Information-processing bias in social phobia

Hirsch, Colette R.; Clark, David M.

doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.005

Cited by 279 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is substantial evidence for the presence of information processing biases in social anxious individuals. For instance, heightened self focused atten tion, selective retrieval of negative past social events and biased interpretation of social events in a negative way have been observed in SAD (for a review, see Hirsch & Clark, 2004). These cognitive biases may lead to overestimations of social threat in social situations and to behavioral processes in the form of overt avoidance and safety behaviors .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social anxiety and cognitive expectancy of aversive outcome in avoidance conditioning

Roelofs

2009

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tFear conditioning studies have shown that social anxiety is associated with enhanced expectancy of aversive outcome. However, the relation between cognitive expectancy and social anxiety has never been tested in avoidance conditioning paradigms. We compared 48 low (LSA) and high socially anxious individuals (HSA) on subjective expectancy of aversive outcome during an avoidance conditioning task. Displays of neutral faces were coupled with an aversive outcome (US): a shout and a shock. Participants could avoid the US by pressing a correct button from a button box. First, HSA showed higher US expectancy than LSA during the initial phase of avoidance conditioning, supporting the view that socially anxious individuals have an expectancy bias when social situations are ambiguous. Second, when the avoidance response became unavailable, LSA showed lower US expectancy than HSA, suggesting that low socially anxious individuals are prone to a positive bias when perceived threat is high. A lack of such positive bias in socially anxious individuals may lead to higher susceptibility to safety behavior inter pretations. Together, these findings support the role of cognitive processes in avoidance conditioning and underscore the relevance to encounter avoidance learning when studying social anxiety.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social anxiety and cognitive expectancy of aversive outcome in avoidance conditioning

Roelofs

2009

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, these interpretation biases (i.e., tendencies) are posited to play a central role in the genesis and maintenance of anxious psychopathology (cf. Hirsch & Clark, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpretation bias in social anxiety as detected by event-related brain potentials.

Moser

Hajcak

Huppert

et al. 2008

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about psychophysiological correlates of interpretation bias in social anxiety. To address this issue, the authors measured event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in high and low socially anxious individuals during a task wherein ambiguous scenarios were resolved with either a positive or negative ending. Specifically, the authors examined modulations of the P600, an ERP that peaks approximately 600 ms following stimulus onset and indexes violations of expectancy. Low-anxious individuals were characterized by an increased P600 to negative in comparison with positive sentence endings, suggesting a positive interpretation bias. In contrast, the high-anxious group evidenced equivalent P600 magnitude for negative and positive sentence endings, suggesting a lack of positive interpretation bias. Similar, but less reliable results emerged in earlier time windows, that is, 200 -500 ms poststimulus. Reaction time, occurring around 900 ms poststimulus, failed to show a reliable interpretation bias. Results suggest that ERPs can detect interpretation biases in social anxiety before the emission of behavioral responses.

show abstract

“…QQQ̳QῥQ̲QQῧῠῤ̲`QῖΎ̰ΰῢῪῌ ῴ QQΌΰ῞ΊΎ̮Qΐ̮Q̰̯῟῍ ῞ῤQ̳ῌ ̱̱´̱ QΰQQΰῴ̲ΰῢ̯῟῍ ῗῬ̰ῤQQΰQ̰ῬΎ̰ ΰῌ ῴ̲ΰQΊΎQ̲QQῧῤ̮̯̰ῤ̲QQῧῤQ῎ ῥQ̰̯̯ΎῠQ̮Ύ῍ ῴ̲ῠ̮̯̰ῤ̲ῠῤQQΰ̯̯῝̮ῤQQ̮῏̰ ̰Ῥ̯Ύ̮ῌ ῤ̲QQῥQQῴ̲̰QQQ̱̱´̱Q Qῌ ῳΏQ̰ῶ̱ῳQQῢῡῌ ῴ̲ῤQ̮̳ ΰ̮ ̯̰̮ΰQ΅Ῥ̯Ύ (Bryant & Harvey, 1997;Mathews & MacLeod, 1994;McNally, Amir, Louro, Lukach, Riemann, & Calamari, 1994;Mogg & Bradley, 1998;Watts, McKenna, Sharrock, & Trezise, 1986)῍ ῞Ῑ̯ῌ ̮̯̰ῤ̲ῥῌ Q̲QQῤQQΰ̰̯ ̯ῌ ΐΎ`̰ῤῴ̲QQῤῐΰQ̮Q̰ῬΎῗῠ̮Ό ̮̯̯Ύ῍ Q̮ῦῌ ῴ̲QQῤ Q̯ΐΎῳΏQῤ ῐῥῳΏῤQQΰῌ ῶ̱ῳQQQQῥῶ̱ῳ`Ὶ Ῐ῝ΎQΰ̮̯̰ῤ̲̮Q̰ῬΎ (McNally, Amir, Louro, Lukach, Riemann, & Calamari, 1994;Watts, McKenna, Sharrock, & Trezise, 1986)῍ ̰῟ῌ ῐ̮̰ ῤ̱̰̰ῢ̱̳`QῬΎQQῴ̲ῤQῐῥῌ Q̮̰ ῤ̱̰̰ῢQ ̰̰Ὺῤ̱ῌῢῡῌ ̱̰̰ῢ̲̲` Ί ΎQQΰ῞Ῑ̯̮̯̰ῤ̲̮Ύ̮ῠ̲Q̮ΐΎ (Bögels & Mansell, 2004)῍ QQῴ̲ῥQQQ̰῞ῐQ̯ῚΎῴ̲̯ΐῪῌ ῗῤQῤῴ̲ΰQ̮ Q`QῩῙ̯Ύῤῥῌ QῶQQ ῤῌ̲Q̳ῠQ΅Ῥ̯Ύ (Hirsch & Clark, 2004)῍ Q ῶQQΰῚQΊΎQ̲QQ` ̮̰ΰQ̳ΊΎῗῠῥῌ ῴ̲`Q̰ΎῠQ̮̰ῬΎ (Wells & Mathews, 1994)῍ Ῑ῟̮̯̯ῌ QῶQQῤ̯̳ῤῌ̲` ̰ΰΐ΅῝̯ῒ QΊΎ῟̰ῤQ̳QQ̯ΐΎ̮̯̰ῤ̲ῥῌ QQῴ̲ΰ ̮̯̰Q ῢ ̯ΐΎῠQ̮̰ῬΎ῍ QQ̰Q̲Q Qΰ῞ΊΎ̮̯̰ῤ̲ῥῌ ῸῑῤQQῤΰ̮̰̱῏̱̱ ̱QQ`QQΊΎQQ̯QQ̯̯ῖ̯ῥῢ̮ῌ Posner (1980) ΰ̰ῪQ̲ῘῬ῟ΊQ̳΅̲ (cost-benefit analysis) ΰ̰ΎQQ̰ῤ̲ῤQQ`̳ Ῑ῟ῌ Qῴ̱ ̱῎Ὸ̲῏ῷQ̯ΰ̮̯̰QῘῬ̯Ύ (Mogg & Bradley, 2002;Mogg, Philippot, & Bradley, 2004;Musa, Lepine, Clark, Mansell, & Ehlers, 2003) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional disengagement from socially threatening stimuli in social anxiety

Moriya¹,

Tanno²

2007

NINCHISHINRIGAKUKENKYU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether selective attention towards threat-related stimuli in social anxiety was associated with the di$culty of disengagement from the stimuli. Participants were divided into two groups: high social anxiety and low social anxiety. They kept their eyes focused on a center prime stimulus (social threat, neutral word, or symbol), which was presented for either 100 ms or 800 ms. The target stimulus was then presented to either the left or the right of the prime stimuli, and the participants judged the location of the target stimulus. The results indicate that, in contrast to low socially anxious students, high socially anxious students took longer to make decisions for socially-threatening words presented for 800 ms, and that their response latencies were also slower for socially-threatening words than for neutral words and symbol. However, no significant di#erences were observed in reaction times between the high and low socially anxious students when the prime stimuli were presented for 100 ms. These findings suggest that individuals with high social anxiety have di$culty in disengaging their visual attention from socially-threatening words when presented for longer periods.

show abstract

Information-processing bias in social phobia

Cited by 279 publications

References 67 publications

Social anxiety and cognitive expectancy of aversive outcome in avoidance conditioning

Social anxiety and cognitive expectancy of aversive outcome in avoidance conditioning

Interpretation bias in social anxiety as detected by event-related brain potentials.

Attentional disengagement from socially threatening stimuli in social anxiety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About