key: cord-289498-6hf3axps
authors: Tull, Matthew T.; Barbano, Anna C.; Scamaldo, Kayla M.; Richmond, Julia R.; Edmonds, Keith A.; Rose, Jason P.; Gratz, Kim L.
title: The Prospective Influence of COVID-19 Affective Risk Assessments and Intolerance of Uncertainty on Later Dimensions of Health Anxiety
date: 2020-08-12
journal: J Anxiety Disord
DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102290
sha: 
doc_id: 289498
cord_uid: 6hf3axps

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to increase risk for the development of health anxiety. Given that elevated health anxiety can contribute to maladaptive health behaviors, there is a need to identify individual difference factors that may increase health anxiety risk. This study examined the unique and interactive relations of COVID-19 affective risk assessments (worry about risk for contracting/dying from COVID-19) and intolerance of uncertainty to later health anxiety dimensions. A U.S. community sample of 364 participants completed online self-report measures at a baseline assessment (Time 1) and one month later (Time 2). Time 1 intolerance of uncertainty was uniquely associated with the Time 2 health anxiety dimension of body vigilance. Time 1 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty were uniquely associated with later perceived likelihood that an illness would be acquired and anticipated negative consequences of an illness. The latter finding was qualified by a significant interaction, such that affective risk assessments were positively associated with anticipated negative consequences of having an illness only among participants with mean and low levels of intolerance of uncertainty. Results speak to the relevance of different risk factors for health anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight targets for reducing health anxiety risk.

Beginning in late 2019, a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus began to rapidly spread across the globe, becoming an unprecedented public health event (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] , 2020; World Health Organization [WHO], 2020b). On January 30, 2020, the WHO announced that COVID-19 was a public health emergency of international concern, and in March 2020, pandemic status was reached. Currently, over 14 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been reported worldwide, and over 600,000 people have died from the disease (CDC, 2020; WHO, 2020b) . Within the U.S. alone, there have been over 3.7 million confirmed cases of COVID-19, with over 140,000 mortalities attributed to the virus (CDC, 2020) . Due to COVID-19's long incubation period, ease of transmission, high mortality rate (relative to the seasonal flu), and lack of pharmacological interventions (Linton et al., 2020; Shereen, Khan, Kazmi, Bashir, & Siddique, 2020) , governments worldwide have had to implement extraordinary physical distancing interventions in an attempt to slow the spread of the virus, reduce COVID-19 mortality rates, and minimize the burden on the health care system.

Within the U.S., implementation of stay-at-home orders began in mid-March 2020, with most states having such orders in place by early April 2020 (Mervosh, Lu, & Swales, 2020) . Although no vaccine or established treatments for COVID-19 are currently available, strict stay-at-home orders within the U.S. are beginning to ease. Specifically, all 50 states have taken steps to reopen businesses throughout May 2020, with most moving to rescind stringent stay-at-home orders in sensations (e.g., muscle soreness, shortness of breath, sore throat) as an indication of illness, infection, or some other threat to physical health Taylor & Asmundson, 2004) . At high levels, health anxiety may contribute to increased body vigilance, catastrophic misinterpretation of bodily sensations, and illness behavior (e.g., reassurance seeking on the internet, frequent and unnecessary visits to a doctor or emergency room, excessive collection of personal protective equipment; Asmundson et al., 2010; Asmundson & Taylor, 2002b; Taylor & Asmundson, 2004) . In the context of a pandemic, individuals with elevated health anxiety may be particularly likely to experience an increase in awareness and catastrophic misinterpretation of bodily sensations that result in maladaptive safety-seeking behavior (Asmundson & Taylor, 2020b; Taylor, 2019) . For example, a recent study found that health anxiety was associated with COVID-19 related anxiety and cyberchondria (i.e., the repeated carrying out of health-related Internet searches in an attempt to obtain reassurance or reduce health-related anxiety ; Jungmann & Witthöft, 2002) . Given the potential negative consequences associated with health anxietyrelated behaviors in the context of a pandemic (e.g., increased doctor visits may overwhelm the health care system, stockpiling of personal protective equipment may decrease or eliminate its availability to others in need), there is a need to identify individual difference factors that may increase risk for health anxiety in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic.

One such risk factor for health anxiety may be an individual's perceived likelihood of becoming infected with or dying from COVID-19. Past research has found that individuals with elevated healthy anxiety are more likely to cognitively overestimate their risk for illness (Hadjistavropoulos, Craig, & Hadjistavropoulos, 1998; Marcus & Church, 2003) . However, health behavior models are increasingly highlighting the relevance of affect-laden risk or vulnerability assessments (vs. more cognitively-based assessments where individuals J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 6 deliberately estimate the probability or likelihood of a particular health event) to psychological outcomes, emphasizing the relative importance of the extent to which individuals feel that they are at risk for or worry about certain health events (i.e., affective risk assessments; Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001; Janssen, van Osch, Lechner, Candel, & de Vries, 2012; Janssen, Waters, van Osch, Lechner, & de Vries, 2012) . For example, Janssen, van Osch, et al. (2012) found that affective risk assessments about cancer risk were more strongly related to cancerspecific health anxiety than cognitive risk assessments. Likewise, affective risk assessments have been found to be more highly related to behavioral intentions and health behaviors than cognitive risk assessments (Janssen, van Osch, et al., 2012; Janssen, Waters, et al., 2012) . Given evidence that worry states may increase attentional bias to threatening stimuli (Mogg & Bradley, 2005; Mogg, Mathews, & Eysenck, 1992) , individuals who experience greater worry about their perceived risk for COVID-19 infection and mortality may be more likely to notice and attend to bodily sensations that could be indicative of COVID-19 infection (e.g., muscle pain, shortness of breath, cough, chills), resulting in increased health anxiety over time.

Given the unpredictability and variability associated with COVID-19 symptom presentations, as well as the potentially long incubation period associated with this virus (i.e., symptoms may present themselves anywhere from 2 to 14 days following exposure), the association between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and health anxiety may be particularly strong for individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty. Intolerance of uncertainty is broadly defined as a cognitive and emotional tendency to react negatively to uncertain situations or unpredictable future events (Freeston, Rhéaume, Letarte, Dugas, & Ladouceur, 1994) , and has been identified as a key factor in the development and maintenance of problematic worry (Buhr & Dugas, 2006; Dugas, Freeston, & Ladouceur, 1997; Freeston et al., 1994) . In addition to J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 7 demonstrating a relationship with numerous anxiety disorders (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Carleton et al., 2012; Gentes & Ruscio, 2011; Holaway, Heimberg, & Coles, 2006) , intolerance of uncertainty has been associated with increased health anxiety and catastrophic health appraisals. Inhibitory facets of intolerance of uncertainty (e.g., diminished functioning in the face of uncertainty) have been shown to predict health anxiety among medically healthy communitydwelling adults (Fergus & Bardeen, 2013) . Further, intolerance of uncertainty has been found to moderate the relationship between the frequency of Internet searches for health information and health anxiety among medically healthy adults in the community (Fergus, 2013) . Research has also found that intolerance of uncertainty moderates the relationship between catastrophic health appraisals and health anxiety among medically healthy college students, with this relationship emerging as significant only among individuals with high intolerance of uncertainty (Fergus & Valentiner, 2011) . More recently, Asmundson and Taylor (2020a) identified intolerance of uncertainty as a potential individual difference factor that may increase risk for COVID-19 related anxiety. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, high intolerance of uncertainty may further exacerbate worry and negative affect associated with perceived risk for COVID-19 infection and mortality, contributing to heightened health anxiety. Moreover, given that intolerance of uncertainty may increase the likelihood that ambiguous experiences are perceived as threatening (Byrne, Hunt, & Chang, 2015) , high COVID-19 affective risk perceptions may be more likely to prompt catastrophic misinterpretations of benign bodily sensations as an indication of illness.

The goals of the present study were to examine the prospective relations of COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty to health anxiety dimensions one month J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f later, as well as the moderating role of intolerance of uncertainty in the relations of COVID-19 affective risk perceptions to later health anxiety. We predicted that both COVID-19 affective risk perceptions and intolerance of uncertainty would predict later health anxiety dimensions, controlling for health anxiety at baseline. Further, we predicted that the relationship between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and health anxiety would be strongest among individuals with high (vs. mean or low) levels of intolerance of uncertainty.

