Examining Types of Social Outcome Probability Bias: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Outcome Probability Task
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Outcome probability bias—in the context of social anxiety—is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of negative evaluation and contributes to the etiology and maintenance of symptoms. Research shows that reductions in outcome probability bias may be key for therapeutic improvement, yet it has historically only been measured as a unitary construct. Assessments have nearly exclusively involved self-report questionnaires consisting of verbal descriptions of social situations. The recently developed Outcome Probability Task uses pictures of social situations to assess outcome probability bias. An exploratory factor analysis previously suggested three factors: Performance situations, social gatherings, and probable judgment based on facial expressions. These factors may reflect the dimensionality of outcome probability bias, with potential to enhance assessment and treatment practices. The goal of this research was to evaluate the stability of a three-factor structure and compare it to alternative models within a new sample.
Methods: Participants (N = 283; Mage = 21.06, SD = 6.08) were predominantly students, who reported diverse sociodemographic identities and psychological characteristics. They completed the ePrime-administered Outcome Probability Task, which prompts respondents to imagine they are about to encounter the social situation shown, and rate the likelihood of being negatively judged.
Results: Fit indices and factor loadings from confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the hypothesized three-factor model is superior to the alternative models tested. Fit metrics were as follows: χ2/df = 2.34, (p < .001); Comparative Fit Index = 0.92; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.91; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.07 (p < .001); Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual = 0.06. Factor loading estimates were acceptable (≥ 0.7) and ranged from 0.59 to 0.89 (p < .001). Covariance estimates between factors ranged from 0.55 to 0.73 (p < .001).
Conclusions: The Outcome Probability Task can examine subtypes of probability bias that may reflect differential anticipatory social fears. Findings provide additional support that the Outcome Probability Task is a tool that can be used to engage in the multi-method assessment of social outcome probability bias subtypes—which could facilitate tailored treatment approaches.
Article Details
How to Cite
RECH, Madeline; DRAHEIM, Amanda A.; ANDERSON, Page L..
Examining Types of Social Outcome Probability Bias: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Outcome Probability Task.
Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 10, oct. 2025.
ISSN 2375-1924.
Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/6948>. Date accessed: 06 dec. 2025.
doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v13i10.6948.
Section
Research Articles
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
1. Butler G, Mathews A. Cognitive processes in anxiety. Adv Behav Res Ther. 1983;5(1):51-62. doi:10.1016/0146-6402(83)90015-2.
2. Foa EB, Kozak MJ. Emotional processing of fear. Exposure to corrective information. Psychol Bull. 1986;99(1):20-35. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20.
3. Clark DM, Wells A. A cognitive model of social phobia. In: Heimberg G, Liebowitz MR, Hope D, Scheier F, eds. Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. The Guilford Press; 1995:69-93.
4. Rapee RM, Heimberg RG. A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35(8):741-756. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)0 0022-3.
5. Clark DM. A cognitive perspective on social phobia. In: Crozier WR, Alden LE, eds. International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research and intervention relating to the self and shyness. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001:405-430.
6. Hofmann SG. Cognitive factors that maintain social anxiety disorder: A comprehensive model and its treatment implications. Cogn Behav Ther. 2007; 36(4):193-209. doi:10.1080/16506070701421313.
7. Heimberg RG, Brozovich FA, Rapee RM. A cognitive behavioral model of social anxiety disorder: Update and extension. In: Hofmann SG, DiBartolo PM, eds. Social Anxiety. 2nd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; 2010:395-422. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-375096-9.00015-8.
8. Heimberg RG, Brozovich FA, Rapee RM. A cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety disorder. In: Hofmann SG, DiBartolo PM, eds. Social anxiety: Clinical, developmental, and social perspectives. 3rd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; 2014:704-728. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394427-6.00024-8.
9. Gordon D, Wong J, Heimberg RG. Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder: The state of the science. In: Weeks JW, ed. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of social anxiety disorder. Wiley Blackwell; 2014:477-497. doi:10.1002/978111865 3920.ch22.
10. Smits JAJ, Rosenfield D, Mcdonald R, Telch MJ. Cognitive mechanisms of social anxiety reduction: An examination of specificity and temporality. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(6):1203-1212. doi:10.10 37/0022-006X.74.6.1203.
11. Calamaras MR, Tully EC, Tone EB, Price M, Anderson PL. Evaluating changes in judgmental biases as mechanisms of cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2015;71:139-149. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.06.006.
12. Foa EB, Franklin ME, Perry KJ, Herbert JD. Cognitive biases in generalized social phobia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1996;105(3):433-439. doi:10.103 7/0021-843x.105.3.433.
13. Rapee RM, Abbott MJ. Modelling relationships between cognitive variables during and following public speaking in participants with social phobia. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(12):2977-2989.
14. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87-91. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3.
15. Paulhus DL. Socially desirable responding on self-reports. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford T, eds. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer; 2017:1-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1349-1.
16. McHugh RK, Rasmussen JL, Otto MW. Comprehension of self-report evidence-based measures of anxiety. Depress Anxiety. 2011;28(7): 607-614. doi:10.1002/da.20827.
17. Draheim AA, Anderson PL. A novel computer task to assess outcome probability bias. J Anxiety Disord. 2022;87:102538. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.202 2.102538.
18. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2013;11(126):1-8. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126.
19. Morris SE, Sanislow CA, Pacheco J, et al. Revisiting the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):220. doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02414-0.
20. Holmes EA, Mathews A, Mackintosh B, Dalgleish T. The causal effect of mental imagery on emotion assessed using picture-word cues. Emotion. 2008;8(3):395-409. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.395.
21. Lang PJ. A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology. 1979;16(6):495-512. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01511.x.
22. Hackmann A, Surawy C, Clark DM. Seeing yourself through others’ eyes: A study of spontaneously occurring images in social phobia. Behav Cogn Psychother. 1998;26:3-12. doi:10.1017/S13524658 98000022.
23. Hirsch CR, Clark DM, Mathews A. Imagery and interpretations in social phobia: Support for the combined cognitive biases hypothesis. Behav Ther. 2006;37(3):223-236. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.02.001.
24. Spurr JM, Stopa L. The observer perspective: Effects on social anxiety and performance. Behav Res Ther. 2003;41(9):1009-1028. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00177-8.
25. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141-173. doi:10.1159/0 00414022.
26. Draheim AA. A novel task to assess outcome probability bias for social anxiety. Dissertation. Georgia State University; 2021. doi:10.57709/177 44394.
27. Uren TH, Szabó M, Lovibond PF. Probability and cost estimates for social and physical outcomes in social phobia and panic disorder. J Anxiety Disord. 2004;18(4):481-498. doi:10.1016/S 0887-6185(03)00028-8.
28. Crome E, Baillie A. Mild to severe social fears: Ranking types of feared social situations using item response theory. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(5):471-479. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.002.
29. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed., text rev. American Psychiatric Association; 2022. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
30. Beck JS. Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. 3rd ed. Guilford Publications; 2020. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2020-66930-000.
31. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But.... Communi Meth Measures. 2020;14(1):1-24. doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629.
32. Baker SL, Heinrichs N, Kim HJ, Hofmann SG. The Liebowitz social anxiety scale as a self-report instrument: A preliminary psychometric analysis. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40(6):701-715. doi:10.101 6/S0005-7967(01)00060-2.
33. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335-343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u.
34. Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(2): 227-239. doi:10.1348/014466505x29657.
35. Sinclair SJ, Siefert CJ, Slavin-Mulford JM, et al. Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35(3):259-279. doi:10.1177/0163278711424282.
36. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press; 2015. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2015-10560-000.
37. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2016. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2015-56948-000.
38. Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Grayson D. Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In: Maydeu-Olivares A, McArdle JJ, eds. Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005:275-340. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2005-04585-010.
39. Jackson DL, Gillaspy Jr JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(1):6-23. doi:10.1037/a0014694.
40. Craske MG, Treanor M, Conway CC, Zbozinek T, Vervliet B. Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behav Res Ther. 2014; 58:10-23. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006.
41. Puckett JA, Maroney MR, Levitt HM, Horne SG. Relations between gender expression, minority stress, and mental health in cisgender sexual minority women and men. Psychol Sex Orientat Gender Divers. 2016;3(4):489-498. doi:10.1037/sgd0000201.
42. Asher M, Asnaani A, Aderka IM. Gender differences in social anxiety disorder: A review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;56:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.201 7.05.004.
43. Mahon CP, Pachankis JE, Kiernan G, Gallagher P. Risk and protective factors for social anxiety among sexual minority individuals. Arch Sex Behav. 2021;50(3):1015-1032. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01845-1.
44. Muraki EJ, Speed LJ, Pexman PM. Insights into embodied cognition and mental imagery from aphantasia. Nat Rev Psychol. 2023;2(10):591-605. doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00221-9.
45. Antonucci TC, Ajrouch KJ, Manalel JA. Social relations and technology: Continuity, context, and change. Innov Aging. 2017;1(3):igx029. doi:10.109 3/geroni/igx029.
46. Buckner JD, Maner JK, Schmidt NB. Difficulty disengaging attention from social threat in social anxiety. Cogn Ther Res. 2010;34:99-105. doi:10.1007/s 10608-008-9205-y.
47. Ursu S, Clark KA, Stenger VA, Carter CS. Distinguishing expected negative outcomes from preparatory control in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Brain Res. 2008;1227:110-119. doi:10.1016/j.brain res.2008.06.033.
