Examination of emotional contagion and social anxiety using novel video stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Socially anxious individuals often exhibit signs of anxiety that might elicit discomfort in others and negatively influence their interactions, due in part to emotional contagion. However, there is limited research examining the phenomenon of emotional contagion in social anxiety, which is the topic of the current study. DESIGN AND METHODS: = 128) were assigned to either an experimental condition (watching a video of a socially anxious presenter) or a control condition (watching a video of a nonanxious presenter). Various measures were administered to assess social anxiety, emotional contagion, state anxiety, and related constructs. RESULTS: After controlling for baseline anxiety levels, participants in the experimental condition reported significantly higher levels of anxiety during and immediately after watching the video compared to individuals in the control condition (multivariate analysis of covariance, analysis of variance). Similar results were found across both conditions in participants with higher levels of trait social anxiety and higher public speaking anxiety (moderated regression analyses). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that social anxiety may be emotionally contagious, and provides insight into the role that emotional contagion may play in the association between social anxiety and interpersonal functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 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".