At a time when uncertainty has become the rule (rather than the exception), how we respond to it can play an exaggerated role in how we make decisions – and our mental health overall. Now, new research exposes how our emotional states – anxiety and apathy in particular — regulates how we handle uncertainty.
For the most part, uncertainty – within the context of how we make decisions – falls into one of two camps:
- Volatility, which refers to the pace of changing conditions, driving us to adjust our perceptions (and responses) quickly and frequently.
- Stochasticity, on the other hand, describes the randomness of outcomes, suggesting that regardless of the response, the outcomes remain, well, uncertain.
The international coalition of researchers wanted to figure out how individuals with different levels of anxiety and apathy recognize these two forms of uncertainty and how those perceptions steer their responses. The team focused on a restless, multi-armed bandit problem — a common decision-making challenge.
Discerning Between Anxiety and Apathy
The results uncovered distinct behavioral patterns in both the anxious and apathetic subject:
- Anxious individuals: The higher-anxiety participants appeared to be more likely to perceive uncertainty as a direct result of volatility. This led them to explore more frequently, especially in the aftermath of negative outcomes, as they tried to adapt.
- Apathetic individuals: Those living with greater apathy chalked uncertainty up to stochasticity, assuming that outcomes existed outside their control. Consequently, they engaged in less exploration – along with lower learning rates. This group (generally speaking) preferred to cling to more familiar choices – even under the shadow of changing conditions.
“While anxiety and apathy often occur simultaneously in clinical conditions, our findings show they actually lead to opposite patterns in how people process uncertainty and make decisions,” Alexander Herman, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Minnesota Medical School, explained. “This helps explain why these conditions might require different therapeutic approaches.”
Implications for Mental Health and Decision-Making
The research results also provide fresh intel behind the cognitive mechanisms that drive mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. Anxiety seems to account for greater sensitivity to environmental changes, fueling information-seeking behavior. While this can help in a genuinely volatile situation, it could also contribute to excessive worry and stress if the individual’s sense of volatility exceeds reality.
On the other hand, apathy, typically linked to disorders such as depression and neurodegenerative diseases, can be responsible for less motivation to engage with uncertainty. This tendency to see outcomes as random – and out of their control – might push the individual even further from making any decisions which could exacerbate any symptoms.
One key takeaway? The delicate balance between exploration and exploitation shifts according to one’s emotional states. What these researchers found could help reconcile conflicting research on anxiety and decision-making. For example, some studies have hinted that anxiety leads to more risk-averse behavior, this study contradicts that by suggesting that moderate anxiety can increase exploration as a way to curb uncertainty.
“These emotional states affect both openness to new experiences and perceptions of unpredictability of the world,” Xinyuan Yan, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at UM’s Medical School and the study’s lead author, added. “For example, an anxious person might view the job market as unpredictable and requiring constant vigilance – obsessively checking job boards despite rejections. Someone experiencing apathy might see job searching as random, using the same resume – believing changes won’t matter.”
What’s Next?
What these researchers discovered could have huge implications for developing tailored behavioral interventions. For anyone struggling with anxiety, therapies focusing on recalibrating perceptions of volatility could help patients worry less, while improving their decision-making.
And for those living under a cloud of apathy, interventions that emphasize personal agency and the benefits of exploration could counteract those natural tendencies toward disengagement.
Additionally, the authors argue that future studies involving clinically diagnosed individuals could help validate these results and explore their implications for psychiatric and neurological disorders.
Finally, the study’s methodology — using computational models to map decision-making behavior — opens new doors for more personalized (and effective) treatment approaches. By tracking an individual’s decision-making patterns over time, clinicians could tailor interventions to specific cognitive biases, offering more effective strategies for managing anxiety, apathy, and related mental health conditions.
Further Reading
Mornings Set the Mood but Midday Can Bring You Down
