MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399766068 · doi:10.32920/26052844.v1

Does Context Influence How People Higher and Lower in the Propensity to Worry React to Uncertainty?

2024· preprint· en· W4399766068 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Stewart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryContext (archaeology)PsychologyPropensity score matchingSocial psychologyGeographyMathematicsStatisticsArchaeologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that individuals high in chronic worry experience greater anxiety when faced with uncertainty than those lower in chronic worry (e.g., Dugas et al., 2004); however, there is a dearth of research on other potentially important cognitive and emotional reactions to uncertainty. The present dissertation examined whether individuals higher in worry have greater beliefs that uncertainty is unfair, they do not deserve to be uncertain, they are not able to cope with uncertainty, and anger, as well as whether individuals lower in worry have more positive appraisals (being confident they can handle uncertainty, accepting uncertainty, happiness, excitement, calm, feeling psychologically safe, and predicting uncertain scenarios will end well). This dissertation also examined whether context moderates reactions to uncertainty, as most clinical research has focused on decontextualized reactions. Study 1 examined the impact of being alone or with others in uncertainty, Study 2 examined whether uncertainty was expected or unexpected, and Study 3 examined whether the uncertainty was likely to end positively or negatively. It was predicted that individuals higher in worry would show less difference in reactions based on contextual factors, representing a general intolerance of uncertainty irrespective of context. Findings across the three studies suggested that chronic worry is associated with greater anxiety, greater perception of uncertainty, greater doubt about one's capacity to cope, low confidence handling uncertainty, and greater anger, rather than finding uncertainty unfair, feeling one doesn’t deserve to be uncertain, or not accepting uncertainty. Individuals higher in worry did not statistically experience less positive emotion in reaction to uncertain situations that are likely to end well, nor did they appraise uncertain positive scenarios as more likely to end negatively or as more unsafe than those lower in worry. On average, individuals higher in worry responded to context similarly to those lower in worry, finding being alone in uncertainty, not expecting uncertainty, and threatening outcome uncertainty to be more aversive. In summary, chronic worry appears to be associated with stronger negative cognitive and emotional reactions, especially anxiety and doubts about capacity to cope with uncertainty, to uncertain scenarios with a greater potential for threat.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health Research Topics→French-language works237,207→