Cited by 48Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Treatment of social approach processes in adults with social anxiety disorder

Alden, Lynn E., Buhr, Kristin, Robichaud, Melisa, Trew, Jennifer L., Plasencia, M. Leili·2018·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite the social impairment associated with social anxiety disorder (SAD), little research has examined the impact of treatment on positive relational functioning. Accordingly, the authors conducted a treatment outcome study to evaluate a cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) regimen augmented by a relational focus (CBT-R) relative to a graduated exposure-applied relaxation (GEAR) regimen and wait list (WL) control. To examine the mechanism(s) that underlies treatment effects, they used structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate two potential mediators, change in judgment biases and in safety behaviors. METHOD: Treatment-seeking adults who met SAD diagnostic criteria (n = 100; 50% women; mean age = 32.9 years.; 36% ethnic minority) were randomly assigned to CBT-R, GEAR, or WL. CBT-R and GEAR participants received 14 group treatment sessions. Social initiation, relationship satisfaction, and a SAD symptom composite were assessed at pre- and postassessment, and 6- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat multilevel modeling analyses indicated that the CBT-R regimen resulted in significantly greater improvement relative to GEAR on relationship satisfaction and SAD symptoms. SEM results revealed that change in safety behaviors partially mediated the superior performance of CBT-R on both variables with confidence intervals set at .90. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that CBT-based regimens can improve social approach processes in individuals with SAD and that safety behavior reduction contributes to positive outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000306

Cites

71 of 71 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alden, L. E., Buhr, K., Robichaud, M., Trew, J. L., & Plasencia, M. L.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2018-06
Volume
86
Issue
6
Pages
505-517
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2803508734
Cited by
48
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2012-0350)
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, cognitive behavioral therapy, safety behavior, decision bias, relationship satisfaction, social initiation, treatment outcomes, mediation
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Adult, Anxiety, Fear, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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