Just do something: An experimental investigation of brief interventions for reducing the negative impact of post-event processing in social anxiety disorder.

Post-Event Processing (PEP) is prevalent and problematic in Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) but is typically not a direct target in evidence-based treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for SAD. The primary aim of the current study was to examine the impact of several theoretically and empirically derived interventions for PEP in SAD, including concrete thinking, abstract thinking, and distraction in comparison to a control (i.e., do nothing) condition. Based on prior research, we hypothesized that the concrete and distract conditions would be associated with positive benefits, including reductions in PEP and improvements in self-perception, whereas the abstract and control conditions would not. The second aim of the study was to identify baseline variables that predict the trajectory of change in PEP over time. Participants (N=92) with a principal diagnosis of SAD completed a social stress task and were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Participants completed measures at baseline, post-intervention/control, and at 1-week, and 1-month follow-up. Contrary to hypotheses, all three active conditions were similarly effective at reducing PEP and improving self-perceptions relative to the control condition. In the absence of an intervention, engagement in PEP remained high up to a month following the social stress task. Higher levels of baseline state anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, and use of safety behaviours predicted greater PEP, even in the presence of an intervention. These results highlight the benefits of relatively brief interventions that disrupt the course of PEP for people with SAD. Such interventions can be easily incorporated into CBT protocols for SAD to enhance their effects.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest This research was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by APA and was approved by the institutional ethics review board at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)