Is Everyone Anxious Now, or Have We Changed What Anxiety Means?
Anxiety diagnoses have increased by over 25% globally since 2020. That number is cited constantly, almost always as evidence of a crisis. It may well be one. But embedded in that statistic is a question that rarely gets asked directly: are more people genuinely ill, or have we quietly moved the line for what counts as illness?
How Anxiety is Diagnosed
Before discussing whether anxiety is overdiagnosed, it is worth being precise about what a clinical anxiety diagnosis actually involves. The criteria are specific and the threshold is not trivial.
- Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) requires excessive, difficult-to-control worry occurring on more days than not for at least six months
- The worry must cause clinically significant distress or functional impairment, meaning it materially affects work, relationships, or daily life
- Symptoms must include at least three of the following: restlessness, fatigue, concentration difficulty, irritability, muscle tension, or sleep disruption
- The DSM-5 explicitly requires that the anxiety is disproportionate to the actual likelihood or impact of the anticipated event
- Physical or substance-related causes must be ruled out before a psychological diagnosis is made
The diagnostic bar exists for a reason. An experience that is uncomfortable, even significantly so, is not automatically a disorder. The distinction between distress and dysfunction is where the clinical judgment lies, and it is also where the current cultural conversation tends to blur.
How the Definition Has Expanded
The vocabulary and framing of clinical psychology have migrated into everyday life at a pace that has outrun the clinical definitions they originated from.
- Medicalising normalcy is the term used in psychiatric literature for the process by which ordinary human experiences are reclassified as symptoms. It is not a fringe concern: Allen Frances, who chaired the DSM-IV task force, has argued publicly that successive DSM editions lowered diagnostic thresholds in ways that drew ordinary distress into clinical categories
- Clinical terminology including “triggered,” “trauma response,” “hypervigilance,” and “dissociation” now circulates widely on social media applied to experiences that are categorically different from the clinical phenomena those words were developed to describe
- The DSM has expanded from 106 diagnoses in its first edition to over 300 in DSM-5, a growth that reflects genuine scientific progress in some areas and threshold-lowering in others
- Social media amplification means that self-identification with clinical labels occurs before, and often instead of, any clinical assessment, which shapes both how people interpret their own experiences and what they seek from healthcare
The concern here is not that people are exaggerating. It is that labelling a proportionate response to difficult circumstances as a disorder can reduce a person’s confidence in their own capacity to manage that difficulty.
Why Under-Diagnosis Is Also a Real Problem
The over-diagnosis argument has a significant and well-documented counterweight. Presenting the critique honestly requires acknowledging it.
- For most of the twentieth century, genuine mental illness went unrecognised at scale. People with depression, anxiety disorders, OCD, and ADHD went undiagnosed and untreated for decades
- The cultural norm that functional people did not have mental health conditions actively discouraged help-seeking and caused measurable harm
- Reduced stigma and expanded awareness have given language and access to people who genuinely needed both, and that is a real and significant gain
- There is a documented gender and racial dimension to historical under-diagnosis: women’s psychological distress was consistently dismissed as emotional rather than clinical, and the same pattern applied to many non-white populations
- The risk of overcorrection in one direction does not erase the damage caused by under-recognition in the other
Both problems exist. The current moment is one of genuine expansion in access and recognition, and also one of diagnostic inflation in some areas. These are not mutually exclusive, and treating them as a binary choice produces worse analysis than holding both as simultaneously true.
What Is Worth Questioning
The debate about whether anxiety is overdiagnosed does not have a clean answer, but several assumptions embedded in the current conversation are worth examining directly.
- The assumption that every form of psychological discomfort is a condition requiring a label
- The assumption that every condition requires a diagnosis, and that self-identified distress and clinical diagnosis are interchangeable
- The assumption that identifying with a clinical label is the same as understanding one’s own mental health
- The assumption that the appropriate response to ordinary difficulty is always clinical rather than relational, practical, or simply a matter of time
Distress is a normal part of a full human life. The capacity to tolerate it without immediately seeking to eliminate it is, by most accounts, a feature of psychological health rather than a gap in mental health access. That is not an argument against clinical support for people who need it. It is an argument for being more precise about who that is.