Cited by 76Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies

Vigilant and avoidant attention biases as predictors of response to cognitive behavioral therapy for social phobia

Open access
Price, Matthew, Tone, Erin B., Anderson, Page L.·2011·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Attention bias for socially threatening information, an empirically supported phenomenon, figures prominently in models of social phobia. However, all published studies examining this topic to date have relied on group means to describe attention bias patterns; research has yet to examine potential subgroups of attention bias among individuals with social phobia (e.g., vigilant or avoidant). Furthermore, almost no research has examined how attention biases in either direction may predict change in symptoms as a result of treatment. METHODS: This study (N = 24) compared responses to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for social phobia between individuals with avoidant and vigilant biases for threatening faces at pretreatment. RESULTS: Participants with avoidant biases reported significantly and clinically higher symptom levels at posttreatment than did those with vigilant biases. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that an avoidant attention bias may be associated with reduced response to CBT for social phobia.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.20791

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Those who show attentional bias away from threat stimuli respond worse to exposure-based treatments.

    “For example, those who show attentional bias away from threat stimuli respond worse to exposure-based treatments (Legerstee et al., 2010;Price, Tone, & Anderson, 2011;Waters & Kershaw, 2015).”

    From How willing are you? Willingness as a predictor of change during treatment of adults with obsessive–compulsive disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Price, Tone, & Anderson, 2011

    The Discussion reports that participants with social phobia who showed an avoidant bias for threatening faces had a weaker response to virtual-reality exposure therapy than those with a vigilant bias. The citing sentence generalizes this preliminary finding to exposure-based treatments and people with attentional bias away from threat more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In adults with social phobia, threat vigilance predicted a better CBT response than threat avoidance.

    “Using a similar method, Price, Tone, and Anderson (2011) found that adults with social phobia who were vigilant to threat responded more favorably to CBT than those who were avoidant of threat.”
  • Prior studies have found that vigilance toward threat predicts better outcomes in CBT.

    “Prior studies have similarly found that vigilance toward threat predicts better outcomes in CBT (Price et al., 2011; Waters et al., 2012).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]Moscovitch DA Antony MM Swinson RP Stein MB Exposure-Based Treatments for Anxiety Disorders: Theory and Process Oxford Handbook of Anxiety and Related Disorders New York, NY Oxford University Press 2009 461 475

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Price, M., Tone, E. B., & Anderson, P. L.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Page L.
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Published
2011-02-09
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
349-353
ISSN
1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157461415
Cited by
76
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R42MH060506)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, attentional bias, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment response, threatening faces, social danger, predictors of treatment outcome
MeSH terms
Adult, Anger, Arousal, Attention, Defense Mechanisms, Facial Expression, Fear, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Phobic Disorders, Psychotherapy, Group, Social Perception, User-Computer Interface, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review