Citation
The social psychology of shyness

Material Information

Title:
The social psychology of shyness
Creator:
Leary, Mark Richard, 1954-
Copyright Date:
1980
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ambiguity ( jstor )
Anxiety ( jstor )
Conversation ( jstor )
Negative feedback ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Self reports ( jstor )
Shyness ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
06952379 ( oclc )
AAL4659 ( ltuf )
0023404411 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF SHYNESS:
TESTING A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL MODEL










By

Mark Richard Leary


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1980














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The author wishes to express sincerest appreciation to

all those who contributed their time, effort, and patience

to the completion of the present project. First and fore-

most, I would like to thank Dr. Barry R. Schlenker, committee

chairman, academic advisor, and friend, for his interest,

expertise, and guidance through all phases of my graduate

career, including the present study. I can not imagine having

a more educational, productive, and amicable relationship with

one's major advisor than I have had with Dr. Schlenker for

the past four years. The bulk of my professional development

has been a result of his tutelage. I would also like to

thank the members of my supervisory committee for their sub-

stantial contributions, not only to the present study, but

to my graduate education at various points; many thanks to

Dr. 7.arvin Shaw, Dr. Larry Severy, Dr. James Algina, and Dr.

Ted Landsman. Three very capable and hard-working experi-

menters assisted in the data-collection phase of the study;

I would like to thank Jan Faust, Ellen Siegal, and Dan Grif-

fin for their help. Finally, I would like to thank my parents,

Edward and Eleanor Leary, who were instrumental in getting

me interested in school at an early age and have been nothing

but supportive throughout 20 long years of education.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................... .................. ii

ABSTRACT ............................................. v

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION .................................. 1

The Concept of Shyness. .......................... 2
Shyness and Self-Presentation ................ 10
Antecedents of Shyness ................ .......... 17
Motivation to Impress Other Interactants ... 17
Doubts About One's Ability to Achieve
Satisfactory Reactions .................. 22
Behavioral Accompaniments of Shyness ......... 36
Summary and Experimental Hypotheses ........... 44

II METHOD ........................ ........... ... .... 47

Subjects ...................................... 47
Procedure ..................................... 47

III RESULTS ....................................... 54

Manipulation Checks and FNE Data .............. 54
Ambiguity Manipulation ..................... 54
Feedback Manipulation ...................... 55
Fear of Negative Evaluation: Subject Data 58
Experimental Subjects' Self-Reports ........... 58
Self-Reports of Shyness and Relaxation ..... 58
Motivation to Make a Favorable Impression
and Perceived Success of Doing So ....... 66
Ratings of the Other Subject ............... 69
Ratings by Nonoxperimental Subjects ........... 70
Ratings of Shyness and Relaxation .......... 70
Evaluations of the Experimental Subjects ... 75
Miscellaneous Ratings ...................... 82
Observational Data ............................. 84
Initiation of Conversation ................. 85
Time Spent Talking .......................... 85
Number of Questions Asked .................. 90
Raters' Judgments of Shyness .............. 92
The Nonexperimental Subjects' Behavior ........ 97
Social Avoidance and Distress Scale .......... 104
Sex Differences .............................. 106









IV DISCUSSION ..................................... 107

Major Hypotheses ..................... ......... 107
Self-Reports of Shyness and Relacation ...... 108
Nonexperimental Subjects' and Judges'
Ratings ............... ......... ........ 110
Self-Presentational Concerns: Liabilities
and Assets ............................. 117
Methodological Issues and Suggestions for
Future Research .......................... 120
Summary ...... ................................. 124

APPENDICES ............. .............................. 125

A INITIAL SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS ................... 127

B BACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE ........... 129

C INSTRUCTION SHEETS CONTAINING AMBIGUITY
MANIPULATION ............................... 134

D BACKGROUND INFORMATION SCORESHEET .............. 138

E POST INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE: EXPERIMENTAL
SUBJECT ..................................... 140

F POST INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE: NONEXPERI-
MENTAL SUBJECT .............................. 143

G NUMBER OF SUBJECTS PER CEiL .................... 146

REFERENCES .......................................... 147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................... 154


I














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF SHYNESS:
TESTING A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL MODEL

By

Mark Richard Leary

August,1980

Chairperson: Barry R. Schlenker
Major Department: Psychology

A social psychological model of shyness is presented

that conceptualizes shyness as a state of social anxiety

arising in real or imagined contingent interactions in which

people are motivated to make a favorable impression on oth-

ers, but doubt their ability to project images of themselves

that will produce satisfactory reactions from them. People

may doubt their ability to come across satisfactorily to

others either because they are unable to determine the na-

ture of the image that will result in satisfactory reactions

from others, or know how to act, but feel incapable of pro-

jecting the desired image. It was hypothesized that any

situational or dispositional variable that increases the

motivation to make a favorable impression upon others or

doubts in one's ability to appear to others in a way that

results in satisfactory reactions should increase the

probability that the individual will feel shy.







An experiment was conducted in which subjects classi-

fied as high or low in Fear of Negative Evaluation were

motivated to project a particular image to another individ-

ual. Subjects were either told how people who project the

image tend to act, or had no idea of how to project the

image. In addition, subjects received bogus feedback

indicating that they were high, average, or low in the

ability to project the image, or received no such infor-

mation. Data obtained from subjects' self-reports of shy-

ness, others' ratings of the subject, and subjects' verbal

behaviors in a dyadic interaction tended to support the

model, although the results were not perfectly consistent.

Increased shyness tended to be associated with high Fear of

Negative Evaluation, high ambiguity regarding the nature of

the image likely to result in satisfactory reactions from

others, and the belief that one ranked low in the ability

to make good first impressions upon others, although these

variables did not interact, as had been predicted.


Chairperson














CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Nearly everyone experiences shyness in some social sit-

uations. For some, the experience is infrequent and mild;

for others, it is frequent and severe, and regularly inter-

feres with their social lives. The best estimates indicate

that approximately 40% of all Americans consider themselves

to be shy and that more than half regard shyness as an occa-

sional personal problem (Lazarus, 1976; Pilkonis, 1976, 1977a,

Zimbardo, 1977; Zimbardo, Pilkonis, & Norwood, 1974).

Yet, despite the prevalence of the experience and the de-

gree to which many consider it a personal (or interpersonal)

problem, shyness has received little empirical or theoretical

attention from social psychologists. A few descriptive-cor-

relational studies have been conducted, but the topic lacks

a thorough conceptual analysis that identifies social factors

involved in the experience of shyness and provides a frame-

work for understanding the behavioral and interpersonal con-

sequences of it.

This dissertation presents a social psychological model

of shyness that conceptualizes shyness as social anxiety

arising from interpersonal concerns about one's self-present-

ations and inability to control others' reactions to the in-

dividual. First, prior conceptual analyses of shyness and








related concepts will be examined and a working definition

of shyness proposed. After discussing the nature of self-

presentation, a theory of shyness will be presented and fac-

tors involved in the experience of shyness, both situational

and dispositional, will be examined in detail. Behavioral

manifestations of shyness will be dealt with in terms of the

model, and hypotheses advanced regarding the causes and con-

sequences of shyness. An experiment will then be described

in detail that examines hypotheses derived from the theory.

The Concept of Shyness

Like many "everyday" words that have been adopted for

specialized usage by psychologists, the term "shyness" is

overburdened by a diversity of meanings. In short, the term

has been used to refer to a subjective experience of discom-

fort and anxiety in the presence of others, to typical phys-

iological and behavioral manifestations of such anxiety

(such as overt signs of discomfort--blushing, awkwardness,

reticence, tentativeness), and to a personality disposition

to experience social anxiety and respond in such ways.

By far the most work on shyness has focused on the iden-

tification of it as a personality trait (see Crozier, 1979,

for a review of these studies). For example, Cattell (1973)

identifies shyness as one component of the H-neigative or

thru'ctic personality Thihroe c minividuals are hig-hly n:-

ceptible to threat, according to Cattell, because of an overly

active sympathetic nervous system that overresponds to phys-

ical and social assaults upon the individual. As a result,

such people tend to be shy, timid, restrained, and sensitive,








as contrasted to paramic individuals, who tend to be ad-

venturous, bold in social encounters, and "thick-skinned."

Cattell suggested that threctia has an inherited component

and decreases with age beyond adolescence.

Similarly, Comrey (1965; Comrey & Jamison, 1966) iden-

tified shyness as one of six "factored homogeneous item di-

mensions" obtained from factor analyses of 216 personality

trait items. Items loading highest on the shyness factor

included shyness, seclusiveness, reserve, stage fright, and

follower-role.

Hans Eysenck (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) has identified

shyness as a component of introversion. Unfortunately,

through the popularity of Eysenck's work on introversion-

extraversion, shyness and introversion are often treated as

if they are synonomous, which they are not. For example,

Zimbardo (1977) blurs the distinction between the two con-

cepts when he writes:

At one end of the shyness continuum are those who
feel more comfortable with books, ideas, objects,
or nature than with other people. Writers, scien-
tists, inventors, forest rangers, and explorers
might well have chosen a life's work that enables
them to spend much of their time in a world only
sparsely populated with humans. They are largely
introverts, and association with others holds limit-
ed appeal compared to their needs for privacy and
solitude. (p. 29).

It must be stressed at this point that although the types of

people described by Zimbardo may be introverts--people whose

thoughts and interests are primarily directed inward rather

than toward others--it does not follow that they are neces-

sarily shy. As will be detailed below, an introverted








preference for solitary activities constitutes shyness only

if the preference arises from the individual's anxiety and

discomfort in social encounters. A person may be introverted

for nonsocial reasons; for example, it may be that the pri-

vate and aloof writer is simply caught up in his work, but

is not socially anxious when in the presence of others. (On

the other hand, a shy person may appear quite outgoing and

confident despite subjectively experienced anxiety.) Al-

though shyness and extraversion are moderately negatively

correlated (r = -.43, P < .01; Pilkonis, 1977a), the con-

cepts of shyness and introversion are not interchangeable

and should not be confused. Shyness involves social anxiety,

and this is not a necessary component of introversion.

In short, numerous studies (Crozier, 1979) have shown

there to be identifiable individual differences in the degree

to which people respond "shyly" in social encounters. Al-

though such trait approaches are interesting, they root shy-

ness in the character of the individual and direct attention

away from interpersonal processes that precipitate the expe-

rience and behavioral manifestations of shyness.

Other approaches to the concept of shyness have defined

shyness in terms of tentative and inhibited behavior. Pil-

konis (1977a) defines shyness as a "tendency to avoid social

interaction and fail to participate appropriately in social

situations" (p. 585), while Buss (1980) defines it as "the

relative absence of expected social behaviors" (p. 184).

These two definitions have three problems in common.








First, they rely too heavily on overt manifestations

of shyness even though shyness may be experienced without

obvious behavioral consequences. Some individuals can appear

outwardly calm even though they experience anxiety and show

subtle physiological or behavioral signs of it. Zimbardo

(1977) cites several examples of stage performers who con-

sider themselves quite shy despite their public appearance of

poise and self-control. These considerations create problems

for definitions of shyness that focus exclusively on grosser

behaviors such as the avoidance of interaction or the ab-

sence of appropriate behaviors.

Second, as mentioned earlier, shyness must be distin-

guished from other possible reasons why people might fail to

respond appropriately in social encounters. People often

avoid particular others not because they feel anxious, awk-

ward, or fearful in their presence, but because they prefer

other, solitary activities. Introverts, for example, prefer

solitary activities to social interaction, tut are not neces-

sarily shy when interacting with others.

Third, these approaches fail to mention the one aspect

of shyness that is universally reported as a component of the

experience: subjective anxiety (Zimbardo, 1977). Thus, it

would seem useful to define shyness as an experience of anx-

iety that occurs under certain conditions, then identify

behaviors that tend to accompany the experience, while not

making such behaviors a sufficient part of the definition.

Zimbardo (1977) equates shyness with a type of people-

phobia: "to be shy is to be afraid of people, especially








people who for some reason are emotionally threatening" (p.

23). This definition, although focusing on shyness as a

subjective experience, is unacceptably broad. There are

many reasons why an individual might fear other people aside

from shyness; one may be approached by an angry drunk, be

lost in a large city after dark, or fear reprimand by a dis-

satisfied superior. Similarly, Buss' (1980) definition of

social anxiety as "discomfort in the presence of others"

(p. 204) fails to distinguish between social anxiety and

other forms of discomfort (e. g., being too hot, feeling ill,

being crowded) that may occur when other people are around.

In short, no single definition of shyness has been pro-

posed that is entirely satisfactory. The definition to be

used throughout this report is that shyness is a state of

social anxiety resulting from real or imagined contingent

interactions in which no event has threatened the individ-

ual's public image. It will be helpful to clarify the key

concepts in this definition before proceeding.

First, by state, we are referring to a transitory con-

dition of an organism that fluctuates over situations and

time. While wishing to avoid the trait vs. state anxiety

issue here (e.g., Spielberger, 1968), it should be simply

made clear that we are referring to shyness as a state of

anxiety, with the full realization that there are individual

differences in the degree to which people experience this

state. As will be discussed in detail below, certain per-

sonality traits may "predispose" certain people to experience

such anxiety more often and/or more acutely than others.








Anxiety is a negative affective reaction that is char-

acterized by apprehension about an impending, potentially

negative outcome. The apprehension may be conscious or un-

conscious, the impending threat real or imagined, and the

source of the anxiety may be either internal or external to

the person (Lesse, 1970). Anxiety is manifested in measur-

able physiological and behavioral reactions (e.g., palmar

sweating, muscular tension, increased pulse, verbal dys-

functions), although these signs may not always be obvious

to external observers. This becomes more likely to the de-

gree that such behaviors are under a certain amount of vol-

untary control.

Shyness results from real or imagined interactions.

Thus, one might experience shyness while in a social encount-

er, while contemplating such an encounter, or while imagining

that one is interacting with others.

Interactions differ in the degree to which the inter-

actants' responses follow from or are contingent upon the

responses of other interactants (Jones & Gerard, 1967). In

contingent interactions, the responses of a given individual

are heavily contingent upon the proceeding responses of other

interactants. Although each individual in a contingent inter-

action, such as a conversation, may have interaction goals

(and plans about how these goals may be achieved) that par-

tially guide their behaviors, their immediate responses must,

to a degree, follow from and be guided by others' responses.

In noncontingent encounters, the individual's behavior is








guided primarily by one's plans and only minimally, if at

all, by others' responses. An actor in a play, a person de-

livering a prepared speech, a musician on stage, and a super-

visor giving directions to workers are all in noncontingent

interactions vis-a-vis their audience. (They may be in a

contingent interaction in relation to co-performers at the

same time, however.) Their behaviors are basically prede-

termined by their plans for the encounter and, unless unex-

pected events occur (such as the audience becomes unruly),

the behaviors will be executed as planned with only minimal

responsiveness to the audience.

Of course, in real life, there are few purely noncon-

tingent interactions. Even an actor on stage is minimally

aware of and responsive to audience cues. Nevertheless, the

distinction is a useful one, for it allows identification of

different classes of factors that precipitate shyness (in

contingent interactions) versus audience anxiety (in non-

contingent interactions) and posits slightly different be-

havioral reactions to social anxiety depending upon the nature

of the encounter in which it occurs. For example, in most

noncontingent encounters, people are operating from some de-

gree of a behavioral plan, whether it is an explicit script,

speech, or composition that they are to perform or merely

an implicit idea about how they are going to behave. Thus,

once in a noncontingent interaction, people are unlikely to

have doubts about how they should respond, although they may

doubt their ability to execute their plans successfully. In

contingent interactions, however, people may have little or









no behavioral plan, or else be forced to continually modify

their plan in light of others' responses. In such encounters,

doubts about how one should respond may be high, resulting

in anxiety. On the behavioral side, the contingent-noncon-

tingent distinction has implications for how people deal

with anxiety-producing situations. Reticence and premature

withdrawal from the encounter are much more likely to be

consequences of shyness than audience anxiety, for example.

Although a full discussion of the different implications

of contingent versus noncontingent interactions for the

antecedents and consequences of social anxiety goes beyond

the scope of the present discussion, it should simply be

stated that the focus of the model presented here is upon

anxiety resulting from contingent interactions--shyness--and

we will have little further need to refer to noncontingent

encounters or audience anxiety.

The final qualification of the present definition,

that shyness occurs only in interactions in which no event

has threatened the individual's public image,allows a dis-

tinction to be drawn between shyness and embarrassment. As

will be discussed below, embarrassment is a state of social

anxiety that occurs when events appear to repudiate self-

relevent images an individual desires to claim (Schlenker,

1980), and may occur in either contingent or noncontingent

interactions. As Buss (1980) observes, the apprehensions

that occur with shyness are future-oriented, whereas

embarrassment occurs in reaction to a particular past








event. In the case of shyness, no event has occurred that

reflects unfavorably upon the individual's self-presentations.

The theory presented below proposes that underlying

the experience of shyness are people's misgivings about the

ways they are being or will be perceived by others. Specif-

ically, shyness is conceptualized as a state of social anx-

iety arising in real or imagined contingent interactions in

which people are motivated to make a favorable impression

upon others, but doubt their ability to project images of

themselves that will produce satisfactory reactions from them.

We will examine this proposition in detail after discussing

the nature of self-presentation.

Shyness and Self-Presentation

Through all facets of their appearance, speech, and be-

havior, people lay claim to particular social identities that

have implications for how they are evaluated and treated by

others (Goffman, 1959; Schlenker, 1980). Since others'

responses to the individual are based in large part upon

their perceptions of him/her, it is usually in people's best

interests to convey particular images of themselves to those

with whom they interact, a process called self-presentation.

Specifically, self-presentation is defined as the conscious

or unconscious attempt to control the self-relevent images

that are projected in real or imagined social interactions

(Schlenker, 1980). An image is defined as a mental picture,

categorization, or schema of a person, object, or event.





11

If one's projected images are appropriate and acceptable

to those the individual interacts with, then he or she usu-

ally stands to gain valued outcomes, such as friendship,

material rewards, respect, acceptance, and so on. If the

projected self-images are deemed undesirable or inappropriate

by others, the actor is likely to receive negatively valued

outcomes, such as disapproval, loss of public esteem, pun-

ishment, or ostracism. Thus, most people are highly moti-

vated to control the nature of their self-presentations in

order to maximize their reward-cost ratio in social inter-

actions.

It is important to note that self-presentation is not

necessarily deceptive or discrepant from the individual's

self-concept. In most cases, in fact, self-presentation

merely involves bringing certain of one's actual attributes

or accomplishments to another's attention. Of course, it is

also common for people to deliberately attempt to project im-

pressions of themselves that are not in line with the way they

"really" are. In addition, it should be emphasized that self-

presentation is not always a deliberate strategic attempt to

produce a desired impression upon others. It can also re-

flect a well-ingrained, habitual response triggered by rel-

event social cues (Schlenker, 1980).

When people believe that their public images are attract-

ive and acceptable to others, are not likely to be challenged

or repudiated, and are resulting in hedonically satisfactory

reactions from others, they should feel quite secure in the

ongoing interaction.








When a person senses that he is in face, he typically
responds with feelings of confidence and assurance.
Firm in the line he is taking, he feels that he can
hold his head up and openly present himself to others.
He feels some security and some relief .
(Goffman, 1959, p. 8)

In such a situation, people are reaping valued outcomes from

their desirable images and are free from the anxiety of pre-

senting an image that is likely to result in undesirable

reactions, whatever their form, from others.

At the opposite extreme, an individual's public image

may be damaged by an undesirable event (such as a blunder

that makes one look foolish or undesirable) or by the re-

pudiation of a projected image (such as when one is unable

to live up to the claims contained in a particular presen-

tation). In such cases, people usually become embarrassed

and the interaction breaks down, at least temporarily (Buss,

1980; Goffman, 1955; Modigliani, 1971).

In a large percentage of social interactions, however,

the situation lies between these two extremes. Although

nothing has happened to damage the individual's social iden-

tity, people may not always believe that they are coming across

to others as well as they would like. People in this state

are not embarrassed, but neither do they believe they are

projecting images of themselves that will result in them re-

ceivin7 desired reactions from other interactants. They may

think they will not be able to project the types of images

the other interactants value, that they will not project the

quantity of the valued image, or they will be unable to live

up to images they have already attempted to claim, with




13


the consequence that they will be regarded negatively for

dissimulation.

If people in such a state believe that there is a low

probability of their social images resulting in valued re-

actions from others, no matter what they might do, they would

be expected to feel shy. Thus, shyness is proposed to be a

state of anxiety arising 'in real or imagined contingent

interactions in which people are motivated to make a favor-

able impression on others, but doubt their ability to pro-

ject images of themselves that will produce satisfactory re-

actions from them. To clarify the basic proposition of the

model, it will be useful to closely examine its key concepts.

"State," "anxiety," and "real or imagined contingent inter-

actions" were discussed earlier.

People are motivated to make a favorable impression on

others to the degree that the others are in a position to im-

part outcomes having a high positive or negative value to the

individual. These outcomes may be either social rewards and

punishments (e.g., friendship, praise, respect, disliking,

vengence) or tangible material and physical gains or losses

(e.g., raises, fines, demotions, pain). The higher the ab-

solute value of such outcomes to the individual, the more

motivated he or she should be to make a favorable impression

on those who mediate them.

People doubt their ability to project images of them-

selves that produce satisfactory reactions when they believe

there is a low probability of controlling the impressions

others form of them, given the actor's goals in the interaction.









A number of possible reasons why people might doubt their

ability to project certain images in an encounter are dis-

cussed at length below.

A satisfactory reaction from others is defined as anoth-

er's response to an individual that has a positive rather

than a neutral or negative subjective value to the individ-

ual. Anticipated reactions from others are evaluated by the

individual in terms of his or her comparison level (Thibaut

& Kelley, 1959). Anticipated reactions that meet or exceed

this level should be regarded as satisfactory by the indi-

vidual; those that fail to meet the comparison level should

result in dissatisfaction, and this dissatisfaction would be

expected to increase as the discrepancy between the antici-

pated reaction from others and the actor's comparison level

increases.

The concept of comparison level is important here be-

cause it helps explain why people who are, as judged by out-

side observers, coming across well socially and being respond-

ed to quite positively may still feel shy. As people's com-

parison levels increase, their standards are raised, and they

must anticipate receiving increasingly valued responses from

others in order not to feel dissatisfied with others' reac-

tions. Given the same positive reactions from others, a per-

son with a low comparison level may feel quite satisfied and

secure, whereas a person with a higher comparison level might

feel dissatisfied and anxious. Bandura (1969, p. 37) notes

that "many of the people who seek treatment [for social anxiety]









are neither incompetent nor anxiously inhibited, but they

experience a great deal of personal distress stemming from

excessively high standards for self-evaluation, often sup-

ported by unfavorable comparisons with models noted for their

extraordinary achievements."

In summary, it is hypothesized that shyness arises as a

joint function of the motivation to make a favorable impress-

ion on others and the presence of self-doubts regarding one's

ability to control such impressions in a manner that results

in satisfactory reactions from them. Thus, as either the

motivation to impress others or doubts about one's ability

to achieve satisfactory reactions increases, the potential

for feeling shy should increase. Obversely, if the motiva-

tion to make a favorable impression is low or people believe

they are able to project images that will result in satis-

factory reactions from others in a particular encounter,

shyness should be minimal.

Other writers have previously suggested that shyness and

social anxiety may be linked to concerns with how one is

appearing to others. In The Expression of Emotion in Man

and Animals, Charles Darwin (1872/1955) suggested that shy-

ness-induced blushing results from self-attention due to

concerns with one's appearance before others: "It is not

the simple act of reflecting on our own appearance, but think-

ing what others think of us, which excites a blush" (p. 325).

He added that, "shyness seems to depend on sensitiveness to

the opinion of others," although Darwin suggested that








shyness resulted primarily from concerns with one's physical

appearance. He also noted that people are seldom shy in the

presence of those with whom they are familiar, and "whose

good opinion and sympathy they are perfectly assured"

(p. 330). In short, Darwin's early analysis is clearly

congruent with the self-presentational model of shyness pre-

sented here.

More recently, Dixon, de Monchaux, and Sandler (1957)

factor analyzed 26 items from the Tavistock Self-Assessment

Inventory that could be classed under the broad heading of

social anxieties. In addition to a large general social anx-

iety factor, four factors emerged, each of which dealt with a

different aspect of people's concerns with how they are per-

ceived by others. The factor of social timidity refers to

the fear of creating an adverse impression due to awkwardness

resulting from not knowing how to behave in certain situa-

tions. The second factor, loss of control, reflects concerns

with losing bodily control in social situations, such as

stumbling, vomiting, or becoming ill. Presumably, such fears

arise primarily because of how the actor appears in light of

such unfortunate events. Exhibitionism, the third factor,

refers to anxiety resulting from being the center of atten-

tion, while the fourth, fear of revealing inferiority, re-

flects fears of being negatively evaluated by others because

of personal inadequacy. All four factors reflect not only

concerns with one's public image, but concerns over situa-

tions in which one has minimal, if any, control over how one

is appearing to others.








Antecedents of Shyness

According to the conceptualization presented earlier,

two major factors are implicated in the experience of shy-

ness: (a) the motivation to make a favorable impression up-

on others, and (b) doubts about one's ability to project

images that will result in satisfactory reactions from others.

Let us examine each of these classes of antecedents separately.

Motivation to Impress Other Interactants

A necessary precondition for the experience of shyness

is that the individual be motivated to make a favorable im-

pression upon others in the service of obtaining desired re-

actions from them. The individual who has absolutely no con-

cern for how he or she is regarded in a particular encounter

would not be expected to feel shy on that occasion. In

addition, the potential for shyness should increase as the

motivation to impress other interactants increases.

The motivation to make a favorable impression upon oth-

ers should be a direct function of the subjective worth of

the others' reactions to the individual. The greater the

value of others' potential reactions, the more the individual

should be motivated to project images the others might value

in an attempt to achieve such reactions. A number of factors

would be expected to affect the subjective value of others'

reactions.

First, the subjective value of others' reactions is

directly related to the subjective value of tangible out-

comes others are in the position to bestow. People should








be more motivated to impress those who are in the position

to mediate very positive or very negative outcomes, such as

promotions, raises, awards, physical harm, dismissal, and so

on, than those who can not mediate such outcomes. Thus, the

potential for shyness should be greater when one interacts

with those who are powerful and influential vis-a-vis the

individual than with those who are not.

Similarly, the reactions of certain people are rendered

more valuable by their personal characteristics. The sub-

jective worth of reactions from those who are perceived as

attractive, competent, discriminating, or high in status

should be higher than the reactions of those with less flat-

tering personal characteristics (Tedeschi, Schlenker, &

Bonoma, 1973). Thus, people should be more motivated to im-

press an important, highly esteemed audience, independent of

tangible outcomes they might bestow, than a nonsignificant

one, and would be more likely to feel shy when interacting

with them. In support of the proposed relationship between

audience characteristics and social anxiety, research has

shown that people are more likely to report being shy when

dealing with those who are perceived as powerful, competent,

attractive, in authority, and of high status than with those

who are not (Zimbardo, 1977).

People should also be more motivated to make a favorable

impression when the self-relevent image of concern in a given

encounter is seen as more attractive, important, or relevent

to the individual's self-concept, and people should be more








motivated to achieve satisfactory reactions from others in

response to them. A woman who prides herself as being in-

telligent and well-read, but not athletic, should be moti-

vated to appear intellectual to others, but minimally con-

cerned about appearing athletic. According to the present

theory, a threat to her ability to appear intellectual to

others should result in feelings of shyness, whereas her in-

ability to appear athletic should not. Thus, people should

be more likely to become shy when the self-image under con-

sideration is an important one to them.

Particular situations also increase the motivation to

make a favorable impression and thus the potential to become

shy by increasing the saliency of others' possible reactions.

For example, a man might feel more shy in an interaction

with his boss shortly before promotion decisions are to be

made.

In addition to situational factors that increase the

motivation to appear well, a number of individual difference

variables should be associated with heightened concerns with

others' potential reactions and increase the chances that

certain kinds of people would experience social anxiety in

social encounters.

Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss (1975) and Buss (1980)

have suggested that public self-consciousness is a necessary,

though not sufficient,precondition for social anxiety.

People who are highly publicly self-conscious are particu-

larly aware of how they are regarded and treated by others








and are sensitized to others' evaluations of them (e.g.,

Fenigstein, 1979). People who are low in public-self-con-

sciousness, on the other hand, have little awareness of or

interest in how they are coming across to others. Since

others' evaluations are more salient to high than low pub-

lic self-conscious individuals, highs should be more moti-

vated to make a favorable impression upon those with whom

they deal. Even so, they should not feel shy unless they

also doubt their ability to make those impressions and achieve

satisfactory reactions.

Research has shown that public self-consciousness is

minimally but significantly correlated with measures of so-

cial anxiety. Fenigstein et al. (1975) and Pilkonis (1977a)

found correlations in the vicinity of +.20 (P's < .05)

between public self-consciousness and the social anxiety

subscale of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al.,

1975). In addition, Pilkonis (1977a) obtained a correlation

of +.19, and Cheek and Buss (1980) a correlation of +.26

(a's < .05) between public self-consciousness and self-
reported shyness. Thus, it appears that public self-con-

sciousness may increase people's potential for becoming

socially anxious by increasing their concerns with inter-

personal evaluation.

People who are high in need for approval (Crowne & Mar-

lowe, 1964) should also be more highly motivated to make a

favorable impression upon others than those who are low in

need for approval. Although originally conceived as a motive








to gain others' acceptance and approval by appearing in

socially desirable ways, recent research has suggested that

people who score high in need for approval are primarily

motivated to avoid disapproval (Berger, Levin, Jacobson, &

Milham, 1977). Regardless, people who are highly motivated

to gain approval and/or avoid disapproval should be highly

motivated to make the impression that would allow them to

achieve those goals, and should be more likely to become

shy as a result.

Watson and Friend (1969) have shown that a high Fear of

Negative Evaluation (FNE) score on their Social-Evaluative

Anxiety Scale is also associated with a concern to obtain

social approval and avoid disapproval from others. Compared

to subjects classified as low FNE, high FNE's have been

shown to: work harder on a boring letter-substitution task

when they believed that hard work would be explicitly ap-

proved of by their group leader (Watson & Friend, 1969),

attempt to avoid potentially self-threatening social com-

parison information to a greater degree (Friend & Gilbert,

1973), and prefer to be in a positive asymmetrical relation-

ship (being liked by another more than one likes the other)

rather than a balanced relationship (mutual equal liking)

(Smith & Campbell, 1973). In addition, FNE ;as found to

correlate significantly (+.77, P < .01) with social aproval-

seeking as measured on Jackson's (1966) Personality Research

Form (Watson & Friend, 1969). All of these findings portray

the high FNE individual as being highly motivated to gain








approval and avoid disapproval. Thus, it would be expected

that high FNE's would be more likely to become socially

anxious when their ability to come across well to others was

threatened. Indeed, FNE has been found to correlate sig-

nificantly with Social Avoidance and Distress (r = +.51,

p < .01; Watson & Friend, 1969).1

Doubts About One's Ability to Achieve Satisfactory Reactions

The motivation to make a favorable impression upon

others is hypothesized to be a necessary, but not sufficient,

condition for the occurrence of shyness. Not only must in-

dividuals be motivated to make'a favorable impression, but

they must also doubt that they will be able to do so in a

way that will result in satisfactory reactions from other

interactants.

Two major factors should lead people to doubt their

ability to project images that will result in satisfactory

reactions from others: (a) they find it difficult to de-

termine how to achieve satisfactory reactions, or (b) they

believe they know how others will react to certain self-

presentations, but don't believe they can successfully




As its name implies, the Social Avoidance and Distress
(SAD) Scale (Watson & Friend, 1969) was originally developed
as a measure of subjective anxiety experienced in social en-
counters and the tendency to avoid social situations. How-
ever, a factor analysis by Patterson and Strauss (1972)
found that most of the items on the SAD Scale loaded on an
affiliation-extraversion factor, suggesting that the SAD
taps primarily approach-avoidance tendencies and only
secondarily social anxiety.








convey those images that are likely to result in satisfac-

tory reactions from them.

Uncertainty about how to achieve satisfactory reactions.

Research has shown that people tailor their self-presenta-

tions to the contingencies of the situation and to the

values of those with whom they are interacting (e.g., Jones,

Gergen, & Jones, 1963; Jones, Gergen, Gumpert, & Thibaut,

1965; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Schlenker, 1975, 1980). Thus,

when people are motivated to make a favorable impression,

they usually seek information regarding the types of images

others are likely to value (Schlenker, 1980).

When people believe they know an audience's values and

preferences, they are able to formulate a behavioral plan

that guides their responses during the course of interaction.

Under certain circumstances, however, cues regarding others'

values may be absent, vague, inconsistent, or contradictory.

Uncertain of other interactants' personalities, values, and

probable reactions to certain behaviors, people are unable

to determine how they may achieve satisfactory reactions from

them and are unable to formulate a plan for the interaction.

Without such information and an overriding plan, the possi-

bility of appearing in an unfavorable light and evoking an

undesirable response becomes more salient, and people are

more likely to doubt that they will be able to project a

favorable image. On the other hand, "shyness is less of a

problem in those contexts where influences such as task de-

mands and role requirements remove the ambiguity present in

'unfocused' interpersonal encounters" (Pilkonis, 1977b, p. 604).








Dibner (1958) observed that "anxiety is directly re-

lated to the degree of ambiguity in the situation to which

the individual must make some adjustive reaction and

. the probability of uncertainty is greater whenever ex-

ternal conditions are ambiguous" (p. 165). Dibner defined

situational ambiguity in terms of the degree of consensus

that outside observers might reach regarding the interpreta-

tion of the characteristics of a situation. However, ambi-

guity is more than a potential lack of consensus. A group of

observers might all independently agree in their interpreta-

tion of a situation and in their prescriptions regarding

appropriate behavior in it, yet each have low confidence in

his own judgment. Thus, to the individual in a social en-

counter, perceived ambiguity may be regarded as an inverse

function of one's confidence in one's interpretation of the

situation and in decisions regarding how best to respond to

maximize one's own reward/cost ratio in the encounter.

Thus, people should experience shyness when they are

motivated to make a favorable impression upon others, but

are uncertain of how to do so. In support of this, survey

data obtained by Zimbardo (1977) showed that shyness is ex-

perienced quite frequently in novel situations and in en-

counters involving strangers--people about which the indi-

vidual, by definition, knows very little. Buss (1980) ob-

serves that "the most frequent and important situational

cause of shyness appears to be novelty" (p. 187).

In addition, Pilkonis (1976, 1977b) had subjects par-

ticipate in an unstructured face-to-face interaction, then








deliver a speech into a videocamera, a task he conceptualized

as more structured. He found that "shyness was evoked by

ambiguous, unstructured episodes (the same-sex and opposite-

sex interactions), but was less apparent during the struc-

tured episode (the preparation and delivery of the speech)"

(Pilkonis, 1976, p. 96), although it should be noted that

the structured and unstructured episodes in this study

differed on other important variables (one was a face-to-

face interaction, whereas the other was an impersonal deliv-

ery of a prepared speech, for example).

In short, the available evidence seems to support the

hypothesis that ambiguity regarding how best to respond in

order to achieve satisfactory reactions may result in

heightened shyness. However, the evidence is minimal at

best and this hypothesis merits additional research.

Uncertainty about how to respond and about what images

to project may also arise when other interactants respond in

an unexpected or counternormative fashion. When this occurs,

the interaction itself is disrupted and the individual is

forced to respond to a situation for which he/she has no

readily available cognitive script (Abelson, 1976). Geller,

Goodstein, Silver, and Sternberg (1974) exposed subjects

to a situation in which they were ignored during a face-to-

face interaction by two confederates who talked freely to one

another. Under such circumstances, subjects reported that

the situation was highly ambiguous, that they were unsure of

how to respond, and that they felt shy.









Similarly, when another interactant invokes social

norms to which the individual is unwilling or unable to

respond, uncertainty arises regarding how to behave. For

example, a norm of reciprocity surrounds the disclosure of

personal information, such that, when one interactant is

self-disclosing, others are expected.to follow suit (Derlega,

Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). If this norm is unexpectedly in-

voked by the inappropriate disclosures of another, the in-

dividual may not know how best to respond and may feel

shy (cf. Buss, 1980).

Certain individual differences may exacerbate the prob-

lems encountered in ambiguous situations or lead certain

people to interpret a larger number of social situations

as ambiguous. First, there are differences in people's

sensitiveness to social cues regarding appropriate or de-

sirable behavior (e.g., Snyder, 1974). People who are more

adept at analyzing social situations for cues regarding ap-

propriate demeanor should be better at assessing how to

respond to achieve satisfactory reactions from others and,

thus, less likely to experience anxiety from not knowing how

to respond. Although the meaning of scores obtained on the

Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974) has recently been called

into question (Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980; Gabrenya & Arkin,

1980; Silver, Leary, & Schlenker, 1980), it would be pre-

dicted that people who are higher in the ability to glean

cues regarding how to respond and adjust their behavior







accordingly (i.e., high self-monitoring ability) would be

less likely to feel shy and inhibited in social encounters.

In support of this, Pilkonis (1977a) found self-moni-

toring ability to correlate negatively with self-reported

shyness, although the correlation was significant only for

males (r = -.25, P < .05). Ickes and Barnes (1977) examined

the differences in the behavior of high and low self-moni-

tors in unstructured interactions, and found that high self-

monitors were more likely to initiate the conversation with

the other subject and were rated as more relaxed than lows.

In addition, unpublished data by Lippa (reported in Ickes &

Barnes, 1977) show a significant positive correlation be-

tween self-monitoring and extraversion.

Second, there are likely to be individual differences

in people's ability to respond "off the cuff"--that is,

without well-formulated interaction plans. Some people

appear quite able to fit into almost any social encounter,

whereas others are socially paralyzed in the face of social

uncertainty.

When people are uncertain of how to behave in order to

make a favorable impression on others, they are likely to

show signs of hesitancy, reticence, awkwardness, withdrawal

and/or avoidance. At the extreme, uncertainty and its ac-

companying anxiety may be great enough to result in social

paralysis (cf. Kelley, 1967; Jones & Gerard, 1967). The shy

individual may stand silent, thoughts racing, but unable to

respond. McGovern (1976, p. 94) notes that, "the response









of no response may be a learned method of coping with am-

biguity and time pressure for these [highly socially anxious]

individuals." Similarly, Philips (1968) suggests that chron-

ic reticence may be caused by reticent individuals "not know-

ing the rules" in certain social situations.

