CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updating Beliefs under Perceived Threat

Open access
Garrett, Neil, González-Garzón, Ana María, Foulkes, Lucy, Levita, Liat, Sharot, Tali·2018·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.0716-18.2018PMC PMC6125815
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans are better at integrating desirable information into their beliefs than undesirable information. This asymmetry poses an evolutionary puzzle, as it can lead to an underestimation of risk and thus failure to take precautionary action. Here, we suggest a mechanism that can speak to this conundrum. In particular, we show that the bias vanishes in response to perceived threat in the environment. We report that an improvement in participants9 tendency to incorporate bad news into their beliefs is associated with physiological arousal in response to threat indexed by galvanic skin response and self-reported anxiety. This pattern of results was observed in a controlled laboratory setting (Experiment I), where perceived threat was manipulated, and in firefighters on duty (Experiment II), where it naturally varied. Such flexibility in how individuals integrate information may enhance the likelihood of responding to warnings with caution in environments rife with threat, while maintaining a positivity bias otherwise, a strategy that can increase well-being. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The human tendency to be overly optimistic has mystified scholars and lay people for decades: How could biased beliefs have been selected over unbiased beliefs? Scholars have suggested that although the optimism bias can lead to negative outcomes, including financial collapse and war, it can also facilitate health and productivity. Here, we demonstrate that a mechanism generating the optimism bias, namely asymmetric information integration, evaporates under threat. Such flexibility could result in enhanced caution in dangerous environments while supporting an optimism bias otherwise, potentially increasing well-being.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.0716-18.2018

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Behavioral task. On each trial, participants were presented with a short description of an adverse event and asked to estimate how likely this event was to occur to them in the future. They were then presented with the probability of that event occurring to someone from the same age, location, and socioeconomic background as them. The second session was the same as the first except that the average probability of the event to occur was not presented. Shown are examples of trials for which the participant's estimate was higher or lower than the statistical information provided leading to receipt of good news (left) and bad news (right), respectively. Note that the blue and red boxes are just for illustration and did not appear in the actual experiment.
Figure 1. Behavioral task. On each trial, participants were presented with a short description of an adverse event and asked to estimate how likely this event was to occur to them in the future. They were then presented with the probability of that event occurring to someone from the same age, location, and socioeconomic background as them. The second session was the same as the first except that the average probability of the event to occur was not presented. Shown are examples of trials for which the participant's estimate was higher or lower than the statistical information provided leading to receipt of good news (left) and bad news (right), respectively. Note that the blue and red boxes are just for illustration and did not appear in the actual experiment.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Manipulation check. Measures of self-reported state anxiety (a), skin conductance (b), and cortisol levels (c) were greater after manipulation relative to before in the threat manipulation group compared with the control group. Time points for cortisol measurements are as follows: t0, before threat/control manipulation procedure; t1, immediately after threat/control manipulation procedure, before undertaking the task (+10 min from t0); t2, halfway through the task (+30 min from t0); t3, after completion of task and postexperiment questionnaires (+1 h from t0). **p < 0.01 independent/paired sample ttest as appropriate; error bars represent SEM.
Figure 2. Manipulation check. Measures of self-reported state anxiety (a), skin conductance (b), and cortisol levels (c) were greater after manipulation relative to before in the threat manipulation group compared with the control group. Time points for cortisol measurements are as follows: t0, before threat/control manipulation procedure; t1, immediately after threat/control manipulation procedure, before undertaking the task (+10 min from t0); t2, halfway through the task (+30 min from t0); t3, after completion of task and postexperiment questionnaires (+1 h from t0). **p < 0.01 independent/paired sample ttest as appropriate; error bars represent SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Bias in information integration parameters vanishes under threat manipulation. Whereas the control group showed asymmetrical information integration parameters (α) in response to good and bad news, this bias vanished in the threat manipulation group because of an increase in αB (information integration parameter for bad news). The group * valence interaction was significant, controlling for all covariates identified in Table 1 (see Materials and Methods). *p < 0.05 independent/paired sample t test as appropriate; **p < 0.01 independent/paired-sample t test as appropriate; error bars represent SEM.
Figure 3. Bias in information integration parameters vanishes under threat manipulation. Whereas the control group showed asymmetrical information integration parameters (α) in response to good and bad news, this bias vanished in the threat manipulation group because of an increase in αB (information integration parameter for bad news). The group * valence interaction was significant, controlling for all covariates identified in Table 1 (see Materials and Methods). *p < 0.05 independent/paired sample t test as appropriate; **p < 0.01 independent/paired-sample t test as appropriate; error bars represent SEM.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Greater integration of bad news related to self-reported anxiety and SCL. After the manipulation, an increase in both self-reported anxiety (a; bi = 0.049, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.25) and SCL (b; bi = 0.076, p = .042, ηp2 = 0.13) was related to larger information integration from bad news, correcting for possible confounds. Plotted are the partial regression plots from two linear models (one for self-report and one for SCL) that control for additional covariates.
Figure 4. Greater integration of bad news related to self-reported anxiety and SCL. After the manipulation, an increase in both self-reported anxiety (a; bi = 0.049, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.25) and SCL (b; bi = 0.076, p = .042, ηp2 = 0.13) was related to larger information integration from bad news, correcting for possible confounds. Plotted are the partial regression plots from two linear models (one for self-report and one for SCL) that control for additional covariates.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. State anxiety in firefighters differentially relates to integration of good and bad news. Subjective state anxiety scores of firefighters on shift were related to larger information integration from bad news (bi = 0.03, p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.26) and lower information integration from good news (bi = −0.045, p = 0.038, ηp2 = 0.17), correcting for possible confounds. Plotted are the partial regression plots for bad news (a; partial αB) and good news (b; partial αG) from two separate linear models (one for bad news and one for good news) that control for additional covariates.
Figure 5. State anxiety in firefighters differentially relates to integration of good and bad news. Subjective state anxiety scores of firefighters on shift were related to larger information integration from bad news (bi = 0.03, p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.26) and lower information integration from good news (bi = −0.045, p = 0.038, ηp2 = 0.17), correcting for possible confounds. Plotted are the partial regression plots for bad news (a; partial αB) and good news (b; partial αG) from two separate linear models (one for bad news and one for good news) that control for additional covariates.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 58 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–110 of 110

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Garrett, N., González-Garzón, A. M., Foulkes, L., Levita, L., & Sharot, T.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Garrett, Neil
  • Sharot, Tali
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2018-08-06
Volume
38
Issue
36
Pages
7901-7911
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.0716-18.2018
PMC
PMC6125815
OpenAlex
W2885599406
Cited by
109
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
optimism bias, positivity bias, threat perception, risk underestimation, skin conductance, physiological arousal, anxiety, firefighters, belief updating, precautionary behavior
MeSH terms
Optimism, Adult, Anxiety, Arousal, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Stress, Psychological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review