The impact of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty on climate change distress, policy support, and pro-environmental behaviour.

OBJECTIVES: As the threat of climate change continues to grow, bolstering individual-level support for climate change initiatives is crucial. More research is needed to better understand how individual difference factors, such as climate change anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty (IU), may shape how people perceive climate change and respond to climate change messaging. To date, the majority of published studies have not taken these individual difference factors into consideration, and IU has been particularly neglected in the climate change literature. This study examined the independent effects of climate change anxiety and IU on three climate change-related outcomes: climate-related distress, support for climate change policies, and behavioural engagement. METHODS: Participants were Florida residents (N = 441) who completed an online survey, including measures of climate change anxiety and IU. Participants then watched a video describing climate change consequences and completed three outcome measures: post-video distress, climate change policy support, and behavioural engagement. RESULTS: Controlling for demographic covariates, both climate change anxiety (ß = .43, p < .001) and IU (ß = .27, p < .001) were associated with greater post-video distress, but only IU independently predicted greater policy support (ß = .10, p = .034) and behavioural engagement (ß = .12, p = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that IU may be an important factor in promoting pro-environmental behaviour and policy support, but climate change anxiety may increase emotional distress without boosting meaningful behaviours or support. Our findings highlight the potential influence of cognitive factors on climate change engagement and suggest that invoking uncertainty rather than anxiety may be more effective in catalysing effective environmental engagement.

Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcity.

Empirical audit and review is an approach to assessing the evidentiary value of a research area. It involves identifying a topic and selecting a cross-section of studies for replication. We apply the method to research on the psychological consequences of scarcity. Starting with the papers citing a seminal publication in the field, we conducted replications of 20 studies that evaluate the role of scarcity priming in pain sensitivity, resource allocation, materialism, and many other domains. There was considerable variability in the replicability, with some strong successes and other undeniable failures. Empirical audit and review does not attempt to assign an overall replication rate for a heterogeneous field, but rather facilitates researchers seeking to incorporate strength of evidence as they refine theories and plan new investigations in the research area. This method allows for an integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to review and enables the growth of a cumulative science.

Sociability Alcohol Expectancies Shape Predictions of Drinking Behavior and Anxiety in a Novel Affective Forecasting Task.

Background: Existing work proposes that people with higher social anxiety symptoms and sociability alcohol expectancies believe alcohol can lower their anxiety. However, studies have primarily analyzed retrospective reports, not anticipatory motives. Since predictions of future emotion (i.e., affective forecasts) strongly influence behavior, it is critical to understand how people predict alcohol will influence their anxiety. Additionally, intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is related to the use of alcohol as a coping tool, but there is a dearth of work testing whether IU influences alcohol-related forecasts. Objectives: Utilizing a novel affective forecasting task, we tested the prediction that social anxiety symptoms, sociability alcohol expectancies, and IU would relate to predictions about alcohol use. In an initial study and preregistered replication, participants imagined themselves in stressful social scenarios and forecasted how anxious they would feel when drinking and when sober. In the replication, participants also forecasted whether they would drink in the imagined scenarios. Results: Contrary to hypotheses, social anxiety symptoms and IU did not significantly predict higher forecasted anxiety across studies, nor did they predict forecasted drinking. Exploratory analyses showed that participants with higher sociability alcohol expectancies forecasted being more likely to drink, and forecasted feeling less anxious when drinking (versus being sober). Even after statistically controlling for social anxiety, the effect of sociability expectancies remained significant in predicting forecasted anxiety and forecasted drinking. Conclusions: Clinicians could consider specifically targeting sociability expectancies for alcohol use difficulties, and future research should continue utilizing affective forecasting paradigms to test links between social anxiety, alcohol expectancies, and alcohol-use problems.

Risk estimation in relation to anxiety and depression for low probability negative events.

Foundational cognitive models propose that people with anxiety and depression show risk estimation bias, but most literature does not compute true risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates to their individualized reality (i.e., person-level objective risk). In a diverse community sample (N = 319), we calculated risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates for contracting COVID-19 to their individualized objective risk. Person-level objective risk was consistently low and did not differ across symptom levels, suggesting that for low probability negative events, people with greater symptoms show risk estimation bias that is driven by subjective risk estimates. Greater levels of anxiety, depression, and COVID-specific perseverative cognition separately predicted higher subjective risk estimates. In a model including COVID-specific perseverative cognition alongside anxiety and depression scores, the only significant predictor of subjective risk estimates was COVID-specific perseverative cognition, indicating that symptoms more closely tied to feared outcomes may more strongly influence risk estimation. Finally, subjective risk estimates predicted information-seeking behavior and eating when anxious, but did not significantly predict alcohol or marijuana use, drinking to cope, or information avoidance. Implications for clinical practitioners and future research are discussed.

