all walks of life from the U.S. Chicagoland area, larger samples will be needed, ideally not just from the US. There are many other open questions. For instance, how does physiological linkage predict how satisfied spouses from less or more privileged backgrounds are with their relationship over time? And what are the consequences for mental and physical health? We look forward to more research in this area that connects the macro and the micro.”

“Socioeconomic status can shape our everyday lives in powerful ways, including how we connect with loved ones,” the researchers added. “Psychological research on couples has traditionally focused mostly on white, middle-class couples. Findings from our study, along with others, highlight the importance of inclusive approaches in the study of social connection. The couples in our study allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of how emotional dynamics and social connection may differ across socioeconomic contexts, and we are grateful that they shared their time and insights with us.”

The study, “Connected at heart? Socioeconomic status and physiological linkage during marital interactions,” was authored by Tabea Meier, Aaron M. Geller, Kuan-Hua Chen, and Claudia M. Haase.