Participants were a nationwide community sample of 364 adults from 44 states in the U.S. who completed a prospective online study of health and coping in response to through an internet-based platform (Amazon's Mechanical Turk; MTurk). Participants completed an initial assessment (Time 1) from March 27, 2020 through April 5, 2020, and a follow-up assessment (Time 2) approximately one month later between April 27, 2020 and May 21, 2020. The study was posted to MTurk via CloudResearch (cloudresearch.com), an online crowdsourcing platform connected to MTurk that allows additional data collection features (e.g., creating selection criteria; Chandler, Rosenzweig, Moss, Robinson, & Litman, 2019; Litman, Robinson, & Abberbock, 2017) . MTurk is an online labor market that provides "workers" with the opportunity to complete different tasks in exchange for monetary compensation, such as completing questionnaires for research. Data provided by MTurk-recruited participants have been found to be as reliable as data collected through more traditional methods (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) . Likewise, MTurk-recruited participants have been found to perform better on attention check items than college student samples (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016) and comparably to participants completing the same tasks in a laboratory setting (Casler, Bickel, & J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 9

Hackett, 2013). Studies also show that MTurk samples have the advantage of being more diverse than other internet-recruited or college student samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Casler et al., 2013) . For the present study, inclusion criteria consisted of: (1) U.S. resident, (2) at least a 95% approval rating as an MTurk worker, (3) Participants (51.4% women; 47.5% men; 0.5% non-binary; 0.3% transgender, 0.3% other) ranged in age from 20 to 74 years (M = 41.45, SD = 12.02) at the initial assessment. All states in the U.S. were represented, with the exception of Delaware, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. The most frequently endorsed states of residence were Florida (11.3%), California (9.1%), Pennsylvania (6.3%), Texas (6.0%), and New York (5.2%). Most participants identified as White (84.9%), followed by Black/African-American (9.1%), Asian/Asian-American (6.3%), Latinx (3.8%), and Native American (1.4%). With regard to other participant demographic characteristics at the Time 1 assessment, 11% of participants had completed high school or received a GED, 38.2% had attended some college or technical school, 41.5% had graduated from college, and 9.3% had advanced graduate/professional degrees. Most participants were employed full-time (68.1%), followed by employed part-time (16.5%) and unemployed (15.3%). Annual household income varied, with 31.3% of participants reporting an income of < $35,000, 31.6% reporting an income of $35,000 to $64,999, and 37.1%

reporting an income of > $65,000. Finally, 19% of participants reported having a current medical condition (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, asthma) that would increase risk of complications from a COVID-19 infection and 20.9% reported living alone. Across both assessments, few participants J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 10 reported having sought out testing for COVID-19 (3%) or having a confirmed COVID-19 infection (0.3%).

A demographic form was completed by all participants at the Time 1 and Time 2 assessments. Information collected from the demographic form included age, sex, gender, racial/ethnic background, income level, highest level of education attained, employment status, the number of people in the household, state of residence, current medical conditions that could increase risk for susceptibility to and/or complications from COVID-19, whether participants had sought out testing for COVID-19, and whether participants had been infected with COVID-19.

COVID-19 affective risk was assessed at Time 1 using a 3-item self-report measure specifically created for this study. Participants responded to questions about COVID-19-related worry about risk (i.e., "How worried are you about your level of risk…") in three domains: (a) contracting COVID-19, (b) dying from COVID-19, and (c) spreading COVID-19 to others (should they have it). Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all worried) to 5 (extremely worried). Research using similar self-report items (e.g., Klein, 2002; Rose, 2010) has shown that affective risk assessments are highly correlated with behavioral intentions and health behaviors. Given that few participants in this sample reported having a confirmed COVID-19 infection, as well as our interest in evaluating personal affective risk assessments (vs. assessments of others' risks), only the items pertaining to contracting and dying from COVID-19 were used. These items were summed to create a COVID-19 affective risk index. Internal consistency was acceptable in this sample (α = .87).

The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-Short Form (IUS-12; Carleton, Norton, & Asmundson, 2007) was used to assess intolerance of uncertainty at the Time 1 assessment. The IUS-12 is a 12-item measure that assesses prospective and inhibitory anxiety. This scale was adapted from the 27-item Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (Freeston et al., 1994) that was originally designed to measure six elements related to the inability to withstand uncertainty (i.e., emotional and behavioral consequences of being uncertain, beliefs that uncertainty reflects one's character, expectations that the future is predictable, frustration when the future is not predictable, efforts aimed at controlling the future, and inflexible responses during uncertain situations). Example items include, "A small unforeseen event can spoil everything, even with the best of planning," and "I can't stand being taken by surprise." Participants rate the extent to which they agree with each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = "Not at all characteristic of me;" 2 = "A little characteristic of me;" 3 = "Somewhat characteristic of me;" 4 = "Very characteristic of me;" 5 = "Entirely characteristic of me"). For the present study, responses to each item were summed to create an overall index of intolerance of uncertainty, with possible scores ranging from 12-60 and higher scores reflecting greater intolerance of uncertainty.

