An Interpersonal Approach to the Treatment of Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia): A Component Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Most treatments of social anxiety disorder aim at anxiety reduction. To what extent this leads to improved social functioning remains unclear. An effective alternative aiming primarily at social functioning- the Interpersonal Approach- is available. The present study sought to identify its active ingredients. Methods: This is a randomized controlled study; 102 social anxiety disorder individuals were randomly assigned to 3 versions of the Interpersonal Approach. A total of 76 patients completed treatment and 67, a 1-year follow-up. The patients met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition criteria for social anxiety disorder. The study was carried out in an experimental clinic for the treatment of social anxiety disorder at the Research Center of Louis-H. Lafontaine Hospital in Montreal, Canada. Results: No clinically meaningful change occurred during the waiting list. A significant and equivalent improvement was obtained in all treatment conditions in social functioning, anxiousness, and general psychopathology, maintaining over a 12-month follow-up. Remission rates improved progressively with 54% remission at 1-year follow-up. All variants of the Interpersonal Approach resulted in similar improvements. Conclusion: The Interpersonal Approach in all its versions has proved to be effective in reducing anxiety complaints and improving social functioning. The combined improvement in these 2 outcomes accounts for the significant remission rates seen at 1-year follow-up. Two active features were common to all: (1) targeting and ultimately dissolving long-standing habits of self-protection across various spheres of life and (2) fostering participatory interpersonal patterns of behavior, enacted by patients systematically and repeatedly between sessions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".