Social Anxiety DisorderPTC - SANCT07562633
Proactive Thought Control for Social Anxiety Relief
A study testing Proactive Thought Conrol in people with Social Anxiety Disorder, run by GIFT University at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
This study examines whether a proactive thought control intervention can reduce negative core beliefs, cognitive biases, and anxiety symptoms in university students with social anxiety. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 24 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Social Anxiety Disorder
- What is being tested?
- Proactive Thought Conrol
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 20 Apr 2025to 30 Jun 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 24 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- being 18-24 years old
- not taking any additional psychological treatments during the trial
- If taking medication for depression or anxiety, the dosage had to remain consistent for one month before the start of therapy.
- Cut off score above 30 in LSAS
- Consent to participate in the study and complete all tasks.
- Proficiency in English
Show all 13Show fewer
- Regularly computer user Exclusion Criteria
- Age below 18 or above 24 years
- Currently receiving psychological treatment
- Failure to provide consent or complete the study tasks
- Have any other medical condition
- Have any other psychiatric condition
- Taking medicineInclusion Criteria:
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Effectiveness of Proactive Thought Control in Modification of Negative Core Beliefs and Cognitive Biases in Individual With Social Anxiety: A Pilot RCT Study
This study examines whether a proactive thought control intervention can reduce negative core beliefs, cognitive biases, and anxiety symptoms in university students with social anxiety. Participants with elevated social anxiety (screened via the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) are randomly assigned to either a proactive thought control group or a reactive control group. Both groups complete two computerized tasks - a Free Association Task and a Sentence Completion Task - across 180 trials. The proactive group is trained to generate only positive or neutral associations to socially threatening cues and receives real-time AI-powered sentiment feedback, while the reactive group responds freely without sentiment-based guidance. Outcomes including negative core beliefs, interpretation bias, attentional bias, state anxiety, and trait anxiety are assessed before and after the intervention using standardized measures (CBQ, WSAP, Dot Probe Task, STAI). The study uses a parallel-group randomized controlled trial design with repeated measures and aims to establish preliminary effect size estimates for future, larger-scale trials.
Read the detailed description
Background and Rationale Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is characterized by intense fear of negative evaluation in social situations, leading to significant avoidance and distress. Cognitive models of SAD emphasize the role of negative core beliefs (e.g., beliefs about being inferior or unacceptable to others) and cognitive biases - particularly interpretation bias and attentional bias toward threat - in the maintenance of the disorder. While cognitive bias modification (CBM) approaches have shown promise, most are reactive in nature, modifying biases after they arise. Proactive cognitive control, by contrast, involves the sustained, goal-directed maintenance of positive or neutral mental sets before threatening stimuli are encountered. This study tests whether a proactive approach to thought control, delivered through modified free association and sentence completion paradigms, can more effectively shift core beliefs and cognitive biases compared to a reactive control condition.
Study Design This is a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a repeated-measures (pre-post) design. Participants are randomly assigned using the fishbowl block randomization technique to either: (1) the Proactive Thought Control group, or (2) the Reactive Control group (active sham condition). Counterbalancing is applied to the order of stimuli in the WSAP and Dot Probe Task to control for practice effects.
Participants Participants are university students aged 18-24 years, recruited via purposive sampling using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Self Report (LSAS-SR). Individuals scoring above 30 on the LSAS-SR are eligible. Exclusion criteria include current psychological treatment, psychiatric or medical comorbidities, and medication use. Of 204 initially screened, 149 met the LSAS cutoff; 54 were enrolled and randomized. Final analyses include 37-39 participants who completed both pre- and post-assessments. As a pilot trial, this sample size is consistent with recommended ranges of 15-30 participants per group for feasibility and preliminary effect size estimation.
Measures
Pre- and post-intervention assessments include:
Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ): Measures negative core beliefs about self and others in social anxiety (trait and other subscales used).
Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory - Short Form (STAI): Assesses state and trait anxiety (5 items each; 4-point Likert scale).
Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP): Computerized task measuring interpretation bias; participants judge relatedness of threatening/benign word-sentence pairs. Bias scored as proportion of threatening endorsements.
Dot Probe Task: Computerized task measuring attentional bias toward threat using reaction time differences (Attentional Bias Index = mean RT threat-incongruent minus mean RT threat-congruent trials).
Screening measures include the LSAS-SR and DASS-12 (for baseline distress comparability).
Intervention The intervention comprises 180 trials divided into six blocks (framed as "game levels"): three blocks of Free Association Task (FAT) and three blocks of Sentence Completion Task (SCT). Each block contains 25 socially threatening stimuli and 5 positive/neutral stimuli, presented in randomized order.
Free Association Task (FAT): Participants see a single threatening or neutral word cue and respond with the first word that comes to mind. The proactive group is instructed to produce only positive or neutral single-word associations and cannot advance until doing so. The reactive group responds freely.
Sentence Completion Task (SCT): Participants complete unfinished sentence stems (e.g., "They stared, and I felt ___"). The proactive group must provide positive or neutral completions; the reactive group responds without restriction.
A real-time AI feedback system powered by DistilBERT-base-uncased-finetuned-SST-2-English (a lightweight transformer model fine-tuned for binary English sentiment classification) evaluates responses. Both groups receive quality-based feedback (for repetitions, spelling errors, and invalid inputs). The proactive group additionally receives sentiment-based reinforcement: +2 points and "Correct" feedback for positive/neutral responses, and corrective guidance for negative responses. The reactive group receives no sentiment feedback. This gamified point system reinforces goal-directed positive thinking in the proactive group.
Procedure Participants are recruited in-person (paper-based classroom administration) and online (Google Form). Following informed consent and LSAS/DASS screening, eligible participants complete pre-assessment (CBQ, STAI, WSAP, Dot Probe Task) via OpenSesame software, then complete the intervention tasks, followed immediately by post-assessment using the same battery.
Data Analysis Data cleaning and scoring are conducted using Excel and R (packages: jsonlite, readxl, dplyr, tidyr, stringr, writexl). Statistical analyses are conducted in SPSS and include: chi-square for attrition analysis; descriptive statistics for demographics; Mixed ANOVA for main and interaction effects (Group × Time); paired-sample t-tests for within-group pre-post comparisons; independent-sample t-tests for between-group comparisons; and ANCOVA to isolate intervention effects from baseline differences.
- Conditions
- Social Anxiety Disorder
- Being tested
- Proactive Thought Conrol, Reactive Thought Control
- Keywords
- Social Anxiety Disorder, RCT, Proactive Thought Control, AI feedback, Core Beliefs, Cognitive Biases
- Medical subject headings
- Phobia, Social
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Proactive Thought ConrolBehavioural
A computerized behavioral intervention delivered across 180 trials in six blocks. The first three blocks use a Free Association Task (FAT), where participants respond to single threatening or neutral word cues. The last three blocks use a Sentence Completion Task (SCT), where participants complete socially threatening or neutral sentence stems. Participants in the proactive group must generate positive or neutral single-word responses and cannot advance until doing so. Real-time sentiment feedback is delivered via DistilBERT (an AI language model), awarding +2 points for positive/neutral responses and providing corrective guidance for negative ones. The reactive control group completes identical tasks but responds freely, receiving only neutral quality-based feedback without sentiment reinforcement. Both groups receive feedback for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries. Each block contains 25 threatening and 5 positive/neutral stimuli presented in randomized order.
Reactive Thought ControlBehavioural
A computerized behavioral sham condition delivered across 180 trials in six blocks, identical in structure to the experimental intervention. The first three blocks use a Free Association Task (FAT) and the last three use a Sentence Completion Task (SCT), both involving socially threatening and neutral stimuli. Participants respond freely with any single-word association without restriction on response valence. No sentiment-based feedback or scoring is provided. Participants receive only neutral quality-based feedback for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries. This condition controls for nonspecific factors including task engagement, time-on-task, the Hawthorne effect, and demand characteristics, while isolating the active ingredient of proactive sentiment-directed training present in the experimental arm.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Proactive Thought Control | Experimental | Participants in this arm completed a modified Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) across 180 trials (6 blocks of 30). They were instructed to generate only positive or neutral single-word responses to socially threatening cues and could not advance within a trial until doing so. Real-time AI-powered sentiment feedback (DistilBERT) reinforced positive/neutral responses with "+2 Score" and corrective guidance for negative responses. A gamified points system sustained engagement. Pre- and post-assessments included the CBQ, STAI, WSAP, and Dot Probe Task. Receives: Behavioral: Proactive Thought Conrol |
| Reactive Thought Control | Active comparator | Participants in this arm completed the same Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) across 180 trials (6 blocks of 30) as the experimental group, but responded freely without any restriction on response valence. They received only neutral quality-based feedback (e.g., for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries) with no sentiment-based reinforcement or corrective guidance. This active sham condition controlled for task engagement, the Hawthorne effect, and demand characteristics. Pre- and post-assessments were identical to those of the experimental arm. Receives: Behavioral: Reactive Thought Control |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Core Beliefs: Change in Negative Core Beliefs as Measured by the Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ)
The Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ; Wong et al., 2017) measures negative core beliefs in socially anxious individuals across three versions: trait (beliefs about self), contingent (beliefs about self when negatively evaluated), and other (beliefs about others). Each scale contains 17 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disbelieve to 6 = strongly believe). Total scores range from 17 to 102, with higher scores indicating stronger negative core beliefs. In this study, the trait and other subscales are used. Change scores from pre- to post-intervention are compared between the proactive thought control group and the reactive control group.
Measured: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
Interpretation Biases: Change in Interpretation Bias as Measured by the Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP)
The WSAP (Beard \& Amir, 2009) is a computerized task measuring interpretation bias toward threatening versus benign interpretations of ambiguous social scenarios. Each trial presents a word cue followed by an ambiguous sentence; participants judge relatedness by pressing Y or N. Bias is scored as the proportion of trials in which participants endorse threatening word-sentence pairings. Higher proportions indicate stronger negative interpretation bias. The task includes 30 trials with threatening and benign word-sentence pairs presented in randomized, counterbalanced order across pre- and post-assessments.
Measured: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
Attentional Biases: Change in Attentional Bias as Measured by the Dot Probe Task
The Dot Probe Task (MacLeod et al., 1986) measures attentional bias toward threatening stimuli using reaction times. Each trial presents a threatening and a neutral word simultaneously; a probe then replaces one stimulus. The Attentional Bias Index (ABI) is calculated as: mean RT on threat-incongruent trials minus mean RT on threat-congruent trials. Positive ABI scores indicate vigilance toward threat; negative scores indicate avoidance; scores near zero indicate no bias. Trials with RTs below 200 ms or above 1500 ms and incorrect responses are excluded. The task includes 30 trials in counterbalanced, randomized order across assessments.
Measured: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
Secondary outcomes (1)
State Trait Anxiety:Change in State-Trait Anxiety as Measured by the STAI - Short Form (STAI-State Subscale)
The short-form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Zsido et al., 2020) state subscale consists of 5 items assessing temporary anxiety symptoms such as tension and apprehension. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 3 = very much so), with total scores ranging from 5 to 20. Higher scores indicate greater state anxiety. Change from pre- to post-intervention is compared between groups.
The short-form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Zsido et al., 2020) trait subscale consists of 5 items assessing stable individual differences in anxiety proneness. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = not at all to 3 = very much so), with total scores ranging from 5 to 20. Higher scores reflect greater trait anxiety. Change from pre- to post-intervention is compared between the proactive thought control and reactive control groups.
Measured: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 May 2026
- Study start20 Apr 2025
- Primary completion30 May 2025
- Study completion30 Jun 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Social Anxiety DisorderStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- GIFT University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Saba Ahmad, GIFT University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07562633
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GIFT/HSS/2025/PSY/1025
- Other IDs
- Self Funded
- Acronym
- PTC - SA
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 25 Apr 2026
- Last updated
- 16 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Plan Description: De-identified individual participant data (IPD) underlying the primary and secondary outcome analyses will be shared, including pre- and post-intervention scores on the Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ), Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP), Dot Probe Task, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Raw reaction time data from the WSAP and Dot Probe Task, demographic data, and group assignment variables will also be made available. Data will be de-identified in accordance with standard anonymization procedures to protect participant confidentiality. Screening data (SCID, LSAS-SR and DASS-12) will be shared at aggregate level only.
Publications
Wong QJJ, Gregory B, Gaston JE, Rapee RM, Wilson JK, Abbott MJ. Development and validation of the Core Beliefs Questionnaire in a sample of individuals with social anxiety disorder. J Affect Disord. 2017 Jan 1;207:121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.020. Epub 2016 Sep 23.
PubMed 27721185Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141-73. doi: 10.1159/000414022. No abstract available.
PubMed 2885745MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P. Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 1986 Feb;95(1):15-20. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.95.1.15. No abstract available.
PubMed 3700842Beard C, Amir N. Interpretation in Social Anxiety: When Meaning Precedes Ambiguity. Cognit Ther Res. 2009;33(4):406-415. doi: 10.1007/s10608-009-9235-0.
PubMed 20046862Braver TS. The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):106-13. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010. Epub 2012 Jan 12.
PubMed 22245618Amir N, Beard C, Burns M, Bomyea J. Attention modification program in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2009 Feb;118(1):28-33. doi: 10.1037/a0012589.
PubMed 19222311
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Effectiveness of Proactive Thought Control in Modification of Negative Core Beliefs and Cognitive Biases in Individual With Social Anxiety: A Pilot RCT Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07562633
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PTC - SA / GIFT/HSS/2025/PSY/1025
- Conditions
- Social Anxiety Disorder
- Keywords
- Social Anxiety Disorder, RCT, Proactive Thought Control, AI feedback, Core Beliefs, Cognitive Biases
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- GIFT UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Apr 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 May 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jun 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study examines whether a proactive thought control intervention can reduce negative core beliefs, cognitive biases, and anxiety symptoms in university students with social anxiety. Participants with elevated social anxiety (screened via the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale) are randomly assigned to either a proactive thought control group or a reactive control group. Both groups complete two computerized tasks - a Free Association Task and a Sentence Completion Task - across 180 trials. The proactive group is trained to generate only positive or neutral associations to socially threatening cues and receives real-time AI-powered sentiment feedback, while the reactive group responds freely without sentiment-based guidance. Outcomes including negative core beliefs, interpretation bias, attentional bias, state anxiety, and trait anxiety are assessed before and after the intervention using standardized measures (CBQ, WSAP, Dot Probe Task, STAI). The study uses a parallel-group randomized controlled trial design with repeated measures and aims to establish preliminary effect size estimates for future, larger-scale trials.
Detailed description
Background and Rationale Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is characterized by intense fear of negative evaluation in social situations, leading to significant avoidance and distress. Cognitive models of SAD emphasize the role of negative core beliefs (e.g., beliefs about being inferior or unacceptable to others) and cognitive biases - particularly interpretation bias and attentional bias toward threat - in the maintenance of the disorder. While cognitive bias modification (CBM) approaches have shown promise, most are reactive in nature, modifying biases after they arise. Proactive cognitive control, by contrast, involves the sustained, goal-directed maintenance of positive or neutral mental sets before threatening stimuli are encountered. This study tests whether a proactive approach to thought control, delivered through modified free association and sentence completion paradigms, can more effectively shift core beliefs and cognitive biases compared to a reactive control condition.
Study Design This is a parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a repeated-measures (pre-post) design. Participants are randomly assigned using the fishbowl block randomization technique to either: (1) the Proactive Thought Control group, or (2) the Reactive Control group (active sham condition). Counterbalancing is applied to the order of stimuli in the WSAP and Dot Probe Task to control for practice effects.
Participants Participants are university students aged 18-24 years, recruited via purposive sampling using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Self Report (LSAS-SR). Individuals scoring above 30 on the LSAS-SR are eligible. Exclusion criteria include current psychological treatment, psychiatric or medical comorbidities, and medication use. Of 204 initially screened, 149 met the LSAS cutoff; 54 were enrolled and randomized. Final analyses include 37-39 participants who completed both pre- and post-assessments. As a pilot trial, this sample size is consistent with recommended ranges of 15-30 participants per group for feasibility and preliminary effect size estimation.
Measures
Pre- and post-intervention assessments include:
Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ): Measures negative core beliefs about self and others in social anxiety (trait and other subscales used).
Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory - Short Form (STAI): Assesses state and trait anxiety (5 items each; 4-point Likert scale).
Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP): Computerized task measuring interpretation bias; participants judge relatedness of threatening/benign word-sentence pairs. Bias scored as proportion of threatening endorsements.
Dot Probe Task: Computerized task measuring attentional bias toward threat using reaction time differences (Attentional Bias Index = mean RT threat-incongruent minus mean RT threat-congruent trials).
Screening measures include the LSAS-SR and DASS-12 (for baseline distress comparability).
Intervention The intervention comprises 180 trials divided into six blocks (framed as "game levels"): three blocks of Free Association Task (FAT) and three blocks of Sentence Completion Task (SCT). Each block contains 25 socially threatening stimuli and 5 positive/neutral stimuli, presented in randomized order.
Free Association Task (FAT): Participants see a single threatening or neutral word cue and respond with the first word that comes to mind. The proactive group is instructed to produce only positive or neutral single-word associations and cannot advance until doing so. The reactive group responds freely.
