Social Anxiety PDF

Social Anxiety 183 fewer friends than nonshy classmates (Van Zalk, Van Zalk, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011) and that shyness reduces satisfaction even in long-term romantic relationships (Baker & McNulty, 2010; Bar-Kalifa, Hen-Weissberg, & Rafaeli, 2015). Explaining Social Anxiety Why are some people so...

Social Anxiety 183 fewer friends than nonshy classmates (Van Zalk, Van Zalk, Kerr, & Stattin, 2011) and that shyness reduces satisfaction even in long-term romantic relationships (Baker & McNulty, 2010; Bar-Kalifa, Hen-Weissberg, & Rafaeli, 2015). Explaining Social Anxiety Why are some people so anxious in social situations? What are they afraid of? Many researchers believe evaluation apprehension is an underlying cause of social anxiety. That is, socially anxious people are afraid of what other people think of them (Catalino, Furr, & Bellis, 2012; Leary & Kowalski, 1995; Weeks, Jakatdar, & Heimberg, 2010). In particular, they fear negative evaluation. Socially anxious people worry that the person they are talking with is going to find them foolish, boring, or immature. Situations that lend themselves to evaluation by others are particularly anxiety provoking. Just thinking about going on a blind date, giving a speech in front of a large audience, or meeting people for the first time can be a nightmarish experience for someone high in social anxiety. How do socially anxious people deal with this fear of negative evaluation? Often, they simply avoid social encounters altogether. They skip parties where they might not know anyone, avoid blind dates, and opt for a term paper instead of a class presentation. When getting out of the situation is not realistic, shy people will do what they can to reduce the amount of social interaction. One way they do this is by avoiding eye contact (Farabee, Holcom, Ramsey, & Cole, 1993; Garcia, Stinson, Ickes, Bissonnette, & Briggs, 1991). Making eye contact with someone signals a readiness or willingness to talk. By refusing to give this signal, shy people tell those around them that they would prefer to avoid social interactions. In this way, socially anxious people limit the opportunities for others to evaluate them. When interacting with others is unavoidable, shy people tend to adopt a selfprotective interaction style; that is, they do what they can to control the impressions others have of them (Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Shepperd & Arkin, 1990). Socially anxious people often keep conversations short and nonthreatening, and they typically limit the amount of personal information they reveal to a person they’ve just met (Meleshko & Alden, 1993). Participants in one experiment were asked to tell four stories about themselves to an interviewer (DePaulo, Epstein, & LeMay, 1990). Some of the participants believed the interviewer would use these stories to evaluate them afterward. The socially anxious people who thought they were going to be evaluated told shorter and less revealing stories than the other participants. Participants in another experiment were asked to engage in a 5-minute “getacquainted” conversation with someone they had just met (Leary, Knight, & Johnson, 1987). When researchers examined tapes of these conversations, they found several differences in the way shy and nonshy participants acted. Socially anxious participants were more likely to agree with what the other person said and to merely restate or clarify their partner’s remarks when it was their turn to talk. This interactive style allows socially anxious people to create an image of politeness and interest without becoming too involved in the conversation. In this way, they hope to minimize opportunities for this other person to find something objectionable about them. Not surprisingly, we find higher rates of shyness in cultures that emphasize concern for what others think of you and the importance of avoiding criticism (Okazaki, 1997). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 184 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Recall from Chapter 1 that people from collectivist cultures are more concerned about fitting in with their community and culture, whereas people from individualistic cultures are more interested in drawing attention to themselves. Consistent with these differences, researchers typically find more shyness in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures (Heinrichs et al., 2005; Paulhus, Duncan, & Yik, 2002). Although this picture of the shy person may sound rather hopeless, one research finding suggests that socially anxious people may not be as incapable of conversation as they seem. Researchers sometimes find that shy people have little difficulty interacting with others once they get started. That is, for at least some shy people, it’s initiating a conversation that seems to be the real stumbling block (Curran, Wallander, & Fischetti, 1980; Paulhus & Martin, 1987). In one study, shy and nonshy participants were left alone to carry on a conversation with a stranger (Pilkonis, 1977). Although nonshy participants spoke more often and were