Although Carleton et al. (2007) found that the IUS-12 has a stable two-factor structure, recent studies have demonstrated that the majority of the measure's variance is accounted for by a single latent variable; consequently, it is recommended that a single, overall IUS-12 score is used (Hale et al., 2016; Lauriola, Mosca, & Carleton, 2016; Shihata, McEvoy, & Mullan, 2018) .

There is evidence for the reliability and construct validity of the IUS-12 within non-clinical and community samples (Carleton et al., 2007; Carleton, Collimore, & Asmundson, 2010; Lauriola et al., 2016) . Internal consistency for this measure in this sample was acceptable (α = .95).

The Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI; Salkovskis, Rimes, Warwick, & Clark, 2002) is an 18-item measure that was used to assess different dimensions of health anxiety at the Time 1 and Time 2 assessments. The SHAI was modified to assess health J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 12 anxiety symptoms over the past week (vs. the past 6-months on the original measure). found that the SHAI assesses three dimensions of health anxiety: (a) illness likelihood (i.e., the perceived likelihood that a serious illness will be acquired, as well as intrusive thoughts about one's health; 10 items); (b) body vigilance (i.e., attention to bodily sensations or changes in bodily sensations; 3 items); and (c) illness severity (i.e., anticipated burden, impairment, or negative consequences associated with having a serious illness; 4 items). Depression and anxiety symptom severity at Time 1 were assessed using the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) . The current study utilized the depression and anxiety symptom severity subscales as covariates. The DASS-21 is a self-report measure that assesses the unique symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. Participants rate the items on a 4-point Likert-type scale indicating how much each item applied to them in the past week (0 = "Did not apply to me at all;" 1 = "Applied to me some of the time;" 2 = "Applied to me a good part of the time;" 3 = "Applied to me most of the time").

This measure has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 13 Swinson, 1998; Roemer, 2001) . Internal consistency of the depression (α = .93) and anxiety (α = .89) symptom severity subscales in this sample were acceptable.

All procedures received prior approval from the University of Toledo's Institutional Review Board. To ensure that the study was not being completed by a bot (i.e., an automated computer program used to complete simple tasks), participants responded to a Completely Automatic Public Turing test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA) at the Time 1 assessment prior to providing informed consent. Participants were also informed on the consent form that "…we have put in place a number of safeguards to ensure that participants provide valid and accurate data for this study. If we have strong reason to believe your data are invalid, your responses will not be approved or paid and your data will be discarded." Initial data were collected in blocks of nine participants at a time and all data, including attention check items and geolocations, were examined by researchers before compensation was provided. Attention check items included three explicit requests embedded within the questionnaires (e.g., "If you are paying attention, choose '2' for this question"), two multiple-choice questions (e.g., "How many words are in this sentence?"), a math problem (e.g., "What is 4 plus 2?"), and a free-response item (e.g., "Please briefly describe in a few sentences what you did in this study"). Participants who failed one or more attention check items were removed from the study (n = 53 of 553 completers of the Time 1 assessment). Workers who completed the initial assessment and whose data were considered valid (based on attention check items and geolocations; N = 500) were compensated $3.00 for their participation and invited to participate in the one-month follow-up assessment.

Health Anxiety During COVID-19 14

One-month following completion of the Time 1 assessment, participants were contacted via CloudResearch (Litman et al., 2017) to complete the Time 2 assessment. This online platform allows researchers to email participants a link to follow-up assessments while maintaining anonymity (i.e., study personnel never see email addresses) by using their Amazon Worker ID numbers (provided by MTurk). Of the 500 participants who completed the initial assessment, 77% (n = 386) completed the follow-up assessment. There were no significant differences in Time 1 intolerance of uncertainty or health anxiety dimensions between participants who completed (vs. did not complete) the follow-up assessment (ps > .11); however, participants Procedures for assessing the validity of the Time 2 data (i.e., examining attention check items and geolocations) were similar to those used for the Time 1 assessment. Participants who failed two or more attention check items at the Time 2 assessment were removed from the study (n = 3); the remainder were compensated $3.00 for their participation. In addition, two participants were excluded for non-reconcilable differences in demographic data between the Time 1 and Time 2 assessments, and 17 additional participants were excluded for incomplete data on the primary variables of interest, resulting in a final sample size of 364. 

