“Of all base passions fear is most accurs’d.”
– Henry VI, Pt.1, Ac.5, Sc2 (Shakespeare, 1591-2).
0. Introduction
In the library of literature on human emotions fear holds a unique space in our fascination, and for good reason. It is a fundamental emotion, its phylogenetic roots measured in evolutionary time. It is not hyperbole to say that natural history, our societies, our histories, even our identities have all, to some degree, been carved by the chisel of a sculptor called fear. And yet, despite its omnipresence, fear is elusive, its structure and function problematic.
Of course, fear is a common property of mammalian existence. It is generally accepted to be an emotion that mills our reflex responses to worldly stimuli. In humanity’s travail to learn about fear we have constructed narratives, a dais of signifiers, to grasp its manifestations. But while fear indeed serves a vital role in our survival, the socially constructed nature of fear, the fluctuation of fear response due to context, and the false attribution of fear to non-threatening circumstances each substantiate the idea of a myth of fear.
As viewed through a sociocultural lens, the concept of fear presupposes that instinctual responses to particular stimulus does not solely determine our understanding and reaction to fear. Instead, narrative constructions are learned and sculpted by our cultural and societal environments. This perspective underscores that different societies can characterise unique fears, and indeed, can vary across historical periods within the same society. The notion of a myth of fear may paradoxically serve as a stark reminder of how our comprehension of fear could have been more robust, had we confronted this fundamental aspect of the natural world earlier.
In our reluctance or inability to confront fear head-on, so to speak, the fear myth continues to advance. It merges elements deeply ingrained in our collective past and those freshly etched by subjectivity. Our fear can be rooted in everyday realities, sculpted by cultural misinterpretations, disinformation, or even youthful fears associated with the dark spaces under our beds or within our wardrobes. At times, it may even touch upon unfashionable concepts of unseen, unconscious forces influencing our behaviour. Exploring this pervasive fear myth is unquestionably a worthwhile endeavour.
The process of enculturation, or learning about the world through the lens of our own culture, leaves an indelible mark on our inhering understanding and interpretation of fear. This learning process commonly introduces us to archetypal symbols representing fear. Dating back to times before written history, cultures worldwide have crafted elaborate narratives around fear, often characterising or personifying fear through various symbols or figures. For instance, Greek mythology brought forth Phobos and Deimos, the twin gods personifying fear and terror. In contrast, Celtic mythology introduced us to the harrowing cries of the Banshee. Jewish folklore whispered about Lilith or Golem, while countless cultures share arcane tales of ghosts, witches, and demons representing the unknown or the unspeakable aspects of fear. These cultural narratives or symbols aimed not just to personify fear but also to objectify our perceptions and experiences of it into more manageable forms (Becker, 1973).
Cultural narratives about fear are not simply confined to symbolic myths or folklore. Symbols of fear permeate contemporary society, defining our fears about crime, guns, war, ecology, terrorism, health, otherness, and a raft of issues. Media sources play a significant role in perpetuating these narratives, wittingly or unwittingly amplifying the fear myth by focusing on sensationalist stories or statistically unlikely events to sell copy (Glassner, 1999). For instance, extensive media coverage of plane crashes creates an exaggerated fear of air travel, despite it being statistically safer than many other forms of modern transportation.
A further aspect of the fear myth relates to misperceptions about fear and its effects. Many people conceive fear as a wholly negative emotion, an unpleasant feeling to be avoided at all costs. Nonetheless, from a psychological perspective, fear is not inherently valent—intrinsically it is neither good nor bad. If fear is one thing it could just be an adaptive response that has evolved to protect one mammal from the dangers of another. As we know from early schooling in biology, fear triggers our adrenal (fight or flight or freeze) responses, preparing us to confront or escape or evade threats (Öhman & Mineka, 2001). Nonetheless, our tendency to view fear solely in negative terms creates a bogeyman, a fear of fear, which, as we may have intuited for a very long time, exacerbates anxiety and other mental health issues (Barlow, 2002):
“The thing in the world I am most afraid of is fear, that passion alone, in the trouble of it, exceeding all other accidents.” / “La chose du monde que je crains le plus, c’est la peur, cette passion seule, en la gêne qu’elle me fait, passe toutes autres accidents” (Montaigne, 1580).
Similarly, there are many misconceptions about the physical symptoms of fear, such as a racing heart, shortness of breath, or trembling. These symptoms are often interpreted as signs of weakness or illness, further stoking the fear response. In reality, such symptoms are part of our body’s natural defence mechanism. Understanding the physiological basis of these symptoms helps to demythologise them and reduce fear’s grip over us (Roth, 2005).
Psychodynamic theories and affective neuroscience suggest that unconscious processes play a significant role in explaining the myth of fear. Thinkers from these fields argue that fear often manifests as a by-product of repressed emotions or unsettled conflicts (Freud, 1920). Take, for example, an adult who develops an irrational fear of frogs because of a frightening encounter during their childhood, an incident they no longer consciously remember. Here, the fear transcends the perceived physical threat from frogs or toads. Instead, it becomes a complex mix of a repressed traumatic memory and the present, real image of the frog/toad, coming together to form a fear-laden reminder of a disconcerting past. This amalgamation creates an uneasy resurfacing of a forgotten traumatic experience (see Freud, 1918; Obholtzer, 1982).
Moreover, our unconscious processes facilitate the mechanism of projection, where individuals displace their fears onto external entities, refusing to acknowledge them as manifestations of their internal conflicts (Gabbard, 2014). An individual fearful of abandonment, for instance, may manifest undue anxiety about their partner’s loyalty, projecting their insecurities onto their partner. Such unconscious processes skew our ability to accurately discern the source of fear, thereby fabricating additional illusory myths surrounding its origin and influence (Freud, 1927).
The fear myth is a complex cultural phenomenon shaped by cultural narratives, misperceptions, disinformation (from the Russian term dezinformatsiya), and unconscious social processes. We argue in what follows that this fear myth reflects our human endeavour to make sense of our fears, sometimes even by spreading fear; an endeavour that—while often illuminating for the spreader of disinformation—leads its authoritarian originators astray (Adorno et al., 1950). By untangling the myth at hand, we hope to develop a more subtle awareness of this primal emotion, granting us a glimpse into what managing fear might look like, and even how we might live less fearfully.
Thus, we aim to gently illuminate the complex interplay between fear and time, survival circuits, and systemic influences on emotion regulation, and explore the practical implications of these findings (§ 0.1, § 0.2, § 0.3) Consider for a moment the previously mentioned case of the young man plagued by a seemingly irrational fear of frogs. This fear, while seemingly trivial to some, has profound implications for his daily life, affecting his choices, behaviours, and emotional wellbeing. It is through the lens of real-world experiences such as this that we will explore the contoured landscape of fear and emotion regulation in § 1.
In their studies, LeDoux & Pine (2016) and LeDoux & Brown (2017) offer valuable new insights into the nature of fear and its role in emotion regulation. They propose that fear and anxiety are products of multiple survival systems and play a significant role in shaping emotion regulation. These findings will be explored in detail in § 2.
The article will then delve into the role of individual differences and mental processes in fear and emotion regulation in § 3, followed by an exploration of various treatment approaches to fear and emotion regulation, including psychotherapy and medication, in § 4.
We will then discuss the role of primary care and collaboration in managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties in § 5, followed by an exploration of the role of comorbid mental health conditions in managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties in § 6.
In § 7, we will discuss the role of lifestyle factors and social support in managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties.
Finally, in § 8, we will summarise the main points from the article and reflect on the importance of continued research into fear and emotion regulation. We invite you to join us on this especially fascinating exploration, as we navigate the complicated terrain of fear and emotion regulation, with the hope of enriching our collective understanding and paving the way for future research.
0.1 Meta description
Appreciating fear and its intimate connexion to emotion regulation (ER) is of paramount importance for several reasons. Fear is a uniquely fundamental part of the human experience. It is a foundational emotion that has been deeply ingrained in our evolutionary history, serving as a survival mechanism that alerts us to potential threats in our environment. Understanding fear allows us to comprehend this primal aspect of our modern selves.
Mental health is believed to be strongly correlated with the management of fear and emotion regulation (ER). Anxiety disorders result from future-oriented fear that is chronic or acute. Various mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety disorders, and personality disorders, can stem from difficulties in ER. By investigating fear and ER, we can create more effective solutions for these problems. Our behaviour and decision-making processes are affected by fear. It can make us shun certain situations, act hastily, or become too careful. By understanding how fear affects us, we can make smarter decisions and enjoy more fulfilling lives.
Our interpersonal relationships are shaped by fear and ER. For example, fear of rejection or conflict can impair our ability to form and maintain healthy relationships. By analysing these processes, we can improve our social skills and establish stronger connexions. Fear and ER are not only individual phenomena, but they also have societal and cultural dimensions. Fear can be exploited to control or persuade groups of people, while societal and cultural norms can determine how we regulate our emotions. By scrutinising these aspects of fear and ER, we can acquire insights into societal and cultural dynamics.
Fear and ER can contribute to personal growth and development. Both help us understand our emotional responses, develop healthier coping mechanisms, and foster emotional resilience. This understanding can ultimately lead to improved wellbeing and quality of life.
Furthering understanding of fear and ER is, we wish to argue, crucial for both individuals and society. It is a complex and multifaceted field, but one that holds the potential for profound insights into emotional development and even perhaps the so-called human condition.
0.2 Fear and Time
Fear and anxiety, while closely related, are distinguished by several characteristic features, a significant difference being their temporal directionality. This temporal directionality refers to the distinctive temporal registers to which these emotions are connected: fear is often associated with an immediate or identifiable threat from past memory or in the present, whereas anxiety is generally linked to an unspecified object, a threat anticipated and situated in the future. This fundamental understanding of the temporal aspects of fear and anxiety points up a broader more complex discourse on how these emotions affect the human psyche and behaviour.
Fear acts as an immediate response to a present or retrospective threat, typically an object of a known and identifiable nature (e.g., spiders, ladders, airplanes, vomit). It is a protective mechanism that triggers the adrenal (fight, flight, or freeze) response, preparing the individual for a quick reaction to imminent danger (Öhman, 2000). The object of fear is usually clear: something in the grass, a snarling dog, an oncoming car, a frog, or perhaps the memory of a traumatic event. This emotion operates in the realm of the known object, with a seemingly clear linear causal inference (i.e., an originating cause leading to an effect, A » B). For instance, someone who has been involved in a car accident (A) may develop a fear of driving or being a passenger (B), or a fear triggered by the memory of the traumatic event (retrospective fear). In this case, the fear response can be elicited even in the absence of an immediate threat, underscoring the powerful trauma effect of past experiences on present emotional responses; that is to say, a non-linear causal inference.
Anxiety, on the other hand, operates in the temporal domain of the unknown and the uncertain—the future. It represents a more diffuse state of distress that is anticipatory in nature, focused on potentialities, future situational threats that are not readily identifiable (Barlow, 2002). Unlike fear, the object of anxiety cannot be clearly objectified, instead it refers to a fear without an object, and, as a consequence of this lost object, it is often related to a vicious spiralling sense of dis-ease or disquiet about uncertainty and what-ifs.
Anxiety is involvedly linked to our capacity to anticipate, forecast, or brace for uncertainty. It stems from our heightened awareness of risk that future events, outcomes, or circumstances are expressly not within our control and are fraught with uncertainties about being out-of-control. For instance, a person might feel anxious about an upcoming job interview, an impending medical diagnosis, or the unpredictable outcomes of a significant life decision. Push this anxiousness too far for too long and it becomes catastrophic.
A noteworthy point is the interaction between fear and anxiety, and their conjoined impact on emotion regulation (ER). Both fear and anxiety contribute to difficulties in ER, particularly when they become disproportionate or maladaptive (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). For instance, excessive fear reactions to past traumatic experiences can result in disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder, while chronic worry about future events can lead to conditions like generalised anxiety disorder.
Moreover, fear and anxiety can also influence each other. Past experiences of fear can increase anxiety about future threats, and anticipatory anxiety can heighten the fear response to past or current endangerments, perceived or otherwise. Therefore, understanding the temporal aspects of fear and anxiety is crucial not only for grasping these emotional experiences but also for developing effective strategies to manage them.
Understanding the temporal character of fear and anxiety provides a simple but effective framework for these complex emotions. Fear, with its roots in past memory—sometimes evolutionary memory in the case of the colours red or yellow in nature or beasties with eight legs—and anxiety, with its gaze firmly on the future, remind us that our emotional landscape is fashioned not only by the events of our lives in the present moment but also, importantly, by how we relate to ourselves as a conscious being conscious of time. This temporal perspective offers an invaluable rubric in the service of the human experience of fear and anxiety, and, in turn, opens up a meaningful avenue for managing these emotions in our daily lives and clinical practice.
0.3 A new paradigm?
Two fascinating studies in neuropsychology throw new light on how fear and emotion might be experienced and regulated, which may provide purchase for our current article. The first paper titled Using Neuroscience to Help Understand Fear and Anxiety: A Two-System Framework by LeDoux and Pine (2016), proposes a new perspective on understanding fear and anxiety disorders. The authors argue that significant progress in basic neuroscience, particularly in understanding how the brain detects and responds to threats, has not led to substantial improvements in clinical practice. They suggest that a conceptual reframing is needed to leverage this progress for clinical gain. The authors distinguish between two classes of responses elicited by threats: (1) Behavioural responses and accompanying physiological changes in the brain and body, and (2) conscious feeling states reflected in self-reports of fear and anxiety.
This distinction leads to a two-system view of fear and anxiety. The authors argue that failure to recognise and consistently emphasize this distinction has impeded progress in understanding fear and anxiety disorders and hindered attempts to develop more effective pharmaceutical and psychological treatments. The two-system view suggests a new way forward. It proposes that subjective feelings of fear or anxiety are not products of subcortical circuits underlying defensive responses, but instead depend on the same circuits that underlie any other form of conscious experience—namely, circuits in the so-called higher-order association cortex that are responsible for cognitive processes such as attention and working memory. The authors also discuss the role of language and culture in shaping experience, the impact of developmental changes in linguistic capacity on the expression of fear, and the implications of their two-system framework for the development of treatments for fear and anxiety disorders. This new view makes us reconsider how we might best treat these basic emotions, where previous theories of emotion have been challenged for being too uniform and stereotypical (Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell, 2000).
The second study, titled A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness by LeDoux and Brown, prestigiously published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017), proposes a new perspective on emotional consciousness. The authors challenge the conventional view that emotions are innately programmed in subcortical areas of the brain. Instead, they propose that emotions are higher-order states (higher-order theory or HOT) instantiated in cortical circuits. They argue that what differs in emotional and non-emotional experiences is not the origin of these experiences (subcortical vs. cortical), but the kinds of inputs processed by a general cortical network of cognition (GNC), which they argue is essential for conscious experiences.
The authors defend a modified version of the higher-order theory (HOT) of consciousness, suggesting that subcortical circuits provide unconscious inputs that coalesce with other kinds of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences. They propose that conscious emotional feelings come about through the cognitive interpretation of being in a situation that may cause physical or psychological harm. The authors also discuss the role of attention, working memory, and metacognition in consciousness, and they argue that processing beyond the sensory cortex is required for conscious experience. They propose that the areas of the general network of cognition, such as the prefrontal and parietal cortex, make conscious the sensory information represented in the secondary visual cortex. This paper provides a new perspective on emotional consciousness and challenges traditional views on the origin and nature of emotional experience (e.g., James-Lange, 1884; Cannon-Bard, 1927; Arnold, 1960a/b; Schachter-Singer, 1962; for further reading on theories of emotion please see Kandel, Schwartz & Jessell, 2000; or Darby & Walsh, 2005; or Stirling & Elliott, 2008).
