Cited by 38Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsStuttering Research and Treatment

The moderated effects of video feedback for social anxiety disorder

Open access
Rodebaugh, Thomas L., Heimberg, Richard G., Schultz, Luke T., Blackmore, Michelle·2010·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Despite initially positive results, video feedback for social anxiety has never been shown to reduce social anxiety in a controlled experiment with diagnosed participants, and only once with undiagnosed participants. Previous studies arguably did not detect such an effect because of limited assessment of anxiety and potential moderators. We tested video feedback with cognitive preparation among treatment-seeking participants with a primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder. In Session 1, participants gave an extemporaneous speech and either received the intervention or not. In Session 2, 6-14 days later, participants gave a second extemporaneous speech. The intervention improved self-perception of performance, particularly for those participants with the most unrealistically negative impressions of their performance (i.e., high self-observer discrepancy). In addition, the intervention reduced anticipatory anxiety for the second speech for participants with high self-observer discrepancy. These findings extend previous results regarding video feedback and suggest that the intervention may be useful for people with social anxiety disorder and higher self-observer discrepancies for a specific task.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.04.007

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Viewing a video of oneself is only useful in changing self-evaluation of performance and/or anxiety in social anxiety if done from a third-party reappraising perspective.

    “viewing a video of oneself is only useful in changing self-evaluation of performance and/or anxiety in those with social anxiety if one does so from the reappraising perspective of a third party”

    From United we stand: emphasizing commonalities across cognitive-behavioral therapies. (2013) · cites this paper as Rodebaugh et al., 2010

    The Method (2.4 Procedure; page not provided) says participants were instructed to watch their speech video as though it showed a stranger. The Discussion (section 4; page not provided) reports benefits for self-perception and, among participants with high self-observer discrepancy, anticipatory anxiety. But the study did not compare viewing perspectives, so it does not establish that a third-party perspective is the only way video viewing can help. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wells A Clark DM Salkovskis P Ludgate J Hackmann A Gelder M Social phobia: The role of in-situation safety behaviors in maintaining anxiety and negative beliefs Behavior Therapy 1995 26 153 161 27816079

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodebaugh, T. L., Heimberg, R. G., Schultz, L. T., & Blackmore, M.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Rodebaugh, Thomas L.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
663-671
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983815959
Cited by
38
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH064481)
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 › Stuttering Research and Treatment
Keywords
video feedback, social anxiety disorder, cognitive preparation, anticipatory anxiety, speech performance, moderated effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Male, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Severity of Illness Index, Video Recording, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Feedback, Psychological

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