Meng Liang

Bullying is associated with internalizing symptoms and impaired everyday functioning. Cognitive‐behavioural therapy (CBT) and imagery interventions have been studied as treatments to improve mental health after such experiences. This meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of individual CBT and imagery interventions in targeting internalizing symptoms (negative affect, depression, anxiety and post‐traumatic stress symptoms) and improving self‐perception and coping in bullying victims. Systematic searches of PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase and Web of Science identified 23 studies applying CBT ( n = 15) and imagery interventions ( n = 8) in bullying victims. Risk of bias and random‐effects meta‐analyses were conducted for pre ‐ post and pre ‐ follow‐up comparisons. Sensitivity analyses and meta‐regressions explored potential moderators. Unadjusted analyses showed reductions in internalizing symptoms pre‐ to post ‐ intervention ( k = 21, g = 0.72). These symptoms were maintained at follow‐up assessments ( k = 9, g = 0.54). Similar initial improvements emerged for self‐perception and coping outcomes ( k = 15, g = 0.75). However, substantial heterogeneity existed ( I ² = 68%–98%). Crucially, after adjusting for publication bias, the pre–post internalizing effect dropped to g = 0.26 and was no longer statistically significant. Conversely, the adjusted effect for self‐perception and coping increased to g = 0.98, whereas the follow‐up internalizing effect decreased ( g = 0.37) but remained significant. Both CBT and imagery interventions may offer potential benefits for bullying victims in reducing internalizing symptoms and in improving self‐perception and coping abilities. However, large heterogeneity, methodological limitations and publication bias warrant cautious interpretation. Further high‐quality controlled trials are needed to establish the robustness and clinical efficacy of these interventions.

Background: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is associated with dysfunctions in face processing, a critical aspect of social interaction. However, there is a dearth of biomarkers that could facilitate precise diagnosis and targeted treatment. Aims: This meta‐analysis seeks to investigate abnormalities in P1, N170, LPP, and N2pc during face processing in individuals with SAD. It also aims to examine the role of potential moderators. Methods: A systematic review of the literature yielded 32 relevant studies, encompassing the aforementioned ERP components: P1 (21 studies), N170 (16 studies), LPP (11 studies), and N2pc (6 studies). We performed a random‐effects meta‐analysis to calculate Hedges′ g and assessed publication bias using the trim‐and‐fill method. Risk of bias was evaluated across five domains using an adapted Downs and Black checklist. Results: Risk of bias was generally low, with some concerns regarding external validity. Primary analysis showed enhanced P1 ( g = 0.92) and LPP ( g = 1.07) amplitudes in SAD. However, the P1 effect became nonsignificant ( g = 0.20) after adjusting for publication bias, whereas the LPP enhancement remained robust. No significant differences were found for N170 or N2pc. Mixed‐model analysis indicated that P1 and N2pc exhibited the largest absolute effect sizes. No significant moderators (age, clinical status and task type) were identified. Conclusions: The findings highlight the LPP as the most robust neural correlate of face processing deficits in SAD, reflecting impaired late‐stage attentional disengagement. Although P1 amplitudes appear enhanced, this effect is likely inflated by publication bias. Current evidence does not support consistent alterations in N170 or N2pc. LPP may serve as a promising potential biomarker for the clinical diagnosis and treatment monitoring of SAD.