Each of these two studies—in their own distinctive ways—provide a novel perspective on the enduring legacy of the structure and function of fear in emotion regulation. Both studies prompt us to contemplate the fundamental difference of these conscious and unconscious processes in concert and acknowledge the significance of multiple systems and factors when clinically approaching fear and emotion regulation. Throughout this article we will scrutinise this so-called two-system approach, elucidate our findings, and examine the ramifications for our comprehension of fear and emotion regulation using an integrative approach to treatment of the subject of fear.
With this background in mind, we can see how a complex interplay of biological responses, social narratives, and personal experiences forms our understanding of fear. We’ve set the stage for exploring fear, but how does this play out in real life? How does fear actually manifest itself in everyday situations and influence our behaviour? Let’s take a closer look.
1. Fear in Emotion Regulation
1.1 Multiple survival systems
In this section, we delve into the fascinating studies by LeDoux & Pine (2016) and LeDoux & Brown (2017), which shed light on the nature of fear from a neuropsychological perspective and its role in emotion regulation and implications for rational and depth-based clinical treatment.
In the paper by LeDoux & Brown (2017), the authors challenge the conventional view that emotions, such as fear and anxiety, are innately programmed in subcortical circuits of the brain (i.e., the limbic system and deep-lying structures). Instead, they propose that emotions are higher-order states instantiated in cortical circuits.
The authors argue that what differentiates emotional and non-emotional experience is not the origin of these experiences (subcortical versus cortical), but rather the types of inputs processed by the cortical network. They suggest that subcortical circuits, while not directly responsible for conscious feelings, provide unconscious inputs that coalesce with other types of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences (Arnold, 1960a/b).
The authors propose that the brain mechanisms that give rise to conscious emotional feelings are not fundamentally different from those that give rise to perceptual conscious experiences GNC). Both types of experience, they suggest, involve higher-order representations of lower-order information by cortically based general networks of cognition.
This perspective challenges the traditional myth of fear and anxiety as products of a single fear circuit in the subcortical or cortical brain. Instead, it suggests that these emotions are emergent phenomena that surface from the interaction of multiple complex survival systems. This proposal has important implications for our understanding of fear and anxiety and for the development of treatments for fear and anxiety disorders.
Hence, LeDoux and Brown’s (2017) work suggests that fear and anxiety are complex emergent states from interactions of multiple subcortical and cortical systems. This perspective opens up new avenues for the considerate treatment of emotion regulation, and specifically, fear and anxiety disorders from an integrative clinical purview.
1.2 Evolutionary perspective
From an evolutionary perspective, survival circuits are essential components of an organism’s neural architecture. These circuits, which are deep-lying brain structures, have been shaped by natural selection to respond to threats and challenges that our ancestors commonly faced. They are designed to promote survival and reproduction by triggering appropriate behavioural and physiological responses to environmental cues.
One of the most well-studied survival circuits is the fear circuit, which includes the amygdala and other interconnected subcortical regions. This circuit is activated in response to perceived threats, leading to a range of fear responses such as increased heart rate, heightened alertness, and preparatory behaviours for fight or flight. The fear circuit is thought to be evolutionarily conserved, meaning that it is present in a wide range of species, from rodents to humans.
However, the evolutionary perspective on survival circuits and fear responses has been enriched and complicated by recent research. For instance, LeDoux and Brown (2017) argue that fear and anxiety an emergent property from the interaction of multiple survival systems. These systems, they suggest, provide unconscious inputs that coalesce with other types of neural signals in the cognitive assembly of conscious emotional experiences.
This perspective implies that the fear circuit (i.e., amygdala-cortical circuit) is not solely responsible for the conscious experience of fear. Instead, the conscious experience of fear may arise from the interaction of the fear circuit with other brain systems, including those involved in higher-order cognitive processes such as attention, working memory, and metacognition (i.e., implicit and explicit systems).
This view aligns well with a broader evolutionary perspective that complex behaviours and experiences often emerge from the interaction of multiple brain systems, each of which has been shaped by natural selection to perform specific functions. It also underscores the importance of considering the role of higher-order cognitive processes in our understanding of basic emotional responses like fear.
The evolutionary perspective on survival circuits and fear responses provides a powerful framework for understanding these phenomena. However, recent research suggests that this perspective needs to be expanded to account for the role of multiple interacting brain systems and higher-order cognitive processes in the generation of mental responses (e.g., Fenton-O’Creevy et al., 2011; Ellis, G.F.R., 2012; Andrews-Hanna et al., 2014; Pezzulo & Levin, 2016; Capozzi et al., 2019). This expanded perspective has important implications for our understanding of fear and anxiety in terms of cognition, and for the development of treatments for fear and anxiety disorders.
1.3 Implications
Emotion regulation refers to the processes by which we influence which emotions we have, when we have them, and how we experience and express them. It is a complex process that involves a range of cognitive and behavioural strategies, from cognitive reappraisal (changing how we think about a situation) to suppression (inhibiting emotional expression).
The work of LeDoux & Pine (2016) and LeDoux & Brown (2017) suggests that emotion regulation is not just about managing our emotional responses, but also about managing the underlying unconscious survival circuits that give rise to these responses. For example, managing fear is not just about cognitively calming the body and mind, but also about modulating the unconscious activity of the fear circuit and other survival circuits in the brain.
This perspective suggests that effective emotion regulation may involve a combination of strategies that target both the conscious emotional experiences and the underlying unconscious survival circuits. For example, cognitive reappraisal may help to change the conscious experience of fear, while depth therapy may help to modulate the activity of the fear circuit.
Moreover, the work of LeDoux & Brown (2017) suggests that emotion regulation may also involve managing the interaction of these systems. For example, managing fear may involve not only modulating the activity of the fear circuit, but also managing the interaction of the fear circuit with other brain systems involved in attention, working memory, and metacognition.
The findings from LeDoux & Pine (2016) and LeDoux & Brown (2017) provide a subtle understanding of emotion regulation requiring a two-pronged approach to treatment of ER. They suggest that emotion regulation is a complex process that involves managing both conscious emotional experiences and the underlying unconscious survival circuits that give rise to these experiences. We wish to now provide evidence in support of an argument that this perspective has important implications for the development of more effective strategies for emotion regulation and for the treatment of emotional disorders.
Given these real-life manifestations of fear, it becomes clear that fear is a complex emotion with multifaceted influences. But what underlies these emotional responses at a more fundamental level?
2. Systemic Influence
2.1 Familial influence
In the paper by LeDoux and Pine (2016), they argue that the understanding of defensive responses and feelings of fear when threatened are underpinned by different systems. This distinction is crucial as it suggests that medications that make rats or mice less defensive, avoidant, and/or physiologically aroused in challenging situations will not necessarily make people feel less fearful or anxious.
The authors propose that the incomplete response to benzodiazepines, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or other anxiolytics in humans may reflect the actions of these medications in the two systems. While these compounds can act on both cortical and subcortical brain circuits, the chief question is the extent to which the clinical efficacy of a given medication reflects changes in a particular circuit. The authors also discuss the importance of this distinction in the context of the development of new medications. They argue that the expectation that medications that decrease defence and avoidance in animals should also make people feel less anxiety needs revaluation, as new medications are not meeting this expectation.
The authors further discuss the implications of their findings for the development of treatments for anxiety disorders. They suggest two paths for improving treatment outcomes. One involves adapting existing treatments to increase their impact, and the other, tailoring treatments to particular patients. The two paths are complementary, and each informs both medication and psychotherapy. The authors conclude by arguing that progress has stalled in treatment development for mental disorders. They propose a two-system framework that distinguishes neural circuitry supporting defensive responding from circuitry supporting feeling states and provides a new heuristic for basic, clinical, and translational research on anxiety disorders.
LeDoux & Pine (2016) provide a comprehensive overview of the role of fear and anxiety in the context of emotion regulation, and it offers a novel perspective on the development of treatments for anxiety disorders. It highlights the importance of understanding the distinct neural circuitry underlying defensive responses and feelings of fear, and it suggests that this understanding could lead to the development of more effective treatments for anxiety disorders.
That being so, based on the general principles of their work and other research in the field (e.g., LeDoux & Brown, 2017), one might quickly infer the potential implications for familial influence on children and adolescents ER. As believe that families play a crucial role in shaping children’s ER strategies. This influence can be seen as a tripartite model: modelling, socialisation, and context. Parents and other family members serve as models for ER, children learn to manage their emotions in ways that are consistent with cultural (enculturation) and societal norms (socialisation), and the family environment or context (attachment) can also influence ER.
In the context of LeDoux and Pine’s two-system framework, these familial influences potentially shape both the unconscious defensive responses and the conscious feeling states associated with fear and anxiety. For example, children might learn from their parents not only how to respond to threats (e.g., fight or flight or freeze) but also how to interpret and feel about these threats.
Moreover, the family environment could influence the development and functioning of the neural circuits that underlie these processes. For instance, a stressful or chaotic family environment might heighten the activity of the fear circuit and other survival circuits, leading to heightened defensive responses and feelings of fear and anxiety. While LeDoux and Pine (2016) do not explicitly discuss familial influences on children and adolescent’s ER, we wish to argue that their two-system framework certainly provides a valuable new perspective for clinically approaching these vital influences.
2.2 Observational learning, parenting practices, and emotional climate
Observational learning, parenting practices, and emotional climate are integral components that shape children and adolescents’ emotion regulation (ER). Observational learning is a process where children learn by observing the behaviours and outcomes of others, particularly significant figures such as parents. In the context of ER, children may learn to respond to certain situations or stimuli with specific emotional responses by observing their parent’s reactions. For instance, if a parent shows a fearful response to spiders, the child may learn to associate spiders with fear. This process of learning emotional responses through observation has long-lasting effects, shaping the child’s emotional responses to similar situations in the future (Morris et al., 2007).
Parenting practices, the specific behaviours that parents engage in to socialise their children, also have a profound impact on children’s ER. Warm, responsive, and consistent parenting can foster secure attachment and healthy emotional development, helping children to feel safe and secure, and to effectively regulate their emotions. On the other hand, harsh or inconsistent parenting can contribute to fear and anxiety. For example, parents who respond to their child’s distress in a dismissive or punitive manner may inadvertently teach the child that the world is a threatening place and that they cannot rely on others for emotional support (Morris et al., 2007).
The emotional climate of the family, the overall emotional environment in which the child is raised, is another important factor. A supportive and calm emotional climate can provide a safe space for children to express their emotions and learn effective ER strategies. In contrast, a stressful or chaotic emotional climate can heighten children’s fear and anxiety. For example, children who grow up in a family environment characterised by high levels of conflict and stress may be more likely to develop anxiety disorders (Evans, 2004).
ER in children and adolescents is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, environmental factors include observational learning, parenting practices, and the emotional climate of the family. Understanding these three influences in the wider context of individual, social and cultural life may provide valuable insight for the development of interventions designed to prevent and treat fear and anxiety disorders in children and adolescents (Sameroff, 2010; Raver et al., 2011).
2.3 Emotion contagion in socialisation
ER and the role of emotion contagion in socialisation are integral to understanding human emotional development and behaviour. Observational learning, modelling, and social referencing are chief mechanisms through which children learn about ER. These processes occur within the family context, where children observe and mimic the emotional behaviours and responses of their parents and other significant figures. Parenting practices related to emotion and emotion management also play a crucial role in shaping children’s ER. For instance, parents who consistently respond to their child’s emotional needs in a supportive and understanding manner can foster healthy ER, while those who dismiss or punish their child’s emotional expressions can contribute to maladaptive ER (Morris et al., 2007).
The emotional climate of the family, including aspects such as parenting style, the attachment relationship, family expressiveness, and the marital relationship, can further influence the development of ER. A supportive and calm emotional climate can provide a safe space for children to express their emotions and learn effective ER strategies. In contrast, a stressful or chaotic emotional climate can exacerbate children’s emotional difficulties and hinder their ER development (Hilt, Armstrong, and Essex, 2012).
Emotion contagion, or the spread of emotions from one person to another, also plays a role in socialisation. This process can influence various behaviours, including self-harming behaviours in adolescents. Some adolescents may engage in self-harming behaviours to express their emotional distress and to feel more a part of a group, indicating a social function of emotion contagion (Young et al., 2014).
In sport and physical activity settings, emotions are not isolated phenomena but arise within the context of social relationships. They are created, recreated, and sustained through the stories people tell and the narratives they construct about their emotional experiences. This perspective highlights the social and intersubjective nature of emotions, including the role of emotion contagion in shaping collective emotional experiences and behaviours (Tamminen and Bennett, 2017). ER and the role of emotion contagion in socialisation are shaped by a complex interplay of individual, social, and cultural factors. Understanding these influences provides valuable insight for the development of interventions designed to promote healthy ER and emotional well-being.
With a better understanding of the systemic influences on fear, we can now ask: how do individual differences and mental processes influence our experience of fear?
3. Individual Differences and Cognitive Processes
3.1 Personal experiences, biological factors, and personality traits
In this next section, we will explore how individual differences and mental processes shape our perceptions of and responses. Fear and emotion regulation (ER) are deeply intertwined with personal experiences, biological factors, and personality traits. These elements interact in complex ways to shape our emotional responses and coping strategies. Personal experiences, particularly those encountered early in life, play a pivotal role in shaping our emotional responses and ER strategies. Epidemiologic studies indicate that children exposed to early adverse experiences are at increased risk for the development of depression, anxiety disorders, or both. Persistent sensitization of central nervous system (CNS) circuits involved in the regulation of stress and emotion may represent the underlying biological substrate of an increased vulnerability to subsequent stress as well as to the development of depression and anxiety (Heim & Nemeroff, 2001).
Biological factors, including alterations in neurotransmitter systems and stress-responsive neural circuits, also contribute to fear and ER. Preclinical research suggests that early life stress induces long-lived hyper(re)activity of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) systems and other neurotransmitter systems, resulting in increased stress responsiveness. These neurobiological changes may underlie the increased risk of psychopathology associated with early life stress (Heim & Nemeroff, 2001).
Personality traits, such as impulsivity and risk-taking, can influence fear and ER as well. For instance, individuals with high levels of impulsivity may have difficulties in inhibiting fear responses and regulating their emotions, which can increase their vulnerability to stress and addiction (Sinha, 2008). Moreover, individual differences in self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, and effortful control can affect how individuals respond to fear and regulate their emotions (Nigg, 2017). It should be clear that fear and ER are shaped by a complex interplay of personal experiences, biological factors, and personality traits.
3.2 Trauma
The impact of trauma on fear and emotion regulation (ER) is a significant area of study in psychology and neuroscience. Trauma, particularly when experienced during formative years, can have profound effects on the brain’s fear circuitry and the individual’s ability to regulate emotions.
One such study is Childhood maltreatment is associated with altered fear circuitry and increased internalising symptoms by late adolescence by Marusak, Martin, Etkin, and Thomason (2015). This study provides a comprehensive examination of how trauma, specifically childhood maltreatment, affects fear and ER. The researchers found that childhood maltreatment predicted a loss of anticorrelation between the hippocampus and dorsal prefrontal cortex (PFC), specifically the dorsomedial PFC (dmPFC). This loss of anticorrelation could reflect impaired communication between the hippocampus and dmPFC in predicting safety versus threat, suggesting that the ability of the hippocampus to contextually regulate fear is compromised in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The study also found that both childhood maltreatment and combat exposure negatively predicted dorsal PFC-hippocampus connectivity, suggesting these may be compensatory attempts which are lost with the development of post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). These findings underscore the importance of examining developmental trauma exposure and adult PTSS within a single model. They also represent an important step in identifying potential mechanisms by which developmental trauma exposure may lead to adult PTSD, and which mechanisms are associated with the emergence of PTSD symptoms themselves.
Another study in this field is Neurobiological basis of failure to recall extinction memory in post-traumatic stress disorder by Milad, Orr, Lasko, Chang, Rauch, and Pitman (2008). This study found that PTSD patients showed a failure to recall extinction memory, which is a crucial component of ER. This failure was associated with decreased activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the hippocampus and increased activation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), during extinction recall. These findings suggest that the failure to recall extinction in PTSD may be due to an imbalance between the vmPFC and dACC, which are chief regions in the fear circuitry of the brain.
Trauma, particularly when experienced during childhood, has profound effects on fear and ER. Trauma disrupts the functioning of the brain’s fear circuitry, impairing the ability to predict safety versus threat and to recall extinction memory. These disruptions can lead to the development of PTSD and other internalising symptoms.
3.3 Genetic factors
In the grand theatre of human nature, there exists an undercurrent of biological determinism that influences the intricacies of our emotions, fear and anxiety being among them. The role of genetics, in the sphere of fear and anxiety, has been studied in depth (Hettema, Neale, and Kendler, 2001). Fear, a primordial response to imminent threats, and anxiety, its anticipatory counterpart, are not preordained by our genetic code. Rather, our genetics provide a certain predisposition, a potentiality.
Hettema, Neale, and Kendler (2001) revealed that genetics are responsible for roughly a third to two-fifths of the variance in anxiety symptoms. This means our genetic makeup provides a certain proclivity towards anxiety, rather than dictating a specific disorder. Particular genes have been identified as being associated with fear and anxiety. For instance, the SLC6A4 gene, a crucial element in regulating the neurotransmitter serotonin, has been linked with anxiety disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2009). Similarly, the COMT gene, particularly the Val158Met polymorphism, has been associated with fear and anxiety processing, with carriers showing a stronger fear response and increased likelihood of developing anxiety disorders (Lonsdorf et al., 2009).
The sphere of emotion regulation, responsible for the puppeteering of our emotional responses, also sees heavy influence from our genetic material. Cicchetti, Ackerman, and Izard (1995) found that a range of 30-50% of the variation in emotion regulation strategies may be explained by our inherited factors. Emphasis has been placed on the neurotransmitter systems, with particular attention given to serotonin and dopamine. The 5-HTTLPR gene variant, in this regard, has been linked to emotion regulation, with those carrying the short allele showing heightened amygdala reactivity, a potential precursor to difficulties in managing their emotions (Hariri et al., 2002).
Hence, it is crucial to bear in mind the nuanced dance of gene-environment interaction. The relationship between our genetic predispositions and environmental experiences is a dynamic duet, shaping the outcomes. A classic example of this dance is provided by Caspi et al. (2003), who found individuals with the short allele of the 5-HTTLPR gene to be more susceptible to depression following stressful life events, compared to their long allele counterparts. While genetics have a significant role in fear, anxiety, and emotion regulation, this role is part of a complex interplay alongside environmental factors. Recognising the importance of the interaction between genetics and environment offers us not only a deeper understanding of our emotional landscape but also potentially the foundation for more effective therapeutic strategies.
3.4 Cognitive processes and cognitive distortions
An investigation of fear, emotion regulation, and cognitive processes offers a compelling narrative that might illuminate the inner workings of the human mind. Let us now discuss the intricacies of these cognitive processes and their role in modulating fear responses and emotion regulation difficulties.
Fear accompanies perceptions of threat or danger, that much is absolutely clear. However, not all fears are directly attributable to immediate external threats. Indeed, some of our most profound fears are products of our cognition, of our internal representations and interpretations of the world around us. This is where cognitive distortions come into play. These distorted thought patterns are an integral part of various mental health disorders, especially anxiety disorders, which are characterised by an elevated fear response (Beck & Haigh, 2014).
Cognitive distortions are inaccurate thoughts that usually reinforce negative thinking or emotions. They might make us perceive reality inaccurately. For example, an individual might overgeneralise (believing that a single negative event is a never-ending pattern of defeat) or engage in catastrophising (imagining and expecting the worst-case scenario). These distortions can significantly affect an individual’s fear responses and their ability to regulate their emotions.
The cognitive model of emotion posits that our emotional responses, including fear, are primarily determined by our cognitive appraisal of a situation (Lazarus, 1984). If an individual interprets a situation as threatening, the fear response is activated. Therefore, cognitive distortions, which lead to misinterpretations of reality, can play a crucial role in exaggerated fear responses. For example, someone who tends to catastrophise might interpret an innocuous health symptom as a sign of a serious illness, leading to an intense fear response.
Cognitive distortions also play a pivotal role in emotion regulation difficulties. Emotion regulation involves various strategies individuals use to manage and change their emotional reactions, such as cognitive reappraisal and suppression (Gross & John, 2003). However, cognitive distortions can interfere with these strategies, leading to emotion regulation difficulties.
Cognitive reappraisal, a chief emotion regulation strategy, involves changing the trajectory of an emotional response by reinterpreting the meaning of the emotional stimulus (Gross, 1998). However, an individual who has a tendency to engage in cognitive distortions may struggle with cognitive reappraisal. For example, an individual who tends to engage in black-and-white thinking might find it difficult to reappraise a criticism as an opportunity for growth and might instead interpret it as evidence of personal failure.
Similarly, cognitive distortions can also interfere with the use of suppression, another emotion regulation strategy. Suppression involves inhibiting the outward signs of inner feelings. However, if an individual is engaged in catastrophising or personalisation (blaming oneself for negative events), they might find it difficult to suppress their emotional responses.
Understanding the role of cognitive processes in fear and emotion regulation allows us to develop effective therapeutic interventions. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), a form of psychotherapy that focuses on changing distorted cognitions and maladaptive behaviours, has proven to be an effective treatment for various mental health disorders, including anxiety disorders and depression (Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012). CBT enables individuals to identify their cognitive distortions, challenge their accuracy, and replace them with more balanced and realistic thoughts. In this way, it can help individuals reduce their fear responses and improve their emotion regulation.
Moreover, other therapeutic interventions focus on enhancing emotion regulation capacities. For example, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) teaches skills for emotion regulation, such as mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotion modulation (Linehan, 1993). It has been found effective in treating conditions such as borderline personality disorder, where emotion regulation difficulties are central. Cognitive processes, particularly cognitive distortions, play a crucial role in shaping our fear responses and our ability to regulate emotions. They alter our perceptions of reality, lead to exaggerated fear responses, and interfere with emotion regulation strategies. However, through different therapeutic interventions, such as, Psychodynamic, CBT, Schema therapy, and DBT, individuals can learn to identify and challenge their cognitive distortions and improve their emotion regulation capacities.
Now that we’ve seen how our individual mental processes and differences can shape our experience of fear, it naturally leads us to question: how can we address and manage these fears effectively?
4. Treatment Approaches
4.1 Specific therapy methods: CBT, mindfulness-based, and psychodynamic
Section 4 will delve into various treatment approaches to fear, including psychotherapy and medication, highlighting how these methods can be used to regulate fear and emotion. Upon the richly coloured canvas of human cognition, the interplay of fear and emotion regulation (ER) delineates a foreboding horizon, lit up by subjective interpretations and responses to the environment. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), a psychotherapeutic approach, has proven to be one effective tool in this painter’s toolkit, sharpening our ability to sketch a management of fear or enhance an outline for emotion regulation.
Fear, that most primal of human responses, at times, overwhelms the individual, causing significant distress and functional impairment. The roots of this excessive fear response often lie in the maladaptive cognitions of the individual–distorted interpretations and irrational beliefs fuel the fire of fear (Clark & Beck, 2010). It is here that CBT steps in, with its modern stoicism towards understanding the interplay of cognition, emotion, and behaviour.
CBT posits that our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours are interconnected and that by altering maladaptive thoughts and behaviours, we can change our emotional responses (Beck, 2011). Hence, in the context of fear, CBT aims to help individuals identify and challenge their fear-related cognitions, replacing them with more balanced and rational thoughts, thereby reducing their fear responses.
This cognitive restructuring often involves several steps, such as identifying automatic thoughts associated with fear, evaluating the evidence for and against these thoughts, and developing alternative, more rational thoughts (Beck, 2011). For instance, someone with social anxiety disorder might have the automatic thought “Everyone will laugh at me” when faced with a social situation. The therapist would guide the individual in examining the evidence supporting this thought, challenging its validity, and creating a more rational alternative thought such as “Some people might not agree with me, and that’s okay”.
Behavioural strategies also play a vital role in CBT’s approach to managing fear. Exposure therapy, a well-established behavioural technique, involves repeated exposure to the feared stimulus in a safe environment, until the fear response decreases (Craske et al., 2008). This strategy helps individuals confront their fears directly, leading to extinction of the fear response over time.
While CBT’s role in managing fear has been well-established, its effectiveness in enhancing ER is equally noteworthy. Emotion regulation, the ability to manage and modulate our emotional experiences and expressions, is a fundamental aspect of our psychological well-being (Gross & Thompson, 2007). People with ER difficulties often struggle to handle negative emotions and return to a baseline emotional state after an emotional upset.
CBT offers a plethora of techniques to enhance ER. Among them is cognitive reappraisal, a strategy that involves changing the trajectory of an emotional response by reinterpreting the meaning of the emotional stimulus (Gross & John, 2003). This strategy closely aligns with the cognitive restructuring techniques used in CBT, and its effectiveness in improving ER has been widely reported (Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008).
Similarly, CBT also incorporates elements of mindfulness, a non-judgmental, present-focused awareness that has been associated with improved ER (Chiesa, Serretti, & Jakobsen, 2013). Mindfulness can help individuals observe their emotions without reacting to them impulsively, thereby providing a space for more adaptive ER strategies.
Indeed, the promise of CBT as a tool to enhance ER and manage fear lies in its versatility and adaptability. It offers a tailored approach, where the therapeutic strategies are modified to meet the unique needs of each individual, ensuring that the therapy remains resonant with their experiences. The narrative of fear and ER is a complex one, but with CBT, individuals can begin to author their own stories, free from the shackles of maladaptive fear responses and ER difficulties.
A grand narrative unfolds as we delve into the domain of mindfulness-based therapies, exploring their role in managing fear and improving emotion regulation (ER). Rooted in the ancient wisdom of Eastern contemplative traditions, these therapies offer a distinctive approach to psychological well-being, lending us a fresh perspective on the intricacies of the human mind.
Mindfulness, a concept that has its origins in Buddhist philosophy, denotes a particular kind of awareness – an open, non-judgmental, and present-focused attention (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). This state of being in the moment, accepting it for what it is without trying to change or avoid it, forms the cornerstone of mindfulness-based therapies.
Fear often holds us captive, ensnaring us in a web of worry and apprehension. Mindfulness-based therapies offer a way out of this web, helping us face our fears head-on rather than avoiding or suppressing them. This strategy stands in stark contrast to our instinctive reactions to fear, which typically involve avoidance or escape behaviours (Craske et al., 2008).
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), one of the most widely researched mindfulness-based therapies, incorporates mindfulness meditation and yoga practices, teaching individuals to bring a mindful awareness to their body and their immediate experience (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Research has indicated that MBSR can significantly reduce fear responses in individuals with anxiety disorders (Hoge et al., 2013). By promoting an accepting and non-reactive stance towards feared stimuli, MBSR can help individuals reduce their fear responses and approach their fears with equanimity.
However, mindfulness-based therapies do not merely offer strategies for managing fear but also provide potent tools for enhancing ER. ER refers to our ability to influence the emotions we have, when we have them, and how we experience and express them (Gross, 1998). People with difficulties in ER often find it challenging to navigate negative emotions, resulting in intense and persistent emotional responses.
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), another well-established mindfulness-based therapy, combines traditional cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques with mindfulness practices to help individuals better regulate their emotions (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2012). MBCT was initially developed to prevent relapse in individuals with recurrent depression, a disorder often characterised by ER difficulties.
MBCT employs mindfulness practices to help individuals disengage from automatic patterns of negative thinking and emotional reactivity, promoting a more accepting and non-judgmental attitude towards their emotions (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2012). This shift in attitude can help break the cycle of habitual negative thinking and emotional reactivity, enhancing ER. Numerous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of MBCT in improving ER in various populations, from individuals with mood disorders to those with borderline personality disorder (Kuyken et al., 2016; Radziwiłłowicz & Sobański, 2019).
Beyond MBSR and MBCT, other mindfulness-based therapies, such as Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), also incorporate mindfulness practices to manage fear and enhance ER. DBT, a therapy designed for individuals with borderline personality disorder, uses mindfulness as a core skill to help individuals regulate their often intense and fluctuating emotions (Linehan, 1993). ACT, on the other hand, employs mindfulness to promote psychological flexibility, helping individuals accept their emotions and fears rather than avoiding them, thereby reducing their impact (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999).
The narrative of fear and ER is a complex one, replete with twists and turns that reflect the capricious nature of human emotions. Mindfulness-based therapies, with their emphasis on acceptance and present-focused attention, offer a nuanced understanding of this narrative. They allow us to see our fears and emotions not as foes to be vanquished, but as integral parts of our human experience to be accepted and understood. This shift in perspective, underpinned by the philosophy of mindfulness, can transform our relationship with fear and emotion, facilitating a path towards psychological well-being.
Psychodynamic psychotherapies emphasise the interplay of unconscious and conscious factors and past and present experiences in shaping our emotions and behaviours. In this context, they provide an intriguing perspective on the management of fear and the enhancement of emotion regulation (Shedler, 2010).
Psychodynamic psychotherapy, at its core, is an archaeological pathway. It delves deep into the recesses of an individual’s unconscious and conscious mind, bringing to light the serpentine mesh of early life experiences, inner conflicts, and repressed emotions that shape the contours of their present emotional landscape (Gabbard, 2014). Fear, a primitive emotion fundamental to our survival, is seen not merely as a transient emotional response, but as a manifestation of these underlying unconscious processes.
By fostering an awareness of these unconscious processes, psychodynamic therapy helps individuals manage their fears more effectively. This therapeutic approach contends that it is often our unawareness of these underlying processes that exacerbates our fear responses. As such, an enhanced awareness can serve as a vital tool in managing fear (Leichsenring, Klein, & Salzer, 2014).
The therapeutic relationship forms a chief part of this exploratory process. The therapist acts as a guide, helping the individual navigate their inner emotional world, whilst also serving as a “secure base” from which the individual can explore their fears. This relationship itself becomes a tool for managing fear, with the safety and security of the therapeutic alliance allowing for the exploration of fears that might otherwise be overwhelming (Holmes, 2010).
Equally, psychodynamic psychotherapy offers a nuanced perspective on ER. It posits that difficulties in ER often stem from unresolved conflicts and repressed emotions originating from early life experiences. These unresolved issues can result in maladaptive coping mechanisms, such as suppression or avoidance of emotions, leading to difficulties in ER (Luyten, Blatt, & Mayes, 2012).
Psychodynamic therapy helps individuals understand and resolve these underlying conflicts, thereby promoting healthier ER strategies. Central to this process is the concept of “mentalisation” or “reflective functioning”, which refers to our ability to understand our own and others’ mental states, including emotions (Bateman & Fonagy, 2016). By enhancing mentalisation, psychodynamic therapy can improve ER, enabling individuals to better understand and manage their emotions.
