Shyness-Sensitivity and Social, School, and Psychological Adjustment in Rural Migrant

and Urban Children in China

Xinyin Chen1,
Li Wang2,
Zhengyan Wang3
Article first published online: 14 SEP 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01347

The purpose of this study was to examine relations between shyness-sensitivity and social
competence, school performance, and psychological well-being in Chinese children with
rural and urban backgrounds. Participants were students in rural migrant children schools
and city schools in China (Ns = 411 and 518, respectively; M age = 10 years). Data were
obtained from peer evaluations, teacher ratings, self-reports, and school records. It was
found that shyness was associated with social and school problems and depression in
urban children. However, shyness was generally associated with indexes of adjustment
such as leadership, teacher-rated competence, and academic achievement in rural migrant
children. The results indicate the role of context in defining the functional meaning of
social behavior in children’s adjustment.

**** Xinyin Chen, PhD de la University of Western Ontario

Scopul studiului a fost acela de a examina relatiile dintre timiditate – sensibilitate si
competentele sociale, performantele scolare si starea psihologica de bine la copiii chinezi
proveniti din mediul rural si urban. Datele au fost obtinute din evaluarea profesorilor,
auto-evaluare, si rezultatele scolare. S-a gasit ca timiditatea este asociata cu probleme
sociale si scolare, si depresie la copiii din mediul urban. Chiar si asa, timiditatea a fost in
general asociata cu indici de ajustare cum este leadership-ul, realizari academice la copiii
din mediul rural. Rezultatele au indicat rolul contextului in definirea sensului functional
si a comportamentului social la copii.

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/chen_res.htm

Activitatea de cercetare

Research Activities
My research focuses on children and adolescents’ socioemotional functioning and its role
in social, school, and psychological adjustment from a contextual-developmental
perspective. I am interested in the developmental processes of social competence,
shyness-inhibition, and aggression, and dispositional and socialization factors that are
involved in the processes. In the past 15 years, I have conducted, in collaboration with
my international colleagues, a series of longitudinal projects in Chinese, Canadian and
several other societies. The projects are based largely on a conceptual framework I
proposed concerning how social-cultural context is involved in two fundamental systems
of socioemotional functioning, social initiative and self-control, in human development.
The projects have tapped (1) the joint and interactive contributions of early
temperamental characteristics and parenting practices to development, and (2) the role of
peer relationships and social networks in mediating and moderating contextual influence
on individual development. In addition, my students and I have conducted several studies
concerning adjustment experiences including difficulties and strengths of different
generations of Asian children and adolescents in North America.
A central issue concerning the role of context in human development is how social and
cultural norms and values affect the significance or functional meanings of behaviors.
Our research has indicated that adaptive and maladaptive social behaviors may be defined
similarly or differently in different societies. We have found that, consistent with the
Western literature, prosocial-cooperative behavior is positively associated with indexes of
social adjustment such as peer acceptance and school achievement in Chinese children.
We have also found that aggression-disruption is related to indexes of social
maladjustment such as peer rejection and school difficulties in both Chinese and North
American children. Unlike aggressive children in North America who display mainly
externalizing problems, however, aggressive children in China experience pervasive
difficulties including both externalizing and internalizing problems such as feelings of
loneliness and depression, which is due in part to the fact that children’s behaviors are
regularly and publicly evaluated by teachers, peers, and self in Chinese schools.
Furthermore, inconsistent with the Western literature in which shyness-inhibition is
regarded as socially incompetent and immature, shy and restrained behavior is thought to
be associated with virtuous qualities such as cautiousness and modesty, indicating
accomplishment and mastery, in traditional Chinese culture; shy-inhibited children are
perceived as well behaved and understanding. Accordingly, we have found that, whereas
their counterparts in Canada experience social and psychological difficulties, shy-
inhibited children in China are accepted by peers, well adjusted to the school
environment, and less likely than others to develop psycho-emotional problems.
We are currently investigating how the social and cultural changes in the past two
decades in China affect the developmental significance of social functioning. Since early
1990s, China has carried out a full-scale reform towards a market economy, which has
led to dramatic changes in economic and social structure and organization. The
systematic changes in the society offer a unique opportunity for the exploration of
temporal and contextual influence or “era effects” on socialization and development. The
results from our recent studies have indicated that the macro-level social, economic, and
cultural changes have a pervasive impact on children’s socioemotional functioning and
adjustment.
Our research programs have provided valuable information not only about
children’s social and emotional functioning in specific societies, but also about the
developmental processes and mechanisms in general. The findings from these programs
have important practical implications for developing culturally appropriate and sensitive
policies, programs and strategies in school education and in helping youth with social,
school, and psychological problems.

Major Projects in the Laboratory

Early Behavioral Characteristics, Socialization, and Social Functioning in Cultural
Context
The primary purpose of this project is to examine how temperamental characteristics and
socialization practices contribute to the development of social functioning in cultural
context. Two samples of children in Canada and China (N=182 and 280, respectively)
were randomly selected for this study when they were 2 years of age. Observational data
on child temperament and parenting practices were collected in laboratory and home
visits. Follow-up studies were conducted at ages 4, 7, 11, and 14 years, focusing mainly
on children’s social competence, peer interactions, social relationships, and psychological
adjustment from multiple sources including laboratory observations and parent, peer, and
teacher reports.
We have found significant differences in reactivity and behavioral control between
Chinese and Canadian children in toddlerhood (e.g., Chinese children are more shy-
inhibited and display more committed or internalized self-control than their Canadian
counterparts). Moreover, the early behaviors are perceived, and responded to, differently
by Chinese and Canadian parents and have different developmental significance for later
social and school adjustment in Chinese and Canadian cultures (e.g., Chen et al., 1998;
Chen, DeSouza, & Wang, 2006). For example, behavioral inhibition is associated with
parental concern and punishment orientation in Canadian children, but with parental
warmth and support in Chinese children. Similarly, through an in-depth analysis of the
dynamic processes of peer interactions, we found that when inhibited children made
passive and low-power initiations, they were more likely than others to receive negative
responses such as overt refusal and disagreement in Canada, but positive responses such
as approval and cooperation China. The different socialization attitudes and practices
constitute important conditions for development. Inhibition in toddlerhood predicted later
withdrawn behavior and social problems in Canada, but cooperative behavior, peer liking
and integration, and positive school attitudes in China in middle and late childhood;
parenting practices, and peer attitudes and responses in the later years, are important
factors in shaping the predictive associations. These results indicate that cultural context
may affect socialization beliefs and practices, personal characteristics, and the way in
which they interact in determining social development.

Social Functioning and Adjustment in Changing Context

Based on the Shanghai Longitudinal Project (e.g., Chen et al., 1995), we have recently
expanded our work to explore the implications of macro-level social and cultural changes
on socioemotional development. In the past 20 years, China has changed dramatically
towards a market-oriented society. Along with the social and economic reforms, Western
individualistic values and ideologies have been increasingly appreciated and accepted in
the country. There is evidence indicating that the traditional childrearing beliefs,
attitudes, and practices are changing among urban Chinese parents, especially those with
a relatively high education. These parents increasingly realize that independence,
expression of personal opinions, and self-confidence are required for adaptation to the
new environment and that it is important for parents to help children develop these
qualities. Many schools in China have also changed their education goals, policies, and
practices to facilitate the development of assertive social skills.

We recently examined the relations between shyness and social, school, and
psychological adjustment in urban China in three cohorts (1990, 1998, 2002) of
elementary school children (Chen, Cen, Li, & He, 2005). The results indicated that
whereas shyness was positively associated with peer acceptance, leadership, and
academic achievement in the early 1990s, it was negatively associated with peer
acceptance and teacher-rated social competence and positively associated with peer
rejection and depression in 2002. The patterns of the relations between shyness and peer
relationships and adjustment variables were nonsignificant or mixed in the 1998 cohort.
The results indicated that shy, anxious, and wary behavior that impedes exploration and
self-expression in stressful situation is no longer be regarded as adaptive and competent
in social and psychological adjustment in the new competitive environment.
Consequently, shy children are at a disadvantage in obtaining social approval and
experience adjustment difficulties.
There are substantial regional differences within China, particularly between
urban and rural areas. The massive social and economic transformation has been largely
limited to urban centers and cities whereas families in rural China have lived mostly
traditional agricultural lives. We have recently been studying whether children with
different backgrounds within China differ in social functioning and adjustment.
Comprehensive longitudinal data have been collected for three large groups (urban, rural,
and rural-to-urban migrant) of elementary school children. Initial evidence indicates that
rural parents and children endorse more traditional values such as responsibility and
behavioral restraint than urban parents and children. Like their urban counterparts in the
early 1990s, rural shy Chinese children were still regarded as competent and well
adjusted socially and psychologically. We are currently examining, from a developmental
perspective, (1) how children, especially sociable-assertive and shy-sensitive children, in
rural, urban, and migrant groups differ from each other on social and psychological
adjustment, and (2) how personal and social factors (individual and social beliefs,
participation in social activities, family and peer support systems) affect the development
of children with specific behavioral qualities in the groups.

Children’s Social Networks and Adjustment in Diverse Cultures

The purpose of this study was to examine, in multiple cultures, functions of social
relationship networks and their associations with social and psychological adjustment in
children and adolescents. In this large cross-cultural project (China, Brazil, Canada, Italy
and South Africa, N = approximately 3000), we collected data on natural peer groups,
social behaviors, school achievement, and psychopathological symptoms from different
sources. We have found that cultural values are reflected in the functional roles that
children’s social relationships fulfill. For example, whereas the enhancement of self-
worth is regarded as particularly significant among friends in Canada, it is not highly
appreciated among Brazilian and Chinese children. Similarly, whereas group affiliation is
viewed by Canadian children mainly as fulfilling individual psychological needs such as
the development of self-identity and enhancement of positive self-feelings, Chinese
children place greater emphasis on the “instrumental” role of the peer group in learning
appropriate behavior and academic achievement. We have also investigated how peer
groups and dyadic relationships mediate the impact of cultural values on socioemotional
adjustment such as perceived social competence and loneliness, using multi-sample SEM
analysis. For example, children across the societies experienced similar overall levels of
loneliness and emotional distress. However, the social processes involved in the
development of emotional distress varied across cultures (Chen et al., 2004).
Social Functioning and Adjustment of Asian Children and Adolescents in North America
My students and I have conducted several studies in Asian children in Canada. In these
studies, we are interested in social behaviors and socioemotional adjustment of first- and
second-generation Asian children and how acculturation plays a role in social
development. In a sample of Chinese children in Toronto, we have found that whereas
immigrant Chinese children experience pervasive social difficulties such as peer rejection
and victimization, Canadian-born Chinese children are viewed as more competent by
peers and teachers and better adjusted in social and school areas than both immigrant
Chinese and European Canadian children. The ability to integrate diverse cultural values
in the family and the peer group seems to play an important role in the development of
children and adolescents in ethnic groups (Chen & Tse, 2008). We have developed an
acculturation scale (parent and child versions), and demonstrated its reliabilities and
validities. We have found that language proficiency and participation in social activities
of original or new cultures may represent different acculturation processes and predict
different adjustment outcomes. We are now examining how acculturation plays a role in
the formation of group networks within and across ethnic boundaries.

