Cited by 32Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research TopicsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The naturalistic reinforcement of worry from positive and negative emotional contrasts: Results from a momentary assessment study within social interactions

Open access
Newman, Michelle G., Schwob, Jeremy T., Rackoff, Gavin N., Doren, Natalia Van, Shin, Ki Eun, Kim, Hanjoo·2022·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Background The Contrast Avoidance Model (Newman & Llera, 2011) proposes that worry is reinforced by avoiding a negative contrast and increasing the likelihood of a positive contrast.Objective To determine if reinforcement of worry occurs naturalistically via contrasts in both negative and positive emotion.Method Using event-contingent momentary assessment we assessed social interactions, pre-interaction state worry and pre-post interaction positive and negative emotion. Participants with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD; N = 83) completed an online questionnaire after social interactions lasting at least 1 min for 8 days. Three-level multilevel models were conducted.Results Higher worry was concurrently associated with increased negative emotion and decreased positive emotion. Regardless of pre-interaction worry level, negative emotion decreased, and positive emotion increased from before to after interactions, suggesting that most interactions were benign or positive. At lower levels of pre-interaction worry, participants experienced increased negative emotion and decreased positive emotion from before to after interactions. At higher levels of pre-interaction worry, participants experienced decreased negative emotion and increased positive emotion from before to after interactions.Conclusion Among persons with GAD, worrying before social interactions may be both negatively and positively reinforced; furthermore, not worrying before social interactions may be both negatively and positively punished.

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.2022.102634

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Mediation alone does not necessarily provide a complete understanding of the underlying change mechanism.

    “although temporal precedence was established, it is essential to note that mediation alone does not necessarily provide a complete understanding of the underlying change mechanism [69].”

    From Treatment condition as a moderator and change in trait mindfulness as a mediator of a brief mindfulness ecological momentary intervention for generalized anxiety disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Methods > Data Analyses section describes multilevel models of worry and changes in affect, not a mediation analysis. A search for mediation found it only in titles in the References; no passage in our copy addresses whether mediation alone can explain an underlying change mechanism. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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. Dunst CJ, Hamby DW, & Trivette CM (2004). Guidelines for calculating effect sizes for practice-based research syntheses. Centerscope, 3(1), 1– 10.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newman, M. G., Schwob, J. T., Rackoff, G. N., Doren, N. V., Shin, K. E., & Kim, H.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Long Island University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Newman, Michelle G.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
92
Pages
102634
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4296691868
Cited by
32
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH115128)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
worry, generalized anxiety disorder, positive emotions, negative emotions, social interaction, momentary assessment, emotion regulation
MeSH terms
Social Interaction, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Emotions, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires

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