Indeed, research has highlighted the efficacy of psychodynamic therapy in managing fear and enhancing ER. A study by Leichsenring and colleagues (2014) found that psychodynamic therapy was effective in reducing anxiety (which is closely linked to fear) in individuals with anxiety disorders. Similarly, a study by Taubner and colleagues (2013) found that mentalisation-based treatment, a form of psychodynamic therapy, improved ER in individuals with borderline personality disorder.
Psychodynamic psychotherapy, with its focus on unconscious processes and early life experiences, offers a rich and complex understanding of fear and ER. By encouraging a deep-seated understanding of our emotional selves and fostering the capacity for mentalisation, this therapeutic approach can help individuals navigate their fears and regulate their emotions with greater ease and understanding.
We have but broken the surface tension of the pool of psychotherapies that seek to address fear and emotion regulation (ER). Thus far we have found rich, serpentine narratives that illuminate the diverse facets of the human emotional landscape. Each form different paths leading towards the same destination: a better understanding and management of fear, and an enhanced ability to regulate emotions.
Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) provides a path that is grounded in the here-and-now, emphasising the interplay between thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. It seeks to reshape maladaptive thought patterns that feed into fear responses and hinder effective ER, replacing them with more adaptive, rational alternatives (e.g., Beck, 2011; Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012). CBT offers tangible strategies and tools, such as cognitive restructuring and exposure techniques, to help individuals manage their fear and enhance their ER abilities.
Mindfulness-based therapies, on the other hand, propose a path that leads us towards greater awareness and acceptance of the present moment. These therapies draw from Eastern contemplative traditions, teaching us to face our fears with equanimity rather than avoidance and to regulate our emotions with acceptance and non-reactivity (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2012). Therapies such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) have been found to be effective in managing fear and promoting ER (e.g., Hoge et al., 2013; Kuyken et al., 2016).
Psychodynamic psychotherapy invites us on an archaeological pathway into our unconscious processing, uncovering the complex roots of early life experiences and inner conflicts that structure our emotions and their enactment. Psychodynamics posits that an increasing awareness of these unconscious processes helps manage fear and enhance ER. Moreover, in common with many therapies, the therapeutic relationship itself becomes a containing vessel for managing fear and enhancing ER, with the safety and security of the therapeutic alliance allowing for brushes with our fears and feelings (e.g., Gabbard, 2014; Holmes, 2010).
In essence, each type of psychotherapy offers a distinctive lens through which to view and address fear and ER. Some might resonate more strongly with an individual’s particular needs or weltanschauung, emphasising the significance of tailoring therapeutic interventions to the individual. Through their diverse approaches, each of these psychotherapies brighten the multifaceted pathway of fear and ER, stirring our understanding of these complex psychological phenomena and offering glimpses into their respective suitability and application.
4.2 Medication
In navigating the tempestuous seas of fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties, psychotherapy often stands as a steadfast beacon. However, it is not the only tool in our therapeutic arsenal. The role of medication, while perhaps less well understood in popular discourse, is nonetheless crucial. The use of pharmacological interventions to manage fear and ER difficulties presents a realm filled with elaborate complexities and intriguing possibilities, a realm where the crossroads of neurochemistry and psychology (neuropsychopharmacology) offer a vista onto the human emotional landscape.
Anxiety disorders, defined by an excessive and pervasive fear, are among the most recurrent psychiatric conditions. The pharmacological management of such conditions involves an array of medications developed over years of rigorous scientific research. Benzodiazepines, for instance, have been widely used to handle acute episodes of anxiety. They enhance the effects of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), a neurotransmitter that inhibits neural activity, thereby inducing a calming effect and reducing anxiety (Ravindran & Stein, 2010).
That said, however, for chronic anxiety disorders, benzodiazepines are not typically the primary treatment due to risks of tolerance, dependence, and potential withdrawal symptoms. Instead, the frontline treatment for these conditions often involves selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). These medications boost the availability of serotonin and/or norepinephrine, neurotransmitters that are vital in mood regulation and fear response modulation (Bandelow et al., 2015).
Targeting panic attacks, particularly severe manifestations of fear, also utilises a pharmacological approach. SSRIs and SNRIs are routinely used to prevent such panic attacks, while benzodiazepines can be employed to manage acute episodes (Nardi, Valença, Freire, & Mochcovitch, 2008).
Further, we see that medication can also be effective in managing fear and ER difficulties in conditions beyond anxiety disorders. Take, for instance, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), where fear responses to reminders of trauma can be debilitating. SSRIs and SNRIs can reduce these fear responses, while prazosin, an alpha-1 adrenergic antagonist, has been found to help manage PTSD-associated nightmares (Ipser & Stein, 2012).
Interestingly, genetics plays a significant role in determining the effectiveness of medication in managing fear and ER difficulties. Polymorphisms in genes associated with the serotonin system, for example, can influence an individual’s response to SSRIs (Serretti, Kato, De Ronchi, & Kinoshita, 2007). This highlights the need for personalised treatment approaches that consider the unique genetic profile of each individual.
Despite the clear benefits, medication also brings its own challenges. Side effects such as nausea, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction are commonly associated with SSRIs and SNRIs (Ferguson, 2001). Some medications, like benzodiazepines, carry the risk of dependence. Plus, the effects of medication are typically not enduring, with symptoms often resurging after discontinuation. Therefore, medication is generally used in tandem with psychotherapy, which can address the underlying cognitive, behavioural, and emotional factors contributing to fear and ER difficulties.
Medication represents a powerful tool in the management of fear and ER difficulties, one that operates at the intersection of neurochemistry and psychology as neuropsychopharmacology. This intersection of neuroscience and psychology and chemistry reflects our burgeoning understanding of the biological underpinnings of fear and emotion regulation and our ongoing efforts to translate this understanding into effective interventions. While medication alone is by no means a panacea–and should be used judiciously and in ideally in conjunction with other therapeutic approaches like talking therapies–it nonetheless offers a vital parallel pathway towards ameliorating fear and ER difficulties.
4.3 Personalised approaches
A personalised approach to treatment, or personalised medicine as it is often termed, marks an evolution in our understanding of the multifaceted nature of mental health difficulties, including those related to fear and emotion regulation (ER). Recognising the individual as a serpentine embroidery woven from different threads of unique experiences, genetic makeup, environmental contexts, and personal preferences, the personalisation of treatment offers the promise of a healthcare that truly recognises and values the individual’s unique circumstances and needs.
Understanding the individual’s unique needs and circumstances is an essential first step in the personalisation of treatment. Fear, for instance, is not a monolithic entity, but rather manifests in diverse ways across individuals. It can be an episodic occurrence in response to specific triggers, a chronic undercurrent that colours one’s everyday experiences, or an overwhelming force that paralyses one’s ability to function. Understanding the nature and context of the individual’s fear can help inform the choice of therapeutic interventions (Johnstone & Page, 2004).
Genetics is another chief factor to consider in the personalisation of treatment. Polymorphisms in genes related to neurotransmitter systems, for instance, can influence an individual’s response to pharmacological interventions. A person with a certain genetic variant in the serotonin transporter gene, for instance, might respond better to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a common type of medication used to manage fear and ER difficulties (Serretti et al., 2007). Understanding an individual’s genetic profile can therefore help inform the choice of medication, maximising effectiveness, and minimising side effects.
One’s social and environmental context is another crucial factor to consider in personalised treatment. The impact of fear and ER difficulties on one’s life can vary greatly depending on one’s social and environmental context. A person who lives in a safe and supportive environment, for instance, might experience their fear as manageable and not particularly disruptive to their life. In contrast, a person living in an unsafe or unsupportive environment might find their fear to be overwhelming and debilitating. Recognising these contextual factors can help inform the choice and implementation of therapeutic interventions (Sulik, 2018).
Personal preferences and values are also critical to consider in personalised treatment. The most effective therapeutic intervention, after all, is one that the individual is willing and able to engage with. An individual who values self-reliance, for instance, might find self-help interventions particularly appealing, while an individual who values interpersonal connexion might find group therapy more effective. Recognising and respecting the individual’s personal preferences and values can enhance their engagement with treatment, thereby increasing its effectiveness (Swift & Callahan, 2009).
Given these considerations, the implementation of personalised treatment typically involves a collaborative process between the healthcare provider and the individual. This process may involve psychoeducation, where the individual is provided with information about the various treatment options and their associated benefits and risks. This allows the individual to make an informed decision about their treatment, ensuring that it aligns with their unique needs and circumstances (Dwamena et al., 2012).
Personalised treatment marks a paradigm shift in our approach to managing fear and ER difficulties, a shift towards recognising and respecting the individual’s unique needs and circumstances. While it is not without its challenges, the promise of personalised treatment is a care that is not only more effective, but also more human.
4.4 Therapeutic relationship
In the somewhat polytheist pantheon of psychotherapy, the role of the therapeutic relationship, sometimes known as the working alliance, is apotheosised with good reason. Its importance is held to be akin to the bedrock upon which the edifice of psychotherapy is erected. In the realm of managing fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties, the therapeutic relationship takes on profound significance, serving as a conduit for change, a safe haven for emotional exploration, and a catalyst for transformation.
The terms “working alliance” coined by Charles Bordin (1979) or later variations, such as, “therapeutic alliance” or “therapeutic relationship” each encompass the rapport and connexion that exists between a client and their therapist. This working alliance is a vibrant construct, a veritable garden teeming with a multitude of fragrant elements such as trust, empathy, acceptance, and collaboration, all blossoming in the fertile soil of mutual respect and understanding (Bordin, 1979; Ardito & Rabellino, 2011).
An extensive body of literature underscores the pivotal role of the therapeutic relationship in the efficacy of psychotherapy. For instance, a meta-analytic study by Martin et al. (2000), which included over 200 studies, found that the quality of the therapeutic relationship accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in therapeutic outcomes, including those related to fear and ER difficulties. This finding underscores the idea that the therapeutic relationship is not merely a passive vessel that carries the intervention to the client, but rather an active agent of change in its own right.
The therapeutic relationship plays a unique role in managing fear and ER difficulties. First, the therapeutic relationship itself serves as a corrective emotional experience. For individuals who have developed fear and ER difficulties in response to negative interpersonal experiences, such as trauma or emotional neglect, the therapeutic relationship can provide a contrasting experience, one characterised by safety, acceptance, and understanding. Through the gradual unfolding of this relationship, individuals can learn to trust, to express their emotions, and to regulate their fear in a healthier manner (Briere & Scott, 2014).
Second, the therapeutic relationship provides a context in which individuals can explore their fear and ER difficulties. Fear, after all, is not a mere reaction to a stimulus, but a complex, multifaceted experience. The safety and acceptance inherent in the therapeutic relationship create a space in which individuals can delve into their fear, unpacking its layers, and understanding its triggers, its meanings, and its effects on their lives. This exploration can provide valuable insights, aiding in the development of more adaptive ER strategies and promoting resilience (Rizq & Target, 2008).
Third, the therapeutic relationship serves as a catalyst for transformation. Within the safety and connexion of the therapeutic relationship, individuals can experiment with new ways of being and relating, can confront their fear in a controlled setting, and can learn and practise new ER strategies. The therapist, in turn, can provide feedback, support, and encouragement, facilitating the process of change (Castonguay & Beutler, 2006).
The therapeutic relationship plays a crucial role in the management of fear and ER difficulties. It serves as a corrective emotional experience, a context for exploration, a reparenting, and above all perhaps a catalyst for transformation. Indeed, the therapeutic relationship is not just the heart of psychotherapy but its very lifeblood, pumping vitality into the process and infusing it with the transformative power that only a face-to-face ethical encounter can (Levinas, 1974).
With an understanding of the treatment options available, it’s important to consider how primary healthcare providers can support fear management. How does this collaborative approach work?
5. Primary care and collaboration
In this section, we’ll discuss the role of primary care and collaboration in managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties. When it comes to the British primary care system, the National Health Service (NHS) an observation presents itself as a lifeboat on a vast ocean, guided by the beacon of scientific knowledge and embarking on a voyage toward the amelioration of human suffering. The role of primary care in clinical approaches to fear and emotion regulation (ER), while subtle, is as vast and profound as the ocean itself. When we extend our gaze to the broader landscape of multidisciplinary collaboration, the scope becomes even more sublime, illustrating the beauty of diverse expertise working in harmony to illuminate the path towards emotional well-being.
British primary care, with its fundamental ethos of providing first contact and comprehensive care, stands as a sentinel at the gates of the healthcare system. Fear and ER difficulties, ensconced within the shadowy realm of psychological distress, often make their first appearance within the comforting confines of the primary care setting (Cape, Barker, Buszewicz, & Pistrang, 2000). The general practitioners (GPs) in these settings, equipped with their broad-based knowledge and their unique vantage point, are often the first to detect the faint echoes of these difficulties and to initiate the appropriate response.
The approach of primary care towards fear and ER difficulties straddles two domains. First, GPs provide frontline treatment for milder manifestations of these difficulties, often employing brief psychological interventions, psychoeducation, and support. This role of the GP is vital, not only in terms of providing timely and accessible help but also in containing the escalation of distress, preventing the conversion of transient difficulties into chronic disorders (Kates, Mach, & Katz, 2018). Second, GPs serve as gatekeepers for specialised mental health services. When confronted with complex or severe cases, GPs initiate referrals to specialised services, thereby ensuring that individuals receive the level of care commensurate with their needs. However, the role of the GP doesn’t cease with the referral. They remain involved in the ongoing care, monitoring progress, managing physical health, and providing support, thus embodying the ideal of comprehensive care (Mitchell, Rao, & Vaze, 2020).
The multidisciplinary collaboration paints on a canvas of clinical approaches towards fear and ER difficulties. Different healthcare professionals–psychiatrists, psychologists, occupational therapists, nurses, social workers–all bring unique perspectives and expertise to the table. The psychiatrist, with their medical training, focuses on the biological aspects, providing pharmacological interventions. The psychologist brings to bear the insights of psychological theories, delivering psychotherapeutic interventions. The nurse and occupational therapist assists in enhancing daily functioning, while the social worker addresses social determinants (Belling, Whittock, McLaren, Burns, Catty, Jones, Rose, & Wykes, 2011).
Moreover, multidisciplinary collaboration facilitates the delivery of integrated care, which is the sine qua non for managing complex conditions. For instance, an individual with chronic anxiety (a form of fear disorder) and poor ER might also suffer from physical health conditions and social issues. Addressing all these facets simultaneously would require the collaboration of GPs, psychiatrists, psychologists, occupational therapists, and social workers. The collective efforts of this multidisciplinary team can create a synergistic effect, promoting holistic healing (Grayer, Cape, Orpwood, Leibowitz, & Buszewicz, 2008).
In the final analysis, British primary care and multidisciplinary collaboration in the NHS play pivotal roles in the clinical approaches to fear and ER difficulties. They provide comprehensive, integrated care, blending diverse expertise to promote emotional well-being. As we sail onward on the voyage towards alleviating human suffering, these systems serve as our compass, guiding us towards the shores of hope and healing.
5.1 Primary care physicians, early identification, and management
In the varied map of public health care, the role of British primary care physicians emerges as a beacon of first-line defence, offering care that is both accessible and comprehensive. Their role in the early identification and management of fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties is of particular significance. As custodians of patient’s first contact with the health care system, primary care GPs often encounter the initial manifestations of these difficulties, situating them in an essential position to initiate prompt and effective interventions (Cape, Barker, Buszewicz, & Pistrang, 2000).
