Cited by 42Body Image and Dysmorphia StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive processing deficits associated with body dysmorphic disorder

Open access
Johnson, Shevaugn, Williamson, Paul, Wade, Tracey D.·2018·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the evidence supporting the association between body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptomology and four types of cognitive processing abnormalities: local processing, selective attention, interpretive biases, and memory deficits. Twenty-three studies met inclusion requirements that examined differences in performance on cognitive tasks between BDD and control groups across the four categories. Multilevel modelling was used to calculate an overall effect size for each cognitive category. BDD and control groups differed significantly on measures of selective attention (g = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.26: 0.93), interpretive biases (g = 0.30, 95% CI = . 07: 0.54), and memory deficits (g=.56, 95% CI = 0.26: 0.87). Differences between the BDD and control groups on measures of local processing did not reach significance. These findings support the hypothesis that people with BDD may selectively attend to perceived threats or to disorder-related stimuli, misinterpret ambiguous stimuli as threatening, overvalue the importance of attractiveness, and have inaccurate coding and recall for facial or bodily stimuli. Recommendations for future research of these specific cognitive deficits in BDD include introducing the use of Modified Dot Probe Paradigms and new treatment targets that can be used as adjuncts to current treatment modalities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.013

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • A BDD-s betegeknél a lokális, részletekre irányuló és az egészleges, globális feldolgozás nem különbözik szignifikánsan a kontrollcsoporttól.

    “a lokális, részletekre irányuló, valamint az egészleges, globális feldolgozás terén nem különbözik a két csoport szigni fi káns mértékben (Johnson, Williamson és Wade, 2018).”

    From A testdiszmorfiás zavar pszichológiai vonatkozásai (2023) · cites this paper as Johnson, Williamson és Wade, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, S., Williamson, P., & Wade, T. D.
Affiliations
Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Shevaugn
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
107
Pages
83-94
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2806530359
Cited by
42
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
body dysmorphic disorder, cognitive processing deficits, selective attention, interpretation bias, memory impairment, local processing, facial attractiveness, threat perception, dot-probe task, treatment goals
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Attention, Cognition, Humans, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Body Dysmorphic Disorders

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