Social anxiety compared to depression better accounts for enhanced acquisition of self-reported anxiety toward faces paired with negative evaluation in a conditioning task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that social anxiety was associated with enhanced acquisition of anxiety as measured by subjective ratings in conditioning tasks using faces as the conditioned stimulus and negative evaluation as the unconditioned stimulus. However, a recent study failed to replicate the effect. The current study re-examined the enhanced acquisition effect with a larger sample, explored whether differences in expectancy of negative evaluation was a potential mechanism, and compared the contribution of social anxiety to that of depression on enhanced acquisition. Two hundred and sixty-three unselected participants took part in a differential conditioning task in which three faces each were paired with hostile, neutral, and friendly reaction during acquisition, and all three were paired with neutral reaction during extinction. Results replicated earlier findings that participant social anxiety was associated with enhanced acquisition of anxiety. Socially anxious participants did not show higher expectancy of hostile reaction during acquisition, which suggested the need to consider alternative mechanisms underlying enhanced acquisition. Depression was also associated with enhanced acquisition; however, that association was accounted for by social anxiety. The effect of social anxiety was significant over and above depression, which supported its diagnostic validity.
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".