Skip to main content
. 2022 Apr 28;311:17–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.130

Table 2.

Study findings and effect sizes.

Effect size Finding
Emotion recognition
Alvi et al. (2020) - Study 1 For total, d = 0.47; for negative, d = 0.44; for positive, d = 0.36; for neutral d = 0.40 No association between SA and emotion recognition
Arrais et al. (2010) Not reported Group X gender interaction- women in SA group required less emotional intensity to recognize faces displaying fear, happiness, and sadness compared to HC
Auyeung and Alden (2020) - Study 1 Not reported Across both conditions, higher SA predicted greater accuracy of target’s negative affect
Auyeung and Alden (2020) - Study 2 d = 0.55 Across both conditions, SAD group had greater accuracy of target negative affect compared to HC
Bell et al. (2011) Not reported No differences between groups on accuracy
Bodner et al. (2012) d = 0.94 SA group was less accurate at recognition of happy voices in female voices compared to HC
Button et al. (2013) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy
Campbell et al. (2009) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy
Dickter et al. (2018) - Study 2 d = 0.37 For complex faces, high SA group was less accurate than low SA group
Garner et al. (2009) d = 0.64 SA group was less accurate at identifying fearful faces than HC
Gilboa-Schechtman et al. (2008) - Study 2 d = 0.55 SA group less sensitive to angry expressions than HC
Hagemann et al. (2016) d = 0.55 No difference between groups on accuracy
Heuer et al. (2010) d = 0 No difference between groups on accuracy
Hunter et al. (2009) Not reported SA group was more accurate for happy, sad, and fearful faces compared to HC
M. Jacobs et al. (2008) d = 1.62 No difference between groups on accuracy; negative correlation between SA and experiential EI
Joormann and Gotlib (2006) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy; SA group was able to identify angry faces more quickly than HC
Lau et al. (2014) d = 0.84 Lower emotion recognition associated with lower social anxiety
Mohlman et al. (2007) d = 1.66 (for positive association); d = 1.96 (for negative association) SA group was more accurate at identifying angry faces, and less accurate at neutral faces, than HC, following threat manipulation
Montagne et al. (2006) Not reported SA group was less sensitive to negative emotions compared to HC
Mullins and Duke (2004) Not reported No association between SA and accuracy, regardless of condition
Oh et al. (2018) Not reported SA group was less accurate for total, fear, surprise, neutral, and happy stimuli than HC
Phan et al. (2006) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy
Philippot and Douilliez (2005) d = 0.34 No difference between groups on accuracy
Quadflieg et al. (2007) Not reported SA group was less accurate for happy utterances, but more accurate for fearful and sad utterances, than HC
Schofield et al. (2007) Not reported No differences between groups on accuracy
Straube et al. (2004) Not reported No differences between groups on accuracy
Torro-Alves et al. (2016) Not reported SA group was more accurate for angry faces with 25% intensity than HC
Tseng et al. (2017) d = 0.52 (across stimuli) and d = 0.67 (for fear accuracy) HC had greater accuracy than SA group across facial and vocal accuracy; SA group was less accurate in fear accuracy for faces
Winton et al. (1995) Not reported SA group was more accurate at identifying negative facial expressions, and less accurate at neutral expressions, than HC; no difference in groups for videos (facial/body and auditory stimuli)
Yoon et al. (2007) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy



Social perception
Hampel et al. (2011) d = 0.52 Negative association between SA and social perception
Schroeder (1995a) d = 0.47 No association between SA and interpersonal perception
Schroeder (1995b) d = 0.49 Negative association between SA and interpersonal perception
Schroeder and Ketrow (1997) d = 0.54 Negative association between SA and interpersonal perception
Veljaca and Rapee (1998) Not reported SA group was more accurate in negative social cue detection, and less accurate at positive cue detection, compared to HC



Affect sharing
Alvi et al. (in press) - Study 1 d = 0.04 No effect of SA on affect sharing
Alvi et al. (in press) - Study 2 d = 0.02 No effect of SA on affect sharing
Morrison et al. (2016) d = 0.55 SA group had less congruence for positive stimuli, compared to HC



Theory of mind
Alvi et al. (2020) - Study 1 For total, d = 0.86; for negative, d = 0.77; for positive, d = 0.44; for neutral d = 0.71 Negative association between SA and accuracy for total, negative, positive, and neutral stimuli
Ballespí et al. (2018) Not reported No difference between groups on accuracy in video task; hyper-mentalizing in SA group for self-referential paradigm
Buhlmann et al. (2015) d = 0.72 SA group was less accurate than HC in ToM
Hezel and McNally (2014) d = 0.61 (for videos task) and d = 0.70 (for eyes task) SA group was less accurate on both the video and eyes tasks compared to HC
M. Jacobs et al., (2008) d = 0.12 No difference between groups on accuracy
Lenton-Brym et al. (2018) d = 0.06 No difference between groups on accuracy
Lyvers et al. (2019) d = 0.45 Negative association between SA and ToM
Maleki et al. (2020) Not reported SA group had lower ToM on eyes task compared to HC; for positive and neutral valence, HC had greater ToM than SAD group; for negative valence, HC had lower ToM than SAD group; No difference between groups on faux pas accuracy
Sutterby et al. (2012) d = 0.67 Group X gender interaction for tasks; women in SA group were more accurate compared to women in HC group
Tibi-Elhanany et al. (2011) Not reported SA group had greater cognitive accuracy, but less affective accuracy, than HC
Washburn et al. (2016) d = 0.59 SA group had lower ToM on eyes task for total, positive, and neutral stimuli compared to HC; no effect for video task



Empathic accuracy
Alvi et al. (2020)- Study 2 Not reported Higher negative association between SA and positive, compared to negative, stimuli
Auyeung and Alden (2016) Not reported Group X condition interaction; SA associated greater accuracy for target negative affect when faced with social threat
Morrison et al. (2016) d = 0 No difference between groups on accuracy

Note. Effect sizes were converted to Cohen's d to compare effect sizes using a standard unit; SA = social anxiety; SAD = social anxiety disorder; HC = healthy controls; ToM = theory of mind.