Cited by 14Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

A comparison of emotional approach coping (EAC) between individuals with anxiety disorders and nonanxious controls

Open access

Abstract

Emotional regulation deficits are described as a core component of anxiety disorders (ADs), yet there remains a paucity of data examining this issue in patients diagnosed with ADs. We hypothesized that help‐seeking individuals with ADs would report lower levels of emotional approach coping (EAC), which includes emotional processing (EP) and emotional expression (EE), than nonanxious controls. Diagnostic interviews and a validated self‐report scale assessing emotional approaches to coping (emotional approach coping scale [EACS]) were administered to 101 nonanxious controls and 92 patients with a primary AD (29 generalized anxiety disorder, 40 social anxiety disorder, and 23 panic disorder). Patients with each AD demonstrated significantly lower EAC, including both EP and EE, than nonanxious controls. Lower EAC was also associated with higher anxiety sensitivity and higher anxiety symptom severity. Overall, gender did not moderate the anxiety–EAC effect, but the results suggested that women utilize EAC to a greater degree than men. Clinical techniques designed to improve emotional coping may be beneficial to individuals with ADs.

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 · 10.1111/j.1755-5949.2009.00080.x

Cites

38 of 38 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marques, L., Kaufman, R. E., LeBeau, R. T., Moshier, S. J., Otto, M. W., Pollack, M. H., & Simon, N. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Marques, Luana
Venue
CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-06
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
100-106
ISSN
  • 1755-5930 (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-5949
OpenAlex
W2031970681
Cited by
14
References
35
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Highland Street Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
emotional approach coping, anxiety disorders, emotional processing, emotional expression, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, anxiety sensitivity, anxiety symptom severity, gender differences, help-seeking
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, 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