Understanding heterogeneity in social anxiety disorder: Dependency and self‐criticism moderate fear responses to interpersonal cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study examined how the personality traits of self‐criticism and dependency moderated the effects of situational interpersonal cues on fear during interpersonal interactions among individuals with social anxiety disorder ( SAD ). We hypothesized that self‐criticism would moderate the fear‐inducing effects of situational self‐consciousness and that dependency would moderate the fear‐inducing effects of situational emotional insecurity. Methods Forty SAD patients ( M age = 29.23) and matched community controls ( M age = 28.93) completed event‐contingent record forms after each significant social interaction of over 5 min for a 20‐day period. There were 20 female patients and 20 male patients in each group. Results Event‐level self‐consciousness was more strongly associated with elevations in fear among socially anxious patients who reported higher levels of self‐criticism, while event‐level emotional security was more strongly associated with decreases in fear among SAD patients who reported higher levels of dependency. These interactions were not found in the community sample. Conclusions Findings support the application of personality‐vulnerability models to understanding fear during social interactions in patients with SAD . Results also have implications for psychotherapeutic treatments of SAD . Practitioner points Although social anxiety disorder (SAD) patients are on average more self‐critical and dependent than community participants, some SAD patients are particularly self‐critical, while others are particularly dependent. Highly self‐critical SAD patients are more likely to feel fear during interpersonal situations when they feel self‐conscious. Highly dependent SAD patients are more likely to feel fear during interpersonal interactions when they feel less emotionally secure. SAD patients were compared to a community sample, so we do not know if group differences are due to the presence of SAD or psychopathology in general.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".