The Cognitive Model of Anxiety 33
greatly overestimated. Rachman (2004) noted that fearful individuals are much more
likely to overestimate the intensity of threat, which then leads to avoidance behavior. At
the same time anxious individuals fail to perceive the safety aspects of threat- evaluated
situations and tend to underestimate their ability to cope with the anticipated harm
or danger (Beck et al., 1985, 2005). This secondary elaborative reappraisal, however,
occurs immediately as a result of the primary threat appraisal, and in anxiety states it
amplifies the initial perception of threat. Thus the intensity of an anxiety state depends
on the balance between one’s initial appraisal of threat and the secondary appraisal of
coping ability and safety. The level or intensity of anxiety can be expressed in the fol-
lowing manner:
High Anxiety = ↑ threat probability/severity + ↓ coping and safety
Low Anxiety = ↓ threat probability/severity + ↑ coping and safety
Moderate Anxiety = ↔ threat probability/severity + ↔ coping and safetyBeck and Greenberg (1988) noted that the perception of danger sets off an “alarm
system” involving primal behavioral, physiological, and cognitive processes that evolved
to protect our species from physical harm and danger (see also Beck, 1985). Behavioral
mobilization to deal with the danger might involve a fight-or- flight response (escape
or avoidance), but it could also consist of other instrumental behaviors like calling for
assistance, taking a defensive stance, or negotiating to minimize the danger (Beck et
al., 1985, 2005). Autonomic arousal and other physiological responses that occur dur-
ing threat vulnerability are important aspects of this early reflexive defense system.
The presence of anxiety activates behavioral mobilization to deal with perceived threat.
Although this primal behavioral mobilization evolved as a rapid and efficient response
to physical danger, it can impair actual performance when activated in benign situations
or the complex, diffusely stressful circumstances of contemporary society. Mobiliza-
tion of the primal defense system can also have adverse effects when it is interpreted as
signaling a serious disorder such as when the person with panic disorder misinterprets
an elevated heart rate as a possible myocardial infarct (Beck et al., 1985; D. M. Clark
& Beck, 1988).
A second type of behavioral response often seen in anxiety states as a result of a
perception of threat is immobility in situations where active coping might increase the
actual or imagined danger (Beck et al., 1985). Signs of this immobility response may
be evident as freezing, feeling faint, or feeling “woozy.” It is associated with the cogni-
tive perspective of being totally helpless. The immobility response is apparent in social
anxiety, such as when a highly anxious person feels faint when attempting to deliver a
public speech.
Despite the importance of behavioral mobilization and physiological arousal, it is
the initial primary appraisal of threat combined with a secondary appraisal of personal
inadequacy and diminished safety that are responsible for instigating anxiety. In this
sense faulty cognition is necessary but not sufficient for generating a state of anxiety.
The cognitive model of anxiety is rooted within an information- processing perspec-
tive, in which emotional disturbance occurs because of an excess or deficient function-
ing of the cognitive apparatus. Previously we defined information processing as “the