Laboratory
My laboratory for “Children’s Social Behaviour and Peer Interaction Study” located on
the second floor of the Westminster Hall. Graduate students, visiting scholars, and
undergraduate students work on different projects including children’s peer conflict, self-
regulatory behaviors, dynamic interaction processes between shy and non-shy children,
peer bullying and victimization in the school, and family interactions.

http://www.jenrussell.webs.com/research/commresearch.htm
THE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENT: THE EFFECTS OF GENDER AND
ENVIRONMENT ON COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION AMONG
INDIVIDUALS IN AN UNFAMILIAR ENVIRONMENT

by Daniel Hooven, Shannon McCullough, and Jennifer Meyer

**** importanta mediului : efectele genului si mediului in intelegerea comunicarii dintre

indivizi intr-un mediu familiar
New York State Communication Association
Annual Conference
October 2005
The effects of environment on various aspects of human communication apprehension
are widely recognized, as are gender based differences. The current study, however,
focused on the interactive effects of gender and the environment in which an individual
was raised on the level of communication apprehension a person experiences when faced
with an unfamiliar setting. The researchers posited three hypotheses related to the degree
of CA that an individual would experience in an unfamiliar setting based on their sex
(male or female), and the environment in which they were raised (urban or non-urban).
The results provided partial support for the hypothesized relationships.

INTRODUCTION
Communication apprehension is a barrier that many college students encounter as
individuals in a new and unfamiliar environment. Colleges and universities consist of a
diverse pool of students from different areas and backgrounds. Communication
apprehension affects how college students think, act, feel, and speak (Lewis-Holmes,
1997). However, communication apprehension is not isolated to the college
environment. In fact, it can follow a student into adulthood, potentially affecting future
interactions within the workplace and everyday life. McCroskey (1984) believes that
once a person enters adulthood his/her communication apprehension traits will not
change.
There are many different causes of communication apprehension (McCroskey,
1984). The purpose of this study was to examine whether a person’s primary social
environment and gender affects his/her communication apprehension levels.
How can primary social environment affect communication apprehension levels?
Neuliep and Ryan (1998) argue that culturally different individuals view each other as
strangers, which leads to communication apprehension, although cross-cultural research
regarding communication apprehension is limited (Sarquisse, Butler, & Pryor, 2003).
Social behavior between urban and non-urban individuals is also different (Witt,
1988). Social behavior includes communication with other populations, and the area in
which an individual was raised has a direct effect on social behavior (Witt, 1988). In a
review of the literature, McCroskey and Richmond (1978) found that college students
who came from rural areas had higher communication apprehension than students from
more urban areas. Unlike the aforementioned research, this study factors in the subjects
gender as well subjects from a suburban background.
A person’s sex could also have an effect on that person’s levels of communication
apprehension. One study involving four U.S. cities found that women within those urban
areas were more likely to display some kind of social phobia than men (Furmark, et. al.,
1999). Shy males are more reluctant to talk and display more social anxiety than shy
females, because females feel more of a need to be accepted by those with whom they are
communicating (Pilkonis, 1977). Due to the cultural differences between urban and non-
urban environments, males who were raised in a non-urban environment could display
more signs of communication apprehension than females who were raised in the same
environment, since females have a greater need for acceptance from others.
This study examined the effects of primary social environment and gender have
on an individual’s communication apprehension levels. Specifically, we hypothesized
that, when faced with an unfamiliar environment:
 H1: Individuals who were raised in a non-urban environment will have higher
levels of communication apprehension than individuals who were raised in an urban
environment.
H2: Non-urban males will have higher levels of communication apprehension
than non-urban females.
H3: Urban females will have higher levels of communication apprehension than
urban males.

METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Seventy-five students (45 females, 30 males) participated in this study. The
subjects were volunteers from three introductory-level college writing classes at a
university in Pennsylvania, selected as a convenience sample of intact groups.

Procedures
The study was a double-blind, 2 (sex of subject) x 2 (primary social
environment--urban, non-urban) design.
The subjects were administered the four-dimensional McCroskey’s Personal
Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) and McCroskey’s Shyness Scale.
Both instruments are self-report instruments.
The questionnaires were administered by the professor who taught the three classes. The
professor read a short set of typed instructions (see attached test) to the classes before
administering the questionnaire. The professor then left the classroom so the subjects
could be debriefed on the nature of the study following completion of the questionnaire.
After all three classes had completed the questionnaire, the professor was also debriefed.
The PRCA-24 was used to test communication apprehension. According to Runey
(2001), McCroskey’s scales have been used in over 150 studies involving communication
apprehension. Subjects were also asked to disclose their major, class rank, and
hometown. Hometown was then categorized into urban or non-urban settings according
to U. S. Census Bureau data (non-urban populations were less than 10,000 people; urban
populations were 10,000 people or more). The urban and non-urban categories were
assigned so those subjects from a suburban background were eligible to be in this study.
The Shyness Scale was only administered so that subjects would remain unaware of what
the actual study was about until debriefing.

