Zhang · Psychology, health & medicine 2026 · cross-sectional survey · n=2755

Post-event rumination as a mediator in the relationship between self-focused attention and social anxiety in Chinese adolescents.

Cited 1 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey without experimental manipulation or longitudinal follow-up

PubMed 40331875 · doi:10.1080/13548506.2025.2502845 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A cross-sectional survey evaluated the relationship between self-focused attention, post-event rumination, and social anxiety among 2,755 Chinese adolescents aged 11 to 19 years (mean age 14.18 years) recruited from six urban public schools. Participants completed self-report questionnaires assessing self-focused attention, post-event rumination, social anxiety, and depression. Structural equation modeling was conducted to test whether post-event rumination mediated the link between self-focused attention and social anxiety (controlling for depression) and whether gender moderated these relationships.

What was found

Structural equation modeling indicated that post-event rumination acted as a mediator between self-focused attention and social anxiety, even after controlling for depression. In addition, gender was a significant moderator, with a stronger relationship between post-event rumination and social anxiety observed in girls than in boys. The abstract did not report any specific numerical effect sizes, test statistics, or confidence intervals.

Why it matters

This study provides evidence supporting the cross-cultural relevance of Clark and Wells' cognitive model of social anxiety in non-Western adolescents, highlighting post-event rumination as a potentially salient cognitive factor, particularly for adolescent girls.

Limits

The abstract reports no numerical values, effect sizes, or model fit statistics. The cross-sectional design cannot establish true mediation, temporality, or causality. Reliance on self-report measures in urban school samples may introduce reporting bias and limits generalizability to clinical or rural populations.

Cited by