Cited by 323COVID-19 and Mental HealthAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesRisk Perception and Management

Intolerance of uncertainty, appraisals, coping, and anxiety: The case of the 2009 H 1 N 1 pandemic

Taha, Sheena, Matheson, Kim, Cronin, Tracey, Anisman, Hymie·2014·British Journal of Health Psychology

Abstract

Objectives Although ambiguous and uncertain situations, such as those dealing with the threat of widespread viral illness, may have pronounced psychological ramifications, there have been few studies that examined the factors that contributed to such outcomes. The purpose of the present investigation was to examine emotional reactions to a health threat. Design A structural equation model examined the interplay between anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty, as sequentially mediated by appraisals and coping strategies. Methods Adult participants over the age of 18 (N = 1,027) completed online self-report measures during the H1N1 pandemic in 2009. Results Greater intolerance of uncertainty was related to lower appraisals of self- and other control, which predicted low levels of problem-focused coping and greater reports of H1N1-related anxiety. Additionally, individuals with a high intolerance of uncertainty were more likely to perceive the pandemic as threatening and also were more apt to use emotion-focused coping strategies, and both of these factors predicted elevated levels of anxiety. Conclusions Together, these data indicate that threats, such as those related to a potential pandemic, not only have implications for physical health, but also for psychological distress, and that such outcomes vary with a constellation of appraisal and coping factors. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? It has been established that the public is often confused…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjhp.12058

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Greater intolerance of uncertainty was related to lower appraisals of self- and other control, which in turn was associated with low rates of problem-focused coping and greater reports of pandemic-related anxiety.

    “Writing about the 2009 H1N1 pandemic Taha and colleagues report that greater intolerance of uncertainty was related to lower appraisals of self‐ and other control, which in turn was associated with low rates of problem‐focused coping and greater reports of pandemic related anxiety [10].”
  • In the absence or ambiguity of information, people contribute to the spread of misinformation or disinformation.

    “Moreover, in the absence or ambiguity of information, people contribute to the spread of misinformation [169] or disinformation, a subject of much recent attention [170-172].”
  • Symptomatic expressions of anxiety, depression, stress, and suicidal ideation are critical mental health concerns and have been attributed to be consequences of the pandemic outbreak.

    “We examined symptomatic expressions of anxiety, depression, stress, and suicidal ideation. These are not only some of the most critical mental health concerns but also have been attributed to be consequences of the pandemic outbreak [15,53,54].”
  • Published literature posits that distress and anxiety among individuals in the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the incidence of mental disorders.

    “The published literature posits that the distress and anxiety among individuals in this COVID-19 pandemic may increase the incidence of mental disorders [53,54,99]”
  • In a general population sample during the H1N1 pandemic, greater intolerance of uncertainty was related to lower problem-focused and higher emotion-focused coping strategies.

    “One of the best-known research about intolerance of uncertainty and coping was the one conducted by Taha et al. [76] in a general population sample during the H1N1 pandemic of 2009. The authors found significant relations between, greater intolerance of uncertainty, on the one hand, and lower problem-focused and higher emotion-focused coping strategies, on the other.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taha, S., Matheson, K., Cronin, T., & Anisman, H.
Affiliations
  • Carleton University (CA)
  • Department of Neuroscience Carleton University Ottawa Ontario Canada
Corresponding author
Taha, Sheena
Venue
British Journal of Health Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-09
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
592-605
ISSN
  • 1359-107X (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8287
OpenAlex
W1983582583
Cited by
323
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, H1N1 pandemic, pandemic anxiety, threat appraisal, problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, psychological distress, health hazards, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Influenza, Human, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Uncertainty, Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype, Young Adult, Self Report, Pandemics

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