Interpretation bias across body dysmorphic, social anxiety and generalized anxiety disorder – a multilevel, diffusion model account

Abstract

Interpretation biases are suggested to be transdiagnostic phenomenona, but have rarely been compared across disorders and current concerns. We investigated explicit, decision-based and implicit, reaction time-based interpretation bias in body dysmorphic disorder (BDD; N = 29), social anxiety disorder (SAD; N = 36), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; N = 22), and non-clinical controls (NC; N = 32). Results indicated that biased interpretation can be found transdiagnostically, while content-specific bias patterns vary with group status. BDD and SAD shared explicit and implicit interpretation biases for appearance-related and social situations, compared to GAD and NC. The GAD group exhibited a negative interpretation bias for general situations, and showed an implicit lack of positive bias. Wiener diffusion model analysis revealed that implicit interpretation biases were driven by potentially stronger associations in associative memory, mirroring current concerns. These findings have vital implications for the understanding of interpretation biases as both etiological and treatment factors.

Testing the specificity of interpretation biases in women with eating disorder symptoms: An online experimental assessment

“…Hence, an implicit IB for SAD and GAD, which may be less pronounced than for ED‐specific content, could not be detected. Overall, these findings support the results of Cardi et al (), who reported a SAD‐IB in women with anorexia nervosa, and is also in line with data from participants with SAD (Amir, Foa, & Coles, ) as well as patients with body dysmorphic disorder (Buhlmann et al, ; Dietel et al, ), who showed a negative interpretive bias for general social information. In contrast to the results of our extreme group comparisons, two previous studies, in women with body dysphoria (Jackman et al, ) and in women with EDs (Williamson et al, ), found no group differences for health‐related stimuli compared to nonsymptomatic controls.…”

“…Situations that were judged to be at least moderately ( M > 4) vivid, ambiguous, and self‐referent on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely) were selected for the present study, resulting in a final total of 60 ED sentence‐word pairs. SAD‐ and GAD‐relevant stimuli were validated and selected through a process identical to that described in Dietel, Möllmann, Bürkner, Wilhelm, and Buhlmann ().…”

“…Otherwise, a prime (threat word) may activate cognitive processes involved in interpretation, consequently influencing the interpretation of the ambiguous sentence. The present version has been previously used by Möbius and colleagues (2015) as well as Dietel et al (). Participants were instructed to concentrate on the task, to rate the relatedness of sentences and words, and to respond as quickly as possible.…”

Internet‐based interpretation bias modification for body dissatisfaction: A three‐armed randomized controlled trial

“…To measure transference, sentence‐word‐combinations consisted of 80 ambiguous appearance‐related (e.g., “On the beach, you are wearing tight‐fitting clothes.”), 80 social (e.g., “You are giving a speech and everyone is laughing.”), and 80 generally threatening scenarios (e.g., “There will be some changes in the company in the near future.”). Situation sets for all categories were generated based on expert consensus and pre‐validated (see Dietel, Möllmann, Bürkner, Wilhelm, & Buhlmann, 2019).…”