Horror isn’t just intense fear, new psychology study suggests

Reading a news headline about a violent tragedy can provoke an unsettled, sickening jolt that feels very different from the anxiety of facing a personal threat. A new study published in Cognition and Emotion suggests that when descriptions of harm involve extreme outcomes or vivid, gory details, they tend to heighten horror much more than fear, in part because they make the event seem more abnormal. The findings provide evidence that horror is not merely an intense version of fear, but a distinct emotional reaction to events that violate our basic expectations of how the world works.

In everyday conversation and dictionary definitions, horror is often treated as a synonym for extreme fear. In psychology, however, the two terms can represent different ways of interpreting and categorizing a harmful event. Fear functions as a threat-detection system that alerts a person to potential danger and motivates self-defense or escape. Some emotion researchers define real-world horror, by contrast, as an emotional and mental shock experienced when witnessing or learning about actual harm that contradicts a person’s fundamental assumptions about human safety and how the world operates.

“‘Horror’ is one of dozens of English words we have to label our emotional responses to harm, but it remains largely unstudied,” study author Pamela Marie Taylor, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Global Connectivity at Akita International University, told PsyPost. “This neglect might be because research in the 1980s categorized horror as a subtype of fear, or because it has become closely associated with the fictional genre of horror films. However, people use the word ‘horror’ to describe their responses to real events, and do so in a way that is meaningfully different from how they use the word ‘fear’.”

“For example, ‘horrified’ is often paired with verbs like ‘learn’, ‘realize’ and ‘discover’ that indicate a response to extreme novelty or abnormality (e.g., ‘I was horrified to learn’),” Taylor explained. “In contrast, people typically use the word ‘fear’ to describe the anticipation of some possible harm (e.g., ‘fear the worst’, ‘fear of snakes’). This study was done to test if horror can be differentiated from fear based on how abnormal a harmful event is seen to be.”

How people evaluate unusual events plays a central role in shaping their emotional reactions. In a 1986 theoretical paper, psychologists proposed that people judge how unusual an event is by comparing it against their mental norms, and that bad outcomes preceded by abnormal circumstances provoke amplified emotional responses. Building on this idea, a 2022 experimental study by Taylor and a colleague found that people reported greater fear when facing common, mild, or personally relevant threats, whereas they reported greater horror when learning about extreme or abnormal harm that had already happened, even when the victims were strangers.

Free daily newsletter

Encountering accounts of bizarre or extreme harm often leaves people struggling to reconcile the event with their worldview. Some research suggests this tension can shape how people seek explanations. For example, a study covered by PsyPost in 2023 indicated that individuals with higher morbid curiosity about unsettling events and dangerous people are more likely to seek out and believe conspiracy theories as explanations for threatening occurrences.

Although the 2022 research linked horror to abnormal harm, its experimental scenarios blended together the severity of the injury and the graphicness of the wording, leaving it uncertain which feature actually made the harm feel abnormal. To isolate these factors, Taylor designed two experiments examining how harm severity and graphic language independently shape perceptions of abnormality. She defined graphicness through the distinction between abstract and concrete language.

Taylor reasoned that abstract descriptions use broad, familiar categories, such as stating that “a person was murdered,” which allows the mind to file the event into existing mental frameworks, whereas concrete descriptions include specific sensory details, such as “a camper was slaughtered by his friend who sliced into his chest with a rusty axe,” which are harder to fit into normal expectations.

Taylor also wanted to test whether perceived abnormality is what truly separates horror from fear, or if the difference comes down to physical arousal. In psychology, arousal refers to the level of physical activation or agitation in the body’s nervous system. If horror is simply an intense form of fear, then heightened physical arousal alone should explain why people label their reaction to gruesome news as horror rather than fear.

In the first study, Taylor recruited 60 adult native English speakers in the United States through the online platform Prolific. The participants had an average age of 35.5 years, ranging from 21 to 69, and the sample was 70 percent female and 71.1 percent White. Each participant read four text stimuli presented as real news headlines adapted from The Daily Mail tabloid describing a person being harmed, with each headline remaining on the screen for seven seconds before rating questions appeared. Taylor preregistered the main prediction that severe harm and graphic descriptions would increase horror more than fear.

The headlines were systematically varied across two dimensions: the severity of the harm (moderate injuries that heal versus extreme, permanent harm such as death) and the graphicness of the description (abstract, general wording versus concrete, tangible details). After reading each headline, participants rated the perceived abnormality of the harm on a 5-point scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”) using four items assessing how unusual, abnormal, or unheard-of the event seemed.

They also rated their emotional reactions on the same 5-point scale, where scores for “horrified” and “shocked” were combined to measure horror, and scores for “scared” and “afraid” were combined to measure fear. To measure physical arousal, participants selected one of five illustrated figures ranging from a calm, closed-eyed figure to a wide-eyed figure with jagged lines depicting intense bodily activation.

To account for individual tendencies to score higher or lower on rating scales, Taylor analyzed the repeated measurements while statistically controlling for baseline differences between participants. Across the 5-point scale, where the overall average abnormality rating was 3.40, shifting from moderate to extreme harm increased perceived abnormality by 0.89 points, and shifting from abstract to concrete language increased it by 0.88 points.

Both factors also elevated horror much more strongly than fear. Across all conditions, the overall average emotion rating was 2.69, with horror averaging 0.98 points higher than fear; describing extreme rather than moderate harm boosted horror by 1.09 points compared to a 0.45-point increase in fear, while concrete rather than abstract descriptions raised horror by 0.70 points compared to a 0.22-point increase in fear.

