Effects of Social Anxiety Level on Negative Interpretation Bias in Ambiguous Social Situations: Focused on Relational Intimacy

IF 2.6 4区 心理学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Hye‑ji Yun, Myoung-Ho Hyun
{"title":"Effects of Social Anxiety Level on Negative Interpretation Bias in Ambiguous Social Situations: Focused on Relational Intimacy","authors":"Hye‑ji Yun, Myoung-Ho Hyun","doi":"10.17547/kjsr.2023.31.1.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study aimed to examine the differences in negative interpretation bias in ambiguous social situations according to social anxiety level and then confirm the degree of negative interpretation bias according to the relational intimacy with the interacting partner.Methods: A total of 405 adults in their 20s completed the surveys that measured the levels of social interaction anxiety, and the highest 10% (n=30) and lowest 10% (n=30) scorers finally participated in the study. This study used a 2 (high/low social anxiety)×3 (relational intimacy: a stranger/a moderately intimate person/a very intimate person) factorial design. The study provided participants with 15 randomized scenarios with the same social context but different interacting partners and confirmed the degree of agreement with the negative interpretation presented in each situation.Results: The high social anxiety group showed more negative interpretation bias in ambiguous social situations compared to the low social anxiety group. Regarding the negative interpretation biases according to relational intimacy, the high social anxiety group showed the most negative interpretation bias in social interactions with a moderately intimate person than they did with a stranger or very intimate person.Conclusions: Social anxiety may have different effects on the degree of negative interpretation bias depending on intimacy in social interactions, suggesting that differentiated therapeutic interventions are needed.","PeriodicalId":51173,"journal":{"name":"Stress-The International Journal on the Biology of Stress","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stress-The International Journal on the Biology of Stress","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17547/kjsr.2023.31.1.11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to examine the differences in negative interpretation bias in ambiguous social situations according to social anxiety level and then confirm the degree of negative interpretation bias according to the relational intimacy with the interacting partner.Methods: A total of 405 adults in their 20s completed the surveys that measured the levels of social interaction anxiety, and the highest 10% (n=30) and lowest 10% (n=30) scorers finally participated in the study. This study used a 2 (high/low social anxiety)×3 (relational intimacy: a stranger/a moderately intimate person/a very intimate person) factorial design. The study provided participants with 15 randomized scenarios with the same social context but different interacting partners and confirmed the degree of agreement with the negative interpretation presented in each situation.Results: The high social anxiety group showed more negative interpretation bias in ambiguous social situations compared to the low social anxiety group. Regarding the negative interpretation biases according to relational intimacy, the high social anxiety group showed the most negative interpretation bias in social interactions with a moderately intimate person than they did with a stranger or very intimate person.Conclusions: Social anxiety may have different effects on the degree of negative interpretation bias depending on intimacy in social interactions, suggesting that differentiated therapeutic interventions are needed.
模糊社交情境中社交焦虑水平对负性解释偏差的影响:以亲密关系为中心
背景:本研究旨在根据社会焦虑水平来检验歧义社会情境中消极解释偏见的差异,然后根据与互动伴侣的关系亲密度来确认消极解释偏见程度。方法:共有405名20多岁的成年人完成了社交焦虑水平的调查,得分最高的10%(n=30)和最低的10%(n=30)最终参与了这项研究。本研究采用2(高/低社交焦虑)×3(关系亲密度:陌生人/适度亲密的人/非常亲密的人)析因设计。该研究为参与者提供了15个随机场景,这些场景具有相同的社会背景,但互动伙伴不同,并确认了与每种情况下出现的负面解释的一致程度。结果:与低社交焦虑组相比,高社交焦虑组在模糊社交情境中表现出更多的负面解释偏见。关于根据关系亲密度的负面解释偏见,与陌生人或非常亲密的人相比,高社交焦虑组在与适度亲密的人的社交互动中表现出最负面的解释偏见。结论:社交焦虑可能对负面解释偏差的程度产生不同的影响,这取决于社交互动中的亲密程度,这表明需要差异化的治疗干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Stress aims to provide scientists involved in stress research with the possibility of reading a more integrated view of the field. Peer reviewed papers, invited reviews and short communications will deal with interdisciplinary aspects of stress in terms of: the mechanisms of stressful stimulation, including within and between individuals; the physiological and behavioural responses to stress, and their regulation, in both the short and long term; adaptive mechanisms, coping strategies and the pathological consequences of stress. Stress will publish the latest developments in physiology, neurobiology, molecular biology, genetics research, immunology, and behavioural studies as they impact on the understanding of stress and its adverse consequences and their amelioration. Specific approaches may include transgenic/knockout animals, developmental/programming studies, electrophysiology, histochemistry, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, neuroanatomy, neuroimaging, endocrinology, autonomic physiology, immunology, chronic pain, ethological and other behavioural studies and clinical measures.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信