Bidirectional relationships between interpretation biases, safety behaviors, and social anxiety

Abstract

Theoretical models of social anxiety (SA) propose bidirectional relationships between SA, interpretation biases, and safety behaviors (Safe-B). However, longitudinal studies evaluating these bidirectional relationships are scarce. The main objective of this study was to analyze the bidirectional relationships between interpretation biases (from ambiguous situations and ambiguous faces), Safe-B, and SA. A two-time longitudinal study was carried out with the participation of 575 vocational training students (M = 19.49, SD = 2.41). Both the interpretation biases measured through ambiguous situations and ambiguous faces and the Safe-B predicted higher levels of SA in the second time. In turn, a bidirectional relationship was found between SA and Safe-B. However, no bidirectional relationships were found between interpretation biases and Safe-B and between biases and SA. Among others, the limitations of the study include the high attrition rate (30.4%) and the high proportion of male students (62.1%). The findings highlight the role of interpretation bias and Safe-B in SA. In turn, as a new initiative, the study supports the bidirectional relationship between Safe-B and SA. Implications are discussed throughout the manuscript.

The role of interpretation biases and safety behaviours in social anxiety: an intensive longitudinal study

“…In fact, the data are in line with Clark and Wells’ cognitive model for SA (Clark and Wells, 1995; Leigh and Clark, 2018), which proposes that in the face of a social stressor, negative social cognitions lead to the performance of Safe-B, and the increase in Safe-B leads to an increase in the somatic and cognitive symptoms of SA. Although apparently this mediation has not been previously analysed with intensive longitudinal methodologies (diary assessment), the results are consistent with the above mentioned studies (Prieto-Fidalgo and Calvete, 2023) and with cross-sectional studies which find that both interpretation bias (Beard and Amir, 2010; Chen et al ., 2019) and the performance of Safe-B are associated with experiencing higher levels of SA (Hoffart et al, 2009). In relation to the direct association between interpretation bias and SA, despite the literature showing that interpretation bias predicts SA directly (Chen et al ., 2019), the present data demonstrate that this relationship is only explained through Safe-B.…”

“…Thus, consistent with the proposed hypothesis, the results showed that the relationship between interpretation bias in ambiguous scenarios and daily SA was explained by Safe-B. This indirect relationship was found in a cross-sectional study when interpretation bias was measured in ambiguous scenarios (Prieto-Fidalgo et al ., 2022a) and in a longitudinal study when it was measured with ambiguous faces (Prieto-Fidalgo and Calvete, 2023). In fact, the data are in line with Clark and Wells’ cognitive model for SA (Clark and Wells, 1995; Leigh and Clark, 2018), which proposes that in the face of a social stressor, negative social cognitions lead to the performance of Safe-B, and the increase in Safe-B leads to an increase in the somatic and cognitive symptoms of SA.…”

“…To assess Safe-B, the items from the Spanish version of the Social Phobia Safety Behaviors Scale (SPSBS; Pinto-Gouveia et al, 2003;Prieto-Fidalgo et al, 2022a) were adapted to a daily assessment methodology. The original version of SPSBS is composed of 17 statements.…”

“…However, the cross-sectional methodology applied in the latter studies did not allow establishing the direction of the relationships. A recent longitudinal study suggested an indirect relationship between interpretation bias measured with a computerized task and SA through Safe-B (Prieto-Fidalgo and Calvete, 2023). In that study, interpretation bias did not explain the indirect relationship between Safe-B and SA.…”

“…1. Regarding the first question, previous studies indicate that people with high levels of SA perform Safe-B to a greater extent than those with low levels (Kocovski et al ., 2016; Leigh et al ., 2021), Safe-B contribute to maintaining SA (Clark and Wells, 1995; Leigh and Clark, 2018), and the association between interpretation bias and SA can be explained by Safe-B (Prieto- Fidalgo and Calvete, 2023). Therefore, we expected that daily social stressors (H1) and interpretation bias (H2 and H3) would be associated with daily Safe-B and that Safe-B, in turn, would be associated with daily SA (H4) and SA at the follow-up (H5).…”