more likely to break periods of silence than shy participants, there was no difference in how long these two kinds of people spoke when they did say something. Shy individuals also find that their anxiety is less of a problem when they are with friends than when they interact with strangers. As a result, socially anxious individuals often ask a friend to accompany them when they need to attend a social gathering (Boucher & Cummings, 2014). When one team of researchers asked college students who they had eaten lunch with the previous day, shy students were more likely than nonshy students to say they had eaten with a friend (Arkin & Grove, 1990). Having a friend nearby is often enough to alleviate some of the negative thoughts that surface when shy people are forced to interact with strangers (Pontari, 2009). When a friend was present, socially anxious participants in one study were just as likely as other participants to describe themselves in a positive manner and to disclose personal information to a stranger (Pontari & Glenn, 2012). Observations like these lead some researchers to speculate that what socially anxious people really lack is confidence in their ability to make a good impression (Hill, 1989; Leary & Atherton, 1986; Maddux, Norton, & Leary, 1988). Consequently, therapy programs designed to help people overcome problems with shyness often focus on getting clients to believe that they can say the right thing and that they can make a good impression (Glass & Shea, 1986; Haemmerlie & Montgomery, 1986; Leary & Kowalski, 1995). Emotions A t first glance, you might wonder why a topic like emotions is included in a chapter on personality traits. After all, traits are consistent characteristics, and common observation tells us that our moods fluctuate constantly. Each of us goes through good days and bad—times when we are extremely happy, tremendously sad, proud, ashamed, enthusiastic, or guilty. Common sense also suggests that how we feel depends on the situation. We’re happy when good things happen to us, proud when we accomplish something, and sad when unfortunate events occur. However, if I ask you to think of someone you know who always seems to be in a good mood, my guess is you will have little difficulty coming up with an example. Similarly, I find people can easily think of individuals they would describe as “gloomy,” “confident,” or “grouchy.” In other words, Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Emotions 185 after a little reflection it is apparent that, although each of us experiences a wide range of positive and negative emotions, we can also identify relatively stable patterns in emotions that distinguish each person from the people around him or her. What are some of these consistent patterns? Researchers have uncovered three ways our emotions can be examined as relatively stable personal characteristics. First, each of us differs in the extent to which we typically experience positive and negative emotions. Second, we differ in the typical strength of the emotions we experience. Third, we differ in the way we express our emotions. Personality psychologists refer to these three aspects of emotion as affectivity, intensity, and expressiveness. Emotional Affectivity Thumb through a dictionary, and you will find dozens and dozens of words that describe human emotions. People can be happy, irritated, content, nervous, embarrassed, and disgusted. We experience shame, joy, regret, rage, anxiety, and pride. But it is reasonable to ask whether these are all different emotions or, as researchers have found when examining personality traits, connected to one another along a few major dimensions. Like psychologists studying the Big Five personality dimensions, researchers use factor analysis to examine the relation among various ­emotions (­Watson & Clark, 1991; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). These researchers look at ­emotions as indicated by self-report inventories, use of words, facial expressions, and evaluations from others. And like Big Five researchers, they find that certain emotions indeed tend to go together. People who are happy also tend to be enthusiastic; those who are irritable are also often sad. Eventually, these investigators discovered that affect could be organized around two general dimensions. As shown in Table 8.3, one of these dimensions is simply positive affect. At one extreme we find emotions like active, content, and satisfied. At the Table 8.3 Positive and Negative Affect Examples High Positive Affect High Negative Affect Active Distressed Elated Fearful Enthusiastic Hostile Excited Jittery Peppy Nervous Strong Scornful Low Positive Affect Low Negative Affect Drowsy At rest Dull Calm Sleepy Placid Sluggish Relaxed Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 186 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach other extreme we find sad and lethargic. The other dimension that emerged in this research was identified, perhaps predictably, as negative affect. At one extreme of this dimension, we find nervousness, anger, and distress. At the other, we find calm and serene. The same two dimensions can be used to identify our typical emotional experiences. As with other personality traits, our general tendencies to experience positive affect and negative affect are relatively stable over time. That is, if I know where to place you on the two affect dimensions today, I can predict with reasonable accuracy your general tendency to experience positive and negative affect years from now (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001). Psychologists refer to these individual differences as emotional affectivity. One obvious question that turns out to not have an obvious answer is how positive and negative affect are related. Initial investigations indicated that these two dimensions are relatively independent from one another (Diener & Emmons, 1984; Mayer & Gaschke, 1988; Meyer & Shack, 1989; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). If that is the case, knowing your score on a test measuring positive affect would tell me ­nothing about how you score on a test measuring negative affect. However, later studies found support for the more intuitive notion that being high on one of these dimensions means being low on the other, and vice versa (Russell & Carroll, 1999). In other words, the more I experience positive emotions like happiness and contentment, the less likely I am to experience anger and anxiety. As is often the case, it seems now that the relationship between positive and negative affect is more complex than researchers initially recognized (Leue & Beauducel, 2011; Schmukle, Egloff, & Burns, 2002; Segura & Gonzalez-Roma, 2003; Terracciano, McCrae, Hagemann, & Costa, 2003). Although common observations tell us that doing something fun helps to take away the blues, most of us can also identify a time when we felt both a little bit happy and a little bit sad at the same time. Indeed, researchers find that people often report mixed emotions when recalling past experiences or when watching a motion picture with a “bittersweet” message (Ersner-Hershfield, Mikels, Sullivan, & Carstensen, 2008; Larsen & McGraw, 2011). Regardless of the relationship between the two dimensions, psychologists find that individual differences in positive and negative affect predict a number of important behaviors. For example, people who are high in trait positive affect tend to be in better health than those who are low on this dimension (Cohen & Pressman, 2006; Robles, Brooks, & Pressman, 2009; Steptoe, Dockray, & Wardle, 2009). However, the behavior most consistently associated with high positive affect is social activity (­Watson & Naragon, 2009). People high in trait positive affect tend to engage in more social events and tend to enjoy those activities more than people who score low on this trait (Berry & Hansen, 1996; Clark & Watson, 1988; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002; ­Watson, 1988). People high in trait positive affect are also more likely to be involved in a romantic relationship and are more satisfied with their partners than are individuals low in positive affect (Berry & Willingham, 1997). Why is positive affect related to social activity? One reason may be that social activity causes positive affect. That is, people who are more social experience more positive emotions. Students in one study completed a scale measuring positive and negative mood each week for 13 consecutive weeks (Watson, Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992). Participants also completed a questionnaire each week indicating Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Emotions 187 how often they had engaged in each of 15 different social activities (e.g., attending a party, having a serious discussion, or going to a movie or concert). The researchers found the more social activities the students engaged in, the higher their positive affect that week. A similar finding was uncovered when researchers looked at the mood and activity levels of Japanese students (Clark & Watson, 1988). However, it is important to note that this research is correlational (Chapter 2). In other words, it is possible that the causal arrow runs the other way as well. People may engage in social activity because they experience positive affect. Consistent with this interpretation, studies find that when we feel good, we are more likely to seek out friends and to act friendly toward the people we meet (Cunningham, 1988). People high in trait positive affect also act in ways that most people find attractive, which leads to more friends and more social activity. Participants in one study were asked to engage in a 6-minute conversation with a stranger (Berry & Hansen, 1996). When judges examined videotapes of these conversations, they found high positive affect participants generally were more pleasant and engaging than low positive affect participants. Consistent with this research, high positive affect people report fewer conflicts with their friends (Berry, Willingham, & Thayer, 2000) and are more likely to be accommodating when they have a disagreement with their romantic partners (Berry & Willingham, 1997). In short, people high in trait positive