CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 212Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Attentional focus in social anxiety disorder: Potential for interactive processes

Schultz, Luke T., Heimberg, Richard G.·2008·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The two preeminent cognitive behavioral models of social anxiety [Clark, D.M., & Wells, A., (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In Heimberg, R.G., Liebowitz, M., Hope, D.A., and Schneier, F.R. (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment and treatment (pp. 69-93). New York: Guilford Press.; Rapee, R.M., & Heimberg, R.G., (1997). A cognitive behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756.] suggest that attention to threat stimuli is critical in the maintenance of social fear. However, Clark and Wells assert that socially anxious persons attend almost exclusively to negative thoughts and self-imagery during social situations, whereas Rapee and Heimberg contend that socially anxious persons simultaneously attend to these internal cues and external stimuli potentially indicative of negative evaluation, such as an audience member's facial expressions. Rapee and Heimberg further suggest that attention to external and internal cues during social situations should be interdependent, such that focus on one has causal implications for the experience of the other. The current review examines the nature of the literature as it supports the assertions of each of these models of social anxiety, with particular attention to differing predictions regarding attentional focus. We conclude that socially anxious persons engage in both internal and external focus throughout the course of a social situation; however, there are a number of significant limitations to the literature. Accordingly, directions for future research are considered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.04.003

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 98 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 208

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schultz, L. T., & Heimberg, R. G.
Affiliations
Adult Anxiety Clinic of Temple (US)
Corresponding author
Heimberg, Richard G.
ORCID
Heimberg, Richard G.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
1206-1221
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2008.04.003
OpenAlex
W2043588156
Cited by
212
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 21
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, attentional focus, threat attention, facial expressions
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Phobic 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