UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
The Influence of Parental Sensitivity on Expressions of Shyness in Children between the Age of 2 to 5 Years Old
Masterthesis Orthopedagogiek Graduate School of Child Development and Education Universiteit van Amsterdam K.C. Schelts 11057742 Mentored by: Dr. M. Nikolić Second reviewer: Ms. M.A.J. Zeegers MSc. Amsterdam, September 2018
Index Abstract……… 3 1.Introduction………... 5 2.Methods……….9 3.Results……….13 4.Discussion………...17 References………..22
Abstract
Shyness is a self-conscious emotion expressed positively or negatively. Positive shyness generates adaptive social behavior and adequate self-regulation skills, whereas negative shyness can cause self-regulatory problems and psychopathology. Children’s shyness may be influenced by their parents, among others, by parental sensitivity. Parental sensitivity may positively influence shyness when there is attunement to the child’s needs and demands and can also negatively influence shyness when the parent is unresponsive or
intrusive to the child’s signals. This study’s aim was investigating the influence of parental sensitivity on positive and non-positive expressions of shyness in children. The participants (N = 65) were parents (M age = 35.67, 87.7% mothers) and children between 2 to 5 years old (M age in months = 50.11, 55.4% girls) who participated in a unsolvable puzzle task and social performance task. Parental sensitivity was measured by coding the parent’s behavior during the puzzle task and shyness was coded by observing facial expressions of the child during the social performance task. Results showed more parental acceptance related to more positive shyness. Low sensitivity related to more positive shyness. Sensitivity was not
significantly related to non-positive shyness. In conclusion, parental sensitivity influences expressions of shyness, although differently than was previously expected.
Keywords: early childhood, positive shyness, negative shyness, parental sensitivity, social anxiety, self-regulation
Samenvatting
Verlegenheid is een zelfbewuste emotie met positieve en negatieve expressies. Positieve verlegenheid genereert adaptief sociaal gedrag en adequate zelfregulatie, terwijl negatieve verlegenheid zelfregulatieproblemen en psychopathologie veroorzaakt.
Verlegenheid van kinderen kan beïnvloed worden door ouders, onder andere, door ouderlijke sensitiviteit. Ouderlijke sensitiviteit kan verlegenheid positief beïnvloeden wanneer afgestemd is op behoeften en eisen van het kind en kan verlegenheid ook negatief beïnvloeden wanneer ouders onverschillig of opdringerig reageren op kind-signalen. Het doel van deze studie was te onderzoeken in welke mate ouderlijke sensitiviteit van invloed is op positieve en negatieve expressies van verlegenheid. De participanten (N = 65) waren ouders (M leeftijd = 35.67, 87.7% moeders) en kinderen tussen 2 en 5 jaar (M leeftijd in maanden = 50.11, 55.4% meisjes) die participeerden in een unsolvable puzzle taak en social performance taak.
Ouderlijke sensitiviteit is gemeten door ouderlijk gedrag gedurende de puzzel taak te coderen en verlegenheid is gecodeerd via observatie van gezichtsexpressies van het kind gedurende de social performance taak. Uitgewezen is meer ouderlijke acceptatie is gerelateerd aan meer positieve verlegenheid. Lage sensitiviteit is gerelateerd aan meer positieve verlegenheid. Sensitiviteit was niet significant gerelateerd aan niet-positieve verlegenheid. Geconcludeerd wordt dat ouderlijke sensitiviteit expressies van verlegenheid beïnvloedt, alhoewel
verschillend dan vooraf verwacht.
Keywords: vroege kindertijd, positieve verlegenheid, negatieve verlegenheid, ouderlijke sensitiviteit, sociale angst, zelfregulatie
The Influence of Parental Sensitivity on Expressions of Shyness in Children Shyness is a self-conscious emotion that can be a natural response for people in certain situations, such as singing in front of an audience (Colonnesi, Napoleone & Bögels, 2014). This emotional response can be defined as the emotional and behavioral ambivalence between fear and pleasure one may experience in social situations, due to conflicting motivations in wanting to avoid the situation but also approach it (Gazelle & Spangler, 2007; Eggum et al., 2009; Colonnesi et al., 2014). Shy children have the desire to socialize (e.g. play) with others, but the approach is inhibited by their social fear. There are two components of state shyness: approach and avoidance. In children, shyness may be displayed with head or gaze aversion, touching of the body or raising ones arm (Colonnesi et al., 2014). When a child dominantly experiences avoidance, shyness is expressed in a negative way, with gaze and/or head aversion during negative facial expressions. When a child experiences approach-dominant shyness, shyness is expressed in a positive way, with gaze and/or head aversion during positive facial expressions (i.e., coy-smile) (Colonnesi et al., 2014).
Negative shyness was found to relate to social anxiety as early as 4.5 years old (Colonnesi, Nikolic, de Vente & Bögels, 2017). Thus, shyness displayed in a negative way seems to be related to problems in social functioning and can possibly lead to symptoms of social anxiety later in life (Nikolic, Colonnesi, de Vente & Bögels, 2016). Research has shown that children can also express shyness while having neutral facial expressions
(Colonnesi, Nikolic & Bögels, 2018). Colonnesi et al. (2018) found that neutral shyness is an early precursor of negative shyness. The study of Colonnesi et al. (2018) found that non-positive (neutral) shyness in infancy at the age of 1 is related to negative shyness at the age of 2.5 years old. On the other hand, shyness may be an emotional reaction that is associated with more positive connotations and can be experienced by everyone in certain situations. When expressions of shyness (i.e., gaze and/or head aversion) are accompanied with a smile, this smile is called shy smile or a coy-smile and it can be seen as a positive form of shyness that indicates prosocial behavior (Colonnesi et al., 2014). Importantly, the gaze and/or head aversion occur just before the top of the smile – when the arousal is the highest (Colonnesi et al., 2014). Positive shyness seems to have a function to self-regulate emotions and arousal, as well as enhance socially adaptive behavior (Colonnesi et al., 2014). In contrast to negative shyness, positive shyness is negatively related to social anxiety. Therefore, it appears to be an adaptive way to express shyness and has a protective role for the development of social anxiety later on (Colonnesi et al., 2014).
for shy children (Coplan, Arbeau & Armer, 2008). As shy children get older and head into adolescence, the risk of internalizing problems increase even more (Coplan et al., 2008). Shy children can develop internalizing problems such as depression and social anxiety, but also loneliness, peer rejection, a lower self-esteem and inadequate social competence. Shyness in early childhood seems to be a risk factor for the development of an anxiety disorder later in life (Coplan et al., 2008). This seems particularly true for negative shyness. When a child shows more negative expressions of shyness it can induce more withdrawal from social experiences and can act as a precursor to social anxiety later on (Colonnesi et al., 2014). According to Coplan et al. (2009) 90% of pre-school children, classified as extremely shy, already met criteria for an anxiety disorder. On the other hand, when a child shows more positive expressions of shyness this can lead to more prosocial behavior later on in life, due to a more adaptive social emotional development and a more adequate self-regulation
(Colonnesi et al., 2014). Thus, negative shyness seems to be a risk factor for the development of an anxiety disorder later on, whereas positive shyness seems to enhance adaptive socio-emotional development.
Because early shyness may pose a risk for later socio-emotional development and because positive and negative shyness seem to have different consequences for child development, it is important to study these different displays of shyness in early childhood. Also, to be able to prevent difficulties in child social development and to enhance positive and adaptive ways of expressing shyness, it is important to investigate which factors in children’s environment may influence positive and negative shyness. As children age, they are exposed to a range of different environmental influences, from parenting behaviors to peers (Eggum et al., 2009). In early childhood children’s emotions and reactions in social situations, such as shyness, can be strongly influenced by parenting (Kiel, Premo & Buss, 2016). For example, parenting behaviors can influence social anxiety symptoms in later childhood. Parenting behaviors such as, parental affection (i.e., warmth, responsiveness, supportiveness) and parental control (i.e., limit setting, discipline, demands for maturity) have been found to be associated to the development of social behavior in children (Zarra-Nezhad et al., 2018). When parents showed low levels of sympathy and caring behavior, shyness in preschoolers was negatively related to social behavior (Zarra-Nezhad et al., 2018). Particularly, children who showed social withdrawal signs were more vulnerable to negative effects of low parental affection (Zarra-Nezhad et al., 2014). Another study showed that if parental affection is high, it predicts less negative emotions in inhibited children (Zarra-Nezhad, Aunola, Kiuru, Mullola & Moazami-Goodarzi, 2015). In regards to parental control, Hane, Cheah, Rubin & Fox
(2008) found that parental positivity (i.e., positive affect, positive control) was related to better social outcomes for shy preschoolers, whereas parents who have higher levels of parental behavioral control combined with low affection, was negatively associated with less social behavior. Low parental sensitivity, has also been associated with less prosocial behavior and anxiety outcomes (Kiel et al., 2016). Sensitivity can be defined as parental ability to interpret the child’s signals accurately and to be able to respond promptly and appropriately to these signals (Ainsworth, Bell & Stayton, 1974). Parents who respond
sensitively to their child’s signals improve the chance of developing a secure relationship with their child, whereas less sensitive parents have a lower chance of developing a secure
relationship with their child (De Wolff & Van Ijzendoorn, 1997; Eggum et al., 2009; Kiel et al., 2016). A parent characterized as sensitive responds contingently to the child’s interests, arousal, affect and capabilities (Eggum et al., 2009). Characterized as insensitive, a parent might be unresponsive or intrusive to their child’s signals. Sensitive interactions with the parent, can help children to develop self-efficacy, self-regulatory skills and autonomy (Eggum et al., 2009). Past research on sensitivity and self-regulation (or emotion regulation) in
children showed that children learn effective regulatory strategies through their parents
responding supportively to their emotions and behaviors, while creating optimal arousal levels (Eisenberg, Cumberland & Spinrad, 1998; Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers & Robinson, 2007; Feng, Hooper & Jia, 2017). Parental sensitivity has been found to be a predictor of self-regulation during early childhood (Spinrad et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2017). Spinrad et al. (2012) found that when children are being raised in a child-centered way, they are more likely to maintain optimal arousal levels and have the ability to regulate their arousal when they need it. This in turn helps children learn how to deal with their emotions and leads to high regulatory skills (Spinrad et al., 2012). Morris et al. (2007) found that on the one hand, parental sensitivity can lead to adequate emotion regulation and social adaptive skills, whereas on the other hand, lack of parental sensitivity could lead to a dysfunctional emotion regulation creating, in turn, social adaptive problems which leads to psychopathology later on. Based on these findings, it may be expected that parental sensitivity would be related to more positive shy expressions, as positive shyness is seen as an adaptive self-regulation strategy in social situations (Coplan et al., 2007; Eggum et al., 2009; Mount, Crockenberg, Bárrig Jó & Wagar, 2010), whereas low parental sensitivity would be related to more negative shy expressions, as it relates to more self-regulation difficulties and social behavior problems (Morris et al., 2007; Eggum et al., 2009; Kiel et al., 2016). Research found that when a parent has less sensitivity, this parent might fail to notice their child’s fearful/inhibited behavior or
might choose to ignore it, insisting the child approaches a situation anyway or leaving the child to cope with the situation without aid (Mount et al., 2010; Van der Voort et al., 2014). This may result in more internalizing problems for the child later on because of less adaptive emotion regulation. Previous research has found that low sensitive behavior of the parent can lead to a child showing more inhibition in novel situations, which decreases the child’s modulation of negative reactivity and increases the likelihood of the child becoming more anxious (Mount et al., 2010). A child’s social functioning can suffer when a parent is
classified with low sensitivity but, on the other hand, studies have also shown that very high levels of sensitivity can also lead to continued inhibited/shy behavior in children (Eggum et al., 2009; Kiel et al., 2016).Furthermore, although research seems to suggest that medium to high levels of sensitivity predict more adaptive behavior in children, too much sensitivity could have an opposite effect (Eggum et al, 2009; Kiel et al., 2016). Very high levels of sensitivity were linked to more anxiety in the child (Mount et al., 2010). Mount et al. (2009) suggested that highly sensitive parental behavior could lead to overprotection of the child thus reducing the chance to adapt to novel situations and adequately regulate fear-related distress. In more socially inhibited or shy children, this level of parental sensitivity could lead to more negative expressions of shyness. On the other hand, moderate levels of sensitivity seem to be related to a child displaying less anxiety symptoms (Mount et al., 2010) and thus, may be related to positive shyness and more adaptive social behavior.
Seeing the influence that sensitivity can have in the development of internalizing behavior, and how shyness is related to internalizing psychopathology, it is important to research what influence parental sensitivity may have in positive and negative expressions of shyness in children. Since shyness (especially negative shyness) may be a precursor of later social anxiety and other social adjustment difficulties, looking at this construct at a very early age and investigating the influence parental sensitivity might have at this early age could help in preventing child behavioral problems later on.
Given that parental sensitivity may be influential in expressions of shyness in children, this study will focus on this relationship. This study will investigate whether parental
sensitivity is associated with positive and negative expressions of shyness in children between the age of 2 to 5 years old. It is important to focus on this age group because parental
sensitivity plays a pivotal role in toddlerhood and the transition to kindergarten (Kiel et al., 2016) and because shy expressions at this age are important risk and protective factors for psychopathology (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Nikolic et al., 2016). We hypothesized that a
shyness. Additionally, it is hypothesized that lower or very high levels of maternal sensitivity is associated with more negative expressions of shyness.
Methods Participants
This study consisted of 65 children between the age of 2 to 5 years old (M age in months = 50.11, SD = 13.11), where 44.6% were boys and 55.4% girls and their parents, 87.7% mothers and 12.3% fathers. The ages of the parents ranged between 24 and 47 old (M age = 35.67, SD = 6.18) with the majority of parents, 79.7%, being a two-parent household. Of the parents 34.3% graduated from University/ Doctorate, 37.5% from college and 28.2% had high school or lower education level. Of the children 76.9% are still in toddlerhood. Parents and children were recruited through primary schools and daycare centers throughout Amsterdam, as well as through social media (e.g. Facebook), social contacts (e.g. family, friends,
acquaintances) and recruiting at recreational spots (e.g. parks, Nemo etc.) in Amsterdam. All parents granted permission for their child to participate in the study. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Research Institute Child Development and Education of the University of Amsterdam.
Design and Procedure
The measurements took place at the Family Lab of the University of Amsterdam (UvA) during one day and lasted approximately 1,5 hours. The parents and children visited the Family Lab between the months of February and July 2018. During the measurement the parent and child were observed and recorded from behind a one-way mirror, permission to participate was granted beforehand. Throughout the measurement the parent and child were guided by a test-leader, who first welcomed parent and child in the waiting room of the UvA Family Lab and then proceeded further in the test-room of the Family Lab. The procedure in the test-room started out with free play, where the test-leader would play and get more acquainted with the child and the parent was instructed to start filling in an online
questionnaire. After a short free play, the test-leader proceeded to doing several tasks with the child, which included the parent for two of the tasks. Only the tasks relevant to this study will be discussed further. At the end of the procedure, the parent and child were debriefed and the child received a small gift. The parent as well as the child were able to withdraw from the study at any given moment.
Variables
Expressions of positive and negative shyness.
