Cited by 367Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory Processes and Influences

Biases of attention and memory in disorders of anxiety and depression

Dalgleish, Tim, Watts, Fraser N.·1990·Clinical Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0272-7358(90)90098-u

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dalgleish, T., & Watts, F. N.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Watts, Fraser N.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-01
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
589-604
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965578008
Cited by
366
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
attentional bias, memory bias, anxiety disorders, depression, threat stimuli, mood-congruent memory, cognitive biases, diathesis-stress model, schema theory, mental models, cognitive assessment, cognitive therapy

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