This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/dec/17/horror-health-warning-scary-films-blood-curdle-dutch-study

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Horror health warning? Scary films really can curdle the blood Horror health warning? Scary films really can curdle the blood
(about 4 hours later)
Fans of jump scares and gore beware! Horror movies really can curdle the blood, according to a study by Dutch scientists. The “bloodcurdling” horror film has long been an advertising staple in the movie industry, alerting fans to the most gruesome Hollywood releases. And now, thanks to a group of enterprising if tongue-in-cheek researchers, the effect has been proven as a medical reality.
The team tested the blood of 24 healthy young adults after showing them the 2010 paranormal horror, Insidious. Published in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal, their report suggests that watching scary films can activate a protein, factor VIII, that contributes to blood-clotting. A study by doctors and academics at Leiden university in the Netherlands analysed blood samples from volunteers who had just watched either a horror film or a distinctly non-frightening documentary about the French wine industry. It found that those who had sat through the horror title had higher levels of the blood-clotting protein factor VIII.
The scientists’ intention was to “assess whether, as has been hypothesised since medieval times, acute fear can curdle blood”. They found that levels of the protein were substantially raised in participants after watching the scary film, compared to levels after watching an educational film called A Year in Champagne. The research was published in the Christmas edition of the British Medical Journal, the august and usually serious publication which, every festive season, devotes itself instead to more frivolous, if still properly robust and peer reviewed, inquiries.
The average rise of over 11 IU/dl (International Unit/decilitre) of the protein in the frightened filmgoers could translate into a 17% increase in the chance of venous thrombosis. However, the scientists failed to find any significant link between fear and other clot-forming proteins, suggesting that while coagulation could be triggered by watching scary movies, actual clot formation was not. Coagulation is triggered by the body during a fear response in order to limit potential blood loss. As well as the horror film study, the 2015 festive edition also includes papers about using MRI scans to locate Christmas spirit in the brain (it seems to be in parts of the cortex associated with spirituality); which type of doctors drink the most coffee (orthopaedic surgeons followed by radiologists); and whether the Austin Powers films are accurate in labelling the British as having notably worse teeth than the Americans (perhaps surprisingly, no).
“The underlying biological mechanism of acute fear associated with an increase in coagulation activity is still to be unravelled,” the team’s leader, Dr Banne Nemeth, told The Telegraph. Related: 'Here's Johnny!': The Shining scene is scariest in movie history, claims study
“Although it’s not immediately obvious by which means our results could confer clinical benefits, a broader implication of these study results is that after centuries the term ‘bloodcurdling’ in literature is justified.” Banne Nemeth, who led the horror film study, said it originated from the fact that the idea of a bloodcurdling fright exists in several languages, including Dutch (bloedstollend), German (das Blut in den Adern erstarren lassen) and French (à vous glacer le sang).
Nemeth and fellow doctor Luuk Scheres both specialise in venal thrombosis and decided they wanted to fact check the phrase, he said.
The study saw 24 young volunteers with no health issues watch films in a university meeting room which had been converted into a home cinema. Around half of them watched the 2010 US haunted house film Insidious followed by, at least a week later, the distinctly non-alarming documentary A Year in Champagne, with the others seeing the same films but in the opposite order, also at a gap of at least a week.
Blood samples were taken 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after each showing, with those taken after viewings of Insidious showing increased levels of factor VIII, if not of other coagulants, such as thrombin-antithrombin complexes.
Picking the correct films took some time, Nemeth explained. The researchers had initially considered a BBC nature programme for the documentary, he said, but rejected this as “often at least one animal gets killed”.
While Insidious is not considered a classic of the horror genre – the Guardian’s two-star review called it “slipshod” and “hokey” and expressed sympathy for its stars, Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne – it was picked, Nemeth said, as it remains consistently scary rather than building up to a climax and was unlikely to have been seen before by many volunteers. The researchers decided after consulting an expert – someone they know who watches lots of horror films.
Despite the study’s lighthearted ambitions it was conducted with a sense of seriousness, with the films shown in a “non-threatening, welcoming atmosphere” and volunteers not told in advance about the experiment’s aims.
The research paper adds: “To reduce the risk of confounding by superstition, no movies were shown during a full moon or on Friday the 13th.”
There were, nonetheless, some mishaps. One participant ate an entire family-sized pack of chocolates while watching the documentary, the paper said, meaning he fainted while having the post-showing blood sample taken. He did not faint after watching the horror title, the paper adds.
Some previous studies have shown an apparent association between blood coagulation and other forms of anxiety and fear, for example people who have bungee jumped.
However, the research – titled Bloodcurdling movies and measures of coagulation: Fear Factor crossover trial – attempted to see if this effect could be seen even without physical exertion.
There was also a serious underlying idea, the paper noted, whether an association between fear and coagulation has “an important evolutionary benefit”.
“We think that from an evolutionary perspective it is actually a good thing to clot a bit faster if you experience fear,” Nemeth said. “Fearful situations often come together with trauma or injury. So from this evolutionary perspective it would be good to prepare your body for blood loss.”