Self-focused attention and safety behaviors across group therapies for social anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-focused attention (SFA) and safety behaviors are two variables implicated in the maintenance of social anxiety disorder (SAD). DESIGN: The present study examined SFA and safety behaviors across two therapies for SAD, cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBGT) and mindfulness and acceptance-based group therapy (MAGT). METHOD: Participants with symptoms meeting criteria for SAD (N = 137) were randomly assigned to the 12-week-treatment groups (n = 53 for each condition) or a waitlist control (n = 31). Variables were assessed at baseline, midtreatment, posttreatment, and a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Both treatment conditions reported significantly lower SFA and safety behaviors compared to control, but did not differ from one another at posttreatment. Mediation analyses supported the following models: (1) safety behaviors mediating the relationship between SFA and social anxiety, and (2) SFA mediating the relationship between safety behaviors and social anxiety. These models were supported for both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments may have the potential to reduce the SFA and safety behaviors that serve to maintain 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".