中国科学院心理研究所机构知识库

摘要

目的考察不确定性容忍度(intolerance of uncertainty，IU)对中、低特质焦虑大学生的状态担忧、状态焦虑以及皮肤电反应的影响。

方法采用特质焦虑量表(trait anxiety inventory，TAI)和不确定性容忍度量表(intolerance of uncertainty scale，IUS)对北京地区1 378名高校学生进行调查，筛选出中、低特质焦虑个体(TAI得分≤54分)537名，再从中筛选高IU个体(IUS得分≤58分)和低IU个体(IUS得分>58分)，按照性别、年龄、受教育程度、IU得分配对分配到不确定组(n＝28)和确定组(n＝28)中，完成改编的NPU范式任务并填写简版宾州状态担忧量表(Penn state worry questionnaire，PSWQ)、简版状态焦虑量表(brief state anxiety measurement，BSAM)，记录个体完成NPU范式任务时的皮肤电反应。使用SPSS 26.0进行两因素(分类：高IU、低IU；组别：不确定组、确定组)方差分析。

结果两因素方差分析结果显示，个体的状态担忧分类与组别的交互作用不显著[F(1，55)＝0.05，P>0.05，η2＝2.16]。分类主效应显著[F(1，55)＝24.17，P<0.05，η2＝1 143.01]，高IU个体的担忧程度显著低于低IU个体(P<0.05)，组别主效应不显著[F(1，55)＝0.03，P>0.05，η2＝1.45]，不确定组和确定组在状态担忧方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。个体的状态焦虑分类与组别的交互作用结果显著[F(1，55)＝4.38，P<0.05，η2＝3.02]；简单分析结果显示，在不确定组中，高IU个体的状态焦虑显著低于低IU个体(P<0.05)；在确定组中，高、低IU个体的状态焦虑差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。个体的皮肤电反应分类与组别的交互作用结果不显著[F(1，55)＝0.03，P>0.05，η2＝0.00]。分类主效应不显著[F(1，55)＝0.07，P>0.05，η2＝0.00]，高、低IU个体的皮肤电活动差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；但组别主效应显著[F(1，55)＝4.86，P<0.05，η2＝0.03]，不确定组的皮肤电活动高于确定组(P<0.05)。

结论在中、低特质焦虑大学生群体中，IU是个体在不确定条件下状态担忧和状态焦虑程度的有效预测源。

ABSTRACT

ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of intolerance of uncertainty (IU) on state worry, state anxiety, and galvanic skin response in college students with medium and low trait anxiety.

MethodsThe trait anxiety inventory (TAI) and the intolerance of uncertainty scale (IUS) were used to investigate 1 378 college students in Beijing. A total of 537 individuals with medium or low trait anxiety (TAI score ≤54) were selected, from which high IU individuals (IUS score ≤58) and low IU individuals (IUS score > 58) were selected and allocated to uncertain group (n=28) and certain group (n=28) according to gender, age, education level and IU score. The modified NPU paradigm task, the penn state worry questionnaire(PSWQ)and the brief state anxiety measurement(BSAM) were used to assess the subjects' worry and anxiety.The galvanic skin response of individuals completing the NPU paradigm task was recorded.SPSS 26.0 was used for a two factor analysis of variance (classification: high IU, low IU; group: uncertain group, certain group).

ResultsThe results of the two factor analysis of variance showed that the interaction between individual state anxiety classification and group was not significant(F(1, 55)=0.05, P>0.05, η2=2.16). The main effect of classification was significant(F(1, 55)=24.17, P<0.05, η2=1143.01). The anxiety level of individuals with high IU was significantly lower than that of individuals with low IU(P<0.05). The group main effect was not significant(F(1, 55)=0.03, P>0.05, η2=1.45), and there was no significant difference between the uncertainty group and the certainty group in terms of worry(P>0.05). The interaction between individual state anxiety classification and group was significant (F(1, 55)=4.38, P<0.05, η2=3.02). The simple analysis results showed that in the uncertain group, the state anxiety of individuals with high IU was significantly lower than that of individuals with low IU (P<0.05). In the certain group, there was no significant difference in state anxiety between individuals with high and low IU (P>0.05). The interaction between individual galvanic skin response classification and group was not significant (F(1, 55)=0.03, P>0.05, η2=0.00). The classification main effect was not significant(F(1, 55)=0.07, P>0.05, η2=0.00), and there was no significant difference in skin electrical activity between individuals with high and low IU (P>0.05). But the main effect of the group was significant(F(1, 55)=4.86, P<0.05, η2=0.03). The skin electrical activity of the uncertain group was higher than that of the certain group(P<0.05).

ConclusionIn the college students with medium and low trait anxiety, IU is an effective predictor of individual state worry and state anxiety under uncertain conditions.