Cited by 247Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Attentional bias towards threatening stimuli in children with anxiety: A meta-analysis

Dudeney, Joanne, Sharpe, Louise, Hunt, Caroline·2015·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Although it is well known that anxious adults show selective attention to threatening stimuli, research investigating attentional bias in children with anxiety has produced mixed results. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of studies investigating attentional bias in children with anxiety. Using a systematic search for articles which included both children with anxiety and reported data suitable for a meta-analysis, 38 articles were identified involving 4221 subjects (anxiety n=2222). We used a random effects meta-analysis with standardized mean difference as our primary outcome to estimate between- and within-group effects of attentional bias towards threat-related information in children with anxiety. Overall, children with anxiety showed a significantly greater bias to threat-related stimuli, compared to controls (d=0.21). Children with anxiety also showed a significant bias to threat-related stimuli, over neutral stimuli (d=0.54), which was greater than the bias shown by control children (d=0.15). Specific variables in attentional bias were also explored, with varying results. The review concluded that anxious children do show a similar bias towards threatening stimuli as has been documented in adults, albeit to a lesser degree and this bias is moderated by age, such that the difference between anxious and control children increases with age. Given the small number of studies in some areas, future research is needed to understand the precise conditions under which anxious children exhibit selective attentional biases to threat-related stimuli.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.007

Cites

68 of 68 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dudeney, J., Sharpe, L., & Hunt, C.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Sharpe, Louise
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
40
Pages
66-75
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W620498723
Cited by
247
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Senior National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
attentional bias, threatening stimuli, selective attention, age differences, childhood anxiety, attentional bias to threat
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Attention, Child, Child Behavior, Fear, Female, Humans, Male

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