Researchers report that people who see the world as inherently dangerous consistently overestimate the likelihood of everyday threats, from violent crime to animal attacks. In a series of four studies, they also found that this broad worldview colours how individuals judge unfamiliar, neutral faces as less trustworthy and more likely to be aggressive. The work is published in the Journal of Individual Differences.
The researchers describe “primal world beliefs” as a framework capturing 26 broad dimensions through which people interpret reality. These beliefs cluster into four overarching categories, one of which concerns whether reality is generally safe or generally dangerous. The aim was to discover whether a general belief about danger translates into heightened perceptions of specific, proximate threats.
Lead researchers Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton sought to replicate whether a general sense that the world is dangerous would skew people’s assessments in everyday situations. Prior work had shown that belief in a just world can shape perceptions of fairness; the new studies tested whether a similar pattern exists for dangerous world beliefs.
The first study recruited 457 American adults online, who completed a survey measuring primal world beliefs and then estimated how common 12 real-world dangers are in the United States — including murders, assaults and bear attacks. Participants’ personality traits and recent anxiety or depression symptoms were also recorded.
The results showed that individuals in the highest quintile for dangerous world beliefs overestimated these threats far more than those in the lowest quintile. On average, they judged the incidence of the listed dangers to be more than four times higher. The dangerous world belief outperformed underlying anxiety, depression or general personality traits in predicting these risk estimates.
The second study broadened the scope to diseases and potentially positive events, surveying 881 American adults. Participants estimated probabilities for physical dangers, health risks such as strokes or infectious illnesses, and positive events like winning money. They were randomly assigned to estimate risks for themselves or for the average American.
As in the first study, those with a strong dangerous world belief consistently predicted higher risks for physical dangers. They showed only a weak tendency to overestimate health and disease risks and did not overestimate the likelihood of positive or neutral events. The pattern held whether participants estimated risks for themselves or others, suggesting a generalised threat perception rather than personal fear.
In the third study, 599 American adults viewed photographs of neutral-faced Caucasian strangers and rated them on traits including warmth, trustworthiness and the likelihood of criminal behaviour. Participants were randomly allocated to a threat condition, in which the image was accompanied by text stating the person had committed a crime, or a control condition.
Those who viewed the world as dangerous tended to see the neutral faces as less trustworthy, less warm and less happy, and as more aggressive and more likely to threaten society. The contextual cue that the target was a criminal did not significantly interact with dangerous world beliefs. Once again, the general belief about danger predicted negative social evaluations more strongly than anxiety or depression.
A fourth study replicated the facial evaluation with 979 American adults, split evenly between Black and White participants, who assessed neutral Black and White faces. The design mirrored the earlier facial assessments, focusing on trustworthiness and perceived threat.
The findings echoed the earlier results: dangerous world belief was strongly associated with viewing neutral faces as threatening and less trustworthy. The relationship with warmth and happiness was present in some cases, and the study noted that this association could be stronger among Black participants than White participants, regardless of the target’s race.
The researchers caution that the four studies are cross-sectional and rely on surveys at a single time point, so they cannot prove causation. It remains possible that an underlying variable drives both the broad dangerous world belief and the specific threat perceptions.
They also emphasise that the effects appeared in relatively ambiguous scenarios, such as estimating statistics or judging strangers, and may not extend to situations with clear safety cues or established relationships. The researchers found no evidence linking dangerous world beliefs to individuals’ real-world risky behaviours, such as extreme sports or high-risk investments.
Looking ahead, the team suggests future work should explore how these beliefs could affect high-stakes professional decisions, including medical judgments or sentencing by jurors, where a heightened perception of danger might influence choices. They also propose experiments aimed at altering primal world beliefs to see whether shifting this overarching worldview could reduce perceived everyday threats.
The study, “From Bear Attacks to Neutral Faces: Dangerous World Belief Predicts Specific Appraisals of Threat,” is authored by Nicholas C. G. Kerry and Jeremy D. W. Clifton.