Results of the hierarchical linear regression analyses examining the main and interactive effects of Time 1 COVID-19 affective risk and intolerance of uncertainty on Time 2 health anxiety dimensions are presented in Table 2 .

The overall model was significant, accounting for 61% of the variance in the Time 2 illness likelihood dimension of health anxiety, F (4, 359) = 141.14, p < .001, f = 1.24. The addition of Time 1 COVID-19 affective risk and intolerance of uncertainty in the second step of the model accounted for additional significant variance in Time 2 illness likelihood above and beyond Time 1 illness likelihood, ΔR 2 = .02, F (2, 360) = 11.04, p < .001, f = .24, with both variables demonstrating a significant unique positive association with Time 2 illness likelihood.

The addition of the interaction term did not significantly improve the model, ΔR 2 = .001, F (1, 359) = 1.38, p = .242, f = .03. The addition of the interaction term did not significantly improve the model, ΔR 2 = .00, F (1, 359) = .15, p = .697, f = .00.

The overall model was significant, accounting for 55% of the variance in the Time 2 To ensure that the significant interaction could not be attributed to other demographic or psychiatric variables, the regression analysis was rerun with the following covariates included in 

This study sought to examine the unique and interactive prospective relations of COVID-19 affective risk assessments (i.e., worry about risk for contracting or dying from and intolerance of uncertainty to health anxiety one month later. Hypotheses were partially supported. First, as predicted, COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty at Time 1 were uniquely associated with later perceived likelihood that a serious illness would be acquired (i.e., illness likelihood subscale on the SHAI) and anticipated negative consequences of having a serious illness (i.e., illness severity subscale on the SHAI). These findings are consistent with past research demonstrating relationships between health anxiety and both intolerance of uncertainty (e.g., and concerns regarding perceived vulnerability to disease (e.g., Duncan, Schaller, & Park, 2009 ). However, only intolerance of uncertainty at Time 1 was found to be uniquely associated with Time 2 body vigilance. The items assessing body vigilance on the SHAI focus on bodily sensations in general or aches and pains. Although worry and anxiety regarding risk for contracting or dying from COVID-19 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 19 would be expected to amplify sensitivity to bodily sensations (consistent with a seek to avoid process; Barlow, 2002) , it is possible that this process might be more evident for bodily sensations that are specifically associated with COVID-19 infection (e.g., fever, shortness of breath, headache). However, as an individual difference factor that is not unique to COVID-19, intolerance of uncertainty may be more likely to increase awareness of bodily sensations in general to identify any potential sources of health threat, thus increasing a sense of certainty, control, or predictability.

Contrary to hypotheses, intolerance of uncertainty was not found to moderate the association between Time 1 COVID-19 affective risk assessments and Time 2 illness likelihood or body vigilance. In addition, although intolerance of uncertainty was found to moderate the association between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and Time 2 illness severity, the nature of this interaction was different than what was predicted. Specifically, Time 1 COVID-19 affective risk assessments were significantly positively associated with Time 2 illness severity only at mean and low levels of intolerance of uncertainty. At high levels of intolerance of uncertainty, no significant association was found between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and health anxiety. This finding highlights the multiple ways in which individuals may develop anxiety surrounding the potential negative consequences associated with illness. Even in the absence of an established vulnerability for the development of health anxiety (i.e., intolerance of uncertainty), elevated worry about risk for contracting or dying from COVID-19 appears to be sufficient for the greater anticipation of negative consequences associated with having an illness.

The experience of frequent worry thoughts surrounding risk for COVID-19 infection or mortality may increase health anxiety by contributing to the increased generation of potential catastrophic outcomes that could occur if one were infected with the virus. Indeed, in other health conditions J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f (e.g., irritable bowel syndrome), worry has been found to contribute to increased suffering through catastrophizing (Lackner & Quigley, 2005) . However, among individuals high in intolerance of uncertainty, COVID-19 affective risk assessments seem less relevant to later health anxiety, providing further evidence that intolerance of uncertainty may be a strong risk factor for the development or exacerbation of health anxiety. Such a finding is consistent with previous research showing that intolerance of uncertainty predicts health anxiety above and beyond other established anxiety risk factors (e.g., anxiety sensitivity, negative affect; Fergus & Bardeen, 2013) .

Study limitations warrant consideration. First, all outcomes were assessed using selfreport questionnaires, which have the potential to be influenced by social desirability biases or recall difficulties. In addition, we used an unpublished, two-item measure developed specifically for the purposes of this study to assess COVID-19 affective risk assessments. Although this measure demonstrated associations with our other variables in the expected direction, it is possible that our measure did not provide a comprehensive evaluation of COVID-19 affective risk assessments. At the time this study began, other validated measures of COVID-19 affective risk assessments were not available. However, since that time, several measures have been published that may provide a better assessment of COVID-19 affective risk assessments or the stress and anxiety associated with COVID-19 more generally, such as the COVID Stress Scales (Taylor et al., 2020) and the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale . In addition, our measures of intolerance of uncertainty and health anxiety were not specific to COVID-19; thus, findings cannot speak to the extent to which intolerance of uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic in particular influences anxiety surrounding the experience and consequences of COVID-19 related bodily sensations. In addition, given our recruitment methods and sample J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Health Anxiety During COVID-19 21 (i.e., self-selected MTurk workers), results may also not generalize to the larger U.S. population, adults in other countries, or particularly vulnerable populations (e.g., individuals with chronic medical conditions; health care workers; hospitalized patients). Replication of our findings is needed within other samples.

In addition, although COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty were found to predict later health anxiety, it is important to note that average health anxiety levels at Time 2 were not at clinical levels (mean SHAI scores among individuals with hypochondriasis = 32.58; Alberts et al., 2013) . Moreover, it is not clear if the levels of health anxiety observed in this study are associated with engagement in adaptive or maladaptive health behaviors. Health anxiety is conceptualized as a dimensional variable (Taylor & Asmundson, 2004) , and moderate levels of health anxiety may be functional in the context of a pandemic, increasing motivation to engage in protective behaviors such as social distancing, hand washing, and wearing a mask when outside of the home. Studies employing multiple follow-up assessments are needed to determine whether the health anxiety stemming from COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty predicts later engagement in adaptive or maladaptive health behaviors. Likewise, research is needed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health anxiety within more vulnerable populations, such as individuals with pre-existing illness anxiety disorder or generalized anxiety disorder.

Despite limitations, findings lend support to the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic will result in elevated health anxiety (Asmundson & Taylor, 2020b) , and add to the growing body of literature on the mental health consequences of this pandemic (Cao et al., 2020; González-Sanguino et al., 2020; Harper et al., 2020; Huang & Zhao, 2020; Jungmann & Witthöft, 2020; Lee et al., 2020; McKay et al., 2020; Moghanibashi-Mansourieh, 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Specifically, our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty are uniquely associated with various dimensions of health anxiety one month later. Moreover, in addition to providing further evidence that high levels of intolerance of uncertainty may increase risk for later health anxiety, results highlight one pathway (i.e., affective-based risk assessments) through which individuals without high levels of intolerance of uncertainty may still be susceptible to later health anxiety during this time. Specifically, the extent to which individuals feel that they are at risk for COVID-19 infection and death was associated with elevated health anxiety one-month later among individuals with mean and low levels of intolerance of uncertainty. As such, findings highlight a number of potential targets for preventing the development of severe health anxiety that could lead to maladaptive behaviors during the current pandemic. For example, acceptance-and mindfulness-based behavioral interventions (e.g., acceptance-based behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder; Roemer, Orsillo, & Salters-Pedneault, 2008 ) may be particularly useful for addressing worry about risk for contracting or dying from COVID-19. Psychoeducation on effective behaviors for mitigating risk for COVID-19 infection may also reduce worry, and ultimately health anxiety, by modifying risk assessments and increasing a sense of control. Cognitive-behavioral interventions that specifically target intolerance of uncertainty (e.g., Hebert & Dugas, 2019; Ladouceur et al., 2000) may also have utility in reducing risk for future health anxiety during this particularly stressful and indeed uncertain time.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 

The Short Health Anxiety Inventory: Psychometric properties and construct validity in a non-clinical sample

Health anxiety, hypochondriasis, and the anxiety disorders

The Short Health Anxiety Inventory: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample

Health anxiety: Current perspectives and future directions

Coronaphobia: Fear and the 2019-nCoV outbreak

How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to know

Anxiety and its disorders

Intolerance of uncertainty and social anxiety

Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry

Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?

