Cited by 33Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Virtually unexpected: No role for expectancy violation in virtual reality exposure for public speaking anxiety

Open access
Scheveneels, Sara, Boddez, Yannick, Van Daele, Tom, Hermans, Dirk·2019·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

In the current study, we examined the role of expectancy violation and retrospective reasoning about the absence of feared outcomes in virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET). Participants fearful of public speaking were asked to give speeches in virtual reality. We asked each participant individually to report their expectancies about feared outcomes in public speaking situations and which of these could be tested in VRET. Each of the expectancies was categorized as being related to: (1) participants' own reactions, (2) (overt) reactions of the audience, or (3) (covert) negative evaluation. We examined whether the proportion of testable expectancies could predict treatment outcome and which type of expectancies were evaluated as being more testable in VRET. Additionally, we experimentally manipulated retrospective reasoning about whether or not expectancies related to the overt reactions of the audience could be violated by providing verbal information after VRET about whether or not the virtual audience was interactive. A reduction in public speaking anxiety was observed from pre- to post-VRET. Treatment effects were, however, not predicted by the individually reported proportions of testable expectancies. Participants evaluated expectancies about their own reactions as being more testable in VRET compared to expectancies about reactions of the audience or about being negatively evaluated. In addition, we did not find evidence that the experimental manipulation regarding whether or not the audience was interactive influenced treatment effects. In conclusion, the results of the current study suggest that the effects of VRET are not univocally explained by the mechanism of expectancy violation.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02849

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Patient expectancies did not predict symptom reduction in a study in PSA.

    “but by contrast, patient expectancies did not predict symptom reduction in a study in PSA (Scheveneels et al., 2019).”

    From Virtual Reality exposure therapy in the treatment of public speaking anxiety and social anxiety disorder (2024) · cites this paper as Scheveneels et al., 2019

    In Results, the proportion of testable expectancies did not significantly predict pre–post treatment effects after correction for multiple tests. But a separate Results analysis found that expectancies about participants’ own reactions significantly predicted worse treatment effects on the PRCS (p = 0.007). The unqualified statement that patient expectancies did not predict symptom reduction therefore overlooks that finding. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Scheveneels, S., Boddez, Y., Van Daele, T., & Hermans, D.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Scheveneels, Sara
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2019-12-17
Volume
10
Pages
2849-2849
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993039877
Cited by
33
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
KU Leuven (PF/10/005)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
virtual reality exposure therapy, public speaking anxiety, speaking anxiety, expectancy violation, audience evaluation, treatment outcome prediction

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