1. The Impact of Shyness and Attachment Relationships
on the Psychosocial Outcomes of College Students
Angela J. Calvin, Gary L. Creasey, and Jeffrey H. Kahn
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal IL
Social interactions play an important role in cognitive and social-emotional development (Bowlby, 1988; Mead, 1934; Piaget, 1926).
Shy individuals, however, avoid social interactions not because of a lack of desire to interact, but because of fear or anxiety (Rubin & Coplan, 2010).
Transitioning to college can be particularly difficult for shy students because the setting involves interactions with unfamiliar peers within an unfamiliar environment.
Shy college students are at risk for internalizing problems and establish smaller, less satisfying social support networks (Asendorpf, 2000).
Attachment security has been shown to protect against many maladaptive problems; Secure college students are at less risk for internalizing problems compared to insecure college students (Kenny, 1995).
Thus, the purpose of the present study was to assess whether attachment security acts as a protective factor against internalizing problems among shy students.
Participants
664 undergraduates from a Midwest university in U.S.
74% women, 26% men
Mean age years; 96% were between years of age
19% freshmen, 17% sophomores, 33% juniors, 29% seniors
86% White, 5% Latino/Hispanic, 4% Black/African American, 2% Asian/Asian American, & 2% Biracial
49% in committed relationship, 42% single, 8% casual relationship, 2% married
Procedure
Recruited via university campus-wide listserv
ed link to questionnaire website
Participants entered addresses into a website separate from their survey responses to enter a drawing for $20 gift card
Measures
Data Analysis
5 hierarchical regressions
Main effects: shyness & global attachment
Interaction effects
DVs: loneliness, depression, social anxiety, social support number, and social support satisfaction
Step 1: Gender
Step 2: Shyness, global attachment avoidance, global attachment anxiety
Step 3: Two-way interactions: shy x avoid, shy x anx, & avoid x anx
Step 4: Three-way interaction: shy x avoid x anx
Shy College Students
Consistent with previous research, the results from the present study revealed that higher levels of shyness predicted high feelings of loneliness, depression, and social anxiety.
Individuals who reported more shyness did report smaller social support networks, but they were just as satisfied with their social support networks compared to less shy college students.
Global Attachment Anxiety
Individuals with high global attachment anxiety were more likely to experience loneliness, depression, and social anxiety symptoms.
Reported smaller, less satisfying social support networks.
Global Attachment Avoidance
Individuals with high global avoidance reported high feelings of loneliness.
Also, reported smaller, less satisfying social support networks.
Figure 1
The interaction effect of global attachment avoidance and anxiety on social anxiety symptoms
Note. Avoidance = Global Attachment Avoidance. Anxiety = Global Attachment Anxiety.
Figure 2
The interaction effect of global attachment avoidance and anxiety on social support number
Note. Avoidance = Global Attachment avoidance. Anxiety = Global Attachment Anxiety. SSNumber = Social Support Number.
Does global attachment moderate the relationship between shyness and the psychosocial outcomes?
Results revealed that attachment did not moderate the association between shyness and each of the psychosocial outcomes.
Interactions between Global Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance
As shown in Figure 1, high global attachment avoidance buffered the influence of high global attachment anxiety on social anxiety scores.
In Figure 2, the graph demonstrates that high attachment avoidance moderated the relationship between attachment anxiety and size of social support network.
Shy college students are at risk for loneliness, depression, social anxiety, and a smaller social support network, but not all shy college students are dissatisfied with their social support systems.
Secure attachment relationships that have low attachment avoidance and anxiety are the most beneficial to college students.
Other studies need to examine each individual attachment relationship separately. For example, how might having a secure relationship with one individual impact the outcomes of a college student who also has an insecure relationship with another?
In conclusion, observing shyness and attachment relationships among emerging adults who are attending college is an important area of study in that many new students who are shy struggle with adjusting to college, especially during their first year (Asendorpf, 2000; Mounts et al., 2006). The current study added valuable insight into the nature of these struggles and it is hoped that the present findings can help understand how to make the college experience more enjoyable for shy students.
Introduction
Method
Results
Variable
Measure
Description
Alpha (α)
Shyness
The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale; Cheek & Melchior, 1985
13-item Likert-type self-report questionnaire. Asked to indicated how much items describing shy or un-shy feelings, thoughts, and behaviors were characteristic of their own behavior. Sample item: “I feel tense when I am with people I don’t know well.
.92
Attachment
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011
Measures relationship-specific attachment for four close relationships: mother, father, romantic partner, and best friend. Scores across all relationships averaged yielding global scores. Participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree) how much they agreed with 9 items for each relationship domain. Example anxiety item: “I worry that this person won’t care about me as much as I care about him or her.” Example avoidance item: “I prefer not to show this person how I feel deep down.”
Global Attachment Avoidance: .90
Global Attachment Anxiety: .83
Depression & social anxiety
Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms; Watson et al., 2007
64-item Likert-type (1 = Not at all to 5 = Extremely) measure. Participants were asked to determine how much the statements described their recent feelings and experiences. Example depression items included “I feel depressed” and “I feel inadequate.” Example social anxiety item included “I was worried about embarrassing myself socially.”
Depression: .91
Social Anxiety: .79
Loneliness
Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980
The questionnaire is a 20-item Likert-type (1 = Never to 4 = Often), self-report measure that includes items such as: “How often do you feel you lack companionship?”
.93
Social support number & satisfaction
Social Support Questionnaire; SSQSR; Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987
6-item self-report measure. For number of support providers, participants were asked to list people who they can count on in the manner described (e.g. “Whom can you really count on to be dependable when you need help?”). Then, the participants were asked to rate on a Likert-type scale (1 = Very dissatisfied to 6 = Very satisfied) how satisfied they were with the support they receive.
Social Support number: .92
Social Support Satisfaction: .94
Hypotheses
Shyness
Attachment Avoidance
Attachment Anxiety
Internalizing Problems
Size of Social Support Network
Social Support Satisfaction
Depression
Loneliness
Anxiety
Discussion
1. Individuals who are more shy will report more loneliness, depression and social anxiety than individuals who are less shy.
2. Individuals who are more shy will report less satisfaction with their social support networks and fewer people in such networks than less shy people.
3. Attachment security will moderate the relationship between shyness and the proposed outcome variables. That is, the relations between shyness and the outcomes above will be weakest for individuals who report more attachment security (or less avoidance or anxiety) and strongest for those who report either high attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance.