Psychol Stud
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-021-00602-1
TARGET ARTICLE (WITH PEER COMMENTARY)
Investigating How Intolerance of Uncertainty and Emotion
Regulation Predict Experiential Avoidance in Non-Clinical
Participants
Kisley Di Giuseppe1 • Alisdair J. G. Taylor1
Received: 11 August 2020 / Accepted: 26 April 2021
Ó National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2021
Abstract Emotional regulation and intolerance of uncer-
tainty have been independently implicated in the overuse
of experiential avoidance in stress-related situations.
However, little research has examined how this relation-
ship manifests altogether in a non-clinical sample. The
current study aimed to determine the predictive nature of
intolerance of uncertainty and the ability to regulate
emotions on experiential avoidance. A secondary aim was
to establish the role of worry in these relationships. Par-
ticipants (N = 360) completed questionnaires that mea-
sured intolerance of uncertainty, emotion dysregulation,
worry and experiential avoidance. In stage one of the
analysis, a bivariate linear regression was conducted to see
if both intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulations
would significant predict avoidance. These were then
entered into a multiple linear regression model with forced
entry method to explain the variance in experiential
avoidance. Subsequently, a mediation analysis was con-
ducted using worry, between intolerance of uncertainty and
experiential avoidance and between emotion regulation
and experiential avoidance. As expected, individuals’
tendency to intolerance of uncertainty and poor emotion
regulation individually predicted experiential avoidance.
Furthermore, worry mediated these relationships. These
findings have implications for self-awareness responses in
healthy individuals who show avoidant behaviours.
Inflexible use of emotion regulation and low tolerance of
uncertainty make a significant contribution to experiential
avoidance. Therefore, therapeutic interventions specifically
& Kisley Di Giuseppe
kdigiuseppe@freelanceresearchlab.com
1
Kingston University, Penrhyn Rd, Kingston upon Thames
KT1 2EE, UK
targeting both intolerance of uncertainty and appropriate
use of emotion regulation may help enhance individuals’
self-awareness in relation to avoidant responses to prevent
the potential creation of the cycle that maintains anxiety
disorders.
Keywords Emotion dysregulation

Experiential avoidance
Intolerance of uncertainty

Non-clinical sample
Worry
Introduction
Experiential avoidance is a strategy deployed in situations
where individuals face extreme unwelcome feelings in
relation to an event. For example, a highly sensitive person
refuses to see a doctor for a normal check-up because they
fear they could be diagnosed with a serious life-threatening
medical condition. This discomfort subsequently develops
into an unwillingness to remain in connection with the
intimate bodily sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories
and behavioural predispositions (Hayes et al., 1996),
enhancing the intentional desire of control or escape
(Santanello & Gardner, 2006). Experiential avoidance is
thus manifested by the individual’s intentional effort to
alter the form and frequency of the particular event that
induces feelings of anxiety. As an apparent regulatory
strategy, it becomes maladaptive when implemented
rigidly and inflexibly (Schmalz & Murrell, 2010). Partic-
ularly, by creating a pleasant sense of control due to the
decrease of unwanted internal feelings, it might lead to a
biased self-rewarding amplifying loop (Hayes et al., 2004).
Furthermore, the perpetuation of distorted beliefs through
rigidly avoiding aversive stimuli has been shown to relate
to the development and persistence of psychopathology
123

