The relation between positive/negative shynescs, social competence and loneliness of young children

(1)

Running head: POSITIVE, NON-POSITIVE SHYNESS, SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND LONELINESS OF YOUNG CHILDREN

F

ACULTEIT DER

M

AATSCHAPPIJ

-

EN GEDRAGSWETENSCHAPPEN

Graduate School of Childhood Development and Education

MASTER

ORTHOPEDAGOGIEK

2017-2018

MASTER THESIS

Name student: E. Kolthof

Address: Koningsweg 108, 3582GL Residence: Utrecht Telephone number: 06-24545082 Student number: 11768401 E-mail: elisekolthof@hotmail.com Supervisor: dr. M. Nikolić

Second reviewer: dr. C. Colonnesi

Subject: The Relation between Positive/Negative Shyness, Social Competence and Loneliness

of Young Children.

Onderwerp: De Relatie tussen Positieve/Negatieve Verlegenheid, Sociale Competentie en

(2)

Abstract

Shyness is traditionally considered something negative, although recent research makes a distinction between positive and negative shyness. It has been found that children who show negative shyness are at risk for being socially anxious, while children who show positive shyness are not. However, positive and negative shyness has barely been investigated with young children and has not been investigated in relation to other maladaptive outcomes. That is why this study has investigated the relation between positive, non-positive (negative and neutral) shyness and loneliness and if this relation is mediated through social competence. Participants were 68 children aged 2-5 (M age = 50 months, 54.4% female). Facial

expressions of shyness were micro-coded during a social performance task. Loneliness and social competence were measured by questionnaires filled in by parents. Results showed that non-positive shyness was significantly and positively related to loneliness and that this relation was mediated by social competence. No significant relation was found for positive shyness. These findings demonstrate that showing non-positive shyness poses a risk for social problems, whereas this is not the case for positive shyness. This distinction should be made in research and be taken into account in clinical practice.

Samenvatting

Verlegenheid werd van origine beschouwd als iets negatiefs. Recenter onderzoek maakt echter een onderscheid tussen positieve en negatieve verlegenheid. Kinderen die negatieve verlegenheid laten zien lopen een risico om sociaal angstig te worden, hoewel dit niet opgaat

voor kinderen die positieve verlegenheid laten zien. Positieve en negatieve verlegenheid is amper onderzocht bij jonge kinderen en is niet onderzocht in relatie tot andere maladaptieve uitkomsten. Vandaar dat in deze studie de relatie tussen positieve, niet-positieve (negatieve en

neutrale) verlegenheid en eenzaamheid van 68 kinderen van 2-5 jaar (M leeftijd = 50 maanden, 54.4% vrouw) is onderzocht en er is gekeken of deze relatie gemedieerd wordt door

sociale competentie. Verlegen gezichtsuitdrukkingen werden op microniveau gecodeerd tijdens een taak waarbij kinderen optraden voor publiek. Vragenlijsten over eenzaamheid en

sociale competentie werden ingevuld door ouders. Uit de resultaten blijkt dat niet-positieve verlegenheid significant en positief gerelateerd is aan eenzaamheid en dat deze relatie gemedieerd wordt door sociale competentie. Er zijn geen relaties gevonden voor positieve

verlegenheid. Het vertonen van niet-positieve verlegenheid vormt een risico voor sociale problemen. Dit gaat niet op voor positieve verlegenheid. Onderscheid tussen deze vormen van

(3)

POSITIVE, NON-POSITIVE SHYNESS, SOCIAL COMPETENCE AND LONELINESS OF YOUNG CHILDREN 2

The Relation between Positive/Negative Shyness, Social Competence and Loneliness of Young Children

Shyness is traditionally considered as a negative trait strongly connected to anxiety (e.g. Buss, 1986). Shyness in childhood can be a predictor of lower levels of both

interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies later in life (Grose & Coplan, 2015). This is the case when shyness is expressed in a negative manner, for example, as avoidance or

withdrawal (e.g. Hymel, Rubin, Rowden, & LeMare, 1990). However, shyness is not always expressed in a negative manner, but it may also be expressed as ambivalence, a combination of approach and withdrawal from interaction (Asendorpf, 1990). Thus, there are two forms of shyness and these are called positive and negative shyness (Colonnesi, Napoleone, & Bögels, 2014). Recent research made a distinction between these two forms of shyness (Colonnesi, Bögels, de Vente, & Majdandžić, 2012; Reddy, 2000; 2005). It has been found that children who show negative shyness are at risk for being socially anxious, while children who show positive shyness are not (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Colonnesi, Nikolić, de Vente, & Bögels, 2017; Nikolić, Colonnesi, de Vente, & Bögels, 2016). Possibly, the same distinction between positive and negative shyness accounts for the relation between shyness and other

maladaptive outcomes. Shyness, measured in a negative manner, is related to loneliness (e.g. Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Cassidy & Asher, 1992). Substantial evidence shows that feelings of loneliness in childhood can be associated with children's current life quality, as well as future maladjustment, like low self-esteem (Sletta, Valås, Skaalvik, & Søbstad, 1996), higher levels of depressive symptoms and poorer general health (Harris, Qualter, & Robinson, 2013). However, it is not known whether all shy children experience loneliness or whether positively and negatively shy children differ in their loneliness. It is also unclear through which mechanism shyness is related to loneliness. Possibly, the relation between shyness and loneliness is mediated by social competence. Poor social skills are predictors of several social, emotional and academic difficulties (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006) and are also strongly related to shyness (e.g. Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Hymel et al., 1990). This study examines whether positive and negative shyness is related to loneliness and whether this relation is mediated by social competence. If positive and negative shyness are differently related to social competence and loneliness, we will be able to identify and target better children who might need help to prevent social difficulties. This study was done with young children, aged 2 to 5. This is because at that age both positive and negative shyness may be observed, and these different forms of shyness will be likely to have different consequences for social

(4)

adjustment (Lewis, 1995; Colonnesi et al., 2014). In this research, we wanted to see if it is possible to recognize young children who are at risk for social problems. If so, these children can get help at a young age to prevent later problems in social functioning.

What is shyness? Shyness is a self-conscious emotion, which means that someone experiences and expresses the emotion based on their own appraisals of other person’s evaluations of them (Keltner, 1995). Children need to develop self-awareness, an understanding that they are a social object, to express self-conscious emotions. The

development of self-sense is marked by recognition of oneself in a mirror or a photograph. Children between 18 and 24 months are capable of recognizing themselves (Lewis, 2011) and are capable of experiencing and showing shyness (Lewis 1995).

The term “shyness” is sometimes interchangeably used with other terms, like embarrassment, withdrawal and inhibition (Rubin, Coplan, Bowker, & Menzer, 2009). Defined closely to withdrawal and inhibition, shyness represents wariness or anxiousness when faced with social novelty and perceived social evaluation (Coplan, Prakash, O’ Neil, & Armer, 2004). This is a more negative way of looking at shyness and usually reflects a trait shyness which refers to a temperamental or personality dimension (Buss, 1980).However, shyness can also be seen as a state/emotion close to embarrassment. Thus, state shyness refers to a self-conscious emotion, an emotional reaction of ambivalence in a certain social situation (Asendorpf, 1990).

Shyness may appear in different forms, with positive, negative and neutral facial expressions. Positive shyness is defined as an aversion of the gaze and/or head combined with a positive facial expression (i.e., coy-smile), while negative shyness is defined as a gaze and/or head aversion combined with a negative facial expression (Colonnesi et al., 2014). A coy smile, with lip-corners and cheeks up, suggests that someone feels pleasure and

discomfort at the same time, in a social situation (van Hooff, 2012). Negative shyness was coded when children’s lip corners down were combined with an aversion of the head/gaze. Gaze/head aversions can also occur during neutral facial expressions and this is called neutral shyness (Colonnesi, Nikolic, & Bögels, 2018). Colonnesi et al. (2018) found that this kind of shyness in infancy is related to negative shyness later in childhood. Thus, neutral expressions of shyness in infancy can be seen as precursors of negative shyness in childhood. Colonnesi et al. (2014) were the first to distinguish between positive and negative shyness in children aged 2.5. They measured shyness through a task in which they imitated an animal sound and by watching back their performance with a small audience (Colonnesi et al., 2014). Based on this

(5)

study, it seems that around the age of 2 shyness may occur and positive and negative expressions of shyness can be distinguished.

Both positive and negative expressions of shyness are ways to regulate distress in social challenging situations (Kopp, 1989). Positively shy children experience ambivalence, because they feel interest/pleasure and fear of potential harm at the same time. They show positive shyness as a consequence of this approach-avoidance conflict, in which approach motivation is stronger. Negatively shy children, on the other hand, mostly feel fear and discomfort. They show negative shyness, withdrawal as a consequence of this avoidance-dominant motivation (Rubin et al., 2009). Thus, in both ways children experience heightened arousal, but children who show positive shyness are willing to stay in the situation, while children who show negative shyness would rather be removed from the situation (Colonnesi, et al., 2017; Thompson & Calkins, 1996). As children who show negative shyness spend less time socially engaged with peers (Coplan, DeBow, Schneider, & Graham, 2009), they have less opportunities to gain social experiences and learn from it (Rubin et al., 2006), compared to children who show positive shyness. Consequently, children who express positive shyness in general obtain more positive experiences in social situations, learn from these social situations and have higher self-esteem regarding social situations (Thompson & Calkins, 1996), compared to children who express shyness in a negative manner. Therefore, positive shyness might be a more adaptive strategy and negative shyness a more maladaptive strategy.

Positive shyness being a more adaptive strategy then negative shyness has been demonstrated by three studies that examined the relation between positive/negative shyness and social anxiety (Colonnesi et al., 2014, 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). These researchers found that children who show negative shyness are more likely to be socially anxious, while children who show positive shyness are less likely to be socially anxious (Colonnesi et al., 2014, 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). Children who show positive shyness may cope successfully with challenging situations and gain positive experiences from these situations, making them less socially anxious, the opposite being applied to children who show negative shyness (Nikolić et al., 2016). No other studies are known that investigate the relation between positive/negative shyness and other forms of psychopathology or maladjustment.

Negatively shy children are excessively concerned about being negatively evaluated by others, which make them uncomfortable being surrounded by peers and less likely to interact with them (Younger, Schneider, & Guirguis-Younger, 2008). As negatively shy children avoid social situations, they may experience loneliness or isolation from peers

(6)

(Findlay, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Loneliness can be described as not being good at making friends, getting along and playing with other children, not being liked by other children, being excluded and having few friends (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984). It is expected that children who show negative shyness engage in fewer social situations, have less contact with peers, make less friends and are more lonely. Possibly the opposite applies to children who show positive shyness. As they engage in more social situations, they have more contact with peers, make more friends and are less lonely.

According to Baumeister and Leary’s theory (1995), loneliness can arise from the universal need for belongingness, the need to establish stable social bonds with caring others. Loneliness can be seen as the cognitive and affective reaction to the threat of social bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In literature, the cognitive component of loneliness consists of the discrepancy between desired social relationships and actual social relationships, either qualitatively or quantitatively (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). The affective component consists of the negative emotional experiences of loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1982). In contrast to what prominent theorist assumed decades ago (e.g., Sullivan, 1953), the last four decennia researchers have recognized that young children are capable of feeling lonely (Rotenberg & Hymel, 1999). Children in kindergarten described the concept of loneliness as a "feeling of being sad and alone" (Cassidy & Asher, 1992). About 10% of 5 to 7-year-old children felt very lonely or dissatisfied with their social relationships at school (Cassidy & Asher, 1992).

Many researchers found a positive relation between shyness and loneliness of

children, although they did not make a distinction between positive and negative shyness and they did not investigate children younger than 4. (Boivin et al., 1995; Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Findlay et al., 2009; Hymel et al., 1990; Kingsbury, Coplan, & Rose-Krasnor, 2013; Kokkinos, Kakarani, & Kolovou, 2016; Zeedyk, Cohen, Eisenhower, & Blacher, 2016). They measured shyness in a negative manner, through self-, peer- and teacher perceptions of withdrawal/isolation. Loneliness was measured through self-evaluation of feelings of loneliness, feelings of social adequacy, subjective estimations of peer state and peer relations (Boivin et al., 1995; Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Findlay et al., 2009; Hymel et al., 1990; Kingsbury et al., 2013; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Zeedyk, et al., 2016). Children in most of these studies were aged 6 to 13 (Boivin et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2004; Findlay et al., 2009; Hymel et al., 1990; Kingsbury et al., 2013; Kokkinos et al., 2016). One research was done with children aged 5 to 7 (Cassidy & Asher, 1992). Zeedyk et al. (2016) studied children aged 4 to 7, although children in this research had a diagnosis of Autistic

(7)

Spectrum Disorder, making them more difficult to compare to children without this diagnosis (Zeedyk et al., 2016). At the age of 2 shyness may already occur and it develops throughout childhood (Lewis, 1995), having consequences for child social adjustment (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Colonnesi et al., 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). Thus, all previous research about the relation between shyness and loneliness measured shyness in a negative manner and the relation between positive shyness and loneliness is not investigated previously. However, a negative relation may be expected based on the hypothesis that children who show positive shyness are more willing to engage in social situations (Nikolić et al., 2016). Based on this, it may be expected that they acquire friends and do not experience loneliness. Besides, the relation between shyness and loneliness is only measured in later childhood, so it is not known how (positive and negative) shyness relates to loneliness in early childhood, considering that shyness may already occur in that period.

It is yet not clear how shy children can become lonely. Chen et al. (2004) examined samples from three different countries, of children age 6 to 12, and in their Canadian sample they found that the positive relation between negatively expressed shyness and loneliness is mediated by problematic peer relations. However, peer relations can be seen as a component of loneliness (Asher & Wheeler, 1985). Possibly the relation between shyness and loneliness might occur through social competence. Social competence can be described as having skills that make a child successful in social interactions and exhibit context-appropriate social behaviours (LaFreniere, & Dumas, 1996). Negatively shy children tend to withdraw from social interactions and spend less time socially engaged with peers (Coplan et al., 2009), which can be the reason they acquire less social skills (Rubin et al. 2006). In one research it was found that stable shyness and increased shyness in mid-to-late childhood predicts poorer social skills (Karevold, Ystrom, Coplan, Sanson, & Mathiesen, 2012). Although they only measured negative shyness and not positive shyness. They measured shyness and social skills through parent reports. They measured this at five moments between the child’s age of 18 months and 13 years (Karevold et al., 2012). In another research, with children having a mean age of 2.5, a positive relation between positive shyness and sociability and a negative relation between negative shyness and sociability was found (Colonnesi et al., 2014). However, sociability differs from social competence because it refers to seeking interactions with others and taking pleasure in it. In that research, shyness was measured through observations of positive and negative shyness during a performance task (Colonnesi et al., 2014).

(8)

to 12, has been found by several researchers (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Hymel et al., 1990; Zeedyk et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). Social competence may influence the extent of children's success in peer relations, which in turn influences the development of social connections and may enhance feelings of security and social integration (Asher, Parkhurst, Hymel, & Williams, 1990). This way, high social competence could negatively predict loneliness (Zhang et al., 2014). Thus, several researchers examined the relations between shyness and social competence and the relation between social competence and loneliness, although none, to our knowledge, used social competence as a mediator in the relation between shyness and loneliness.

To conclude, although shyness has been investigated in relation to social competence and loneliness, previous research has not distinguished between positive and negative shyness in relation to social competence and loneliness. Besides, there is only limited or no past research about these relations in early childhood. Additionally, no research, to our knowledge, has investigated whether social competence mediates the relation between shyness and

loneliness. It can be argued that children who show positive shyness have more opportunities to engage in social situations (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Thompson & Calkins, 1996), learn from these situations, and therefore can become more socially competent and less lonely. In

contrast, children who show negative shyness have less opportunities to engage in social situations, learn from these situations (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Thompson & Calkins, 1996) and therefore can become less socially competent and more lonely.

The goal of this research is to investigate whether children’s positive and negative shyness is related to loneliness. It is expected that negative shyness and loneliness are positively related, and that positive shyness and loneliness are negatively related.

Additionally, it will also be investigated whether the relation between positive and negative shyness and loneliness is mediated by social competence. It is expected that children who show positive shyness are more socially competent, which, in turn, relates to less loneliness. Children who show negative shyness are expected to be less socially competent, which, in turn, relates to more loneliness.

Method

Participants

The participants were 68 children between 2 and 5 years of age (M age = 50 months,

(9)

children were girls (54.4%) and most of them were born in the Netherlands (92.7%). Most of the parents that participated were female (85.3%) and were born in the Netherlands (82.4%). The majority of the parents were married or living together (79.4%) and some were single (14.7%). Most parents were highly educated (70.6% HBO or higher). Six of the parents did not speak Dutch well enough, so they filled in English questionnaires. Parents were recruited via primary schools, day-cares, Facebook pages and in public places, like parks and

playgrounds in Amsterdam. Schools and parents who were interested, were given information brochures and if they were willing to participate, an appointment with them was made. Every visit lasted in total about 90 minutes. This study was part of a bigger study that investigated disturbances in self-conscious emotions. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam. Parents gave informed consent prior to participation.

Procedure

The research took place at the UvA Family lab, so the visit could be recorded with high-definition cameras and the settings were similar for all children. Before the start of the lab tasks, parents were given general information about the procedure and the test leader played with the child in the test-room, to make him/her feel more comfortable. The parents filled in the online questionnaires in the same test-room. They were instructed to fill in the questionnaire and stay as neutral as they could, unless instructed otherwise by the test-leader. At the same time, the test-leader and child were engaged in a series of structured lab tasks. This way, children were supposed to feel more at ease, but did not get distracted by their parents’ presence. Different tasks to measure several self-conscious emotions were

performed. For this study the child was engaged in a performance task. At the end of the visit, parents were debriefed, the child received a diploma, a present and the video of the child were offered to the parent.

Study Measures

Positive, negative and neutral shyness. Positive, negative and neutral shyness was

measured by coding the child’s facial expressions during a social performance task. For this task, the children were asked to stand on a podium and sing a song in front of the test leader and a camera woman, who entered the room to “record” the performance. This is a lab task known to evoke shyness in children (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). After the test leader introduced the child and his/her song, the child’s facial expressions and their gaze/head aversion were coded for one minute. Three master’s students coded the

(10)

observations, after an extensive training with the program The Observer (Zimmerman, Bolhuis, Willemsen, Meyer, & Noldus, 2009). Every observation was coded by two

independent coders, and an average of both observations was calculated. Shyness was coded as positive when turning the gaze and/or head was accompanied by a positive facial

expression which was micro-coded as lip corners up and cheek raise. For positive shyness, lip corners up and cheeks up needed to be combined, because with only lip corners up, children showed a polite smile, while combined with cheeks up, children genuinely experienced arousal (Cordaro et al., 2018). Shyness was coded as negative when turning the gaze and/or head was accompanied by a negative facial expression which was micro-coded when lips corners were down. Shyness was coded as neutral when turning the gaze and/or head was accompanied by a neutral facial expression which was coded when no muscle

movement/tension was detected on the face (Ekman & Friesen, 1978). This coding system was based on the coding system designed by Colonnesi et al. (2014). However, the facial expressions and the turning of the head/gaze were coded as state events in this study, instead of point events, as in the study of Colonnesi et al. (2014). Consequently, duration of positive, negative and neutral shyness was calculated instead of the number of positive, negative, and neutral shyness. Another difference with the study of Colonnesi et al. (2014) is that they coded positive and negative facial expression based on the whole face, while in this study lips and cheeks were micro-coded and combined to make positive and negative facial expressions. Percentage duration of positive, negative and neutral shyness was calculated by dividing the durations of these forms of shyness by the total duration of the performance. Cohen's κ, which was corrected for kappa max, was run to determine the inter-rater reliability. Not every child expressed all three forms of shyness, so the inter-rater reliability is based on the number of observations that is equal to the number of children who expressed particular form of shyness. The inter-rater reliability was satisfactory for positive shyness (n = 60), corrected κ = .68, neutral shyness (n = 50), corrected κ = .76, and negative shyness (n = 9), corrected κ = .74.

Loneliness. To measure child loneliness, parents filled in an adjusted and translated

version of the Children’s Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale (Asher et al., 1984). Originally, this was a self-report, designed for children aged 8 to 12. It was adjusted to the age of the children in this study and to the parent-report form so the parents could fill in the

questions about their children. Originally the questionnaire contained 24 questions, but this was reduced to 12 questions that pertain to younger children as well. The questions were double translated from English to Dutch by two independent translators. The answers to the

(11)

items consisted of a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (always true). An example is: ‘My child doesn’t have any friends’. The questionnaire has been found to be internally reliable in previous studies, Cronbach’s α = .90 (Asher et al., 1984). The internal consistency of the adjusted version of the scale we used was also reliable in our sample, Cronbach’s α = .88.

Social competence. To measure child social competence, parents filled in a translated

version of the Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation-30 (LaFreniere & Dumas, 1995). This is a 30-items measure about the social competence and social problems of the child. It consists of a Social Competence, Anger-Aggression and Anxious-Withdrawn scale. For this study the Social Competence scale is used. Items are rated on a 6-point scale of how each emotion or action describes the child now or within the past two months, rated from 1 (never) to 6 (always). Examples of items are: ‘My child cooperates with other children in group activities’. The test-retest reliability of the Social Competence scale of the original

questionnaire was between .61 and .82 and the scale was internally consistent, Cronbach’s α = between .88 and .90 (LaFreniere & Dumas, 1996). The translated version of the Social

Competence scale we used had satisfactory internal reliability, Cronbach’s α = .77.

Analyses strategy. The amount of time children showed positive, negative and neutral

shy expressions in the first minute of the performance was counted for each child. The total time a child showed one of the shy expressions was divided by the total time of the

performance to calculate percentage duration of positive, negative, and neutral shyness. The loneliness score was based on the mean score of the items of the Loneliness scale. Higher scores reflected more loneliness. The social competence score was based on the mean score of the Social Competence subscale of the children. Higher scores reflected more social

competence. Before performing the analysis, outliers were checked by adding 3 SD to and subtracting 3 SD from the mean. Normality was investigated by checking skewness and kurtosis z-values and by visually checking the histograms. A Pearson Correlation analyses was used to test zero-order correlations between positive, non-positive shyness, child social competence, and loneliness. A Mediation Regression analysis, with Process (Hayes, 2013), was used to investigate if there was a mediation effect of social competence in the relation between positive/non-positive shyness and child loneliness. The dependent variable was loneliness, the independent variable was positive/non-positive shyness and social competence was the mediator.

(12)

Results

Preliminary analysis

Of the 68 children in this research, 60 performed and eight refused to perform. For every child the Social Competence and Loneliness questionnaire was filled in by the parent. One detected outlier in the positive-shy group and one detected outlier in the negative-shy group (M ± 3 SD) were Winsorized by modifying their values to the closest observed value in the range of M ± three SD (Wilcox, 2005). After this, normality of positive-, negative-, neutral shyness, social competence and loneliness was checked by looking at skewness and kurtosis z-values and by visually checking the histograms. Percent duration of positive shyness ranged from 0 to 41 (M = 9.83, SD = 11.45). Percent duration of positive shyness had a skewness of 1.29 (SE = .31) and kurtosis of .84 (SE = .61). Thus, the distribution was slightly skewed, but had a normal degree of peakedness. The violation of normality was not strong, so we decided not to transform this variable. Percent duration of negative shyness ranged from 0 to 13 (M = 1.08, SD = 2.82). Negative shyness was not normally distributed, with skewness of 3.25 (SE = .31) and kurtosis of 10.57 (SE = .61). Thus, the distribution was heavily skewed and

extremely peaked. Percent duration of neutral shyness ranged from 0 to 45.64 (M = 13.56, SD = 11.73). Percent duration of neutral shyness was normally distributed, with skewness of .93 (SE = .31) and kurtosis of .15 (SE = .61). Social competence ranged from 2.5 to 5.6 (M = 4.16, SD = .68). Social competence was normally distributed, with skewness of -.33 (SE = .29) and kurtosis of -.08 (SE = .57). Loneliness ranged from 1.00 to 3.75 (M = 1.82, SD = .59). Loneliness was mildly non-normally distributed, with skewness of 1.22 (SE = .29) and kurtosis of 1.23 (SE = .57). Thus, the distribution was slightly skewed and as in the case with positive shyness, we decided not to transform it. As there was little variance in the negative shy group (the majority of children n = 46 scored 0), and neutral and negative shyness were found to correlate in previous research (Colonnesi et al., 2018), percent duration of neutral and negative shyness were combined into percent duration of non-positive shyness, by calculating a sum percent duration of negative and neutral shyness for each child. Non-positive shyness ranged from 0 to 45.64 (M = 14.63, SD = 11.60). Non-Non-positive shyness was normally distributed, with skewness of .79 (SE = .31) and kurtosis of -.08 (SE = .61).

Independent samples t-test was used to see whether children who performed differed from children who did not perform on social competence, loneliness, age and sex (see Table 1). No significant differences on any of the variables were found. Chi-square test of

(13)

sex. Children who did and did not perform did not significantly differ on sex, χ2 (1, n = 66) = 1.27, p = .259.

Table 1

Independent Samples T-test Comparing Children who Performed and Did Not Perform on Social Competence, Loneliness and Age

Performed Not performed

M SD M SD t p

Social competence 4.12 .71 4.11 .41 .20 .846

Loneliness 1.79 .59 2.07 .60 -1.29 .201

Age 50.22 13.45 47.38 11.41 .57 .540

Note: * _{p < .05,}** _{p < .01,}*** _{p < .001}

Independent samples t-tests were used to see whether children of English-speaking parents differed from children of Dutch speaking parents on positive shyness, non-positive shyness, social competence and loneliness (see Table 2). As this group of children differed significantly on positive shyness, social competence, and loneliness from the children of Dutch parents, this group (n = 6) was excluded from the analysis. This was done because the relation between the variables of interest were differently related, probably caused by the different contexts for these children. For the main analysis, the group of children who did not perform (n = 6) and consequently had missing data on shyness was excluded as well. This resulted in the total of 54 children for the main analyses.

Table 2

Independent Samples t-test Comparing Children of Dutch and English-speaking parents on Social Competence, Loneliness and Age

English Dutch M SD M SD t p Positive shyness 19.62 10.52 8.91 11.15 -2.24 .029* Non-positive shyness 9.38 7.97 15.28 11.95 1.18 .244 Loneliness 3.04 .56 4.30 .47 6.10 <.001*** Social competence 2.98 .43 4.27 .59 5.19 <.001*** Note: * _{p < .05,}** _{p < .01,}*** _{p < .001}

Independent samples t-tests were used to see whether boys and girls differed on positive shyness, non-positive shyness, social competence and loneliness (See Table 3). We

(14)

controlled for sex of the child in the correlation and mediation analyses, because there were significant differences on positive shyness and social competence between boys and girls. Table 3

Independent Samples T-test Comparing Girls and Boys on Social Competence, Loneliness and Age Girls Boys M SD M SD t p Positive shyness 12.31 12.65 6.28 9.17 2.11 .040* Non-positive shyness 15.14 11.05 14.49 12.65 .21 .835 Loneliness 1.69 .50 1.93 .59 -1.82 .073 Social competence 4.35 .67 3.95 .60 2.56 .013* Note: * _{p < .05,}** _{p < .01,}*** _{p < .001}

A Pearson Correlation analysis was used to test whether age was significantly related to positive shyness, non-positive shyness, social competence and loneliness. Age was not significantly related to any of the study variables: to positive shyness r = .111, p = .402, to non-positive shyness r = -.086, p = .516, to social competence r = .030, p = .808 as well and to loneliness r = .116, p = .351.

The descriptives are reported in Table 4 and the zero-order and partial correlations are reported in Table 5. To test zero-order correlations between positive shyness, non-positive shyness, social competence, loneliness and sex a Pearson Correlation analyses was used. Positive shyness was not significantly related to non-positive shyness, to social competence and to loneliness. Non-positive shyness was significantly and negatively related to social competence. Also, non-positive shyness was significantly and positively related to loneliness. Finally, social competence and loneliness were significantly and negatively related. As girls and boys differed on positive shyness and social competence, partial correlations, in which we controlled for sex, were reported next to zero-order correlations (see Table 5). In this analysis, the results that positive shyness was not significantly related to non-positive shyness, to social competence and to loneliness remained. Non-positive shyness was still significantly and negatively related to social competence. Non-positive shyness was also significantly and positively related to social competence. Social competence and loneliness were significantly and negatively related. Thus, controlling for sex of the child did not change any of the results.

(15)

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics

N M (SD) Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis

Std. error Std. error Pos. shy 54 8.75 (11.11) .00 41.00 1.52 .33 1.61 .64 Non-pos. shy 54 15.22 (11.84 .00 45.64 .73 .33 -.24 .64 Social comp. 54 4.29 (.61) 2.70 5.60 -.15 .33 .22 .64 Loneliness 54 1.66 (.43) 1.00 3.00 1.17 .33 1.64 .64 Table 5

Zero-Order and Partial Correlations Between Positive Shyness, Non-Positive Shyness, Social Competence and Loneliness

Measure 1 2 3 4

1. Positive shyness - -.10 -.06 -.08

2. Non-positive shyness -.12 - -.44* .30*

3. Social competence .07 -.40** _- _-.48**

4. Loneliness -.15 .28* -.53** -

Note. Zero-order correlations are presented in the bottom left, below the diagonal. Partial correlations,

controlling for sex, are presented in the upper right, above the diagonal.

Note: * _{p < .05,}** _{p < .01,}*** _{p < .001}

Main analysis

The first Mediation Regression analysis with positive shyness as independent variable, loneliness as dependent variable, social competence as a mediator and sex as a covariate was performed (see Figure 1). It showed that positive shyness was not significantly predicting social competence, b = -.003, t(49) = -.37, p = .686. Social competence was significantly and negatively predicting loneliness, b = -.36, t(48) = -3.89, p < .001. Thus, more social

competence predicted less loneliness. Sex was not significantly predicting loneliness, b = .02,

t(48) = .15, p = .880. Positive shyness did not predict loneliness directly , b = .003, t(49) =

-.53, p = .601, nor indirectly, through social competence, indirect effect = .001, SE = .005, 95% CI [−.009, .01].

(16)

Social competence

Positive shyness Loneliness

Sex Social competence Non-positive shyness Loneliness Sex -.003 -3.89*** -.003 .02

Figure 1. Effect of Positive shyness on Loneliness through Social competence, with Sex as a

covariate. Note: * _{p < .05,}** _{p < .01,}*** _{p < .001}

The second Mediation Regression analysis with non-positive shyness as independent variable, loneliness as dependent variable, social competence as a mediator and sex as a covariate was also performed (see Figure 2). It showed that non-positive shyness was significantly and negatively predicting social competence, b = -.02, t(49) = -3.42, p = .001. Thus, more non-positive shyness predicted less social competence. Social competence was significantly and negatively predicting loneliness, b = -.33, t(48) = -3.13, p = .003. Thus, more social competence predicted less loneliness. Sex was not significantly predicting loneliness, b = .06, t(48) = .56, p = .576. Non-positive shyness did not predict loneliness directly, b = .004,

t(48) = .74, p = .461. However, non-positive shyness predicted loneliness indirectly, through

social competence, indirect effect = .007, SE = .004, 95% CI [.002, .02]. Therefore, the relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness was fully mediated by social competence.

-.02** -.33**

.004

.06

Figure 2. Effect of Non-positive shyness on Loneliness through Social competence, with Sex

(17)

Discussion

In this study, the relation between positive/non-positive shyness, social competence and loneliness was investigated. Sixty-eight children and their parents participated in this study. Parents filled in questionnaires about their child’s social competence and loneliness and children sang a song on stage in front of a small audience—a lab task known to evoke shyness in children (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). The main research question was whether positive/non-positive shyness was related to loneliness and whether this relation was mediated by social competence. As expected, we found a significant and positive relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness and we found that this relation was mediated by social competence. Unexpectedly, we did not find a significant relation between positive shyness and loneliness directly, nor indirectly through social competence.

As expected from our hypotheses, this study showed that more non-positive shyness was related to more loneliness. Many other researchers who measured shyness in a negative manner also found a relation between shyness defined as withdrawal/isolation and loneliness (Boivin et al., 1995; Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Findlay et al., 2009; Hymel et al., 1990; Kingsbury et al., 2013; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Zeedyk et al., 2016). As shy children are excessively concerned that their behavior will be negatively evaluated, they feel

uncomfortable being surrounded by peers, and therefore, they interact less with them (Younger et al., 2008). When they avoid interactions with peers, they may experience loneliness or isolation from them (Findlay et al., 2009). Contrary to previous research, this study was the first to look at young children, including the period of toddlerhood. Thus, already at a young age, non-positive shyness can be demonstrated and has consequences for the child’s socio-emotional development. Also, in previous studies, shyness was measured through self-, peer- and teacher reports, while in this study shyness was measured through observations of shy expressions, by independent coders. Thus, this study adds to the current knowledge about the relation between shyness and loneliness by demonstrating that non-positive shyness, also when objectively observed as a state during a challenging social situation, is related to socio-emotional problems in young children.

When examining the relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness, with social competence as a mediator, the direct relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness disappeared. This is because the relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness was completely explained by social competence. Thus, children who show non-positive shyness experience loneliness because they lack social competence. That is, non-positively shy

(18)

shyness in a negative manner also found a negative relation with social competence and constructs closely related to it, such as sociability (Colonnesi et al., 2014; Karevold et al., 2012). Besides, many past studies found a relation between social competence and loneliness (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Hymel et al., 1990; Zeedyk et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014). The relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness has also been

demonstrated before, but it was unknown how non-positive shyness and loneliness were related. This study is the first, to our knowledge, to give evidence to the mediation effect of social competence in the relation between non-positive shyness and loneliness. Besides, this study contributes to the limited information about the relation between non-positive shyness and social competences of young children. Thus, already at a young age, expressing non-positive shyness puts children in risk of becoming les socially competent and more lonely. This is in line with the hypotheses that children who show non-positive shyness have less opportunities to engage in social situations and learn from these situations (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Thompson & Calkins, 1996), therefore become less socially competent and more lonely. By expressing non-positive shyness children show that they want to avoid a

challenging social situation (Colonnesi et al., 2017; Thompson & Calkins, 1996). When they often avoid these situations, they do not learn how to handle them, so they do not acquire social competence. Children who are less socially competent, have less success in peer relations, which negatively influences the development of social connections and social integration (Asher et al., 1990). Children who have fewer social connections and feel less socially integrated are more lonely (Asher et al., 1984). This could work as a vicious circle, in a way that insecurity/anxiety for negative evaluation (Coplan et al., 2004) makes a child show non-positive shyness in a challenging social situation, which makes the child being removed from the situation. In this way, the child has a negative experience and does not gain more social competence, which makes the child even more insecure in the next social situation.

Unexpectedly, this study did not show a relation between positive shyness and

loneliness directly, nor indirectly through social competence. To our knowledge, this relation has not been researched before. However, this relation was expected because children who show positive shyness are assumed to more willingly engage in social situations (Nikolić et al., 2016), and consequently may become more socially competent and less lonely. This was also expected as based on previous research in which positive shyness was related to positive socio-emotional outcomes, such as sociability (Colonnesi et al., 2014) and Theory of Mind (Colonnesi et al, 2017). Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to understand that the beliefs, desires, and feelings of someone else differ from one’s own (Wellman, 1990). Children who

(19)

show positive shyness generally have a more advanced ToM (Colonnesi et al., 2017) and children with a more advanced ToM are generally more socially competent (Walker, 2005). In this study, we did not take ToM into account. Possibly only children who show positive shyness and have an advanced ToM are more socially competent. Sociability, measured by Colonnesi et al. (2014) differs from social competence as it refers to seeking interactions with others and taking pleasure in it, while social competence refers to being successful in social interactions and exhibiting context-appropriate social behaviours (LaFreniere, & Dumas, 1996). Perhaps, children who show more positive shyness seek more interaction with others and like doing this, but are explicitly not more successful in interactions with others. It was expected that positively shy children would be less lonely, based on previous research that showed that positively shy children had a lower risk of becoming socially anxious (Colonnesi et al., 2014; 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). It is possible that showing positive shyness does not protect children from becoming lonely, in the same way as it protects children from becoming socially anxious. Staying engaged in challenging social situations in which children feel nervous by showing positive shyness, makes children receive positive feedback from the social environment (Thompson & Calkins, 1996) and can prevent them from becoming socially anxious (Colonnesi et al., 2014; 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). This does not necessarily mean that these children are more socially skilled, good at making friends, and have many friends. Another possibility is that, early in childhood, it is too early to detect positive effects of positive shyness. Perhaps the effects of positive shyness accumulate over time, thus more time is needed for children who express positive shyness to develop their social competences.

As found by many past studies (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Hymel et al., 1990; Zeedyk et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014), this study also found evidence for the negative relation between social competence and loneliness. Children who are more socially competent, presumably have more success in peer relations, which enhances the development of social connections and increases feelings of security and social integration (Asher, et al., 1990). Compared to previous studies, this study is one of the first to study children before the age of 4. Thus, already at a young age, social competence probably has an influence on loneliness.

In the present study, we controlled for sex because girls showed significantly more positive shyness and were significantly more socially competent compared to boys. Some researchers found as well that girls are more shy compared to boys (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004; Findlay et al., 2009), but in these studies they did not differentiate between positive and non-positive shyness. Perhaps, showing shyness is less acceptable for boys than

(20)

for girls, because it is in contrast with gender norms related to male social assertion and dominance (Rubin & Coplan, 2004 ). Shyness in girls is more likely to be accepted by parents, while shyness in boys is more likely to be discouraged (Radke-Yarrow, Richters, & Wilson, 1988). Shyness is also more strongly associated with peer exclusion and rejection for boys than for girls Coplan & Arbeau, 2008). These differences in appreciation of shyness may have implications for how girls and boys behave. Past research also found girls to be more socially competent compared to boys (Cassidy & Asher, 1992; Chen et al., 2004). Possibly it is because girls are better at regulating their emotions that they are more socially competent (Denham et al., 2003). It could also be that girls are expected to behave more nicely towards others and more attention is paid to this (Fagot, 1984) that they learn to behave more socially competent. Another explanation is that girls seem to be more competent in determining the intentions of others and in generating effective solutions to social problems (Putallaz, Hellstern, Sheppard, Grimes, & Glodis, 1995).

In sum, this study showed that children who show non-positive shyness are more socially incompetent and lonely, while children who show positive shyness are not. This study demonstrated that already at a young age, showing non-positive shyness poses children at risk for social problems. When doing research into shyness it is important to differentiate between these two forms of shyness, because those are different constructs with different consequences for child’s social functioning (Colonnesi et al., 2012; Reddy, 2000; 2005). Moreover, it is important to focus on children who show non-positive shyness in clinical practice, because these children are at risk for developing social problems (see also Colonnesi et al., 2014; 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016). This study has not only clinical, but also practical every-day implications for parents and teachers. For example, when they notice that a child often reacts non-positively shy in social situations, they can try to improve the child’s social competence by, for example, often explain and model how to cooperate, share and solve disagreements. Besides, children can be trained to take someone else’s point of view into account, so they can empathize better with other children. This way children who show non-positive shyness might be prevented of developing social problems such as loneliness.

The first strength of this study is that all children were researched in standardized settings, so this could not influence the results. Secondly, shyness was measured objectively through reliable observations and the questionnaires that measured social competence and loneliness were also highly reliable. Thirdly, boys and girls and children of different ages were equally distributed. This way, the results of this study may be generalized across the period of early childhood. Also, for the first time, the mechanism such as social competence,

(21)

through which shyness is related to loneliness was investigated. Just like more recent research (Colonnesi et al., 2014; 2017; Nikolić et al., 2016), this study showed that positive and non-positive shyness are different constructs and this should be taken into account when

conducting future research on shyness. This research also showed that parents might be good informants to report about their child’s loneliness and social competence, which could be useful for future research about young children.

The first limitation of this study is that we only measured shyness, loneliness and social competence at one point in time. This way we could not see how these things influence each other over time. A second limitation was the limited sample size. A third limitation is the homogeneity of the participants, parents were mostly highly educated and working. These factors make this research less generalizable.

More research, with a larger group of more diverse participants, is needed to replicate these findings. Besides, more longitudinal research is needed to see how these children will develop over time, whether positive/non-positive shyness increases, diminish or stays the same over time and what long-term effects it has on social competence and loneliness. Also, more research into the relation between positive/non-positive shyness and diverse indices of socio-emotional development, such as socio-cognitive skills and Theory of Mind is needed. This way, we may get more insight into possible adverse effects of expressing non-positive shyness in early childhood and possible positive effects of positive shyness. If more research confirms that non-positively shy children, already at a young age, are at risk for (social) problems, these children should be targeted in interventions, to prevent them from developing more serious problems, such as depressive symptoms (Harris et al., 2013).

Conclusion

To conclude, this study showed that, already in early childhood, shyness has

consequences for children’s social functioning. This study also showed that positive and non-positive shyness differ. Children who show non-non-positive shyness are at risk of becoming less socially competent and more lonely, while children who show positive shyness are not. This is important to know because loneliness in childhood can be associated with children's current life quality, as well as future maladjustment (Sletta et al., 1996; Harris et al., 2013).

Moreover, this study is the first to give evidence that social competence is a mechanism through which non-positive shyness is related to loneliness. Thus, in order to reduce loneliness in non-positively shy children, it may be beneficial to train these children to become more socially competent, so as to prevent them from becoming lonely.

(22)

References

Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). The expression of shyness and embarrassment. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness and embarrassment: Perspectives from social psychology (pp. 87–118). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. D. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child

Development, 55, 1456-1464. doi:10.2307/1130015

Asher, S., Parkhurst, J.T., Hymel, S., & Williams, G.A. (1990). Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 253– 273). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children's loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500–505. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.4.500.

Baumeister, R. E, & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 497-529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.

doi:10.1017/S0954579400006830

Buss, A. H. (1980). consciousness and social anxiety. In A. H. Buss (Ed.),

Self-consciousness and social anxiety (pp. 220–253). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Buss, A. H. (1986). A theory of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),

Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 39–46). New York, NY:

Springer.

Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child

Development, 63, 350-365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01632.x

Chen, X., He, Y., Oliveira, A. M. D., Coco, A. L., Zappulla, C., Kaspar, V., ... & DeSouza, A. (2004). Loneliness and social adaptation in Brazilian, Canadian, Chinese and Italian children: A multi‐national comparative study. Journal of Child Psychology and

(23)

Colonnesi, C., Bögels, S. M., de Vente, W., & Majdandžić, M. (2012). What the first coy smile says about positive shyness during infancy. Infancy, 18, 202–220.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00117.x

Colonnesi, C., Bögels, & Nikolić, M. ( 2018) Development of positive shyness in infancy and childhood. In: L. Schmidt & K. Poole (Eds.), Adaptive Shyness: Developmental,

Comparative, and Cultural Perspectives. Manuscript in preparation.

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 of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45, 997-1011. doi:10.1007/s10802-016-0206-0

Coplan , R. J. , & Arbeau , K. A. (2008). The stresses of a brave new world: Shyness and adjustment in kindergarten . Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22 , 377– 389. doi:10.1080/02568540809594634

Coplan, R. J., DeBow, A., Schneider, B. H., & Graham, A. A. (2009). The social behaviors of extremely inhibited children in and out of preschool. British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 27, 891–905. doi:10.1348/026151008X396153

Coplan , R. J., Prakash , K., O ’ Neil , K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood.

Developmental Psychology, 40, 244-258. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244

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

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach–Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social

competence? Child Development 74, 238-256. doi:0.1111/1467-8624.00533 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the

(24)

Fagot, B. I. (1984). Teacher and peer reactions to boys' and girls' play styles. Sex Roles, 11, 691-702. doi:10.1007/BF00288120

Findlay, L. C., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, A. (2009). Keeping it all inside: Shyness, internalizing coping strategies and socio-emotional adjustment in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 47-54. doi:10.1177/0165025408098017

Grose, J., & Coplan, R. J. (2015). Longitudinal outcomes of shyness from childhood to emerging adulthood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176, 408-413.

doi:10.1080/00221325.2015.1084988

Harris, R. A., Qualter, P., & Robinson, S. J. (2013). Loneliness trajectories from middle childhood to pre-adolescence: Impact on perceived health and sleep disturbance.

Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1295–1304. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.12.009.

Hayes, E. F. (2013). PROCESS (v3.1) [software]. Retrieved from https://www.processmacro. org/download.html

Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children's peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004-2021.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03582.x

Karevold, E., Ystrom, E., Coplan, R. J., Sanson, A. V., & Mathiesen, K. S. (2012). A

prospective longitudinal study of shyness from infancy to adolescence: Stability, age-related changes, and prediction of socio-emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 40, 1167-1177. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9635-6

Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 441–454. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.441

Kingsbury, M., Coplan, R. J., & Rose‐Krasnor, L. (2013). Shy but getting by? An examination of the complex links among shyness, coping, and socioemotional functioning in childhood. Social Development, 22, 126-145. doi:10.1111/sode.12003 Kokkinos, C. M., Kakarani, S., & Kolovou, D. (2016). Relationships among shyness, social

competence, peer relations, and theory of mind among pre-adolescents. Social

(25)

Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 343–354. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.3.343

LaFreniere, P. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in children ages 3 to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment, 8, 369-377. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.369

Lewis, M. (1995). Embarrassment: The emotion of self-exposure and evaluation. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame,

guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 198–218). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lewis, M. (2011). The origins and uses of self-awareness or the mental representation of me.

Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 120–129. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.11.002

Nikolić, M., Colonnesi, C., de Vente, W., & Bögels, S. M. (2016). Blushing in early childhood: Feeling coy or socially anxious? Emotion, 16, 475-47.

doi:10.1037/a0035561

Peplau, L. A., & Perlman, D. (1982). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research,

and therapy. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.

Putallaz, M., Hellstern, L., Sheppard, B. L., Grimes, C. L., & Glodis, K. A. (1995). Conflict, social competence, and gender: Maternal and peer contexts. Early Education and

Development, 6, 433–447. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0604_8

Radke-Yarrow, M., Richter, J., & Wilson, W. E. ( 1988 ). Child development in a network of relationships . In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson - Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within

families: Mutual influences (pp. 48 – 67 ). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press .

Reddy, V. (2000). Coyness in early infancy. Developmental Science, 3, 186–192. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00112

Reddy, V. (2005). Feeling shy and showing-off: Self-conscious emotions. Motivation and

Emotion, 27, 225–249. doi:10.1023/A:1025059631708

Rotenberg, K. J., & Hymel, S. (1999). Loneliness in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The handbook of child psychology 6th ed. (pp. 571-645). New York, NY: Wiley.

(26)

Rubin , K. H. , & Coplan , R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50 , 506-534. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Bowker, J. C., & Menzer, M. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. In P. K., Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of

childhood social development (pp. 434-452). New York, NY: Wiley.

Sletta, O., Valås, H., Skaalvik, E., & Søbstad, F. (1996). Peer relations, loneliness, and self-perceptions in school-aged children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 431–445. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1996.tb01210.x.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton. Thompson, R. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotional regulation

for children at risk. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163–182. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007021

van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (2012). Colours of the face: A comparative glance. The

psychological significance of the blush, 77-99. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139012850.008

Walker, S. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between young children's peer-related social competence and individual differences in theory of mind. The Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 166, 297-312. doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.3.297-312

Wellman, H. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wilcox, R. R. (2005). Outlier detection. In B. S. Everitt & D. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of

statistics in behavioral science (pp. 1497–1498). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Younger, J. A., Schneider, H. B., & Guirguis-Younger, M. (2008). How children describe their shy/withdrawn peers. Infant and Child Development, 17, 447–456.

doi:10.1002/icd.554

Zeedyk, S. M., Cohen, S. R., Eisenhower, A., & Blacher, J. (2016). Perceived social

competence and loneliness among young children with ASD: Child, parent and teacher reports. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 436-449.

doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2575-6

Zhang, F., You, Z., Fan, C., Gao, C., Cohen, R., Hsueh, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2014). Friendship quality, social preference, proximity prestige, and self-perceived social competence:

(27)

Interactive influences on children's loneliness. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 511-526. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.001

Zimmerman, P. H., Bolhuis, J. E., Willemsen, A., Meyer, E. S., & Noldus, L. P. J. J. (2009). The Observer XT: A tool for the integration and synchronization of multimodal signals. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 731-735. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.731