A Systematic Examination of Fear of Positive Evaluation in the Context of Social Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is recent evidence that individuals with social anxiety disorder (SAD) fear both negative and positive evaluation (e.g., Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks & Howell, 2012). However, the existing literature has a number of limitations and unanswered questions regarding the measurement of fear of positive evaluation (FPE), reasons underlying FPE, and affective and cognitive responses associated with FPE. The current dissertation consisted of three separate, but related studies designed to address these limitations and questions. The aim of the first study was to develop and validate a measure of social anxiety, FPE, and fear of negative evaluation (FNE) called the Fear of Evaluation Scale (FES) that more clearly differentiates between FPE and FNE. The FES demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. Additionally, a bifactor model consisting of one general fear of evaluation factor with two specific factors for FNE and FPE provided superior fit to the data. The second study involved an item analysis of the one existing measure of FPE to determine the extent to which it assesses FPE versus FNE, and to identify reasons underlying participants’ responses on this measure. The findings indicated that responses primarily reflected an underlying FNE; however, participants reported other reasons that did not reflect FNE. In the third study, participants completed a face-to-face social interaction task to examine emotional and cognitive responses to positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Compared to the nonclinical control group, the SAD group reported significantly higher distress in response to negative and positive feedback over and above distress ratings provided before preparing for the task. The SAD group also perceived positive feedback as significantly less accurate than the nonclinical control group. Further, both groups rated negative feedback as significantly more distressing than positive and neutral feedback. Limitations of these three studies, theoretical and clinical implications of the findings, and future research directions are discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".