Rumination and Distraction Periods Immediately Following a Speech Task: Effect on Postevent Processing in Social Anxiety
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate social anxiety and the effect of rumination and distraction periods immediately following a speech task on subsequent postevent processing. A secondary aim was to examine the content of postevent rumination. Participants (N = 114 students) completed measures of social anxiety and depression, delivered a 3-minute speech, and were randomly assigned to complete (1) a rumination form about the speech (guided negative rumination condition) or (2) an anagram form (distraction condition). One week later participants completed measures of postevent processing related to the speech task. It was hypothesized that social anxiety would interact with condition in predicting levels of postevent processing. This hypothesis was supported in the prediction of positive thoughts such that at high levels of social anxiety the distraction condition led to more positive thoughts compared with the guided negative rumination condition, whereas at low levels of social anxiety conditions were similar with respect to positive thoughts. Irrespective of condition, both social anxiety and depression predicted greater postevent rumination and negative thoughts 1 week later. With respect to the content of postevent rumination, socially anxious individuals reported being more concerned about some aspects of the presentation (e.g. poor posture), whereas other concerns were equally noted regardless of social anxiety level (e.g. poor content). The present results highlight the potential clinical utility of distracting from social anxiety to allow for greater access to positive thoughts postevent.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it