Experiential Avoidance as a mediator in the relation of Social Fear with Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: the present study was aimed to test a model in which Experiential Avoidance mediates the relation of Social Fear with Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia.\n\nMethods: participants included undergraduate students and non-student adults (N=163, males and females, age: 18-65 years). Measures of Social Fear (Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale), Experiential Avoidance (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire), Depression and Anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and Alexithymia (Toronto Alexithymia Scale) were obtained from standardised, self-administered questionnaires. Regression analyses were performed to test for mediational models. \n\nResults: the results showed that Social Fear significantly predicted Experiential Avoidance, Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia. Moreover, the effect of Social Fear on Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia was not significant anymore or was strongly reduced when controlling for Experiential Avoidance scores, whereas the latter still predicted Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia. \n\nConclusion: Experiential Avoidance either fully or partially mediated the relation of Social Fear with Depression, Anxiety, and Alexithymia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".