1
1
1
Shyness in Childhood
This page intentionally left blank
Social Withdrawal,
Inhibition, and
Shyness in Childhood
Edited by
Kenneth H. Rubin
University of Waterloo, Canada
Jens B. Asendorpf
Max-Planck-Institute for Psychological Research, Germany
Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint
but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.
Contents
Preface ix
v
vi CONTENTS
ix
X PREFACE
Kenneth H. Rubin
Waterloo, Ontario
Jens B. Asendorpf
Munich, Germany
I
CONCEPTUAL AND
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES:
AN OVERVIEW
This page intentionally left blank
Social Withdrawal, Inhibition,
1
and Shyness in Childhood:
Conceptual and Definitional
Issues
Kenneth H. Rubin
University of Waterloo
Jens B. Asendorpf
Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Psychology
3
4 RUBIN & ASENDORPF
We had her repeat kindergarten for social reasons only. She would oftentimes
say things like "Susie isn't nice to me." Last March on her own she told me she
did not want to go to first grade. She is very passive at school, does not want
group attention, prefers to play alone but likes to watch others play (she looks
like she wants to be a part of the group but doesn't know how).
I feel that Julie was born this way. This is not because I don't want to blame
myself. But this all started when she was a toddler. She was very independent
around both of us. My husband is a very close participating member of the
family. I know this is hard for you to give any suggestions without knowing
our family but we are very close knit and happy. We have real need to help our
daughter Julie because I feel it will get much worse for her when she's in
school in the fall the whole day.
I am now 51-years-of-age but definitely can identify with the article which
appeared. I just wish-oh how I wish that in-depth studies were done
regarding the severity of the problem in my formative years.
I have been employed for 27 years in the same position (stenographer) but my
personality problem has been a detriment to me in my adult years.
Again my apologies for taking the liberty of writing but am so happy, so very,
very happy, that help is in store for the self-isolated child.
Taken together these letters, and (a) the belief that social solitude is
something that concerns and worries parents (Chapter 7), and (b) that it is
perceived as deviant by age-mates (Chapter 11) mark the lack of socially
interactive behavior for special attention. In the section that follows, we
examine the phenomena of social withdrawal and shyness. A conceptual
introduction to research On inhibition may be found in Chapter 2.
1. CONCEPTIONAL AND DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 5
1. Piaget (1928) believes that the major vehicle for the developmental
decline of . . . cognitive egocentrism is social interaction, especially
with peers. Conflicts, arguments, and other dissonant interpersonal
experiences gradually compel the child to pay attention to perspec-
tive differences, and thereby eventually to generate some concep-
tions and information gathering skills regarding human psycholog-
ical processes (Flavell, 1970, p. 1027).
2. The individual's cognitive coordinations may be actualized by social
coordinations. This means that the individual must coordinate his
actions with those of others as a first step towards mastering
individualized systems of coordination (Doise, 1985, p. 297).
3. Social interaction may not be necessary for the emergence of some
intelligent behaviors ... but a sine qua non for others (e.g.,
organizing resources for problem solving utilizing the other people
in one's surround) (Hartup, 1985, p. 73).
In short, there are strongly held theoretically driven beliefs that social
interaction, and particularly peer interaction, serves as an impetus for the
development of mature social thinking. In turn, it is posited that mature,
sociocentered thinking provides an essential basis for the production of
adaptive social behavior.
These beliefs found empirical support during the 1970s; during this
decade, numerous researchers attempted to forge an empirical link between
peer interaction, perspective-taking skills, and the development of socially
adaptive and maladaptive behavior. For example, evidence for the relation
between peer interaction and the development of social-cognition was
derived from experimental demonstrations that peer exchange, conversa-
tions, and interactions produced intrapersonal cognitive conflict and a
subsequent decline of egocentered thinking (e.g., Damon, 1977; Doise,
Mugny, & Perret-Clermont, 1975). Evidence for an association between the
inability to perspective-take and the demonstration of maladaptive social
behavior and the experience of qualitatively poor peer relationshipswas also
drawn from experimental work published in the 1970s (e.g., Chandler,
1973). Furthermore, research in the same decade demonstrated that
perspective taking skills could be improved through peer interactive expe-
riences, particularly those experiences that involved role-play or sociodra-
matic play. In turn, such improvement led to increases in prosocial behavior
(Iannotti, 1978) and to decreases in aggressive behavior (Chandler, 1973).
From the statements offered earlier, it may be concluded that peer
interaction is a significant force in the development of social cognition and,
1. CONCEPTIONAL AND DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 7
Thus far, we have used the term "social withdrawal" to the exclusion of the
terms that share with it the title of this volume - "inhibition" and "shyness."
It is our belief that these three constructs are intertwined and yet carry with
them rather different meanings. The common thread that runs through
these constructs is the behavioral expression of solitude. A thorough and
extended discussion of the meaning of behavioral inhibition follows in
Chapter 2. In this section, a brief historical and conceptual treatment of
definitional issues pertaining to social withdrawal and shyness is presented.
What is meant by social withdrawal? Perhaps the most accurate response
is "It depends on who one asks." A brief survey of the literature reveals that
the following terms have been used interchangeably - social withdrawal,
social isolation, sociometric neglect, sociometric rejection, shyness, inhibi-
tion, and social reticence.
In the hopes of establishing what social withdrawal is, it seems reasonable
to begin by circuitously clarifying what it is not! Thus, we commence with
reference to the literature on children's peer relationships, particularly
manuscripts published in the 1970s concerning peer acceptance and rejec-
tion. Definitional confusion abounds in this work; consequently, it is not
surprising that the same term may conjur up a multitude of meanings to a
given audience.
For example, in the 1970s, a large number of researchers became
interested in children's peer relationships and in how children acquired
sociometrically assessed acceptance or popularity. One label that sociome-
tricians applied to those who were unpopular amongst or unaccepted by
their peers was "the socially isolated child." Oden and Asher (1977) were
exemplary in this regard when they began their oft-cited manuscript
concerning a social skills intervention program for unpopular children by
writing, "Children who are socially isolated from their peers have limited
opportunities for social learning" (Oden & Asher, 1977, p. 495). They
concluded their manuscript by noting that their "coaching procedure was
effective in increasing isolated children's peer acceptance."
These "isolated children" were unpopular, but were they also socially
withdrawn? Did they play alone more often than their less isolated
age-mates? And if they were alone more often than their more popular
counterparts, was it because they were isolated by the peer group or because
they isolated themselves from the group to begin with? Interestingly, and at
the same time confusingly, sociometricians argued that the isolated child
was not one who had a low frequency of interaction with peers (e.g., Asher,
Markell, & Hymel, 1982). Thus, it was proposed that being isolated by peers
(i.e., unaccepted) was conceptually distinct from socially withdrawing from
10 RUBIN & ASENDORPF
peers. This was an important, but subtle, distinction, and it is one that has
gained credence and acceptance in the contemporary literature on children's
peer relationships (e.g., Asher & Coie, 1990). However, during the 1980s,
this distinction between being isolated by peers and withdrawing in the face
of peers led only to controversy and confusion. The confusion was caused,
in part, by the sub-classification of different groups of sociometrically
isolated children.
In the early 1980s, sociometricians distinguished between children who
were actively disliked by their peers and those who received few, if any,
positive and negative nominations as a best friend or playmate by their
classmates (e.g., Coie & Dodge, 1983). The former group was identified as
"rejected," the latter as "neglected." Both groups represented sub-
classifications of earlier identified "isolated children."
Subsequently, in a series of papers, researchers attempted to examine the
"causes" of peer acceptance and rejection. Dodge, Murphy, and Buchs-
baum (1984) concluded from their own research that "children who respond
with withdrawal [in peer situations] have a high probability of achieving
neglected status among peers" and "that the characteristic behavior of
[sociometrically] neglected children is withdrawal" (p. 171). From these
statements, one would be led to assume that some children identified in the
1970s as "isolated" were also "withdrawn," despite the aforementioned
conclusion reached earlier by Asher and colleagues (1982) that rate of
interaction was unrelated to sociometric isolation. The new classification
system, however, allowed sociometric isolation to be construed as either
active (rejection = many negative nominations) or passive (neglect = few
nominations of any sort). From data produced in the early 1980s, passive
isolation or sociometric neglect was equated with social withdrawal. The
most forceful statement concerning the relation between sociometric status
and social withdrawal emanated from the writings of Coie and Kupersmidt
(1983).