within a different range of disorders (Kumpula et al., 2011;
Spinhoven et al., 2017). Therefore, experiential avoidance
is seen as functional due to the subsequent short-term relief
it provides from aversive stimuli (Schreiber et al., 2012).
This research focuses on further understanding the con-
struct of experiential avoidance. Past research has mainly
focussed on its explanatory nature in both clinical (Shorey
et al., 2017; Varese et al., 2016) and non-clinical (Emerson
et al., 2019) samples, yielding thus the need for research
that focuses on its potential antecedents. Specifically, the
current study explored how experiential avoidance is
explained by intolerance of uncertainty and emotional
regulation.
Intolerance of Uncertainty
Intolerance of uncertainty has been conceptualised as a
cognitive bias towards a set of negative beliefs about
unpredictability, compromising the individual’s assessment
(inaccurate threat appraisal) and related behavioural
response (inability to cope) in relation to an unknown
environment (Buhr & Dugas, 2002). It has been thought to
encompass both prospective (discomforting cognitive
appraisals) and inhibitory (apprehension, avoidance and
immobilisation) responses due to the unpredictable future
(Shihata et al., 2017). Furthermore, the need for pre-
dictability has been interpreted as a coping response to
alleviate distress (Pawluk & Koerner, 2013), and suggests
an innate desire for controllability (Mushtaq et al., 2011),
contributing to avoidance. Most recently, intolerance of
uncertainty has been defined as ‘‘an individual’s disposi-
tional incapacity to endure the aversive response triggered
by the perceived absence of salient, key, or sufficient
information, and sustained by the associated perception of
uncertainty’’ (Carleton, 2016; p. 31).
The construct is central in the development of poor
problem orientation, a cognitive dysfunction that causes
perceived threats and doubts in problem-solving capability
(Robichaud & Dugas, 2005). Poor problem orientation
interferes with the individual’s metacognitive and attitu-
dinal processes in relation to his or her own problem-
solving techniques, leading to unacceptable distressing
foreseen outcomes (Dugas et al., 1998). Based on this line
of thinking, it is reasonable to assume that intolerance of
uncertainty could relate to experiential avoidance.
Previous experimental research (Jacoby et al., 2016) has
shown an association between distress during responding in
uncertain situations and self-report inhibitory intolerance
of uncertainty (a construct that measures avoidance when
facing uncertainty). The above shows how paralysis might
have an impact on how highly vulnerable individuals
respond to the unknown. Moreover, Flores et al. (2018)
found that high-intolerant participants engaged in
123
Psychol Stud
behavioural avoidance to increase their sense of control by
reducing uncertainty. This showed an association between
the excessive responding as desire of predictability and the
inflexible use of avoidance. Others (Vander Haegen &
Etienne, 2016) have highlighted a relationship between
these constructs while supporting the idea that intolerance
of uncertainty has been found to play a central role in
developing negative problem orientation among parents of
childhood cancer survivors. Similar research (Aktar et al.,
2017) has supported an association between parents’ levels
of intolerance of uncertainty and experiential avoidance as
contributing factors of the environmental pathways to
parent-to-child transmission of anxiety. Taken together, the
above findings highlight a strong relationship between
intolerance of uncertainty and experiential avoidance.
Emotion Regulation
Emotion regulation is a multi-dimensional construct,
responsible for modifying, monitoring and evaluating
individuals’ responses (Gross et al., 2006). The regulation
of emotion involves the reduction of negative affect due to
individuals’ innate tendency to seek instant satisfaction to
decrease short-term discomfort when facing distress (Tice
et al., 2001). The use of specific regulatory strategies has
different social survival advantages. However, the lack of
flexibility in implementing strategies to regulate emotions
contributes to increase undesirable emotional feelings,
while evoking ‘‘escaping’’ maladaptive responses and
compromising long-term goals (Campbell-Sills et al.,
2015). Hayes et al. (2004) found that the over-reliance on
emotional suppression in the presence of distressing per-
sonal experiences is perceived to function as a form of
experiential avoidance of emotions.
Evidence from clinical research (Chapman et al., 2011)
proposed poor emotion regulation to be a key factor in
increasing the plausibility of experiential avoidance in
borderline personality disorder. Non-clinical studies (Shi
et al., 2016) found that students with less ability to regulate
their emotions would present a greater tendency to engage
in experiential avoidance. Others (Mohammadkhani et al.,
2016) observed that emotion regulation plays an important
mediating role between experiential avoidance and anxi-
ety-related symptomatology, leading vulnerable individu-
als to potential unmanageable reactions (Yook et al., 2010).
This unmanageable reaction might manifest in the form of
experiential avoidance. Taken together, the above findings
highlight a strong relationship between emotion regulation
and experiential avoidance.
Psychol Stud
The Role of Worry as a Mediator
Past research sees worry to be related with the constructs