RESULTS

TABLE 1 Comparison of Mean Communication Apprehension Levels of Urban and

Non-urban Males and Females

Communication All All Non- Urban Urban Non- Non-

Scenario Tested Urban Urban Females Males Urban Urban
Females Males

Groups 13.379 13.826 14.250 12.308 13.276 14.765

Meetings 14.103 15.674 15.188 12.769 15.345 16.235
Interpersonal 11.862 13.239 12.313 11.308 13.034 13.588
Public Speaking 18.034 19.457 19.813 15.864 19.414 19.529
All 24 Items 57.103 62.195 62.313 50.692 61.069 64.118

Primary Social Environment and Communication Apprehension

Hypothesis 1 stated that individuals raised in a non-urban environment will display
higher levels of communication apprehension than those raised in an urban environment.
Non-urban individuals displayed overall higher levels of communication apprehension
(M = 62.195) than did urban individuals (M = 57.103). The results were calculated using
a t-test and a 95% confidence interval, with (CV = 1.676, t = 1.34; p > .05). The
hypothesis was supported by the descriptive statistics, though the results were not
significant.

Environments, Gender, and Communication Apprehension

Hypothesis 2 stated that non-urban males will display higher levels of communication
apprehension than non-urban females. Non-urban males overall displayed higher levels
of communication apprehension (M = 64.118) than did non-urban females (M = 61.069).
The results were calculated using a t-test and a 95% confidence interval, with (CV =
1.697, t = 0.61; p > .05). This hypothesis was also supported by the descriptive statistics,
though the results were insignificant.

Hypothesis 3 stated that urban females will display higher levels of communication
apprehension than urban males. Urban males displayed lower levels of communication
apprehension (M = 50.692) overall than did urban females (M = 62.313). Results were
calculated using a t-test and 95% confidence interval, with (CV = 1.703, t = 2.03; p > .
05). The hypothesis was supported.

REFLECTIONS AND NEW DIRECTIONS

Identifying correlations between an individual’s background and his/her levels of

communication apprehension is important. In a review of the literature, Neuliep and
Ryan (1998) found that “intercultural communication is based, at least in part, on the
ability to manage anxiety and uncertainty.”
Today, due to our increasingly globalized world, intercultural communication is more
prevalent than ever. If we can identify the causes of communication apprehension,
individuals and society will be able to work towards more effective intercultural
communication. Communication in urban and rural environments can be categorized as
intercultural, because the two environments are so different.
Rural occupations are more agricultural whereas urban ones are industrial/informational;
rural environments are more natural than urban ones; communities are smaller in rural
areas; population density is greater in urban areas; rural populations are more
homogenous, racially and psycho-socially; differentiation and stratification is greater in
urban areas; mobility is more intensive in urban areas; and interaction between
individuals is more personal in rural areas (Mann, 1965).
Even though only one of the hypotheses was statistically significant, the entire study
implies a correlation between the area in which an individual was raised, gender, and
communication apprehension. Our mean differences were greatest among males; urban
males displayed the least amounts of communication apprehension while non-urban
males displayed the highest amounts of communication apprehension. Most subjects
displayed the highest levels of apprehension in regards to public speaking.
Since the third hypothesis was supported, future research can be conducted to further
investigate females that were raised in an urban environment. New studies could focus on
the main factors that cause urban females to have higher levels of communication
apprehension than urban males. Identifying such factors would be beneficial for the
infrastructure of the urban environment; opening up new communication avenues in areas
such as schooling and everyday socializing. Future research would also be beneficial for
the urban females when they leave their primary environment and are forced to
communicate in an unfamiliar setting, such as college.
Because the subjects were in freshmen cluster groups, many shared the same major. In
replication, future researchers should try to find a more diverse sample, as that could have
an effect on communication apprehension levels. For example, education majors may be
naturally more outgoing the history majors. Perhaps future research could explore the
correlation between an individual’s choice of major and their levels of communication
apprehension. McCroskey and Richmond (1978) argue that adults display communication
apprehension more often than children. Future studies could also compare
communication apprehension levels between freshmen and seniors to determine if age
has an effect on the apprehension levels.
Also in replication, future researchers should try to have a larger sample size than that
used in our study. A larger sample size may have indicated less difference within groups,
and possibly a greater difference between groups.
Another interesting fact is that this study explored different sub-cultures within the same
culture and there were differences in levels of communication apprehension. There are
many theories regarding the causes of communication apprehension, and this study
explored another aspect; that being primary social environments and gender. This study
will open up the doors for future research concerning this topic and could lead to more
efficient communication in not only cross-cultural communication, but within entire
cultures themselves.
REFERENCES

Furmark, T., et. al. (1999). Social phobia in the general population: prevalence and
sociodemographic profile. Retrieved December 8, 2004 from EBSCOhost database on the
World Wide Web: http://web10.epnet.com.

Lewis-Holmes, B. (1997). Reducing public speaking anxiety for community college

students: the effects of a combination anxiety reduction technique on trait and state
anxiety. (Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
1997). Retrieved October 24, 2004 from EBSCOhost database on the World Wide Web:
http://web10.epnet.com
Mann, P.H. (1965). Descriptive comparison of rural and urban. An Approach to Urban
Sociology (4-27). New York: Humanities Press.

****

McCroskey, J.C. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J.A. Daly &
J.C. McCroskey (Eds), Avoiding Communication: Shyness, Reticence, and
Communication Apprehension (pp.15-23). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond V.P. (1978). Community size as a predicator of

development of communication apprehension: replication and extension. Communication
Education, 212-219.

Neuliep, J.W. & Ryan, D.J. (1998). The influence of intercultural communication
apprehension and socio-communicative orientation on uncertainty reduction during initial
cross-cultural interaction. Communication Quarterly, 36, 88-100. Retrieved October 24,
2004 from Infotrac OneFile Database on the World Wide Web:
http://infotrac.galegroup.com

Pilkonis, P.A. (1977). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Retrieved December 8,

2004 from EBSCOhost database on the World Wide Web: http://web10.epnet.com.

Runey, A. (2001, April 25). Theories and facts about communication apprehension.
University of Southern Maine. Retrieved October 24, 2004 from the World Wide Web:
http://students.usm.maine.edu/adam.runey/

Sarquisse, V. & Butler, J & Pryor, B. (2003). A comparison of communication

apprehension between Americans and Argentineans. North American Journal of
Psychology, 5, 223-228.

Witt, A.L. (1988). Urban-nonurban differences in social cognition: locus of control and
perception of a just world. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 715-717
The Shyness Reading List
The books and articles listed here are resources on shyness. This list is maintained by The
Shyness Institute, a non-profit research institution dedicated to research regarding shyness,
social anxiety disorder, and related anxiety disorders.

Shyness Self-Help Books

• Anthony, M. M. (1976). Ten Simple Solutions to Shyness: How to Overcome Shyness,
Social Anxiety, and Fear of Public Speaking. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
• Bower, S. A., & Bower, G. H. (1976). Asserting yourself. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-
Wesley
• Cheek, J. M. (1990). Conquering Shyness. New York: Basic Books.
• Burns, D. D. (1980). Feeling good, the new mood therapy. New York: New American
Library.
• Carducci, B. J. (1999). Shyness: A bold new approach. The latest scientific findings,
plus practical steps for finding your comfort zone. New York: HarperCollins.
• Gabor, D. (1983). How to start a conversation and make friends. New York: Fireside
Books.
• Johnson, D. W. (1972, 1999). Reaching out, interpersonal effectiveness and self-
actualization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social Anxiety. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Markway, G. B., Carmin, C. N., Pollard, C. A., & Flynn, T. (1992). Dying of
Embarrassment: Help for social anxiety and phobia. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
• McKay, M. & Fanning, P. (1987). Self-Esteem. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger
Publications.
• Schneier, F & Welkowitz, L. (1996). The Hidden Face of Shyness: Understanding and
Overcoming Social Anxiety. New York, NY: Avon books.
• Smith, M. J. (1975). When I say no I feel guilty. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1977; Reprinted, 1996). Shyness: what it is, what to do about it.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers.
• Zimbardo, P. G., & Radl, S. L. (1981). The Shy Child. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shyness Research and Treatment

• Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1970). Looking out/looking in. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
• Alden, L., & Cappe, R. (1986). Interpersonal process training for shy clients. In W. H.
Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and
treatment (pp. 343-356). New York: Plenum.
• Alden, L. (1987). Attributional responses of anxious individual to different patterns of
social feedback: Nothing succeeds like improvement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 100-106.
• Anderson, C. A. (1983a). The causal structure of situations: The generation of
plausible causal attributions as a function of type of event situation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 185-203.
• Anderson, C. A. (1983b). Motivational and performance deficits in interpersonal
settings: The effects of attributional style. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 1136-1147.
• Anderson, C. A., & Arnoult, L. H. (1985). Attributional style and everyday problems in
living: Depression, loneliness, and shyness. Social Cognition, 3, 16-35.
• Anderson, C. A., Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. d. (1983). Attributional style of lonely
and depressed people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1136-1147.
• Arkin, R. M., & Appelman, A. J. (1983). Social anxiety and receptivity to interpersonal
evaluation. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 11-18.
• Arkin, R. M., Appelman, A. J., & Burger, J. M. (1980). Social anxiety, self-
presentation, and the self-serving bias in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 23-35.
• Arkin, R. M., Lake, E. A., & Baumgardner, A. B. (1986). Shyness and self-
presentation. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 189-203). New York: Plenum.
• Arnkoff, D. B., Glass, C. R., McKain, T., Shea, C. A., & Greenberg, J. M. (1984,
August). Client predispositions to respond to cognitive and social skills treatments for
shyness. In J. M. Cheek (Chair), Shyness: Personality development, social behavior,
and treatment approaches. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto.
• Asendorpf, J. B. (1987). Videotape reconstruction of emotions and cognitions related
to shyness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 542-549.
• Baumgardner, A. H., & Brownlee, E. A. (1987). Strategic failure in social interaction:
evidence for expectancy disconfirmation processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 525-535.
• Beall, L. (1972). Pathologies of seriousness and the disposition to shame: theoretical
relations, developmental origins and therapeutic implications. Unpublished manuscript.
The Wright Institute, Berkeley, CA.
• Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of
Depression. New York: Guilford Press.
• Bell, P. A., & Byrne, D. (1978). Regression-sensitization. In H. London & J. E. Exner
(Eds.), Dimensions of personality. New York: Wiley, 449-485.
• Borkovec, T. D., & Inz, J. (1990). The nature of worry in generalized anxiety disorder:
A predominance of thought activity. Behavior Research and Therapy, 28(2), 153-158.
• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
• Breck, B. E., & Smith, S. H. (1983). Selective recall of self-descriptive traits by socially
anxious and nonanxious females. Social Behavior and Personality, 11 (2), 71-76.
• Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: problems with
assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
663-678.
• Brockner, J. (1979). The effects of self-esteem, success-failure, and self-
consciousness on task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1732-1741.
• Brodt, S. E., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1981). Modifying shyness-related social behavior
through symptom misattribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
437-449.
• Bruch, M. A. (1989). Familial and developmental antecedents of social phobia: issues
and findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 37-47.
• Bruch, M. A., Giordano, S., & Pearl, L. (1986). Differences between fearful and self-
conscious shy subtypes in background and current adjustment. Journal of Research in
Personality, 20, 172-186.
• Bruch, M. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1991). Social phobia subtypes and perceived
differences in familial and childhood characteristics. Association for the Advancement
of Behavior Therapy New York, New York:
• Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman.
• Buss, A. H. (1986a). Social behavior and personality. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
• Buss, A. H. (1986b). Two kinds of shyness. In Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related cognition
in anxiety and motivation (pp. 65-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Buss, D. M., & Scheier, M. F. (1976). Self-consciousness, self-awareness, and self-
attribution. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 334-349.
• Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale, reliability, and
validity. Journal of Personality, 29, 463-468.
• Cheek, J. M. (1983). The revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Wellesley College.
• Cheek, J. M., & Busch, C. M. (1981a). The influence of shyness on loneliness in a new
situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 572-577.
• Cheek, J. M. & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.
• Cheek, J. M., Carpentieri, A. M., Smith, T. G., Rierdan, J., & Koff, E. (1986).
Adolescent shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 105-115). New York: Plenum.
• Cheek, J. M., Melchior, L. A., & Carpentieri, A. M. (1986). Shyness and self-concept. In
L. M. Hartman, & K. R. Blankstein (Eds.), Perception of self in emotional disorder and
psychotherapy (pp. 113-131). New York: Plenum.
• Clark, J. M., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). Social anxiety and self-evaluation of interpersonal
performance. Psychological Reports, 36, 211-221.
• Cook, D. R. (1985). The Shame Instrument. University of Wisconsin, Menomonie,
Wisconsin.
• Crozier, W. R. (1982). Explanations of social shyness. Current Psychological Reviews,
2, 47-60.
• Curran, J. P., Wallander, J. L., & Fischetti, M. (1980). The importance of behavioral
and cognitive factors in heterosexual-social anxiety. Journal of Personality, 43, 285-
292.
• de Rivera, J. (1978). A structural theory of the emotions. Psychological Issues, 10(40),
1-178.
• Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1973). Effects of objective self-awareness on attribution
of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 17-31.
• Edelmann, R. J. (1985). Individual differences in embarrassment: Self-consciousness,
self-monitoring and embarrassibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(2), 223-
230.
• Ekman, P. (1965). The differential communication of affect by head and body cues.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 726-735.
• Ellis, R. J., & Holmes, J. G. (1982). Focus of attention and self-evaluation in social
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 67-77.
• Epstein, S. (1980). The Self-concept: a review and the proposal of an integrated
theory of personality. In E. Staub (Ed.), Personality: Basic Issues and Current
Research (pp. 81-132). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
• Federoff, N. A., & Harvey, J. A. (1976). Focus of attention, self-esteem, and the
attribution of causality. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 336-345.
• Fenichel, O. (1945). The psycho-analytic theory of neuroses. New York: Norton.
• Fenigstein, A. (1984). Self-consciousness and the overperception of self as a target.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 860-870.
• Fenigstein, A., & Levine, M. P. (1984). Self-attention, concept activation, and the
causal self. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 231-245.
• Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
43, 522-527.
• Flett, G. L., Blankstein, K. R., & Boase, P. (1987). Self-focused attention in test
anxiety and depression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 259-266.
• Foley, F. W., Heath, R. F., & Chabot, D. R. (1986). Shyness and defensive style.
Psychological Reports, 58, 967-973.
• Franzoi, S. L. (1983). Self concept differences as a function of private self-
consciousness and social anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 275-287.
• Fremouw, W. J., Gross, R., Monroe, J., & Rapp, S. (1982). Empirical subtypes of
performance anxiety. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 179-193.
• Freud, S. (1937). Analysis terminable and interminable (1964 ed.). London: Hogarth
Press.
• Gibbons, F. X., Smith, T. W., Ingram, R. E., Pearce, K., Brehm, S. S., & Schroeder, D.
J. (1985). Self-awareness and self-confrontation: Effects of self-focused attention on
