This article was downloaded by: [ ]

On: 19 January 2012, At: 09:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Psychometric Properties of the Revised Cheek and Buss
Shyness Scale
Derek R. Hopko, Jessica Stowell, Warren H. Jones, Maria E. A. Armento & Jonathan M.
Cheek
Available online: 10 Jun 2010
To cite this article: Derek R. Hopko, Jessica Stowell, Warren H. Jones, Maria E. A. Armento & Jonathan M. Cheek (2005):
Psychometric Properties of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 84:2, 185-192
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8402_08
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
HOPKO, STOWELL, JONES, ARMENTO, CHEEK PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Psychometric Properties of the Revised
Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale
Derek R. Hopko, Jessica Stowell, Warren H. Jones, and Maria E. A. Armento
Department of Psychology
The University of TennesseeKnoxville
Jonathan M. Cheek
Department of Psychology
Wellesley College
Although the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS; Cheek, 1983) is widely used, its
psychometric properties largely are unknown. In this investigation, we examined the normative
data, factor structure, internal consistency, testretest reliability, and convergent/discriminant
validity of the RCBS using a sample of 261 university students. Results provided strong sup-
port for the stability of normative data over time, reliability of the measure, and its predicted as-
sociations with contemporary measures of shyness, social anxiety, and related constructs. Al-
though support was obtained for a unifactorial conceptualization of shyness, an exploratory
factor analysis revealed an alternative 3-factor solution that was supportive of a previously pro-
posed meta-analytic model of shyness (Jones, Briggs, & Smith, 1986) and was consistent with
other prominent shyness theories (Buss, 1980; Pilkonis, 1977a, 1977b; Zimbardo, 1977). This
factor model was replicable on a holdout sample, and there were some data to support the
discriminant validity of factors.
Although many definitions have been proposed, shyness
generally has been conceptualized as discomfort and inhibi-
tion in the presence of other individuals (Jones, Briggs, &
Smith, 1986; Zimbardo, 1977). The experience of being shy
in many ways parallels the physiological, cognitive, and be-
havioral correlates of social anxiety or social phobia (Heiser,
Turner, & Beidel, 2003; Henderson, 1992; Ludwig & Laza-
rus, 1983; Turner & Beidel, 1989). Indeed, because shyness
usually is self-defined and is not based on standardized diag-
nostic criteria (Turner, Beidel, &Townsley, 1990), shyness is
considered a more heterogeneous category than social pho-
bia and often is perceived as a subclinical formof this psychi-
atric disorder (Heckelman & Schneier, 1995). In line with
this framework, syndromal patterns may distinguish shy and
socially anxious groups, with shy individuals experiencing
fewer avoidant behaviors, less impairment, and a more tran-
sient course of symptoms (Beidel & Turner, 1999; Schneier,
Johnson, Hornig, Liebowitz, & Weissman, 1992; Turner,
Beidel, & Larkin, 1986; Wells, Tien, Garrison, & Eaton,
1994). Prevalence rates of shyness also appear much higher
than those of social phobia (Henderson & Zimbardo, 1998),
and individuals seeking treatment for shyness may have a dif-
ferent clinical profile (i.e., dissimilar coexistent disorders)
than those being treated for social phobia (St. Lorant,
enderson, & Zimbardo, 2000). On the other hand, it also ap-
pears that shyness and social phobia have overlapping symp-
tom patterns (Turner et al., 1990) and that approximately
18% to 49% of highly shy individuals meet diagnostic crite-
ria for social phobia (Chavira, Stein, & Malcarne, 2002;
Heiser et al., 2003). Given these data, the general consensus
is that the constructs of shyness, social anxiety, and social
phobia are difficult to disentangle (Rapee, 1998), with some
research groups advocating a more general therapeutic ap-
proach to address overlapping symptoms (Henderson &
Zimbardo, 2001).
Construct integration also has become evident in the as-
sessment of shyness and related concepts, with integrative
reviews of shyness, social anxiety, and social phobia mea-
sures that have generally been presented within the same
context (Antony, Orsillo, &Roemer, 2001; Glass &Arnkoff,
1989) and with other researchers who strongly advocated the
cross-fertilization of shyness and social anxiety research
(McNeil, Ries, & Turk, 1995). Despite these practices and
recommendations and with reference to the equivocal and
limited nature of research examining construct divergence of
shyness and related concepts, further psychometric investi-
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 84(2), 185192
Copyright 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

