Association of theory of mind and empathy abilities in adolescents with social anxiety disorder

Social anxiety, rejection sensitivity, and theory of mind decoding ability

“…Specifically, individuals high in either SA or RS would be suggested to perceive faces as more negative than they are. Yet, limited research exists investigating direct associations between RS and facets of social cognition, and published articles using ToM tasks to investigate associations between ToM and SA have only begun to appear recently (Alvi et al, 2020; Hezel & McNally, 2014; Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018; Öztürk et al, 2020; Washburn et al, 2016).…”

“…The few studies examining associations between SA and ToM decoding using the MIE have produced inconsistent findings. Some studies suggest reduced overall ToM decoding accuracy associated with SA (Alvi et al, 2020; Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020; Washburn et al, 2016), while one study found no relation (Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018). There have also been mixed findings regarding valence specific accuracy with two studies suggesting worse accuracy on negatively valenced trials (Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020) while another suggested worse accuracy on positive and neutral trials (Washburn et al, 2016).…”

“…Some studies suggest reduced overall ToM decoding accuracy associated with SA (Alvi et al, 2020; Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020; Washburn et al, 2016), while one study found no relation (Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018). There have also been mixed findings regarding valence specific accuracy with two studies suggesting worse accuracy on negatively valenced trials (Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020) while another suggested worse accuracy on positive and neutral trials (Washburn et al, 2016). Consistent with a negative interpretation bias, those with SAD or high SA also have been found to make significantly more errors of the same valence as the correct answer (Hezel & McNally, 2014) and significantly “more negative” errors (Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018).…”

“…Methodological differences across these studies complicate interpretation of this mixed literature. For example, studies exploring associations between SA and ToM vary in sample composition (i.e., clinical samples, Öztürk et al, 2020; pooled nonclinical samples, Alvi et al, 2020; undergraduate samples, Hezel & McNally, 2014; Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018; Washburn et al, 2016). In addition, investigations differ significantly in their assessment and operationalization of SA (e.g., SAD diagnosis, Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020; Washburn et al, 2016; use of categorical cutoffs for high SA, Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018; dimensional assessment of SA, Alvi et al, 2020).…”

“…In addition, investigations differ significantly in their assessment and operationalization of SA (e.g., SAD diagnosis, Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020; Washburn et al, 2016; use of categorical cutoffs for high SA, Lenton‐Brym et al, 2018; dimensional assessment of SA, Alvi et al, 2020). Despite this variability, the most consistent finding across studies is a negative association between SA and ToM decoding accuracy, specifically on negatively valenced trials (Alvi et al, 2020; Hezel & McNally, 2014; Öztürk et al, 2020).…”