Comparing the roles of ambiguity and unpredictability in intolerance of uncertainty

The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China

It's not just the judgements-It's that I don't know": Intolerance of uncertainty as a predictor of social anxiety

Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression

Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale

Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk

Intolerance of uncertainty and problem orientation in worry

Perceived vulnerability to disease: Development and validation of a 15-item self-report instrument

Cyberchondria and intolerance of uncertainty: examining when individuals experience health anxiety in response to Internet searches for medical information

Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty: Evidence of incremental specificity in relation to health anxiety

Intolerance of uncertainty moderates the relationship between catastrophic health appraisals and health anxiety

The consequences of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and implications for clinical practice

Why do people worry

A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder

Mental health problems and social media exposure during the COVID-19 outbreak

Cognitive and behavioral responses to illness information: the role of health anxiety

Resolving uncertainty about the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12: Application of modern psychometric strategies

Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic

Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants

Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach

Behavioral experiments for intolerance of uncertainty: Challenging the unknown in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder

A comparison of intolerance of uncertainty in analogue obsessive-compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder

Generalized anxiety disorder, depressive symptoms and sleep quality during COVID-19 outbreak in China: A web-based cross-sectional survey

Thinking versus feeling: Differentiating between cognitive and affective components of perceived cancer risk

The importance of affectively-laden beliefs about health risks: The case of tobacco use and sun protection

Health anxiety, cyberchondria, and coping in the current COVID-19 pandemic: Which factors are related to coronavirus anxiety?

The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis

Comparative risk estimates relative to the average peer predict behavioral intentions and concern about absolute risk

Pain catastrophizing mediates the relationship between worry and pain suffering in patients with irritable bowel syndrome

Efficacy of a cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: Evaluation in a controlled clinical trial

Hierarchical factor structure of the intolerance of uncertainty scale short form (IUS-12) in the Italian version

Clinically significant fear and anxiety of COVID-19: A psychometric examination of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale

Incubation period and other epidemiological characteristics of 2019 novel coronavirus infections with right truncation: a statistical analysis of publicly available case data

TurkPrime. com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences

Risk as feelings

Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales

Are dysfunctional beliefs about illness unique to hypochondriasis?

Anxiety regarding contracting COVID-19 related to interoceptive anxiety sensations: The moderating role of disgust propensity and sensitivity

See how all 50 states are reopening

See which states and cities have told residents to stay at home

Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus depressive disorder

Attentional bias to threat in clinical anxiety states

Assessing the anxiety level of Iranian general population during COVID-19 outbreak

Suicide mortality and coronavirus disease 2019-a perfect storm

Practitioner's guide to empirically based measures of anxiety

Efficacy of an acceptance-based behavior therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: Evaluation in a randomized controlled

Are direct or indirect measures of comparative risk better predictors of concern and behavioural intentions?

The Health Anxiety Inventory: Development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis

COVID-19 infection: Origin, transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses

A bifactor model of intolerance of uncertainty in undergraduate and clinical samples: do we need to reconsider the twofactor model? Psychological Assessment

The psychology of pandemics: Preparing for the next global outbreak of infectious disease

Treating health anxiety: A cognitive-behavioral approach

Development and initial validation of the COVID Stress Scales

Mental health and psychosocial considerations during the COVID-19 outbreak

Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic: What every clinician should know

The differential psychological distress of populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic

17 * .45 ** .28 ** .23 ** .41 ** .22 ** .26 ** 2. T1 IUS

27 ** .46 ** .41 ** .28 ** .53 **

T1 Illness Likelihood

T1 Body Vigilance

T1 Illness Severity

T2 Illness Likelihood

T2 Body Vigilance

T2 Illness Likelihood

Affective Risk = COVID-19 Affective Risk Assessments

IUS = Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale; Illness Likelihood = Short Health Anxiety Inventory Illness Likelihood Subscale; Body Vigilance = Short Health Anxiety Inventory Body Vigilance Subscale; Illness Severity = Short Health Anxiety Inventory Illness Severity Subscale