ArticleBehaviour research and therapy2024
Risk estimation in relation to anxiety and depression for low probability negative events.
Article in Behaviour research and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anhedonia and Anxious Arousal Are Associated With Distinct Expectations About the Statistics of a Volatile Environment.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Article
- Approaching Temporal Dynamics in the Dimension-Level Associations Between Career Adaptability/Ambivalence and Internalizing Symptoms Among Chinese Adolescents Throughout Their High Middle School Years.Journal of youth and adolescence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foundational cognitive models propose that people with anxiety and depression show risk estimation bias, but most literature does not compute true risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates to their individualized reality (i.e., person-level objective risk). In a diverse community sample (N = 319), we calculated risk estimation bias by comparing people's subjective risk estimates for contracting COVID-19 to their individualized objective risk. Person-level objective risk was consistently low and did not differ across symptom levels, suggesting that for low probability negative events, people with greater symptoms show risk estimation bias that is driven by subjective risk estimates. Greater levels of anxiety, depression, and COVID-specific perseverative cognition separately predicted higher subjective risk estimates. In a model including COVID-specific perseverative cognition alongside anxiety and depression scores, the only significant predictor of subjective risk estimates was COVID-specific perseverative cognition, indicating that symptoms more closely tied to feared outcomes may more strongly influence risk estimation. Finally, subjective risk estimates predicted information-seeking behavior and eating when anxious, but did not significantly predict alcohol or marijuana use, drinking to cope, or information avoidance. Implications for clinical practitioners and future research are discussed.
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.