Explicit and implicit self-evaluations in social anxiety disorder.

Abstract

Cognitive models of social anxiety disorder (SAD) emphasize the role of explicit and implicit self-evaluations (SEs) in the etiology and maintenance of this condition. Whereas individuals with SAD consistently report lower explicit SEs as compared with nonanxious individuals, findings concerning implicit SEs are mixed. To gain a more nuanced understanding of the nature of SEs in SAD, we examined explicit and implicit SEs in two significant interpersonal domains: social rank and affiliation. Consistent with cognitive theorizing, we predicted that, compared to nonclinical controls (NCCs), individuals with SAD would exhibit lower explicit and implicit SEs in both domains. Guided by evolutionary theories we also predicted that the differences in SEs between the groups would be greater in the social rank, as compared to the affiliation, domain. Individuals diagnosed with SAD (n = 38) and NCCs) n = 40) performed two variants of the Self Implicit Association Test: one concerning social rank, and the other concerning affiliation. They also rated themselves on social-rank and affiliation traits. We found that, as compared to NCCs, individuals with SAD exhibited lower social-rank and affiliation SEs. Moreover, differences between the groups in social-rank SEs were greater than in affiliation SEs. Importantly, this pattern was evident in implicit SEs, as much as in explicit SEs. Our findings dovetail with evolutionary accounts highlighting the centrality of the social-rank system in SAD, and refine central tenets of cognitive theories of SAD. A multidomain, multimethod approach to the understanding of the self may broaden our conceptualization of SAD and related disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record

Implicit Cognition and Psychopathology: Looking Back and Looking Forward

“…Theoretically, individuals with heightened (versus low) symptoms of social anxiety disorder (SAD) should demonstrate relatively more negative self + social associations; however, empirically, the literature is quite mixed (see the review in Roefs et al 2011). Gilboa-Schechtman et al (2017) recently argued that the inconsistent findings are partly due to the fact that there are different types of self-evaluations, which vary in importance for socially anxious individuals. For example, when a Single Category IAT was used, individuals with SAD (versus nonclinical control individuals) demonstrated relatively weaker implicit self-evaluations tied to social rank (e.g., self + dominant; Gilboa-Schechtman et al 2017).…”

“…Gilboa-Schechtman et al (2017) recently argued that the inconsistent findings are partly due to the fact that there are different types of self-evaluations, which vary in importance for socially anxious individuals. For example, when a Single Category IAT was used, individuals with SAD (versus nonclinical control individuals) demonstrated relatively weaker implicit self-evaluations tied to social rank (e.g., self + dominant; Gilboa-Schechtman et al 2017). In contrast, there was not a significant group difference on implicit self-evaluations tied to social affiliation (e.g., self + friendly).…”

Not intended, still embarrassed: Social anxiety is related to increased levels of embarrassment in response to unintentional social norm violations

“…Previous studies have indicated that SAD-patients experience disturbances in self-referential processing and have biases concerning the opinion of others about them: they have increased self-portrayal concerns [9], for example when it concerns their social rank [10, 11] or their own social performance [12, 13], they overestimate the negative consequences of their own social blunders [14] and are characterized by negatively biased learning about themselves from social feedback [15]. Furthermore, clinical SAD is associated with an increased belief in negative interpretations of social situations [16] and SAD-patients focus predominantly on potentially embarrassing events when they evaluate themselves in a social context [17].…”

The Focality of Sexual Trauma and Its Effects on Women’s Symptoms and Self-Perceptions

“…The two sub-scales of the Hebrew LSAS have demonstrated high internal (.91) and test-retest (.87-.96) reliability and strong discriminant validity among Israeli adults with social anxiety or panic disorders (Levin, Marom, Gur, Wechter, & Hermesh, 2002). Internal consistency reliability of the whole scale in a clinical Israeli sample was .97 (Gilboa-Schechtman et al, 2017).…”

“…In a meta-analysis of 144 studies, internal consistency reliability of the BDI was .89, test-retest reliability was .75, and convergent comparisons were robust across 43 depression instruments (Erford, Johnson, & Bardoshi, 2015). Prior internal consistency reliabilities of the Hebrew BDI among Israeli samples range between .84 and .92 (Daie-Gabai et al, 2011;Gilboa-Schechtman et al, 2017).…”