Concurrent and prospective associations between negative social-evaluative beliefs, safety behaviours, and symptoms during and following cognitive behavioural group therapy for social anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the delivery of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD) requires an in-depth understanding of which cognitive and behavioural mechanisms drive change in social anxiety symptoms (i.e., social interaction anxiety) during and after treatment. The current study explores the dynamic temporal associations between theory-driven cognitive and behavioural mechanisms of symptom change both during and following group CBT. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of imagery-enhanced CBT (n = 51) versus traditional verbal CBT (n = 54) for social anxiety was completed in a community mental health clinic setting. This study included data collected from 12-weekly sessions and a 1-month follow-up session. Mixed models were used to assess magnitude of change over the course of treatment. Cross-lagged panel models were fit to the data to examine temporal relationships between mechanisms (social-evaluative beliefs, safety behaviours) and social interaction anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Participants in both CBT groups experienced significant improvements across all cognitive, behavioural, and symptom measures, with no significant differences in the magnitude of changes between treatments. During treatment, greater social-evaluative beliefs (fear of negative evaluation, negative self-portrayals) at one time point (T) were predictive of more severe SAD symptoms and safety behaviours at T+1. Social-evaluative beliefs (fear of negative evaluation, probability and cost of social failure) and safety behaviours measured at post-treatment were positively associated with SAD symptoms at the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The current study identifies social-evaluative beliefs that may be important targets for symptom and avoidance reduction during and following CBT. Assessment of these social-evaluative beliefs throughout treatment may be useful for predicting future SAD symptoms and avoidance, and for adapting treatment to promote optimal change for patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".