under investigation, particularly, worry has been identified
as an anticipatory strategy useful to decrease internal dis-
tress by avoiding unpleasant internal experiences (Buhr &
Dugas, 2012). The significant relationship between expe-
riential avoidance and worry is consistent with previous
findings from non-clinical studies (Roemer et al., 2005),
with experiential avoidance to be also a partial mediator in
the relationship between worry and maladaptive perfec-
tionism (Santanello & Gardner, 2006). Despite their evi-
dent similarities, worry is considered to be a distinct
variable to experiential avoidance. As mentioned above,
experiential avoidance is a behavioural strategy used to
avoid uncomfortable internal experiences (Hayes et al.,
1996). Vice versa, worry as a cognitive process comprises
uncontrollable chain of images and thoughts towards the
unknown (Borkovec et al., 1983) with a probable function
of avoiding threats (Wells, 2005). Furthermore, it provides
individuals with a momentary sense of control (Freeston
et al., 1994). Evidence of the association between worry
and poor emotion regulation has also been highlighted
(Salters-Pedneault et al., 2006), particularly, the role
played by the confidence in problem-solving abilities in
male participants in reducing levels of worry (Zlomke &
Hahn, 2010). Furthermore, the mediating role of emotion
dysregulation within the relationship between worry and
anger rumination has also been indicated (Besharat &
Ramesh, 2017).
Intolerance of uncertainty-based models of worry have
hypothesised that high-intolerant individuals are more
susceptible to engage in worry, particularly, intolerance of
uncertainty has been found to play a central role in
developing positive beliefs about worrying (Vander Hae-
gen & Etienne, 2016). Intolerance of uncertainty is also
seen to mediate the relationship between negative affec-
tivity and worry in non-clinical teenagers (Boelen et al.,
2010). According to Dugas et al.’s (1998) intolerance of
uncertainty model, cognitive bias due to the avoidance
process of emotional stimuli negatively reinforces the toxic
chain of chronic worrying. Here, worrying functions as a
relief mechanism that alleviates self-predicted disappoint-
ment through negative reinforcement (Dugas et al., 1998).
Additionally, intolerance of uncertainty has been associ-
ated with worry (Birrell et al., 2011), which in turn have
been associated with avoidance (Stapinski et al., 2010). In
light of the above evidence on the associations between the
current study constructs and worry, it appears logical for
the explanatory nature of this research to investigate the
mediating role of worry in the relationships between these
constructs.
Theoretical Perspectives
The study’s overarching theoretical foundation is based on
the combination of Hillen et al.’s (2017) idea of uncertainty
tolerance processes, and Grupe and Nitschke’s (2013)
model of anxiety on neural responses to uncertainty.
Within Hillen and colleagues’ multi-dimensional concep-
tual model, uncertainty is identified as consisting of indi-
viduals’ metacognitive awareness triggered by stimuli
perceived to be unknown. The way uncertainty is perceived
is sourced by the level of unreliability presented due to
ambiguous or missing information, and difficult to predict
in view of the randomness of its probability. This would
further create the condition where individuals would have
limiting comprehension of its causal determinants and
effects. As a result, the conscious awareness of the
unknown leads to a set of psychological reactions: cogni-
tive (a continuum of negative or positive appraisals varying
for example from threat to opportunity); emotional (a
continuum of negative or positive states varying for
example from worry to curiosity); and behavioural (con-
scious or unconscious responses aiming at avoiding or
altering the uncertain situation). According to this model,
when uncertainty is perceived as a threat, this is implicitly
aversive resulting in negative affective states. Anderson
et al. (2019) maintain that emotions perform an adaptive
function in guiding attention, cognition and action.
Therefore, the way an uncertain situation is perceived is a
fundamental determinant of what specific emotion
responses are induced.
Specifically, when looking at the aversive effects of
uncertainty in anxiety-related studies, Grupe and
Nitschke’s (2013) model proposes the existence of inter-
connected set of neurobiological and psychological pro-
cesses essential for adaptive anticipatory responses to
uncertainty. It is further suggested that neurological alter-
ations in any of these processes underlie maladaptive
responses as these create the condition for increased threat
expectancies, which exacerbates physiological and beha-
vioural reactivity under conditions of uncertainty. This
condition results in anticipatory maladaptive reactions in
order to avoid or reduce the impact of a perceived threat.
For instance, biased pessimistic expectations resulting in
substantial anticipatory distress leads to elevated threat
expectancies. Consequently, this altogether increases both
vigilance and a biased interpretation towards ambiguity.
The following combination impedes discriminative analy-
sis of cause and affect, which would further increase
avoidance. Furthermore, engaging in avoidance prevents
individuals from identifying and executing adapted
responses, while allowing negative predictions to persist.
Previous research (Carleton, 2016) has found similar
alterations specific to individuals’ self-reporting of
123

intolerance of uncertainty, showing that amplified beha-
vioural and physiological responsiveness under uncertainty
causes unsettling to cognitive, behavioural and emotional
functioning.
In this study, it is hypothesised that in situations of
uncertainty, individuals who are predisposed to aversive
vulnerable psychological reactivity to the unknown and
unable to regulate their emotion in response to it, would be
more likely to be vigilant and distressed in relation to a
self-perceived threat, presenting therefore inefficient mal-
adaptive avoidant responses as preventative strategies.
Intolerance of Uncertainty, Emotional Regulation
and Experiential Avoidance
The current study explored the way unpleasant uncertainty-
related feelings motivate individuals to engage in avoidant
coping regulatory strategies, especially in those who pre-
sent an intolerance towards the unknown. Specifically, we
endeavoured to explain the variability of experiential
avoidance (outcome variable) as a function of both intol-
erance of uncertainty and emotion regulation (explanatory
variables). The overarching relationship between uncer-
tainty, avoidance and how emotions are regulated in situa-
tions of distress is evident (Jacoby et al., 2016).
Specifically, the adoption of inadequate emotional regula-
tory strategies during uncertainty may lead some individ-
uals to use rigid avoidant coping mechanisms (Behar et al.,
2009). This may provide individuals with a momentary
sense of relief benefit and control over future consequences
of an unknown eventuality (Dugas et al., 1998). Both
intolerance of uncertainty and emotional regulation have
been independently associated with experiential avoidance
(Lee et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2016). However, to our
knowledge no research has looked at how this relationship
manifests altogether in a large non-clinical sample. More-
over, the second aim of the study was to determine the
stronger predictor when comparing the two explanatory
variables. In line with past research (Grupe & Nitschke,
2013; Hillen, et al., 2017), it is expected that both intol-
erance of uncertainty and emotion regulation will inde-
pendently significantly predict experiential avoidance.
Specifically, individuals who score high on intolerance of
uncertainty and emotion dysregulation would score high on
experiential avoidance. These findings will be beneficial to
be considered in community settings such as workplace,
particularly for those who show avoidant signs and those
who support such individuals in situations of employment
uncertainty-related stress (Mentler et al., 2005). The study
outcomes could also be potentially enlightening with
healthy university students who use rigid avoidance coping
strategy (Bello & Gumarao, 2016), in order to understand
123
Psychol Stud
whether their behaviours potentially link to intolerance of
uncertainty and emotion regulation.
The current study also explored the potential mediating
role of worry in the relationship of intolerance of uncer-
tainty and experiential avoidance, given that the contribu-
tion of beliefs about worry is underscored in the intolerance
of uncertainty model (Dugas et al., 1998). Similarly, as the
model has also argued that the perpetuation of worry is a
form of cognitive avoidance in order to decrease the dis-
tress of emotionally processed situations, it would be
interesting to explore how worry mediates the relationship
between emotion regulation and experiential avoidance.
This exploratory analysis will extend the aforementioned
research and inform us the extent to which worry is
involved in each relationship.
Method
Participants
There were 360 participants (M = 27.2, SD = 8.2) after 19
were excluded due to incomplete responses. The majority
of participants were female (58.3%), Caucasian (77.5%)
and drawn from a university student population (73.1%).
Some participants were given a paper version of the survey
(N = 69), while others completed it using Qualtrics
(N = 291). There was no significant difference between the
average age of participants in the two samples: paper vs
online (M = 26.88, SD = 7.279 vs M = 27.27, SD = 8.383,
t(358) = 0.350, p = 0.726). Response method was factored
in as a control to ensure it was not confounding the data.
This did not significantly affect the models, nor predict the
outcome variables.
Measures and Procedure
The study’s protocol was approved by the university’s
ethics committee. Participation was voluntary, with a clear
option to withdraw at any time. Participants completed a
battery of questionnaires (see below). The order of the
scales was counterbalanced across participants. A debrief
form was provided along with contact details of the
research team. The study took approximately fifteen min-
utes to complete.
Experiential Avoidance
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II;
Bond et al., 2011) measured experiential avoidance. It
consists of seven items (e.g. ‘‘I’m afraid of my feelings’’)
measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘never true’’
to 7 = ‘‘always true’’), with higher scores indicating greater
Psychol Stud
experiential avoidance. The AAQ-II showed excellent
internal consistency in this sample (a = 0.91), in line with
previous non-clinical studies (a = 0.89, Lewis & Naugle,
2017).
Intolerance of Uncertainty
The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale Short Form (IUS-12;
Carleton et al., 2007) consists of twelve items (e.g. ‘‘Un-
foreseen events upset me greatly’’) measured on a five-
point Likert scale (1 = ‘‘Not at all characteristic of me’’ to
5 = ‘‘Entirely characteristic of me’’), with higher scores
indicating greater tendencies to intolerance. Excellent
psychometric properties were shown in this sample
(a = 0.90), in line with previous non-clinical studies
(a = 0.91, Carleton et al., 2007).
Emotion Regulation
Emotion regulation was measured using the Difficulties in
Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer,
2004). It consists of 36 items (e.g. ‘‘When I’m upset, I have
difficulty concentrating’’) measured on a five-point Likert
scale (1 = almost never, to 5 = almost always). Items 2, 6,
8, 10, 17, 20, 24, 34 are scored reversely, with higher
scores indicating less ability to regulate emotions. The
DERS has shown excellent internal consistency in non-
clinical sample (a = 0.93, Salters-Pedneault et al., 2006),
and in the current sample (a = 0.95).
Worry
The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer et al.,
1990) consists of 16 items measured on a five-point Likert
scale (1 = ‘‘not at all typical of me’’ to 5 = ‘‘very typical of
me’’). Items are worded positively and negatively (e.g.
‘‘Many situations make me worry’’) with items 1, 3, 8, 10,
11 scored reversely (e.g. ‘‘I never worry about anything’’).
Higher scores suggest worrisome issues. The PSWQ
demonstrated strong internal consistency both in the pre-
sent sample (a = 0.93;), and across studies with students
(a = 0.93, Zlomke & Hahn, 2010).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were
calculated for the various measures (see Table 1). In stage
one of the analysis, a bivariate linear regression was con-
ducted to see if intolerance of uncertainty would signifi-
cantly predict avoidance and if so then would qualify for
the proceeding multiple regression. Similarly, this was also
done for DERS. Since both predictors were significant,
they were entered into a multiple linear regression model
with forced entry method to explain the variance in expe-
riential avoidance. All relevant statistical assumptions were
met. Subsequently, mediation analyses were conducted
using worry as a mediator between intolerance of uncer-
tainty and experiential avoidance and separately between
emotion regulation and experiential avoidance. Mediation
in both models were performed conducting a path analysis
to test the models in line with Baron and Kenny (1986).
Firstly, the predictors had to be significantly associated
with the outcome variable (path c). Secondly, the predic-
tors had to be significantly related to the mediator (path a).
Thirdly, the mediator had to be significantly related to the
outcome variable (path b). Finally, the relationship of the
predictor and outcome variable should attenuate when
controlling for the mediator (path c’). The mediation
analyses were conducted using the PROCESS v.3.3 macro
model (Hayes, 2017). SPSS 24.0 software was used to
conduct these analyses.
Results
Altogether IUS, DERS and PSWQ significantly positively
correlated with AAQ (all r’s [ 0.596, p \ 0.001; see
Table1). A bivariate linear regression showed that IUS
significantly predicted the variance in AAQ F(1,
358) = 198.067, p \ 0.001. Similarly, DERS significantly
predicted AAQ F(1, 358) = 427.935, p \ 0.001. There-
fore, both IUS and DERS were entered into a multiple
regression model in order to explain the variance in AAQ.
As expected, a multiple linear regression showed that the
model comprised of IUS and DERS significantly explained
60% of the variance in AAQ F(2, 357) = 271.617,
p \ 0.001. The strongest predictor of AAQ was DERS
(b = 0.586, t = 14.919, p \ 0.001), for everyone unit
increase in DERS, AAQ increases by 0.236. Furthermore,
IUS significantly predicted AAQ (b = 0.286, t = 7.285,
p \ 0.001), for every one unit increase in IUS, AAQ
increases by 0.290 (see Table 1).
As both the variables predicted the AAQ, they were
entered in two separate mediation analyses to determine the
role of PSWQ in their relationship with AAQ. The first
mediation analysis showed that IUS significantly predicted
PSWQ (b = 0.596, t = 14.041, p \ 0.001). Moreover,
PSWQ significantly predicted AAQ (b = 0.401, t = 8.272,
p \ 0.001). Finally, there was a significant indirect effect
of IUS on AAQ through PSWQ and this represented a
relatively small effect, k2 = 0.242, 95% BCa CI [0.179,
0.308]. Moreover, a Sobel test supported the above full
mediation effect z = 7.066, p \ 0.001. The second medi-
ation analysis showed that DERS significantly predicted
PSWQ (b = 0.529, t = 11.798, p \ 0.001). Moreover,
PSWQ significantly predicted AAQ (b = 0.311, t = 8.015,
123
 Psychol Stud

