Social anxiety and the Big Five personality traits: the interactive relationship of trust and openness.

This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 27 April 2015, At: 13:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sbeh20

Social Anxiety and the Big Five Personality Traits: The Interactive Relationship of Trust and Openness a

a

a

Simona C. Kaplan , Cheri A. Levinson , Thomas L. Rodebaugh , b

b

Andrew Menatti & Justin W. Weeks a

Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA b

Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, USA Published online: 23 Feb 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Simona C. Kaplan, Cheri A. Levinson, Thomas L. Rodebaugh, Andrew Menatti & Justin W. Weeks (2015) Social Anxiety and the Big Five Personality Traits: The Interactive Relationship of Trust and Openness, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 44:3, 212-222, DOI: 10.1080/16506073.2015.1008032 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1008032

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:47 27 April 2015

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 2015 Vol. 44, No. 3, 212–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1008032

Social Anxiety and the Big Five Personality Traits: The Interactive Relationship of Trust and Openness Simona C. Kaplan1a, Cheri A. Levinson1, Thomas L. Rodebaugh1, Andrew Menatti2 and Justin W. Weeks2 1


Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA; 2 Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, USA

Abstract. It is well established that social anxiety (SA) has a positive relationship with neuroticism and a negative relationship with extraversion. However, findings on the relationships between SA and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience are mixed. In regard to facet-level personality traits, SA is negatively correlated with trust (a facet of agreeableness) and self-efficacy (a facet of conscientiousness). No research has examined interactions among the Big Five personality traits (e.g., extraversion) and facet levels of personality in relation to SA. In two studies using undergraduate samples (N ¼ 502; N ¼ 698), we examined the relationships between trust, selfefficacy, the Big Five, and SA. SA correlated positively with neuroticism, negatively with extraversion, and had weaker relationships with agreeableness, openness, and trust. In linear regression predicting SA, there was a significant interaction between trust and openness over and above gender. In addition to supporting previous research on SA and the Big Five, we found that openness is related to SA for individuals low in trust. Our results suggest that high openness may protect against the higher SA levels associated with low trust. Key words: social anxiety; personality; trust; self-efficacy; Big Five. Received 7 September 2014; Accepted 12 January 2015 Correspondence address: Thomas L. Rodebaugh, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1125, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. Tel: 314-935-8631. Email: [email protected]

Introduction Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is characterized by fear of being negatively evaluated in social and performance situations and often leads to impaired functioning across multiple domains such as school, work, and relationships (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). The onset and maintenance of SAD can be explained through a cognitive behavioral model, in which anxiety in social situations derives from viewing the perceived audience as critical of the deficient self. In social situations, individuals with high social anxiety (SA) become increasingly vigilant for environmental cues and their own mental representation of how they appear to others, and this hypervigilance serves to maintain their anxiety (Clark & Wells, 1995; Heimberg, Brozovich, & Rapee, 2014). Certain personality traits have been shown to be q 2015 Swedish Association for Behaviour Therapy

vulnerability factors for high SA (Levinson, Kaplan, & Rodebaugh, 2014). It is well established that there is a positive relationship between SA and neuroticism and a negative relationship between SA and extraversion (e.g., Bienvenu, Brown, et al., 2001; Kotov, Watson, Robles, & Shmidt, 2007). However, research on the relationship between SA and the remaining Big Five personality traits—agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience—has been mixed (e.g., Bienvenu, Brown, et al., 2001; Norton, Cox, Hewitt, & McLeod, 1997). Glinski and Page (2010) found that individuals with SAD participating in a treatment study reported low levels of conscientiousness, but average levels of openness and agreeableness compared to Revised NEO Personality Inventory norms. In a large clinical sample, Rosellini and Brown (2011)

VOL 44, NO 3, 2015


also found that SAD and conscientiousness were negatively associated. In a study examining personality factors associated with low versus high SA in undergraduate psychology students, Norton et al. (1997) found weaker, though significant negative correlations between SA and agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Conversely, in a study examining correlates between the Big Five and anxiety and mood disorders in a clinical sample, SAD was not significantly associated with openness, agreeableness, or conscientiousness (Bienvenu, Brown, et al., 2001).

SA and lower-order personality facets One probable source of the mixed findings described here is the frequent focus on SAD rather than the full dimension of SA, which limits statistical power for detecting relationships between SA and personality traits. Another potential source of contradictory findings may be a focus on higher-order factors in the absence of examining lower-order facets; in the hierarchical model of personality, the Big Five factors each consist of multiple narrowscope personality traits called facets (e.g., gregariousness, a facet of extraversion) (Goldberg, 1993). Across the studies reviewed in this article, agreeableness and conscientiousness have only weak correlations, if any, with SA. However, studies examining associations between these factors’ lower-order facets and SA have found significant relationships. For instance, Bienvenu et al. (2004) found that SAD was associated with low trust, a facet of agreeableness, and low self-efficacy and achievement-striving, facets of conscientiousness.

Predicting high SA: interactions between higher- and lower-order personality traits Main effects clearly exist between SA and extraversion and neuroticism; however, personality traits can also interact with each other to predict emotional and behavioral responses (e.g., Jensen & Patel, 2011; King, George, & Hebl, 2005). One way to view interacting personality traits is in terms of cumulative risk. It is possible that certain risk factors interact to

Social Anxiety and the Big Five Personality Traits

213

magnify the overall risk of an undesired trait (e.g., high SA), such that the resulting risk status is higher than would follow from the sum of the individual factors. In other words, one risk factor in the context of another could predict higher SA levels than the sum of each isolated risk factor. Protective factors, in this view, lessen the chance of a negative consequence; they positively moderate levels of the undesired response (Masten & O’Dougherty Wright, 1998). Consistent with this cumulative risk framework, we explored how interactions between personality factors and facets relate to SA. We examined trust because this facet has repeatedly demonstrated a significant negative relationship with SA (e.g., Bienvenu, Nestadt, et al., 2001), such that individuals lower in trust report higher SA. It is possible that low trust, or the tendency to suspect others of dishonesty or bad intentions, may increase arousal and lead to heightened anxiety and fear of negative evaluation in social situations, consistent with a cognitive behavioral model of SA (Glinski & Page, 2010). Indeed, when examining the Big Five traits in individuals with current symptoms of mood and anxiety disorders compared to individuals in full remission, Bienvenu et al. (2004) found that, for SAD, fully remitted subjects reported significantly higher mean trust than currently symptomatic subjects, suggesting that treatment for SAD may lead to increased trust. In support of this inference, Glinski and Page (2010) found that, in a repeated-measures design, individuals with SAD experienced a significant improvement in trust following group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Considering the Big Five factors in relation to trust, it seems plausible that openness to experience might relate to SA when combined with low trust. Openness is characterized by a liberal attitude, desire for adventure, intellectual curiosity, and need for variety (McCrae, 1994). It seems plausible that individuals high in openness would tend to engage in novel situations, including social ones. In addition, more open individuals are more receptive to new input from other people and surroundings (McCrae, 1994). Taking these components of openness into account, individuals low on the openness spectrum might enter into a narrower range of social activities and might be less receptive to incorporating others’ input into


214

COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

Kaplan, Levinson, Rodebaugh, Menatti and Weeks

their outlook on a given situation. A combination of a less open temperament and low trust could be associated with particularly high levels of SA. In contrast, high trust might ameliorate the limited social exposure conferred by low openness. That is, trust that people are essentially good might serve as a reasonable substitute for actual social experience with a variety of people. In addition to the lower-order facet trust, researchers have shown that self-efficacy, or ‘the sense that one is capable, sensible, and accomplished’ (Costa, McCrae & Dye, 1991, p. 889), is negatively related to SA (e.g., Thomasson & Psouni, 2010). Costa et al. (1991) theorized that this facet relates to locus of control. Accordingly, individuals with low self-efficacy, if this trait extends to social scenarios, might view themselves as less competent and in control in social situations, which could relate to higher SA. It seems plausible that a tendency to engage in more varied situations, presumably including social ones, might act as a protective factor against the higher SA associated with low self-efficacy.

The current studies In the current two studies, we examined the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, the Big Five, and SA. We first examined the relationship between these personality traits and social interaction anxiety (SIA) in one large undergraduate sample. We then tested whether these previously unexplored interactions would replicate in an independent sample at a separate university, using a broader measure of SA that included performance fears. We included gender in our analyses to test for moderation effects by gender. Such moderation seemed plausible based on multiple findings. In general, in a self-report study examining gender differences in personality traits across 26 cultures, Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) found that women scored higher than men on neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth, and openness to feelings, whereas men scored higher on assertiveness and openness to ideas. Such differences might imply the possibility of gender moderation of personality effects. Indeed, gender moderation has been found in prior personality literature (e.g., Zhou, Li, Zhang, & Zeng, 2012). It therefore seemed

important to assess such possible moderation here.

