Cited by 152Memory and Neural MechanismsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory Processes and Influences

Nothing is safe: Intolerance of uncertainty is associated with compromised fear extinction learning

Open access
Morriss, Jayne, Christakou, Anastasia, van Reekum, Carien M.·2016·Biological Psychology

Abstract

Extinction-resistant fear is considered to be a central feature of pathological anxiety. Here we sought to determine if individual differences in Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU), a potential risk factor for anxiety disorders, underlies compromised fear extinction. We tested this hypothesis by recording electrodermal activity in 38 healthy participants during fear acquisition and extinction. We assessed the temporality of fear extinction, by examining early and late extinction learning. During early extinction, low IU was associated with larger skin conductance responses to learned threat vs. safety cues, whereas high IU was associated with skin conductance responding to both threat and safety cues, but no cue discrimination. During late extinction, low IU showed no difference in skin conductance between learned threat and safety cues, whilst high IU predicted continued fear expression to learned threat, indexed by larger skin conductance to threat vs. safety cues. These findings suggest a critical role of uncertainty-based mechanisms in the maintenance of learned fear.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.05.001

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People high in intolerance of uncertainty do not discriminate between threat and safety cues during fear acquisition.

    “Two recent studies have demonstrated that individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty do not discriminate between threat and safety cues during fear acquisition and have slower fear extinction than those with low intolerance of uncertainty (Morriss, Macdonald, & van Reekum, 2016; Morriss, Christakou, & van Reekum, 2016).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Morriss, Christakou, & van Reekum, 2016

    The Discussion reports no evidence that intolerance of uncertainty predicted differential responses to threat and safety cues during fear acquisition. It says high-IU individuals did not generalize fear to safety cues during acquisition under the study’s 100% reinforcement schedule; the reported generalization occurred during extinction, not acquisition. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The majority of studies have found specificity of IU over other self-reported anxiety measures in predicting differences in SCR during threat extinction training.

    “The majority of studies have found specificity of IU over other self-reported anxiety measures in predicting 1) differences in SCR to both learned threat and safety during early trials, 2) greater SCR to learned threat cues versus safety cues during late trials (36,37), or 3) greater SCR to learned threat cues across all trials (15,35).”

    From I Doubt It Is Safe: A Meta-analysis of Self-reported Intolerance of Uncertainty and Threat Extinction Training (2021) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results (SCR magnitude) explicitly report no specificity of IU over the other anxiety measures for the early or late learned-threat-versus-safety SCR differences. The paper finds IU specificity only for the change in responses to safety cues from early to late extinction. Thus, although it reports IU-related SCR differences, it does not support the claimed specificity for those early- or late-trial comparisons. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intolerance of uncertainty may influence fear learning and fear extinction.

    “Intolerance of uncertainty may affect fear learning and fear extinction.”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Morriss, Christakou, & van Reekum, 2016

    The Discussion reports that higher intolerance of uncertainty predicted greater fear expression during extinction, supporting the fear-extinction part of the claim. It also says the study found no evidence that intolerance of uncertainty predicted differential responses during fear acquisition and calls for further work on conditioned-fear acquisition. Thus, an effect on initial fear learning is not established by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • People high in intolerance of uncertainty show slower fear extinction than people low in intolerance of uncertainty.

    “Two recent studies have demonstrated that individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty do not discriminate between threat and safety cues during fear acquisition and have slower fear extinction than those with low intolerance of uncertainty (Morriss, Macdonald, & van Reekum, 2016; Morriss, Christakou, & van Reekum, 2016).”

    From Enhancing Inhibitory Learning: The Utility of Variability in Exposure (2019) · cites this paper as Morriss, Christakou, & van Reekum, 2016

  • A few previous studies observed differences in SCR to both learned threat and safety cues during the early trials of threat extinction training.

    “In previous research, a few studies observed differences in SCR to both learned threat and safety cues during the early trials of threat extinction training (36,37).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bradley M.M. Lang P.J. The international affective digitized sounds (2nd edition; IADS-2): affective ratings of sounds and instruction manual. Technical report B-3 2007 Florida University Gainesville, Florida
  2. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P., & Jacobs, G. (1983). Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 2».

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morriss, J., Christakou, A., & van Reekum, C. M.
Affiliations
University of Reading (GB)
Venue
Biological Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
121
Issue
Pt B
Pages
187-193
ISSN
0301-0511 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2378955611
Cited by
152
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Centre for Integrative Neuroscience and Neurodynamics (MR/J003980/1)
  • Natalia Kontoudaki & Karolina Tokarska for their help in collecting the data
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, fear extinction, fear acquisition, anxiety disorders, skin conductance response, electrodermal activity, cue discrimination, individual differences
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Arousal, Autonomic Nervous System, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Extinction, Psychological, Fear, Female, Galvanic Skin Response, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Risk Factors, Safety, Uncertainty, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review