In some cases, the individual in a socially ambiguous

encounter may attempt to project innocuous images that would

be expected to be at least minimally acceptable to most peo-

ple, such as smiling and attempting to appear interested and

friendly. In this way, the person avoids projecting images

that may be inappropriate and that may result in unsatis-

factory reactions. "When the socially cautious person does

participate, the content of his contribution is generally

'safe.' He waits until he has learned what kind of comment

his 'audience' will appreciate, or restricts his remarks to

the patently nonoffensive" (Efran & Korn, 1969, p. 78). By

responding noncommitally, the shy individual bides time as

he or she attempts to glean cues that will suggest how best

to come across to other interactants, and keeps attention

off him- or herself by prompting other interactants, via

questions and apparent interest, to continue talking about

themselves.

To summarize, any factor that makes it difficult for

people to formulate an interaction plan and to decide how to

best maximize their social outcomes should result in shyness.

Doubts about one's self-presentational ability. Ascer-

taining the nature of the image likely to produce satisfactory








reactions from others is only one-half of the task faced by

an individual wishing to make a favorable impression. Once

the individual believes he or she knows how to respond ap-

propriately, such images must then be successfully conveyed.

The distinction here is between formulating a plan for ac-

tion and successfully implementing the plan. Thus, individ-

uals may experience shyness because they doubt their ability

to present themselves to others in ways that will result in

hedonically satisfactory outcomes.

First, people may entertain doubts about the quality

of their interaction plans and lack confidence that their

plans, no matter how well executed, will result in desired

reactions. For example, learning that a young lady takes a

great deal of pride in her tennis-playing ability, a male

suitor may wish to compliment her strong serve and decides

to do so, but mulls over the possibility that she will at-

tribute his comment to mere ingratiation or even baser mo-

tives. Any factor that causes people to doubt the efficacy

of their plans in producing satisfactory outcomes should in-

crease the likelihood that they will become shy.

Second, even when people have what they believe are

cogent plans for the accomplishment of their interaction

goals, they may doubt their ability to execute those plans.

That is, they may doubt their ability to appear to others

in ways that will result in satisfactory outcomes. People

should doubt their ability to claim valued images successfully

when: (a) they don't believe they really possess the








attributes that allow them to meet the requirements for

claiming the image and these deficiencies would come to the

attention of other interactants if a particular self-pres-

entation was attempted, or (b) they believe they don't have

the expressive skills necessary to convey the image irre-

spective of whether or not they privately believe they meet

the requirements of the image.

Since people who fail to live up to the images they

present to others are negatively sanctioned (Goffman, 1959;

Schlenker, 1980), people tend to refrain from projecting im-

pressions that are likely to be publicly repudiated by the

"facts" (Baumeister & Jones, 1978; Schlenker, 1975). Thus,

in a situation in which projecting particular valued images

would require dissimulation that may result in social reper-

cussions, people will generally conclude that they are un-

able to claim the image and, if motivated to make a favor-

able impression, should feel shy. They may either believe

that they can not claim the image at all or that they are

unable to present themselves as possessing an adequate quan-

tity of the attribute (by appearing extremely competent, for

example) to make a sufficiently favorable impression upon

other interactants.

In addition, in some cases people may privately believe

that they possess the attributes that, if perceived by

others, would result in satisfactory reactions, but believe

they lack the expressive skills to convince others they

actually possess those attributes. When people believe








they have the "right" to legitimately present certain images

of themselves, but feel their self-presentations may be un-

successful due to deficiencies in requisite social or ex-

pressive skills, they should feel shy. It is doubtful that

people phenomenologically distinguish between not having an

attribute and not having the expressive skills to convey the

image of having the attribute. To the shy individual, ei-

ther case is perceived as the inability to come across well

to others.

A good deal of research has documented the relationship

between the belief that one lacks valuable social attributes

and feelings of social anxiety. Efran and Korn (1969)

showed that socially "cautious" subjects held lower expec-

tations of success on a variety of social and verbal tasks

than socially "bolder'" subjects, but that the two groups did

not differ in their expectations of success on intellectual,

athletic, or artistic pursuits. This suggests that the con-

cerns of socially anxious individuals are specific to social

deficiencies. In a comparison of high and low socially

anxious students identified by Watson and Friend's (1969)

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, Cacioppo, Glass, and

Merluzzi (1979) found that highly anxious subjects rated

themselves more negatively, generated more negative self-

statements in a thought-listing task, and rated themselves

as less potent and active than low anxiety subjects.

Interestingly, socially anxious people's negative eval-

uations are confined to themselves. Although they









underestimate the quality of their social skills compared

to observers' ratings of them and to low anxiety people's

self-evaluations, low and high anxiety subjects (along with

external observers) have been shown to agree in their ap-

praisals of a confederate's social ability (Clark & Arko-

witz, 1975). Thus, the tendency for shy people to under-

estimate their social performances is not likely to be due

to a generalized set to see the social world negatively.

A number of studies have shown that counseling para-

digms designed to reduce negative self-evaluations are effec-

tive in reducing social anxiety (e.g., Clark & Arkowitz,

1975; Meichenbaum, Gilmore, & Fedoravicius, 1971; Sanchez-

Craig, 1976; Sherman, Mulac, & McCann, 1974). For example,

Rehm and Marston (1968, p. 573) taught shy subjects to re-

place negative self-evaluations with cognitive self-rein-

forcement for appropriate social responses and found a de-

crease of anxiety in dating encounters. They concluded that

"negative self-evaluation is a primary cue for anxiety" and

that reduction of negative self-evaluations and the imposi-

tion of self-reinforcement should reduce social anxiety.

While this may be true, what has not often been made

clear is that the multitude of negative self-statements one

might make (e.g., "I'm not a good date/speaker/dancer/stu-

dent/conversationalist/etc.") generally reflect not only

self-evaluations, but concerns with how one is appearing to

others. Thus, the present self-presentational approach to

shyness would propose that it is not self-evaluation per se








that is critical in the genesis of shyness, but the belief

that real or imagined others may evaluate oneself negatively.

Self-evaluation and anticipated public evaluation are,

of course, ordinarily confounded in real-life situations.

The individual who evaluates him- or herself negatively is

likely to expect that others will also. Nevertheless, we

may at least imagine the 'two cases of (a) an individual who

regards himself very negatively but expects others in a par-

ticular encounter to regard him positively, or (b) an indi-

vidual who regards himself positively but expects others to

regard him negatively. The first individual (a), despite

negative self-evaluations, should not feel shy; the second

one (b), despite positive self-evaluations, should. In short,

the critical factor in shyness (and other social anxieties)

is one's perceived ability to project images that will re-

sult in satisfactory reactions from others, and not merely

one's own self-image.

Even when one's interaction plans and one's ability to

execute them are, in the abstract, beyond question, one must

still contend with the responses of other interactants.

Thus, people who doubt their ability to respond quickly and

appropriately in an ad lib fashion, or who question their

flexibility or their ability to respond contingently/reac-

tively to others, should be more likely to feel shy in con-

tingent interactions. Most of us have observed a confident

and eloquent speaker who appears fully in control during his

oration, but who falters nervously when entertaining questions








from the audience or when dealing with others on a one-to-

one basis. Such a person may be confident of his ability

to execute a well-structured and rehearsed plan (i.e.,

speech) in a noncontingent situation, but doubt his ability

to make appropriate remarks in response to others' behavior.

Shyness should be exacerbated by situational and per-

sonality factors that, for whatever reason, cause people to

doubt their ability to project images that will result in

satisfactory reactions from others. One such set of factors

is the characteristics of those with whom one is interacting.

Shyness should be greater when one is interacting with crit-

ical, evaluative others than with supportive, nonevaluative

ones, since the probability of receiving satisfactory re-

actions is greater in the latter than former case. Indeed,

people report greater anxiety when interacting with eval-

uative audiences and authorities (Zimbardo, 1977).1

As mentioned previously, perceived personal deficiencies,

whether real or imagined, may lead people to doubt their a-

bility to appear well to others. In as much as this is the

case, people with lower self-esteem, who tend to perceive


1As an aside, most psychologists, whatever their area
of training, have had the experience of people expressing
a degree of trepidation upon interacting with them because
of the popular view that psychologists can "read minds."
Presumably, because of the public's belief that psycholo-
gists are able to "analyze" people regarding their true
personality, motives, desires, feelings, etc., people feel
unable to project images that will result in satisfactory
reactions from them. An interesting hypothesis is that the
average person is more likely to experience shyness when
interacting with a psychologist or psychiatrist than most
other professionals.








themselves less favorably and assume others do as well (e.g.,

Walster, 1965), would be expected to be more shy across en-

counters. In support of this hypothesis, Zimbardo (1977)

and Cheek and Buss (1980) report significant negative corre-

lations between self-esteem and shyness (r's = -.48 and -.51

for Zimbardo and Cheek & Buss, respectively, 's < .01).

Similarly, people with previous failures in the social arena

may come to doubt that they are able to obtain satisfactory

reactions from others. Once they have had unpleasant experi-

ences and received negative evaluations from others, they

may come to anticipate failure in similar situations.

In contrast to the above, there are instances in which

people privately believe they don't meet the requirements

for claiming certain attractive images, but believe they

have the expressive ability to convey such impressions to

others anyway. People who are motivated to make a favorable

impression have been shown to exaggerate positive self-pres-

entations when they believe there is only a small likelihood

that their claimed images will be repudiated by contradic-

tory information (Baumeister & Jones, 1978; Schlenker, 1975).

When people believe that they can project images that will

produce satisfactory reactions and their claims will likely

go unchallenged, they should not feel shy even though they

know the self-presentations to be inaccurate. Of course,

the greater the possibility that nonveridical self-presen-

tations will be discovered and negatively sanctioned by

others, the more likely the individual will doubt that he/








she will be able to appear well and the more shy one should

feel.

To summarize, shyness is hypothesized to be a joint

function of the motivation to make a favorable impression

on others and doubts about one's ability to appear to others

in ways that will result in satisfactory reactions from

them. People may doubt their ability to come across well

to others either when they are unable to determine how to

respond in a particular encounter or when they know how

to respond, but feel unable to do so.

Behavioral Accompaniments of Shyness

If, as has been proposed above, shyness arises due to

concerns with how one is appearing to others, we would ex-

pect many of the behavioral manifestations of shyness to re-

flect such concerns. Do the behaviors that typically ac-

company shyness appear to arise from self-presentational

concerns?

Clearly, many of the behaviors that accompany subjective

shyness are not interpersonal in nature. Many physiolog-

ical changes, such as increased pulse, blood pressure, GSR,

and muscular tension, are simply concomitants of any

aroused, autonomic state.

The relationship between shyness and overt behaviors

(those clearly observable to other interactants) is more

complex. Because the appearance of nervousness is normally

negatively evaluated in our culture, most people will attempt

to conceal their anxiety, with the result that the affective








state of a social interactant is not always obvious to out-

side observers (Knight & Borden, 1978), whether they be

other interactants or social psychologists. Research has

shown there is only minimal to moderate congruence between

observers' ratings of an individual's apparent social anxiety

and ratings of subjectively experienced anxiety made by the

individual himself (Clevinger, 1959; Farrell, Mariotto,

Conger, Curran, & Wallander, 1979; Mulac & Sherman, 1975),

and this is true even when the observers are trained speech

teachers judging their students (Dickens, Gibson, & Prall,

1950). The largest correlation between subjects' self-re-

ports and observers' ratings of shyness was obtained by Pil-

konis (1977b): +.58. In general, observers tend to under-

estimate, rather than overestimate,others' subjective

anxiety (Clevinger, 1959; Dickens et al., 1950).

These findings are noteworthy for a couple of reasons.

First, there is little reason to expect a close correspondence

between self-reports of experienced shyness and behavioral

manifestations of it, so that there is no sure way to de-

termine from an individual's grosser, overt behaviors wheth-

er or not he or she is presently shy. (Even so, certain be-

havioral patterns do tend to accompany shyness, as will be

discussed below.) Second, if people tend to underestimate

others' subjective anxiety, they may conclude that they

themselves experience a greater degree of shyness in social

encounters than most other people. When it occurs in a sit-

uation in which the individual is socially anxious, such a








belief may itself evoke anxiety that exacerbates the original

problem (Storms & McCaul, 1976).

The most commonly reported manifestation of shyness is

a reluctance to speak freely in interactions (Zimbardo,

1977). Compared to nonshy individuals, shy people are more

hesitant to initiate conversations, speak less frequently,

speak a smaller percentage of the time, allow more silences

to develop during conversations, and are less likely to

break them (Pilkonis, 1976, 1977b). Also, highly socially

anxious people write less on self-disclosure questionnaires,

and engage in less intimate self-disclosure than people who

are low in social anxiety (Post, Wittmaier, & Radin, 1978).

Taken together, these studies portray the shy person as

reluctant to engage in verbal interaction, hesitant to in-

itiate conversations and keep them going, and, in general,

participating as little as possible in verbal exchanges,

especially ones dealing with self-relevent topics.

There is no a priori reason to expect shy individuals

to decrease their verbal output. Why do socially anxious

people respond in this way? Philips (1968) notes that reti-

cence arises when people's anxiety about participating in

verbal interactions with others outweighs their expectation

of gain from the encounter and that reticence may serve to

exempt the individual from full participation in anxiety-

producing situations. Consider the plight of shy people:

they are motivated to make a favorable impression upon

others, but doubt that they will be able to appear in such








a way that others will respond favorably to them. Given

such an interactional dilemma, reticence may be regarded as

an appropriate and rational interpersonal strategy. When

people believe they can not come across well to others no

matter what they might do, they have nothing to gain and

much to lose, and would be best off to do and say little or

nothing at all. Even though nothing may be done to allow

the individual to be perceived positively, this tactic helps

the individual to avoid patently negative evaluations.

A study by Taylor, Altman, and Sorrentino (1969) clear-

ly documented the relationship between negative interperson-

al evaluations and decreased verbal output. Under conditions

of negative interpersonal feedback, their subjects spoke

less, talked about fewer aspects of themselves, and were

less self-disclosing than subjects receiving positive feed-

back. Extrapolating to the present model, it seems likely

that this tact would also be employed by shy individuals,

to whom the possibility of less than satisfactory responses

from others is highly salient.

In a review of the literature regarding the relation-

ship between anxiety and speech, Murray (1971) concluded

that anxiety and speech are curvilinearly related as an

inverse-U function. Anxiety and speech are positively re-

lated to some asymptote, but speech decreases with increas-

ing anxiety beyond that point. Although a wide variety of

stressful stimuli have been used in these studies (e.g.,









threat of electric shock, negative evaluations from others,

public speaking situations, stimulus deprivation, anxiety-

producing conversational topics), they have generally been

regarded merely as alternative ways to evoke anxiety.

However, the implicit assumption that all anxiety-

producing stimuli are functionally equivalent vis-a-vis

their effects on speech overlooks the fact that, in some

cases, changes in speech behavior reflect not only an effect

of autonomic arousal per se, but also serve personal or in-

terpersonal functions for the anxious individual. In cases

in which the precipitating stimuli are social in nature, the

individual is likely to fear receiving negative reactions

from others, and changes in verbal output may reflect the

individual's attempt to maintain the best possible social

image under the circumstances. If the shy individual be-

lieves that he or she is likely to evoke unsatisfactory re-

actions from others by talking to them, verbal output should

decrease. Under some circumstances, however, the anxious

individual may perceive that failing to interact is more

likely to result in unsatisfactory reactions than is inter-

acting poorly. In such cases, we might expect verbal output

to remain stable or to increase. The relationship between

shyness and speech appears to be quite complex and warrants

future attention.

As with verbal behaviors, we would expect the nonverbal

behaviors of shy people to reflect the attempt to present









the best possible social images of themselves to others

under circumstances in which they do not think they will

be regarded favorably by others. The few available findings

support this notion. Pilkonis (1976, 1977b) found that

self-reported shyness in an interaction was positively re-

lated to both smiling and head nodding. Natale, Jaffe, and

Entin (1979) found social anxiety to be negatively correlated

with verbal interruptions of another's speech and positively

correlated with "back channel responses"--the brief inter-

jections a listener makes while another is speaking to

indicate that he/she is attentively listening (e.g., "uh-

huh"). In each of these cases, the target behavior (smil-

ing, nodding, not interrupting, back channel responding)

may be conceived of as an attempt to appear friendly and

interested when one believes that more complete participa-

tion in the encounter is likely to result in negative re-

actions from others.

Taken as a whole, such behaviors may serve at least

four interpersonal functions. First, they allow the indi-

vidual to maintain an innocuously sociable image that is at

least minimally acceptable to most audiences and forestall

possible negative consequences that might result from do-

ing or saying something that will reflect poorly upon the

individual. Second, they help the individual conceal his

or her anxiety and overt manifestations of it (e.g., trem-

bling, awkwardness) that might become obvious to others if

the individual attempted to engage fully in the encounter.








If nothing else, the individual is able to maintain the

impression that he or she is poised and under control

(Kaplan, 1972). Third, the individual is able to direct

attention from him- or herself to other interactants by

paying a good deal of friendly interest in what they are

saying. Finally, such behaviors may serve as stalling

tactics that allow the individual to examine the situation

more closely in order to determine how to respond appropri-

ately before committing him- or herself to a line of action.

The individual may thus bide time as he/she surmises how

best to respond to make a favorable impression and achieve

satisfactory reactions.

The fact that shyness appears to be associated with

decreased amounts of eye contact (Pilkonis, 1977b; Zimbardo,

1977) seems to contradict the suggestion made above that

the nonverbal behavior of shy people is designed to present

them as favorably as possible to others. However, decreased

eye contact might best be regarded as a form of psycholog-

ical withdrawal from stressful situations, similar to that

which occurs following an embarrassing situation (Modig-

liani, 1971). There is also some evidence that people en-

gage in more contact with those from whom they expect ap-

proval (Efran, 1968). Since people in a shyness-producing

situation are not expecting approval from others, their

lower amount of eye contact may simply reflect a lower base-

line of visual attention than that of people in an encounter

in which they expect satisfactory reactions from others.








In extreme cases, shyness may result in complete with-

drawal from or avoidance of certain interactions (Zimbardo,

1977). These are likely to be situations in which the in-

dividual believes that remaining in the situation will re-

sult in a decline in the positivity of his or her public

image and in negative reactions from.others. Such with-

drawal from anxiety-producing situations removes the in-

dividual from the face-threatening encounter before all

poise is lost and, if the exit is executed gracefully and

with justification, may even help the individual's image

(as when one claims to have another important engagement in

order to leave a party).

The behaviors discussed above are the typical behavioral

accompaniments of shyness. However, for a given individual,

shyness is not always accompanied by blatant, shylike be-

haviors, such as quietness, awkwardness, or reduced eye

contact. Some people are able to maintain a convincing

facade of confidence and composure despite private misgiv-

ings about their ability to project valued images of them-

selves in a particular encounter. Thus, there is not a

perfect relationship between the experience of shyness and

behavioral manifestations of it, and all shy people will

not be perceived as such by outside observers. However,

when group data are examined in the context of research,

we would expect people who are exposed to situations de-

signed to heighten self-presentational concerns to, on the








average, exhibit more shylike behaviors and be rated more

shy by others than people who are exposed to variables de-

signed to minimize such concerns.

To summarize, many of the behaviors that tend to accom-

pany shyness may be conceived of as devices for making the

best out of a bad self-presentational situation. Given

that shy people doubt that they will come across well no

matter what they do, it is reasonable for them to remain as

quiet as possible, engage in innocuously friendly behaviors

that are likely to be minimally acceptable to nearly everyone,

or to withdraw from the encounter when they feel unable to

retain the appearance of poise. It should be noted that

one possible consequence of such friendly behaviors is that,

in some cases, shy people may be perceived by others as

more friendly, interested, approving, and involved than

people who are not shy.

Summary and Experimental Hypotheses

To summarize the theory presented here: shyness arises

as a function of two factors, the motivation to make a favor-

able impression upon others and doubts about one's ability

to do so in a way that results in satisfactory reactions

from them. These factors are proposed to be multiplica-

tively related such that shyness is minimal as either

approaches zero, but intensifies rapidly as both factors in-

crease. Any situational or personality variable that in-

creases either or both of these conditions is hypothesized

to increase the potential for the individual to feel shy

in that particular encounter.








The present study examined the effects of three such

variables upon shyness. Subjects identified as high or low

in Fear of Negative Evaluation (Watson & Friend, 1969)

were led to believe that the possession of a particular

(bogus) trait was associated with the ability to make favor-

able impressions upon others. The nature of this trait and

its accompanying behaviors was either described to subjects

or remained highly ambiguous. Thus, subjects either did or

did not know how they could behave in order to make a highly

favorable impression. Based upon a bogus personality test,

subjects were then given feedback indicating that they were

high, average, or low on this trait or they were given no

information about their ability to make good first impres-

sions. Subjects then interacted with another individual

for five minutes, after which they completed self-report

measures tapping, among other things, shyness. In addition,

the subject was rated by the other individual regarding

apparent shyness and other measures, and recorded tapes of

subjects' conversations were coded for indices of shyness.

Based upon the theory presented above, it was predicted

that:

a. Self-reported shyness, others' ratings of shyness,

and verbal indices of shyness would increase as a function

of Fear of Negative Evaluation, the ambiguity of the image

ostensibly associated with making good impressions, and the

negativity of the feedback regarding one's ability to make

good impressions. Because these factors are proposed to be




46



multiplicatively related to shyness, the theory would pre-

dict (statistically speaking) a main effect of each factor,

three two-way interactions, and a three-way interaction of

the variables on measures of shyness.

b. Subjects' reported shyness would be correlated

with their expressed self-presentational and evaluation

concerns.


M














CHAPTER II

METHOD


Subjects

One-hundred and twenty-eight male and 128 female under-

graduate students served as subjects in partial fulfillment

of the experimental participation requirement of an intro-

ductory psychology course. They were run in same-sex pairs

by one of two male or two female experimenters.
Procedure

The two subjects in each experimental session initially

reported to separate rooms to prevent them from conversing

with one another prior to the start of the study. After

both subjects had arrived, the experimenter escorted them

into the laboratory and seated them in chairs that were

spaced .51 m. (20 in.) apart (at the nearest front legs) and

angled toward one another at 1000. A microphone on a floor

stand stood .56 m. (22 in.) directly in front of each chair.

Because the responses of two interacting subjects are

not independent, it was decided that only one subject per

session (randomly designated as the experimental subject)

would receive the experimental manipulations and complete

the dependent self-report measures. The other (nonexperi-

mental) subject received no manipulations, but otherwise









participated fully in the experiment as described below

and subsequently provided ratings of the experimental

subject.

Subjects were told that the study was an investigation

of certain factors that affect the kinds of first impressions

people form of one another when they.first meet. Subjects

were informed that they would first complete a background

information questionnaire, then interact with one another

in a five-minute "getting acquainted" conversation. After-

wards, they would complete questionnaires on which they

would rate and give their impressions of one another. The

use of this cover story was designed to insure that sub-

jects were at least moderately motivated to make a favorable

impression upon one another during the five-minute conver-

sation. The initial instructions given to subjects may be

found in Appendix A.

After signing informed consent slips, subjects were

placed in separate rooms to complete the "background" ques-

tionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of Watson and

Friend's (1969) Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) and Social

Avoidance and Distress (SAD) scales, and a shyness self-

report item. The FNE is a 30 item true-false scale that

measures apprehension about others' evaluations and distress

over receiving negative evaluations from others. The SAD

is a 28 item, true-false scale that measures the degree to

which respondents experience anxiety and distress in social

encounters and tend to avoid or withdraw prematurely from








social interactions. Both scales have high internal con-

sistency (.94 for both FNE and SAD) and adequate test-

retest reliability (.78 for FNE, .68 for SAD) and strong

evidence of construct and predictive validity (e.g., Friend

& Gilbert, 1973; Smith & Saranson, 1975; Watson & Friend,

1969).

In addition, subjects were asked to respond to the

item, "In general, how shy of a person do you consider your-

self to be," on a 15-point scale with six scale labels.

Pilkonis (1976, 1977a, 1977b) found this item to be quite

effective in discriminating individual differences in

"chronic" shyness. The full introductory questionnaire may

be found in Appendix B.

After subjects completed the questionnaire, they were

given instruction sheets (see Appendix C) explaining the

second phase of the study. The instructions given to the

nonexperimental subject merely stated that the subjects

would momentarily interact with one another for five minutes,

afterwards completing questionnaires giving their impres-

sions of each other. Subjects were admonished not to talk

about the study in progress, but, otherwise, told that they

could discuss whatever they wished. This prevented subjects

from learning they were serving in different conditions of

the design.

In addition to the above information, the instruction

sheet given to experimental subjects explained that the

present study was investigating a (ficticious) trait called








adaptive differentiation, that had purportedly.been found

to be an important determinant of the kinds of first im-

pressions people make on each other. Experimental subjects

were told that people who rank high in adaptive differentia-

tion tend to be better liked, make more favorable impres-

sions, are evaluated more positively by others, and so

forth. The sheet also noted that the researchers expected

people who are high in adaptive differentiation to be eval-

uated more positively and liked better by other subjects in

the present study than those low in adaptive differentiation.

In addition, the instruction sheet introduced the image

ambiguity manipulation. After being told that adaptive

differentiation is associated with making good first impres-

sions, subjects in the high ambiguity condition were simply

told that further discussion of the trait would be withheld

until the conclusion of the study. Subjects in the low

ambiguity condition were told that people who are high in

adaptive differentiation tend to be interested in other

people, smile frequently, are optimistic, open-minded, and

appear well-adjusted to others. These behaviors were selec-

ted as ostensibly associated with adaptive differentiation

because (a) they are not uncommon ones for interacting

strangers to perform so that subjects in the high ambiguity

condition might be as likely to perform them as those in

the low ambiguity condition, and (b) they are simple enough

that most people could attempt to appear in such ways if

they desired. Thus, subjects in the low ambiguity condition








believed that they had some idea of how to appear adaptively

differentiated if they so desired, whether or not they

actually ranked high in the trait.

After an appropriate delay, the experimenter returned

to the experimental subject only and, explaining that most

subjects are interested in how they performed on the initial

questionnaire, he/she had quickly scored the subjects' re-

sponses. The experimenter then gave the subject a score-

sheet (see Appendix D) ostensibly reflecting their scores

on the questionnaire, but explained that he/she could not

discuss the subjects' scores in detail until the conclusion

of the study. These scoresheets contained the feedback ma-

nipulation.

For subjects in the high, average, and low feedback

conditions, the scoresheets contained three scores, each

expressed as a percentile. Two of the scores, labeled

"thematicism" and "interpersonal acuity" were included

merely as filler items and always showed the scores of 56

and 83, respectively. The third score on the sheets was

labeled "adaptive differentiation," the same trait that sub-

jects believed was associated with making favorable impres-

sions upon others. Subjects in the high feedback condition

received an adaptive differentiation score of 931, those in

the average feedback condition a score of 60%, and those in

the low feedback condition a score of 23%. In addition, one-

fourth of the subjects received no feedback regarding their








adaptive differentiation scores, although they received

the other two filler scores (no feedback condition).

After experimental subjects had viewed their score-

sheets, both subjects were brought together and told they

would be allowed to interact for five minutes while the

experimenter left the room. After reminding subjects that

they would give their impressions of one another after the

conversation, the experimenter started the tape recorder

and left the room.

At the end of five minutes, the experimenter returned,

placed the subjects in separate rooms again, and administered

the questionnaires containing the dependent measures. For

the experimental subject, this questionnaire (see Appendix

E) asked how shy and relaxed the subject felt during the

conversation, how good of an impression the subjects thought

they had made on the other person, how hard subjects tried

to appear adaptively differentiated, how concerned subjects

had been with making a good impression on the other subject,

how well subjects felt they were able to control the im-

pressions the other subject formed of them, how shy they

thought the other subject was, and how much they liked

the other subject. Two additional items assessed the effec-

tiveness of the manipulations. All questions were answered

on 15-point scales.

The questionnaire for the nonexperimental subjects (see

Appendix F) asked how shy they thought the other (i.e., ex-

perimental) subject was, how relaxed the other subject







appeared, how much they liked the other subject, how pos-

itive their overall impression of the other subject was,

how comfortable they felt interacting with the other sub-

ject, and how much eye contact the other subject gave them

during the conversation. All questions were answered on 15-

point scales. In addition, they were asked to rate the ex-

perimental subjects on six 7-point bipolar adjective scales:

optimistic/pessimistic, open-minded/close-minded, poorly

adjusted/well adjusted, smiled a lot/did not smile at all,

friendly/unfriendly, and interested in others/not interested

in others. These adjectives tapped the characteristics that

had been described to subjects in the low ambiguity condition

as indicative of adaptively differentiated people in order

to determine whether the content of the ambiguity manipu-

lation systematically affected subjects' behavior.

After subjects completed their respective questionnaires,

they were brought together and fully debriefed, with the

major hypotheses and the necessity of all deceptions ex-

plained in detail.

The tapes of the subjects' conversations were coded by

trained judges for four measures: (a) which subject broke

the initial silence after the experimenter left the room,

(b) the length of time each subject talked, (c) the number

of questions each subject asked the other, and (d) the

judges' ratings of how shy each subject sounded to them.













CHAPTER III

RESULTS


As described above, three kinds of data were collected

regarding the experimental subjects: self-reports on the

post-interaction questionnaire, ratings by nonexperimental

subjects, and verbal responses coded from tapes of the five-

minute conversations. Each of these will be discussed in

turn. Unless otherwise indicated, reported analyses are for

2 (low/high FNE) X 2 (low/high ambiguity) X 4 (low/average/

high/no feedback) unweighted-means analyses of variance.1

Manipulation Checks and FNE Data

Ambiguity Manipulation

An analysis of variance performed on subjects' responses

to the question, "How clear is it to you how people who are

high in adaptive differentiation tend to act?," revealed

only a main effect of image ambiguity, F (1, 111) = 5.49,

p < .02. As hoped, subjects in the low ambiguity condition

(M = 9.9) indicated that it was significantly more clear to

them how adaptively differentiated people tend to act than

subjects in the high ambiguity condition (M = 8.5), thus

demonstrating the effectiveness of the ambiguity manipulation.


1The number of subjects serving in each cell of the
design may be found in Appendix G.








It should be noted, however, that even subjects in the low

ambiguity condition indicated that it was only "moderately

clear" to them how adaptively differentiated people tend to

act, a reasonable response given what they had been told

about the trait.

Feedback Manipulation

Subjects' responses'to the feedback manipulation check,

"How high would you rate yourself on adaptive differentiation?,"

revealed no effects of feedback, either alone or in inter-

action with other variables. The failure of the feedback

manipulation to affect the manipulation check item is,

of course, problematic.

There are a number of reasons why this may have occurred,

in addition to the obvious possibility that the feedback ma-

nipulation itself did not work. First, it is possible that

subjects may have interpreted the manipulation check as

reading, "How high would you rate yourself on adaptive dif-

ferentiation?," so that their responses to it reflected their

own estimates of their level of adaptive differentiation,

irrespective of the feedback they received. Even if this is

the case, however, it indicates that subjects did not place

enough stock in their adaptive differentiation scores to in-

corporate that information into their self-ratings of adap-

tive differentiation.

Alternatively, subjects in the low feedback condition

may have dismissed their low adaptive differentiation scores

as either bogus or inaccurate. However, no cases of









suspiciousness were observed, and subjects in the low feed-

back cell often appeared genuinely relieved when they later

learned that their feedback scores were bogus, thus casting

doubt upon this possibility.

A third possible explanation for the failure of the

manipulation check is that, although.experimental subjects

initially accepted the feedback as veridical, subsequent

interaction with the other subject, which was nearly always

pleasant, may have convinced subjects in the low feedback

condition that they had made a reasonably good impression

after all, diminishing the effects of low feedback. Analy-

sis of the item, "How good of an impression do you think you

made on the other subject?," also revealed no effects of the

feedback manipulation, indicating that there was no relation-

ship between the bogus feedback subjects received and how

they later perceived they came across during the interaction.

As will be seen, despite the failure of the manipula-

tion check, effects of feedback (in interaction with other

variables) were obtained on a number of items, particularly

ratings by nonexperimental subjects and experimental sub-

jects' verbal responses as coded from the tapes. Thus, al-

though the manipulation was weak and had little effect on

experimental subjects' self-reports, it seems to have been

strong enough to have some type of effect on certain de-

pendent measures.

Although no effects of feedback were obtained on the

feedback manipulation check, a main effect of image ambiguity








was obtained on this item, F (1, 111) = 6.26, p < .02.

Examination of means shows that low ambiguity subjects (M =

10.5) rated themselves higher on adaptive differentiation

than high ambiguity subjects (M = 9.6). What this indicates

is that, without additional information regarding the nature

of adaptive differentiation, subjects in the high ambiguity

condition were more moderate or cautious in their self-

ratings, whereas low ambiguity subjects, who knew how adap-

tively differentiated people tend to act, rated themselves

higher on the trait. The implications of this main effect

of ambiguity for the interpretation of other effects will

become clear as we proceed.

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the success of

the feedback manipulation in altering subjects' perceptions

of their abilities to make favorable impressions, it seems

that a useful secondary analysis would be to split subjects

into groups in terms of their self-ratings of adaptive dif-

ferentiation (as indicated on the manipulation check item)

and analyze the relationship between the perception of one's

standing on a trait ostensibly associated with making good

impressions and the dependent measures. Although such an

analysis precludes drawing causal interpretations of the

data, it may serve to provide additional information about

the relationship between the belief that one has the ability

to come across well to others and shyness. Such an analysis

will be discussed at several points below.








Fear of Negative Evaluation: Subject Data

Subjects' scores on the Fear of Negative Evaluation

Scale spanned the entire possible range from 0 to 30, with

a mean of 13.6, a standard deviation of 7.64, and a median

of 16. This compares to Watson and Friend's (1969) norms

of a mean of 15.5, standard deviation of 8.62, and median

of 16. Kudar-Richardson 20 test of homogeneity revealed a

reliability coefficient of .92, which is quite close to the

KR-20 of .94 obtained by Watson and Friend.

A median split was performed on subjects' FNE scores

(subjects falling on the median were classified with those

below it) and subjects identified as either low (n = 68) or

high (n = 60) in FNE. Subjects' standing on the FNE scale

(low or high) was subsequently entered in the analyses below.

Experimental Subjects' Self-Reports

Self-Reports of Shyness and Relaxation

It was predicted that subjects' self-reports of shyness

and relaxation would vary as a function of feedback, image

ambiguity, and FNE. Analysis of subjects' responses to the

item, "How shy did you feel during the conversation?,"

showed only the predicted main effect of FNE, although it

failed to reach a conventional level of significance, F (1,

11?) = 2.92, j < .00. (The product-moment correlation


1As a rule of thumb, alpha was set at the conventional
level of .05. However, results with an obtained signifi-
cance of p < .10 will be reported if they involve predicted
effects.








between subjects' FNE scores and self-reported shyness was

+.28, E < .001. ) Contrary to predictions, no other effects

of the independent variables were obtained on this item.

Subjects were also asked, "How relaxed did you feel

during the conversation?" It should be noted that shyness

and relaxation should not be regarded as purely opposite

experiences. Although all shy people should generally re-

port feeling less relaxed, a failure to feel relaxed in an

encounter may arise for reasons unrelated to shyness; one

may be interacting with an overbearing braggart, for exam-

ple. Thus, one would expect a moderate correlation between

self-reports of shyness and relaxation, which is the case,

r = -.59, P < .001.

A three-way ANOVA performed on the relaxation item re-

vealed main effects of image ambiguity, F (1, 112) = 3.48,

P < .06, and FNE, F (1, 112) = 4.56, p < .04, and an ambi-

guity X FNE interaction, F (1, 112) = 3.45, e < .06. In-

spection of means shows that, as predicted, low ambiguity

subjects (M = 11.6) felt more relaxed than high ambiguity

subjects (M = 10.7), and low FNE subjects felt more relaxed

than highs (M's = 11.6 and 10.7 for low and high FNE's,

respectively). The correlation between FNE and self-re-

ported relaxation was -.27, P < .01.

Examination of cell means for the interaction (see

Table 1) shows that both main effects are pulled primarily


1All reported r's are pooled within-cell correlations.


















Table 1

Self-Reports of Relaxation
as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE


Fear of Negative Evaluation


Ambiguity Low High


Low 11.6 11.5

High 11.6b 9.9ab



Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05
(tests of simple effects).








high FNE's under conditions of high ambiguity, who felt

significantly less relaxed than either low FNE subjects in

the high ambiguity condition and high FNE subjects in

the low ambiguity cell, P's < .05, by tests of simple effects.

Put another way, low FNE subjects, who were not particularly

concerned with others' evaluations anyway, appeared not to

be bothered when they were unsure of how to behave to make

the most favorable impression, whereas high FNE's became

more uptight under conditions of high ambiguity.

Given the failure of the feedback manipulation to pro-

duce significant effects on the manipulation check item, it

was decided to trichotomize subjects in terms of their re-

sponses on the manipulation check ("How high would you rate

yourself on adaptive differentiation?"). Thus, three groups

were created that differed in their self-ratings of adaptive

differentiation, the trait that was ostensibly associated

with making good impressions on others. The means for the

three groups on the manipulation check were 7.6, 10.4,

and 12.8 for the low, medium, and high self-ratings of

adaptive differentiation groups, respectively.

If it can be shown that self-reported shyness and relax-

ation vary as a function of perceived possession of a trait

supposedly associated with making favorable impressions, we

will have some basis for inferring the proposed relationship

between self-presentational concerns and social anxiety. Of

course, it is important to emphasize that, since one's per-

ceptions of one's own attributes may themselves be affected








by numerous other variables that may themselves be associated

with shyness, we will have no basis for concluding that the

belief that one ranks low on the ability to come across well

to others causes shyness or decreased relaxation. Neverthe-

less, we may conclude that self-evaluations regarding the

ability to make favorable impressions from whatever source--

situational manipulations, low self-esteem, veridical self-

perceptions, etc.--are associated with social anxiety.

A three-way ANOVA employing self-ratings of adaptive

differentiation, image ambiguity, and FNE as factors was

performed on subjects' self-reports of shyness and relax-

ation. (It should be noted that self-ratings of adaptive

differentiation were not correlated with FNE scores, r =

-.15, > .05, so that the two individual difference factors

may be regarded as independent.) This analysis performed on

the shyness measure revealed a significant main effect of

adaptive differentiation self-rating, F (2, 116) = 4.05,

p < .02, and a marginally significant main effect of FNE,

F (1, 116) = 3.18, 2 < .08. Examination of the self-rating

main effect shows that, in support of the model, self-

ratings of adaptive differentiation were negatively related

to self-reported shyness. Subjects who rated themselves

highest on adaptive differentiation indicated they felt

significantly less shy (M = 3.0) than those rating them-

selves lowest on adaptive differentiation (M = 4.8), p < .05

by Duncan's test, with those rating themselves in the

middle on adaptive differentiation falling midway (M = 4.1)








and not differing significantly from the high and low cells.

(The correlation between self-ratings of adaptive differ-

entiation and shyness was -.24, p < .01.) As before, the

marginally significant main effect of FNE showed that high

FNE's reported feeling more shy than lows.

Symmetrical effects were obtained on a similar analysis

of the relaxation item. A main effect of adaptive differ-

entiation self-rating, F (2, 116) = 3.90, P < .03, revealed

that self-reported relaxation in the encounter was signif-

icantly greater for subjects rating themselves highest (M =

12.2) or moderate (M = 11.6) in adaptive differentiation

than those rating themselves lowest on adaptive differenti-

ation (M = 10.3), P's < .05. (The correlation between self-

ratings of adaptive differentiation and self-reported relax-

ation was +.32, p < .001.) A significant main effect of

FNE, F (1, 116) = 4.58, p < .04, again showed that low FNE

subjects reported being more relaxed than highs.

It may be observed that, when self-ratings of adaptive

differentiation are substituted for feedback as a factor

in the analysis of the relaxation item, the previously

obtained marginally significant main effect of ambiguity

and the ambiguity X FNE interaction disappear. This is re-

lated to the fact that, as mentioned earlier, a main effect

of ambiguity was obtained on the feedback manipulation check.

What this shows is that subjects' self-ratings of adaptive

differentiation were partially a function of their ambi-

guity condition designation. In fact, the correlation








between subjects' self-reports of adaptive differentiation

and ratings of how clear it was how adaptively differentiated

people tend to act was +.38, p < .001. Thus, when self-

ratings of adaptive differentiation are added as a factor

in the ANOVA, this variable accounts for variance originally

attributable to image ambiguity. This does not appear to

detract from the ambiguity and ambiguity X FNE effects ob-

tained earlier, but merely suggests that one variable that

affected subjects' self-ratings of adaptive differentiation

was image ambiguity.

In short, subjects' self-reports of shyness and relax-

ation were found to vary as a function of their self-ratings

on a fictional trait they believed was associated with

making favorable impressions. Although these effects are

correlational in nature, they are clearly in line with the

hypotheses.

Additional correlational data also support the hypoth-

esis that self-reported shyness and relaxation are associ-

ated with one's self-presentational concerns. The items

shown in Table 2 demonstrate significant, although some-

times minimal,correlations--all in the appropriate direction--

between the four measures of self-presentational concern/

security obtained in the study and self-reports of shyness

and relaxation. It should be observed that only the first

item in Table 2 correlates significantly with subjects'

self-ratings of chronic shyness. This suggests that the

latter three relationships shown in the Table are not














0
urn


H )






00

0


H
4)
Cr









U)
U)






















0






















4-
e


*
*
























0
\D


I.






































4
0
4-







10
h


*H















\0
,i
OP
00)





t 0








O-
o ,




a,
so












o
0 0


O
0
+








H
r-4
O
+









,>--

+







0
0
o













4-,
r *o


0 m
*H CU
, *Da








o
C ,















.r-
oP
H



0










Oi-


0
r--






















*


+-
co



























41



d4


0


'0

0-p
o-






'0-0
'
S0

*rH









0
O


0)
ar-j

4-
0Of






0
H H



OO










4
0 ,

















o)4-
0


4-u
0







E -
o
'0 -0
EP








mediated by subjects' general level of shyness or self-

presentational concern, but are specific to shyness in this

particular encounter.

Motivation to Make a Favorable Impression and Perceived

Success of Doing So

In order to assess the effect of the independent vari-

ables upon subjects' attempts to come across well to the

other subject, experimental subjects were asked (a) "How

concerned were you with making a good impression on the oth-

er subject during the conversation?," and (b) "How hard did

you try to appear adaptively differentiated to the other

subject?"

As would be expected, a main effect of FNE was obtained

on both items. High Fear of Negative Evaluation subjects

indicated that they were more concerned with making a good

impression, F (1, 112) = 7.66, p < .01 (means were 8.7 and

6.7 for high and low FNE's, respectively), and tried harder

to appear adaptively differentiated than lows, F (1, 112) =

11.32, < .001 (means were 8.2 and 5.9 for highs and lows,

respectively). The correlations between FNE and the two

items were: +.25 (concerned with making a good impression)

and +.31 (trying to appear adaptively differentiated), p's

< .01.

In addition, an ambiguity X FNE interaction was ob-

tained on the latter item, F (1, 112) = 6.91, p < .01. As

can be seen in Table 3, low and high FNE subjects tried

equally hard to appear adaptively differentiated when


M







Table 3

Subjects' Attempts to Appear Adaptively Differentiated
as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE



Fear of Negative Evaluation


Ambiguity Low High


Low 5.4a 9.5ab

High 6.4 6.9b


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.






Table 4

Subjects' Self-Reported Ability to Control Impressions
as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE



Fear of Negative Evaluation


Ambiguity Low High


Low 7.8 9.1a

High 8.9 7.6,


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








ambiguity was high, but high FNE's tried significantly hard-

er to appear adaptively differentiated than lows when ambi-

guity was low, p < .05 by tests of simple effects. Also,

high FNE's tried harder to appear adaptively differentiated

when ambiguity was low rather than high, p < .05, whereas

low FNE's attempts to appear adaptively differentiated did

not differ as a function'of the ambiguity manipulation, p > .05.

Interestingly, an ambiguity X FNE interaction was also

obtained on responses to the item, "To what degree did you

feel you were able to control the impressions the other sub-

ject formed of you?," F (1, 111) = 4.39, p < .04. Inspec-

tion of cell means (see Table 4) shows that, while high

FNE's felt significantly better able to control their impres-

sions when image ambiguity was low rather than high, p < .05,

no difference was obtained between low and high ambiguity

conditions for low FNE's, p > .05.

These findings raise a noteworthy point. Information

regarding the nature of the image likely to result in favor-

able reactions from others (i.e., low image ambiguity) is of

no help in attaining those reactions unless the individual

attempts to use it. High FNE subjects, who were more moti-

vated to secure a favorable evaluation from the other sub-

ject, tried harder to appear adaptively differentiated,

felt better able to control their impressions, and felt as

relaxed as low FNE's when image ambiguity was low. Thus,

although their greater concern over evaluation would seem

to predispose high FNE's to become more socially anxious








than lows, it also motivates them to manage their impres-

sions in ways that reduce their self-presentational con-

cerns. Only when the nature of the valued image is ambi-

guous do high FNE's appear to become more anxious than lows.

When subjects are divided into three groups on the

basis of their adaptive differentiation self-ratings, a

main effect of self-rating is obtained on the above item

(i.e., "To what degree did you feel you were able to

control the impressions the other subject formed of you?"),

F (2, 115) = 3.26, p < .05. Inspection of means shows

that subjects who rated themselves highest (M = 9.3) or

medium (M = 9.0) on adaptive differentiation indicated they

felt significantly better able to control the impressions

the other subject formed of them than subjects who rated

themselves lowest on adaptive differentiation (M = 7.4),

P's < .05 by Duncan's test. It makes good sense that peo-

ple who think they possess a trait associated with the

ability to make good impressions would perceive they were

better able to control their impressions than people who

rate themselves low on such a trait.

Ratings of the Other Subject

No effects of the independent variables, either alone

or in combination, were obtained on responses to the items,

"How shy do you think the other (i.e., nonexperimental)

subject is?," and "How much did you like the other sub-

ject?," all p's > .05. However, when subjects are split








into three groups on the basis of their adaptive differ-

entiation self-ratings, a main effect of self-rating is

obtained on the liking item, F (2, 116) = 4.10, p < .02.

Subjects rating themselves highest in adaptive differenti-

ation (M = 12.1) liked the other subject more than subjects

rating themselves lowest on adaptive differentiation (M =

10.6), p < .05, with thode rating themselves in the middle

falling in between (M = 11.7).

Interestingly, ratings of how shy the other subject

appeared correlated with both self-ratings of chronic

shyness, r = +.29, and with self-ratings of shyness during

the conversation, r = +.40, E's < .001. Thus, there seems

to be a degree of egocentrism in people's judgements of how

shy others are: there is a tendency to assume others are

like oneself.

Ratings by Nonexperimental Subjects

Following the five-minute conversation, nonexperimental

subjects answered six questions about the experimental sub-

jects and rated them on six 7-point bipolar adjective scales

(see Appendix F for questionnaire).

Ratings of Shyness and Relaxation

Table 5 shows the correlations between nonexperimental

subjects' ratings of how shy and relaxed experimental sub-

jects appeared to be and experimental subjects' self-reports

of shyness and relaxation. As can be seen, there is no

relationship between shyness ratings by the nonexperimental

subjects and experimental subjects' self-reports of shyness,


I


















H U)
o co



C1 M




40 I 0c.

o- C CC7
U) U) --)
.C'C
0 0 IQ C7\
0 0
I O 0 0 0












C:d E -, *-
0 q O4 N -H
t o > +















E- U) + I
(D *U )o














C U)





oX c
U ) C bU)









o o o
n a a d + oo





















U -P r VV



f U) ^ H *i
- 0: M f O 0
























)rO I 4-
SI C M + 1












Ei P bO 0 >
C fCO




0 t4-





















x 0 0
o o n







0 Pa *r
SE r P V V




f 0 o (8 cc
0 -* *i *

o cC ta O
a, K M
Ek i: plp








and only minimal correspondence between ratings and self-

reports of relaxation. Overall, nonexperimental subjects

(M = 6.00) overestimated how shy experimental subjects were

(M = 4.05), t (127) = -5.70, P < .05, and underestimated how

relaxed they were (M's = 11.3 and 10.4 for experimental and

nonexperimental subjects, respectively), t (127) = 3.00, P

< .05. In short, there is only minimal correspondence be-
tween experimental subjects' self-reports and nonexperi-

mental subjects' ratings of them.

A main effect of ambiguity, F (1, 112) = 4.27, p < .04,

and a marginally significant main effect of feedback, F

(3, 112) = 2.54, p < .06, were obtained on nonexperimental
subjects' ratings of how shy they thought the experimental

subject was. The patterns of means for both of these effects

were contrary to predictions. First, nonexperimental sub-

jects rated experimental subjects as more shy in the low

ambiguity (M = 6.6) than in the high ambiguity condition

(M = 5.5). (It will be remembered that experimental sub-

jects reported that they were more relaxed in the low than

high ambiguity condition.) It is possible that subjects in

the low ambiguity condition, who may have been monitoring

their behavior more closely in order to appear adaptively

differentiated, appeared more tenuous and awkward, although

they felt more relaxed since they perceived that they had a

degree of control over the impressions the other was forming

of them.








The pattern of means for the marginally significant

main effect of feedback were also puzzling: experimental

subjects in the high and no feedback condition were judged

to be most shy (M's = 6.8 and 6.7, respectively), those

receiving low feedback were judged as being least shy (M

= 5.1), and those receiving average feedback were rated in

between (M = 5.5). Possible explanations for this effect

will be discussed in detail below.

Analysis of nonexperimental subjects' responses to the

item, "How relaxed would you say the other subject was dur-

ing the conversation?," revealed only a marginally signifi-

cant feedback X FNE interaction, F (3, 112) = 2.52, < .06.

The means for this effect are shown in Table 6. Tests of

simple effects reveal a significant simple main effect of

feedback for low FNE subjects, p < .05. Subsequent multiple

comparisons showed that low FNE subjects were judged to be

significantly less relaxed after they had received low feed-

back than either average or no feedback, p's < .05, with

the high feedback condition not differing significantly from

the others. Thus, low feedback regarding adaptive differ-

entiation was associated with reduced relaxation, although

only for low FNE's. Why a similar effect was not obtained

for high FNE subjects is not clear.

No effects of self-ratings of adaptive differentiation

were obtained on nonexperimental subjects' ratings of shy-

ness or relaxation when experimental subjects were trichot-

omized according to their self-ratings and that factor en-

tered into the analysis.


M














Table 6

Nonexperimental Subjects' Ratings of How Relaxed
the Experimental Subject was as a Function of
Feedback and FNE


Feedback
Fear of Negative
Evaluation Low Average High None


Low 8.9ab 11.4a 9.8 11.5b

High 10.6 10.5 10.1 9.6


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








Evaluations of the Experimental Subjects

Nonexperimental subjects' evaluations of the experi-

mental subjects were examined as a function of feedback,

image ambiguity, and FNE, although no hypotheses were ad-

vanced regarding their effects.

A three-way interaction of feedback X ambiguity X FNE

was obtained on responses to the items: (a) "How much did

you like the other subject?," F (3, 112) = 2.51, p < .06,

and (b) "What was your overall impression of the other sub-

ject?," F (3, 112) = 2.61, P < .05. Because these two items

are correlated (r = +.57, E < .0001), they will be dis-

cussed together.
Examining the "liking" item first (see Table 7), tests

of simple effects revealed that low FNE subjects in the high

feedback/low ambiguity condition were liked less than (a)

other low FNE subjects under conditions of low ambiguity,

(b) low FNE subjects in the high feedback/high ambiguity

condition, and (c) high FNE's in the high feedback/low ambi-

guity condition, p's < .05.

Inspection of means for the "overall impression" item

(see Table 8) reveals a strikingly similar pattern. Again,

low FNE's in the high feedback/low ambiguity condition were

evaluated least positively, significantly less so than

(a) low FNE's in the low ambiguity condition who received

low or average feedback, (b) low FNE's in the high feedback/

high ambiguity condition, and (c) high FNE's in the high

feedback/low ambiguity cell, P's < .05.













Table 7

Nonexperimental Subjects' Ratings of How Well
They Liked the Experimental Subject
as a Function of Feedback, Ambiguity, and FNE


Low Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 11.4a .9b 9.4abde 11.7

High 10.7 11.4 11.3d 10.3


High Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 11.9 12.0 12.1 10.8
e
High 11.1 12.4 11.0 11.9


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.
The following two-way simple interactions were significant
by p < .05: feedback X ambiguity within low FNE, ambiguity
X FNE within high feedback.













Table 8

Nonexperimental Subjects' Impressions of
Experimental Subjects as a Function of
Feedback, Ambiguity, and FNE


Low Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 12.2 13.0b 9.6abcd 12.0

High 11.3 11.3 11.8 12.1


High Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 12.3 12.4 12.6d 10.8

High 12.0 12.6 11.5 11.1


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.
The following two-way simple interactions were significant
by p < .05: feedback X ambiguity within low FNE, ambiguity
X FNE within high feedback, feedback X FNE within low ambi-
guity.








Thus, experimental subjects in the single cell that

was predicted to result in the least shyness were liked

least and made the worst overall impression. It seems pos-

sible that low Fear of Negative Evaluation subjects, rela-

tively unconcerned with the other's evaluation, made little

attempt to get the other to like them when they already be-

lieved they had the attributes necessary to make a favorable

impression and knew kow to act in order to make one.

Interestingly, however, there was no correlation between

nonexperimental subjects' evaluations of the experimental

subject, either in terms of liking or overall impression,

and experimental subjects' ratings of how good of an impres-

sion they thought they had made on the nonexperimental sub-

ject, r's < .10, p's > .05. It seems that people may not be

particularly good at judging how well they come across to

strangers in an initial conversation.

To assess the effect of the experimental subjects' ex-

perimental condition upon nonexperimental subjects' reactions

to the encounter, nonexperimental subjects were asked, "How

comfortable did you feel during your conversation with the

other subject?" This item revealed a significant feedback

X FNE interaction, F (3, 112) = 3.06, p < .03. Tests of

simple effects (see Table 9) showed that nonexperimental sub-

jects felt significantly less comfortable interacting with


1No effects of subjects' self-ratings of adaptive dif-
ferentiation were obtained on either the liking or overall
impression items.
















Table 9

Nonexperimental Subjects' Ratings of How Comfortable They
Felt During the Interaction as a Function of
Feedback and FNE


Feedback


FNE Low Average High No


Low 11.9a 10.1 9.5abc 11.7b

High 10.7 11.9 11.7c 10.4


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








low FNE subjects in the high feedback than in the low or

no feedback conditions, or high FNE subjects in the high

feedback condition, p's < .05. Although the effect was not

qualified by image ambiguity, it bears some resemblence to

the personal evaluation items just discussed. Low FNE sub-

jects who received high feedback appear to have been behaving

in a way that produced adverse reactions in nonexperimental

subjects.

Nonexperimental subjects' ratings of comfort in the

encounter were then analyzed as a function of experimental

subjects' self-ratings of adaptive differentiation, image

ambiguity, and FNE, revealing a significant three-way inter-

action, F (2, 116) = 7.96, p < .001. (See Table 10.) Low

FNE subjects rating themselves high on adaptive differen-

tiation and serving in the low ambiguity cell made nonex-

perimental subjects feel significantly less comfortable than

(a) low FNE's rating themselves high on adaptive differenti-

ation, but serving in the high ambiguity cell and (b) high

FNE's in the high self-rating/low ambiguity condition, p's

< .05. In addition, nonexperimental subjects felt less

comfortable when interacting with high FNE subjects in the

high self-rating/high ambiguity condition than with (a) low

FNE's in the high self-rating/high ambiguity cell, (b) high

FNE's in the high self-rating/low ambiguity condition, and

(c) high FNE's in the high ambiguity condition who rated

themselves either low or medium on adaptive differentiation,

p's < .05. The tendency for low FNE subjects in the low















Table 10

Nonexperimental Subjects' Ratings of How Comfortable They
Felt During the Interaction as a Function of
Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation,
Ambiguity and FNE


Low Fear of Negative Evaluation


Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation


Ambiguity Low Medium High


Low 10.9 11.7 9.4ab

High 11.1 10.0 1.9ac


High Fear of Negative Evaluation


Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation


Ambiguity Low Medium High


Low 11.3 10.5 12.8bd

High 11.0 11.3 6.7cdef


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.
The following two-way simple interactions were significant
by p < .05: ambiguity X FNE within high self-rating, FNE
X self-rating within high ambiguity, ambiguity X self-
rating within high FNE.







ambiguity condition who rated themselves high on adaptive

differentiation to make nonexperimental subjects feel less

comfortable parallels previous effects in which subjects who

presumably were in the "optimal" self-presentational con-

dition had adverse effects on nonexperimental subjects.

The finding that high FNE's who rated themselves high on

adaptive differentiation 'under conditions of high ambiguity

had an even stronger effect in that regard is more puzzling.

Miscellaneous Ratings

A three-way ANOVA performed on the item, "How much eye

contact did the other subject give you during the conver-

sation?," revealed a significant ambiguity X FNE interaction,

F (1, 112) = 4.12, p < .05 (see Table 11). Tests of simple

effects showed that, under conditions of low ambiguity, high

FNE subjects were judged to have engaged in more eye contact

than low FNE's, 2 < .05. However, low and high FNE's did

not differ in judged eye contact in the high ambiguity con-

dition, p > .05. Also, low FNE's engaged in somewhat more

eye contact when ambiguity was high rather than low, p <

.07, while high FNE's showed a nonsignificant trend in the

opposite direction.

It will be recalled that subjects in the low ambiguity

condition had been given information regarding how adap-

tively differentiated people supposedly tend to act: "peo-

ple who rank high in adaptive differentiation tend to be

interested in other people, smile frequently, are optimistic,

are open-minded, and appear well-adjusted to others." To
















Table 11

Nonexperimental Subjects' Ratings of How Much
Eye Contact Experimental Subjects Gave Them
as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE


Fear of Negative Evaluation


Ambiguity Low High


Low 8.9a 10.5a

High 10.3 9.5


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








determine whether such information actually led low ambi-

guity subjects to act in such ways, and thus differently

than subjects in the high ambiguity condition, nonexper-

imental subjects were asked to rate them on six 7-point bi-

polar adjective scales that tapped the characteristics

described as indicative of adaptively differentiated people:

optimistic/pessimistic, open-minded/close-minded, poorly

adjusted/well adjusted, smiled a lot/did not smile at all,

friendly/unfriendly, and interested in others/not interested

in others. A multivariate analysis of variance performed on

the six scales revealed no effects of any independent vari-

ables, including image ambiguity, p's > .10. Thus, as hoped,

nonexperimental subjects did not detect differences in the

behavior of experimental subjects that could be directly

attributable to the content of the information given to

low ambiguity subjects. Thus, it may be assumed that ob-

tained differences in the ratings or behaviors of low versus

high ambiguity subjects are not due to specific differences

in their interpersonal behaviors as affected by lows' know-

ledge of how adaptively differentiated people tend to act.

Observational Data

Trained raters listened to the tapes of the five-minute

conversations between subjects and coded four pieces of in-

formation from each: (a) which subject in each session

broke the initial silence after the experimenter had left

the room and closed the door, (b) how long each subject








talked during the five minutes, (c) how many questions each

subject asked the other, and (d) an overall estimation of

how shy the raters thought the subjects "sounded," rated on

a 7-point scale. Ratings were available for only 126 of the

128 sessions. One session was lost due to an experimenter's

failure to record it, and another was excluded from the

analysis because of one subject's obvious attempt to sabo-

tage the recording.

Interrater reliabilities were computed for each of the

ratings across 40 randomly selected subjects. Raters worked

in pairs for these coding sessions, both raters recording

the data for each of the 40 subjects. Each of the four

measures demonstrated an acceptable degree of reliability:

(a) which subject initiated the conversation, 1.00; (b)

time spent talking, .94; (c) number of questions asked, .93;

and (d) ratings of perceived subject shyness, .74.

Initiation of Conversation

No effects of the independent variables were obtained

on chi-square analyses of whether or not the experimental

subject initiated the conversation after the experimenter

had left the room.

Time Spent Talking

A three-way ANOVA performed on the number of seconds

that experimental subjects talked during the conversation

revealed only a main effect of FNE, F (1, 110) = 4.62, p <

.04. As might be expected, low FNE subjects (M = 133.5








seconds) spoke longer than high FNE subjects (M = 117.0

seconds). The correlation between FNE and time spent talk-

ing was -.25, P < .01.

Because there was great variability in the total length

of time subjects in a given session conversed (i.e., sub-

jects in some sessions sat quietly for long portions of the

five minute period), it was decided to examine the propor-

tion of time each subject spoke, relative to the total

length of the conversation. Thus, each subject's speaking

time was divided by the total time that both subjects talked

in a given session, and this proportion submitted to a

three-way ANOVA. In addition to the main effect of FNE ob-

tained above, F (1, 110) = 3.96, P < .05, this analysis re-

vealed a significant feedback X ambiguity X FNE interaction,

F (3, 110) = 2.65, P < .05. (As before, low FNE's spoke
relatively more of the time than high FNE's--55% versus 49%

respectively.)

The proportions for the three-way interaction are shown

in Table 12. Under conditions of low image ambiguity, low

FNE subjects talked proportionally longer when feedback

was high than average, or when they received no feedback at

all, p's < .05. Low FNE subjects in the low feedback/low

ambiguity condition fell midway and did not differ from the

other cells. Also, after receiving high feedback regarding

their adaptive differentiation, low FNE subjects in the low

ambiguity condition talked more than low FNE's under high

ambiguity, and more than high FNE's in the high feedback/














Table 12

Proportion of Time Experimental Subjects Spoke as
a Function of Feedback, Ambiguity, and FNE



Low Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low .60 .50a .68abcd .50b

High .54 .61 .46c .50


High Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low .48 .57 .46d .43

High .48 .50 .51 .55


Note. Proportions sharing a common subscript differ by p <
.05. The following two-way simple interactions were
significant by p < .05: feedback X ambiguity within low
FNE, ambiguity X FNE within high feedback, feedback X FNE
within low ambiguity.








low ambiguity cell, p's < .05. Thus, the greatest amount

of talking, proportional to the total length of the con-

versation, occurred among low FNE subjects in the high feed-

back/low ambiguity condition--those subjects in the optimal

condition from a self-presentational perspective, as pre-

dicted. (These were also the subjects evaluated least

positively by nonexperimental subjects, a point to be dis-

cussed below.) However, there was no simple interaction of

feedback X ambiguity for high FNE's that showed decreased

talking in the low feedback/high ambiguity cell, as was

expected.

Subjects were then classified as low, medium, or high

on their self-ratings of adaptive differentiation, and

their time spent talking examined as a function of self-

ratings, ambiguity, and FNE. A self-rating of adaptive

differentiation X FNE interaction was obtained on the raw

number of seconds experimental subjects spoke, F (2, 114)

3.37, p < .04, and on the proportion of time that subjects

talked, relative to the length of the conversation, F

(2, 114) = 4.16, p < .02. The means and proportions for

these two effects are presented together in Table 13.

Tests of simple effects, followed by multiple compari-

sons for simple main effects, on the two items revealed

the same pattern of results. First, high FNE's talked more

than low FNE's when they thought they were high in adaptive

differentiation, but less when they thought they were medi-

um or low in adaptive differentiation, p's < .05. Also, low














Table 13

Time Spent Talking as a Function of Self-Ratings of
Adaptive Differentiation and FNE


Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation


FNE Low Medium High

Low 133.6 142.9 121.1
(55)a (.59)bd (.47)cd

High 110.4 118.3 145.6
(.47)ae (.51)b (59)e

Note. Numbers is parentheses refer to proportion of time
subjects talked, relative to total length of conversation.
Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








FNE's who rated themselves medium in adaptive differenti-

ation talked more than those who rated themselves high,

and high FNE's talked more when they rated themselves high

than low, p's < .05. Thus, when proportion of time spent

talking is examined as a function of self-ratings of adap-

tive differentiation, the expected pattern is obtained for

high FNE's, who demonstrated increased talking with higher

self-ratings. Low FNE's showed a different pattern in which

subjects rating themselves medium on adaptive differentiation

talked more than those rating themselves high. As will be

discussed below, low Fear of Negative Evaluation people

may interact with others most fully under moderate levels

of self-presentational concern.

Number of Questions Asked

An analysis of variance performed on the number of

questions asked by experimental subjects revealed a two-way

interaction of ambiguity X FNE, F (1, 110) = 4.17, < .05,

and a three-way interaction of feedback X ambiguity X FNE,

F (3, 110) = 3.22, P < .03. Examining the two-way effect

first (see Table 14), it can be seen that, whereas low FNE's

asked more questions than highs under conditions of high

ambiguity, p < .05, high and low FNE subjects did not differ

significantly when image ambiguity was low, p > .05.

Looking at the effects the other way, increasing ambiguity

nonsignificantly increased the number of questions asked by

low FNE's, p < .10, but significantly decreased the number














Table 14

Number of Questions Asked as a Function of
Ambiguity and FNE


Fear of Negative Evaluation


Ambiguity Low High


Low 7.5 7.9b

High 8.6a 6.3ab


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.








of questions asked by high FNE subjects, P < .05. This

suggests that image ambiguity may have different interper-

sonal consequences depending upon the degree to which the

individual is characteristically concerned with how he or

she appears to others.

Decomposition of the three-way interaction via tests of

simple effects (see Table 15) reveals that, under average

feedback conditions, low FNE subjects asked significantly

more questions when ambiguity was high rather than low, and

more questions when ambiguity was high than did high FNE's

in the average feedback/high ambiguity condition, ''s < .05.

This effect remains difficult to interpret.

When the number of questions subjects asked was exam-

ined as a function of self-ratings of adaptive differenti-

ation, a self-rating X FNE interaction was obtained, F (2,

114) = 3.37, 2 < .04. As can be seen in Table 16, high

FNE subjects who rated themselves lowest in adaptive dif-

ferentiation asked significantly less questions than either

high FNE's who rated themselves medium, or low FNE's who

rated themselves low, P's < .05.

Raters' Judgments of Shyness

After coding the behaviors above from the tape of each

session, the raters responded to the item, "How shy did this

subject sound to you?," on a 7-point scale. This rating

was done blind (i.e., without knowledge of the subjects'

condition) and independently for each rater. The interrater

reliability of .74 indicates that the raters were in moderate














Table 15

Number of Questions Asked as a Function of
Feedback, Ambiguity, and FNE


Low Fear of Negative Evaluation


Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 9.5 5.5a 7.0 7.9

High 7.4 10.9ab 8.2 7.8


High Fear of Negative Evaluation

Feedback


Ambiguity Low Average High No


Low 8.7 7.5 8.8 6.8

High 6.7 4.0b 6.0 8.5


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05
The following two-way simple interactions were significant
by p < .05: feedback X ambiguity within low FNE, ambiguity
X FNE within average feedback, feedback X FNE within high
ambiguity.
















Table 16

Number of Questions Asked as a Function of
Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation and FNE


Self-Rating of Adaptive Differentiation


FNE Low Medium High


Low 9.5a 8.3 7.3

High 6.3ab 9.0b 6.8


Note. Means sharing a common subscript differ by p < .05.




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE S O CIAL PSYCH O LOGY OF SHYNES S : TESTING A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL MODEL By Mark Richard teary A DISSERTA T I ON P R E SEN TE D TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UN I VERS ITY OF FLORIDA I N PARTIAL F ULFILLM ENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH Y UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 19 8 0

PAGE 2

----------------ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincerest appreciat i on to all those who contr i buted their time effort and pat i ence to the comp l etion of the present project F i rst and fore most I would l ike to thank D r Barry R Sch l enker committee chairman academic advisor and fr i end for his interest expertise and guidance t h rough all phases of my g raduate career including the present stud y I can not imagine having a more educationa l productive and amicable re l at i onship with one s major advisor than I have had with Dr Schlenker for the past four years The bulk of m y profes s iona l development has been a result of his tutela g e I would also l ike to thank the members of my superv i sor y committee :C' or their sub stantial contributions not on l y to the present study but to my graduate education at various points ; many thanks to Dr Marv i n Sha w Dr L arry Severy Dr James A l gina and Dr Ted L andsman Three very capable and hard workin g experi menters assisted in the data co l lection phase of the stud y ; I w ou ld like t o th a nk Jan F a ust Ellen Si e ga l and D a n Grif fin for th e ir help F inall y I would lik e to thank m y p a r e nts Ed w ard and El ea nor Leary who were instr u m e ntal in g ettin g me interested in school at an earl y a g e and have been nothing b u t s upportiv e thro ug hout 2 0 lon g y ears of e d u cation ll

PAGE 3

TABLE OF C ONTENTS Pa ge ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......... ......... . . . . . . . . ii ABSTRACT CHAPTER t t t f t I I I I t I I t t I t t I t t t t t I t I t I t t I I I t I t t t t I t t I t I V I I NTRODUCT I ON t I I I t I I I t t I t f I t t I I t t t I I t t t t I I I t t t 1 The Concept of Shyne s s !....................... 2 Shyness and Se lf-Pr e s e nt ation ................ 10 Antec e dents of Shynes s ....... ............... 17 Motiv a tion to Im pre s s Other In t e ractants .. 17 Do ubts About O ne' s Ability to Achieve S a t i sfactory R ea ct i ons ................ 22 B eh av iora l Accompaniments of Shyness .......... J 6 Summary and E xpe rime nta l Hypotheses ......... , 44 I I METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Proced ure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 I II RES ULT S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Manipulation Checks and FNE Data .............. 54 Ambi g ~it y M a nipu l a tion .................... 54 Feedb a ck M a nipulation .................... ,, 55 Fe a r of Ne ga tive Evaluati o n : Subject D ata 5 8 E xperimental Subjects Se lfRep o rts .......... 58 Self Reports of Shyness and R e l a x a tion ..... 58 Motivation to Make a F a vorable I m press i on and Perceived Success of D oin g So .. .... 6 6 Rat i n g s of t h e Other Subj e ct .......... .... 6 9 Ratin gs b y No n c x pe ri me nt a l Subje c ts ......... ,, 7 0 Ratin gs of Sh y ne ss a nd R e l a x o. ti on . . . . . 7 0 Eva l uat i ons of th e Exp e ri me n ta l Sub j ec t s . 7 5 Mi s c e ll aneous Ratin g s ...................... 82 Ob se rv a ti ona l Da t a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 Ini t i a ti o n o f Conversati o n ................. 85 T im e S p e nt Talk in g .... .. .... ........ . . 8 5 ,umber of Ques tion s A ske d ................. 90 R a t e r s Jud gm ents of S h y n ess .............. 9 2 The N on e x pe rim e ntal Subjects Behav i or ........ 97 Social Avo id a nce a nd Di stress S ca le .......... 104 Sex Dif ferences ............................... 10 6 iii

PAGE 4

I V D I S CU SS I ON .. ''I I '.'.'' . 10 7 Major H y pothe se s ...................... ........ 107 Se l f Rep o rts of Shyness a nd R e l a ca t i on ...... 1 08 Non expe rimenta l Subjects an d Jud g es Ratin g s ........................ .......... 1 10 Self -P re s entatio n a l Co n cern s : L i a bili t i es and Asse t s ..... .................. ...... 1 17 Met h odo l og i ca l Issues and Su gg estions fo r Future Researc h .......................... 1 2 0 Summa r y ............................. -;o 1 2 4 A PPENDI C ES I I : 1 25 A I N I T I A L SUBJECT I NSTRU C T I ONS ............. ,,, , 1 2 7 B BACKGROUND I NFORM A T I ON Q UE S TI ONNA I RE ......... 1 2 9 C INSTRUC r I ON SHEETS C ONTA I NING AMB I GU I TY MAN I PULAT I ON ............... .... .... . .... 1 J4 D BACKGROUND I NFORMAT I ON SCORESHEET .. . ......... 1 J8 E ?OST I N 1 ERACTION QUEST I ONNAIRE : EXPERIMENT AL SUBJE C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J_L~ O F POST I NT ERACTION QUEST I ON NAIRE : NONEXP E R I MEN'rAL SUBJEC'r ............................ 143 G NUMBER OF SUBJECTS P ER CE ~L .............. ..... 1L~6 REFF. R E r1 cEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 47 B I OGRAPH IC A L SKET C H ................. ..... ... ,,., ,,,, 1 54 i v

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dis s ertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the Univer s i t y of F lo r i d a in P a rti a l Fulfillm e nt of the Requirements for the De gree of Doct or of Philo sop h y THE SOCIA L P SYCHO L OGY OF SHYNE S S : TESTING A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL MODEL By Mark Richard Leary August 19 8 0 Ch a i rp e rson : Ba rry R Sch l enke r Major D epa rtm ent : P sycho lo g y A soc i a l psycho lo g ic a l mo del of shyness i s pr es ent e d that conceptua li zes s h y ness as a state of socia l anx i ety a ri s i n g in real o r im ag in e d contingent inter2ctions in which peop l e a re motivated to m ake a favorab l e impression on oth ers, but doubt their ab ilit y to project im ag es of themse l ves that wi ll produce satisf a ctor y r eact i ons from them. People ma y doubt th e ir ab ili ty to come across sat i sfactor il y to others e ithe r because they are unable to determine the na ture of the i ma g e t h at will result in sat i sfac tor y reactions from others, or know how to act but feel i ncapa bl e of pro j e ct in g th e d es i re d im a g e It wa s h y p o th e s i z e d th a t a n y s i t u at i o n a l o r d i s pos it i o n a l v a ri ab l e th at i n cr eases the mot i v a tion to make a f a v o rable im pres s ion u pon oth e rs or doubts in one s ab ili ty to appear to others in a w a y that re s u l ts in sa ti s f a c t or y r e action s s h o uld incre a se the probabi li t y t h3t the individua l w ill fee l s h y V

PAGE 6

An experiment was conducted in which sub j ects classi fied as hi g h or low in Fear of Ne ga tive Ev a l ua tion were motivated to project a particular ima g e to another individ ual Subjects were either told how p eop le who project the im age tend t 6 act or had no idea of how to project the im age In addition subjects received bo gu s feedb a ck indicatin g th a t they were hi g h, average, or low in the abilit y to project the ima ge or received no such inf or mation. Data obt a ined from sub j ects self-r e ports of shy ness, others' ratin gs of the s ubj e ct, a nd subjects' verbal behaviors in a dy a dic interaction tended to support the model, a lthou g h the results were not perfectl y consistent. Incr eased shyness t en ded to be a sso ci ate d w i t h hi g h Fe a r of Ne gat i ve E va l ua ti o n, high ambi gu it y re ga rdin g the nature of the ima g e li ke l y to result in satisfactory r ea cti o ns from others and the b e li ef that one r a nked lo w in the ability to make g ood f irst impre ss ion s upon others although these variables did not in te ract, as h a d b ee n predicted. // / /~~y Chairperson vi

PAGE 7

CHAPTER I I N TR O DUCTI ON Near l y everyone exp~ ri ences shyness i n some soc ial sit uations. For some the expe ri ence is infr eq uent and mild; for others, i t i s frequent and severe and regu l ar l y inter feres w i th their socia l li ves The best estimates indic ate th at ap proxim ately 40 % of all Americ ans cons id er themse l ves to be shy and that more t h an h a lf regard shy ne ss as an occa siona l person a l problem (L azarus 1 976 ; Pilkonis, 1 976 1 977a Z i mba rd o 19 77 ; Zimbar d o Pilk onis & Norwood 19 7 4). Yet despite th e prevalence of the exper i ence and the de gree to which many cons id er it a persona l (or interpersonal) p r ob l em s h y n ess has rece iv ed littl e empirica l or theoretica l attention from social psycho lo g ists. A few de s criptive-cor relational studies ha ve been conducte d b ut the t op ic l acks a th oro ugh c onceptual ana l ys is that identi f i es so ci a l factors in vo lved in the exper i ence of sh yness and prov ide s a f rame work for understandin g th e behavioral and interper sona l con sequences of it Th i s diss e rtati on presents a social psycho lo g i ca l mod e l of shyness that conceptua li zes shyness as so cial anx i ety aris i ng fro m interper s ona l concerns about one s se l f -pr esent at ion s a nd in abi li ty to cont r o l others re ac tions to the in divid ua l. Fir s t, prior conceptual ana l yses o f sh yness a nd 1

PAGE 8

2 related concep ts w ill be exam i ned and a work in g d ef inition of shyness pr op osed After d i scussing the nature of self presentat i on a theory of shyness wi ll be presented and fac tors invo l ved in the exper i ence of s hyness both s ituat i ona l and disposition a l wil l be ex a mined in detail B e haviora l manifestation s of s h yness wil l be de a lt with in terms of the model and h ypo th eses advanced re gar d i ng the causes and con sequences of s hyness An experiment w il l then be descr i bed in det a i l th a t examines hypotheses d er ived from the theory The Conc e pt of Shyness Like many everyday words that have been adopted for special i zed usage by psychologists the term shyness is overburdened by a diversity of meanin gs In sho rt the term ha s been used to refer to a s ubjective exper enc e of d i scom fort and anxiet y in the presence of others to typica l 12.h:L iol og i ca l and behavior a l m an ife stat i ons of su ch anxiety (such as overt signs of disc o mfort -blu s h i n g awkwa rdness reticence tentativeness) and to a personality di s posit i on to exper i ence so c i al anxiety and respond in such ways By far the mo st work on shyness has focused on the iden t i fication of it as a personality trait (see Croz i er 1979 for a review of these studies) For examp l e Cattell ( 1 97J) id ent i f ie s s h~1 1ess as o n e c omponent of the H-ne sat iv e 0 1' t.h1 pc tic p "rs011. lit~ Th1e ct ic .i11dividu:1l s :1 c h i ,:111~ :~u:> cep t i ble to threat a ccordin g to C atte ll beca1se o f an overly active sympath~tic nervous system that overr espo nds to phys ic a l and social assaults upon the individ ual As a resu l t such pe o p l e ten d to be shy timid r estra i ned a11d sensitive

PAGE 9

J as contrasted to paramic i ndiv i dua l s w ho tend to be ad vent u rou s bold in socia l encounters and "th i ck skinned ," Catte l l suggested that threctia has an inherited component and decreases with a ge beyond adolescence Simi l ar l y Comrey (1 965 ; Comrey & Jamison 1966 ) iden t i fied shyness as one of s i x "factored homo gene ous item di m ensions" obt a i ned from factor ana l yses of 2 1 6 persona l ity trait items I tems loadin g hi g hest on the shyness factor included shyn es s seclusiveness re ser ve stage fright and fo ll o we r role H a ns Eysenck ( E ys enck & E ysenck 1 96 8 ) has ident i fied shyness as a component of i ntro v er s ion Unfort u natel y throu g h the p opu l ar i ty of E yse nck s w ork on introvers i on extravers i on s h y n ess a nd i ntrover s ion are often tr ea ted as if they a re synonomous wh i ch they are not For example Zimb ard o ( 1977) blur s the di st inct i on between the two con ce p t s w hen he wr it es : A t one en d of the s h y n ess continuum are th ose who fee l more comfortab l e w ith books i deas o b j ects or nature t h an w ith other peop le Wr i ters s c i en tists in ve ntors fore s t r a n ge rs and exp l orer s mi g ht w ell h ave chosen a l ife s wor k th at e n ab les them to spend much of their tim e in a w o rld on l y spa rsel y popu l ated w i t h humans Th ey a r e lar ge l y introverts and assoc i a tion w i th oth e rs ho l ds lim i t e d appeal co mpare d to the i r ne e ds for privacy a nd so li tude ( p 2 9) It m u st be stressed a t this point that a l tho ug h the ty p es of peop le described by Zimbardo may b e intro v e r ts -pe op le w h ose th o ug ht s and interests are primari l y d ire cte d in wa rd r a the r th an to wa r d othersit do es not foll ow th a t t hey are neces sar i l y s hy A s w ill be det a il ed below a n intro ve rted

PAGE 10

4 preference for solitary activities constitutes shyness only if the preference arises from the individual's anxiety and discomfort in soc i al encounters. A person may be introverted for nonsocial reasons; for example, it may be that the pri vate and a l oof writer i s s impl y cau g ht up in his work but is not soc i a ll y anxious when in the presence of others, (On the other hand, a shy peison may appear quite outgoing and confident despite subjectively experienced anx i ety .) Al thou g h shyness and extraversion are moder a tely ne g atively correlated (r = -.4 J Q < 01 ; Pilkonis, 1977a), the con cepts of shyness and introversion are not interch an g eable and should not be confused, Shyness involves socia l anxiety, and this is not a necessary component of introversion. In short, numerous studi e s (Crozier, 1979) have shovm there to be identifiable individual differences in the degree to which people respond shyly in social encounters Al thou g h such tra i t approaches are interestin g they root shy ness in the character of the individual and direct attention away from interpersonal processes that precipitate the expe rience and behavioral manifestations of shyness Other approaches to the concept of shyness have defined sh y ness in terms of tentative and inhibited beh:::ivior, Pil koni s (1977a) d e fine s sh:yTiess as a "t endenc y to avoid social interaction and f a il to participate appropriately in social situ a tions" (p. 5 8 5) while Buss (1 9 8 0) d e fines it as the relative absence of expected social behaviors (p, 1 84) These two definitions have three problems in common.