Participants also rated the general harmfulness of each event based on whether someone suffered bodily pain or injury, and in the first study, these general harmfulness ratings predicted horror and fear equally, as the difference between the two emotions was not statistically significant. Taylor then used mediation analysis, a statistical technique that estimates how much of a relationship between an experimental condition and an outcome passes through an intermediate step, to test whether perceived abnormality explained the rise in horror.

Perceived abnormality accounted for 39 percent of the total effect of harm severity on horror and 76 percent of the effect of graphic language on horror, while explaining 63 percent and 83 percent of why severity and graphicness increased horror more than fear. In one Study 1 model, the effect of graphic language on horror over fear was no longer statistically significant once physical arousal was taken into account, and when physical arousal and perceived abnormality were tested side by side as parallel pathways, both independently explained a portion of the shift toward horror.

To verify whether these patterns would hold up in an independent sample, Taylor conducted a second study with another 60 adult native English speakers in the United States recruited via Prolific. Participants in the second group had an average age of 42.57 years, ranging from 21 to 75, and the sample was 70 percent female, 30 percent male, and 75 percent White. The procedure and rating scales were identical to the first experiment, except that one headline from Study 1 involving an animal attack was replaced with an interpersonal attack so that all four headlines depicted one human harming another.

The second study closely replicated the core findings regarding abnormality and horror. Around an average abnormality rating of 3.42 on the 5-point scale, extreme harm raised perceived abnormality by 0.85 points and concrete graphic descriptions raised it by 0.89 points. Extreme harm increased horror ratings by 1.01 points compared to 0.39 points for fear, making the effect on horror more than 2.5 times larger, while concrete descriptions increased horror by 0.62 points compared to 0.14 points for fear, an effect more than four times larger.

Unlike the first study, general ratings of bodily harmfulness in Study 2 showed a stronger association with horror than fear, though the author noted that because every headline involved harm, 12 percent of participants in Study 1 and 22 percent in Study 2 gave identical harmfulness ratings across all four headlines, limiting the precision of that specific measure.

Where the second study diverged most notably from the first was in the role of physical arousal. When arousal was tested on its own in Study 2, it again helped explain the shift toward horror, but once abnormality was added to the model, the arousal pathway was no longer statistically significant, with indirect effects of 0.11 for harm severity and 0.06 for graphicness. Perceived abnormality, by contrast, remained a strong, consistent pathway in both studies even after controlling for self-reported bodily activation. Taylor argues that whereas fear tends to arise from uncertainty about potential danger, horror arises from an excess of concrete information about severe harm that is hard to square with a person’s understanding of a safe world.

For everyday news consumers, the findings highlight how subtle shifts in phrasing can alter how a story lands emotionally. “When the same harmful event in a news headline was described using concrete language, it was rated as more abnormal than when it was described using abstract language, and caused an increase in horror that was three-to-four times greater than the increase in fear,” Taylor noted. “In other words, a person’s emotional reaction to a news event is influenced by the language with which it is told.”

“In terms of practical significance, it seems that a lot of online and political rhetoric uses abnormality to capture attention, shape discourse and influence interpretations,” Taylor said. “Therefore, people should be aware of how their emotional responses to events can be shaped by how events are described. We are increasingly aware of the dangers of online misinformation, but that focuses on the factuality of what is described. These results indicate that even in factually accurate descriptions, the language with which the event is described can influence our perception of how normal or abnormal it is, and consequently our emotional response to it.”

“We would not argue that using concrete language is bad or that headlines that use it are necessarily manipulative,” Taylor added. “The current findings examined how concrete and abstract language elicit different emotional responses without investigating the appropriateness of the language. Another way to read this study’s findings is that describing harm with abstract language can normalize it, which also has consequences when reporting on harmful events.”

There are a few additional caveats to keep in mind when interpreting these results. Because adding vivid sensory details requires extra words, the concrete headlines were naturally longer than the abstract ones, meaning word count could have contributed to the impact of the graphic descriptions. In addition, the experiments only examined short tabloid headlines about harm happening to strangers in ordinary, everyday settings, without a non-harmful baseline condition. It remains an open question whether severe harm in settings where danger is already expected, such as a combat zone, would feel less abnormal and elicit less horror.

Perceived abnormality was measured rather than manipulated, and the analyses testing it as a pathway were exploratory, added after the main results were known. The horror measure also combined “horrified” with “shocked,” a feeling that may overlap with judging an event as unusual. Both studies used nearly the same set of headlines and newly created two-item emotion scales, so it remains to be seen whether the results hold with other materials and measures.

Methodologically, participants rated perceived abnormality, physical arousal, and their emotions at the exact same time after each headline, so the statistical models cannot establish a strict chronological sequence of events. Physical arousal was also assessed through a single visual self-report scale rather than biological measures like heart rate or skin conductance.

Additionally, both study samples were 70 percent female and restricted to native English speakers in the United States. Because not all languages separate horror and fear into distinct everyday words, such as Japanese, which uses the term osore for both, future research could explore whether horror functions as a culturally specific emotion concept.

“Because many conspiracy theories seem to involve attempts to make sense of a horrifying event, I am interested in investigating if feelings of horror play a role in conspiratorial thinking,” Taylor said. “For example, can conspiracy theories act as a form of emotion regulation that people use to turn the helplessness of horror into anger, with the latter associated with a greater sense of control?”

The study, “Gruesome Details: Graphic Descriptions and Extreme Harm Differentially Elicit Horror (vs Fear) via Increased Perceptions of Abnormality,” was authored by Pamela Marie Taylor.