What does morbidly curious mean

That flicker — the morbid curiosity that keeps the "murderabilia" industry in business — is what preoccupies Eric Wilson, whose new book, Everyone Loves A Good Train Wreck , tries to explain "why we can't look away".

And he does mean everyone. Even if you're appalled by Serial Killers Ink, you almost certainly feel morbid curiosity in other contexts: to Wilson, the culture's fascination with murderers has something in common with the compelling awfulness of a Mel Gibson meltdown , or footage of natural disasters.

A few years back, the UK Highways Agency tested giant "incident screens" to be placed around accident sites, purely to combat the gawking. Philosophers and psychoanalysts have long debated the lure of the morbid — but the current dominant explanation, from evolutionary psychology, is rather deflating, lacking any reference to Freudian "death drives" or the like.

We're compelled by horrible things, this argument goes, because it pays to scrutinise dangers that could threaten one's survival. Learn More About morbid. Time Traveler for morbid The first known use of morbid was in See more words from the same year. From the Editors at Merriam-Webster. Style: MLA. Kids Definition of morbid. Medical Definition of morbid. Get Word of the Day daily email!

Test Your Vocabulary. Can you spell these 10 commonly misspelled words? Love words? Need even more definitions? Homophones, Homographs, and Homonyms The same, but different. Ask the Editors 'Everyday' vs.

All other details were identical to Study 1. The negative images were a subset 28 items for each category of the images described in the method section of Study 1. For each negative image a matching image was found that was highly similar in terms of the number of people or animals displayed or the type of body part displayed.

Furthermore, the stimuli were closely matched in terms of visual configuration e. To verify that the images were relatively well matched in terms of low-level visual features, two summary statistics i.

Most importantly, all conditions paired in the choice paradigm e. All details of the visual feature analyses are presented in S2 Study. Image codes and images selected from the internet are available on request from the author. The paradigm was in all aspects identical to Study 1.

After the choice task, participants rated all negative, positive and neutral stimuli on interest and complexity on a 0 to continuous rating scale using a slider. A full analysis of the subjective ratings is presented in S2 Study. Note, however, that this effect did not reach significance at the Bonferroni-Holm corrected threshold.

See Table 1 for an overview of all comparisons. Consistent with the findings from Study 1, there were no significant negative correlations between the choice scores and interest ratings for neutral images or positive images, nor were there any correlations with the complexity ratings. Study 2 examined whether participants chose to view images portraying death, violence or harm when those negative images were combined with neutral or positive alternatives that were similar in content.

In line with the hypotheses, curiosity was most strongly expressed for negative social images; this category was preferred over neutral social images with similar low-level visual properties, and chosen significantly more often than the two other negative categories.

Study 2 clearly demonstrated that choice for negative social images changed depending on the valence of the alternative i. In contrast to the findings of Study 1, images displaying physical harm were chosen less often than the alternative, irrespective of whether the alternative was neutral or positive.

Images displaying natural threat were also chosen less often than the neutral or positive alternative. Finally, as in Study 1, there was a positive correlation between interest ratings for the images in each negative category and the proportion of chosen negative images of that category.

In the first two studies, participants could choose between two visual cues that were presented briefly for 2 seconds and in small format 3. Although this format was chosen deliberately to evoke curiosity, at the same time it may have made it difficult for participants to see what was going on in an image. In Study 1 the negative images were more visually complex than the neutral images, and as a consequence, participants may have chosen the negative images not because of their negativity, but because of their visual complexity.

Study 2 provided evidence against this interpretation by demonstrating similar choice behavior when images were well matched in terms of content and visual configuration please see S2 Study for more details. Although these findings suggest that people indeed choose to view negativity, rather than simply the most visually complex stimulus, another way of countering the possible role of visual complexity would be to demonstrate similar choice proportions for negative images when that choice is not based on the visual characteristics of stimuli.

