Download
Mehriniso Davlatzoda
Doctoral Student in Educational Management, Lecturer
Department of General and Educational Psychology
Tajik State Pedagogical University named after Sadriddin Aini
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
ORCID: 0009-0001-3858-1598
https://10.5281/zenodo.23860940
Keywords: horror films, childhood fear, emotional development, sleep, media literacy, parental mediation
Abstract. A frightening film ends at a particular moment, but a child’s emotional response may continue afterwards. An ordinary sound, a dark room, or a familiar object can recall a scene that appeared only briefly on screen. This difference between the duration of viewing and the duration of fear makes horror films relevant to child psychology. The important question is not simply whether children become frightened, but how they interpret that fear and whether it interferes with daily life.
Introduction
The effects should not be described as identical for all children. A temporary fright response is not equivalent to a psychological disorder. Age, individual sensitivity, previous experience, and viewing conditions require consideration. This article offers a focused analysis of five selected sources, including two Russian publications, to examine fear, sleep, developmental differences, and adult support. It presents no original participant data and does not estimate how frequently horror viewing causes difficulties in children.
Main part. 1. From a fictional threat to a real emotional response
Horror combines images, sound, uncertainty, and anticipation to suggest danger. Knowing that a story is fictional does not necessarily prevent an emotional response. Martin’s review describes developmental differences in reactions to frightening material and substantial variation in enjoyment and sensitivity [Martin, 2019]. Older viewers’ enjoyment of horror should therefore not be treated as evidence that the same material is suitable for younger children. A child may understand that an actor is pretending while remaining unsettled by the image. Adults who respond only by repeating that the event was unreal may overlook this distinction. The child may need help identifying what was frightening and recovering a sense of safety. This interpretation directs attention to the child’s experience rather than judging the response as irrational or immature.
2. Developmental differences and the meaning of content
Age suitability concerns more than the presence of explicit violence. A threatening face, separation from a caregiver, or an unresolved ending may be emotionally demanding. Smirnova and Sokolova propose age-sensitive evaluation of animation through emotional, cognitive, ethical, and character-related criteria [Smirnova & Sokolova, 2014]. Their framework is not an experiment on horror films, but it explains why a child-oriented visual style alone cannot establish suitability.
Development should also be considered alongside individual differences. Two children of the same age may interpret a scene differently because of personal experience or the meaning attached to its characters. An age classification offers guidance rather than a guarantee about an individual reaction. Adults should consider the actual content and remain responsive to discomfort, including withdrawal or requests to stop.
Murzina and Ozhogova’s pilot study of 52 fourth-grade pupils included interviews in which children connected fears of mysterious threats with frightening online material and horror films [Murzina & Ozhogova, 2024]. These accounts are relevant to understanding children’s interpretations. However, the study did not isolate film exposure experimentally and cannot establish that horror films caused the measured anxiety.
3. Fear after viewing and difficulties with sleep
Research on enduring fright reactions provides evidence that distress can outlast exposure. Harrison and Cantor examined retrospective accounts from young adults describing frightening media experiences. Reported reactions included disturbances in sleep and avoidance of situations associated with the material [Harrison & Cantor, 1999]. Retrospective memories cannot establish population prevalence or confirm a clinical diagnosis, but they identify experiences that require attention beyond the viewing session.
Sleep research adds a related perspective. Garrison and colleagues analysed media diaries and sleep information for children aged three to five. Evening media use and daytime violent content were associated with increased sleep problems [Garrison et al., 2011]. These were observational baseline data, and violent media content was not identical to the horror genre. The findings nevertheless show why timing and content should be examined separately rather than reducing the issue to total screen time.
A reasonable assessment would ask what was viewed, when the difficulty began, and whether other changes occurred. Trouble settling at bedtime after a frightening scene may suggest a connection, but school stress, illness, or changes in family routines may also contribute. Adults should avoid assuming either that the film explains every difficulty or that fictional content cannot matter.
4. Adult responses and psychological support
The practical priority is to respond without ridicule or pressure. Children should be able to stop watching and explain their discomfort without having to prove courage. For younger children, calm presence and familiar activities may be more understandable than a lengthy explanation. Older children may benefit from discussing how sound, editing, acting, and visual effects create an impression of threat. The explanation should match the child’s understanding and willingness to talk.
Co-viewing creates an opportunity to notice reactions, but it does not make unsuitable content harmless. In Garrison and colleagues’ analysis, adult co-use did not remove the observed associations between media characteristics and sleep problems [Garrison et al., 2011]. Adult presence is therefore best understood as an opportunity for guidance, not a substitute for content selection.
Parents can review material beforehand, use available content information, and avoid frightening viewing near bedtime. A predictable, calm transition to sleep is a practical precaution. Teachers and psychologists can discuss fictional storytelling and emotional vocabulary through age-appropriate examples. Showing disturbing scenes to demonstrate their possible effects would contradict that purpose. Persistent distress or substantial interference with sleep, school participation, or ordinary activities warrants consultation with an appropriately qualified professional.
5. Limits of interpretation and future research
The available evidence brings together different ages, media formats, and methods. A study of animation, an interview about anxiety, and a retrospective account do not answer the same research question. Their contributions should remain distinct. Fear, anxiety, aggression, and diagnosed disorders should not be treated as interchangeable outcomes. The selected sources do not justify a claim that horror viewing inevitably produces lasting psychological damage.
Further research could follow children’s responses over time using naturally occurring viewing, parent reports, and age-appropriate interviews. It should consider previous anxiety, family circumstances, and exposure to other frightening material. Ethical designs should avoid deliberately exposing children to distressing content merely to measure harm. Cultural interpretations also require attention before findings are transferred between settings.
Conclusions
Horror films can become part of children’s emotional experience after viewing has ended. The research considered here identifies enduring fright reports, associations with sleep difficulties, and the importance of developmental interpretation. It also shows why these findings cannot be converted into a universal prediction about every child or every film.
Psychological support should begin with attention to what the child experienced and how daily functioning has changed. Age-sensitive selection, permission to stop, respectful discussion, and careful observation offer a reasonable basis for adult guidance. The central task is neither to dismiss fear because the story is fictional nor to interpret every fright response as a disorder. It is to recognise distress proportionately and provide support when it persists.
References
- Garrison, M. M., Liekweg, K., & Christakis, D. A. (2011). Media use and child sleep: The impact of content, timing, and environment. Pediatrics, 128(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3304
- Harrison, K., & Cantor, J. (1999). Tales from the screen: Enduring fright reactions to scary media. Media Psychology, 1(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0102_1
- Martin, G. N. (2019). (Why) do you like scary movies? A review of the empirical research on psychological responses to horror films. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02298
- Murzina, N. P., & Ozhogova, E. G. (2024). Perezhivaniya trevozhnosti mladshikh shkolnikov na etape okonchaniya nachalnoy shkoly [Anxiety experiences among pupils at the end of primary school]. Vestnik Prakticheskoi Psikhologii Obrazovaniya, 21(4), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.17759/bppe.2024210416
- Smirnova, E. O., & Sokolova, M. V. (2014). Psikhologo-pedagogicheskaya ekspertiza multfilmov dlya detey i podrostkov [Psychological and pedagogical evaluation of animated films for children and adolescents]. Kulturno-Istoricheskaya Psikhologiya, 10(4), 4–11. https://psyjournals.ru/journals/chp/archive/2014_n4/73417