Maladaptive Core Beliefs and their Relation to Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has demonstrated that individuals with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) hold unhelpful beliefs about worry, uncertainty, and the problem-solving process. Extant writings (e.g., treatment manuals) also suggest that other types of maladaptive beliefs may characterize those with GAD. However, these other beliefs have received limited empirical attention and are not an explicit component of cognitive theories of GAD. The present study examined the extent to which dysfunctional attitudes, early maladaptive schemas, and broad self-focused and other-focused beliefs explain significant variance in GAD symptoms, over and above negative and positive beliefs about worry, negative beliefs about uncertainty, and negative beliefs about problems. N = 138 participants classified into Probable GAD and Non-GAD groups completed self-report measures. After controlling for trait anxiety and depressive symptoms, only beliefs about worry, negative beliefs about uncertainty, and schemas reflecting unrelenting standards (e.g., "I must meet all my responsibilities all the time"), the need to self-sacrifice (e.g., "I'm the one who takes care of others"), and less positive views of other people and their intentions (e.g., lower endorsement of views such as "other people are fair"), were unique correlates of Probable GAD versus Non-GAD or GAD severity. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".