Table 1 Hierarchical multiple regression, correlations coefficients and descriptive statistics

Variables Hierarchical multiple regression
B SE B b DR2 F

.601 271.617*
Constant -7.102 1.318
IUS .290 .040 .286*
DERS .236 .016 .586*
Summary of correlations
AAQ IUS DERS M SD
1. AQQ – 22.57 9.84
2. IUS .597* – 30.91 9.72
3. DERS .738* .530* – 87.63 24.40
4. PSWQ .614* .596* .529* 52.10 13.77
In the Summary of Correlations higher scores are indicative of more extreme responding in the direction of the construct assessed
AAQ Experiential avoidance; IUS Intolerance of uncertainty; DERS Difficulties in emotion regulation; PSWQ Worry
* p \ .001

p \ 0.001). Finally, there was a significant indirect effect
of DERS on AAQ through PSWQ and this represented a
very small effect size, k2 = 0.066, 95% BCa CI [0.048,
0.086]. Also, a Sobel test supported the above full media-
tion effect z = 6.608, p \ 0.001 (See Fig. 1).
Discussion
The current study explored the relationship between
intolerance of uncertainty and emotion dysregulation as
possible predictors of experiential avoidance. As expected,
individuals’ tendency to high intolerance of uncertainty
and poor emotion regulation both predicted experiential
avoidance. This is the first study showing that non-clinical
individuals’ avoidance is influenced by their ability to
regulate emotion and level of intolerance in relation to
uncertainty. Furthermore, as part of its exploratory nature,
the current study also investigated the possible mediational
role of worry in the above relationships. Findings showed
that Worry mediated the linkages of both intolerance of
uncertainty and emotion dysregulation with experiential
avoidance.
In line with the first hypothesis, the model comprising
intolerance of uncertainty and emotion dysregulation sig-
nificantly predicted individual levels of experiential
avoidance. Impressively, these variables accounted for
nearly two third of the variance in avoidance. The current
findings add to the body of evidence where both emotion
regulation difficulties and intolerance of uncertainty have
traditionally been independently implicated in the overuse
of experiential avoidance (Hayes et al., 2004; Lee et al.,

Fig. 1 Illustration of the

mediating effects of worry
(PSWQ) on the relationships
PSWQ
E = .596, CI[.726, .963]* E = .401, CI[.218, .354]*
between intolerance of
uncertainty (IUS) and
experiential avoidance (AAQ),
and between emotion
dysregulation (DERS) and E = .597, CI[.520, .689]*
experiential avoidance (AAQ); IUS
* p \ .001 k2 = .242, CI[.179, .308]*
AAQ
E = .738, CI[.269, .326]*
DERS k2 = .066, CI[.048, .086]*

