ANNEX (DECLASSIFIED APPENDIX)

Pattern model across layers: individual → group → institution.

Executive Pattern Summary

A multi-level feedback pattern where threat/uncertainty increases motivation for closure and control; control strategies increase rigidity and avoidance; downstream costs and conflict elevate perceived threat—reinforcing the cycle.

Canonical mapping: Threat/Uncertainty ≈ Fear ignition → Closure/Control ≈ Fixation/Control → Costs/Conflict ≈ Suffering → Avoidance/Justification ≈ Denial/Virtue wrapper → heightened threat ≈ Return to Fear.

Rosser, B.A. Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Transdiagnostic Mechanism of Psychological Difficulties: A Systematic Review of Evidence Pertaining to Causality and Temporal Precedence. Cogn Ther Res 43, 438–463 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-9964-z

Construct Cards (Index)

[01] Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU)

Definition: difficulty enduring “not knowing,” producing cognitive/emotional/behavioral reactions aimed at reducing uncertainty.

Signature: urgency, overplanning, avoidance, “I need certainty now.”

Link: Fear ignition + fixation preference.

Rosser, B.A. Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Transdiagnostic Mechanism of Psychological Difficulties: A Systematic Review of Evidence Pertaining to Causality and Temporal Precedence. Cogn Ther Res 43, 438–463 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-9964-z

[02] Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC)

Definition: motivation to reach a definite answer and end further information processing—even at the expense of nuance.

Signature: fast judgments, intolerance of contradiction, “one correct way.”

Link: Fixation over exploration; “freeze the answer.”

https://sjdm.org/dmidi/Need_for_%28Cognitive%29_Closure_Scale.html

[03] Compensatory Control (CCT)

Definition: when personal control feels threatened, people increase preference for external structure, order, hierarchy, and pattern-perception.

Signature: authority hunger, rule-worship, comfort in hierarchy under stress.

Link: Fear → Control conversion.

https://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Kayetal_2009.pdf

[04] Experiential Avoidance

Definition: attempts to avoid/escape unwanted inner experiences (thoughts, feelings, sensations), even when it creates long-term harm.

Signature: suppression, numbing, projection, “anything but feeling this.”

Link: Denial maintenance (inner-loop fuel).

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. C., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: A revised measure of psychological flexibility and acceptance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676-688.

[05] Psychological Flexibility (ACT model)

Definition: contacting the present moment more fully and persisting/changing behavior in service of chosen values despite distress.

Signature: tolerance of uncertainty + values-driven action + reduced avoidance.

Link: reality-overlay analog for the KHATARA counter-trajectory.

Hayes SC, Levin ME, Plumb-Vilardaga J, Villatte JL, Pistorello J. Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behav Ther. 2013 Jun;44(2):180-98. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002. Epub 2011 Jun 1. PMID: 23611068; PMCID: PMC3635495.

[06] System Justification (SJT)

Definition: motivation to defend/legitimize the status quo, including unequal systems, often intensified under threat.

Signature: critique = disloyalty; “this is just how things are”; stability as moral good.

Link: Virtue wrapper + system self-sealing.

(2010). System justification theory. In J. M. Levine, M. A. Hogg (Eds.) Encyclopedia of group processes & intergroup relations (pp. 889-891). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412972017.n275

[07] Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) / Intergroup Threat

Definition: negative attitudes intensify when groups perceive realistic (resources/safety) or symbolic (values/identity) threats.

Signature: “difference = danger,” moral contamination narratives, identity defense.

Link: “difference framed as danger” (system justification amplifier).

Croucher, S.  (2017, July 27). Integrated Threat Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2026, from https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-490.

[08] Group Polarization

Definition: group discussion among like-minded members can push opinions toward more extreme positions than individuals initially held.

Signature: certainty inflation, hardening norms, reduced nuance in groups.

Link: Loop acceleration at social scale.

Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1975). The Polarizing Effect of Group Discussion: The discovery that discussion tends to enhance the average prediscussion tendency has stimulated new insights about the nature of group influence. American Scientist, 63(3), 297–303. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27845465

[09] Moral Panic Dynamics

Definition: heightened public fear about a perceived threat to social values/safety, amplified through media/moral entrepreneurship, often leading to control responses.

Signature: disproportionate alarm, fast moralization, demand for punitive policy.

Link: “fear weaponized to create order.”

https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/90810-dual-panic-theory-new-insight-into-moral-panics/attachment/188680.pdf

Mechanism (Three-Layer Loop)

[L1] Individual: Closure–Control Loop

  1. Uncertainty/threat (IU spike)

  2. Closure/control seeking (NFCC + CCT pull)

  3. Rigidity/avoidance costs (relationship strain, narrowed behavior)

  4. Defensive maintenance (experiential avoidance)

  5. Threat perception increases → loop restarts

[L2] Group: Consensus Amplification Layer

  1. Polarization increases extremity and certainty

  2. Threat framing (symbolic/realistic) elevates hostility to difference

  3. Moral panic accelerates demand for control solutions

[L3] Institution: System Defense Layer

  1. System justification makes systems self-sealing against critique

  2. Control infrastructure normalizes rigidity (surveillance framed as safety; dissent framed as threat)

6-D. Indicators Rubric (Rapid Assessment)

Individual indicators

  • urgency to end ambiguity; intolerance of contradiction

  • rule/authority reliance under stress (compensatory control)

  • suppression/avoidance of inner experience

Group indicators

  • certainty inflation + extremity drift (polarization)

  • “difference = threat” narratives (intergroup threat)

  • rapid moralization → control demands (moral panic)

Institutional indicators

  • critique treated as threat/disloyalty (system justification)

  • procedural rigidity grows while learning capacity shrinks

  • surveillance/control primarily justified as “safety”

6-E. Counter-Process File (What Breaks the Pattern)

[C-01] Psychological Flexibility (core counter-process)

  • Operational: tolerate uncertainty + stay present + choose values-based action despite distress.

  • Why it matters: it directly opposes IU→NFCC “freeze” dynamics and reduces experiential avoidance.

[C-02] Reducing experiential avoidance

  • Operational: replacing suppression/escape with willingness to experience internal states without immediate control behaviors.

[C-03] De-polarizing group conditions

  • Operational: diversify inputs; design deliberation to reduce echo-chamber extremity drift.

[C-04] De-sealing systems

  • Operational: treat dissent/critique as feedback data; institutionalize review loops that reduce status-quo defensiveness.

6-F. Instrument Registry (Measurement Tools)

[M-01] Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS)

  • Use: quantifies IU; widely used in worry/anxiety research.

[M-02] Need for (Cognitive) Closure Scale (NFCS)

  • Use: measures closure motivation (order preference, ambiguity discomfort, decisiveness, etc.).

[M-03] Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II)

  • Use: widely used measure of psychological inflexibility/experiential avoidance in ACT research; critiques exist re: overlap with distress.

[M-04] System Justification Scales (general forms)

  • Use: measures status-quo legitimation tendencies.

  1. Freeston MH, Rhéaume J, Letarte H, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences. 1994;17(6):791–802. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5.
  2. Buhr K, Dugas MJ. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: psychometric properties of the English version. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2002;40(8):931–945. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00092-4.
  3. Carleton RN, Norton MAPJ, Asmundson GJG. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007;21(1):105–117. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014.
  4. Carleton RN. Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all? Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2016;41:5–21. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.03.011.
  5. Webster DM, Kruglanski AW. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994;67(6):1049–1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049.
  6. Kruglanski AW, Webster DM. Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “Freezing”. Psychological Review. 1996;103(2):263–283. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263.
  7. Kay AC, Gaucher D, Napier JL, Callan MJ, Laurin K. God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95(1):18–35. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18.
  8. Kay AC, Whitson JA, Gaucher D, Galinsky AD. Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2009;18(5):264–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x.
  9. Whitson JA, Galinsky AD. Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science. 2008;322(5898):115–117. doi: 10.1126/science.1159845.
  10. Jost JT, Banaji MR. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1994;33(1):1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.
  11. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology. 2004;25(6):881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.
  12. Kay AC, Jost JT. Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;85(5):823–837. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823. PMID: 14599247.
  13. Hayes SC, Wilson KG, Gifford EV, Follette VM, Strosahl K. Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: a functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1996;64(6):1152–1168. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1152. PMID: 8991302.
  14. Chawla N, Ostafin B. Experiential avoidance as a functional dimensional approach to psychopathology: an empirical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007;63(9):871–890. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20400. PMID: 17674402.
  15. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44(1):1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006. PMID: 16300724.
  16. Kashdan TB, Rottenberg J. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010;30(7):865–878. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001. PMID: 21151705.
  17. Duckitt J, Sibley CG. Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality. 2010;78(6):1861–1893. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x. PMID: 21039534.
  18. Altemeyer B. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780674053052.
  19. Stephan WG, Stephan CW. An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In: Oskamp S, editor. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 23–45. ISBN: 9780805838044.
  20. Stephan WG, Díaz-Loving R, Duran A. Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2000;31(2):240–249. doi: 10.1177/0022022100031002006.
  21. Riek BM, Mania EW, Gaertner SL. Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2006;10(4):336–353. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4.
  22. Moscovici S, Zavalloni M. The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1969;12(2):125–135. doi: 10.1037/h0027568.
  23. Myers DG, Lamm H. The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin. 1976;83(4):602–627. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602.
  24. Sunstein CR. The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2002;10(2):175–195. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00148.
  25. Cohen S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee; 1972. (Original edition)
  26. — Common reissue identifier: Routledge Classics edition ISBN 9780415610162.
  27. Goode E, Ben-Yehuda N. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford: Blackwell; 1994. ISBN-10: 063118905X.
  28. — 2nd ed identifiers: ISBN 9781405189330 (pbk), ISBN 9781405189347 (hbk).
  29. Yehuda R, Lehrner A. Intergenerational transmission of trauma effects: putative role of epigenetic mechanisms. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(3):243–257. doi: 10.1002/wps.20568.
  30. Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, et al. Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy. 2011;42(4):676–688. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.