Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11
he
225
Watson & Cheek, 1986). Even though situational shyness as a transitory emotional
state appears to be a normal aspect of human development and everyday adult life,
for some people it becomes much more than a temporary response. About 30 to 40
percent of Americans label themselves as dispositionally shy persons (Gough &
Heilbrun, 1983; Lazarus, 1982; Pilkonis, Heape, & Klein, 1980; Zimbardi>, Pilkonis,
& Norwood, 1975). Three-quarters of the shy respondents said that tl:ey did not
like being so shy, and two-thirds of them considered their shyness to be a personal
problem.
Although some psychologists have argued that the positive connotations of shyness, such as modesty or sensitivity, should be emphasized (Aron, 1995; Gough &
Thorne, 1986; Keen, 1978), it is generally viewed as an undesirable personality
characteristic, especially for men (Bern, 1981; Hampson, Goldberg, & John, 1987).
Shy adolescents tend to regard their shyness as an unacceptable and even shameful characteristic, and shy adults often complain that their problem is not taken seriously enough by other people (Harris, 1984a; Ishiyama, 1984). A growing body of
contemporary research supports this negative image of shyness as a personality
trait. Rather than simply promoting cooperative social life, an enduring tendency
to experience shyness frequently, intensely, and in a wide range of sitl.:ations creates self-defeating behavior patterns (Cheek & Briggs, 1990; Cheek & Melchior,
1990). As a result, dispositional shyness can become a barrier to persoiJal well-being, social adjustment, and occupational fulfillment (Jones, Cheek, & Briggs, 1986).
In this chapter we review research and theory on shyness with a fccus on the
varieties of shyness that are experienced during adolescence and adulthood. After
considering the distinction between early- and later-developing shyness, we describe the three-component model of adult shyness. Then we introduce a new approach to withdrawn and dependent subtypes of shyness. Finally, we conclude
with some implications of our approach for future directions in theory, research,
and treatment.
226
Stage
14
'I
227
Table 11.2 Frequency Distribution for Self-Reports of the Time of First Shyness.
Currently shy
respondents
Previously shy
respondents
16
30
52
31
29
5
35
51
37
45
158
173
16
112
27
21
More recently, Buss (1980, 1986) has proposed a distinction between earlydeveloping fearful shyness and later-developing self-conscious shyness that is
framed in the language of contemporary research on temperament and personality
development. The fearful type of shyness typically emerges during the 1st year of
life and is influenced by temperamental qualities of wariness and emotionality that
include a substantial genetic component (Kagan & Reznick, 1986; Plomin & Rowe,
1979). Because the effects of these temperamental factors precede the development
of a cognitive self-concept, Buss specifically excluded low self-esteem as a potential cause of early-developing shyness. In light of attachment theory (Bowlby,
1988), however, it might be better to conceptualize a concurrent transactional development oftemperament and the "working model" of emotional self-esteem during early childhood, even though such a theoretical integration is controversial
(e.g., Sroufe, 1985; cf. Lamb, 1982).
Buss's self-conscious type of shyness first appears around age 4 or 5 when the cognitive self has already begun to develop, becomes more intense around age 8 as social comparison processes become more salient in self-evaluation (Harter, 1986), and
peaks between 14 and 17 as adolescents cope with cognitive egocentrism (the "imaginary audience" phenomenon) and identity issues (Adams, Abraham, & Markstrom,
1987; Cheek, Carpentieri, Smith, Rierdan, & Koff, 1986; Hauck, Martens, & Wetzel,
1986). The peak of adolescent self-consciousness is significantly higher for females
than for males, at least in American society (Elkind & Bowen, 1979; Simmons &
Rosenberg, 1975; Zimbardo, 1977). In contrast to the fearfulness and somatic anxiety that characterizes early-developing shyness, later-developing shyness involves
cognitive symptoms of psychic anxiety such as painful self-consciousness and anxious self-preoccupation (e.g., Crozier, 1979; Ishiyama, 1984).
Because adolescent self-consciousness declines significantly after age 14 or 15,
whereas the influence of inherited temperament should be more stable, it seems
reasonable that shyness would be a more enduring characteristic for people who
were first shy in early childhood than for those who were first shy in later childhood or early adolescence. As part of our research on subtypes of shyness that is
reported later in this chapter, we asked 590 college students whether they considered themselves currently shy and, if not, whether there had been some previous
period in their lives during which they had considered themselves to be shy persons. The 48 percent of respondents who were currently shy and the 38 percent
who were previously shy identified the age range in which they first remember be-
x2
= 29.19,
128
48
286
221
p < .01.
ing shy. Their answers are presented in table 11.2 (which replicates in a larger sample the results in table 1 of Cheek et al., 1986).
Our new data are quite consistent with previous surveys that employed retrospective reports of college students and that have revealed four findings relevant
to Buss's conceptualization: (1) about 40 percent of currently shy respondents indicated that they had been shy since early childhood; (2) early-developing shyness
is more enduring, with about 75 percent of those who said they were shy in early
childhood reporting still being shy currently but only about 50 percent of those
who were first shy during late childhood or early adolescence saying that they are
currently shy; (3) the respondents with early-developing shyness also had developed cognitive symptoms of shyness on entering adolescence, so that they differed
from those with later-developing shyness by having more somatic anxiety symptoms but did not have fewer cognitive symptoms; and (4) early-developing shyness
appears to be more of an adjustment problem, with males in that group reporting
the most behavioral symptoms of shyness (Alden & Cappe,1988; Bruch, Giordano,
& Pearl, 1986; Cheek, et al., 1986; Shedlack, 1987).
The ongoing longitudinal study of childhood behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar being conducted by Kagan and his colleagues is relevant to both types of
shyness described by Buss. Kagan's construct is essentially equivalent to Buss's
early-developing shyness (e.g., Kagan & Reznick, 1986), and the results from 21
months to age 5 support Buss's ideas about the physiological correlates and enduring quality of early-developing shyness (see also Rothbart & Mauro, 1990;
Schmidt et al., 1997). A more recent assessment occurred at age 7, which is after
the time when later-developing shyness theoretically begins to emerge. At this
point, about three-fourths of the children who were extremely shy when they were
21 months old were still shy, and about three-fourths of those not previously shy
continued to be uninhibited (Kagan, Reznick, Snidman, Gibbons, & Johnson, 1 988).
The first finding suggests that beneficial socialization experiences can ameliorate
228
229
behaviorally inhibited in temperament, a group estimated to be about 15 to 20 percent of the population, may be at much greater risk for developing social phobia
later in life than children who are merely shy around strangers (Kagan, 1997;
Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus, 1993).
The socially phobic men in Gilmartin's (1987) study reported that their childhood relationships with both their peers and their parents, especially their mothers, were simply terrible. In contrast, the typical pattern for shy children is poor
relationships with peers but positive interactions at home, especially with their
mothers (Stevenson-Hinde & Hinde, 1986). Thus, in spite of the strength of findings from temperament research, it appears that the home environment is also a
decisive factor for developmental outcomes of shyness, even in extreme cases
(Bruch & Cheek, 1995).
We also should point out that broader cultural values influence both the prevalence of shyness and the extent to which it is perceived as a problem (Klopf, 1984;
Zimbardo, 1977; see Murphy, 1947, chapter 40, for a theoretical discussion of the
degree of fit between a culture and the biological individuality ofits members). For
example, the Japanese tend to be substantially more shy than European Americans,
whereas Israelis tend to be significantly less shy. Moreover, the influence of culture
on shyness may vary according to the age or gender of the shy person (Chen, Rubin,
& Li, 1995; Kerr, Lambert, Stattin, & Klackenberg-Larsson, 1994). As a result, there
are many complex issues to be addressed in future longitudinal studies of the development of shyness.
230
231
Physiological reactions:
This category of shyness could also be called "physical shyness." Physical feelings such as
"butterflies in the stomach," heart pounding, blushing, increased pulse rate, and dry mouth
are all examples of physiological reactions. General physical tenseness and uneasiness is
also a good way to classify these reactions.
1. Physiological symptoms are an aspect of my shyness:
1
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Observable behaviors:
This category of shyness is concerned with actions that might indicate to others that you
are feeling shy. For example, having trouble speaking, being unable to make eye contact, or
simply not interacting with others (at a party, for instance) are all observable behaviors that
may suggest shyness.