Fear and ER difficulties encompass a wide spectrum of psychological distress. On one end, they may manifest as transient emotional disturbances, reactions to life’s inescapable stresses and strains. On the other end, they may signify severe mental health disorders such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, or personality disorders (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). Primary care physicians are often the first to observe the early signs of these difficulties, thanks to their long-term, close-knit relationship with patients. Such familiarity allows physicians to discern subtle changes in a patient’s mental state, facilitating early identification (Kessler et al., 2005).
Identification of fear and ER difficulties, however, is not an end in itself. It’s the preliminary step towards management, the beginning of a pathway towards alleviating emotional distress. Primary care GPs, as generalists with a holistic understanding of health, are uniquely positioned to provide first-line management for these difficulties. They employ a range of strategies, including brief psychological interventions, psychoeducation, emotional support, and where necessary, pharmacological treatments (Richardson, Ratner, & Zatzick, 2009).
Brief psychological interventions, often delivered within the limited timeframe of routine primary care consultations, can be surprisingly effective. Techniques such as problem-solving therapy, motivational interviewing, and elements of cognitive-behavioural therapy can provide substantial relief for mild to moderate fear and ER difficulties (Cuijpers, van Straten, Warmerdam, & van Rooy, 2010). Psychoeducation is another well-worn tool in the primary care physician’s arsenal. A clear explanation of the nature and course of fear and ER difficulties, and their links to stressors, can help patients gain control over their experiences. Empowered with knowledge, patients are better equipped to engage in self-management strategies (Donker, Griffiths, Cuijpers, & Christensen, 2009).
Emotional support, while often underrated, can be profoundly healing. A listening ear, a validating response, a reassuring word – these simple gestures can instil hope, reduce isolation, and enhance resilience, paving the way towards recovery (Price, 2000).
Pharmacological treatments play an essential role in managing severe or persistent fear and ER difficulties. Primary care physicians, with their medical training, are well-versed in the use of psychotropic medications. When necessary, they can initiate pharmacotherapy, monitor its effects, manage side-effects, and adjust doses, ensuring safe and effective use of medication (Olfson, Kroenke, Wang, & Blanco, 2014).
However, the role of primary care physicians extends beyond these immediate management strategies. They serve as gatekeepers to specialized mental health services, referring patients with complex or severe difficulties for specialist care. They maintain a coordinating role, liaising with other health care professionals, monitoring the patient’s progress, and managing any co-existing physical health problems. This multifaceted role reflects the ethos of primary care, which values continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness of care (Mitchell, Rao, & Vaze, 2020).
British primary care physicians play a pivotal role in the early identification and management of fear and ER difficulties. Their efforts form a key element in the healthcare system’s response to these challenges, contributing to the alleviation of distress and the promotion of emotional well-being.
5.2 Collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists
The provision of healthcare services is inherently multifaceted, requiring the expertise of various professionals to cater to the diverse health needs of the population. The multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach, wherein primary care physicians and specialists collaborate to provide comprehensive care, is an indispensable aspect of contemporary healthcare practice. It is particularly significant in managing conditions that are complex and multifactorial, such as fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties (Burns, Catty, Jones, Rose, & Wykes, 2011).
A primary care physician often serves as the patient’s initial point of contact within the healthcare system, diagnosing, treating, and managing a broad array of health issues. In contrast, specialists possess deep knowledge within their field, which allows them to address more complex or specific health concerns. The synthesis of these two sets of expertise can result in a more holistic understanding of the patient’s needs and thus provide more comprehensive care (Cape, Barker, Buszewicz, & Pistrang, 2000).
From the perspective of the primary care physician, collaboration with specialists can enhance their understanding of complex conditions like fear and ER difficulties, and guide their management strategies. Moreover, given the common co-occurrence of mental and physical health problems, this collaborative approach can ensure that physical health issues are not overlooked amid the focus on mental health. For instance, anxiety disorders, which often involve fear and ER difficulties, have been associated with various physical health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders, and gastrointestinal problems (Scott, Bruffaerts, Tsang, Ormel, Alonso, Angermeyer, et al., 2007).
From the standpoint of specialists, collaboration with primary care physicians enables a broader view of the patient’s health status. Primary care physicians’ understanding of the patient’s overall health, lifestyle, and social context can enrich specialists’ understanding, allowing them to tailor their interventions more effectively. For instance, a psychiatrist may adjust the treatment plan for a patient with an anxiety disorder, considering the patient’s co-existing physical health conditions, social stressors, and coping resources, as informed by the primary care physician.
MDT collaboration also enhances continuity of care, a fundamental principle of primary care. Patients with fear and ER difficulties often require long-term management, necessitating regular follow-up and adjustments to their treatment plan. Through collaboration, primary care physicians and specialists can coordinate their care, minimizing gaps in service provision and ensuring that changes in the patient’s health status are promptly addressed (Grayer, Cape, Orpwood, Leibowitz, & Buszewicz, 2008).
Moreover, MDT collaboration can facilitate the integration of mental health care into primary care, a strategy widely advocated to enhance access to mental health services and reduce stigma. With shared care arrangements, primary care physicians and mental health specialists can work together to provide mental health care within the familiar and accessible setting of primary care (Kates, Mach, & Katz, 2018).
However, the success of MDT collaboration hinges on effective communication and shared decision-making among the team members. Regular meetings, shared records, and clear role delineation can foster mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation among team members, ensuring that their combined expertise translates into optimal patient care (Mitchell, Rao, & Vaze, 2020).
The MDT approach, involving collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists, is instrumental in providing comprehensive care for patients with fear and ER difficulties. By harnessing the diverse expertise of different professionals, this approach can enhance the understanding, management, and continuity of care for these complex conditions.
5.3 Healthcare professionals
British healthcare is characterised by the varied roles of numerous professionals, among whom nurses, and social workers occupy significant roles, particularly in managing fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties. Both of these professions bring unique insights and approaches to patient care, contributing to a more comprehensive and multidimensional treatment approach.
Nurses, particularly those specialising in mental health, are often at the forefront of patient care. Their training emphasises a holistic approach to health, with a focus on both the physical and mental aspects of a patient’s well-being (Barker, 2003). Their extensive patient contact time affords them unique insights into patients’ experiences, and they are adept at building therapeutic relationships. These relationships provide a foundation for interventions designed to alleviate fear and improve ER, such as providing emotional support, psychoeducation, and facilitating skill development (Freshwater & Stickley, 2004).
For example, mental health nurses can employ techniques from cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) to help patients identify and challenge unhelpful thought patterns that contribute to fear, while also teaching them strategies to regulate their emotions more effectively (Koekkoek, van Meijel, Tiemens, Schene, & Hutschemaekers, 2006). Furthermore, nursing interventions can extend beyond the clinical setting to include the patient’s home and social environment, allowing for more effective management of factors that could exacerbate fear and ER difficulties, such as social isolation or stress (Davies, 2014).
On the other hand, social workers have a significant role to play in managing fear and ER difficulties, particularly due to their focus on the social determinants of health. Social workers understand that individuals’ health and well-being are shaped by a complex interplay of personal, social, and environmental factors, and they aim to address these elements in their interventions (Dominelli, 2009).
In the context of fear and ER difficulties, social workers can provide psychoeducation and counselling, empower patients to access and use resources in their community, and advocate for them within social systems that may be contributing to their distress (Hepworth, Rooney, Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, & Larsen, 2010). They also work closely with families and other support networks, recognising the crucial role these structures play in individuals’ mental health. As such, social workers can play an instrumental role in alleviating fear and ER difficulties by improving social support, enhancing coping skills, and addressing social stressors (Teater, 2014).
Moreover, both professions can significantly contribute to the MDT approach in managing fear and ER difficulties. Nurses and social workers bring their unique perspectives and skills to the MDT, enhancing its capacity to provide comprehensive care (McPherson, Headrick, & Moss, 2001). They can also promote patient-centred care by advocating for patients’ needs and preferences within the MDT, thereby ensuring that care is tailored to each individual’s unique circumstances (Sullivan, 2012).
Both nursing and social work are invaluable professions within the healthcare system, each contributing their unique expertise and perspective to the management of fear and ER difficulties. Through their interventions and their collaboration within the MDT, these professions can enhance the comprehensiveness, quality, and patient-centredness of care, thereby promoting better outcomes for individuals struggling with fear and ER difficulties. After exploring the role of primary healthcare providers in managing fear, it’s crucial to examine how fear interacts with other mental health conditions. What happens when fear and other mental health issues coexist?
6. Comorbid conditions
In the following section, we will explore the impact of comorbid mental health conditions on managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties. In considering the clinical landscape of fear and emotion regulation (ER), the complexities of comorbidity cannot be understated. By definition, comorbidity refers to the simultaneous presence of two or more diseases or disorders in a patient (Valderas, Starfield, Sibbald, Salisbury, & Roland, 2009). In the realm of fear and ER, it is especially pertinent, given the multitude of conditions that these two variables interplay with, often exacerbating one another in a viscous cycle.
There is a growing consensus in the literature that fear, being an essential response to perceived threats, becomes problematic when it transforms into pathological anxiety. This pathological anxiety is often associated with a variety of mental disorders, such as Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and various phobias, all of which represent maladaptive responses to fear (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Comorbidity within these conditions is a common finding. For example, it is not unusual for a patient with GAD to also suffer from a major depressive disorder (MDD) (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005). These disorders are bound together by dysfunctional ER, which is a characteristic feature of both (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). Impaired ER can result in an individual experiencing intense, frequent, and persistent fear responses, which may in turn contribute to the development of GAD or MDD (Cisler, Olatunji, Feldner, & Forsyth, 2010).
Besides psychological disorders, comorbidity of fear and ER difficulties also extend to various physical health conditions. Take, for instance, chronic pain. Individuals living with chronic pain often report high levels of fear, usually concerning the pain itself and its potential implications. This fear can result in avoidant behaviours and a reduced quality of life (Vlaeyen & Linton, 2012). It is also found that people with chronic pain frequently experience problems with ER. Inability to effectively manage emotional responses can heighten the perception of pain, resulting in a vicious cycle of escalating fear and pain severity (Seminowicz & Davis, 2007).
Another noteworthy comorbid condition is cardiovascular disease. Excessive fear and anxiety are known to be detrimental to cardiovascular health, contributing to elevated heart rates, high blood pressure, and increased risk of heart attacks (Bleil, Gianaros, Jennings, Flory, & Manuck, 2008). Furthermore, difficulty in ER can amplify these risks by preventing the individual from effectively managing their emotional responses to stressors, leading to chronic activation of the body’s stress response systems, which over time can damage the cardiovascular system (Appleton, Buka, Loucks, Gilman, & Kubzansky, 2013).
It is also necessary to touch upon the pervasive impact of comorbid conditions on treatment outcomes. Comorbidity often complicates the clinical picture and makes treatment more challenging. A person with multiple disorders may require a complex, multi-faceted treatment approach, such as combining pharmacological treatment with various forms of psychotherapy (Zimmerman, Chelminski, & Young, 2008). Despite the challenges, a holistic and integrative approach is crucial in managing these complex cases effectively.
Fear and ER difficulties can manifest comorbidly with various mental and physical health conditions, often creating a more complex and challenging clinical picture. Understanding this serpentine interplay is crucial in delivering effective and comprehensive care for these individuals.
6.1 Comorbid mental health conditions
The relationship between fear, emotion regulation (ER), and comorbid mental health conditions is a complex weft and warp that sits at the kernel of many therapeutic challenges. Understanding the interplay between these elements is pivotal to tailoring effective strategies for alleviating suffering and promoting recovery.
The conceptual framework of fear and ER difficulties positions them as fundamental constructs associated with a broad range of psychopathology. Fear is a basic emotion, activated by perceived threat, which primes the individual for a fight-or-flight response. When this response is activated excessively or inappropriately, it can manifest in the form of anxiety disorders. ER, on the other hand, pertains to the processes by which individuals influence their emotions, when they have them, and how they experience or express these emotions (Gross, 1998).
Dysfunctional ER is considered a transdiagnostic factor, implicated in numerous psychiatric conditions. It may exacerbate fear responses, thereby contributing to the emergence and maintenance of anxiety disorders. However, difficulties in ER are not restricted to anxiety disorders alone. They are found in a variety of other mental health conditions, including mood disorders, eating disorders, and borderline personality disorder, among others (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010).
Depression is a classic example where comorbidity with fear and ER difficulties frequently occurs. Individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) often report heightened levels of fear, particularly pertaining to negative evaluation or future adversity, and struggle to regulate these fears effectively (Ehring, Tuschen-Caffier, Schnülle, Fischer, & Gross, 2010). This vicious cycle of fear and impaired ER fuels and perpetuates the depressive symptoms.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) also displays strong comorbidity with fear and ER difficulties. In this context, fear is often tied to traumatic memories, and difficulties in ER can exacerbate the frequency and intensity of traumatic recollections, leading to more severe PTSD symptoms (Ehring & Quack, 2010).
Moreover, difficulties with ER and heightened fear responses are critical characteristics of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Individuals with BPD often exhibit intense and unstable emotional responses and have a marked difficulty in regulating them. This impaired ER, combined with an increased sensitivity to fear, can lead to impulsive behaviour, self-harm, and unstable interpersonal relationships – hallmarks of BPD (Linehan, 1993).
In the realm of eating disorders, fear and ER take a slightly different manifestation. Here, the fear often relates to weight gain or body shape, and dysfunctional ER strategies, such as suppression or avoidance of emotions, are commonly employed. These maladaptive strategies not only sustain the eating disorder but can also lead to comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders (Haynos & Fruzzetti, 2011).
Understanding these complex interplays informs our clinical approach in managing such patients. It becomes clear that interventions targeting ER difficulties can have far-reaching benefits across a spectrum of psychiatric conditions. Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is one such evidence-based approach, which aims to equip individuals with more adaptive ER strategies and to challenge and modify fear-provoking thought patterns (Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang, 2012).
Other promising therapeutic approaches include Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) for BPD, which combines CBT with mindfulness-based techniques to enhance ER (Linehan, 1993), and trauma-focused CBT for PTSD, which helps individuals confront and reprocess traumatic memories to reduce fear responses (Ehring, Welboren, Morina, Wicherts, Freitag, & Emmelkamp, 2014).
Comorbid mental health conditions play a significant role in managing fear and ER difficulties, necessitating an individualised and integrative therapeutic approach. Our clinical toolbox must be versatile and responsive, capable of meeting the unique needs of each patient. Only then can we hope to navigate the treacherous waters of comorbidity, steering our patients towards safer shores of recovery.
6.2 Management of comorbidity
The management of comorbidity in relation to fear and emotion regulation (ER) forms a crucial aspect of mental health care, particularly given the multifaceted and complex nature of psychiatric conditions. Acknowledging and addressing comorbidity can profoundly impact an individual’s fear responses and their ability to regulate emotions effectively.
By definition, comorbidity refers to the presence of two or more psychiatric disorders in an individual (Valderas, Starfield, Sibbald, Salisbury, & Roland, 2009). These comorbid conditions often interact with one another, often in ways that exacerbate both disorders, complicating treatment and leading to poorer outcomes if not properly managed (Kessler et al., 2005). Fear, as an elemental emotional response, and ER, as a central process in our emotional functioning, often feature prominently in these comorbid conditions.