48. Hahn A, Stein P, Windischberger C, et al. Reduced resting-state functional connectivity between amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex in social anxiety disorder. NeuroImage. 2011;56(3):881-889. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.064.
49. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4(1):1-32. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022 806.091415.
50. Amir N, Beard C, Burns M, Bomyea J. Attention modification program in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2009;118(1): 28-33. doi:10.1037/a0012589.
51. Mogg K, Bradley BP. Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification. Behav Res Ther. 2016; 87:76-108. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001.
52. Beard C, Peckham AD. Interpretation bias modification. In: Abramowitz JS, Blakey SM, eds. Clinical handbook of fear and anxiety: Maintenance processes and treatment mechanisms. American Psychological Association; 2019:359-377. doi:10.1037/0000150-020.
53. Lavigne KM, Deng J, Raucher-Chéné D, et al. Transdiagnostic cognitive biases in psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2024;129:110894. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110894.
2. Foa EB, Kozak MJ. Emotional processing of fear. Exposure to corrective information. Psychol Bull. 1986;99(1):20-35. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20.
3. Clark DM, Wells A. A cognitive model of social phobia. In: Heimberg G, Liebowitz MR, Hope D, Scheier F, eds. Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. The Guilford Press; 1995:69-93.
4. Rapee RM, Heimberg RG. A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35(8):741-756. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)0 0022-3.
5. Clark DM. A cognitive perspective on social phobia. In: Crozier WR, Alden LE, eds. International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research and intervention relating to the self and shyness. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001:405-430.
6. Hofmann SG. Cognitive factors that maintain social anxiety disorder: A comprehensive model and its treatment implications. Cogn Behav Ther. 2007; 36(4):193-209. doi:10.1080/16506070701421313.
7. Heimberg RG, Brozovich FA, Rapee RM. A cognitive behavioral model of social anxiety disorder: Update and extension. In: Hofmann SG, DiBartolo PM, eds. Social Anxiety. 2nd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; 2010:395-422. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-375096-9.00015-8.
8. Heimberg RG, Brozovich FA, Rapee RM. A cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety disorder. In: Hofmann SG, DiBartolo PM, eds. Social anxiety: Clinical, developmental, and social perspectives. 3rd ed. Elsevier Academic Press; 2014:704-728. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-394427-6.00024-8.
9. Gordon D, Wong J, Heimberg RG. Cognitive‐behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder: The state of the science. In: Weeks JW, ed. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of social anxiety disorder. Wiley Blackwell; 2014:477-497. doi:10.1002/978111865 3920.ch22.
10. Smits JAJ, Rosenfield D, Mcdonald R, Telch MJ. Cognitive mechanisms of social anxiety reduction: An examination of specificity and temporality. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(6):1203-1212. doi:10.10 37/0022-006X.74.6.1203.
11. Calamaras MR, Tully EC, Tone EB, Price M, Anderson PL. Evaluating changes in judgmental biases as mechanisms of cognitive-behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2015;71:139-149. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.06.006.
12. Foa EB, Franklin ME, Perry KJ, Herbert JD. Cognitive biases in generalized social phobia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1996;105(3):433-439. doi:10.103 7/0021-843x.105.3.433.
13. Rapee RM, Abbott MJ. Modelling relationships between cognitive variables during and following public speaking in participants with social phobia. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(12):2977-2989.
14. Coughlin SS. Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(1):87-91. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3.
15. Paulhus DL. Socially desirable responding on self-reports. In: Zeigler-Hill V, Shackelford T, eds. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer; 2017:1-5. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1349-1.
16. McHugh RK, Rasmussen JL, Otto MW. Comprehension of self-report evidence-based measures of anxiety. Depress Anxiety. 2011;28(7): 607-614. doi:10.1002/da.20827.
17. Draheim AA, Anderson PL. A novel computer task to assess outcome probability bias. J Anxiety Disord. 2022;87:102538. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.202 2.102538.
18. Cuthbert BN, Insel TR. Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2013;11(126):1-8. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126.
19. Morris SE, Sanislow CA, Pacheco J, et al. Revisiting the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):220. doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02414-0.
20. Holmes EA, Mathews A, Mackintosh B, Dalgleish T. The causal effect of mental imagery on emotion assessed using picture-word cues. Emotion. 2008;8(3):395-409. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.395.
21. Lang PJ. A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology. 1979;16(6):495-512. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1979.tb01511.x.
22. Hackmann A, Surawy C, Clark DM. Seeing yourself through others’ eyes: A study of spontaneously occurring images in social phobia. Behav Cogn Psychother. 1998;26:3-12. doi:10.1017/S13524658 98000022.
