Post-Event Processing in Social Anxiety
Rachman, Grüter-Andrew & Shafran (2000) · Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(6)
We use this paper in 9 places in the academy · 7 stated limits
What the study found
After an upsetting social event, people kept going over it again and again. This was linked to social anxiety (about r = .40) and to avoiding similar situations afterwards.
People who kept going over an event afterwards were more likely to avoid similar situations later. The avoiding spreads to other situations. The event itself does not.
Replaying a social event in detail afterwards kept the anxiety going and did not resolve it. It also predicted a more negative view of oneself.
Replaying and checking a social event afterwards kept the anxiety going and did not resolve it.
See 3 more ways we describe the same finding
In a questionnaire study, replaying an embarrassing social event afterwards was common and hard to stop. It was linked to social anxiety (r = .40) and to avoiding similar situations later.
After stressful social events, people replayed them again and again and found it hard to stop. The replaying was linked to social anxiety (about r = .40) and to avoiding similar situations afterwards.
People who tend to go over social events replayed awkward ones again and again, and the replaying was linked to avoiding similar situations afterwards.
What the study cannot prove
People reported on themselves after real social events, and they were chosen for social anxiety. The study shows that the replaying happens and goes with distress. It does not show that stopping the replaying removes the distress.
Limits we note on the exercises
The research studied how people think after social events in general, not after unreturned feelings in particular.
Read the Charpillon episode honestly. He was thirty-eight and she was seventeen, and in his account he is the victim. The lesson is the obsession. His way of telling it is not.
The research studied people replaying real social events, not deliberate practice. The limit of one listen is ours. The reason for it comes from the research.
The research studied replaying events in your mind, not contacting the other person. Applying it to that is our own step.
The participants reported on themselves and were chosen for social anxiety. The study shows that the replaying happens. It does not show that one message stops it.
People reported this themselves after real events. The study records the replaying. It does not test writing the message down and not sending it. That idea is ours.
This was a questionnaire study of how the process works, not a trial of a treatment. It identifies the problem. The steps below are what clinical practice does about it.
Where we use it
We use this paper in 9 places in the academy. If the paper turned out to be wrong, we would have to change everything in this list. Some of the exercise instructions below are part of Gold. You can read every finding for free.
In the topics · 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
In the videos · 1
On the courage ladder · 1
Other papers used in the same places
These papers are used in the same topics and videos as this one. That does not mean the papers agree with each other. It only means that the same exercises use 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.
You are free to read, link to and quote this page. If we claim more than this paper shows, please tell us at contact@suaviq.com. We read every correction, and corrections help us more than any other email.