Cited by 60Memory and Neural MechanismsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesStress Responses and Cortisol

Intolerance of uncertainty and startle potentiation in relation to different threat reinforcement rates

Chin, Brian, Nelson, Brady D., Jackson, Felicia, Hajcak, Greg·2016·International Journal of Psychophysiology

Abstract

Fear conditioning research on threat predictability has primarily examined the impact of temporal (i.e., timing) predictability on the startle reflex. However, there are other key features of threat that can vary in predictability. For example, the reinforcement rate (i.e., frequency) of threat is a crucial factor underlying fear learning. The present study examined the impact of threat reinforcement rate on the startle reflex and self-reported anxiety during a fear conditioning paradigm. Forty-five participants completed a fear learning task in which the conditioned stimulus was reinforced with an electric shock to the forearm on 50% of trials in one block and 75% of trials in a second block, in counter-balanced order. The present study also examined whether intolerance of uncertainty (IU), the tendency to perceive or experience uncertainty as stressful or unpleasant, was associated with the startle reflex during conditions of low (50%) vs. high (75%) reinforcement. Results indicated that, across all participants, startle was greater during the 75% relative to the 50% reinforcement condition. IU was positively correlated with startle potentiation (i.e., increased startle response to the CS+ relative to the CS-) during the 50%, but not the 75%, reinforcement condition. Thus, despite receiving fewer electric shocks during the 50% reinforcement condition, individuals with high IU uniquely demonstrated greater defense system activation when impending threat was more uncertain. The association between IU and startle was independent of state anxiety. The present study adds to a growing literature on threat predictability and aversive responding, and suggests IU is associated with abnormal responding in the context of uncertain threat.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.11.006

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chin, B., Nelson, B. D., Jackson, F., & Hajcak, G.
Affiliations
Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Hajcak, Greg
Venue
International Journal of Psychophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
99
Pages
79-84
ISSN
0167-8760 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2211863614
Cited by
60
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Psychophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, startle potentiation, fear conditioning, startle response, anxiety
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reflex, Startle, 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