When extreme, anxiety—a state of distress and arousal prototypically evoked by uncertain danger—can be debilitating. Uncertain anticipation is a shared feature of situations that elicit signs and symptoms of anxiety across psychiatric disorders, species, and assays. Despite the profound significance of anxiety for human health and wellbeing, the neurobiology of uncertain-threat anticipation remains unsettled. Leveraging a paradigm adapted from animal research and optimized for fMRI signal decomposition, we examined the neural circuits engaged during the anticipation of temporally uncertain and certain threat in 99 men and women. Results revealed that the neural systems recruited by uncertain and certain threat anticipation are anatomically colocalized in frontocortical regions, extended amygdala, and periaqueductal gray. Comparison of the threat conditions demonstrated that this circuitry can be fractionated, with frontocortical regions showing relatively stronger engagement during the anticipation of uncertain threat, and the extended amygdala showing the reverse pattern. Although there is widespread agreement that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and dorsal amygdala—the two major subdivisions of the extended amygdala—play a critical role in orchestrating adaptive responses to potential danger, their precise contributions to human anxiety have remained contentious. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that these regions show statistically indistinguishable responses to temporally uncertain and certain threat anticipation. These observations provide a framework for conceptualizing anxiety and fear, for understanding the functional neuroanatomy of threat anticipation in humans, and for accelerating the development of more effective intervention strategies for pathological anxiety.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTAnxiety—an emotion prototypically associated with the anticipation of uncertain harm—has profound significance for public health, yet the underlying neurobiology remains unclear. Leveraging a novel neuroimaging paradigm in a relatively large sample, we identify a core circuit responsive to both uncertain and certain threat anticipation, and show that this circuitry can be fractionated into subdivisions with a bias for one kind of threat or the other. The extended amygdala occupies center stage in neuropsychiatric models of anxiety, but its functional architecture has remained contentious. Here we demonstrate that its major subdivisions show statistically indistinguishable responses to temporally uncertain and certain threat. Collectively, these observations indicate the need to revise how we think about the neurobiology of anxiety and fear.
The health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to disproportionately impact residents of lower-middle income countries. Understanding the psychological impact of the pandemic is important to guide outreach interventions. In this study, we examined people’s awareness of COVID-19 symptoms, risk perception, and changes in behaviors and stress levels during the lockdown in peri-urban Tamil Nadu India. Field workers conducted phone call surveys (included n = 2044) in 26 communities from 20–25 May 2020. The majority perceived no (60%) or low (23%) level of risk of personally contracting coronavirus. Common fears were related to health and economic concerns, including loss of income (62%), inability to travel freely (46%), and becoming sick (46%). Residents were well aware of the common symptoms of COVID-19, such as fever (66%) and dry cough (57%), but not the asymptomatic transmission (24%). The majority experienced increased stress about finance (79%) and the lockdown (51%). Our findings emphasize the need to develop context-adequate education and communication programs to raise vigilance about asymptomatic transmission and to sustain preventative behaviors. The evidence on fear and changes in stress levels could inform designing coping strategies and programs focused on mental well-being.
22 January 2024 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Previous studies have used various normative expressions such as ‘should’, ‘appropriate’ and ‘approved’ interchangeably to communicate injunctions and social norms. However, little is known about whether people's interpretations of normative language differ and whether behavioural responses might vary across them. In two studies (total n = 2903), we find that compliance is sensitive to the types of normative expressions and how they are used. Specifically, people are more likely to comply when the message is framed as an injunction rather than as what most people consider good behaviour (social norm framing). Behaviour is influenced by the type of normative expression when the norm is weak (donation to charities), not so when the norm is strong (reciprocity). Content analysis of free responses reveals individual differences in the interpretation of social norm messages, and heterogeneous motives for compliance. Messages in the social norm framing condition are perceived to be vague and uninformative, undermining their effectiveness. These results suggest that careful choice of normative expressions is in order when using messages to elicit compliance, especially when the underlying norms are weak. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Social norm change: drivers and consequences’.
Background: Descriptive norms messaging interventions are used to motivate people to adopt or maintain desirable behaviors. Such interventions provide people with information that describes an undesirable behavior as uncommon or a desirable behavior as prevalent within a relevant social group. Descriptive norms messaging interventions have shown promise in increasing individual and social benefit for a broad range of health and sustainability programs. However, evidence suggests that people who have adopted desirable behaviors sometimes regress to undesirable behaviors after receiving descriptive norms messages due to the type of information provided in the messages. This phenomenon is called the boomerang effect. We aim to conduct a systematic review of boomerang effects on health and environmental sustainability behaviors resulting from exposure to descriptive norms messaging interventions.Methods: We will employ our search strategy to identify studies of descriptive norms messaging interventions published prior to December 31, 2020. We will search the Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and Web of Science to retrieve peer-reviewed articles published in English. We will restrict inclusion to studies (e.g., randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies) of health and environmental sustainability interventions that assess behaviors before and after exposure to descriptive norms messaging. Two reviewers will independently extract data about study populations and design, intervention components, and behavioral measures. We will use the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (RoB2) and Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Intervention (ROBINS-I) to assess the risk of bias, and the Liverpool Quality Assessment Tool (LQAT) to assess the quality of evidence. We will conduct thematic analyses to codify interventions, and examine intervention effects across subgroups of individuals based on their behavior prior to intervention exposure (e.g., those practicing desirable behaviors vs. undesirable behaviors). We will also conduct moderator analyses to determine whether boomerang effects are contingent upon other factors including intervention framing and delivery modality.Discussion: This systematic review will provide information about descriptive norms messaging intervention effects across subgroups of individuals and elucidate factors that potentially moderate boomerang effects. The review will yield evidence-based recommendations for the structure and content of descriptive norms messages that can be employed to avoid unintended boomerang effects within the context of health and sustainability programming.Systematic review registration: PROSPEROCRD42020156989