Social rejection in social anxiety disorder: The role of performance deficits, evoked negative emotions and dissimilarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) not only fear social rejection, but accumulating evidence also shows that they are indeed less liked than their non-anxious counterparts. Three factors are hypothesized to play a role in this social anxiety-social rejection relationship: (1) social performance; (2) elicited negative emotions, and (3) perceived similarity. METHOD: Patients with SAD (N=63) and control participants (N=27) were observed during a 5 minutes 'getting acquainted' conversation with a male and female confederate who rated their social performance. Video-observers rated their own negative emotions and perceived similarity with the patients, while other video-observers rated their wish to engage in future contact with them (a measure of social rejection). RESULTS: Analysed by way of structural equation modelling (SEM), the results supported the social anxiety-social rejection relationship. More specifically, poor social performance was associated with perceived dissimilarity ratings and mediated by evoked negative emotions, both of which were in turn associated with social rejection. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a sequence of events links social anxiety to social rejection. Treatment should aim to improve social performance and perceived similarity to reverse SAD's vicious, negative interpersonal cycle.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".