Hubbry Logo
Harm avoidanceHarm avoidanceMain
Open search
Harm avoidance
Community hub
Harm avoidance
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Harm avoidance
Harm avoidance
Harm avoidance
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Harm avoidance
SpecialtyPsychiatry

Harm avoidance (HA) is a personality trait characterized by excessive worrying; pessimism; shyness; and being fearful, doubtful, and easily fatigued. In MRI studies HA was correlated with reduced grey matter volume in the orbito-frontal, occipital and parietal regions.[1][2]

Harm avoidance is a temperament assessed in the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI), its revised version (TCI-R) and the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) and is positively related to the trait neuroticism and inversely to extraversion in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.[3] Researchers have contended that harm avoidance represents a composite personality dimension with neurotic introversion at one end of the spectrum and stable extraversion at the other end. Harm avoidance has also been found to have moderate inverse relationships with conscientiousness and openness to experience in the five factor model.[3]

The HA of TPQ and TCI-R has four subscales:

  1. Anticipatory worry (HA1)
  2. Fear of uncertainty (HA2)
  3. Shyness/Shyness with strangers (HA3)
  4. Fatigability/Fatigability and asthenia (weakness) (HA4)

It has been suggested that HA is related to high serotonergic activity,[4] and much research has gone into investigating the link between HA and components of the serotonin system, e.g. genetic variation in 5-HTTLPR in the serotonin transporter gene.[5]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Harm avoidance

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Harm avoidance is a core temperament dimension in C. Robert Cloninger's psychobiological model of personality, representing a heritable tendency to inhibit or cease behaviors in response to signals of , nonreward, or novelty, thereby promoting caution and avoidance of potential harm. This trait is one of four basic temperaments in the model—alongside , reward dependence, and persistence—that underpin automatic emotional responses and are largely independent of social learning or goals. High levels of harm avoidance are associated with behavioral inhibition, , and rapid fatigability, while low levels correlate with , confidence, and risk-taking. The trait is assessed through the (TCI), a self-report developed by Cloninger and colleagues, which includes 35 items specifically for harm avoidance divided into four subscales: anticipatory (pessimistic concern about future problems), of uncertainty (avoidance of new situations due to potential risks), shyness with strangers ( and discomfort in unfamiliar settings), and fatigability (quick exhaustion and asthenia under stress). These subscales capture passive-avoidant behaviors that facilitate learning to inhibit responses to aversive stimuli. estimates for harm avoidance range from 50% to 65%, indicating a strong genetic component. Neurobiologically, harm avoidance is linked to serotonergic in the brain's limbic and prefrontal systems, influencing the behavioral inhibition system and perceptual sensitivity to signals. Empirical studies support this association, showing correlations between harm avoidance scores and measures of central serotonergic activity, such as platelet levels. In clinical contexts, elevated harm avoidance has been implicated in anxiety disorders, depression, and avoidant traits, highlighting its relevance to .

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition

Harm avoidance is one of four heritable dimensions in Cloninger's psychobiological model of , defined as a tendency to respond intensely to signals of aversive stimuli, thereby inhibiting to avoid , nonreward, and frustrative nonfulfillment. This dimension operates automatically and unconsciously, influencing perceptual sensitivity and the formation of avoidance habits from an early age. Initially conceptualized by Cloninger in , harm avoidance was proposed as a core stimulus-response trait within a , reflecting individual differences in cautious responses to potential harm or uncertainty. Individuals high in harm avoidance typically exhibit primary characteristics such as excessive worrying and anticipatory anxiety, pessimism about outcomes, shyness or inhibition in unfamiliar social situations, fear of uncertainty or novelty, and rapid fatigue under stress. These manifestations contribute to a behavioral profile oriented toward caution and , which can facilitate adaptive learning in threatening environments but may also lead to excessive restraint in safe contexts. Unlike specific avoidance behaviors observed in , such as those in phobias where fear is narrowly focused on particular objects or situations, harm avoidance constitutes a broad, heritable dimension that underlies general inhibitory tendencies across various stimuli. This distinction highlights harm avoidance as a foundational personality trait rather than a pathological response, though extreme levels may predispose individuals to anxiety-related conditions.

