Abstract

Auto-biological beliefs-beliefs about one's own biology-are an understudied component of personal identity. Research participants who are led to believe they are biologically vulnerable to affective disorders report more symptoms and less ability to control their mood; however, little is known about the impact of self-originating beliefs about risk for psychopathology, and whether such beliefs correspond to empirically derived estimates of actual vulnerability. Participants in a neuroimaging study (n = 1256) completed self-report measures of affective symptoms, perceived stress, and neuroticism, and an emotional face processing task in the scanner designed to elicit threat responses from the amygdala. A subsample (n = 63) additionally rated their own perceived neural response to threat (i.e., amygdala activity) compared to peers. Self-ratings of neural threat response were uncorrelated with actual threat-related amygdala activity measured via BOLD fMRI. However, self-ratings predicted subjective distress across a variety of self-report measures. In contrast, in the full sample, threat-related amygdala activity was uncorrelated with self-report measures of affective distress. These findings suggest that beliefs about one's own biological threat response-while unrelated to measured neural activation-may be informative indicators of psychological functioning.

Highlights

  • Understanding the biological basis of human behavior has long been of interest to the scientific community and the general public

  • We investigated beliefs about a specific biological signature—threat-related amygdala activity (TRA)—which is associated with risk for stress-related psychopathology but is measurable in the general population (Swartz, Knodt, Radtke, & Hariri, 2015)

  • None of the self-report measures were significantly associated with left or right TRA

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Understanding the biological basis of human behavior has long been of interest to the scientific community and the general public. Essentialist attitudes are present within the mental health community as well: clinicians in one study reported less empathy towards potential patients after being given a biological explanation for their symptoms (Lebowitz & Ahn, 2014). Whether such biological essentialism extends to attitudes about one’s own biology—or auto-biology—is less clear (Lebowitz, 2014). We aimed to capture auto-biological beliefs relevant to mental health and explore their association with self-reported distress and with an individual’s actual biology. Data were analyzed in an exploratory manner, with the goal of determining whether beliefs about one’s own biological vulnerability for affective disorders correspond to actual neural activity, and the relationship of each to self-reported distress

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call