members of a clinical population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
662-675.
• Gioiella, P. P. (1981). The relationship of relative shame/guilt proneness to the
attribution of responsibility under no shame and shame arousal. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 40, 2432B.
• Girodo, M., Dotzenroth, S. E., & Stein, S. J. (1981). Causal attribution bias in shy
males: Implications for self-esteem and self-confidence. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 5, 325-338.
• Glass, C. R., & Furlong, M. R. (1984, August). A comparison of behavioral, cognitive,
and traditional group therapy approaches for shyness. In J. M. Cheek (Chair),
Shyness: Personality development, social behavior, and treatment approaches.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Toronto.
• Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. H. (1982). Cognitive
assessment of social anxiety: Development and validation of a self-assessment
questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 37-56.
• Greenwald, A. G., Bellezza, F. S., & Banaji, M. R. (1988). Is self esteem a central
ingredient of the self-concept? Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 14(1), 34-
45.
• Hammerlie, F. M., & Montgomery, R. L. (1986). Self-perception theory and the
treatment of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 329-342). New York: Plenum.
• Harder, D. W. & Lewis, S. J. (1986). The assessment of shame and guilt. In J. Butcher
and C. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment, 6, Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
• Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, Philip. (in press) Shyness. Encyclopedia of Mental Health.
San Diego: Academic Press.
• Henderson, L., Classen, C., Spiegel, D., & Yalom, I. (1994) A present focused group
treatment manual for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. Psychosocial Treatment
Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford Medical
School, Stanford, CA.
• Henderson, L. (1992). Self-blame and shame in shyness. Dissertation Abstracts
International (University Microfilms).
• Henderson, L. (1992). "Shyness Groups" in M. McKay & K. Paleg (Eds.), Focal
psychotherapy groups. Oakland: New Harbinger Publications.
• Henderson, L., & Zimbardo, P. (1996). Shyness and control: Behavior? Impression on
Others? "Second Effort?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Anxiety
Disorders Association of America, Orlando, Florida.
• Henderson, L. (1994). Differentiating self-blame in a high school sample. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America,
Santa Monica, California.
• Henderson, L. (1992). Mean MMPI profile of shyness clinic referrals. Paper presented
at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy.
Boston, Massachusetts. (in revision for Psychological Reports)
• Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319-340.
• Higgins, E. T., Bond, R. N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and
emotional vulnerability: How magnitide accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence
affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5-15.
• Higgins, E. T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A
psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and
anxiety. Social Cognition, 3, 51-76.
• Hoblitzelle, W. (1987). Differentiating and measuring shame and guilt: The relation
between shame and depression. In H. B. Lewis (Ed.), The role of shame in symptom
formation (pp. 207-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hope, D. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1988). Public and private self-consciousness and
social phobia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 626-639.
• Howell, D. C. (1982). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Boston, Massachusetts:
Duxbury Press.
• Ingram, R. E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: review and a
conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156-176.
• Izard, C. E. (1971) The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
• Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries
into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798-
1809.
• Jones, W. H., & Briggs, S. R. (1984). The self-other discrepancy in social shyness. In
R. Schwarzer (Ed.), The self in anxiety, stress and depression (pp. 93-107).
Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Jones, W. H. & Briggs, S. R., & Smith, T. G. (1986). Shyness: Conceptualization and
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-639.
• Jones, W. H. & Carpenter, B. N. (1986). Shyness, social behavior, and relationships. In
W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research
and treatment (pp. 329-342). New York: Plenum.
• Jones, W. H., Cavert, C., & Indart, M. (1983). Impressions of Shyness. Annual
meeting of the American Psychological Association Anaheim, California:
• Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process
in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology New York: Academic Press.
• Kagan, J. (1984). The idea of emotion in human development. In C. E. Izard, J.
Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition & behavior (pp. 38-72). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
• Kagan, J. (1988). Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American
Psychologist, 44, 668-674.
• Kagan, J., & Reznick, J. S. (1986). Shyness and temperament. In W. H. Jones, J. M.
Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp.
81-90). New York: Plenum.
• Kaufman, G. (1985). Shame: The power of caring (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Schenkman Books.
• Kaufman, G. (1989). Psychology of shame: Theory and treatment of shame-based
syndromes. New York: Springer.
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). Causal schemata and the attribution process. American
Psychologist, 28, 107-123.
• Koestner, R., Zuroff, D. C., & Powers, T. A. (1991). Family origins of adolescent self-
criticism and its continuity into adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(2),
191-197.
• Kroger, W. S., & Fezler, W. D. (1976). Hypnosis and behavior modification: imagery
conditioning. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.
• Lake, E. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1985). Reactions to objective and subjective interpersonal
evaluation: the influence of social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 3,
143-160.
• Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive
phenomenological analysis. In R. Plutchik, & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory,
research, and experience (pp. 189-217).
• Leary, M. R. (1986). The impact of interactional impediments on social anxiety and
self-presentation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 122-135.
• Lennox, R. D., Welch, L., Wolfe, R., Zimmerman, B., & Dixon, W. (1987). Assessment
of self-consciousness. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 53-73.
• Leung, A. W., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., & Bruch, M. A. (1991). Social Anxiety and
perception of early parenting among American, Chinese American, and social phobic
samples: A test of etiological hypotheses. Paper presented at the meetings of the
Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York, New York.
• Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York: International Universities
Press.
• Lewis, H. B. (1979). Shame in depression and hysteria. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emotions
in personality and psychopathology (pp. 371-398). New York: Plenum.
• Linder, L. M., & Der-Karabetian, A. (1986). Social anxiety, public self-consciousness,
and variability of behavior. Psychological Reports, 59, 206.
• Lindsay-Hartz, J. (1984). Contrasting experiences of shame and guilt. American
Behavioral Scientist, 27, 689-704.
• Lucock, M. P. & Salkovskis, P. (1988). Cognitive factors in social anxiety and its
treatment. Behavior Research and Therapy, 26(4), 297-302.
• Maddux. J. E., Norton, L. W., & Leary, M. L. (1988). Cognitive components of social
anxiety: an investigation of the integration of self-presentation theory and self-efficacy
theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 180-190.
• Mathews, A. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Behavior Research
and Therapy, 28, 455-468.
• Mayer, F. S. (1989). Private self-consciousness, complexity of the self-schema, and
personal uniqueness. Unpublished manuscript. Oberlin College, Oberlin.
• McEwan, K. L., & Devins, G. M. (1983). Is increased arousal in social anxiety noticed
by others? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 417-421.
• Melchior, L. A., & Cheek, J. M. (1990). Shyness and anxious self-preoccupation during
a social interaction. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 117-130.
• Miller, W. R., & Arkowitz, H. (1977). Anxiety and perceived causation in social success
and failure experiences: disconfirmation of an attribution hypothesis in two
experiments. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 665-668.
• Minsky, S. (1985). Social anxiety and causal attribution for social acceptance and
rejection. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2632A.
• Mueller, J. H., & Thompson, W. B. (1984). Test anxiety and distinctiveness of personal
information. In H. M. V. Ploeg, R. Schwarzer, & C. C. Spielberger (Eds Advances in test
anxiety research (pp. 21-37). Hillsdale, N. J.: Laurence Erlbaum.
• Nasby, W. (1989a). Private and public self-consciousness and articulation of the self-
schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 117-123.
• Nasby, W. (1989b). Private self-consciousness, self-awareness, and the reliability of
self reports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 950-957.
• Novak, W. (1987). The measurement and construct of shame. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 4691-4692B.
• O'Banion, K., & Arkowitz, H. (1977). Social anxiety and selective memory for affective
information about the self. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 321-328.
• Ohman, A. (1986). Face the beast and fear the face: Animal and social fears as
prototypes for evolutionary analyses of emotion. The Society for Psychophysiological
Research, 23, 123-145.
• Olson, J. M. (1988). Misattribution, preparatory information, and speech anxiety.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 758-767.
• Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions.
Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.
• Payne, A., Heimberg, R., Holt, C. S., & Mattia, J. I. (1991). Perfectionism and internal
dialogue of anxiety and depression. Poster presented at the meetings of the
Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York, N. Y.
• Peterson, C., Schwartz, S. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1981). Self-blame and depressive
symptoms. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41, 253-259.
• Phillips, G. M. (1986). Rhetoritherapy: The principles of rhetoric in training shy people
in speech effectiveness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 357-374). New York: Plenum.
• Pilkonis, P. A. (1977a). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to other
measures of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 45, 585-595.
• Pilkonis, P. A. (1977b). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of
Personality, 45, 596-611.
• Plutchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R. Plutchik, &
H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (pp. 3-33). New York:
Academic Press.
• Pruzinsky, T., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Cognitive and personality characteristics of
worriers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 28(6), 507-512.
• Roseman, I. J. (1985). Cognitive determinants of emotion. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review
of personality and social psychology (pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Sabogal, F. (1983). Psychological consequences of causal attributions of social success
and failure: an analysis in terms of social anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International,
44, 3577B.
• Scheier, M. F., Buss, A. H., & Buss, D. M. (1978). Self-consciousness, self-report of
aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 133-140.
• Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1977). Self-focused attention and the experience of
emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 625-636.
• Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Gibbons, F. X. (1979). Self-directed attention,
awareness of bodily states, and suggestibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37(9), 1576-1588.
• Schmitt, J. P. & Kurdek, L. A. (1984). Correlates of social anxiety in college students
and homosexuals. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(4), 403-409.
• Schutz, W. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior
Books.
• Shrauger, J. S. (1982). Selection and processing of self-evaluative information:
Experimental evidence and clinical implications. In G. Weary, & H. L. Mirels (Eds.),
Integrations of clinical and social psychology (pp. 128-153). New York: Oxford
University Press.
• Slivken, K. E., & Buss, A. H. (1984). Misattribution and speech anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 396-402.
• Smith, T.W., Ingram, R.E., & Brehm, S.S. (1983). Social anxiety, anxious self-
preoccupation and recall of self-referent information. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 1276-1283.
• Smith, T. W., Ingram, R. E., & Roth, D. L. (1985). Self-focused attention and
depression: Self-evaluation, affect and life stress. Motivation and Emotion, 9, 381-
389.
• Smith, R. E., & Sarason, I. G. (1975). Social anxiety and the evaluation of negative
interpersonal feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 429.
• Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1986). On being "shy like a fox": A self-handicapping
analysis. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on
research and treatment (pp. 161-172). New York: Plenum.
• Snyder, C. R., Smith, T. W., Augelli, R. W., & Ingram, R. E. (1985). On the self-
serving function of social anxiety: Shyness as a self-handicapping strategy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 970-980.
• Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies
and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1004-1014.
• Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of
vulnerability to distinct syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of
Personality, 56, 685-707.
• Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing Individual differences in proneness to shame and
guilt: Development of the self-conscious affect and attribution inventory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102-111.
• Teglasi, H., & Fagin, S. S. (1984). Social anxiety and self-other biases in causal
attribution. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 64-80.
• Teglasi, H., & Hoffman, M. A. (1982). Causal attributions of shy subjects. Journal of
Research in Personality, 16, 376-385.
• Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect/Imagery/Consciousness: II. The negative Affects. New
York: Springer.
• Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Shame. In D. L. Nathanson (Ed.), The Many Faces of Shame
(pp. 133-161). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Trower, P., & Gilbert, P. (1989). New theoretical conceptions of social anxiety and
social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 19-35.
• Turner, R. G. (1978a). Consistency, self-consciousness, and the predictive validity of
typical and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 12,
117-132.
• Turner, R. G. (1978b). Effects of differential request procedures and self-
consciousness on trait attributions. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 431-438.
• Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (1985). Empirically derived subtypes of social anxiety.
Behavior Therapy, 16, 384-392.
• Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (1989). Social phobia: Clinical syndrome, diagnosis, and
comorbidity. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 3-18.
• Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., Dancu, C. V., & Keys, D. J. (1986). Psychopathology of
social phobia and comparison to avoidant personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 95, 389-394.
• Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
• Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969) Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457.
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
• Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
• Wood, J. V., Saltzberg, J. A., & Goldsamt, L. A. (1990a). Does affect induce self-
focused attention? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 899-908.
• Wood, J. V., Saltzberg, J. A., Neale, J. M., Stone, A. A., & Rachmiel, T. B. (1990b).
Self-focused attention, coping responses, and distressed mood in everyday life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1027-1036.
• Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1984). Affect and cognition: The hard interface. In C. E.
Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and behavior (pp. 73-
102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zelen, S. L. (1987). Balance and reversal of actor-observer perspectives: An
attributional model of pathology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 435-451.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1986). The Stanford shyness project. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 17-25).
New York: Plenum.