Review articleInterpretation bias in social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Social Anxiety Disorder is characterised by a disproportionate fear and anxiety of social performance and social situations. Socially anxious individuals have a core fear of negative evaluation and actively avoid social situations where potential scrutiny, humiliation, or embarrassment may occur, leading to marked distress and significant disturbances in functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Cognitive behavioural models of Social Anxiety Disorder (e.g., Clark, 2001; Heimberg et al., 2014) have proposed that information processing biases play a central role in the development and maintenance of the disorder. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of such biased cognitive processing may inform future treatment strategies.
One cognitive processing bias is interpretation bias, which involves interpreting ambiguous social events negatively and catastrophising even mildly negative social events (Clark, 2001; Heimberg et al., 2014). This bias has also been described as judgmental bias or inferential bias (Heinrichs and Hofmann, 2001; Hirsch et al., 2016). According to Clark's (2001) cognitive model of Social Anxiety Disorder, socially anxious individuals tend to interpret social events or situations as threatening (i.e., perceived criticism or rejection by others), which is associated with negative social costs. To keep themselves ‘safe’ from perceived adverse social outcomes, socially anxious individuals avoid social engagements, which prevent them from having positive social experiences. Such negative interpretations are also carried into post-event processing and the cycle repeats and thereby compounds the lack of opportunity for benign disambiguation of social information. Thus, a negative interpretation bias for social information is a significant maintenance factor in Social Anxiety Disorder (Clark, 2001; Heimberg et al., 2014).
In support of this cognitive theoretical framework, empirical evidence and some early narrative reviews have demonstrated that socially anxious individuals hold a negative or threat bias for ambiguous social situations (Beard and Amir, 2009; Brendle and Wenzel, 2004; Clark and McManus, 2002; Franklin et al., 2005; Gutierrez-Garcia and Calvo, 2017; Heinrichs and Hofmann, 2001; Mohlman et al., 2007) and report catastrophic interpretations of mildly negative social situations (Amir et al., 2005; Stopa and Clark, 2000). Socially anxious individuals also interpret neutral and positive social information negatively (Campbell et al., 2009; Voncken et al., 2003; Yoon and Zinbarg, 2007) and show a lack of positive interpretations of social events (Amir et al., 2012; Constans et al., 1999; Maoz et al., 2016). However, not all studies nor more recent narrative reviews have found that socially anxious individuals demonstrate a negative bias in interpreting social information, with some showing a lack of nonthreat or positive interpretation bias and others showing no impact of social anxiety on interpretation bias (Garner et al., 2009; Hirsch and Clark, 2004; Hirsch et al., 2016; Jusyte and Schonenberg, 2014; Qiu et al., 2018; Schofield et al., 2007). Given the inconsistencies in findings, and the high risk of biases (selection, assessment, and publication biases) inherent in narrative reviews (Foroutan et al., 2018), a quantitative synthesis by way of a systematic review and meta-analysis is warranted to ensure quality of evidence. Thus, the first aim of the present study was to estimate the size of the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Researchers have suggested that the inconsistencies in findings may be due to methodological differences, such as the use of subjective versus objective measures, or the type of stimuli (e.g., written scenarios versus faces) used to assess interpretation bias (Hirsch and Clark, 2004; Hirsch et al., 2016; Staugaard, 2010). Some researchers have further suggested that the examination of interpretation bias in social anxiety should take a dimensional perspective and address not only negative but also positive interpretation biases (Huppert et al., 2003). Thus, the second aim of the present study was to examine these and other potential factors that may moderate the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety, and thus may have contributed to the heterogeneity in previously reported studies and narrative reviews. In addition to examining objective versus subjective interpretation bias measures, positive versus negative stimulus valence, and different types of stimuli as moderators, we also investigated the potential roles of study population and study design.
In their narrative review, Clark and McManus (2002) recommended including objective measures (i.e., on-line paradigms) to determine the existence of biased interpretation as has been found with subjective measures (i.e., off-line procedures). Unlike subjective measures, which capture interpretation processing by self-report methods such as rating scales, objective measures capture this processing by way of response latencies to stimuli, and are thus less subject to demand, selection, or response bias effects (Hirsch et al., 2016). Accordingly, the current study sought to meta-analyse differences between subjective and objective measures of interpretation bias in socially anxious individuals.
Some researchers have argued that negative versus positive interpretation biases are not opposites of a single dimension (Amir et al., 2012; Huppert et al., 2003; Steinman et al., 2020). However, many paradigms do not allow for an independent assessment of these two types of interpretation bias, making it difficult to distinguish them. A more recent meta-analysis by Kivity and Huppert (2016) examined whether socially anxious individuals respond differently to emotional expressions of threatening, neutral, and positive valence than controls. They found that socially anxious individuals rated people as less approachable irrespective of the valence of expressions and reported higher arousal toward neutral expressions. These findings highlight the impact of stimulus valence on the judgement of emotional reactions in socially anxious individuals. The current meta-analysis therefore examined the role of stimulus valence (i.e., negative, positive, neutral, and ambiguous) in impacting interpretation bias. Specifically, we investigated whether social anxiety is characterised not only by the presence of a threat bias but also by the absence of a positive interpretation bias.
