Recent studies show that socially anxious children and adolescents hold negative expectations and evaluations concerning their performance in social situations (Alfano et al.
2006; Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005; Inderbitzen-Nolan et al.
2007; Spence et al.
1999). The two main cognitive theories of social phobia (Clark and Wells
1995; Rapee and Heimberg
1997) imply that these negative evaluations develop partly as a consequence of prior social experiences and feedback from others. Therefore, negative self-evaluations may arise as a result of, or at least be maintained by the reactions socially anxious children and adolescents
1 receive from their peers during social interactions. But why would socially anxious youth experience these negative outcomes from their social interactions? What is it about their behavior that peers do not like? The present study investigated how same age peers perceive the social skills of socially anxious as compared to nonanxious adolescents.
Furthermore, sociometric studies consistently report that (socially) anxious youth are actively disliked and neglected by their peer group (Greco and Morris
2005). In these studies sociometric status is usually measured by nomination; participants nominate the peers they like the most and like least (Poulin and Dishion
2008). From the frequently used sociometric categories popular, rejected, neglected, average, and controversial the categories most commonly linked to heightened social anxiety are rejected and neglected (Greco and Morris
2005). For example, Strauss et al. (
1988) investigated the peer social status of a group of 6–13 year old children with anxiety disorders. A significantly higher proportion of these children met criteria for neglected sociometric status compared to the control and conduct-disorder groups. Moreover, only one child with an anxiety disorder was rated as popular by classmates. Similarly, in a longitudinal study conducted from kindergarten to 4th grade, Gazelle and Ladd (
2003) reported associations between (socially) anxious solitude, peer rejection and exclusion.
These findings suggest that socially anxious youth have good reason to expect negative treatment and feedback from others. However, in both the peer nomination literature and the studies of Blöte et al. (
2007) and Spence et al. (
1999) peer reactions are investigated within the context of ongoing social relationships. Therefore, the influence of a child’s longstanding social reputation cannot be disentangled from a specific reaction to the child’s behavior or social anxiety level (Hymel et al.
1990). To address this issue, Verduin and Kendall (
2008) examined how children (9.5–13 years old) with and without anxiety disorders are perceived by unfamiliar peers of the same age. Same age peers rated the degree to which they liked the children and to what extent the children displayed observable symptoms of anxiety during a speech task. Children with social phobia were less liked than other children and this association was independent of whether or not their anxious symptoms were perceived by peers. Verduin and Kendall (
2008) questioned why, if socially anxious children do not always appear more anxious, they are disliked. The authors suggested that poorer social performance or lack of social skills on the part of socially anxious children could explain why peers react negatively.
Social Skills Deficits in Socially Anxious Youth
The possibility of social skills deficits in socially anxious youth has also been proposed by other authors as one of the reasons for negative treatment by peers (Greco and Morris
2005; Spence et al.
1999). However, the literature does not consistently show poorer social skills in socially anxious youth, as rated by adult observers. Whereas a few studies found significant skills differences between socially anxious and nonanxious youth on measures like performance effectiveness or social skillfulness (Alfano et al.
2006; Alfano et al.
2008; Beidel et al.
1999; Beidel et al.
2007), others did not (Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005; Erath et al.
2007). Finding skills deficits may depend on the sample employed. In general, studies that found skills deficits used clinical samples of social phobic youth while studies that did not find deficits used high socially anxious youth derived from a normal population. Nevertheless, as shown in the studies by Inderbitzen-Nolan et al. (
2007) and Morgan and Banerjee (
2006) skills deficits are not limited to clinical populations. Thus, it is possible that inconsistent findings are specific to nonclinical samples of socially anxious youth. In these samples, social skills deficits might be less severe than in clinical groups and therefore more difficult to perceive by adults.
In this light it seems particularly important to ask same age peers to rate social skills as they will be more sensitive than adults to small deviations in the behavior of other youth. Judgments from same age peers are also probably more consequential for the child’s developing sense of social (in)adequacy. This is particularly true for the adolescent period. Research shows that adolescents’ social interactions are increasingly dominated by peers (Hartup
1996; Scholte and Van Aken
2006). Adolescents spend more time in peer groups than adults (Brown
2004) and their perception of support from same-sex friendships rises between late childhood and mid-adolescence (Furman and Buhrmester
1992). Yet, to the best of our knowledge no study has employed same age peers as observers of social skills in socially anxious adolescents.
It is not clear which social skills peers might perceive as lacking and on what behavioral level (i.e., micro, midi, global) the shortcomings might be noticed. Micro skills are highly specific behaviors such as number of smiles or time spent speaking, measured using frequency counts and/or duration (Baker and Edelmann
2002; Monti et al.
1984). In contrast, a global-level approach is general (e.g., “overall social skills”) and skill is typically measured using just one rating scale (Boice and Monti
1982). Some of the aforementioned studies employing adult observers measured skills on a micro-level, such as use of eye contact, latency and length of response (e.g., Morgan and Banerjee
2006; Spence et al.
1999) while others used global ratings of performance effectiveness or social skillfulness (e.g., Erath et al.
2007; Inderbitzen-Nolan et al.
2007). A third group of studies measured both micro—and global-level skills (Alfano et al.
2006,
2008; Beidel et al.
1999; Beidel et al.
2007; Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005). For both micro— and global-level skills inconsistent findings are evident across studies. For example, Alfano et al. (
2008) found that socially phobic adolescents used appropriate eye contact significantly less often than a control group of adolescents. However, the studies of Alfano et al. (
2006) and Spence et al. (
1999) do not support this finding. Similarly, in some studies measuring global-level skills observers rated socially anxious youth as significantly less skillful than their nonanxious counterparts (Alfano et al.
2006,
2008; Beidel et al.
1999; Beidel et al.
2007; Inderbitzen-Nolan et al.
2007) but not in other studies (Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005; Erath et al.
2007).
Instead of measuring social skills at either a micro— or a global- level, studies with socially anxious adults advocate using a midi-level approach (Monti et al.
1984). A midi-level approach combines the specificity of the micro-level and the practicality of the global-level by measuring particular categories of behavior (e.g., facial expression, gestures, voice, and posture) on a rating scale. Based on human ethology research the behavioral categories are broken down into specific descriptions of what constitutes the behavior. For example, Monti et al. (
1984) specify posture as “ranging from a rigid, tense and apparently uncomfortable stance of sitting to a relaxed and apparently comfortable style” (p. 655). A midi-level approach has been shown to successfully discriminate between socially anxious and nonanxious adults whereas studies employing micro-level measurements fail to consistently distinguish between social anxiety groups (Baker and Edelmann
2002). For this reason and because a midi-level approach has not yet been employed with adolescents, the current study measures midi-level social skills.
Social skills deficits are not only associated with social anxiety but also with depression in both clinical and nonclinical samples (Segrin
2000; Van Beek et al.
2006). Moreover depression, like social anxiety, is linked to difficulties in peer relationships and peer rejection (see Zimmer-Gembeck et al.
2007 for a review). Because anxiety disorders in general, including social anxiety, are strongly comorbid with depression (Starr and Davila
2008), we considered it important to investigate the specificity of peer perceived skills deficits to social anxiety. In this way, we could explore whether it is social anxiety and not depression that elicits negative responses from peers.
The Present Study
In short, it is possible that poor social skills as perceived by peers are the reason that socially anxious youth are negatively treated by these peers. In turn, negative treatment makes socially anxious youth feel that their social performance is poor, resulting in low self-evaluations. As the first step in this model—whether peers perceive the social skills of socially anxious youth as poor—has never been investigated, the present study was designed to do just this.
A group of nonreferred adolescents with high self-reported levels of social anxiety and a group with lower levels (the control group) took part in the Leiden Public Speaking Task (Leiden-PST; Westenberg et al.
in press). Public speaking performances were recorded and shown to peer observers at a later date. We chose to study adolescents because this period is coupled, on the one hand, with an increasing importance of peer relationships (as discussed earlier), and on the other hand, with an increase in fear of negative evaluation (Weems and Costa
2005; Westenberg et al.
2007) and an early to mid-teen onset of social phobia (Rapee and Spence
2004). In accordance with Verduin and Kendall (
2008) and to avoid the influence of social reputation on peer perceptions (Hymel et al.
1990), we specifically chose
unfamiliar peer observers, similar in age. We included a minimum of 20 peer observers per adolescent so that we could measure an average reaction from a group, closely mirroring a school classroom situation. This type of situation was considered to be more relevant to the daily lives of anxious and nonanxious youth than the more standard situation in which objective ratings from a few adult observers are collected. Peer observers rated four midi-level social skills important for this performance situation: speech content, facial expressions, posture and body movement, and way of speaking (Monti et al.
1984; Segrin
2000).
We investigated the following research questions: (1) Do unfamiliar peers perceive differences in individual skills (speech content, facial expressions, posture/body movement, and way of speaking) between high socially anxious adolescents and a control group? and (2) If social skills deficits are perceived by unfamiliar peers, are these solely attributable to adolescents’ social anxiety level or can they (partly) be accounted for by depression? In addition, we explored whether some skills are more important than others in distinguishing high socially anxious adolescents from the control group.
Discussion
The present study addressed two main questions: do unfamiliar peers perceive differences in individual social skills between high socially anxious adolescents and a control group and, if so, can these differences be (partly) accounted for by depression? In answer to the first question the current study shows that unfamiliar same age peers do perceive high socially anxious adolescents as less socially skilled than their low anxious counterparts during a speech performance. This group difference held for all four skills: speech content, facial expressions, posture and body movement, and way of speaking. In response to the second question, the anxiety group difference could not be ascribed to depression in the high socially anxious group. After controlling for depression, high socially anxious adolescents’ speech content was still perceived as less comprehensible and their posture/movement and way of speaking as less appropriate for the speech. However, depression did play a relatively more important role in facial expression ratings. Finally, we explored whether some skills would be more important in distinguishing high anxious adolescents from the control group. Our findings showed that the four skill ratings are strongly related; none of the skills made a unique contribution to social anxiety group classification.
The poorer ratings received by socially anxious adolescents are consistent with previous studies on peer behavior toward and peer liking ratings of socially anxious and nonanxious youth (Blöte et al.
2007; Spence et al.
1999; Verduin and Kendall
2008). Furthermore, and in addition to these previous studies, the present study directly shows that same age peers readily (within 2 min) perceive social skills differences between high and low socially anxious adolescents. This may explain why socially anxious youth receive negative reactions and feedback from peers in established relationships (Blöte et al.
2007; Spence et al.
1999) and why they are less liked by novel peers (Verduin and Kendall
2008).
In their discussion Verduin and Kendall (
2008) recommended that future research investigate which behaviors make anxious children less liked. In this vein, we investigated whether one or more of the four skills would best discriminate the high from low socially anxious group. Due to the strong associations among all four skills we may conclude that it is an overall lack of social skill that is perceived as unattractive by peers. It seems that the four social skills combined represent one underlying factor that creates a global impression of skillfulness. In addition, our findings tentatively suggest that of the four skills, posture and body movement appears to best represent the underlying factor that distinguishes high from low socially anxious adolescents. However, this finding certainly requires replication before more definite conclusions can be drawn.
Socially anxious adolescents were given poorer ratings even after controlling for depression. Thus, despite the skills deficits reported among depressed individuals (Segrin
2000; Van Beek et al.
2006) and the present study’s strong relation between social anxiety and depression (c.f., Inderbitzen-Nolan and Walters
2000), depression only partially accounted for the relationship between social anxiety and peer ratings of speech content, posture and body movement, and way of speaking. However, peer ratings of facial expressions seemed to be more influenced by depression. Whether the inappropriate use of facial expressions is more strongly associated with depression than social anxiety is a question that should be addressed in future research.
The current study presents evidence that, in the perception of their peers, a skills deficit does exist in nonclinical socially anxious adolescents. With regard to previous studies using adult observers and nonclinical samples, the present study corroborates the findings of Inderbitzen-Nolan et al. (
2007) and Morgan and Banerjee (
2006). However, our results contrast with the studies of Cartwright-Hatton et al. (
2005) and Erath et al. (
2007). It is possible that studies with nonclinical samples would yield consistent results if peer observers were employed instead of adults. Although the evidence from peer observers comes from this study only, the perceived differences between high and low socially anxious adolescents are large and are based on ratings from unfamiliar peers.
If indeed the social skills of socially anxious youth are perceived as poor by same age peers, do these findings help to explain why socially anxious youth hold negative self-evaluations of their social performance? Some previous studies suggest that self-evaluations are biased and not based on the actual social performance, as judged by adult observers (Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005; Inderbitzen-Nolan et al.
2007). However, in light of the strong peer perceived skills differences found in the current study, one might suspect that the self-evaluations of nonclinically anxious adolescents mirror the perceptions of the critical age group and are therefore unbiased. Whether this is also the case for youth diagnosed with social phobia is unclear. One possibility is that their self-evaluations are indeed biased; their evaluations may be more pervasive and generalize more readily to different types of social situations than the evaluations of youth without a clinical diagnosis. Another possibility is that clinically anxious youth do not have biased self-evaluations either. If they have stronger skills deficits than nonclinical groups, this could result in even higher rejection by peers and consequently lower self-evaluations. Future studies should endeavor to clarify this issue by comparing self— with peer-evaluations in clinical and nonclinical groups of socially anxious youth.
The findings of the current study raise a second question, namely what is the origin of the social skills deficit in socially anxious youth? In order to answer this question, it is important to conduct a longitudinal study in which children are followed from an age that temporally precedes the onset of social anxiety disorder. Such an approach could examine the relative influence of peer group feedback and other factors, such as negative social events, familial processes, and behavioral avoidance on the development of a social skills deficit in socially anxious youth.
This study is not without limitations. First, we did not measure all midi-level skills mentioned in the adult literature, for example self-manipulations, gestures, and sense of timing (Monti et al.
1984). Therefore, it is unclear whether socially anxious adolescents lack all midi-level social skills or just those measured in the present study. Second, the strong intercorrelations observed among the four skills could be explained by an observer rating carry-over effect from one skill to another. The notion of an overall impression is in line with Alden and Taylor’s (
2004) conclusion that a ‘global negative halo’ exists in others’ judgments of shy versus non-shy individuals. Future research into the importance of particular skills should employ different observers to rate just one skill each, rather than the same four skills. This would provide stronger support for the conclusion that the general effect across all skills reflects one latent factor, characteristic of the speaker. Third, we cannot rule out the possibility that peer observers perceive a performance deficit rather than a skills deficit (Hopko et al.
2001). The social skills of socially anxious adolescents may be in tact, yet as a result of their anxiety they engage in interfering (safety) behaviors (Clark and Wells
1995), such as talking quickly to avoid awkward pauses or maintaining a very static posture to prevent the body shaking. Such behaviors are likely to be detrimental to social performance, hence the poorer skills ratings received by high anxious adolescents. It would be fruitful for future studies to more carefully distinguish between interfering behaviors that may result in a performance deficit and a real lack of social skills, especially in view of the consequences for treatment.
Finally, it is possible that the poorer skill ratings received by anxious adolescents may be accounted for by perceptions of lesser attractiveness compared to low socially anxious adolescents. It is well established that attractive persons receive more positive attributions from others (Langlois et al.
2000) and attractiveness has been linked to both social skills and social anxiety (Feingold
1992). However, in another study observer rated attractiveness did not correlate with shyness (Jones et al.
1986). It is recommended that future studies address the role of attractiveness in peer ratings of socially anxious individuals.
To conclude, more studies are required to specify exactly which skills are deficient among socially anxious youth and on which behavioral level the most consistent group differences are found. The findings of such studies would contribute to the current debate regarding the inclusion of social skills training in the treatment of social phobia (e.g., Cartwright-Hatton et al.
2005; Inderbitzen-Nolan et al.
2007). In the meantime, our findings suggest that a social skills component is indeed valuable and that therapists include speech content, facial expressions, posture, and way of speaking in their training modules. In line with other researchers advocating the importance of a peer view (Van Beek et al.
2006; Verduin and Kendall
2008) we also recommend that therapists take the reactions and perceptions of peers into account when assessing social skills, in addition to the more standard adult view from either parents or teachers.