Shyness as a dimension of personality W. R. Crozier
Examination of a number of major studies of personality questionnaires reveals the existence of a shyness factor which is related to but separable from both introversion and neuroticism. and which loads on items referring to feeling uncomfortable and self-conscious, and keeping in the background in certain kinds of social situations. The fears that are generally expressed about social situations - of being negatively evaluated and of being socially inadequate -are reflected in subjects' descriptions of the causes of shyness, and these findings suggest a model of shyness in terms of individual differences in susceptibility to threat.
A number of theorists have considered individual differences in social behaviour in terms of constructs which seem to share many common features - threctia (Cattell, 1%5), shyness (Lewinsky, 1941). social timidity (Dixon et al.. 1957), audience sensitivity (Paivio, 1965), non-assertiveness (Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966) and social neurosis (Schilder, 1938). What these constructs seem to share is what is often called in everyday life, 'shyness', which is characterized by ( a ) feeling anxious and uncomfortable in particular social situations especially those where the individual appears before authority figures, a number of others, or those whom he feels are evaluating him, situations that Lewinsky (1941) has described as involving 'showing your hand'; ( b ) this anxiety results in silence and withdrawal from interaction, or 'non-behaviour' as Eysenck & Eysenck (1969) term it; ( c ) lack of overt behaviour accompanied by feelings of self-consciousness, inhibition, unhappiness, preoccupation with self and the impression being made, and difficulties in expression and communication of thought. Shyness has attracted little research attention, especially in comparison with introversion, and the term very rarely appears in the index of textbooks in personality or social psychology. This is surprising for a number of reasons. Popular magazines often devote considerable attention to shyness and advice on how to overcome it, and surveys by Bryant & Trower (1974) and Zimbardo et al. (1975) show shyness and social difficulties to be prevalent in student populations in Britain and the United States. Psychologists (e.g. Mischel, 1968; Argyle & Little, 1972) have been disappointed in the low correlations between measures of personality traits and social behaviour, yet they have ignored a popular description of consistent reactions to social situations. Where shyness has been discussed in the literature it has been in the context of the modification of such shyness-related behaviour as lack of assertiveness (Hersen et al. 1973), anxiety about dating (Curran, 1977), and anxiety about public speaking (Kirsch et al. 1975). Emphasis has been on specific anxieties or lack of skill, and not on a general disposition to be anxious or unskilled in a broad class of situations, so that, for example, improvement in assertive behaviour in one kind of situation is not necessarily expected to transfer to another kind (Young et al. 1973). This paper examines the evidence for a personality trait of shyness in the psychological literature by considering whether major factor analytical studies of personality have isolated a shyness factor, whose items reflect anxiety about social situations which results in lack of overt behaviour and feelings of self-consciousness. It considers whether any such factors correlate with each other and with related factors in a pattern that is theoretically consistent. While the postulation of a dimension of shyness suggests that there are individual differences in susceptibility to the feelings and behaviour characteristic of shyness, it is clear that susceptibility to shyness will also be determined by the kinds of situations in which the individual finds OOO7-1293/79/0201-0121$02.00/0@ 1979 The British Psychological Society
122
W . R . Crozier
himself. The paper considers whether these situations may be classified in such a way that prediction can be made about the likelihood that an individual will be shy. Shyness in factor analytical studies of personality Factor analytical theories of the major dimensions of personality have consistently identified a sociability or social extraversion factor (Cuilford & Guilford, 1936; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964; Buss & Plomin, 1975); and the similarity of these factors to one another and their replicability from study to study has been widely reported (e.g. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969; Sells et al. 1970; Howarth & Browne, 1971; Howarth, 1972; Guilford, 1975; Vagg & Hammond, 1976). Interpretation of this factor is clear: scores at the social introversion or lack of sociability pole of the dimension reflect little need to be with others, preference for one’s own company, and interests which are solitary rather than social. There is no implication of anxiety, discomfort or self-consciousness in responding to social situations. H. J. Eysenck distinguishes between introversion and shyness, and argues that shyness correlates much more highly with his neuroticism factor than with introversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 164). He has postulated ‘two entirely separate aspects of social shyness’ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 27), contrasting introverted social shyness (a preference to be alone but with the ability to function effectively in company if necessary) and neurotic social shyness (‘troubled about being self-conscious, experiencing feelings of loneliness, troubled with feelings of inferiority and self-conscious with superiors, worrying over humiliating experiences. . . ’), that is, the neurotic shy person may wish for the company of others but fears it. Two results are presented in support of this distinction. Eysenck (1956) administered Guilford’s S , D, C, R, G and A scales to a sample of 400. Item analysis of the S (shyness) scale showed that a number of items correlated with the R (introversion) scale but not with the C (neuroticism) scale, while the remainder correlated with C but not with R; Eysenck interpreted this as evidence of two distinct shyness factors in the S scale. Eysenck & Eysenck (1969) submitted 108 neuroticism and introversion items to a series of factor analyses in the construction of the EPI and found that sociability and shyness items were orthogonal and not negatively correlated as would be expected on the hypothesis of a unitary shyness factor. While emphasis on two independent dimensions of introversion and neuroticism has minimized the attention given to shyness by Eysenck, a considerable number of factor analytical studies have isolated factors similar in item content to the neurotic shyness factor (Mosier, 1937; Layman, 1940; Cattell, 1946, 1%5; Dixon et al. 1957; Comrey, 1965; Derogatis el a/. 1973; Fenigstein et al. 1975; see Table 1). There is evidence of the replicability of these factors from study to study. Cattell has consistently replicated his factor structure (Cattell, 1973). While Howarth & Browne (1971) were unable to replicate Cattell’s source traits in a factor analysis of the 16PF they did isolate a sociability factor, and a separate shyness factor similar to threctia. Comrey and his associates have repeatedly isolated their shyness factor (Comrey & Souffi, 1960; Comrey & Jamison, 1966; Comrey, 1973). The pattern of correlations among factors is consistent. Threctia has significant loadings on both exvia (-0.50) and anxiety (0.38), the second-order factors resulting from factor analysis of the correlations among source traits (Cattell, 1973). Comrey’s shyness factor correlated 0.41 with his neuroticism factor (Comrey, 1965). Comrey & Duffy (1968) compared the eight Comrey factors with Eysenck’s extraversion and neuroticism and 14 Cattell source traits in a factor analysis of the three inventories, and extracted a shyness factor with highest loadings on Comrey’s shyness, Eysenck’s extraversion, Cattell’s threctia, and Comrey’s submission factor. Fenigstein el al.’s social anxiety factor correlated -0.46 with the sociability scale of Buss & Plomin (1975) (Carver & Glass, 1976) and 0.67 with self-rated shyness (Pilkonis, 19774. Derogatis
Shyness as a dimension of personality
123
Table 1. Shyness factors in factor analytical studies of personality scales ~
~~
~
Author
Source
Factor name
Typical items refer to:
Mosier (1937)
Items from Thurstone Neurotic Inventory (Thurstone & Thurstone, 1930) Items from a number of personality scales
Self-consciousness in intimate face to face situations Social initiative
Cattell (1946)
Review of factor analytic studies
QPI: shyness
Dixon
Items from Social timidity Tavistock Self-assessment Inventory
Being troubled with shyness Keeping in the background on social occasions Making new friends easily Feeling embarrassed if have to enter a public assembly after everyone else has been seated Being troubled with shyness Keeping in the background on social occasions Finding it difficult to make new acquaintances Feeling awkward with strangers Feeling nervous when speaking to someone in authority Keeping in background on social occasions Embarrassed if focus of attention Shyness, stagefright, lack of talkativeness
Layman (1940)
et al.
(1957)
Cattell (l%5)
Development of 16PF
Threctia
Comrey (1965)
Items forming factored homogeneous item dimensions (FHIDs) Self-reported symptoms
Shyness
Self-consciousness items
Social anxiety
Derogatis er a/. (1973) Fenigstein et al. (1975)
Interpersonal sensitivity
Self-deprecation, feelings of unease and discomfort during interaction Acute self-consciousness Taking a long time to overcome shyness Finding it difficult to talk to strangers
et al. (1976) reported significant correlations between their Interpersonal Sensitivity scale and Tryon Cluster scales introversion (0-52) and anxiety (0.49) of the MMPI. There seems clear evidence of a shyness factor in major factor analytical studies of personality, both in terms of item content of shyness factors and their correlations with other scales. Shyness has features of introversion - quietness, keeping in the background, and preference for one’s own company - and of neuroticism - emotional arousal, feelings of inadequacy, and worry, and is correlated with, but separable from both. The factor appears in studies which differ both in original item pools and such aspects of the samples of subjects as their nationality, age, and occupation. The factor that has emerged from these studies is similar to the shyness construct that has emerged in other kinds of investigations. Kupfer et al. (1974) asked teachers to identify common types of problem behaviour in schoolchildren. Factor analysis of teachers’ ratings of children in terms of such behaviour isolated an ‘anxious withdrawal ’ factor with highest loadings on items referring to withdrawal from contact with peers, and from spontaneous participation in class. Zimbardo et al. (1975) reported results from the Stanford Shyness Survey in which students at
124
W. R. Crozier
