scholarly journals Repetitive Negative Thinking in Social Anxiety Disorder 2: Post-Event Processing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Boschen ◽  
◽  
Rachel Sluis ◽  
David Neumann ◽  
Karen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Event Processing ◽  
Repetitive Negative Thinking ◽  
Negative Thinking

scholarly journals Repetitive Negative Thinking in Social Anxiety Disorder 2: Post-Event Processing

2016 ◽  
Vol a4 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Sluis ◽  
Mark J. Boschen ◽  
David L. Neumann ◽  
Karen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Event Processing ◽  
Repetitive Negative Thinking ◽  
Negative Thinking

Cognitive models of social anxiety disorder (SAD) emphasize post-event processing as a prominent maintaining factor that occurs after social-evaluative events. Post-event processing involves repetitive negative thinking revolved around perceived social failure. The present review concentrates on the relevant and available empirical literature on post-event processing in social anxiety which centres on Clarke and Wells (1995) theoretical framework. Correlational and experimental studies have investigated the relationship between post-event processing and the behavioural, physiological, cognitive and affective outcomes for socially anxious individuals. The majority of study designs include those investigating post-event processing in response to social-evaluative threat, and in response to treatment. Limitations of the existing literature are discussed and suggestions for future research examining the underlying cognitive functions of post-event processing are proposed.

scholarly journals Repetitive Negative Thinking in Social Anxiety Disorder 1: Anticipatory Processing

2017 ◽  
Vol a4 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel A. Sluis ◽  
Mark J. Boschen ◽  
David L. Neumann ◽  
Karen Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Repetitive Negative Thinking ◽  
Socially Anxious ◽  
Negative Thinking ◽  
Anticipatory Processing

Cognitive models of social anxiety disorder (SAD) emphasize anticipatory processing as a prominent maintaining factor that occurs before social-evaluative events. Anticipatory processing occurs when a socially anxious individual is expecting a social event and can be described as a mode of repetitive negative thinking dominated by past failures, negative images of oneself, predictions of poor performance and rejection. The present review examined the literature on anticipatory processing in social anxiety in an effort to highlight important findings pertaining to this construct. Correlational and experimental studies have investigated the relationship between anticipatory processing and the behavioural, physiological, cognitive and affective outcomes for socially anxious individuals. Studies investigating the characteristics, causes, and consequences of anticipatory processing according to models of social anxiety were included for review. The majority of study designs include those investigating anticipatory processing prior to social-evaluative threat. Directions for future research are discussed and an overview of a framework for explaining anticipatory processing biases in social anxiety is presented.

Social anxiety disorder in children: investigating the relative contribution of automatic thoughts, repetitive negative thinking and metacognitions

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Barbara Hoff Esbjørn ◽  
Anette Falch ◽  
Monika Anna Walczak ◽  
Nicoline Normann ◽  
Sonja Breinholst
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Anxiety Symptoms ◽  
Automatic Thoughts ◽  
Social Threat ◽  
Repetitive Negative Thinking ◽  
Negative Thinking ◽  
Relative Contribution ◽  
Negative Automatic Thoughts

Abstract Background: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is common in youths. However, our understanding of SAD in children is inferior to that of SAD in adolescents or adults, and it is unclear if known adult SAD maintenance mechanisms may also operate in children with SAD. Aim: The paper sets out to investigate the specificity of positive automatic thoughts, social threat negative automatic thoughts, repetitive negative thinking, positive and negative metacognitions in predicting SAD symptoms and diagnoses in clinically anxious children. Method: We enrolled 122 clinically anxious children aged 7–13 years; of these, 33 had an SAD diagnosis. Results: SAD symptoms correlated positively with social threat negative automatic thoughts, repetitive negative thinking, and negative metacognitions, and negatively with positive automatic thoughts. Linear regression indicated that, of these variables, only social threat negative automatic thoughts predicted social anxiety symptoms. Logistic regression indicated that social threat negative automatic thoughts, a higher number of diagnoses and negative metacognitive beliefs specifically predicted the presence of SAD diagnosis. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that content-specific social threat negative automatic thoughts was the only variable that specifically distinguished both higher levels of social anxiety symptoms and diagnoses.

Measurement Invariance of Disorder-Specific and Transdiagnostic Measures of Repetitive Negative Thinking

Assessment ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 107319112110286
Author(s):  
Sarah Shihata ◽  
Andrew R. Johnson ◽  
David M. Erceg-Hurn ◽  
Peter M. McEvoy
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Generalized Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Generalized Anxiety ◽  
Response Scale ◽  
Repetitive Negative Thinking ◽  
Negative Thinking

Background: Repetitive negative thinking is conceptualized to be a transdiagnostic process linked to the development and maintenance of psychopathology. Prior research distinguishes between disorder-specific exemplars (worry, rumination) and transdiagnostic measures of repetitive negative thinking with differences across disorders reported. However, establishing the measurement invariance of these measures is necessary to support meaningful comparisons across clinical groups. Method: Bayesian structural equation modelling was used to assess the approximate invariance of the Ruminative Response Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and the Repetitive Thinking Questionnaire across individuals with a principal diagnosis of either depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder. Results: All scales demonstrated approximate measurement invariance across the three disorder groups. The depressive disorder group reported a higher level of rumination than the generalized anxiety disorder group (Δµ = 0.25, 95% Credibility Interval [0.06, 0.45]), with no difference between the generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder groups. The depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder groups did not differ in their levels of trait repetitive negative thinking, but the social anxiety disorder group was markedly lower than the generalized anxiety disorder group (Δµ = −0.21 [−0.37, −0.05]). Similarly, levels of worry did not differ between the generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder group but were lower in the social anxiety disorder group than the generalized anxiety disorder group (Δµ = −0.23 [−0.41, −0.06]). Conclusions: The Ruminative Response Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and Repetitive Thinking Questionnaire are measuring trait repetitive negative thinking in a consistent manner across individuals with a principal diagnosis of depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder. This supports their use in transdiagnostic contexts and indicates that it is appropriate to directly compare the scores on these measures between diagnostic groups.

Predicting post-event processing in social anxiety disorder following two prototypical social situations: State variables and dispositional determinants

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 617-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Kiko ◽  
Stephan Stevens ◽  
Anna Katharina Mall ◽  
Regina Steil ◽  
Martin Bohus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Event Processing ◽  
State Variables ◽  
Social Situations

It hurts but I still need it: a qualitative investigation of post-event processing in social anxiety disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-369
Author(s):  
Naoki Yoshinaga ◽  
Kota Takaoka ◽  
Osamu Kobori
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Social Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Social Performance ◽  
Event Processing ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Intermittent Reinforcement ◽  
Metacognitive Beliefs ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Do So

AbstractBackground:It has been proposed that both positive and negative metacognitive beliefs sustain engagement in post-event processing (PEP). However, it is unknown: (1) whether individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) actually derive the benefits from PEP that they expect; (2) if this is not the case, how their positive beliefs are maintained; and (3) if they are aware of the counterproductive effects of PEP, why they still perform PEP.Aims:To explore the phenomenology of the processes involved in PEP from the perspective of SADs, in order to address the research questions above.Method:Twenty-one participants suffering from SAD received individual semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.Results:Analysis revealed three main themes: (1) ‘Only, safe and useful way to improve myself’: SADs feel the need to improve their social performance, and they believe that PEP is the only, safe, and private way to do so, which is an underlying motive for them to do PEP; (2) ‘It hurts more than helps me’: however, through PEP, they do not seem to obtain the benefit that they expect, or only find a variety of counterproductive outcomes; (3) ‘Better safe than sorry’: they sometimes find makeshift solutions to improve their social performance during PEP, which may maintain their PEP as a form of intermittent reinforcement. They weigh up such costs and benefits, and choose to perform PEP while feeling conflicted about PEP.Conclusions:The results suggest that: (1) SADs rarely obtain the benefits from PEP that they expect; (2) their positive metacognitive beliefs are maintained by solutions they sometimes find during PEP; and (3) SADs choose to perform PEP while feeling conflicted; while PEP ironically maintains and exacerbates negative self-beliefs/images, it is the only safe and useful way to improve their social performance. These findings support and expand on the theories of PEP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document