gation is necessary to explore this issue. Indeed, some data
have indicated high intercorrelations among shyness instru-
ments and have provided some support for the discriminant
validity of shyness and social anxiety measures (Cheek &
Buss, 1981; Jones et al., 1986). Moreover, although a signifi-
cant body of research has accumulated on measures tradi-
tionally used to assess social anxiety, efforts have been
minimal toward exploring the factor structure, reliability,
and validity of shyness instruments (cf. Antony et al., 2001).
Pioneering work on the assessment of shyness involved
construction of the 44-item Stanford Shyness Survey
(Zimbardo, 1977). In early studies, the Stanford Shyness
Survey was moderately associated (r = .67) with the social
anxiety factor of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein,
Scheier, & Buss, 1975), guilt (r = .32 to .46; Fehr & Stamps,
1979), neuroticism (r = .28), and extraversion (r = .43;
Pilkonis, 1977b). There also was some support for the pre-
dictive validity of the measure in that shy individuals spoke
less frequently, were more anxious when giving a speech,
and were more likely to be rated as less friendly, less relaxed,
less assertive, and more shy than their nonshy counterparts
(Pilkonis, 1977a). Perhaps due to the measures item con-
struction (i.e., combination of yesno, Likert scale, and
checklist items), reliability and factor analytic data have not
been reported for the instrument.
The Stanford Shyness Survey was followed by the cre-
ation of several other shyness measures that included the
original 9-item Cheek and Buss (1981) Shyness Scale, the
13-item Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS;
Cheek, 1983), the Social Reticence Scale (SRSII; Jones &
Briggs, 1986), and most recently, the Shyness Questionnaire
(SQ; Bortnik, Henderson, & Zimbardo, 2002). Among these
measures, the RCBS has been considered a prominent mea-
sure in shyness research (Heiser et al., 2003; Leary, 1991)
and has been utilized in multiple empirical studies (e.g.,
Bradshaw, 1998; Heiser et al., 2003; Paulhus & Trapnell,
1998; Schmidt & Riniolo, 1999; Van-Ameringen, Mancini,
&Oakman, 1998). Problematically, with the exception of the
original unpublished data (Cheek, 1983), the psychometric
properties of the RCBS have been uninvestigated including
the generalizability of previously reported normative data,
the study of alternative factor structures that potentially may
be more representative of the data, and assessment of the
convergent and discriminant validity of the RCBS as it re-
lates to more contemporary measures of social anxiety and
related constructs. These questions are pertinent insofar as
evaluating the internal and external validity of RCBS studies
and whether systematic use of the RCBS is justified within
the context of shyness research. Therefore, we designed this
study to (a) compare and contrast normative data with that
presented in original research (Cheek, 1983); (b) evaluate the
RCBS by assessing its factor structure, internal consistency,
testretest reliability, and convergent/discriminant validity;
and (c) assess the generalizability of the measures factor
structure.
METHOD
Participants
Participants included 261 students who completed assess-
ment instruments in undergraduate psychology classes
(women, n = 171; men, n = 90). All measures were adminis-
tered during the same class period, and the RCBS was admin-
istered independently following a 2-week interval (to assess
testretest reliability). The sample consisted of 233 Whites
(89%), 19 African Americans (7%), 3 Latinos (1%), 3 Asian
Americans (1%), 1 Native American (0.4%), and 2 individu-
als (1%) who categorized themselves as other with respect
to ethnicity. The mean age was 21.9 years (SD = 4.6 years).
Assessment Instruments
The RCBS (Cheek, 1983) is a 13-item unifactorial measure
of shyness that is based on the original 9-item measure of
shyness and sociability (Cheek & Buss, 1981). The RCBS
was associated with strong internal consistency (= .90) and
excellent 45-day, testretest reliability (r = .88). Convergent
validity was supported via strong correlations with the
SRSII (Jones &Briggs, 1986; r = .79), the Social Avoidance
and Distress Scale (SADS; Watson & Friend, 1969; r = .77),
the SQ (Bortnik et al., 2002; r = .74), and responses to the
question How much of a problem is shyness for you? (r =
.68). Higher scores on the 9-item version were associated
with increased subjective anxiety and social awkwardness
during a behavioral (conversation) task, with high scorers
talking less, engaging in less eye contact, and being per-
ceived as more unfriendly (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Leary,
1991). The 9-item measure correlated strongly with the
RCBS (r = .96; Cheek, 1983). Discriminant validity of the
original (Cheek & Buss, 1981) and revised (Cheek, 1983)
scales has not been assessed.
The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick &
Clarke, 1998) is a unifactorial 20-item measure that assesses
cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to interper-
sonal situations and social interactions. High internal consis-
tency ( = .86 to .94) has been reported across various
clinical and nonclinical samples (Mattick & Clarke, 1998;
Osman, Gutierrez, Barrios, Kopper, & Chiros, 1998), and 4-
and 12-week testretest reliability were strong (r = .92). Con-
vergent validity also was supported by significant correla-
tions with measures of social anxiety (r = .66 to .81; Cox,
Ross, Swinson, & Direnfeld, 1998; Mattick & Clarke, 1998;
Ries et al., 1998), general anxiety (r = .45 to .58), and depres-
sion (r = .47).
The Social Phobia Scale (SPS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) is
a 20-item scale that assesses anxiety elicited in performance
situations that range from public speaking to routine activi-
ties such as eating and writing. Internal consistency (= .87
to .94; Mattick & Clarke, 1998; Osman et al., 1998) and 4-
and 12-week testretest reliability of the measure were
186 HOPKO, STOWELL, JONES, ARMENTO, CHEEK
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

