CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyOptimism, Hope, and Well-being

Intolerance of Ambiguity and Depression: A Cognitive Vulnerability Factor Linked to Hopelessness

Andersen, Susan M., Schwartz, Amy H.·1992·Social Cognition
DOI 10.1521/soco.1992.10.3.271
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A short-term (10-week) prospective study examined cognitive-vulnerability predictions concerning the onset of depression in a sample of “normal” college students, based on the notion that depression involves hopelessness about the future, i.e., the tendency to regard continued suffering as inevitable or certain. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity are hypothesized to be motivated to rapidly resolve uncertainties introduced by rumination about negative life events and yet to find themselves unable to escape the negative implications of this rumination; hence, to attain resolution, they adopt negative expectancies that they hold with certainty, that is, they ultimately come to experience depressive predictive certainty and depression (Andersen & Lyon, 1987; Andersen, 1990). These primary longitudinal hypotheses were supported by the data. That is, the interaction between ambiguity intolerance (at Time 1) and negative life events (occurring between Times 1 and 2) predicted both depressive predictive certainty (at Time 2) and depression over time (at Time 2), even when Time-1 depression was controlled. Moreover, depressive certainty also bore a highly significant relationship to depression when other variables were controlled. Hence, ambiguity intolerance appears to serve as a vulnerability factor both for the certainty of future suffering (hopelessness) and for depression. The findings are discussed in terms of cognitive models of depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/soco.1992.10.3.271

Cites

38 of 38 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

Related

Authors
Andersen, S. M., & Schwartz, A. H.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Social Cognition
Publisher
Guilford Publications
Published
1992-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
271-298
ISSN
0278-016X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1521/soco.1992.10.3.271
OpenAlex
W2125830407
Cited by
87
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Cognition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
Keywords
intolerance of ambiguity, depression, hopelessness, cognitive vulnerability, rumination, negative life events, university students, cognitive models of depression, vulnerability factors

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