The impact of particular safety behaviours on perceived likeability and authenticity during interpersonal interactions in social anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safety behaviours are hypothesized to play a vital role in maintaining social anxiety disorder (SAD), in part by orienting socially anxious individuals to adopt an avoidance-based mindset focused on self-protection and self-concealment. Evidence suggests an association between safety behaviour use and negative social outcomes for individuals with SAD. However, research has largely focused on the broad group of safety behaviours, whereas specific subtypes have received less attention. AIM: The present study aimed to further our understanding of the negative interpersonal consequences of specific types of safety behaviours for individuals with SAD by examining whether active, inhibiting/restricting, or physical symptom management safety behaviour use affects perceived likeability and authenticity during a conversation with a stranger. METHOD: 40; mean age 18.6 years) engaged in a semi-structured social interaction with trained confederates. RESULTS: Participants with SAD were perceived as significantly less likeable and authentic by the confederates, and rated themselves as significantly less authentic compared with those without SAD. The association between group status and likeability was mediated by the use of inhibiting/restricting safety behaviours and the association between group status and participant-rated authenticity was mediated by the use of both inhibiting/restricting and active safety behaviours, but not physical symptom management strategies. CONCLUSIONS: These results contribute to a growing literature suggesting that some, but not all, safety behaviours may play an important role in creating the negative social outcomes that individuals with SAD experience.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".