These two facts about neglected boys - that they rarely offend others and that
they seem to be able to become socially outgoing in new, small-group
situations-may account for the evidence that they are not a group that is at
long-term risk because of their social adjustment. In a follow-up study of
socially withdrawn and isolated children who had originally been referred to
the Dallas Child Guidance Clinic but not treated, Morris, Soroker, and Burns
(1954) found that these children were not significantly at risk for psychiatric
disorder. (p. 1415)
This statement, and others like it, led many researchers to infer an
equivalence between sociometric classifications .and behavioral prototypes.
Sociometrically rejected or disliked children were assumed to be aggressive,
1. CONCEPTIONAL AND DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 11
then does this leave us with? For purposes of this volume, social withdrawal
refers to a behavior best described as solitude. Although this clarifies the
meaning of social withdrawal for the reader, it does little to explain the
components or factors that may lead to its demonstration. These latter
factors allow the distinction between different forms of social withdrawal-
namely, passive withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness.
ences of some of these children prove negative (e.g., they may be bullied or
teased, Chapter 15) or that their initial social wariness is reinforced by
over-directive and overly-protective parents (Chapters 4,5, and 8). As such,
what might initially be described as biologically-driven behavioral inhibi-
tion to novel social settings may evolve, under some circumstances, into a
more general, cross-situational form of social withdrawal (Chapters 4, 14).
It is important to note that shyness or wariness in the face of social
novelty may also result from the expectation of negative, or insufficiently
positive, evaluation (e.g., being ignored or rejected by others during social
interaction, Asendorpf, 1991, Chapter 13; Buss, 1986). The non-social
behaviors of these social-evaluatively shy children are probably similar to
those of the behaviorally inhibited group described above; however, their
onlooking and hovering activities may be less a function of temperamen-
tally (biologically) driven causes than of a fear of being negatively evaluated
not only by strangers, but also by members of personally significant
reference groups (Chapters 10 and 13).
Finally, there may also be a third group of withdrawn children - those
who have high social approach and low social avoidance motives! Interest-
ingly, this mix of motives has not been discussed in the literature on social
withdrawal. Yet, although these motivational underpinnings would suggest
that these children would be rather sociable, it may be that their production
of social behavior is incompetent. As a consequence of their social
incompetence, these children may be isolated by their peers rather than
isolated from them (Rubin et aI., 1990). Rubin and colleagues have
observed that these children are the most likely to display solitary-
sensorimotor, solitary-dramatic, and aggressive behaviors in the peer
group. As such, it may be that their immaturity and aggressiveness leads to
rejection and ultimately to their social isolation.
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1982). Developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies
reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46, (1, Serial No. 188), 1-82.
Asendorpf, 1. (1990). Development of inhibition in childhood: Evidence for situational
specificity and a two factor model. Developmental Psychology, 26, 721-730.
Asendorpf, J. (1991). Development of inhibited children's coping with unfamiliarity. Child
Development, 62, 1460-1474.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, 1. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge.
Asher, S. R., Markell, R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Identifying children at risk in peer relations:
A critique of the rate of interaction approach to assessment. Child Development, 52,
1239-1245.
Buss, A. H. (1986). A theory of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),
Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 39-46). New York: Plenum Press.
Chandler, M. (1973). Egocentrism and anti-social behavior: The assessment and training of
social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326-332.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children's social status: A five
year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261-282.
Coie, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J. (1983). A behavioral analysis of emerging social status in boys'
groups. Child Development, 54, 1400-1416.
Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children.
In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77-125).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R. R., & Buchsbaum, K. (1984). The assessment of intention-cue
detection skills in children: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Child Devel-
opment, 55, 163-173.
Doise, W. (1985). Social regulations in cognitive development. In R. A. Hinde, A. N.