Previous narrative reviews have highlighted the importance of type of stimulus materials when investigating interpretation bias in Social Anxiety Disorder (Heinrichs and Hofmann, 2001; Staugaard, 2010). Two types of stimuli, namely verbal and visual stimuli are commonly used to assess interpretation bias in social anxiety (disorder). Verbal stimuli have included those in a written format such as words, sentences, vignettes, and scenarios whereas visual stimuli have consisted of facial expressions (photographs or video clips) and videotaped social situations or behaviours. Heinrichs and Hofmann (2001) argued that verbal stimuli are more descriptive, whereas other researchers have argued that verbal stimuli are not especially socially threatening (Amir et al., 1998; Hertel et al., 2008; Stopa and Clark, 2000). Yet others have argued that visual stimuli, such as faces are more ecologically valid, as a face can more readily present a social threat and convey negative evaluation through a change in expression (Heuer et al., 2010).
Previous narrative reviews have concluded that studies that have used verbal stimuli have generally found an interpretation bias towards socially threatening information in socially anxious individuals (Heinrichs and Hofmann, 2001; Hirsch et al., 2016). However, studies that have used visual stimuli (i.e., threatening faces) have reported mixed results, with some studies, but not others, demonstrating a negative interpretation bias in socially anxious individuals (Staugaard, 2010). Staugaard (2010) explained the inconsistencies by suggesting that the particular stimuli used across studies may differentially affect the perceptual processing of people with social anxiety. This highlights the importance of examining the impact of different types of stimuli in the assessment of interpretation bias in socially anxious individuals. The current study aimed to address this gap by meta-analysing the impact of the two types of stimuli (i.e., verbal and visual) and their subtypes (i.e., sentences, scenarios, facial expressions, and videos) on interpretation bias in socially anxious individuals. Specifically, we examined whether there are differences in the observation of interpretation bias for different types of stimuli, and whether this bias exists consistently across studies that used a diversity of stimuli.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis which examined the relationship between negative interpretations and anxiety in children and adolescents, categorised moderators of this relationship into two groups, namely “Procedural” (e.g., design and assessment) and “Population” (e.g., clinical or sub-clinical sample) (Stuijfzand et al., 2018). The current study therefore further extended the examination of the potential moderators that could contribute to the size of the relationship between biased interpretation and social anxiety by including sample population and study design as moderators.
In terms of sample population, previous research has suggested that social anxiety may be better understood as a severity continuum, from mild presentations such as shyness, to severe and impairing forms, namely Social Anxiety Disorder (McNeil, 2001; Ruscio, 2010). Populations with high levels of social anxiety, but sub-threshold for diagnosis, are comparable to populations with a clinical diagnosis, because of the strong fear of social situations and associated severe impairment in functioning (Wittchen and Fehm, 2003). Thus, it has been suggested that studying individuals with social anxiety at a sub-diagnostic level provides empirical and clinical information on Social Anxiety Disorder (McNeil, 2001; Rapee and Heimberg, 1997; Ruscio, 2010). However, research has also acknowledged that the nature of the symptoms in analogue samples is not necessarily comparable to patients with social phobia. As such, researchers have recommended investigating the generalisation of findings from analogue populations to clinical populations (Badra et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019; Schofield et al., 2007). Accordingly, the current study sought to examine whether the size of the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety would be different in clinical and non-clinical populations.
Determining the impact of the study design on outcomes is common practice in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (de Lijster et al., 2017; Haines et al., 2007; Varese et al., 2012). Designs vary in the degree of confidence they instil regarding a causal relationship between two factors. To reduce the likelihood of over optimising conclusions about the results due to study designs and ensure the validity of conclusions drawn (Haines et al., 2007), the current study examined whether the size of the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety would differ based on the design of the included studies.
The current systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety is both timely and important. Converging or diverging evidence from different methodologies, sample populations, and study designs would provide a comprehensive understanding of how interpretation bias operates in social anxiety. The findings will help to consolidate the evidence on the role of biased interpretations in socially anxious individuals. Such information is critical for the development of individually tailored interventions that target interpretation bias in Social Anxiety Disorder.
Section snippets
Literature search and study eligibility
Relevant literature was sourced from the PsycINFO, PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases. Search terms included social* AND anxi* OR phobi* AND bias* AND cognitive OR attention OR information OR misinterpretation OR interpret* OR inferential OR judgement AND adult* NOT child* OR adolscen*. Publications were included if they were primary peer-reviewed journal articles, were published in English, examined the relationship between social anxiety disorder and interpretation, and included
Results
The PRISMA flow chart detailing the screening and identification of studies is shown in Fig. 1. Overall, 46 studies including 3859 participants were identified, 44 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Study summaries are provided in Table 1. Of the 46 studies identified, four studies required further information from the authors to be included in the meta-analysis and this information was supplied for two (Gutierrez-Garcia and Calvo, 2017; Kingsbury and Coplan, 2016).
