Rumination and Distraction Periods Immediately Following a Speech Task: Effect on Postevent Processing in Social Anxiety
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.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".