Sentence Completion Task (SCT): Participants complete unfinished sentence stems (e.g., "They stared, and I felt ___"). The proactive group must provide positive or neutral completions; the reactive group responds without restriction.
A real-time AI feedback system powered by DistilBERT-base-uncased-finetuned-SST-2-English (a lightweight transformer model fine-tuned for binary English sentiment classification) evaluates responses. Both groups receive quality-based feedback (for repetitions, spelling errors, and invalid inputs). The proactive group additionally receives sentiment-based reinforcement: +2 points and "Correct" feedback for positive/neutral responses, and corrective guidance for negative responses. The reactive group receives no sentiment feedback. This gamified point system reinforces goal-directed positive thinking in the proactive group.
Procedure Participants are recruited in-person (paper-based classroom administration) and online (Google Form). Following informed consent and LSAS/DASS screening, eligible participants complete pre-assessment (CBQ, STAI, WSAP, Dot Probe Task) via OpenSesame software, then complete the intervention tasks, followed immediately by post-assessment using the same battery.
Data Analysis Data cleaning and scoring are conducted using Excel and R (packages: jsonlite, readxl, dplyr, tidyr, stringr, writexl). Statistical analyses are conducted in SPSS and include: chi-square for attrition analysis; descriptive statistics for demographics; Mixed ANOVA for main and interaction effects (Group × Time); paired-sample t-tests for within-group pre-post comparisons; independent-sample t-tests for between-group comparisons; and ANCOVA to isolate intervention effects from baseline differences.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Proactive Thought Control | Experimental | Behavioral: Proactive Thought ConrolParticipants in this arm completed a modified Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) across 180 trials (6 blocks of 30). They were instructed to generate only positive or neutral single-word responses to socially threatening cues and could not advance within a trial until doing so. Real-time AI-powered sentiment feedback (DistilBERT) reinforced positive/neutral responses with "+2 Score" and corrective guidance for negative responses. A gamified points system sustained engagement. Pre- and post-assessments included the CBQ, STAI, WSAP, and Dot Probe Task. |
| Reactive Thought Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Reactive Thought ControlParticipants in this arm completed the same Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) across 180 trials (6 blocks of 30) as the experimental group, but responded freely without any restriction on response valence. They received only neutral quality-based feedback (e.g., for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries) with no sentiment-based reinforcement or corrective guidance. This active sham condition controlled for task engagement, the Hawthorne effect, and demand characteristics. Pre- and post-assessments were identical to those of the experimental arm. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 24 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (13 listed)
- being 18-24 years old
- not taking any additional psychological treatments during the trial
- If taking medication for depression or anxiety, the dosage had to remain consistent for one month before the start of therapy.
- Cut off score above 30 in LSAS
- Consent to participate in the study and complete all tasks.
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Proactive Thought ConrolA computerized behavioral intervention delivered across 180 trials in six blocks. The first three blocks use a Free Association Task (FAT), where participants respond to single threatening or neutral word cues. The last three blocks use a Sentence Completion Task (SCT), where participants complete socially threatening or neutral sentence stems. Participants in the proactive group must generate positive or neutral single-word responses and cannot advance until doing so. Real-time sentiment feedback is delivered via DistilBERT (an AI language model), awarding +2 points for positive/neutral responses and providing corrective guidance for negative ones. The reactive control group completes identical tasks but responds freely, receiving only neutral quality-based feedback without sentiment reinforcement. Both groups receive feedback for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries. Each block contains 25 threatening and 5 positive/neutral stimuli presented in randomized order. | Behavioural | Proactive Thought Control |
| Reactive Thought ControlA computerized behavioral sham condition delivered across 180 trials in six blocks, identical in structure to the experimental intervention. The first three blocks use a Free Association Task (FAT) and the last three use a Sentence Completion Task (SCT), both involving socially threatening and neutral stimuli. Participants respond freely with any single-word association without restriction on response valence. No sentiment-based feedback or scoring is provided. Participants receive only neutral quality-based feedback for repeated, misspelled, or invalid entries. This condition controls for nonspecific factors including task engagement, time-on-task, the Hawthorne effect, and demand characteristics, while isolating the active ingredient of proactive sentiment-directed training present in the experimental arm. | Behavioural | Reactive Thought Control |
Primary outcome
Core Beliefs: Change in Negative Core Beliefs as Measured by the Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ)
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
The Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ; Wong et al., 2017) measures negative core beliefs in socially anxious individuals across three versions: trait (beliefs about self), contingent (beliefs about self when negatively evaluated), and other (beliefs about others). Each scale contains 17 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disbelieve to 6 = strongly believe). Total scores range from 17 to 102, with higher scores indicating stronger negative core beliefs. In this study, the trait and other subscales are used. Change scores from pre- to post-intervention are compared between the proactive thought control group and the reactive control group.
