Intolerance of uncertainty mediates the relationship between responsibility beliefs and compulsive checking
Open accessAbstract
Both responsibility beliefs and intolerance of uncertainty have been implicated in compulsive checking behavior. Despite this, the exact relationship of these two variables with compulsive checking behavior is yet to be determined. Using a mixed sample of individuals consisting of compulsive checkers as well as non-clinical participants, we assessed the validity of a mediation model in which the relationship between responsibility beliefs and compulsive checking was mediated by intolerance of uncertainty. Although both responsibility beliefs and intolerance of uncertainty were correlated with the frequency of compulsive checking, the relationship between responsibility and checking was fully mediated by intolerance of uncertainty. Implications for the understanding of the relationship between these constructs, as well for conceptualization of clinical checking problems are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the conceptual and empirical literature, intolerance of uncertainty has been linked mainly to generalized anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
“The IU construct has been associated predominantly (conceptually and empirically) with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; Dugas, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1997) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; Lind & Boschen, 2009; Steketee, Frost, & Cohen, 1998).”
From Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Common Factor in the Treatment of Emotional Disorders (2013) · cites this paper as Lind & Boschen, 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 81
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Text Revision, 4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
- Ball, S. G., Baer, L., & Otto, M. W. (1996). Symptom subtypes of obsessive-compulsive disorder in behavioral treatment studies: A quantitative review. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 47-51.
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
- Boschen, M.J. (2008). Publication trends in individual anxiety disorders: 1980-2015. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 570-575.
- Carr, A. (1974). Compulsive neurosis: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 311-318.
- Cougle, J. R., Lee, H., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2007). Are responsibility beliefs inflated in non- checking OCD patients? Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 153-159.
- Dar, R. (2004). Elucidating the mechanism of uncertainty and doubt in obsessive-compulsive checkers. Journal of Behavior Therapy, 35, 153-163.
- de Silva, P. (2003). The phenomenology of obsessive compulsive disorder. In R. G. Menzies & P. De Silva (Eds.), Obsessive compulsive disorder: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 21-36). West Sussex: Wiley.
- Frost, R. O., & Steketee, G. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive approaches to obsessions and compulsions: Theory, assessment, and treatment. Oxford: Pergamon.
- Guidano, V. F., & Liotti, G. (1983). Cognitive processes and emotional disorders. New York: Guilford Press.
- Jakes, I. (1996). Theoretical approaches to obsessive-compulsive disorder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Koran, L. M., Thienemann, M. L., & Davenport, R. (1996). Quality of life for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 783-788.
- Kozak, M. J., Foa, E. B., & McCarthy, P. (1987). Obsessive-compulsive disorder. In C. Last & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of anxiety disorders (pp. 87-108). New York: Pergamon Press.
- Mataix-Cols, D., & Marks, I. M. (2006). Self-help with minimal therapist contact for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A review. European Psychiatry, 21, 75-80.
- Myers, S. G., & Wells, A. (2005). Obsessive-compulsive symptoms: the contribution of metacognitions and responsibility. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 806-817.
- Rachman, S. J. (2003). Compulsive checking. In R. G. Menzies & P. de Silva (Eds.), Obsessive compulsive disorder: Theory, research and treatment (The Wiley series in clinical psychology ed., pp. 138-180). West Sussex: Wiley.
- Rasmussen, S. A., & Eisen, J. L. (1989). Clinical features of phenomenology of obsessive- compulsive disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 19, 67-73.
- Summerfeldt, L., Antony, M. M., Downie, F., Richter, M. A., & Swinson, R. P. (1997). Prevalence of particular obsessions and compulsions in a clinic sample. In R.P. Swinson, M. M. Antony, S. Rachman & M. A. Richter (Eds.), Obsessive compulsive disorder: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 3-32). New York: Guilford Press. Responsibility, doubt and compulsive checking 19
- Szechtman, H., & Woody, E. (2004). Obsessive-compulsive disorder as a disturbance of security motivation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 111-127.
- Weismann, M. M., Bland, R. C., Canino, G. J., Greenwald, S., Hwu, H. G., Lee, C. K., et al. (1994). The cross national epidemiology of obsessive compulsive disorder: The Cross National Collaborative Group. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 5-10.
- Wells, A. (1997). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: a practice manual and conceptual guide. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
- Wells, A. (2000). Emotional disorders and metacognition: Innovative cognitive therapy. Chichester: Wiley.
- Authors
- Lind, C., & Boschen, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Boschen, Mark J.
- ORCID
- Boschen, Mark J.
- Venue
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1047-1052
- ISSN
- 0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091768132
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
- Keywords
- intolerance of uncertainty, responsibility beliefs, compulsive checking, mediation, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, checking behavior
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Social Responsibility, Uncertainty, Harm Reduction, 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