strong (r = .91 to .93; Mattick &Clarke, 1998). Similar to the
SIAS, convergent validity of the SPS was supported via sig-
nificant correlations with measures of social anxiety (r = .64
to .75; Cox et al., 1998; Mattick & Clarke, 1998; Ries et al.,
1998), general anxiety (r = .42 to .57), and depression (r =
.54; Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Although the SPS correlated
highly with the SIAS (r = .72; Mattick & Clarke, 1998), the
SPS appeared more strongly related to measures of general
performance anxiety, whereas the SIAS was more strongly
associated with anxiety specific to social interaction (cf. An-
tony et al., 2001).
The SRSII (Jones et al., 1986) is a 20-item measure of
shyness that had strong internal consistency (= .91) and ex-
cellent 8-week testretest reliability (r = .87). Behavioral va-
lidity of the measure was supported via the finding that
scores on the SRSII were positively associated with judges
ratings of shyness (r = .50) and anxiety (r = .36) following a
2-min participant monologue. Correlational data also sup-
ported the convergent validity of the SRSII. Moderate to
strong correlations were reported with the original Cheek
and Buss (1981) Shyness Scale (r = .79), the SADS (r = .72),
the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson &
Friend, 1969; r = .45), and Learys (1983) Interaction Anxi-
ety Scale (r = .78).
The FNE (Watson & Friend, 1969) assesses expectations
of being evaluated negatively. High internal consistency (=
.94 to .96), strong 1-month testretest reliability (r = .78 to
.94), and criterion validity have been demonstrated for this
measure (Watson & Friend, 1969). Across several college
samples (Watson &Friend, 1969), the FNEsignificantly cor-
related with measures of anxiety (r = .60), social-evaluative
anxiety (r = .47), and social approval (r = .77).
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1993)
is a 21-item questionnaire designed specifically to distin-
guish cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety from
those of depression. Good psychometric properties have
been demonstrated for the measure among multiple outpa-
tient samples (Morin et al., 1999; Steer, Willman, Kay, &
Beck, 1994; Wetherell & Aren, 1997). Internal consis-
tency of the measure was strong across samples ( = .85 to
.92) and adequate testretest reliability has been demon-
strated for anxiety patients (r = .75 to .83; Beck, Steer, &
Garbin, 1988; de Beurs, Wilson, Chambless, Goldstein, &
Feske, 1997). The measure has also moderately correlated
with anxiety (r = .36 to .69) and depression measures (r =
.25 to .56) completed by psychiatric (Beck et al., 1988) and
normative samples (Osman, Kopper, Barrios, Osman, &
Wade, 1997).
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Steer,
1987) consists of 21 items, each rated on a 4-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 to 3. There has been strong support for
the reliability and validity of the measure with depressed
younger (Beck & Steer, 1987; Beck et al., 1988; cf. Nezu,
Ronan, Meadows, & McClure, 2000) and older adults (Stan-
ley, Novy, Bourland, Beck, & Averill, 2001).
In addition to these assessment instruments, participants
were asked two general questions that were included on the
demographic questionnaire: How shy are you and How
anxious are you in social situations? Participants responded
to these questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not at all anxious or shy) to 5 (extremely anxious or shy).
RESULTS
Normative Data
Prior to conducting confirmatory factor analytic procedures
and considering the sensitivity of this analysis to the distribu-
tional characteristics of the data set, RCBS data were sub-
jected to tests of multivariate normality (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). Both the symmetry (skewnesss =
.53, standard error [SE] = .15) and the flatness (kurtosis =
.29, SE = .30) of the distribution were within acceptable
limits (Hair et al., 1995), and a visual analysis of observed
values revealed a normal QQ plot with a uniform distribu-
tion. Based on z-score comparison of the means (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983), self-reported shyness on the RCBS for the en-
tire sample (M = 31.1, SD = 8.2) statistically was similar to
that reported among undergraduate students at Harvard Uni-
versity (Cheek, 1983; M = 32.7, SD = 8.8, z = 1.94, p = .06, d
= .19) and independently at the University of Wisconsin
(Cheek, 1983; M = 32.6, SD = 7.8, z = 1.66, p = .10, d = .19).
Also consistent with the Harvard (women, M = 31.9, SD =
9.3; men, M = 33.7, SD = 8.1) and Wisconsin samples
(women, M = 32.4, SD = 7.7; men, M = 33.1, SD = 8.7), a
gender effect was not identified in our sample, F(1, 259) =
.75, p = .39, d = .11 (women, M = 30.8, SD = 8.7; men, M =
31.7, SD= 7.4). Self-reported shyness in our sample was sub-
stantially lower than that reported by a clinical sample of pa-
tients diagnosed with generalized social phobia (M = 52.0, n
= 104; St. Lorant et al., 2000).
Reliability Analyses
Internal consistency (= .86) and 2-week testretest reliabil-
ity (r = .88) of the RCBS were strong and comparable to data
reported previously. As presented in Table 1, corrected
item-total correlations all were statistically significant (p <
.01) and ranged from .23 to .66.
Convergent-Discriminant Validity
Having established strong support for the reliability of the
13-item RCBS, correlations were calculated to examine its
relation to other commonly administered measures of shy-
ness, anxiety, and depression (Table 2). In general, moder-
ate-strong correlations were obtained among the RCBS and
other measures of shyness (SRSII, .77; How shy are
you, .64), social anxiety (SIAS, .84; SPS, .56; FNE, .63),
and general anxiety (How anxious are you, .59). Of note,
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES 187
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

based on statistical comparisons of dependent rs (Cohen &
Cohen, 1983), the RCBS correlated significantly higher
with the SIAS than the SPS, t(260) = 6.43, p < .001. There
also was some support for the discriminant validity of the
measure with somatic anxiety (BAI, .37) and depressive
symptomology (BDI, .43). Importantly, compared with
analyses previously reported (on the 9-item shyness scale),
statistical comparisons of independent rs (Cohen & Cohen,
1983) indicated no significant differences between samples
as the RCBS correlated with the SRSII (r = .79) and the
question of How shy are you? (r = .68; Jones et al.,
1986). Compared with the correlation between the original
9-item shyness scale and the FNE (r = .51; Jones et al.,
1986), the 13-item RCBS correlated significantly higher
with the FNE in our sample (r = .63; z = 2.10, p < .05).
Comparisons between the 13-item RCBS and the remaining
five measures used in this study have not previously been
reported in the literature.
Construct Validity
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor
analytic procedures were used to assess the adequacy of the
previously established one-factor model of the RCBS
(Cheek, 1983). Fit indexes were derived fromthe SAS PROC
CALIS procedure (Hatcher, 1994). The maximumlikelihood
method of parameter estimation was used in the analysis and
was performed on the variance-covariance matrix. As per the
fit indexes outlined as preferential in the reporting of confir-
matory procedures (Thompson & Daniel, 1996), the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), chi-square
(and associated degrees of freedom), and the Bentlers com-
parative fit index (BCFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and
adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) are presented. As for
criteria establishing goodness of fit, there has been some dis-
crepancy in the literature (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald,
1988). Conventionally, a RMSEA value of .10 or lower
(Brown & Cudeck, 1992) and a BCFI and GFI of .90 (AGFI
of .80) have been generally considered acceptable (Bentler &
Bonett, 1980; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan,
1999). More contemporary criteria have been adopted
whereby an RMSEA of .06, a BCFI (and GFI) value of .95,
and a nonsignificant chi-square test (and
2
/df ratio of < 2)
are required before conclusions can be drawn that there is a
good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed
data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Additionally, the frequency of
normalized residual values (or the discrepancy between the
original covariance and predicted model matrices) that ex-
ceed 2.00 should be minimal (Hatcher, 1994).
Applying these standards to this data, standardized path
coefficients for the one-factor model ranged from .24 to .73
and are presented in Table 1. The obtained t values for all fac-
tor loadings were significant at p < .01. The one-factor model
was associated with fit indexes as follows:
2
(65, N= 261) =
192.9; ratio = 2.97, p < .001; RMSEA= .09; GFI = .89; AGFI
= .85; BCFI = .88. Problematically, the normalized residual
matrix was asymmetrical and included 18 residual values
greater than 2.00. So although fit indexes suggested that the
single factor model was an adequate fit to the data based on
conventional criteria, the chi-square ratio and residual values
were problematic (Hatcher, 1994), and none of the more con-
temporary goodness-of-fit criteria were observed. Accord-
ingly, the decision was made to explore potential alternative
factor structures.
188 HOPKO, STOWELL, JONES, ARMENTO, CHEEK
TABLE 1
Corrected Item-Total Correlations and
Confirmatory Factor Loadings for the
Unidimensional RCBS Model
Item
r
Value
Factor
Loading
1. I feel tense when Im with people I dont know
well.
.57 .64
2. I am socially somewhat awkward. .66 .73
3. I do not find it difficult to ask other people for
information.
a
.43 .45
4. I am often uncomfortable at parties and other
social functions.
.59 .66
5. When in a group of people, I have trouble
thinking of the right things to talk about.
.63 .70
6. It does not take me long to overcome my shyness
in new situations.
a
.60 .65
7. It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting
new people.
.52 .55
8. I feel nervous when speaking to someone in
authority.
.39 .39
9. I have no doubts about my social competence.
a
.61 .66
10. I have trouble looking someone right in the eye. .43 .44
11. I feel inhibited in social situations. .66 .73
12. I do not find it hard to talk to strangers.
a
.63 .65
13. I am more shy with members of the opposite sex. .23 .24
a
Items are reverse-scored.
TABLE 2
Correlations Among Self-Report
Assessment Instruments
Instrument 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. RCBS .84* .56* .77* .63* .37* .64* .59* .43*
2. SIAS .69* .69* .65* .43* .60* .59* .47*
3. SPS .47* .61* .48* .43* .53* .50*
4. SRSII .54* .31* .63* .52* .44*
5. FNE .44* .37* .48* .52*
6. BAI .25* .42* .61*
7. HS .56* .30*
8. HA .39*
9. BDI
Note. RCBS = Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale; SIAS = Social
Interaction Anxiety Scale; SPS = Social Phobia Scale; SRSII = Social
Reticence Scale; FNE = Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; BAI = Beck
Anxiety Inventory; HS = How shy are you?; HA = How anxious are
you?; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory.
*p < .01.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

Modification of the measurement model. To evalu-
ate whether an alternative factor model for the RCBS might
better describe relationships among latent variables, we cre-
ated a split sample (from here termed primary and replica-
tion samples) using the SPSS Version 10.0 randomization
procedure. Accordingly, each sample consisted of approxi-
mately 130 participants (or 10 observations per each of the 13
RCBS items). Although appropriate sample size require-
ments for valid factor analytic models has been debated ex-
tensively (Comrey, 1988; Hair et al., 1995; MacCallum,
Widaman, Preacher, & Hong, 2001; MacCallum, Widaman,
Zhang, & Hong, 1999), sample size in this investigation was
perceived as satisfactory given the participant to observation
ratio (10:1; Hair et al., 1995), particularly in the context of
consistently high communalities (R = .50 to .84 for the pri-
mary sample; MacCallum et al., 1999). One-way analyses of
variance and chi-square analyses revealed no statistically sig-
nificant differences between the two samples as a function of
age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, or score on the RCBS.
We then conducted an exploratory factor analysis on the pri-
mary sample (n = 131). We used principal component extrac-
tion and a direct oblimin rotation, with the number of factors
based on eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Four factors met this
criterion (eigenvalues = 4.12, 1.53, 1.36, and 1.07), account-
ing for a total of 62.0% variance (32%, 12%, 10%, and 8%,
respectively). However, based on a parallel analysis proce-
dure (variables = 13, participants = 131, replications = 100;
Glorfeld, 1995; Watkins, 2000), generated eigenvalues justi-
fied examination of only the initial three factors (random
eigenvalue Number 1 = 1.57, Number 2 = 1.41, Number 3 =
1.31, and Number 4 = 1.20). Structure coefficients of the ex-
ploratory analysis are presented in Table 3. For an item to be
included on a factor, factor loadings with a value of .40 or
higher were considered salient, with the additional criterion
that an item could not load significantly on multiple factors
(Floyd & Widaman, 1995). As indicated in Table 3, Items 1
and 5 were considered complex factors in that both loaded
significantly on Factors 1 and 2. Item 13 (i.e., initially Factor
4 prior to parallel analysis) assessed shyness associated with
opposite gender interaction and had a high factor loading
(.90), but given the common algorithmthat at least three vari-
ables per factor are required to identify salient factors, re-
moval of this item was indicated (Anderson & Rubin, 1956;
Comrey, 1988). Factor 1 assessed general social distress (SD;
similar to Jones et al., 1986, Factor 1); Factor 2, a more cir-
cumscribed Stranger Shyness (SS); and Factor 3, an Asser-
tiveness Difficulty/Deficit (AD; similar to Jones et al., 1986,
Factor 3; Fear of High Status Others). Interfactor correlations
were as follows: SD/SS, r = .37; SD/AD, r = .18; and SS/AD,
r = .15.
Replication sample. Given these findings, we con-
ducted a confirmatory factor analysis with the replication
sample (n = 130). Excluding Items 1 and 5 (complex items)
and Item 13 (as a poorly defined factor), the three-factor
model was associated with fit indexes as follows:
2
(32, N =
132) = 69.0; ratio = 2.16, p < .001; RMSEA = .08; GFI = .90;
AGFI = .85; BCFI = .93. The normalized residual matrix was
more symmetrical than the previous analysis and included
only six residual values greater than 2.00. Standardized path
coefficients in the three-factor model ranged from .55 to .88
and are presented in Table 3. The obtained t values for all fac-
tor loadings were significant at p < .001.
Convergent-discriminant validity of the 10-Item
RCBS. Given the stability of the three-factor model when
applied to the replication sample, we further examined the
construct validity via bivariate correlations with other
self-report measures (Table 4).
1
As indicated via the strong
correlation between the 10-item (three-factor) model and the
RCBS (r = .98), elimination of three items did not have a sub-
stantial impact on construct validity. Furthermore, as as-
sessed using statistical comparisons of dependent rs (Cohen
&Cohen, 1983), correlations between the 10-itemmodel and
all indexes of self-reported shyness, social anxiety, somatic
anxiety, and depression were not statistically different from
the relations among these measures and the RCBS (Table 2).
Furthermore, in support for the convergent validity of the
general SD factor, this factor more strongly correlated with
other measures of shyness and social anxiety than the SS and
AD factors. This finding is logical given the broader and
more context nonspecific nature of this factor. At the other
extreme, support for the discriminant validity of the more
specific AD factor was inherent in relatively lower associa-
tions with shyness (SRSII, How shy are you), FNE, de-
pression (BDI), and negative cognitions and avoidance be-
haviors associated with both social and other performance
anxiety situations (SIAS and SPS). Accordingly, compared
with the other factors, ADmay be less important toward con-
ceptualizing shyness or social anxiety on a macro level and
more pertinent as a distinct behavioral deficit marked by a
more variable relationship to the experience of shyness
and/or anxiety-related responding (for further discussion of
this issue, see Hopko, McNeil, Zvolensky, & Eifert, 2001).
DISCUSSION
Results generally supported the notion that the RCBS is a
psychometrically sound measure of shyness. In particular, the
internal consistency and testretest reliability of the measure
were strong, and normative data reported over two decades
ago generalized to this cohort. Equally important, scores on
the RCBS correlated moderately to strongly with scores on
other shyness and social anxiety instruments and less so with
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES 189
1
Note that the RCBS subscales represent weighted composites of
items designated as loading on each factor (see Table 3) and do not
represent interfactor correlations that were a product of the explor-
atory factor analysis.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

measures of somatic anxiety and depressive symptomology,
yielding support for the convergent/discriminant validity of
the measure. These findings are significant insofar as previ-
ously reported relations among the RCBS, the SRSII, and the
general question of How shy are you were replicated (Jones
et al., 1986). These data also represent an extension of previ-
ous research, however, in that previously unexplored associa-
tions between the RCBS and more contemporary measures of
anxiety and depression were delineated. Perhaps the most pro-
vocative of findings was the significantly stronger relation of
the RCBS with the SIAS (as compared with the SPS). Al-
though both the SIAS and SPS assess fears of negative evalua-
tion and performance anxiety, the SIAS is more circumscribed
in that it assesses anxiety-related responding specific to the
context of interpersonal interactions. Accordingly, the stron-
ger relation between the RCBS and SIAS again provides sup-
port for the notion that shyness and social anxiety are overlap-
ping but not completely uniform experiences (Heiser et al.,
2003), with both measures somewhat divergent from a more
general measure of phobic avoidance patterns (SPS; Mattick
& Clarke, 1998). Indeed, the observed relation between the
RCBS and the SIAS was exactly the association predicted by
the creators of the latter instrument (Mattick & Clarke, 1998,
p. 456).
Providing further support for the utility of the RCBS, the
original confirmatory factor analysis yielded support for its
unidimensional factor structure based on traditional statisti-
cal criteria. On the other hand, the data also reflected prob-
lems with the unidimensional model in the form of an
asymmetrical residual matrix, extraordinarily high residual
values, and inadequate model structure based on contempo-
rary fit indexes. As such, we conducted a subsequent explor-
atory factor analysis that produced a three-factor model
(general SD, SS, and AD), a result that was significant on at
least four accounts. First, the factor structure was remarkably
similar to that reported by Jones et al. (1986), a study in
which an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on items
from five shyness measures. The Jones et al. factor analysis
also revealed three factors that were termed Social Avoid-
ance and Distress, Social Facility, and Fear of High Status
Others. The overlap of the first and third factors with data we
presented here was considerable (i.e., five of the seven items
on our first and third factors loaded on corresponding factors
in the Jones et al. study). Our second factor of SS appeared to
represent a more specific dimension of the Social Facility
factor outlined in the Jones et al. study. The comparability of
factor structures, especially given the composite analysis
conducted by Jones et al., provided support for the construct
validity of the RCBS. Second, the exploratory model also
was consistent with other prominent classification systems
of shyness and related behaviors. For example, items loading
on Factor 1 (particularly if Item 2 is interpreted as feeling
190 HOPKO, STOWELL, JONES, ARMENTO, CHEEK
TABLE 3
Primary (Exploratory) and Replication
(Confirmatory) Factor Loadings
for the RCBS
Factor
EFA
Loading
CFA
Loading
1. I feel tense when Im with people I
dont know well.

2. I am socially somewhat awkward. 1 .76 .84
3. I do not find it difficult to ask other
people for information.
3 .76 .72
4. I am often uncomfortable at parties
and other social functions.
1 .82 .80
5. When in a group of people, I have
trouble thinking of the right things
to talk about.

6. It does not take me long to
overcome my shyness in new
situations.
2 .61 .80
7. It is hard for me to act natural when
I am meeting new people.
2 .72 .66
8. I feel nervous when speaking to
someone in authority.
3 .66 .69
9. I have no doubts about my social
competence.
1 .66 .70
10. I have trouble looking someone
right in the eye.
3 .59 .55
11. I feel inhibited in social situations. 1 .85 .70
12. I do not find it hard to talk to
strangers.
2 .74 .88
13. I am more shy with members of the
opposite sex.

Note. EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor
analysis; em dashes () = items identified as complex items in the
modification analysis and those not included in the replication sample
analysis.
TABLE 4
Correlations Among Self-Report Instruments
and the Three-Factor RCBS Model
Instrument RCBS10 SD SS AD
1. RCBS .98* .87* .83* .72* .86
2. RCBS10 .87* .84* .78* .85
3. SD .59* .47* .82
4. SS .53* .71
5. AD .65
3. SIAS .81* .77* .66* .54* .89
4. SPS .57* .56* .42* .42* .89
5. SRSII .75* .69* .65* .50* .83
6. FNE .61* .59* .49* .42* .87
7. BAI .38* .38* .25* .29* .87
8. HS .61* .61* .51* .36*
9. HA .57* .63* .42* .33*
10. BDI .45* .45* .33* .30* .90
Note. Internal consistency (Cronbachs ) is reported for each instrument
and the three RCBS subscales. RCBS = Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness
Scale; RCBS10 = Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (10-itemmodel);
SD = RCBS10 Factor 1 (general Social Distress); SS = RCBS10 Factor 2
(Stranger Shyness); AD = RCBS10 Factor 3 (Assertiveness Difficulty);
SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; SPS = Social Phobia Scale; SRSII
= Social Reticence Scale; FNE = Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; BAI =
Beck Anxiety Inventory; HS = Howshy are you?; HA= Howanxious are
you?; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory.
*p < .01.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

awkward) addressed the concept of private shyness or the
subjective affective and cognitive distress not necessarily ob-
servable to others (Pilkonis, 1977a, 1977b; Zimbardo, 1977).
Factor 3 items that addressed issues of social distress and so-
cial competence paralleled the concepts of public
self-consciousness and public shyness (Buss, 1980; Pilkonis
1977a, 1977b). In addition, Factor 2 items that assess experi-
ences of comfort and shyness around strangers were directly
relevant to models that present shyness as increased sensitiv-
ity to and slowness to habituate to novel situations or behav-
ioral inhibition in unfamiliar contexts (Buss, 1980; Kagan,
1989). Third, based on correlative analyses with self-report
measures, there was some support for the discriminant valid-
ity of the factors, with the more specific ADfactor associated
less strongly with general measures of shyness and social
anxiety. Finally, in addition to compatibility with empirical
and theoretical models of the shyness construct, we subjected
the three-factor model to replication on a holdout sample
whereby the stability of the factor structure was demon-
strated. Construct validity of the three-factor model did not
appear compromised given the strong correlation with the
RCBS and relatively equivalent correlations with measures
of shyness, social and somatic anxiety as well as depression.
The modified model also consisted of three fewer items, was
associated with modest improvement on fit indexes, and re-
sulted in fewer problematic residuals.
In conclusion, although the revised model is somewhat
briefer and potentially may eliminate poor items, substan-
tial increases in validity indexes were not observed over
those reported for the unidimensional model. Accordingly,
the preliminary nature of these data necessitate replication
among both clinical and nonclinical community samples as
well as further investigation as to whether a revised model
represents an improvement in relation to external (behav-
ioral) indexes of shyness and social anxiety. Indeed, various
suggestions for factors and shyness classification systems
have been proposed, but none has become convincingly es-
tablished (for a review, see Cheek &Krasnoperova, 1999). In
addition, future psychometric work should include individu-
als who are more heterogeneous demographically in that this
sample primarily involved a younger, educated, White fe-
male cohort. As a consequence, although these data gener-
ally were supportive of the RCBS as an empirically useful
measure of shyness, it will be necessary to establish further
the empirical and clinical adequacy of the measure and
whether the revised model might represent a more parsimo-
nious means to assess the shyness construct.
REFERENCES
Anderson, T. W., &Rubin, H. (1956). Statistical inference in factor analysis.
Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics
and Probability, 5, 111150.
Antony, M. M., Orsillo, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2001). Practitioners guide to
empirically based measures of anxiety. New York: Kluwer.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory: Manual. San
Antonio, TX: Psychiatric Corporation.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Anxiety Inventory: Manual (2nd
ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychiatric Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. A. (1988). Psychometric properties
of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 8, 77100.
Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (1999). The natural course of shyness and re-
lated syndromes. In L. A. Schmidt & J. S. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear,
shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical
outcomes (pp. 203223). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bentler, P. M., &Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in
the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606.
Bortnik, K., Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. (2002, November). The ShyQ
as a measure of chronic shyness: Associations with interpersonal motives,
interpersonal values, and self-conceptualizations. Poster session pre-
sented at the 36th annual conference of the Association for the Advance-
ment of Behavior Therapy, Reno, NV.
Bradshaw, S. D. (1998). Ill go if you will: Do shy persons utilize social sur-
rogates? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 651669.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternate ways of assessing model fit.
Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 320358.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., &Malcarne, V. L. (2002). Scrutinizing the rela-
tionship between shyness and social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disor-
ders, 16, 585598.
Cheek, J. M. (1983). The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS).
Unpublished manuscript, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 41, 330339.
Cheek, J. M., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1999). Varieties of shyness in adoles-
cence and adulthood. In L. A. Schmidt &J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear,
shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical
outcomes (pp. 224250). New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J., &Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation anal-
ysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in per-
sonality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 56, 754761.
Cox, B. J., Ross, L., Swinson, R. P., & Direnfeld, D. M. (1998). A compari-
son of social phobia outcome measures in cognitive-behavioral group
therapy. Behavior Modification, 22, 285297.
de Beurs, E., Wilson, K. A., Chambless, D. L., Goldstein, A. J., & Feske, U.
(1997). Convergent and divergent validity of the Beck Anxiety Inventory
for patients with panic disorder and agoraphobia. Depression and Anxiety,
6, 140146.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological re-
search. Psychological Methods, 4, 272299.
Fehr, L. A., & Stamps, L. E. (1979). Guilt and shyness: A profile of social
discomfort. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 481484.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private
self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 43, 522527.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development
and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assess-
ment, 7, 286299.
Glass, C. R., &Arnkoff, D. B. (1989). Behavioral assessment of social anxi-
ety and social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 7590.
Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horns parallel analysis model
for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 55, 377393.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).
Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES 191
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for fac-
tor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS.
Heckelman, L. R., & Schneier, F. R. (1995). Diagnostic issues. In R. G.
Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social
phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 320). New York:
Guilford.
Heiser, N. A., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (2003). Shyness: Relationship
to social phobia and other psychiatric disorders. Behavior Research and
Therapy, 41, 209221.