E = .596, CI[.249, .348]* E = .574, CI[.167, .276]*

PSWQ

123
Psychol Stud
2010; Shihata et al., 2017). This is not surprising. Past
evidence has demonstrated that in presence of distress,
factors such as uncertainty, avoidance and how people
regulate their emotions are interrelated (Jacoby et al.,
2016). Two possible explanations can be offered to explain
the above relationships. First, negative emotional responses
to a problem-solving situation may contribute to intoler-
ance of uncertainty by increasing its ambiguous elements
as threatening (Robichaud & Dugas, 2005). Second,
intolerance of uncertainty may engender poor emotional
problem orientation (Dugas et al., 1998).
As hypothesised, intolerance of uncertainty predicted
experiential avoidance as this is considered as a personality
trait where future unknown negative events are inadmissible
and should be avoided (Vander Haegen & Etienne, 2016).
High-intolerant individuals perceive ambiguity as threaten-
ing (Birrell et al., 2011), while reinforcing the toxic chain of
chronic worry (Dugas et al., 1998). This potentially leads to
unmanageable reactions (Yook et al., 2010), due to a poor
perceived sense of control over the environment (Borkovec
et al., 1983). Consequently, it can be asserted that in the case
of ambiguity, experiential avoidance might represent an
attempt to decrease the distress of emotionally processed
threatening situations. Its function is to give the individual a
pleasant sense of control due the short-term relief (Hayes
et al., 2004; Schreiber et al., 2012).
This study also found a significant relationship between
emotion dysregulation and experiential avoidance, as
expected. This supports past research’s evidence about the
long-term effects caused by the above relationship in
developing anxiety-related symptomatology (Campbell-
Sills et al., 2015; Mohammadkhani et al., 2016). Further-
more, previous studies have demonstrated individuals’
innate tendencies to seek instant satisfaction when facing
distress. Here, emotional avoidance is perceived as a
necessity to regulate emotions in the form of immediate
relief from aversive stimuli (Schreiber et al., 2012). The
current findings explain how emotion dysregulation may
compromise individuals’ ability to cope when facing
uncertainty. Individuals vulnerable to the emotional con-
sequences of not being able to predict specific events might
perceive these as potentially threatening and respond
inflexibly. Consequently, this would evoke ‘‘escaping’’
maladaptive responses (Campbell-Sills et al., 2015). For
example, developing a drinking habit while dealing with a
situation of grief as a response of someone’s loss will
prevent people from processing their emotions.
The findings showed that worry mediated both relation-
ships between intolerance of uncertainty and experiential
avoidance and between emotion dysregulation and experi-
ential avoidance. Past research has highlighted both the
relevance of intolerance of uncertainty to the phenomenol-
ogy of worry (Birrell et al., 2011), and the mediating role of
emotion dysregulation within the relationship between
worry and anger management (Besharat & Ramesh, 2017).
Here, few possible explanations could be advanced. In
unknown situations, worry has an avoidant function to con-
trol distress, presenting itself as a fundamental element along
with intolerance of uncertainty (Dugas et al., 1998; Stapinski
et al., 2010). Also, worry as a cognitive process comprises
uncontrollable chain threatening thoughts towards the
unknown (Borkovec et al., 1983). In this situation, the indi-
vidual’s cognitive capability to regulate their emotions is
affected, while limiting their ability to deal with the reduc-
tion of negative affect (Tice et al., 2001). The individual’s
increasing undesirable emotional feelings would lead to a
further attempt to suppress unpleasant intimate bodily sen-
sations, which would consequently involve the use of avoi-
dant maladaptive responses (Santanello & Gardner, 2006).
Furthermore, from the current study’s results, it could be
assumed that worrisome issues may result from difficulties
engaging in goal-directed behaviours. In this instance, poor
problem orientation may interfere with the individual’s
metacognitive and attitudinal processes in relation to their
own problem-solving strategies. The above supposition has
been previously explored by Zlomke and Hahn (2010), who
investigated the role played by confidence in problem-
solving abilities in reducing levels of worry. Further research
should consider the role of poor problem solving associated
with emotion responses in relation to uncertainty. This would
help explore the potential negative consequences regarding
the individual’s belief in their own ability to succeed.
Various limitations should be appreciated when con-
sidering the implications of the current study. For instance,
self-report methodology brings some risk of bias such as
social desirability. However, participants’ anonymity
aimed at reducing this effect. Finally, the mixed use of
online Qualtrics and face-to-face data collection may have
amplified some variation, however the standard deviations
for both paper and online were very similar. Future
research should address these limitations by using multi-
method designs. For instance, additional information on the
relationships among the current study’s constructs could be
obtained by comparing high/low intolerant individuals with
different levels of emotion regulation in experimental
designs using anxiety-related objective measures.
Conclusions
The current study was innovative in investigating the
processing in individuals potentially at risk for developing
excessive experiential avoidance by virtue of presenting
high levels of intolerance of uncertainty and inability to
properly regulate emotion. Inflexible use of emotion reg-
ulation and low tolerance of uncertainty make a significant
123

