8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

1/16

Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness

Jennifer S. BeerUniversity of California, Berkeley

Three studies examined implicit self-theories in relation to shy peoples goals, responses, and conse-

quences within social situations. Shy incremental theorists were more likely than shy entity theorists to

view social situations as a learning opportunity and to approach social settings (Study 1). Shy incremental

theorists were less likely to use strategies aimed at avoiding social interaction (Studies 2 and 3) and

suffered fewer negative consequences of their shyness (Study 3). These findings generalized across both

hypothetical and actual social situations as well as both self-reports and observer reports and could not

be attributed to individual differences in level of shyness. Together, these studies indicate that implicit

self-theories of shyness are important for understanding individual differences among shy people and

suggest new avenues for implicit self-theories research.

Suppose you had to predict whether a particular person would

strike up a conversation with a complete stranger. Would knowingthat persons level of shyness be enough? Or would you want to

know how much control that person believed he or she had over

his or her feelings of shyness? Most likely the best prediction

would come from knowing both. Whereas personal characteristics

are often powerful predictors of behavior, research suggests that

individuals perceptions of the malleability of their personal char-

acteristics are also important for shaping behavior. For example,

research has highlighted the importance of beliefs about the mal-

leability of intelligence in studies of success in the face of aca-

demic challenge. Individuals who believe they can do nothing to

change their level of intelligence differ in their goals and responses

to challenging academic situations in comparison with individuals

who believe they can change their level of intelligence. Theseeffects are independent of ability level (Butler, 2000; Dweck,

Chiu, & Hong, 1995a; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Goetz & Dweck,

1980; Rhodewalt, 1994).

If beliefs about the malleability of personal characteristics are

useful for understanding motivational patterns in challenging ac-

ademic situations, then they may also be useful in challenging

social situations. For example, shy people tend to be particularly

challenged by the prospect of social interaction. Although much of

shyness research emphasizes the motivation of shy people to avoid

the challenge of social interaction, individual differences in shy-

ness may not tell the whole story. Research has shown that people

who report similar levels of shyness often respond to social chal-

lenge very differently. Therefore, individuals perceived control

over their shyness may also be important in understanding theirsocial motivation and behavior. Individuals who believe they can

do nothing about their intense feelings of shyness may have

different goals and responses in social interactions than do indi-viduals who believe their shyness can change over time. The

present research explores the usefulness of studying implicit self-

theories of shyness for understanding individual differences

among shy peoples response to social challenge.

Implicit Self-Theories: The Case of Intelligence

Previous research supports the hypothesis that understanding

perceived control over personal characteristics may be just as

important as understanding individual differences in personal char-

acteristics. For example, implicit beliefs about the malleability of

intelligence shape the way people interpret and react to achieve-

ment situations (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a, 1995b; Dweck& Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, in press). Two implicit self-

theories of intelligence have been discussed. Entity theorists be-

lieve their intelligence is fixed and cannot change, whereas incre-

mental theorists believe their intelligence is malleable. Research

has shown that entity and incremental theorists tend to have

different goals in academic contexts (e.g., Dweck & Leggett,

1988). Entity theorists focus on their academic performance be-

cause of their belief that their performance documents their per-

manent intelligence level. Individuals with performance goals aim

to maximize positive judgments of their performance and mini-

mize negative judgments. In contrast, incremental theorists focus

on learning in academic contexts because of their belief that they

can increase their intelligence. Individuals with learning goals aim

to achieve self-improvement.

Entity and incremental theorists also differ in their responses to

failure in achievement contexts (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Entity

theorists, particularly those who have low self-confidence, respond

to failure with a helpless response pattern. They purposely avoid

challenge or perform increasingly poorly once obstacles are en-

countered. In contrast, incremental theorists, regardless of self-

confidence, respond to failure with a mastery-oriented response

pattern. Incremental theorists seek challenging tasks and persist in

the face of failure (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980).

In summary, Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck et al., 1995a,

1995b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) proposed that individuals hold

Preparation of this article was supported by a graduate research fellow-

ship from the National Science Foundation. Many thanks go to Rick

Robins, Delroy Paulhus, and Oliver John and his lab group for helpful

comments on drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jennifer S.

Beer, Department of Psychology, University of California, 3210 Tolman

Hall, Berkeley, California 94720-1650. E-mail: jbeer@socrates.berkeley

.edu

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.2002, Vol. 83, No. 4, 1009 1024 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.1009

1009

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

2/16

either entity or incremental implicit self-theories of intelligence.

Each implicit self-theory is associated with a unique motivational

pattern and predicts goals and responses in the face of failure.

Entity theorists focus on the performance aspects of situations and

tend to avoid challenge. This is particularly true for those entity

theorists with low self-confidence. In contrast, regardless of self-

confidence, incremental theorists focus on learning from situationsand tend to approach challenge. Finally, entity theorists tend to

perform more poorly because they give up once obstacles arise,

whereas incremental theorists try harder in the face of challenge.

Implicit Self-Theories: The Case of Shyness

If implicit self-theories account for motivational patterns in

response to academic challenge, might they also relate to responses

to social challenge? Theoretical parallels can be drawn between

achievement contexts and social contexts. Both situations are ego

involving and require individuals to publicly display ability (either

intellectual or social), which is then subject to the evaluation of

others. Therefore, implicit self-theories of interpersonal character-

istics may be useful for understanding social motivation and

behavior.

Relatively little research has examined the relation between

implicit self-theories and response to social challenge (but see

Erdley, Cain, Loomis, Dumas-Hines, & Dweck, 1997; Goetz &

Dweck, 1980). For example, Erdley et al. (1997) examined entity

and incremental beliefs about personality. In one study, childrens

implicit theories of personality predicted their preference for per-

formance goals. Children with entity theories of personality pre-

ferred gaining the approval of others more than did children with

incremental theories of personality. In another study, children

participated in a pen pal club tryout. Children were randomly

assigned to one of two conditions. In the performance goal con-

dition, the evaluative nature of the tryout process was emphasized.In the learning goal condition, the learning potential in the tryout

process was emphasized. All children were told that their first

tryout was not acceptable and that they would have to try again.

During the second tryout, children in the performance goal con-

dition tended to avoid the task by giving up and engaging in

self-defeating behaviors. In contrast, children in the learning goal

condition persisted in trying to become part of the pen pal club.

Taken together, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories

predict goals and goals predict response to social challenge.

It is important to note that this research has focused on implicit

self-theories of a very broad construct: personality. Dweck et al.

(1995a) have found that implicit self-theories are domain specific.

In other words, an individual may have an entity theory about his

or her intelligence and an incremental theory about his or her

personality. Both intelligence and personality have been theorized

to have multiple subcomponents, and it is possible that individuals

might have different implicit self-theories about each subcompo-

nent. Given this domain specificity, it is perhaps most relevant to

examine implicit self-theories about specific personality traits that

put people at risk for social failure.

One personality trait that is associated with social failure is

shyness. Generally, shyness is conceptualized as an affective

behavioral syndrome characterized by social anxiety and interper-

sonal inhibition that results from the prospect or presence of

interpersonal evaluation (Leary, 1986, p. 30). From this perspec-

tive, shy individuals are particularly motivated to create a good

impression on others yet are also particularly doubtful of their

ability to achieve that goal (Leary & Buckley, 2000). Shyness has

also been viewed as a syndrome consisting of behavioral, physi-

ological, and cognitiveaffective components (e.g., Cheek & Mel-

chior, 1990; Zimbardo, 1977/1990). Shy individuals exhibit avoid-

ance behaviors such as inhibited behavior, avoidance of eyecontact, reluctance to talk, and avoidance of other people (e.g.,

Cheek & Buss, 1981). Physiological symptoms of shyness may

include racing pulse, pounding heart, and blushing at the prospect

of social interaction. Shy individuals are also prone to chronic

negative self-appraisals, intense concerns about evaluations of

others, and aversion toward entering into social interaction as well

as feelings of anxiety and embarrassment (e.g., Cheek & Melchior,

1990; Pilkonis, 1977a, 1977b; Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Zim-

bardo, 1977/1990). A host of negative social consequences have

also been associated with shyness. The social consequences of

shyness may be best described as involving both private (internal)

and public (external) aspects (e.g., Jones & Carpenter, 1986;

Paulhus & Trapnell, 1998). For example, shy individuals have

been shown to experience greater internal feelings of anxiety,

loneliness, and low self-esteem. Public consequences of shyness

include negative evaluations by others (i.e., negative perceptions

of intelligence, social skills, friendliness, poise, and talent) and

fewer dating experiences and friendships (e.g., Jones & Briggs,

1984; Jones & Carpenter, 1986; Meleshko & Alden, 1993; Paulhus

& Morgan, 1997).