PAGE 11

5 First, they re l y too heavily on overt manifestations of shyness even thou g h shyness may be exper i enced w it hout obvio us behav i oral consequences Some i ndividua l s can appear outwardly calm even though they experience anxiety and show subtle physiolog i cal or behavioral signs of it. Zimbardo (1 977) cites severa l examp l es of sta ge performers who con sider themselves quite shy despite their publ ic appearance of poise and self control Th ese considerations creat e problems f or defin i tions of shyness that focus exc lu sive l y on grosse r behaviors such as the avoidance of int eract ion or the ab sence of appropriate behaviors Second as mentioned earlier shyness must be distin gu ish ed from other possib l e reasons why people m i g ht fail to resp ond appropriate l y i n soc i al encounters People often avo id particular others not because they fe e ~ anxious awk ward or f earful in their pres e nce but because they prefer other so li tary activit i es I ntroverts for examp l e prefer so li tary act i vities to soc i al interac t ion, tut are not neces sari l y shy when interacting w i th others Third, these approaches f a il to ment i on the one aspect of shyness that i s universal l y reported as a component of the experience : sub jective anx i ety ( Zimbardo 1977), Thus it wou ld seem usefu l to d e fine shyness as an expe rience of anx i ety that occur s und e r cert a in conditions then i dent if y bel13.viors that tend to accompany the expe rience whi l e not making s~ch beha v i o r s a sufficient part of the definition Zimbardo (1977) equates shyness w ith a type of peop l e phobia : to be shy is to be afraid o f people especia ll y

PAGE 12

6 people w ho for some r easo n are emotiona ll y threaten in g (p, 23 ), This de fi nition, although focusin g on s h y ne ss as a subjective exp e r i e nc e is unacceptabl y b~o a d. Th ere are many reasons why a n individu a l mi g ht f e ar ot her peop l e aside from shyness : one may be approached by an an g ry drunk, be lost i n a l arge cit y after dark, or f ea r reprimand by a dis satisfied super io r S imil arly Buss (1 98 0) definition of soc i a l anxiet y as d i scomfort in th e presence of ot hers" ( p 2 04) fails to di st in g uish between soc i a l anx i e t y and o t her fo rm s of d i scomfo rt ( e g ., bein g too hot, fee lin g ill, b e i ng crowded) that may occ ur w hen other peop l e are around In shor t no s in g le definition of shyness has been pro posed t hat i s e ntirel y sat i sfactor y Th e def ini tion to be used throu g ho ut th i s report i s th a t shyness i s a s t ate o f soc i a l anx i ety resulting f rom r ea l or i mag i ned contingent in teract i ons in w h i ch no event h as threatened t h e indi v id ual s public im age It w ill be h e l pful to clarify the key concepts in thi s definition b efore procee di ng Fir st by state we ar e referring to a transitory con diti o n of an organ i sm that f l uc t ua t es over s it uations and time W hile w i sh in g to avo id the trait vs. state anx i ety i ss ue he r e ( e g ., S pie l ber ge r, 19 68 ), it should be s i mply made cle ar that we are re f err in g to s h yness as a state o f an x i ety w i th th e f u ll rea li zat ion that th er e are i ndiv id ua l di f ferenc es i n the d eg r ee to whic h peop l e ex perience th is state As w ill be disc ussed in detail bel ow cer ta in per sona lit y trai ts may "predi spose c er tain peop le t o exper i en ce such anx i ety more o ften and/or more acute l y than others

PAGE 13

7 Anxiety i s a ne gat ive affective reaction that is char acterized by apprehension about an impendin g potentiall y negative outcome, The apprehension may be conscious or un conscious, th e impending threat real or imagined, and the source of the anxiety may be either intern a l or external to the person (Le sse 1970). Anxiety is manifested in measur able physiological and b~havioral reactions (e. g ., palmar sweating, muscular tension, increa sed pulse, verbal dys functions), although these signs may not a l ways be obvious to exter n a l observers. This becomes more likel y to the de g ree that such behaviors are under a certain amount of vol untary control, Shyness re su lts from r ea l or i magined interactions. Th us one mi g ht experience shyness while in a social encount er, while contemplating such an encounter, or w hile imagining that one is int eract in g w ith others. Interacti ons differ in the degree to wh ich the inter actants' responses follow from or are contingent upon the responses of other interactants (Jones & Gera rd, 19 67 ). In contingent interactions, the responses of a g iven individual are heavily contingent upon the preceeding responses of other int erac tants. Althou g h each individual in a contingent inter action, such as a conversation, may hav e int e raction g oals ( a nd plans about how these coa l s m ay be achieved) th3t par tially gu id e their b e haviors, their imm ed i ate responses must to a de g ree, follow from and be gu id e d b y others' responses. In noncontingent encou nters, the individual's behavior is

PAGE 14

8 g uided primarily by one s plans and only minimally if at all by others' responses. An actor in a play, a person de li vering a prepared speech a musician on stage and a supe visor g ivin g directions to workers are al l in noncontin g ent interactions v i s a-vis their au dience. ( Th ey may be in a contin ge nt int era ction in relation to co-p er formers at the same time, ho weve r.) Thiir behaviors are basically prede termined by their plans for th e encounter and unless un ex p ec ted events oc c u r (such as the audience beco mes unru l y ), th e behavi o r s w ill b e executed as planned w ith onl y minim a l re spo n s ivenes s to the audience Of cour se in real lif e th ere are few purely noncon tin ge nt inter act ions. Ev en an actor on sta g e is minimal l y a ware of and re spons iv e to au dience cues N eve rtheless, the distinction is a us efu l one for it a llo ws identification o f diff e rent c l asses of factors that precipita te shy n ess (in contin ge nt in teract i ons ) versus audience anx i et y (in non contin ge nt inter a ctions) and p os its slightly diffe ren t be h av ioral reacti ons to soc i a l anxiety dependin g upon the nat u re of the encounter in w hich it occurs For examp le, in most noncontin ge nt en counter s p e ople are ope ratin g from some de gree of a behavioral pl a n, whether it is a n exp licit script sp e ech or composition that they ar e to perform or merely an implicit idea about h ow they a r e g o in g to behave Thu s once in a non cont i n g ent interaction people are un lik e l y to ha ve doubt s abou t how th e y s hould resp on d, althou g h the y may d o u bt the ir abi li ty to exe c ute their plans successf u lly. In c ont in g ent i nterac tions, howe ver p eop l e ma y have little or

PAGE 15

9 no behavioral plan or else be forced to continuall y modif y their plan in li g ht of others responses. In such encounters doubts about how one shou ld respond may be h i gh resu l ting in anxiety. O n the behavioral side the contingent-noncon tin g ent distinction has implic a tions for how people deal with anxiety producin g situations. ~ e tic e nce and premature withdra w a l fr o m th e e ncounter a re much mor e likely to be consequences of shyness than audience anxi e t y for example Althou g h a f u ll discussion of th e dif fe r e nt implications of contin g ent v ers u s i 1 o ncontin ge nt int e ractions for the antecedents and consequences of soci a l anxiet y g oes beyond the scop e of the pr e s e nt disc u ssion it sh ou ld simp l y be stated that th e focu s of the model present e d here is upon a nxi e ty resultin g from contin g ent interactions--sh y ness--and w e w ill have little f u rther need to r e fer to noncontingent e ncounters or au dienc e anxiet y The final q u a li fication of the pre s ent definition, that shyness occurs only in i n teraction s in w hich n o ev ent h as threaten e d t h e individ ua l's p u blic im age allows a dis ti n c t ion to be dr av m bet w een shyness and embarrassment As will be disc uss ed below embarrassment is a state of social an x iet y that o c c u r s w h e n e v e nt s app e ar to r e pudiat e s e l f r e l ev en t im a g e s an i nd ividual desire s t o cl a i m (Sc h l e nker, 19 8 0) and m ay o cc u r in either contin g en t or n o ncontin g ent int e ractio ns As B uss (19 8 0) obser ves th e a ppreh e n s ions th a t o cc u r witl1 s h y n e ss ar e f u t u re o rient e d w h e re a s e m ba rrassment o cc u rs in r e action to a p a rtic u l ar p a st

PAGE 16

10 event. In the case of shyness no event h a s occurred that reflects unfavorably upon the individual's self -pr esentations The theory presented below proposes that underlying the experience of shyness are people's mis g ivings about the ways they are being or will be perceived by others. Specif ically, shynes s is conceptualized as a state of social anx iety arising in real or imagined contingent int eractions in which people are motivated to make a favorable impression upon others but doubt their abi li ty to project ima g es of themselves that will produce s a tisfactory reactions from them. We will examine this proposition in detail after discussin g the nature of se l f -pr esentation Shyn es s a nd S e lf-Pre se ntation T hrou g h a ll facets of their appearance speech and b e havior, peop l e l a y claim to particular s ocial identities that have implicati o ns for how they are evaluated and treated b y o thers (Goffm a n 1959; Schlenker, 1 9 8 0). Since others' re s ponses to the individual are based in lar g e part upon their perceptions of him/her, it is usually in people 's best interests to convey particular ima g es of themselves to those with whom the y interact, a process called self -pre sentat i on Sp e cifically, self-presentation is d e fined a s the conscious or unconscious att e mpt to control th e se l f re l ev ent im ag es th a t are proj ecte d in r e al or im ag in ed so ci a l inter a ction s (Schl en k e r 1 98 0) An im age is defin e d a s a m e nt a l pictur e cate g orization or s chema of a p e rson, object or event

PAGE 17

11 If one's projected ima g es are appropri a te and acceptable to those the individual interacts with, then he or she usu ally stands to g ain valued outcomes, such as friendship, material rewards, respect, acceptance, and so on. If the projected self-images are deemed undesirable or inappropriate by others, the actor is likely to receive ne g atively valued outcomes, such as disapproval, loss of public esteem, pun ishment, or ostracism. Thus, most people are highly moti vated to control the nature of their self-presentations in order to maximize their reward-cost ratio in social inter actions. It is important to note that self-presentation is not necessaril y deceptive or discrepant from the individual's self-concept. In most cases, in fact, self-presentation merel y involves brin g ing certain of one's actual attributes or accomplishments to another's attention. Of course, it is also common for people to deliberatel y attempt to project im pressions of themsel v es that are not in line w ith the wa y they "really" are. In addition, it should be emphasized that self presentation i s not always a deliberate str a te g ic attempt to produce a desired impression upon others. It can also re flect a well-in g rained, habitual response tri gg ered by rel event social cues (Schlenker, 1980). When people believe that their public ima g es are attract ive and acceptable to others, are not lik e l y to be challen g ed or repudiated, a nd a re r es ultin g in hed o nic a ll y satisfactor y reactions from o th ers they should fe e l quite secure in the on go in g int~raction.

PAGE 18

12 When a person senses that he is in face, he typically r esponds w ith feelin gs of confidence and assurance Firm in the lin e he i s takin g he feels that he can hold his head up and openl y present himse lf to others. He feels some security and some relief, , ( Goffman 1959, p. 8) In such a situation, people are reaping va l ued outcomes from their desirable im ages and are free from the anxiety of pre senting an im age that is lik e l y to result in undesirable reactions, whatever their form, from others. At the opposite extreme, an individual' s public ima ge ma y be damaged by an undesirable event (such as a blunder that makes one look foolish or undesirable) or by the re pudiation of a projected im age ( such as when one is unable to live up to the cl a ims contained in a particular presen tation). In such c as es, people usually become embarrassed and the inter a ction bre a ks down, at l east temporari l y (Bus s 19 8 0; Goffman 195 5 ; Modigliani, 1 97 1), In a lar ge percentage of social inter act ions, ho we ver, the situation li es b e tween these two extrem es Althou g h nothin g has happened to d amage the individ ua l's s o cial iden tit y people may not always believe that they are coming across to oth e rs as we ll as they would like, People in this state are not em b arr assed but neither do they believe the y are projecting images of themselves th at wil l result in them r e ceivin g d es i red re3ctions from o t h e r in t e r :::i ct 3 nts The y m ::1 y thi nk they will not be able to project the types of im ages the other int e1:1cta n ts va l u e that th e y w ill not project the qu a ntity of th e v a l u ed im age or th ey w ill be u nable to li ve up t o i mages th ey h ave a lre a d y attempted to claim w ith

PAGE 19

lJ the consequence that they will be regarded negatively for dissimulation. If people in suc h a state believe that there is a low probability of their social im ages resulting in valued re act i ons from others, no matter what they might do, t h ey would be expected to feel shy Thu s shyness i s proposed to be a state of anxiety ar i s in g in rea l or imagined contingent in teract ion s in wh ich people are motivated to make a favor able i mpression on others but doubt the ir abi li ty to pro j ect i mages of them s e lv es that wi ll produce satisfactory re actions from th e m To clarif y the bas ic proposition of th e model, it w ill be useful to close l y examine its key concepts, "St ate ," anx i ety ," and "r ea l or im agine d contin g en t int er actions" we r e d i scussed earl i er People are m otivated to mak e a favorabl e impression on others to the d eg ree that the others are in a pos i tion to i m part outcomes havin g a high posit i v e or ne g at i ve v a lue to the individual. These outcomes may be e ith er soc i a l rewards and punishments ( e g ., fr i endship praise respect, disliking, ven g ence ) or tan g ible material and phys ic a l g ains or l osses (e. g ., r a is es fines demotions, pain), The higher the ab so l ute value of such outcomes to the individ ua l, the more motivated he or sh e s hould be to make a favorab l e impression o n tho s e who me di ate them Peopl e d o u b t th e ir a bi li ty to pro j e c t 1.. 1 a g e s o f them s e l ve s that pr o d u ce satisfactory re a ct i ons w hen they believe th e re i s a lo w probab ility of controlling the impr ess io ns others form of t hem, g i ven the actor s g oals i n the int eract ion.

PAGE 20

14 A number of possible reasons why people mi g ht doubt their ability to project certain images in an encounter are dis cussed at len g th below. A satisfactory reaction from others is defined as anoth er's response to an individual that has a positive rather th a n a neutral or ne ga tive subjectiv~ value to the individ ual, Anticipated reactions from others are evaluated by the individual in terms of his or her comparison level (Thibaut & Kelle y 1959). Anticipated reactions that meet or exceed this level should be regarded as satisfactory by the indi vidual; those that fail to meet the comparison level should result in dis sat isfaction, and this dissatisfaction would be expected to increase as the discrepanc y between the antici pated reaction from others and the actor s comparison level increases. The concept of comparison level is important here be ca use it helps explain why people who are as jud ge d b y out side observers, comin g across we ll sociall y and bein g respond ed to quite positively may sti ll feel shy As people's com parison l eve l s increase, their standards a r e raised, and they must anticipate receiving increasin g ly valued responses from others in order not to feel dissatisfied w ith others' reac tions. Given the same positive re act ion s from oth ers a per son w ith a low comparison l eve l m a y fee l quite sat i sf ied a nd secu r e where a3 a person wit h a hi g her comparison level mi g ht fe e l dissatisfied and anxious Bandura (1 9 6 9 p. J?) notes that "many of the people who seek tr ea tment [for social anxiety]

PAGE 21

15 are neither incompetent nor anxiously inhibited b u t they experience a Gr eat deal of personal distress stemmin g from excessively hi gh standards f o r self-evaluation often sup ported by unfavorable comparisons with models noted for their extraordinary achievements In summary it i s hypothesized that shyness ar i ses as a joint function of the motivation to make a favorab l e i mpress ion on others and the presence of self doubts re ga rding one s ab i lit y to control such impressions in a manner that resu l ts in satisfactory reactions from them Thus as either the mot i vation to impre ss others or doubts about one s abi l ity to achieve satisfactory reactions increa ses the potential for feelin g shy should increase Obversely if th e motiva tion to make a fa vorab l e impression is l ow or people bel i eve they are able to project i mage s that will result in satis fact o ry reactions from others in a part i c u lar encounter shyness should be minima l, Other writers h ave previo us ly suggested that shyness and social a nxiet y may be linked to conc e rns w i t h how one i s appearing to others In T he Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals, C harles Darwin ( 1 872/ 1 955) su gge sted that shy ne ss ind uce d blushing results from self attention due to concerns \'; i th one s appearance before ot h e rs : It is n o t th e simple act of reflectin g on our ow n app ea r a nce but t hink in g what ot h e r s th i nk of us which exc ite s a bl ush ( p J 2 5) He added that shyness seems to depend on sensitiveness to th e opinion , of others ," a l thou g h Dar \'/ in suggested th a t

PAGE 22

16 shyness result e d primarily from concerns with one's phy s ic a l appe a rance. He also noted that people are seldom shy in the presence of tho s e with whom they are familiar, and "whose good opinion and sympathy they are perfectly assurred" (p. JJO). In short D a rwin's ear l y ana l ys i s is clearly congruent with the self -pre sentation~l model of shyness pre sented here. Mo re rec e ntly, Dixon, de Monchaux, and Sandler (1957) factor analyz e d 26 items from the Tavi sto ck Self-Assessment Inv entory that could be classed under the broad h ea din g of social anxieties In addition to a l arge g eneral social anx iet y f a ct o r, four f act ors e mer g ed ea ch of w hich dealt with a di f f e rent asp e ct of p e ople's concerns with ho w they are per ceiv ed by others Th e factor of so cial timidity refers to the fear of cre at in g an adverse impression d u e to awkwardness re su ltin g from not knowin g how to b e have in certain situa tion s The second f a ctor, lo ss of control reflec ts concerns w ith losin g bod il y control in social s itu a tions s uch as s t u mbling vomit in g or b e comin g ill, Pr esu mabl y such fears arise primarily b eca use of how the actor appears in li g ht of such unfortun ate even ts. E x hibitioni s m, the third factor re fers to anxiety re s ultin g from b e in g the center of atten ti on wh il e t h e fourt h, fear of revea lin g in fe riori ty re fl ects fe a1s of be in g n ega ti ve l y ev.::i.l u ated by oth e rs b ec~1Use of pers on a l i1 nd e quacy All four f actors r e f l e e t not only concerns wit h o ne's pub lic ima ge b ut c oncer ns over sit ua tions in which o ne h as minimal, if any con tr ol o ve r how one is ap pearin g to othe r s

PAGE 23

17 Antecedents of Shyness Accordin g to the conceptualization presented earlier two major factors are imp l icated in the experience of shy ness : (a) the motivation to make a favorab l e i mpress i on up on others and (b) doubts about one s ability to project ima ge s that will resu l t in satisfactory reactions from others Let us examine each of t hese c l asses of antecedents separate l y Motivation t o Impress Other I nteractants A necessary precond i t i on for the experience of shyness 1s that the individual be motivated to make a favorab l e im pre ss ion upon othe rs in the service of obtaining desired re actions from them The i nd i vidual w ho has absolutely no con cern for ho w h e or she i s regarded i n a particular encounter would not be expected to fee l shy on that occas i on In addition the potentia l for shyness should increase as t he mot i vation to impress other i nteractants increases The motiv at ion to make a favorable impr ess ion upo n oth ers shou l d be a direct funct i on of the subjective worth of the others re ac tion s to the individual The g reater the value of others potent i a l reactions the more the ind i v i dua l should be motivated to project i ma ges the others mi g ht va l ue in an attempt t o achieve such reactions A number of factors would be expected to a ffect the sub j ect iv e va l ue of others re act ions Fi rs t the sub ject i ve va l ue of others reacti ons is dir e ct l y relat ed to the subject i ve value of tangible o u t com es others a r e in the position to b est ow Peopl e s hould

PAGE 24

18 be more motiv ated to impress those who are in the position to mediate ver y positive or very ne g ative outcomes such as promotions, ra i ses awards physical harm, dismissal, and so on than th ose who can not mediate su ch outcomes Th us the potential for shyness should be g reater when one interacts with those who are powerfu l and influ ent ial v i s a vis the individua l than w ith thoie who are not S imilarl y the reactions of certain peop l e are rendered more va l uable by their personal characteristics The sub jective w orth of reactions from those who are perceived as attractive competent, discriminatin g or high in stat~s shou l d be hi gher than the reactions of those with less f l at tering personal characte ristic s (T edeschi Sch l enker & Bonoma 1973), Thus people shou ld be more motivated to i m press an i mportant hi gh l y esteemed audience independent of tangib le outco mes they might bestow, than a nonsignificant one and would be more li kely to feel shy when interactin g w ith them In s upport of the proposed relationship between audience char acter i stics and social anxiety research has sho v m that people are more li kely to report being shy when dea lin g w i th those who are perc e ived as powerfu l, competent, attract i ve in author i ty and of high status than with those who are not (Zimb ardo 1 977) P eop l e sho t 1ld a l so be more moti v3 t ed to make a favorab l e impr ess ion when th e se l f relevent im age of concern in a g i ven encounter i s s e e n a s more attractiv e import ant or relevent to the indi vid ua l's se lf-conc ept and peopl e shou ld be more

PAGE 25

19 motivated to achieve satisfactory reactions from others in response to them. A woman who prides herself as being in telligent and we ll-read, but not athletic, should be moti vated to appear intellectual to oth e rs but minimally con cern ed about appear in g athletic. Accordin g to the present theory, a threat to her ability to appear intellectual to others shou ld result in feelings of shyness, whereas her in ab ilit y to appear athletic should not. Thus, people should be more likel y to become shy when the se lf-ima ge under con siderat ion is an important one to them. Particular situations also incr ease the motivation to make a favorable impression and thus the potential to become shy by increa sin g the saliency of others' poss ible reactions, For examp le, a man mi g ht fee l more shy in an interaction with his boss shortl y before promotion decisions are to be made. In addition to situationa l factors that increase the motivation to appear wel l, a number of individual difference var i ab l es should be associated with heightened concerns w i th others' potential reactions and incre ase the chances that certain kinds of people would experience soc ial anxiety in social encounters, F e ni g stein Sch c i e r, and B us s (19 7 5) :1 nd B uss (1 9 8 0) h :1ve su~geste d t h :.. 1 t p u blic s elf c o n sc i o u s n ess i s a n e c css:1 r y t ho ug h not s uf f i c i e nt pr e cond i tion for soci a l a nxi e t y People who ar e hi g hl y p u blicly se lf-c onscio us are particu l ar l y aware of ho w they are re g arded and treated by others

PAGE 26

20 a nd are sensitized to others' evaluations of them (e.g., Feni g stein, 1979), People who are lo w in public-self-con sciousness, on the other hand, have little awareness of or interest in how they are coming across to others Since others' evaluations are more sa li ent to high than low pub li c se lf-con scious individu als hi g hs sho u ld be more moti vated to make a favorable impression upon those with whom the y deal. Even so they should not fe e l shy un less they also doubt t heir ability to m a ke those impressions and a chieve satisfactory reaction s Research has shown that public self -c onsciousness is minim a lly but significantly correlated w ith measures of so cial anxiety Feni gs tein et al (1975) and Pilkonis (197 7a ) fo un d correl at ion s in the vicinit y of +, 2 0 (Q's< .05) between public self-consciousness and the so ci a l anxiety subscale of the S e lf-C onsciousness Scale (Feni g stein et al ., 19 75 ), In addition Pilkonis (1977 a ) obt a ined a c o rrelation of +,19, and Ch eek and Buss (1 980 ) a correl a tion of +. 26 (Q' s< ,05) between public se lf-c onscio u sne ss and se lf rep or ted shyness Thus, it appears th a t pub lic self-con sciousness may increase people's potential for becoming socially anxi ous b y increasing their c once r ns w ith inter personal eval uat i on P eop le who are hi g h in n ee d f or app r ova l (Cr owne & Mar lo ~e 19 6 4) shou ld a l so be mo re hi g hly mo ti vate d to make a f avo rable impr es sion u pon others th a n thos e wh o are low i n need for a pprova l, Althou g h o ri g inall y conce i ved as a motive

PAGE 27

21 to gain other s acceptance and approval by appearing in socially desirable ways recent research has suggested that people who score high in need for approval are primarily motivated to avoid disapproval (Ber g er Levin, Jacobson, & Milham 1977). Regardless, people who are highly motivated to gain approval and/or avoid disapproval should be highly motivated to make the im~ression that would allow them to achieve those g oals and should be more likely to become sh y as a result. Watson and Friend (1969) have sho w n that a hi g h Fear of Ne g ative Evaluation (FNE) score on their Social-Evaluative Anxiet y Scale is also associated with a concern to obtain social approval and avo id disapproval from others Compared to subjects classified as l ow FNE, hi g h FNE's have been shown to : work harder on a boring letter-s u bstitution task wh e n th e y believ e d that hard work would b e explicitly ap proved of by their g roup leader (Wat so n & Friend 1969), attempt to avoid potentially self-threatenin g social com p a rison information to a greater de g ree (Friend & Gilbert 197J), and prefer to be in a positive asymmetrical relation ship (bein g li ked by another more than one likes the other) rather than a b a l a nced relationship (m u tu a l equal likin g ) (S m ith & Cam pb e ll, 19 7 J) In a dditi o n F N E wa s fo u nd to corr e l a te si gn i f icantl y (+,77, .l2 < 01) w i th so cial aproval se e kin g as me asu r e d o n J a ck s on s (1 9 66 ) P e r s on a lit y Re sea rch Form (Wats o n & Fri e nd, 19 6 9), All o f thes e findin g s portr ay th e hi g h F N E individ ua l as bein g hi g hly m ot ivated to gain

PAGE 28

22 a pproval and avo id disapproval. Thus, it wo uld be expected th a t hi g h FNE' s wou ld be more likel y to become socially anxious when their a b ility to come across we ll to others was threatened, Indeed, FNE has b ee n found to correlate sig nific a ntl y with Social Avoidanc e and Distre ss (r = +.51, Q < ,01J Wa t son & Friend, 19 69 ), 1 Doubts About One s Ability to Achieve Sat i sfactory Reactions The moti va tion to m ake a favorable impression upon others is h ypot he s iz e d to b e a necessar y but not sufficient, condition for the occurrence of s h yness No t onl y must in dividuals be motivated to make a f avo rable impres s ion, but th ey must also doubt that th ey w ill be able to do so in a way that will re su lt in satisfactory reactions from other int erac tant s T wo major factors should l ea d people to doubt their ability to pr ojec t i mages that will res u lt in satisfactory reactions fr om ot h e rs: ( a ) they find it difficult to determine how to ac hi eve satisfactory reactions, or (b) the y believe they know how others w ill r ea ct to certain se lf pr ese ntations, but don't believe they can successfully 1 As i ts n a me im p lie s the Soc i a l Avoid a nce and Distress ( SAD ) Sca l e ( Watson & Fri end 1 969 ) was ori g inally develop e d as a measur e of subjective anxiety exper i ence d in so cial en counters and the tendency t o avo id socia l situat io ns How ever a factor a nalysis b y P a tterson and Stra uss (1 972) found th at most of th e items on the SAD Sc a l e l oaded on an aff ili ation extrave rsion factor, su gge st i n g tha t the SAD taps pr im ar il y a pproach-avoidance tendencies and only seco nd a ril y soc ial a nxiet y

PAGE 29

2J convey those ima ges that are likel y to result in satisfac tory reaction s from them, Uncertainty about how to achieve satisfactory reactions, Research has shown that people tailor their self-presenta tions to the contingencies of the situation and to the values of those with whom they are interactin g (e. g ., Jones, Gergen, & Jones, 196J; Jones, Gergen, Gumpert, & Thibaut, 1965; Jones & Wortman, 1973; Schlenker, 1975, 1980), Thus, when people are motivated to make a favo rable impression, they usua ll y seek information regarding the types of ima ges others are likely to value (Schlenk er 19 80 ), When people believe they know an audience's values and preferences, they are able to formulate a behavioral plan that gu id es their responses during the course of interaction. Under certain circums tances, however, cues regarding others' va lues may be absent vague, inconsistent, or contradictory, Uncertain of other interact ants personalities, values, and probable reactions to certain behaviors, people are unable to determine how t h ey may achieve satisfactory reactions from them and are unable to form u l ate a plan for the interaction. Without such information and an overriding plan, the possi bility of appearin g in an unfavorable li ght and evoking an undesirable response becomes more sa li ent and people are more likel y to doubt that they will be able to pro j ect a favorable ima ge On the other hand, "sh yness is les s of a problem in those contexts where infl ue nce s such as ta sk de mands and role requirements remove the 2r.1b i g u it y present in unfocus ed' in terpersona l encounters" (Pilkonis, 1977b, p, 6 04),

PAGE 30

24 Dibner (1958) observed that anxiety is direct l y re lated to the de g ree of ambi g uity in the situat ion to which the individual must make some adjustive reaction ... and ... the probab ili ty of uncerta in ty i s greater whenever ex ternal conditions are ambiguous" (p. 1 65 ). Dibner defined situat i onal amb i gu ity in terms of the de gree of consensus that outside observers m i ght reach regardin g the i nterpreta tion of the character i st i cs of a situation. Ho w e ve r, amb g uity is more than a potential l ack of consensus A g roup of observers mi g ht all independent l y agree in the ir interpreta tion of a situation and in their prescriptions re g arding appropriate be h av ior in it, yet each have l ow confidence in h i s own jud gment Thus to the i ndividual in a soc i a l en counter, percei ve d amb i g uit y may be re g ard e d a s an inverse function of one s confid e nce in one s interp~e t ation of the situ a tion and in d e c i s ions re ga rdin g how be st to respond to maximize one s ovm reward/cos t ratio in the encounter Thus, peop l e should experience shyness w hen they are motivated to make a favorable impre ss ion upon others but are unce rtain of how to do so In suppo r t of t his, survey dat a obta i ned b y Z i mbardo (1 977) sh ow ed that shyness i s ex perienced quite frequently in n o vel s it ua tions a nd in en counte r s in vo lvin c: stra n ge r s -peopl e cibout w hich the indi v i d t 3 1 b ) ct c fi11it i o11 kn o w : :; ve1:,li tt l e Buf~G ( 19 [ W) ob serves that t he most frequent an d i mpo rt a nt s it uat i ona l cause of shyn es s app e ars to be novelt y (p. 1 87 ), In addi t i o n Pilk o nis (197 6 1 977b) h a d sub jects par tici p ate in an u nstructured face to-face i nteract ion, then

PAGE 31

25 deliver a speech into a videocam e ra a task he conceptua li z ed as more structur e d. He found that shyness was evoked by ambiguous unstructured episodes (the same-sex and opposite sex interaction s ), but was l ess apparent durin g the struc tured ep i sode ( the preparation and delivery of the speec h)" (Pil kon is, 197 6 p. 96) althou g h it shou ld be noted that the structured and unstructured e pisodes in this study differed on other important variables (on e was a face-to face interaction, whereas the other was an impersonal deliv ery of a prepared s peech, for example ). In short the avai labl e evidence seems to support the hypothesis that amb i g uity re g ardin g how best to respond in order to achieve sat isfactor y reactions may result in hei g htened shyness However, the ev id ence is minimal at best an d this h y poth es i s merits addition a l r esea rch. Uncertaint y about how to respond and abou t w hat ima ge s to project may also arise when other int eractants resp ond in an unexpected or counternormative fashion. Wh e n this occurs, the interaction it se lf is disrupted and the individ u al is forced to respond to a situation for which he/she has no readily available co gn itive script (Abelson, 197 6) Geller, Goodstein, Silver, an d Sternb e r g (1 974 ) exposed subjects to a situation in w hich they wer e i gno r e d durin g a f ace -to face int e r a ction by two c o nf e d era tes who t a lk e d fr ee l y to o ne another Und er suc h circ t @stances subjects r epo rted that th e situation ~as hi g hly ambi g uous, that th ey we re unsure of ho w to re spond and that th ey felt shy

PAGE 32

26 Similarly, when another interactant invokes s ocial norms to which the individual is unwilling or unable to respond, uncertainty arises re ga rdin g how to behave. For example a norm of reciprocity surrounds the disclosure of person a l inf o rmation, such that, when one interactant is self-disclosin g others are expected.to follow suit (Derle ga Wilson, & Chaikin, 1976). If this norm is unexpectedly in voked b y the inappropriate disclosures of a nother, the in divid ua l may not kno w how b es t to respond and may feel shy (cf. Buss, 1980). Certain individual differences may exacerbate the prob lems encountered in ambiguous situations or lead certain people to interpret a larger number of social situations as a mbi guous First there are difference s in p eop le's sensitiveness to so ci a l cue s re ga rdin g appropriate or de sirable behavi or ( e g ., Snyder 1974). P eop le w ho are more adept at analyzin g social situations for c ues re gar din g ap propriate deme a nor s hould be better at assessing ho w to res p ond to achieve satisfactory reactions from others and, th u s less lik e ly to experience anxiety from not know in g how to respond Althou g h the meanin g of scores obtained on the Self M onitorin g Scale (Snyder, 1974) has recently been c a ll e d int o q uestion ( B ri ggs Ch eek & Buss 19 8 0; Gabrenya & Arkin, 19 8 0; Si l ver L ea r y & Schlenker, 19 8 0), it wou ld be pre dicted that pe J p l e who are hi g h er in the ability to g l ean cu es regardin g how to r espo nd an d adjust their beh a vior

PAGE 33

27 according l y (i. e ., hi g h se lf-monitorin g ab ilit y ) wou ld be le ss li ke l y to feel s h y and inhibi te d in soc i a l encounter s In suppor t of this, Pilk onis (1 977a ) found se lf-m o ni torin g abilit y to correlate ne ga tively w ith se lf-r eported s hyness, a ltho ug h the correlation was s i gn i f ic an t only for ma l es (r = -. 25 Q < .0 5 ). I ckes and Ba rn es (1 977) exam in ed the differences in the beha v ior of hi g h a nd lo w se l f -m on tors in unstructured int e ractions, and found that high self monitors we re mo r e lik e l y to ini t i ate the conversation w i th the ot her subject and were rated as more rela xe d than lo ws In add ition, u np ub li shed data by Li ppa (report e d in Ick es & Barnes 1977) sh o w a significant positiv e correlation be t wee n se lfmonitorin g and extrave r sion Second t here are li ke l y to be indi v idu a l differenc es in p eop le's abi lit y to respond "o ff the cuff "-t h at i s w i thout we llformu l a ted int e raction p l ans Some peop le appear q uite ab l e to f it in to almo s t any socia l encoun ter, w h e r eas other s a re soc i a lly paralyzed in the face of so cial unc e rtainty. W hen peopl e are unc e rtain of h ow to behave in order to make a favorab l e impression on others they ar e li ke l y to s ho w s i g ns of h es it a ncy, r et ic ence awkwa rdness, withdra wa l a nd /or avo id a nc e At th e extrem e unce rt a i nty a nd i ts ac comp a n y i n g a n xie t y may be g reat e no u g h t o r esu lt in socia l p a r a l ys i s (c f K e ll ey 1 9 67 ; Jon es & Gerard 1 967 ). Th e shy i ndivid ua l m a y sta nd s il ent tho ug ht s r ac in g but unab le to r espond McGover n (1 976 p. 94 ) not es that t h e response

