Search

In this study, we used structural equation modeling to investigate the interplay among Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU), Anxiety Sensitivity (AS), and sleep problems. Three hundred undergraduate students completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory, the Anxiety Sensitivity Index, the Beck Depression Inventory, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Insomnia Severity Index. 68% and 40% of the students reported poor sleep quality or sub-threshold insomnia problems, respectively. Depression and anxiety levels were above the cut-off for about one-fourth of the participants. Structural equation modeling revealed that IU was strongly associated with AS, in turn influencing both insomnia severity and sleep quality via depression and anxiety. Significant indirect effects revealed that an anxious pathway was more strongly associated with insomnia severity, while a depression pathway was more relevant for worsening the quality of sleep. We discussed the results in the frameworks of cognitive models of insomnia. Viewing AS and IU as antecedents of sleep problems and assigning to AS a pivotal role, our study suggested indications for clinical interventions on a population at risk for sleep disorders.

Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) is a key trans-diagnostic personality construct strongly associated with anxiety symptoms. Traditionally, IU is measured through self-report measures that are prone to bias effects due to impression management concerns and introspective difficulties. Moreover, self-report scales are not able to intercept the automatic associations that are assumed to be main determinants of several spontaneous responses (e.g., emotional reactions). In order to overcome these limitations, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) was applied to measure IU, with a particular focus on reliability and criterion validity issues. The IU-IAT and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory (IUI) were administered to an undergraduate student sample (54 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 23 years (SD = 1.7). Successively, participants were asked to provide an individually chosen uncertain event from their own lives that may occur in the future and were requested to identify a number of potential negative consequences of it. Participants' responses in terms of cognitive thoughts (i.e., cognitive appraisal) and worry reactions toward these events were assessed using the two subscales of the Worry and Intolerance of Uncertainty Beliefs Questionnaire. The IU-IAT showed an adequate level of internal consistency and a not significant correlation with the IUI. A path analysis model, accounting for 35% of event-related worry, revealed that IUI had a significant indirect effect on the dependent variable through event-related IU thoughts. By contrast, as expected, IU-IAT predicted event-related worry independently from IU thoughts. In accordance with dual models of social cognition, these findings suggest that IU can influence event-related worry through two different processing pathways (automatic vs. deliberative), supporting the criterion and construct validity of the IU-IAT. The potential role of the IU-IAT for clinical applications was discussed., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background and Objectives: Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is a trans-diagnostic construct involved in anxiety and related disorders. Research focused on cross-sectional reporting, manipulating attitudes toward objective and impersonal events or on treatments designed to reduce IU in clinical populations. The current paper presents an experimental procedure for laboratory manipulations of IU and tests mediation hypotheses following the Intolerance of Uncertainty Model., Methods: On pre-test, undergraduate volunteers (Study 1, n = 43;68% women. Study 2, n = 169;83.8% women) were asked to provide an idiosyncratic future negative life event. State-IU, Worry, Positive and Negative Affect were assessed after that a standardized procedure was used to identify event's potential negative consequences. The same variables were assessed on post-test, after that participants were asked to read-through increasing and decreasing IU statements., Results: Temporary changes on IU were consistently reproduced in both studies. Participants receiving increasing IU instructions reported greater state-IU, Worry and Negative Affect than those receiving decreasing IU instructions. However, this latter condition was not different from a control one (Study 2). Both studies revealed significant indirect effects of IU induction instructions on Worry and Negative Affect through state-IU., Limitations: Both studies used undergraduate psychology students samples, younger than average population and predominantly female. Experimental manipulation and outcome measures belongs to the same semantic domain, uncertainty, potentially limiting generalizability., Conclusions: Results supported the feasibility and efficacy of the proposed IU manipulation for non-clinical sample. Findings parallel clinical research showing that state-IU preceded Worry and Negative Affect states.

Intolerance of Uncertainty is a fundamental transdiagnostic personality construct hierarchically organized with a core general factor underlying diverse clinical manifestations. The current study evaluated the construct validity of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory, a two-part scale separately assessing a unitary Intolerance of Uncertainty disposition to consider uncertainties to be unacceptable and threatening (Part A) and the consequences of such disposition, regarding experiential avoidance, chronic doubt, overestimation of threat, worrying, control of uncertain situations, and seeking reassurance (Part B). Community members (N = 1046; Mean age = 36.69 ± 12.31 years; 61% females) completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Inventory with the Beck Depression Inventory-II and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Part A demonstrated a robust unidimensional structure and an excellent convergent validity with Part B. A bifactor model was the best fitting model for Part B. Based on these results, we compared the hierarchical factor scores with summated ratings clinical proxy groups reporting anxiety and depression symptoms. Summated rating scores were associated with both depression and anxiety and proportionally increased with the co-occurrence of depressive and anxious symptoms. By contrast, hierarchical scores were useful to detect which facets mostly separated between for depression and anxiety groups. In sum, Part A was a reliable and valid transdiagnostic measure of Intolerance of Uncertainty. The Part B was arguably more useful for assessing clinical manifestations of Intolerance of Uncertainty for specific disorders, provided that hierarchical scores are used. Overall, our study suggest that clinical assessments might need to shift toward hierarchical factor scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]