CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A randomized controlled trial of attention modification for social anxiety disorder

Carleton, R. Nicholas, Teale Sapach, Michelle J.N., Oriet, Chris, Duranceau, Sophie, Lix, Lisa M., Thibodeau, Michel A., Horswill, Samantha C., Ubbens, Jordan R. +1 more·2015·Journal of Anxiety Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.03.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) models implicate social threat cue vigilance (i.e., attentional biases) in symptom development and maintenance. A modified dot-probe protocol has been shown to reduce SAD symptoms, in some but not all studies, presumably by modifying an attentional bias. The current randomized controlled trial was designed to replicate and extend such research. Participants included treatment-seeking adults (n = 108; 58% women) who met diagnostic criteria for SAD. Participants were randomly assigned to a standard (i.e., control) or modified (i.e., active) dot-probe protocol condition and to participate in-lab or at home. The protocol involved twice-weekly 15-min sessions, for 4 weeks, with questionnaires completed at baseline, post-treatment, 4-month follow-up, and 8-month follow-up. Symptom reports were assessed with repeated measures mixed hierarchical modeling. There was a main effect of time from baseline to post-treatment wherein social anxiety symptoms declined significantly (p < .05) but depression and trait anxiety did not (p > .05). There were no significant interactions based on condition or participation location (ps > .05). Reductions were maintained at 8-month follow-up. Symptom reductions were not correlated with threat biases as indexed by the dot-probe task. The modified and standard protocol both produced significant sustained symptom reductions, whether administered in-lab or at home. There were no robust differences based on protocol type. As such, the mechanisms for benefits associated with modified dot-probe protocols warrant additional research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.03.011

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Many ABM studies find no evidence of AB in orienting to threat in anxious individuals before ABM training.

    “First, many ABM studies find no evidence of AB in orienting to threat in anxious individuals before ABM training (e.g., Boettcher et al., 2013;Britton et al., 2013;Carleton et al., 2015;Eldar et al., 2012;Heeren, Mogoas ¸e, McNally, et al., 2015;McNally et al., 2013;Waters et al., 2015).”

    From Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification (2016) · cites this paper as Carleton et al., 2015

  • In some ABM studies, ABM-threat-avoidance training and control conditions with similar exposure to threat cues both reduced anxiety.

    “In some ABM studies, ABM-threat-avoidance training and control conditions, which involved a similar level of exposure to threat cues, both reduced anxiety”

    From Anxiety and attention to threat: cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification (2016) · cites this paper as Carleton et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carleton, R. N., Teale Sapach, M. J. N., Oriet, C., Duranceau, S., Lix, L. M., Thibodeau, M. A., Horswill, S. C., Ubbens, J. R., & Asmundson, G. J. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
Corresponding author
Carleton, R. Nicholas
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
33
Pages
35-44
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.03.011
OpenAlex
W1986911843
Cited by
24
References
68
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
8.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
New Investigator Equipment Grant (SHRF2456)
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 › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, dot-probe task, attentional bias, cognitive bias modification, home-based therapy, symptom maintenance, depression, trait anxiety
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Attention, Depression, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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