In contrast, research has shown that not all shy people are

necessarily avoidant of social situations, nor are they necessarily

social failures (e.g., Arkin, Lake, & Baumgardner, 1986; Cheek &

Melchior, 1990; Gough & Thorne, 1986; Zimbardo, 1977/1990).

For example, some shy individuals consider themselves shy but are

perceived as socially adept by others (Zimbardo, 1977/1990).

Other research suggests that some shy individuals participate insocial activity when they are certain their performance will be

successful (Arkin et al., 1986). It has been difficult to understand

these individual differences among shy people because they are

not explained by different levels of shyness. In other words,

individual differences in shyness have not sufficiently explained

individual differences among shy peoples social motivation and

behavior.

How are researchers to explain individual differences among

shy peoples social motivation and behavior? The concept of

implicit self-theories and their associated motivational patterns

might provide a useful overarching framework for integrating

previous research on the individual differences among shy people.

Just as there are individual differences in beliefs about ability in

the academic domain, it may be that there are individual differ-

ences in how shy people perceive their ability to become less shy.

These differences in perceived control over feelings of shyness

may have important implications for the goals and response pat-

terns shy people adopt in the face of social challenge. Conse-

quently, different implicit self-theories and their associated moti-

vational patterns may explain why shy people differ from one

another in their social behavior. From this perspective, shy indi-

viduals with entity views (shy entity theorists) should endorse

performance goals in social situations. Furthermore, shy entity

theorists, particularly those with low self-confidence, should use

avoidant strategies and suffer from the public and private negative

1010 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

3/16

consequences of shyness. In comparison, shy individuals with

incremental views (shy incremental theorists) should endorse

learning goals in social situations. Shy incremental theorists, re-

gardless of social confidence, should be more approach oriented

and suffer from fewer of the public and private consequences of

shyness. Conceptualizing previous work in terms of implicit self-

theories of shyness and their associated social goals and socialresponse patterns may provide an overarching framework to syn-

thesize previous work that has explored individual differences

among shy people.

Previous research has shown that shy individuals differ in their

perceptions of their shyness and that these perceptions have im-

plications for their social behavior. Wurf (1989) found that indi-

viduals who downplay the inevitability of their shyness differed

from individuals who felt their shyness was inevitable. Shyness-

downplaying individuals tended to seek specific feedback to im-

prove their social interactions. This feedback was sought even as

their social anxiety increased. In contrast, shyness-emphasizing

individuals sought to confirm their negative self-views as their

social anxiety increased. From an implicit self-theories perspec-

tive, it may be that shyness-downplaying and shyness-emphasizing

individuals differ in their implicit beliefs about the malleability of

their shyness and their social goals. The very reason that some shy

individuals can downplay the importance of their shyness may be

because they implicitly believe they can change their level of

shyness. In this case, shyness-downplaying individuals motiva-

tion for self-improvement may not have been that they discounted

their shyness but rather that their belief that their shyness could

change made improvement a possibility. In contrast, the very

reason that other shy individuals emphasize the importance of their

feelings of shyness may be that they implicitly believe they can do

nothing to change their level of shyness. Shyness-emphasizing

individuals focus on their failings may not have been because

their feelings of shyness were more central to their identity butrather because their belief that their shyness could not change

made failing the only option.

Other research has shown that shy people differ in their tenden-

cies to avoid or approach social challenge. Whereas some shy

people adopt an avoidant strategy for coping with their shyness,

other shy people actively approach social situations. For example,

some shy individuals may withdraw from social situations despite

intense feelings of loneliness (Snyder & Smith, 1986). These

individuals may avoid social situations completely or, once stuck

in a social setting, remain quiet and avoid eye contact. Other shy

individuals assign themselves the role of an interviewer. By asking

questions of other people, these shy individuals are able to partic-

ipate in social interaction while remaining out of the spotlight.

These shy individuals care more about avoiding a negative eval-

uation by others than about making a good impression (Arkin et

al., 1986). In contrast, other shy individuals use strategies to make

social environments more manageable and less threatening. Lang-

ston and Cantor (1989) found that socially anxious individuals

adopted either avoidant or approach strategies to cope with their

anxiety in social situations. The more avoidant group had trouble

recognizing what social situations required, felt poorly about them-

selves, and rarely attempted to better their situation. In contrast, the

more approach-oriented group behaved in an outgoing manner

regardless of their feelings of anxiety. All of these findings may be

explained by individual differences in implicit self-theories of

shyness. The avoidant tendencies of many shy people may arise

from beliefs that shyness is fixed. Therefore, persistence in the

face of challenge is futile. Similarly, the approach tendencies of

other shy people may arise from beliefs that shyness can change.

Therefore, challenge is approached as a chance to practice acting

less shy.

Overview of the Present Research

Three studies were conducted to examine whether implicit self-

theories and their associated goals and response styles explained

individual differences among shy peoples response to social in-

teraction. Studies 1 and 2 establish the usefulness of implicit

self-theories of shyness for understanding social motivation and

behavior among shy individuals. These two studies rely on self-

report measures and hypothetical situations to test basic hypothe-

ses about implicit self-theories of shyness derived from the re-

search on implicit self-theories of intelligence. In particular,

Study 1 tests whether shy individuals social goals and general

approachavoidance tendencies depend on their implicit self-

theories. Study 2 moves beyond general tendencies to examine

whether shy individuals specific strategies in social situations

depend on their implicit self-theories. The second study also tests

whether low social confidence puts entity theorists particularly at

risk for avoidant social strategies in comparison with incremental

theorists. A final purpose of Study 2 is to examine whether

measuring beliefs about specific traits (i.e., shyness) provides any

advantage over measuring beliefs about personality in general.

Parallel analyses of the relations between implicit self-theories and

avoidant strategies were conducted using implicit self-theories of

shyness as well as implicit self-theories of personality.

Study 3 extends the first two studies by examining implicit

self-theories of shyness in an actual social interaction and incor-

porating both self-report and observer measures. As in Study 2,Study 3 tests whether implicit self-theories and shyness interact to

predict social strategies. Additionally, Study 3 examines whether

shy individuals public and private experiences in social situations

are dependent on their implicit self-theories.

Study 1: Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness, Social Goals,

and ApproachAvoidance Tendencies

Study 1 tests whether implicit self-theories of shyness predict

social goals and general tendencies to approach and avoid social

challenge. Three hypotheses were derived from research on im-

plicit self-theories of intelligence. First, it was hypothesized that

implicit self-theories would be important for predicting individual

differences among shy peoples social goals. Specifically, an in-

teraction between shyness and implicit self-theory of shyness

should predict preferences for (a) learning and (b) performance

goals. It was expected that shy incremental theorists would view

social situations as learning opportunities and be less concerned

with performing well. In contrast, shy entity theorists should view

social challenge as a demonstration of their poor social ability.

Therefore, they should be concerned with their social performance

but less concerned with learning in social contexts.

Second, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories would be

important for understanding individual differences among shy

peoples tendencies to approach social situations. Implicit self-

1011IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

4/16

theories should interact with shyness to predict approach tenden-

cies. Shy incremental theorists belief that they can master their

shyness should be associated with a preference to approach social

situations in comparison with shy entity theorists.

