Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 23–32 | Cite as

Semantic Priming and Interpretation Bias in Social Anxiety Disorder

  • Baland JalalEmail author
  • Nader Amir
Original Article


Cognitive models of social anxiety posit that recurrent interpretation of ambiguous information as threatening is involved in maintaining symptoms of social anxiety. Researchers have used several methodologies to assess interpretation bias in social anxiety, including homographs (i.e., words with two meanings, e.g., chicken-poultry and chicken-scared). In the current study, we examined the effects of priming in 21 individuals with social anxiety disorder and 21 non-anxious control participants. All participants completed a homograph priming paradigm. In this task, participants see a fixation cross followed by a homograph prime. This homograph is then followed by related or unrelated neutral, physical, or social threat target words examining the priming effect of the homograph on the target. As hypothesized, for non-threat targets, we obtained the typical priming effect in all participants. Moreover, we found that individuals with social anxiety disorder were slower to respond to related social threat targets compared to unrelated social threat targets when these targets were preceded by socially relevant homographs. These data suggest that individuals with social anxiety disorder inhibit social threat meaning of ambiguous primes perhaps due to a vigilance-avoidance pattern of threat relevant information.


Interpretation bias Semantic priming Social anxiety Information processing 


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349.
  2. Amir, N., Beard, C., & Przeworksi, A. (2005). Resolving ambiguity: The effect of experience on interpretation of ambiguous events in generalized social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 402–408. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amir, N., Coles, M. E., Brigidi, B., & Foa, E. B. (2001). The effect of practice on recall of emotional information in individuals with generalized social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 76–82. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amir, N., Foa, E. B., & Coles, M. (1998a). Automatic activation and strategic avoidance of threat-relevant information in Social Phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 285–290. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.107.2.285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amir, N., Foa, E. B., & Coles, M. E. (1998b). Negative interpretation bias in social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 945–957. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00060-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, S. L., Heinrichs, N., Kim, H. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2002). The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale as a self-report instrument: A preliminary psychometric analysis. Behavior Research and Therapy, 40, 701–715. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00060-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balota, D. A., Black, S. R., & Cheney, M. (1992). Automatic and attentional priming in young and older adults: Reevaluation of the two process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 485–502. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.2.485.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, D. M., Teasdale, J. D., Broadbent, D. E., & Martin, M. (1983). Effect of mood in lexical decisions. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneider (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Constans, J. I., Penn, D. L., Ihen, G. H., & Hope, D. A. (1999). Interpretive biases for ambiguous stimuli in social anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 643–651. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00180-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1994). Structured clinical interview for Axis I DSM–IV disorders: Patient Edition. New York, NY: State Psychiatric Institute Biometrics Research Department.Google Scholar
  13. Foa, E. B., Franklin, M. E., Perry, K. J., & Herbert, J. D. (1996). Cognitive bias in generalized social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 15, 433–439. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francis, W., & Kucera, H. (1982). Word-frequency counts of modern English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fresco, D. M., Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., Liebowitz, M. R., Hami, S., Stein, M. B., et al. (2001). The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: A comparison of the psychometric properties of self-report and clinician-administered formats. Psychological Medicine, 31, 1025–1035. doi: 10.1017/S0033291701004056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant, S. C., & Logan, G. D. (1993). The loss of repetition priming and automaticity over time as a function of degree of initial learning. Memory and Cognition, 21, 611–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazlett-Stevens, H., & Borkovec, T. D. (2004). Interpretive cues and ambiguity in generalized anxiety disorder. Behavior Research and Therapy, 42, 881–892. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00204-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heimberg, R. G., Liebowitz, M. R., Hope, D. A., Schneier, F. R., Holt, C. S., Welkowitz, L., et al. (1998). Cognitive behavioral group therapy versus phenelzine therapy for social phobia: 12-week outcome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 1133–1141. Google Scholar
  19. Hofmann, S. G. (2007). Cognitive factors that maintain social anxiety disorder: A comprehensive model and its treatment implications. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 36, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huppert, J. D., Pasupuleti, R. V., Foa, E. B., & Mathews, A. (2007). Interpretation biases in social anxiety: Response generation, response selection, and self-appraisal. Behavior Research and Therapy, 45, 1505–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laposa, J. M., Cassin, S. E., & Rector, N. A. (2010). Interpretation of positive social events in social phobia: An examination of cognitive correlates and diagnostic distinction. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24, 203–210. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.10.009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451–468. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., De Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 133, 339–354. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183–197. doi: 10.3758/BF03213897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathews, A., Mogg, K., May, J., & Eysenck, M. (1989). Implicit and explicit memory bias in anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 236–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 40–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mogg, B. P., Bradley, J. D., Bono, M., & Painter, M. (1997). Time course of attentional bias for threat information in non-clinical anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 297–303. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00109-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mogg, K., Mathews, A., & Weinman, J. (1987). Memory bias in clinical anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 94–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Role of inhibition less spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ramanaiah, N. V., Franzen, M., & Schill, T. (1983). A psychometric study of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards, A., & French, C. C. (1992). An anxiety-related bias in semantic activation when processing threat/neutral homographs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roth, D., Antony, M., & Swinson, R. (2001). Interpretations for anxiety symptoms in social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simpson, G. B., & Burgess, C. (1985). Activation and selection processes in the recognition of ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 28–39.Google Scholar
  36. Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processes in the recognition of homograph meanings. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 359–382). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  38. Steer, R. A., & Clark, D. A. (1997). Psychometric characteristics of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with college students. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30, 128–136.Google Scholar
  39. Stopa, L., & Clark, D. M. (2000). Social phobia and interpretation of social events. Behavior Research and Therapy, 38, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571–590. doi: 10.1080/14640748508400920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tulving, E., & Schacter, D. L. (1990). Priming and human memory systems. Science, 247, 301–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical PsychologySan Diego State University/University of California at San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations