The efficacy of cognitive restructuring and mindfulness strategies in reducing post-event processing among socially anxious individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is defined as a marked and persistent fear of social situations in which an individual is exposed to potential scrutiny from others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Prominent models of SAD (Clark & Wells, 1995 ; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997) postulate that postevent processing (PEP), which involves reviewing a past social event in detail (typically in a negative way), serves as a key maintenance factor of SAD. The current study examined the efficacy of a single session cognitive restructuring or mindfulness strategy on decreasing PEP and its associated effects, and also investigated the cognitive processes involved. Seventy-four socially anxious participants completed a speech task to elicit PEP, were taught a cognitive restructuring, mindfulness, or control strategy to manage their negative thoughts related to the speech, and completed several questionnaires. Participants in the cognitive restructuring condition reported decreased PEP (degree and associated distress) and improved affect (but not reduced state anxiety), as compared to the control condition. Participants in the mindfulness condition also reported decrease PEP (degree but no associate distress) and improved affect (including reduced state anxiety), as compared to the control condition. No significant differences were found between the cognitive restructuring and mindfulness conditions. Participants in the cognitive restructuring condition also reported decreased beliefs about the perceived costs of negative social situations. Regardless of study condition, decreases in cost biases and maladaptive beliefs sign significantly predicted reductions in PEP. Thus, cognitive restructuring and mindfulness appear to be promising strategies to decrease PEP and its associated negative effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".