Third, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories would be

important for understanding individual differences among shy

peoples tendencies to avoid social situations. Implicit self-theoriesshould interact with shyness to predict avoidance tendencies. Shy

entity theorists belief that they are doomed to fail in social

situations should be associated with a preference to avoid social

interaction in comparison with shy incremental theorists.

Method

Participants and procedures. Participants were 202 students (134

women) in a psychology course who took part in the experiment for course

credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous: 51.3% Asian Ameri-

cans, 4.1% African Americans, 27.7% Caucasians, 8.2% Hispanics, 0.5%

Native Americans, and 8.2% other ethnicity. Participants were 20.2 years

old on average (SD 3.2) and ranged in age from 18 to 46 years old. The

experiment took place in 1-hr group sessions. For the first portion of theexperiment, participants filled out a series of questionnaires. Next, partic-

ipants were led to believe they would be taking part in a videotaped social

interaction task and were asked to rate their preference for two possible

task options. After the task options were rated, the participants were

debriefed, and the experiment ended.

Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed six items to

assess implicit self-theories of shyness. Three items were modified from

Erdley and Dwecks (1993) measures of implicit self-theories of intelli-

gence, and three items keyed toward the incremental orientation were

added to balance the scale ( .75). The six items included, I have a

certain level of shyness, and it is something that I cant do much about, I

can change how outgoing I appear in social situations, but I can t change

my true level of shyness, My shyness is something about me that I cant

change very much, I can change aspects of my shyness if I want to

(reversed), How shy I am changes as I go through life (reversed), and

My shyness is not fixed, but changes over time (reversed). Each item was

rated on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) scale. In the present

research, implicit self-theories of shyness were scored so that high scores

reflect an entity theory. Implicit self-theories of shyness were analyzed as

a continuous variable (but see Dweck et al., 1995a, for a dichotomous

approach). To encourage nonshy participants to answer the implicit self-

theories items in a meaningful manner, the instructions for this scale

included the statement, Even if you do not consider yourself a shy person,

think of the times you have felt shy when answering the following items.1

Shyness. Participants completed Cheek and Melchiors (1985) Shyness

Scale ( .65), which assesses three components of shyness: physiolog-

ical (e.g., racing pulse, blushing), observable (e.g., avoiding people, re-

duced eye contact), and cognitive (e.g., feelings of anxiety or embarrass-

ment). Participants rated the frequency of each of the components using a 1

(never) to 5 (always) scale. Shyness correlated .25 with the entity implicit

self-theory of shyness.

Social goals. Participants were led to believe they would take part in

a videotaped social interaction task and rated their preference for two task

options. One option reflected a learning goal and ensured participants that

they would learn some social skills applicable beyond the laboratory

setting even though they might appear awkward on the videotape. A second

option reflected a performance goal and ensured participants that they

would be paired with individuals of lesser social ability so that their social

skills would be perceived positively by others. Participants were asked to

rate their preference for each option on a 1 (not at all preferable) to 5

(extremely preferable) scale. The learning-goal task option correlated .14

with the performance-goal task option.

Approach tendencies. Measures of both general and social approach

tendencies were composited. Approach tendencies were measured using a

standardized composite of the Behavioral Approach System Scale (BAS;

Carver & White, 1994) and the reverse-scored Social Avoidance and

Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). The BAS is a well-

validated scale that measures general approach tendencies, that is, how

likely individuals are to identify and approach rewards in their environment

(13 items; .84). An example item is, If I see a chance to get something

I want, I move on it right away. The reverse-scored SAD was included in

the composite to add a dimension of approach tendencies specific to social

situations (28 items; .96). An example item is, If the chance comes

to meet new people, I often take it. The BAS and reverse-scored SAD

correlated .50.

Avoidance tendencies. Measures of both general and social avoidance

tendencies were composited. Avoidance tendencies were measured using a

standardized composite of the Behavioral Inhibition System Scale (BIS;

Carver & White, 1994) and the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE;

Watson & Friend, 1969). The BIS is a well-validated scale that measures

general avoidance tendencies, that is, how likely individuals are to identify

and avoid threatening stimuli in their environment (7 items; .76). An

example item is, I worry about making mistakes. The FNE was included

in the composite to add a dimension of avoidance tendencies specific to

social situations (30 items; .94). An example item is, I feel very upset

when I commit some social error. The BIS and FNE correlated .68.

Results

For all variables reported in Study 1, means and standard devi-

ations are reported in Table 1, and intercorrelations are reported in

Table 2.

Learning goals. Are shy incremental theorists more likely than

shy entity theorists to prefer learning goals? Yes, shy incremental

theorists preferred the opportunity to learn how to master their

shyness in comparison with shy entity theorists. A moderated

multiple regression was conducted to examine the effect of im-

plicit self-theory and shyness on preference for the learning optionin the social interaction task. This analysis controls for main

effects of shyness and implicit self-theories before evaluating

whether shy individuals responses depend on their implicit self-

theories. As predicted, a significant interaction between implicit

self-theories and shyness was found for learning goals ( .21,

p .05). No main effects were found for shyness ( .01, p

.05) or implicit self-theories ( .00, p .05).

Consistent with the approach advocated by Aiken and West

(1991), Figure 1 (left panel) portrays the predicted interaction

effect by showing the regression lines relating implicit self-

theories to learning goals separately for individuals with shyness

scores of one standard deviation above the mean (labeled high

shyness in the figure) and one standard deviation below the mean

(labeled low shyness in the figure). In all figures, the angle of

intersection between the two regression lines reflects the size of

1 Theory and research have shown that most people feel shy at one time

or another, therefore making it possible for nondispositionally shy partic-

ipants to answer the implicit self-theories questions (e.g., Leary & Buckley,

2000; Zimbardo, 1977/1990). Analyses of the data from Studies 13 show

that the means and standard deviations on the implicit self-theories mea-

sures are similar for shy and nonshy participants. Additionally, the overall

pattern of findings and the magnitude of the hypothesized effects remain

the same if participants who claim to never feel shy or almost never feel

shy are dropped from the analyses.

1012 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

5/16

the interaction between implicit self-theories and shyness (or so-

cial confidence) in explaining variance in the outcome variables. In

cases where there is no interaction, the two lines will be parallel.

Performance goals. Are shy entity theorists more likely to

prefer performance goals than are shy incremental theorists? No,

no effects were found. It may be that people generally prefer to

make a good impression when meeting new people regardless of

shyness or implicit self-theory. A moderated multiple regressionwas conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory and

shyness on preference for the performance option in the social

interaction task. No effects were found for shyness ( .12, p

.05), implicit self-theory ( .13, p .05), or their interaction

term ( .03, p .05).

Approach tendencies. Do shy incremental theorists report

more approach tendencies than do shy entity theorists? Yes, shy

incremental theorists were more oriented to potential rewards than

were shy entity theorists. A moderated multiple regression was

conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory and shyness

on approach tendencies. As predicted, a significant interaction

between implicit self-theories and shyness was found for approach

tendencies ( .16, p .05). A main effect was found for

shyness ( .35, p .05) and for implicit self-theories ( .26, p .05). Figure 1 (right panel) portrays the predicted

interaction effect by showing the regression lines relating implicit

self-theories to approach tendencies separately for individuals with

shyness scores of one standard deviation above the mean (labeled

high shyness in the figure) and one standard deviation below the

mean (labeled low shyness in the figure).

Avoidance tendencies. Do shy entity theorists report more

avoidance tendencies than do shy incremental theorists? No, re-

gardless of implicit self-theory, shy individuals were more oriented

toward potential threats than were extraverted individuals. A mod-

erated multiple regression was conducted to examine the effect of

implicit self-theory and shyness on avoidance tendencies. In con-

trast to the hypothesis, only a main effect was found for shyness onavoidance tendencies ( .64, p .05). No significant effects

were found for implicit self-theories ( .05, p .05) or the

interaction term ( .01, p .05).

Discussion

Together, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories of

shyness are important for understanding the social goals and the

approach tendencies of shy individuals. Consistent with the first

hypothesis, implicit self-theories interacted with shyness to predict

learning goals. Shy individuals were more concerned with learning

in social situations if they had incremental theories about their

shyness. Consistent with the third hypothesis, implicit self-theories

interacted with shyness to predict approach tendencies. Shy indi-

viduals were more attuned to the potential rewards in their envi-

ronment if they had incremental theories about their shyness.

Implicit self-theories did not predict shy individuals avoidance

tendencies. Consistent with previous research, shy individuals had

a general tendency to avoid challenge. In other words, shy indi-viduals were particularly sensitive to the potential threats in their

environment.

These findings raise the question of why shy incremental theo-

rists report tendencies to both approach and avoid social situations.

Generally, shy individuals are theorized to experience a conflict

between their desire for social acceptance and their doubts about

their ability to be accepted (e.g., Leary & Buckley, 2000; Leary &

Kowalski, 1995). In other words, shy people may be motivated to

approach other people. However, their intense concern about cre-

ating a positive impression coupled with their fears of failure

render social interaction a threatening prospect. In contrast, shy

individuals with incremental theories may not be as crippled by

fears of failure because they also have a strong motivation to

master their feelings of shyness. It may be that social interactions

pose a simultaneous threat and reward for shy incremental theo-

rists. For example, although social interactions provide a venue for

social failure and negative evaluations by others, they are also a

chance to practice social skills and gauge improvement in social

ability from the evaluations of others. If this is the case, then shy

individuals with incremental theories may report avoidance ten-

dencies in anticipation of social interaction, but their response to

social challenge may not be avoidance.

Study 2: Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness

and Avoidant Strategies

Study 2 examines how implicit self-theories can further under-standing of who is most likely to adopt social strategies aimed at

avoiding social interaction. Study 1 raises the question of which

social strategies shy incremental theorists might use given their

simultaneous tendencies to approach and avoid social challenge.

Therefore, Study 2 tests the possibility that shy individuals social

strategies depend on their implicit self-theories. Although shy

incremental theorists may initially feel threatened by social inter-

action, their dominating belief that they can become less shy

should be associated with a reduction in the use of strategies aimed

at being inconspicuous in comparison with shy entity theorists.

Therefore, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories should

interact with shyness to predict avoidant social strategies. Addi-

tionally, Study 2 tests whether implicit self-theories of shyness are

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 1

Variable M SD

Implicit self-theories 2.49 0.55

Shyness 3.06 0.74

Learning goals 3.66 0.99Performance goals 3.02 0.96Approach tendencies 3.27 0.41Avoidance tendencies 2.90 0.56

Table 2

Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 1

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Implicit self-theories 2. Shyness .25 3. Learning goals .01 .01 4. Performance goals .16 .12 .14 5. Approach tendencies .39 .47 .14 .15 6. Avoidance tendencies .21 .66 .04 .19 .33

1013IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

6/16

dependent on social confidence in predictions of avoidant social

strategies. Previous research on implicit self-theories of intelli-gence has shown that confidence in ones ability is most likely to

affect the use of avoidant strategies for entity theorists. Entity

theorists with low confidence in their abilities tend to show the

most helpless, avoidant response to challenge. Therefore, it was

hypothesized that entity theorists with low social confidence

should report more avoidant strategies than should entity theorists

who feel more confident in their social ability. Incremental theo-

rists, regardless of their confidence in their social skills, should

report fewer avoidant strategies than should entity theorists.

Finally, Study 2 examines whether there is any advantage in

assessing implicit self-theories of shyness in comparison with the

broader construct of implicit self-theories of personality. Theoret-

ically, individuals may hold entity beliefs about themselves in a

particular domain and incremental beliefs about themselves inanother domain (e.g., Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b). The domain

specificity of implicit self-theories suggests that individuals may

have entity theories about some of their traits and incremental

theories about other traits. Therefore, measuring implicit self-

theories at the broad level of personality may not provide the

strongest test of understanding how implicit self-theories about

particular traits influence social motivation and behavior. Ideal

measurement captures some level of specificity without sacrificing

the generalizability of empirical findings. To test whether it is

useful to test implicit self-theories of specific traits (i.e., shyness),

a parallel set of analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized

relations using implicit self-theories of personality instead of im-

plicit self-theories of shyness.

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants were 238 students (137

women) in a psychology course who took part in the experiment in

exchange for course credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous:

44.1% Asian Americans, 4.0% African Americans, 30.6% Cauca-

sians, 9.0% Hispanics, and 12.3% other ethnicity. Participants were 20.3

years old on average (SD 2.5) and ranged in age from 18 to 37 years old.

Participants were asked to fill out questionnaire packets in sessions last-

ing 1 hr.

Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed the six-item

scale used in Study 1 ( .75).

Implicit self-theories of personality. Participants completed the same

six-item scale used to assess implicit self-theories of shyness, with the

word personality substituted for shyness ( .78). The six items included,

I have a certain personality, and it is something that I cant do much

about, I can change how I appear in social situations, but I cant change

my true personality, My personality is something about me that I cant

change very much, I can change aspects of my personality if I want to

(reversed), My personality changes as I go through life (reversed), and

My personality is not fixed, but changes over time (reversed). Each item

was rated on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) scale. In the

present research, implicit self-theories of personality were scored so that

high scores reflect an entity theory and were analyzed as a continuous

variable (but see Dweck et al., 1995a, for a dichotomous approach).

Implicit self-theories of personality correlated .58 with implicit self-

theories of shyness but were not correlated with shyness ( r .06).

Shyness. As in Study 1, participants rated the frequency of their

shyness symptoms on Cheek and Melchiors (1985) three-component

Shyness Scale ( .60). Shyness correlated .31 with entity implicit

self-theory of shyness.

Social confidence. Social confidence was measured by two items: I

am somewhat socially awkward (reversed) and I am confident of my

social skills ( .76). Items were rated on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) scale.

Social confidence correlated .45 with shyness.

Avoidant social strategies. To assess avoidant social strategies, an

eight-item scale was developed from previously identified strategies for

coping with social situations (e.g., Arkin et al., 1986; Cheek & Melchior,

1990; Langston & Cantor, 1989; Snyder & Smith, 1986; Zimbardo, 1977/

1990). Participants rated eight items ( .73) on a 1 (disagree strongly)

to 5 (agree strongly) scale: Reduce my anxiety, Ask questions of the

other person to keep the conversation from focusing on me, Avoid eye

contact, Smile so I look interested but dont have to talk much myself,

Try to shift attention onto my partner, Try to avoid social situations,Find a task to keep me occupied so I dont have to socialize, and I try

to leave as soon as possible.

Results and Discussion

For all variables reported in Study 2, means and standard devi-

ations are reported in Table 3, and intercorrelations are reported in

Table 4.

Shyness and avoidant social strategies. Do shy entity theorists

report more avoidant social strategies than do shy incremental

theorists? Yes, shy entity theorists reported more avoidant social

strategies than did shy incremental theorists. A moderated multiple

Figure 1. Preference for learning goals (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (left panel)

and approach tendencies (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (right panel). Regression

results are graphed for individuals one standard deviation above and below the mean in shyness.

1014 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

7/16

regression was conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-

theory of shyness and shyness on avoidant social strategies. The

high correlation between shyness and social confidence made it

necessary to enter social confidence, shyness, implicit self-theory

of shyness, and the interaction between shyness and implicit self-

theory in the analyses. As predicted, a significant interaction was

found between implicit self-theories and shyness for avoidant

social strategies (Figure 2, left panel; .17, p .05). Main

effects were found for shyness ( .38, p .05) and social

confidence ( .14, p .05). No effects were found for

implicit self-theory ( .10, p .05).

