Comparison of social phobia subtypes using Stroop tests

McNeil, Daniel W.; Ries, Barry J.; Taylor, Lesa J.; Boone, Martin L.; Carter, Leslie E.; Turk, Cynthia L.; Lewin, M. R.

doi:10.1016/0887-6185(94)00027-8

Cited by 62 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the two generalized SAD groups displayed longer latencies in response to threat words implying generalized social fears (e.g., party, conversation), which was not evident in the circumscribed speech phobia group. In contrast, speech-related words elicited delayed response across all groups (McNeil et al, 1995). A more recent study comparing patients with generalized SAD with nonanxious controls provided findings consistent with the specificity hypothesis (Spector et al, 2003).…”

Section: Emotional Stroop Testsupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Mismatch between the color and content of the word (e.g., the word "green" printed in red) typically results in a longer response latency, which has been typically regarded as evidence of cognitive interference. Modified versions of Stroop tests presenting emotional threat words have been used to examine attentional biases in numerous conditions, including depression (Klieger & Cordner, 1990;Segal, Truchon, Gemar, & Guirguis, 1995;Segal & Vella, 1990), panic disorder (McNally et al, 1994;McNally, Riemann, & Kim, 1990;McNally, Riemann, Louro, Lukach, & Kim, 1992), obsessive-compulsive disorder (Foa, Ilai, McCarthy, Shoyer, & Murdock, 1993;Lavy, Vanoppen, & Vandenhout, 1994), posttraumatic stress disorder (Foa, Feske, Murdock, Kozak, & Mccarthy, 1991;Kaspi, McNally, & Amir, 1995;McNally, English, & Lipke, 1993), specific phobia (Lavy, Vandenhout, & Arntz, 1993;Mathews & Sebastian, 1993), and SAD (Becker, Rinck, Margraf, & Roth, 2001;Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990;Lundh & Ost, 1996;Maidenberg, Chen, Craske, Bohn, & Bystritsky, 1996;Mattia, Heimberg, & Hope, 1993;McNeil et al, 1995;Spector, response latencies to threat words in contrast with non-threat words have been deemed to indicate selective attention towards the threat.…”

Section: Emotional Stroop Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, the emotional Stroop paradigm has been extensively used to examine attentional biases associated with SAD. Most studies using the Stroop paradigm have shown that individuals with heightened social anxiety or SAD display longer colornaming latencies in response to social threat words (e.g., Andersson, Westoo, & Johansson, 2006;Spector, Pecknold, & Libman, 2003;Amir, Freshman, & Foa, 2002;Becker, Rinck, Margraf, & Roth, 2001;McNeil et al, 1995;Hope, Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990;Lundh & Ost, 1996;Maidenberg, Chen, Craske, Bohn, & Bystritsky, 1996;Mattia, Heimberg, & Hope, 1993) with very few exceptions that have revealed no or shorter response latencies (e.g., Kindt, Bogels, & Morren, 2003;Amir et al, 1996). However, as pointed out by Bogels and Mansell (2004), the specificity is questionable given some data indicating that other groups of patients also show delayed response to social threat words (e.g., Becker et al, 2001;Mathews & Macleod, 1985).…”

Section: Emotional Stroop Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attentional biases in social anxiety: An investigation using the inattentional blindness paradigm

Lee

Telch

2008

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social anxiety disorder is the third most common mental disorder with the lifetime prevalence rate of 13.3% in the US population. Typically, it causes significant impairment in a wide range of functioning and follows a chronic, unremitting course if untreated. Over the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in clinical research aimed at examining underlying mechanisms maintaining social anxiety.One line of research has investigated attentional biases in social anxiety, using various cognitive experiment paradigms, including the emotional Stroop and the modified dotprobe tasks. However, overall findings are equivocal about the nature of attentional biases in social anxiety and several methodological problems limit the interpretability of the data. The present study examined attentional biases associated with social anxiety using a new research paradigm in the field of anxiety disorders: the inattentional blindness paradigm. This paradigm presents a social cue in the absence of the subjects' expectation while they are engaged in a cognitively demanding task, thereby enabling the v more purely attentional aspect of information processing to be examined reducing the influence of potential response biases or effortful strategies. Two independent experiments were conducted using nonclinical student samples consisting of individuals high in social anxiety (HSAs) versus individuals low in social anxiety (LSAs) based on the static and sustained inattentional blindness tasks. Overall, results revealed that HSAs were more likely to detect or identify a socially-threatening cue, relative to LSAs; whereas LSAs were more likely to detect or identify a non-threatening social cue, relative to HSAs. These findings were observed only in the presence of a bogus-speech manipulation. These data suggest the promising utility of the inattentional blindness paradigm in investigating attentional biases in social anxiety and perhaps other psychopathological conditions. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.vi

show abstract

Section: Emotional Stroop Testsupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Emotional Stroop Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Emotional Stroop Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attentional biases in social anxiety: An investigation using the inattentional blindness paradigm

Lee

Telch

2008

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Differences between these diagnostic subgroups have been found in self-report measures (Herbert, Hope, & Bellack, 1992;Hofmann & Roth, 1996;Holt, Heimberg, & Hope, 1992;Turner, Beidel, & Townsley, 1992), clinician-administered measures (Brown, Heimberg, & Juster, 1995;Holt et al, 1992a), age and mode of onset Mannuzza et al, 1995;Stemberger, Turner, Beidel, & Calhoun, 1995), psychophysiological response during exposure Hofmann, Newman, Ehlers, & Roth, 1995;Levin et al, 1995), and cognitive interference during exposure to feared stimuli (Hofmann, Gerlach, Wender, & Roth, 1997;McNeil et al, 1995). In summary, these studies suggest that the generalized subtype of social phobia and the additional diagnosis of APD identify the more severe cases of social phobia.…”

Section: Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 84%

Treatment of Social Phobia: Potential Mediators and Moderators

Hofmann

2000

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the efficacy of numerous psychosocial interventions for social phobia has been clearly demonstrated, little is known about the mediators and moderators of treatment change. Three potential mediators are discussed that are derived from prominent psychological theories: negative cognitive appraisal (estimated social costs), perceived self-efficacy (perceived social skills), and perceived emotional control. Furthermore, the generalized subtype of social phobia and the additional diagnosis of avoidant personality disorder are considered as potential treatment moderators.

show abstract

“…Differences between subtypes have been found on self-report measures [Herbert et al, 1992;Hofmann and Roth, 1996;Holt et al, 1992a;Turner et al, 1992], clinician-administered measures [Brown et al, 1995;Holt et al, 1992a], age and mode of onset [Brown et al, 1995;Mannuzza et al, 1995;Stemberger et al, 1995], psychophysiological response during exposure [Heimberg et al, 1990;Hofmann et al, 1995;Levin et al, 1995], and cognitive interference during exposure to feared stimuli [Hofmann et al, 1997;McNeil et al, 1995]. In summary, these studies suggest that the generalized subtype describes the more severe cases of social phobia in adults [Heimberg et al, 1993].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%