Ijerph 15 00464

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Generalized Unsafety Theory of Stress: Unsafe
Environments and Conditions, and the Default
Stress Response
Jos F. Brosschot 1, *, Bart Verkuil 2 ID
and Julian F. Thayer 3
1 Institute of Psychology, Unit Health, Medical and Neuropsychology, Leiden University,
2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Institute of Psychology, Unit Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
3 Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +31-71-527-3740
Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 27 February 2018; Published: 7 March 2018
Abstract: Prolonged physiological stress responses form an important risk factor for disease.
According to neurobiological and evolution-theoretical insights the stress response is a default
response that is always “on” but inhibited by the prefrontal cortex when safety is perceived. Based on
these insights the Generalized Unsafety Theory of Stress (GUTS) states that prolonged stress responses
are due to generalized and largely unconsciously perceived unsafety rather than stressors. This novel
perspective necessitates a reconstruction of current stress theory, which we address in this paper.
We discuss a variety of very common situations without stressors but with prolonged stress responses,
that are not, or not likely to be caused by stressors, including loneliness, low social status, adult life
after prenatal or early life adversity, lack of a natural environment, and less fit bodily states such as
obesity or fatigue. We argue that in these situations the default stress response may be chronically
disinhibited due to unconsciously perceived generalized unsafety. Also, in chronic stress situations
such as work stress, the prolonged stress response may be mainly caused by perceived unsafety
in stressor-free contexts. Thus, GUTS identifies and explains far more stress-related physiological
activity that is responsible for disease and mortality than current stress theories.
Keywords: stress theory; default stress response; chronic stress; generalized unsafety; perceived
safety; somatic disease; loneliness; low social status; natural versus urban environment; early
life adversity
1. Introduction
Patient: “Doctor, I am scared of the unknown”
Dr. Sigmund: “Such as strange cultures or exotic destinations?”
Patient: “I don’t know, I don’t know anything about it...”
Peter de Wit, strip in De Volkskrant, 14 August 2014
1.1. From Stressors to (Un)Safety

Animals including humans are naturally, by default, afraid of the unknown [1,2]. As we grow
up we learn to recognize the signals of safety, but from the very beginning we fear without a sign
of threat—also known as “intolerance for uncertainty” [2–4]. Thus, the stress response is always
“on”, and it stays on as long as there is no obvious safety. When safety is perceived, the stress
response is inhibited. Importantly, to be “on” it does not need a stressor at all: it either remains
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 464; doi:10.3390/ijerph15030464 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 464 2 of 27
activated as long as no safety is perceived or is disinhibited when safety disappears. It is a “default”

response, meaning that it is a preselected condition to which the system (the organism) falls back
when there is no other input i.e., no relevant information, which for the stress response is information
regarding safety. The default here is a state of generalized unsafety in which the stress response
stays on [1,2]. This may sound strange, and even worse, it seems in stark contrast to current stress
theories. Stress theories speak of a stress response as a response to a stressor, that is, as a direct
response to a threat. Yet, this idea of a default stress response determined by safety is firmly based on
neurobiological and evolution-theoretical insights that we have explained elsewhere when introducing
the novel Generalized Unsafety Theory of Stress (GUTS) [1–3]. In the present paper, we will first
briefly summarize these insights, and then continue with discussing the implications of GUTS for
stress theory. We will specifically focus on its major challenge to account for prolonged physiological
stress responses, which is the type of response that is primarily responsible for the disease risk of stress.
Essentially, we will argue that by far most of the prolonged responses occur in (chronic) situations
without actual stressors, and that GUTS can explain this better than conventional stress theories, using
the concepts of the default stress response and generalized unsafety.
1.2. Neurobiological and Evolution-Theoretical Insights

From the neurobiological perspective, the prefrontal cortex normally suppresses the parts of
the brain responsible for the stress response, especially the amygdala [5–10]—but only when the
brain has perceived safety [4–6]. If safety is no longer perceived, the “brake” is immediately lifted,
the amygdala resumes its high level of activity and the body is instantly ready to fight or flee
away. Heart activity increases and blood pressure goes up among other well-known stress responses.
Thus, the stress response is always set to high alertness, but kept inhibited as long as safety can be
perceived. Unlike some popular beliefs, neural inhibition costs relatively little energy and is extremely
cost-effective, including prefrontal inhibition of the stress response [11]. Removal of prefrontal
inhibition (disinhibition) “permits” rather than “causes” the stress response. This neurobiological
principle of letting go or release rather than turn on or push into action is actually very common and has
been known as the Hughlings Jackson principle of “hierarchical integration through inhibition” [12] since
the 1880s, albeit overlooked by many since then. Importantly this principle implies that the removal
of inhibition “permits” rather than “causes” an increase in physiological activity (disinhibition).
Releasing phylogenetically old and vital response mechanisms such as the stress response happens
much quicker than turning them on. We now know that the prefrontal cortex also suppresses many
other predominant, often “impulsive” subcortical responses (see [13]), and many other primary
psychobiological functions, such as hunger and immunity, and many behaviors (motor functions),
are also regulated in a similar “default-inhibitory” fashion [14–16]. Thus, starting immediately after
birth, the young animal or human gradually learns the signals of safety, a process that is slowed down
but never stops during adulthood.
The default stress response that can be quickly unleashed also corresponds to modern
evolution-theoretical insights about stress and anxiety. In the wild, organisms have survived not
by waiting for more evidence of threat but instead by erring on the side of caution (e.g., [17,18]),
or popularly formulated, to be “better safe than sorry”. It is better to play it safe and to flee 10 times
too often than once too few. Those who fled at the first sign of unsafety continued to live and pass
their genes [17,18]—especially those spending minimum energy on this default-inhibitory survival
mechanism. The default stress response is thus phylogenetically very old and similar across many
species, and there is no reason to ignore its presence in humans.
1.3. The Consequences of GUTS for Stress Theory: An Overview

The viewpoint that safety perception (or the lack thereof) is the primary determinant unleashing
default stress response has several important consequences for the role of the environment in the
link between stress and health, as we will discuss in more detail below. Briefly, the first consequence
concerns the explanation of the occurrence of the type of stress responses that can cause disease,
namely prolonged or chronic stress-related physiological activity. This is—in our opinion—the basic
problem of the science of stress and disease. Conventional stress theory has been unable to fully
explain this critical mediator of the stress-disease relationship, largely because these theories have
remained focused on stressors, that is, actual threats in the environment. However, stressors are not
necessary for the stress response to be released: a lack of information about safety is sufficient. With no
such information, generalized unsafety is assumed by the brain, and the default stress response is
disinhibited. The question should not be “what causes prolonged activity?” but “what stops it”.
Accounting for the role of safety and the default quality of the stress response requires a considerable
modification and reformulation of the conventional stress theory. The newly proposed theory, GUTS,
can explain the presence of prolonged stress-related physiological activity in a range of situations
without stressors.
A second important consequence of the notion of the stress response being a default response
is that it is largely unconscious, because of its phylogenetic age, its pervasiveness across the animal
kingdom, its often continuous nature, and the fact that ontogenetically it is largely determined during
prenatal and early life stages to which we have no conscious access.
Finally, a third consequence consists of the astonishing array of situations or conditions
(called domains in GUTS terminology) in which prolonged stress response occur without any
stressors, assumedly because these domains are compromised in terms of unsafety. By focusing on
stressors stress science seems to have missed a lot. For example, loneliness, prenatal maternal stress,
post-natal adversity, and chronic anxiety (including anxiety disorders) are associated with prolonged
physiological activity and are now being recognized as belonging to the strongest psychological
predictors of organic disease [19–37]. Purportedly, the reason that these domains were largely missed
by stress science is that they cannot easily be understood in terms of stressors or at least no concurrent
stressors. Interestingly, some theorists even oppose including anxiety as a stress phenomenon, as being
too “global” [38], while in neuroscience, stress and anxiety are commonly treated as the same subject,
because of their shared neurobiology (e.g., [5–9,14,39]).
Importantly, many of the domains that we will discuss that are compromised in terms of perceived
safety are in fact potential sources of safety, such as a strong social network for humans and other social
animals, but also potentially safety promoting environmental factors such as natural surroundings,
shelter, and perceptual overview, that are likely to be not only important for animals but for humans
too. We will also explore how the “internal environment”, that is, the state of the body, might be crucial
in providing signals of safety. Finally, we will argue how stressor-focused science has also missed the
very aspects that cause prolonged stress responses in many chronic stressors that it has been studying
for a long time.
The next chapter will start with the basic problem of stress and health science that the conventional
theories appear not to be able to address well: prolonged stress-related physiological activity.
2. The Basic Challenge of Stress Science: Explaining Prolonged Stress-Related Physiological Activity
That basic problem for stress and health science is to explain prolonged physiological stress-related
activity, or briefly prolonged activity. Although stress science has historically mainly focused on
stress responses during stressors, most stress scientists will agree either explicitly or implicitly that
for a stressor to lead to disease the stress response to it should be prolonged or sustained [40–50].
A prolonged physiological response will finally lead to a pathogenic state of bodily “wear and tear”,
often discusses as allostatic load [45] that will lead to disease. However, as we have argued several
times [1,2,48–50] stressors are mostly short-lived and typically account for only a tiny fraction of daily
stress responses. Generally during their occurrence stressors yield stress responses that are too brief to
be threatening to bodily health. Even the events that comprise chronic stressful conditions such as work
stress, financial problems, marital discord, and long-term care giving for a sick family member, are on
themselves too brief: for example, stressful encounters with a superior, or anger-provoking dealings
with one’s marital partner, or unpredictable moments of distress with an Alzheimer patient at home.
Still, all these chronic conditions are known to be associated with prolonged activity, often stretching out
into leisure time (in case of work stress) and even during sleep ([47,51–56]; see for some inconsistencies
for some types of work stress [57,58]), and they all carry greatly enhanced risks for somatic disease.
For example high work stress quadruples one’s chances of developing cardiovascular disease, the
risk for heart problems is threefold in those with problematic marriages and caring for a partner with
Alzheimer doubles cardiac risk (see e.g., [59–65]). These risks are comparable with or even higher
than those of smoking and obesity and other classical cardiovascular risk factors. Most importantly,
the risks of these chronic stressful conditions are believed to be caused by prolonged physiological
activity. However, how to explain this prolonged activity? This is still a major challenge for traditional
stress science.
2.1. Current Explanations of Prolonged Activity

First, prolonged stress-related physiological activity—briefly called prolonged activity—is not
only manifested in slow recovery after stressors. Slow recovery is only one aspect. At least as important
is anticipatory activity to stressors, often far in advance of them. Previously, we hypothesized that
thinking about stressors, or more formally “cognitively representing stressors”, is responsible for
prolonged activity. We called this perseverative cognition, with as its primary manifestations worry
and rumination. Perseverative cognition was held responsible not only for the anticipatory effects
and slow recovery, but also for recurrent activity—in between stressors—when we worry or ruminate
about past or future stressors [48–50]. There is ample evidence now that perseverative cognition
affects cardiovascular, autonomic, and endocrine nervous system activity, which together supports the
notion that this is a crucial pathogenic pathway from chronic stress to long-term disease outcomes [66].
Later we extended the perseverative cognition hypothesis by proposing that we are not aware of a large
part of these cognitive representations, and we have called thus “unconscious stress” [67,68]. For this
extended theory there is also supportive evidence. Indirect evidence comes from studies that have
shown that cardiac activity due to stressors and worry during the day was still enhanced during
nocturnal sleep [51,69]—during which conscious worry is not possible. Similarly, autonomic effects
during sleep have been observed in subjects who anticipated giving a public speech in the early
morning [70]. These effects were not due to dreaming, REM sleep or micro-awakenings and even
not to subjective sleep quality. We also found that in daily life, worry itself has prolonged cardiac
effects up to two hours after worry episodes [71], independent of mood and life style factors. Thus,
during sleep—when one cannot consciously worry—as well as during daily life worrying seems to
continue in an unconscious fashion, along with its physiological effects. As yet, there is also growing
direct evidence that subliminal (i.e., under the awareness threshold)stressful stimuli increase activity in
several physiological parameters (see reviews [67,68,72] and recently [73,74], but see [75]), but attempts
to measure unconscious stress and show associations with physiological response in the lab and
in daily life have yielded varied results, depending on the type of measurement (see [67,68] and
recently [73,76–79]).
2.2. Why Was Prolonged Activity Neglected?

