Cited by 30Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The impact bias in self and others: Affective and empathic forecasting in individuals with social anxiety

Arditte Hall, Kimberly A., Joormann, Jutta, Siemer, Matthias, Timpano, Kiara R.·2018·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

People tend to overestimate the intensity and duration of affect (i.e., impact bias) when making predictions about their own and others' responding, termed affective and empathic forecasting, respectively. Research links impact biases to clinical symptoms of affective disorders, but little work has been done to examine how social anxiety is related to affective and empathic forecasting biases. The current investigation included two studies examining these associations in independent samples of young adults with dimensionally distributed social anxiety symptoms. Study 1 (N = 100) examined the associations between social anxiety and affective and empathic forecasts in response to a series of novel hypothetical vignettes in which a second-person narrator (i.e., the self) elicited anger, disgust, or happiness from another person (i.e., the other). Study 2 utilized an innovative experimental paradigm involving N = 68 participant dyads. Overall, results supported the existence of affective and empathic forecasting biases. Further, symptoms of social anxiety were associated with the tendency to overestimate one's own and others' negative affect and underestimate others' positive affect. Such forecasting biases may help to explain the avoidance that is characteristic of individuals with social anxiety and could represent a fruitful target of cognitive behavioral intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.001

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 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?

  • People high in social anxiety appear to underestimate intensity and duration of positive affect when exposed to a positive interpersonal vignette as compared to individuals low in social anxiety, and overestimate other-related disgust, internal shame, and guilt.

    “In addition, people high in social anxiety appear to underestimate intensity and duration of positive affect when exposed to a positive interpersonal vignette as compared to individuals low in social anxiety, and overestimate other-related disgust, internal shame, and guilt (77).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arditte Hall, K. A., Joormann, J., Siemer, M., & Timpano, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
106
Pages
37-46
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2801826620
Cited by
30
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
impact bias, affective forecasting, social anxiety, interpersonal avoidance, cognitive-behavioral intervention, mood disorders
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Affect, Anxiety, Cognition, Empathy, Female, Humans, Male, Social Perception, Young Adult

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