Interpretation bias in social anxiety (disorder)
The current systematic review and meta-analysis examined the relationship between biased interpretations and social anxiety. Results showed a large effect size in the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety. Further testing of the fail-safe number confirmed the high likelihood of the validity of the large sized relationship. This result provides evidence supporting cognitive behavioural models of Social Anxiety Disorder (Clark, 2001; Heimberg et al., 2014), which propose a
Role of Funding Sources
This work was supported by a 2018 High Impact Strategy Incentive, Flinders Institute of Psychological Science, Flinders University, Australia.
Declarations of Competing Interest
None.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Junwen Chen: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Michelle Short: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Eva Kemps: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Flinders University Academic Librarian, Ms Josephine McGill, for her assistance in developing the search strategy and database searches.
References (85)
- et al.
A multi-session interpretation modification program: changes in interpretation and social anxiety symptoms
Behav. Res. Ther.
(2008) - et al.
Differentiating between memory and interpretation biases in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals
Behav. Res. Ther.
(2004) - et al.
Internet-based interpretation bias modification for social anxiety: a pilot study
J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychol.
(2015) - et al.
Inferring other people's states of mind: comparison across social anxiety, body dysmorphic, and obsessive-compulsive disorders
J. Anxiety Disord.
(2015) - et al.
Information processing in social phobia
Biol. Psychiatr.
(2002) - et al.
Interpretive biases for ambiguous stimuli in social anxiety
Behav. Res. Ther.
(1999) - et al.
Impaired identification of fearful faces in generalised social phobia
J. Affect. Disord.
(2009) - et al.
Social anxiety and threat-related interpretation of dynamic facial expressions: sensitivity and response bias
Pers. Indiv. Differ.
(2017) - et al.
A cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety disorder
- et al.
Information processing in social phobia: a critical review
Clin. Psychol. Rev.
(2001)
Morphed emotional faces: emotion detection and misinterpretation in social anxiety
J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychol.
Information-processing bias in social phobia
Clin. Psychol. Rev.
Interpretation biases in social anxiety: Response generation, response selection, and self-appraisals
Behaviour research and therapy
Cognitive bias modification: a review of meta-analyses
J. Affect. Disord.
Threat processing in generalized social phobia: an investigation of interpretation biases in ambiguous facial affect
Psychiatry Res.
RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Prefrontal mediation of emotion regulation in social anxiety disorder during laughter perception
Neuropsychologia
Angry-happy interpretations of ambiguous faces in social anxiety disorder
Psychiatry Res.
Jumping to interpretations: social anxiety disorder and the identification of emotional facial expressions
Behav. Res. Ther.
Categorical perception of facial expressions in individuals with non-clinical social anxiety
J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry
A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia
Behav. Res. Ther.
Laughter perception in social anxiety
J. Psychiatry Res.
Social anxiety and interpretation biases for facial displays of emotion: emotion detection and ratings of social cost
Behav. Res. Ther.
Threatening faces and social anxiety: a literature review
Clin. Psychol. Rev.
Social phobia and interpretation of social events
Behav. Res. Ther.
Interpretation and judgmental biases in social phobia
Behav. Res. Ther.
Memory and interpretation of visual representations of threat in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals
Behav. Res. Ther.
Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders
J. Math. Psychol.
The interpretation of negative social events in social phobia with versus without comorbid mood disorder
Journal of anxiety disorders
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Interpretation bias and social anxiety
Cogn. Ther. Res.
Negative interpretation bias in social phobia
Behav. Res. Ther.
Lack of a benign interpretation bias in social anxiety disorder
Cogn. Behav. Ther.
Interpretation training in individuals with generalized social anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial
J. Consult. Clin. Psychyol.
The association between ruminative thinking and negative interpretation bias in social anxiety
Cogn. Emot.
Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood
Psychol. Bull.
Interpretation in social anxiety: when meaning precedes ambiguity
Cogn. Ther. Res.
Negative interpretation bias mediates the effect of social anxiety on state anxiety
Cognitive therapy and research
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 2
Introduction to Meta-Analysis
Developmental-changes in processing speed – influence of speed accuracy regulation
J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
Extraction of mean emotional tone from face arrays in social anxiety disorder
Depression and anxiety
Cited by (75)
Higher Intersubject Variability in Neural Response to Narrative Social Stimuli Among Youth With Higher Social Anxiety
2024, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryEffects of positive and negative affect inductions on interpretive and response bias
2024, Behaviour Research and TherapyRelationship between types of anxiety and the ability to recognize facial expressions
2023, Acta PsychologicaNeural representations of ambiguous affective stimuli and resilience to anxiety in emerging adults
2023, Biological Psychology