Interpretation Biases: Change in Interpretation Bias as Measured by the Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP)
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
The WSAP (Beard \& Amir, 2009) is a computerized task measuring interpretation bias toward threatening versus benign interpretations of ambiguous social scenarios. Each trial presents a word cue followed by an ambiguous sentence; participants judge relatedness by pressing Y or N. Bias is scored as the proportion of trials in which participants endorse threatening word-sentence pairings. Higher proportions indicate stronger negative interpretation bias. The task includes 30 trials with threatening and benign word-sentence pairs presented in randomized, counterbalanced order across pre- and post-assessments.
Attentional Biases: Change in Attentional Bias as Measured by the Dot Probe Task
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
The Dot Probe Task (MacLeod et al., 1986) measures attentional bias toward threatening stimuli using reaction times. Each trial presents a threatening and a neutral word simultaneously; a probe then replaces one stimulus. The Attentional Bias Index (ABI) is calculated as: mean RT on threat-incongruent trials minus mean RT on threat-congruent trials. Positive ABI scores indicate vigilance toward threat; negative scores indicate avoidance; scores near zero indicate no bias. Trials with RTs below 200 ms or above 1500 ms and incorrect responses are excluded. The task includes 30 trials in counterbalanced, randomized order across assessments.
1 secondary outcome
State Trait Anxiety:Change in State-Trait Anxiety as Measured by the STAI - Short Form (STAI-State Subscale)
Time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Jul 2026.
- Results publication: PubMed 27721185Wong QJJ, Gregory B, Gaston JE, Rapee RM, Wilson JK, Abbott MJ. Development and validation of the Core Beliefs Questionnaire in a sample of individuals with social anxiety disorder. J Affect Disord. 2017 Jan 1;207:121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.020. Epub 2016 Sep 23.
- Results publication: PubMed 2885745Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141-73. doi: 10.1159/000414022. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 3700842MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P. Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 1986 Feb;95(1):15-20. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.95.1.15. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 20046862Beard C, Amir N. Interpretation in Social Anxiety: When Meaning Precedes Ambiguity. Cognit Ther Res. 2009;33(4):406-415. doi: 10.1007/s10608-009-9235-0.
- Results publication: PubMed 22245618Braver TS. The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):106-13. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010. Epub 2012 Jan 12.
- Results publication: PubMed 19222311Amir N, Beard C, Burns M, Bomyea J. Attention modification program in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder. J Abnorm Psychol. 2009 Feb;118(1):28-33. doi: 10.1037/a0012589.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Plan Description: De-identified individual participant data (IPD) underlying the primary and secondary outcome analyses will be shared, including pre- and post-intervention scores on the Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ), Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP), Dot Probe Task, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Raw reaction time data from the WSAP and Dot Probe Task, demographic data, and group assignment variables will also be made available. Data will be de-identified in accordance with standard anonymization procedures to protect participant confidentiality. Screening data (SCID, LSAS-SR and DASS-12) will be shared at aggregate level only.
Related trials for Social Anxiety Disorder
Active, not recruiting
Improving Student Mental Health Through a Universal Trauma-Informed Intervention
Anxiety Symptoms, Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms
Not yet recruiting
Health-Related Social Needs Food Boxes Delivery Program
Food Insecurity
Active, not recruiting
Targeting Social Function in Anxiety and Eating Disorders
Eating Disorders, Anorexia Nervosa
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Short-Video Distraction During Burn Dressing on Anxiety, Pain, and Fear in Children
Burn Injury, Procedural Anxiety
Active, not recruiting
Future School of Comprehensive Well-Being
Learning, Comprehensive Wellbeing
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Proactive Thought Conrol in people with Social Anxiety Disorder, run by GIFT University at 1 site in Pakistan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 13 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Core Beliefs: Change in Negative Core Beliefs as Measured by the Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ) (time frame: Baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately after intervention completion (post-intervention)). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07562633, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Jul 2026.