Search

Objective: Intolerance to uncertainty is a trait-like disposition largely studied in psychopathology and known to be involved in many psychological disorders. Yet, the very operationalization of this construct has prompted debate in the literature. Three different models have regularly been discussed: a correlated two-factor solution, a bifactorial solution, and a single-factor structure. A growing body of evidence suggests that the bifactorial model represents the adequate factorial solution; however, its validity has never been tested in a large French-speaking sample. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between IUS-R and other psychological constructs, especially stress and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. Method: To do so, we translated the scale into French and tested (n = 728) via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) whether the French version would better fit with a bifactorial-, correlated, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined the internal reliability of the IUS-R, as well as its associations with concurrent measures of stress, depression, anxiety, and worry. Results: The results pointed to a bifactorial structure as the best-fitting model and provided evidence for a strong general intolerance of uncertainty factor that was more reliable and accounted for significantly more common variance than each subscale factor individually. Conclusions: We discuss how this bifactorial structure impacts the conceptualization of IU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Research indicates that rumination can be viewed as a dynamic process that fluctuates over time, within hours and days. An increasing number of intensive longitudinal studies on rumination are accordingly being conducted and published using experiencing sampling methodology (ESM), a technique with measurements in everyday life. Yet, this literature suffers from a profound caveat: rumination has so far been conceptualized and measured as a unitary construct in these ESM studies. This is unfortunate, since such a unitary view contrasts with prominent contemporary models that regard rumination as a multifaceted construct, wherein the key features are not interchangeable and should therefore be measured separately. Moreover, no validated ESM measure of the key features of rumination has yet been developed. Therefore, we developed and validated an ESM protocol and the first ESM questionnaire to assess rumination as a multifaceted construct, measuring five features of rumination. Method: We conducted an ESM study in a community sample of 40 Frenchspeaking participants. They answered the five rumination ESM items in French four times a day for fourteen days. At the end of the ESM assessment period, participants completed trait-like questionnaires of rumination, depression, and general anxiety. Results: The ESM rumination items exhibited good psychometric properties, including excellent within-person variability and convergent validity with corresponding trait-like constructs. Conclusions: Although further validation is warranted, this novel ESM assessment protocol of rumination as a multifaceted construct (validated in French and translated into English) will allow future researchers to study how rumination's features fluctuate and interact with other constructs over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of climate change anxiety has gained traction in the last years. Clayton & Karazsia (2020) recently developed the 22-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CAS), which assesses climate change anxiety via a four-factor structure. Yet other research has cast doubts on the very structure of the CAS by calling either for a shorter (i.e. 13 items) two-factor structure or for a shorter single-factor structure (i.e. 13 items). So far, these three different models have not yet been compared in one study. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding the associations between the CAS and other psychological constructs, especially anxiety and depression. This project was designed to overcome these limitations. In a first preregistered study (n = 305), we translated the scale into French and tested, via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), whether the French version would better fit with a four-, two-, or single-factor structure, as implied by previous works. We also examined how the CAS factors related to depression, anxiety, and environmental identity. In a second preregistered study, we aimed at replicating our comparison between the three CFA models in a larger sample (n = 905). Both studies pointed to a 13-item version of the scale with a two-factor structure as the best fitting model, with one factor reflecting cognitive and emotional features of climate change anxiety and the other reflecting the related functional impairments. Each factor exhibited a positive association with depression and environmental identity but not with general anxiety. We discuss how this two-factor structure impacts the conceptualization of climate change anxiety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]