Key Subcomponents

Harm avoidance, as conceptualized in Cloninger's psychobiological model, comprises four primary subcomponents that capture distinct yet interrelated aspects of behavioral inhibition and sensitivity to aversive stimuli. These subcomponents are anticipatory , fear of , with strangers, and fatigability. Anticipatory (HA1) reflects a tendency toward passive avoidance of potential harm through excessive and preoccupation with possible negative outcomes, such as chronic anxiety about future events or decisions that might lead to or . Fear of (HA2) involves an aversion to novel or ambiguous situations, manifesting as reluctance to engage in unfamiliar activities or environments due to heightened apprehension about unpredictable risks. with strangers (HA3) denotes , characterized by discomfort and withdrawal in interactions with unfamiliar people, often resulting in avoidance of social gatherings or new relationships to prevent or rejection. Fatigability (HA4) refers to rapid exhaustion under stress, where individuals experience quick mental or physical in demanding situations, leading to or withdrawal to conserve energy. These subcomponents interact synergistically to form a cohesive pattern of harm avoidance, wherein anticipatory worry amplifies of , which in turn heightens and fatigability, creating a cycle of reinforced behavioral inhibition. Early validation studies of the (TCI), including factor analytic revisions in 1993, demonstrated high internal consistency among these subscales (Cronbach's α > 0.70 for HA overall), supporting their unified contribution to the trait's structure without significant cross-loading on other dimensions. Gender and age variations influence the expression of these subcomponents. Women typically exhibit higher scores on shyness with strangers compared to men, contributing to overall elevated harm avoidance levels, as evidenced by meta-analytic reviews across diverse populations. Age-related patterns show increased fatigability and anticipatory worry in both young adults and the elderly relative to middle-aged individuals, reflecting heightened vulnerability to stress across the lifespan.

Theoretical and Historical Background

Cloninger's Psychobiological Model

Cloninger's psychobiological model of temperament and character describes personality as comprising seven basic dimensions: four temperaments—novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward dependence, and persistence—that reflect automatic emotional responses to stimuli, and three character dimensions—self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence—that represent goal-directed behaviors shaped by learned concepts of self and society. Temperaments are viewed as heritable biases in perceptual and associative learning processes, while characters develop through social and cultural influences, allowing the model to integrate biological predispositions with environmental factors in a biopsychosocial framework. This structure posits that individual differences in these dimensions account for variations in emotional regulation, motivation, and adaptation, with temperaments being relatively stable across the lifespan and characters maturing with experience. Within this model, harm avoidance serves as the primary inhibitory , characterized by tendencies to inhibit in anticipation of , novelty, or nonreward, thereby contrasting with novelty seeking's activational tendencies that promote exploratory and impulsive actions. High harm avoidance is associated with cautious, pessimistic responses to uncertain situations, while low levels facilitate bold engagement with potential risks, highlighting the model's emphasis on opposing approach-avoidance dynamics in emotional processing. Reward dependence complements these by influencing attachment and social responsiveness, and adds perseverance in goal pursuit, collectively forming a balanced system of automatic emotional responses. The temperaments in the model are estimated to be 40-60% heritable based on genetic influences on associative conditioning and synaptic plasticity, whereas the character dimensions are more malleable, shaped predominantly by environmental and sociocultural experiences. This heritability range underscores the model's foundational assumption that temperaments provide a genetic substrate for personality, modifiable to some extent by character development. Originally proposed in a 1987 publication in Archives of General Psychiatry, the framework has profoundly influenced personality research by bridging psychiatric nosology with dimensional psychology, inspiring empirical studies on temperament's role in psychopathology and well-being.