Let’s consider, for example, a person with comorbid anxiety and depression, two of the most common comorbid mental health conditions. The individual’s fear response may be heightened due to the anxiety disorder, and their ability to regulate their emotions may be further impaired by the depressive disorder. In such a case, if the clinician were to treat only one condition, say the anxiety disorder, without considering the comorbid depression, the outcome might be suboptimal. The individual might continue to struggle with ER due to the untreated depression, which could then fuel further anxiety, creating a vicious cycle.
Conversely, managing the comorbidity effectively, by treating both the anxiety and depression simultaneously, can significantly improve both fear responses and ER. By reducing the symptoms of anxiety, the individual’s fear response may become less intense and more contextually appropriate. Concurrently, treating the depression could enhance the individual’s capacity for ER, making them more capable of dealing with fearful situations when they arise.
Indeed, empirical research underscores the importance of addressing comorbidities for successful outcomes. In a meta-analytic review by Hofmann, Asnaani, Vonk, Sawyer, & Fang (2012), cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), which can be adapted to address multiple psychiatric conditions, was found to be particularly effective in reducing symptoms of both anxiety and depression. This reduction in symptoms was, in turn, associated with improved ER, demonstrating the interconnectivity of these processes.
Managing comorbidity effectively also has broader implications. Individuals with comorbid mental health conditions are often at greater risk for additional complications, such as substance abuse or physical health conditions (Scott, Bruffaerts, Tsang, Ormel, Alonso, & Kessler, 2007). These complications can further exacerbate fear responses and impair ER. Hence, addressing comorbidity can help to reduce these risks, indirectly contributing to better fear response and ER management.
Beyond pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions, management of comorbidity must also involve a holistic approach that takes into account the individual’s life context. Social support, for instance, can be a valuable resource for managing fear and ER difficulties. Research shows that individuals with strong social support networks are more likely to have better ER and lower fear responses (Thoits, 2011). Hence, interventions aimed at enhancing social support, such as group therapy or family therapy, can be valuable additions to the treatment plan.
Thus, the management of comorbidity is central to managing fear responses and ER. It requires a nuanced understanding of the complex interactions between different psychiatric conditions, and a multifaceted approach that addresses not only the individual symptoms but also the patient as a whole person. Having discussed the interaction between fear and other mental health conditions, we now turn our attention to how lifestyle factors and social support can influence our ability to manage fear.
7. Lifestyle Factors and social support
In this section, we will discuss the role of lifestyle factors and social support in managing fear and emotion regulation difficulties. Lifestyle factors such as physical activity, diet, and sleep hygiene hold substantial sway over our ability to manage fear responses and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties. This interplay manifests across various layers of our being, from the biological substrate to the psychological network, each subtly influencing our capacity to navigate fear and keep our emotion regulation on an even keel. Consider, say, physical activity; a veritable panacea of benefits, exercise wields therapeutic effects across a broad array of health domains. The influence of physical health on mental health, and its influence on fear and ER, is particularly significant. Let’s look more closely at lifestyle factors.
7.1 Lifestyle factors, physical activity, diet, and sleep hygiene
Physical activity aids in regulating our fear responses by modulating the activity of the amygdala, a part of the brain central to fear processing (Zschucke, Renneberg, Dimeo, Wüstenberg, & Ströhle, 2015). Exercise also stimulates the release of endorphins, often known as feel good chemicals, and other neurotrophic factors that enhance mood and promote overall mental well-being (Ratey & Loehr, 2011). It is through these mechanisms that physical activity (or behavioural activation) serves to buffer us against excessive fear responses and assist us in regulating our emotions more effectively.
Similarly, our dietary choices also have significant implications for fear and ER. The burgeoning field of nutritional psychiatry provides evidence of the strong connexion between diet and mental health (Jacka, 2017). For example, a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and whole grains—often referred to as a Mediterranean-style diet—has been linked with better mental health outcomes, including reduced symptoms of anxiety and depression (Lai, Hiles, Bisquera, Hure, McEvoy, & Attia, 2014). In contrast, a diet high in processed foods and added sugars may contribute to poor mental health outcomes, potentially exacerbating fear responses and ER difficulties (Jacka et al., 2010).
There are several potential pathways through which diet can impact fear and ER. One is through its effects on our gut microbiome, the trillions of microorganisms that inhabit our digestive tract. There is growing recognition of the ‘gut-brain axis,’ a bidirectional communication system between our gut and our brain (Cryan & Dinan, 2012). Disturbances in our gut microbiome possibly due to poor dietary choices could disrupt this axis leading to heightened fear responses and difficulties in ER.
Sleep hygiene, too, plays an important role in fear and ER. Chronic sleep deprivation and poor sleep quality have been linked with heightened fear responses and ER difficulties (Goldstein & Walker, 2014). Disrupted sleep can affect the prefrontal cortex’s function, a region of the brain implicated in ER, leading to impaired ability to regulate emotions (Goldstein & Walker, 2014). Good sleep hygiene practices, such as, maintaining a consistent sleep schedule, creating a sleep-friendly environment, and avoiding stimulants close to bedtime, can thus help in managing fear and improving ER.
Lifestyle factors certainly play an instrumental role in managing fear and ER difficulties. Each choice serves as a pillar upon which our emotional construction stands, their strength and stability crucial for our emotional resilience. Our lifestyle choices ought to remind us that caring for our mental health is not merely a matter of reactively addressing symptoms as they arise, but of cultivating a proactive lifestyle that, in turn, nurtures our emotional well-being.
7.2 Social support
As social creatures humans are profoundly influenced by the web of relationships they are embedded in. The support and connexion derived from these social networks hold the potential to touch virtually every aspect of our lives, including our ability to manage fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties. The salutary effects of social support are so pervasive and deep-seated that it often acts as a buffer against the damaging impacts of stress and adversity, enabling us to face challenges with resilience and equanimity.
Social support, which may be defined as the perception or reality that one is cared for, esteemed, and part of a mutually supportive social network (Cobb, 1976), provides us with a powerful tool to navigate through life’s stormy seas. It affords us a sense of being understood, validated, and cared for, which can help alleviate feelings of fear and promote more adaptive emotion regulation strategies.
At a fundamental level, social support serves as a buffer against fear and ER difficulties by enhancing our sense of safety and security. When we perceive that we have the backing of a supportive network, we are less likely to see the world as a threatening place and more likely to perceive potential threats as challenges that we can successfully navigate (Taylor, 2011). This perspective can help moderate fear responses and promote more adaptive ER.
Moreover, social support can also provide us with important resources to cope with ER difficulties. For example, it can offer emotional comfort, practical assistance, and valuable advice, which can help us to manage our emotions more effectively (Cohen, 2004). Moreover, by sharing their own experiences and strategies, supportive others can provide us with alternative ways of understanding and dealing with our emotions, helping us to broaden our ER repertoire.
Further, the presence of social support can also promote ER by enhancing our self-esteem and self-efficacy. By validating our feelings and affirming our worth, social support can bolster our self-image and our confidence in our ability to handle our emotions (Leary, 1990). These psychological resources can act as potent antidotes to fear and serve as catalysts for more adaptive ER.
However, it’s important to note that not all forms of social support are equally beneficial for managing fear and ER. For instance, research suggests that perceived social support — the belief that support is available if needed—may be more critical for mental health than received social support—the actual provision of support (Wethington & Kessler, 1986). Moreover, the quality of support matters as much as, if not more than, its quantity. Support that is responsive to our needs and provided in a sensitive manner can be particularly effective in reducing fear and promoting ER (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004).
Social support plays a necessary role in helping us manage fear and ER difficulties. By fostering a sense of connexion, a sense of belonging, a sense of safety and identification, providing valuable coping resources, and enhancing our psychological resources, social connexion enables us to face the world with safety and security in mind, and less fear and more emotional balance than otherwise. This underscores the importance of nurturing our attachments and socialisation connexions and encourages seeking help when needed, it is in the knowledge of connexion and identification with others that we find courage to face our fears and manage our emotions more effectively.
7.3 Self-care strategies
It is in the natural interplay of our daily lives—that is to say, in the common and ordinary parts of day-to-day living—that self-care strategies find their metier as lead actors in managing fear and emotion regulation (ER) difficulties. Fear, as an emotional response to perceived threats, and ER, as the methods by which we navigate our emotional landscape, are both integral to the human experience. However, when fear responses are excessive or ER strategies are deficient, they can give rise to considerable distress and dysfunction. This is where self-care strategies—which refer to the everyday actions individuals take to care for their hygiene, physical, mental, and emotional health—serve as-if a rudder, steering us toward calmer water.
Self-care strategies are grounded in the principle that health and wellbeing are not just the absence of illness but require active maintenance. By adopting self-care strategies, we can nurture our ability to cope with fear and ER difficulties, enhance our resilience, and bolster our overall wellbeing (World Health Organization, 2004).
At a fundamental level, regular physical activity serves as a potent self-care strategy. Exercise, whether it’s a brisk walk in the park or a vigorous workout at the gym, can exert a profound calming effect on the fear response by reducing physiological arousal, promoting a sense of safety, and facilitating ER (Ratey, 2008). Moreover, by boosting our mood, enhancing our self-efficacy, and providing a healthy distraction, physical activity can contribute to more adaptive ER.
Diet and sleep hygiene are also critical self-care strategies. A nutritious diet, rich in fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, and complex carbohydrates, can provide our body and brain with the necessary fuel to function optimally, thus helping to moderate fear responses and promote ER (Jacka, 2017). On the other hand, adequate sleep, which is crucial for cognitive functions like attention, memory, and decision-making, can also enhance ER (Walker, 2017).
In addition to these physiological self-care strategies, psychological strategies can also be very effective in managing fear and ER. Mindfulness, the practice of attending to the present moment with openness and non-judgment, can foster ER by enabling us to observe our emotions without reacting to them impulsively (Kabat-Zinn, 2009). Moreover, by helping us to disengage from fear-inducing thoughts and scenarios, mindfulness can also attenuate the fear response.
Self-compassion, which involves treating oneself with kindness and understanding when facing difficulties, can also serve as a valuable self-care strategy. By alleviating self-criticism, which can exacerbate fear and ER difficulties, and promoting a more balanced perspective on our difficulties, self-compassion can foster ER and reduce fear (Neff, 2011).
Seeking social connexion or support, whether it is confiding in a friend, consulting a professional, or joining a support group, can be meaningful self-care strategies. By providing a sense of connexion, validation, reality-testing, practical assistance, socialisation, or social support alike help manage fear and promote ER (Cohen, 2004).
Personal or self-care strategies can be a powerful tool for managing fear and ER on a day-to-day basis. By attending to our physical health, nurturing our psychological wellbeing, and seeking social connexion, we can foster a greater ability to cope with fear and ER difficulties. In so doing, we do well to be minded of the wisdom of Epicurus, he said: “It is not so much our friend’s help that helps us as the confident knowledge that they will help us.”
With a fresh understanding of the factors influencing fear and its management, we will now draw together the key findings from our exploration.
8. Conclusion
8.1 Summary
In this final section, we will summarise the main points from the article and reflect on the importance of continued research into fear and emotion regulation. Our pathway into the brambles of fear and emotion regulation (ER) brings us to a clearing for welcome reflection and synthesis. We navigated through some of the landmarks, sketching the main findings and evaluating the significance of those insights for a better understanding of foundational human emotion and emotion regulation.
§ 1 of our exploration took us to the realm of fear, the primal emotion that holds such sway over our lives and well-being. We specifically mentioned the work of LeDoux and Pine (2016) and LeDoux and Brown (2017), who have shed new light on the structural cognitive systems, their proposed adaptations for GNS and HOT in relation to fear and its clinical treatment. § 1.1 revealed that fear and anxiety are not mere products of a single fear system, but rather an emergent property derived from multiple survival systems designed to aid in our evolutionary struggle for existence.
The understanding that fear and anxiety are linked to unconscious survival circuits, as discussed in § 1.2, paints a new picture of these emotions as protectors rather than adversaries. This perspective invites a shift in our approach to ER, encouraging us to harness these natural responses in a constructive manner at the unconscious depth required, rather than attempting to suppress or eradicate them.
Onwards to § 2, where we thoughtfully examined some systemic influences on children and adolescent’s ER. Through the lens of a tripartite model, as outlined in § 2.1, we unearthed the complex roles of observational learning, parenting practices, and emotional climate in shaping ER skills. In § 2.2, we acknowledged the power of emotion contagion, underscoring the ripple effect of familial emotions on the socialisation of ER.
Our path led us next to § 3, where we explored the varied fabric of individual differences and cognitive processes in fear and ER. Here we learned the value of subjective experience, biological factors, and personality traits as each shaping our emotional responses. § 3.2 and § 3.3 aimed to spotlight the impact of trauma and genetics on fear and ER, while § 3.4 underscored the power of cognitive distortions in amplifying fear responses and ER difficulties.
Arriving at § 4, we engaged in a brief clarification of various therapeutic approaches to managing fear and improving ER. The utility of specific therapeutic techniques such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based therapies, and psychodynamic therapies, were sketched out in § 4.1. The role of medication, as detailed in § 4.2, and the need for a personalised approach to treatment were underscored in § 4.3. Significantly, the therapeutic relationship was revealed as a hinge pin in the successful management of fear and ER.
We then turned our attention to the wider healthcare ecosystem in § 5, recognising the indispensable role of primary care physicians in early identification and management of fear and ER difficulties. § 5.2 further emphasised the critical importance of collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists, while § 5.3 highlighted the contributions of other healthcare professionals such as nurses and social workers.
In § 6, we sketched the complex world of comorbid conditions. We acknowledged how these concurrent mental health conditions could exacerbate fear and ER difficulties, as well as how the management of these conditions can and does impact fear responses and ER.
Our path then led us to § 7, where we sketched significant influences of lifestyle factors and social support on fear and ER. We explored the pivotal role of physical activity, diet, and sleep hygiene in managing fear and ER difficulties in § 7.1, while § 7.2 underscored the importance of socialisation and support networks. § 7.3 served as a timely reminder of the central role of self-care strategies in daily management of fear and ER.
As we find ourselves at the end of this short path, summarised in § 8, we can but reflect on the sheer complexity of the human emotional landscape. Our exploration of fear and ER has demonstrated in a small way that these emotional responses are neither isolated phenomena nor mere side-effects of our biology. Rather, we found support for a suggestion that fear and ER are yoked to our phylogeny, subjective experience, familial influences, cognitive processes, health status, and lifestyle.
Continued research, as noted in § 8.2, will undoubtedly reveal more as yet unploughed layers of this intricate terrain, offering further strategies to harness our fears and enhance our ER. As we contemplate these findings, we are reminded of the myriad factors that shape our emotional responses and the conscious and unconscious approaches needed to meet the challenge effectively.
We trust this pathway has at very least acknowledged the formidable complexity and interconnectedness of fear and ER in multiple contexts. If we have failed to gently illuminate a persuasive argument toward utilising an integrative approach, or a patient-centred methodology, to underpin clinical practice or psychotherapeutic intervention in this regard, then, we take full responsibility for any lack of skill on our part. Let us not forget that our object here was not to eliminate or suppress these emotions, but rather to accept, manage, and combine them into our service, thereby enriching the parallel continua of what it means to be human—explicitly not artificially human—that is, a being at once fleetingly rational and spectacularly irrational and creative.
8.2 Reflections on continued research
The complex, multi-faceted and ever-evolving terrain of fear and emotion regulation (ER) is a terrain whose exploration has brought about significant progress, yet with each question answered, a new enigma emerges. This is the nature of scientific enquiry; a dance of illumination and shadow, with the constant pursuit of understanding as our compass. The uncharted landscape of fear and ER research offers a unique canvas of possibilities, replete with a range of cognitive, biological, social, and environmental problematic factors. The importance of continued research into this domain cannot be overstated, and the reasons for this are manifold.