Therefore, Study 3 aimed to replicate the findings of the first two studies with a paradigm that presented verbal cues. Participants were presented with short verbal descriptions of images e. These verbal cues eliminate the issue of visual complexity, and mimic a common way in which people are confronted with information that may spike morbid curiosity in reality, such as headlines in a newspaper or image links on the internet e.

Study 3 tested the hypothesis that participants would prefer to view negative social images over neutral social images, but not over positive social images.

Furthermore, as in Study 1 and 2, the hypothesis was tested that social negative images would be chosen more often than physical negative images. Regarding the choice between negative physical images and the alternatives, it was hypothesized that participants would not show a preference for negative physical images. Nature images were not included in Study 3, because it was impossible to generate non-repetitive verbal descriptions of nature images. After the choice task, participants rated all images on negativity, intensity and interest.

As in Study 1 and 2 the hypothesis was tested that choice for negative stimuli would correlate positively with interest ratings of the corresponding images at a later time. The study aimed to sample an equal number of male and female participants to explore possible gender differences in curiosity for negative information [ 21 ]. These analyses can be found in S1 Gender Differences. The images 28 per category were the same as the images used in Study 2.

For each image a short description was written that described the content of the image. Half of the negative social descriptions 14 were paired with neutral social descriptions; the other half 14 were paired with positive social descriptions.

Half of the negative physical descriptions 14 were paired with neutral physical descriptions; the other half 14 were paired with positive physical descriptions. Study 3 did not include nature stimuli. The adapted choice paradigm utilizing descriptions as cues consisted of 56 trials presented with the stimulus presentation software E-prime see Fig 1. Each trial started with a fixation cross presented for ms, followed by two descriptions presented side by side on the screen Courier New, 24 pt.

The descriptions remained on the screen until the participants made a choice. When the participant had made the choice, the chosen image appeared in full-screen format x pixels on the computer screen for ms. After the choice task, participants rated all negative, positive and neutral images on interest, intensity and complexity on a 0 to continuous rating scale using a slider. For the sake of brevity, the analyses of the subjective ratings are presented in S3 Study. The correlations with choice are presented in Table 2.

Study 3 examined choice for images portraying death, violence or harm with verbal descriptions instead of visual information as choice cues. As hypothesized, people chose to view negative social images more often than negative physical images. Furthermore, and in line with Study 1 and 2, negative social images were preferred over neutral social alternatives, but not over positive social alternatives.

In contrast to Study 2, negative social images were chosen equally often as positive social alternatives. And finally, negative physical images were chosen less often than the neutral and positive physical alternatives. Thus, participants made largely similar choices as in Study 1 and 2, when they based their choice on verbal descriptions of negative images. The first aim of the present paper was to examine, in a carefully controlled experimental setting, whether people deliberately choose to view images that portray death, violence or harm over a non-negative alternative.

The second aim was to explore whether choice behavior was affected differently by the type of negative information. With regard to these two aims, the present studies consistently demonstrated that participants chose to view images that portrayed death, violence or harm. Furthermore, across all studies, participants chose to view images portraying death, violence or harm within a social context more often than images portraying graphic physical harm or attacking animals. This indicates that the type of negative information affects the extent to which participants display morbid curiosity.

These findings counter the assumption that there is a fundamental link between negative stimuli and avoidance motivation [ 41 ]. People deliberately choose to view highly intense negative stimuli displaying death, mutilation, and violent social conflict. Based on theoretical models that define curiosity in terms of approach behavior or exploration [ 10 , 14 , 20 ], the choice behavior observed in the present studies is interpreted as a reflection of morbid curiosity [ 1 ].

This interpretation is supported by the finding that choice behavior correlated positively with subjective ratings of interest, a concept closely related to curiosity [ 14 ].

Before this paper will discuss what may drive curiosity for negative images in general and social images in particular, there are a few important issues to discuss concerning the interpretation of the present findings. First of all, the aim of this paper was to test whether participants would choose to view images that portray death, violence or harm when given an easy opportunity to avoid them. To examine this, the present studies utilized neutral and relatively mild positive stimuli as alternatives.

