Decomposing Intolerance of Uncertainty: No Association With Affective Decision Making in a Community Sample.

Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) Pub Date : 2025-09-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/cpsy.140
Yannik Paul, Anya Pedersen, Kamil Fuławka
{"title":"Decomposing Intolerance of Uncertainty: No Association With Affective Decision Making in a Community Sample.","authors":"Yannik Paul, Anya Pedersen, Kamil Fuławka","doi":"10.5334/cpsy.140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":72664,"journal":{"name":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","volume":"9 1","pages":"210-230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12447796/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/cpsy.140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分解不确定性的不容忍:与社区样本中的情感决策无关。
不确定性不耐受(IU)是心理障碍的一个跨诊断因素,但其潜在的心理机制尚不清楚。为了缩小这一差距,我们首先从现有的IU定义中确定了三种潜在的机制:(1)负性超载,(2)概率扭曲,(3)信息赤字厌恶。其次,我们展示了这些机制如何映射到累积前景理论(Cumulative Prospect Theory)所捕获的不确定性下决策中成熟的偏好模式:(1)损失厌恶,(2)非线性概率加权,以及(3)描述-经验(DE)差距。第三,我们进行了一项情感决策实验,以研究自我报告的IU与这些偏好模式之间的关系,这些偏好模式是用累积前景理论的个人估计参数来衡量的。在这项研究中,100名参与者在副作用概率不同的止痛药中做出120种选择。一半的选择是在描述条件下做出的,所有的信息都是预先提供的;另一半在经验条件下,参与者通过抽样获取信息。特质IU用问卷测量。参与者高估了副作用相对于治疗收益(损失厌恶),高估了不太可能出现负面结果的概率(非线性概率加权增加),并且他们的概率加权模式在不同的实验条件下存在差异(DE差距)。然而,他们的偏好模式与IU分数无关。可能的解释是,这项任务没有有效地建立一个具有行为实际后果的情感环境,或者在我们的社区样本中没有捕捉到特定障碍的过程。这些发现强调了对IU的精确定义的必要性,并提出了更好地理解IU的任务设计途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信