MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4324030391 · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2022.101763

Judging others makes me forget: Assessing the cognitive, behavioural, and emotional consequences of other-evaluations on self-evaluations for social anxiety

2023· article· en· W4324030391 on OpenAlexafffund
R. J. Ferguson, Allison J. Ouimet, Olivia Gardam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyConversationAnxietySocial anxietyFear of negative evaluationCognitionImpromptuDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People with Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) evaluate themselves negatively before, during, and after anxiety-provoking social situations, which leads to negative consequences (e.g., performance deficits, memory impairments, and post-event processing). Despite decades of research, little is known regarding whether these evaluations generalize to how they view others. Social projection theory-the belief that others are similar to oneself-might further extend the basic Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) model. Our aim was to understand whether the degree to which people negatively evaluate a visibly anxious person causes them to negatively evaluate themselves. METHODS: 172 unselected participants completed several baseline questionnaires. We then randomly assigned participants to provide high-, medium-, or no-evaluation of a videotaped anxious person (i.e., other-evaluations) while we assessed their state anxiety. After, they evaluated the anxious person on multiple criteria. Participants then participated in an impromptu conversation task and subsequently evaluated their own performance. RESULTS: Although our manipulation was effective, we found no emotional or behavioural differences between conditions. However, people in the high-evaluation condition recalled significantly fewer facts about their conversation partner than did people in the medium- and no-evaluation conditions. LIMITATIONS: After data cleaning, the sample size was slightly smaller than planned; most analyses were nonetheless appropriately powered. Our findings may not generalize beyond unselected undergraduate students; replication in a clinical sample is warranted. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the cognitive consequences (i.e., memory impairments) of other-evaluations, which cognitive behavioural therapists should consider when treating individuals with SAD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry→Same topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes→French-language works237,207→