Cited by 84Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Disentangling intolerance of uncertainty and threat appraisal in everyday situations

Open access
Pepperdine, E., Lomax, C., Freeston, M.H.·2018·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a transdiagnostic risk and maintenance factor in a range of anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder. However, the mechanism of action in the development and maintenance of anxiety disorders is poorly understood, with the relationship between the constructs of uncertainty and threat appraisal remaining unclear. Most research to date has investigated IU in situations that are explicitly or implicitly threatening (i.e. where they have a negative outcome), which makes it difficult to establish whether it is the uncertainty or the prospect of a negative outcome (or threat) that people find aversive. If the construct of IU is about uncertainty (and not threat), it should also be operating in situations where there are no negative outcomes possible. Participants (N = 224) completed a battery of online measures in tasks designed to evaluate level of situational uncertainty and perception of threat level. These tasks required responses to scenarios which displayed or implied varying levels of estimated threat. Regression analyses indicated that IU was related to perceiving threat and uncertainty in negative situations and positive situations, with the greatest contribution from uncertainty within the situations, supporting the conceptualisation of IU as a response to uncertainty that is largely independent of threat although may contribute to perceptions of threat.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2018.04.002

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 84

Authors
Pepperdine, E., Lomax, C., & Freeston, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Lomax, C.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
57
Pages
31-38
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795560020
Cited by
84
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, threat appraisal, situational uncertainty, threat perception, anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, transdiagnostic risk factors, everyday situations
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Aged, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Regression Analysis, 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