Intolerance of uncertainty fuels depressive symptoms through rumination: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study replicated and extended previous studies by examining the mediating and moderating role of rumination in the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty (IU) and depression in a community sample using both cross-sectional (n = 494; 56.9% female) and a two-months longitudinal (n = 321; 48.4% female) designs. Participants in each study were recruited through online crowdsourcing websites and completed study questionnaires. Results from Study 1 suggested that, while rumination did not appear to moderate the relationship between IU and depression, rumination appeared to partially mediates such relationship. Results from Study 2 supported rumination as fully mediating the relationship between IU and depression over two months. The brooding and reflection rumination subtypes exerted a significant indirect, but not moderating, effect on the relationship between IU and depression. Brooding exhibited a stronger mediation effect than did reflection. Overall, current results suggest that high levels of IU fuel the development of depression symptoms over time through engagement in heightened rumination. The IU-depression association appeared fully explained through rumination as it is a passive and contextually-dependent coping response that may enhance individuals' emotion and facilitate the development of depressive symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".