The puzzled reader might now be asking why prolonged activity received so little attention in
stress science, while it seems such a common-sense ingredient in stress-health link. Indeed, to our
knowledge, since Selye emphasized the temporal aspect of the stress response [40], before the 1990ies
only one stress researcher, Ursin [42,80] had explicitly adopted prolonged activation as a major element
in his theories. Not until the late 1990ies were perspicuous attempts undertaken to put stress recovery
back on the research agenda [43–45,81,82]. A likely cause for this neglect may be that a large part
of stress science originated in experimental animal research (e.g., [41,83–86]). The use of stressors in
this research was reasonable since in general, animals’ responses are temporally closely matched to
the actual stressful events that caused them and not on thoughts of stressors in the past or future.
Understandably, animal-based stress research did not inspire any contemplation about the typical and
crucial human contribution to the prolonged stress responses: the ability to represent past and future
stressful events, that is, perseverative cognition. Subsequently, this focus on stressors appears to have
been further instantiated in the influential stress theories of psychiatrists Holmes and Rahe, and of
Lazarus and Folkman and several other psychologists [87–94]. Even though they later emphasized
subjective evaluation, the latter still pertained to stressors. Our own perseverative cognition hypothesis
(see above; [48–50,66]) is in fact also based on stressors albeit their cognitive representation. Even recent
biologically oriented theoretical models linking stress and health still start with environmental
demands (see e.g., [95]), including systems-based theories such as the allostatic load model [82]
and the cognitive activation theory of stress (CATS; [46]), in which stressors are conceptualized as
deviations from a (changing) set point and in terms of theprobability of aversive stimuli.
2.3. Reconstructing Stress Theory

Thus, the centrality of stressful events in conventional stress theory appears to be largely due to
influential stress theories of the previous century that use (stimulus or) stressor or stressor perception
definitions of stress, or threats to resources.
2.3.1. Stressor Theories

Selye’s stressors for example are “circumstances that place physical or psychological demands
on an individual” [40,41]. Human stressor-science started with the recognition that life events or life
changes and daily hassles could affect health [87,91]. According to Lazarus and colleagues stress
is created by “environmental or internal demands that tax or exceed the adaptive resources of an
individual” [88]. The “internal demands” in his definition has later been ignored by most researchers
who have continued to view stressors as external forces or encounters that impinge on the body.
Although Lazarus and colleagues [88–90] later proposed that stress is a transactional process, involving
also appraisal by the person, demanding circumstances were always considered a requirement. Now,
these arguments may sound convincing, but the reality is that organisms do no wait until something
taxes or exceeds their resources to release a stress response. Animals (and by extension humans)
do not wait for certainty about a threat in an uncertain or new situation: they immediately show
a stress response, prepared to err on the side of caution. As discussed in more detail below, in many
situations chronic stress responses occur without stressors or threats at all, neither present nor expected.
To lift a tip of the veil, for example lonely animals and people show a chronic stress response without
necessarily facing actual threats, and the same is true for people with a low social economic status.
Even just having a less fit body (and thus less “safe body”) may disinhibit the default stress response.
It is very important to emphasize this again: there are many situations with prolonged activity
in which nothing actually seems to tax or exceed resources, that is, in which no stressors are present.
Through the theoretical lenses of conventional theories such as Lazarus’, these situations remain
invisible as sources of stress. Even for well-known chronic stressors, such as work stress, the aspect
that is most probably responsible for their prolonged stress responses, is prevented from being
recognized as such: the responses are continued when workers are not actually dealing with their
specific stressors or even thinking (worrying) about them. Appraisal-based theories about work stress,
such as the demand-control model [94] and effort-reward model [96] involve stressful appraisal (beliefs,
interpretations) but these also pertain to stressors, and do not sufficiently explain this prolonged
activation associated with work stress.
2.3.2. Resource Theories

There are several stress theories that focus on resources rather than stressors, for example resources
such as social support [97] or person characteristics such as self-efficacy or optimism [98,99]. However,
these resources are always discussed in terms of their buffer or modulator value when one is faced
with stressors, such as work stressors [100], and not as stress sources on their own, for example when
these resources are in short supply or absent. An exception is Hobfoll’s [101] conservation of resources
(COR) theory that hypothesizes that the (threat of) loss of resources is sufficient for stress response to
occur. However, when Hobfoll speaks of the environmental causes of these threats and losses, we are
essentially back to stressors as a source of stress responses ([101], p. 516; [102]). Still, the COR theory’s
acknowledgment of the non-essentiality of specific and immediate threats for the stress response,
is compatible with GUTS’ central notion of a default stress response when no information of safety is
present. However, there are several differences. According to GUTS, the critical resources all concern
safety, directly or indirectly, and they do not need to be threatened to cause stress responses: it is
enough for them to be continuously low or lost or simply not perceived due to lacking or distorted
information, due to the default nature of the stress response that does not need to be “triggered”.
Taken together, to explain prolonged physiological stress responses, stress theory needs to be
reconstructed to account for the default nature of the stress response. Conventional constructs are
perhaps still of some use for understanding short-term responses to stressors or threats to resources
but not for understanding prolonged activity: they explain not more than a fraction of it. Instead,
generalized unsafety (GU) determines prolonged activity, and only perceived safety can terminate it.
How about coping strategies, that other hallmark of conventional stress theory? With the
“incredible shrinking” of the role of stressors, the conventional coping constructs also becomes far
less relevant. Moreover, coping strategies are typically considered conscious cognitive or behavioral
strategies (e.g., problem solving, palliative responses, seeking social support), while the default stress
response and GU are largely unconscious phenomena. We will discuss this important facet of GUTS in
more detail in the following section.
2.4. Why the Default Stress Response Doesn’t Need Conscious Awareness
As mentioned above, some years ago we have already hypothesized that a large part of stress
is unconscious ([67,68], see also [103]), and GUTS now provides several additional arguments.
Although we can sometimes be conscious of and even report experiences of GU, there are strong
reasons to believe that in many cases GU has no access to conscious awareness. There are at least three
arguments that suggest that the default stress response to generalized unsafety (GU) in humans is
largely unconscious.
2.4.1. Phylogenetically Old

Firstly, the default stress response is phylogenetically extremely old, developed far before
conscious awareness developed in humans. As conscious awareness is not assumed in most animals,
it follows that the GU basically works without awareness. In humans, GU will often seep into
conscious awareness, but this is very unlikely to be a necessary condition for GU to be maintained.
This might become clearer if we investigate the evolution of the stress response itself. The stress
response is phylogenetically very strongly related to that other major defense system: the immune
system. However, the stress response evolved much later than the immune response against infectious
agents. The immune response is essentially a defense response against threats on the proximate,
molecular level, and is present in even the most primitive of organisms. The stress response on the
other hand evolved to detect and defend against distal stressors far before they could harm the body
and evolved in later organisms—in a way as an “extension” of the immune system. According to
Maier [104,105] the immune system uses physiological systems including the SAM and HPAC system
to produce energy to fight infection, and the stress response later started to use these same systems to
fight off, of flee from, external stressors. One could argue that the immune system also responds in
a default fashion. Innate immunity can only recognize SELF, that is, the body’s own tissue, the rest
is categorized as NONSELF and attacked and removed from the body. Since self here equals safe,
it follows that the immune system by default responds to everything unless it is safe (self). The later
evolved stress response does basically the same: when not recognized as safe by default the response
is on. The stress response uses the nervous system to tell safe from unsafe, but only much later.
In hominids and perhaps some other “intelligent” animals, survival must have been promoted by the
ability of the stress response to become partly conscious, for example to improve coping attempts and
communication of at least parts of the stress experience.
2.4.2. Continuous Responses are Hard to Perceive

The second reason that the disinhibited default stress response is (largely) independent of
awareness, is that it will often be continuously disinhibited, because many unsafe conditions
(compromised body, compromised social context, see below) are chronic by nature. However,
phasic changes are much more likely to be consciously detected by the brain. Thus, a continuous
emotional-visceral state typically goes undetected by conscious awareness, even in humans. As a result,
the default response is likely to be misinterpreted as one’s “normal” state. It seems bitterly ironic
that precisely because of the feature that makes it most harmful to health, namely its chronicity, the
default stress response remains under the radar of conscious awareness, and thus undetected and
sub-optimally coped with. Thus, the default response, and GU as its cause, can often not, and therefore
will not be measured by self-report.
Interestingly, it is often when such a state of default stress response is interrupted that we realize its
existence. For example, it is often only through the relief we feel after receiving a positive examination
outcome or a benign medical diagnosis that we realize how “stressed” we actually were (On the
other hand strong positive events often cause brief arousal, i.e., disinhibition of the default stress
response, caused by the combination of important biological goals at stake, a possible strong action
preparation (“approach”) and not unlikely a temporary uncertainty (or unsafety) with respect to these
goals, in GUTS’ terminology.). An even subtler example of this is given by several studies showing
that subliminal presentation with the word “relax” lowers participants’ blood pressure [74,106,107].
Were the participants stressed to start with? This finding may not be restricted to the laboratory.
We truly feel less stressed after a relaxation exercise even if we “were not stressed” in the first place,
let alone physiologically. This might seem a common, even trivial phenomenon. On the same account
it suggests something shocking. Apparently, most of us are constantly somewhat stressed—without
stressor and without being aware of it: is this the elephant in the living room for stress science?
2.4.3. Determined in Early Life Stages with no Conscious Access

Thirdly, our default stress response is not only determined by events during our current life of
which we may or may not be conscious, it is also strongly influenced by early stages in life of which
we have little or no conscious awareness at all. As argued above, from birth on we slowly learn the
contingencies of safety of our world. It is generally assumed that the earlier the learning experiences
the stronger neuronally ingrained they are and the less accessible they are for later conscious awareness.
The strongest or at least most irreversible determinants are even generated the phase before birth:
our stress responses are programmed prenatally, genetically or in uteri, meaning that many children are
born with particularly strong and persistent expectations of an unsafe world. As we will discuss in
more detail below (see Compromised early safety learning and “prenatal programming”) maternal
stress during pregnancy leads to more chronic stress responses in adult offspring of both animals
and humans, independent of stressors (but also stronger responses to stressors), and the same is true
for several personality dispositions such as neuroticism and trait anxiety that are believed to be at
least partly genetically determined and thus even earlier in the process. Clearly, the contribution of
these prenatal influences ensures that a significant part of our default stress response is completely
unconscious and will probably remain so throughout life. An important consequence is that conscious
cognitive and behavioral coping strategies that have been so central in stress theories are far less
important than expected.
2.5. Summarizing the GUTS Principles

Before discussing in detail the compromised domains, it is important to state the formal principles
of GUTS [1–3] here.
• The stress response is a default response.
The stress response is a default response that is active when no information about safety,
or no safety is perceived. When safety is perceived, the stress response is inhibited through
prefrontal-subcortical inhibition. Because the stress response is “on” (activated) by default, it is
already activated when there is simply no information, because by default it assumes that everything
is unsafe, unless informed otherwise. Hence the name of the theory: the generalized unsafety theory
of stress.
• The basic physiological state is co-determined by perception of safety.
The stress response is the primary determinant of the state of the autonomic nervous system and
therewith all other subsystems and organs in the body. It generally activates some (e.g., cardiovascular
and some muscular systems) and inhibits others (e.g., metabolism, growth etc.), ultimately in service
of fighting off threat of fleeing from it [108]. Given the stress response’s pervasiveness at all bodily
levels, it follows that the basic state of any organism, of all its biological (sub)systems, at any given
moment in time, is co-determined by the perception of safety. Thus, the actual physiological level
fluctuates with the level of perceived safety and hence the level of disinhibition of the stress response.
• Perceived safety is the outcome of the brain’s prediction of survival chances.
Perceived safety is the continuously changing outcome of a process of neurovisceral

integration [109] of information from the body’s state and the environment, predicting the survival
probability of the individual organism and its offspring (i.e., the passing of its genes to the
next generation).
• The stress response is largely unconscious.
This safety perception is nearly 100% unconscious, being a phylogenetically ancient and primary
adaptive system in all animals, with only some animals, at least homo sapiens having added only a
“thin layer” of conscious awareness.
• No stressors are needed for prolonged stress responses.
Although the organism’s default response can also be disinhibited by “specific unsafeties”, that is,
stressors (threats) or thoughts thereof (i.e., perseverative cognition [48,50,66]; see also below), in many
people with prolonged default stress responses, it is likely to be far more often disinhibited without
actual stressors or thoughts thereof In fact, only relatively few episodes of the total duration of their
default stress response will be caused by specific unsafeties or thoughts thereof, while the rest of the
duration of this response is determined by the unconscious perception of unsafety. Therefore, GU is a
far more important cause of prolonged activity than the stress responses to specific unsafeties, that is,
stressors or threats to resources, as they have been called in conventional stress theory.
• Perseverative cognition is part of GU.
GU is also far more important than perseverative cognition in explaining prolonged activity.
Perseverative cognition, such as worrying and ruminating [48,50], and potentially unconscious
cognitive representations of threats [67,68,103], may be both the result of the default stress response
and the cause of its maintenance. This is why even for non-pathological worriers it is so difficult to
stop worrisome thinking, and why pathological as well as non-pathological worriers often do not
understand what triggers worrying when the threats it pertains to are so often evidently unrealistic.
• Safety signals for humans are primarily social and learned.
The safety signals that will lead to the inhibition of the default stress response are often very
specific and are manifold. For social animals such as humans, cattle and many bird species, primary
safety signals relate to social sources (e.g., a group one belongs to), but other safety sources may be
shelter, hiding places and a surveyable environment, and there are many species-specific safety sources
(see below). Many safety signals are learned, and they can become generalized, which in humans is
the foundation for well-adapted individual.
3. Compromised Domains: Prolonged Stress Responses without Stressors

There are several very common situations in which the default stress response may be chronically
disinhibited, because they share the following characteristics:
• They are associated with chronic physiological activity that is similar to a stress response;
• Their associated chronic physiological activity is not caused, or unlikely to be caused by stressors;
• They are characterized by a reduced availability of perceived safety.
We have called these situations with chronic physiological activity without stressors compromised
domains [1–3].
3.1. Compromised Social Context

For social animals, being part of a group is a crucial important source of safety. The group
provides protection for example via defensive attacks of predators or hostile conspecifics, or via “safety
in numbers”, and individual animals can for example outsource the scanning for safety. Indeed,
the larger the group size the lower the levels of vigilance needs to be, as evidenced in a variety of
mammals such as elks, impala’s and boar, and many birds (see [110] for a brief listing). Moreover,
for many species the group is not only safe but also facilitates psychobiological goals including
reproduction and food. For example, less socially integrated killer whales die earlier, presumably
because of less social information about the location of food (e.g., salmon) and less food-sharing
opportunities in times of scarcity [111].
3.1.1. Isolated Social Animals

Since the group is so crucial to safety and survival it is no surprise that social animals show chronic
stress responses when isolated. Thus, a compromised social context is also an important instance
of a stress response that is independent of the presence of stressors. For example, isolated rodents
show behavioral stress responses as well as increased basal corticosterone secretion and increased
heart activity [112]. Increased basal corticosterone levels has also been found in many other social
animals when (relatively) isolated, including baboons, prairie voles, cows, and sheep, and marmosets,
but less clear yet for other physiological parameters [20]. Importantly, these effects depend on several
species-specific social properties (e.g., monogamous- or polygamous) and sex differences, and for
example on domestication (e.g., in the case of dogs the human owner often replaces the need for
connection with other dogs) [20]. Social isolation also influences disease risk and mortality in many
different species [20,113], including a decreased lifespan in the fruit fly [114].
3.1.2. Loneliness in Humans

Humans are also social animals. Our brain is even specialized for group living [115]. For us too,
during evolution being isolated meant in most cases a rather certain and early death. Thus in humans
too loneliness often goes hand in hand with chronic physiological responses that are hard to distinguish
from stress responses. It is linked to chronically decreased heart rate variability (HRV) [116] and
increased cortisol levels and dysregulated immunity (see [20]), with greater total peripheral resistance
[TPR] and lower cardiac output (CO), in the lab (see [117]) and during daily life [22], but not with higher
blood pressure [22,117]. The latter profile mentioned here, a high TPR and low CO (not necessarily
accompanied by higher blood pressure), is increasingly being identified as a physiological response
profile that is specific for vigilance for threat and perseverative cognition [118–120]. Finally, loneliness
also carries increased chance of illness or early death [20–24,116]. Related findings across several
physiological systems have been reported for low social connectedness (see review [24]). A recent
study even found a dose response relationship between lower social integration and physiological
dysregulation [24]. However, what causes the stress response in loneliness? Loneliness in itself not
a threat. Instead, lonely people are lacking in something: a warm, supportive, safe social network,
or simply perceiving sufficient friendly people around—something which is so important for social
animals such as humans; call it love for a better word. Thus, lonely people show signs of a stress
response, even a chronic stress response, in the absence of love, even if there is no sign whatsoever of
a stressor. Again, according to GUTS this is explained by the lack of the primary source of safety for
social animals, and therefore the chronic disinhibition of the default stress response.
3.1.3. Low Social Status and Discriminated Minorities

Theoretically, there are other types of compromised social context, for example low social
economic status (SES) and membership in a discriminated minority. Low SES, typically measured
by a combination of income, education, occupation, and housing conditions, is one of the strongest
predictors of morbidity and premature mortality worldwide [121–127], with a ten-fold or higher
risk for the lowest ranking SES compared to the highest, independent of any differences in material
deprivation [126]. Low-SES people show a chronic low HRV [109,128–131], and increases in other
major peripheral biological parameters, including blood pressure, sympathetic activity, and disruptions
in HPA axis regulation (see for an overview [132]). Only roughly one-third of the health and
mortality risks are explained by life style factors. Although low SES people experience many stressors,
the strongest explaining factors are low self-esteem (internalized inferiority; [126]), lack of control,
subjectively low SES (the feeling where one stands relative to the others in the hierarchy; e.g., [126,133])
and lack of social capital the lack of important social relations at the level of the community [127]:
all factors that are not discrete stressors, but seem to point at reduced (social) resources. Thus,
being relatively lower on the SES ladder seems to be a compromised situation and associated with
generalized unsafety. Several studies support this idea, for example showing that adolescents from
low-SES families interpret ambiguous situations as more threatening, a tendency that persists in
adulthood [134].
A well-known example of membership in a discriminated minority with serious health
consequences are African Americans (AAs) in the US. AAs have lower life expectancy than
their compatriots [135,136], and it is believed that discrimination significantly contributes to this
difference [137]. AAs lifetime burden of perceived discrimination and discriminatory harassment
and/or assault is associated with higher blood pressure, especially ambulatory and nighttime diastolic
blood pressure [138] and higher levels of inflammatory markers (see [139]). Again, since it is unlikely
that these chronically enhanced physiological effects are due to actual discrimination-related stressors
alone, or to continuous conscious worrying about it, it seems more likely that for many AA’s daily life
is unconsciously perceived as less safe than for others.
3.1.4. Other Compromised Social Contexts

Furthermore, many aspects potentially make modern society a socially unpredictable and
therefore less safe place, such as the increase in ambiguity of norms, the rapidly changing rules
and loss of (shared) rituals, that will not be discussed here because of space limits. Also, there are
elements of social compromises in other chronic stress situations, such as work stress, financial debts,
and the non-natural urbanized environment, which we will discuss below.
Finally, it should be noted, that the effects of loss of social resources can occur already at low levels
of deprivation. According to Coan and colleagues [140], at baseline before an experiment, the brain
looks more “at rest” when other people are present than when alone. Thus, being alone may be an
erroneous baseline for stress experiments, ignoring the social nature of human beings, yet it is used
by far in the majority of experiments (cf. Coan’s Social Baseline Theory; [140]). In a particularly
intriguing study by Eisenberger and colleagues [141] participants who were “excluded” in a rather
silly computerized ball throwing game showed neural activation localized in a dorsal portion of the
anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) that is implicated in the affective component of the physical pain
response. According to the authors the survival value of social bonding is so important that is uses the
brain’s pain system to stimulate us to seek social inclusion.
3.2. Compromised Early Safety Learning and “Prenatal Programming”

As mentioned in the beginning, from birth on animals and humans gradually learn to recognize
safety, especially in the early phase of life. After leaving the safe uterine world, babies show
a disinhibited default stress response: initially the world appears completely unsafe for them.
Interestingly, newborns do not yet show the cardiac deceleration that accompanies the orienting
response toward new stimuli seen in adults: they initially keep on responding with heart acceleration
(i.e., a defense response) to new information right into their 6th month [142]. Slowly the newborns
learn to predict the safety signals around them: the conditions under which hunger and thirst are
satisfied, when affiliation needs are being met, reflected in an increasing HRV [116]. In the course of
life their brains learn the increasing complexity of the contingencies of safety and their generalizability
toward new people, new situations and environments, and thus when and where to inhibit the default
stress response (see our discussion elsewhere: [1,2]). Unfortunately, much can go wrong during this
process, often as the result of early life stress or emotional neglect. Early adversities, especially physical
or sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and household dysfunction may disrupt the young child’s safety
learning, including the generalization of a sense of safety: “the world is a safe place”. Early life stress is
associated with chronic lower HRV [26,27] that continues into adulthood [28,143] and with increased
risk for organic disease [144–146], even in a dose-response fashion [30]. Again, since these chronic
levels cannot be due to actual stressors, according to GUTS they reflect a default stress response
that is inefficiently inhibited due to a generalized perception of unsafety: “the world is an unsafe
place”. Indeed, maltreated children seem to perceive more threat in ambiguous situations [147].
Emotional neglect or maltreatment is also believed to lead to stable psychological characteristics
such as low levels of emotional awareness [103] and alexithymia, which are also predictors of ill
health [103,148].
No less grim is the situation in the case of even earlier, prenatal determinants of the stress response.
The fetus’ brain appears to make fixed predictions of safety based on the mother’s experience: it learns
already in utero that the world is an unsafe place. Thus, maternal stress during pregnancy leads
to more behavioral and physiological chronic and acute stress responses in adult offspring of both
animals and humans (e.g., [31]), at least for the endocrine and immune responses ([32,33]; and even
distortion of intestinal microbiota [34] but not for cardiovascular responses [149–151]). Taken together,
children of mothers who have been stressed during pregnancy tend to show chronically enhanced
stress levels through adult life. Note that the born baby is not programmed for certain stressors, but for
a lower safety expectancy!
Even less reversible, if at all, are the expectations concerning unsafety that have already been
printed in the genetic code: we differ in our hereditary dispositions with respect to the default
stress response. These prenatal influences are partly reflected in personality characteristics such
as neuroticism, trait anxiety, trait anger and hostility, and repressive coping style that at their core
carry a strong expectation bias of unsafety, similar to anxiety disorders (see above). All of them are
associated with prolonged stress responses, even in the absence of stressors [47], and they are predictors
of somatic disease [35,36,44,148,152–155]. We speculate here that the high prolonged physiological
activity found in emotionally unaware people (e.g., in alexithymia, the repressive coping style and low
emotional awareness) is not recognized due to its constancy (see above: “Continuous responses are
hard to perceive”).
3.3. Compromised Physical Environment

There are many examples of animals that seem “stressed” without actual stressors present. All that
is often needed is the presence of another strange animal or human, an owner’s unusual behavior,
a clean litter box or simply nowhere to hide, for stress levels to increase [156–161]. For example,
if a cat a place to hide in a new environment, its “behavioral stress levels” recover faster than those
without a hiding place (e.g., a cardboard box; [162]), but not when housed in pairs or groups rather
than alone [163]. Other than humans and other highly social animals, most members of the genus
Felis are solitary. Their perceived safety relies relatively strongly on properties of their core territory,
including its familiarity and the presence of hiding places (e.g., a hole, a tree). Also, cats perceive a new
environment as more potentially threatening than many other animals do [164]. It has been known
for a long time that novelty evokes physiological stress responses (e.g., [85,165,166]). Stress responses
in novel situations and/or a lack of hiding places are also examples of physical contexts with stress
responses but without stressors, and thus merely unsafe contexts. We call them compromised physical
contexts. In fact, novelty, as a situation without familiar information, is a prototypical situation for
the default stress response. It is likely that novel environments are even more stressful for territorial
animals such as cats [164] than for social animals.
3.3.1. Distorted Information

Further, there are many ways in which physical environments can obscure information needed
for safety, including distortion of information, for example by darkness, dense fog, or loud noise.
Continuous noise such as road traffic noise leads to chronic physiological stress activity [167–169],
also during sleep [167], and increased risks for cardiovascular disease [170,171]. Noise has often been
used in stress experiments, and we take it for granted that loud, sustained noise can be used as a
stressor. However, following GUTS we argue that at least part of the stress-evoking effect of continuous
noise originates from the fact that it blurs information about possible impending dangers, including
direct sounds of for example a predator. In nature, rain or hard blowing winds may have these effects.
Thus, with noise a physical environment that on itself is safe may become less so. Conversely, too little
sound may sometimes also mean unsafety such as the warning signal of birds silencing because of
a looming predator (e.g., [172]). It was also found that human babies are not only stressed by too much
noise but also by too little sound [173]. Purportedly, for babies on-going human sound confirms the
closeness of protective others, the safe group, and so this links in with compromised social context as
discussed above.
3.3.2. Nature Versus Urban

An intriguing, and more general example of a potentially compromised environment is our own
human urban or otherwise anthropogenic environment. There is a growing literature on the direct
health promoting effects of nature—that is, being in nature, or experiencing nature, as opposed to
using it for exercise or for its direct effects such as fresh air, “natural” foods, etc. (see e.g., [174,175]).
This literature strongly suggests that exposure to natural, be it green or blue (i.e., water; [176]),
as opposed to urban environments reduces stress (anxiety, depressive feelings; [177]) and increases
HRV and lowers levels of heart rate, cortisol, and blood pressure [174,178]. In general, the preference
for and the health promoting effects of natural environments as opposed to urban ones is upheld
when controlling for a host of possible confounding factors such as socio-economic status and levels
of exercise, or other adverse or potentially noxious aspects of urban environments, such as noise,
smells and crowdedness (see [174,175]). Importantly, although the majority of studies focused on
stress recovery, many studies have established that simply being in nature, or proximity to nature,
or being exposed to natural stimuli is sufficient for the health promoting effects [176–183]. For example,
simply viewing natural pictures versus urban already increased HRV [179]. Moreover, positive effects
of being in nature are not necessarily mediated by awareness [184].
Of the many theoretical explanations that have been provided—and criticized—two types of
explanations stand out in the context of this paper. Firstly, natural stimuli or perhaps even specific
landscapes may evolutionarily have provided signals of safety (hiding places, lookouts, information
about escape routes etc.) and resources such as food and water. While the idea of innate preference
for specific landscapes may be attractive, it is at odds with the wide variety of landscapes in which
our successive ancestors have lived in [185]: savannah, jungle, deserts, mountains, snow- and ice
sheets, coastal and river areas. Yet, while no specific landscape might be “wired in”, more abstract
environmental aspects that facilitate safety perception, food gathering etc. might have been so.
Secondly, natural environmental information would fulfill innate desires to understand and explore,
and we are evolutionarily adapted for processing natural stimuli [174,186]. Indeed, there is abundant
evidence showing that we are better at navigating, orienting, and locating in natural surroundings [186].
To give some examples out of many, we have better memory and an attentional priority for natural
information [187–191], and we are far more accurate at noticing changes in nonhuman animals than
for vehicles, despite the far greater harmfulness of the latter in modern life [192].
Together, these explanations are just one step away from the GUTS position: urban environments
do not provide sufficient information about safety, and additionally, our perceptual system is shaped by
ancestral selection pressures to be specialized in natural information. Put in another way, in a natural
context much more information is code-able on a dimension safe-unsafe, while in an artificial, urban
context much more will be coded as ambiguous. Thus, because of a lack of genetically preferred
information urban environments do not provide enough information and thus the default stress
response remains disinhibited in them.
3.3.3. Urban Environment as Territory of Unknown Others

There is an intriguing alternative possibility, which ties in with the notion of compromised social
context. The built environment, especially urban, tends to be largely the property of unknown others
(strangers, companies, impersonal public authority). Although our species is not as xenophobic
as most other primates (see [193]), meeting strangers or being in the territory of others is likely to
disinhibit the default stress response at least partially. On the other hand, cooperation with—and
thus trust in—strangers is one of cornerstones of the evolutionary success of our species. Yet, in the
absence of previous experience with a stranger, humans rely on signals of positivity in establishing
trust (see [193]), and thus perceive safety. These signals are partially innate and partially learned.
Importantly though, when an environment offers limited or absent communication with strangers,
as is the case in many urban areas, this trust or safety cannot be fully established, which might result
in a maintained default stress response to some extent. In fact, in large cities, by far the greatest part of
the perceived environment is owned by unknown others. In other words, many of us live to some
degree in an alienated world with little means to perceive the safety granted by interhuman trust.
Conversely, one’s own little street or village—however anthropogenic it is—might convey a feeling of
safety and help keep the default stress response inhibited. Similarly, natural environments provide a
place that is either not obviously owned by unknown others, or “owned by all” or by “our group”.
Therefore, is just being in an urban environment enough to—at least slightly—release the default
stress response? To our knowledge no studies have yet provided direct comparisons of chronic
physiological activity levels between urban areas “owned by others” and areas “owned by known and
trusted others” or “by no one”. Until this is tested, we hypothesize that, just as being alone, being in
an urban environment is an erroneous baseline condition (see above: social baseline theory [140]).
3.4. Compromised Bodies
3.4.1. Compromised Animal Bodies

A capable, clean, and healthy body is a primary asset to preserve safety. For example, birds appear
stressed if they cannot wash their wings. When a starling does not have access to water to clean its
wings, it becomes more vigilant and more aware of danger. The starling who cannot wash its wings,
even when they are not necessarily dirty, seems therefore to show a stronger stress response, while there
is no sign of an actual stressor [194]. This is most certainly not an isolated case, but likely to be the
same for many other birds. Other birds, such as zebra finches show a higher level of the stress hormone
corticosterone if they have not been able to bathe for a while [195]. This makes sense, for without water
to wash one’s wings, fleeing when danger approaches may become far less effective. Being more alert
when there are no washing opportunities is therefore highly beneficial for survival. The more vigilant
birds were the ones who could pass on their genes.
For the same reason, many animals use dust baths instead of water baths to maintain healthy
feathers, skin, or fur, and for example chickens when deprived of dust bath opportunities (e.g., sand)
show behavioral and physiological stress (i.e., increased corticosterone) responses (e.g., [196]).
Animals that became more vigilant in these compromised environments were the ones who must have
passed on their genes.
Independent of environmental washing opportunities, a dirty plumage or skin exposes the animal
for a more direct lack of safety: a compromised ability to fight or flee. This is likely to be the reason
dirty and badly cared for animals look more stressed, as farmers can tell. However, there are many
more ways that a body can become compromised.
For example, a squid that has lost part of one of its eight legs reacts to a small neutral object
(e.g., a wire) with a stress response. When presented with such an object it retreats quicker, hides, flees
quicker or squirts a cloud of ink quicker than normal [197]. So even being mildly handicapped makes
a squid much more alert even when there is no immediate stressor.
Another, quite different example. Rats that were experimentally made obese showed more
stressed behavior (anxiety and depression-like behavior) and higher corticosterone, independent of
a stressor. In fact, their stress levels were comparable with non-obese rats during a chronic stressor,
and when stressed themselves their levels did not even go up, suggesting that their stress levels had
already reached a ceiling by being obese alone [198].
3.4.2. Obesity, Low Aerobic Fitness and Old Age as Compromised States
To our knowledge, in humans, missing bathing opportunities, dirty skin and missing body parts
have not yet been linked to chronic stress responses. However, obesity in humans has been associated
with chronically enhanced physiological levels such as increased heart activity, high blood pressure and
endocrine increases that are similar if not equal to a chronic stress response. This is also found in other
“compromised” bodily states, such as low aerobic fitness and old age [199–201]. All these conditions
carry significant health risks. Still they are seldom considered to be direct causes of stress responses.
According to GUTS, animals and humans in these conditions are stressed. Thus, irrespective of other
biological mechanisms that cause increases in physiological activity, the default stress response in
these physical conditions is not being fully inhibited because, through millions of years of evolution,
they carry with them a less adequate fight or flight response. In other words, they are “not optimally
resilient” bodily conditions. An older or less fit body reacts slower to its potentially dangerous
surroundings, just like the dirty birds or the handicapped squid, which means their world is less
safe. With every extra pound or drop in fitness, the less safe your world is. High alertness was
therefore key for survival. For millions of years, our world was a predatory and dangerous place to
live in, each day could be your last. Therefore, our compromised body maintains the default response,
at least to some extent, because safety cannot be fully perceived, or could not be fully perceived by our
ancestors. Those who kept their stress response disinhibited when their bodies were—in whatever
way—compromised were the ones who must have passed on their genes.
3.4.3. Other Compromised Body Examples

The examples above were chosen because these conditions do not involve intrinsic distress,
or in other words, they do not act as a threat themselves. This is the case in numerous other
potentially long-term bodily conditions such as fatigue, pain, other medically unexplained symptoms,
sleep deprivation, illness, persistent subclinical inflammation, or—more recently explored—deficient
intestinal microbiota (dysbiosis [202]), heat, cold, or enhanced physiological load by substances such
as alcohol, caffeine or drugs including pharmaceuticals, and in some parts of the world hunger and
thirst. According to GUTS, in all these conditions the default response will be disinhibited, at least to
some extent, because safety is not fully guaranteed anymore. Theoretically this response will come
on top of that caused by the distress of these conditions because of the conditions themselves being
perceived as threat), and the possible increases in partly the same physiological systems caused by the
various biological processes underlying each of these conditions, the detailing of which would require
much more space than allotted for this paper.
3.5. Compromised Context of (Presumed) Stressors

It is a truism to say that stressors are unavoidable in life, and all of us, even those with a
warm and close social network, with superb safety learning in early life, and living in a safe and
sound environment with lots of green and blue, must face the fact that there are always stressors
on the horizon. Illness or pain will never be abolished, accidents will keep on threatening us all
the time, the nasty boss is unlikely to change, just as lions will always be present in the life of
antelopes. The “secret” is to keep the exposure to these stressors outside of their actual occurrence at a
minimum, which includes the perseverative cognition about them. However, even then, according
to the “reversed” stress theory GUTS, as discussed in previous articles [1–3] a considerable part
of prolonged stress responses occur in the context (or environment) where people have previously
experienced stressors, rather than during these stressors—or during the conscious perseveration about
them for that matter. This is also true for contexts of presumed stressors, that is, unrealistic threats.
First, the default stress response can theoretically remain disinhibited in the context in which
a threatening stimulus (stressor) occurred earlier or with which a stressor is associated via context
conditioning. Earlier [2] we discussed examples of this form of “compromised context” for work stress,
the stressor of financial debt, and care giving for a spouse with Alzheimer’s. Stress responses can
be conditioned to the wider environment of these stressors, that is, contextually conditioned [203],
including such modern environments such as email and mobile phones. Since both the stressful
incidences that comprise these stressors and perseverative cognition about them may be limited in
time, the considerable disease risk of these stressors [53,59,65,204] may be largely explained by default
stress responses to these wider associated environments.
The situation is even worse for chronic anxiety, which also carries a high organic disease
risk [35–37] and which is characterized by a continuous failure to perceive safety where others do
so. A very common disorder such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), forms the most extreme
example of a compromised domain of context: GAD patients worry in virtually every context although
most contexts are safe, making them extremely contextually conditioned [2,203]. Social anxiety
disorder (SAD) too is very common and is maintained even though by far most social interactions are
non-threatening, and even objectively (“for others”) positive.
The compromised contexts mentioned in this paragraph have all been found to be characterized
by chronically low HRV or increased levels in other physiological stress responses, or both, in most
studies (see [2]), also in absence of the [presumed] stressors themselves. Even in chronically anxious
people such as GAD and SAD patients it is unlikely that they think truly incessantly, either consciously
or unconsciously about their fears, and thus neither these fears (concerning presumed stressors) nor
perseverative cognition can explain their continuously increased physiological response.
An easily missed category of compromised context is that of life-threatening or serious disabling
disease. For example, for cancer patients an astonishing number of contexts seem to become
unsafe [205]: food information, TV and other media because of medical shows, even abstract art
in which they might see uncontrollable tissue growth. Low HRV predicts mortality in cancer patients
(see reviews [206–208]) as well as in terminally ill patients in hospice care units [209,210]. Their low
HRV might not only be caused by realistic worries about the mortal threat—about which not a lot
can be done—but also by contexts that they (partly unconsciously) perceive as unsafe and to which
perhaps something can be done.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, we have argued that the default nature of the stress response, which is inhibited by
perceived safety, and disinhibited when no safety is perceived, has several consequences for the science
of stress and health. First, it necessitates a conceptual reconstruction of conventional stress theory,
accounting for the primary role of safety rather that stressors or threats. Second, following GUTS,
an astonishing array of situations and conditions (called “compromised domains”) are unveiled in
which chronic stress responses occur, but with no threats or stressors—and of many of these situations
and conditions significant organic disease risk have already been documented. Importantly, it should
be noted that the prolonged stress responses seen in several compromised domains discussed above
are direct effects, which is crucially different than the capacity in several of them to act as modulators of
the effect of stressors on physiology or disease, for example (lack of) social support or (lack of) nature,
(old) age and (lack of) aerobic fitness. Another important point to make here is that obviously, hardly
any of the compromised domains will exist in isolation: they most likely occur together, often with
more than two at a time: old age with loneliness and low fitness, the latter with obesity, fatigue in
cancer, etc. Whether this co-occurrence increases the default response in an additive or interactional
fashion, or not at all, is a matter of future study.
One important question has not yet been addressed, and that is how one can increase safety
perception, and therewith help to tonically inhibit the default stress response. Although it is beyond
the scope of this paper to address all potential ways to do this, we will mention some suggestions.
A logical way would be to change compromised conditions where this is possible, such as increase
social integration or social competence, or both, promote exposure to nature, reduce obesity and
improve physical fitness.
From a clinical stress-management point of view, the GUTS principles suggest that when
treating patients suffering from stress-related disorders (anxiety, mood disorder, burnout), therapists
should focus on factors that promote the (unconscious) perception of safety rather than on stressors.
Clinical stress management tends to use stressor-based or “reactive” theories: patients need to learn
new cognitive or emotional coping skills to deal with upcoming stressors that are believed to trigger
their stress responses. From this standpoint the new skills can only be practiced and learned during
or around stressful encounters. On the contrary, according to GUTS the default response is (nearly)
always disinhibited in these patients, and actual stressors or thoughts thereof account only for a small
portion of it. The focus should not be on stressors but on a much broader window of opportunities for
intervention, and therapists can find in GUTS a theoretical rationale for motivating their patients to
engage in activities that generally promote feelings of safety. In fact, every moment in daily life can
be used to (re)learn safety and expand the patients time window of prefrontal inhibition of the stress
response, by (a) improving; (b) finding or (c) creating sources of perceived safety. Improving safety
sources (a) can be obtained by enhancing existing safety sources such as the social network, the body’s
fitness, or environmental resources such as nature.
Furthermore, new sources of safety can be found (b), but not by using self-report since perceived
safety is thought to be largely unconscious. Instead, for example real life biofeedback could be used to
identify such sources (notably HRV as an index of prefrontal-subcortical inhibition). A promising new
ambulatory physiological technique, called “additional HRV” [79,211] consists of identifying—in daily
life—HRV changes that are corrected for metabolic demands from physical activity, and thus
“psychogenic”. By using this technique, it is possible to detect episodes of “psychogenic” HRV
increase that are likely to reflect unconsciously perceived safety, and actively expand these periods.
Such episodes can also be artificially created (c) and expanded, by using “on the spot” (ecological
momentary) meditation or relaxation procedures [212], or a novel technique, transcutaneous vagal
nerve stimulation (tVNS [213–215]) which is a new non-invasive and safe method to stimulate the
vagus nerve via the concha part of the ear that is innervated for 100% by the auricular branch of
the vagus. Several small trials suggested that t-VNS has positive effects on self-reported mood [214]
and increases HRV [215]. Crucially, these meditation, relaxation exercises or VNS-stimulation can be
administered in stressor-related contexts. The rationale behind such a treatment is that across time the
stressor-related context, to which low HRV has become a contextually conditioned response ([203];
see above), will become associated instead with an increase in HRV: the brain learns that the contexts are
safe. This “enhanced form of exposure” is expected to work based on the mechanism that underlies
exposure therapy in phobic anxiety: by repeated exposure to feared situations (i.e., the context is CS+),
bodily fear (stress) responses habituate and the situation becomes associated with the decreased stress
response. Stress responses in stressor-free contexts can be “unlearned” in a similar way, because these
responses are in fact as “unrealistic” as the fear response in phobic anxiety. All of this does not mean
that learning to cope with stressors is useless. Even if coping with one stressor does not abolish all
the stress response to it, the experience of having control may generalize to new situations, leading to
“immunization” to subsequent stressors by “turning on” the ventromedial prefrontal cortex [5].
Overall, GUTS identifies and explains far more stress-related physiological activity that is
responsible for disease and mortality than current stress theories. Furthermore, it does so in a more
parsimonious fashion, by using an overarching explanatory principle—generalized unsafety and the
default stress response—than the various biological pathways for all these conditions that are more
commonly used (and that still may be partially accurate). As such, GUTS provides a revolutionary
evolutionary perspective on contemporary health problems related to among others obesity, depression,
loneliness, the aging society and the anthropogenization of the environment.
Author Contributions: Jos F. Brosschot, Julian F. Thayer and Bart Verkuil conceived the ideas for this manuscript.
Jos F. Brosschot wrote the first draft and Julian F. Thayer and Bart Verkuil gave advice, added ideas and corrected
the final text.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Brosschot, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Thayer, J.F. Exposed to events that never happen: Generalized unsafety, the default
stress response, and prolonged autonomic activity. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017, 74, 287–296. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Brosschot, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Thayer, J.F. The default response to uncertainty and the importance of perceived
safety in anxiety and stress: An evolution-theoretical perspective. J. Anxiety Disord. 2016, 41, 22–34.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Brosschot, J.F. Ever at the ready for events that never happen. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2017, 8, 1309934.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Carleton, R.N. Into the unknown: A review and synthesis of contemporary models involving uncertainty.
J. Anxiety Disord. 2016, 39, 30–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Maier, S.F. Behavioral control blunts reactions to contemporaneous and future adverse events:
Medial prefrontal cortex plasticity and a corticostriatal network. Neurobiol. Stress 2015, 1, 12–22. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. Amat, J.; Baratta, M.V.; Paul, E.; Bland, S.T.; Watkins, L.R.; Maier, S.F. Medial prefrontal cortex determines
how stressor controllability affects behavior and dorsal raphe nucleus. Nat. Neurosci. 2005, 8, 365–371.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Kubala, K.H.; Christianson, J.P.; Kaufman, R.D.; Watkins, L.R.; Maier, S.F. Short- and long-term consequences
of stressor controllability in adolescent rats. Behav. Brain Res. 2012, 234, 278–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Motzkin, J.C.; Philippi, C.L.; Wolf, R.C.; Baskaya, M.K.; Koenigs, M. Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex Is
Critical for the Regulation of Amygdala Activity in Humans. Biol. Psychiatry 2015, 77, 276–284. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
9. Grupe, D.W.; Nitschke, J.B. Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated neurobiological and
psychological perspective. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 488–501. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Ahern, G.L.; Sollers, J.J.; Lane, R.D.; Labiner, D.M.; Herring, A.M.; Weinand, M.E.; Hutzler, R.; Thayer, J.F.
Heart rate and heart rate variability changes in the intracarotid sodium amobarbital test. Epilepsia 2001, 42,
912–921. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Waldvogel, D.; van Gelderen, P.; Muellbacher, W.; Ziemann, U.; Immisch, I.; Hallett, M. The relative metabolic
demand of inhibition and excitation. Nature 2000, 406, 995–998. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Jackson, J.H. Evolution and dissolution of the nervous system. Croonian lectures delivered at the Royal
College of Physicians, Lecture II. Br. Med. J. 1884, 1, 660–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Sebastian, A.; Jung, P.; Krause-Utz, A.; Lieb, K.; Schmahl, C.; Tuescher, O. Frontal dysfunctions of impulse
control—A systematic review in borderline personality disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 698. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Thayer, J.F. On the importance of inhibition: Central and peripheral manifestations of nonlinear inhibitory
processes in neural systems. Dose-Response Publ. Int. Hormesis Soc. 2006, 4, 2–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. McGeer, P.L.; Eccles, J.C.; McGeer, E.G. Molecular Neurobiology of the Mammalian Brain; Plenum Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1978.
16. Benjamin, P.R.; Staras, K.; Kemenes, G. What roles do tonic inhibition and disinhibition play in the control of
motor programs? Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2010, 4, 30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Nesse, R.M. Natural selection and the regulation of defences—A signal detection analysis of the smoke
detector principle. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2005, 26, 88–105. [CrossRef]
18. Trimmer, P.C.; Paul, E.S.; Mendl, M.T.; McNamara, J.M.; Houston, A.I. On the evolution and optimality of
mood States. Behav. Sci. 2013, 3, 501–521. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Brown, D.W.; Anda, R.F.; Felitti, V.J.; Edwards, V.J.; Malarcher, A.M.; Croft, J.B.; Giles, W.H. Adverse
childhood experiences are associated with the risk of lung cancer: A prospective cohort study.
BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 311. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Cacioppo, J.T.; Cacioppo, S.; Capitanio, J.P.; Cole, S.W. The Neuroendocrinology of Social Isolation.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2015, 66, 733–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Eriksson, M.; Raikkonen, K.; Eriksson, J.G. Early life stress and later health outcomes-findings from the
Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2014, 26, 111–116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Hawkley, L.C.; Burleson, M.H.; Berntson, G.G.; Cacioppo, J.T. Loneliness in everyday life: Cardiovascular
activity, psychosocial context, and health behaviors. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 105–120. [CrossRef]
23. Steptoe, A.; Shankar, A.; Demakakos, P.; Wardle, J. Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in
older men and women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 5797–5801. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Yang, Y.C.; Boen, C.; Gerken, K.; Li, T.; Schorpp, K.; Harris, K.M. Social relationships and physiological
determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 578–583.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Bhat, S.K.; Beilin, L.J.; Robinson, M.; Burrows, S.; Mori, T.A. Contrasting effects of prenatal life stress on
blood pressure and body mass index in young adults. J. Hypertens. 2015, 33, 711–719. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Miskovic, V.; Schmidt, L.A.; Georgiades, K.; Boyle, M.; MacMillan, H.L. Stability of Resting Frontal
Electroencephalogram [EEG] Asymmetry and Cardiac Vagal Tone in Adolescent Females Exposed to Child
Maltreatment. Dev. Psychobiol. 2009, 51, 474–487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Oosterman, M.; de Schipper, J.C.; Fisher, P.; Dozier, M.; Schuengel, C. Autonomic reactivity in relation to
attachment and early adversity among foster children. Dev. Psychopathol. 2010, 22, 109–118. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
28. Dale, L.P.; Carroll, L.E.; Galen, G.; Hayes, J.A.; Webb, K.W.; Porges, S.W. Abuse History is related to
Autonomic Regulation to Mild Exercise and Psychological Wellbeing. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2009,
34, 299–308. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Shenk, C.E.; Noll, J.G.; Putnam, F.W.; Trickett, P.K. A prospective examination of the role of childhood sexual
abuse and physiological asymmetry in the development of psychopathology. Child Abuse Negl. 2010, 34,
30. Dong, M.X.; Giles, W.H.; Felitti, V.J.; Dube, S.R.; Williams, J.E.; Chapman, D.P.; Anda, R.F. Insights into causal
pathways for ischemic heart disease—Adverse childhood experiences study. Circulation 2004, 110, 1761–1766.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Mastorci, F.; Vicentini, M.; Viltart, O.; Manghi, M.; Graiani, G.; Quaini, F.; Meerlo, P.; Nalivaiko, E.; Maccari, S.;
Sgoifo, A. Long-term effects of prenatal stress: Changes in adult cardiovascular regulation and sensitivity to
stress. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2009, 33, 191–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Slopen, N.; Loucks, E.B.; Appleton, A.A.; Kawachi, I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Non, A.L.; Buka, S.; Gilman, S.E.
Early origins of inflammation: An examination of prenatal and childhood social adversity in a prospective
cohort study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2015, 51, 403–413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Zijlmans, M.A.C.; Riksen-Walraven, J.M.; de Weerth, C. Associations between maternal prenatal cortisol
concentrations and child outcomes: A systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2015, 53, 1–24. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
34. Zijlmans, M.A.C.; Korpela, K.; Riksen-Walraven, J.M.; de Vos, W.M.; de Weerth, C. Maternal prenatal stress
is associated with the infant intestinal microbiota. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2015, 53, 233–245. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
35. Kubzansky, L.D.; Kawachi, I. Going to the heart of the matter: Do negative emotions cause coronary heart
disease? J. Psychosom. Res. 2000, 48, 323–337. [CrossRef]
36. Roest, A.M.; Martens, E.J.; de Jonge, P.; Denollet, J. Anxiety and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease:
A Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010, 56, 38–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Tully, P.J.; Cosh, S.M.; Baune, B.T. A review of the affects of worry and generalized anxiety disorder upon
cardiovascular health and coronary heart disease. Psychol. Health Med. 2013, 18, 627–644. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
38. Krohne, H.W. Stress and coping theories. Int. Encyclopedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2001, 22, 15163–15170. [CrossRef]
39. Thayer, J.F.; Ahs, F.; Fredrikson, M.; Sollers, J.J., III; Wager, T.D. A meta-analysis of heart rate variability
and neuroimaging studies: Implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health.
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2012, 36, 747–756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Selye, H. A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents. Nature 1936, 138, 32, reprinted in
J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 1998, 10, 230–231, doi:10.1176/jnp.10.2.230a. [CrossRef]
41. Selye, H. The Stress of Life; Rev. Edn. 1976; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1956.
42. Ursin, H. Activation, coping and psychosomatics. In Psychobiology of Stress: A Study of Coping Men; Ursin, H.,
Baade, E., Levine, S., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978; pp. 201–228.
43. Linden, W.; Earle, T.L.; Gerin, W.; Christenfeld, N. Physiological stress reactivity and recovery: Conceptual
siblings separated at birth? J. Psychosom. Res. 1997, 42, 117–135. [CrossRef]
44. Brosschot, J.F.; Thayer, J.F. Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery, and vagal function: A model of the link
between hostility and cardiovascular disease. Ann. Behav. Med. 1998, 20, 326–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. McEwen, B.S.; Seeman, T. Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress—Elaborating and testing
the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. In Socioeconomic Status and Health in Industrial Nations: Social,
Psychological, and Biological Pathways; Adler, N.E., Marmot, M., McEwen, B., Stewart, J., Eds.; Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 30–47.
46. Ursin, H.; Eriksen, H.R. The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2004, 29, 567–592.
[CrossRef]
47. Pieper, S.; Brosschot, J.F. Prolonged stress-related cardiovascular activation: Is there any? Ann. Behav. Med.
2005, 30, 91–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Brosschot, J.F.; Pieper, S.; Thayer, J.F. Expanding stress theory: Prolonged activation and perseverative
cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2005, 30, 1043–1049. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Brosschot, J.F.; Gerin, W.; Thayer, J.F. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged
stress-related physiological activation, and health. J. Psychosom. Res. 2006, 60, 113–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Verkuil, B.; Brosschot, J.F.; Gebhardt, W.; Thayer, J.F. When worries make you sick: A review of perseverative
cognition: The default stress response and somatic health. J. Exp. Psychopathol. 2010, 1, 87–118. [CrossRef]
51. Brosschot, J.F.; Van Dijk, E.; Thayer, J.F. Daily worry is related to low heart rate variability during waking
and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2007, 63, 39–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Thayer, J.F.; Yamamoto, S.S.; Brosschot, J.F. The relationship of autonomic imbalance, heart rate variability
and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Int. J. Cardiol. 2010, 141, 122–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Chandola, T.; Britton, A.; Brunner, E.; Hemingway, H.; Malik, M.; Kumari, M.; Badrick, E.; Kivimaki, M.;
Marmot, M. Work stress and coronary heart disease: What are the mechanisms? Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29,
54. Chandola, T.; Heraclides, A.; Kumari, M. Psychophysiological biomarkers of workplace stressors.
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2010, 35, 51–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Collins, S.M.; Karasek, R.A.; Costas, K. Job strain and autonomic indices of cardiovascular disease risk. Am. J.
Ind. Med. 2005, 48, 182–193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Landsbergis, P.A.; Dobson, M.; Koutsouras, G.; Schnall, P. Job Strain and Ambulatory Blood Pressure:
A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, E61–E71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Kivimaki, M.; Head, J.; Ferrie, L.E.; Shipley, M.J.; Steptoe, A.; Vahtera, J.; Marmot, M.G. Hypertension is not
the link between job strain and coronary heart disease in the Whitehall II study. Am. J. Hypertens. 2007, 20,
1146–1153. [PubMed]
58. Loerbroks, A.; Schilling, O.; Haxsen, V.; Jarczok, M.N.; Thayer, J.F.; Fischer, J.E. The fruits of ones labor:
Effort-reward imbalance but not job strain is related to heart rate variability across the day in 35–44-year-old
workers. J. Psychosom. Res. 2010, 69, 151–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Bosma, H.; Peter, R.; Siegrist, J.; Marmot, M. Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart
disease. Am. J. Public Health 1998, 88, 68–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Dimsdale, J.E. Psychological stress and cardiovascular disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008, 51, 1237–1246.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K.; McGuire, L.; Robles, T.F.; Glaser, R. Psychoneuroimmunology: Psychological influences
on immune function and health. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2002, 70, 537–547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Orth-Gomer, K.; Wamala, S.P.; Horsten, M.; Schenck-Gustafsson, K.; Schneiderman, N.; Mittleman, M.A.
Marital stress worsens prognosis in women with coronary heart disease—The Stockholm Female Coronary
Risk Study. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2000, 284, 3008–3014. [CrossRef]
63. Rosengren, A.; Hawken, S.; Ounpuu, S.; Sliwa, K.; Zubaid, M.; Almahmeed, W.A.; Blackett, K.N.;
Sittih-amorn, C.; Sato, H.; Yusuf, S.; et al. Association of psychosocial risk factors with risk of acute
myocardial infarction in 11,119 cases and 13,648 controls from 52 countries [the INTERHEART study]:
Case-control study. Lancet 2004, 364, 953–962. [CrossRef]
64. Krantz, D.S.; McCeney, M.K. Effects of psychological and social factors on organic disease: A critical
assessment of research on coronary heart disease. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002, 53, 341–369. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
65. Vitaliano, P.P.; Scanlan, J.M.; Zhang, J.P.; Savage, M.V.; Hirsch, I.B.; Siegler, I.C. A path model of chronic
stress, the metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease. Psychosom. Med. 2002, 64, 418–435. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
66. Ottaviani, C.; Thayer, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Lonigro, A.; Medea, B.; Couyoumdjian, A.; Brosschot, J.F. Physiological
Concomitants of Perseverative Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 142,
67. Brosschot, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Thayer, J.F. Conscious and unconscious perseverative cognition: Is a large part of
prolonged physiological activity due to unconscious stress? J. Psychosom. Res. 2010, 69, 407–416. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
68. Brosschot, J.F. Markers of chronic stress: Prolonged physiological activation and [un]conscious perseverative
cognition. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2010, 35, 46–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Yoshino, K.; Matsuoka, K. Effect of mood during daily life on autonomic nervous activity balance during
subsequent sleep. Auton. Neurosci. Basic Clin. 2009, 150, 147–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Hall, M.H.; Vasko, R.; Ombao, H.; Buysse, D.J.; Cashmere, D.; Kupfer, D.J. Acute stress affects autonomic
tone during sleep. Sleep 2001, 24, A112–A113.
71. Pieper, S.; Brosschot, J.F.; van der Leeden, R.; Thayer, J.F. Prolonged Cardiac Effects of Momentary Assessed
Stressful Events and Worry Episodes. Psychosom. Med. 2010, 72, 570–577. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Van der Ploeg, M.M.; Brosschot, J.F.; Versluis, A.; Verkuil, B. Peripheral physiological responses to
subliminally presented negative affective stimuli: A systematic review. Biol. Psychol. 2017, 129, 131–153.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Van der Ploeg, M.M.; Brosschot, J.F.; Verkuil, B.; Gillie, B.L.; Williams, D.P.; Koenig, J.; Vasey, M.W.; Thayer, J.F.
Inducing unconscious stress: Cardiovascular activity in response to subliminal presentation of threatening
and neutral words. Psychophysiology 2017, 54, 1498–1511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Garfinkel, S.N.; Zorab, E.; Navaratnam, N.; Engels, M.; Mallorqui-Bague, N.; Minati, L.; Dowell, N.G.;
Brosschot, J.F.; Thayer, J.F.; Critchley, H.D. Anger in brain and body: The neural and physiological
perturbation of decision-making by emotion. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2016, 11, 150–158. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
75. Versluis, A.; Verkuil, B.; Brosschot, J.F. Converging evidence that subliminal evaluative conditioning does
not affect self-esteem or cardiovascular activity. Stress Health J. Int. Soc. Investig. Stress 2017. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
76. Brosschot, J.F.; Geurts, S.A.E.; Kruizinga, I.; Radstaak, M.; Verkuil, B.; Quirin, M.; Kompier, M.A.J.
Does Unconscious Stress Play a Role in Prolonged Cardiovascular Stress Recovery? Stress Health 2014,
77. Mossink, J.C.L.; Verkuil, B.; Burger, A.M.; Tollenaar, M.S.; Brosschot, J.F. Ambulatory assessed implicit affect
is associated with salivary cortisol. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Van der Ploeg, M.M.; Brosschot, J.F.; Thayer, J.F.; Verkuil, B. The Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test:
Validity and Relationship with Cardiovascular Stress-Responses. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 425. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
79. Verkuil, B.; Brosschot, J.F.; Tollenaar, M.S.; Lane, R.D.; Thayer, J.F. Prolonged Non-metabolic Heart Rate
Variability Reduction as a Physiological Marker of Psychological Stress in Daily Life. Ann. Behav. Med. 2016,
80. Ursin, H.; Murison, R. Biological and Psychological Basis of Psychosomatic Disease, Advances in the Biosciences;
Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1983; Volume 42, pp. 269–277.
81. Sluiter, J.K.; de Croon, E.M.; Meijman, T.F.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. Need for recovery from work related
fatigue and its role in the development and prediction of subjective health complaints. Occup. Environ. Med.
2003, 60, 62–70. [CrossRef]
82. McEwen, B.S. Stress, adaptation, and disease—Allostasis and allostatic load. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1998, 840,
83. Cannon, W.B. The mechanisms of emotional disturbance of bodily functions. N. Engl. J. Med. 1928, 198,
165–172. [CrossRef]
84. Weiss, J.M. Somatic effects of predictable and unpredictable shock. Psychosom. Med. 1970, 32, 397–408.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Mason, J.W.; Harwood, C.T.; Rosenthal, N.R. Influence of some environmental factors on plasma and
urinary 17-hydroxycorticosteroid levels in the rhesus monkey. Am. J. Physiol. 1957, 190, 429–433. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
86. Seligman, M.E.; Maier, S.F. Failure to escape traumatic shock. J. Exp. Psychol. 1967, 74, 1–9. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
87. Holmes, T.H.; Rahe, R.H. Social readjustment rating scale. J. Psychosom. Res. 1967, 11, 213–218. [CrossRef]
88. Lazarus, R.S.; Launier, R. Stress-related transactions between person and environment. In Perspectives in
Interactional Psychology; Lawrence, P., Lewis, M., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1978; pp. 287–327.
89. Lazarus, R.S. Emotion and Adaptation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
90. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. In Dynamics of Stress.
Physiological, Psychologcal, and Social Perspectives; Appley, M.H., Trumbull, R., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY,
USA, 1986; pp. 63–80.
91. Kanner, A.D.; Coyne, J.C.; Schaefer, C.; Lazarus, R.S. Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily
hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J. Behav. Med. 1981, 4, 1–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Henry, J.P.; Stephens, P.M. Stress, Health, and Thesocial Environment. A Sociobiologic Approach to Medicine;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
93. Frankenhauser, M. Psychobiological effects of life stress. In Coping and Health; Levine, S., Ursin, H., Eds.;
Plenu Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
94. Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain—Implications for job redesign.
Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [CrossRef]
95. Cohen, S.; Gianaros, P.J.; Manuck, S.B. A Stage Model of Stress and Disease. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 11,
96. Siegrist, J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1996, 1,
97. Schwarzer, R.; Leppin, A. Social support and health—A theoretical and empirical overview. J. Soc.
Pers. Relationsh. 1991, 8, 99–127. [CrossRef]
98. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy—Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S. Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being—Theoretical
overview and empirical update. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1992, 16, 201–228. [CrossRef]
100. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources—A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44,
102. Hobfoll, S.E.; Freedy, J.R.; Green, B.L.; Solomon, S.D. Coping reactions to extreme stress: The roles of
resource loss and resource availability. In Handbook of Coping: Theory, Research, Applications; Zeidner, M.,
Endler, N.S., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 322–349.
103. Lane, R.D. Neural substrates of implicit and explicit emotional processes: A unifying framework for
psychosomatic medicine. Psychosom. Med. 2008, 70, 214–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Maier, S.F. Bi-directional immune-brain communication: Implications for understanding stress, pain, and
cognition. Brain Behav. Immun. 2003, 17, 69–85. [CrossRef]
105. Maier, S.F.; Watkins, L.R. The immune system as a sensory system: Implications for psychology. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 2000, 9, 98–102. [CrossRef]
106. Dijksterhuis, A.; Aarts, H.; Smith, P.K. The power of the subliminal: On subliminal persuasion and other
potential applications. In The New Unconscious; Hassin, R., Uleman, J.S., Bargh, J.A., Eds.; Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
107. Hull, J.G.; Slone, L.B.; Meteyer, K.B.; Matthews, A.R. The nonconsciousness of self-consciousness. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 406–424. [CrossRef]
108. Sapolsky, R. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: An Updated Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases, and Coping; Henry
Holt and Company: New York, NY, USA, 2004.
109. Thayer, J.F.; Lane, R.D. Claude Bernard and the heart-brain connection: Further elaboration of a model of
neurovisceral integration. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2009, 33, 81–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Edwards, S.; Waterman, J.M. Vigilance and grouping in the southern African ground squirrel [Xerus inauris].
Afr. J. Ecol. 2011, 49, 286–291. [CrossRef]
111. Ellis, S.; Franks, D.W.; Nattrass, S.; Cant, M.A.; Weiss, M.N.; Giles, D.; Balcomb, K.C.; Croft, D.P. Mortality
risk and social network position in resident killer whales: Sex differences and the importance of resource
abundance. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2017, 284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Beery, A.K.; Kaufer, D. Stress, social behavior, and resilience: Insights from rodents. Neurobiol. Stress 2015, 1,
113. Cacioppo, S.; Capitanio, J.P.; Cacioppo, J.T. Toward a Neurology of Loneliness. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140,
114. Ruan, H.Y.; Wu, C.F. Social interaction-mediated lifespan extension of Drosophila Cu/Zn superoxide
dismutase mutants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 7506–7510. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115. Cikara, M.; Van Bavel, J.J. The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations an Integrative Review.
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 9, 245–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116. Porges, S.W. The polyvagal perspective. Biol. Psychol. 2007, 74, 116–143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
117. Cacioppo, J.T.; Hawkey, L.C.; Berntson, G.G. The anatomy of loneliness. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 12,
71–74. [CrossRef]
118. Blascovich, J. Challenge, threat, and health. In Handbook of Motivation Science; Shah, J.Y., Gardner, W.L., Eds.;
Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 481–493.
119. Ottaviani, C.; Brosschot, J.F.; Lonigro, A.; Medea, B.; Van Diest, I.; Thayer, J.F. Hemodynamic Profiles of
Functional and Dysfunctional Forms of Repetitive Thinking. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017, 51, 261–271. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
120. Seery, M.D. Challenge or threat? Cardiovascular indexes of resilience and vulnerability to potential stress in
humans. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2011, 35, 1603–1610. [PubMed]
121. Stringhini, S.; Carmeli, C.; Jokela, M.; Avendano, M.; Muennig, P.; Guida, F.; Ricceri, F.; d’Errico, A.;
Barros, H.; Bochud, M.; et al. Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature
mortality: A multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1.7 million men and women. Lancet 2017, 389, 1229–1237.
[PubMed]
122. Mackenbach, J.P.; Stirbu, I.; Roskam, A.J.R.; Schaap, M.M.; Menvielle, G.; Leinsalu, M.; Kunst, A.E.
Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 2468–2481.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Stringhini, S.; Sabia, S.; Shipley, M.; Brunner, E.; Nabi, H.; Kivimaki, M.; Singh-Manoux, A. Association of
Socioeconomic Position with Health Behaviors and Mortality. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2010, 303, 1159–1166.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Stringhini, S.; Rousson, V.; Viswanathan, B.; Gedeon, J.; Paccaud, F.; Bovet, P. Association of Socioeconomic
Status with Overall and Cause Specific Mortality in the Republic of Seychelles: Results from a Cohort Study
in the African Region. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Hosseinpoor, A.R.; Bergen, N.; Mendis, S.; Harper, S.; Verdes, E.; Kunst, A.; Chatterji, S. Socioeconomic
inequality in the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: Results from
the World Health Survey. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 474. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
126. Marmot, M. The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity; Bloomsbury Publishing:
London, UK, 2004; p. 288. ISBN 0747570493.
127. Kawachi, I.; Kennedy, B.P. The Health of Nations: Why Inequality Is Harmful to Your Health; New Press:
128. Hemingway, H.; Shipley, M.; Brunner, E.; Britton, A.; Malik, M.; Marmot, M. Does autonomic function link
social position to coronary risk? The Whitehall II study. Circulation 2005, 111, 3071–3077. [PubMed]
129. Lampert, R.; Ickovics, J.; Horwitz, R.; Lee, F. Depressed autonomic nervous system function in African
Americans and individuals of lower social class: A potential mechanism of race- and class-related disparities
in health outcomes. Am. Heart J. 2005, 150, 153–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
130. Boyce, W.T. Social stratification, health, and violence in the very young. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2004, 1036,
