Time is a great healer: Peak-end memory bias in anxiety - Induced by threat of shock

A review of the peak-end rule in mental health contexts

The peak-end rule, a memory heuristic in which the most emotionally salient part of an experience (i.e., peak) and conclusion of an experience (i.e., end) are weighted more heavily in summary evaluations, has been understudied in mental health contexts. The recent growth of intensive longitudinal methods has provided new opportunities for examining the peak-end rule in the retrospective recall of mental health symptoms, including measures often used in measurement-based care initiatives. Additionally, principles of the peak-end rule have significant potential to be applied to exposure-based therapy procedures. Additional research is needed to better understand the contexts in which, and persons for whom, the peak-end rule presents a greater risk of bias, to ultimately improve assessment strategies and clinical care.

State anxiety by itself does not change political attitudes: A threat of shock experiment

Previous research suggests that state anxiety may sway political attitudes. However, previous experimental procedures induced anxiety using political contexts (e.g., social or economic threat). In a pre-registered laboratory experiment, we set out to examine if anxiety that is unrelated to political contexts can influence political attitudes. We induced anxiety with a threat of shock paradigm, void of any political connotation. All participants were instructed that they might receive an electric stimulus during specified threat periods and none during safety periods. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Political attitudes (implicit and explicit) were assessed under safety in one condition and under threat in the other. Psychometric, as well as physiological data (skin conductance, heart rate), confirmed that anxiety was induced successfully. However, this emotional state did not alter political attitudes. In a Bayesian analytical approach, we confirmed the absence of an effect. Our results suggest that state anxiety by itself does not sway political attitudes. Previously observed effects that were attributed to anxiety may be conditional on a political context of threat.