PAGE 34

28 of no response may be a l earned method of coping with am bi g uity and time pressure for these [hi g h l y soc i ally anxious] i nd i v i duals ." Sim il ar l y Phi li ps (1 968 ) sugges t s that chro ic reticence m a y be caused by reticent ind i v i dua l s not know ing the rules in certa i n soc i a l s i tuations I n some cases the i ndiv i dual i~ a social l y ambiguous encounter may attempt to project innocuous images that wou l d be expec t ed to be at l east m i nima l ly acceptab l e to most peo p l e such as smilin g and attempting to appear i nteres t ed and friendly I n this way the person avo i ds projecting images that may be inappropriate and that may result in unsat i s factory reactions When the social l y cautious person does part i cipate the content o f h is contr i but i on is genera ll y safe, He waits unt il he has l earned what k i nd of comment h i s aud i ence wil l app r ec i ate or restricts h i s remarks to the patently nonoffensive ( Efran & Korn 19 6 9 p 78 ). By respond i ng noncomm i ta ll y the shy ind i v i dua l b i des time as he or she attempts t o g l ean cues that wi ll su gg est how best to come across to other i nteractants and keeps attention off h i m or herse l f by p r ompt i ng other interactants v i a qu e stions and apparent i nterest to cont i nue talking about th e mse l ves To summ a ri ze a ny factor that makes it difficu l t for peop l e to form u late an interaction plan a nd to decide how to be s t max i mi z e t heir soc i a l outcomes s hould res u lt in shyness D o ubt s a b r rn t on e s se l f presentational ability Ascer tain i ng th e n a t u re of t h e i mage likely to produce satisfactory

PAGE 35

29 reactions from oth ers i s only one-half of the task face d by an individ ua l wishing to make a favorabl e i mp ression. Once the individual believes he or she knows ho w to r espond ap propriatel y such im ages mu st then be suc c essfu ll y conve yed Th e dist inc tion here i s bet wee n formulatin g a plan for ac tion and successful l y im p l ement in g th e plan. Thus, individ ua l s may exper ienc e shyness because they do u bt their abi li ty to present th emse lv es to oth e r s in w a ys that w ill result in h edon i ca ll y sa tisf ac tory outcom es First, peop l e may entertain do ubts about the qua lit y of their i nteract i o n plans a nd lac k c o nfid en c e th at t h eir plans, no matt e r ho w we ll executed w ill re su lt in desired reactions. F or examp l e l earn in g that a yo un g l ady takes a grea t deal of pride in her t e nnis-pl ay in g ab ility, a ma le suitor may w i sh to comp li ment h e r strong serve and decides to do so but mu ll s ove r th e possibility th at she w ill a tri bute hi s co mment to mere in g rati at ion or e v en baser mo tiv es An y factor th a t causes people to doubt the ef fic acy of their plans in producing sat i sfactory outcomes shou ld in cr ease the lik e li hood that they w ill become shy Seco nd, eve n whe n people have w h a t they believe are co gen t plans fo r the ac complishment of the ir interaction g o a l s the y may doubt t h e ir ab ili ty to execute those p l ans Th::it is they may doubt the i r :1bi li ty to ::i.pp e ar to others i n ways t hat wi ll r e sult in sat i sfactory outcomes People shou l d doubt t h e ir ab ility to cl a im va lu ed i ma g es su cc ess f u lly w h en : ( a ) they don t be li eve t h ey r ea ll y possess t h e

PAGE 36

JO attributes that a llo w them to meet the requirements for claimin g the image and these deficiencies wou ld come to the attention of other interactants if a particular self-pres entation was attempted, or (b) they believe they don't have the exp ressiv e skills necessary to convey the ima g e irre spective of whether or not they priv~tely believe they meet the requirements of the ima ge Since pe o ple w ho fail to liv e up to the images they present to thers are negatively sanctioned ( Goffman 1959; Schlenker, 19 80 ), p e ople tend to refrain from projecting im pressions that are likely to be publicly repudiated b y the '' facts" ( Baumeister & Jones, 1978; Schlenker, 197 5 ). Thus, in a situation in which projectin g particular valued ima ges would require dissimulation that may result in social reper c uss ions, people w ill genera lly conclude th at they are un able to claim the image and, if motivat ed to make a favor able impressi on shou ld feel shy Th ey may either believe that they can not claim the ima ge at all or that they are unable to present themselves as possessing an adequate quan tity of th e a ttribute (b y appearin g extreme ly competent, for example) to make a sufficiently favorable i mpress ion upon other inter actants In add iti on in some cases people may privately believe th a t they poss ess th e att ribut es th a t, if perce iv ed by otl1ers would result in satisfactory reactions, but believe th ey l ack the e xpress i ve sk ill s to c o nvince ot hers they actually posse ss those attributes, When people b e lie ve

PAGE 37

Jl the y have th e right to l egitimately present certain ima ge s of themselves, but feel their se lf-pr esentat ion s may be un successful due to deficiencies in requisite social or ex pressive skills, they should feel shy It is doubtful that people phenom e nolo g icall y distin gu ish between not having an attribute and not having the express i ve skills to convey the ima ge of havin g the attr ibute, To the shy individual, e ther case is perceived as the inability to come across well to others. A good deal of research ha s document ed the relationship between the belief that one l acks valuable socia l attr ib utes and feelings of soc i a l anxiety. E fran and Korn (1969) showed that soc i ally "ca utious subjects held lower expec tations of success on a variety of socia l a nd verbal tasks than socia ll y bolder ''. subjects, but that the t w o groups did not differ in their expectations of succes s on intellectu a l, athletic, or artistic pursuits This sug ges ts that the con cerns of social l y anxious indi vidua ls are spe cific to soc i al deficiencies. In a comparison of high and low socially anxious students identified by Watson and Friend's (19 69) Social Avoidance and Distress Sca l e C ac io ppo Gl ass and Mer lu zz i (19 79) found that hi gh ly anxious subjects rated th emse lv es more ne ga tively ge n erated more n ega tiv e se lf statements in :.1 thou g ht -li st in g task : : 111d ra t ed th emse lv es as l ess potent and active than l ow a nxiet y sub jects, Interestin g l y socially anxious people 's ne ga tive eval uations are c onf in e d to themselv es Altho ugh they

PAGE 38

J2 underestimate the quality of th e ir socia l sk ill s compa r ed to obse r vers ratings of them and to l ow anx iety people s se lf-e va lu at i ons l ow and hi g h anxiety subjec ts ( a lon g w ith externa l observers ) have been shown to ag r ee in their ap praisals of a confederate s so ci a l ab ilit y (Clark & Arko witz, 1975), Thus, the tend ency for .s h y people to u nder estimate their soc i a l performances i s not li ke l y to be due to a ge neralized se t to see the soc i a l wor ld ne gat iv e l y A number of stud i es have shown that co uns elin g para di gms designed to reduce ne ga tiv e self evaluat ion s are effec tive in reducin g socia l anxiety ( e g ., Cl ark & Arkow it z 1 975 ; Me i chenbaum Gilmo r e & Fedor av ici us 1971; San ch ez Cr a i g 197 6 ; Sherman, Mulac, & Mc C ann 19 74 ). F or example, Rehm and Marston (1 9 6 8 p. 57 3) taught shy sub j ects to re pl ace negative self eva lu atio n s w ith cognitive self-rein forcement for app ropriate soc i a l responses an d found a d e cr ease of anxiety in datin g encou n ters They conc l u d e d that "n ega tive self-evalu a tion i s a primary cue for anx iet y an d that reduction of ne ga tive se l f eva l uat i ons and the imposi t i on of se lf-r e infor ce ment shou ld reduce socia l anxiety. Wh il e thi s may be true, what h as not often been made cle a r is that the m u ltitude of n ega tive self statements one m i g ht make ( e g ., "I'm not a g ood d ate/speaker/da ncer/ s t u den t/ conver sat io na li st/et c,'') g enera ll y r ef l e ct not onl y self evalu at i ons but c o nc er ns with h ow on e i s appear i ng to others Th us the present se l f presentat i ona l approa ch to sh y ness would propose that it i s not se lfeva l uati o n per se

PAGE 39

JJ that i s critical in the genes is of shyness but the belief that real or imagined others m ay evaluate onese lf negatively. Self-evaluation and antic ip ated public evaluation are, of course, ordinarily confounded in real-life situations. The individual who evaluates himor herself negatively is likel y to expect that others w ill a ls o Nevertheless, we may at least ima g ine the 'two cases of (a) an individual who regards himself very negatively but expects others in a par ticular encounter to re g ard him positively, or ( b) an indi vidual who regards himself positively but expects others to re gar d him negatively. The f ir st individ ua l (a), despite ne gat ive se l f evaluations shou ld not f ee l s h y ; th e second one (b), despite positive self-evaluations, shou ld. In short, th e critical factor in shyness (and other socia l anxieties) i s one 's perceived ability to project im ages that w ill re su l t in satisfactory reactions from others, and not merely one's ovm self-ima ge Even when one s interaction plans and one 's ability to exec u te them are in the abstract, beyond question, one must still contend with the responses of other interactants. Thus, people who doubt their ability to r espo nd quickly and appropriately in an ad lib fashion, or who question their fl ex ibility or their ab ility to re spo n d c ont in g ently/reac tively to other'"" should be m ore li ke l y to fee l s h y in con tin g ent int e rac t i ons Most o f us h ave observe d a confident and eloquent speaker who appears fully in c ont rol durin g his oration but who falters ner vous ly v~en entertaining questions

PAGE 40

J4 from the audi en ce or when dealin g with oth e rs on a one-to one basis. Such a person may be confident of his ab ility to execute a we ll-structured and rehearsed plan (i,e,, speech) in a noncontingent situation, but doubt his ability to make appropriate remarks in response to others' behavior, Shynes s should be exacerbated by situational and per sonality factors that, for whatever reason, cause people to doubt their ability to project ima ges that will result in satisfactory reactions from others. One such set of factors is the characteristics of those with whom one is interacting. Sh y ness should b e g reater when one is inter a ctin g w ith crit ic al eva l uat i ve others than with supportive, nonevaluative ones, since the probability of receiving satisfactory re actions is greater in the latt er than former case, Indeed, people report g reater anx iet y when inte racting with eval uative audiences and authorities (Zimbard o 1977), 1 As mentioned prev iousl y percei v ed person a l deficiencies, whether real or im ag ined, m ay lead people to doubt their a bility to appear we ll to others, In as much as this is the case, people w ith lower self-esteem, w ho tend to perceive 1 As an aside most psycholo g i s t s whateve r their a r ea o f trainin g h a ve had the experi e nc e o f pe op le e xp ress in g a de g re e of trep idation upon int er a c t i ng with them because of the popu l a r vi ew that ps yc h o lo g i sts can "r ead minds ." Pr esumab l y because o f the p u blic' s be li e f that psy ch o lo g i sts a re ab le t o ana l yze p eo pl e re g a rdin g their true pers o na lit y m o tives desir es f ee li n g s etc., people fee l unab l e t o pro j ect im a g es that will result in sat i s factor y reactions from th em An int e re st in g hypothesis i s th a t the a vera g e pers on is more lik ely to experience shy ne ss when in ter actin g w i t h a psycho lo g i st or psych iatri st than most other professionals,

PAGE 41

35 themselves l ess favorably and assume others do as we ll ( e g ., Wa l ster 1965), wou ld be expecte d to be more shy across en counters. I n support of this h yp othe s i s Zimbar do (197 7 ) and Ch eek and Buss (1 980 ) report signif ic ant negative corre la tions between se lfesteem and s h yness ( r s= -,4 8 and -,51 for Z i mbardo and Ch eek & Bu ss respe~tively, Q'S< ,01), Similarly, people w ith previous fai l u re s in the social arena ma y come to d oub t that they are ab le to obtain satisfactory reactions from ot hers. O nc e they have had unp l easant exper ences and received ne gat iv e evaluations from others th ey ma y come to anti ci pate failure in sim ilar s it uat i ons In contra st to the above th ere are i nstances in which pe op l e p ri vate l y be li eve they don t meet the requirements for claimin g certain attractive im ages but be li eve they h ave the expressive abi li ty to convey such impressions t o others anyway Pe op l e who are motivated to make a favorable impre ss ion h ave be e n shown to exaggera t e positive se lf-pr es entat i ons w h en the y bel i eve there i s only a smal l li ke lih ood that their claimed im ages will be repudiated by contradic tor y information ( Bau meister & Jones, 1 978 ; Schlenker 1 975 ), When people be li eve that they can project im ages that w ill produce satisfactory reactions and their claims wil l lik ely go uncha ll en g ed they s h ou ld not feel s h y even thot1 g h they kn ow the se l f presentations to be in accurate Of course the greate r th 0 poss ibil ity that non veri dic a l self presen tations w ill b0 di s c ove r e d a nd n egative l y sanct ion ed by othe rs, the more likel y the indi v id ua l will doubt that h e/

PAGE 42

J6 ~he wil l be ab l e to appear well and the more shy one should fee l. To summarize, shyness is hypothesized to be a joint function of the motivation to make a favorable impressior. on others and doubts about one's ability to appear to others in ways that wil l result in satisfactory reactions from them. People may doubt their ability to come across well to others either when they are unable to determine how to respond in a particu l ar encounter or when they know how to respond, but feel unable to do so B ehavioral Accompaniments of Shyness If, as has been proposed above shyness arises due to concerns w i th how one is appearing to others, we wou ld ex pect many of the behavioral manifestations of shyness to re flect such concerns. Do the behaviors that typically ac c ompany shyness appear to ar i se from self presentationa l concerns? Clearly, many of the behaviors that accompany subjective shyness are not interpersonal in nature. Many physiolog ical changes, such as increased pulse, blood pressure, GSR, and muscular tension, are simply concomitants of any aroused autonomic state The relationship between shyness and overt behaviors ( those clearly observab l e to other interactants) is more complex. Bec 0 u s e the appear a nce of nervou s ness i s normally ne g ative l y ev a luated in our culture, most people wi ll attempt to conceal th e ir anxiety w i t h the result that the affective

PAGE 43

37 state of a social interactant is not al w a ys obvious to out side observers (Knight & Bord e n, 197 8 ), wh e ther th ey be other interactants or social psycholo g ists. Research has shown there i s only minimal to moderat e con g ruence between observers' ratin g s of an individual's appa re nt social anxiety and ratin g s of subjectively experienced anxiety made by the individual himself (Clevinger, 1959; Farrell, Mariotto, Con g er, Curran, & Wallander, 1979; Mulac & Sherman, 1975), and this is true even when the ob s ervers ar e train e d speech teachers jud g in g their stud e nts (Dicken s Gib s on, & Prall, 1950). The lar g e s t correlation between subjects' self-re ports and obs e rvers' r a tin g s of shynes s w a s obtained by Pil konis (1977b): +,5 8 In ge neral, o b s er vers t e nd to under estimate, rather than overestimat e o thers' su bjective anxiety (Clevin g er, 1959; Dickens et a l., 1 9 50). These findin g s a re note w orthy for a c ou ple of re a sons. First, there i s littl e reason to expect a cl o s e corresp o nd e nce bet we en self-r e p o rts of exp e rienced s h y n ess and behavioral manifestations o f it, s o th a t there is no su r e way to de termin e from an individual's g rosser, o v ert behaviors wheth er or not he or she is presently shy, (Ev e n so, certain be h a vior a l patterns do tend to accomp a ny s h y ness, as will be di s cu sse d b e l ow .) Sec ond, if p e o p l e t end to u nd e r est im a t e oth ers s u bj ect i ve a nxi e t y t h ey m ay c o n c l ude that the y th e mse lves exp e ri e nc e a g r ea t e r d egree o f s h y n ess in so ci G l e nc o unters th a n m os t other people. W hen it occurs in a sit uation in w hich the individual is sociall y a nxiou s such a

PAGE 44

J8 belief may itself evoke anx i ety th a t exacerbates the ori g i na l prob l em ( Storms & McC au l, 1 976 ). The most common l y reported manifestation of shyness i s a reluctance to speak freely in int eract i ons (Zim bardo 19 77 ), Compared to nonshy indi vidua l s shy people are more hesitant to ini tiate conversations, ~peak less fr equent l y speak a smaller percentage of the time, al l ow more s ilenc es to dev e lo p during conversat ion s and are l ess li kely to break them ( P ilkoni s 19 76 1 977b ). Also hi g hly soc iall y anxious people write l ess on self d i sc l osure qu e st i onnaires and engage in l ess intim ate se lf-di sc l osure than peop l e w ho are lo w in socia l anx i ety (P ost W i ttmaier & Radin, 1 978 ), Taken to ge ther, these s tudies portray the shy person as reluctant to engage in verba l in teraction hes i tant to in i t i ate conver sa tions and keep them go in g and in g eneral, participat in g as littl e as poss ibl e in verba l exchanges especia ll y ones dealin g with s elf-r e l event top ic s There is no a priori reason to expect shy in div id ua l s to decrease their ve rbal output Why do soc iall y anx iou s people r espond i n th i s way ? Philips (1 968 ) notes that reti cence arises w h e n people s anxie ty about part icip at i ng i n ver bal in teractions w ith oth e rs outweighs the ir e xpe ctation of ga in from the encounter and th at ret ic ence may serv e to exempt the individ ua l from full participation in anx iet y producing situat i ons C o n s id e r t h e p li g h t of shy people : they a r e mo t i v~te d to m ake a fav o r ab l e impr ess ion upo n oth ers but doubt that they w ill be a bl e to appear in such

PAGE 45

J9 a way that others wi ll respond favorably to them Given such an interactional dilemma, reticence may be re g arded as an appropr iate and rational interper sona l strategy When people believe they can not come across well to others no matter what they might do, they have nothing to gain and much to lose, and would be best off to do and say little or nothing at all, Even though nothing may be done to allow the individu al to be perceived positively, th is tactic helps the indi vidual to avoid patently ne g ative e v aluations A study by Taylor, Altman, and Sorrentin o (19 6 9) clear ly documented the relationship between negative interperson al evaluations and decreased verbal output Under conditions of ne g ative interpersonal feedback, their subjects spoke l ess talked about fewer aspects of themselves, and were l ess se lf-di sclosing than subjects receivin g positive feed back, Extrapolatin g to the present model it seems likely that this tact would a lso be employed b y sh y individuals, to whom the possibility of l ess than satisfactory responses from others is hi g hly salient In a review of the lit erature regardin g the relation ship between anxiety and speech Murray (1971) concluded that anxiety and spe ech are curvilin e arly related as an in ve r se -U func t ion. Anxiety ::ind s pe e ch a r e po s iti ve ly r e la te d to s o m e ::isy mp to t e but s pe e ch d e c r o ::i se s with incre::i s in g anxiety b ey ond that point Althou g h a w ide variety of stressful stimuli have been used in these studies (e.g.,

PAGE 46

40 threat of elec t ric shock, negative evaluations from others, public speakin g situations, stimulus deprivation, anxiety producing conversational topics), the y have generally been re g ard ed merely as alternative ways to evoke anxiety. However, the implicit assumption that all anxiety producing stimuli are functionally equivalent vis-a-vis their effects on speech overlooks the fact that, in some cases, chan ges in speech behavior reflect not only an effect of autonomic arousal per se, but also serve personal or in terpersonal functions for the anxious individual. In case s in wh ich the precipitating stimuli are social in nature, the individual i s likely to fear receivin g ne ga tive reactions from others, and chan g es in verbal output ma y reflect the indi v idual's attempt to maintain the best possible social im age u nder th e circumstanc es If the shy individual be lieves that he or s he is likely to evoke uns a tisfactory re actions from others b y talking to them, verbal output should decrea se Und e r some circumstance s ho weve r, the anx ious individual ma y perceive that failing to interact is more li ke l y to result in u nsatisfactory reactions than is inter acting poorl y In such cases, we mi g ht expect verbal output to remain stable or to increase. The relationship bet wee n s h yness and speec h appears to b e quit e co mpl e x a nd warra nt s futur e attent i on A s w ith v e rbal b e h av ior s w e wou ld expe ct the nonverbal behaviors of sh y p eo pl e to refl ec t the att e mpt to present

PAGE 47

41 the best possible soc i al images of themselves to others under circumstances in which they do not think they will be regarded favorably by others, The few ava ilable findings support this notion. Pilkonis (1976, 1977b) found that self-reported shyness in an interaction was positively re l ated to both smiling and head noddi~g. Nata le, Jaffe, and Entin (1979) found social anxiety to be ne g at ivel y correlated with verbal interruptions of another 's speech and positively correlated with "back channel responses"--the brief inter jections a listener makes while another is speakin g to indicate that he/she is attentively listenin g (e.g., "uh huh"), In each of these cases the tar g et behavior (smil in g nodding, not interrupting, back channel responding) may be conceived of as an attempt to appear friend l y and interested when one believes that more complete participa tion in the encounter is likely to resu lt in ne g ative re actions from others. Taken as a whole such behaviors ma y s erve at l east four interpersonal functions. First, they a ll ow the indi vidual to maintain an innocuously sociable image that is at l east minimally acceptable to most audiences and forestall possible ne g ative consequences that mi g ht result from do in g o r sa y in g s o m e thin g th a t wi ll r ef l e ct p oorly upon th e i ndividual Se cond, th ey help th e indi v i dua l conc e al hi s or h e r anxi et y a nd ov e rt m a nifestati o ns o f it (e. g ., trem blin g awkwardne s s) that mi g ht become obvi o us to others if th e individual attempted to enga g e full y in the encounter

PAGE 48

42 If nothing els e the individual i s ab l e to maintain the impression that he or she is poised and under control (Kaplan, 197 2 ), Third, the individual is able to direct attention from himor herself to other interactants by paying a good deal of friendly inter est in what they are saying. Finally, suc h behaviors may serve as stalling tactics that allow the individual to examine the situation more closely in order to determine how to respond appropri ately before commitin g himor herself to a line of action. The individual may thus bide tim e as he/she surmises how best to respond to make a favorable impression and achieve satisfactory reactions, The fact that shyness appears to be associated with decreased amounts of eye contact (Pilkonis, 1977b; Zimbardo, 1977) seems to contradict the suggestion made above that the nonverbal behavior of shy people is designed to present them as favorabl y as possible to others. However, decreas e d eye contact might best be re ga rded as a form of psycholog ic a l withdrawal from s tressf u l situations, similar to that which occurs following an embarrassin g situation (Modig li an i, 1971). There is also some evidence that people en ga g e in more contact with those from whom they expect ap proval (Efr an 19 68 ). Since people in a shyness -producin g situation are not expect ing app roval from others, their low er amount of eye contact may simply reflect a lower base line of visual atten tion than th at of people in an encounter in wh ich th ey e xpect sa tisfactory reactions from others,

PAGE 49

4J In extreme cases shyness may result in comp l ete with dr a wa l from or av oidance of c e rtain in t e ract i ons ( Z im bardo 1 977 ), Th ese are lik ely to be s it uat i o n s in wh ich the in di v id ua l believes that remaining in th e s i tuat ion w ill re sult in a decline in the positivity of his or her public i ma g e and in n egat i ve reactions from.other s Such wit dr awa l from anx ie ty -producin g situations removes the in di v id ual from the face -thr eatenin g e ncount er b e fore a ll poise is lo st and if t h e exit i s ex e cut ed g racefully and w i th justification, may even he lp the individual's i mage ( as w hen one cl a i ms to h a ve another import ant e n gageme nt in order to l ea ve a party ). The behaviors di s cussed above a re the typ ic al behavioral accompaniments of shyness How ever for a g iven individ ua l, sh yness is not a l ways accomp a nied by bl ata nt, shy lik e be ha v i ors such as quietness awkwardness or reduced eye contact. Some peop l e a r e ab le to m a int ai n a convincing facade of confidence and composure desp ite pr i vate misg i v in g s a bout their ab ilit y to project va l ued im ages of them selves in a part ic ular encounter T hus there i s not a perfect relationship between the experience of shyness and b ehav i o r a l m a nifestat i ons of it, and a ll sh y peop l e w ill no t be perceiv e d as such by outside obs e rvers Ho wev er w h e n grou p data a r e ex a mined in the context of res ea rch, we w ould exp e ct peop l e who are exposed to situat i ons de s i gn ed to he i g hte n se lf presentat i on a l c oncerns to on th e

PAGE 50

44 average exhibit more shy like behaviors and be rated more sh y by others than people who are exposed to variables de signed to minimize such concerns. To summarize, many of the behaviors that tend to accom pany shyness may be conceived of as devices for making the best out of a bad self-presentational situation Given th a t shy people doubt that they will come across well no matter w hat they do, it is reasonable for them to remain as quiet as possible, engage in innocuou s ly friendly behaviors that are likel y to be minimally acceptable to nearly everyone, or to w ithdr aw from the encounter when th ey feel u n a ble to retain the appe a r a nce of poise. It s hould be not e d that on e possible cons eq u e nce of such friendl y behav iors is that, in some cases, shy people m ay be per c eived by others as more friendl y interested, approving and in-..rolved than people who are n o t shy S umma ry an d Exp e rim e ntal Hypotheses To summarize the theory presented her e : shyness arises as a f u nction of two factors, the motiva t ion to make a favor able impression upon others and doubts a bout one 's ability to do so in a way th a t results in sat isfac tory reactions fr o m them. Th ese factors are propos e d to b e multiplica ti ve l y rel at e d s uch that s h y n ess is minim ;:i l as e ith er ap proaches zero but intensifie s r ap idl y as both fa ctor s i cr ease An y ~ itu at ion a l or person a li ty var i ab le that in cr ea ses eit her o r both o f th ese condition s i s h y pothe s i zed t o increas e the p ote nt i a l for the in divid ua l to feel s h y in th at p a rti cu l ar e nco u nter,

PAGE 51

45 The present study examined the effects of three such variables upon shyness Subjects id ent ifi ed as hi g h or lo w in Fear of Ne ga tive Evaluation (W atson & Friend, 19 69 ) were l ed to b e li eve that the possession of a particular (bo gus ) trait was assoc iate d with the ab ili ty to m ak e favor able i mp r ess i ons upon others. The n a ture of this trait and it s accompanyin g behaviors was either described to subjects or remained highly amb i guous Thu s sub ject s either did or did not know h ow they cou ld behave i n ord er to make a hi g hly fav o r a ble i mpression Based upon a bo gus personality test, subjects were then g iven feedback indicatin g that t hey were hi g h, average or lo w on this trait or the y we re given no information about their ability to make g ood first impr es s i o n s Subjects then interacted with another indi vidua l for five minutes, after wh ich th ey completed self-report meas u res tappin g among other things shyness In addition the subject was rated by the other individu a l re ga rding apparent shyne ss and other measures, and recorded tapes of subj e cts' conv ersat ions were coded for indic es of shyness Based upon the theory presented above, it was predicted th at : a Self reported s hyn ess others ratin gs of s hynes s and verba l indic es of shyness would incr ease as a funct ion of Fear of Nega-tive Ev a l ua tion, the a mbi gu it y of the image ostensib l y assoc i ated with makin g goo d i mpressions and the ne gat ivity of th e feedback re ga rdin g one's abi lity to make go od impressi ons Because these factors ar e proposed to be

PAGE 52

4 6 multiplicatively related to shyness the th e ory would pre dict (statistically speaking) a main effect of each factor, thre e two-wa y interactions, and a three-way interaction of the variables on measures of shyness b. Subjects reported shyness would be correlated with their expr e ss e d self -pr esentati ~ nal and evaluation concerns.

PAGE 53

CHAPTER I I METHOD Sub j ects One hundred a nd twenty eight male and 1 2 8 female under g rad ua te studen t s served as subjects in partia l fulfi l lment of the experimental part i cipation re qu irement of an intro ductor y psycholo gy course They were run in same sex pairs by one of two male or two f e ma l e experimenters Procedure The two subjects in each experimental sess i on in i tial l y reported to separate rooms to prevent them from conversing w ith one another prior to the start of the study After both subjects had arrived the experimenter escorted them into the l aboratory and seated them in chairs that were spac e d 51 m ( 2 0 in .) apart ( a t the nearest front l egs ) and angled toward one another at 1 00. A microphone on a f l oor stand stood 56 m ( 22 in ) direct l y in front of each chair Because the responses of two interactin g subjects are not independ e nt it was decided that only one su bj e ct per sess ion ( r a nd om ly design~ted as th e cxp e t' imcnt::i l su bject) would receiv e t h e e xp er im e ntal manipul a tions a nd complete the dependent se lf report m easurGs The other ( n onex peri mental) subject received no manipulations but otherwise

PAGE 54

participated full y in the experiment as d esr ibed below and subseq u en tl y provided ratin gs of the exper im en t a l subj e ct. 48 Subjects were told that the study was an investi ga tion of c erta in factors that affect the kinds of first impre ssions p eo ple form of one a nother w h e n th ey. first meet Subjects were inform e d that the y wou ld first complete a back g round i nformation questionnaire, th e n int e ract w ith one another in a five minute ge ttin g a c q u a inted" con versa tion. Aft e v1ar d s they wou ld compl e te questionnaires on w hich they wou l d rate and g i ve their impre ss i ons of one ano ther. Th e use of this cover story was designed to in sure th at s ub j ec t s we r e at l east moderately m o tiv a t e d t o make a f av or a ble im p r ess i on upon one anot h er during the fiv e -minute conv er sation, Th e initial in s truction s g iv e n to su bj e cts may b e fo un d in App end i x A, After s i gn in g informe d consent s lip s su bjects we re pl aced in separat e room s to compl e t e th e "b ackg round" qu es tionn a ire. Th e q u es tionn a ir e consisted of Wa tson and Friend's (19 69 ) Fear of Negative E va l uat ion (FNE) and Soci a l Avoidance and D istress (SAD) scales and a s h y nes s se lf r epo rt item. Th e FNE i s a J O it e m tru e fa l se s cal e that me a sures appre h ens i o n abo ut others eva l uat i o n s a nd distr ess ov e r r e c e ivin g ne gat iv e eva l ua tion s from othe r s Th e SAD i s a 28 it em true fa l s e sca l e t h a t measures the de g ree to w hich r es pon dents exp eri e n ce a n x i ety a nd di s tress in so ci a l encounters and tend to av oid or withdra w prematur e l y from

PAGE 55

social interac t ion s Both scales have high internal con sistency (. 94 for both FNE and SAD) and adequate test retest reliability (.78 for FNE, 68 for SAD ) and strong evidence of construct and predictive validity (e. g ., Friend & Gi l bert 197J; Smith & Saranson 1 975 ; Watson & Friend, 19 69) In addition, subjects were asked to respond to the it em "In general how shy of a person do you consider your self to be," on a 15-point scale with s i x scale labels, Pilk onis (19 76 1977a, 1977b) fow1d this item to be quite effective in discriminating individual differences in "chro n ic" shyness The full introd uctory quest ionn a ire may be foW1d in Appendix B, After subjects completed the questionnaire they were given instruction sheets ( see Appendix C) e xpla inin g the second phase of the study The instructions g iven to the nonexperimental subject merely stated that the subjects wou ld momentarily int eract w ith one another for five minutes, afterwards completing questionnaires giving their impres sions of each other. Subjects we re admon i shed not to talk about the study in progress, but, otherwise, told that they could discuss whatever they wished This prevented subjects from learni n g they were serving in different conditions of the design. In addition to the above information, the i nstruction sheet given to experimental subjects explained that the present study \'/as investigating a (fic ticious ) trait called

PAGE 56

50 adaptive differentiation, that had purportedly been found to be an important determinant of the kinds of first im pressions people make on each other. Experimental sub jects were told that people who rank high in adaptive differentia tion tend to be b ette r liked, make more favorable impres sions are evaluated more po s itively by others, and so forth, The sheet also noted that the researchers expected people who are hi g h in adaptive differentiation to be eval uated more positively and li ked better by other subjects in the present study than those low in a daptive differ e ntiation. In addition the instruction s heet introduced the ima g e ambiguity manipulation, After bein g told that adaptive differentiation is associated with making g ood first impres sions subjects in the high ambiguity condition were simply told that further di s cussion of the trait wou ld be withheld until the concl u sion of the study. Subjects in the lo w ambiguity condition were told that people who are hi g h in ad ap tive differentiation tend to be in terested in other pe o ple smile frequently are optimistic open-minded, and appear we lladjusted to others. Th ese behaviors w ere selec t ed as ost e nsibl y associated with ada ptive differentiation because (a) th e y are not uncommon ones for interacting s tr a n ge rs to p e rform s o that subj e cts in th e hi g h a mbi g uit y conditi o n mi g ht b e GS lik e ly to p e rform t h em as tho se in th e low a mbi gu it y conditi o n and (b) t h ey are s im p l e e nou g h that most peop l e c o uld attempt to appe ar in su ch way s if th ey desired Thus subjects in th e l ow am bi gu it y condition

PAGE 57

51 believed that they had some id ea of how to appea r adap ti ve l y differentiate d if they so d es ired, whether or not they actual l y ranked high in the trait, After an approp riate d e la y the experimenter returned to the exper i menta l sub ject only and exp l a inin g that mo st subjects are interested in how they performed on the initial questionnaire, he/she had quickly s cor ed the sub j ects re sponses The exper imenter then gave the subject a score s h eet (see Appendix D) ostensibly ref lecti ng the ir scores on the quest i onna ir e but exp l a in ed that he/she co u ld not di scuss the subjects scores in detail unti l the conclusion of the study These scoreshee ts conta in ed the feedback ma ni pu l a tion. For subjects in the high, average, and l ow feedback conditions, the scoresheets conta in ed thr ee s cores, eac h expressed as a percenti l e Two of th e scores l abe led themat ici sm and "int erpersona l acu it y we re incl uded merely as filler it ems and always showed the scores of 56 and 8J respectively, The third score on the sheets was l abe l ed "adapti ve differentiation," the same trait that sub jects be li eved was assoc iat ed with making favorab l e impre s sions upon others S ubj ects in the high feedback condition rec e i ved a n ad a ptive differentiation score of 93 % those in the average fe o dback condition a score of 6 0 % and those in the l ow feedb ack cond i tion a score of 2J % In addition, one fourth of the sub jects received no feedback regarding their

PAGE 58

52 adaptive diff ere ntiation scores, althou g h they received the other two f iller scores (no feedback condition). After experimental subjects had viewed their score sheets both subjects were brou g ht together and told they would be allowed to interact for five minutes wh ile the experimenter left the room. After remindin g subjects that they would give their impressions of one another after the conversation, the experimenter started the tape recorder and l eft the room. At the end of five minutes, the experimenter returned, placed the subjects in separaie rooms again and administered the questionnaires containin g the dependent measures. For the experimental subject this questionnaire (see Appendix E) asked how shy and relaxed the subject felt durin g the conversat ion, how go od of an impres s ion the subjects thou g ht th ey had made on the other person, how hard subjects tried to appear adaptively differentiated, ho w concerned subjects had be e n w ith making a g ood impression on the other subject ho w we ll subjects felt they were able to control the i m pre ss ions the oth er subject formed of them how shy they thou g ht the other subject was and how much they liked the other subject Two additional items assessed the effec ti venes s of th e m an ipul a tion s All quest i o ns we r e answered on 1 5 -poi nt scales The questionn a ir e for th e nonexperimental subjects ( se e App e ndix F) asked how shy th ey thou g ht the other (i. e ., e x perimental) subject was ho w rel a xed the other subject

PAGE 59

53 appeared, how much they liked the other subject how pos itiv e their overall impression of the other subject was, ho w comfortable they felt int eracting with the other sub ject, and how much eye contact the other subject gave them during the conversation. All questions were answered on 15point sca l es In addition they were asked to rate the ex perimental subjects on sfx ? point b ipol ar adjective scales: optimistic/pessimistic, open-minded/close-minded, poorly adjusted/well adjusted smiled a lo t/did not smile at all, friendly/unfriendly, and int erested in others/not interested in others These adjectives tapped the characteristics that had been described to subjects in the low ambiguity condition as indicative of adaptive l y differentiated people in order to determine whether the content of the ambi g uity manipu lati on systematical l y affected subjects behavior After subjects completed their respective questionnaires they were brou g ht to g ether a nd fu ll y debriefed, with the major hypotheses and the necessity of all deceptions ex plained in detail. The tapes of the subjects' conversations were coded by trained judges for four measures: (a) wh ich subject broke the initial silence after the experimenter left the room, (b) the len g th of time each subject t a lked, (c) the number of questions each subject asked the other and (d) the jud g es ratin gs of how shy each subject sounded to them.

