What maintains generalized anxiety disorder? Examining intolerance of uncertainty and negative beliefs about worry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) experience excessive and chronic worry over a variety of daily events. If left untreated, GAD tends to be chronic and cause difficulties in daily functioning. Therefore, understanding the factors that cause and maintain GAD is important to allow for the effective treatment of the disorder. The Metacognitive Model, Intolerance of Uncertainty Model, and Emotional Dysregulation Model each implicate specific mechanisms as the casual and maintaining factor in GAD. Existing research has shown negative beliefs about worry (NBW), intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and fear of emotions to be associated with GAD. However, the existing research is primarily cross-sectional, which does not allow researchers to determine whether these beliefs cause and maintain GAD. The present longitudinal study examined whether NBW, IU, fear of emotions, negative problem orientation, and cognitive avoidance predict worry severity and GAD symptoms at follow-up. Undergraduate psychology students, pre-screened for high levels of worry, completed a series of online self-report measures assessing levels of worry, GAD symptoms, NBW, IU fear of emotions, negative problem orientation, and cognitive avoidance. Participants (N = 372) returned 4-months later to complete the same series of questionnaires. Multiple regression analyses revealed that NBW was the only mechanism to consistently emerge as a predictor of pathological worry and GAD symptoms cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Exploratory analyses revealed that changes in NBW and IU were the only mechanisms to predict changes in GAD at follow-up. These findings have implications for the understanding and treatment of GAD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".