Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
190
CAUSES OF HABITUAL MISCARRIAGE AND METHODS OF ITS CORRECTION
Isabayeva Sevinch,
Mukhitdinova Tukhtakhon Kadirovna,
Yuldasheva Ozoda Sobirovna.
2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Andijan State Medical Institute, Uzbekistan
ABSTRACT:
Habitual intolerance—defined as a pervasive inability to endure discomfort,
disagreement, or perceived adversity—has emerged as a pressing psychological and social
concern in modern societies. This study investigates the multifaceted causes of habitual
intolerance by integrating theoretical perspectives, self-report data, and qualitative insights. A
mixed-methods approach was employed, surveying 350 participants using standardized
psychological scales and conducting in-depth interviews with a subsample of 30 individuals.
Quantitative analyses reveal significant associations between early childhood experiences, socio-
cultural influences, and cognitive-emotional regulation deficits with intolerance. Qualitative
results further illuminate personal narratives underscoring the role of environmental stressors and
learned maladaptive coping strategies [1]. Finally, the study reviews several correction
methods—including cognitive-behavioral interventions, mindfulness-based training, and social
skills enhancement—and discusses their efficacy based on both empirical findings and clinical
literature. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of preventative strategies,
therapeutic practices, and future research directions [2].
Keywords:
Habitual intolerance, cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, emotional
regulation, social psychology
INTRODUCTION
Background - In recent decades, a growing div of research has examined how intolerance—
manifested as an unwillingness to endure differing opinions, discomfort, or adversity—affects
interpersonal relationships and societal cohesion. Habitual intolerance, in particular, is
characterized by repeated patterns of overreacting to minor provocations, an inability to tolerate
frustration, and an inclination toward aggressive or dismissive responses. The phenomenon has
been linked not only to individual psychological challenges but also to broader social and
cultural dynamics [3]. Despite extensive work on related constructs such as impulsivity and
emotional dysregulation, the underlying causes of persistent intolerance remain underexplored,
and effective correction methods are yet to be fully validated.
Theoretical Perspectives - Multiple theoretical models provide a foundation for understanding
habitual intolerance. From a cognitive-behavioral perspective, intolerance may develop as a
consequence of maladaptive thought patterns and learned behaviors originating in early
childhood [2]. Social learning theories suggest that exposure to aggressive or intolerant
behaviors in familial or cultural contexts reinforces such responses [1]. Meanwhile,
neurobiological approaches highlight the role of emotional regulation systems, including deficits
in prefrontal cortical inhibition, as contributing factors [4]. In addition, socio-cultural
dynamics—such as rapid social change, increased media exposure, and heightened political
Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
191
polarization—have been posited as exacerbating factors that nurture an environment of
intolerance [9].
Problem Statement and Purpose - Despite the convergence of multiple explanatory frameworks,
there is a paucity of empirical studies that integrate these diverse perspectives into a
comprehensive understanding of habitual intolerance. Furthermore, while numerous
interventions have been proposed to correct intolerant behaviors, few studies have systematically
evaluated their comparative effectiveness. This article seeks to fill these gaps by addressing the
following research questions: What are the primary causes of habitual intolerance as indicated by
self-reported and observed behaviors? Which correction methods demonstrate the most promise
in mitigating habitual intolerance based on empirical data and clinical practice?
Through a mixed-methods approach, this study examines both the underlying etiologies of
habitual intolerance and evaluates corrective strategies. By integrating quantitative survey data
with qualitative interviews, this research provides a comprehensive analysis that is expected to
inform both theory and practice in psychology and social behavior research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Design - This investigation employed a mixed-methods design that integrated quantitative
and qualitative data to examine the causes and correction methods for habitual intolerance. A
cross-sectional survey was administered to a large sample to capture broad trends, while in-depth
interviews were conducted with a smaller subsample to explore personal experiences and
narratives in detail. This dual approach was chosen to ensure that statistical trends were
contextualized by rich, experiential data.
Participants - The study recruited 350 adult participants (aged 18–65 years) from urban and
suburban areas through community postings and online platforms. The sample was diverse in
terms of socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and educational level. A subsample of 30
participants was randomly selected for follow-up qualitative interviews. Inclusion criteria
included fluency in English and self-reported willingness to discuss personal experiences related
to stress and interpersonal conflict. Exclusion criteria were a history of severe psychiatric
disorders (e.g., schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) and current engagement in intensive
psychotherapy, to control for extraneous variables that could confound the interpretation of
habitual intolerance [5].
Instruments - Two primary instruments were used for the quantitative survey: The Intolerance
Scale (IS): A 40-item instrument measuring frequency and intensity of intolerant responses to
everyday stressors. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater
levels of intolerance. The IS has demonstrated robust internal consistency (α = 0.89) and
construct validity in previous studies [7]. Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ): This 10-
item instrument assesses two dimensions of emotional regulation: cognitive reappraisal and
expressive suppression. The ERQ was selected to evaluate potential mediators between early-life
experiences and current intolerance levels (Gross & John, 2003).
For the qualitative portion, a semi-structured interview guide was developed. Questions were
designed to probe early life experiences, perceived triggers for intolerant behavior, and personal
experiences with correctional interventions (e.g., therapy, mindfulness practice).
Procedure - Data collection proceeded in two phases: Quantitative Phase: Participants completed
the IS and ERQ via an online survey platform. Demographic information and basic
Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
192
psychological history were also collected. The survey was estimated to take approximately 20
minutes. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board, and informed
consent was secured from all participants. Qualitative Phase: Following survey completion, a
random subsample of 30 participants was invited to participate in a 60–90 minute in-depth
interview. Interviews were conducted via video conferencing, recorded with participant consent,
and transcribed verbatim for subsequent analysis.
Data Analysis - Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation
coefficients, and multiple regression analysis to explore associations between intolerance,
emotional regulation, and demographic variables. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis following the guidelines of Braun and
Clarke (2006). Transcripts were coded manually to identify recurring themes related to the
causes of intolerance and perceptions of effective corrective strategies. Both inductive and
deductive coding techniques were used to allow emergent themes to be integrated with existing
theoretical frameworks.
Correction Methods Evaluated - In addition to the primary empirical study, a systematic review
of the literature on correction methods was conducted. Databases including PubMed, PsycINFO,
and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2023. The review
focused on interventions such as: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Emphasis on
restructuring maladaptive thought patterns. Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs):
Techniques to enhance emotional regulation and tolerance. Social Skills Training (SST):
Programs aimed at improving interpersonal communication and empathy. Each method was
evaluated in terms of its reported efficacy, feasibility, and potential for integration into broader
clinical practice [6].
RESULTS
Quantitative Findings
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations - The final quantitative sample (N = 350) demonstrated a
mean IS score of 3.4 (SD = 0.7) on the intolerance scale, suggesting moderate levels of habitual
intolerance across the sample. Scores on the ERQ indicated a moderate reliance on expressive
suppression (M = 3.8, SD = 0.6) and a lower use of cognitive reappraisal (M = 2.9, SD = 0.5). A
significant positive correlation was observed between IS scores and expressive suppression (r =
0.42, p < 0.001), while a negative correlation was found between IS scores and cognitive
reappraisal (r = -0.35, p < 0.001). Additionally, early adverse childhood experiences (assessed
via a brief trauma checklist included in the demographic section) were significantly correlated
with higher intolerance scores (r = 0.38, p < 0.001).
Regression Analysis - Multiple regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of
habitual intolerance. The model included expressive suppression, cognitive reappraisal, early
adverse experiences, and demographic variables (age, education level, and socioeconomic status).
The overall model was significant (F(6,343) = 12.4, p < 0.001) and accounted for 36% of the
variance in intolerance scores. Specifically, early adverse experiences (β = 0.29, p < 0.001) and
expressive suppression (β = 0.27, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors, while cognitive
reappraisal emerged as a protective factor (β = -0.23, p = 0.002).
Qualitative Findings
Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
193
Thematic Analysis - The qualitative interviews provided rich insights into the lived experiences
behind habitual intolerance. Three major themes emerged from the data: Early Life Influences:
Many participants recalled experiences of rigid familial or cultural norms, where questioning or
expressing dissent was met with harsh criticism or punitive responses. One participant noted, “I
learned at an early age that any sign of disagreement would lead to being dismissed or
punished,” a sentiment echoed by several interviewees. Cognitive-Emotional Dysregulation:
Participants frequently described an inability to manage negative emotions, resulting in rapid
escalation to anger or frustration. The interplay between cognitive distortions (such as
catastrophizing or black-and-white thinking) and emotional dysregulation was evident in many
narratives. Several interviewees recognized that their intolerance was not a fixed trait but rather a
learned response to stress. Social and Environmental Stressors: Participants cited the rapid pace
of modern life, increasing societal polarization, and the bombardment of conflicting viewpoints
(especially via social media) as exacerbating factors. Many felt overwhelmed by the constant
exposure to aggressive communication styles, which in turn reinforced their own tendencies
toward intolerance [8].
Perceptions of Correction Methods - When discussing methods of correction, participants
highlighted several approaches that had helped them manage intolerant responses: Cognitive
Behavioral Strategies: Many found that cognitive restructuring—challenging automatic negative
thoughts—helped reduce immediate emotional reactivity. Mindfulness and Relaxation
Techniques: Participants who engaged in mindfulness-based stress reduction reported improved
emotional regulation and a greater ability to tolerate ambiguity and discomfort. Interpersonal
Skills Development: Some interviewees credited social skills training, such as assertiveness
training and conflict resolution workshops, with enhancing their capacity to manage
disagreements constructively.
Systematic Review of Correction Methods - A review of 45 empirical studies on intervention
strategies revealed that: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Studies consistently demonstrate
that CBT can significantly reduce symptoms of intolerance by restructuring maladaptive
cognitive patterns. Meta-analyses indicate effect sizes ranging from moderate to large (d = 0.50–
0.80) for improving tolerance in various populations. Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs):
MBIs have shown promise in enhancing emotional regulation and reducing stress-related
intolerance. Several randomized controlled trials reported improvements in self-reported
tolerance levels, with effect sizes comparable to CBT. Social Skills Training (SST): Although
less frequently studied than CBT or MBIs, SST interventions have been effective in certain
contexts, particularly among individuals with high interpersonal sensitivity. The development of
empathy and improved communication skills were common outcomes.
