Cited by 62Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Understanding the associations among anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, and discomfort intolerance: A comparison of three models

Mitchell, Melissa A., Riccardi, Christina J., Keough, Meghan E., Timpano, Kiara R., Schmidt, Norman B.·2013·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Emerging work has identified several related constructs that appear to be relevant to anxiety psychopathology including anxiety sensitivity (AS), distress tolerance (DT) and discomfort intolerance (DI). AS refers to the fear of the consequences of anxiety-related sensations. DT measures tolerance of negative emotions, whereas DI measures tolerance of uncomfortable physical sensations. Questions, however, have been raised regarding the overlap among AS, DT, and DI. The present study conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test three models of emotional and physical tolerance to determine which model provided the best fit for the associations among AS, DT, and DI. Nonclinical individuals (N = 411) and individuals with anxiety psychopathology (N = 253) completed self-report questionnaires. Results supported a hierarchical factor structure with 2 higher order factors with AS as a lower order factor of DT. The implications of these findings for the conceptualization of the relationships among AS, DT, and DI are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.12.003

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • One possible reason for not completing or not responding to ERP is the aversive nature of exposures, which requires patients to engage in challenging tasks without utilizing maladaptive coping strategies such as emotional suppression.

    “One possible reason for not completing or not responding to ERP is the aversive nature of exposures, which requires a patient to engage in challenging tasks without utilizing maladaptive coping strategies such as emotional suppression (Hannesdottir & Ollendick, 2007;Mitchell, Riccardi, Keough, Timpano, & Schmidt, 2013).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mitchell, M. A., Riccardi, C. J., Keough, M. E., Timpano, K. R., & Schmidt, N. B.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Norman B.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
147-154
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034479913
Cited by
62
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
8.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, emotional tolerance, factor structure, hierarchical models
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Emotions, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Self Report

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