Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of short-term SSRI treatment on cognitive bias in generalised anxiety disorder

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

There is considerable evidence showing that individuals with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) selectively process threat-related information, e.g. they have a bias to interpret ambiguous information in a threat-related manner. Cognitive theories of anxiety, which provide the basis of cognitive-behaviour therapy, propose that such processing biases play an important role in causing and maintaining anxiety.

Objectives

Given that treatment with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) appears to be effective for GAD, we examined whether it is successful in removing cognitive bias.

Methods

The clinical group included 19 patients with a diagnosis of GAD, and the control group consisted of a non-clinical sample of volunteers, matched for age, gender and years in education. The patients were assessed on measures of interpretative bias (homophone task), anxiety and depression before being prescribed an SSRI (paroxetine or citalopram). After 4 weeks, the cognitive task and mood measures were repeated in the patient group.

Results

Prior to treatment, the GAD group showed a significantly greater level of threat-related interpretive bias than controls. Following SSRI treatment, there were significant reductions in both interpretive bias and in anxiety levels in the GAD group. Furthermore, individuals who showed greater clinical improvement (e.g. reflected by reduced anxiety scores) showed a correspondingly greater reduction in their cognitive bias.

Conclusion

The results suggest that SSRIs are effective in modifying both subjective anxiety levels and threat-related interpretive bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The results from the initial session are comparable with those from previous studies. For example, homophone bias scores for GAD and control groups were 85% and 70%, respectively, in Mathews et al.’s (1989) study, compared with 81% and 71% in the present study. As noted by Mathews et al. all means were greater than 50%, indicating that the threat meaning tended to be dominant for all participants, which is likely to reflect a simple word frequency effect. More importantly, the results indicate that degree of dominance of threat meanings is greater in anxious patients than in normal controls.

References

  • Andrews TM, Anderson IM (1998) Information processing in anxiety: a pilot study of the effect of manipulating 5-HT function. J Psychopharmacol 12:155–160

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews W, Parker G, Barrett E (1998) The SSRI antidepressants: exploring their “other” possible properties. J Affect Disord 49:141–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin DS, Buis C, Mayers AG (2002) Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder. Exp Opin Neurother 2:89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck AT, Clark DA (1997) An information processing model of anxiety: automatic and strategic processes. Behav Res Ther 35:49–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck AT, Emery G, Greenberg RC (1985) Anxiety disorders and phobias: a cognitive perspective. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W (1996) Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories -IA and -II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess 67:588–597.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butler G, Fennell M, Robson P, Gelder M (1991) Comparison of behaviour therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:167–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok S, Stavrou A, Bonn J, Mogg K, Critchlow S, Rust J (1991) Effects of diazepam on anxiety-related cognition. Cognit Ther Res 15:459–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy W (1976) ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, pp 218–222

  • Hamilton M (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux JE (1996) The emotional brain. Simon Schuster, New York

  • Mathews A, Mackintosh B (1998) A cognitive model of selective processing in anxiety. Cognit Ther Res 22:539–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews A, Richards A, Eysenck M (1989) Interpretation of homophones related to threat in anxiety states. J Abnorm Psychol 98:31–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews A, Mogg K, Kentish J, Eysenck M (1995) Effects of psychological treatment on cognitive bias in generalised anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther 33:293–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD (1990) Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther 28:487–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg K, Bradley BP (1998) A cognitive-motivational analysis of anxiety. Behav Res Ther 36:809–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogg K, Bradley BP, Millar N, White J (1995) A follow-up study of cognitive bias in generalised anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther 33:927–935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt DJ, Forshall S, Bell C, Rich A, Sandford J, Nash J, Argyropoulous S (1999) Mechanisms of action of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 9:S81–S86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oatley K, Johnson-Laird P (1987) Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognit Emot 1:29–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack MH, Zaninelli R, Goddard A et al (2001) Paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: results of a placebo-controlled, flexible-dosage trial. J Clin Psychiatry 62:350–357

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rickels K, Zaninelli R, McCafferty JP et al. (2003) Paroxetine treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry 160:749–756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Harnett-Sheehan K, Amorim P, Janaversus J, Weiller E, Baker R, Dunbar G (1998) The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59(Suppl 20):22–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA (1983) Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto, Calif.

  • Stewart SH, Westra HA, Thompson CE, Conrad BE (2000) Effects of naturalistic benzodiazepine use on selective attention to threat cues among anxiety disorder patients. Cognit Ther Res 24:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein AM, Nutt DJ (1995) A cognitive dysfunction in anxiety and its amelioration by effective treatment with SSRIs. J Psychopharmacol 9:83–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JMG, Watts FN, MacLeod C, Mathews A (1997) Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Christel Buis and Andrew Mayers for their help with some of the MINI structured interviews and rating scale assessments. Karin Mogg holds a Wellcome Senior Research Fellowship in Basic Biomedical Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karin Mogg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mogg, K., Baldwin, D.S., Brodrick, P. et al. Effect of short-term SSRI treatment on cognitive bias in generalised anxiety disorder. Psychopharmacology 176, 466–470 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-004-1902-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-004-1902-y

Keywords

Navigation