Development and Evolution

The concept of harm avoidance emerged in 1987 when introduced his tridimensional psychobiological model of , positing harm avoidance as one of three heritable dimensions alongside and reward dependence, each linked to distinct neurobiological response patterns to stimuli. This model framed harm avoidance as a tendency toward inhibitory responses in anticipation of punishment, differentiating it from other traits in Cloninger's framework of automatic emotional reactions. In 1993, Cloninger expanded the model to include a fourth temperament dimension, , while incorporating three character dimensions—, cooperativeness, and —resulting in the full psychobiological model operationalized through the (TCI). The TCI was detailed in a 1994 manual providing guidelines for its development and use, emphasizing harm avoidance's role in behavioral inhibition. A , the TCI-R, followed in 1999 to refine item wording and enhance subscale reliability, particularly for harm avoidance's facets like anticipatory worry and fear of uncertainty. During the , validation studies solidified harm avoidance's associations with anxiety, with early research demonstrating elevated scores among individuals with anxiety disorders compared to controls, supporting its predictive utility in clinical populations. Critiques emerged regarding the dimensionality of harm avoidance, with factor analytic studies debating whether it functions as a unidimensional construct or reveals distinct subfactors, challenging Cloninger's initial assumptions of homogeneity. Revisions in the 2000s focused on cross-cultural validity, with meta-analyses across diverse samples confirming the model's robustness while adjusting for age and gender effects on harm avoidance scores. In the 2020s, the concept has evolved through integration with , revealing neural correlates such as positive associations with gray matter volume in the , and genetic studies identifying polygenic influences on the trait. Recent efforts as of 2025 have addressed cultural biases by validating the TCI in non-Western populations, such as Asian cohorts influenced by collectivist values. Ongoing research continues to explore harm avoidance's role in conditions like and , integrating and temperament profiles.

Neurobiological Basis

Genetic and Heritability Factors

Twin and family studies have consistently estimated the heritability of harm avoidance (HA) at approximately 50-60%, indicating a substantial genetic contribution to individual differences in this trait. For instance, analyses of large twin cohorts have shown that HA exhibits higher compared to other Cloninger temperament dimensions like , with accounting for about 50% of the variance in some populations. These findings underscore HA's stronger genetic basis relative to reward dependence or . Specific genetic associations with HA have been identified in candidate gene studies, particularly involving polymorphisms that influence neurotransmitter systems linked to anxiety and inhibition. Similarly, the COMT Val158Met polymorphism, which affects degradation, shows a parametric relationship with HA, where the Met (lower activity) correlates with higher avoidance tendencies in parametric analyses of inventories. The D4 receptor gene (DRD4), particularly the 7-repeat , has also been linked to increased HA in interaction with other variants, contributing to avoidance behaviors through altered reward sensitivity. Despite these associations, HA does not stem from a single "HA gene" but reflects a , where cumulative effects from multiple loci across anxiety-related pathways explain variance. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) confirm this complexity, identifying numerous small-effect variants that collectively influence HA without a dominant locus, as evidenced by meta-analyses of over 30,000 individuals. This polygenic nature aligns with broader findings that traits like HA arise from distributed genetic influences on neural circuits involved in detection. Epigenetic mechanisms further modulate HA expression by altering gene activity in response to environmental factors, without changing the DNA sequence itself. Studies up to the 2020s, including follow-ups of at-risk populations, demonstrate that adverse environments interact with genetic predispositions via histone modifications and DNA methylation, leading to persistent elevations in HA; interventions like cognitive therapy have been observed to reverse some of these epigenetic marks in prospective designs.