that university were asked to describe the behaviour and feelings they associated with shyness and to suggest the situations where they would be likely to respond with shyness. A clear pattern emerged of quietness accompanied by feelings of self-consciousness and discomfort in response to a number of situations including being in large groups, being the focus of attention, and situations where the subject is being evaluated or where he is required to be assertive. Similar patterns of feelings and behaviour are reported in case studies of shy patients treated within the psychoanalytic framework by Schilder (1938) and Kaplan (1972). It is unclear how shyness is related to stagefright, a dimension of personality with considerable evidence of construct validity (Gilkinson, 1943; Paivio, 1%5; Paul, 1966). There is no consensus of opinion as to whether shyness is a unitary factor or whether there are two separate factors of shyness and stagefright. Mosier (1937) and Layman (1940) considered that there were two distinct factors, although Mosier’s factors share a considerable number of items. Cattell (1946) considered that there was evidence for two factors (QPI, shyness, and QPVII, group deference), but threctia as a source trait contains both shyness and stagefright items. Comrey (1965) isolated an FHID of stagefright and saw it as separate from, although correlated with shyness (Comrey, 1973, reports a correlation of 0.46, n = 746, between the two FHIDs). Factor analyses of the FHIDs consistently show both shyness and stagefright having high loadings on a shyness factor, and this factor is not split up when other personality scales are included in the analysis (e.g. Comrey & Duffy, 1968). There is clearly a close correspondence between the two constructs in that both refer to reactions to the exposure of self to evaluating observers, and the difference between them would seem to be that the shy person feels awkward and self-conscious in small groups, when meeting new people, and when he is not formally ‘on stage’. Further research however is needed to clarify this relationship. Situational determinants of shyness
I t is clear from the items in shyness factors and from the Stanford Shyness Survey that much of the variance in responses to social situations will be accounted for by differences in situations. Questionnaire items refer to difficulties in being the centre of attention, meeting new people, being in large groups, and dealing with authority figures. Students who rated themselves as shy and those who rated themselves as not shy considered that they would be more likely to be shy in such situations, and less likely in small task-oriented groups, one-to-one same-sex interactions, and when dealing with parents and siblings (Zimbardo, 1977, p. 37). Making predictions about shyness in terms of a disposition to be shy will need to take these differences in situation into account. Classification of the situations that are likely to elicit shyness is aided by consideration of those studies which have examined the structure of fears as expressed in responses to questionnaires which asked subjects to rate how fearful, nervous, or anxious they would be in a large variety of situations. Variations of the Fear Survey Schedule devised by Lang & Lazovik (1963) and Wolpe & Lang (1964) have been completed by large samples of college students and patients and the responses submitted to factor analysis. All the studies yield either one or two social anxiety factors. The close similarity of items in the various studies makes it easy to compare solutions, and the two social anxiety factors are similar in different studies although they may have been assigned different names. One factor fear of social criticism or of negative evaluation - loads on items referring to fear of feeling disapproved of, being ignored, being rejected, being criticized and looking foolish. The second social competence - loads on items which refer to fear of speaking before a large group, being with a member of the opposite sex, being a leader, meeting someone for the first time, strangers, and entering a room where other people are seated. This two-factor solution is reported by
Shyness as a dimension of personality DEROGATIS, L. R., RICKELS, K. & ROCK, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 280-289. DIXON, J. J., DEMONCHAUX, C. & SANDLER, J. (1957). Patterns of anxiety: An analysis of social anxieties. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 30, 107-112. EYSENCK, H. J. (1956). The questionnaire measurement of neuroticism and extraversion. Revista Psicologia, 50, 113-140. EYSENCK, H. J. & EYSENCK, S . B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press. EYSENCK, H. J. & EYSENCK, S . B. G. (1969). Personality Structure and Measurement. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. FENIGSTEIN, A.. SCHEIER, M.F. & BUSS. A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 43. 522-527. GILKINSON, H. (1943). A questionnaire study of the causes of social fears among college speech students. Speech Monographs, 10, 74-83. GOFFMAN, E. (1956). Embarrassment and social organization. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 264-274. GUILFORD, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802-814. GUILFORD, J. P. & GUILFORD. R. B. (1936). Personality factors S , E. and M, and their measurement. Journal of Psychology, 2, 109-127. M.. EISLER.R. M. & M I L L E R . P. M. HERSEN, (1973). Development of assertive responses: Clinical, measurement and research considerations. Behaviour Research und Therapy, 11, 505-521. HOWARTH. E. (1972). An item analysis of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 162-174. HOWARTH, E. & BROWNE, J. A. (1971). An item factor analysis of the 16PF. Personality 2, 117-139. KAPLAN,D. M . (1972). On shyness. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 53,439453. KIRSCH,I., WOLPIN.M . & KNUTSON, J. L. (1975). A comparison of in vivo methods for rapid reduction of ‘stagefright’ in the college classroom: A field experiment. Rehaviour Therapy, 6, 165-171. KUPFER,D. J., DETRE,T. & KORAL,J. (1974). ‘Deviant’ behaviour patterns in schoolchildren, application of KDS tm- 14. Psychological Reports. 35, 183-191. LANDY, F. J. & GAUPP.L. A. (1971). A factor analysis of the Fear Survey Schedule-Ill. Behaviour Reseurch and Therapy, 9 , 89-93. LANG,P. J. & LAZOVIK, A. D. (1963). Experimental desensitization of a phobia. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66, 519-525. LAwLis, G . F. (1971). Response styles of a patient population on the fear survey schedule. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 9 , 95-102. LAYMAN, E. McC. (1940). A n item analysis of the adjustment questionnaire. Journal of Psychology, 10. 87-106.
127
LEWINSKY, H. (1941). The nature of shyness. British Journal of Psychology, 32, 105-1 13. MARZILLIER, J. (1977). Outcome studies of skills training: A review. I n P. Trower, B. Bryant & M. Argyle (eds), Social Skills and Mental Health. London: Methuen. MAGNUSSON, D. & ENDLER, N. S . (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. I n D. Magnusson & N . S. Endler (eds), Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. MISCHEL, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley. MOSIER,C. I. (1937). A factor analysis of certain neurotic symptoms. Psychometrika, 2 , 263-286. NICHOLLS, K. A. (1974). Severe social anxiety. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 47, 301-306. OLWEUS. D. (1977). A critical analysis of the ‘modern ’ interactionist position. In D. Magnusson & N . S . Endler (eds), Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. PAlVlO, A. (1965). Personality and audience influence. In B. Maher (ed.). Progress in Experimental Personality Research. vol. 2, pp. 127-173. New York: Academic Press. PAUL,G . L. (1966). Insight vs. Desensitization in Psychotherapy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. PILKONIS, P. A. (1977a). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to other measures of social behaviour. Journal of Personality, 45, 585-595. PILKONIS, P. A. (19776). The behavioural consequences of shyness. Journal of Personality, 45, 596-61 1. ROSENBERG, M . (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ROTHSTEIN. W., HOLMES,G . R. & BOBLITT, W. E. (1972). A factor analysis of the fear survey schedule with a psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 78-80. RUBIN, B. M., KATKIN, E. s.,WEISS, B. W. & J. S . (1%8). Factor analysis of a fear EFRAN. survey schedule. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 6,65-75. SCHILDER, P. (1938). The social neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 25. 1-19. SELLS,S . B., DEMAREE, R. G . , & WILL. D. P. (1970). Dimensions of personality. I . Conjoint factor structure in Guilford and Cattell trait markers. Multivuriate Behuvioural Research, 5, 391-422. STRAHAN. R. (1974). Situational dimensions of self-reported nervousness. Journal of Personality Assessment. 38, 341-352. THURSTONE, L. L. & THURSTONE, T. G . (1930). A neurotic inventory. Journal uf Social Psychology. 1, 3-30. V A G G . P. R. & HAMMOND, S . B. (1976). The number and kind of invariant personality (Q) factors: A partial replication of Eysenck and Eysenck. British Journul of Social and Clinical Psychology. IS. 121-129. WATSON, D. & FRIEND, R . (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologv. 33. 448-457.
128 W.R . Crozier WOLPE,J. & LANO.P. J. (1964). A fear survey schedule for use in behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2 , 27-30. WOLPE. J. & LAZARUS,A. A. (1966). Behaviour Therapy Techniques. New York: Pergamon Press.
YOUNG,E. R., RIMM,D. C. & KENNEDY,T. D. (1973). An experimental investigation of modelling and verbal reinforcement in the modification of
assertive behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11, 317-319.
ZIMBARDO. P. G. (1977). Shyness. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley . ZIMBARDO, P. G.,NORWOOD.R. & PILKONIS,P. A. (1975). Shackles of shyness. Psychology Today, 1(6), 24-27.
Received 14 July 1978
Requests for reprints should be addressed to W. R. Crozier, South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Howard Gardens, Cardiff CF2 ISP.
Examination of a number of major studies of personality questionnaires reveals the existence of a shyness factor which is related to but separable from both introversion and neuroticism. and which loads on items referring to feeling uncomfortable and self-conscious, and keeping in the background in certain kinds of social situations. The fears that are generally expressed about social situations - of being negatively evaluated and of being socially inadequate -are reflected in subjects' descriptions of the causes of shyness, and these findings suggest a model of shyness in terms of individual differences in susceptibility to threat.
A number of theorists have considered individual differences in social behaviour in terms of constructs which seem to share many common features - threctia (Cattell, 1%5), shyness (Lewinsky, 1941). social timidity (Dixon et al.. 1957), audience sensitivity (Paivio, 1965), non-assertiveness (Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966) and social neurosis (Schilder, 1938). What these constructs seem to share is what is often called in everyday life, 'shyness', which is characterized by ( a ) feeling anxious and uncomfortable in particular social situations especially those where the individual appears before authority figures, a number of others, or those whom he feels are evaluating him, situations that Lewinsky (1941) has described as involving 'showing your hand'; ( b ) this anxiety results in silence and withdrawal from interaction, or 'non-behaviour' as Eysenck & Eysenck (1969) term it; ( c ) lack of overt behaviour accompanied by feelings of self-consciousness, inhibition, unhappiness, preoccupation with self and the impression being made, and difficulties in expression and communication of thought. Shyness has attracted little research attention, especially in comparison with introversion, and the term very rarely appears in the index of textbooks in personality or social psychology. This is surprising for a number of reasons. Popular magazines often devote considerable attention to shyness and advice on how to overcome it, and surveys by Bryant & Trower (1974) and Zimbardo et al. (1975) show shyness and social difficulties to be prevalent in student populations in Britain and the United States. Psychologists (e.g. Mischel, 1968; Argyle & Little, 1972) have been disappointed in the low correlations between measures of personality traits and social behaviour, yet they have ignored a popular description of consistent reactions to social situations. Where shyness has been discussed in the literature it has been in the context of the modification of such shyness-related behaviour as lack of assertiveness (Hersen et al. 1973), anxiety about dating (Curran, 1977), and anxiety about public speaking (Kirsch et al. 1975). Emphasis has been on specific anxieties or lack of skill, and not on a general disposition to be anxious or unskilled in a broad class of situations, so that, for example, improvement in assertive behaviour in one kind of situation is not necessarily expected to transfer to another kind (Young et al. 1973). This paper examines the evidence for a personality trait of shyness in the psychological literature by considering whether major factor analytical studies of personality have isolated a shyness factor, whose items reflect anxiety about social situations which results in lack of overt behaviour and feelings of self-consciousness. It considers whether any such factors correlate with each other and with related factors in a pattern that is theoretically consistent. While the postulation of a dimension of shyness suggests that there are individual differences in susceptibility to the feelings and behaviour characteristic of shyness, it is clear that susceptibility to shyness will also be determined by the kinds of situations in which the individual finds OOO7-1293/79/0201-0121$02.00/0@ 1979 The British Psychological Society
122
W . R . Crozier
himself. The paper considers whether these situations may be classified in such a way that prediction can be made about the likelihood that an individual will be shy. Shyness in factor analytical studies of personality Factor analytical theories of the major dimensions of personality have consistently identified a sociability or social extraversion factor (Cuilford & Guilford, 1936; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964; Buss & Plomin, 1975); and the similarity of these factors to one another and their replicability from study to study has been widely reported (e.g. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969; Sells et al. 1970; Howarth & Browne, 1971; Howarth, 1972; Guilford, 1975; Vagg & Hammond, 1976). Interpretation of this factor is clear: scores at the social introversion or lack of sociability pole of the dimension reflect little need to be with others, preference for one’s own company, and interests which are solitary rather than social. There is no implication of anxiety, discomfort or self-consciousness in responding to social situations. H. J. Eysenck distinguishes between introversion and shyness, and argues that shyness correlates much more highly with his neuroticism factor than with introversion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 164). He has postulated ‘two entirely separate aspects of social shyness’ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, p. 27), contrasting introverted social shyness (a preference to be alone but with the ability to function effectively in company if necessary) and neurotic social shyness (‘troubled about being self-conscious, experiencing feelings of loneliness, troubled with feelings of inferiority and self-conscious with superiors, worrying over humiliating experiences. . . ’), that is, the neurotic shy person may wish for the company of others but fears it. Two results are presented in support of this distinction. Eysenck (1956) administered Guilford’s S , D, C, R, G and A scales to a sample of 400. Item analysis of the S (shyness) scale showed that a number of items correlated with the R (introversion) scale but not with the C (neuroticism) scale, while the remainder correlated with C but not with R; Eysenck interpreted this as evidence of two distinct shyness factors in the S scale. Eysenck & Eysenck (1969) submitted 108 neuroticism and introversion items to a series of factor analyses in the construction of the EPI and found that sociability and shyness items were orthogonal and not negatively correlated as would be expected on the hypothesis of a unitary shyness factor. While emphasis on two independent dimensions of introversion and neuroticism has minimized the attention given to shyness by Eysenck, a considerable number of factor analytical studies have isolated factors similar in item content to the neurotic shyness factor (Mosier, 1937; Layman, 1940; Cattell, 1946, 1%5; Dixon et al. 1957; Comrey, 1965; Derogatis el a/. 1973; Fenigstein et al. 1975; see Table 1). There is evidence of the replicability of these factors from study to study. Cattell has consistently replicated his factor structure (Cattell, 1973). While Howarth & Browne (1971) were unable to replicate Cattell’s source traits in a factor analysis of the 16PF they did isolate a sociability factor, and a separate shyness factor similar to threctia. Comrey and his associates have repeatedly isolated their shyness factor (Comrey & Souffi, 1960; Comrey & Jamison, 1966; Comrey, 1973). The pattern of correlations among factors is consistent. Threctia has significant loadings on both exvia (-0.50) and anxiety (0.38), the second-order factors resulting from factor analysis of the correlations among source traits (Cattell, 1973). Comrey’s shyness factor correlated 0.41 with his neuroticism factor (Comrey, 1965). Comrey & Duffy (1968) compared the eight Comrey factors with Eysenck’s extraversion and neuroticism and 14 Cattell source traits in a factor analysis of the three inventories, and extracted a shyness factor with highest loadings on Comrey’s shyness, Eysenck’s extraversion, Cattell’s threctia, and Comrey’s submission factor. Fenigstein el al.’s social anxiety factor correlated -0.46 with the sociability scale of Buss & Plomin (1975) (Carver & Glass, 1976) and 0.67 with self-rated shyness (Pilkonis, 19774. Derogatis
Shyness as a dimension of personality
123
Table 1. Shyness factors in factor analytical studies of personality scales ~
~~
~
Author
Source
Factor name
Typical items refer to:
Mosier (1937)
Items from Thurstone Neurotic Inventory (Thurstone & Thurstone, 1930) Items from a number of personality scales
Self-consciousness in intimate face to face situations Social initiative
Cattell (1946)
Review of factor analytic studies
QPI: shyness
Dixon
Items from Social timidity Tavistock Self-assessment Inventory
Being troubled with shyness Keeping in the background on social occasions Making new friends easily Feeling embarrassed if have to enter a public assembly after everyone else has been seated Being troubled with shyness Keeping in the background on social occasions Finding it difficult to make new acquaintances Feeling awkward with strangers Feeling nervous when speaking to someone in authority Keeping in background on social occasions Embarrassed if focus of attention Shyness, stagefright, lack of talkativeness
Layman (1940)
et al.
(1957)
Cattell (l%5)
Development of 16PF
Threctia
Comrey (1965)
Items forming factored homogeneous item dimensions (FHIDs) Self-reported symptoms
Shyness
Self-consciousness items
Social anxiety
Derogatis er a/. (1973) Fenigstein et al. (1975)
Interpersonal sensitivity
Self-deprecation, feelings of unease and discomfort during interaction Acute self-consciousness Taking a long time to overcome shyness Finding it difficult to talk to strangers
et al. (1976) reported significant correlations between their Interpersonal Sensitivity scale and Tryon Cluster scales introversion (0-52) and anxiety (0.49) of the MMPI. There seems clear evidence of a shyness factor in major factor analytical studies of personality, both in terms of item content of shyness factors and their correlations with other scales. Shyness has features of introversion - quietness, keeping in the background, and preference for one’s own company - and of neuroticism - emotional arousal, feelings of inadequacy, and worry, and is correlated with, but separable from both. The factor appears in studies which differ both in original item pools and such aspects of the samples of subjects as their nationality, age, and occupation. The factor that has emerged from these studies is similar to the shyness construct that has emerged in other kinds of investigations. Kupfer et al. (1974) asked teachers to identify common types of problem behaviour in schoolchildren. Factor analysis of teachers’ ratings of children in terms of such behaviour isolated an ‘anxious withdrawal ’ factor with highest loadings on items referring to withdrawal from contact with peers, and from spontaneous participation in class. Zimbardo et al. (1975) reported results from the Stanford Shyness Survey in which students at
124
W. R. Crozier
that university were asked to describe the behaviour and feelings they associated with shyness and to suggest the situations where they would be likely to respond with shyness. A clear pattern emerged of quietness accompanied by feelings of self-consciousness and discomfort in response to a number of situations including being in large groups, being the focus of attention, and situations where the subject is being evaluated or where he is required to be assertive. Similar patterns of feelings and behaviour are reported in case studies of shy patients treated within the psychoanalytic framework by Schilder (1938) and Kaplan (1972). It is unclear how shyness is related to stagefright, a dimension of personality with considerable evidence of construct validity (Gilkinson, 1943; Paivio, 1%5; Paul, 1966). There is no consensus of opinion as to whether shyness is a unitary factor or whether there are two separate factors of shyness and stagefright. Mosier (1937) and Layman (1940) considered that there were two distinct factors, although Mosier’s factors share a considerable number of items. Cattell (1946) considered that there was evidence for two factors (QPI, shyness, and QPVII, group deference), but threctia as a source trait contains both shyness and stagefright items. Comrey (1965) isolated an FHID of stagefright and saw it as separate from, although correlated with shyness (Comrey, 1973, reports a correlation of 0.46, n = 746, between the two FHIDs). Factor analyses of the FHIDs consistently show both shyness and stagefright having high loadings on a shyness factor, and this factor is not split up when other personality scales are included in the analysis (e.g. Comrey & Duffy, 1968). There is clearly a close correspondence between the two constructs in that both refer to reactions to the exposure of self to evaluating observers, and the difference between them would seem to be that the shy person feels awkward and self-conscious in small groups, when meeting new people, and when he is not formally ‘on stage’. Further research however is needed to clarify this relationship. Situational determinants of shyness
I t is clear from the items in shyness factors and from the Stanford Shyness Survey that much of the variance in responses to social situations will be accounted for by differences in situations. Questionnaire items refer to difficulties in being the centre of attention, meeting new people, being in large groups, and dealing with authority figures. Students who rated themselves as shy and those who rated themselves as not shy considered that they would be more likely to be shy in such situations, and less likely in small task-oriented groups, one-to-one same-sex interactions, and when dealing with parents and siblings (Zimbardo, 1977, p. 37). Making predictions about shyness in terms of a disposition to be shy will need to take these differences in situation into account. Classification of the situations that are likely to elicit shyness is aided by consideration of those studies which have examined the structure of fears as expressed in responses to questionnaires which asked subjects to rate how fearful, nervous, or anxious they would be in a large variety of situations. Variations of the Fear Survey Schedule devised by Lang & Lazovik (1963) and Wolpe & Lang (1964) have been completed by large samples of college students and patients and the responses submitted to factor analysis. All the studies yield either one or two social anxiety factors. The close similarity of items in the various studies makes it easy to compare solutions, and the two social anxiety factors are similar in different studies although they may have been assigned different names. One factor fear of social criticism or of negative evaluation - loads on items referring to fear of feeling disapproved of, being ignored, being rejected, being criticized and looking foolish. The second social competence - loads on items which refer to fear of speaking before a large group, being with a member of the opposite sex, being a leader, meeting someone for the first time, strangers, and entering a room where other people are seated. This two-factor solution is reported by
Shyness as a dimension of personality DEROGATIS, L. R., RICKELS, K. & ROCK, A. F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 280-289. DIXON, J. J., DEMONCHAUX, C. & SANDLER, J. (1957). Patterns of anxiety: An analysis of social anxieties. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 30, 107-112. EYSENCK, H. J. (1956). The questionnaire measurement of neuroticism and extraversion. Revista Psicologia, 50, 113-140. EYSENCK, H. J. & EYSENCK, S . B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press. EYSENCK, H. J. & EYSENCK, S . B. G. (1969). Personality Structure and Measurement. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. FENIGSTEIN, A.. SCHEIER, M.F. & BUSS. A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 43. 522-527. GILKINSON, H. (1943). A questionnaire study of the causes of social fears among college speech students. Speech Monographs, 10, 74-83. GOFFMAN, E. (1956). Embarrassment and social organization. American Journal of Sociology, 62, 264-274. GUILFORD, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802-814. GUILFORD, J. P. & GUILFORD. R. B. (1936). Personality factors S , E. and M, and their measurement. Journal of Psychology, 2, 109-127. M.. EISLER.R. M. & M I L L E R . P. M. HERSEN, (1973). Development of assertive responses: Clinical, measurement and research considerations. Behaviour Research und Therapy, 11, 505-521. HOWARTH. E. (1972). An item analysis of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 162-174. HOWARTH, E. & BROWNE, J. A. (1971). An item factor analysis of the 16PF. Personality 2, 117-139. KAPLAN,D. M . (1972). On shyness. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 53,439453. KIRSCH,I., WOLPIN.M . & KNUTSON, J. L. (1975). A comparison of in vivo methods for rapid reduction of ‘stagefright’ in the college classroom: A field experiment. Rehaviour Therapy, 6, 165-171. KUPFER,D. J., DETRE,T. & KORAL,J. (1974). ‘Deviant’ behaviour patterns in schoolchildren, application of KDS tm- 14. Psychological Reports. 35, 183-191. LANDY, F. J. & GAUPP.L. A. (1971). A factor analysis of the Fear Survey Schedule-Ill. Behaviour Reseurch and Therapy, 9 , 89-93. LANG,P. J. & LAZOVIK, A. D. (1963). Experimental desensitization of a phobia. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66, 519-525. LAwLis, G . F. (1971). Response styles of a patient population on the fear survey schedule. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 9 , 95-102. LAYMAN, E. McC. (1940). A n item analysis of the adjustment questionnaire. Journal of Psychology, 10. 87-106.
127
LEWINSKY, H. (1941). The nature of shyness. British Journal of Psychology, 32, 105-1 13. MARZILLIER, J. (1977). Outcome studies of skills training: A review. I n P. Trower, B. Bryant & M. Argyle (eds), Social Skills and Mental Health. London: Methuen. MAGNUSSON, D. & ENDLER, N. S . (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. I n D. Magnusson & N . S. Endler (eds), Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. MISCHEL, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley. MOSIER,C. I. (1937). A factor analysis of certain neurotic symptoms. Psychometrika, 2 , 263-286. NICHOLLS, K. A. (1974). Severe social anxiety. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 47, 301-306. OLWEUS. D. (1977). A critical analysis of the ‘modern ’ interactionist position. In D. Magnusson & N . S . Endler (eds), Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. PAlVlO, A. (1965). Personality and audience influence. In B. Maher (ed.). Progress in Experimental Personality Research. vol. 2, pp. 127-173. New York: Academic Press. PAUL,G . L. (1966). Insight vs. Desensitization in Psychotherapy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. PILKONIS, P. A. (1977a). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to other measures of social behaviour. Journal of Personality, 45, 585-595. PILKONIS, P. A. (19776). The behavioural consequences of shyness. Journal of Personality, 45, 596-61 1. ROSENBERG, M . (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ROTHSTEIN. W., HOLMES,G . R. & BOBLITT, W. E. (1972). A factor analysis of the fear survey schedule with a psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 78-80. RUBIN, B. M., KATKIN, E. s.,WEISS, B. W. & J. S . (1%8). Factor analysis of a fear EFRAN. survey schedule. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 6,65-75. SCHILDER, P. (1938). The social neurosis. Psychoanalytic Review, 25. 1-19. SELLS,S . B., DEMAREE, R. G . , & WILL. D. P. (1970). Dimensions of personality. I . Conjoint factor structure in Guilford and Cattell trait markers. Multivuriate Behuvioural Research, 5, 391-422. STRAHAN. R. (1974). Situational dimensions of self-reported nervousness. Journal of Personality Assessment. 38, 341-352. THURSTONE, L. L. & THURSTONE, T. G . (1930). A neurotic inventory. Journal uf Social Psychology. 1, 3-30. V A G G . P. R. & HAMMOND, S . B. (1976). The number and kind of invariant personality (Q) factors: A partial replication of Eysenck and Eysenck. British Journul of Social and Clinical Psychology. IS. 121-129. WATSON, D. & FRIEND, R . (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologv. 33. 448-457.
128 W.R . Crozier WOLPE,J. & LANO.P. J. (1964). A fear survey schedule for use in behaviour therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 2 , 27-30. WOLPE. J. & LAZARUS,A. A. (1966). Behaviour Therapy Techniques. New York: Pergamon Press.
YOUNG,E. R., RIMM,D. C. & KENNEDY,T. D. (1973). An experimental investigation of modelling and verbal reinforcement in the modification of
assertive behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11, 317-319.
ZIMBARDO. P. G. (1977). Shyness. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley . ZIMBARDO, P. G.,NORWOOD.R. & PILKONIS,P. A. (1975). Shackles of shyness. Psychology Today, 1(6), 24-27.
Received 14 July 1978
Requests for reprints should be addressed to W. R. Crozier, South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Howard Gardens, Cardiff CF2 ISP.
