Communication and social skills in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals in the context of romantic relationships

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519 www.elsevier.com/locate/brt

Communication and social skills in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals in the context of romantic relationships$ Amy Wenzel, Jennie Graff-Dolezal, Marisa Macho, Jennifer R. Brendle Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8380, USA Received 22 July 2003; received in revised form 19 February 2004; accepted 1 March 2004

Abstract This study examined differences between socially anxious and nonanxious individuals’ ability to use effective communication skills and social skills in the context of romantic relationships. Socially anxious (n ¼ 13) and nonanxious (n ¼ 14) individuals and their romantic partners were videotaped while participating in 10-minute neutral, negative, and pleasant conversations. Regardless of the type of conversation in which they were involved, socially anxious individuals demonstrated impairment in 10 of the 11 social skill variables assessed. In negative conversations, socially anxious individuals displayed more ‘‘very negative’’ behaviors than nonanxious individuals, and across all conversations they displayed fewer ‘‘positive’’ behaviors than nonanxious individuals. Partners of socially anxious and nonanxious individuals did not differ in their communication quality. The results suggest that social anxiety is associated with deficits in relationship maintenance behavior and call for the completion of a larger study examining the interpersonal consequences of social anxiety. r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Social anxiety; Social skills; Communication skills; Behavioral assessment; Close relationships

$

The authors wish to thank Chad Lystad and Cody Moen for their assistance with data collection, scoring, and entry. Portions of this paper were presented in Jennie Graff-Dolezal’s Senior Honors Thesis and at the 11th International Conference on Personal Relationships, Halifax, NS. Corresponding author. Corresponding author. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pensylvania, Psychopathology Research Unit, Market Street 3535, Room 2032, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Tel: +1-215-898-4103; fax: +1215-573-3717. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Wenzel). 0005-7967/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.03.010

ARTICLE IN PRESS 506

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

1. Introduction Although social anxiety is characterized by fears of interacting with and being embarrassed in front of others, surprisingly few studies have examined empirically its interpersonal consequences. Those studies that have considered the relation between social anxiety and quality of social interaction have focused primarily on difficulties in meeting new people for the first time (e.g., Bruch & Pearl, 1995; Twentyman & McFall, 1975). In contrast, data from large epidemiological studies suggest that individuals with social anxiety disorder are characterized by mild to moderate impairment in their romantic relationships (Schneier et al., 1994; Wittchen & Beloch, 1996), or relationships that are intimate and that have been developed over a period of time. However, relationship dysfunction in these studies was assessed by one likert-type item in the context of a broader disability scale, so the precise nature of deficits in the romantic relationships of socially anxious individuals is unknown. Results from two recent studies provide more detailed insight into the manner in which social anxiety is associated with aspects of relationship dysfunction. In a sample of 168 undergraduates, Davila and Beck (2002) found that symptoms of social anxiety were related to avoidance of expressing strong emotion, conflict avoidance, lack of assertion, and overreliance on others, the latter two of which were particularly related to stress in their romantic relationships. Wenzel (2002) examined romantic relationships in seven individuals diagnosed with social anxiety disorder and seven nonanxious individuals matched for age and gender. Socially anxious and nonanxious individuals reported equally satisfying partner relationships, although socially anxious individuals endorsed lower levels of emotional and social intimacy. Compared with nonanxious individuals, socially anxious individuals were more likely to blame their partners for conflicts in their relationships and attribute the cause of relationship conflict to a stable characteristic about their partner. This finding emerged despite the fact that socially anxious and nonanxious individuals did not differ in their tendency to make maladaptive attributions to explain other generally negative events. These studies illustrate the important point that there are differences in the nature of the romantic relationships of socially anxious and nonanxious individuals; however, the Wenzel (2002) study is limited by its small sample size, and both studies are limited by their reliance on self-reports from participants, rather than observation of their behaviors. Although not yet used to examine the nature of romantic relationships, there is a long tradition of using behavioral observation to examine the social skills of socially anxious individuals in the context of several situations, including interactions with a member of the opposite gender. In many of these studies, dating frequency served as an operational definition to determine samples of socially anxious, or shy, and nonanxious, or nonshy, individuals (e.g., Arkowitz, Lichtenstein, McGovern, & Hines, 1975; Conger & Farrell, 1981; Glasgow & Arkowitz, 1975; Twentyman & McFall, 1975; Wessberg, Mariotto, Conger, Farrel, & Conger, 1979). Results from these studies suggest that ratings of global skill or anxiety generally differentiate between socially anxious/shy and nonanxious/nonshy samples; however, there is little evidence for specific behavioral deficits that consistently characterize the interactions of socially anxious/shy individuals (cf. Norton & Hope, 2001). One criticism of this literature is that dating frequency, usually measured by no more than a few questions, might not be an adequate approximation of social anxiety (cf. Conger & Farrell, 1981). Thus, it is possible that the use of reliable and valid measures of social anxiety

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

507

would identify more accurately groups of individuals that would exhibit a range of global and specific behavioral deficits in the context of interactions with members of the opposite gender. Indeed, Pilkonis (1977) selected shy and nonshy individuals based on their responses to the Stanford Shyness Survey, rather than dating frequency, and he observed several specific behavioral deficits (e.g., difficulty initiating conversation, too much or too little smiling) that characterized shy individuals. Participant selection is only one methodological limitation that has plagued the literature on social skills deficits in socially anxious individuals. Stravynski and Amado (2001) criticized this line of inquiry for failing to specify a precise definition of social skills, achieve adequate reliability in the measurement of specific skills, and make laboratory-based (e.g., role-play) methods of social skills applicable to the real lives of socially anxious individuals. Other researchers are not so pessimistic about the utility of characterizing social skills deficits in socially anxious individuals (e.g., McNeil, Ries, & Turk, 1995; Meier & Hope, 1998; Norton & Hope, 2001), but they point out certain methodological variables that have significant bearing on the interpretation of social skills data. For example, socially anxious individuals tend to perform in a more skilled manner in structured tasks (i.e., role-plays) than in unstructured tasks (i.e., naturalistic observation) (Norton & Hope, 2001; Segrin & Kinney, 1995). Thus, although it is more difficult to conduct naturalistic observations of socially anxious and nonanxious individuals, they tend to capture behavior that is closer to participants’ true level of skill than would be observed in the context of a structured role-play. One relatively unstructured approach to behavioral observation that has been untapped by social anxiety researchers is that described by Gottman and his colleagues in the couples interaction literature (e.g., Gottman, Coan, Carrare, & Swanson, 1998; Gottman & Levenson, 2000). In this approach, couples are instructed to discuss a topic for a specified period of time, and their conversations are videotaped for later coding. Generally, the topics to be discussed are vague—couples discuss a broad problem area in their relationship (i.e., a negative topic) that they endorse on a self-report inventory as well as the events of the day (i.e., a neutral topic) or a positive aspect of their relationship (i.e., a positive topic). Interactions are coded for effectiveness of communication, composed of both verbal and nonverbal characteristics. Several coding systems have been developed to assess couples’ communication (e.g., Communication Skills Test (Floyd & Markman, 1984); Specific Affect Coding System (Gottman, McCoy, & Coan, 1996); Revised Couples Interaction Scoring System (Gottman, Kahen, & Goldstein, 1996). A large number of studies in this literature suggest that such coding of couples’ interactions clearly discriminates between distressed and nondistressed couples (e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 2000) and that effective communication skills predict relationship satisfaction several years later (e.g., Gottman et al., 1998). Thus, this methodological approach has a great deal of empirical work supporting its validity, such that it identifies couples whose relationships are either currently distressed or whose relationships are likely to be distressed in the future. Moreover, Chambless et al. (2002) used a similar methodological approach and successfully identified several areas of relationship dysfunction in heterosexual couples in which the woman was agoraphobic. In the present study, the interaction skills of socially anxious and nonanxious individuals were examined using a behavior observation methodology similar to that described in the couples’ interaction literature. Consistent with the procedures described in Gottman and Levenson (2000), socially anxious and nonanxious individuals and their romantic partners were videotaped while

ARTICLE IN PRESS 508

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

interacting about three different topics: (a) the events of the day (i.e., a neutral topic), (b) a problem topic, as identified by the Couple’s Problem Inventory (CPI; Gottman, Markman, & Notarius, 1997), and (c) a positive aspect of their relationship. Verbal and nonverbal communication skills in both partners were assessed using a standard observational coding scheme described in this literature (e.g., Floyd & Markman, 1984), and molar and molecular indices of social skills were measured for the socially anxious or nonanxious participants. We view this method as being an innovative one in the literature on social skills in social anxiety. This procedure cannot be considered naturalistic, as participants clearly were informed that their conversations would be videotaped for later analysis. On the other hand, the scenario was highly unstructured, as each couple discussed different content areas that were uniquely relevant to their relationships, and partners of socially anxious and nonanxious individuals did not follow any prescribed script in a standardized manner. Thus, this study was designed to advance the literature by examining communication and social skills in a context that has not yet been considered and by adopting a well validated, unstructured approach to elicit a range of behaviors associated with social anxiety. Hypotheses for the study were as follows. First, it was expected that socially anxious individuals would be characterized by more frequent use of disruptive communication behaviors and less frequent use of adaptive communication behaviors as compared to nonanxious individuals, particularly in the context of the problem topic. We expected that communication skills deficits would be most salient in the context of the problem topic because we suspected that this topic would pose the greatest probability for negative evaluation, the construct used to select socially anxious participants for the study. Because studies examining sequential interactions in distressed couples suggest that ineffective communication in one partner prompts additional ineffective communication in the other partner (cf. Gottman et al., 1977), it was also predicted that partners of socially anxious individuals would exhibit more frequent use of disruptive and less frequent use of adaptive communication skills as compared to partners of nonanxious individuals, particularly in the context of the problem topic. Finally, it was hypothesized that the social skills of socially anxious individuals would be impaired as compared to those of the nonanxious individuals, both in terms of molar ratings of overall skill as well as molecular ratings of specific behavioral indices (e.g., eye contact, fidgeting). Impairment was defined as either more or less frequent displays of adaptive behaviors that facilitate communication relative to nonanxious individuals, depending on the particular social skill being evaluated (e.g., less eye contact, more fidgeting).