One of the core reasons lies in the sophistication of the fear response and ER system themselves. These psychological constructs are products of a multidimensional interaction between genetics, personal experiences, cognitive processes, and the socio-cultural environment. To appreciate the complexity of these phenomena, consider the distinct yet overlapping GNS and survival circuits which underpin the fear response, as outlined by LeDoux & Pine (2016) and LeDoux & Brown (2017). Unravelling the interplay between these circuits, the triggers that activate them, and the subsequent cognitive and emotional responses, is a task of immense complexity. However, it is a task that is crucial for the development of effective clinical interventions.
Moreover, the current understanding of ER, and its role in managing fear responses, remains a work in progress. While progress has been increasingly made in identifying key ER strategies such as cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression (Gross & John, 2003), our comprehension of how these strategies are best applied, or how they can be cultivated and enhanced, is still evolving. Continued research is therefore needed to refine these strategies, and possibly uncover others, to enhance the efficacy of ER in managing fear responses.
Continued research into fear and ER also has significant implications for the understanding and treatment of a range of mental health disorders. Fear and ER are central constructs in disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and various forms of anxiety disorders. The mechanisms of fear conditioning and extinction, and the factors that modulate these processes, are particularly pertinent to these conditions (Milad & Quirk, 2012). Hence, further insights into the neurobiology and cognitive processes of fear and ER could pave the way for novel rational and depth-based therapeutic approaches for these conditions.
There is also a growing recognition of the impact of environmental and lifestyle factors on fear responses and ER. For instance, there is a burgeoning interest in the role of diet, physical activity, and sleep hygiene in mental health (Jacka et al., 2017). Furthermore, the influence of broader socio-cultural and socioeconomic factors on fear and ER is gaining attention, illuminating the need for a more holistic understanding of these phenomena (Liu et al., 2019). Continued research in these areas could offer valuable insights into preventive strategies and holistic interventions.
The importance of continued research into fear and ER extends beyond the realm of mental health. Given the central role of fear and ER in human experience, insights from this field of research have implications for a range of domains, including education, organisational behaviour, and, most importantly perhaps, political science. For instance, understanding the role of fear in decision-making could enhance educational strategies, improve organisational leadership, and inform policymaking.
The pathway into the landscape of fear and ER is far from clear. The importance of continued research into these phenomena is underscored by their complexity, their central role in mental health, their influence by and on lifestyle factors, and their broader societal implications. Each new finding is a stepping-stone, guiding us towards a more comprehensive understanding of human emotion and facilitating the development of increasingly effective strategies to promote emotional well-being.
8.3 Final thoughts
Let us reflect back upon the pathway traversed thus far, from the intricate mechanisms of fear and ER, through familial influences and individual differences, to treatment approaches and healthcare systems, all the way to comorbidities, lifestyle factors and social support. It is from this vantage point that we now contemplate the profound implications of the myriad findings encountered along the way for our understanding of human emotion and ER.
Our exploration began with the acknowledgment of the central role of fear and ER in the human experience, captured in LeDoux & Pine’s (2016) and LeDoux & Brown’s (2017) novel work. Their contributions shed new light on the concept of fear and anxiety as products of complex unconscious survival systems and cortical networks (GSN), thus reshaping our understanding of these primal emotions. This shift in emphasis has significant ramifications for the field of psychology, with the potential to redefine conceptual frameworks and influence the course of future research. Meanwhile, the evolutionary perspective on fear offered by these authors adds another dimension to our understanding, by cementing the functioning of unconscious survival circuits in orchestrating cognitive fear responses. The intricate interplay between these circuits and cognitive and emotional processes may yet hold the code to comprehending how the human mind responds to perceived threats. Such research promises to guide us towards the development of more effective strategies for managing fear and enhancing ER.
From the intricacies of fear and ER, we moved onto familial influences, underscored by the tripartite model of familial influence on children and adolescent’s ER. This revealed the subtle ways in which parents and caregivers prototype children’s ability to manage their emotions, underscoring the role of early interventions in enhancing ER. This deepens our appreciation of the social and familial context in which ER develops, informing interventions aimed at fostering healthy emotional development.
At the same time, our exploration of individual differences and cognitive processes unravelled the layers of complexity within fear and ER. This segment of our pathway revealed the profound influence of personal experiences, biological factors, personality traits, trauma, genetic factors and cognitive distortions on fear responses and ER difficulties. Each of these findings enriches our understanding of the diverse factors shaping human emotion, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, personalised interventions that address these multifaceted influences.
On the therapeutic front, the investigation of cognitive-behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based therapies, psychodynamic therapies, and medication has highlighted the broad spectrum of strategies available for managing fear and ER difficulties. This paints a promising picture of the therapeutic landscape, while underscoring the necessity for continued research and development in this field. Beyond therapy, our discussion of the role of primary care physicians, specialists, nurses, social workers, and the wider healthcare system has highlighted the need for a collaborative approach to managing fear and ER difficulties. This illustrates the potential for improved patient outcomes through coordinated care, emphasising the value of interdisciplinary collaboration in healthcare.
Our examination of comorbid mental health conditions in managing fear and ER difficulties has underscored the importance of addressing these conditions in the quest to enhance ER. This points towards the need for a holistic approach to mental health, considering the interconnected nature of psychological disorders.
Moreover, our pathway through the landscape of lifestyle factors and social support has revealed their substantial influence on fear and ER. Physical activity, diet, sleep hygiene, social support, and self-care strategies each emerged as potential tools for managing fear and improving ER, highlighting the role of holistic interventions in promoting mental well-being.
As we conclude, the implications of these findings for our understanding of human emotion and ER are not trivial. These sketches may elucidate in some small way the complexity and diversity of influences shaping fear responses and ER, calling for a multi-layered, comprehensive approach to research and intervention in this field. Our sketch underscores the centrality of fear and ER in the human experience, emphasising the importance of continued research in these domains. And the research covered merely brightens the path toward enhanced ER, suggesting promising directions for future interdisciplinary exploration.
Yet perhaps the most profound implication, we think, is the reminder that each individual’s pathway through fear and ER is unique, shaped by a matchless constellation of influences. Recognising this diversity is vital for developing personalised rational and depth-based interventions in parallel that respond to each individual’s needs, an endeavour that promises to challenge professionals while making a significant contribution to the enhancement of human well-being.
References
| Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper and Row. |
| Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Psychology Press. |
| Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). When are adaptive strategies most predictive of psychopathology?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 276. |
| Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 30(2), 217-237. |
| American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. |
| Andrews-Hanna, J.R., Smallwood, J. and Spreng, R.N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), pp.29-52. |
| Appleton, A. A., Buka, S. L., Loucks, E. B., Gilman, S. E., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2013). Divergent associations of adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies with inflammation. Health psychology, 32(7), 748. |
| Ardito, R. B., & Rabellino, D. (2011). Therapeutic alliance and outcome of psychotherapy: historical excursus, measurements, and prospects for research. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 270. |
| Arnold, M.B. (1960a). ‘Emotion and Personality: Volume I, Psychological Aspects’. New York: Columbia University Press. |
| Arnold, M.B. (1960b). ‘Emotion and Personality: Volume II, Physiological Aspects’. New York: Columbia University Press. |
| Barker, P. (2003). Psychiatric and mental health nursing: the craft of caring. Arnold. |
| Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. Guilford press. |
| Barlow, D. H., Allen, L. B., & Choate, M. L. (2004). Toward a unified treatment for emotional disorders. Behavior therapy, 35(2), 205-230. |
| Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds?. Perspectives on psychological science, 1(1), 28-58. |
| Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2016). Mentalization-based treatment for personality disorders: A practical guide. Oxford University Press. |
| Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Penguin. |
| Beck, A. T., & Haigh, E. A. P. (2014). Advances in cognitive theory and therapy: the generic cognitive model. Annual review of clinical psychology, 10, 1-24. |
| Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. Guilford press. |
| Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press. |
| Belling, R., Whittock, M., McLaren, S., Burns, T., Catty, J., Jones, I., Rose, D., & Wykes, T. (2011). Achieving continuity of care: facilitators and barriers in community mental health teams. Implementation Science, 6(1), 23. |
| Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological bulletin, 135(6), 885. |
| Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). The centrality of event scale: a measure of integrating a trauma into one’s identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(2), 219-231. |
| Bleil, M. E., Gianaros, P. J., Jennings, J. R., Flory, J. D., & Manuck, S. B. (2008). Trait negative affect: Toward an integrated model of understanding psychological risk for impairment in cardiac autonomic function. Psychosomatic medicine, 70(3), 328. |
| Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252-260. |
| Bouton, M. E., Westbrook, R. F., Corcoran, K. A., & Maren, S. (2006). Contextual and temporal modulation of extinction: behavioral and biological mechanisms. Biological psychiatry, 60(4), 352-360. |
| Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2014). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment (DSM-5 update). Sage publications. |
| Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., … & Ochsner, K. N. (2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: a meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981-2990. |
| Burns, T., Catty, J., Jones, I., Rose, D., & Wykes, T. (2011). Achieving continuity of care: facilitators and barriers in community mental health teams. Implementation Science, 6(1), 23. |
| Byrne, M. L., Sheeber, L. B., Yap, M. B., Cotton, S. M., Ballesio, A., & Allen, N. B. (2017). Adolescent emotion regulation: A multi-modal investigation of neural, physiological, and observational measures. Journal of adolescence, 57, 26-38. |
| Cacioppo, J. T., & Tassinary, L. G. (1990). Inferring psychological significance from physiological signals. American psychologist, 45(1), 16. |
| Campbell-Sills, L., & Barlow, D. H. (2007). Incorporating emotion regulation into conceptualizations and treatments of anxiety and mood disorders. Handbook of emotion regulation, 542-559. |
| Cannon, W. B. (1927). The James-Lange theory of emotions: A critical examination and an alternative theory. The American journal of psychology, 39(1/4), 106-124. |
| Cape, J., Barker, C., Buszewicz, M., & Pistrang, N. (2000). General practitioner psychological management of common emotional problems (I): Definitions and literature review. British Journal of General Practice, 50(453), 313–318. |
| Capozzi, F., Beyan, C., Pierro, A., Koul, A., Murino, V., Livi, S., Bayliss, A.P., Ristic, J. and Becchio, C. (2019). Tracking the Leader: Gaze Behavior in Group Interactions. iScience, 16, pp.350-355. |
| Carney, R. M., Freedland, K. E., & Rich, M. W. (1995). Depression as a risk factor for cardiac events in established coronary heart disease: a review of possible mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 17(2), 142-149. |
| Castonguay, L. G., & Beutler, L. E. (2006). Principles of therapeutic change that work. Oxford University Press. |
| Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. (2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical psychology review, 30(2), 203-216. |
| Cisler, J. M., Olatunji, B. O., Feldner, M. T., & Forsyth, J. P. (2010). Emotion regulation and the anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment, 32(1), 68-82. |
| Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38(5), 300-314. |
| Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American psychologist, 59(8), 676. |
| Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 59(2-3), 73-100. |
| Craske, M. G., Kircanski, K., Zelikowsky, M., Mystkowski, J., Chowdhury, N., & Baker, A. (2008). Optimizing inhibitory learning during exposure therapy. Behaviour research and therapy, 46(1), 5-27. |
| Cryan, J. F., & Dinan, T. G. (2012). Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(10), 701-712. |
| Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., Warmerdam, L., & van Rooy, M. J. (2010). Recruiting participants for interventions to prevent the onset of depressive disorders: Possible ways to increase participation rates. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 181. |
| Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Grosset/Putnam. |
| Darby, D. & Walsh, K. (2005). Walsh’s Neuropsychology: A clinical approach. 5th ed. London: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone |
| Davies, C. (2014). Community mental health nursing and dementia care: practice perspectives. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). |
| Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament. Journal of personality and social psychology, 55(6), 958. |
| Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. John Wiley & Sons. |
| Dominelli, L. (2009). Introducing social work. Polity. |
| Donker, T., Griffiths, K. M., Cuijpers, P., & Christensen, H. (2009). Psychoeducation for depression, anxiety and psychological distress: a meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 7(1), 79. |
| Dwamena, F., Holmes-Rovner, M., Gaulden, C.M., Jorgenson, S., Sadigh, G., Sikorskii, A., … & Olomu, A., 2012. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (12). |
| Ehring, T., & Quack, D. (2010). Emotion regulation difficulties in trauma survivors: The role of trauma type and PTSD symptom severity. Behavior Therapy, 41(4), 587-598. |
| Ehring, T., Tuschen-Caffier, B., Schnülle, J., Fischer, S., & Gross, J. J. (2010). Emotion regulation and vulnerability to depression: spontaneous versus instructed use of emotion suppression and reappraisal. Emotion, 10(4), 563. |
| Ehring, T., Welboren, R., Morina, N., Wicherts, J. M., Freitag, J., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (2014). Meta-analysis of psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder in adult survivors of childhood abuse. Clinical psychology review, 34(8), 645-657. |
| Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & emotion, 6(3-4), 169-200. |
| Ekman, P., & Cordaro, D. (2011). What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion review, 3(4), 364-370. |
| Ellis, G.F.R. (2012). Top-down causation and emergence: some comments on mechanisms. Interface Focus, 2(1), pp.126-140. |
| Evans, G.W. (2004). The Environment of Childhood Poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), pp.77-92. |
| Everly, G. S., & Lating, J. M. (2019). A Clinical Guide to the Treatment of the Human Stress Response. Springer. |
| Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Soane, E., Nicholson, N. and Willman, P. (2011). Thinking, feeling and deciding: The influence of emotions on the decision making and performance of traders. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), pp.1045-1061. |
| Frederickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions-Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1367. |
| Freshwater, D., & Stickley, T. (2004). The heart of the art: emotional intelligence in nurse education. Nursing Inquiry, 11(2), 91-98. |
| Freud, S. (1918). From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The “Wolf Man”), in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (SE), 17: 7-122. |
| Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. The International Psycho-Analytical Press. |
| Freud, S. (Trans. Strachey, J. 1927). The Future of an Illusion. London: Hogarth Press. |
| Gabbard, G. O. (2014). Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice. American Psychiatric Pub. |
| Giedke, H., & Schwärzler, F. (2002). Therapeutic use of sleep deprivation in depression. Sleep medicine reviews, 6(5), 361-377. |
| Glassner, B. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. Basic Books. |
| Goldin, P. R., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion regulation: reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological psychiatry, 63(6), 577-586. |
| Goldstein, A. N., & Walker, M. P. (2014). The role of sleep in emotional brain function. Annual review of clinical psychology, 10, 679-708. |
| Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (No. 5). CUP Archive. |
| Grayer, J., Cape, J., Orpwood, L., Leibowitz, J., & Buszewicz, M. (2008). Facilitating access to voluntary and statutory services for patients with common mental health problems: a literature review and synthesis of recent research. Primary Care and Community Psychiatry, 13(2), 45-59. |
| Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent-and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(1), 224. |
| Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of general psychology, 2(3), 271-299. |
| Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. |
