Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, 39 Science Road, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
J Affect Disord. 2020 Nov 1;276:1119-1130. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.121. Epub 2020 Aug 1.
Interpretation bias, which involves interpreting ambiguous social events negatively and catastrophising even mildly negative social events, has been suggested as a key maintenance factor of Social Anxiety Disorder. Although some individual studies and narrative reviews have demonstrated a role for negative interpretation bias in social anxiety (disorder), findings have been mixed. Given the lack of a quantitative synthesis of the evidence, the current systematic review and meta-analysis examined the strength of the relationship between interpretation bias and social anxiety. It also investigated potential moderators of this relationship (i.e., types of measures and stimuli, samples, and study designs).
Five databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL) were searched. Of 46 studies identified, 44 were suitable for meta-analysis (N = 3859).
There was a large effect for the relationship between social anxiety and interpretation bias (g = 0.83). Types of measures (subjective versus objective) and stimuli (verbal versus visual) were identified as significant moderators, with subjective measures and verbal stimuli particularly adept at capturing interpretation bias in socially anxious individuals.
The effect sizes displayed significant heterogeneity between studies, which likely reflects some publication bias, and thus, the overall effect size may be inflated.
Findings may help to refine clinical models and interventions for Social Anxiety Disorder, which in turn may maximise evidence-based interventions that target negative interpretation bias in this disorder.
解释偏差涉及对模糊的社会事件进行负面解读，并对轻微的负面社会事件进行灾难化解读，被认为是社交焦虑症的一个关键维持因素。尽管一些个体研究和叙述性综述表明解释偏差在社交焦虑（障碍）中起作用，但研究结果存在差异。鉴于缺乏对证据的定量综合，目前的系统回顾和荟萃分析检查了解释偏差与社交焦虑之间的关系强度。它还调查了这种关系的潜在调节因素（即测量和刺激的类型、样本和研究设计）。
搜索了五个数据库（PsycINFO、PubMed、Medline、Scopus 和 CINAHL）。在确定的 46 项研究中，有 44 项适合荟萃分析（N=3859）。
社交焦虑与解释偏差之间存在较大的关系（g=0.83）。测量类型（主观与客观）和刺激（言语与视觉）被确定为显著的调节因素，主观测量和言语刺激特别擅长捕捉社交焦虑个体的解释偏差。
研究之间的效应大小显示出显著的异质性，这可能反映了一些发表偏倚，因此，总体效应大小可能被夸大。
研究结果可能有助于完善社交焦虑症的临床模型和干预措施，从而最大限度地提高针对该障碍中负面解释偏差的循证干预措施。
