The pernicious Effects of Post-event Processing in Social Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Post-event processing (PEP) in social anxiety disorder (SAD) involves ruminating about social encounters after the fact. There is a clear relationship between PEP and SAD, but less is known about the negative effects of PEP. The goal of the current study was to investigate these negative effects in a sample of people with SAD. We hypothesized that PEP would contribute to decreased willingness to try a similar task again and to increased anxiety about engaging in a similar task. We also hypothesized that the degree of PEP would mediate the relationship between initial self-evaluation of performance and follow-up self-evaluation. Methods Forty-one individuals with a principal diagnosis of SAD completed the study. Participants completed baseline measures of symptom severity and state affect and then completed an impromptu speech task. After completing the speech, they completed a self-evaluation of their performance. Five days later, they rated the degree to which they engaged in PEP about their speech performance, indicated their willingness and anxiety about completing a similar speech task in the future, and completed a second self-evaluation of their performance. Results PEP contributed unique and significant variance to willingness (R 2 change = .12, p < .05) but not to anxiety ratings (R 2 change = .027, p = .13) once symptom severity, depressive symptoms, and state anxiety were controlled for. Using bias-corrected bootstrapping, PEP mediated the relationship between initial and follow-up performance ratings. Conclusions The more people engage in PEP, the less willing they appear to be to re-enter difficult social situations, likely perpetuating a cycle of avoidance. PEP also appears to be one factor that keeps negative self-perceptions “alive” after a challenging social situation. The current study provides unique evidence of the negative consequences of PEP for individuals with SAD.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".