Evaluating the states of mind model: Comparison to an alternative model and effects of method of cognitive assessment

Richard G. Heimberg, Monroe A. Bruch, Debra A. Hope, Mark Dombeck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

46 Scopus citations


Two studies were conducted evaluating aspects of the States of Mind (SOM) Model proposed by Schwartz (1986; Schwartz & Garamoni, 1986, 1989) with a sample of social phobic subjects. First, the SOM ratio [positive thoughts/(positive + negative thoughts)] based on a thought listing task was compared to a ratio based on Kendall and Hollon's (1981) "power-of-nonnegative-thinking" model [negative thoughts/(positive +negative +neutral thoughts)], and the relationship of each ratio to criterion measures was assessed. The two ratios were highly correlated and related to several criterion measures, raising questions about the role of neutral thoughts in the internal dialogue. Second, SOM ratios derived from a thought listing task and from the Social Interaction Self-Statement Test (SISST) were compared to assess the reactivity of the SOM ratio and classification scheme to method of cognitive assessment. In that study, large differences were detected. SISST SOMs were less likely to classify subjects in the more pathological SOM categories and more likely to be significantly related to criterion measures. Findings are discussed in the context of the validity of the SOM model and the effects of cognitive assessment methodology on the magnitude of derived self-statement ratios.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)543-557
Number of pages15
JournalCognitive Therapy and Research
Issue number6
StatePublished - Dec 1990
Externally publishedYes


  • cognitive assessment
  • self-statement
  • social phobia
  • states of mind
  • thought listing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating the states of mind model: Comparison to an alternative model and effects of method of cognitive assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this