MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463140958 · doi:10.5127/jep.056916

The pernicious Effects of Post-event Processing in Social Anxiety Disorder

2016· article· en· W2463140958 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychopathology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial anxietyAnxietyFear of negative evaluationClinical psychologyNegativity effectImpromptuDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it