Letting go of yesterday: Effect of distraction on post-event processing and anticipatory anxiety in a socially anxious sample
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
According to cognitive models, post-event processing (PEP) is a key factor in the maintenance of social anxiety. Given that decreasing PEP can be challenging for socially anxious individuals, it is important to identify potentially useful strategies. Although distraction may help to decrease PEP, the findings have been equivocal. The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether a brief distraction period immediately following a speech would lead to less PEP the next day. The secondary aim was to examine the effect of distraction following an initial speech on anticipatory anxiety for a second speech, via reductions in PEP. Participants (N = 77 undergraduates with elevated social anxiety; 67.53% female) delivered a speech and were randomly assigned to a distraction, rumination, or control condition. The following day, participants reported levels of PEP in relation to the first speech, as well as anxiety regarding a second, upcoming speech. As expected, those in the distraction condition reported less PEP than those in the rumination and control conditions. Additionally, distraction following the first speech was indirectly related to anticipatory anxiety for the second speech, via PEP. Distraction may represent a potentially useful strategy for reducing PEP and other maladaptive processes that may maintain social anxiety.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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