Mindfulness and the Attenuation of Post-Event Processing in Social Phobia: An Experimental Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present experimental study examined the ability of metacognitive strategies to reduce the distress associated with post-event processing (PEP). Individuals with DSM-IV generalized social phobia (N = 57) were randomly allocated to receive brief training in mindfulness, distraction, or no training (control group). Next, they underwent an experimental PEP induction. Following the induction, they were instructed to apply the metacognitive strategy (mindfulness or distraction) they were taught or to continue thinking about the social event the way they typically would following such an event (control). Participants rated their distress on a visual analogue scale prior to the PEP induction, and then every minute for 5 min while applying the metacognitive strategy. They also rated their affect immediately after applying the metacognitive strategy. Results suggest that mindfulness reduces distress significantly over the post-event period and results in significantly more positive affect than when receiving no training. In contrast, distraction does not reduce distress over the post-event period performs comparable to receiving no training. The results of this experimental investigation suggest that mindfulness has the potential to reduce distress associated with PEP and provide further support for the clinical utility of mindfulness in the treatment of generalized social phobia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".