Online attention modification for social anxiety disorder: replication of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social anxiety disorder (SAD) models posit vigilance for external social threat cues and exacerbated self-focused attention as key in disorder development and maintenance. Evidence indicates a modified dot-probe protocol may reduce symptoms of SAD; however, the efficacy when compared to a standard protocol and long-term maintenance of treatment gains remains unclear. Furthermore, the efficacy of such protocols on SAD-related constructs remains relatively unknown. The current investigation clarified these associations using a randomized control trial replicating and extending previous research. Participants with SAD (n = 113; 71% women) were randomized to complete a standard (i.e. control) or modified (i.e. active) dot-probe protocol consisting of 15-min sessions twice weekly for four weeks. Self-reported symptoms were measured at baseline, post-treatment, and 4-month and 8-month follow-ups. Hierarchical linear modeling indicated significant self-reported reductions in symptoms of social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, trait anxiety, and depression, but no such reductions in fear of positive evaluation. Symptom changes did not differ based on condition and were maintained at 8-month follow-up. Attentional biases during the dot-probe task were not related to symptom change. Overall, our results replicate support for the efficacy of both protocols in reducing symptoms of SAD and specific related constructs, and suggest a role of exposure, expectancy, or practice effects, rather than attention modification, in effecting such reductions. The current results also support distinct relationships between fears of negative and positive evaluation and social anxiety. Further research focused on identifying the mechanisms of change in attention modification protocols appears warranted.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".