The use of trial‐level bias scores to examine attention bias and attention bias variability among people with and without social anxiety disorder

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Cognitive models of anxiety propose that people with anxiety disorders show elevated levels of attention bias toward threat, but the most commonly used index of attention bias, which measures the construct with an aggregate score of multiple trials across an experimental session, shows poor test‐retest reliability. Newer indices that measure attention bias dynamically on a trial‐to‐trial basis show good reliability and enable researchers to measure not only overall attention bias toward threat, but also attention bias variability.Methods: The current study tested the hypothesis that people diagnosed with social anxiety disorder would show higher attention bias variability and higher attention bias toward threat when calculated dynamically and when calculated using the traditional aggregate index. Participants diagnosed with social anxiety disorder (n = 47) and controls (n = 57) completed a 160‐trial version of the dot‐probe task using emotional and neutral images of faces as stimuli.Results: Relative to controls, participants diagnosed with social anxiety disorder showed higher mean bias toward threat, but only when calculated using trial‐level bias scores. There were no differences between groups on attention bias variability.Discussion: This is the first study to examine differences in attention bias and attention bias variability between people with and without social anxiety disorder using trial‐level bias scores. Results suggest that attention bias, but not attention bias variability, is a feature of social anxiety psychopathology and that trial‐level bias scores may be more sensitive than aggregated mean scores to detect it. These findings have implications for clinical interventions such as attention bias modification programs, which require precise measures of attention bias to accurately assess treatment outcomes.

This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit: