Intolerance of uncertainty and threat reversal: A conceptual replication of Morriss et al. (2019)

ID 225 2 Reuses

Abstract

The ability to update responding to threat cues is an important adaptive ability. Recently, Morriss et al. (2019) demonstrated that participants scoring high in Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) were more capable of threat reversal. The current report aimed to conceptually replicate these results of Morriss et al. (2019) in an independent sample using a comparable paradigm (n = 102). Following a threat conditioning phase, participants were told that cues associated with threat and safety from electric shock would reverse. Responding was measured with skin conductance and fear potentiated startle. We failed to conceptually replicate the results of Morriss et al. (2019). Instead, we found that, for participants who received precise contingency instructions prior to acquisition, lower IUS (controlling for STAI-T) relative to higher IUS was associated with greater threat reversal, indexed via skin conductance responses. These results suggest that IU and contingency instructions differentially modulate the course of threat reversal.

Authors

Gaëtan Mertens*, Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands Jayne Morriss*, School of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

Year

2020

DOI of Publication

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103799

Is Version of

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PB9W7

Where was the data collected?

Utrecht University, Netherlands

How to Cite

Mertens, G., & Morriss, J. (2025, December 12). Intolerance of uncertainty and threat reversal: A conceptual replication of Morriss et al. (2019). https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PB9W7

Participant Information

Participant Age

Participant Gender

Experimental Group

3 experimental groups that differ by contingency instructions (precise vs. general vs. no) Precise Contingency Instructions Condition: - participants received detailed information on the CS-US contingencies (which stimulus would be followed by a shock and which stimulus wouldn't) General Contingency Instructions Conditions: - participants received general information on the CS-US contingencies (only information that one stimulus would sometimes be followed by a shock, while the other stimulus wouldn't) No Contingency Instructions Condition: - participants received no information on the CS-US contingencies (only information, that they's be presented with shape stimuli and sometimes receive an electrical shock)

Stimuli

Drug Administration

No

Conditioning Protocol

Differential

Instructions CS-US Contingencies

Different instructions in different conditions

Number of Different US

1

US Modality

electrotactile

US Duration (ms)

500

Time Between CS and US Onset (ms)

8000

Number of Different CS+

1

CS+ Duration (ms)

8000

CS+ 1: Reinforcement Rate (%)

CS+ 2: Reinforcement Rate (%)

CS+ 3: Reinforcement Rate (%)

Number of Different CS-

1

CS- Duration (ms)

8000

CS Modality

visual

Data Collected During MRI

No

Measures

skin conductance response

trialwise & untransformed

Amplitude of skin conductance response to stimulus.

fear potentiated startle (emg)

trialwise & untransformed

Fear potentiated startle response (electromyography).

US intensity rating

Intensity rating of the US stimulus.

contingency awareness

US-CS contingency awareness rating.

State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T)

Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS)