Evaluation of the Social Performance of Others by Socially Anxious Individuals
Roland Smeele
10306757 Elsey, J.W.B.
Universiteit van Amsterdam, mei 2016 Aantal woorden: +-5900
Abstract
The focus of the current study was on the evaluations social phobics have of the social performance of others. Previous studies showed that social phobics evaluate their own social performance negatively, whether social phobics evaluate the social performance of others has not been the focus of much research. The present study was performed in two different settings. One group was asked to read short stories, the other group was asked to watch videoclips. Results
showed that social phobics do evaluate the social performance of others more stringent compared to socially non-anxious individuals. Demonstrating that social phobics evaluate themselves and others more negatively in negative situations. Adding to the impact that SAD has on the lives of social phobics.
1. Introduction
Talking to a stranger or a group of strangers, being observed when exercising or giving a speech in front of an audience are examples of social situations or social interactions during which an individual with SAD (Social Anxiety Disorder, also known as Social Phobia) might experience conscious fear of being judged by others. SAD is a severely limiting psychiatric disorder that affects up to one in ten individuals. Anxiety disorders in general have a lifetime prevalence of almost 30%, with SAD being among the most commonly occurring anxiety disorders with a lifetime prevalence estimate of about 13% (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005). SAD can be defined as a disproportionate fear of social situations or social interactions in which the socially anxious individual might be negatively evaluated and judged by others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). During these social interactions a socially anxious individual fears that he or she behaves in such a way that the socially anxious individual embarrasses or humiliates themselves and, as a consequence of that behavior, is negatively evaluated by others or even rejected by those others (Stein & Stein, 2008). A socially anxious individual will therefore actively try to avoid these social situations if possible, or endure them but only with a large amount of anxiety (Weeks, Rodebaugh, Heimberg, Norton & Jakatdar, 2009). The active avoidance of feared social situations not only prevents a socially anxious individual from leading a rewarding social life but it also limits the number of opportunities for having positive social experiences (Stein & Kean, 2000). The result being that SAD is among the five most impairing psychiatric disorders (Bandelow & Stein, 2004). A possible reason for this fear of negative evaluation in social phobics could be that socially
anxious individuals structurally evaluate their behavior in social situations more negatively even when their performance is objectively successful and could be considered ‘normal’ social behavior (Bielak & Moscovitch, 2013). How socially anxious individuals evaluate the social performance of others, however, has not been the subject of much research (to our knowledge) and it is, therefore, important to have a systematic look at the evaluation of others by socially anxious individuals.
To explain why a socially anxious individual might evaluate social performance in a social situation more negatively, multiple theoretical models have been proposed. Clark and Wells (1995) proposed in their cognitive model that when a socially anxious individual enters a social situation or social interaction they activate certain assumptions based on previous social experiences. Clark & Wells (1995) separated these assumptions into three different categories, being: ’’Excessively high standards for social performance’’ (Clark, 1997, p. 406),’’Conditional beliefs concerning the consequences of performing in a certain way’’ (Clark, 1997, p. 406) and ’’Unconditional negative beliefs about the self’’ (Clark, 1997, p. 407). When these assumptions are activated during a social interaction the socially anxious individual will start self-monitoring their behavior and make an inference of how they appear to others and the implicit views those others have of them (Clark, 1997; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; Spurr & Stopa, 2002). Socially anxious individuals will interpret certain social cues, even when these are objectively neutral, as being a negative evaluation of them and infer that they are not performing up to the standards set by the others present, and this, in turn, triggers a fear reaction (Clark, 1997; Bielak & Moscovitch, 2013). The negative social experience is incorporated in the assumptions based on previous social experiences, strengthening those
assumptions and creating a downward spiral of negative assumptions and negative experiences and this is what is maintaining the social anxiety (Morrison, Brozovich, Lee, Jazaieri, Goldin,
Heimberg, Gross, 2016). The proposed mechanism is that assumptions based on previous
experiences cause a socially anxious individual to have a distorted view of their social performance, they assume they are not meeting the social standards others expect of them and this causes a socially anxious individual to negatively evaluate their social performance in a social interaction which, in turn, is the reason they develop a fear reaction.
A different view comes from a theoretical model Moscovitch (2009) proposed in which, contrary to the cognitive model, it is proposed that the fear of negative evaluation is not the cause
but rather a consequence. According to this model the cause is a socially anxious individuals’ fear of exposing certain social characteristics, also referred to as core fears, of themselves that they believe are not up to the standards set by others. The fear of behaving in a manner that could be negatively evaluated by others, however, is a result of this initial fear of exposing a negative characteristic. What are the social characteristics of the self that socially anxious individuals fear are not up to the standards of others? Moscovitch proposed that these characteristics, these core fears, can be divided into four groups but after a factor analyses performed by Moscovitch and Huyder (2011) three groups of negative characteristics remained: perceived negative characteristics in social competence (e.g. I am clumsy, I am stupid), perceived negative characteristics in signs of anxiety (e.g. others will notice I am shaking, overly sweaty) and perceived negative characteristics in physical appearance (e.g. I am ugly looking, I have bad hair). The groups will usually have some overlay in socially anxious individuals, who experience multiple (or sometimes all) of these
perceived negative characteristics. The proposed explanation this model offers as to why socially anxious individuals evaluate their social performance in a social situation more negatively is because these individuals perceive certain characteristics of themselves as deficient and they fear these characteristics to be exposed to and evaluated by others (Moscovitch, 2009).
In recent decades, evidence shows that socially anxious individuals evaluate their social performance in social situations more negatively than individuals who are not socially anxious. In their 2008 study, Voncken and Bogels observed individuals with SAD and individuals without SAD during a social performance task and found that individuals without SAD underestimated their performance relative to the individuals without SAD, even when the actual performances were not clearly poorer than the performances of individuals without SAD. In a string of studies, Moscovitch and colleagues found that individuals with SAD overestimate the negative consequences of
blunders, whether these blunders were committed by themselves or by others (Moscovitch, Rodebaugh, Hesch, 2012). Committing a social blunder is perceived as being highly costly by individuals with SAD compared to individuals without SAD (Moscovitch, Waechter, Bielak, Rowa, McCabe, 2015). Moscovitch et al. (2015) also found that fear of exposing a social characteristic, especially fear of being perceived as socially incompetent, accounted for a significant part of the perceived costs of committing a social blunder, suggesting that a fear of exposing a negative
characteristic plays a role in the evaluation of the performance of individuals with SAD. Based on this previous research then, it is clear that individuals with SAD evaluate their own social
performances more negatively, even if these social performances are not objectively worse than those of individuals without SAD. To our knowledge, however, most of these studies have focused on the evaluations socially anxious individuals have of their own social performance but very few studies have concentrated on the evaluation a socially anxious individual has of the social
performances of others and whether they think others share this evaluation. It is interesting to have a look at this because it adds another dimension to understanding the reasons why socially anxious individuals negatively evaluate their own behavior.
To address this, two hypotheses concerning the evaluations socially anxious individuals have of the social performance of others and the expected evaluation by others, are proposed. The first one being the ‘’Double Standards’’ hypothesis suggested by Voncken, Alden, and Bogels (2006). Voncken, Alden, and Bogels (2006) formulate that socially anxious individuals often have a double standard in their evaluation of themselves and of others. Socially anxious individuals
negatively evaluate their own social performances but they evaluate the social performance of others as neutral or even positive (Moscovitch et al., 2012). A contrasting hypothesis is the ‘’False Consensus Effect’’ hypothesis. The term false consensus effect was first described by Ross, Greene, and House (1977) and was used to describe a source of attributional bias. It is the process in which an individual is convinced that their own behavioral choices are the common norm and views other behavioral choices as being uncommon. In the context of this study, the hypothesis will be: a socially anxious individual will evaluate the social performance of others as negative as they evaluate their own social performance, they are also convinced that their negative evaluation of the social performances of others is shared by all others. Others will evaluate them, as well as everyone else, as negatively as a socially anxious individual would.
The present study was therefore designed to examine whether socially anxious individuals, compared to socially non-anxious individuals, evaluate the social performance of others more negatively or more positively in hypothetical social situations and whether others share this evaluation. The research will be done in two groups of participants. The first group of participants will read short vignettes of different kinds of social performance in a social situation, after which
they will answer some questions about these vignettes. The second group of participants will watch short videoclips of different kinds of social performance in a social situation, after which they will answer some questions about these videoclips. The purpose of using two groups of participants is to see whether the possible findings of the first group (the vignettes), which is more controlled than the second group (videoclips), can be generalized to other kinds of stimuli. All participants will fill in social anxiety related questionnaires (SPIN, NSPS, BFNE) in order to determine the amount of social anxiety the participant has. The social anxiety related questionnaires are filled in after participants read the vignettes or watched the videoclips, so as to prevent the purpose of the experiment from being revealed. We expected, in accordance with the false consensus hypothesis, that socially anxious individuals will evaluate the social performance of others more negatively in negative social situations and expect others to do the same, however, because this is an exploratory study, we do not have strong pre-experimental expectations.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Undergraduate psychology students from a Dutch university, the University of Amsterdam (UvA) were recruited. The first group of participants (they would be reading vignettes) was recruited as part of the testweek (which is mandatory for all first-year students). 91 participants were recruited. The second group of participants (they would be watching videoclips) was recruited via a university website and advertisements in and around the university building. 42 participants were recruited. Rewards were given in the form of participation credit points. All participants were asked to read and sign the informed consent before participating.
2.2. Measures
A Dutch version of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) (Original: Connor et al., 2000; Dutch
translated version: Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009). The SPIN is a self-rated measure designed as a screening tool for social anxiety disorder. Using 17 items, respondents rate the presence of symptoms (Ik vermijd feestjes) in the preceding weeks on a 5 point scale ranging from: 1 (De
onderstaande uitspraak is helemaal niet van toepassing) to 5 (de onderstaande uitspraak is helemaal van toepassing). The Dutch version was produced by Boelen and Reijntjes (2009) and
was created by translating the English version to Dutch. Every attempt was made to keep
differences between both the Dutch version and the English version to a minimum. Connor et al. (2000) suggested a cut-off score of 19 and up (of the 68 maximum score) as the point where the score could indicate the participant to have SAD. The SPIN is a good measure of social anxiety according to Connor et al. (2000).
A Dutch version of the Negative Self-Portrayal Scale (NSPS) (Moscovitch & Huyder, 2011)
The NSPS is an inventory designed to assess the extent to which individuals fear exposing certain social characteristics, also called core fears, of themselves that they believe are not up to the
standards set by others. It assesses perceived concerns with social competence, signs of anxiety and physical appearance. The measure consists of 27 items, 27 statements about social situations (in
sociale situaties zal het duidelijk worden voor andere mensen dat ik: stotter) and was rated on a 5
point scale ranging from: 1 ((helemaal niet bezorgd) to 5 (extreem bezorgd). Scoring was done using subscales based on factor analysis by Moscovitch and Huyder (2011), which consists of the previously mentioned core fears, being: perceived concerns about social competence, perceived concerns about signs of anxiety and perceived concerns about physical appearance. The Dutch version was produced by creating multiple translations of the 27 items and selecting the best version of those possible translations. The final translation was checked for face validity and approved by trained psychologists.
A Dutch version of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE) (Carleton,
Collimore, & Asmundson, 2007) The BFNE is a self-report measure designed to assess the extent to which the participant fears negative evaluation. The original by Leary (1983) consisted of 12 items, which was scaled back to 8 items, suggested by Rodebaugh, Woods, Thissen, Heimberg,
Chambless, & Rapee (2004) because four of the items were reverse scored while the remaining 8 were worded straightforwardly. The result was a two-factor model, for our research purposes we
decided to use the straightforward model. The 8 items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with a range of: 0 (past helemaal niet bij mij) to 4 (past erg goed bij mij), the maximum score being 32. Carleton et al. (2007) found the BFNE to have excellent reliability (α = .96) and high validity.
A Dutch version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T) (Spielberger et al., 1983) The
STAI-T is a self-rated measure used to assess the state anxiety and the trait anxiety. The STAI-T consists of 20 statements (ik voel me nerveus en onrustig) rated from 1: (bijna nooit) to 4 (bijna
altijd). The STAI-T intends to estimate the amount of anxiety at the moment of measuring (the
current state of the participant) and the amount of anxiety a participant has experienced in recent weeks (the trait of the participant). Internal consistency was found to high, ranging from α = .86 to
α = .95 (Spielberger et al., 1983) and the validity was shown in a considerable amount of studies
(Spielberg, 1989).
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II-NL) (Original: Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979;
Dutch translated version: van der Does, 2002 ) The BDI-II-NL is a self-reported measure designed to measure the participant’s level of depression. The BDI-II-NL consists of 21 rows of statements (mate van pessimisme) in which the participant is asked to rate how much each statement applied to them in the previous weeks. The 21 items are rated from 0 to 3. The maximum score is 63. Internal consistency was found to be ranging from α = .73 to α = .92 and the validity was found to be good (considering the ever-changing definition of depression) (Beck, Steer, Garbin, 1988).
2.3 Manipulation
Vignettes. The first group of participants was asked to read vignettes and evaluate the social
performance of the individual described in the vignette. Participants read 6 vignettes about social performance that could be considered negative and 6 vignettes about social performance that could be considered positive. The vignettes were based on 12 different social situations with either a positive social performance or a negative social performance, adding up to a pool of 24 vignettes. The vignettes were randomly divided over the participants to make sure negative or positive vignettes would not be presented in a row. Participants evaluated the social performance of the
individual described in the vignette using the three core fears proposed by Moscovitch (2009), being: ‘How socially anxious is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal
eens). A higher score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being highly anxious. ‘How
socially competent is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal eens). A lower score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being socially incompetent and ‘How physically attractive is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal eens). A lower score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being physically unattractive.
Participants were also asked to estimate how others would evaluate the social performance of the individual in the vignette (andere mensen zouden deze persoon als volgt beoordelen), ranging from 1 (heel negatief) to 7 (heel positief). A lower score indicating that the individual would be evaluated negatively by others and a higher score indicating that the individual would be evaluated positively by others.
Videoclips. The second group of participants was asked to watch videoclips and evaluate the
social performance of the individual shown in the videoclip. Participants watched 4 videoclips with an individual performing in a manner that could be considered a negative social performance and 4 videoclips with an individual performing in a manner that could be considered a positive social performance. The videoclips were presented to the participants in a randomized order. The scenes used in the videoclips were derived from mainstream movies and television series. The criteria a scene had to meet to be used in one of the videoclips were: the duration of the scene was no longer than two minutes and the social performance of the individual in the scene had to be either
distinctly positive of distinctly negative. Participants evaluated the social performance of the individual shown in the videoclip on the three core fears proposed by Moscovitch (2009), being: ‘How socially anxious is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal eens). A higher score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being highly anxious. ‘How socially competent is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal eens). A lower score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being socially incompetent and ‘How physically attractive is this individual?’ Rated from 1 (helemaal oneens) to 7 (helemaal eens). A lower score indicating that the individual was evaluated as being physically unattractive. Participants were also
asked to estimate how others would evaluate the social performance of the individual in the vignette (andere mensen zouden deze persoon als volgt beoordelen), ranging from 1 (heel negatief) to 7 (heel positief). A lower score indicating that the individual would be evaluated negatively by others and a higher score indicating that the individual would be evaluated positively by others.
2.3 Procedure
The university research ethics board approved all procedures. The first group participated during the testweek. Participants were asked, as part of multiple experiments after each other, whether they wanted to participate in our experiment and to (digitally) sign the informed consent if they did. The experiment was done online on computers provided by the university. They were then presented with vignettes of social situations (je zit in een cafe. Een groep mensen is in gesprek aan
een andere tafel. Wanneer een van de mannen spreekt lijkt hij zich slecht uit te drukken en de anderen luisteren nauwelijks) and were asked to evaluate each vignette using the three core fears.
They were also asked to rate how others would evaluate the persons in the vignette. In the next part, participants were asked to fill in the SPIN, NSPS and BFNE (in that order) mentioned previously. This concluded the experiment.
The second group of participants was asked to meet the researchers in a laboratory provided by a university employee. Upon entering the room they were asked to leave their bags and coats behind and to turn off their phones (most used the silent mode). Participants were provided with a brochure containing some general information and were asked to read this brochure and, upon agreeing to participate, sign an informed consent sheet. After signing the participant took a seat in front of a computer screen and commenced with the experiment. First they were asked to provide some demographic information (age, gender). Participants proceeded to watch videoclips and were asked, after each videoclip, to evaluate the people in the videoclips using the three core fears (characteristics) mentioned previously. They were also asked to rate how others would evaluate the person in the videoclip. The next phase of the experiment consisted of the participants filling in the SPIN, NSPS, BFNE, STAI-T and BDI (in that order) mentioned previously. Participants had the opportunity to ask questions and were handed a debriefing. This concluded the experiment.
2.4 Data analyses
In the precursory analysis, both groups will be compared to unveil any possible difference between the two groups in order to eliminate group effects caused the potential differences between the groups, which would compromise the generalizability of group 1 to group 2 and other stimuli. To test for possible differences in age between the groups, an independent t-test will be performed. To test for possible differences in gender between the groups, a Chi-square analysis will be
performed. Scores on the SPIN, NSPS and BFNE will also be compared, to guarantee both groups are comparable on levels of social anxiety. A separate independent t-test will be performed,
comparing the averages of the scores on the measures in group 1 with the averages of the scores on the measures in group 2.
The manipulation analysis will determine whether the manipulations used in this study were effective. In group 1, scores based on the evaluations given by the participants of the social
performance of the individual described in the negative vignettes will be compared with the scores based on the evaluations given by the participants of the social performance described in the positive vignettes. A paired samples t-test will be performed to compare the negative scores with the positive scores. In group 2, scores based on the evaluations given by the participants of the social performance of the individual shown in the videoclips will be compared with the scores based on the evaluations given by the participants of the social performance shown in the videoclips. A paired samples t-test will be performed to compare the negative scores with the positive scores. To guarantee the reliability of the measure translated by the researchers, the NSPS, Cronbach’s alpha will be calculated. To guarantee the measures are measuring the same construct, the SPIN, the NSPS and the BFNE will be compared. Pearson correlation coefficients will be calculated between the measures.
The main analysis, the expectation that a socially anxious individual will evaluate the performance of others more negatively compared to non-socially anxious individuals, will be tested using a Pearson correlation coefficient. Both the association between the measures (SPIN, NSPS) and the vignettes with an individual performing in a manner that could be considered negative and the association between the measures (SPIN, NSPS) and the vignettes with an individual
coefficient. This process is repeated in the videoclips group (group 2), where the association between the measures and videoclips with an individuals performing in a manner that could be considered negative and the association between the measures and videoclips with an individual performing in a manner that could be considered positive is quantified using a Pearson correlation coefficient.
Finally, to test whether the socially anxious individual is convinced others share their evaluations, a Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated between the scores on the positive vignettes and negative vignettes (the process of how this is calculated was described in the previous passage) and the scores on the expectations that others will also evaluate the social performance of the individual described in the vignette as either positive or negative. This process is repeated in the videoclips group (group 2), a Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated between the scores on the positive videoclips and negative videoclips and the scores on the expectations that others will also evaluate the social performance of the individual shown in the videoclip as either positive or negative.
3. Results
3.1 Precursory analysis
The data collected in the first and second group, respectively 42 and 91 participants, was almost free of outliers, with the only exception being that in the second group three participants didn’t have their date of birth and with that their age recorded. These three responses were, therefore, removed from the data. The first and second group respectively had 42 and 88 participants remaining. Characteristics of both groups are presented in table 1. When asked, participants were unaware of the intentions of the experiment.
The groups did differ significantly on age with t(56.7) = 2.80, p = .006. This was to be expected, as the first group consisted exclusively of first-year students whereas the second group consisted of students in different study years. The groups did not differ significantly on gender distribution, chi-square being χ2 (1) = 1.26, p = .260. The scores on the SPIN, NSPS, STAI-T and
BDI measures were not significantly different with the exception being the BFNE measure. Mean scores are presented in table 2.
The groups did not differ significantly on SPIN scores with t(128) = .31, p = .761. The groups did not differ significantly on NSPS scores, with t(128) = -.88, p = .378. The groups did, however, differ significantly on BFNE scores with t(128) = 4.54, p <.001.
Table 1
Characteristics of group 1, group 2 and for both groups: Number of participants. Mean age (SDs) and gender distribution.
Group N Age Gender
Mean (SD) Female (%) Male (%)
Group 1 88 19.8 (1.7) 68 (77%) 20 (23%)
Group 2 42 20.9 (2.7) 36 (86%) 6 (14%)
Groups combined 130 20.2 (2.1) 104 (80%) 26 (20%)
Table 2
Means (SDs) of the SPIN, NSPS, BFNE, STAI-T and the BDI measures for each group.
Group (N) SPIN NSPS BFNE STAI-T BDI
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Group 1 (88) 12.5 (10.9) 50.7 (18.3) 12.1 (9.0)
Group 2 (42) 13.1 (9.2) 47.8 (15.6) 19.6 (8.2) 40 (10.4) 29.8 (7.8)
Note: the STAI-T and BDI were not conducted in group 1.
3.2 Manipulation Checks
In group 1: To determine whether the manipulation was effective, total scores given by the participants to individuals in the negative social performance vignettes (TotalNegVig) were compared with the total scores given by the participants to individuals in the positive social
performance vignettes (TotalPosVig). The paired samples t-test revealed the difference between ToalNegVig (M = 66, SD = 6.5) TotalPosVig (M = 96.8, SD = 8.7) to be significant with t(87) = 26.5, p < .001. Suggesting that participants did indeed evaluate the social performance of an individual described in the negative social situation vignette more negatively and the social performance of an individual described in the positive social situation more positively.
Group 2: To determine whether the manipulation was effective, total scores given by the participants to individuals in the negative social performance videoclips (TotalNegVo) were compared with the total scores given by the participants to individuals in the positive social performance videoclips (TotalPosVo). The paired samples t-test revealed the difference between TotalNegVo (M = 38.4, SD = 5) and TotalPosVo (M = 70.4, SD = 4.7) to be significant with t(41) = 28,95, p < .001. Suggesting that participants did indeed evaluate the social performance of an individual shown in the negative social situation videoclip more negatively and the social performance of an individual shown in the positive social situation more positively.
The internal consistency of the Dutch translation of the NSPS showed high values,
suggesting strong reliability. In the first group a Cronbach’s alpha of .949 was found. In the second group a Cronbach’s alpha of .929 was found. The high values of Cronbach’s alpha suggest a good internal consistency of the items used in the NSPS. A high value of internal consistency suggests the translating process most likely has not affected the reliability of the measures and perhaps the accuracy of the tests is maintained, which might suggest the translated measure to have comparable validity.
Comparison of the measures using Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed, in both groups, significant correlations. In group 1 the NSPS and the SPIN correlated with a coefficient of .69 (p < .001), the NSPS and the BFNE with a coefficient of .67 (p < .001) and the SPIN and the BFNE with a coefficient of .65 (p <.001). In group 2 the NSPS and the SPIN correlated with a coefficient of .56 (p < .001), the NSPS and the BFNE with a coefficient of .69 (p < .001) and the SPIN and the BFNE with a coefficient of .70 (p <.001). The findings suggest that the measures used are comparable and are most likely measuring the some construct.
3.3 Main Analysis
Our expectations were tested using Pearson’s Correlation coefficients. Results of these correlations in group 1 revealed a significant correlation coefficient of -.261 (p = .01) between the SPIN and TotalNegVig score and a significant correlation coefficient of -.256 (p = .02) between the NSPS and TotalNegVig. Suggesting there to be a weak but significant association between a high social anxiety score and a negative evaluation of social performance in a negative social situation. A nonsignificant correlation coefficient of -.093 (p = .39) between the SPIN and TotalPosVig and a nonsignificant correlation coefficient of .016 (p = .88) between the NSPS and TotalPosVig revealed there to be no significant association between a high social anxiety score and a positive evaluation of social performance in a positive social situation.
Results of these correlations in group 2 revealed a nonsignificant correlation coefficient of -.03 (p = .85) between the SPIN and TotalNegVo score and a nonsignificant correlation coefficient of .041 (p = .79) between the NSPS and TotalNegVo. Suggesting there to be no significant
association between a high social anxiety score and a negative evaluation of social performance in a negative social situation. A nonsignificant correlation coefficient of -.003 (p = .98) between the SPIN and TotalPosVo and a nonsignificant correlation coefficient of .13 (p = .41) between the NSPS and TotalPosVo revealed there to be no significant association between a high social anxiety score and a positive evaluation of social performance in a positive social situation. Results for both groups are presented in table 4.
Results of the correlations in group 1 revealed there to be a significant correlation
coefficient of .56 (p <.001) between TotalNegVig and the expectation that others will also evaluate negatively and a significant correlation coefficient of .75 (p < .001) between TotalPosVig and the expectation that others will also evaluate positively. Results in group 2 revealed there to be a significant correlation coefficient of .55 (p <.001) between TotalNegVo and the expectation that others will also evaluate negatively and a significant correlation coefficient of .55 (p <.001) between TotalPosVo and the expectation that others will also evaluate positively. Suggesting that socially anxious individuals expect others to share both their negative and positive evaluations.
Table 4:
Results of the Pearson correlation coefficient, comparing scores on the SPIN and the NSPS measures with negative and positive evaluations in group 1 and in group 2.
Group (N) Social Performance Correlation
SPIN NSPS
Group 1 (88) TotalNegVig -0,261* -0,256*
TotalPosVig -0,09 0,02
Group 2 (42) TotalNegVid -0,03 0,04
TotalPosVid -0,003 0,13
Note: TotalNegVig = the total score of the negative social performance vignettes, TotalPosVig =
the total score of the positive social performance vignettes, TotalNegVid = the total score of the negative social performance videoclips, TotalPosVid = the total score of the positive social performance videoclips. * = a significant result, p <.05.
4. Discussion
Results found in the present study suggest that, in group 1, socially anxious individuals do evaluate the social performance of others in a negative social situation more negatively than less-anxious others would but socially less-anxious individuals do not evaluate the social performance of others in a positive social situation more negatively than less-anxious others would. The results found in group 2 suggest that socially anxious individuals do not evaluate the social performance of others in a negative social situation more negatively than less-anxious others would and also do not evaluate the social performance of others in a positive social situation more negatively. Results show in both groups that socially anxious individuals do expect others to share their evaluations.
The results generally support the double standards hypothesis suggested by Voncken, Alden, and Bogels (2006), which proposed that socially anxious individuals often have a double standard in their evaluation of themselves and of others. Socially anxious individuals negatively evaluate their own social performances but when evaluating the social performance of others in a negative
social situation or a positive social situation, they do not differ from non-socially anxious individuals.
Previous studies (Bielak & Moscovitch, 2013; Moscovitch et al., 2012; Moscovitch et al., 2015; Voncken & Bogels, 2008) demonstrated that socially anxious individuals evaluate their own social performance more negatively, this study adds to that existing knowledge by adding that socially anxious individuals, generally and in accordance the double standards hypothesis, do not evaluate the social performance of others as negative. Socially anxious individuals also assume others share their negative evaluations.
Initial expectations were not strong, as this is an exploratory study, but were nonetheless disconfirmed as results determined that socially anxious individuals do evaluate others more
negatively in negative social situations but do not evaluate others more negatively in positive social situations. One explanation for this incongruence between the expectations and results might be that socially anxious individuals possibly only experience negative evaluations of themselves in
negative social situations. Perhaps socially anxious individuals do not experience this fear of being evaluated negatively in neutral or positive social situations. Socially anxious individuals might be too engaged in self-monitoring and self-evaluating to have to have any attention for the social performance of others. Only when the social performances of others are deviating, in a negative social situation, from the social standards set by others, do socially anxious individuals engage in evaluation of the social performance of others. The results showed that socially anxious individuals expect others to share their evaluations, this might cause the socially anxious individual to envision they are the individual in the negative social situation and this causes the assumptions mentioned by Clark & Wells (1995) to be activated and this, in turn, causes the socially anxious individual to evaluate the negative social performance of the individual in the negative social situation more negatively than socially non-anxious individuals do.
The manipulations used in the study were, looking at the results, effective in both the vignette group and the videoclips group. However, a significant result was found in the vignette group and a nonsignificant result was found in the videoclips group. A possible explanation for this difference might be that the vignette group was highly controlled. The vignettes used in this study were based on 12 statements with a negative social performance version and a positive social
performance version (adding up to 24 vignettes in total) whereas the videoclip group did not have a high control. The videoclips were derived from mainstream movies and television series.
Mainstream media tends to utilize very stereotypical behavior in their material. Films and television series use physically attractive actors to portray someone performing positively in a social situation and a physically unattractive actor to portray someone performing negatively in a social situation. The result could be that the social performance of the individual portrayed in the videoclip is evaluated largely on the individual’s physical appearance rather than on the individual’s actual social performance. The vignette group only read the description of the social performance of the individual described in the vignette and did not receive any information on the physical appearance of the individual and differences in findings might be explained by this distinction. The findings in the vignette group can, therefore, not yet be generalized to the videoclip group (or other types of stimuli).
A limitation found in this study comes from the gender distribution and age distribution. Most participants recruited in this study were mostly females (80%). The average age being 20, with the youngest person being 18 and the oldest being 31. Mostly undergraduates, almost all of which were studying psychology or other social sciences. Causing the sample used to be
homogeneous. The results revealed that only two male participants had a high anxiety score, all other high anxiety scores were accounted for by female participants. In a small, homogeneous group, it can be challenging to find significant effects. Both on a statistical level and on a construct level it might be challenging to find significant differences between the participants. However, recruiting a mostly female sample of participants might not be as substantially affecting the generalizability. Previous studies have demonstrated that females are almost twice as likely to developing feelings of social anxiety than males are (Greca & Lopez, 1998). Nonetheless, in follow-up studies, it is advised to diversify the sample, to guarantee generalizability to the population.
Another limitation to mention is the lack of participants with a clinical SAD (social anxiety disorder) diagnosis. No data ware collected in respect to the psychiatric histories of the participants. All results are based on measures examining the self-reported levels of social anxiety. Based on the scores of the measures (e.g. SPIN and NSPS) cut-off scores could be used to determine whether a
participant is highly socially anxious (could be given a diagnosis) or whether a participant is not socially anxious (would not be given a diagnosis). Cut-Off scores, however, are most likely not as specific as a clinical diagnosis performed by a skilled psychologist/psychiatrists. Most of the previous studies compared a sample of participants with a clinical SAD diagnosis with a sample of participants without a clinical SAD diagnosis. Using a nonclinical sample of participants might not be as large of a limitation as it might appear to be. It is possible that individuals that are aware of their diagnosis are more likely to behave in a socially anxious fashion, which might be influencing the results, causing the difference in negative self-evaluations between a clinical and a nonclinical sample to be larger. Utilizing a sample of participants that do not have explicit knowledge of their possible diagnosis could yield results that are more generalizable to the population. In a follow-up study, it is advised to recruit participants without a clinical diagnosis of SAD, but also participants with a clinical diagnosis of SAD, to guarantee generalizability to both a clinical as well as a non-clinical population.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, this study shows that socially anxious individuals do evaluate the social performance of others more negatively, specifically in a negative social situation, compared to a socially non-anxious individual. In a positive social situation a socially anxious individual does not evaluate the performance of others more negatively than socially non-anxious individual. Socially anxious individuals assume that others share their negative evaluations in negative social situations. The conclusion can, however, not yet be generalized to other stimuli (including videoclips), as the exact role of the physical appearance of the individual in the social situation has yet to be clarified, future studies should account for this discrepancy before any reasonable estimates can be produced. This study adds to the existing knowledge that, not only do socially anxious individuals evaluate their own social performances in a negative social situation more negatively, but also evaluate the social performance of others in a negative social situation more negatively. Suggesting that the socially anxious individual is not just concerned with their own social performance but also the social performance of others. Adding this negative evaluating of others to the already impairing negative evaluating of the self might be detrimental for the social relationships a socially anxious
individual might have, further impairing a socially anxious individual from leading a rewarding social life, which only strengthens the negative impact that SAD has on the lives of socially anxious individuals.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC
Bandelow, B., Stein, D.J. (2004) Social Anxiety Disorder. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, U.S.A.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., Garbin, M.G. (1988). Psychometric Properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-Five Years of Evaluation. Clinical Psychology
Review, 8, 77-100.
Bielak, T., & Moscovitch, D.A. (2013). How Do I Measure Up? The Impact of Observable Signs of Anxiety and Confidence on Interpersonal Evaluations in Social Anxiety.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(2), 266-276. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9473-4
Boelen, P. A., & Reijntjes, A. (2009). Intolerance of Uncertainty and Social Anxiety. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 23, 130-135.
Carleton, R. N., Collimore, K. C., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2007). Social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation: Construct validity of the BFNE-II. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 131-141. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.010
Clark, D.M. (1997). A Cognitive Perspective on Social Phobia. In Crozier, W.R. & Alden, L.Y. (2001). International Handbook of Social Anxiety: Concepts, Research and
Interventions Relating to the Self and Shyness (pp. 405-430). John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A Cognitive Model of Social Phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis,
Connor, K.M., Davidson, J.R., Churchill, L.E., Sherwood, A., Foa, E., Weisler, R.H., (2000) Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN). New Self-Rating Scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176:379-386.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime Prevalence and Age-of-Onset Distributions of DSM-IV Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593–602. Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371-375. doi:10.1177/0146167283093007 Morrison, A.S., Brozovich, F.A., Lee, I.A., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P.R., Heimberg, R.G.,
Gross, J.J. (2016). Anxiety Trajectories in Response to a Speech Task in Social Anxiety Disorder: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial of CBT. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 38, 21-30. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.12.006
Moscovitch, D. A. (2009). What is the core fear in social phobia? A New Model to Facilitate Individualized Case Conceptualization and Treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral
Practice, 16, 123–134.
Moscovitch, D. A., Gavric, D. L., Senn, J. M., Santesso, D. L., Miskovic, V., Schmidt, L., et al. (2012). Changes in Judgment Biases and use of Emotion Regulation Strategies during Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder: Distinguishing Treatment Responders from Non-Responders. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36, 261-271.
Moscovitch, D.A., & Huyder, V. (2011). The Negative Self-Portrayal Scale: Development, Validation, and Application to Social Anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 42, 183-196, doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2010.04.007
Moscovitch, D. A., Rodebaugh, T. L., & Hesch, B. D. (2012). How Awkward! Social Anxiety and the Perceived Consequences of Social Blunders. Behaviour Research and
Moscovitch, D. A., Waechter, S., Bielak, T., Rowa, K., McCabe, R. E. (2015). Out of the Shadows and into the Spotlight: Social Blunders fuel fear of Self-Exposure in Social Anxiety Disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 34, 24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis. 2015.06.004
Stein, M.B., & Kean, Y.M. (2000). Disability and Quality of Life in Social Phobia: Epidemiologic Findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1606-1613.
Rapee, R.M., & Heimberg, R.G. (1997). A Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Anxiety in Social Phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “False Consensus Effect”: an Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 13(3), 279–301.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Chambless, D. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: the factor structure and item properties of the original and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Psychological Assessment, 2, 169–181.
Spielberger, C. D. (1989). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Bibliography (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual
for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spurr, J. M., & Stopa, L. (2002). Self-Focused Attention in Social Phobia and Social Anxiety.
Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 947–975.
Stein, M.B., & Kean, Y.M. (2000). Disability and Quality of Life in Social Phobia: Epidemiologic Findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1606-1613. Voncken, M. J., & Bogels, S. M. (2008). Social Performance Deficits in Social Anxiety
Disorder: Reality During Conversation and Biased Perception During Speech.
Voncken, M.J., Alden, L.E., Bogels, S.M. (2006). Hiding Anxiety versus Acknowledgement of Anxiety in Social Interaction: Relationship with Social Anxiety. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 44(11), 1673-1679. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.11.005
Weeks, J. W., Rodebaugh, T. L., Heimberg, R. G., Norton, P. J., & Jakatdar, T. A. (2009). “To Avoid Evaluation, Withdraw”: Fears of Evaluation and Depressive Cognitions Lead to Social Anxiety and Submissive Withdrawal. Cognitive Research and