2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were undergraduate psychology students who were compensated with course or extra credit and identified through a multi-tiered screening process. In two group testing sessions, psychology students (n ¼ 1781) were administered the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969) and the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). Individuals who scored one standard deviation above the mean on both the FNE and the SAD were eligible for the socially anxious group (FNEX21; SADX12), and individuals who

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

509

scored one standard deviation below the mean on both the FNE and the SAD were eligible for the nonanxious group (FNEp4; SAD=0). Two screening measures were used to ensure that groups would remain valid despite regression to the mean at the time of the experimental session. One hundred sixty-three individuals (9.1% of the total sample; mean FNE=24.8; SAD=18.2) met criteria to be regarded as socially anxious, and 87 individuals (4.9% of the total sample; mean FNE=1.9; SAD=0) met criteria to be regarded as nonanxious. Eligible individuals were contacted by telephone about participating in the study, and at that time they were asked whether they were currently in a romantic relationship. There were no exclusion criteria with the exception that participants must have been in a current romantic relationship for at least four months and be at least 18 years old. Of the eligible individuals, 13 socially anxious individuals (mean FNE=24.5; mean SAD=25.2) and 14 nonanxious individuals (mean FNE=4.2; mean SAD=.7) participated in the experimental session.1 Reasons for eligible individuals declining participation in the study included not being in a romantic relationship of sufficient duration, indicating that their partner was unable to attend the experimental session (due to factors such as living out of town) or unwilling to attend the experimental session, having dropped their psychology class, scheduling difficulties, having already completed their course credit, and expressing discomfort with the experimental procedure. All anxious and nonanxious individuals, who will be referred to as ‘‘target participants,’’ brought their romantic partners to the experimental session. None of the partners scored on the FNE and SAD in the range indicative of social anxiety described above. All participants were involved in heterosexual relationships, 85% of the couples were in a dating relationship, and 15% were married. The average relationship length was 3.0 years (range=8 months–8.5 years). Target participants had a mean age of 20.6 years, 67% were female, and 85% were Caucasian. Partners had a mean age of 20.5 years, 33% were female, and 84% were Caucasian. Demographic variables did not differ between the socially anxious and nonanxious groups. 2.2. Procedure After giving their informed consent at the experimental session, participants and their partners completed the FNE, SAD, Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), and the Couple’s Problem Inventory (CPI; Gottman et al., 1977). Subsequently, couples were asked to discuss the events of their day for 10 min, which served as a neutral topic to observe their ‘‘normal’’ communication patterns (Gottman et al., 1998). Afterward, the experimenter provided the couple with three choices of problem areas to discuss based on their responses on the CPI. After the couple had agreed on a topic, they participated in a problem topic discussion and attempted to come to a reasonable conclusion during the 10 min allotted. Finally, couples discussed one positive aspect of their relationship for 10 min. According to the protocol described by Gottman 1

We set the a priori criterion that target participants who attended the experimental session and whose scores on the FNE and SAD demonstrated regression to the mean would be excluded from analyses. For socially anxious participants, regression to the mean was defined as scoring below the mean obtained on the group testing sample on either the FNE or the SAD. For nonanxious participants, regression to the mean was defined as scoring above the mean obtained on the group testing sample on either the FNE or the SAD. No target participants from either sample exhibited regression to the mean; thus, data from all target participants were included in analyses.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 510

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

and Levenson (2000), the order of discussion topics was held constant in order to obtain a baseline level of communication and social skills uncontaminated by affective responses and to end the experiment on a positive note rather than on a negative note. In addition, Gottman and Levenson (2000) noted that the pleasant discussion often serves to reconcile couples after the problem area topic. 2.3. Data coding 2.3.1. Communication skills test (CST; Floyd & Markman, 1984) The CST is an observational measurement of couples’ interaction that is used to distinguish between satisfied and dissatisfied couples by assessing verbal and nonverbal skills when engaged in an interaction. The CST utilizes a five-point rating of each entire statement that an individual makes, called a turn of speech. The coder attends only to the speaker and rates a turn of speech as either very negative, negative, neutral, positive, or very positive, each of which is determined on the basis of specific behaviors. When a turn of speech has been completed, coders examine the individual behaviors that were observed and subsequently make a judgment as to the category that best characterizes them. When behaviors consistent with ratings of positive, very positive, negative, or very negative occur in the context of otherwise neutral behaviors, coders choose the valenced category. When both very positive and positive or both very negative and negative behaviors occur in the same turn of speech, coders choose the extreme rating. When only neutral behaviors occur in the turn of speech, coders choose the neutral rating. When both positive and negative behaviors occur a turn of speech, coders examine the relative contribution of each behavior to the entire statement and select the CST code that best characterizes the overall flavor of communication skill exhibited. Below we list the specific behaviors associated with each of the five categories. More extensive descriptions of each behavior can be found in Gottman, Notarius, Gonso, and Markman (1976). According to Floyd and Markman (1984), very positive behaviors are those that reflect specific positive communication and/or problem solving skills. These behaviors include: (a) summarizing other or both (i.e., a brief description of a partner’s or couple’s viewpoints, attitudes, or statements), (b) checking out (i.e., an individual looks for approval, seeks a response, or paraphrases), (c) opinion/feeling probe (i.e., an individual looks for his or her partner’s reaction by voicing an opinion or feeling), (d) specific plan (i.e., an individual offers a way to work on an issue or do something differently), (e) specific feedback (i.e., an expression of specific information in reply to a partner’s comments or behaviors), (f) back on beam (i.e., the sense that the partner understands an individual’s point of view), (g) metacommunication (i.e., the process of talking about how the couple communicates), and (h) validation (i.e., an individual uses a high frequency of accepting behavior and lets the partner know it is reasonable to feel a certain way). Positive behaviors are more general instances of positive interactional behavior but are not regarded as specific skills in the very positive category, including (a) feeling statement (i.e., ‘‘I feely’’ statements), (b) agree or disagree with rationale provided (i.e., either an agreement or disagreement statement with an explanation for that viewpoint), (c) plan suggestion which is nonspecific (i.e., an individual provides a general idea of how to do something or what to do about an issue), (d) compliment (i.e., an individual points out a positive aspect about his or her partner),

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

511

(e) clarification request (i.e., an individual asks for a more specific description), (f) accept responsibility (i.e., an individual claims fault in a situation), (g) empathy (i.e., the ability to share a partner’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in his or her situation), (h) summarizing self-concisely or clarifying a point (i.e., an individual restates his or her point in order to clear up any confusion about his or her partner’s understanding), (i) humor (i.e., the use of ‘‘inside jokes’’ or the occurrence of a mutual positive reaction as a result of expression by one individual), and (j) positive nonverbal behaviors (i.e., smiles, use of a warm tone, positive physical contact). Floyd and Markman (1984) defined neutral behaviors as ‘‘those that meet only the minimum demands when involved in a problem-solving discussion (p. 99)’’. These behaviors include (a) problem talk, offering an opinion (i.e., an individual expresses his or her opinion without a solution), (b) asking a question (i.e., an instance in which an individual asks his or her partner a question which contains no emotion), (c) agreement statement without providing rationale (i.e., a response to an opinion question), and (d) information statement (i.e., a response to a question not involving an opinion, including a description of past events). Negative behaviors are ‘‘either nonfacilitative or disruptive when attempting to reach a successful resolution for a problem under discussion (Floyd & Markman, 1984, p. 99)’’. These behaviors include (a) problem talk that is confusing or unclear (i.e., the individual expresses astonishment or surprise), (b) opinions without rationale provided (i.e., an initiation statement of individual’s views on an issue without explaining his or her stance), (c) disagreement without rationale provided (i.e., a contrary response to the partner’s opinion), (d) disruptive extraneous comments (i.e., an interruption), and (e) negative, nonverbal behaviors (i.e., frowning, using a cold voice, making rude gestures). Finally, very negative behaviors are specific negative communication and/or problem solving skills, including (a) off beam (i.e., the sense that the partner does not understand the other’s point of view), (b) kitchen sinking (i.e., an individual brings in other issues when discussing a specific area of conflict or complains of many issues at once), (c) mind reading with negative affect (i.e., an individual jumps to the conclusion that one knows what one’s partner is thinking or attributes feelings, thoughts, or motivations to partner), (d) put-down (i.e., a ‘‘you are’’ or ‘‘you have’’ negative statements or name calling), (e) summarizing self (i.e., an individual restates his or her own position without attending to his or her partners point of view), (f) blaming (i.e., behavior or lack of behavior exhibited by the partner which reflects negatively upon the speaker), (g) character assassination (i.e., expression of a vague wish for a change in character or personality of partner), and (h) ‘‘yes, but’’ (i.e., is an instance in which an individual negates any information preceding the ‘‘but’’). Floyd and Markman (1984) regarded these ratings as continuous variables, such that coders sum the ratings for each individual turn of speech (1=very negative; 5=very positive) and divide by the total number of turns of speech to obtain an average rating of communication skill for a particular couple. In contrast, we chose to tabulate the frequency of each category for several reasons. Because the primary focus of the study was on target participants’ communication skills, as opposed to partners’ communication skills, it was important to separate CST codes per individual. In addition, the vast majority of the comments were coded as neutral, as couples often used nonemotional, declarative material to provide a context for communication behaviors in the valenced categories. Thus, averaging codes across turns of speech results in means around the

ARTICLE IN PRESS 512

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

mid-point of the scale, which would have masked group differences in the frequency of codes at the extreme ends of the scale. Three independent coders, naı¨ ve to group membership, used the CST to assign ratings to each partner for each turn of speech. In training, they learned the CST rationale and procedure, definitions of each of the specific behaviors and their corresponding classifications, and how to obtain an overall rating in the face of behaviors representing several classifications. By the end of training, coders had achieved high reliability in classifying each turn of speech according to one of these five categories (k ¼ :90). Coders attended a weekly meeting in order to address any discrepancies in the coding system and to prevent bias and drift. In addition, each observer coded only one discussion topic (i.e., events of the day, problem, pleasant topic) in order to ensure that responses in one conversation did not influence ratings in a different conversation. Behaviors exhibited by both targets and partners were coded using this scheme. 2.3.2. Social Skills Inventory The Social Skills Inventory is a behavioral observational coding scheme that was developed for the purpose of the present study. This inventory includes 10 ratings of molecular skills (described below) and one rating reflecting coders’ global impression of participants’ social skills. Each of the 11 constructs was rated in five 2 -min intervals, resulting in five ratings of skills per 10-min interaction that were averaged to obtain a mean score for each index per conversation. Only targets’ behaviors were coded using this scheme. The following is a definition of the specific skills assessed in this inventory. Smiling, guggles, head nods, gestures, touching, initiation of conversation, fidgeting, and paraverbals were rated according to the following scheme: 0=no instances of the construct; 1=1–2 instances of the construct; 2=3–4 instances of the construct; and 3=5 or more instances of the construct. A smile was regarded as an instance in which an individual’s teeth were visible, the sides of his or her mouth were turned up, and his or her eyes were slanted. A guggle was the occurrence of utterances such as ‘‘uh-huh’’, ‘‘yeah’’, and ‘‘right’’, which indicates an individual’s attentiveness toward a speaker (Duncan, 1972) and encourages continued participation in conversation (Richardson, Dohrenwend, & Klein, 1965). Head nods were recorded when participants bowed their head downward and then upward in either a slow or a quick motion in a manner that suggested a listening response. A gesture was defined as a nonverbal tactic to emphasize or make more graphic a verbal expression, including hand movements and eye rolling. Touching was regarded an act that sends a message of encouragement, expresses care and concern, and/or shows emotional support and understanding and was coded when participants patted their partner’s leg, back, or hand in a friendly manner. Initiation of conversation was defined as the introduction of a topic of conversation by asking a question. Fidgeting was regarded as bodily movements reflecting nervousness or emotional (vs. physical) discomfort, including bouncing one’s knee, tapping one’s foot, playing with clothes, wringing hands, and/or twisting hair. Finally, a paraverbal was defined as the repeated occurrence of a word in a statement, for example, ‘‘like’’, ‘‘um’’, or ‘‘ah’’, which is an indication of nervousness or difficulty expressing a thought. Three additional constructs were rated on similar scales but used different anchors. Eye contact was rated according to the following scheme: 0=no eye contact; 1=a little eye contact, but generally inattentive and/or avoidant; 2=some eye contact and some instances of being

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

513

inattentive and/or avoidant; and 3=normal, effective, and engaged eye contact. Pilot coding suggested that only three levels of speech loudness were able to be distinguished from the videotapes: 0=whisper, 1=normal speech loudness, and 2=excessive speech loudness. Finally, coders rated their subjective overall impression of participants’ social skills according to the following scale: 0=lacking appropriate social skills, 1=minimal level of appropriate social skills, 2=moderate level of appropriate social skills, and 3=high level of appropriate social skills. Three independent coders, naı¨ ve to group membership, used the Social Skills Inventory to assign ratings to the target participant at 2-min intervals. By the end of training, coders had achieved a mean reliability (k ¼ :90). Kappa statistics for the frequency of ratings associated with specific social skills categories were as follows: (a) smiles, .92; (b) guggles, .84; (c) head nods, .84; (d) gestures, .83; (e) touching, .95; (f) initiation of conversation, .84; (g) fidgeting, .96; (h) paraverbals, .82; (i) eye contact, .94; (j) speech loudness, .92; and (k) overall impression, .93. Coders attended a weekly meeting in order to address any discrepancies in the coding system and to prevent bias and drift. In addition, each observer coded one discussion topic (i.e., events of the day, problem, pleasant topic) in order to ensure that responses in one conversation did not influence ratings in a different conversation.

2.4. Results 2.4.1. Self-report inventories Table 1 presents participants’ scores on the self-report measures of social anxiety and relationship functioning. As expected, socially anxious targets scored higher than nonanxious targets on the FNE, t(26)=9.28; po:001, Z2 ¼ :78, and on the SAD, t(26)=18.61; po:001, Z2 ¼ :94, suggesting that targets were classified appropriately. Although means suggest that partners of socially anxious targets scored higher than partners of nonanxious targets on these measures, these differences were not statistically significant. There were no differences between groups of targets or between groups of partners in the extent to which they endorsed specific relationship problems on the CPI or relationship distress on the DAS, although there was a trend for socially anxious targets to score lower on the DAS than nonanxious targets (p ¼ :052; Z2 ¼ :14). Table 1 Scores on self-report inventories Measure

FNE SAD CPI DAS

Socially anxious group (n=13)

Nonanxious group (n=14)

Target

Partner

Target

Partner

24.54 (5.36) 25.15 (4.52) 12.46 (13.80) 106.42 (9.39)

13.50 (8.96) 7.55 (5.66) 14.23 (13.44) 107.08 (12.66)

4.21 (5.98) 0.71 (1.86) 6.29 (4.18) 115.14 (11.92)

8.85 (4.65) 4.61 (2.22) 8.00 (8.23) 115.14 (12.58)

Note: Values in parenthesis are standard deviations. FNE=Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; SAD=Social Avoidance and Distress Scale; CPI=Couple’s Problem Inventory; DAS=Dyadic Adjustment Scale.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 514

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

2.4.2. Communication skills test Table 2 summarizes the means of the five affect codes by group for the CST. A series of five 2 (group)  3 (conversation topic) mixed ANOVAs with repeated measures on the second variable was conducted to assess the frequencies in which the five categories of codes (very positive, positive, neutral, negative, very negative) were chosen to characterize target participants. DAS scores were included as a covariate in analyses to control for the influence of relationship distress. There were no significant main effects or interactions for very positive, neutral, or negative codes. Effect sizes characterizing group differences on these variables were Z2 ¼ :13 for very positive codes, Z2 ¼ :02 for neutral codes, and Z2 ¼ :15 for negative codes. However, there was a main effect for group for positive codes, F(1, 25)=20.45; po:001, Z2 ¼ :48. Across all conversations, socially anxious targets displayed fewer positive behaviors than nonanxious targets. In addition, the analysis for very negative codes yielded a main effect for group, F(1, 25)=4.60, p ¼ :043, Z2 ¼ :24, that was qualified by a group by conversation topic interaction, F(2, 46)=4.31; p ¼ :019, Z2 ¼ :17. Follow-up tests of simple effects revealed that socially anxious targets displayed more very negative behaviors than nonanxious targets in the context of the problem topic (p ¼ :014), but that groups did not differ in the frequency of these behaviors in the context of the neutral and positive conversations. This series of analyses was re-run using partners’ data. These analyses yielded no main effects or interactions, suggesting that the quality of partners’ conversation did not differ as a function of being in a relationship with a socially anxious or nonanxious individual. Thus, socially anxious

Table 2 Frequency of communication skills test codes Codes

Socially anxious group (n=13)

Nonanxious group (n=14)

Target

Partner

Target

Partner

Neutral topic very positive positive neutral negative very negative

0.38 (0.87) 3.23 (2.31) 48.23 (20.15) 2.62 (3.33) 0.23 (0.44)

0.31 (0.85) 2.77 (3.14) 51.69 (18.30) 1.08 (1.44) 0.77 (1.79)

0.29 (0.61) 5.50 (5.24) 54.71 (16.09) 1.07 (2.30) 0.00 (0.00)

0.21 (0.43) 5.21 (6.12) 55.79 (15.53) 1.86 (3.88) 0.14 (0.36)

Problem topic very positive positive neutral negative very negative

0.46 (0.52) 5.31 (3.22) 33.77 (14.57) 5.15 (4.74) 5.92 (5.72)

1.00 (1.22) 7.15 (3.93) 35.00 (14.65) 4.46 (3.43) 2.54 (2.50)

2.43 (2.90) 10.71 (6.67) 39.36 (11.29) 3.07 (3.29) 1.50 (2.44)

2.86 (3.61) 8.29 (5.69) 40.36 (10.06) 3.64 (5.06) 1.93 (2.76)

Pleasant topic very positive positive neutral negative very negative

0.46 (1.39) 5.15 (3.60) 49.15 (16.51) 2.38 (2.66) 1.38 (2.06)

0.38 (0.51) 5.77 (2.24) 48.46 (10.28) 0.85 (1.14) 0.46 (0.97)

0.36 (0.63) 9.71 (6.22) 49.00 (12.73) 0.64 (1.01) 0.50 (1.61)

0.43 (0.85) 9.00 (5.67) 49.71 (10.04) 1.79 (2.49) 0.14 (0.36)

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

515

individuals, but not their partners, displayed some problematic communication behaviors even when relationship distress was controlled in analyses. 2.4.3. Social skills inventory Table 3 summarizes group means that have been collapsed across time and conversation because main effects generally were found regardless conversation topic. A series of 2 (group)  3 (conversation topic) mixed ANOVAs with repeated measures on the second variable and with DAS scores included as a covariate were conducted to assess differences on the social skills variables of the target participants. A main effect for group emerged for 10 social skills variables: frequency of eye contact, F(1, 25)=13.27, p ¼ :001, Z2 ¼ :37; smiles, F(1, 25)=8.84, p ¼ :007, Z2 ¼ :28; guggles, F(1, 25)=12.16, p ¼ :002, Z2 ¼ :35; head nods, F(1, 25)=17.30, po:001, Z2 ¼ :43; gestures, F(1, 25)=3.93, p ¼ :05, Z2 ¼ :15; touching, F(1, 25)=4.37, p ¼ :048; Z2 ¼ :16; initiation of conversation, F(1, 25)=4.84, p ¼ :038, Z2 ¼ :17; fidgeting, F(1, 25)=15.21, p ¼ :001, Z2 ¼ :40; speech loudness, F(1, 25)=5.42, p ¼ :029, Z2 ¼ :19; and overall impression F(1, 25)=31.26, po:001, Z2 ¼ 58. These results indicated that socially anxious participants made less eye contact, made fewer smiles, uttered fewer guggles, made fewer head nods, made fewer gestures, engaged in less touching, initiated less conversation, fidgeted more, spoke more softly, and made a less positive overall impression than nonanxious participants. No significant group by conversation topic interactions emerged in these analyses. Moreover, there were no main effects or interaction for the number of paraverbals made in the conversations (Z2 for group main effect=.05).

3. Discussion The present study was conducted to identify areas of dysfunction that characterize socially anxious individuals, particularly in the realm of communication and social skills, that emerge in Table 3 Mean ratings on social skills codes Social skill

Socially anxious targets (n=13)

Nonanxious targets (n=14)

Eye contact Smiles Guggles Head nods Gestures Touching Initiation of conversation Fidgeting Paraverbals Speech Loudness Overall Impression

2.18 1.52 0.26 0.54 0.67 0.12 1.32 2.18 0.23 0.66 1.28

2.70 2.09 0.81 1.26 0.99 0.22 1.84 1.48 0.34 0.91 2.13

(0.42) (0.37) (0.16) (0.38) (0.31) (0.16) (0.59) (0.43) (0.25) (0.34) (0.25)

(0.20) (0.54) (0.42) (0.41) (0.38) (0.27) (0.50) (0.53) (0.21) (0.16) (0.40)

Note: Mean ratings can range from 0 to 3 for all but speech loudness, which ranged from 0 to 2. Values in parenthesis are standard deviations. Socially anxious targets were rated significantly different than nonanxious targets (po:05) on all constructs except paraverbals.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 516

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

the context of romantic relationships. Socially anxious individuals exhibited more ‘‘very negative’’ communication behaviors than nonanxious individuals, particularly in the context of the problem conversation, and they demonstrated fewer ‘‘positive’’ behaviors across all conversations. Socially anxious participants did not display fewer ‘‘very positive’’ behaviors than nonanxious participants; however, an examination of the means suggests that these behaviors were exhibited only infrequently, and consequently, the analysis based on this variable could have been rendered nonsignificant by a floor effect. Moreover, socially anxious individuals were regarded as having poorer social skills than nonanxious individuals, as assessed by both molar and molecular ratings. Contrary to expectation and to results reported by Chambless et al. (2002) with their sample of agoraphobic couples, partners of socially anxious individuals did not exhibit communication deficits relative to partners of nonanxious individuals. In all, results from this study provide evidence to support our general prediction that socially anxious individuals would exhibit behavioral impairment in the context of romantic relationships. These results add to a small but growing literature documenting the substantial interpersonal consequences of social anxiety (e.g., Davila & Beck, 2002; Wenzel, 2002). Our results are in stark contrast to a number of studies that failed to uncover molecular social skills deficits in socially anxious individuals. We suggest three reasons for these discrepant results. First, unlike many other studies in this literature, we used a rigorous criterion to identify socially anxious participants. Not only were socially anxious participants required to score one standard deviation above the mean on two standard inventories measuring social anxiety at the time of screening for the study, but they also were required to score in a similar manner at the time of the experimental session. This procedure ensured that scores on social anxiety inventories remained stable and did not regress toward the mean, which enhanced the validity of our group assignment (see Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987, for a similar suggestion). It is possible that, in previous studies failing to find differences between socially anxious/shy and nonanxious/ nonshy individuals in their molecular social skills, anxiety was not assessed as reliably and validly as it was in the present study. Second, as stated previously, the interaction was relatively unstructured. Although participants were informed that their interactions were being videotaped, they were given little guidance as to how to proceed or specific issues to address in their conversations. The design did not involve a confederate who adhered to a prescribed script; instead, targets and their partners spontaneously conversed about a vague topic specified at the outset. It is well established that socially anxious individuals perform similarly as nonanxious individuals in structured tasks in which there are clear instructions and goals to achieve (Meier & Hope, 1998; Norton & Hope, 2001; Segrin & Kenney, 1995). Thus, it is likely that results from this study emerged because socially anxious individuals had no cues from which to guide their behavior. Moreover, the generalizability of performance on structured role-plays to more ecologically valid naturalistic observations is questionable (e.g., Bellack, Hersen, & Lamparski, 1979). The ambiguous nature of the unstructured task in the present study allowed for participants to choose the particular communication and social skills to utilize, much as they might in an interaction that occurs in their daily lives. Finally, differences between results of this study and results of previous studies could have emerged because of the relationship they had with their interaction partner. Behavioral observation data of this sort generally are collected in the context of giving a speech or getting

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

517

acquainted with an individual of the opposite gender (e.g., Beidel, Turner, & Dancu, 1985; Dow, Biglan, & Glaser, 1985; Pilkonis, 1977). In contrast, interactions in the present study were with an individual with whom participants were romantically involved and presumably with whom they had a great deal of personal investment. Thus, it is possible that social skills literature has yielded inconclusive results because the status of the interaction partner and/or audience in relationship to participants themselves was not meaningful enough to evoke anxiety at a level that would interfere with social skills. Although socially anxious individuals certainly endorse high levels of fear about negative evaluations from strangers (e.g., Turner, Beidel, & Larkin, 1986), it is possible that negative feedback that is most distressing for them comes from individuals about whom they care deeply. However, an alternative explanation is that socially anxious individuals exhibit problematic communication and social skills with their partner precisely because they feel more comfortable with them than they would when they interact with a stranger. Several caveats of this study’s design must be acknowledged. First, the small sample sizes might have masked additional group differences on CST variables, as the effect sizes characterizing group differences on very positive and negative codes were in the small but potentially meaningful range. Second, because of the low response and participation rate, the manner in which these results generalize to most socially anxious undergraduates is unclear. Although socially anxious participants’ mean FNE score was nearly identical to the mean of the socially anxious pool obtained from the group testing procedure, their mean SAD score was significantly higher (i.e., 25.2 vs. 18.2), suggesting that the socially anxious individuals who participated in the study were as anxious, if not more anxious, than the average person scoring in this range during group testing. Moreover, because the nonanxious sample scored so low on the social anxiety measures, it is unclear whether results from this group generalize to most nonanxious individuals or only to a unique group of individuals with exceedingly low levels of social anxiety. Third, the socially anxious sample consisted of individuals who scored high on two social anxiety inventories rather than individuals who were diagnosed with social anxiety disorder. It is possible that even more compelling results would have been obtained on a sample of individuals with clinically significant concerns relating to social interaction, although it should be acknowledged that socially anxious participants in the present study scored higher on both social anxiety inventories than treatmentseeking individuals diagnosed with social anxiety disorder who have participated in other studies (e.g., Wenzel & Holt, 2002). Fourth, participants were young students, a design choice which limits the generalizability of findings to the community at large. Finally, it has been pointed out that significant differences in social skills between anxious and nonanxious individuals found in one laboratory often are not replicated by coders associated with another laboratory (cf. Bellack, 1983). We created our own social skills inventory for the purpose of the present study, making its validity questionable. We believe data from this study provide evidence for criterion validity as nearly all behaviors assessed differentiated between socially anxious and nonanxious individuals. However, it will be important to replicate results from this observational coding system in other contexts. These results should be viewed as promising but pilot; they argue for the completion of more in depth research with larger sample sizes. It is clear that socially anxious individuals are characterized by a number of communication and social skill deficits in the context of their close relationships, and there was a trend for them to report a lower relationship quality than nonanxious individuals. However, the direction of causality is unknown; that is, it is unclear

ARTICLE IN PRESS 518

A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

whether these deficits lead to relationship distress in couples in which one individual is socially anxious or whether socially anxious individuals develop a maladaptive behavioral repertoire after they sense relationship stress. In addition, Gottman’s work applies sequential analyses to consider the extent to which problematic behavior in one partner elicits maladaptive responses in the other partner. Although results from the present study failed to find evidence for problematic communication in partners of socially anxious individuals, it will be important to examine these chains of interactions in studies with larger sample sizes. Moreover, despite the robustness of these findings, it is important to acknowledge that a higher percentage of socially anxious individuals than nonanxious individuals report that they are not involved in close, romantic relationships (e.g., Schneier et al., 1994). In addition to examining the reasons why relationships of socially anxious individuals are distressed, researchers in this area must investigate systematically the factors that prevent some of these individuals from developing close relationships.

References Arkowitz, H., Lichtenstein, E., McGovern, K., & Hines, P. (1975). The behavioral assessment of social competence in males. Behavior Therapy, 6, 3–13. Beidel, D. C., Turner, S. M., & Dancu, C. V. (1985). Physiological, cognitive and behavioral aspects of social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 23, 109–117. Bellack, A. S. (1983). Recurrent problems in the behavioural assessment social skills. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 21, 29–41. Bellack, A. S., Hersen, M., & Lamparski, D. (1979). Role-play tests for assessing social skills: Are they valid? Are they useful?. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 335–342. Bruch, M. A., & Pearl, L. (1995). Attributional style and symptoms of shyness in a heterosexual interaction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 91–107. Chambless, D. L., Fauerbach, J. A., Floyd, F. J., Wilson, K. A., Remen, A. L., & Rennebreg, B. (2002). Marital interactions of agoraphobic women: A controlled, behavioral observation study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 111, 502–512. Conger, J. C., & Farrell, A. D. (1981). Behavioral components of heterosocial skills. Behavior Therapy, 12, 41–55. Davila, J., & Beck, J. G. (2002). Is social anxiety associated with impairment in close relationships?. Behavior Therapy, 33, 427–446. Dow, M. G., Biglan, A., & Glaser, S. R. (1985). Multimethod assessment of social anxious and socially nonanxious women. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 273–282. Duncan, S. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 282–283. Floyd, F. J., & Markman, H. (1984). An economical observational measure of couples’ communication skill. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 97–103. Glasgow, R., & Arkowitz, H. (1975). The behavioral assessment of male and female social competence in dyadic heterosexual interactions. Behavior Therapy, 6, 488–498. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newly wed interactions. Journal of the Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. Gottman, J. M., Kahen, V. J., & Goldstein, D. E. (1996). Rapid couples interaction scoring system (RCISS; pronounced R-Kiss): A manual for coders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The Timing of Divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737–745. Gottman, J. M., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39, 461–477.

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Wenzel et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 43 (2005) 505–519

519

Gottman, J. M., McCoy, K., & Coan, J. (1996). The Specific Affect Coding System. In Gottman (Ed.). What predicts divorce? The measures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gottman, J. M., Notarius, C., Gonso, J., & Markman, H. (1976). A couple’s guide to communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Kendall, P. C., Hollon, S. D., Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1987). Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depression Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289–299. McNeil, D. W., Ries, B. J., & Turk, C. L. (1995). Behavioral assessment: Self-report, physiology, and overt behavior. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.). Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 202–231). New York: Guilford. Meier, V. J., & Hope, D. A. (1998). Assessment of social skills. In A. S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.). Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook, (4th ed.) (pp. 232–255). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Norton, P. J., & Hope, D. A. (2001). Analogue observational methods in the assessment of social functioning in adults. Psychological Assessment, 13, 59–72. Pilkonis, P. A. (1977). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of Personality, 45, 596–611. Richardson, S., Dohrenwend, N., & Klein, D. (1965). Interviewing: Its forms and functions. New York: Basic Books. Schneier, F. R., Heckelman, L. R., Garfinkel, R., Campeas, R., Fallon, B. A., Gitow, A., Street, L., Del Bene, D., & Liebowitz, M. R. (1994). Functional impairment in social phobia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 322–331. Segrin, C., & Kinney, T. (1995). Social skills deficits among the socially anxious: Rejection from others and loneliness. Motivation and Emotion, 19, 1–24. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38, 15–28. Stravynski, A., & Amado, D. (2001). Social phobia as a deficit in social skills. In S. G. Hofmann, & P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.). From social anxiety to social phobia: Multiple perspectives (pp. 107–129). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Larkin, K. T. (1986). Situational determinants of social anxiety in clinic and nonclinic samples: Physiological and cognitive correlates. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 523–527. Twentyman, C. T., & McFall, R. M. (1975). Behavioral training of social skills in shy males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 384–395. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457. Wenzel, A. (2002). Characteristics of close relationships in individuals with social phobia: a preliminary comparison with nonanxious individuals. In J. H. A. Wenzel (Ed.). A clinician’s guide to maintaining and enhancing close relationships (pp. 199–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wenzel, A., & Holt, C. S. (2002). Memory bias against threat in social phobia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 73–79. Wessberg, H. W., Mariotto, M. J., Conger, A. J., Farrel, A. D., & Conger, J. C. (1979). Ecological validity of role-plays for assessing heterosocial anxiety and skill of make college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 525–535. Wittchen, H. U., & Beloch, E. (1996). The impact of social phobia on quality of life. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 11(suppl. 3), 15–23.