Henderson, L. (1992). Shyness groups. In M. McKay & K. Paleg (Eds.), Fo-
cal group psychotherapy (pp. 4065). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). Shyness. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Mental Health (pp. 497509). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic.
Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. (2001). Shyness, social anxiety, and so-
cial phobia. In S. G. Hofmann & P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.), From social
anxiety to social phobia (pp. 4685). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Hopko, D. R., McNeil, D. W., Zvolensky, M. J., & Eifert, G. H. (2001). The
relation between anxiety and skill in performance-based anxiety disor-
ders: A behavioral formulation of social phobia. Behavior Therapy, 32,
185207.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Jones, W. H., &Briggs, S. R. (1986). The Social Reticence Scale: A measure
of shyness. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Jones, W. H., Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). Shyness: Conceptualiza-
tion and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
629639.
Kagan, J. (1989). The concept of behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar. In J.
S. Reznick (Ed.), Perspectives on behavioral inhibition (pp. 123). Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measure-
ment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 6675.
Leary, M. R. (1991). Social anxiety, shyness, and related constructs. In J. P. Rob-
inson, P. R. Shaver, &L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes (pp. 182184). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ludwig, R. P., &Lazarus, P. J. (1983). Relationship between shyness in children
and constricted cognitive control as measured by the Stroop Color-Word test.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 386389.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit in-
dexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 103, 391410.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of mea-
sures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 36, 455470.
McCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Preacher, K. J., & Hong, S. (2001). Sam-
ple size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 36, 611637.
McCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample
size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 8499.
McNeil, D. W., Ries, B. J., & Turk, C. L. (1995). Behavioral assessment:
Self-report, physiology, and overt behavior. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R.
Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagno-
sis, assessment and treatment (pp. 202231). New York: Guilford.
Morin, C. M., Landreville, P., Colecchi, C., McDonald, K., Stone, J., &Ling,
W. (1999). The Beck Anxiety Inventory: Psychometric properties with
older adults. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 5, 1929.
Nezu, A. M., Ronan, G. F., Meadows, E. A., &McClure, K. S. (2000). Prac-
titioners guide to empirically based measures of depression. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Osman, A., Gutierrez, P. M., Barrios, F. X., Kopper, B. A., & Chiros, C. E.
(1998). The Social Phobia and Social Interaction Scales: Evaluation of
psychometric properties. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral As-
sessment, 20, 249264.
Osman, A., Kopper, B. A., Barrios, F. X., Osman, J. R., & Wade, T. (1997).
The Beck Anxiety Inventory: Reexamination of factor structure and
psychometric properties. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 714.
Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. (1998). Typological measures of shyness:
Additive, interactive, and categorical. Journal of Research in Personality,
32, 183201.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977a). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of
Personality, 45, 596611.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977b). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to
other measures of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 45, 585595.
Rapee, R. M. (1998). Overcoming shyness and social phobia: A step-by-step
guide. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Ries, B. J., McNeil, D. W., Boone, M. L., Turk, C. L., Carter, L. E., &
Heimberg, R. G. (1998). Assessment of contemporary social phobia in-
struments. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 983994.
Schmidt, L. A., & Riniolo, T. C. (1999). The role of neuroticism in test and
social anxiety. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 394395.
Schneier, F. R., Johnson, J., Hornig, C. D., Liebowitz, M. R., & Weissman,
M. M. (1992). Social phobia: Comorbidity and morbidity in an
epidemiologic sample. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 282288.
Stanley, M. A., Novy, D. M., Bourland, S. L., Beck, J. G., & Averill, P. M.
(2001). Assessing older adults with generalized anxiety: Areplication and
extension. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39, 221235.
Steer, R. A., Willman, M., Kay, P. A., & Beck, A. T. (1994). Differentiating
elderly medical and psychiatric outpatients with the Beck Anxiety Inven-
tory. Assessment, 1, 345351.
St. Lorant, T. A., Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Comorbidity in
chronic shyness. Depression and Anxiety, 12, 232237.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the con-
struct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197207.
Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. (1989). Social phobia: Clinical syndrome, diag-
nosis, and comorbidity. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 318.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D., & Larkin, K. T. (1986). Situational determinants of
social anxiety in clinic and nonclinic samples: Physiological and cognitive
correlations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 523527.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D., & Townsley, R. (1990). Social phobia: Relation-
ship to shyness. Behavior Research and Therapy, 28, 487505.
Van-Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., &Oakman, J. M. (1998). The relationship
of behavioral inhibition and shyness to anxiety disorder. Journal of Ner-
vous and Mental Disease, 186, 425431.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Windows parallel analysis program. Retrieved May
10, 2004, from http://espse.ed.psu.edu/spsy/Watkins/ Watkins3.ssi
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448457.
Wells, J. C., Tien, A. Y., Garrison, R., & Eaton, W. W. (1994). Risk factors
for the incidence of social phobia as determined by the Diagnostic Inter-
view Schedule in a population-based study. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 90, 8490.
Wetherell, J. L., & Aren, P. A. (1997). Psychometric evaluation of the Beck
Anxiety Inventory with older medical patients. Psychological Assess-
ment, 9, 136144.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness: What it is, what to do about it. Reading,
MA: Perseus.
Derek R. Hopko
The University of TennesseeKnoxville
Department of Psychology, Room 301D
Austin Peay Building
Knoxville, TN 379960900
Email: dhopko@utk.edu
Received February 19, 2004
Revised July 8, 2004
192 HOPKO, STOWELL, JONES, ARMENTO, CHEEK
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[

]

a
t

0
9
:
1
7

1
9

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
1
2