Trait and situation-specific intolerance of uncertainty predict affective symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic, a high-uncertainty situation, presents an ideal opportunity to examine how trait intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and situation-specific IU relate to each other and to mental health outcomes. The current longitudinal study examined the unique associations of trait and COVID-specific IU with general distress (anxiety and depression) and pandemic-specific concerns (pandemic stress and vaccine worry). METHODS: A community sample of Florida adults (N = 2152) was surveyed online at three timepoints. They completed measures of trait IU at Wave 1 (April-May 2020) and COVID-specific IU at Wave 2 (May-June 2020). At Wave 3 (December-February 2021), they reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, pandemic stress, and vaccine worry. RESULTS: We used structural equation modeling to test our overall model. Trait IU significantly predicted later COVID-specific IU, however there was no significant effect of trait IU on any outcome measure after accounting for COVID-specific IU. Notably, COVID-specific IU fully mediated the relationship between trait IU and all four symptom measures. LIMITATIONS: There were several limitations of the current study, including the use of a community sample and high participant attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that COVID-specific IU predicts mental health outcomes over and above trait IU, extending the existing literature. These findings indicate that uncertainty may be more aversive when it is related to specific distressing situations, providing guidance for developing more specific and individualized interventions. Idiographic treatments which target situation-specific IU may be more efficacious in reducing affective symptoms and related stress during the COVID-19 pandemic or other similar events.

The relationship between psychiatric symptoms and affective forecasting bias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Affective forecasting (AF) is the prediction of future emotional states. Negatively biased affective forecasts (i.e., overestimating negative affect) have been associated with trait anxiety, social anxiety, and depression symptoms, but few studies have tested these relationships while covarying commonly co-occurring symptoms. METHODS: In this study, participants (N = 114) completed a computer game in dyads. Participants were randomized into one of two conditions: a condition in which they were led to believe they were at-fault for losing their dyad money (n = 24 dyads) or a condition in which they were told no one was at fault (n = 34 dyads). Prior to the computer game, participants forecasted their affect for each potential game outcome. RESULTS: More severe social anxiety, trait-level anxiety, and depressive symptoms were all associated with more negative AF bias in the at-fault relative to the no-fault condition, and this effect persisted when controlling for other symptoms. Cognitive and social anxiety sensitivity was also associated with more negative AF bias. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of our findings is innately limited by our non-clinical, undergraduate sample. Future work should replicate and extend our research in more diverse populations and clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support that AF biases are observed across a range of psychopathology symptoms and associated with transdiagnostic cognitive risk factors. Future work should continue investigating the etiological role of AF bias in psychopathology.

Emotion-related impulsivity predicts increased anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emotion-related impulsivity, defined by poor constraint in the face of emotion, is related to internalizing symptoms, cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Internalizing symptoms, though, are profoundly tied to stress reactivity, and little is known about how emotion-related impulsivity relates to stress reactivity. METHOD: Taking advantage of a sample that had completed measures of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and two forms of emotion-related impulsivity before the pandemic, we asked participants to complete three weekly follow-up internalizing assessments early in the pandemic. RESULTS: Among the 150 participants, pre-pandemic emotion-related impulsivity scores predicted higher depression, anxiety, general distress, and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Controlling for pre-pandemic scores, one form of emotion-related impulsivity (Feelings Trigger Action) predicted increased anxiety and general distress. We also examined how pre-pandemic emotion-related impulsivity was moderated by weekly COVID-related stress. One form of emotion-related impulsivity (Pervasive Influence of Feelings) predicted internalizing symptoms at low stress levels, and a different form (Feelings Trigger Action) predicted internalizing symptoms at higher stress levels. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the small sample size, the absence of repeat measures of impulsivity, the attrition of individuals with more internalizing symptoms, and the reliance on self-rated measures. CONCLUSIONS: Forms of emotion-related impulsivity predict increases in anxiety and distress over time, but the interactions with stress levels appear to vary. Emotion-related impulsivity can be addressed with accessible intervention tools, suggesting the promise of broader screening for those at risk for internalizing symptoms during periods of high stress.