Neurotransmitter and Brain Systems

Harm avoidance is primarily associated with the neurotransmitter system, where lower serotonergic activity correlates with higher levels of this trait. (PET) studies in healthy individuals have demonstrated reduced binding potential of 5-HT2A receptors in cortical regions among those with elevated harm avoidance scores, suggesting diminished serotonergic signaling contributes to increased behavioral inhibition and aversion to potential harm. Similarly, reduced binding in the has been observed in populations exhibiting high harm avoidance, such as women with , further linking serotonergic hypoactivity to heightened anxiety and avoidance tendencies. Dopamine systems play an inverse role relative to , but in the context of harm avoidance, modulation influences inhibitory responses to aversive cues, with lower activity potentially exacerbating avoidance behaviors. Norepinephrine is involved in stress-related responses, where heightened noradrenergic activity can amplify vigilance and withdrawal, as proposed in Cloninger's psychobiological model. Key brain regions implicated include the , which shows hyperactivity during fear processing and correlates positively with harm avoidance trait scores in (fMRI) studies of emotional stimuli. The (PFC), particularly the dorsolateral and medial aspects, exhibits increased activation in high harm avoidance individuals during tasks involving uncertainty and , reflecting enhanced over emotional responses. A 2024 meta-analysis of data identified associations between higher harm avoidance and increased gray matter volume in the right and left superior parietal gyrus, as well as positive functional correlations with activity in the bilateral , highlighting structural and functional variations in frontotemporal and parietal circuits. Animal models provide convergent evidence, with studies using the elevated plus-maze paralleling harm avoidance through measures of passive avoidance and reluctance to explore open, potentially threatening arms. In selectively bred lines, higher harm avoidance-like behaviors in this correspond to reduced open-arm entries, mimicking inhibitory tendencies and validating the trait's cross-species .

Measurement and Assessment

Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)

The (TCI) is a self-report designed to measure the seven basic dimensions of outlined in Cloninger's psychobiological model, consisting of four and three characters. Introduced in its original form in 1993 as a 226-item instrument with true/false responses, the TCI assesses automatic emotional responses associated with temperament and voluntary control processes linked to character. The revised version, known as the TCI-R and published in 1999, retains the 240-item length but refines item wording and structure to enhance reliability and reduce overlap between scales while preserving the true/false format. Within the TCI and TCI-R, harm avoidance (HA)—a temperament dimension reflecting tendencies toward behavioral inhibition in response to novel or punishing stimuli—is specifically evaluated through 35 items in the original TCI and 33 items in the TCI-R, distributed across four subscales, or facets. These facets include anticipatory worry (HA1; 11 items assessing and about potential problems), fear of (HA2; 7 items measuring avoidance of ambiguous situations), shyness with strangers (HA3; 7 items evaluating social apprehension), and fatigability (HA4; 8 items gauging physical and mental exhaustion under stress). HA scores are computed as the sum of endorsed items (higher scores indicate greater harm avoidance) or as an average for standardized interpretation, providing a unidimensional measure that integrates these facets. The psychometric properties of the HA scale in both TCI versions demonstrate strong reliability, with internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) typically around 0.85 to 0.87 across diverse samples. Validity is supported by confirmatory factor analyses that uphold the intended four-facet structure and its distinction from other temperament dimensions, as evidenced in large-scale evaluations confirming the overall seven-factor model. These properties hold across cultural adaptations, underscoring the scale's robustness for personality assessment. The TCI, including its HA component, is widely administered in clinical and contexts to profile traits and track changes over time, typically taking 30-45 minutes to complete. Normative data exist for adult populations, derived from community samples, and for adolescents via adapted versions like the Junior TCI-R, enabling age-appropriate interpretations starting from around age 13.

Alternative Assessment Tools

While the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) remains the primary instrument for assessing harm avoidance, shorter versions have been developed to enhance practicality without substantial loss of reliability. The , introduced in 1999 and validated in subsequent studies during the , reduces the full TCI-R's 240 items to 140 while retaining a dedicated harm avoidance subscale with 20 items and adequate (Cronbach's α ≈ 0.80-0.85 across samples). This short form maintains strong correlations (r > 0.90) with the original TCI harm avoidance scores, making it suitable for clinical and research settings where time is limited. Additionally, the harm avoidance subscale from the full TCI/TCI-R has been used as a standalone brief measure, with validations in the early confirming its psychometric properties, including test-retest reliability above 0.70 in diverse populations. Proxy measures from related theoretical models offer indirect assessments of harm avoidance by targeting overlapping constructs like behavioral inhibition and punishment sensitivity. The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ), Cloninger's precursor to the TCI developed in the late 1980s, directly measures harm avoidance as one of its three core dimensions through 100 items, with the harm avoidance subscale showing good reliability (α ≈ 0.85) and for anxiety-related behaviors in normative U.S. samples. It correlates highly (r ≈ 0.80) with TCI harm avoidance, allowing its use as a comparable tool in studies predating widespread TCI adoption. Similarly, the BIS/BAS scales, derived from Gray's , assess behavioral inhibition system (BIS) sensitivity as a proxy for harm avoidance, with BIS scores exhibiting moderate to strong positive correlations (r = 0.40-0.60) with harm avoidance in multiple validation studies, reflecting shared emphases on avoidance of punishment and negative stimuli. These scales, consisting of 20 items total, provide a concise alternative focused on motivational tendencies. Neuroimaging and physiological methods serve as indirect indicators of harm avoidance by capturing neural and autonomic responses to threat or uncertainty. (fMRI) tasks, such as those involving of aversive stimuli or approach-avoidance conflicts, reveal harm avoidance-related activations in regions like the hippocampus and , with meta-analyses showing consistent negative correlations between harm avoidance scores and hippocampal activity during paradigms. For instance, higher harm avoidance predicts reduced deactivation in avoidance-related networks during reward learning tasks in clinical samples. Physiologically, conductance response (SCR) measures reactivity as a , where individuals with elevated harm avoidance exhibit prolonged SCR recovery times (half-recovery > 2-3 seconds) to emotional stimuli, indicating heightened autonomic to potential threats, as validated in studies linking SCR patterns to traits. These objective tools complement self-reports by quantifying avoidance at biological levels. Cross-cultural adaptations of TCI-based tools address linguistic and cultural biases in harm avoidance assessment, particularly in non-Western contexts. In Asian populations during the , validations of TCI short forms and subscales demonstrated good factorial invariance and reliability (α > 0.75 for harm avoidance) after item adjustments for cultural nuances, such as rephrasing uncertainty-related items to reduce in collectivist societies. These efforts ensure the tool's applicability in diverse settings, though ongoing refinements are recommended for item equivalence.

Relations to Other Constructs

Correlations with Big Five Traits

Harm avoidance, as measured by the (TCI), exhibits a strong positive correlation with in the Big Five personality model, with meta-analytic evidence indicating an of r = 0.60 across 24 studies involving over 28,000 participants. This overlap reflects shared tendencies toward emotional instability, anxiety, and vulnerability to stress, positioning harm avoidance as a key temperamental contributor to the broader neuroticism domain. Early empirical work from the late similarly reported correlations in the range of 0.54 to 0.60, underscoring the robustness of this association. In contrast, harm avoidance shows a moderate negative with extraversion (r = -0.50), based on 25 studies with nearly 29,000 participants, attributable to common elements of and avoidance of stimulating or risky social environments. This inverse relationship highlights how high harm avoidance aligns with introverted behaviors, reducing engagement in outgoing or energetic activities typical of extraverts. Weaker associations exist with the remaining Big Five traits: a small negative with openness to experience (r = -0.22), linked to aversion to novelty and ; a small negative link with (r = -0.24), possibly due to heightened caution impeding goal-directed persistence; and a negligible with (r = -0.08), indicating minimal overlap in interpersonal warmth or compliance. Joint factor analytic studies further confirm these patterns, with harm avoidance loading heavily on a second-order factor alongside Big Five neuroticism in analyses of integrated TCI and NEO-FFI data. Such integrative research from the 2000s and 2010s demonstrates that harm avoidance primarily subsumes under the neuroticism superordinate factor, with secondary contributions to low extraversion in multidimensional models. High harm avoidance (HA) has been consistently associated with increased risk for anxiety disorders, including (GAD) and social phobia, across clinical studies spanning the 1990s to the 2020s. Elevated HA serves as a vulnerability factor, with research showing significant predictive associations for the development and persistence of these conditions; for example, in a study of depressed patients, a temperament cluster high in HA predicted with an of 3.4. Meta-analyses confirm higher HA scores in individuals with anxiety disorders compared to controls, underscoring its role in behavioral inhibition and anticipatory worry that aligns with core symptoms of GAD and social phobia. In mood disorders, high HA acts as a key vulnerability factor for depression, particularly in predicting onset, severity, and recurrence. A and of 12 studies found that HA was significantly associated with current depressive symptoms in 11 cases and predicted the onset of (MDD), while reductions in HA during treatment were tied to recovery and lower recurrence risk. This pattern highlights HA's role in sustaining pessimistic outlooks and , which exacerbate depressive episodes over time. Associations extend to other psychopathologies, including somatoform disorders and eating disorders such as . Individuals with somatoform disorders exhibit markedly higher HA scores compared to controls, with HA/fatigability subscales strongly predicting symptom severity across measures like the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and . Similarly, adolescents with display elevated HA (mean score 21.98 vs. 10.79 in controls), correlating with drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction, suggesting HA contributes to avoidance-driven restrictive behaviors. In contrast, substance use disorders often involve lower HA, reflecting reduced behavioral inhibition and risk-taking tendencies, though high HA combined with may complicate recovery by heightening sensitivity to delayed rewards and triggers. These links demonstrate bidirectional effects, where high HA predisposes individuals to , and disorders in turn can amplify HA traits, particularly in late life. Longitudinal data from cohorts with age-related illnesses, such as survivors, show HA's stability and for MDD persistence, with dynamic interplay involving resilience factors like positive modulating this trajectory. Recent analyses up to 2024 confirm HA's enduring role in late-life , emphasizing the need for targeted assessments in aging populations.