For example, as an avenue for future research, it would be interesting to present choices between highly intense negative images and highly intense positive images portraying, for example, erotic acts, extreme sports, or highly surprising events. Secondly, even though the averaged choice proportions suggest an overall morbid curiosity effect, there was individual variation in how often people chose to view negative material.

As can be seen in S1 Individual variation, some participants never chose to view a negative image; some participants chose negative images in a minority of the trials; some participants chose negative images in the majority of the trials, and some participants always chose the negative image.

One potential factor that may explain these individual differences is coping potential [ 13 ]; people who chose to avoid negative images may have made predictions about their inability to cope with this material. Third, there were no correlations between choice for negative images and subjective ratings of intensity. This is an interesting finding because a sensation seeking account of morbid curiosity [ 1 ] proposes that people seek out negative events because of the arousal or intense sensations that these may evoke.

The intensity ratings collected in the present studies were not consistent with this proposal: higher choice proportions for negative images were not associated with higher intensity ratings. Regarding negativity, only Study 3 suggested that higher choice proportions for negative physical images based on verbal cues were associated with lower negativity ratings of negative physical images.

Nevertheless, because this result was only found to be significant once, at an uncorrected threshold, it will not be further discussed. None of the studies demonstrated a negative or positive correlation between choice and rated negativity for social negative images. This finding is consistent with previous research that demonstrated no relationship between interest and pleasantness when people judged disturbing and non-disturbing art [ 18 ]. Fourth, the present studies found no correlation between choice for negative images and judged complexity of those images.

This is an important finding since complexity is seen as a possible drive of curiosity [ 13 , 20 ]. With regards to visual complexity, Study 2 demonstrated that participants preferred negative social images over neutral social images even when those images were relatively well matched in terms of visual characteristics.

The role of visual complexity was circumvented in Study 3, in which the preference for negative social images over neutral social images was replicated when participants made choices based on verbal descriptions of the images. Nevertheless, even though the present studies found no evidence that complexity is an important factor in choice for negativity, it must be noted that not all forms of complexity were examined. For example, it is an open question whether negative stimuli, in particular those with social content, have a higher level of semantic or narrative complexity, which may influence curiosity.

So far morbid curiosity has mainly been explained in terms of a sensation seeking motivation [ 1 ]. Applying such an interpretation to the present findings would imply that people choose to view negative images because they seek out the sensations or experiences that they expect will be evoked by the selected stimulus [ 53 ].

An alternative, though not mutually exclusive, interpretation is that people choose negative images because of an epistemic motivation.

In other words, people may be curious about negative stimuli because these stimuli allow people to acquire knowledge about the world [ 20 ]. If we consider the possibility that curiosity is about the informational value of a stimulus, then what do images that portray death, violence or harm have to offer in informational terms? According to Baumeister and colleagues [ 55 ] negative events have greater psychological impact e. Another interpretation is that learning about emotional events both positive and negative may expand the conceptual system that according to some emotion models is crucial in the experience and regulation of emotional states [ 56 ].

Thus, people may explore stimuli that portray death, violence or harm because it gives them handholds that are useful in dealing with future negative situations. Another relevant suggestion made by Unkelbach and colleagues [ 57 ] is that positive information is very much alike, whereas negative information is often uniquely negative.

Translating this to the current findings, this means that people may choose stimuli that portray death, violence or harm because they deviate from the norm, and thus are associated with a relatively strong gain in information. This is in line with suggestions from other authors that people are curious about stimuli that present a relatively rare source of information [ 20 ] or a relatively uncertain or contradictory source of information [ 18 , 19 ]. In addition, it is also relevant to address what negative social stimuli, specifically, have to offer in informational terms.

Interestingly, Kashdan and Silvia [ 14 ] suggest that curiosity for people and social situations may offer psychological and social benefits. It is important to note, however, that this suggestion is made within the context of discussing curiosity as a positive state, whereas the present paper targets curiosity for negative social information.

