ArticleComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Decomposing Intolerance of Uncertainty: No Association With Affective Decision Making in a Community Sample.
Article in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) is a transdiagnostic factor in psychological disorders, yet its underlying psychological mechanisms remain unclear. To close this gap, we first identify three potential mechanisms from existing definitions of IU: (1) negativity overweighting, (2) probability distortion, and (3) information deficit aversion. Second, we demonstrate how these mechanisms map onto well-established preference patterns in decision making under uncertainty as captured by Cumulative Prospect Theory: (1) loss aversion, (2) nonlinear probability weighting, and (3) the description-experience (DE) gap. Third, we conduct an affective decision-making experiment to investigate the relationship between self-reported IU and these preference patterns, as measured with individually estimated parameters of cumulative prospect theory. In the study, 100 participants made 120 choices between hypothetical painkillers with different probabilistic side effects. Half of the choices were made in a description condition, where all information was provided upfront; the other half in an experience condition, where participants acquired information through sampling. Trait IU was measured with a questionnaire. Participants overweighed side effects relative to treatment benefits (loss aversion), overestimated the probability of unlikely negative outcomes (increased nonlinear probability weighting), and their probability weighting patterns differed between the experimental conditions (DE gap). However, their preference patterns did not correlate with IU scores. Possible explanations are that the task did not effectively establish an affective context with real consequences for behavior, or that disorder-specific processes were not captured in our community sample. These findings highlight the need for a precise definition of IU and suggest avenues for designing tasks that enable a better understanding of IU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.