Judging others makes me forget: Assessing the cognitive, behavioural, and emotional consequences of other-evaluations on self-evaluations for social anxiety.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People with Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) evaluate themselves negatively before, during, and after anxiety-provoking social situations, which leads to negative consequences (e.g., performance deficits, memory impairments, and post-event processing). Despite decades of research, little is known regarding whether these evaluations generalize to how they view others. Social projection theory-the belief that others are similar to oneself-might further extend the basic Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) model. Our aim was to understand whether the degree to which people negatively evaluate a visibly anxious person causes them to negatively evaluate themselves. METHODS: 172 unselected participants completed several baseline questionnaires. We then randomly assigned participants to provide high-, medium-, or no-evaluation of a videotaped anxious person (i.e., other-evaluations) while we assessed their state anxiety. After, they evaluated the anxious person on multiple criteria. Participants then participated in an impromptu conversation task and subsequently evaluated their own performance. RESULTS: Although our manipulation was effective, we found no emotional or behavioural differences between conditions. However, people in the high-evaluation condition recalled significantly fewer facts about their conversation partner than did people in the medium- and no-evaluation conditions. LIMITATIONS: After data cleaning, the sample size was slightly smaller than planned; most analyses were nonetheless appropriately powered. Our findings may not generalize beyond unselected undergraduate students; replication in a clinical sample is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the cognitive consequences (i.e., memory impairments) of other-evaluations, which cognitive behavioural therapists should consider when treating individuals with SAD.

Measuring social isolation in older adults: A rapid review informing evidence-based research and practice.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults account for 18.5% of the Canadian population and are at risk of experiencing social isolation, compared to other age groups. Researchers define social isolation as a lack of social contact and relationships, but many social isolation measures do not reflect this definition. The aim of our study is to review the existing measures of social isolation with older adults to recommend evidence-based measures to researchers and practitioners. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review on PsycInfo and PsycTests. We included articles that were written in English or French, were peer-reviewed, used an older adult sample, included a self-report social isolation measure, and reported psychometric information. RESULTS: Following exclusion of ineligible articles, 12 measures were available for analysis. We further categorized the measures into: five most recommended measures, five measures that require further research, and two measures not recommended for use with older adults. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a range of measures with varying suitability to be used with older adults; some were empirically driven but did not have strong psychometric properties, or vice-versa. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: It is imperative that interventions aimed to address social isolation in older adults use evidence-based measures to assess progress and report treatment effectiveness.

Exploring the impact of safety behaviour use on cognitive, psychophysiological, emotional and behavioural responses during a speech task.

BACKGROUND: There is a debate among researchers and clinicians regarding whether the judicious use of safety behaviours (SBs) during exposure therapy is helpful or detrimental. Central to this debate is the premise that SBs may interfere with one's ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence. AIMS: No study to date has assessed how SB use may impact cognitive mechanisms implicated during an exposure-like task. We investigated multiple cognitive, emotional, psychophysiological and behavioural underpinnings of exposure with and without SBs. METHOD: Speech anxious participants (n = 111) were randomly assigned to deliver an evaluated speech with or without SBs. Self-reported anxiety ratings and psychophysiological arousal measures were recorded at baseline, in anticipation of the speech, and following the speech. Measures of working memory, ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence, speech duration, objective and subjective speech performance, and speech task acceptability were administered. RESULTS: There were no differences between conditions on working memory, self-reported anxiety, psychophysiological arousal, ability to gather disconfirmatory evidence, speech duration, or objective and subjective speech performance. All participants were able to gather disconfirmatory evidence. However, condition did influence willingness to deliver future speeches. Our sample was largely female undergraduate students, and we offered only a small number of specific safety behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Judicious SB use may not necessarily be detrimental, but clients may believe them to be more helpful than they actually are.

Examining the Utility of the New Raney Vocabulary Measure Alongside the WAIS-III.

Psychometric tests related to vocabulary assessments are, for the most part, restricted in their use by trained professionals and/or are costly. These restrictions limit their use, especially for research purposes. To circumvent these limitations, the Raney Vocabulary Measure was created for assessing vocabulary proficiency, specifically for research purposes. The measure consists of 30 questions where participants were instructed to choose the best definition of each word. The purpose of the study was to examine the utility of the new measure using the highly standardized but protected Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Results from the linear combination of the subscales revealed the significant prediction of the Raney Vocabulary Measure, with the Vocabulary subtest contributing most to the unique variance. These results support that the test examines vocabulary ability. The current results are promising as the test would allow for greater accessibility for researchers who do not have access to restricted psychometric tests.