Cited by 18Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCommunication in Education and HealthcareMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

A Comparison of Ultra-Brief Cognitive Defusion and Positive Affirmation Interventions on the Reduction of Public Speaking Anxiety

Brandrick, Chloe, Hooper, Nic, Roche, Bryan, Kanter, Jonathan, Tyndall, Ian·2021·The Psychological Record

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/s40732-020-00432-z

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • A 30-min web-based cognitive defusion program for negative self-referential thinking in adolescents resulted in large reductions in the believability of, and distress associated with, self-critical thoughts (d = 0.87-1.35), but neither this study nor similar ones recorded changes in trait cognitive fusion or decentering.

    “This resulted in large reductions in the believability of, and distress associated with, self-critical thoughts (d = 0.87–1.35).”

    From Decentering as a core component in the psychological treatment and prevention of youth anxiety and depression: a narrative review and insight report (2021) · cites this paper as [103]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Blackledge, J. T. (2015). Cognitive defusion in practice: A clinician's guide to assessing, observing & supporting change in your client. Oakland, CA: Context Press.
  2. McNeil, D. W., Ries, B. J., & Turk, C. L. (1995). Behavioral assessment: Self-report, physiology, and overt behaviour. Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brandrick, C., Hooper, N., Roche, B., Kanter, J., & Tyndall, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Chichester (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Tyndall, Ian
Venue
The Psychological Record
Published
2020-10-06
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
109-117
ISSN
  • 0033-2933 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-3452
OpenAlex
W3092016952
Cited by
18
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Psychological Record (publishedVersion)
  • ChiPrints (University of Chichester) (acceptedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
public speaking anxiety, cognitive defusion, anxiety reduction, impromptu speaking, subclinical anxiety, brief psychological intervention

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