ArticlePloS one2021
Intolerance of uncertainty and decisions about delayed, probabilistic rewards: A replication and extension of Luhmann, C. C., Ishida, K., & Hajcak, G. (2011).
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) is thought to lead to maladaptive behaviours and dysfunctional decision making, both in the clinical and healthy population. The seminal study reported by Luhmann and collaborators in 2011 [1] showed that IU was negatively associated with choosing a delayed, but more probable and valuable, reward over choosing an immediate, but less probable and valuable, reward. These findings have been widely disseminated across the field of personality and individual differences because of their relevance for the understanding of the role of IU in the development and maintenance of anxiety-related disorders. Given their importance it would be desirable to have replications of this study, but none have been carried out so far. The current study has been designed to replicate and extend Luhmann et al.'s results. Our sample will include 266 healthy participants (more than five times the sample size used by Luhmann et al.) to detect with a power of 95% the effect size that can be detected with a power of 33% in the original study. To increase our chances of getting such a sample size, the experiment will be conducted online, To increase our chances of getting such a sample size, the experiment will be conducted online, adding check trials to the original decision-making task to monitor participants' engagement. Additionally, we will explore the role of impulsivity in the relationship between IU and willingness to wait. This study will add empirical evidence about the role of IU in decision making and, in case of replication of Luhmann et al.'s results, will support the hypothesis that high-IU individuals may engage in inefficient or costly behaviour in exchange for less time enduring an uncertain situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.