Positive and negative shyness was measured by coding the child’s facial expressions during a social performance task. The children were asked to stand on a podium and sing a song in front of a small audience: the test-leader and a camera-woman who entered the room before the performance started to ‘record’ the performance of the child. As soon as the child stood on the podium and the test-leader introduced the child and their song, the child’s reaction was coded for one minute. Shyness was coded as negative when the child turned their gaze and/or head away from the camera or the audience, accompanied with a negative facial expression (Colonnesi et al., 2014). When turning the gaze and/or head was accompanied by a positive facial expression (i.e., smile), shyness was coded as positive. Neutral expressions of shyness were coded when gaze and/or head aversion occurred during neutral facial expressions. The coding system for the current study was made based on the coding system of Colonnesi et al. (2014), but a few alterations were made. First, the turning of the gaze/head were coded as state events and not as point events, which was used in the study of Colonnesi et al. (2014). Thus, we were able to calculate duration (rather than frequency) of positive and negative shy expressions. Negative, positive and neutral facial expressions were micro-coded by observing the child’s eyebrows, cheeks and lip corners (Cordaro et al., 2018). Negative facial expressions consisted of inner eyebrows up and/or eyebrows getting low and close together and/or lip corners down. Positive facial expressions consisted of lip corners up together with cheeks up. This reflected a genuine smile. A neutral facial expression included lips, cheeks and eyebrows being in a neutral position (no muscle tension or movement). The micro-codings of negative, positive, and neutral facial expressions were based on Facial Action Coding System (Wathan, Burrows, Waller & McComb, 2015). Because young
children tend to rarely express negative shyness (Colonnesi et al., 2018), neutral and negative expressions of shyness were combined and referred to as non-positive shyness. This was based on the finding that neutral shyness is related to negative shyness (Colonnesi et al., 2018). The coding was done by three master students after an extensive training. For the interrater reliability, all of the data was double-coded and not all children expressed all behaviors (i.e., negative, positive and neutral expressions). Reliability was satisfactory for positive shyness (N = 60), k = .68, neutral shyness (N = 50), k = .76, and negative shyness (N = 9), k = .74.
Parental Sensitivity.
unsolvable puzzle task. With the unsolvable puzzle task, the child was given an unsolvable puzzle (Baumeister et al., 1998) and the parent was instructed to help the child (but not touch the puzzle) (Webb & Sheeran, 2003). The parent and child were given five puzzles in total, where the time was adjusted so the child could succeed in the success trials and the alarm was rung after 90-120 seconds for a failure experience in the failure trials. The first, third and fifth puzzle were success puzzles and the second and fourth puzzle were failure puzzles. In this study only the first and second puzzle were used to code parental sensitivity, one success and one failure. The order of trials was fixed for all children. The fifth puzzle was a sort of debriefing so the child finished the task in a positive mood. The coding system for parental sensitivity was an adjusted version of the Maternal Sensitivity Scales by Ainsworth (1974). In this study there were four domains with each a five-point scale, instead of the nine-point scale used in the study of Ainsworth (1974). The first domain consisted of Cooperation vs.
Interference (1: highly interfering; 5: conspicuously cooperative), the second domain of Availability vs. Ignoring (1: highly inaccessible, ignoring or neglecting; 5: highly accessible), the third domain of Acceptance vs. Rejection (1: highly rejecting; 5: highly accepting) and the fourth domain consists of Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity (1: highly insensitive; 5: highly
sensitive – completely attuned) (Ainsworth 1974; Biringen & Robinson, 1991). For the first domain Cooperation vs. Interference, the parents were coded as highly interfering when the parents were more focused on finishing the puzzle on time and constantly interfered in the child’s activity without letting them try for themselves, whereas a parent was coded as highly accessible when there was no interference at all and only helped the child when it was needed. For the second domain Availability vs. Ignoring, the parent was coded as highly inaccessible, ignoring or neglecting when their only occupation was the puzzle and they had no regard for the child’s needs/demands, whereas a parent was coded as highly accessible when they were always aware of the child’s signals and never ignored demands or approaches from the child. For the third domain Acceptance vs. Rejection, the parent was coded as highly rejecting when the parent showed visible rejection in the form of anger or irritation (verbal or non-verbal) during the task (i.e., complains, pointing out deficits), whereas a parent was coded as highly accepting when every kind of behavior the child showed was still accepted by the parent without any irritation or anger and the parent showed high pleasure in observing the child. For the fourth domain Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity, the parent was coded as highly insensitive when the parent completely disregarded the child’s cues, did not notice any signs of the child or misinterpreted them very often, whereas a parent was coded as highly sensitive when the parent was completely attuned to the child’s signals, responded to them promptly and
appropriately and overall had the child in mind. During each puzzle the parent’s behavior was coded for the first and second minute of the puzzle and during the reaction time after the buzzer went off. A grade was given for each minute of solving the puzzle and reaction to failure/success based on the five-point scale. To take into account the differences in duration of the task among children, percentages were calculated. The coding was done by two master students after an extensive training, the interrater reliability was based on 20% of the data that was double-coded. Reliability was high for all the domains of sensitivity (k = .97 for
Cooperation vs. Interference, k = .96 for Availability vs. Ignoring, k = .95 for Acceptance vs. Rejection, k = .98 for Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity).
Data Analyses
For the analyses of shyness, the data was exported from the program Observer to SPSS. Positive shyness was defined as percent duration of gaze and/or head aversions during positive facial expressions (lip corners up and cheeks raised). Negative shyness was defined as percent duration of gaze and/or head aversion during negative facial expressions (lip corners down and/or inner eyebrows up and/or eyebrows low and together). Neutral shyness was defined as percent duration of gaze and/or head aversions during neutral facial
expressions. Outliers were checked using the 3SD-criterium. In case of any outliers, those variables were winsorized. Normality of the distribution was checked with standardized skewness. A missing values analysis was performed to check the pattern of missing data. To check for associations of the variables, correlations were performed between scores for success and failure for each domain of sensitivity, as well as in regards to positive and non-positive expressions of shyness. Correlations were also performed between non-positive shyness, non-positive shyness, age and sex of the child. To check for differences in sex for expressions of shyness, an independent samples t-test performed for all variables. Additionally, regression analyses were performed to see if different domains of sensitivity were predictors of shyness.
Results Preliminary Analyses
Sixty-five parents and children in total participated in the puzzle task and social performance task, of which eight missing values in total for both tasks, were found related to no participation, problems with the recording or speaking a foreign language during the task. After checking for outliers (± 3 SD of the mean scores), one outlier was detected for negative shyness and one outlier was detected for positive shyness. These variables were winsorized. Normality was checked based on histograms and standardized skewness. Positive shyness was slightly (but not heavily) skewed, with skewness of 1.33 (SE = 0.34) and kurtosis of 0.82. Because negative shyness was not normally distributed, with skewness of 3.39 (SE = 0.32) and kurtosis of 11.06, and the majority of children (N = 56) did not show any negative
shyness, we combined negative and neutral shyness. To check if we could combine the scores of parental sensitivity for success and failure trials in the unsolvable puzzle task, correlations were performed between scores for success and failure for each domain of sensitivity, r (51)= .75, p < .001 for Cooperation vs. Interference; r (51)= .67, p < .001 for Availability vs. Ignoring; r (51)= .49, p < .001 for Acceptance vs. Rejection; r (51)= .73, p < .001 for
Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity. Because the scores were correlated, we combined them for each domain. We also checked correlations between different domains of sensitivity (Table 1)and found that not all domains were correlated to each other, thus, we kept the scores for each domain separate. This resulted in total scores (success and failure) per domain of sensitivity. Further analyses found one outlier based on the mean and standard deviation of the variables for the domain ‘Availability vs. Ignoring’, resulting in this variable being winsorized. The other three domains did not have any outliers. Each domain of sensitivity was checked for normal distribution through histograms and standardized skewness including the new winsorized variable. Each domain was normally distributed, with standardized skewness being not higher than three (Agresti & Franklin, 2015). To check the pattern of missing data, a missing value analysis was done. The total data that was missing (10.96%), did not reach 30% and Little’s MCAR test showed the pattern of missing values is not dependent on data values, it was missing completely at random , X² = 13.308, df = 17, p = .715. This allowed us to impute data using estimation maximization procedure. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations of the total sample size with the data imputed.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Pearson’s r) of Age of the Child, Expressions of Shyness and Domains of Sensitivity (N = 65)
M (SD) Range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age Child 49.12 (12.89) 24 -71 - .14 .06 .16 .10 -.20 -.04 2. Positive Shyness 10.07 (11.06) 0 - 41 - -.13 -.23 .13 -.08 -.28* 3. Non-positive Shyness 14.25 (10.69) 0 - 46 - .13 .08 -.00 .17 4. Cooperation vs. Interference 2.82 (1.09) 1 - 5 - .28* .21 .36** 5. Acceptance vs. Rejection 3.96 (0.46) 2 - 5 - .48** .55** 6. Availability vs. Ignoring 4.17 (0.61) 2 - 5 - .65** 7. Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity 3.58 (0.72) 1 - 5 -
Note. For correlations Pearson’s r values are given with *p < .050; **p < .001.
Age and Sex of the Child in Relation to Shyness and Domains of Sensitivity. Correlation analyses (see Table 1) showed that the age of a child did not have a significant relation to expressions of positive shyness and negative shyness. This means that age of the child did not play a role in expressing either positive or non-positive shyness. Age also did not have a significant association with any of the sensitivity domains which means that parent’s level of sensitivity was not related to the age of the child. To see the differences in parental sensitivity and shyness between boys and girls, an independent samples t-test was done. This showed there was only a significant effect for sex in regards to positive shyness, t = 2.46, p = .017, with girls showing more positive shyness than boys. Thus, we controlled for sex in the analyses with positive shyness. The correlation analyses (Table 1) further showed that the domain Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity was negatively correlated to positive shyness. This means that less sensitivity from the parent indicates more positive shy expressions from the child. Also, Cooperation vs. Interference was positively correlated to Acceptance vs. Rejection and
Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity, which means that more cooperation from the parent also indicates more acceptance and sensitivity towards the child. Acceptance vs. Rejection and Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity also correlated positively with the domain Availability vs. Ignoring (Table 1). This means that more acceptance and sensitivity toward the child means a more available parent and less ignoring the child.
Main Analyses
Domains of Sensitivity as Predictors of Shyness.
A hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the independent predictive value of domains of parental sensitivity on positive expressions of shyness, taking into account the sex of the child. The results are presented in Table 2. In the first regression model, we
investigated if positive shyness is predicted by different domains of sensitivity, controlling for sex of the child. This model explained a significant amount of variance in positive shyness. When sex was entered in the first step of the analyses with positive shyness as an outcome, results showed that sex is a significant predictor of positive shyness in girls. In the next step, domains of sensitivity were added as predictor of shyness and sex still remained a significant predictor. Acceptance vs. Rejection and Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity were found to be
significant predictors of positive shyness as well. More acceptance was related to more positive shyness and less sensitivity was related to more positive shyness.
In the second regression model, the domains of sensitivity were entered in the analyses as predictors of non-positive shyness as an outcome. This model did not explain the
significant amount of variance in non-positive shyness. The results showed that none of the domains of sensitivity were significant predictors of non-positive shyness.
To investigate the hypothesis that both low and very high sensitivity is associated with non-positive shyness, a curvilinear regression was also performed to test each domain of sensitivity as predictor of expressions of non-positive shyness. The results are presented in Table 3. This analyses also showed that none of the domains of sensitivity were significant predictors of non-positive shyness.
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analyses with Positive Shyness and Non-Positive Shyness as Dependent Variables and the Domains of Sensitivity as Predictors
Positive Shyness Non-Positive Shyness
Variable R² F β t R² F β t Model .27 4.28* .06 0.89 Sex Child -.29 -2.36* - - Cooperation vs. Interference -.14 -1.10 .07 0.52 Acceptance vs. Rejection .36 2.54* .01 0.04 Availability vs. Ignoring .08 0.55 -.19 -1.16 Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity -.49 -2.97* .27 1.48 Note. *p < .050. Table 3
Curvilinear Regression Analyses with Non-Positive Shyness as the Dependent Variable and the Domains of Sensitivity as the Predictors
Non-Positive Shyness Linear Quadratic Variable R² F p R² F p Cooperation vs. Interference .02 1.05 .311 .05 1.59 .212 Acceptance vs. Rejection .01 0.42 .520 .03 0.89 .417 Availability vs. Ignoring .00 0.00 .986 .01 0.21 .812 Sensitivity vs. Insensitivity .03 1.93 .170 .03 1.06 .353
Discussion
This study investigated the influence of parental sensitivity on expressions of positive and non-positive shyness in children between the age of 2 to 5 years old. Previous research has found that sensitivity could have an influence in the development of internalizing
problems in children and that shyness is related to internalizing psychopathology in childhood (Coplan et al., 2008). This made it important to investigate if parental sensitivity influences positive and non-positive expressions of shyness in children. Furthermore, seeing that shyness (especially negative shyness) may be a precursor of later social anxiety and other social adjustment difficulties, looking at shyness at this early age and investigating the influence parental sensitivity might have, could help in preventing child behavioral problems later on (Colonnesi et al, 2014). On the other hand, taking into account that positive shyness may be adaptive (Coplan et al., 2007; Eggum et al., 2009; Mount et al., 2010), investigating if parental sensitivity has an influence on it may improve our knowledge on how to support the development of this adaptive coping mechanism in children.
In this study, it was hypothesized that higher levels of parental sensitivity would be associated with positive shyness and that low levels and very high levels of parental sensitivity would be associated with non-positive shyness. As expected, we found that one domain of sensitivity, namely, acceptance is positively related to positive shyness. However, contrary to our expectations, this study also found that lower levels of parental sensitivity are associated to more positive shyness in children and that parental sensitivity is not significantly associated with non-positive shyness. Furthermore, the results showed that girls experience more positive shyness than boys and both boys and girls experience an equal amount of non-positive shyness. Looking at the domains of sensitivity, the parents who showed more cooperation during the puzzle task, were also more accepting and sensitive towards their child. This also meant that the parents were more available to the child’s needs and demands throughout the task.
Firstly, we hypothesized that more parental sensitivity would be associated with more positive expressions of shyness. This study found that one domain of sensitivity, namely, acceptance, is positively related to positive expressions of shyness. This is consistent with our predictions and in line with previous findings. High parental acceptance consisted of showing acceptance towards the child with any irritation or anger, regardless of what kind of behavior the child displayed, and showing high pleasure in observing the child. For example, Kiel et al. (2016) suggested that if a parent shows more supporting behavior and grants more autonomy to the child, it would lead to more positive social emotional outcomes such as more positive
expressions of shyness. Therefore, it seems a parent being more accepting towards the child may be useful in enhancing the child’s adaptive coping strategies, such as, positive
expressions of shyness. Another study (Leerkes, Blankson & O’Brien, 2009) also found that this type of sensitive supporting behavior of the parent, leads to less behavioral problems and more social competence. Leerkes et al. (2009) found that the better a parent responds to a child’s negative emotions, the more they have a positive role in the development of positive social-emotional attributes and positive social adjustment, such as positive expressions of shyness. The study of Liable, Carlo, Davis & Karahuta (2016) suggested that the earlier a parent shows sensitive behavior, the more long-term benefits it has on adaptive social behavior of the child. Liable et al. (2016) also suggested that a possible mechanism of
sensitive behavior of the parent lies in effortful control or adequate emotion regulation. When a parent has high effortful control and/or adequate emotion regulation, they are able to better control negative emotions and regulate their own emotions (Liable et al., 2016). The higher the parental effortful control and/or adequate emotion regulation, the less a parent might reject the child and the more it can related to more positive socio-emotional outcomes.
In regards to the other domains of sensitivity, this study also found, however, that lower levels of parental sensitivity, which was defined as insensitivity, were associated with more positive expressions of shyness in children. This was unexpected. A reason for this result might be that children who show more positive expressions of shyness are also more sociable, were less temperamentally difficult in infancy and might not need a lot of sensitivity from their parents because of that. Previous research has seemed to suggest that if a child was more temperamentally difficult in infancy more sensitivity of the parent would be needed for more positive behavioral outcomes (Grady, Karraker & Metzger, 2012). Seeing as this study found that less parental sensitivity is related to more positive shyness, it might be that less temperamental difficulty in infancy led to more positive expressions of shyness and less need for more parental sensitivity to ensure more positive behavioral outcomes in social situations.
Secondly, we hypothesized that low levels or too high levels of sensitivity would be associated with non-positive expressions of shyness in children. However, this study found that the level of parental sensitivity was not significantly associated with non-positive expressions of shyness. A reason for this finding could be that non-positive expressions of shyness originate from the child’s temperament and is not influenced by parental sensitivity. Previous research has found that the shyer the child, the more the child has a temperament with higher inhibitory control (Gagne, Miller & Goldsmith, 2013). Negative shyness might be a reflection of a temperamental trait that is characterized by anxiety and fear (Doey,
Coplan & Kingsbury, 2014). Temperament is less influenced by parents and environment, so because non-positive shyness may be a reflection of temperament, it could be that parents do not have a significant influence on this behavior of the child. Another reason for this finding could be that non-positive shyness might be influenced by another parenting dimension, such as parental negative control. Feng, Shaw & Moilanen (2011) suggested that negative control could negatively influence shyness in children. Negative control has been found to be linked to less adaptive emotion regulation in children (Feng et al., 2011), such as non-positive expressions of shyness. Parents with negatively controlling behavior may inhibit their children’s attempts to develop adequate emotion regulation, because of their emotional
unavailability, causing reinforcement of feelings of anxiety and social withdrawal (Feng et al., 2011), thus, leading to more expressions of non-positive shyness.
In regards to expressions of positive and non-positive shyness, we found that girls experience more positive expressions of shyness than boys and that both sexes experience an equal amount of non-positive shyness. The reason for girls showing more positive expressions of shyness could lie in what is socially acceptable behavior based on sex of the child. Previous research suggested that in Western countries it is more socially acceptable for girls to show shyness as opposed to boys (Doey et al., 2014). Of boys it is often more expected that they show assertive and dominant behavior, whereas for girls it is more expected that they show their emotions. Thus, it could be that girls show more positive expressions of shyness because they are expected to show their emotions more, whereas boys are expected to show more assertive and dominant behavior.
Looking specifically at the domains of sensitivity, this study found that parents who were more cooperative during the puzzle task, were also more accepting and sensitive towards their child. These parents were also more available to the child’s needs and demands
throughout the task. These findings show that parents are more likely to be attuned and show warmth towards their child while, at the same time, being responsive to their child’s needs and demands (Ainsworth et al., 1974; Biringen & Robinson, 1991; Riley, Scaramella & McGoron, 2014). Not only does a parent show a decent amount of warmth and attunement towards the child, they also know how to set an appropriate mood for a certain situation and know how to gradually introduce their child to novel situations. These different domains work together in the sense that they all contribute in creating an atmosphere for the child, in which a child would feel safe and heard by their parent (Ainsworth et al., 1974; Biringen &
Robinson, 1991).
participating in the research, thus, we were not able to distinguish between the influences for mothers versus fathers sensitivity on expressions of shyness in children. Another limitation was that the relation between parental sensitivity and expressions of shyness was only
examined once in a controlled lab environment. The controlled environment made it easier to observe parental sensitivity and expressions of shyness in children but it also allowed for more socially acceptable behavior, especially when it came to the parents during the puzzle task, it was more possible for parents to show socially acceptable behavior than when observed in a non-controlled environment, for example at home. The parents were aware of being observed through camera’s and this could have caused them to behave different than how they would normally behave towards their child.
Even though this study had limitations, it also had several strong points. We had a high interrater reliability for coding the domains of sensitivity and acceptable reliability of shy behaviors. We used objective observations rather than questionnaires, which may be
influenced by the reporter bias (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, the research design was made objective by having all the tasks for parents and children done in a lab environment with a set protocol. This not only made the research replicable and objective but also transparent, as the steps can be followed to recreate the lab setting.
These findings have several implications for the clinical field as well as for parents. For one, we have learned that a domain of sensitivity, namely, acceptance is related to positive expressions of shyness, whereas lower levels of parental sensitivity were found to be related to more positive shyness. These findings could be helpful in knowing that the more a parent is accepting of their child, the more a child will show positive expressions of shyness and show socially adaptive behavior (Kiel et al., 2016). However, finding that lower levels of parental sensitivity are related to positive shyness, could indicate that these children need less help to cope with novel situations and that they already have more social skills than children who might have had more temperamental difficulties (Grady et al., 2012). We also learned that girls express more positive shyness than boys and that parental sensitivity is not
significantly related to non-positive shyness overall. Thus, future studies should look at other possible parental factors, such as effortful control, adequate emotion regulation and negative control.
For future research, this study could be expanded into a longitudinal research design to further investigate differences in levels of sensitivity between mothers and fathers and the different influences mothers and fathers can have on expressions of shyness in their children. Through a cross longitudinal design it can further be explored if there are any differences in
levels of sensitivity between fathers and mothers and how these differences influence expressions of shyness in children, not only in a lab setting but also at home. Furthermore, future research could also explore whether differences in maternal and paternal sensitivity has different influences on boys and girls and if age does play a role when looking at these new variables. Seeing that temperament can have an influence in expressions of shyness (Gagne et al., 2013; Doey et al., 2014), future research could also include this variable as moderator when looking at the differences between boys and girls.
