Cited by 21Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

The relative contributions of negative cognitions and self-efficacy to severity of panic attacks in panic disorder

Richards, Jeffrey C., Richardson, Vanessa, Pier, Ciaran·2002·Behaviour Change

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study was to determine the degree to which fearful and catastrophic cognitions, and self-efficacy for managing panic predicted various panic attack characteristics in panic disorder. The cognitive variables consisted of anxiety sensitivity, the frequency of fearful agoraphobic cognitions and measures of catastrophic misinterpretation of symptoms. The panic parameters were number and severity of panic symptoms, distress associated with panic attacks, worry about future panics, duration of panic disorder, and life interference due to panic disorder. These variables were measured in 40 people with panic disorder, 31 of whom also had significant agoraphobia. The frequency of fearful agoraphobic cognitions was the strongest predictor of panic attack symptomatology, predicting number of symptoms, symptom severity and degree of anticipatory fear of panic. Catastrophic misinterpretation of symptoms and anxiety sensitivity did not independently predict any panic parameters. Only self-efficacy for managing the rapid build-up of panic symptoms was specifically related to panic severity. The results therefore suggest that cognitive behaviour therapy for panic symptoms in panic disorder should reduce fearful cognitions rather than focus on panic coping strategies. The results offer little support for the contribution of the expectancy or catastrophic misinterpretation theories to the maintenance of panic disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1375/bech.19.2.102

Cites

37 of 37 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

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, J. C., Richardson, V., & Pier, C.
Affiliations
  • Federation University (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Richards, Jeffrey C.
Venue
Behaviour Change
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
102-111
ISSN
  • 0813-4839 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-7768
OpenAlex
W2070306864
Cited by
21
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Change (publishedVersion)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
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 › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
panic disorder, panic attacks, negative thinking, self-efficacy, catastrophic misinterpretation, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, cognitive behavioral therapy, symptom severity

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