Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:26:32.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It hurts but I still need it: a qualitative investigation of post-event processing in social anxiety disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Naoki Yoshinaga Open the ORCID record for Naoki Yoshinaga [Opens in a new window] ,
Kota Takaoka  and
Osamu Kobori
Naoki Yoshinaga*
Affiliation:
Organization for Promotion of Tenure Track, University of Miyazaki, 5200 Kiyotake, Kihara, Miyazaki-city, Miyazaki 889-1692, Japan
Kota Takaoka
Affiliation:
Probabilistic Modeling Research Team, Artificial Intelligence Research Centre, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 2-3-26 Aomi, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-0064, Japan
Osamu Kobori
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

It has been proposed that both positive and negative metacognitive beliefs sustain engagement in post-event processing (PEP). However, it is unknown: (1) whether individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) actually derive the benefits from PEP that they expect; (2) if this is not the case, how their positive beliefs are maintained; and (3) if they are aware of the counterproductive effects of PEP, why they still perform PEP.

Aims:

To explore the phenomenology of the processes involved in PEP from the perspective of SADs, in order to address the research questions above.

Method:

Twenty-one participants suffering from SAD received individual semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results:

Analysis revealed three main themes: (1) ‘Only, safe and useful way to improve myself’: SADs feel the need to improve their social performance, and they believe that PEP is the only, safe, and private way to do so, which is an underlying motive for them to do PEP; (2) ‘It hurts more than helps me’: however, through PEP, they do not seem to obtain the benefit that they expect, or only find a variety of counterproductive outcomes; (3) ‘Better safe than sorry’: they sometimes find makeshift solutions to improve their social performance during PEP, which may maintain their PEP as a form of intermittent reinforcement. They weigh up such costs and benefits, and choose to perform PEP while feeling conflicted about PEP.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that: (1) SADs rarely obtain the benefits from PEP that they expect; (2) their positive metacognitive beliefs are maintained by solutions they sometimes find during PEP; and (3) SADs choose to perform PEP while feeling conflicted; while PEP ironically maintains and exacerbates negative self-beliefs/images, it is the only safe and useful way to improve their social performance. These findings support and expand on the theories of PEP.

Keywords

post-event processingruminationsocial anxiety disorderqualitative methods
Type
Brief Clinical Report
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 364 - 369
Copyright
© British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

§

The current affiliation of O. Kobori is Department of Psychology, International University of Health and Welfare, 4-1-26 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-8402, Japan.

References

Brozovich, F., & Heimberg, R. G. (2008). An analysis of post-event processing in social anxiety disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 891–903. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.01.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In Heimberg, R. G. L., Michael, R., Hope, D. A. and Schneier, F. R. (eds), Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 69–93). New York, USA: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Halldorsson, B., & Salkovskis, P. M. (2017). Why do people with OCD and health anxiety seek reassurance excessively? An investigation of differences and similarities in function. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41, 619–631. 10.1007/s10608-016-9826-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G., & Wells, A. (2004). Rumination, depression, and metacognition: the S-REF model. In Rumination: Nature, Theory and Treatment, 125–151. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wells, A. (2007). Cognition about cognition: metacognitive therapy and change in generalized anxiety disorder and social phobia. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 14, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2006.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Q. J. J., & Moulds, M. L. (2010). Do socially anxious individuals hold positive metacognitive beliefs about rumination? Behaviour Change, 27, 69–83. 10.1375/bech.27.2.69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Yoshinaga et al. supplementary material

Yoshinaga et al. supplementary material

Download Yoshinaga et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 555.3 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.