Implications and Applications

Clinical and Therapeutic Uses

Harm avoidance (HA) scores derived from the (TCI) serve as a diagnostic tool to identify individuals at elevated risk for anxiety and depressive disorders, with high HA levels indicating greater vulnerability to (MDD). For instance, patients diagnosed with MDD consistently exhibit significantly higher HA scores compared to healthy controls, facilitating early screening in clinical settings. Although specific HA thresholds vary by population and TCI version, elevated scores above normative means are associated with increased likelihood of developing these conditions, aiding in risk stratification. In therapeutic contexts, (CBT) effectively targets HA-related worry and avoidance patterns, particularly in high-risk groups such as university students prone to depression. Group CBT interventions have prevented depressive episodes at one-year follow-up among individuals with elevated baseline HA. Similarly, in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), group CBT leads to significant decreases in HA, correlating with overall symptom improvement and supporting its role in addressing HA-driven anxiety. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as , contribute to HA reduction by modulating serotonin systems linked to , with clinical trials from the 2000s showing substantial decreases in related traits like and post-treatment. These medications mediate effects through HA lowering, as evidenced in MDD patients where serotonergic agents like (with SSRI-like properties) produced greater HA reductions than controls, improving depressive outcomes. SSRIs thus enhance treatment planning by leveraging neurobiological ties to HA in anxiety and depression management. Regarding prognosis, heightened avoidance behaviors predict suboptimal outcomes in exposure and response prevention for anxiety disorders like OCD. High HA individuals may benefit from supportive interventions that emphasize gradual habituation. In personality-disordered patients, particularly those with characterized by prominent HA, is the primary treatment, with limited evidence for SSRIs in alleviating associated anxiety and avoidance symptoms via serotonergic modulation. For example, a 2011 review highlights SSRIs' potential role in reducing HA-linked interpersonal fears in cluster C disorders, improving functional outcomes when combined with . Recent 2025 studies further link high HA to increased risk of and temperament alterations in .