PAGE 60

CHAPTER III RESULTS As descr ib ed above three kinds .of dat a were col l ected regard in g the experimenta l subjects : se lfreports on the post -i nteraction questionnaire ratin gs by nonexperimental subjects and verbal responses coded from tapes of the five minute conver sat ions. Each of these wi ll be discussed in turn Unless otherw ise indicated, reported ana ly ses are for 2 (lo w/h i gh FNE) X 2 (low/hi g h ambi g uity) X 4 (lo w/av era ge/ high/no feedback) unwe i g hted-means analyses of var i ance 1 Man ip u l at ion Checks and FNE Data Ambiguity Manipu l at ion An analysis of variance performed on su b jects responses to the question "H ow clear is it to you how peop le w ho are hi g h in adaptive differenti at ion tend to act? ," revealed onl y a main effe ct of im age amb i guity E (1, 111) = 5 .4 9 < .0 2 As hoped subjects in the lo w ambiguity condit i on (M = 9 9) indicated that it was significantly more clear to them how adaptively differentiated people tend to a ct th an su b jects in th e hi 6 h ambigu ity condition (M = 8 5) ~ thus demonstratin g the effe ctivenes s of the amb i g uity manipulation 1 Th e nu mb~ r of s ub j ects serving in each cel l of the design may be found in Appendix G 54

PAGE 61

55 I t shou ld be noted however, th at even subjects i n the l ow amb i gu it y condition indic ated that it was on l y "moderat e l y cl ear to them how adaptively differentiated people tend to act a rea sonab l e response g iven what they had be en told abou t th e trai t Feedback Man ipul at ion Su bj ects responses'to the feedback man ipulati o n check, "Ho w high would yo u rate you r se l f on adaptive differentiation?," revealed no effects of feedba c k e ith er a l one o r in in ter action w ith other var i ab l es The fai lur e of t h e feedback manipu l at i on to affect the manipulation check it em is, of course, prob l emat i c There are a number of reasons w hy this may have occurred, in addition to the obvious poss ibili ty that the f ee db ack ma ni pulat ion it se l f did not work Fir st it is possible that subjects m ay have int er pret e d the manipu l at i o n ch e ck as readin g "H ow high wou ld you rate yourse l f on adapt i ve dif ferentiation ?," so th a t their responses to it reflected their own est i mates of their l evel of adapt i ve differentiati o n, irr espec ti ve of the feedback they rece i ved Even if this is the case, however, it indica tes t h at subjects did not place enough stock in their adaptive differentiati o n scores to in co rpora te that in format ion into the i r self -r at in gs of adap tive differ entiat ion. Altern at iv e l y sub ject s in th e l ow feedback condition may have di sm i sse d the ir lo w a d aptive diff ere ritiation scores as e i ther bo gus or in a ccurate. H oweve r, no cases of

PAGE 62

56 suspiciousness were observed, and subjects in the low feed back cell often appeared genu inely relieved when they l a ter le a rn ed that their feedb a ck scores we re bo gus thu s casting doubt upon this possibility. A third possible explanation for the failure of the manipulation ch e ck is that, although_experimental subjects initiall y accepted the feedback as veridical, subsequent interaction w ith the other subject, which was nearly always pl ea sant, may have convinced sub ject s in the low feedback condition that they had made a reasonabl y g ood impression after all, diminishing the effects of l ow f eedback. Analy sis of the item, "Ho w g ood of an impres s i on do you think you made on the other subje ct?," a lso reve a led no effects of the fe e dback manipul a tion, indic ating that there was no relation ship between the bo gus feedback subjects received and how th ey l ater perceived they came acro ss durin g the interaction. As will be seen despite th e failure o f the manipu l a tion check, effects of feedback (in int e raction with other variables) were obtained on a number of it e ms, particularly ratin g s by nonexperimental su bjects and experimental sub ject s verbal responses as coded from the tapes. Thus, al thou g h the m a nipulation was weak a nd had little effect on experimental s ubject s se l f reports it seems t o h ave be en stron g e nou gh to h a ve s om e typ e of effect on certain de pendent m eas ure s Althou g h no effects of feedback were obtained on the f ee dback manipulati o n check, a m a in effect of im ag e ambi gu ity

PAGE 63

57 was obta in ed on this it em f (1, 111) = 6 2 6 Q < .0 2 Examination of means shows that low ambiguity subjects (M = 10,5) rated themselves higher on adaptive differentiation than high ambiguity subjects (M = 9,6). What this indicates is that, without additional information regarding the nature of adaptive differentiation, subjects in the high ambiguity co ndit ion were more moderate or cautious in their self ratings, whereas low ambiguity subjects, who knew how adap tively differentiated peop l e tend to act rated themselves hi g her on the trait The implications of this main effect of ambiguity for the interpretation of other effects will become clear as we proceed I n li g ht of the uncertainty surroundin g the success of the feedback manipulation in altering subjects perceptions of their abilities to make favorable impress~ons, it seems that a useful secondary analysis would be to split subjects into g roups in terms of their s elf ratin g s of adaptive dif ferentiation ( as indicated on the manipulation check it em) and ana l yze the re l ationship between the perception of one's standing on a trait ostensibly associated w i th making good im press ion s and the dependent measures. Although such an analysis prec l udes drawing causal in terpretat ions of the dat a it may se rv e to provid e addition a l in f ormation a bout th e r e l a tion s hip b e tw e en th e belief th a t on e h ;:is th e ab ili ty to come acro s s well to others and sh y n e s s S uch an analy s i s will be discu ss ed at severa l points below,

PAGE 64

58 Fear of Negative Evaluation: Sub j ect Data Subjects' scores on the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale spanned the entire possible range from Oto JO, with a mean of lJ.6, a standard deviation of 7.64, and a median of 1 6 This compares to Watson and Friend's (19 69 ) norms of a mean of 15.5, standard deviation of 8 62 and median of 1 6 Kudar-Richardson test of homogeneity revealed a reliability coefficient of .9 2 which is quite close to the KR-20 of .94 obtained by Watson and Friend, A median split was performed on subjects FNE scores (subj ects falling on the median were classified w ith those below it) and subjects identified as e ither low (n = 68 ) or high (n = 60) in FNE. Subjects standing on the FNE sca l e (low or high) was subsequently entered in the analyses below, Experim e ntal Subjects Self-Reports Self Reports of Shyness and Re l axation It was predicted that subjects self reports of shyness and relaxation would vary as a function of feedback image ambiguity and FNE Analysis of subjects responses to the item, "How shy did yo u feel during the conversation?," showed only the predicted main effect of FNE, although it failed to reach a conventional level of s i gnif icanc e E (1, 11 ~ ) = o ~ oo 1 , Q < / (The product-mom e nt correl.::ition 1 As a r u l e o f thumb alph a w as s e t a t the conv e ntional l eve l of ,0 5. How e ver results w i th an obtained si gn ifi cance of Q < .10 wil l be reported if they involve predicted effects.

PAGE 65

59 between subjects' FNE scores and self-reported shyness was 1 +. 28 Q < .001. ) Contrary to predictions, no other effects of the independent variables were obtained on this item. Subjects were also asked, "How relaxed did you feel during the conversation?" It shou ld be noted that shyness and relaxation s hould not be regarded as purely opposite experiences. Although ail shy people should generally re port feeling l ess relaxed, a failure to feel relaxed in an encounter may arise for reasons unrelated to shyness ; one may be interacting with an overbearing braggart for exam ple. Thus, one would expect a moderate correlation between self-reports of shyness and relaxation, which is the case, r = -,5 9 Q < .001. A three way AN0VA performed on the relaxation item re vealed main effects of ima ge amb i guity E (1, 112) = J.48, Q < .0 6 and FNE, E (1, 112) = 4.56, Q < .04, and an ambi gu ity X FNE interaction, E (1, 11 2 ) = J .4 5 Q < .0 6 In spection of means shows that, as predicted, low ambiguity subjects ( M = 11.6) felt more relaxed than high ambiguity subjects ( M = 10.7), and lo w FNE subjects felt more relaxed than highs ( M s= 11. 6 and 10.7 for lo w and high FNE's, re spe ctively). The correlation between FNE and self-re por ted relax a tion was -, 2 7 Q < ,01, Examination of cel l means for th e inter act ion ( see Table 1) shows that both main effects are pu ll ed primarily 1 All reported r's are pooled within -c ell corre l ations

PAGE 66

Table 1 Self-Reports of Relaxation as a Function of Ambigu i ty and FNE Fear of Negative Eva l uation Amb i guity Low Hi g h Low 11 6 1 1. 5a H i gh 1 1. 6b 9 9ab 60 Note Means sha rin g a common subscript differ by 12. < 05 ( tests of simp l e effects)

PAGE 67

61 hi g h F N E's und e r conditions of hi g h ambiguity who felt significantly le ss relaxed than either low FNE subjects in the hi g h ambiguit y condition and hi g h FNE subjects in the low ambi g uity cell, ~s < .05, b y tests of simple effects. Put another way, low FNE subjects, who were not particularly conc e rned with ot hers' evaluations anyway appeared not to be bothered when they weie unsure of how to behave to make the most favor a bl e impression, whereas hi gh FNE s became more u ptight under conditions of hi g h ambi g uity G iven the failure of the feedback manipulation to pro duce sign i ficant effe cts on the m an ipul a tion check item, it was decided to trichotomize subjects in terms of their re sponses on the manipulation check ("How h i g h wou ld you rate yourself on adaptive differentiation?"). Th us three groups were created that diff e red in their self -r a tin gs of adaptive differentiation t he trait that was ostensibly associated w it h making goo d impressions on others. T he means for the t hr ee g roups on the manipulation ch ec k we re 7 6 10,4, and 1 2 .8 for the low, medium, and hi g h self -r atings of adaptive diff erent iation g roups, respectivel y If it c an be shown that self-rep o rted shyness and relax ation vary as a function of p erce iv e d possession of a trait supposed l y associated with m a kin g favorable impre ss ions, we will have some basis for inferrin g the proposed relationship bet wee n selfpresen t a tional concerns and social a nxiety, Of cour se it i s important to emphasize that, since one s per c ept i o ns of o n e s ov m a ttributes may thems e l v es be affected

PAGE 68

6 2 by numerous other va riabl es that may themselves be asso ci ated w i th shyness we w ill have no basis for concluding that the beli ef that one ranks low on the a bilit y to come across we ll to o ther s causes shyness or decreased relaxation. Nevert he le ss we m ay conclude that se lfevaluat ion s re ga rdin g the ability to make favorable impr ess ion~ from whate ver source s it uat ional manipulations, l ow self-esteem, veridical self percept i ons etc .-a r e assoc i ated w ith socia l anx i ety A three-way AN0VA employing self -r at i ngs of adap tiv e differentiation, i mage a mbi gu ity, and FNE as factors was performed on subjects se lf-r epor t s of shyness and rel ax ation. (It shou ld be not e d thai se l f -r at in gs of adaptive differentiation were not correlated w ith FNE sco res, r = -,1 5 Q > .0 5 so that the two indi vidual difference factors may be regarded as indep ende nt.) This ana l ys is performed on th e shyness measure revea led a significant main effect of adaptive differ en tiation se l f -r a tin g E ( 2 11 6 ) = 4.05, Q < ,0 2 and a marg in a ll y significant main effect of FNE, F (1, 11 6) = J 18 Q < .0 8 Examination of the self-rating main effect shows that, in suppo rt of th e model, self ratin gs of adaptive differentiation were ne ga tiv e l y related to se lf-repor ted shyness S ubj e ct s w ho rated themselves hi g he st on adapt i ve differentiation indicat ed they fe lt sign i f ic ant l y l ess shy (M = J ,0) than those rat in g th em selves low est on adapt i ve diff erent i a tion (M = 4. 8 ), Q < .0 5 by Duncan s test w i th those rating themse l ves in the m id d l e on adaptive differe nti a ti o n fa llin g midway ( M = 4.1)

PAGE 69

6J and not differin g significantly from the hi g h and lo w cells. (The correlati o n between se l f -r atin g s of adaptive differ entiation and shyness was -. 24 Q < .01,) As before, the marginally significant main effect of FNE showed that high FNE's reported feeling more shy than lows. Symmetrical effects were obtain~d on a similar analysis of the relaxation item. A main effect of adapt ive differ entiation self -r ating E ( 2 11 6 ) = J,90, Q < .OJ, revealed that self -report ed relaxation in the encounter was signif icantly greater for sub ject s rating themselves highest (M = 12. 2 ) or moderate (M = 11,6) in adaptive differentiation than those ratin g themselves lowest on adaptive differenti at ion ( M = 10. J) n's< .05. (Th e correlation between self ratin g s of ad a ptive differentiation and self -r eported relax ation was +,J 2 Q < .001,) A significant m a in effect of FNE, f (1, 116) = 4.58, Q < .04, again showed that low FNE subjects reported bein g more relaxed than highs It may be observed that, when self -r atin g s of adapt i ve differentiation are substituted for fe e dback as a factor in the analysis of the relax a tion item, the prev io usly obtained mar g inall y significant main effect of ambiguity a nd the ambi g uity X FNE int e racti o n disapp ea r This is r e lat e d to the fa c t th a t a s mention e d ea rli e r, a main e ffect of a mbi g uity w as obt a ined on tJ1e fe e db a ck m a nipu l a tion check, What this s ho ws i s that s ubjects' s e lf-ratin g s of a d a ptive differenti a tior1 w e re p a rtially a function of their ambi g ui ty condition de s ignation, In fact, the corre l ation

PAGE 70

64 between subjects self -r eports of adaptive differentiation and rat in gs of how clear it was how adapt iv e l y differentiated people tend to act was +,J S ,~ < ,001, Thus, when se lf ratin gs of adaptive differentiation are added as a factor in the AN0VA, th i s variable accounts for var i ance originally attributable to i mage ambiguity, This does no t appear to detract from the amb i gu ii y and amb i guity X FNE effects ob tained ear lie r but merely sugges t s that one var i a ble that affected subjects' se l f -ratin gs of adaptive d i fferent i ation was i mage ambiguity I n short subjects self -r eports of shyness and relax a ti on were found to vary as a function of the ir self-ratin gs on a fictional tra i t they believed was associated wit h making favorable i mpress ion s Althou g h these effects are correlational in nature, they are clearly in li ne w ith the hypotheses, Addition a l corre l at i onal data a l so support the hypoth esis that se l f reported shyness and rel axat i on are associ ated w ith one s self-presentationa l concerns, The items shown in Tabl e 2 demonstrate sign ific a n t a ltho ugh so m e times m i n i ma l, corre l ations --all i n the appro priate d ir ect ionb e t wee n the four measures of se l f presentationa l concern/ secur it y obtained i n th e study and se lf-r eports of s h y nes s and relax at ion. I t s ho u ld be obser ved that on l y the f i rst i tem in Table 2 correlates significantly with subjects' self ratings o f chronic shyness Th i s suggests that the l a tter thr ee relationships s hown in the Table are not

PAGE 71

Tabl e 2 Corr e l a tions of I t e ms with S e lf Reported Shyness and Re l a xati o n I tem Ho w g ood o f an impr e ssion do you t h ink you made on th e other subject? How concerned we re you with makin g a g ood i mpress i on on th e other subj ect ... ? How hard did you try to appe a r adaptiv e l y diff e renti ated ... ? To w h a t d eg ree do you fee l you wer e ab l e to control th e i mpress i on s th e other subj e ct formed of y ou ? a Shyn ess -. J 6 ** + .1 7* + .1 8* -.1 2 N ote a H ow shy d i d you f ee l durin g th e conv e r s ation? bHo w r e l axe d did you feel during the conv e rs at ion? R e l axat i onb +.4 2 ** + 0l -. 0 8 + 2 1* C I n genera l, h ow shy of a p e r so n do you con s i der your se l f t o b e ? ** Q < 001 Q < 05 Chronic C Shyness -. 27** + 04 + .1 0 -.09 VI

PAGE 72

66 mediated by subjects' ge ner a l lev e l of shyness or se lf presentational concern but are spec ific to shyness in this particular e ncounter. Mot i vat i on to Make a Favorab l e I mpression and P erce i ved Success of Doing So In order to assess th e effect of the independ en t vari ables upon subj e cts' at tempts to come across we ll to the other sub j ect expe rim en tal sub jects were asked ( a ) "How concerned were you w ith makin g a good impr ess ion on the oth e r sub ject durin g the conversation?," and (b) "Ho w hard did you try to appear adapt iv e l y differentiated to the other subject?" As would be expected a main effect of FNE was obtained on both i tems Hi gh Fear of Negat i ve Evaluation sub ject s in d ic ated that they were mor e concerned w i th makin g a good impr ess i on E (1, 1 1 2 ) = 7 66 Q < ,01 ( means we re 8 ,7 and 6 .7 for high and l ow FNE's, respectivel y ), and tried harder to appea r adaptively differentiated than l ows E (1, 11 2 ) = 11. J2 Q < .001 (m eans were 8 2 and 5,9 for highs and l ows respectively). The correlations b etween FNE an d the two items were : +, 25 (concerned w ith makin g a g ood impr ess ion) and +. J l ( tr y in g to appea r ada ptively differ e ntiated), Q's < .01. I n additi on a n a mbiguity X FNE inter a ction was ob tained on the l atte r it em F (1, 11 2 ) = 6 9 1, Q < .01. As can b e seen i n T a ble J l ow a nd hi g h FNE sub jects tried equa ll y hard to appea r adapt iv e l y differentiated whe n

PAGE 73

67 Tab l e J Subjects Attempts to Appear Adaptively Dif f erentiated as a Function of Amb i guity and FNE Fear of Ne ga tive Evaluation Ambiguity Low High Low High Note Means sharin g a common subscript differ by Q < 05 Table 4 Subjects Self-Reported Abili ty to Control Impressions as a Function of Ambi gu ity and F NE Fear of Ne ga tive Evaluat i on Ambiguity Lo w Hi g h Low 7 8 9.1a High 8 9 7 6a Note Means sharin g a common subscript differ by Q < 05

PAGE 74

68 ambiguity was high but high FNE's tried sign ific ant l y h a rd er to appear adaptively differentiated than lows when ambi guity was low, Q < .0 5 by tests of simple effects Also, hi g h FNE s tried harder to appear adaptively differentiated when ambiguity was l ow rather than hi g h, Q < ,05, whereas low FNE 's attempts to appear adaptively differentiated did not differ as a function 'of the ambiguity manipu l ation Q > .05. Inter esting l y an ambiguity X FNE interaction was also obtained on responses to the item, "To what de g ree did you feel you were able to control the impressions the other sub j e ct formed o f you ? F ( 1 111 ) = 4 J 9 Q < 0 4 Ins p e c tion of cell means ( see Table 4) shows t hat while high FNE s fe lt significantly better able to control their impres s i ons w hen ima ge ambiguity was low rather than hi g h, Q < .05, no difference was obt a ined between lo w and h~gh ambiguity conditions for lo w FNE's, Q > .05. These findings raise a noteworth y point In formation re ga rding the nature of the image likel y to result in favor able reactions from others (i.e., low ima ge ambiguity) i s of no help in attaining those reactions unless the individual attempts to use it. High FNE subjects, who were more moti vated to secure a favorable evaluation from the other sub ject tried harder to a pp ear adapt ively differentiat e d, felt better ab l e to control their impression s and felt as relaxed as low FNE s when ima g e ambiguity was low. Thus, although th e ir greater concern over evaluation would seem to predispose hi g h FNE s to become more socially anxious

PAGE 75

6 9 than lows, it also motivates them to manage their impres sions in ways that reduce their se lf-pres entat ion a l con cerns. Only when the nature of the valued image is ambi guous do high FNE s appear to become more anxious than lows. When subjects are divided into three groups on the basis of their adaptive differentiation self -ratin gs a main effect of se l f -r ating is obtained on the above item (i. e ., "T o what degree did you feel you were able to control the impressions the other subject formed of you?") E ( 2 115) = J.26 Q < .05. Inspection of means shows that sub ject s who rated themselves hi ghes t (M = 9,J) or medium (M = 9 0) on a d apt ive differ entiat ion indicated th ey felt sign i ficantly better able to cont r ol the impressions th e other subject formed of them than subjects who rated themselves lowest on adaptive differ ent iation (M = 7,4), Q's < .05 by Duncan's test. It make s good sense that peo ple who think they possess a trait assoc iated with the ability to m ake good impressions w ould perceive they were better able to control their impressions than peop le who rate themse lv es lo w on such a trait. Ra t ings of the Other Subject No effects of the indep endent variables, either alone o r in combin at i on were obtained on responses to the items, "H ow s hy d o you think the other (i. e ., nonex per im e nt a l) subject is?," an d "H ow much did you like the other sub ject?," all Q' s > .0 5 However, wh e n su bjects are spl it

PAGE 76

70 into three groups on the basis of th e ir adaptive differ entiat ion self-ratin gs a m a in effect of se lf-ratin g i s obtained on the likin g it em E ( 2 11 6 ) = 4.10, Q < ,02, Subjects ratin g themselves highest in adaptive differenti ation ( M = 1 2 ,1) liked the other subject more than subjects rating thems e lv es lowest on ada ptive differentiation (M = 10. 6 ), Q < ,0 5 with those rat in g themselv es in the middle fallin g in b e t wee n (M = 11,7), In te restin g l y ratin g s of how s hy the other s ubject appeared corr e lat ed w ith both se lf-r at i ngs of chronic shyness, r = +,29, and w ith self-ratin gs of s hyne ss durin g th e con versat i on r = +,40, Q' s< ,001. Thus, there se e ms to be a de g re e of egoce ntri s m in pe o ple's j u d ge ments of how shy others are : there is a tendency to a ss ume others are li ke oneself. Ratings by Nonexperimental Sub j ects Fo llo wing the five-minute conversation, none xper im enta l subjects answered six questions about the ex perim e ntal sub j ects a nd rated them on s ix ? po int bipolar adjective scales (s ee Appendix F for que s tionnaire). R a tings of Shyness and Relaxat i on Table 5 s h ows the correlations betwe e n nonexperiment a l subjects ratin g s of h ow s hy and r e l axed expe riment a l sub j ects a pp ea r e d to b e and exper im e nt a l su bj e cts' se lf-r eports of shy nes s and r e l axat ion. As c an be seen there i s no r e lationship b e tween s hyness rating s b y th e nonexperimenta l subjects and experimenta l subje ct s self reports of shyness

PAGE 77

T able 5 Corr e l at i ons Between Se lf-R eports and Oth ers R at i ngs of Shy n ess and Relaxation Experim enta l Subjects S e lf Reports Nor.experimenta l Subj e cts Ratin gs of Exper i menta l Subjects Shyness R e l axation Note ** Q < .01 Q < 05 Shyness D urin g Conv ersat i on +, 05 -,1 7* Rel axat ion Duri ng Con versa tio n -, 29 ** +. 2 9,~* Ch ron ic Shyness +,09 -. 08 ---.J I-'

PAGE 78

7 2 and on ly minim a l correspondence between ratings and self reports of rel a xation. Overall, nonexperimental subje cts (M = 6 .00) overestimated how shy experimenta l subjects were (M = 4,05), (1 27 ) = -5. 70 Q < .05, and underestimated how relaxed they w e re (M's= 11.J and 10.4 for experimenta l and nonexperimental subjects respective~y), (127) = J.00, Q < .0 5; In short there i s only minimal correspondence be tween experimental subjects self-reports and nonexperi mental subjects ratings of them A main effect of ambiguity F (1, 11 2 ) = 4. 27 Q < 04 and a mar g inally sign ificant m a in effect of feedback F (J, 11 2 ) = 2 54 Q < .0 6 were obtained on nonexperimental subjects ratin g s of how shy they thought the experimental subject was The patterns of means for both of these effects wer e contrary to predictions First nonexperimental sub jects rated experimental subjects as more shy in the low ambiguity (M = 6 6 ) than in the hi g h ambi gu it y condition (I t wi ll be rem embered that exper i menta l sub jects reported that they were m ore r e l axed in the low than hi g h ambiguity condition ,) It is possible that subjects in the low ambi g uity condition who may have been monitorin g their behavior more closely in order to appear adaptively diff e r e nti a t e d appeared mor e t e nuou s and aw kward a lthou ~ h th ey fe lt mor e re l axe d s inc e th ey p e rc e ived that they had a de g ree of c o n tro l over the impr ess ion s th e other was formin g of them

PAGE 79

73 The pattern of means for the marginally significant main effect of feedback were also puzzling: experimental subjects in the hi gh and no feedback condition were judged to be most shy ( M 's= 6 ,8 and 6,7, respectively), those receiving low feedback were judged as being least shy (M = 5,1), and those receiving average reedback were rated in betw een (M = 5,5). Possible explanations for this effect will be discus sed in detail below. Analysis of nonexperimental subjects' responses to the item, "How relaxed would you say the other subject was dur in g the c onversat ion?," revealed only a marginally signifi cant feedback X FNE interaction, E (J, 112) = 2 .5 2 Q < .0 6 The means for this effect are shovm in Table 6 Tests of simple effects reveal a significant simp le main effec t of feedback for lo w FNE subjects, Q < .05. Subsequent multiple comparisons showed that low FNE subjects were judged to be significantly le ss relaxed after they had received low feed back than either average or no feedback, ~s < ,05, with the high feedback condition not differing significantly from the others. Thus, l ow feedback regarding adapt ive differ entiation was assoc iated with red uced relaxation, a lthou gh only for l ow FNE's, Why a similar effect was not o btained for hi g h FNE sub jects is not cl ear No effects of se l f -ratin g s of adapt i ve differentiation were obtained on nonexp e rimental subjects r a tings of shy ness or relaxa~ion whe n experimental subjects were trichot omized accordin g t o their self-ratings and that factor en tered into the analysis

PAGE 80

T ab l e 6 Nonexperimental Sub j ects Rat i ngs of How Re l axed the Experiment a l Subject was as a Function of Feedback and FNE Feedback Fear of Negat i ve Evaluation L ow Average H i gh Low 8.9ab 11. 4 9 8 a Hi g h 1 0 6 10. 5 1 0 .1 74 None 11. 5b 9 6 Note Means sharing a common subscr i pt di ffer by Q < 05

PAGE 81

75 Ev a l uat ions of the Experimental Sub j ects Nonexper im enta l subjects' evaluations of the experi mental subjects were examined as a function of feedback, im age ambiguity, and FNE, although no hypoth e ses were ad vanced regarding their effects. A three-way interaction of feedback X ambiguity X FNE was obtained on responses to the items: (a) "Ho w much did you li ke the other subject?," F (J, 11 2) = 2 .51, Q < .0 6 and (b) What wa s you r overall impression o f the other sub ject?," F (J, 11 2 ) = 2 6 1, 12 < .05. Becau se these t wo it ems are correlated (r = +.57, Q < ~0001), the y w ill be dis cussed together. Examinin g the "likin g item first (see T a ble 7) tests of simple effec ts r evea led that lo w FNE subj e cts in the hi g h fe e dback/low amb i g uity condition were li ked less than (a) other low FNE subjects under conditions of low amb i guity (b) low FNE subjects in the high f e edback / hi g h ambi g u it y condition, and (c) hi g h FNE's in the hi g h feedback/low ambi g uity condition, Q's< .05. Inspection of means for the "o veral l impression" item (s ee Table 8) reveals a strikin g ly sim il ar pattern. Again, lo w FNE's in the high feedback/low ambi g uity condit ion were evalu a ted l east positively, s ignific ant ly l ess s o than ( a ) lo w FNE' s in th 0 low ambi g uity condition w ho r ece iv e d lo w or avera ge feedback (b) low FNE's in th e hi g h feedback/ hi g h ambiguity condition, and (c) hi g h FNE's in the high fe e dback/low am b i gu ity cell, Q' s < .05.

PAGE 82

T able 7 Nonexperimental Subjects Ratin gs of How Well They Liked the Experimental Subject as a Funct i on of Feedback Amb i g u i ty and FNE Low Fear of Ne ga tive E valuat i on Feedback Ambi gu ity L ow A vera g e H i gh L ow 11, 4a 11, 9b 9 4 a b cde Hi g h 1 0 7 11. 4 11. Jd Hi g h Fear of Negative Evaluat i on Feedback Amb i g uity L ow Avera ge Hi g h Low 11. 9 1 2 0 1 2 .1 e H i gh 11.1 1 2 4 1 1 0 No 1 1 7c 1 0 J No 1 0 8 11, 9 Note Me a ns sharing a common subscript d i ffer b y Q < 05 The fol l owing tw o way s i mp l e interactions we r e signif i cant by Q < 05 : f ee dback X am bi guity wit h in l ow FNE amb i gu i ty X FNE w i t hi n hi g h fe e dback

PAGE 83

Ambi g u it y Low Hi g h Ambiguity Low High Table 8 Nonexperimental Subjects' Impressions of Experimental Subjects as a Function of Feedback, Ambi gu ity, and FNE Low Fear of Negative Evaluation Feedback Low A vera g e Hi g h 1 2 2a lJ 0b 9 6 abcd 11.J 11.J 11. sc Hi g h Fear of N e gat iv e Evaluation Feedback Low Average Hi g h 1 2 J 1 2 4 1 2 6d 1 2 .0 12. 6 11.5 77 No 1 2 0 12.1 No 10.8 11.1 N ot e Means sh a rin g a common subscript differ by 12. < 05 The followin g two-way s impl e interactions wer e significant by TI < 05 : fec db:i.ck X ::1mbi G ui ty within l o w f N E ;: unbi c; ui ty X f N E wit hin hi r~ h f co db::1ck fcedb::1 c k X FNf. w ithin .low :1mbi g uit y

PAGE 84

78 Thus, exp e rimental subjects in the sin g le cell that was predicted to result in th e least shyness were liked least a nd made the worst overall impres s ion. It seems pos sible that low Fear of Negative Evaluation subjects rela tivel y unconcerned with the other's evaluation made little attempt to get the other to li ke them when they already be liev ed the y had the attr ibut es necessary to make a favorab le impres s ion and knew kow to act in order to ma ke one. 1 Interestin g l y ho we v er there was no correlation b e tw ee n none xpe riment a l subjects' evaluations of the experimental subject, either in t e rms of likin g or overall impr ess ion, a nd experimental sub jects' ratings of ho w goo d of an impres s i on they tho ug ht they had m2d e on the nonexperimental sub j ect r's < .1 0 Q's> .05. It seems that peo ple may not b e partic u larly go od at jud g in g how well th ey come across to stran g ers in an initi a l conversation. To assess the effect of the experimental subjects ex perim en tal condition upon nonexp e rim e nt al su bjects' reactions to th e encount er nonexperimental subj e cts we re asked, "How comfort a ble did you f eel during your conversation with the other subject?" This item revealed a significant fe e dback X FNE inter a cti o n, E (J, 11 2 ) = J .0 6 Q < OJ T es ts of s i mp l e ef f e c ts ( see T a bl e 9) s h owed that non e xp e rimental su j ec ts felt signifi c a ntl y l ess comfort a bl e int era ctin g with 1 No effec ts of subje ct s se lf-r at in gs of a d ap tive dif ferentiation we re obt a ined on e ither the liking or overall impression it ems

PAGE 85

79 Table 9 Nonexperiment a l Su bjects R a tin gs of How C om fortable The y Felt Durin g th e Inte raction as a Function of Feedback and FNE Feedb a ck FNE Low Aver age Hi g h No Lo w 11. 9a 10.1 9 5 abc ll.7b Hi gh 10. 7 11.9 11,7c 10.4 Note Means sharing a comm o n subscript diff e r by~< .0 5

PAGE 86

80 low FNE subjects in the high feedback than in the low or no feedback conditions, or hi~1 FNE subjects in the hi~ fe e dback condition, Q's< .05. Althou~ the effect was not qualified by image ambiguity, it bears some resemblence to the personal evaluation item s just discussed, Lo w FNE sub jects who received hi~ feedback app~ar to have been behaving in a way that produced adverse reactions in nonexperimental subjects. Nonexperimental sub ject s ratin g s of comfort in the encounter were then analyzed as a function of experimental subjects' self-ratin g s of adaptive differentiation, ima ge ambi g u it y and FNE, revealin g a significant three-way inter action, E ( 2 116) = 7.96, Q < .001. (See T a ble 10.) Low FNE subjects rating themselves high on adaptive differen tiation and servin g in the low amb i guity cell made nonex perimental subjects feel significantly less comfortable than (a) l ow FNE's ratin g themselves high on adaptive differenti ation, but serving in the hi g h ambiguity cell and (b) high FNE's in the high se lf-r at in g / lo w ambiguity condition, 12's < .0 5 In addition, nonexperimental subjects fe lt le ss comfortable when int eract in g with hi gh FNE subje cts in the hi g h self -ratin g/hi g h ambigu it y condition than w ith (a) low FNE's in the hi g h s e lf-ratin g /hi g h a mbi gu ity c e ll, (b) hi g h FNE s in the hi g h s e lf-ratin g/ low ambi g uit y condit i on and (c) hi g h FNE's in the hi g h ambi g uity condition who rated themselves eit~er low or medium on adaptive differentiation, 12 1 s < .05. The tendency for low FNE subjects in the low

PAGE 87

81 Table 10 Nonexperiment a l Subjects Ratin gs of H ow C omfo rt ab le The y Felt Durin g the Interaction as a F unc tion of Se lfRat in g of Aa aptive Dif ferent i at ion Ambi g uity an d FNE Lo w F ea r of Ne ga tive Ev a luati o n Se l f -R a tin g of Adapti ve Di ffere nti ation Ambi g uity Low Med i um Hi g h Lo w 1 0 9 11,7 9 4ab Hi gh 11.1 10.0 11.9 ac Hi gh F ear of Ne ga tive Ev a l uat i on Se l f -R at in g of Adaptive Differentiation Ambi gu ity Lo w Med ium High Lo w 11.J 10. 5 1 2 Bbd Hi g h 11.0 11. Jf 6 7 cct e f e Not e ~1ean s shar in g a common su b s crip t diff er b y J2 < 0 5 T h e fo ll owin g tw o way s impl e int e r act i ons we re s i gn ific ant by J2 < 05 : amb i g uit y X F NE within hi gh self r a tin g FNE X self rat i n g wit hin hi g h amb i gu it y ambigu it y X se lf ratin g w ithin hi g h FNE

PAGE 88

82 ambiguity condition who rate d themselves hi g h on adaptive differenti a tion to m a ke nonexperimental subjects feel le ss comfortabl e paral l els previous e ffect s in which su bject s who presumably were in the "optim a l" self-presentational con dition had adverse effects on nonexperimental subjects. The finding tha t high FNE's w ho rate d themselves high on adapt ive differentiation 'under conditions of high amb i gu it y had an even stronger effect in that re ga rd is more puzzling. M i sce ll a neous R a tin gs A three -w ay A.NOVA performed on the item, "H ow much eye contact did the oth e r sub ject g ive you d u rin g the conver sation?," rev ea led a significant ambi gu it y X FNE interaction, E (1, 11 2 ) = 4.1 2 Q < .05 ( see Table 11). Tests of simple effects sho we d that, un der c o ndition s of lo w a mbi g uity, hi g h FNE s ubjects were jud g e d t o have en gaged in more eye contact th an lo w F N E' s Q < .0 5 Ho weve r, l ow and hi g h FNE 's did not differ in jud g ed eye contact in the hi g h ambiguity con dition, Q > .05. Al s o low FNE s en gaged i n somewhat mor e eye contact when amb i g uity was hi g h rather than lo w Q < .07, wh ile hi g h FNE s showed a nonsignific a nt trend in the opposite dir ection I t w ill be recalled that subjects in the lo w a mbi g uity con d ition h ad b e e n g iv en information re g ardin g ho w adap tiv e l y diff ere nti ated p eo pl e s upp ose dly tend t o ac t: "p eo pl e w h o rank hi g h in adap tive diff e r e n t i at ion t e nd to b e in tereste d in other people s mil e fr equen tl y are optimistic ar e open-minded and appe ar we llad justed to others ." To

PAGE 89

Note Tab l e 1 1 Nonexperimental Subjects Ratin gs of How Much Eye Contact Exper i mental Subjects Gave Them as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE Fear of Ne g ative Evaluation Ambi g uit y Low Hi g h L ow 8 9a 10 5a Hi g h 1 0 J 9 5 Means sharing a common subscript d i ffer by Q < BJ 05

PAGE 90

84 determine whether such information actually led l ow ambi gu ity subjects to act in such ways and thus differently than subjects in the hi g h ambi g uity condition, nonexper imental subject s were asked to rate them on six 7-point bi polar adjective scales that tapped the characteristics desribed as indicative of adaptively _differentiated people: optimistic/pessimistic, open-minded/close-minded, poorly adjusted/well adjusted, smiled a lot/did not smile at all, friendl y/unfr i end l y and interested in others/not interested in others. A multivariate ana ly s is of variance performed on the s ix scales revealed no effects of any independent vari ables, incl ud in g im age ambiguity, Q' s > .10. Th us as hoped, none xpe rimental su bjects did not detect differences in the b ehav i o r of experimental subjects that could be directly attributable to the content of the in format ion g iven to lo w a mb i gu it y sub j ects Thu s it may be assume d that ob tain ed differen ces in the r a tin gs or behaviors of lo w versus hi g h ambiguity subjects are not d u e to specific difference s in their interp erso nal b e haviors as affected by lo ws know led ge of ho w adaptively differentiated people tend to act. Obse rvational Dat a Trained raters listened to the tapes of the five-minute conversation s betwe e n sub ject s a nd coded four p i e ces of in form a tion from ea ch: ( a ) which subject in eac h session broke the ini tial s il e nc e after the experimenter h a d left th e room and c~osed the door, (b) how lon g ea ch subject

PAGE 91

85 talked durin g the five minutes, (c) how man y questions each subject asked the other, and (d) an overall estimation of how shy the raters thought the subjects "sounded," rated on a ?-point scale, Ratings were available for only 12 6 of the 1 28 sessions. One session was lost due to an experimenter's failure to record it, and another was excluded from the analysis because of one subject's obvious attempt to sabo tage the recordin g Interrat er reliabilities were computed for each of the ratings across 40 randomly selected su bjects. Raters worked in pairs for these coding sessions, both raters recording the data for each of the 40 subjects, E a ch of the four measures demonstrated an acceptable degree of reliability: (a) w hich subject initiated the conversation, 1,00; (b) time spent talkin g , 94 ; (c) number of questions asked, ,9J; and (d) ratin gs of perce ived subject shyness 74 Initiation of Con ve rs at i on No effects o f the independ ent variables were obtained on chi-square analyses of whether or not the experimental subject initi ated the conversation after the e xperimenter had l eft the room. Tim e Spent Talking A threeway AN O VA performed on the numb e r of se conds th at ex p e rim e n ta l s ubj e cts talk e d d ur in g th e co nver sat ion r evea led onl y a ma in e ff e ct of FNE, E (1, 110) = 4. 62 Q < .04. As mi g ht be ex pected, lo w FNE s ubject s ( M = l)J,5

PAGE 92

86 secon d s ) spoke lon ger than hi gh FNE subjects (M = 117,0 seconds), Th e correlation betwe e n FNE and time spe nt talk in g was -, 25 p < ,01, Because th ere was great variability in the total len g th of time subjects in a g iven sess ion conver s ed (i. e ., sub ject s in some sess ions sat qu ietl y fqr lon g portions of the five minute period), it was decided to exam in e the propor tion o f time each sub ject spoke, relative to the total l engt h of the conversation, Thu s each subject 's speak in g time was di v ided by the t o t a l time that both subjects talked in a g iven sess ion, a nd thi s proportion subm itted to a three-way AN0VA, In add iti o n to the main effec t of FNE ob tained above E (1, 110) = J,96, p < .05, this analysis re vea l ed a significant feedback X amb i gu it y X FNE interacti on F ( J 110) = 2 6 5, < ,05, (A s b efo re, l ow F NE s spoke rel at i ve l y more of the time than hi g h F NE s --55 % versus 4 9% re spect i ve l y ,) The pr oport i ons for the three-way int era cti o n are shovm in Table 1 2 Und er cond iti ons of l ow im age a mbiguity, l ow FNE subjects talked propor ti ona ll y l on g er w hen feedback was hi g h than average or when the y received no feedback at all, p's< .0 5 L ow FNE subjects in the l ow feedback/low ambi g uity condition fell midw ay and did no t d i ffer from the other cells, Al so after r ece i ving high f eedba ck regard in g their adapt i ve diff ere nti at ion, l ow FNE subjects i n the l ow amb i gu it y condition talked more th a n l ow FNE s under hi g h a m bigu it y and mor e than hi g h F N E' s in the hi g h f eedback/

PAGE 93

Tabl e 1 2 Proporti on of Tim e Experimental Subjects Spoke as a Function of Feedback, Ambi gu it y a nd FNE Low Fear o f Negative Evaluation Fe edback Ambi gu it y Low Aver age H i gh No 87 Lo w 60 5oa 68 abcd .sob Hi g h 54 6 1 4 6 C ,50 High Fear of Ne ga tive Eva l uatic n Feedback Ambi gu it y Lo w A verage High No Lo w .4 8 57 .4 6 d .4 J High .4 8 ,50 5 1 ,55 Not e Proportions sharing a common subscript differ by Q < 05, The followin g t wo way s imple i nteractions were s i gn i f ic ant by Q < ,0 5 : feedback X ambigu i t y w ithin l ow F NE ambi g u i t y X FNE w ithin high feedback feedback X F NE w i th in l ow amb i gu ity,

PAGE 94

88 low ambiguity cell, Q's< .0 5. Thus, the grea test amount of talking, proportional to the total len gt h of the con versation, occurred among low FNE subjects in the high feed back/low ambiguity condition--those subjects in the optimal condition from a self presentational perspective, as pre dicted. (These were also the subjects evaluated least positively by nonexperimental subjects a point to be dis cussed below.) Ho wever there was no simple interaction of feedback X ambiguity for hi g h FNE's that showed decreased talking in the low feedback/high ambiguity cell as was expected Subjects we re then classified as lo w medium, or hi gh on their self-ratings of adaptive differenti a tion, and their time spent talking examined as a function of self ratin gs ambiguity, and FNE. A se lf-r at in g of adaptive diff ere ntiation X FNE interaction was obtained on the raw number of seconds experimental subjects spoke E ( 2 114) = J J7 Q < .04, and on the proportion of time that subjects talked, relative to the length of the conversation, E ( 2 114) = 4.1 6 Q < 02 The means and proportions for these two effects are presented together in Table lJ, Tests of simple effects, followed by multiple compari sons for simple main effec ts, on th e two items revealed the same patt ern of results First, high FNE s talked mor e than low FNE's when they thought they were hi g h in adaptive differentiation, but l ess when they thou g ht they were medi um or low in adaptive differentiation, Q'S< 05 Also, low

PAGE 95

Table lJ Time Spent Ta lkin g as a Function o f Se l f -Ratin gs of Adaptive Differentiation and FNE Self Rating of Ad ap tive Di ffe rentiation F NE Low Medium High L ow lJJ 6 14 2 ,9 1 2 1.1 (,55)a ( 59) bd ( 47)cd High 110 4 11 8 J 145, 6 ( 47) ae ( 51) b ( 59)ce Not e Numbers i s parentheses refer to proportion of time subje cts talked rel a tive to total le ngth of conversation. Means sharing a common s ubscript differ by Q < 05

PAGE 96

90 F NE s who r ated t h emse lves medium in adaptive di ffere nti ation talked more than those who rated themselves hi g h, and hi g h FNE's talked more when they rated themselves hi gh th a n lo w Q's< .0 5 Thus, when proportion of time spent talking is examined as a function of se lf-rati ngs of adap tive differentiation, the expected pattern is obtained for hi g h FNE's, who demonstrated increased t a l k in g with higher se l f -r at in gs Lo w FNE's showed a different pa tte rn in wh ich subjects ratin g themselves m ed iu m on adaptive differentiation talked more than those rating themselves hi gh As w ill be discussed belo w lo w Fear of Negative E va l uat ion people may interact with others most fully under moderate le ve l s of se l f presentat i ona l concern Number of Questions Asked An analysis of var i ance pe rf ormed on the number of questions asked by exper iment a l sub jects revea l ed a two way in teract ion of am bi gu ity X FNE, f (1, 11 0) = 4.17, Q < ,0 5 and a threeway inter a ction of feedback X amb i gu it y X FNE, E ( J 110) = J 22 Q < .OJ. Examining the two way effect fir st (see T ab le 14), it can be seen that, wher eas low F NE 's asked more questions than hi ghs under conditions of hi gh a m bigu it y Q < ,0 5 high a nd low FNE su bj ects did not diff e r s i p1 i fic::rntly w lH'll im:1 [:e ~1 mbip1i ty w:1s l ow 12 > 0 5 L ookin g at th e e ff e ct s t h e other w ay incr e::is i ng amb i g uit y nonsignific a ntl y incr ease d the numb e r of quest i ons asked by l ow FNE 's, Q < .10, but sign ific ant l y d ecreased the n umber

PAGE 97

Table 14 Number of Q ues tion s Asked as a Function of Ambiguity and FNE Fear of Negative Evaluation Ambiguity Lo w High Lo w 7 5 7,9b Hi g h 8 6a 6 Jab 91 N ote Means sharin g a common subscript differ by~< 05

PAGE 98

92 of questions asked by high FNE subjects, Q < .05. This su gge sts th at ima ge amb i gu ity may hav e different interper sonal consequences depending upon the de g ree to which the individual is characteristically concerned with how he or she appears to others. Decomposition of the three-way ~nteraction via tests of simple effects (see Table 15) reveals that, under average feedback conditions, low FNE subjects asked significantly more questions wh e n ambiguity was hi gh rather than low, and more questions w hen ambiguity was hi g h than did hi g h FNE's in the avera ge feedback/ hi gh ambiguity condition, ll'S < .05. This effect rem a ins difficult to interpret. When the number of questions subjects asked was exam in e d as a function of self-ratings of adaptive differenti ation, a self-ratin g X FNE int eraction was obtained, E ( 2 114) = J.J?, ll < .0 4 As c an be seen in Table 1 6 high FNE subjects who rated themselves l owest in adaptive dif ferentiation asked significantly less questions than either hi g h FNE's who rated themselves me dium or low FNE's who rated themselves low, Q's< .05. Ra te rs' Judgments of Shyness After codin g the behaviors above from the tap e of each se ss i on the rat e r s respo nd ed to th e item, "Ho w sh y did this subject sound to you? ," on a ?-point scale Thi s ratin g was done blind ( i e ., without knowl e d ge of the subjects condition) and ind ependent l y for each rater. The interrater reliabilit y 9f 74 indicates that the raters were in moderate

PAGE 99

Ambigu i ty Low High Ambi gu ity Lo w Hi g h Table 15 Number of Questions Asked as a Function of Feedback Ambiguity and FNE Low Fear of Negative Evalu ation Feedback Low Avera ge Hi gh 9 5 5 5 a 7 0 7 4 1 0 9ab 8 2 High Fear of Negative E va luation Feedback Low A verage Hi g h 8 7 7 5 8 8 6 7 4 Ob 6 o 9J No 7 9 7.8 No 6 8 8.5 Note Means sharing a common subscript differ by Q < 05 The following two way s impl e int eractions were significant by R < 05: feedback X a mbi g uity within l ow FNE a mbi gu ity X FNE wit hin average feedback feedback X FNE w ithin hi g h ambi g uity

PAGE 100

FNE L ow Hi g h Tab l e 1 6 Number of Questions Asked as a Funct i on of Se l f-Rat i ng of Adaptive D i f f eren ti ation and FNE Self-Ratin g of Adaptive D i fferent i at i on Low Medium High 9 5a 8 J 7 J 6 3 a b 9 Ob 6 8 N ot e Means sharing a common subscript diff e r by 12. < 05

PAGE 101

95 agreement re gar din g how shy the subjects sounded The cor r e lations bet wee n raters' judgments of s h y ness and other indices of shyness and self-presentational concern obtained in the study are presented in Table 17. As can b e seen, there are consi s tent relationship s in the expected direction between ratin gs made from analysis of verbal behaviors alone and other measures obtained both from the experimenta l and nonexperimental subjects It is int erest in g to note that, althou g h jud ge s' ratings of the experimental s ubjects' shyness we re correlated both with ex periment a l s ubjects' se lf-r eports of shyness and non ex pe rimental subje ct s ratin gs non ex perim e nt a l subjects rating s did not corr e l ate w ith expe rim enta l su bjects' se l f rep orts as m e ntion ed ea rlier (see T a ble 5) It i s also in teresting to note that jud ge s listenin g only to audio tap es of the in teract ions were better at est im at in g experi mental subjects su bjective s hyness than were nonexperimen tal subjects w h o interacted with th e m face-to-face. This ma y be because nonexperimental subj e cts were distracted by their own int erpersona l concerns during the conversation. A main effect of feedback, F (J, 110) = J.06, Q < .OJ, a nd a feedback X ambi g uity interaction, E (J, 110) = 2 .9 6 Q < .04, were obtain e d on th e jud ges shyness r a tin gs of the expe rim e ntal su bj ects Contr ary to pred icti o n s but con s i sten t with nonexperimental s ubject s s h yness ratin gs ju dges rat ed sub j e c ts in the hi g h ( M = J 9) a nd no feedback (~ = 4. 2 ) condition s as soundin g si gn ific a ntly mor e shy than

PAGE 102

Note Table 17 Correlations Between Jud ges Ratings of Shyness and Other Measures From Experimental Subjects : How sh y did you feel ,,,? How relaxed did you feel ,,,? In ge neral how shy of a per son do you consider yourself to be? How g oo d of an i ~press ion do you think y ou made, ,,? F ear of Negative Ev a lu ation From Nonexper i menta l Subjects : How shy do you think the other subject is? How relaxed wou ld you say the other subj e ct was .. ? *** Q < 001 ** Q < 01 12. < 05 +, 2 4*** -. JO*** +,18* -,18* + ,1 7* + 22 ** -,1 9** 96

PAGE 103

97 subjects in the low feedback condition (M = J .J), Q's< .05 by Duncan's test. The average feedback condition (M = J.6) fell in between and did not differ significant ly from the others. This pattern is identical to the shyness ratings made by the nonexperimental subjects. Although it is dif ficult to ascertain precisely what l ed both naive subjects and trained observers to draw the same inference regarding ho w shy experimental sub ject s were we may at least conclude that experimental subjects in the high feedback condition were doing something that made them appear and sound shy. Examination of means for the feedback X amb i gu it y in teraction (see Table 1 8) reveals that subjects in the lo w feedback/ lo w ambiguity cell were jud ge d as sound in g l east shy significant l y less so that lo w ambiguity subjects under every other le vel of feedback Q's< ,0 5 and l ess than lo w feedback subjects in the hi g h ambiguit y condition, Q < .0 5 Thu s the lo w shyness ratings among lo w feedback subjects was conf ined to the low ambi gu ity condit i on No effects of adaptive differentiation self -r at ing were obtained on jud g es shyness ratin gs Th e Nonexper i mental Su bjects' Beh a vior In order to examine the effects of the experimenta l subjects experim e nt a l condition upo n th e v e rbal b e havior of nonexperimental subjects th e latter's verbal responses were ana l yzed ~s a function of the experimental subjects' cell designaticn. A significant feedback X amb i guity X FNE interaction, F ( J 110) = 2 .96, Q < ,04, and a significant

PAGE 104

Table 18 Raters' J u d gme nts of Shyness as a Function of Feedback and Amb i guity F ee dback Ambi g u it y Lo w Avera g e Hi g h L ow 2 8 a bcd 3 9a J 8b High J 8d J J 4 o N ot e Means sharin g the same s ubscr i pt differ by J2 98 No 4 .4 C J 9 < .0 5

PAGE 105

99 self-rating of adaptive differentiation X ambiguity X FNE int eract ion, E ( 2 114) = J.16, Q .05, were obtained on analyses of how much nonexperimental subjects talked during the conversation. The patterns of these effects are dif ficult to interpret and appear not to either support or di sconf irm experimental hypotheses. The means for the t wo interactions are presented in Tables 19 and 2 0 for the sake of completeness, but will not be di scussed further. When the proportion of time nonexperimental subjects spoke is examined, the effects obtained are, of co urse perfectly inver sely rela ted to those obtained for the pro portion of time exper imental subjects spoke (T ab l e 1 2 ). Nonexperimental subjec ts spoke proportionally least in the condition in which experimental sub j e ct s spoke most, that in w hich lo w FNE subjects received hi gh feedback under condi tions of low ambiguity. Finally, the only other effects that w ere sign ificant for nonexperimental sub ject s were obtained on the judges' ratings of ho w s h y subjects sounded: feedback X amb i gu ity, E (J, 110) = 2 86 Q < .04, feedback X amb i guity X FNE, E (1, 110) = 4. 64 Q < .01. As Table 21 shows nonexperi mental subjects were jud ged to be more shy when experimen tal sub j ects had received no feedback and ima g e ambigu it y was high rather than lo w Q < .05. Examination of the three -wa y interaction ( see Table 2 2) shows that nonexperi mental subject3 w er e judged to be less shy when in teract in g with (a) lo w FNE/average feedback experimenta l subjects in

PAGE 106

100 Table 19 Number of Seco nds Nonexperimental Subjects Talked as a Function of Feedback Ambiguity and FNE Low Fear of Negative Evaluation Feedback Ambiguity Low Average H ig h No Low 99,9a lJO,J 70 8bc 110 5 High 1 05 6 96 0 1J 6 7b 121 J Hi gh Fear of Negative Eval uat i0n Feedback Ambi gu ity Low Av erage Hi gh No Low 141 7a 111 1 1 29 .9c 14J,4 Hi g h 1 31 5 1 14 8 100 J 1 12 J Note. Means sharing a common subscript diff er by Q < 0 5 The fo llo w in g two -w ay s impl e int eractio n s were significant b y Q < ,0 5 : feedback X a mbi g uity w i t hin l ow FNE ambi gu i ty X FNE w ithin hi gh feedba ck ambiguity X FNE w ithin average feedb a ck f eedback X FNE within low ambi g uit y

PAGE 107

Tabl e 20 Num ber of Seconds Nonexp e rimental Su bj ects Talked as a Function o f Sel f -R a tin g of Adap t ive Differentiation, Ambiguity, and F N E Lo w F ea r of Ne ga tive Evaluation 101 Se lf-Ratin g of Ad apt iv e Di ffe renti a tion Ambi gu ity Low Hi gh Ambiguity Lo w Hi g h Low Medium Hi g h Hi g h F ea r of Nega tive Evaluation Se l f -R a tin g of Ad apt i ve Di fferent iation Lo w 1 26 9 1 2 5 .1 Medium 1 2J 8 114, 9 Hi g h 1J 8 8 e Note Means shar in g a common subscript d i ffer b y 12 < .0 5 'l'h c fo 1l owi n c; two w : 1y si mpl e i n tcr:1ctio 11 :-; wc)rc sic ; nific:i.nt by J2 < 05 : se l f ratinc: X ::i m bir, ui ty within l ow FNE PNE X .:unb i gu it y within hi g h se l f rat in g FNE X a mbi gu i ty w ithi n med i um se l f r at in g se lf-ratin g X FNE wi thi 1 l ow ambi gu i ty se l f ra tin g X FNE w ithin hi g h a mbi g uity

PAGE 108

10 2 Table 2 1 Rat e rs Jud gme ntG of How Shy Non expe rimen tal Subjects Sounded as a Function of F ee dback and Amb i guity F eedback Ambiguity Low Av erage High No Lo w J J J 4 4 1 J Oa High J 7 J 5 J 6 4 J a Note Means sharing a common subscript diff er by 12 < O 5

PAGE 109

l0J T ab l e 22 Raters Jud g ments of How S hy None~per i menta l Sub j ects Sounde d as a Funct i o n -0 f F eedback A mb i gu i ty and FN E Lo w F ea r of Ne ga t i ve E va l uation F eedback Ambigu i ty Low Avera g e Hi g h No L ow J 9 2 9a 4 6 J 7c Hi g h J J 4 o a J 6 4 o Hi gh Fear of Ne ga tive Eva l uat i on Feedback Ambi g u i ty L ow Avera ge Hi g h No L ow 2 8b J 9 J 6 2 3 cd H i gh 4 l b J 0 J 6 4, 5d Note M ea n s s h a rin g a common subscript di ffer b y J2 < 05 Th e fo ll owin g two -w ay s impl e int e raction s were s i Gn ificant by J2 < 05 : f ee dback X a mbi g uity within hi g h FNE, a mbi g uit y X FNE within avera g e fee db ac k a mbi gJ. i t y X FNE w ith i n lo w fee db a ck a mbi g uity X FNE within no f ee d bac k fe ed back X F N E with i n l ow am bi g uity

PAGE 110

104 low rather than high ambigu ity condition, Q < .05, (b) high FNE/low feedback subjects in the low rather than high con dition, Q < .0 5 (c) low rather than hi g h FNE's in the low ambiguity/no feedback cell, Q < .05, and (d) high FNE's who received no feedback and were under conditions of low rather than high ambiguity, Q < .05. Although three out of four of the significant bet ween -cell differences show non exper imental subjects sou ndin g l ess shy when ta lkin g to experimental subjects under lo w rather than high image ambi gu it y the fact that the effects show up under different le vels of feedback and FNE make them extremely difficult to interpret and they w ill not be discussed further. No effects of adaptive differentiation se lf-ratin gs were obtained on judges' ratin gs of how shy nonexperimental subjects sounded, Soc ial Avoid ance and Distress Scale : Corre la tiona l D ata Along with the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale pre viously discussed at length, subjects were initially ad ministered the Socia l Avoidance and Distress (SAD) Scale ( Watson & Friend, 19 69 ). Subjects' responses on the SAD had a mean of 6 8 a standard deviation of 5,17, a median of 6 and a Kudar -Rich ardson 20 reliability coefficient of 87 (Thi s compares to Watson & Friend' s n or ms of a mean of 9 ,1, standard deviation of 8 .01, m ed ian of 7 and KR 2 0 of ,94,) Table 2 J presents correlations between the SAD and other measures used in the pres e nt study, As can be seen,

PAGE 111

105 T a bl e 2 J Correlations of SAD Scores with Other Measures From Experimental Subjects: Fear of Ne g ative Evaluation +,49***a In ge neral how s hy of a p e rson do you consider yourself to be? How relaxed did you feel ,,,? How s h y did you fe e l,,,? How g ood of an impre ss ion do you think you made .. ? From Nonexperim e ntal Subjects : How s h y do you think the other subject is? How rel a xed w ou ld you say the other subject was ,,, ? Taped Ratin g s : + 57* ** -.J4*** +,JO*** -. 42*** +, 20 -. 2 J* How l on g subje ct talked -.J 6 *** How shy subject sounded +, 2 9** No te *** Q < 001 ** Q < 0 1 Q < 05 aWatson & Fri end (19 6 9 ) obtained a similar correlation of + 51, Q < 001 betwe e n the SAD and F NE scales

PAGE 112

10 6 subjects' re sponses on the SA D correlate w ith exper imental subjects' self-reports, nonexperimental subjects rat in gs and verba l beh av ior s The SAD was originally designed, as its name indicat es to meas ure both avoidance of being w i th or talking to others and th e report ed exper ie n ce of a negative emotion in so cial int eract ion s However, factor analyses have since shown th at the SAD m ay measure primarily soc i a l avo id a nc e and on l y secondar il y social anxiety (Pat terson & Strauss 197 2 ). Re g ardless of whether the SAD taps avoidance anx i ety or bo th ho wever t h e p a tterns of correlations are clearly in li ne w i th what wou l d be expected Sex Diff erences When sex of experimental subject i s in cluded as a factor i n the ana l yses ( w ith im age ambiguit y feedback and FNE), o nl y a smatteri n g of sex effects are obta in ed (14 out of a possibl e 1 8 4 effects inv o lvin g sex) none of wh ich help in clarifyin g any of t h e effects a lr eady discussed S inc e no systema ti c effects emerged these are probably best re garded as Type I errors and w ill not be exam in ed further,

PAGE 113

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Taken as a whole the data presented here tend to support the general proposition that shyness is related to individual' s concerns wit h how they are being regarded and evaluated by others. However, there are anoma lou s and puzzling patterns of results on some measures that suggest that the manipulations had unanticipated effects upon sub jects' interpersonal concerns and/or that the relationship between self-presentational concerns and indices of shyness is more complex than had been anticipated One findin g though, is str i king : variab les that were expected to affect subjects concerns with their social images had a wide variety of effects on se l f -r eports ratings by others and behaviora l measures. Thus, it seems clear that factors that affect people's self-presentational concerns have widerang in g effects upo n both intraand interpersonal aspects of the interaction process It will be the purpose of this discussion to examin e more close l y what those effects are and how they are related to the experience of shyness Major Hypothes e s The experimental hypotheses under test were derived 107

PAGE 114

108 from the theoretical proposition that shyness is a state of social anxiety arising in real or imagined contingent socia l interactions in which people are motivated to make a favor able impression on others but doubt their ab ilit y to pro ject images of themselves that will produce satisfactory reactions from them It was predict~d that such doubts should increase when people are unsure of how to appear to others in order to secure satisfactory react ions (i.e., ima ge ambiguity is high), and when people believe they l ack the attributes necessary to project the desired impressions. In addition, these factors were expected to have a greater effect upon hi g h than low Fear of Negative Evaluation indi viduals since they are genera lly more highly motivated to make favorable impressions upon those with w hom they int eract Self-Reports of Shyness and R e l axat ion Althou g h the resul ts were hindered by the weakness of the feedback manipulation, subjects self-reports of shy ness and relaxation w e re in line with predictions. High FNE subjects felt more shy and les s relaxed during the con versation than lo ws subjects in th e hi g h ambiguity con dition felt l ess relaxed than those under conditions of low ambi gu ity, and high FNE's felt lea st relaxed of all when im age ambi guity was hi g h, a s predicte d When experimental subjects self -r eports are examined as a f u nction ~f how ad ap tively differentiated they thought th ey were irre spe ctive of the feedback the y received,

PAGE 115

109 self-reported shyness increased and relaxation decreased as a negative function of self -ratin gs of ad aptive dif ferentiat ion. Those subjects rating themselves lo west in adaptive differentiation reported being the most shy and l east relaxed. The fact that subjects self -ratin gs on a bo g us trait that they believed was associated with makin g good impre s sions was related to subjectively experienced shyness and relaxation in the encounter prov id es supporting evidence that there is some relationship betw ee n self-presenta tion a l concerns and soc ial anxiety We do not know the full com plement of variabl es that determined subjects self -perc ep tions of adaptive differentiation, but we know they are related both to perceptions of one s ability to make good im pressions on others and to the amount of discomfort ex perienced in interpersonal encounters In addit ion, the correlational data presented in Table 2 show relationships, all in the appropriate direction, betwe en subjects self reports of shyness/relaxation and m easures of self -pr esenta tional concern. Although the main effects obtained on subjects' self reports of sh y n ess and relaxation (i.e., ambiguity FNE, self -r a tin g of adap tiv e d i fferentiation) w e re co n s ist e nt with expec t at i on s the predicted hi g her ord e r int e ract ion s did not emerge (with one exception) It seems li kely that hi g h er -ord er effects th at included feedback as a variab l e ma y not have been obtained for the same reason that main

PAGE 116

110 effects of feedback did not occur ; t he manipulation d id not sufficiently alter subjects perceptions of the ir own ability to make go od impressions, However it is more difficult to ascertain why whe n subjec t s were trichotomized acco rdin g to their self-r a tin gs of adaptive differenti at ion, this factor did not int e r act w i th the others particularly FNE ( The failure to obtain se l f rating X ambiguity int era ctions m ay have been due to the nonorthogonality of the fa ctors, as discussed earlier ,) In short although obtained effects support the mode l, the failure to obtain others -part icul ar ly two and three way int eractions -does not. Ho weve r, b ecause a sin g le failure to reject the null hypothesis may not b e taken as disconfirmation of a theory ( Hempel 19 6 6 ; L eary 1979), we must conclude that the verd ict i s st il l out and await evidence from future research Nonexper im enta l Sub j ects and Jud ges Rati n gs A l thou g h as was discussed earlier there i s little r eason to expect a c l ose correspondence between se lf-re ports of social anxiety and others rati ngs of how anxious a g iven individ ua l appea rs to be i t was expected that examination of group data would show that subjects exposed t o st imuli designed to increase s h y n ess would on the average be rated more s hy and l ess relaxed than t ho se pl aced in situations designed to minimi ze s e lf-pr ese nta tional conc erns Thus the find in g that both nonexperi mental subjects and trained jud ges rated subje ct s receiving l ow feedback on adapt i ve differentiation as signif ic ant l y

PAGE 117

111 less .b,y th a n tho se receivin g hi g h a nd no f ee dback was un expected and remains difficult to explain No main effects of feedback were obtained on any other dependent measures that would suggest why this effect occurred. It seems clear, however, that subjects were behaving in some way discernable to both nonexperimental subjects in the face-to-face en counter and to judges listening only to audio tapes of the conversations that led to shyness ratings that were perfectl y opposite the predictions. A couple of admittedly post hoc explanations may be advanced. First, Schneider (1969) found that subjects who had previously received positive feedback on a bogus social sensitivity test were l ess se lf-enh anc in g when int eracting with an intervi ewer who was to make a second eva l uat ion than were subjects who had received negative feedback on the test. Schneider su ggested th a t successful subject s did not wish to jeopardize their success by receivin g a ne g ative eva lu a tion from the interviewer for immodesty. That is, they had little to g ain a nd m uc h to lose by being overly positive about themselves and were thus chiefly motivated to avo id disapproval, On the other hand, previousl y unsuccessfu l subjects had little to lose and much to g ain by impressin g t h e interviewer a nd w ere mo re po s itiv e ::ibout th e m se lv es be i n c; prim:11-i l y mot i v::i tcd to r;.'lin a ppr oval In th e pre se nt s tud y it is possible that subjects w ho r ec eiv ed hi gh or no feedback (th e no fe e dback su bjects seemed to a ssu m e that, in ab se nce of inf ormat ion to the

PAGE 118

112 contrary, they were high in adaptive differentiation) may have wished to protect their ga in by not coming on too strongly to the other subject who was later to evaluate them, De s pite the fact they may not have been particularly anxious, these subjects may have adopted a laid-back nonassertive tact, making them appear somewhat s0y ," S u bjects in the lo w feedback condition, on the other hand, already stung by one ne g ative evaluation, may have been quite motivated to avoid a second. Thus, despite possible mis g ivings about how they might appear they may hav e made a deliberate attempt to cre a te a favorable impre ss ion upon the nonexper mental subject. In attemptin g to do so, they may have appeared less subdued and less shy than subjects in the high feedback condition. If this is the case, it suggests that sub jects may have reacted to the low feedback, n o t as in format i on regard in g their lack of a trait associated with making goo d im pressions, but simp ly as a ne g ative, disapprovin g eva luati o n. Thus, subjects receiving low feedb a ck may have actively sou g ht the other's approval durin g the conversation (like Schneider's subjects), but did not feel shy since, for what ever reason, th ey did not accept the feedback as reflecting up o n th e ir se lf-pr ese nt a tional abi li ty The bott om lin e is that ne ga tive se lf-rel event feed bac k shou ld in crease shyness and s hylike behavior o nly if the individu a l int erprets it as reflectin g upon hi s or her ab ilit y to pr o j ect self-presentations that w ill result in

PAGE 119

llj satisfactory r ea ctions fro m others, Ne g a tive feedback or ev a l uatio ns that are not perceived as r ef l ect in g upon one's ability to achieve satisfactory reactions s hould result in in c reased motivation to ga in others' approva l and in hei g htened approval-seeking behavior, Giv en that t he indi v i dua l believes there i s a relatively hi g h probab ilit y of success full y gain in g the other's approval, h~/s h e should neither feel nor appear shy and, in fact, may appear the opposite, A second poss ibl e reas on why nonexperimental sub j ects a n d jud ges r a t ed subje ct s in the hi g h feedb ac k condition as mo st shy is that social anxiety may be curvilinearly rel ate d to wha t wou ld normally be c o nsidered overt man ifestation s of it, such that extreme ly s h y and extremely n o nsh y people appear similarly on some dimen s ion s For examp l e b oth shys and nonshys may fa il to pa rticipat e full y in the int er act i on a lth ou g h for different reasons, as w ill be dis cus se d below, It may be then, th a t the presen t fe e dback manipulation, g i ven that it was weak cr eated on l y lo w to mod e rate amounts of anxiety, p l ac in g subjects in t he "le ss shy port i o n of the curve, If the curve depictin g the rel a tionship b etwee n s h y n ess and others' ratin gs of it was b ow l s h aped th e re wou ld appear to be a n e g at i ve relation ship b e tween sub jective shyness and o thers' shyness ratin gs I s th e r e any e vid e nc e to support thi s c onjecture? Al thou g h Pilkoni s (1 976 19 77b ) did a d e t a il ed stu d y of the beh a vioral con seq u e n ces of shyness h e examined on l y t w o

PAGE 120

114 levels of shyness and consistently reported only measures of linear relationships, thus precluding data showing curvilinear patterns. A post hoc, exploratory analysis was performed on the present data v ia multiple regressions that included a quad ratic term as a predictor variable, ~esting the null hypoth esis that the regression coefficient associated with the quadratic term was equal to zero. When this was done, curvilinear relationships were found betwe e n subjects' self reports of relax at ion and (a) nonexperiment a l subjects' ratin gs of how rel axed f (1, 1 2 5) = 4. 20 Q < .05, and (b) judges' ratin gs of how shy experimental subjects' were, F (1, 125) = 3.73, Q < .06. These relationships are such that subjects were jud ge d to be the most shy/least relaxed when they reported being either very relaxed or very nonrelaxed. In short, highly relaxed and hi gh l y nonrel axed subjects were both rat ed as shy and nonrela xed What were very relaxed subjects doin g that made th em appear shy and nonrelaxed? Although the present data are in su fficient to give a full answer to this quest ion, we may obtain a hint from an analysis of the relationship between self-reported relaxation and time spent talking (coded from the tapes). The time subjects spent talkin g is curvilinear ly related to se lf-reports of relaxation, E (1, 125) = 2 .69, Q < .10, such that subjects talk ed most under mod e rate l eve ls of rel axa tion, while the rel axed and nonrelaxed talked less. This relationship, if reliable, parallels the

PAGE 121

115 inverse-U anxiety performance curve obtained in other areas of r esearch (e.g., Freeman, 1940). Althou g h nonre l axed subjects were predicted to talk l ess for the reasons discussed in the Intr odu ction (t o not risk project i ng inappropriate ima ges to be better able to hide nervousnes s to convey the i mpr~ssion of a friend l y li stene r, etc .), we may onl y speculate about sub j ects who were very relaxed. It may be that, for the very relaxed person, relaxation melts int o int erpersonal s l ovenness Such individual s may be so unconcerned w i th how they are appear ing to other i nteractants th at they do not really want to bother engaging in conversation w i th them The effort of maintainin g sma ll talk i s not worth the min imal personal b enefits that may accrue and such indi v i dua l s are not concerned w ith ho w it appears to sem i-i gnore other interactants and fail to part i cipate ful l y in the encounter Such an i ndividual quiet and aloof may be misperceived as shy under some circumstances. Th e on l y data from the pr ese nt stud y that bea r upon this explanat i on of the e ffect i n quest io n tend not to support it. There is no re l ation ship between either FNE or subjects exp r essed concerns with making a go od impress i o n and the number of quest i ons they asked the other an indicant of how involved they were in th e conversation In a related ve in, when t im e spent talking i s exam in ed as a funct i on of self -ratin g of adaptive differentiation

PAGE 122

and FNE (Table lJ) low FNE subjects were found to talk most when they had rated themselves medium on adaptive differentiation whereas h i gh FNE s ta l ked most i n the hi gh self rating ce l l T h i s suggests t h at time spent 1 16 talking may b e curvil i nearly related to self presentat i ona l concern as described above only for low FNE s but linear l y related to se l f presentat i ona l concerns for high FN E' s T hat is for peop l e who are high i n Fear of Nega ti ve Eva l u ation even relatively hi gh se l f percept i ons of one s a bili ty to make good impressions may not be suff i ci e nt to overcome one s eva l uation concerns to the point of r e ducing the de g ree to which the indiv i dua l i nteracts w i th others When the relat i onship between self ratin gs of adaptive d i ffer entiation and time spent ta l king is examined separate l y v i a mu l tiple re g ressions for h i g h and low F N E s this notion i s partially confirmed a li near relationship ( but no curvi linear effect Q > 90 ) i s obtained for hi g h FNE s F (1, 56 ) = 4 .1 9 Q < 05 whereas a h i nt of a curv i linear effect ( but no li near one ) is obtained for lows E (1, 6J ) = 2 19 < 14 Obvious l y the present data are insuf f i cient to proper l y examine the relat i onsh i p between se l f presentat i onal concerns and interpersona l behaviors and additiona l r esearc h is needed i n this ar ea I n short there is ev i d e nce that others r a tin g s of s h y n ess and tim e spen t talkin g are curviline a rl y related to subjective r e l axat i o n Thus it is conceivable that subjects in the low feedback cond i tion appeared less shy bec a use th e y

PAGE 123

117 were higher up the talking-involvement curve than subjects recei v ing hi gh or no feedback Although nonexperimental subjects and judges' ratings of experimental subjects shyness were contrary to pre dictions, an obtained feedback X FNE inter act ion on non experimental subjects ratings of ho w re l axed experimental subjects were was more in line with expectations Low FNE subjects were judged to be significantly less relaxed after they had received low feedback than average or no feedback. Lo w s were not jud ged to b e significantly less relaxed in the low than high feedback cell however possibly due to the curvilinear relationships ju s t disc ussed (That is, lo w FNE s in the high feedback cell may h ave been lower dovm the talking -i nvolvement curve.) In addition feedback had no effect on relaxation ratings of high FNE subjects Thus althou gh the obtained effects support the mode l, the failure to obtain others on the same it em does not In summary despite sometimes weak and conflicting results, some support was obta i ned for the notion that social anxiety incr eases as a joint function of the motivat i on to make a favorable impre ss ion and doubts about one s ability to do so Needless to say much additional work i s n eeded to substant i ate th ese find in g s Self -Pre sentationa l C oncerns : Liabilities a nd Assets One of the m o re curi ous effects obtained was the tenden cy for Low Fear of Ne g ative Evaluation subjects in the low ambiguity and/or high feedback condition to stand out from

PAGE 124

118 the other experimental subjects on a number of measures Low FNE s in the low a mbiguity/hi g h fe e dback cell s poke the greatest proportion of the t i me were spoken to l east were least liked and created the l east favorable impres sion on other subjects . In addition ambi g uity X FNE interactions showed that low FNE subj~cts in the low ambi guity condition tried least hard to appear adaptively d i ferentiated and were judged to have en g a g ed in the l east eye contact Also a fe e dback X FNE interact i on showed that l ow FNE s in the high feedback cond i tion made the nonexperi mental subjects fee l the least comfortable Taken together these results su gg est that those combinations of factors that were predicted to resu l t i n minimal shyness had a number of interest i ng side eff e cts Given the present data it is d i fficult to determine precisely why subjects in those combin a tion s of conditions were not responded to favorably The best g uess is that these subjects relative l ack of concern about how they were bein g perceived by the other subjects bordered on e i ther a l oofness or obnoxiousness Low FNE s by defin i tion are characteristically minima l ly concerned with being negative l y evalu a ted by oth e rs a nd once they le a rn th e y rank high in the a bility to c o me across well and/or know they c a n control their impression s if they wish (by virtue o f low im ag e ambi g uity) it is c o nceiv a ble that they do not e n g a g e in the social amenities that peopl e typically enga g e in wh e n they

PAGE 125

119 wish to make a favorable impression on others. There are in fact small but significant ne g ative correlations betwe e n subjects FNE scores and how friendly r = .1 9 and interested in others r = 17 they were judged to be by nonexperimental subjects Q s< 05 By their own ad m i ssion low F N E's were less interested in making a good i mpression than highs It may be fruitful to investigate the interaction styles and self-presentational strategies (if indeed they use any) of very low FNE peop l e From the present study it appears that very low FNE s may fai l to engage in the other-affirmin g g estures that would endear them to others particularly when they have a de g ree of confidence in the i r ability to b e regarded well Such research o n l ow FNE s should give some insi g ht into what happens to interactions when p e op l e s s elf pres e ntational concerns a re m i nimal and provide information about the role such concerns play in mediating smooth interaction Although it has not been explicitly stated the feeling one g ets from readin g much of the FNE l iter a ture (e g ., Friend & Gilbert, 1973 ; Smith & Saranson 1975 ) i s that lo w FNE people are somehow better socially adjusted than hi g h s who a r e s om e tim es portrayed as ov e rly conc e rn e d w ith how th e y are re ga rded by others The p re s ent res ea rch su gge sts that too li t tl e FNE can be as di s asterous to one s social life a s too m u ch and as with most t r a its a

PAGE 126

120 moderate amount of concern with how one is being regarded and eva luat ed by others is probably the most socially adaptive. Methodological I ss ues and Suggest i on s for Futur e Research The present research suggests a number of methodological improvements and fruitful directions for future shyness re search. First, in retrospect, there i s probab l y good reason to question the reliability/validity of the sh y ness se lf-re port measure used in the present study ("H ow shy did you feel durin g the conversation?"). Given that psycho lo g ists th e mselves di sagree about how shyness should b e defined, it see ms li ke l y that naive subjects ma y have int erp reted the question in differing ways Some ma y have int e rpreted it according to the intended meanin g ("H ow s o cially anxious did you feel.,,?"), where a s others may have r ead it a s "Ho w inhibited did you feel. .. ? or in some oth er way Se lf report measures of shyness shou ld be refin e d for future research, possibly by includin g a number of items, such as "H ow anx iou s ,,.," "Ho w nervous, ," and "H o w shy, . did you feel?" Also, it may be useful to determine precisely how subjects them se lves interpret questions phrased in terms of s h y ness. In addition, me asu rement of shyness wou ld be improved by includin g phy s iolo g ic a l m eas ur e s of a rou sa l, such as GSR heart rat ~ a nd blood pres s ur e to provid e more un equ ivoc a l evid e nce fo r or a ga in s t the a rou s in g pr ope rti es

PAGE 127

1 2 1 of variables that are hypothesized to affect shyness. Of course, such measures may occasionally be too obtrusive for some research purposes. Third, a good deal of creative thought will need to go into devising manipulations that lead people to doubt their ability to come across well to others in a laboratory en counter. As discussed above, the bogus feedback employed in the present study appeared to have a minimal effect upon sub jects' perceptions of their se lf-presentational ability. It i s difficult to convince people they have a particular l eve l of ability to come across we ll to others when they already have a pretty good idea abou t ho w others re gard them. In considering other ways to induce such a manipulation, it should be noted that many variables that affect people's doub ts about their ability to make a favorable impression are confounded w ith variables that affect the motivation to make a favor a ble impression. For examp l e if we tell some subjects that the person they are interacting with is criti cal and jud gmenta l, as opposed to support in g and accepting, they may doubt that they will be able to project images of themselves that w ill result in satisfactor y reactions from th e critical other At the same tim e how eve r, it may d ec r e3se subjects motivation to m 3 k e n favorable impr es sion upon a se2m in g l y socially w1desira ble indi victual. In short, future research that tests hy pot hes es derived f rom

PAGE 128

122 the present theory must devise ways to create self -pres enta tional doubt without s imult aneously affecting other variables. Fourth, it was hypothesized earlier that negative, self-relevent feedback may have different e ffects upon people's int erpersonal behaviors depending upon whether or not it is inter preted as reflecting upon one's ability to achieve satisfactory reactions from others. If it is per ceived in such a way it should result in shyness and in shylike (i.e., tentative inhibited) behaviors. However, if it is regarded, not as indic at i ve of one s self -pr esenta tional ability, but simp l y as a ne ga tive, disapproving personal evaluation the individ ua l should not feel or appear shy ( a l though perhaps disappointed or depressed ) and should make an act i ve attempt to ga in others approva l in subsequent int eractions (cf. Schneider, 19 69 ). This hypothesis seems to beg for e xperimental te s t Fifth the present stud y obtained no consistent patterns of sex effects on the dependent measures, although Pilkonis (19 76 19 77a 1977b) found sex differences both in trait variables that are as so ciated with shyness and in the degree to w hich males and females respond shyly to particular so cial stimu li, The relative absence of sex ef fects in the present study may be due to the fact that subjects inter acted only with member s of the same sex Mixed -s ex inter actions should have slightly different interperson a l impli cations and genera te different self presentationa l concerns

PAGE 129

12J for males and females and may result in sex differences in shyness (Pilk onis 1977b; Zimbardo, 1977). Research is needed that inv est i ga tes such differences. Sixth, it would be useful to hav e a better measure of "chronic" soc i al anx i ety than the Soc ial Avoidance and Distress Sca l e ( Watson & Fri end 19 69 ), the problems of which have already been discussed. A great deal or varia bility in subjects' reactions to the indep ende nt variables in the present study was likely due to individ ua l differ ences in the genera l tendency to respond shyly in social situations. A scale measuring chronic shyness as defined here would allow us to account for a lar ge percentage of what presently remains error variance. For maximum utility of the scale, it might be useful to devise separate sub scales for the measurement of s hyn ess versus audience anx iet y Finally, there was an indic at ion in post hoc analyses of the pre sent data that self-reports of shyness are curvilinearly related to certain soc ial behaviors and to others' reacti ons to s hyness. Further attention should be devoted to examination of the b ehav ioral accompaniments of shyness and to an understa ndin g of the ir int erpersona l fw1ctions. Not only i s this in formation valuab l e in its own right, but once a fu ller understand in g of the relation ship b etween shyness and particular behaviors is ach ieved, measures of those behaviors may be used as indic es of shy n ess in fut ure research.

PAGE 130

124 Summary A social psychological model of shyness was presented that conceptualizes shyness as a state of social anx iety that arises when people are motivated to make a favorable impression on others, but doubt their ability to project images of themselves that will result in satisfactory reac tions from them. People may doubt their ability to come across satisfactorily to others either because they are un able to determine the nature of the image that will result in satisfactory reactions from others, or know how to act, but feel incapable of projecting the desired ima ge An experiment was conducted in which subjects classified as high or low in Fear of Negative Evaluation were motivated to project a particular ima ge to another individual. Sub jects were either told how people who projec~ the image tend to act, or had no idea of how to project the image. In addition, subjects received bogus feedback indicating they were high, average, or lo w in the ability to project the image, or received no such information. Data obtained from self-reports of experienced anxiety, other interactants' ratings of the subject, and subjects' verbal behaviors provided some support for the model, althou g h the results were not perfectly cons i stent In creased shyness tended to be associated w i th hi g h Fear of Ne gat ive Evaluation, high ambiguity re ga rdin g the nature of the valued ima ge and the belief that o ne ranked low on the abi lity to make g ood first im pressions upon others, althou g h these variables did not interact in the manner that had been predicted.

PAGE 131

APPENDICES

PAGE 132

APPENDIX A I N ITIAL SUBJECT INSTRUCTIO NS

PAGE 133

APPENDIX A INITIAL SUBJECT IN STRU CTIO NS This study is investigating factors that affect the kinds of impr ess ions people make of one another when they first meet, Because a ll human interactions and relation ships beg in with a period in which people are just gett ing to know one another it is important for u s to understand more about the getting-a cquaint ed process, Your participation in the study will occur in three stages First, I would lik e you to complete these back ground inform a tion questionnaires. They g i ve us information about you that w ill help us u nderstand ho w different t ypes of peop le make first impressions. After you complete those qu es tionnaire s I wi ll le ave the tw o of you a lone to i nter act with one another for five minute s At the end of that tim e you wi ll complete some final quest i onnaires on which you 'll be asked to g i ve your first impressions of and react i ons to each ot her s I'll exp l a in more about each stage of the study as we ge t there. Are there any quest ions? The fir st thin g I want you to d o i s re a d and s i gn these inf orme d consent slip s Th ey state th at the nature of your p~rticipation in the study has been explained to yo u and yo u agree to participate. Then, comp l ete these background inf orm ati on questionn a ir es Your a nswers w ill be kept completely confidential, so be as accurate an d as honest as you can. Also, be sure to answer every it em 1 27

PAGE 134

APPENDIX B B ACKGROUND INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 135

APPEND I X B BACKGROUND I NFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE In struct ions: The followin g statements concern your person al reactions to and att itud es toward a number of different situations N o two statements are e x a ctly a li ke so consid er each statement carefuily before answer in g If a state ment is true or mostly true as applied to yo u wr ite a 1 in th e space beside the question If a statement is false or mo s tly false as applied to you wr it e an fin the space be sid e the que s tion It is i mportant that you answer a s frank l y an d as hon es tl y as yo u can Your answers wi ll be kept in strictest confidence Name Date 1 2 J 4 5. 6 7. 8 0 I fee l relaxed even in unfamiliar social situations I tr y to avoid s i tuations which force me to be very sociable I t is easy for me to relax when I am w ith strangers I have no particu l ar desire to avoid people I often find soc i a l occasions upsettin g I u s u a lly fee l ca l m and comfortable at soc i al occasions I am us ually at ease when talking to someone of the opposite sex I tr y to avoid talkin g to people u nless I know them well I f t h e cil : 1n c e c omes to meet n e \\' p eo pl e I ofte n to.ke i t 10 I o ften fe e l n er vou s or ten se in casual ge t-to ge thers in w hich bo t h se xes a re pres e nt 11. I am us ua ll y nervous w ith people unless I know them well, 1 29

PAGE 136

1 2 lJ, 14. 15. 1 6 17, 18. 19. 2 0. 2 1. 22 2 J. 2 4. 2 5. 26 27 28 JO J l. J 2 lJO I usual l y feel relaxed when I am with a group of people. I often want to get away from people, I u sua lly f e el uncomfortable when I am in a g roup of people I don't know. I usua ll y feel relaxed when I meet someone for the first time. Being introduced to people makes me tense and nervous. Even though a room is full of stran g ers, I may enter it anyway I would av oid wa lkin g up and Joinin g a l arge group of people. When my super iors want to talk w i th me, I talk wi ll in g l y I often feel on ed g e when I am with a group of people, I tend ~o withdraw from people. I d o n't mind talkin g to people at parties or social gatherings I am se ldom at ease in a lar g e g roup of people, I oft en think up excuses in order to avoid social en gag em e nts. I sometimes t a ke th e responsibilit y for introducin g people to each other, I try to avoid formal socia l occasions, I usually go to w h atever social en ga geme nts I have. I find it easy to relax with other people. I r a r e ly wo rry about s e e mi.n g fooli s h to oth e s I w o 1T ~ : ::i.b o ut \'ihat peo pl e \'Ji ll think o f me e ven whe n I know it do es n't m a ke a n y di f f erence I becom e ten se and jittery if I know someone is siz in g m e u p. I am unco nc e rned ev e n if I kn ow people are formin g an imfavora ble impression of me.

PAGE 137

131 33, I feel very upset when I com m it some socia l e rror. J4 The opinions that im portant peop l e have of me cause me littl e concern. J5, I am ofte n afraid that I may look ridiculous or make a fool out of myself. __ 36. I react very little when other people disapprove of me. __ 37, I am frequent ly afraid of other people noting my shortcomin gs __ J8. The disapproval of others would have littl e effect on me. 39, If someone is evaluating me, I tend to expect the worst 40. I rar e l y worry about what kind of impres s ion I am makin g on someone 41. I am afraid that others wi ll not approve of me. 4 2 I am afraid that people will find fault w ith me. 43. Other people's op i nions of me do not bother me. 44. I am not necessaril y upset if I d o n't please some on e 45. W hen I am ta lkin g t o someon e, I wo rr y about what they ma y be thinking about me. 46. I fe e l that you can't h e lp makin g soc ial errors so why worry about it. 47, I am usua ll y worried about what kind of impres s ion I make, 48. I worr y a lot about what my superiors think of me. 49. I f I know someo ne i s jud g in g m e it h as little effect on me 50 I w o rry t h at o thers will thi1 1k I am not w o rthwh il e 51 I worry very littl e about wha t others ma y think of me. __ 5 2 Som et im es I think I am too concerned with what other peopl e think of me.

PAGE 138

1J 2 53 I often worry that I will say or do the w ron g things. 54 I am o ften indiff erent to the op inions others h ave of me. 55 I am usua ll y confident that others w ill h ave a fav orable impr ession of me. 56 I often worry that peop l e w ho are important to me won 't think ve r y m u ch of me 57 I brood about the opinions rn y friends have about me. 58 I b e come tense and j i ttery i f I know I am bein g jud ged by my supe ri ors __ 59 I n g enera l, how shy of a person do you consider yourse l f to be ? . . -------Extremely V e r y Moderate l y . ---Som ewhat . Sli g htly Not at all

PAGE 139

APPENDIX C I NSTRUCT I ON SHEETS CONTAINI NG AMBIGUITY MAN IPULATI ON

PAGE 140

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HI G H AMBIGUITY CONDITION I n just a few minutes you will be int e ractin g face-to face w ith th e o ther subject participatin g in this sessio n of the study You w ill be a ll owed to talk w ith one another for five minutes, a fter which you will complet e quest ionnaires g i v i ng y our impressions of and reactions t o the oth er person and tellin g how you felt durin g the conversation D ur in g the conv e rsation, y ou may discuss wha t ever you wish except that we ask that you don t discuss any aspect of this experiment Past re sea rch has shown that a very important determinant of the kinds of first impressions people make on others is what psycholo g i s ts call Adaptive Di fferent i ation P eop le who rank hi g h on the tr a it of Adaptive Differentiati o n tend to be bett er lik ed by othe r people make mor e favorab l e impressions are more successful at int erpersona l relations and are eval uated more po s itivel y by oth e rs In this study we are inter ested in validatin g ear lier r esearch t h at showed that Adapt iv e Differenti at ion to be an important deter~inant of makin g goo d first impr es sions Thu s we expect people who are hi g h in Ad apt ive Differentiation to be evaluated more posit i vel y and liked better by other subjec t s in this study Some o f the it ems on the quest i onnaire you just completed measured Adapti ve Diff erentiation but because it is the major trait o f inter es t in this stud y we will withho ld f u th e r d es cription of it unt il the session is completed At that time i t wi ll be exp lained ful l y 1J4

PAGE 141

1J 5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR L OW AMBIGUITY C ON DITION In jus t a few minutes you wil l be int era ctin g face-to face with the ot her subject particip a tin g in this ses sion of th e stu d y You wi ll be a ll owe d to talk with one anot h er for five minut es a fter which you wi ll complet e q uestionnaires g i v i ng your impr ess ion s 6f a nd reactions to t he other person and t e llin g h ow y ou felt durin g the con versa tion. Durin g the con ve rsation, you m ay di s cu ss whatever yo u wish except we ask that you don 't discu ss any aspect of this experiment P ast research has s h own that a very important d e ter mi nant of the kinds of first i mpress i ons peo pl e make on others i s what p sy chol og i s ts c a ll Adaptive Dif ferent iation. P eop l e w ho rank hi g h on the t ra it of Adaptive Dif ferent i at i o n tend to be better li ked b y other peop l e mak e more favo r ab l e im pr e ssions a r e more su cc essfu l at int erpersona l re l at i ons a nd are eval uate d m o re pos iti ve l y by others In this st u d y we are int e r este d in va lid a tin g earlier rese a rch that showed Adapt i ve Dif ferent i a tion to be an imp ortant determ in a nt of makin g g ood first impr ess i ons Th us we expe ct peop l e who are hi g h in adaptiv e differentiation to be eva l u at e d mor e positi v el y and liked better by other su b j ects in this study Som e of the i tems on the qu es ti onn a i re y o u just com plete d m easure d Ad aptive Dif fere nti a tion A lth ough we ll w ill exp l a in the na t u r e of th i s trait in g re a ter deta il a t the conclusion of the study it mi g ht be m en ti oned that pe op l e w h o rank hi g h in Ada pti ve Differentiation tend to be in teres ted in o ther pe o ple, sm il e frequentl y are opt imi st i c and open m inded, and appea r we llad ju ste d to others This shou ld g ive y ou a cl ea rer id ea of the nature o f the tr a it.

PAGE 142

1J 6 IN STRUCT ION S FOR NONEXPERIMENTAL SUB JECT I n jus t a few minutes you wi ll b e int e rac tin g face -t o face w i th the ot h e r s ubject p a rticip a tin g i n th i s sess i on of the study You w ill b e a ll owe d to t a lk w ith one another for f i ve minutes after wh ich y ou w ill complete qu es tionnaires g i v i ng y our i mpress ion s of a nd re a ctions to the oth e r person and tellin g how you felt du r in g the conversation. Durin g the conversation, you may di scuss whatever you w i s h, except th at we ask th a t y ou don't di scuss any aspect of this exper im ent

PAGE 143

APPENDIX D B ACKGROUND INFORMATION SCORESHEET

PAGE 144

APPENDIX D BACKGROUND INFORMATION SCORESHE E T W ilson Interpersonal Orientation Scale Trait Percentile Ranking Thematicism Adapti v e Differentiation Interpersonal Acuity 138

PAGE 145

APPENDIX E POST INTERACTION QUE S TI ONN AI RE (EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT)

PAGE 146

AP P E N DI X E POST I NTERA C T I ON Q U EST I ONN AI R E (E XPER I MEN TAL S U B J E C T) I nstructions : Pleas e answer each of t h e f o ll o w i n g quest i o n s by p l acing an X somewhere a l on g each l in e Be su r e to answer eve r y q u es tion as accurate l y a nd honest l y as y o u can Your r e sponses wil l b e kep t co nf ident i a l, 1, How rel axed d i d you fee l d ur i n g the conversat i on ? . I 0 I . . ---------------Extreme l y Very Moderately Som ew hat S l i g h t l y Not a t a ll 2 Ho w g ood of an i mpress i on do you think y ou ma d e on the othe r subject ? . o I . . . . . E xt r eme l y -Very Moderate l y Somewhat S li g ht l y Not at a ll J H ow shy d i d y ou fee l during th e conversat i on ? . . t I I I I I I I I t e I E xtreme l y -Very ~ode r ately -Somewh a t -Sl i g ht l y -Notat a ll 4 How hard did you try to appear adapt i vel y d i fferent i ated to the oth e r subje c t? . . . . . . . . E xt r eme l y -Very Mode r a t e l y Some w hat S li gh tl y Not at a ll 5 How s h y do y ou th i nk t h e othe r subject i s ? . . ----Extrem e l y Ver y . I I I I -------Moderately Somewhat 6 1-: 0\' D1l.1Cl1 did ~ :-o u lik e tJ1 e otJ1e 1 ,., S i. ibject ? . S l i g ht l y -Notat a ll . . . . . . . . . Ex t r e m e l y Ver y Modera t e l y S o m ew h a t Sli g ht l y Not at a ll 7 How conc e r ned were you w ith m ak in g a goo d im p ress i o n on t h e oth e r sub j ec t d u ri n g th e conversati o n ? . . . . . . ----E xt r eme l y Ver y ----Mode r a t e l y ---Somewhat S li g ht l y -Notat a ll 14 0

PAGE 147

141 8 To what de g r ee did you fee l y ou we r e ab l e to contro l the impression s the other s ubject formed of you ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Extrem e ly Ver y Mo derately Some w hat Sli g htly Not at all 9 Ho w hi g h w ou ld yo u rate yourse lf on adaptive differentiation? . . ----Extrem e l y Ver y . . . . . . -------Moderate l y Somewhat Sli g htly-N~at all 10. Ho w cl ear is it to y0u ho w peop l e w ho are hi gh in adaptive differenti at ion t e nd to act? . ----Extrem e l y Very . -------------Modera t e l y Somewhat . . ----Slightly Not at all

PAGE 148

APPENDIX F POST INTERACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (NONEXPERIMENTAL SUBJECT)

PAGE 149

APP EN DI X F P OST INTER AC T I ON Q UE ST I ONNA I RE ( NON E X PERI MEN TAL S U B J E CT) I nstruct i ons : P l ease answer each of the fo ll ow i ng quest i ons by plac i ng an X somewhere a l ong each l ine Be sure t o answer eve r y quest i on as accurate l y and h onest l y as you can Your responses w ill be kept conf i dent i a l. 1. How r e l axed wo u ld you say the other subject was du ri ng the conversat i on ? . . . . . . . . ---------------E xt r eme l y Very Moderate l y Somewhat S li gh tl y Not at a ll 2 How much did you li ke the other subject? . I I I I I I I I I I I E xtremely -Very Moderate l y -Somewhat -S l igh t ly -N~at a ll J How shy do you t hink t h e other s u bject is ? . . . . . . ---Extreme l y Very ~oderate l y -Somewhat -Slight l y -Not at a ll 4 What was your overa ll impress i on of the other sub j ect ? . . . . . . Ver y Negat i ve ---Some w hat Ne g ative Sli g htly -S li g ht l y -Somewhat -Very Negat i ve P osit i ve P os i t i ve P os i t i ve 5 H ow comfortab l e d i d you fee l d ur i ng your co n ve r sa ti o n wit h the other subject ? . . . . I I I I ----Ext r em e l y Very ----Moderate l y Somewhat -S li ght l y -N ~ at a ll 6 P.ow m u ch eye contact did the other subj e ct g i ve you dur i ng t h e c onversation? Very muc h . . . . . --A good dea l / A modera t_ e Som e V e r y l itt l_ e amount 14 J None

PAGE 150

144 7, Rate the other subject on the followin g sca l es : optimistic open-minded poo rl y adjusted sm iled a lo t unfriend l y inter ested in others . . . -------. . . -------. . . -------. . . -------e I I I I I -------: __ __ __ __ __ __ __ pessimistic close-minded we ll adjusted did not smile friendly not i ntereste d in others

PAGE 151

APPENDIX G NUMB ER OF SUBJECTS PER CELL

PAGE 152

APPENDIX G NUMBER OF SUBJECTS PER CELL Low Fear of Negative Evaluation F eedback Ambi gu it y Low Avera g e High No Low 1 0 8 5 1 1 Hi g h 6 1 0 9 9 Hi g h Fear of Negative E va l uat io n Feedback Ambi g uity Low Avera ge Hi g h No Lo w 7 8 1 1 5 Hi g h 1 0 5 6 8 14 6

PAGE 153

REFERENCES Abelson R P. A script th eory of understanding attitude and b e h avior In J. C arro ll & T Payne (Eds.), .QQ.g nit i on and social behavior Hiil sda l e NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc iat es 19 76 Bandur a A. Principles of behavior modific at ion. New York: Holt Rinehart & W in ston 19 69 Baumei ster R F ., & Jone s E. E. When se lf-pres enta tion i s constrained by the target s knowled g e : Consistency and compensation Journal of Personality and Social Psy cho l ogy 1 978 l.Q, 608 6 1 8 Ber ger S E ,, L evin P ., Jacobs on L I,, & Milham J. Ga in approva l or avoid disapproval : Compar i son of motives strengths in hi gh need for approva l scorers. Journal of P ersona lity, 1 977 ~, 458-4 68 Brig gs S R ., Cheek J M., & Buss A H, AJ1 analys i s of the self mon itorin g scale, J ourna l o f Persona li ty and Soc i a l Psychology 1 980 JQ 679 686 Buss A H. Self -con sc iou sness and soc i a l anx iety. New York : W H Freeman & Co., 19 80 Cacioppo, J. T ., G las s C R ., & Merluzzi T V Self statements and se lf-e va lu at ion s : A co g nit ive response ana ly s is of heterosocial anxiety Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 979 J, 249 262 Cattell, R B Francisco : Personality and mood by questionnaire Jose y Bass 1973. San Cheek, J., & Buss A H Scales of shyness sociab ili ty and self-esteem and correlations among them. Unpub li shed research Univer s ity of Texas 1 98 0, Clark, J. V., & Arkowitz H. Social anx i ety and s e lf eva lu ation of int erpersona l performance Psychological Reports 1 975 ]Q 2 1122 1, 147

PAGE 154

Clevin ger T. A synthesis of experimental research in s tage fri g ht Quarterly Journal of Speech 1959, !.2, 1 J4 -1 45 Co mrey A. 1 Scales for measuring compulsion hostility, neuroticism and shyness Psychological Reports 1965, 1 6 697 70 0. C omrey A, 1 ,, & Jamison K Verification of six person ality facto r s Educational and Psych o logical Measure ment 1 966 26 9 4 5 -95 3 Cro wne D. P., & Mar l owe ; D, The approva l mot iv e : Studies in eva l uative dependence New York Wiley 19 6 4. C rozier W R Shyness as a dimension of persona lity. Br i t ish Journ a l of Social and C li nical Psycho l ogy 1 979 1 8 1 2 1-1 28 Darwin, C The expression of emot i on in man and anima l s New York : Phil osophica l Library, 1955. D erlega A J ., Wi l son M., & Chaikin, A L. Friendsh i p and discl o sure reciprocity Journal of Personality and Social P sycho logy, 1 976 J.!, 578 58 2 Dibner A S Ambi 6 uity and anx iet y Jou rna l of Abnormal and Soc i al P s ychology, 1 958 ..5.2. 1 65 -1 74 Dicken s M ., Gibson F ., & Pral l, C. An experimental study o f the overt manifestations of stage frig ht. Speech Monographs 1950, 12, 37 -4 7 Di xo n, J. J ., de Monchaux C ., & Sandler J Patterns of anxiety : An analys i s of soc i a l anxieties Br itish Journal of Medica l Psychology, 1 957 ]Q 10 2 -11 2 Efran, J. S Looking for approval : Effects on visual be havior of app rob a tion from different p e rsons differin g in importance Journal of Personality and Socia l Psy cho l ogy 1968, 10, 2 125 Efran, J s ., & Korn P. R. Measurement of social caution : Se lfapp r 3 isal role pl ay in g and disc uss ion b ehav ior .Jo urn::i.l o f Clinic ::i l ::ind Consultinc F s, :cho l og_y 19 69 J.J 7 8 S J Eyse n ck H J ., & Eysenck S B G P ers on a li ty s tructure a nd me asureme nt Sa n Die go : Robert R Knapp 1969.

PAGE 155

149 Farrell, A. D., Mariotto, M J., Conger, A. J., Curran, J.P., & Wallander, J, 1, Self-ratin g s and judges' ratings of heterosexual soci a l anxiety and skill : A g enerali z ability study, Journ a l of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1979, !, 164-175, Feni gste in, A. Self-consciousness, self attent ion, and socia l int e raction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, J.1, 75-86. Fenigstein, A., Sche i er M. F., & Bu?s A H. Public and private self consci0usness : Assessment and theory. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1975, _gj, 522527. Freem a n, G. L. The relationship betwe e n performance l eve l and bodil y activity le ve l. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1940, 26 606. Fri end R. M., & G ilb ert J. ~hreat and fear of ne ga tive eva luati on as determinants of l o cus of social compari son. Journal of Personality, 197J, 41, J28-J40. Gabrenya, W. K ,, & Arkin R. M. Self -m onitoring sca le: F a ctor st ructure and correl a tes. Per so nality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 80 2, lJ22 Geller, D. M., Goodstein L., Si l ver M ., & Ste rnberg, W. C. On bein g ignored: The effects of the vio l ation of implicit rules o f socia l inter action Sociometry 1974, 11, 541-556, Goffman, E. On facework. Psychiatry, 195 5 18, 2 1J2J l. Goffman, E. Th e pr esentat i on of self in everyday life. York: Doubleday, 195 9 Hempel, C, G. Phil oso phy of natur a l science En g le wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966. New Ick es W ., & Barnes, R, D. The role of sex and self-moni toring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, .l.S, Jl5 JJO Jacks on D. N P erso n a lity research f o rm Goshen N Y: Research Psychologists Press, 1966. Jone s E E ., Gera rd, H. B Found o tions of socia l psy chology. New York, Wiley, 1 967

PAGE 156

1 5 0 J ones E E ., G er ge n K J,, Gumpe r t P., & Th i ba u t J. W So m e co n d i t i ons affe ctin g th e u s e of i ng ra ti a t i on to i nf l ue n ce perfo rm an ce eva l ua ti on J ourna l o f P e r so a lity and Soc i a l P s ych o l ogy 1 965 1, 6 1 3 625 Jo n e s E. E ., Ge rg e n K J,, & J one s, R G Tac ti c s of i n g rati a ti o n a m o n g l eaders a n d subor di na t es in a s t at u s h i e r arch y P syc h o logic a l M on ogra p hs 19 6J 7.1_ (J, Who le N o 566 ). Jon es E E ., & W ortman C. I ngr a t i at i o n: An a tt r i but i on a l an a l y s i s Mo rri sto wn, NJ: Ge n e ral L ear nin g Pr es s, 1 97J K apl a n D, M O n s h y n ess I nte rn a ti o n a l J ou r na l of P s ych o ana l ys i s 1 97 2 ...21, 4J 9 -45J, K ell ey H, H At tri but i o n i n soc i a l p sy ch o l ogy I n D, L ev in e ( E d .), Nebr as k a sym po s i um on mo t i va t i on Li n c o ln, Ne br aska : Uni ve r s i ty of Neb raska P re s s 19 67 K ni ght M L., & B o rde n, R J. P erform e r s a ffe c t an d be hav i or : Re l a ti ons hip s w i t h aud i e n ce s i ze a nd ex p e rti se P a p er p r e s ented a t t h e m eet i n g o f th e Ame ric a n P sy cholo g i c al Asso ciation, Tor o nt o 1 978 L aza r us P. J An e x eri m ent a l tr ea tm e nt am e li o r a tion of s hynes s i n chi l dr e n D o ctor a l d i s s ertat i on Un i v e rs i ty o f F l or i d a 1 97 7) D i sse rt a ti o n Ab s tract s Int e rnat i o n a l, 1 97 8 , 662 1 A 66 22A ( U niv e r s i t y M icr o films No. 7 8 0 67 1 8 ). Le a r y M, R. L eve l s o f di sconf ir mab ili t y a nd soc i a l psy ch o l o g i ca l th eo ry : A respo n se to Green w a l d P er s on a lit y a nd S oc i a l P syc h o l og y Bu ll e ti n 1 9 79 5, 149-1 5J L esse s A n x iety : I t s compon e nts dev e l o p m ent and trea t m ent N ew Yo r k : G r u ne & S tr a t t o n 1970, McGovern L, P. Di s p os i t io na l so ci a l a n x i et y a nd he l p i ng be h av i o r u n d e r thr ee c on diti ons o f thr ea t. J o u r n a l of P erson a li ty 1 976 44, 8 497 Meichenb a um D H ., G i l mo r e J. B ., & Fedor av i c i u s A G roup i ns i g ht versu s g roup d ese n s i t i zat ion i n tr ea ti n g s p ee ch anx i e t y J o u rn a l of C o ns u l t i n g a nd C li nica l P sy c ho l o g y 1 97 1, J.Q, 410-4 2 1, M odi g li a n i, A Embarr a s s ment f acewo rk and ey e c o nta ct: Test i n g a t he o r y o f e m ba r rass me nt Jo ur n a l of P erson a li ty and S oci a l Psyc h o l ogy 1 97 1, 1.Z, 1 5 2 4.

PAGE 157

1 5 1 Mulac A ., & Sherman A R Relationships among four param eters of s peaker eva lu at i on : Speech sk ill, source credibili ty sub j ect iv e speech a nxiet y and behaviora l speech anx iet y S peech Monographs 1975, 4 2 J02-310 Murr ay D. C. Talk si l ence and anxiety Psychol og i ca l Bu ll etin 1971, 15, 2 4426 0. Natale M ., Jaffe J. & Entin, E V ocal i nterruptions in dyadic commu nication as a function of speech an d soc ial anxiety Journ a l of P e rsonality and Soc ial Psychology, 1979, Jl., 865-878 Patterson, M L ., & Strauss M. E. An examination of the d i scriminant validity of the socia l avo id ance and d i s tress scale Journal of Consu l t i ng and Clinical Psy cho l ogy 197 2 l.2, 1 69 Phili ps G M Reticence : Pathology of the normal speaker Speech Monographs 1 968 12 39 -4 9 Pilkoni s P.A. Shyness : Public behavior and pri va te ex perience (D octora l dissertation Stanford Un iv ers ity, 1976). Diss ertat i on Abstract s Int ernationa l, 1977, 11 544 2B ( Univers it y Microfilms No 77 7144) Pilkonis, P.A. Shyness public and private and its re lati onship to other measures of soc i al behav ior. Journal of P ersona lity, 1 977 !..5., 585 595 (a). Pilkonis, P. A The b e havior a l con seq uence s of shyness J ou rnal of Persona lity, 1977, !..5., 596 6 11 (b ) Post A L., Wittma i er B C ., & Radin N E Self d i sc l os ure as a function of st a te and trait anx iet y Jour na l of Con s ulting and Clinic a l Psychology 1 978 46, 1 2 -1 9 Rehm L P., & Marston A R R e duction of social anxiety throu g h modification of se lf-r einforcement Journal of Con sulting and C lini ca l Psychology 1968, E 565 -5 74 Sanche z -Cr aig B M Cognitive and beh av ior a l coping strat e g ie s in the reappra i sal of stressfu l social situat ions, Journal of Co unse ling Psychology 197 6 , 565 574. Schlenker B R Self -pres en tati on : Mana g in g th e impres sion of consistency w h en realit y interfer e s w ith se lf enhancement Journ a l of Personality and Soci a l Psy chology 1975 E 1030-1037,

PAGE 158

15 2 Sch l enker B. R Impr ess j 01, m anage m e n t : The self concept soc i a l id e ntit a nd i nter erso nal r e l a tions Bel mont, C a l.: Brooks Cole, 19 80 Schne id e r, D. J. T act ic a l se lfpresentat i o n after success and failu re J o urn a l of Personality a nd So ci a l Psy chology, 1 969 D, 262 2 68. Sherman, A, R,, Mu lac, A,, & McC ann M. J, Syner g i st ic effect of se lf-r e l axat ion a nd rehearsa l feedback in the treatment of su bj ect iv e and beh~vioral dimensions of speech anx i ety Journ a l of Consulting an d Clinic a l Psychology, 1974, 4 2 8 19827 S ilver, S E., L eary M. R,, & Sch l enker B R. T he mu lti dimen s i o n a li ty of sel fmonitoring P aper presented a t the me etin g of t he Southeastern Ps y ch o lo g ical Associa tion, Wash in g ton, 19 8 0. Smith, R E,, & C ampbe ll, A. L~ Soc i a l anxiety and strain t owa rd symmetry in dyadic a t traction Jo u rn a l of Per sona lit y a nd Soc i a l P sycho l ogy 1 973 28 101-107. Smith, R E ,, & Saran s on I. G Social a n x i e t y and the eva l uat i on of ne g a ti ve int erpersonal feedback. J ourna l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1 975 .}, 4 29 Snyder, M Self -m o nitoring of express i ve b e hav ior. Jo u r na l of Pe rsona li ty and Soc i a l Psychology, 19 74 .lQ, 5 26 -537. Spielber g er C. D T heory and rese a rch on anx iet y In C. D. Sp i e lb er ge r (E d .), Anx i ety a nd beh av i o r. N e w York: Academic Press, 1 968 Storms, M D., & Mccaul K D, Attribution pr o cesses and emot i ona l exace rbation of dysfunction a l behavior. In J. H Harvey W J. I ckes & R. F Kidd (Eds,), New d ir ect i ons in at tributi o n research Vo l. 1. Hillsdale, N J: L awrence Erlbaum Associate s 1 97 6 Ta ylor D, A ., A l tm a n, I., & Sorrentino R Inter pe r sona l exchange as a function of re war d s a nd costs and situa tiona l factors : Expectin g con f ir ma tion a nd d i sco f irmati on Journ a l of Exp er im e nt a l So c i a l P sy chology, 19 6 9 3 3 2 4339 Te deschi J T ., Sch l enker B R ., & Bonoma T V. Conflict po \'/e r and games : The ex peri menta l study o f interp er so n a l r e l at i ons Chic a g o: Aldine, 1 973 Thib aut J. W ., & Ke ll ey H. H. Th e s oc i a l psycho l ogy of grou p s New York : Wiley, 1 959

PAGE 159

1 5J Wa l ster E. The effect of se lfesteem on romantic likin g J ou rn a l of Ex periment a l Soc i a l P s ych o l ogy 1 965 1, 1 8 4-197. Watson, D., & F r i e nd, R. Measurement of soc i a leva l uat i ve anx iet y J ourna l o f Consulting a nd Clinical Psychol2.f!.Y.., 1 969 JJ., 44 8 -457. Zimb a rdo, P. G Shyness New Y ork: Jove, Zimbar do P. G ., Pilkonis, P A., & Norwood R The s ilent prison of s hyn ess ONR Tech. Report Z-17, Stanford University, 1 97 4.

PAGE 160

DIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mark Richard Leary was born in Morgantown, West Vir g inia, on November 29 19 54 the oldest son-of Edward and Eleanor (Durrett) L eary After residing in the suburbs of Baltimore durin g Mark's e l ementary school years the Leary family (with the addition of younger brother, Dale) returned to their native hills and sett led in El~ins, a small town in the northern mountains of West Virginia. Following g raduation from Elkins Hi g h Schoo l in 197 2 Mark entered West Virginia Wesleyan Coll e g e where he majored in ps y chology. A signifi cant portion of his undergraduate c a reer was devoted to non academic inter e sts, however, includin g the col l ege jazz en semble and radio broadcastin g Mark r e ceiv e d his Bache lor of Arts degree, summ a cum laude, from W e st Vir g inia We sleyan in 1976 and the Master of Arts de g ree in psychology from the University of F lorid a in 197 8 Having received his Ph. D. in psycho lo gy from the Universit y of Florida in 1 980 Leary is now Assistant Pr o fessor of Psycholo g y at Denison University, Gr a nvil l e Ohio 154

PAGE 161

I certif y that I h ave r ea d thi s study and that in m y op ini on it conf o r ms to a cc eptab l e standards o f scho l a rl y pre se ntation a nd i s fully adequate in scope a nd q u a lit y as a dissert atio n for the d eg r ee of D oc t o r of Phil o soph y / ;/ ) /// / \ Xi : ,1/ A /,//: 1/ /Ba rr y ~ Schlenker Assoc i a te Pr ofes sor o f Ps y cho l o gy I certi fy t h at I have read this stud y and that in my op ini on it c o n fo rm s to acceptable st an d ards of scholarly presentation and i s fully a d eq uate i n scope a nd q u a l it y a s a dissert at i o n for the de g re e of D oc tor of Phi l osophy I Ma rvin E Shaw Prof esso r of Psycho lo gy I certi fy that I h a v e read t hi s stud y and that in m y opin i o n it conforms to acceptab l e sta nd ards of scho l ar l y presentation and i s fu ll y adequate in scope an d qua lit y as a dissertation for the de g ree of Doctor o f Philosoph y L a rr_y _..,, J $ever y / Associ a te / Professor / of Psycholog y I I cer t if y that I have r ea d this stud y an d that in my o pi ni o n i t conforms to ac c eptab l e standards o f scholarly presentation and i s full y adaequ ate in scope an d quality as a dissert at i on for the d eg ree o f D octo r o f Phil o s o ph y / 1 7 I I/ ~ / f f --~ ( t..,0 /...: --Te d L a nd s m a n Pr o f esso r of P syc holo gy

PAGE 162

I certif y that I h ave read thi s study and that in my o pi n i on it conforms to a cc eptab l e st a nd a rds of scho l ar l y presentation an d i s fully accep tabl e i n scope a nd qua lit y as a dissertation for the de g ree of Doctor of Philosophy. ~ p ~ oJLx: ~ c_ Jaes J Al g in Assi stant Pr ofess or of Found a tion s of Education Thi s di sser tation was s ubmitted to th e G raduate F a c u lty of the Departm e nt o f P sy chol o g y in the Coll e g e of Li be ral Ar ts and Sc i ences a nd to th e Gra duat e Co unc il, and was ac c epte d as p a rt i al fulf illm e nt of th e requirements for the de g ree of Doctor of Philosoph y Au gu st, 19 8 0 Dean, Graduate Sc hool

PAGE 163

U N I V ER S I TY OF F L O RIDA II I II IIIIII Ill Ill lllll lllll II IIIIII IIII II IIIIII IIII II /1111111111 3 1262 08553 5069

PAGE 164

U N I V ER S I TY OF F L O RIDA II I II IIIIII Ill Ill lllll lllll II IIIIII IIII II IIIIII IIII II /1111111111 3 1262 08553 5069