New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Anxiety May Hinder Your Sense of Danger

Tense people may miss the subtle warning signs of danger

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Worrywarts, beware: all that fretting may be for naught. Anxiety has long been interpreted as a symptom of hyperawareness and sensitivity to danger, but a study published last December in Biological Psychology turns that logic on its head.

Tahl Frenkel, a graduate student in psychology at Tel Aviv University, asked 17 students who had anxious per­sonalities and 22 students who were more mellow to identify when they detected fear in a series of increasingly frightened faces. As expected, the anxious group spoke up before their calmer counterparts. The twist, however, came from the volunteers’ brain activity, recorded with electrodes on each student’s scalp. The brains of anxious subjects barely responded to the images until the frightened face had reached a certain obvious threshold, at which point their brains leapt into action as though caught off guard. Meanwhile nonanxious respondents showed increasing brain activity earlier in the exercise, which built up subtly with each increasingly fearful face. Although their behavioral response was slower, their brain activity suggests that the mellow subjects picked up on subtle differences in the images more quickly.

The result implies that worriers are less aware of potential danger—challeng­ing the common theory that anxious individuals are hypervigilant. Frenkel be­lieves that worrywarts’ low sensitivity to external warning signs causes them to be startled frequently by the seemingly sudden appearance of threats, which leaves them in a state of chronic stress. The brain activity in nonanxious subjects, Frenkel explains, may be evidence of an “early subconscious warning mechanism,” which keeps them cool, calm and collected. [For more on how to ease chronic worrying, see “Why We Worry,” by Victoria Stern; Scientific American Mind, November/December 2009.]


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.


This article was published in print as "The Fallacy of Fretting."

Daisy Yuhas is the former editor of Scientific American's Mind Matters. A freelance science journalist, Yuhas is author of the Kids Field Guide to Birds (Cool Springs Press, 2024).

More by Daisy Yuhas
SA Mind Vol 23 Issue 2This article was published with the title “The Fallacy of Fretting” in SA Mind Vol. 23 No. 2 (), p. 12
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0512-12a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe