Fear at Its Core: Why Fear is Universal
Fear has one main job: survival. It’s the body’s alert system, telling us when something threatens our safety. When you sense danger—whether it’s encountering a bear in the woods or facing a looming deadline—your brain kickstarts. Your fight-or-flight (or-freeze-or-fawn) response engages, priming you to react quickly. This physiological response is universal across humans and many other species, highlighting fear’s deep biological roots (Ekman, 1992).
But Wait! Is Fear Universal?
Paul Ekman, a pioneer in the study of emotional expression, lists fear as one of seven universal emotions (Ekman, 1992). Further research shows the amygdala’s structure and other brain areas involved in the fear response are consistent across groups and cultures (Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010). While these structures exist universally, the activation of these areas can differ based on learned sociocultural influences. Additionally, genetic factors and brain chemistry contribute to individual variations in fear responses (Canli, 2008).
Ekman and his team also identify differences across groups, such as variations in facial expressions, the stimuli that evoke emotional responses, and the language used to define and describe emotions. Understanding these variations helps us see that while fear is universal, the way it manifests is highly individual and differs across groups and cultures.
Social Learning, Cognitive Appraisal, and Differences in Fear
Psychologists Albert Bandura and Richard Lazarus provide additional insights into how fear develops through social learning and cognitive appraisal. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory emphasizes that fear behaviors and cognitive interpretations are shaped through observation. Additionally, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) work on cognitive appraisal explains how individuals evaluate fear-triggering situations based on personal and cultural factors. Together, these processes help shape not only what people fear but also how they respond to it.
In essence, fear is shaped by a combination of personal history, cultural influences, and social context, all intertwined with cognitive appraisal and social learning. These factors don’t just determine what we fear; they shape how we express and react to it. This complexity makes fear both a personal and culturally grounded experience.
Fun fact: Richard Lazarus shares his name with a character from Doctor Who. Haunted by his experiences as a child during World War II, Lazarus pursued immortality to confront his deep-seated fear of death.
Cultural Differences in Fear: What We Fear and How We Express It*
Culture plays a major role in shaping our emotional lives, including fear. Different societies have unique expectations about what kinds of fear are generally acceptable to express, what situations should invoke fear, and how we “should” cope with it.
For example, in collectivist cultures (e.g., many East Asian societies), harmony is prioritized, and fear of disrupting familial or social relationships is common. In contrast, individualistic cultures (e.g., the U.S. or Western Europe) often emphasize personal achievement, so fears around career success and self-sufficiency may be more prevalent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
In collectivist societies, failure is feared because it may reflect poorly on the group—whether family, coworkers, or the broader community. Conversely, in individualistic societies, the fear of failure is more about personal consequences, such as reputational damage or missed future opportunities. This cultural lens reminds us that our relationship with failure isn’t only about personal risk but is also deeply shaped by social context.
The way we express fear also varies across cultures. For example, in some African and Latin American communities, openly sharing fear and emotions can foster a sense of connection and solidarity (Matsumoto et al., 2008). In contrast, in cultures that prize stoicism, such as those in Northern Europe, fear is often something people are expected to keep in check, particularly in public settings (Hofstede, 2001).
The Intersection of Identity and Fear: How Social Identity Impacts Fear Response
Beyond culture, various social identities and circumstances—like gender, race, and socioeconomic status—influence how we experience and cope with fear.
1. Gender and Fear
Men and women are socialized to experience and express fear differently. Research shows that women often report higher levels of fear than men, particularly around safety and security issues (Gallup, 2022). This difference is due in part to social learning, where women are more likely to be cautioned about personal safety, while men may face social pressure to suppress fear (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).
It’s important to recognize that individuals who identify outside the traditional male-female gender binary often face distinct challenges and fears related to social stigma, discrimination, and safety concerns, particularly in spaces structured around a binary view of gender (Center for American Progress, 2022; Trauma Psychology News, 2020).
2. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Fear
People’s experiences of fear are often shaped by their racial and ethnic identities. In the U.S., for instance, Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) frequently face unique fears related to systemic issues like racism, police violence, and social inequities (Williams & Mohammed, 2009). These stressors can influence everyday behaviors and interactions, including in the workplace, where they may lead to heightened caution and stress.
3. Socioeconomic Status and Fear
Economic insecurity is another source of fear, particularly for individuals in lower socioeconomic groups, where concerns about job stability, healthcare access, or family provision are paramount. For those in more affluent positions, fears might center on reputational risks or underperformance in high-stakes environments (Luthans et al., 2007).
Fear in the Workplace: How Employers Can Respond
Understanding fear’s roots in identity, culture, and social context is essential for creating a psychologically safe workplace. Here are a few specific actions leaders can take:
- Foster Open Communication: Leaders should create spaces where people can share their experiences without the compounding fear of retaliation or judgment. For instance, use anonymous feedback tools or regular pulse surveys to gauge and respond to employees’ concerns.
- Build Cultural Competency: Train managers to recognize how different cultural backgrounds influence how fear shows up at work. Understanding when fear might manifest as avoidance, anger, or disengagement is key to providing support.
- Address Systemic Inequities: Certain groups experience fears tied to discrimination or microaggressions; address these issues head-on through policies and practices that promote equity and inclusion.
- Offer Flexible Support Systems: Recognize that fears related to job security, safety, or identity vary widely. Tailor support systems like mentorship offerings and professional development opportunities to address employees’ unique needs.
These efforts help build a workplace culture that respects each person’s identity, reducing the negative impacts of fear and promoting a more supportive, inclusive environment.
Conclusion: Embracing the Universality and Uniqueness of Fear
Fear is a fundamental human experience, but fear isn’t entirely universal; it’s shaped by factors like personal identity, lived experiences, and social or cultural contexts. Recognizing these unique, identity-linked dimensions of fear is essential for building mutual understanding, which in turn supports psychological safety—a foundation for true inclusion and belonging.
By integrating culturally sensitive resources, offering specialized training, and establishing support networks, organizations can address diverse experiences of fear and resilience.
*Please note that this post addresses several dynamics from a general perspective. When discussing trends across different communities, certain nuances may not be fully captured and several dimensions of diversity are omitted here. This narrative is not intended to be exhaustive, nor should it be interpreted as applying universally within or across specific groups, communities, cultures, etc.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.
Canli, T. (2008). The Character Code. Scientific American Mind, 19(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0208-52
Center for American Progress. (2022). The state of the LGBTQI+ community in 2022. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-state-of-the-lgbtqi-community-in-2022/
Chiao, J. Y., & Blizinsky, K. D. (2010). Culture–gene coevolution of individualism–collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277(1681), 529-537. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2009.1650
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3-4), 169-200. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699939208411068
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-97938-000
Gallup (2022). Personal Safety Fears at Three-Decade High in U.S. https://news.gallup.com/poll/544415/personal-safety-fears-three-decade-high.aspx
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. SAGE Publications. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005796702001845?via%3Dihub
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2007). Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach. IAP. https://www.infoagepub.com/products/Organizational-Behavior
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107311854
Pew Research Center (2019). U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/
Trauma Psychology News. (2020). Working with trauma in trans and non-binary (TNB) communities: Brief review of a burgeoning literature base. Trauma Psychology News. Retrieved from https://traumapsychnews.com