Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety
Rachman, Grüter-Andrew & Shafran (2000) · Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(6)
Relied on in 9 places across the academy · 7 stated limits
What it found
Rumination after a distressing social event was recurrent and intrusive, correlated with social anxiety at around r = .40, and was associated with avoiding similar situations afterwards.
Post-event rumination was associated with avoidance of similar situations afterwards — the retreat, not the incident, is what generalises.
Post-event processing — replaying a social episode afterwards in detail — maintained anxiety rather than resolving it, and predicted more negative self-appraisal.
Post-event processing — replaying and checking a social episode afterwards — maintained anxiety rather than resolving it.
3 more phrasings of the same finding
In a questionnaire study, replaying an embarrassing social event afterwards was common, recurrent and intrusive; it correlated with social anxiety (r = .40) and went with avoiding similar situations later.
After anxiety-evoking social events, people replayed them in recollections that were recurrent and intrusive; the replaying correlated with social anxiety at around r = .40 and went with avoiding similar situations afterwards.
People prone to post-event processing ruminated on awkward social events repeatedly, and the rumination was associated with avoidance of similar situations afterwards.
What it does not show
Self-report after real social episodes, in samples selected for social anxiety. It establishes that the replaying happens and tracks distress; it does not show that stopping it removes the distress.
And where we carry it further
Studied as post-event processing after social events, not after unrequited feelings specifically.
Read the Charpillon episode honestly: he was thirty-eight and she was seventeen, and his account casts himself as the victim of it. The obsession is the lesson; his framing of it is not.
Studied on the replaying of real social events rather than on deliberate practice. The limit of one listen is ours; the reason for it is theirs.
Studied on the mental replaying of events, not on contacting the other person. The extension is ours.
Self-report in samples selected for social anxiety. It establishes that the replaying happens; it does not show that a single message stops it.
Self-report after real events. It documents the replaying; it does not test writing the message down and not sending it as a remedy. That is ours.
A questionnaire study of the process, not a trial of an intervention. It identifies the mechanism; the moves below are what clinical practice does about it.
Where we rely on it
9 places in the academy. If this paper turned out to be wrong, this is the list that would have to change. Some of the instructions below are part of Gold; none of the findings are.
In the curriculum · 7
09 — Withdraw the hope, keep the person
Topic 05 · Rejection Immunity08 — Go again within a day
Topic 09 · The Casanova Method09 — Ninety seconds, one line, then move
Topic 13 · How You Sound08 — Record yourself once
Topic 15 · Ending It Well09 — Do not go back to check
Topic 17 · The First Date10 — The next morning
Topic 18 · The Unanswered Message07 — Park it in your note
On the courage ladder · 1
Cited alongside it
Papers that sit under the same topics and films. Not a claim that they agree with each other — only that the same exercises lean on both.
A Cognitive Model of Social Phobia
Clark & Wells (1995)The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?
Boothby, Cooney, Sandstrom & Clark (2018)Beautiful Mess Effect: Self–Other Differences in Evaluation of Showing Vulnerability
Bruk, Scholl & Bless (2018)If You Need Help, Just Ask: Underestimating Compliance With Direct Requests for Help
Flynn & Lake (2008)It Doesn't Hurt to Ask: Question-Asking Increases Liking
Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson & Gino (2017)Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes; When More Pain Is Preferred to Less
Fredrickson & Kahneman (1993); Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber & Redelmeier (1993)Research
A real study. We tell you what it found, how many people were in it, and what it can't prove.
Free to read, link to and quote. If we have carried this paper further than it goes, say so at contact@suaviq.com — corrections to this registry are the most useful mail we get.