We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Heightened reactivity to unpredictable threat (U-threat) is a core individual difference factor underlying fear-based psychopathology. Little is known, however, about whether reactivity to U-threat is a stable marker of fear-based psychopathology or if it is malleable to treatment. The aim of the current study was to address this question by examining differences in reactivity to U-threat within patients before and after 12-weeks of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).
Methods
Participants included patients with principal fear (n = 22) and distress/misery disorders (n = 29), and a group of healthy controls (n = 21) assessed 12-weeks apart. A well-validated threat-of-shock task was used to probe reactivity to predictable (P-) and U-threat and startle eyeblink magnitude was recorded as an index of defensive responding.
Results
Across both assessments, individuals with fear-based disorders displayed greater startle magnitude to U-threat relative to healthy controls and distress/misery patients (who did not differ). From pre- to post-treatment, startle magnitude during U-threat decreased only within the fear patients who received CBT. Moreover, within fear patients, the magnitude of decline in startle to U-threat correlated with the magnitude of decline in fear symptoms. For the healthy controls, startle to U-threat across the two time points was highly reliable and stable.
Conclusions
Together, these results indicate that startle to U-threat characterizes fear disorder patients and is malleable to treatment with CBT but not SSRIs within fear patients. Startle to U-threat may therefore reflect an objective, psychophysiological indicator of fear disorder status and CBT treatment response.
When sober, problematic drinkers display exaggerated reactivity to threats that are uncertain (U-threat). Since this aversive affective state can be alleviated via acute alcohol intoxication, it has been posited that individuals who exhibit heightened reactivity to U-threat at baseline are motivated to use alcohol as a means of avoidance-based coping, setting the stage for excessive drinking. To date, however, no study has attempted to characterize the dispositional nature of exaggerated reactivity to U-threat and test whether it is a vulnerability factor or exclusively a disease marker of problematic alcohol use.
Method
The current investigation utilized a family study design to address these gaps by examining whether (1) reactivity to U-threat is associated with risk for problematic alcohol use, defined by family history of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and (2) reactivity to U-threat is correlated amongst adult biological siblings. A total of 157 families, and 458 individuals, participated in the study and two biological siblings completed a threat-of-shock task designed to probe reactivity to U-threat and predictable threat (P-threat). Startle potentiation was collected as an index of aversive responding.
Results
Within biological siblings, startle potentiation to U-threat [intraclass correlation (ICC) = 0.35] and P-threat (ICC = 0.63) was significantly correlated. In addition, independent of an individuals’ own AUD status, startle potentiation to U-threat, but not P-threat, was positively associated with risk for AUD (i.e. AUD family history).
Conclusion
This suggests that heightened reactivity to U-threat may be a familial vulnerability factor for problematic drinking and a novel prevention target for AUD.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.