Effects of social anxiety and self‐schemas on the impact and meaningfulness of positive versus negative social autobiographical memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Social anxiety is characterized by maladaptive self-schemas about being socially undesirable. Self-schemas are deeply held beliefs which are derived from negative autobiographical memories of painful social experiences. In contrast to the plethora of past research on negative memories in social anxiety, almost no research has investigated objectively positive social autobiographical memories. In this preregistered study, we examined the effects of social anxiety and self-schemas on the appraised impact and meaningfulness of retrieved positive versus negative social autobiographical memories. METHOD: Participants recruited via Prolific (final n = 343) were randomized to one of two conditions in which they were instructed to retrieve, orally narrate, and appraise a positive or negative social autobiographical memory of a specific experience from their personal past where they felt either valued or unvalued, respectively. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that participants rated their positive memories as more impactful and meaningful than negative memories overall, but this effect was reversed for participants who endorsed having either stronger negative self-schemas or greater social anxiety symptoms, for whom negative memories were more impactful. Additionally, participants who endorsed having stronger positive self-schemas rated their negative memories as significantly less impactful and their positive memories as nearly more impactful. CONCLUSION: Together, these results elucidate how self-schemas and social anxiety are related to autobiographical memory appraisals, paving the way for future research on memory-based therapeutic interventions for social anxiety disorder.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".