Haunted houses are not for everyone. A looming fear of someone jumping off from somewhere to scare you is a thrill unlike any other. While it has mostly been a fun way to pass the time, science says that haunted houses are good for your health.
According to research reported by IFLScience, visiting places you know will scare you can help prepare your body to face stress and danger. This can be like watching a horror movie, a sudden scare activates the adrenergic system, triggering the hormones needed for the body’s “fight-or-flight” response.
Being in such a place not only increases your heartbeat and makes you more alert, but also modulates inflammatory markers in the body. Inflammation is linked to several health issues. When the adrenergic system is activated, the immune system activation is temporarily reduced, which might lead to a decrease in low-grade inflammation.
The study monitored people with low-grade inflammation who visited a haunted house and noted the changes during and after exposure. At this particular house, killer clowns chased people, with chainsaw-wielding figures and decomposing zombies scaring visitors.
There were 113 volunteers at the haunted house in Vejle, Denmark. It is an annual attraction during the Halloween season and 4,000-5,000 people pay to feel the chill.
Being scared reduces inflammation
Researchers monitored their heart rates and took their blood samples at three different times: before entering the house, immediately after exiting the house, and three days after the event.
They checked the samples for inflammatory markers and immune cells. Exposure to fear was found to reduce inflammation in the participants three days after the event. Of those who had elevated CRP levels previously, 82 per cent showed a decrease in hs-CRP levels after three days. This meant a reduction in inflammation.
Study authors say that this indicates that exposure to recreational fear can possibly reduce inflammation.
However, the study had some limitations, such as alcohol and smoking were not factored in. There was no baseline inflammation data for the participants, and the demographic was limited.