Everyday and Behavioral Contexts

Individuals with high harm avoidance exhibit risk-averse tendencies in everyday , such as financial choices and behaviors. In financial contexts, greater in the right anterior insula during risk-taking decisions correlates with higher harm avoidance scores on the (TCI), reflecting increased sensitivity to potential losses and a preference for safer options. Similarly, harm avoidance is associated with cautious attitudes, as individuals scoring high on this trait tend to avoid excitement and danger, opting for safer activities even if monotonous. A 2022 study of 335 Turkish drivers found that higher harm avoidance predicted lower self-assessed perceptual motor skills and more lapses or errors due to hesitation, suggesting a cautious but sometimes inefficient approach to road safety. In social and occupational settings, high harm avoidance influences preferences for stable and avoidance of roles. Research on Finnish workers shows that managers and self-employed individuals have significantly lower harm avoidance scores compared to paid employees, indicating that those with high harm avoidance are more likely to select secure, routine jobs over entrepreneurial or supervisory positions. This trait also correlates positively with work-related stress; for instance, among medical residents, harm avoidance scores showed a strong positive association with burnout frequency (r = 0.6, p < 0.05), highlighting vulnerability to occupational strain in demanding environments. High harm avoidance can manifest positively through cautious behaviors, promoting adherence to preventive measures. Although mixed in some contexts, this trait supports vigilance in safety protocols, such as during pandemics, where linked to harm avoidance encouraged compliance with behaviors in Italian samples. Cultural factors modulate harm avoidance's expression, with stronger effects in collectivist societies. Cross-national TCI surveys from the reveal higher harm avoidance scores in collectivist cultures like , where collectivism is associated with this trait via neural markers in the , contrasting with more individualistic Western profiles.

References

  1. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft03902-000
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10579422/
  3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-024-03091-8
  4. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/496431
  5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/494070
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5320907/
  7. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00447/full
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6869029/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010440X06001258
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23712657_Age_differences_in_temperament_character_and_depressive_mood_A_cross-sectional_study
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8250684/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2963646/
  13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0621-4
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3579504/
  15. https://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/Farmer&Goldberg_2008_PsychometricEval_TCI-R&TC1-140_PA.pdf
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886906002248
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11566513/
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1155/da/5974860
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395625007058
  20. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070475
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17945417/
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15048658/
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0264-5
  24. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00579/full
  25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12414286/
  26. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054781
  27. https://dictionary.apa.org/cloningers-psychobiological-model-of-personality
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4100577/
  29. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/da.22276
  30. https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/37/2/147/100999
  31. https://www.behavioralpsycho.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/09.Aluja_-18-2oa-1.pdf
  32. https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/context/open_access_pubs/article/4290/viewcontent/MaturityandChangeinPersonality.pdf
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4690388/
  34. https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/protocols/view/650801
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010440X11000125
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316321904_The_Temperament_and_Character_Inventory_TCI
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3199068/
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Cloninger/publication/21370458_The_Tridimensional_Personality_Questionnaire_US_Normative_Data/links/00b49538741a98f27a000000/The-Tridimensional-Personality-Questionnaire-US-Normative-Data.pdf
  39. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-21997-001
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles-Carver-7/publication/232481813_Behavioral_Inhibition_Behavioral_Activation_and_Affective_Responses_to_Impending_Reward_and_Punishment_The_BISBAS_Scales/links/5660702a08ae15e7462bdde9/Behavioral-Inhibition-Behavioral-Activation-and-Affective-Responses-to-Impending-Reward-and-Punishment-The-BIS-BAS-Scales.pdf
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318299139_The_Relationship_between_Brain_Activation_When_Anticipating_Emotional_Stimulus_in_Uncertain_Situations_and_Harm_Avoidance_An_fMRI_Study
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886906000316
  43. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207594.2011.648942
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11062301/
  45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00943.x
  46. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.91.3.921
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29751240/
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21262538/
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26919056/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6233809/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7448678/
  52. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0424-7
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4849377/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9040292/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165032724007857
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6221729/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39257351/
  58. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/210469
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20090398/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6493394/
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29394511/
  62. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559325/
  63. https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/14/9/1257/649533
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811903002519
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2598308/
  66. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867396/full
  67. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-022-00653-2
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6983489/
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34986209/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6362187/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.