| Hall, J. A., & Dornan, M. C. (1990). Patient sociodemographic characteristics as predictors of satisfaction with medical care: a meta-analysis. Social science & medicine, 30(7), 811-818. |
| Hariri, A. R., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2000). Modulating emotional responses: effects of a neocortical network on the limbic system. Neuroreport, 11(1), 43-48. |
| Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behaviour change. Guilford Press. |
| Haynos, A. F., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). Anorexia nervosa as a disorder of emotion dysregulation: Evidence and treatment implications. Clinical psychology: Science and practice, 18(3), 183-202. |
| Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., Rooney, G. D., Strom-Gottfried, K., & Larsen, J. (2010). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills. Cengage Learning. |
| Hilt, L.M., Armstrong, J.M., and Essex, M.J., 2012. Early family context and development of adolescent ruminative style: Moderation by temperament. Cognition and Emotion, 26(6), pp.916-926. |
| Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive therapy and research, 36(5), 427-440. |
| Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 78(2), 169. |
| Hoge, E. A., Bui, E., Marques, L., Metcalf, C. A., Morris, L. K., Robinaugh, D. J., … & Simon, N. M. (2013). Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation for generalized anxiety disorder: effects on anxiety and stress reactivity. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 74(8), 786. |
| Holmes, J. (2010). Exploring insecurity: Towards an attachment-informed psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Routledge. |
| Jacka, F. N. (2017). Nutritional psychiatry: where to next?. EBioMedicine, 17, 24-29. |
| Jacka, F. N., Kremer, P. J., Berk, M., de Silva-Sanigorski, A. M., Moodie, M., Leslie, E. R., … & Swinburn, B. A. (2011). A prospective study of diet quality and mental health in adolescents. PloS one, 6(9), e24805. |
| Jacka, F. N., O’Neil, A., Opie, R., Itsiopoulos, C., Cotton, S., Mohebbi, M., Castle, D., Dash, S., Mihalopoulos, C., Chatterton, M. L., Brazionis, L., Dean, O. M., Hodge, A. M., & Berk, M. (2017). A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial). BMC Medicine, 15(1), 23. |
| Jacka, F. N., O’Neil, A., Opie, R., Itsiopoulos, C., Cotton, S., Mohebbi, M., … & Brazionis, L. (2017). A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial). BMC medicine, 15(1), 1-13. |
| Jacobson, N. C., Newman, M. G., & Goldfried, M. R. (2019). Clinical feedback about empirically supported treatments for anxiety disorders. The American journal of psychiatry, 176(1), 15-26. |
| James, W. (1884). ‘What is an Emotion?’ Mind, 9(34), pp.188-205. |
| Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of educational research, 79(1), 491-525. |
| John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of personality, 72(6), 1301-1334. |
| Johnstone, L., & Dallos, R. (2006). Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy: Making sense of people’s problems. Routledge. |
| Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. Delta. |
| Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hachette UK. |
| Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H. and Jessell, T.M. (2000). Principles of neural science. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. |
| Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical psychology review, 30(7), 865-878. |
| Kates, N., Mach, M., & Katz, A. (2018). What is the psychiatrist’s role in improving primary care mental health?. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 63(7), 466-472. |
| Kates, N., Mach, M., & Katz, C. (2018). Implementing mental health services in primary care: a final report on a program of research. Healthcare Management Forum, 31(4), 140-146. |
| Kendler, K. S., Karkowski, L. M., & Prescott, C. A. (1999). Causal relationship between stressful life events and the onset of major depression. American journal of Psychiatry, 156(6), 837-841. |
| Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of general psychiatry, 62(6), 617-627. |
| Kessler, R. C., Demler, O., Frank, R. G., Olfson, M., Pincus, H. A., Walters, E. E., Wang, P., Wells, K. B., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2005). Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders, 1990 to 2003. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(24), 2515-2523. |
| King, L. A., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1998). What’s so great about feeling good? Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 53-57. |
| Koekkoek, B., van Meijel, B., Tiemens, B., Schene, A., & Hutschemaekers, G. (2006). How do patients come to be seen as ‘difficult’?: A mixed-methods study in community mental health care. Social Science & Medicine, 62(4), 883-892. |
| Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition and emotion, 23(1), 4-41. |
| Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not hurt distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological science, 16(9), 709-715. |
| Kuyken, W., Warren, F. C., Taylor, R. S., Whalley, B., Crane, C., Bondolfi, G., … & Segal, Z. (2016). Efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in prevention of depressive relapse: an individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized trials. JAMA psychiatry, 73(6), 565-574. |
| Lai, J. S., Hiles, S., Bisquera, A., Hure, A. J., McEvoy, M., & Attia, J. (2014). A systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary patterns and depression in community-dwelling adults. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 99(1), 181-197. |
| Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American psychologist, 39(2), 124. |
| Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 9(2), 221-229. |
| LeDoux, J. (2002). Synaptic self: How our brains become who we are. Penguin. |
| LeDoux, J. E., & Brown, R. (2017). A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(10), E2016–E2025. |
| LeDoux, J. E., & Pine, D. S. (2016). Using Neuroscience to Help Understand Fear and Anxiety: A Two-System Framework. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(11), 1083–1093. |
| Leichsenring, F., Klein, S., & Salzer, S. (2014). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy in specific mental disorders: a 2013 update of empirical evidence. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27(4), 329-359. |
| Levenson, R. W. (2003). Autonomic specificity and emotion. In Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 212-224). Oxford University Press. |
| Levenson, R. W., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1990). Voluntary facial action generates emotion-specific autonomic nervous system activity. Psychophysiology, 27(4), 363-384. |
| Levinas, E. (Trans. Lingis, A. 1974/1991). Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence. London, Boston, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. |
| Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford press. |
| Liu, D., Gomez-Pinilla, F., & Dang, V. (2019). The Intersection of Diet, Microbiota, Epigenetics, and Mental Health. Reference Module in Food Science. |
| Liu, D., Gomez-Pinilla, F., & Dang, V. (2019). The Intersection of Diet, Microbiota, Epigenetics, and Mental Health. Reference Module in Food Science. |
| Luyten, P., Blatt, S. J., & Mayes, L. C. (2012). Process and outcome in psychoanalytic psychotherapy research: The need for a (relatively) new paradigm. In Handbook of psychodynamic approaches to psychopathology (pp. 61-81). Guilford Publications. |
| MacLean, P. D. (1990). The triune brain in evolution: role in paleocerebral functions. Springer Science & Business Media. |
| Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 68(3), 438. |
| Marx, B. P., & Sloan, D. M. (2002). The role of emotion in the psychological functioning of adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Behavior therapy, 33(4), 563-577. |
| McDaniel, S. H., Campbell, T. L., Hepworth, J., & Lorenz, A. (2005). Family-oriented primary care. Springer Science & Business Media. |
| McPherson, K., Headrick, L., & Moss, F. (2001). Working and learning together: good quality care depends on it, but how can we achieve it?. Quality in Health Care, 10(suppl 2), ii46-ii53. |
| Milad, M. R., & Quirk, G. J. (2012). Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience: Ten Years of Progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 129–151. |
| Mitchell, C., Rao, S., & Vaze, A. (2020). Do general practitioners and psychiatrists agree about defining cure from depression? The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 55(3), 171-184. |
| Montaigne, M. de. (Trans. Florio, J. 1580/1603). Essays. Book I, Chapter 17. |
| Morris, A.S., Silk, J.S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S.S. and Robinson, L.R. (2007). The Role of the Family Context in the Development of Emotion Regulation. Social Development, 16(2), pp.361-388. |
| Neff, K. D. (2011). Self‐compassion, self‐esteem, and well‐being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 1-12. |
| Nutt, D. J., & Malizia, A. L. (2001). New insights into the role of the GABAA–benzodiazepine receptor in psychiatric disorder. British journal of psychiatry, 179(5), 390-396. |
| Obholzer, K. (1982). The Wolf-Man: Sixty Years Later. Routledge & Kegan Paul. |
| Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(5), 242-249. |
| Öhman, A. (2000). Fear and anxiety: Evolutionary, cognitive, and clinical perspectives. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 573-593). The Guilford Press. |
| Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological review, 108(3), 483. |
| Olfson, M., Kroenke, K., Wang, S., & Blanco, C. (2014). Trends in office-based mental health care provided by psychiatrists and primary care physicians. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75(3), 247-253. |
| Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychological review, 97(3), 315. |
| Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford university press. |
| Pezzulo, G. and Levin, M. (2016). Top-down models in biology: explanation and control of complex living systems above the molecular level. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 13(124), p.20160555. |
| Price, M. (2000). Helping patients to help themselves. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 48(2), 125-128. |
| Rachman, S. (2004). Anxiety (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. |
| Radziwiłłowicz, W., & Sobański, J. A. (2019). Efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in prevention of depressive relapse/recurrence. Psychiatria Polska, 53(4), 821-834. |
| Ratey, J. J. (2008). Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise and the brain. Little, Brown. |
| Ratey, J. J., & Loehr, J. E. (2011). The positive impact of physical activity on cognition during adulthood: a review of underlying mechanisms, evidence and recommendations. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 22(2), 171-185. |
| Raver, C.C., Jones, S.M., Li-Grining, C.P., Zhai, F., Bub, K.L. and Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s Impact on Low-Income Preschoolers’ Preacademic Skills: Self-Regulation as a Mediating Mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), pp.362-378. |
| Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (p. 201–225). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. |
| Resick, P. A., & Schnicke, M. K. (1992). Cognitive processing therapy for sexual assault victims. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(5), 748. |
| Richardson, L. P., Ratner, J., & Zatzick, D. (2009). Collaborative care for adolescent depression: a pilot study. General Hospital Psychiatry, 31(1), 36-45. |
| Rizq, R., & Target, M. (2008). ‘If that’s what I need, it could be what someone else needs.’ Exploring the role of attachment and reflective function in counselling psychologists’ accounts of how they use personal therapy in clinical practice: a mixed methods study. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 36(2), 131-149. |
| Roth, W. T. (2005). Physiological markers for anxiety: Panic disorder and phobias. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 58(2-3), 190-198. |
| Rothbaum, B. O., & Davis, M. (2003). Applying learning principles to the treatment of post-trauma reactions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008(1), 112-121. |
| Russell, J. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological bulletin, 110(3), 426. |
| Sameroff, A.J. (2010). A Unified Theory of Development: A Dialectic Integration of Nature and Nurture. Child Development, 81(1), pp.6-22. |
| Saxena, S., Thornicroft, G., Knapp, M., & Whiteford, H. (2007). Resources for mental health: scarcity, inequity, and inefficiency. The Lancet, 370(9590), 878-889. |
| Schachter, S. and Singer, J. (1962). ‘Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State’. Psychological Review, 69(5), pp.379-399. |
| Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured?. Social science information, 44(4), 695-729. |
| Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual differences, 25(2), 167-177. |
| Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2007). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2, 385-407. |
| Scott, K. M., Bruffaerts, R., Tsang, A., Ormel, J., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M. C., … & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Depression–anxiety relationships with chronic physical conditions: results from the World Mental Health Surveys. Journal of affective disorders, 103(1-3), 113-120. |
| Scott, K. M., Bruffaerts, R., Tsang, A., Ormel, J., Alonso, J., Angermeyer, M. C., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). Depression–anxiety relationships with chronic physical conditions: results from the World Mental Health Surveys. Journal of affective disorders, 103(1-3), 113–120. |
| Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2012). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. Guilford Press. |
| Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. McGraw-Hill. |
| Seminowicz, D. A., & Davis, K. D. (2007). Pain enhances functional connectivity of a brain network evoked by performance of a cognitive task. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(5), 3651-3659. |
| Serretti, A., Kato, M., De Ronchi, D., & Kinoshita, T. (2007). Meta-analysis of serotonin transporter gene promoter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) association with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor efficacy in depressed patients. Molecular psychiatry, 12(3), 247-257. |
| Shakespeare, W. (Ed. Alexander, P. 1623/1951). The Tudor Edition of William Shakespeare the Complete Works, London & Glasgow: Collins |
| Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American psychologist, 65(2), 98. |
| Simon, G. E., VonKorff, M., Piccinelli, M., Fullerton, C., & Ormel, J. (1999). An international study of the relation between somatic symptoms and depression. New England Journal of Medicine, 341(18), 1329-1335. |
| Spiegel, D., Bloom, J. R., & Yalom, I. (1981). Group support for patients with metastatic cancer. A randomized outcome study. Archives of general psychiatry, 38(5), 527-533. |
| Stewart, M. A. (1995). Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Cmaj, 152(9), 1423-1433. |
| Stirling, J. & Elliott, R. (2008). Introducing Neuropsychology. 2nd ed. Hove & New York: Psychology Press |
| Stroebe, M., Zech, E., Stroebe, W., & Abakoumkin, G. (2005). Does social support help in bereavement? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(7), 1030-1050. |
| Sulik, M. J., Eisenberg, M. E., & Eichen, D. M. (2018). Mental health service use and perceived unmet mental health needs in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents. Psychological services, 15(4), 434. |
| Sullivan, P. (2012). Qualitative data analysis using a dialogical approach. Sage. |
| Swift, J. K., & Callahan, J. L. (2009). The impact of client treatment preferences on outcome: a meta‐analysis. Journal of clinical psychology, 65(4), 368-381. |
| Tamminen, K.A., and Bennett, E.V., 2017. No emotion is an island: an overview of theoretical perspectives and narrative research on emotions in sport and physical activity. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(2), pp.183-Emotion regulation (ER) and the role of emotion contagion in socialisation are integral to understanding human emotional development and behaviour. |
| Taubner, S., White, L. O., Zimmermann, J., Fonagy, P., & Nolte, T. (2013). Attachment-related mentalization moderates the relationship between psychopathic traits and proactive aggression in adolescence. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 41(6), 929-938. |
| Taylor, C. B., Sallis, J. F., & Needle, R. (1985). The relation of physical activity and exercise to mental health. Public health reports, 100(2), 195. |
| Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge University Press. |
| Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In The handbook of health psychology (pp. 189-214). Oxford University Press. |
| Teater, B. (2014). An introduction to applying social work theories and methods. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). |
| Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161. |
| Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 59(2-3), 25-52. |
| Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness (Vol. 2). Springer. |
| Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 1-25. |
| Valderas, J. M., Starfield, B., Sibbald, B., Salisbury, C., & Roland, M. (2009). Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. The Annals of Family Medicine, 7(4), 357-363. |
| Vlaeyen, J. W., & Linton, S. J. (2012). Fear-avoidance model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: 12 years on. Pain, 153(6), 1144-1147. |
| Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996). Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank Quarterly, 511-544. |
| Walker, M. (2017). Why we sleep: Unlocking the power of sleep and dreams. Simon and Schuster. |
| Walters, G. D. (2018). The role of primary care physicians in advancing shared decision-making in mental health care. Annals of family medicine, 16(4), 349-351. |
| Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 775. |
| Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). Perceived support, received support, and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 78-89. |
| World Health Organization. (2004). The solid facts: mental health. World Health Organization. |
| Wulsin, L. R., Vaillant, G. E., & Wells, V. E. (1999). A systematic review of the mortality of depression. Psychosomatic medicine, 61(1), 6-17. |
| Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press. |
| Young, R.H., Sproeber, N., Groschwitz, R.C., Preiss, M., and Plener, P.L., 2014. Why alternative teenagers self-harm: exploring the link between non-suicidal self-injury, attempted suicide and adolescent identity. BMC Psychiatry, 14, p.137. |
| Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist, 35(2), 151. |
| Zimmerman, M., Chelminski, I., & Young, D. (2008). The frequency of personality disorders in psychiatric patients. Psychiatric clinics, 31(3), 405-420. |
| Zschucke, E., Renneberg, B., Dimeo, F., Wüstenberg, T., & Ströhle, A. (2015). The stress-buffering effect of acute exercise: Evidence for HPA axis negative feedback. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 51, 414-425. |
Copyright Paul Wadey M.Res M.Sc MBACP (Accred.)
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Reflections from a therapy room 
Leave a comment