2. Observable behaviors are an aspect of my shyness:
1
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Usually
Always
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Usually
Always
cent of them gave responses from only one shyness component category, 37 percent reported symptoms from two categories, and only 12 percent mentioned
symptoms of all three components; the remaining 8 percent defined their shyness
exclusively in terms of its consequences (e.g., being alone, not getting a job, etc.;
Cheek & Watson, 1989}.
Evidence that supports the three-component model suggests that shyness as a
global or nomothetic trait should be conceptualized as a personality syndrome that
involves varying degrees of these three types of reactions (Cheek & Melchior, 1 990).
But do the three components converge toward defining such a global psychological construct? To find out, we correlated the self-ratings on each component with
scores on a recently revised and expanded version of the Cheek and Buss (1981}
scale for assessing global shyness. This 20-item scale has an alpha coefficient of
232
.91, 45-day test-retest reliability of .91, a .69 correlation with aggregated ratings of
shyness made by family members and close friends, and a correlation of .96 with
the original scale (Cheek & Melchior, 1985; Melchior & Cheek, 1990). The self-ratings of the somatic, cognitive, and behavioral components all correlated between
.40 and .68 with the global shyness scale for each gender in both of our samples
(average r = .50, N = 579; Melchior & Cheek, 1987).
The research reviewed in this section validates Buss's (1984) theoretical argument that it is reasonable to infer shyness when symptoms of at least one of the
three components are experienced as a problem in a social context, as well as his
contention that "it makes little sense to suggest that any one of the components
represents shyness to the exclusion of the other two" (p. 40). From the perspective
of the three-component syndrome model, dispositional shyness is defined as the
tendency to feel tense, worried, or awkward during social interactions, especially
with unfamiliar people (Cheek & Briggs, 1990). Although the focus of this definition is on reactions that occur during face-to-face encounters, it should be noted
that feelings of shyness often are experienced when anticipating or imagining social interactions (Buss, 1980; Leary, 1986). It also should be clear that discomfort
or inhibition of social behavior due to fatigue, illness, moodiness, or unusual circumstances, such as the threat of physical harm, are excluded from the definition
of shyness (Buss, 1980; Jones, Briggs, & Smith, 1 986).
Regardless of their relative positions in experiencing the somatic, cognitive, and
behavioral components of shyness, shy people have one obvious thing in common:
They think of themselves as being shy. Rather than being a trivial observation, this
may be a crucial insight for understanding the psychology of shyness. Shy people
seem to have broad commonalities at the metacognitive level of psychological
functioning (see table 11.4). Metacognition is defined as higher-order cognitive processing that involves awareness of one's current psychological state or overt behavior (Flavell, 1 979). The distinctive self-concept processes of shy people suggest
that maladaptive metacognition is the unifying theme in the experience of shyness
during adulthood (Cheek & Melchior, 1990).
Viewed at this higher level of metacognitive functioning, shyness may be conceptualized as the tendency to become anxiously self-preoccupied about social interactions (Crozier, 1979, 1 982). As Hartman (1 986) put it, shy people become "preoccupied with metacognition: thoughts about their physiological arousal, ongoing
performance, and other's perceptions of them as socially incompetent, inappropriately nervous, or psychologically inadequate" (p. 269). Because this tendency
represents only one specific aspect of metacognition, Cheek and Melchior (1990)
referred to the shy person's metacognitive processing of self-relevant social cognitions as meta-self-consciousness (cf. Dissanayake, 1988).
The pervasiveness of the self-concept processes summarized in table 11.4 suggests that the cognitive component is the predominant aspect of adult shyness.
That is, shy people's cognitions regarding their somatic anxiety symptoms and degree of social skill may be more consequential than their objectively assessed levels of tension or awkwardness (Cheek & Melchior, 1990). The metacognitive model
of shyness implies that, in addition to help for their specific shyness symptoms,
therapy for shy adults should include cognitive approaches that address selfconcept disturbances and anxious self-preoccupation (Alden & Cappe, 1986).
233