4.6 Article

What do I do now? Intolerance of uncertainty is associated with discrete patterns of anticipatory physiological responding to different contexts

期刊

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY
卷 56, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.13396

关键词

anticipation; electromyography; intolerance of uncertainty; skin conductance; trait anxiety; uncertainty

资金

  1. NARSAD Young Investigator Grant from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation [27567]
  2. ESRC New Investigator Grant [ES/R01145/1]
  3. British Academy Small Research Grant [SG163121]
  4. ESRC [ES/R011451/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heightened physiological responses to uncertainty are a common hallmark of anxiety disorders. Many separate studies have examined the relationship between individual differences in intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and physiological responses to uncertainty during different contexts. Despite this, there is a scarcity of research examining the extent to which individual differences in IU are related to shared or discrete patterns of anticipatory physiological responding across different contexts. Anticipatory physiological responses to uncertainty were assessed in three different contexts (associative threat learning and extinction, threat uncertainty, decision-making) within the same sample (n = 45). During these tasks, behavioral responses (i.e., reaction times, choices), skin conductance, and corrugator supercilli activity were recorded. In addition, self-reported IU and trait anxiety were measured. IU was related to both skin conductance and corrugator supercilii activity for the associative threat learning and extinction context and decision-making context. However, trait anxiety was related to corrugator supercilii activity during the threat uncertainty context. Ultimately, this research helps us to further tease apart the role of IU on different aspects of anticipation (i.e., valence and arousal) across contexts, which will be relevant for future IU-related models of psychopathology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据