"If I feel anxious, there must be danger": ex-consequentia reasoning in inferring danger in anxiety disorders.

It has been suggested that neurotic patients engage in 'emotional reasoning', i.e. draw invalid conclusions about a situation on the basis of their subjective emotional response. The present experiment investigated whether anxiety patients infer danger on the basis of their anxious response, whereas normals infer danger only on the basis of objective information. Four groups of anxiety patients (52 spider phobics, 41 panic patients, 38 social phobics, and 31 other anxiety patients) and 24 normal controls made ratings of the danger they perceived in scripts in which information about objective safety vs objective danger, and anxiety response vs non-anxiety response information were systematically varied. As hypothesized, anxiety patients were not only influenced by objective danger information, but also by anxiety response information, whereas normal controls were not. The effect was neither situation-specific, nor specific for panic patients. This tendency to infer danger on the basis of subjective anxiety ('ex-consequentia reasoning') may play a role in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders.