Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Social anxiety and socially prescribed perfectionism: Unique

and interactive relationships with maladaptive appraisal
of interpersonal situations
Helene J. Laurenti, Monroe A. Bruch, Richard F. Haase *
University of Albany, State University of New York, United States

Received 11 September 2007; received in revised form 19 February 2008; accepted 22 February 2008
Available online 3 April 2008

Abstract

Although investigators have suggested that maladaptive appraisal of interpersonal situations may be related to perfectionist charac-
teristics of socially anxious persons, little research has addressed this notion. In this study, the joint role of social anxiety and socially
prescribed perfectionism (SPP; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a) was assessed relative to participants’ appraisal of an interpersonal situation.
Results showed that social anxiety and SPP were related with the discrepancy between participants’ ratings of others’ performance stan-
dards for them and ratings of their own self-efficacy for an upcoming conversation, and that SPP moderated the relationship between
social anxiety and the discrepancy. Second, only social anxiety was related with the frequency of negative self-statements; however, SPP
moderated the relationship between social anxiety and participants’ negative self-statements relative to the conversation. For both inter-
actions, the greater an anxious person’s SPP, the greater their degree of maladaptive appraisal. Results are discussed relative to theoret-
ical and clinical implications of the findings.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Perfectionism; Social anxiety; Maladaptive appraisal; Social performance standards; Social self-efficacy; Negative self-statements

1. Introduction SPP consists of a person’s beliefs that others exert pressure

on the individual to be perfect while SOP involves self-
Although a number of theorists have discussed the directed perfectionistic standards. The same differences in
potential role of perfectionism in problems of social anxiety SPP but not in SOP were also found in a sample of male
(e.g., Heimberg & Becker, 2002; Schlenker & Leary, 1982), and female social phobics (Bieling & Alden, 1997). Thus,
there has been little investigation of how perfectionist per- Alden et al. (2002) concluded that socially anxious and
sonality characteristics relate to social anxiety and its con- non-anxious people do not necessarily differ in self-
sequences. Recently, Alden, Ryder, and Mellings (2002), imposed perfectionism but instead differ in their perception
Bieling and Alden (1997) provided initial evidence as to that others hold unreasonable expectations for them.
the role of perfectionistic characteristics in social anxiety. Cognitive-personality models of social anxiety (e.g.,
Using a multidimensional measure of perfectionism, Alden, Clark & Wells, 1995) posit that trait social anxiety leads
Bieling, and Wallace (1994) found that socially anxious to a chronic discrepancy between a person’s social self-effi-
women were higher in socially prescribed perfectionism cacy and their perception of what constitutes desirable
(SPP) but the two groups did not differ in self-oriented per- social performance. Based on this notion, Bieling and
fectionism (SOP). According to Hewitt and Flett (1991a), Alden (1997) evaluated whether social anxiety and SPP
were related to one or both of these appraisal responses.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 518 442 5046. They found that social anxiety was related to lower social
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.F. Haase). self-efficacy but not to higher expectancies of others’

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.018
56 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

standards. SPP was unrelated to social self-efficacy but was ing various levels of social effectiveness to serve as common
related to higher expectations of others’ standards. Also, anchors of skillfulness when rating both others’ standards
they found that SPP moderated the relationship between and self-efficacy.
social anxiety and expectations of others’ standards such
that only anxious participants who were also high in SPP 2. Method
reported higher expectations of others’ standards. Based
on the previous findings, the present study sought to clarify 2.1. Participants
the potential unique and interactive roles of social anxiety
and SPP in relation to maladaptive appraisal of interper- The sample consisted of 77 (47 female) community col-
sonal situations. According to cognitive theories of social lege students in the Northeastern United States. They ran-
anxiety (e.g., Schlenker & Leary, 1982), appraisal of inter- ged in age from 17 to 36 years, with a mean of 21.40 years.
personal situations typically involves two judgments: an In terms of ethnic background, 53.1% of the participants
estimate of one’s own abilities (i.e., social self-efficacy) identified themselves as white, 7.6% as African–American,
and an estimate of what is acceptable performance in the 16.5% as Hispanic, 3.8% as Asian, 2.5% as Native Ameri-
situation (i.e., others’ standards) and, presumably, it is can, and 16.5% as other. Participants volunteered for a
the discrepancy between these two appraisal responses that study involving self and other perceptions when interacting
triggers social avoidance and negative affect. It is unclear, with a stranger. All participants received a monetary
however, whether one or both of the traits of social anxiety remuneration.
and SPP make an additive and/or interactive contribution
to such a discrepancy because previous research has not 2.2. Instruments
evaluated these appraisal responses as a discrepancy.
Consequently, the first purpose of the present study was 2.2.1. Social anxiety
to assess the separate and/or interactive relationships of The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick &
trait social anxiety and SPP with the discrepancy that Clarke, 1998) was used to measure social anxiety which
results from the difference between ratings of others’ stan- involves fears of being inarticulate, boring, and appearing
dards and ratings of one’s own self-efficacy. Because an awkward when interacting with others. Mattick and Clarke
individual is likely to make both estimates in a simulta- (1998) report an alpha of .88 in a college sample and an
neous fashion, the estimates are just as likely to be related alpha of .90 in a community sample. Alpha in the present
with personality dimensions that have an internal, individ- sample was .96. Relative to validity, the SIAS is correlated
ual origin or an external, interpersonal origin. with the social avoidance and distress scale and the fear of
A second purpose of the study was to extend the analysis negative evaluation scale (Watson & Friend, 1969) and dis-
of how social anxiety and SPP relate to other maladaptive criminated among groups of social phobics, agoraphobics,
appraisal responses relative to an interpersonal situation and simple phobics (Mattick & Clarke, 1998).
such as negative and positive self-statements (e.g., Caciop-
po, Glass, & Merluzzi, 1979). Although self-statements are 2.2.2. Socially prescribed perfectionism
likely related to the discrepancy between others’ standards The socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) subscale
and self-efficacy, there is substantial evidence that greater from Hewitt and Flett (1991a) Multidimensional perfec-
negative self-statements and fewer positive self-statements tionism scale was used to assess interpersonal sources of
are associated with social avoidance and negative affect perfectionism. A sample item is ‘‘The better I do, the better
(e.g., Mahone, Bruch, & Heimberg, 1993; Schwartz & I am expected to do”. Hewitt and Flett (1991a) report an
Garamoni, 1989). Thus, the present study evaluated alpha of .87 and a test–retest reliability of .60 for the
whether in addition to social anxiety, SPP has any direct SPP. Coefficient alpha for the present sample was .90. Rel-
or interactive relationship with the tendency to report ative to validity, the SPP is related to measures of self-
greater negative self-statements and fewer positive self- blame, fear of negative evaluation, depression and anxiety
statements relative to an interpersonal situation. (Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). In addition, Hill, Zrull, and Tur-
The present research exposed participants to a labora- lington (1997) found that SPP was associated with several
tory assessment procedure in which they were told that measures of maladaptive interpersonal behaviour including
they would be meeting a stranger of the other gender and social distancing, conflict, and distrust.
were to engage in a conversation to get to know the person.
Prior to this anticipated interaction, participants rated their 2.2.3. Other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy
social self-efficacy as well as their perceptions of others’ The first dependent variable consisted of the discrepancy
standards (i.e., the interaction partner) for their perfor- between ratings of the perceptions of other peoples’ stan-
mance in the upcoming interaction. Because perceived dards minus ratings of social self-efficacy for one’s perfor-
social standards and efficacy ratings are complicated by mance. Participants rated their perceptions of others’
subjective judgments, Wallace and Alden’s (1991) ‘‘visual standards and their social self-efficacy using a 10-point
rating scale” procedure was used in this assessment. This Visual Rating Scale (VRS) developed by Wallace and
procedure uses videotaped interactions of people display- Alden (1991). The VRS uses videotapes of social interac-
H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 57

tions differing in skillfulness to define various points along dence for the content and concurrent validity of the SISST,
the scale. Consequently, the procedure provides objective including evidence of the SISST’s sensitivity to change fol-
referents for various skill levels in contrast to using printed lowing treatment. Although typically administered follow-
descriptions as anchors. The VRS consists of three video- ing an interaction, it has been used to evaluate a person’s
taped heterosocial interactions between two strangers self-statements relative to imagined (e.g., Zweig & Brown,
who are confederates. The three vignettes are very similar 1985) or anticipated interpersonal situations (e.g., Dodge,
in content but vary in the social skills and comfort level dis- Hope, Heimberg, & Becker, 1988). In the present study,
played to reflect anchor points of 2, 5, and 8 on a 10-point participants rated the frequency of their thoughts relative
scale. The higher the number, the better the videotaped to an anticipated interaction with a stranger of the other
interactants’ observable social performance. For instance, sex. Based on Glass et al. (1982) factor analysis of the SIS-
at an anchor of 2 there was little eye contact, few verbaliza- ST, only the six negative items with the highest factor load-
tions, anxious facial expressions, and tense body posture, ings on the negative scale and the six positive items with the
while an anchor of 8 evidenced appropriate eye contact, highest factor loadings on the positive scale were used to
spontaneous verbalization, interested facial expression, assess self-statements in the current study. In the present
and receptive posture. Participants were allowed to view sample, coefficient alpha was .90 for the set of negative
the VRS as much as they desired and were instructed to items and .87 for the set of positive items. Evidence for
use its anchors to rate their perceptions relative to the the validity of this brief version of the SISST is found in
upcoming interaction. Bruch, Rivet, Heimberg, Hunt, and McIntosh (1999).

2.2.4. Others’ standards rating 2.3. Procedure

Participants rated their perceptions of others’ standards
for them in the upcoming interaction using a 4-item scale An experimenter met each participant at a research lab
developed by Wallace and Alden (1991). A sample item to explain the purpose of the study and to sign a written
is: ‘‘What level of behaviour will your partner (that is, consent form. Participants were administered the SIAS
the person you are meeting for the first time) expect from and the SPP scales, which were administered in counterbal-
you?” Each item is rated on a 0–10 scale and the four items anced order across the sample. Next, the participant was
were averaged to yield a composite score. Wallace and told that they would be introduced to a stranger of the
Alden (1991) report a coefficient alpha of .90, while alpha other sex and asked to engage in a conversation. The pur-
for the current sample was .89. pose of exposing participants to the possibility of engaging
in a conversation was to elicit the usual anticipatory anxi-
2.2.5. Social self-efficacy rating ety associated with this type of event for persons who are
Participants rated their social self-efficacy for the inter- socially anxious (Russell, Cutrona, & Jones, 1986). Subse-
action using a 4-item scale developed by Wallace and quently, the participant was informed that he or she was to
Alden (1991). A sample item is: ‘‘What level of behavior complete several rating procedures involving self-percep-
are you certain you could match in this upcoming conver- tions and perceptions of other people as they pertained to
sation?” These items were rated on a 0–10 scale and aver- the upcoming interaction. Following this, the participant
aged to obtain a composite score. Wallace and Alden was instructed on how to operate the videotape equipment
(1991) report an alpha of .93 for the social self-efficacy rat- in order to complete the VRS procedure that included the
ing scale, while in the present sample alpha was .95. Evi- others’ standards and social self-efficacy rating scales.
dence for the validity of these two VRS-based rating Finally, the participant completed the brief SISST. After
scales is found in Wallace and Alden (1991), Wallace and completing all of the assessments, the participant was
Alden (1995) and Bieling and Alden (1997). In the present informed that the interaction would not occur, and then
study, the discrepancy score was created by subtracting a was debriefed regarding the purpose of the research. All
participant’s Social Self-efficacy composite rating from participants reported that they believed they would be hav-
his or her other standards composite rating. ing an actual conversation with someone.

2.2.6. Cognitive self-statements 3. Results

The Social Interaction Self-Statement Test (SISST;
Glass, Merluzzi, Biever, & Larsen, 1982) was used to assess 3.1. Preliminary analysis
the frequency of participants’ negative and positive self-
statements. The SISST has good internal consistency reli- Multivariate analysis of variance tests (Pillai’s Trace) for
ability and test–retest reliability (Glass et al., 1982). Rela- age, gender, and ethnicity on the dependent variables were
tive to validity, Glass et al. (1982) found that socially not significant (all p’s > .10). Descriptive statistics and
anxious individuals, as compared with non-anxious indi- bivariate correlations for all variables are presented in
viduals, reported a greater frequency of negative and a Table 1. The correlations show that social anxiety was sig-
lower frequency of positive self-statements following an nificantly related with SPP which is consistent with previ-
interaction. Also, Glass and Arnkoff (1997) provide evi- ous research (e.g., Bieling & Alden, 1997). The analyses
58 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

Table 1 Table 2
Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics for variables in the study Hierarchical regression analyses of self appraisal variables
Scale 2 3 4 5 M SD Predictors R2 DR2 B b t p
** ** ** **
1. Social anxiety .57 .74 .79 .39 26.30 17.75 Other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy
2. Socially prescribed .67** .62** .26** 58.90 18.47 Step 1
perfectionism SISSTN .53 .528 5.06 .73 9.16 .0001
3. Other standards – .73** .31** 2.79 6.96
Step 2
self-efficacy discrepancy
Social anxiety (SA) 2.50 .36 3.17 .002
4. Negative self-statements .29* 12.21 6.38
SPP .65 .125 2.21 .31 3.43 .001
5. Positive self-statements – 16.75 5.23
Note: N = 77. Step 3
**
p < .01. SA SPP .70 .042 1.57 .24 3.13 .002
*
p < .05.
Negative self-statements
Step 1
O – S discrepancy .53 .528 4.64 .73 9.16 .0001
also revealed that the other standards – self-efficacy dis-
crepancy scores and the SISST negative scale scores were Step 2
Social anxiety (SA) 3.36 .53 5.42 .0001
highly correlated (i.e., r = .73).
SPP .69 .158 1.08 .16 1.82 .073
Step 3
3.2. Major analyses SA SPP .72 .036 1.34 .27 3.06 .003

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed on Positive self-statements

Step 1
each of the dependent variables. Because of the high corre-
Social anxiety (SA) 1.89 .37 2.80 .006
lation between the discrepancy score and the negative self- SPP .16 .155 0.26 .05 <1 n.s.
statements measure, the regression analysis for each of
Step 2
these two criterion variables controlled for this shared var- SA SPP .16 .004 0.34 .07 <1 n.s.
iance by including the other dependent variable in the first
Note: B = unstandardized beta coefficient, b = standardized beta coeffi-
step of the analysis. The main effects of social anxiety and cient, SISSTN = Social Interaction Self-Statements Test-Negative scale,
SPP were then entered in the second step followed by the SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism, O – S discrepancy = other stan-
product of these two predictors (the interaction) in the dards – self-efficacy discrepancy score.
third step.
Results from the analysis of the other standards – self-
efficacy discrepancy are presented in the top of Table 2. 9
OthersStandards - Self-Efficacy Discrepancy

They show that after controlling for the overlap with neg- 8
ative self-statements, both social anxiety and SPP made sig- 7
nificant, unique contributions to predicted variance in the 6
discrepancy score with social anxiety contributing 6.9%
5
and SPP contributing 5.6%. Thus, the higher a partici-
pant’s social anxiety and SPP the more likely the person 4
was to evidence a positive discrepancy score. Also, the
3
results showed that there was a significant interaction
2
which accounted for an additional increment of 4.2% in
predicted variance and indicated that SPP moderated the 1
relation between social anxiety and the discrepancy score.
0
Following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Akin (2003)
regarding the decomposition of interactions for continuous -1 High =
Medium =
variables, regression slopes were plotted for three values in -2 Low =
the moderator variable (SPP). Fig. 1 depicts the nature of
the moderating effect of SPP in the relationship between 4 12 20 28 36
social anxiety and the discrepancy score. It shows that Social Anxiety
for participants with low SPP ( 1.00 sd), there appears
to be some relationship between social anxiety and the dis- Fig. 1. Relationship of social anxiety with other standards – self-efficacy
discrepancy score at low, medium, and high levels of socially prescribed
crepancy score. However, at the medium (mean = 0.00) perfectionism.
and high (+1.00 sd) levels of SPP, the slope of the relation-
ship between social anxiety and the discrepancy ratings
increases markedly. As seen in Fig. 1, the pitch of the the significance of the simple slopes for all three plot lines
regression slopes for the medium and high SPP score showed that all three slopes were significantly different
groups is steep compared to the low SPP group. Tests of from zero (low: b = 1.13, t (73) = 2.26, p < .05; medium:
H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 59

b = 2.70, t (73) = 3.61, p < .001; high: b = 4.30, t (73) = 15.4% of the predicted variance. Although SPP evidenced
4.57, p < .001). a significant inverse, bivariate correlation with positive
Results from the regression analysis of participants’ neg- self-statements (see Table 1), once the overlapping variance
ative self-statements are displayed in the middle of Table 2. with social anxiety was controlled, there was no significant
They revealed a significant, unique relation between social relationship between SPP and positive self-statements and
anxiety and negative self-statements, but not between SPP there was no social anxiety by SPP interaction.
and negative self-statements. Social anxiety accounted for
14.4% of the predicted variance in the frequency of nega- 4. Discussion
tive self-statements, while SPP accounted for only 1.4%.
Consistent with previous research, participants who The present results extend previous research (e.g., Bieling
reported greater social anxiety also reported a greater fre- & Alden, 1997) and showed that both social anxiety and
quency of negative thoughts. Although SPP had evidenced SPP were uniquely related with the discrepancy score and
a significant bivariate correlation with negative self-state- that SPP moderated the relationship between social anxiety
ments, once the overlapping variance with social anxiety and the discrepancy score. The interaction is interesting
was controlled, the relationship between SPP and negative because at a lower level of social anxiety, participants’ dis-
thoughts was non-significant. crepancy scores were negative (i.e., others’ standards are
Table 2 also indicates that the social anxiety by SPP rated lower than one’s own self-efficacy) regardless of the
interaction was significant and accounted for an additional level of SPP. Thus, participants who were low in social anx-
3.6% in predicted variance. As evident from Fig. 2, the iety across all levels of SPP believed that they could either
greater a participant’s SPP the more extreme the slope is match or slightly exceed the expectations that they per-
for the relation between social anxiety and frequency of ceived the experimenter and anticipated interaction partner
negative self-statements. In other words, for those partici- to have for them. In contrast, for those participants who
pants who were high in SPP (i.e., +1.00 sd), there is a much were high in social anxiety, only positive discrepancy scores
stronger relationship between social anxiety and negative were observed. Individuals high in anxiety displayed posi-
self-statements than for participants who were low in SPP tive discrepancy scores that ranged from an average of
(i.e., 1.00 sd). Tests of the significance of the simple slopes 1.04 for those low in SPP to an average of 8.37 for those
for all three plot lines showed that all three slopes were sig- high in SPP. Such scores indicate that these individuals
nificantly different from zero (low: b = 2.06, t (73) = 5.49, believe that other people hold them to higher standards of
p < .001; medium: b = 3.40, t (73) = 5.79, p < .001; high: social performance than they are capable of meeting. The
b = 4.74, t (73) = 6.40, p < .001). nature of the interaction supports Bieling and Alden
Results from the regression analysis for positive self- (1997) contention that the relationship between social anx-
statements are displayed in the lower part of Table 2. They iety and maladaptive appraisal responses may be dependent
show that social anxiety had a significant, inverse relation on the coexistence of other personality characteristics (e.g.,
with the frequency of positive thoughts accounting for SPP). In addition, the interaction is conceptually consistent
with Alden et al. (2002) two-component model of perfec-
tionism which states that the nature of perfectionism is a
21 combination of performance expectations and self-apprai-
sal. Supposedly when performance expectations are unrea-
19
sonably high and self-appraisal is derogatory, this results in
pathological forms of perfectionism. In the present study,
Negative Self- Statements

17
persons high in both social anxiety (derogatory self-apprai-
15
sal) and SPP (unreasonable expectations by others) showed
the most maladaptive discrepancy score.
13
The results for negative self-statements showed that
although social anxiety was significantly, uniquely related
11 to frequency of negative thoughts, SPP made no significant,
additive contribution. The fact that negative self-statement
9 items focus more on heightened feelings of self-consciousness
as compared to critical remarks by other people suggests that
7 High =
Medium = SPP may not directly relate to an increased frequency of such
5
Low = negative thoughts. However, the significant social anxiety by
SPP interaction suggests that higher levels of SPP may exac-
4 12 20 28 36 erbate the socially anxious person’s tendency to dwell on self-
Social Anxiety derogatory thoughts and feelings relative to the anticipated
Fig. 2. Relationship of social anxiety with frequency of negative self- conversation.
statements at low, medium, and high levels of socially prescribed The fact that socially anxious persons who were also high
perfectionism. in SPP reported the greatest frequency of negative thoughts
60 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

suggests that heightened concerns about the demanding nal standards (i.e., experimenter and interaction partner)
nature of others’ performance expectations in combination when assessing others’ standards. Although no differences
with their anxious self-preoccupation may increase the were found between ratings based on these different sources
belief that one’s perceived inadequacies will become evident of external standards in the present study, future research
during a conversation, leading people to experience greater should consider comparing discrepancy ratings that employ
self-derogatory thinking (i.e., negative SISST). Assuming different target persons as the source of the other standard
that these findings would replicate using an actual conversa- to evaluate whether SPP moderates the relation of social
tion, the observed interaction in the current study may help anxiety and discrepancy ratings regardless of the target per-
explain previous research which found that socially anxious son or for just certain ones (e.g., authority figures).
participants greatly overestimate the visibility of their ner- Third, the study did not control for other participant
vousness compared to the actual frequency of visible anxi- characteristics that might coexist with social anxiety and/
ety behaviors based on videotape ratings (Bruch, Gorsky, or with SPP, such as depression or neuroticism. One or
Collins, & Berger, 1989, Study 2). The present interaction more of these other factors could have contributed to the
suggests that participants high in both social anxiety and results given the fact that a variety of psychological condi-
SPP may be prone to exaggerate the extent of their anxious tions are associated with maladaptive appraisal processes.
behavior because they believe that the unreasonable expec- In terms of clinical implications, the present results sug-
tations of others will lead to a greater degree of negative gest that cognitive-behavioral treatments of social anxiety
evaluation than the negative evaluation expected by socially (e.g., Heimberg & Becker, 2002) need to incorporate spe-
anxious people who are low in SPP. This interpretation is cific steps that enable clients to learn to question and dis-
consistent with Bruch et al.s (1989; Study 2) finding that pute their beliefs about others’ standards for their
participants’ overestimates of the visibility of their anxiety performance. The fact that low and average levels of SPP
were correlated with the frequency of their negative self- moderated the relationship between social anxiety and
statements but not with a physiological index of their anx- the other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy suggests that
iety (i.e., increased heart rate). even a minimal belief that others will hold unreasonable
Although social anxiety evidenced a significant, inverse and demanding expectations for one’s performance needs
relationship with positive thoughts, SPP showed no direct to be challenged and disputed. Thus, in addition to modi-
relationship with positive thoughts (once the covariance fying cognitive distortions related to self-perceived inade-
between social anxiety and SPP was controlled) nor did quacies, cognitive techniques need to identify key
it serve as a moderator variable. The fact that SPP played distortions that contribute to misperceptions of the stan-
no role in predicting positive thoughts may indicate that dards typically held by other people. Subsequent behav-
positive thinking stems more from an individual’s own ioral exposures, designed so that clients receive feedback
confidence in their social skills than from any concerns about others’ actual expectations, could then provide
regarding the expectations and demands of others. Also, objective evidence that acts to disconfirm a client’s errone-
the fact that SPP did not moderate the relationship ous hypotheses about others’ standards.
between social anxiety and positive self-statements sug-
gests that SPP is more likely to moderate relationships References
that involve social anxiety and negative rather than posi-
tive types of appraisals. Alden, L. E., Bieling, P. J., & Wallace, S. T. (1994). Perfectionism in an
There are a number of limitations to the current study interpersonal context: A self-regulation analysis of dysphoria and
social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 297–316.
which should be considered when interpreting the results. Alden, L. E., Ryder, A. G., & Mellings, T. M. B. (2002). Perfectionism in
First, the use of an anticipated conversation rather than the context of social fears: Toward a two-component model. In G. L.
an actual conversation requires caution regarding the gen- Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and
eralizability of the findings. Although it might be assumed treatment (pp. 373–391). Washington, DC: American Psychological
that an actual conversation would yield even stronger find- Association.
Bieling, P. J., & Alden, L. E. (1997). The consequences of perfectionism
ings, it is possible that aspects of the other person (e.g., for patients with social phobia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
non-threatening demeanor) could diminish the effects of 36, 387–395.
the cognitive concerns associated with higher levels of Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. A., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989).
social anxiety and SPP. Shyness and sociability reexamined: A multicomponent analysis.
Second, it would be useful to separate the assessment of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 904–915.
Bruch, M. A., Rivet, K. M., Heimberg, R. G., Hunt, A., & McIntosh, B.
self-reported social anxiety and SPP from the assessment of (1999). Shyness and sociotropy: Additive and interactive relations in
maladaptive appraisal processes relative to an anticipated predicting interpersonal concerns. Journal of Personality, 67, 373–406.
or actual conversation. This approach would allow for a Cacioppo, J. T., Glass, C. R., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1979). Self-statements
more precise determination of the relationship between par- and selfevaluations: A cognitive-response analysis of heterosexual
social anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 249–262.
ticipants’ typical self-report level of social anxiety and SPP
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In
and the appraisal responses that are elicited by specific R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier
social situations. In addition, the present study did not dis- (Eds.), Social phobia: Research, assessment and treatment (pp. 69–93).
tinguish between two types of target persons holding exter- New York: Guilford Press.
H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 61

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West & Akin (2003). Applied multiple regression/ perceived positive attributes of the other. Cognitive Therapy and
correlation: Regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, Research, 17, 209–224.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of
Dodge, C. S., Hope, D. A., Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (1988). measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety.
Evaluation of the Social Interaction Self-Statement Test with a social Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470.
phobic population. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 211–222. Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., & Jones, W. H. (1986). A trait – situational
Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1997). Questionnaire methods of cognitive analysis of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),
self-statement assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 239–249). New
ogy, 65, 911–927. York: Plenum Press.
Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. H. (1982). Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-
Cognitive assessment of social anxiety: Development and validation of presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin,
a self-statement questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 92, 641–669.
37–55. Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and
Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral group psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model of
therapy for social phobia: Basic mechanisms and clinical strategies. New positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review, 9,
York: Guilford Press. 271–294.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Perfectionism in the self and Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1991). A comparison of social standards
social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with and perceived ability in anxious and nonanxious men. Cognitive
psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, Therapy and Research, 15, 237–254.
456–470. Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard setting
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Dimensions of perfectionism in following social success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,
unipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98–101. 613–631.
Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism and Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative
interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 81– anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457.
103. Zweig, D. R., & Brown, S. D. (1985). Psychometric evaluation of a written
Mahone, J. E., Bruch, M. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1993). Focus of stimulus presentation format for the Social Interaction Self-Statement
attention and social anxiety: The role of negative self-thoughts and Test. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 285–295.