Study 1: hypotheses We hypothesized that results would replicate previous findings that SA correlates positively with neuroticism and negatively with extraversion, trust, and self-efficacy. We also hypothesized that SIA would negatively correlate with agreeableness and conscientiousness, but that these correlations would be weaker. In addition, we hypothesized that personality factors such as low openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and lower-order facets such as low trust or self-efficacy, might act as cumulative risk factors for higher SIA when taking their interactions into account. Specifically, we hypothesized that (a) trust and selfefficacy each would moderate the relationship between openness and SIA and (b) low trust and low openness, and low selfefficacy and low openness would act as cumulative risk factors for higher SIA.

Study 1: method Participants Participants were 502 undergraduates from a private Midwestern university who were mostly Caucasian (N ¼ 318; 63.3%) and women (N ¼ 349; 69.5%), with a mean age of 19.04 years (SD ¼ 1.04). Participants completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires in exchange for psychology course credit. All participants provided informed consent. Participants’ scores on the Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (S-SIAS; see ‘Measures’ section) ranged from very low to very high (Range: 0 – 60; M ¼ 21.90).

Measures See Table 1 for internal consistencies of the Big Five factors, lower-order facets, and SIA. S-SIAS (Rodebaugh, Woods, Heimberg, Liebowitz, and Schneier, 2006; Rodebaugh et al., 2011) is a 17-item measure of anxietyrelated reactions to social situations that includes only the straightforward items from the original Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Research on the SSIAS indicates good to excellent reliability, and good convergent and divergent validity in nonclinical, undergraduate samples (Rode-

VOL 44, NO 3, 2015


215

Table 1. Zero-order correlations from Study 1 between the Big Five personality traits, self-efficacy, and trust

S-SIAS Open Extra Agree Neur Consc Self-E Trust

S-SIAS

Open

Extra

Agree

Neur

Consc

Self-E

Trust

.92 2.12** 2.55** 2.16** .32** 2.07 2.26** 2.20**

.72 .06 .13* 2 .06 2 .13* .18** 2 .03

.83 .20** 2 .11* 2 .10 .17** .19**

.71 2.09 .07 .21** .34**

.77 2.05 2.26** 2.23**

.80 .40** .02

.78 .10*

.89


Note. S-SIAS, Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety; Open, openness; Extra, extraversion; Agree, agreeableness; Neur, neuroticism; Consc, conscientiousness; Self-E, self-efficacy. The diagonal is Cronbach’s a obtained in sample from Study 1. Study 1. **p , .01; *p , .05.

baugh, Woods, & Heimberg, 2007). The SSIAS has been normed in clinical, community, and student samples, and a cut-off score for the total S-SIAS of 28 has been suggested to distinguish between those with and without SAD (Rodebaugh et al., 2011). The Mini-International Personality Item Pool Inventory (Mini-IPIP; Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006) is a 20-item measure of the five basic personality factors: extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, shortened from the 50-item International Personality Item Pool Five-Factor Model measure (Goldberg, 1999). Research on the scale suggests consistent and acceptable internal consistencies, similar coverage of personality facets as other Big Five measures, and good convergent, divergent, and criterion-related validity, comparable to that of the full measure (Donnellan et al., 2006). 120-item International Personality Item Pool-NEO (IPIP-NEO-120; Johnson, 2014). The IPIP-NEO-120 is a 120-item representation of the 30 facets of the Big Five Factors. This subset of items was drawn from the 300item IPIP-NEO (Goldberg, 1999). From this subset, we drew the facet items with the strongest psychometric properties (e.g., highest Cronbach’s a for that facet) for the facets of achievement-striving, anger, immoderation, self-discipline, self-efficacy, sympathy, and trust. In this study, we examined trust (e.g., believe that others have good intentions) and self-efficacy (e.g., complete tasks successfully). Items were similar in structure to the MINIIPIP items and were thus simply appended after those 20 items, with the exception of one

item (for sympathy, not examined here) that was retained in the MINI-IPIP. Research indicates acceptable to good internal consistency for self-efficacy, good internal consistency for trust, and good convergent validity for both facets in two large internet-based samples (Johnson, 2014).

Results Zero-order correlations See Table 1 for inter-correlations between the Big Five, trust, self-efficacy, and SIA. Consistent with previous research, the S-SIAS correlated positively with neuroticism, negatively with extraversion, and had weaker negative relationships (see ‘Significant Differences between Correlations’ section) with agreeableness, openness, trust, and self-efficacy. Notably, in a multiple regression analysis including trust and agreeableness, the correlation between agreeableness and SIA remained significant (part r ¼ 2 .11, p ¼ .034), suggesting that this negative relationship, although small, holds above the effects of trust.

Significant differences between correlations We tested whether the zero-order relationships between S-SIAS and neuroticism and extraversion significantly differed from the relationships between S-SIAS and openness, agreeableness, trust, and self-efficacy (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992). The correlations between S-SIAS and neuroticism and extraversion differed significantly from the correlations between S-SIAS and agreeableness,

216

Table 2. Multiple regression analysis from Study 1 testing if the interaction between trust and openness predicts S-SIAS scores over and above gender Predictors Regression Trust Open Gender Trust*open Gender*open Gender*trust




b

Part r

2 .72** 2 .62** 2 .21 .73* .34 2 .12

2 .15** 2 .15** 2 .03 .12* .06 2 .03

Note. S-SIAS, Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety; Open, openness to experience. Standardized b and partial correlation coefficients are reported. Note that the three-way interaction was dropped because it was clearly not significant ( p . .10). **p , .01; *p , .05.

openness, trust, and self-efficacy jzjs . 5.79, all ps , .001).

(all

Multiple regression analyses We used a multiple regression that included gender to test moderation. Our hypotheses were partially supported. As can be seen in Table 2, there was a significant interaction between trust and openness (part r ¼ .09, p ¼ .048), such that individuals low in both trust and openness were at the greatest risk for high SIA (see Figure 1). Notably, the primary effect driving the interaction, as seen in the figure, was the tendency for higher openness to be associated with lower SIA for participants

with low trust, who were otherwise at greater risk for high SIA. When gender was not included, the interaction was marginally significant (part r ¼ .08, p ¼ .066), suggesting that gender adds to the association of SIA with trust and openness by means of suppression. There were no significant interactions between self-efficacy and any of the Big Five (.17 , all ps , .97), nor between trust and the other Big Five factors (.26 , all ps , .80). To determine which variable gender was suppressing, three separate multiple regressions were performed: the first using the standardized residual of S-SIAS after being predicted by gender in a previous regression, the second using the trust residual, and the third using the openness residual. The interaction between trust and openness yielded the highest correlation with S-SIAS when using the trust residual in the regression (part r ¼ .08, p ¼ .025), indicating that gender accounted for extraneous variance in trust, thereby increasing the effect of the interaction when gender was included in the analysis. An independent samples t-test indicated that women scored significantly higher on trust than men, t(500) ¼ 2.85, p ¼ .005.

Study 2: hypotheses Analyses were repeated in a second sample to determine whether results would replicate. Because Study 2 used an additional SA measure, the Social Phobia Scale (SPS; see ‘Measures’ section), we formed a composite

Figure 1. The interaction between openness and trust in Study 1.


VOL 44, NO 3, 2015


measure of the S-SIAS and SPS by adding together their standardized scores to determine whether the results would replicate with this more robust and broadly inclusive SA measure. This composite measure addressed a limitation of Study 1, namely, that it examined the specific domain of SIA, which does not encompass the performance fear component of SA. We chose to form a composite because composite measures generally provide a more reliable estimate of the construct (Zeller & Carmines, 1980). In addition, a composite measure can simplify the number of analyses conducted; this method has been used in previous studies of SA (e.g., Clark et al., 2006; Levinson, Langer, & Rodebaugh, 2013; Levinson & Rodebaugh, 2012). This composite measure has demonstrated very good internal consistency and test –retest reliability in an undergraduate sample (Levinson et al., 2013). We hypothesized that results would replicate previously found zero-order correlations and correlated correlations between SA and the Big Five, trust, and self-efficacy. We also hypothesized that an interaction between trust and openness would be related to higher SA levels, and that, in accordance with the findings from Study 1, there would be no interaction between openness and self-efficacy related to SA.

217

(N ¼ 449; 64.3%), with a mean age of 19.03 years (SD ¼ 1.58). Participants completed online surveys in exchange for psychology course credit. All participants provided informed consent. Participants’ scores ranged from very low to very high on the S-SIAS (Range ¼ 0 – 63, M ¼ 20.87) and on the SPS (Range ¼ 0 – 68, M ¼ 20.5).

Measures All measures administered in Study 1 were also administered in Study 2. In addition, the SPS (Mattick & Clarke, 1998) was administered. The SPS is a 20-item scale designed to assess fear of scrutiny. Items ask about fears of being scrutinized during routine activities such as eating or drinking, and performance activities such as public speaking. The SPS has demonstrated high test – retest reliability, and has been shown to discriminate between individuals with SAD and other anxiety and mood disorders (Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Furthermore, the SPS has been shown to have strong internal consistency in clinical and undergraduate samples (as . .84; Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992; Mattick & Clarke, 1998). See Table 3 for internal consistencies in Study 2 of the Big Five, lower-order facets, and the SA composite.

Study 2: method

Results

Participants Participants were 698 undergraduates from a public Midwestern university who were mostly Caucasian (N ¼ 614; 88.0%) and women

Zero-order correlations Results were replicated in Study 2 using the composite measure of SA (all ps , .001).

Table 3. Zero-order correlations from Study 2 between the Big Five personality traits, self-efficacy, and trust

SA Open Extra Agree Neur Consc Self-E Trust

SA

Open

Extra

Agree

Neur

Consc

Self-E

Trust

.93 2 .15** 2 .45** 2 .24** .30** 2 .20** 2 .46** 2 .22**

.70 .15** .38** 2 .10* 2 .10* .05 .11**

.69 .31** 2.11* .15** .32** .17**

.73 2 .02 .17** .03 .28**

.59 2 .08* 2 .14 2 .27**

.66 .02 .12*

.79 .13

.79

Note. SA symptoms is a composite of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale; S-SIAS, Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; Open, openness; Extra, extraversion; Agree, agreeableness; Neur, neuroticism; Consc, conscientiousness; Self-E, self-efficacy. The diagonal is Cronbach’s a obtained in sample from Study 2, with the exception of SA, which is a reliability coefficient appropriate for a composite measure (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). **p , .001; *p , .05.

218

In addition to the results from Study 1, SA was significantly negatively correlated with conscientiousness (See Table 3 for details). However, in a multiple regression analysis including self-efficacy and conscientiousness, the relationship between conscientiousness and SA was no longer significant (part r ¼ 2 .04, p ¼ .283), suggesting that this relationship does not hold above the effects of self-efficacy.

Significant differences between correlations Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:47 27 April 2015



We tested whether the zero-order relationships between SA (as assessed by the composite measure) and neuroticism and extraversion differed significantly from the relationships between SA and openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, trust, and self-efficacy (Meng et al., 1992). As in Study 1, the correlations between SA and neuroticism and extraversion differed significantly from the correlations between SA and agreeableness, openness, trust, and conscientiousness (all jzjs . 5.15, all ps , .001). However, the correlations between SA and extraversion and SA and self-efficacy were not significantly different in this sample (z ¼ .27; p ¼ .79).

Multiple regression analyses As hypothesized, in a multiple regression including gender, trust, openness, and all possible two-way interactions, Study 1 findings replicated in Study 2 using the SA composite (part r ¼ .09, p ¼ .026) (see Table 4 and Figure 2), such that low openness was associated with greater SA in the context of low trust. In addition, a significant interaction was found between openness and gender (part r ¼ 2 .10, p ¼ .010), such that men low in openness exhibited the highest SA. No significant interaction was found between openness and self-efficacy in a separate regression. As in the previous study, the interaction between openness and trust reached only marginal significance when gender was not included in the regression (part r ¼ .07, p ¼ .060). Consequently, in order to identify the variable suppressed by gender, three separate multiple regression analyses were performed using the residuals of SA, trust, and openness after being predicted by gender in

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis from Study 2 testing if the interaction between trust and openness predicts SA symptoms over and above gender Predictors Regression Trust Open Gender Trust*open Gender*open Gender*trust

b

part r

2 .63** 2 .41* .42 .57* 2 .46* .10

2 .13** 2 .09* .07 .08* 2 .10* .02

Note. SA symptoms are a composite of the Straightforward Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale. Open, openness to experience. Standardized b and partial correlation coefficients are reported. Note that the three-way interaction was dropped because it was clearly not significant ( p . .10). **p , .01; *p , .05.

previous regressions. As in Study 1, the interaction between openness and trust yielded the highest correlation with SA when using the trust residual in the regression (part r ¼ .09, p ¼ .049), indicating that the inclusion of gender was primarily affecting trust. An independent samples t-test indicated that, in this sample, contrary to findings in Study 1, trust was significantly higher in men than in women, t(680) ¼ 2 2.32, p ¼ .021. We performed post hoc multiple regression analyses including gender, trust, and ethnicity in Samples 1 and 2 to see whether ethnicity might account for the discrepant trust and gender patterns across data-sets; however, ethnicity did not explain this difference and had no main or interactive effects. Examining the gender difference in trust more closely across data-sets, independent t-tests indicated that mean trust in men did not significantly differ in Studies 1 and 2 ( p ¼ .232), but that women’s mean trust was higher in Study 1 than Study 2 ( p , .001).

Discussion Consistent with prior research (e.g., Bienvenu et al., 2004; Kotov et al., 2007), we found that individuals higher in extraversion and lower in neuroticism reported lower SA. In both samples, we also found that SA had weaker, though still significant negative correlations with agreeableness and openness. In Study 2,


VOL 44, NO 3, 2015


219

Figure 2. The interaction between openness and trust in Study 2. Note. SA is a standardized version of the S-SIAS and SPS composite.

but not Study 1, SA was negatively correlated with conscientiousness, although this correlation was accounted for by the relationship between SA and self-efficacy. Taken with previous research that offers mixed conclusions regarding the relationships between SA and agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness (e.g., Bienvenu, Brown, et al., 2001; Norton et al., 1997), these results suggest that SA is in fact negatively related to these three personality factors, but that this relationship is relatively weak and reaches significance only in large samples such as those in the current study. Furthermore, the correlation with conscientiousness appears to be entirely accounted for by the relationship between SA and the conscientiousness facet of self-efficacy. We also examined the relationship between SA and two lower-order personality facets: trust and self-efficacy. Consistent with our hypotheses and with previous research (Bienvenu, Nestadt, et al., 2001; Glinski & Page, 2010; Thomasson & Psouni, 2010), in both studies, SA correlated negatively with trust and self-efficacy. These relationships suggest that individuals low in trust, given their tendency to suspect others of malevolence, are prone to fear negative evaluation, and individuals with lower self-efficacy might consider themselves less likely to succeed in social scenarios, which could result in higher SA (Leary & Atherton, 1986).

Regarding interactions between lower- and higher-order personality traits, we found that openness related to SA primarily for participants low in trust, and this relationship reached significance when accounting for the added variance in trust associated with gender. Examining the specific relationship between gender and trust, we found that in Study 1, mean trust was significantly higher in women, and in Study 2, mean trust was significantly higher in men. Ethnicity did not explain this discrepancy amongst data-sets, suggesting that the results were not due to the greater ethnic diversity in Study 1. There was no significant difference in men’s trust in Studies 1 and 2, but women’s trust was significantly higher in Study 1 than in Study 2. Because Study 1 took place at a private university, and Study 2 at a public university, it is possible that a third variable related to women who attend private versus public universities (e.g., parental socioeconomic status) is differentially associated with trust. For example, a more privileged economic background could relate to a higher tendency to trust other people, although it is not clear to us why this effect should be limited to women. Also pertaining to gender, in Study 2, low openness was associated with higher SA within men but not women. However, because this relationship was not found in Study 1 (and therefore needs to be replicated in additional samples), we choose not to speculate regarding the source of this finding.


220


Notably, although we hypothesized an interaction between openness and trust, the interaction found was not in the direction expected. Instead of finding that either higher trust or higher openness could serve to reduce risk for SA, or that higher trust could compensate for low openness, in both studies the primary driver of the interaction effect was openness ameliorating the effects of low trust. Considering this finding within the cumulative risk framework, it appears that low openness and low trust may act as cumulative risk factors for high SA, such that low openness, in the context of low trust, is associated with higher SA than the mere additive main effects of low trust and low openness. Furthermore, openness appears to be a protective factor against the high SA associated with low trust. One possible explanation for the interaction between trust and openness is that, because individuals high in openness are more receptive to new input from people and surroundings (McCrae, 1994), high openness might protect against the negative consequences of low trust, which might otherwise lead individuals to experience fear of negative evaluation due to increased suspicion that others are badintentioned or dangerous (Glinski & Page, 2010). In addition, McCrae and Costa (1997) theorized that individuals low in openness may be reluctant to modify their attitudes and routines and therefore have trouble adapting to natural social changes. It is possible that low trust exacerbates this closed temperament, leading to a less pro-social disposition and, subsequently, to higher SA. Of course, these findings should be considered within the limitations of the study. First, our samples consisted of primarily Caucasian undergraduate students with a high proportion of women. No research that we know of has examined the relationship between SA and personality variables across cultures; thus, we are unable to describe the specific cultural constraints of our findings. Future studies should test whether our results generalize to more demographically balanced populations with regard to age, gender, and cultural diversity. In addition, our study was cross-sectional, and thus causality cannot be clearly determined. Future research should employ longitudinal methods to test temporal relationships between personality traits and SA. We were


also not able to determine the reasons that gender played an important role in the interaction between trust and openness; we suspect that samples more balanced with regard to gender and more socioeconomically diverse are needed to settle that question. Furthermore, studies that examine community participants as opposed to undergraduates alone may be more representative of men and women in general and may help clarify gender’s role in this interaction. Despite these limitations, we believe that these results have important implications for the study of personality as it relates to SA. Considering the cognitive behavioral framework of SAD, high openness to experience might confer more opportunities for exposure to anxiety-provoking social situations. These opportunities, in addition to the greater mental flexibility associated with high openness, could allow for disconfirming evidence to be considered by the individual, thereby attenuating the relationship between low trust and high SA. Glinski and Page (2010) found that trust was a modifiable trait using group CBT. Clinicians may therefore consider using group CBT with individuals who have SAD and low levels of trust, particularly when openness is also low. No research that we know of has tested whether openness is a modifiable trait; thus, future research should also examine the modifiability of openness. Trying to increase openness, trust, or both, is especially important in individuals low in both traits given that they may be at special risk for high SA. Overall, our study extends the literature on personality and SA, delving into the more nuanced relationships of personality and emotional and behavioral responses. Disclosure statement: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Note a. Current affiliation: Simona C. Kaplan, Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6085, USA.

References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.


VOL 44, NO 3, 2015

Bienvenu, O.J., Brown, C., Samuels, J.F., Liang, K., Costa, P.T., Eaton, W.W., & Nestadt, G. (2001). Normal personality traits and comorbidity among phobic, panic and major depressive disorders. Psychiatry Research, 102, 73– 85. doi:10.1016/S0165-1781(01)00228-1 Bienvenu, O.J., Nestadt, G., Samuels, J.F., Costa, P.T., Howard, W.T., & Eaton, W.W. (2001). Phobic, panic, and major depressive disorders and the five-factor model of personality. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189, 154 – 161. doi:10.1097/00005053-20010300000003 Bienvenu, O.J., Samuels, J.F., Costa, P.T., Reti, I. M., Eaton, M.W., & Nestadt, G. (2004). Anxiety and depressive disorders and the fivefactor model of personality: A higher- and lower-order personality trait investigation in a community sample. Depression and Anxiety, 20, 92 – 97. doi:10.1002/da.20026 Clark, D.M., Ehlers, A., Hackmann, A., McManus, F., Fennell, M., Grey, N., & Wild, J. (2006). Cognitive therapy versus exposure and applied relaxation in social phobia: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 568– 578. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.568 Clark, D.M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R.G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D.A. Hope, & F.R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69 – 93). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Dye, D.A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887– 898. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91) 90177-D Costa, P.T. Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R.R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322– 331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tinyyet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192– 203. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192 Glinski, K., & Page, A.C. (2010). Modifiability of neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness by group cognitive behaviour therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Change, 27, 42– 52. doi:10.1375/bech.27.1.42 Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26 – 34. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26 Goldberg, L.R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7– 28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.


221

Heimberg, R.G., Brozovich, F.A., & Rapee, R.M. (2014). A cognitive-behavioral model of social anxiety disorder. In S.G. Hofmann & P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.), Social anxiety: Clinical, developmental, and social perspectives (pp. 705– 728). New York, NY: Elsevier. Heimberg, R.G., Mueller, G.P., Holt, C.S., Hope, D.A., & Liebowitz, M.R. (1992). Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior Therapy, 23, 53 –73. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80308-9 Jensen, J.M., & Patel, P.C. (2011). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from the interaction of personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 466– 471. doi:10. 1016/j.paid.2011.04.016 Johnson, J.A. (2014). Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the IPIP-NEO-120. Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78 – 89. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.003 King, E.B., George, J.M., & Hebl, M.E. (2005). Linking personality to helping behaviors at work: An interactional perspective. Journal of Personality, 73, 585– 608. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.2005.00322.x Kotov, R., Watson, D., Robles, J.P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2007). Personality traits and anxiety symptoms: the multilevel trait predictor model. Behaviour Research And Therapy, 45, 1485– 1503. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.11.011 Leary, M.R., & Atherton, S.C. (1986). Self-efficacy, social anxiety, and inhibition in interpersonal encounters. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 256– 267. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986. 4.3.256 Levinson, C.A., Kaplan, S.C., & Rodebaugh, T.L. (2014). Personality: Understanding the socially anxious temperament. In J. Weeks (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of social anxiety disorder (pp. 111– 132). Chichester: Wiley. Levinson, C.A., Langer, J.K., & Rodebaugh, T.L. (2013). Reactivity to exclusion prospectively predicts social anxiety symptoms in young adults. Behavior Therapy, 44, 470– 478. doi:10. 1016/j.beh.2013.04.007 Levinson, C.A., & Rodebaugh, T.L. (2012). Social anxiety and eating disorder comorbidity: The role of negative social evaluative fears. Eating Behaviors, 13, 27 – 35. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh. 2011.11.006 Masten, A.S., & Wright, M.O. (1998). Cumulative risk and protection models of child maltreatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2, 7 – 30. doi:10.1300/J146v02n01_02 Mattick, R.P., & Clarke, J.C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(97)10031-6 McCrae, R.R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251– 272. doi:10. 1002/per.2410080404


222


McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825– 843). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172– 175. doi:10. 1037/0033-2909.111.1.172 Norton, G.R., Cox, B.J., Hewitt, P.L., & McLeod, L. (1997). Personality factors associated with generalized and non-generalized social anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 655–660. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00243-7 Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.R. (1994). The assessment of reliability. In J.C. Nunnally & S. Briggs (Eds.), Psychometric theory (pp. 248– 292). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rodebaugh, T.L., Heimberg, R.G., Brown, P.J., Fernandez, K.C., Blanco, C., Schneier, F.R., & Liebowitz, M.R. (2011). More reasons to be straightforward: Findings and norms for two scales relevant to social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 623– 630. doi:10.1016/j. janxdis.2011.02.002 Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not


belong. Behavior Therapy, 38, 192– 206. doi:10. 1016/j.beth.2006.08.001 Rodebaugh, T.L., Woods, C.M., Heimberg, R.G., Liebowitz, M.R., & Schneier, F.R. (2006). The factor structure and screening utility of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Psychological Assessment, 18, 231 – 237. doi:10.1037/10403590.18.2.231 Rosellini, A.J., & Brown, T.A. (2011). The NEO five-factor inventory: Latent structure and relationships with dimensions of anxiety and depressive disorders in a large clinical sample. Assessment, 18, 27 – 38. doi:10.1177/ 1073191110382848 Thomasson, P., & Psouni, E. (2010). Social anxiety and related social impairment are linked to selfefficacy and dysfunctional coping. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 171–178. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00731.x Zeller, R.A., & Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences: The link between theory and data. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Zhou, H.L., Li, Y., Zhang, B., & Zeng, M. (2012). The relationship between narcissism and friendship qualities in adolescents: Gender as a moderator. Sex Roles, 67, 452– 462. doi:10. 1007/s11199-012-0169-8

The use of social networking services and their relationship with the big five personality model and job satisfaction in Korea.

The Relation Between Supervisors' Big Five Personality Traits and Employees' Experiences of Abusive Supervision.

Identification of genetic loci shared between schizophrenia and the Big Five personality traits.

Acquaintance ratings of the Big Five personality traits: incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance.

Big Five personality traits: are they really important for the subjective well-being of Indians?

The relationship between Big-5 personality traits and cognitive ability in older adults - a review.

Heritability estimates of the Big Five personality traits based on common genetic variants.

A behavioral genetic analysis of callous-unemotional traits and Big Five personality in adolescence.

Associations between empathy and big five personality traits among Chinese undergraduate medical students.

Associations Between the Big Five Personality Traits and the Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs for Cognitive Enhancement.

Alcohol Expectancies Mediate and Moderate the Associations between Big Five Personality Traits and Adolescent Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems.

The mediating role of resilience in the relationship between big five personality and anxiety among Chinese medical students: a cross-sectional study.

An alternative "description of personality": the big-five factor structure.

The Relationship between Personality Traits, the 5HTT Polymorphisms, and the Occurrence of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Elite Athletes.

Relationship of personality traits and periodontal disease.

A Big Five approach to self-regulation: personality traits and health trajectories in the Hawaii longitudinal study of personality and health.

The Relationship between Major Depressive Disorder and Personality Traits.

Anxiety, depression and personality traits in severe, prednisone-dependent asthma.

Understanding the role of social capital in adolescents' Big Five personality effects on school-to-work transitions.

Examining Equity Sensitivity: An Investigation Using the Big Five and HEXACO Models of Personality.

Big five personality and residential mobility: a state-level analysis of the USA.

Achievement-Relevant Personality: Relations with the Big Five and Validation of an Efficient Instrument.

Distinct neural correlates of social categories and personality traits.

Five-Factor Model Personality Traits and the Objective and Subjective Experience of Body Weight.