contribution to experiential avoidance in healthy individ-
uals. Individuals presenting intolerance to prospective
uncertainty tend to exhibit goal-directed behaviour diffi-
culties. Uncertainty stimulates avoidance, since suppress-
ing unpredictable realities helps disengage from anxiety-
related processing. Moreover, worry’s mediating role
affirms its relevance to theoretical perspectives of intoler-
ance of uncertainty and its relation to experiential avoid-
ance. The current findings would benefit those who support
healthy individuals showing avoidant behaviour to better
understand the particularity of this phenomenon. Thera-
peutic interventions (e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy)
specifically targeting both intolerance of uncertainty and
appropriate use of emotion regulation may help enhance
individuals’ self-awareness in relation to avoidant respon-
ses to prevent the potential creation of the cycle that
maintains anxiety disorders.
Authors’ contributions All authors contributed to the study con-
ception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis
were performed by Kisley Di Giuseppe and Alisdair J. G. Taylor. The
first draft of the manuscript was written by Kisley Di Giuseppe and all
authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript/
Availability of data and material Data transparency.
Code availability Software application.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethics approval Approval was obtained from the ethics committee
of Kingston University. The procedures used in this study adhere to
the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
References
Aktar, E., Nikolić, M., & Bögels, S. M. (2017). Environmental
transmission of generalized anxiety disorder from parents to
children: worries, experiential avoidance, and intolerance of
uncertainty. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 19, 137–146.
Anderson, E. C., Carleton, R. N., Diefenbach, M., & Han, P. K.
(2019). The relationship between uncertainty and affect. Fron-
tiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02504
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173.
Behar, E., Dimarco, I. D., Hekler, E. B., Mohlman, J., & Staples, A.
M. (2009). Current theoretical models of generalized anxiety
disorder (GAD): conceptual review and treatment implications.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 1011–1023. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.006
123
Psychol Stud
Bello, D. L., & Gumarao, M. (2016). Stress, coping strategies, and
academic performance of dentistry students. AUP Research
Journal, 2, 37–40.
Besharat, M., & Ramesh, S. (2017). The relationship between worry
and anger rumination with adjustment problems to heart disease:
the mediating role of difficulties in emotion regulation. Heart
and Mind, 1, 141. https://doi.org/10.4103/hm.hm_7_18
Birrell, J., Meares, K., Wilkinson, A., & Freeston, M. (2011). Toward
a definition of intolerance of uncertainty: a review of factor
analytical studies of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale.
Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1198–1208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.009
Boelen, P. A., Vrinssen, I., & van Tulder, F. (2010). Intolerance of
uncertainty in adolescents. The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 198, 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0b0
13e3181d143de
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole,
N., et al. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the
acceptance and action questionnaire–II: a revised measure of
psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior
Therapy, 42, 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.20
11.03.007
Borkovec, T., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & Depree, J. A. (1983).
Preliminary exploration of worry: some characteristics and
processes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21, 9–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(83)90121-3
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale:
psychometric properties of the English version. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 40, 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/s00
057967(01)00092-4
Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2012). Fear of emotions, experiential
avoidance, and intolerance of uncertainty in worry and gener-
alized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive
Therapy, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2012.5.1.1
Campbell-Sills, L., Ellard, K. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2015). Emotion
regulation in anxiety disorders. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of
emotion regulation. (2nd ed., pp. 203–218). The Guilford Press.
Carleton, R. N. (2016). Into the unknown: a review and synthesis of
contemporary models involving uncertainty. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 39, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.20
16.02.007
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing
the unknown: a short version of the intolerance of uncertainty
scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014
Chapman, A. L., Dixon-Gordon, K. L., & Walters, K. N. (2011).
Experiential avoidance and emotion regulation in borderline
personality disorder. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cogni-
tive-Behavior Therapy, 29, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.10
07/s10942-011-0124-6
Dugas, M. J., Gagnon, F., Ladouceur, R., & Freeston, M. H. (1998).
Generalized anxiety disorder: a preliminary test of a conceptual
model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 215–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(97)00070-3
Emerson, L.-M., Ogielda, C., & Rowse, G. (2019). The role of
experiential avoidance and parental control in the association
between parent and child anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00262
Flores, A., López, F. J., Vervliet, B., & Cobos, P. L. (2018).
Intolerance of uncertainty as a vulnerability factor for excessive
and inflexible avoidance behavior. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 104, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.02.008
Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladoucer,
R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personal and Individual
Difference, 17, 791–802.
Psychol Stud
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of
emotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factor
structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion
regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 26, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:joba.000
0007455.08539.94
Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation
in everyday life. In: D. K. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. N. Hughes
(Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to
dysfunction and health (pp. 13–35). Washington: American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11468-001
Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation
in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological
perspective. Natural Review Neuroscience, 14, 488–501.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach.
Guilford Publications.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J.,
et al. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: a preliminary
test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54,
553–578.
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., &
Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral
disorders: a functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and
treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
1152–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.64.6.1152
Hillen, M. A., Gutheil, C. M., Strout, T. D., Smets, E. M., & Han, P.
K. (2017). Tolerance of uncertainty: conceptual analysis,
integrative model, and implications for healthcare. Social
Science and Medicine, 180, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.socscimed.2017.03.024
Jacoby, R. J., Abramowitz, J. S., Reuman, L., & Blakey, S. M. (2016).
Enhancing the ecological validity of the beads task as a
behavioral measure of intolerance of uncertainty. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 41, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ja
nxdis.2016.02.003
Kumpula, M. J., Orcutt, H. K., Bardeen, J. R., & Varkovitzky, R. L.
(2011). Peritraumatic dissociation and experiential avoidance as
prospective predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 617–627. https://doi.org/10.10
37/a0023927
Lee, J. K., Orsillo, S. M., Roemer, L., & Allen, L. B. (2010). Distress
and avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: exploring the
relationships with intolerance of uncertainty and worry. Cogni-
tive Behaviour Therapy, 39, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
6506070902966918
Lewis, M., & Naugle, A. (2017). Measuring experiential avoidance:
evidence toward multidimensional predictors of trauma seque-
lae. Behavioral Sciences, 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.339
0/bs7010009
Mantler, J., Matheson, K., Anisman, H., & Matejicek, A. (2005).
Coping with employment uncertainty: strategies of employed
and unemployed workers. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 10, 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-899
8.10.3.200
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990).
Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Question-
naire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487–495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6
Mohammadkhani, P., Abasi, I., Pourshahbaz, A., Mohammadi, A., &
Fatehi, M. (2016). The role of neuroticism and experiential
avoidance in predicting anxiety and depression symptoms:
mediating effect of emotion regulation. Iranian Journal of
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 10, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.17795/ijpbs-5047
Mushtaq, F., Bland, A. R., & Schaefer, A. (2011). Uncertainty and
cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00249
Pawluk, E. J., & Koerner, N. (2013). A preliminary investigation of
impulsivity in generalized anxiety disorder. Personality and
Individual Differences, 54, 732–737. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.paid.2012.11.027
Robichaud, M., & Dugas, M. J. (2005). Negative problem orientation
(Part II): construct validity and specificity to worry. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 43(3), 403–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.brat.2004.02.008
Roemer, L., Salters, K., Raffa, S. D., & Orsillo, S. M. (2005). Fear
and avoidance of internal experiences in GAD: preliminary tests
of a conceptual model. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29,
71–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-1650-2
Salters-Pedneault, K., Roemer, L., Tull, M. T., Rucker, L., & Mennin,
D. S. (2006). Evidence of broad deficits in emotion regulation
associated with chronic worry and generalized anxiety disorder.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 469–480.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9055-4
Santanello, A. W., & Gardner, F. L. (2006). The role of experiential
avoidance in the relationship between maladaptive perfectionism
and worry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 319–332.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9000-6
Schmalz, J. E., & Murrell, A. R. (2010). Measuring experiential
avoidance in adults: the avoidance and fusion questionnaire.
International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy,
6, 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100908
Schreiber, L. R., Grant, J. E., & Odlaug, B. L. (2012). Emotion
regulation and impulsivity in young adults. Journal of Psychi-
atric Research, 46, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsy
chires.2012.02.005
Shi, R., Zhang, S., Zhang, Q., Fu, S., & Wang, Z. (2016). Experiential
avoidance mediates the association between emotion regulation
abilities and loneliness. PLoS ONE, 11, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168536
Shihata, S., Mcevoy, P. M., & Mullan, B. A. (2017). Pathways from
uncertainty to anxiety: an evaluation of a hierarchical model of
trait and disorder-specific intolerance of uncertainty on anxiety
disorder symptoms. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 45, 72–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.12.001
Shorey, R. C., Gawrysiak, M. J., Elmquist, J., Brem, M., Anderson,
S., & Stuart, G. L. (2017). Experiential avoidance, distress
tolerance, and substance use cravings among adults in residential
treatment for substance use disorders. Journal of Addictive
Diseases, 36(3), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550
887.2017.1302661
Spinhoven, P., Hemert, A. M., & Penninx, B. W. (2017). Experiential
avoidance and bordering psychological constructs as predictors
of the onset, relapse and maintenance of anxiety disorders: one
or many? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(6), 867–880.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608017-9856-7
Stapinski, L. A., Abbott, M. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2010). Fear and
perceived uncontrollability of emotion: evaluating the unique
contribution of emotion appraisal variables to prediction of
worry and generalised anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 48, 1097–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.0
7.012
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional
distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: if you
feel bad, do it! Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
53–67. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.53
Vander Haegen, M., & Etienne, A. (2016). Cognitive processes across
anxiety disorders related to intolerance of uncertainty: clinical
review. Cogent Psychology, 3, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23
311908.2016.1215773
123

Varese, F., Morrison, A. P., Beck, R., Heffernan, S., Law, H., &
Bentall, R. P. (2016). Experiential avoidance and appraisals of
voices as predictors of voice-related distress. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 55, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/b
c.12102
Wells, A. (2005). The metacognitive model of GAD: assessment of
meta-worry and relationship with DSM-IV generalized anxiety
disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-005-1652-0
Yook, K., Kim, K., Suh, S. Y., & Lee, K. S. (2010). Intolerance of
uncertainty, worry, and rumination in major depressive disorder
123
Psychol Stud
and generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
24, 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.003
Zlomke, K. R., & Hahn, K. S. (2010). Cognitive emotion regulation
strategies: gender differences and associations to worry. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 48, 408–413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.007
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.