Do implicit self-theories of personality predict shy peoples

avoidant social strategies? No, unlike the analyses using the im-

plicit self-theories of shyness measure, no effects were found for

implicit self-theory of personality on the avoidant social strategies

of shy people. A moderated multiple regression was conducted to

examine the effect of implicit self-theory of personality and shy-

ness on avoidant social strategies. The interaction term between

implicit self-theory of personality and shyness was not significant

( .05, p .05). Main effects were found for shyness ( .39,

p .05), implicit self-theory of personality ( .15, p .05), and

social confidence ( .16, p .05).

Social confidence and avoidant social strategies. Do individ-uals with entity beliefs about their shyness, particularly those with

low social confidence, report more avoidant social strategies than

incremental theorists? Yes, individuals with entity theories about

their shyness tended to respond avoidantly to social challenge, and

this was particularly true if they had low social confidence. A

moderated multiple regression was conducted to examine the

effect of implicit self-theory of shyness and social confidence on

avoidant social strategies. The high correlation between social

confidence and shyness made it necessary to enter shyness, social

confidence, implicit self-theories of shyness, and the interaction

between implicit self-theories and social confidence into the re-

gression analyses. As predicted, a significant interaction was found

between social confidence and implicit self-theories for avoidant

social strategies (Figure 2, right panel; .16, p .05). Main

effects were found for shyness ( .37, p .05) and implicit

self-theory of shyness ( .14, p .05). No effects were found

for social confidence ( .11, p .05).

Is the same relation between implicit self-theories, social con-

fidence, and avoidant social strategies found if theories of person-

ality are measured instead of theories of shyness? Yes, people who

were entity theorists about their personality tended to respond

avoidantly to social challenge, and this was particularly true if they

had low social confidence. A moderated multiple regression was

conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory of person-

ality and social confidence on avoidant social strategies. The high

correlation between social confidence and shyness made it neces-

sary to enter shyness, social confidence, implicit self-theories of

personality, and the interaction between implicit self-theories and

social confidence into the regression analyses. Consistent with the

implicit self-theory of shyness findings, a significant interaction

was found between social confidence and implicit self-theories of

personality for avoidant social strategies ( .15, p .05).Main effects were found for social confidence ( .14, p

.05), implicit self-theory of personality ( .17, p .05), and

shyness ( .40, p .05).

In summary, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories of

shyness are important for understanding shy individuals use of

avoidant social strategies. Consistent with the first hypothesis, shy

individuals with incremental theories about their shyness were less

likely to report avoidant social strategies. In addition, consistent

with the second hypothesis, entity theorists with low social self-

confidence were most at risk for adopting a helpless response style

in social situations. Finally, measuring implicit self-theories about

specific traits does provide some advantage over measuring im-

plicit self-theories about personality in general. In particular, the

relation between implicit self-theories and avoidant social strate-

gies would have been obscured if only implicit self-theories of

personality had been measured.

Study 3: Implicit Self-Theory of Shyness in a Novel

Social Interaction

Study 3 provides a methodological and theoretical extension of

Studies 1 and 2. Basic methods were used in Studies 1 and 2 to

establish implicit self-theories of shyness as a meaningful con-

struct. The next logical step for understanding implicit self-

theories of shyness is to conduct tests using more rigorous meth-

ods. For example, Studies 1 and 2 relied on social situations that

were only anticipated or hypothetical to test questions about im-plicit self-theories of shyness. Study 3 enhances the ecological

validity of this research by requiring participants to actually inter-

act with a stranger. Additionally, Studies 1 and 2 used only

self-report to test hypotheses about implicit self-theories of shy-

ness. The sole use of self-report raises concerns that findings may

reflect artificial inflation because of shared method variance. Gen-

erally, interactions among self-report measures such as those found

in Studies 1 and 2 provide some reassurance that findings are not

artificially inflated. Still, a more rigorous test of these questions

should include measures other than self-report. A stronger case for

the importance of implicit self-theories of shyness can be made if

self-perceived differences among shy people are noticed by other

people. If implicit self-theories of shyness are important for un-

derstanding individual differences among shy peoples social be-

Table 4

Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 2

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Implicit self-theories of shyness 2. Implicit self-theories of personality .58 3. Shyness .31 .06 4. Social confidence .26 .03 .49 5. Avoidant social strategies .29 .17 .49 .36

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 2

Variable M SD

Implicit self-theories of shyness 2.65 0.65

Implicit self-theories of personality 2.99 0.71

Shyness 2.85 0.68Social confidence 3.59 0.87Avoidant social strategies 3.91 1.07

1015IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

8/16

havior (and not just their self-perceptions), then these differences

should be noticeable to other people. Therefore, Study 3 includes

both self- and observer-reports of the dependent variables.

Study 3 also extends Studies 1 and 2 from a theoretical perspec-

tive. As in Study 2, Study 3 tests whether implicit self-theories of

shyness interact with shyness to predict avoidant social strategies.

It was hypothesized that shy entity theorists would adopt more

avoidant social strategies than would shy incremental theorists. It

was expected that this relation would hold regardless of whether

social strategies were self-reported or observer reported. Addition-

ally, Study 3 moves beyond social strategies to examine whether

implicit self-theories of shyness explain individual differences

among shy peoples social consequences. It may be that implicit

self-theories are important for understanding social strategies butdo not have implications for the negative social consequences

generally suffered by shy individuals. Two classes of social con-

sequences have been identified. Private consequences are internal

experiences such as feelings of rising anxiety. Public consequences

are external experiences such as being perceived as socially un-

skilled and unlikable (e.g., Jones & Carpenter, 1986). The present

research makes social challenge salient by requiring participants to

interact with a stranger while intermittently stopping to evaluate

the public and private consequences of their social performance

within the context of the interaction. Previous research on implicit

self-theories of intelligence and personality suggests that implicit

self-theories should interact with shyness to predict performance

consequences, whether public or private. Entity theorists are more

likely to feel bad, tend to give up, and consequently exhibit poorer

performance once they have been challenged. In contrast, incre-

mental theorists are less likely to feel bad, tend to persist in the

face of challenge, and reap the benefits of their efforts with

stronger performances (Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b; Dweck &

Leggett, 1988; Erdley et al., 1997). Therefore, it was expected that

shy incremental theorists should self-report fewer public and pri-

vate social consequences than should shy entity theorists. Previous

studies have shown that private experiences such as feelings of

nervousness can sometimes be difficult for observers to detect

in a short time (e.g., Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). Therefore, it

was expected that observers would detect differences in shy peo-

ples public social consequences as a function of their implicit

self-theories but not necessarily differences in private social

consequences.

Method

Participants and procedure. Participants were 122 students (72

women) in a psychology class who took part in the experiment for course

credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous: 44.8% Asian Ameri-

cans, 8.2% African Americans, 27.7% Caucasians, 9.0% Hispanics,

and 10.3% other ethnicity. Participants were 19.4 years old on average

(SD 1.8) and ranged in age from 18 to 30 years old. Participants were

videotaped while engaging in three 5-min dyadic interactions with a

complete stranger. The instructions for these dyads were simply get

acquainted with one another. After each 5-min time period, participants

paused to fill out questionnaires about their behavior in the interaction.

After all three dyads had occurred, participants filled out a longer ques-

tionnaire. Finally, videotaped interactions were coded for social interaction

strategies and public and private social consequences.

Self-ratings of social interaction strategies. Five items that applied to

the social interaction task were selected from the social interaction strategy

scale from Study 2. The items were, Reduce my anxiety, Ask questions

of the other person to keep the conversation from focusing on me, Avoid

eye contact, Smile so I look interested but dont have to talk much

myself, and Try to shift attention onto my partner. Participants rated the

items on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descriptive) scale. The

alpha reliability for these items was .70 (Dyad 1), .84 (Dyad 2), and .85

(Dyad 3).

Observer ratings of social interaction strategies. Three observers

watched videotapes of the dyadic interactions and rated participants on the

five self-reported social interaction strategies on a 1 (not at all descriptive)

to 9 (extremely descriptive) scale. Interrater reliability was .82 (Dyad 1),

.82 (Dyad 2), and .83 (Dyad 3).

Self-ratings of public and private social consequences. A composite

measure of public social consequences asked participants to rate how

socially skilled, likable, and talkative (all items reverse scored) they were

during the interaction on a 1 (not at all descriptive) t o 9 (extremely

descriptive) scale. The alpha reliability for public social consequences was

.78 (Dyad 1), .78 (Dyad 2), and .81 (Dyad 3). The measure of private social

consequences required participants to rate how shy and nervous they felt

during the interaction on 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descrip-

tive) scale. The alpha reliability for private social consequences was .70

(Dyad 1), .77 (Dyad 2), and .81 (Dyad 3).

Figure 2. Avoidant strategy use (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (left panel) and

implicit self-theories and confidence (right panel). Regression results are graphed for individuals one standard

deviation above and below the mean in shyness (left panel) and individuals one standard deviation above and

below the mean in social confidence (right panel).

1016 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

9/16

Observer ratings of public and private social consequences. Three

observers watched videotapes of the social interactions and rated each

participant on public and private social consequences. A composite mea-

sure of public social consequences asked observers to rate participants on

their social skills, likability, and enjoyment of the interaction (all items

reverse scored) on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descriptive)

scale. Interrater reliability for public social consequences was .87 (Dyad 1),

.80 (Dyad 2), and .75 (Dyad 3). The measure of private social conse-

quences required observers to rate how shy and nervous each participant

felt during the interaction on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely

descriptive) scale. Interrater reliability for private social consequences was

.80 (Dyad 1), .75 (Dyad 2), and .82 (Dyad 3).

Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed the six-item

scale used in Studies 1 and 2 on a 1 (disagree strongly) t o 5 (agree

strongly) scale ( .70).

Shyness. As in Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the frequency of their

shyness symptoms on Cheek and Melchiors (1985) three-component

Shyness Scale ( .68). Shyness correlated .31 with implicit self-theory

of shyness.

Results

For all variables reported in Study 3, means and standard devi-

ations are reported in Table 5, and intercorrelations are reported in

Table 6.

Self-reported avoidant social interaction strategies. Do shy

entity theorists report more avoidant social interaction strategies

than do shy incremental theorists? Yes, shy entity theorists re-

ported more avoidant social interaction strategies during the sec-

ond and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was con-

ducted to examine the effects of implicit self-theories and shyness

on self-reported social interaction strategies within each of the

three dyads (see Table 7). In Dyad 1, a main effect of shyness on

social interaction strategies was found ( .34, p .05). In

Dyad 2 and Dyad 3, implicit self-theories and shyness interacted to

predict avoidant social interaction strategies (Dyad 2: .25, p .05; Dyad 3: .27, p .05).

Observer-reported avoidant social interaction strategies. Do

observers perceive shy entity theorists as using more avoidant

social interaction strategies than shy incremental theorists? Yes,

observers perceived shy entity theorists as more avoidant in the

second and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was

conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theories and shy-

ness on observer-reported social interaction strategies within each

of the three dyads (see Table 7). In Dyad 1, a main effect of

shyness and implicit self-theories was found for observer-reported

social interaction strategies. In Dyad 2 and Dyad 3, implicit

self-theories interacted with shyness to predict avoidant social

interaction strategies (Dyad 2: .24, p .05; Dyad 3: .25,

p .05). Consistent with the self-report findings, all shy individ-

uals were perceived as more avoidant in Dyad 1, but shy incre-

mental theorists were perceived as less avoidant than shy entity

theorists in Dyads 2 and 3.Self-reported public and private social consequences. Do shy

peoples self-reported public social consequences depend on their

implicit self-theories? No, shy individuals generally viewed their

social behavior as having poor public consequences during all

dyads. A multiple moderated regression was conducted to examine

the effect of implicit self-theories and shyness on self-reported

public social consequences within each of the three dyads. In

Dyads 13, a main effect of shyness was found for public social

consequences (see Table 8).

Do shy peoples self-reported private social consequences de-

pend on their implicit self-theories? Yes, shy incremental theorists

reported fewer internal feelings of shyness and nervousness during

the second and third dyads than did shy entity theorists. A multiple

moderated regression was conducted to examine the effect of

implicit self-theories and shyness on self-reported private social

consequences within each of the three dyads. In Dyad 1, a main

effect of shyness was found for private social consequences. Im-

plicit self-theories interacted with shyness to predict private social

consequences in Dyad 2 ( .23, p .05) and Dyad 3 ( .23,

p .05; Figure 3, left panel).

Observer-reported public and private social consequences.

Do implicit self-theories explain differences among observer per-

ceptions of shy individuals public social consequences? Yes,

observers attributed fewer undesirable public social consequences

to shy incremental theorists than to shy entity theorists in the

second and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was

conducted to examine implicit self-theories and shyness onobserver-reported public social consequences within each of the

three dyads (see Table 9). Implicit self-theories interacted with

shyness to predict public social consequences in Dyad 2 (

.26, p .05) and Dyad 3 ( .28, p .05; Figure 3, right

panel). In contrast to the self-report findings, observers attributed

more positive public social consequences to shy incremental the-

orists than to shy entity theorists in the latter dyads.

Are shy incremental theorists perceived as experiencing fewer

private social consequences than shy entity theorists? No, observ-

ers generally perceived all shy individuals as experiencing shyness

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 3

Variable M SD

Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

M SD M SD M SD

Implicit self-theories 2.37 0.69Shyness 2.95 0.79

Self-reported social interaction strategies 3.10 1.22 2.99 1.35 2.68 1.40Observer-reported social interaction strategies 2.96 1.04 2.72 0.94 3.74 0.84Self-reported private social consequences 3.32 1.65 2.89 1.71 2.66 1.69Observer-reported private social consequences 3.68 1.35 3.37 1.37 3.28 1.23Self-reported public social consequences 6.49 1.19 6.61 1.27 6.67 1.32Observer-reported public social consequences 5.89 0.97 6.02 1.17 5.99 0.87

1017IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

10/16

Ta

ble6

IntercorrelationsAmongallVariab

lesinStudy3

Varia

ble

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1.

IST

2.

Shy

.31

3.

SRSISD1

.32

.36

4.

SRSISD2

.32

.42

.83

5.

SRSISD3

.28

.34

.71

.87

6.

ORSISD1

.20

.11

.27

.34

.30

7.

ORSISD2

.12

.14

.23

.36

.36

.80

8.

ORSISD3

.05

.07

.13

.20

.25

.71

.79

9.

SRPR

D1

.38

.47

.59

.58

.50

.27

.25

.15

10

.SRPR

D2

.32

.45

.49

.64

.62

.34

.33

.25

.69

11

.SRPR

D3

.36

.44

.51

.63

.64

.38

.35

.38

.64

.83

12

.ORPR

D1

.27

.17

.24

.33

.33

.79

.70

.67

.36

.38

.39

13

.ORPR

D2

.18

.18

.23

.32

.31

.70

.81

.68

.38

.38

.37

.83

14

.ORPR

D3

.19

.21

.23

.30

.28

.66

.73

.75

.35

.36

.36

.85

.89

15

.SRPU

D1

.2

9

.3

5

.36

.2

9

.2

6

.2

0

.2

1

.1

5

.4

3

.4

7

.4

9

.2

2

.2

8

.2

5

16

.SRPU

D2

.2

2

.3

6

.30

.2

7

.2

3

.1

3

.2

0

.1

7

.3

3

.5

0

.4

4

.1

4

.2

0

.2

0

.32

17

.SRPU

D3

.1

8

.3

8

.35

.3

1

.3

3

.2

3

.3

5

.3

1

.3

1

.4

7

.5

0

.2

6

.3

8

.3

5

.76

.84

18

.ORPU

D1

.2

6

.1

8

.25

.3

5

.3

1

.4

8

.3

8

.3

6

.4

0

.3

7

.3

7

.5

2

.4

9

.4

0

.33

.32

.34

19

.ORPU

D2

.1

2

.0

9

.17

.2

8

.2

6

.2

6

.3

0

.2

5

.2

0

.2

4

.2

5

.2

9

.3

4

.2

9

.28

.32

.34

.67

20

.ORPU

D3

.1

6

.1

2

.16

.2

7

.2

7

.3

2

.3

5

.3

3

.2

3

.2

8

.3

1

.3

4

.4

2

.3

7

.31

.33

.39

.79

.73

Note.

IST

imp

lic

itse

lf-t

heoriesofshyness;

Shy

shyness;

SRSIS

self-reportedsoc

ialinteractionstrateg

ies;

ORSIS

observer-reporte

dsoc

ialinteractionstrateg

ies;S

RPR

se

lf-reporte

d

privatesoc

ialconsequences;

ORPRo

bserver-reporte

dprivatesoc

ialconsequences;

SRPU

self-reporte

dpu

blicsoc

ialconsequen

ces;

ORPU

observer-reporte

dpu

blicsoc

ial

consequences;

D1

Dya

d1;

D2

Dya

d2;

D3

Dya

d3.

1018 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

11/16

and nervousness during all three dyads. A multiple moderated

regression was conducted to examine implicit self-theories and

shyness on observer-reported private social consequences within

each of the three dyads (see Table 3). In Dyads 13, a main effect

of shyness was found for private social consequences. In contrast

to the self-report findings, observers found shy individuals to

generally exhibit private social consequences throughout the three

dyads.

Discussion

These findings replicate and extend Study 2. Consistent with the

findings in Study 2, shy incremental theorists were less avoidant in

response to social challenge than were shy entity theorists. This

difference held whether interaction strategies were self-reported or

observer reported. Mixed support was found for the importance of

implicit self-theories for explaining individual differences among

shy peoples public and private social consequences. The private

experience of the shy individuals subjective feelings of shyness

and nervousness during social interaction is a function of his or her

implicit self-theory of shyness. After 10 min of social interaction,shy incremental theorists reported fewer private consequences than

did shy entity theorists. From an observers standpoint, implicit

self-theories are predictive of individual differences among shy

peoples ability to behave competently during a social interaction.

After 10 min of social interaction, shy incremental theorists ex-

hibited fewer undesirable public consequences than did shy entity

theorists. Taken together, these findings suggest that shy individ-

uals initially experienced the inhibition and anxiety associated

with shyness, but, over time, shy individuals with incremental

theories began to feel less shy and nervous. As their private

experiences of shyness and nervousness diverged from those of

shy individuals with entity theories, shy incremental theorists were

perceived by observers as more competent and likable when han-

dling the challenge of interacting with a stranger.

It is important to note that implicit self-theories were most

effective in differentiating among shy individuals in the second

and third dyads. There are two possible explanations for this

difference. Previous research on implicit self-theories has shown

that the avoidance and approach patterns associated with implicit

self-theories and goals are usually seen in response to rejection or

negative feedback (e.g., Erdley et al., 1997; Goetz & Dweck,

1980). For example, Erdley et al. (1997) found that children

initially tried equally as hard to be chosen for a pen pal tryout; it

was only after negative feedback was presented that differences in

avoidance and approach behavior became evident. In the present

study, participants were initially instructed to get to know one

another. They were unaware that they would be stopping to ex-

plicitly evaluate their performance until they were asked to do so

after the first dyad. This manipulation was intended to make

negative social evaluation a salient property of the second andthird dyads. The second and third dyads also began with the simple

instruction to get to know one another, but now shy participants

had just given themselves negative feedback about their social

behavior during Dyad 1. This is consistent with the main effects of

shyness on self-reports of avoidant social interaction strategies and

private and public social consequences. During the first dyad, all

shy participants may have been trying equally as hard to be

perceived positively by others. However, after negative social

evaluation was made salient, shy participants focus on the inev-

itability of their social failure or on the possibility for change may

have activated individual differences in response patterns. There-

fore, the implicit self-theories of shy participants began to signif-

icantly predict their social behavior in the second and third dyads.

Although this first explanation is consistent with previous research

on implicit self-theories, it is also possible that implicit self-

theories may have only begun to influence social behavior after a

certain amount of interaction had transpired. In this case, time

rather than the evaluative periods may have been the critical factor

for activating the motivational patterns associated with entity and

incremental theories of shyness.

General Discussion

The present research provides support for the proposition that

individual differences among shy people may be synthesized and

Table 8

Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on Self-

Reported Public and Private Social Consequences

Social consequences Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

PublicShyness .29* .33* .39*IST .19 .08 .02Shyness IST .03 .01 .08

PrivateShyness .40* .48* .46*IST .19 .09 .13

Shyness IST .02 .23* .23*

Note. Values are betas. IST implicit self-theory.* p .05.

Table 7

Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on Self-Reported and Observer-Reported

Social Interaction Strategies

Social interaction strategy

Self-report Observer

Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

Shyness .34* .42* .41* .28* .39* .37*IST .18 .13 .10 .25* .13 .13Shyness IST .09 .25* .27* .05 .24* .25*

Note. Values are betas. IST implicit self-theory.* p .05.

1019IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

12/16

explained by implicit self-theories of shyness and their associated

motivational patterns. Shy peoples goals and behaviors in social

situations depend on their implicit self-theories of shyness. These

relations emerged even after the main effects of shyness and

implicit self-theories were controlled. Study 1 shows that, in novel

social situations, shy entity theorists are less interested in learning

how to master their shyness and are generally less approach

oriented than are shy incremental theorists. Moving beyond the

general tendencies examined in Study 1, Study 2 tested whether

implicit self-theories of shyness were important for understanding

individual differences among shy individuals avoidant social

strategies. Shy entity theorists reported more avoidant social strat-

egies than did shy incremental theorists. This effect was particu-

larly evident for entity theorists who had little confidence in their

social skills. Study 3 provides further support for the importance of

implicit self-theories in understanding individual differences

among shy peoples avoidant responses to social challenge. Not

only did shy entity theorists report more avoidant social behaviors,

but these differences were also perceived by observers. Finally,

shy peoples public and private social consequences depend on

their implicit self-theories. Just as shy incremental theorists re-

ported feeling less nervous and shy within a social situation, they

were perceived as more socially competent than were shy entity

theorists. These findings have implications for research on shyness

and implicit self-theories and, most generally, speak to the role of

self-beliefs in shaping individuals social environments.

Implications for Research on Shyness

The present research on implicit self-theories of shyness sug-

gests a promising model for organizing the diverse literature on

individual differences within shyness. Previous explanations for

individual differences among shy peoples social behavior have

alternatively focused on attitudes, goals, and social strategies. The

present research suggests that all of these variablesattitudes,goals, and responsesare important for understanding why some

shy people are willing to extend themselves in social situations,

whereas others avoid interaction at all costs. From an implicit

self-theories perspective, attitudes toward the malleability of shy-

ness motivate shy individuals to strive for either avoidance or

approach in social situations and respond in a style that supports

their desire for either avoidance or approach. The present research

supports the proposition that implicit self-theories explain impor-

tant differences among shy peoples behavior and suggests a

framework for understanding why shy people sometimes behave

so differently from one another.

Consistent with previous research, shy individuals were found to

be especially sensitive to potential threats in their environment and

fear the negative evaluations of others when anticipating a novel

social situation. Main effects of shyness were found for avoidant

tendencies and strategies as well as increased social inhibition and

decreased social competence within the first 5 min of social

interaction. The general desire to avoid social interaction and

ineffective social interaction is consistent with previous research

on shyness.

However, implicit self-theories of shyness were important for

understanding why some shy individuals approach social chal-

lenge. The present research shows that implicit self-theories sig-

nificantly interacted with shyness to predict general approach

tendencies and observer-reported public social consequences

Table 9

Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on

Observer-Reported Public and Private Social Consequences

Social consequences Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

PublicShyness .05 .06 .05IST .22 .03 .10Shyness IST .16 .26* .28*

PrivateShyness .33* .24* .24*IST .10 .14 .16

Shyness IST .13 .11 .11

Note. Values are betas. IST implicit self-theory.* p .05.

Figure 3. Self-reported private social consequences (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness

in Dyad 3 (left panel). Observer-reported public consequences as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness

in Dyad 3 (right panel). Regression results are graphed for individuals one standard deviation above and below

the mean in shyness.

1020 BEER

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

13/16

within 10 min of social interaction. Although shyness is often

associated with doubts about ones ability to create a positive

impression on others (e.g., Leary & Buckley, 2000; Leary &

Kowalski, 1995), the present research demonstrates that some shy

individuals believe they do not always have to fail socially. Shy

incremental theorists are more likely to be sensitive to the potential

rewards in their environment and are perceived as more sociallyskilled and likable than are shy entity theorists.

The dual approach and avoidance tendencies of shy incremental

theorists suggest that shy peoples perceptions of their social

experiences may depend on their implicit self-theories. In other

words, shy incremental theorists may experience social interac-

tions very differently than do shy entity theorists. Shy incremental

theorists may be simultaneously motivated to avoid and approach

social situations because past experience has taught them that

social interaction has the potential for both threat and reward.

Unlike shy entity theorists, shy incremental theorists preferred to

learn how to master their shyness, and they experienced less

shyness and nervousness within 10 min of social interaction with

a stranger. Observers perceived shy incremental theorists as being

more socially competent when interacting with strangers. There-

fore, shy incremental theorists may have more experience with

rewarding social situations in which they were able to accomplish

some social success. The drive for self-improvement and past

experiences making progress toward this goal may motivate shy

incremental theorists to approach social interactions that afford the

opportunity to practice behaving in a less shy manner. In contrast,

shy entity theorists may mostly have experience with punishment

in social situations. Shy entity theorists were unable to let go of

their feelings of shyness and anxiety. They tended to avoid others

and therefore may not afford themselves opportunities to have

positive interactions.

Although the present research suggests that implicit self-

theories are related to important differences among shy individu-als, one must consider potential limitations in the importance of

implicit self-theories. First, are differences among shy peoples

implicit self-theories of shyness accounted for by baseline differ-

ences in social ability? According to Zimbardo (1977/1990), there

are differences in social skills between privately shy and publicly

shy individuals. Privately shy individuals may be better at know-

ing what must be done to please others, to be accepted, [and] to get

ahead (p. 33) and therefore may be more socially successful. Like

privately shy individuals, shy individuals with incremental theories

may be more successful in social situations because they are better

at reading social cues and understanding others expectations. This

would suggest a difference in social ability between shy individ-

uals with entity versus incremental theories and would not be a

true parallel of the research on implicit self-theories of intelli-

gence, where individuals are matched on academic ability. How-

ever, observer reports of shy individuals social skills did not

depend on the individuals implicit self-theories until the second

evaluation period in Study 3. Therefore, differences in social skill

may have had more to do with the activation of implicit self-

theories in response to social challenge and less to do with dispo-

sitional differences in social ability.

Second, do implicit self-theories really just reflect individual

differences among shy peoples need for affiliation? In other

words, are shy incremental theorists more sociable than are shy

entity theorists? Cheek and Buss (1981) found that sociability and

shyness were only moderately correlated, which suggests that there

are individual differences in the sociability of shy people. Zim-

bardo (1977/1990) pointed out that 10 20% of shy people prefer

to be shy. However, most shy people complain of loneliness (e.g.,

Jones & Carpenter, 1986), so it seems to be the exception rather

than the rule that shy people prefer to be alone. Therefore, it is

unlikely that differences in affiliation account for the pattern ofgoals and behaviors found to be associated with shy peoples

implicit self-theories in the present research.

Finally, implicit self-theories of shyness are not meant to negate

a long tradition of work that has categorized subtypes of shyness

on bases other than attitudes, goals, and social behavior. Rather,

research is needed to examine the relation between implicit self-

theories and previously established categories of shyness. For

example, shy individuals have been distinguished on the basis of

their internal or external symptoms of shyness (e.g., Pilkonis,

1977a, 1977b). Publicly shy individuals focus their attention on the

external symptoms of their shyness, such as their awkward behav-

ior. Privately shy individuals focus their attention on the internal

symptoms of their shyness, such as their feelings of anxiety in

social situations. Public and private shyness might be understood

from a broader perspective using an implicit self-theories frame-

work. In the case of public shyness, shy individuals who believe

that their shyness cannot change may be particularly concerned

with their social performance and therefore particularly attentive to

the public aspects of their shyness. Privately shy individuals may

believe their shyness is surmountable and want to become less shy.

These individuals may be more concerned with monitoring poten-

tial changes in their internal feelings of shyness to gauge progress

toward their goal of self-improvement.

Other researchers differentiate shy individuals by the cause of

their shyness. A distinction is drawn between heritable shyness

(temperamental shyness) and shyness arising from social factors

such as the onset of puberty (self-conscious shyness; e.g., Buss,1980; Kagan, 1994). Temperamental shyness is considered to

emerge early, whereas self-conscious shyness usually begins in

adolescence (e.g., Buss, 1986). Do differences in the cause of

shyness relate to different implicit self-theories? For example, are

temperamentally shy individuals more likely to develop entity

theories about their shyness because they have been shy as long as

they can remember? The present research provides a springboard

for future research examining the importance of implicit self-

theories of shyness for synthesizing individual differences among

shy people.

Implications for Research on Implicit Self-Theories

The present research represents a return to studying entity and

incremental beliefs about the self. After initial progress in under-

standing the effects of implicit self-theories of intelligence and

personality, the focus of this research area shifted to understanding

the effects of implicit person theories. Implicit person theories are

beliefs about the changeability of other peoples traits and have

less to do with self-perceptions. For example, a growing literature

has shown that entity and incremental theories relate to evaluations

of other peoples personality (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Erdley

& Dweck, 1993; Heyman & Dweck, 1998; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, &

Sacks, 1997; Ruvolo & Rotondo, 1998; Silvera, Moe, & Iversen,

2000), conceptions of morality and punishment (Chiu, Dweck,

1021IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

8/3/2019 Articol Shyness Theories

14/16

Tong, & Fu, 1997; Gervey, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1999), beliefs

about romantic destiny (Knee, 1998), stereotyping and perceptions

of groups (Levy & Dweck, 1998, 1999; Levy, Plaks, Hong, Chiu,

& Dweck, 2001; Levy, Stroessner & Dweck, 1998; Plaks, Stroess-

ner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001), and athletic coordination (Kasi-

matis, Miller, & Marcussen, 1996).

The present research returns to a focus on entity and incrementaltheories about the self, this time in the social domain. Implicit

self-theories are useful for understanding individual differences

among shy peoples social motivation and behavior, but what else

might implicit self-theories explain in the social domain? Plaks et

al. (2001) found that individuals with incremental theories about

other peoples personality were more attentive than were entity

theorists to nonstereotypical information about other people. Do

implicit self-theories affect attention to feedback that is inconsis-

tent with current self-views? The present research suggests that

this might be the case. For example, shy incremental theorists are

more sensitive to the potential rewards in a social interaction when

compared with shy entity theorists. Shy incremental theorists

increased sensitivity to the environmental rewards may be because

their drive for self-improvement makes them more attentive to

information that is inconsistent with their current self-view. In

other words, shy incremental theorists may be more likely to notice

positive feedback about social performance even though it is not

consistent with how they see themselves currently, whereas shy

entity theorists stubbornly seek confirmation of their self-views.

An interesting question about the effect of implicit self-theories on

personality development is raised by these findings. If shy incre-

mental theorists are able to incorporate positive feedback from

social situations, do they eventually become less shy? If so, im-

plicit self-theories in the social domain may have important im-

plications for understanding and predicting personality change

over the life course.

A minor conclusion that can be drawn from the present researchis that it is useful to study implicit self-theories ab