MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913340505 · doi:10.1037/abn0000407

Social anxiety disorder and memory for positive feedback.

2019· article· en· W2913340505 on OpenAlexafffund
Brianne L. Glazier, Lynn E. Alden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Abnormal Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPsycINFORecallSocial anxietyAnxietyFree recallCognitive psychologyCognitionRecall biasDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical theorists postulate that individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) display memory biases such that recall of social events becomes more negative with time; however, alternative memory models have also been proposed. Research has focused predominantly on selective recall of negative information with inconsistent findings. The goal of the current study was to examine potential biases in recall of positive social feedback. Individuals with SAD (n = 59) and nonanxious community controls (n = 63) engaged in an unexpected public speaking task and received standardized positive or neutral feedback on their speech. Participants were asked to recall the feedback after 5 minutes and after 1 week. Results indicated that at delayed recall, individuals with SAD recalled positive feedback as less positive than it had been. The findings support cognitive models of SAD and extend the model to positive social information. Research is needed to understand the mechanisms that underlie fading positivity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Abnormal PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207