131. Thayer, J.F.; Sternberg, E. Beyond heart rate variability—Vagal regulation of allostatic systems. Ann. N. Y.
Acad. Sci. 2006, 1088, 361–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Seeman, T.; Epel, E.; Gruenewald, T.; Karlamangla, A.; McEwen, B.S. Socio-economic differentials in
peripheral biology: Cumulative allostatic load. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1186, 223–239. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
133. Adler, N.E.; Epel, E.S.; Castellazzo, G.; Ickovics, J.R. Relationship of subjective and objective social status
with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol.
2000, 19, 586–592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Miller, G.E.; Chen, E.; Parker, K.J. Psychological Stress in Childhood and Susceptibility to the Chronic
Diseases of Aging: Moving toward a Model of Behavioral and Biological Mechanisms. Psychol. Bull. 2011,
135. Kochanek, K.D.; Arias, E.; Anderson, R.N. How Did Cause of Death Contribute to Racial Differences in Life
Expectancy in the United States in 2010? NCHS Data Brief 2013, 125, 1–8.
136. Minino, A. Life Expectancy at Birth, by Sex and Black or White Race—National Vital Statistics System,
United States, 2000–2011. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2013, 62, 891–892.
137. Clark, R.; Anderson, N.B.; Clark, V.R.; Williams, D.R. Racism as a stressor for African
Americans—A biopsychosocial model. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54, 805–816. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
138. Dolezsar, C.M.; McGrath, J.J.; Herzig, A.J.M.; Miller, S.B. Perceived Racial Discrimination and Hypertension:
A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Health Psychol. 2014, 33, 20–34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139. Hill, L.K.; Hoggard, L.S.; Richmond, A.S.; Gray, D.L.; Williams, D.P.; Thayer, J.F. Examining the Association
Between Perceived Discrimination and Heart Rate Variability in African Americans. Cult. Divers. Ethn.
Minor. Psychol. 2017, 23, 5–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
140. Coan, J.A.; Sbarra, D.A. Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Currt. Opin. Psychol.
2015, 1, 87–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Eisenberger, N.I.; Lieberman, M.D.; Williams, K.D. Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion.
Science 2003, 302, 290–292. [PubMed]
142. Graham, F.K.; Jackson, J.C. Arousal systems and infant heart rate responses. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 1970, 5,
59–117. [PubMed]
143. Maunder, R.G.; Lancee, W.J.; Nolan, R.P.; Hunter, J.J.; Tannenbaum, D.W. The relationship of attachment
insecurity to subjective stress and autonomic function during standardized acute stress in healthy adults.
J. Psychosom. Res. 2006, 60, 283–290. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Anda, R.F.; Dong, M.X.; Brown, D.W.; Felitti, V.J.; Giles, W.H.; Perry, G.S.; Valerie, E.J.; Dube, S.R.
The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to a history of premature death of family members.
BMC Public Health 2009, 9, 106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
145. Dube, S.R.; Fairweather, D.; Pearson, W.S.; Felitti, V.J.; Anda, R.F.; Croft, J.B. Cumulative childhood stress
and autoimmune diseases in adults. Psychosom. Med. 2009, 71, 243–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
146. Kittleson, M.M.; Meoni, L.A.; Wang, N.Y.; Chu, A.Y.; Ford, D.E.; Klag, M.J. Association of childhood
socioeconomic status with subsequent coronary heart disease in physicians. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166,
147. Pollak, S.D.; Kistler, D.J. Early experience is associated with the development of categorical representations
for facial expressions of emotion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 9072–9076. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
148. Kauhanen, J.; Kaplan, G.A.; Cohen, R.D.; Julkunen, J.; Salonen, J.T. Alexithymia and risk of death in
middle-aged men. J. Psychosom. Res. 1996, 41, 541–549. [CrossRef]
149. Ottaviani, C.; Shahabi, L.; Tarvainen, M.; Cook, I.; Abrams, M.; Shapiro, D. Cognitive, behavioral,
and autonomic correlates of mind wandering and perseverative cognition in major depression.
Front. Neurosci. 2015, 8, 433. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
150. Van Dijk, A.E.; Dawe, K.; Deanfield, J.; Stronks, K.; Gemke, R.J.B.J.; Vrijkotte, T.G.M.; Lawlor, D.A.
The association of maternal prenatal psychosocial stress with vascular function in the child at age 10–11
years: Findings from the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2014, 21,
151. Van Dijk, A.E.; van Eijsden, M.; Stronks, K.; Gemke, R.J.B.J.; Vrijkotte, T.G.M. Prenatal Stress and Balance of
the Child’s Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System at Age 5–6 Years. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30413. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
152. Mroczek, D.K.; Spiro, A.; Turiano, N.A. Do health behaviors explain the effect of neuroticism on mortality?
Longitudinal findings from the VA Normative Aging Study. J. Res. Personal. 2009, 43, 653–659. [CrossRef]
153. Scheier, M.F.; Bridges, M.W. Person variables and health—Personality predispositions and acute
psychological states as shared determinants for disease. Psychosom. Med. 1995, 57, 255–268. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
154. Batty, G.D.; McIntosh, A.M.; Russ, T.C.; Deary, I.J.; Gale, C.R. Psychological distress, neuroticism,
and cause-specific mortality: Early prospective evidence from UK Biobank. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
2016, 70, 1136–1139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
155. Esterling, B.A.; Antoni, M.H.; Kumar, M.; Schneiderman, N. Emotional repression, stress disclosure responses,
and epstein-barr viral capsid antigen titers. Psychosom. Med. 1990, 52, 397–410. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
156. Ellis, S. Environmental enrichment. Practical strategies for improving feline welfare. J. Feline Med. Surg.
2009, 11, 901–912. [PubMed]
157. Arrant, A.E.; Schramm-Sapyta, N.L.; Kuhn, C.M. Use of the light/dark test for anxiety in adult and adolescent
male rats. Behav. Brain Res. 2013, 256, 119–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
158. Fischer, C.P.; Franco, L.A.; Romero, L.M. Are novel objects perceived as stressful? The effect of novelty on
heart rate. Physiol. Behav. 2016, 161, 7–14. [PubMed]
159. Miura, H.; Qiao, H.; Ohta, T. Attenuating effects of the isolated rearing condition on increased brain serotonin
and dopamine turnover elicited by novelty stress. Brain Res. 2002, 926, 10–17. [CrossRef]
160. Petty, F.; Kramer, G.L.; Larrison, A.L. Neurochemistry of stress: Regional brain levels of biogenic amines and
metabolites with ten different stressors. Biog. Amines 1996, 12, 377–394.
161. Van den Buuse, M.; van Acker, S.; Fluttert, M.; de Kloet, E.R. Blood pressure, heart rate, and behavioral
responses to psychological “novelty” stress in freely moving rats. Psychophysiology 2001, 38, 490–499.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
162. Vinke, C.M.; Godijn, L.M.; van der Leij, W.J.R. Will a hiding box provide stress reduction for shelter cats?
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014, 160, 86–93. [CrossRef]
163. Kessler, M.R.; Turner, D.C. Stress and adaptation of cats [felis silvestris catus] housed singly, in pairs and in
groups in boarding catteries. Anim. Welf. 1997, 6, 243–254.
164. Neilson, J.C. Fear of places and things. In Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine; Horwltz, D.,
Mills, D., Heath, S., Eds.; British Small Animal Veterinary Association: Shurdington, UK, 2002; pp. 173–180.
165. Mason, J.W. Scope of psychoendocrine research. Psychosom. Med. 1968, 30, 565–575. [CrossRef]
166. Mason, J.W. An historical view of the stress field: Parts 1 and 2. J. Hum. Stress 1975, 1, 6–35. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
167. Recio, A.; Linares, C.; Banegas, J.R.; Díaz, J. Road traffic noise effects on cardiovascular, respiratory, and
metabolic health: An integrative model of biological mechanisms. Environ. Res. 2016, 146, 359–370.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
168. Zijlema, W.; Cai, Y.T.; Doiron, D.; Mbatchou, S.; Fortier, I.; Gulliver, J.; de Hoogh, K.; Morley, D.; Hodgson, S.;
Elliott, P.; et al. Road traffic noise, blood pressure and heart rate: Pooled analyses of harmonized data from
88,336 participants. Environ. Res. 2016, 151, 804–813. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
169. Münzel, T.; Gori, T.; Babisch, W.; Basner, M. Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise exposure.
Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 829–836. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
170. Fecht, D.; Hansell, A.L.; Morley, D.; Dajnak, D.; Vienneau, D.; Beevers, S.; Toledano, M.B.; Kelly, F.J.;
Anderson, H.R.; Gulliver, J. Spatial and temporal associations of road traffic noise and air pollution in
London: Implications for epidemiological studies. Environ. Int. 2016, 88, 235–242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
171. Halonen, J.I.; Hansell, A.L.; Gulliver, J.; Morley, D.; Blangiardo, M.; Fecht, D.; Toledano, M.B.; Beevers, S.D.;
Anderson, H.R.; Kelly, F.J.; et al. Road traffic noise is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and
mortality and all-cause mortality in London. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 2653–2661. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
172. Templeton, C.N.; Greene, E. Nuthatches eavesdrop on variations in heterospecific chickadee mobbing alarm
calls. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5479–5482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
173. Werner, C.D.; Linting, M.; Vermeer, H.J.; Van IJzendoorn, M.H. Noise in center-based child care: Associations
with quality of care and child emotional wellbeing. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 190–201. [CrossRef]
174. Ross, M.; Mason, G.J. The effects of preferred natural stimuli on humans’ affective states, physiological stress
and mental health, and the potential implications for well-being in captive animals. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
2017, 83, 46–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
175. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35,
176. Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being—Salutogenetic health
effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
177. De Vries, S.; ten Have, M.; van Dorsselaer, S.; van Wezep, M.; Hermans, T.; de Graaf, R. Local availability of
green and blue space and prevalence of common mental disorders in the Netherlands. Br. J. Psychiatry Open
2016, 2, 366–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
178. Lanki, T.; Siponen, T.; Ojala, A.; Korpela, K.; Pennanen, A.; Tiittanen, P.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kagawa, T.;
Tyrvainen, L. Acute effects of visits to urban green environments on cardiovascular physiology in women:
A field experiment. Environm. Res. 2017, 159, 176–185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
179. Gladwell, V.F.; Brown, D.K.; Barton, J.L.; Tarvainen, M.P.; Kuoppa, P.; Pretty, J.; Suddaby, J.M.;
Sandercock, G.R.H. The effects of views of nature on autonomic control. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012,
180. MacKerron, G.; Mourato, S. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum.
Policy Dimens. 2013, 23, 992–1000. [CrossRef]
181. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.P. Morbidity is related
to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
182. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space, urbanity, and health:
How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587–592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
183. McMahan, E.A.; Estes, D. The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect:
A meta-analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 507–519. [CrossRef]
184. Nisbet, E.K.; Zelenski, J.M. Underestimating Nearby Nature: Affective Forecasting Errors Obscure the Happy
Path to Sustainability. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1101–1106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
185. Zuk, M. Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live; W. W. Norton Company:
186. Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. Evolutionary Psychology: New Perspectives on Cognition and Motivation.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 201–229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
187. Wang, S.; Tsuchiya, N.; New, J.; Hurlemann, R.; Adolphs, R. Preferential attention to animals and people is
independent of the amygdala. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2015, 10, 371–380. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
188. Nairne, J.S.; Pandeirada, J.N.S. Adaptive memory: Ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival
processing. Cogn. Psychol. 2010, 61, 1–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
189. Van Le, Q.; Isbell, L.A.; Matsumoto, J.; Nguyen, M.; Hori, E.; Maior, R.S.; Tomaz, C.; Anh Hai, T.; Ono, T.;
Nishijo, H. Pulvinar neurons reveal neurobiological evidence of past selection for rapid detection of snakes.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 19000–19005. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
190. New, J.; Krasnow, M.M.; Truxaw, D.; Gaulin, S.J.C. Spatial adaptations for plant foraging: Women excel and
calories count. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 2679–2684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
191. Meert, K.; Pandelaere, M.; Patrick, V.M. Taking a shine to it: How the preference for glossy stems from an
innate need for water. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 195–206. [CrossRef]
192. New, J.; Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities,
not expertise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 16598–16603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
193. Tan, J.Z.; Ariely, D.; Hare, B. Bonobos respond prosocially toward members of other groups. Sci. Rep. 2017,
7, 14733. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
194. Brilot, B.O.; Bateson, M. Water bathing alters threat perception in starlings. Biol. Lett. 2012, 8, 379–381.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
195. Krause, E.T.; Ruploh, T. Captive domesticated zebra finches [Taeniopygia guttata] have increased plasma
corticosterone concentrations in the absence of bathing water. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016, 182, 80–85.
[CrossRef]
196. Vestergaard, K.S.; Skadhauge, E.; Lawson, L.G. The stress of not being able to perform dustbathing in laying
hens. Physiol. Behav. 1997, 62, 413–419. [CrossRef]
197. Crook, R.J.; Dickson, K.; Hanlon, R.T.; Walters, E.T. Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk.
Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 1121–1125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
198. Aslani, S.; Vieira, N.; Marques, F.; Costa, P.S.; Sousa, N.; Palha, J.A. The effect of high-fat diet on rat’s mood,
feeding behavior and response to stress. Transl. Psychiatry 2015, 5, e684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
199. Hansen, A.L.; Johnsen, B.H.; Sollers, J.J.; Stenvik, K.; Thayer, J.F. Heart rate variability and its relation to
prefrontal cognitive function: The effects of training and detraining. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2004, 93, 263–272.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
200. Julius, S. The defense reaction—A common denominator of coronary risk and blood-pressure in neurogenic
hypertension. Clin. Exp. Hypertens. 1995, 17, 375–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
201. Zulfiqar, U.; Jurivich, D.A.; Gao, W.; Singer, D.H. Relation of High Heart Rate Variability to Healthy Longevity.
Am. J. Cardiol. 2010, 105, 1181–1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
202. Aroniadis, O.C.; Drossman, D.A.; Simren, M. A Perspective on Brain-Gut Communication: The American
Gastroenterology Association and American Psychosomatic Society Joint Symposium on Brain-Gut
Interactions and the Intestinal Microenvironment. Psychosom. Med. 2017, 79, 847–856. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
203. Maren, S.; Phan, K.L.; Liberzon, I. The contextual brain: Implications for fear conditioning, extinction and
psychopathology. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 417–428. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
204. Verkuil, B.; Atasayi, S.; Molendijk, M.L. Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on
Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
205. Hinne, C. Personal Communication; Leiden University Medical Center: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017.
206. Arab, C.; Martins Dias, D.P.; de Almeida Barbosa, R.T.; de Carvalho, T.D.; Valenti, V.E.; Crocetta, T.B.;
Ferreira, M.; de Abreu, L.C.; Ferreira, C. Heart rate variability measure in breast cancer patients and
survivors: A systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016, 68, 57–68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
207. Zhou, X.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, S.; Wang, J.; Wang, B.; Fu, W. Heart rate variability in the prediction of
survival in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Psychosom. Res. 2016, 89, 20–25.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
208. Giese-Davis, J.; Wilhelm, F.H.; Tamagawa, R.; Palesh, O.; Neri, E.; Taylor, C.B.; Kraemer, H.C.; Spiegel, D.
Higher Vagal Activity as Related to Survival in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer: An Analysis of
Autonomic Dysregulation. Psychosom. Med. 2015, 77, 346–355. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
209. Masel, E.K.; Huber, P.; Schur, S.; Kierner, K.A.; Nemecek, R.; Watzke, H.H. Predicting discharge of palliative
care inpatients by measuring their heart rate variability. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2014, 3, 244–249. [PubMed]
210. Chiang, J.-K.; Koo, M.; Kuo, T.B.J.; Fu, C.-H. Association between Cardiovascular Autonomic Functions
and Time to Death in Patients with Terminal Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2010, 39,
211. Brown, S.B.R.E.; Brosschot, J.F.; Versluis, A.; Thayer, J.F.; Verkuil, B. New methods to optimally detect
episodes of non-metabolic heart rate variability reduction as an indicator of psychological stress in everyday
life. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
212. Versluis, A.; Verkuil, B.; Spinhoven, P.; van der Ploeg, M.M.; Brosschot, J.F. Changing Mental Health and
Positive Psychological Well-Being Using Ecological Momentary Interventions: A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016, 18, e152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
213. Vonck, K.; Raedt, R.; Naulaerts, J.; De Vogelaere, F.; Thiery, E.; Van Roost, D.; Aldenkamp, B.; Miatton, M.;
Boon, P. Vagus nerve stimulation...25 years later! What do we know about the effects on cognition?
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 45, 63–71. [PubMed]
214. Hein, E.; Nowak, M.; Kiess, O.; Biermann, T.; Bayerlein, K.; Kornhuber, J.; Kraus, T. Auricular transcutaneous
electrical nerve stimulation in depressed patients: A randomized controlled pilot study. J. Neural Transm.
2013, 120, 821–827. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
215. Clancy, J.A.; Mary, D.A.; Witte, K.K.; Greenwood, J.P.; Deuchars, S.A.; Deuchars, J. Non-invasive Vagus
Nerve Stimulation in Healthy Humans Reduces Sympathetic Nerve Activity. Brain Stimul. 2014, 7, 871–877.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Ijerph 15 00464

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijerph 15 00464

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijerph 15 00464

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of

Received: 31 December 2017; Accepted: 27 February 2018; Published: 7 March 2018

1.1. From Stressors to (Un)Safety

activated as long as no safety is perceived or is disinhibited when safety disappears. It is a “default”

1.2. Neurobiological and Evolution-Theoretical Insights

1.3. The Consequences of GUTS for Stress Theory: An Overview

2.1. Current Explanations of Prolonged Activity

2.2. Why Was Prolonged Activity Neglected?

2.3. Reconstructing Stress Theory

2.3.1. Stressor Theories

2.3.2. Resource Theories

2.4.1. Phylogenetically Old

2.4.2. Continuous Responses are Hard to Perceive

2.4.3. Determined in Early Life Stages with no Conscious Access

2.5. Summarizing the GUTS Principles

• The stress response is a default response.

• The basic physiological state is co-determined by perception of safety.

• Perceived safety is the outcome of the brain’s prediction of survival chances.

Perceived safety is the continuously changing outcome of a process of neurovisceral

• The stress response is largely unconscious.

• No stressors are needed for prolonged stress responses.

• Perseverative cognition is part of GU.

• Safety signals for humans are primarily social and learned.

3. Compromised Domains: Prolonged Stress Responses without Stressors

3.1. Compromised Social Context

3.1.1. Isolated Social Animals

3.1.2. Loneliness in Humans

3.1.3. Low Social Status and Discriminated Minorities

3.1.4. Other Compromised Social Contexts

3.2. Compromised Early Safety Learning and “Prenatal Programming”

3.3. Compromised Physical Environment

3.3.1. Distorted Information

3.3.2. Nature Versus Urban

3.3.3. Urban Environment as Territory of Unknown Others

3.4. Compromised Bodies

3.4.1. Compromised Animal Bodies

3.4.3. Other Compromised Body Examples

3.5. Compromised Context of (Presumed) Stressors

You might also like