23. Hirsch CR, Clark DM, Mathews A. Imagery and interpretations in social phobia: Support for the combined cognitive biases hypothesis. Behav Ther. 2006;37(3):223-236. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.02.001.
24. Spurr JM, Stopa L. The observer perspective: Effects on social anxiety and performance. Behav Res Ther. 2003;41(9):1009-1028. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00177-8.
25. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141-173. doi:10.1159/0 00414022.
26. Draheim AA. A novel task to assess outcome probability bias for social anxiety. Dissertation. Georgia State University; 2021. doi:10.57709/177 44394.
27. Uren TH, Szabó M, Lovibond PF. Probability and cost estimates for social and physical outcomes in social phobia and panic disorder. J Anxiety Disord. 2004;18(4):481-498. doi:10.1016/S 0887-6185(03)00028-8.
28. Crome E, Baillie A. Mild to severe social fears: Ranking types of feared social situations using item response theory. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(5):471-479. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.002.
29. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed., text rev. American Psychiatric Association; 2022. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.
30. Beck JS. Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. 3rd ed. Guilford Publications; 2020. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2020-66930-000.
31. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But.... Communi Meth Measures. 2020;14(1):1-24. doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629.
32. Baker SL, Heinrichs N, Kim HJ, Hofmann SG. The Liebowitz social anxiety scale as a self-report instrument: A preliminary psychometric analysis. Behav Res Ther. 2002;40(6):701-715. doi:10.101 6/S0005-7967(01)00060-2.
33. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335-343. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u.
34. Henry JD, Crawford JR. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 2005;44(2): 227-239. doi:10.1348/014466505x29657.
35. Sinclair SJ, Siefert CJ, Slavin-Mulford JM, et al. Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35(3):259-279. doi:10.1177/0163278711424282.
36. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press; 2015. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2015-10560-000.
37. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2016. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2015-56948-000.
38. Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Grayson D. Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In: Maydeu-Olivares A, McArdle JJ, eds. Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005:275-340. doi:10.1037/psycnet-apa-record-2005-04585-010.
39. Jackson DL, Gillaspy Jr JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14(1):6-23. doi:10.1037/a0014694.
40. Craske MG, Treanor M, Conway CC, Zbozinek T, Vervliet B. Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behav Res Ther. 2014; 58:10-23. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.04.006.
41. Puckett JA, Maroney MR, Levitt HM, Horne SG. Relations between gender expression, minority stress, and mental health in cisgender sexual minority women and men. Psychol Sex Orientat Gender Divers. 2016;3(4):489-498. doi:10.1037/sgd0000201.
42. Asher M, Asnaani A, Aderka IM. Gender differences in social anxiety disorder: A review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;56:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.201 7.05.004.
43. Mahon CP, Pachankis JE, Kiernan G, Gallagher P. Risk and protective factors for social anxiety among sexual minority individuals. Arch Sex Behav. 2021;50(3):1015-1032. doi:10.1007/s10508-020-01845-1.
44. Muraki EJ, Speed LJ, Pexman PM. Insights into embodied cognition and mental imagery from aphantasia. Nat Rev Psychol. 2023;2(10):591-605. doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00221-9.
45. Antonucci TC, Ajrouch KJ, Manalel JA. Social relations and technology: Continuity, context, and change. Innov Aging. 2017;1(3):igx029. doi:10.109 3/geroni/igx029.
46. Buckner JD, Maner JK, Schmidt NB. Difficulty disengaging attention from social threat in social anxiety. Cogn Ther Res. 2010;34:99-105. doi:10.1007/s 10608-008-9205-y.
47. Ursu S, Clark KA, Stenger VA, Carter CS. Distinguishing expected negative outcomes from preparatory control in the human orbitofrontal cortex. Brain Res. 2008;1227:110-119. doi:10.1016/j.brain res.2008.06.033.
48. Hahn A, Stein P, Windischberger C, et al. Reduced resting-state functional connectivity between amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex in social anxiety disorder. NeuroImage. 2011;56(3):881-889. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.064.
49. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4(1):1-32. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022 806.091415.
50. Amir N, Beard C, Burns M, Bomyea J. Attention modification program in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2009;118(1): 28-33. doi:10.1037/a0012589.
51. Mogg K, Bradley BP. Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification. Behav Res Ther. 2016; 87:76-108. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.08.001.
52. Beard C, Peckham AD. Interpretation bias modification. In: Abramowitz JS, Blakey SM, eds. Clinical handbook of fear and anxiety: Maintenance processes and treatment mechanisms. American Psychological Association; 2019:359-377. doi:10.1037/0000150-020.
53. Lavigne KM, Deng J, Raucher-Chéné D, et al. Transdiagnostic cognitive biases in psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2024;129:110894. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110894.