A new wave of psychological research is questioning a long-held belief about anxiety: that anxious people are wired to fixate on danger. According to a recent study published in Cognition & Emotion and summarized by PsyPost, people with high anxiety can, in fact, disengage from threatening stimuli just as effectively as those with low anxiety, provided they are sufficiently motivated to do so. This fresh insight could have profound implications for how health professionals in Thailand and beyond understand, diagnose, and treat anxiety-related conditions (PsyPost).
For years, the prevailing wisdom has held that people with higher anxiety levels struggle to divert their attention away from danger signals, rendering them perpetually hyper-vigilant. This model forms the basis of numerous cognitive theories and therapies—especially methods like attentional bias modification, which aim to help anxious individuals break their fixation with perceived threats. In a country like Thailand, where anxiety and mental health are increasingly recognized as urgent public health challenges and where traditional values of samruaj (calmness) can make it difficult for individuals to express psychological distress, understanding the dynamics of attention and anxiety is especially important.
The new study, led by a research team in the United Kingdom and involving over 500 participants across three experiments, set out to examine whether the assumed link between anxiety and attentional fixation on threats truly reflects an involuntary, hard-wired deficit or could be shaped by motivational context. Utilizing a combination of eye-tracking technology, Pavlovian conditioning, and reaction-time tasks, the researchers compared the ability of high- and low-anxiety individuals to disengage from threat cues when motivated by either punishment (aversive noises) or reward (monetary incentives).
In the first experiment, 142 university students first learned to associate differently colored circles with either a loud noise or nothing at all. When tasked with swiftly moving their eyes from a threatening cue (the “danger” color) to a target elsewhere on a screen—while risking the aversive noise if they were too slow—participants were indeed slower to disengage from the threat cue. Intriguingly, however, this sluggishness was not significantly related to anxiety levels: both high- and low-anxiety participants showed the same struggle to look away from the threat under punishment conditions. Detailed statistical analyses found no evidence that anxious individuals had more difficulty than their peers when strong motivation to disengage was in place.
Subsequent experiments, each involving over 190 participants, replaced colored circles with human faces expressing anger and fear, or images of snakes and spiders. Here, half the participants were further motivated with monetary rewards for swift responses. Again, whether the stimulus was threatening (an angry face, a snake) or neutral did not make anxious people dwell longer on danger. Only in reaction to snakes and spiders did participants as a whole show slower disengagement—a finding possibly rooted in ancient evolutionary responses—but this did not correlate with individual anxiety scores.
Expert commentary highlights the potential impact of these findings. According to the lead authors, their data suggest that the supposed automatic fixation on threat in anxious individuals may rely heavily on the specific context and the nature of the stimuli, rather than constituting a blanket feature of anxiety itself. “We found no consistent evidence that high anxiety leads to delayed disengagement from threat when strong motivational incentives are present,” the researchers noted. This view is echoed by international psychologists such as Professor Colin MacLeod, whose past work also indicates that attentional biases in anxiety can be modulated by task demands and goals (PubMed abstract).
In the Thai context, these findings take on added weight. Mental health remains a sensitive topic culturally, with many Thais reluctant to seek professional help due to stigma or fear of losing face (sia nao). Yet, research in Thailand consistently points to rising rates of anxiety, particularly among university students and office workers grappling with pressure to conform and economic uncertainty (Bangkok Post commentary). The dominant narrative—that anxious people are essentially trapped in a cycle of hypervigilance—has sometimes led to one-size-fits-all interventions. However, this new evidence hints that targeted, context-sensitive approaches may be more appropriate.
Historically, Thai mental health care has emphasized social and familial support and, more recently, mindfulness-based interventions. The latter, rooted in Buddhist traditions, place a strong emphasis on disciplined attention and awareness—attributes directly relevant to the concept of disengagement from distressing stimuli. With the present study indicating that attentional focus is not purely involuntary among the anxious, Thai practitioners might take heart that mindfulness and similar techniques could be especially well-suited for their clients, provided session structures are sufficiently engaging and motivating.
The research also raises interesting questions for the future of mental health treatment globally and within Thailand. If motivational factors can override the pull of threatening cues, interventions may benefit from integrating rewards, gamification, or competition to heighten engagement, especially for young people already familiar with digital and interactive contexts (World Health Organization overview). This could complement cognitive-behavioral strategies and reduce drop-out rates for mental health programs, common in Thailand’s clinical settings. Furthermore, the study challenges the use of attentional bias modification as a universal tool for anxiety management, pushing for careful tailoring to individual motivational levels rather than anxiety scores alone.
Notably, the study’s methodology included sophisticated controls to isolate “disengagement” (actively moving attention away) rather than “initial orienting” (noticing a threat in the first place), a distinction sometimes muddled in earlier research. The authors themselves note, however, that the real-world relevance of these specific laboratory threats—a colored circle, a photo of a face, or a snake—may vary between individuals and cultures. For example, some Thais may not find images of snakes especially alarming, while fearful faces may carry different connotations based on local social norms.
Looking ahead, future studies might examine how these dynamics play out with culturally salient threats or stressors relevant to Thai society, such as exam failure, financial hardship, or interpersonal conflict. Equally, more research is needed to understand how quickly these findings can be translated into practical tools in Thai schools, workplaces, and healthcare settings, where attitudes toward anxiety remain in flux. The ongoing development of digital mental health tools in Thailand—ranging from mobile mindfulness apps to online counseling—will benefit from continuing to monitor such research to ensure interventions are not based on outdated assumptions.
For individual readers, the takeaway is both encouraging and practical: having an anxious mind does not mean you are doomed to dwell on negativity. Instead, context, motivation, and engagement can make a significant difference in how you respond to potential threats, whether on the street, at school, or in the workplace. For Thais, integrating motivating incentives, supportive peer environments, and culturally relevant mindfulness practices can help channel attention more constructively, even in times of uncertainty.
For those struggling with anxiety, mental health professionals in Thailand recommend practical steps such as setting realistic goals, seeking supportive relationships, and making use of available digital resources and counseling services. Combining traditional wisdom—like the use of gratitude and mindfulness from Thai Buddhism—with modern evidence about motivation and attention may offer the best path forward. For institutions, there is a renewed imperative to keep treatments evidence-based and sensitive to the real-world experiences of Thai people, moving beyond simplistic models of anxiety and threat.
For further reading and self-assessment, the public can consult trusted sources such as the Department of Mental Health Thailand (DMH), the World Health Organization, and mental wellbeing platforms recommended by Thai psychiatric associations. As research continues to evolve, staying informed can empower Thais at all levels—individual, familial, and societal—to face anxiety not with resignation, but with renewed agency and hope.