In conclusion, this study adds to the current knowledge of parental sensitivity and its influence on expressions of positive and negative shyness in children. It indicates that parental sensitivity, namely, acceptance is associated with a child expressing more positive shyness and that girls tend to show more positive shyness overall. Additionally, the association
between less parental sensitivity and more positive expressions of shyness, as well as parental sensitivity not being related to non-positive shyness, indicates that shyness might also
References
Agresti, A., & Franklin, C. (2015). Statistics: The art and science of learning from data. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. (1974). Infant-mother attachment and social development. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The introduction of the child into a social world
(pp. 99–135). London: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., Tice, D.M., & Diener, E. (Ed.). (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1252-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
Biringen, Z., & Robinson, J. (1991). Emotional availability in mother-child interactions: A reconceptualization for research. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 258-271. doi:10.1037/h0079238
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Colonnesi, C., Napoleone, E., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). Positive and negative expressions of shyness in toddlers: are they related to anxiety in the same way? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 624-637. doi:10.1037/a0035561
Colonnesi, C., Nikolić, M., de Vente, W., & Bögels, S.M. (2017). Social anxiety symptoms in young children: Investigating the interplay of theory of mind and expressions of shyness. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 45, 997-1011.
doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0206-0
Colonnesi, Nikolic, & Bögels, (2018). Development of positive shyness in infancy and childhood. In: L. Schmidt & K. Poole (Eds.), Adaptive Shyness: Developmental, Comparative, and Cultural Perspectives. New York, US: Springer Publishers. Cordaro, D. T., Sun, R., Keltner, D., Kamble, S., Huddar, N., & McNeil, G. (2018).
Universals and cultural variations in 22 emotional expressions across five cultures.Emotion,18, 75-93. doi:10.1037/emo0000302
Coplan, R.J., Arbeau, K.A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don’t fret, be supportive! Maternal characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 359-371.
doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9183-7
Doey, L., Coplan, R.J., & Kingsbury, M. (2014). Bashful boys and girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness. Sex Roles, 70, 255-266.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1
Eggum, N.D., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T.L., Reiser, M., Gaertner, B.M., Sallquist, J., & Smith, C.L. (2009). Development of shyness: Relations with children’s fearfulness, sex, and maternal behavior. Infancy, 14, 325-345. doi:10.1080/1525000090283997
Feng, X., Hooper, E.G., & Jia, R. (2017). From compliance to self-regulation: Development during early childhood. Social Development, 26, 981-995. doi:10.1111/sode.12245 Feng, X., Shaw, D.S., & Moilanen, K.L. (2011). Parental negative control moderates the
shyness-emotion regulation pathway to school-age internalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 425-436. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9469-z
Gagne, J.R., Miller, M.M., & Goldsmith, H.H. (2013). Early- but modest – gender differences in focal aspects of childhood temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 95-100. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.006
Gazelle, H., & Spangler, T. (2007). Early childhood anxious solitude and subsequent peer relationships: Maternal and cognitive moderators. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 515-535. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.06.006
Grady, J.S., Karraker, K., & Metzger, A. (2012). Shyness trajectories in slow-to-warm-up infants: Relations with child sex and maternal parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 91-101. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2011.11.002
Hane, A.A., Cheah, C., Rubin, K.H., & Fox, N.A. (2008). The role of maternal behavior in the relation between shyness and social reticence in early childhood and social withdrawal in middle childhood. Social Development, 17, 795-811.
doi:10.1111/j.14679507.2008.00481.x
Kiel, E.J., Premo, J.E., & Buss, K. A. (2016). Maternal encouragement to approach novelty: A curvilinear relation to change in anxiety for inhibited toddlers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 433-444. Doi:10.1007/s10802-015-0038-3
Leerkes, E.M., Blankson, A.N., & O’Brien, M. (2009). Differential effects of maternal sensitivity to infant distress and non-distress on social-emotional functioning. Child Development, 80, 762-775. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01296.x
Liable, D., Carlo, G., Davis, A.N., & Karahuta, E. (2016). Maternal sensitivity and effortful control in early childhood as predictors of adolescents’ adjustment: The mediating role of peer group affiliation and social behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 52, 922-932. doi:10.1037/dev0000118
family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x
Mount, K.S., Crockenberg, S.C., Bárrig Jó, P.S., & Wagar, J.L. (2010). Maternal and child correlates of anxiety in 2,5-year-old children. Infant Behavior and Development, 33, 567-578. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.07.008
Nikolić, M., de Vente, W., Colonnesi, C., & Bögels, S.M. (2016). Autonomic arousal in children of parents with and without social anxiety disorder: a high risk study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 1047-1055. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12563
Van der Voort, A., Linting, M., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenbrug, M.J., Schoenmaker, C., & Van Ijzendoorn, M.H. (2014). The development of adolescents’ internalizing
behavior: Longitudinal effects of maternal sensitivity and child inhibition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 528-540. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9976-7
Wathan, J., Burrows, A.M., Waller, B.M., & McComb, K. (2015). EquiFACS: The equine facial action coding system. PloS ONE, 10, e0131738.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0131738
Webb, T.L., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Can implementation intentions help to overcome ego depletion? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 279-286.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00527-9
De Wolff, M.S., & Van Ijzendoorn, M.H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571-591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb04218.x
Zarra-Nezhad, M., Aunola, K., Kiuru, N., Mullola, S., & Moazami-Goodarzi, A. (2015). Parenting styles and children’s emotional development during the first grade: The moderating role of child temperament. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5, 206. doi:10.4172/2161-0487.1000206
Zarra-Nezhad, M., Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Zarra-Nezhad, M., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A.M., Lerkkanen, M.K., & Nurmi, J.E. (2014). Social withdrawal in children moderates the association between parenting styles and the children’s own socioemotional
development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 1260-1269. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12251
Zarra-Nezhad, M., Moazami-Goodarzi, A., Nurmi, J.E., Eklund, K., Ahonen, T., & Aunola, K. (2018). Children’s shyness moderates the associations between parenting behavior and the development of children’s pro-social behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 3008-3018. doi:10.1007/s10826-018-1134-0