affect tend to be happy, enthusiastic, and attentive. Little wonder they develop and keep friendships and romantic partners. What kinds of behaviors are associated with negative affect? Not surprisingly, high scores on negative affect are generally related to psychological stress (Brissette & Cohen, 2002; Merz & Roesch, 2011). People on the high end of this dimension suffer from a diverse list of emotional problems. Studies also find that negative affect is related to complaints about health (Finch, Baranik, Liu, & West, 2012; Howren & Suls, 2011; Williams et al., 2002). That is, people who score high on measures of negative affect report more health problems than people with low negative affect. We are more likely to find high negative affect people in a doctor’s office than people who are low on this dimension. But these findings raise another question: Do people high in negative affect really suffer from more health problems, or do they simply complain more? Maybe people high in negative affect simply think about their symptoms more than most of us. To test this possibility, one group of healthy volunteers was deliberately exposed to cold and flu viruses (Cohen et al., 1995). Participants were then quarantined in a hotel for several days where they were monitored for real symptoms and provided daily self-­ reports of their perceived symptoms. Consistent with earlier research, participants characteristically high in negative affect reported more cold and flu symptoms than those who scored low on this dimension. However, when the investigators looked at actual symptoms (such as mucus excretions), they found no difference between those high and low in negative affect. But before we dismiss the higher rate of health problems among negative affect people as exaggerated complaining, consider that both of these possibilities may be true—perhaps people high in negative affect complain more, but they also may experience more genuine symptoms. This was the conclusion of a 7-year study looking at patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (Smith, Wallston, & Dwyer, 1995). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 188 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Patients high in negative affect did report more symptoms and more severe symptoms than those on the other end of this dimension. However, it was also the case that these patients had higher levels of physical ailments that could not be explained away simply by their tendency to focus on the negative. In short, patients high in negative affect complained more than the symptoms warranted, but they also had more legitimate reasons to complain. This last observation leads to a final question: Why should different levels of negative affect be related to one’s physical health? As of yet, no clear answers to this question are available. One possibility is that people high in negative affect have difficulty dealing with stress, which subsequently affects their health. It might also be the case that mood affects health-related behaviors. High and low negative affect people might have different exercise, eating, or health habits. Finally, it’s possible that people who suffer from a lot of health problems become more negative about their lives in general. Affect Intensity Students participating in one psychology experiment were asked to keep daily records of their emotions for 84 consecutive days (Larsen, 1987). Each day the students completed a short scale indicating the extent to which they had experienced positive emotions, such as happiness and fun, and negative emotions, such as sadness and anger. The researchers plotted each person’s emotional pattern for the length of the study. What were these investigators looking for? Consider the data from two of the participants in that study, shown in Figure 8.4. Over the course of the nearly 3-month study, the average amount of positive and negative emotion was about the same for each student. But this is a case in which averages tell only part of the story. Clearly, the two students lead very different emotional lives. Student A has highs and lows, but typically not very high and not very low. We all know people like this; we call them steady and even-tempered. They enjoy themselves but rarely become ecstatic. They get irritated but rarely irate. Each of us also knows people like Student B. When they get happy, they get very happy. When they get down, they get very down. We say these people are unpredictable, that they fly off the handle, or that they’re moody. Today they might be pumped up and enthusiastic and tomorrow frustrated and hostile. Personality researchers would say the two students differ in terms of their affect intensity (Larsen, 2009). Affect intensity refers to the strength or degree to which people typically experience their emotions. At one end of this trait dimension, we find people who respond to emotional situations with relatively mild reactions; at the other end, we find people with strong emotional reactions (Jones, Leen-Feldner, ­Olatunji, Reardon, & Hawks, 2009; Larsen & Diener, 1987). As shown in the two students’ data, high-intensity people not only experience their emotions more intensely, but they also tend to be more variable. They experience higher highs and lower lows. Notice that affect intensity applies to both positive and negative emotions. Individuals who experience strong positive emotions also tend to experience strong negative emotions (Schimmack & Diener, 1997). Where we find peaks, we also find valleys. People high in affect intensity are also more aware of their emotions and may spend more time thinking about and reliving emotional experiences than people low on this trait (Gohm & Clore, 2002; Thompson, Dizen, & Berenbaum, 2009). Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Emotions 189 Student A Positive 6 4 Mood 2 0 Negative 22 24 26 0 10 20 30 40 50 Day Number 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 Day Number 60 70 80 90 Student B Positive 6 4 Mood 2 0 Negative 22 24 26 Figure 8.4 Examples of Daily Mood Fluctuations in Two People Source: Adapted from Larsen, R. J. (1987). The stability of mood variability: A spectral analytic approach to daily mood assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1195–1204. Copyright © 1987 by the ­American Psychological Association. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 190 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach One explanation for these different emotional patterns is that high-intensity people may simply have more emotional events in their lives. However, this does not seem to be the case. When researchers compare the kinds of activities high- and low-intensity people experience, they find no differences (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1986). Highand low-intensity people tend to go to the same number of parties and concerts, and they have the same number of hassles and setbacks. The difference lies in how they react to those events. In one study, researchers presented participants with a series of hypothetical situations, such as being praised by an instructor or discovering a flat tire on their bicycle (Larsen et al., 1986). When asked to imagine how they would respond, high-intensity participants said they would enjoy the positive events to a greater degree and be more upset by the negative events than did the low-intensity participants. Even relatively mild situations can evoke strong reactions in high-intensity individuals. High-intensity participants in one study had stronger emotional reactions than lows to magazine ads for alcoholic beverages (Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 1999). Other studies find that high-intensity people tend to overestimate the extent to which events will affect them and often draw unwarranted conclusions based on one good or one bad experience (Larsen, Billings, & Cutler, 1996; Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987). To a high-intensity individual, one friendly smile suggests a blossoming relationship, one bad grade the end of the world. No doubt high-intensity people are often told they are overreacting by those from the other end of the affect intensity dimension. These observations lead to another question: Is it better to be high on affect intensity and really experience life or low on this dimension and maintain a steady and calm approach to achievements and calamities? In other words, how does affect intensity relate to well-being? The answer is that high- and low-intensity people tend to score about the same on measures of happiness and well-being (Larsen, Diener, & Emmons, 1985). High-intensity people experience more positive affect, of course. But this seems to be offset by the fact that they also experience more negative affect (Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994). However, there does seem to be a difference in how these two kinds of people experience happiness. For high-intensity people, happiness means a lot of exhilarating and enlivening experiences. For low-intensity people, happiness takes the form of a calm and enduring sense of contentment (Larsen & Diener, 1987). In short, highs and lows simply lead different—but not necessarily better or worse—emotional lives. Moreover, both kinds of individuals can be productive, but again in different ways. Scientists tend to be low in affect intensity, whereas artists tend to be high (Botella, Zenasni, & Lubart, 2013; Sheldon, 1994), a finding that fits nicely with stereotypes of the pondering scientist satisfied with incremental steps toward his or her goal and the temperamental artist operating on bursts of inspiration-driven energy. Both get where they want to be, but each takes a different emotional route. Emotional Expressiveness If I tell you Maria is an emotional person, you probably have little difficulty imagining what she is like. The “emotional” people I know cry at sad movies, tell friends they are loved, and move about excitedly when given good news. If Maria is an emotional person, you could probably tell me what kind of mood she is in just by seeing the expression on her face. No doubt her friends share her joys as well as her disappointments. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.