Cited by 198Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Facilitating a benign interpretation bias in a high socially anxious population

Murphy, Rebecca, Hirsch, Colette R., Mathews, Andrew, Smith, Keren, Clark, David M.·2007·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Previous research has shown that high socially anxious individuals lack the benign interpretation bias present in people without social anxiety. The tendency of high socially anxious people to generate more negative interpretations may lead to anticipated anxiety about future social situations. If so, developing a more benign interpretation bias could lead to a reduction in this anxiety. The current study showed that a benign interpretation bias could be facilitated (or 'trained') in a high socially anxious population. Participants in the benign training groups had repeated practice in accessing benign (positive or non-negative) interpretations of potentially threatening social scenarios. Participants in the control condition were presented with the same social scenarios but without their outcomes being specified. In a later recognition task, participants who received benign interpretation training generated more benign, and less negative, interpretations of new ambiguous social situations compared to the control group. Participants who received benign training also predicted that they would be significantly less anxious in a future social situation than those in the control group. Possible implications of the findings for therapeutic interventions in social phobia are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2007.01.007

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Murphy, R., Hirsch, C. R., Mathews, A., Smith, K., & Clark, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Murphy, Rebecca
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-07
Volume
45
Issue
7
Pages
1517-1529
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025777566
Cited by
198
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
FWCI
17.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (069777)
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
social anxiety, interpretation training, social anxiety disorder, cognitive bias modification, ambiguous social situations, anxiety prediction, therapeutic interventions
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Cognition, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interview, Psychological, Learning, Male, Phobic Disorders, Self Concept, Social Behavior, Social Perception, Time Factors

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