Social anxiety and liking: Towards understanding the role of metaperceptions in first impressions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A core component of social anxiety is the constant concern about what others think of the self. Could such metaperceptions-beliefs about how others view the self-play a role in relationship initiation attempts? In the present research, we examined whether metaperceptions may contribute to why people higher in social anxiety experience difficulties in initial interactions. In 2 first-impressions contexts, a platonic getting-acquainted context (Study 1: N = 544; 2,878 dyads) and a speed dating context (Study 2: N = 376; 4,797 dyads), we explored the roles of 2 components of metaperceptions: meta-positivity (i.e., believing interaction partners' perceptions of the self are in line with the socially desirable personality profile) and distinctive meta-accuracy (i.e., accurately recognizing interaction partners' unique perception of the self, controlling for meta-positivity). Results revealed that people higher in social anxiety were liked less by interaction partners across both contexts, a link that was partially accounted for by lower distinctive meta-accuracy displayed by those higher in social anxiety. Further, lower meta-positivity displayed by people higher in social anxiety also contributed to the links between greater social anxiety and being liked less in the platonic setting and liking others less in both contexts. In sum, metaperceptions may play an important role in shaping initial interactions, potentially helping to explain why people with greater social anxiety encounter difficulties forming new relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".