CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 195Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMemory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

A Comparison of Attentional Biases and Memory Biases in Women With Social Phobia and Major Depression.

Open access
Rinck, Mike, Becker, Eni S.·2005·Journal of Abnormal Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0021-843x.114.1.62
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cognitive processes play an important role in the etiology and maintenance of anxiety and depression. Current theories differ, however, in their predictions regarding the occurrence of attentional biases and memory biases in depression and anxiety. To allow for a systematic comparison of disorders and cognitive processes, 117 women (35 with generalized social phobia, 27 with major depression, and 55 healthy controls) participated in a test of visual attention (visual search), an explicit memory test (free recall), and an implicit memory test (anagram solving). Both clinical groups exhibited attentional biases for disorder-related words, whereas only depressed participants showed clear evidence of explicit and implicit memory biases. The implications of these results for competing theories are discussed.

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 · 10.1037/0021-843x.114.1.62

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Use of sub-clinical populations may be a significant cause of discrepancies in attentional bias studies.

    “use of sub-clinical populations may be one significant cause of these discrepancies (Rinck and Becker;2005).”

    From Affective Cognition and its Disruption in Mood Disorders (2011) · cites this paper as Rinck and Becker;2005

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: 5

  1. Ja ¨ger, A. O., & Althoff, K. (1994). The Wilde intelligence test [Der Wilde-Intelligenz-Test (2nd ed.)]. Go ¨ttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
  2. Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1987). An information-processing approach to anxiety. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 24 -30.
  3. Rinck, M., Reinecke, A., Ellwart, T., Heuer, K., & Becker, E. S. (in press). Enhancement and distraction of attention in fear of spiders: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
  4. Srinivas, K., & Roediger, H. L. (1990). Testing the nature of two implicit tests: Dissociation between conceptually-driven and data-driven pro- cesses. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 389 -412.
  5. Stangier, U. & Heidenreich, T. (2005). Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS). In Collegium Internationale Psychiatriae Scalarum (Ed.), Inter- nationale Skalen fu ¨r Psychiatrie (pp. 299 -306). Weinheim, Germany:

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
ORCID
Becker, Eni S.
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2005-02
Volume
114
Issue
1
Pages
62-74
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
DOI
10.1037/0021-843x.114.1.62
OpenAlex
W2006313488
Cited by
195
References
83
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
16.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
attentional bias, memory bias, social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized social phobia, women, visual search, free recall, anagram solving, implicit memory, declarative memory, anxiety
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Memory Disorders, Phobic Disorders, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reaction Time, Severity of Illness Index, Visual Perception, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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