Moreover, social information may have a relatively high learning potential. Developmental studies, for example, show that young infants have a preference for social stimuli see for an overview [ 58 ]. Applying these interpretations to morbid curiosity, it may be the case that the exploration of negative social information helps an individual to acquire and encode important knowledge about the social environment.

Furthermore, an image of a negative event placed within a social context may evoke a more complex narrative [ 59 ] as compared to an image that portrays a decontextualized attacking animal or a decontextualized portrayal of physical harm.

Recent research within literature science has shown that negative narratives can be attractive [ 60 ]. Furthermore, the narrative suggested by a negative social scene may evoke questions, such as What happened? What are the relationships between these people? What will happen after this scene? Participants may choose the negative social images more often as compared to the images portraying graphic physical harm or attacking animals, because they want to find answers or clues to these questions and close the information gap; [ 11 ].

Finally, the urge to inform oneself about the details of a negative social situation may not only be driven by an information-seeking motivation, but potentially also by a motivation to experience empathy or sympathy for the people portrayed in the images see for a similar point [ 50 , 61 ]. Indeed, some studies on empathy have used stimuli with similar content as the negative social images used in the present studies e.

The present paper advances new insights into the phenomenon of morbid curiosity and implies that there is a dynamic relationship between negative stimuli and behavior. Images that portray death, violence or harm are not always avoided, but can evoke curiosity driven approach behavior.

These findings expand theoretical models of curiosity that have focused mainly on the reward value of positive stimuli e. Furthermore, these findings connect to current models of emotion that argue for individual and situational diversity in how affective stimuli are experienced [ 56 , 66 ].

In practical terms, the present findings also have methodological implications. First of all, the present paper presents a paradigm that provides a behavioral index of morbid curiosity that can be used in future studies to test situational and contextual moderators of curiosity and interest-related constructs.

Furthermore, with some adaptations the paradigm is suited to be combined with physiological and neurological measures to understand how curiosity for negative information or other types of information is represented in the brain and body. Another important methodological implication concerns the fact that all negative images that were used in the present paradigm were selected from standardized image sets, such as the IAPS database [ 44 ].

These same images are routinely used in affective science to study a variety of emotional reactions, such as fear, disgust, arousal or negative affect. When using this kind of material it may be important for affective scientists to take into consideration that some of the participants in the sample may actually want to view images that portray death, violence or harm. In short, the present series of studies provide new insights about the occurrence of morbid curiosity, a largely neglected topic of investigation.

Although many questions remain unanswered, and more research is needed, the present paper aims to put this phenomenon back on the research agenda of affective science. The author would like to thank Stijn Knigge and Bob Bramson for their assistance with stimulus selection and data collection, and Disa Sauter and Kristen Lindquist for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. As well as learning from morbid media how to protect ourselves, how to prepare , we also use them to distract ourselves from real-world anxieties. When done right, screen horror is shocking by design and has the unique ability to yank us by the collar out of any potential personal hell and into an imagined one much more efficiently than, say, a laughter-track sitcom that pootles along pleasantly in the living room periphery.

So they might help us stop ruminating or worrying about other things in our lives better than other shows. And when the show is over, the anxiety will often subside. The term derives from a recent study which took place in a haunted house, no less , which found that horror fans can be classified into three main groups. Firstly, adrenaline junkies, who desire "novel, complex, and intense experiences".

They try and up-regulate their arousal to get the most out of it, participating in watching a horror movie or attending a haunted house simply for the thrill, in the same way someone might want to go skydiving. White knucklers are people who genuinely don't enjoy being scared, try and down-regulate their arousal but participate anyway, for some reason.

And dark copers are a newly identified typology made up of morbidly curious people who use horror to cope with anxiety. What makes this group distinct is that they tend to use horror as a way to cope with various aspects of their lives. The extent to which 'dark coping' can actually benefit the mentality of those who instinctively use it is less understood, and murkier.

But in a study he did discover a nugget of revealing evidence, finding that "horror fans and morbidly curious people were more psychologically resilient during the COVID pandemic," though more work is needed to understand why.

The way we view death more generally is changing for the better.