Cited by 115Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Does intolerance of uncertainty predict anticipatory startle responses to uncertain threat?

Open access
Nelson, Brady D., Shankman, Stewart A.·2011·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) has been proposed to be an important maintaining factor in several anxiety disorders, including generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. While IU has been shown to predict subjective ratings and decision-making during uncertain/ambiguous situations, few studies have examined whether IU also predicts emotional responding to uncertain threat. The present study examined whether IU predicted aversive responding (startle and subjective ratings) during the anticipation of temporally uncertain shocks. Sixty-nine participants completed three experimental conditions during which they received: no shocks, temporally certain/predictable shocks, and temporally uncertain shocks. Results indicated that IU was negatively associated with startle during the uncertain threat condition in that those with higher IU had a smaller startle response. IU was also only related to startle during the uncertain (and not the certain/predictable) threat condition, suggesting that it was not predictive of general aversive responding, but specific to responses to uncertain aversiveness. Perceived control over anxiety-related events mediated the relation between IU and startle to uncertain threat, such that high IU led to lowered perceived control, which in turn led to a smaller startle response. We discuss several potential explanations for these findings, including the inhibitory qualities of IU. Overall, our results suggest that IU is associated with attenuated aversive responding to uncertain threat.

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.ijpsycho.2011.05.003

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • Nelson and colleagues found a negative association between startle in response to unpredictable threat and inhibitory IU, and a positive association with prospective IU.

    “Further, Nelson and colleagues have conducted research with the individual IU subscales to detect possible suppressor effects and have found a negative association between startle in response to unpredictable threat and inhibitory IU, and a positive association with prospective IU”

    From Responding to uncertain threat: A potential mediator for the effect of mindfulness on anxiety (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson & Shankman, 2011

    Section 3.4 (Subscales of IUS; page unavailable) reports a negative association between inhibitory IU and startle during uncertain threat, including after controlling for prospective IU. It does not report the claimed positive association with prospective IU; the prospective-subscale-by-condition interaction was not significant. The section describes examining which subscale drove the result, not testing for suppressor effects. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Others have shown a negative relation between startle during unpredictable threat and IU.

    “and others have shown a negative relation (Nelson and Shankman, 2011)”
  • The IU subscales may reflect hyper-reactive (prospective IU) and inhibitory (inhibitory IU) manifestations of IU.

    “suggesting that the IU subscales may reflect hyper-reactive (prospective IU) and inhibitory (inhibitory IU) manifestations of IU (Nelson & Shankman, 2011;Nelson et al., 2016).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nelson, B. D., & Shankman, S. A.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Shankman, Stewart A.
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
107-115
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129726574
Cited by
115
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH080689)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, perceived control, anxiety disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, startle response, defensive responding, temporal uncertainty
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Cues, Electromyography, Electroshock, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Reflex, Startle, Statistics as Topic, Students, Universities, Uncertainty

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