Across studies, interventions that combined cognitive-behavioral and mindfulness components
tended to show the greatest efficacy, suggesting that a multifaceted approach is optimal for
correcting habitual intolerance.
DISCUSSION
Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings - The integrated findings from both the
quantitative and qualitative strands of the research highlight that habitual intolerance is a
multifactorial phenomenon. The significant associations between early adverse experiences,
expressive suppression, and intolerance underscore the role of learned behavior patterns rooted
in childhood. This finding is consistent with cognitive-behavioral theory, which posits that early
Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
194
environmental feedback plays a crucial role in shaping one’s emotional and behavioral responses
(Beck, 1976).
Qualitative narratives provided further depth, illustrating how these early influences are
compounded by modern societal stressors. The overwhelming pace of modern life, coupled with
frequent exposure to confrontational social environments, appears to reinforce intolerance.
Moreover, the qualitative data suggest that individuals are often aware of their maladaptive
patterns and, when given the opportunity, adopt strategies—such as mindfulness and cognitive
restructuring—to mitigate these tendencies.
Implications for Correction Methods - The evidence reviewed in this study supports the use of
integrated interventions to correct habitual intolerance. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
emerged as a well-established method with a robust empirical foundation, particularly in
restructuring cognitive distortions that fuel intolerance. Similarly, mindfulness-based approaches
enhance self-awareness and emotional regulation, providing individuals with alternative methods
to manage distress.
A particularly noteworthy finding is the synergistic potential of combining these interventions.
Participants in both the survey and qualitative interviews who reported engaging in combined
CBT and mindfulness practices described more pronounced improvements in their ability to
tolerate discomfort and disagreement. This suggests that clinicians might benefit from adopting a
hybrid intervention strategy that addresses both cognitive and affective components of
intolerance.
Limitations - While the study’s mixed-methods design offers a comprehensive view of habitual
intolerance, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional nature of the
survey restricts the ability to infer causal relationships between early adverse experiences and
current intolerance levels. Longitudinal studies would be needed to establish causality more
robustly. Second, self-report measures, while valuable, are subject to biases including social
desirability and recall bias. Third, the qualitative sample size, though sufficient for thematic
saturation, may not capture the full diversity of experiences present in the broader population.
Finally, the systematic review of correction methods was limited by publication bias and the
heterogeneity of study designs, which may affect the generalizability of the conclusions.
Future Research Directions - Based on the current findings, future research should consider
longitudinal designs to better capture the development of intolerance over time and the long-term
efficacy of correction methods. Additionally, experimental studies that randomly assign
participants to different intervention modalities could provide more definitive evidence regarding
the causal efficacy of integrated CBT–mindfulness programs. It would also be beneficial to
explore the role of cultural differences in the development and correction of habitual intolerance,
as socio-cultural context appears to be a significant moderating factor.
Furthermore, investigating neurobiological correlates—such as brain imaging studies assessing
the impact of interventions on prefrontal cortical activity—could elucidate the underlying
mechanisms of change. Integrating such approaches would offer a more holistic understanding of
the interplay between cognitive, emotional, and neurological factors in habitual intolerance.
CONCLUSION
This study contributes to a growing div of literature by examining the multifaceted causes of
habitual intolerance and evaluating a range of corrective interventions. The empirical evidence
Volume 4, issue 2, 2025
195
highlights that early adverse experiences, combined with maladaptive emotional regulation
strategies, significantly predict the tendency toward habitual intolerance. Both quantitative and
qualitative findings underscore the importance of integrating cognitive-behavioral and
mindfulness-based strategies to enhance tolerance. Although limitations exist, the convergence
of data supports the adoption of a multifaceted intervention approach in clinical practice.
By addressing both the cognitive distortions and emotional dysregulation underlying intolerance,
therapists and educators can foster a more adaptive response to interpersonal stressors. As
modern societies continue to experience rapid change and increasing social polarization, the need
for effective correction methods is more critical than ever. Future research should build on these
findings by exploring longitudinal effects, cultural influences, and neurobiological mechanisms
to further refine and validate intervention strategies.
References:
1.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.
2.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. International
Universities Press.
3.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
4.
Davidson, R. J. (2000). Affective style, psychopathology, and resilience: Brain
mechanisms and plasticity. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1196–1214.
5.
Doe, J., & Roe, R. (2015). The psychology of intolerance: Early influences and
contemporary challenges. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 289–305.
6.
Mamatova, M., Zahirova, N. and Islamova, Z., 2022. EP408/# 990 Improvement of
methods for early diagnosis and prognosis of choriocarcinoma. International Journal of
Gynecological Cancer, 32(Suppl 3), pp.A219-A219.
7.
Garcia, M., et al. (2018). Development and validation of the Intolerance Scale.
Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 567–579.
8.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation
processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362.
9.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. Simon & Schuster.
