Stress Hormone Conquers Phobias

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When phobics are exposed to what they fear--be it spiders or public speaking--they experience a surge in stress hormones known as glucocorticoids. These compounds help prepare the body for action, whether fight or flight. Now researchers have found that further raising levels of the stress hormones in the body can actually reduce a phobic's anxiety.

Dominique de Quervain and his colleagues at the University of Zurich in Switzerland recruited 40 men who suffered from a fear of public speaking. In a double-blind study, the men received either a 25-milligram tablet of the glucocorticoid cortisone or a placebo. They digested the pills for an hour and then received a note informing them that they had 10 minutes to prepare a five-minute speech on why they should be hired for a job. They would shortly present said speech in front of an audience while being filmed.

The heart rates of men in the placebo group jumped but those of men treated with cortisone remained steadier. And although the heart rates of members of both groups rose during the test itself, the men who had received cortisone returned to their normal heart rate more quickly after an ordeal that also included a surprise arithmetic task in front of the same audience. The researchers also noted that subjects in the placebo group who had higher natural levels of the glucocorticoid reported experiencing less fear than their peers did.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


De Quervain and his colleagues then tested this effect in men and women afraid of spiders, administering 10 milligrams of cortisone one hour before showing them a picture of a furry spider with a legspan of more than five inches. Over the course of two weeks the 20 subjects saw the picture six times, and the 10 who had been dosed with stress hormones reported 45 percent less fear than their peers did, even when deprived of cortisone treatment before the last session. Furthermore, taking the stress hormone did not seem to impact any other aspects of their personality, such as mood; it simply diminished the experience of the phobia.

"Repeated administration of glucocorticoids induced a progressive reduction of fear ratings and, thus, might have facilitated the extinction of phobic fear," the team wrote in this week's issue of Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. "Our findings indicating that elevated glucocorticoid levels in the context of a fearful situation turn down fear symptoms in phobic subjects suggests that cortisol release may represent an adaptive response."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe