Cited by 3Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCommunication in Education and HealthcarePsychological Treatments and Assessments

Biased perceptions of physiological arousal in social anxiety: Understanding the role of objective and subjective physiological arousal in the discrepancy between self and observer perceptions of social performance

Open access
Thomas, Teegan, Johnco, Carly·2025·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

Abstract Background Individuals with social anxiety underestimate their social performance compared to observers (i.e., self-observer discrepancy). Cognitive models suggest that heightened attention to, and exaggerated perception of, physiological symptoms of anxiety results in the construction of (inaccurate) mental representations of their external appearance. This study examined the relative contribution of subjective physiological arousal, self-focused attention and objective physiological arousal in predicting self-observer discrepancies during a speech performance task. Method Participants with high (N = 39) and low (N = 36) levels of speech anxiety completed a 10-minute speech task, with continuous measurement of objective physiological arousal (heart rate and skin conductance), self-reported subjective physiological arousal and focus of attention. Speech performance quality was rated by participants and observers to assess self-observer discrepancy. Results There was higher self-observer discrepancy, self-focused attention and subjective physiological arousal in the high vs. low anxiety group, but no significant difference in objective physiological arousal. Subjective physiological arousal and self-focused attention predicted self-observer discrepancy, but objective physiological arousal did not. Conclusions Results are consistent with cognitive models of social anxiety suggesting that cognitive and attentional biases, rather than differences in objective physiological experience, are key in understanding self-observer discrepancies in social anxiety.

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 · 10.1007/s10608-025-10583-4

Cites

62 of 62 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomas, T., & Johnco, C.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Thomas, Teegan
  • Johnco, Carly
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2025-02-28
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
824-834
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W4408042215
Cited by
3
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Macquarie University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
social anxiety, physiological arousal, self-focus, speaking anxiety, speech performance, heart rate, skin conductance, cognitive biases, attentional bias

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