Appraisals of Social Trauma and Their Role in the Development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive theories of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) feature appraisal of trauma as a critical factor in the development and maintenance of the disorder. Here we explored appraisals of social trauma (severe rejection or humiliation). Participants were outpatients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) and clinically significant PTSD symptoms (PTSS) after social trauma (n = 15); two clinical control groups of either SAD (n = 32) or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD; n = 13); and a control group with no diagnoses (n = 38). Measures included a clinical interview to assess social trauma and related open-ended appraisals and the Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI). Raters blind to group assignment performed content analyses of appraisals. Results showed that the PTSS group scored significantly higher than either clinical group on the PTCI SELF subscale. Only the SELF subscale predicted a diagnosis of both PTSS and SAD. All but one PTSS participant reported primarily negative beliefs about their social trauma, and the most common categories were flawed self and others are critical or cruel. Post-traumatic appraisals implicated in the course of PTSD are significant in how individuals respond to social trauma, with negative self-cognitions linked to both PTSS and 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".