CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 756Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Cognitive Model of Selective Processing in Anxiety

Mathews, Andrew, Mackintosh, Bundy·1998·Cognitive Therapy and Research
DOI 10.1023/a:1018738019346
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1018738019346

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Several models suggest that anxiety biases attention towards threat-related stimuli by increasing the output from an amygdala-centred threat evaluation system.

    “Several models suggest that anxiety biases attention towards threat-related stimuli by increasing the output from an amygdala-centred threat evaluation system”

    From Short-term serotonergic but not noradrenergic antidepressant administration reduces attentional vigilance to threat in healthy volunteers (2009) · cites this paper as Mathews and Mackintosh, 1998

  • Stimuli associated with negative valence have a mandatory and involuntary effect on allocation of covert and overt attention, which cannot be fully controlled in a top-down effortful fashion.

    “In short, there is strong evidence for what has been proposed by major theories on emotion processing (Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998; Öhman & Mineka, 2001): stimuli associated with negative valence have a mandatory and involuntary effect on the allocation of covert and overt attention, which cannot be fully controlled in a top-down effortful fashion.”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Mathews & Mackintosh, 1998

  • An automatic threat evaluation system (TES) makes people vigilant to potentially threatening information.

    “An automatic threat evaluation system (TES) makes people vigilant to potentially threatening information (50).”

    From Negative interpretation of ambiguous bodily symptoms among illness-anxious individuals: Exploring the role of developmental and maintenance constructs (2023) · cites this paper as [50]

  • AB in threat-distractor interference reflects conflict between threat salience-driven and goal-directed processes.

    “AB in threat-distractor interference (e.g., [ 5 0 2 _ T D $ D I F F ] on the emotional Stroop task) reflects conflict between threat salience-driven and goal-directed processes [26,30,31,55,59].”

    From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [30]

  • Threat hypersensitivity of automatic salience evaluation and switching in anxiety may trigger inhibition or interruption of task-related activity and switching of attention priorities, impairing task performance.

    “Threat hypersensitivity of automatic salience evaluation and switching in anxiety may trigger inhibition/interruption of task-related activity, as well as switching of attention priorities from goal-directed processing to threat salience-driven processing (Figure 2), which impairs task performance”

    From Anxiety and Threat-Related Attention: Cognitive-Motivational Framework and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [30]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hirsch, C., & Mathews, A. (1997). Interpretive inference s when reading about emotional events. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 1123–1132. · DOI
  2. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1995). International Affective Picture System (IAPS). Gainesville: NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida.
  3. Öhman, A. (1993). Fear and anxiety as emotional phenomena. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions(pp. 511–536). New York: Guilford Press.
  4. Treisman, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control(pp. 5–35). Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.
  5. Williams, J. M., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders.(2nd ed.) Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Mathews, A., & Mackintosh, B.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
ORCID
Mackintosh, Bundy
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1998-12
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
539-560
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
DOI
10.1023/a:1018738019346
OpenAlex
W2170408452
Cited by
756
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 54
FWCI
8.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
anxiety, selective attention, threat processing, attentional bias, interpretation bias, attentional competition, voluntary effort, evolutionary perspective, aversive conditioning, extinction

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