Perret-Clermont, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social relationships and cognitive develop-
ment. (pp. 294-308). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
16 RUBIN & ASENDORPF
Doise, W., Mugny, G., & Perret-Clermont, A. (1975). Social interaction and the development
of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 367-383.
Flavell, J. H. (1970). Concept development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of
child psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 983-1060). New York: Wiley.
Furman, W., Rahe, D., & Hartup, W. W. (1979). Rehabilitation of socially withdrawn
preschool children through mixed-age and same-age socialization. Child Development, 50,
915-922.
Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (4th edition, pp.
103-196). New York: Wiley.
Hartup, W. W. (1985). Relationships and their significance in cognitive development. In R. A.
Hinde, A. Perret-Clermont, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social relationships and cognitive
development (pp. 66-82). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Hymel, S., & Rubin, K. H. (1985). Children with peer relationship and social skills problems:
Conceptual, methodological, and developmental issues. In G. J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals
of Child Development, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Iannotti, R. (1978). Effects of role-taking experiences on role-taking, empathy, altruism, and
aggression. Developmental Psychology, 14, 19-124.
Kagan, J. (1989). Temperamental contributions to social behavior. American Psychology, 44,
668-674.
Kohlberg, L., LaCrosse, J., & Ricks, D. (1972). The predictability of adult mental health from
childhood behavior. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child psychopathology (pp.
1217-1284). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, M., & Miller, S. M. (1990). Handbook of developmental psychopathology. New York:
Plenum.
Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A Revised Class Play method of peer
assessment. Developmental Psychology, 3, 523-533.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moore, N. V., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. (1974). Solitary play: Some functional
reconsiderations. Developmental Psychology, 10, 830::834.
Morris, D. P., Soroker, E., & Burruss, G. (1954). Follow-up studies of shy, withdrawn,
children-I: Evaluation of later adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24,
743-754.
Moskowitz, D. S., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1985). Stability and change in
aggression and withdrawal in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 94, 30-4l.
Oden, S., & Asher, S. R. (1977). Coaching children in social skills forfriendship making. Child
Development, 48, 495-506.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Routiege and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. London: Routiege and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1932). Six psychological studies. New York: Random House.
Piaget, J. (1967). The language and thought of the child. London: Routiege and Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child
psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 703-732). New York: Wiley.
Quay, H., & Werry, J. (1986). Psychopathological disorders of childhood. New York: Wiley.
Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Rosenberg, M. S., Wilson, R., Maheady, L., & Sindelar, P. (1992). Educating students with
behavior disorders. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rubin, K. H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53,
651-657.
1. CONCEPTIONAL AND DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 17
Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. (in press). Peer relationships in childhood. In M. Bornstein & M.
Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd Ed.), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality and social development. New
York: Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., & Chen, X. (in press). Socio-emotional characteristics of aggressive
and withdrawn children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., LeMare, L. J., & Rowden, L. (1989). Children experiencing social
difficulties: Sociometric neglect reconsidered. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 21,
94-111.
Rubin, K. H., Hymel, S., Mills, R. S. L., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Conceptualizing
different pathways to and from social isolation in childhood. In D. Cicchetti & S. Toth
(Eds.), The Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 2, Internal-
izing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1986). Social-cognitive and social behavioral perspectives on
problem solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Cognitive perspectives on children's social and
behavioral development (pp. 1-68). The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (vol.
18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle and lower
class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development, 47, 414-419.
Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L., (1988). The many faces of social isolation in childhood.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 916-924.
Schneider, B., Rubin, K. H., & Ledingham, J. (1985). Children's peer relations: Issues in
assessment and intervention. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth oj interpersonal understanding. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Selman, R. L. (1985). The use of interpersonal negotiation strategies and communicative
competences: A clinical-developmental exploration in a pair of troubled early adolescents.
In R. A. Hinde, A. Perret-Clermont, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Social relationships and
cognitive development (pp. 208-232). Oxford: Clarendon.
Shantz, C. U. (1983). Social cognition. In J. Flavell & E. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive development (4th edition, pp. 495-555). New York: Wiley.
Strain, P., & Kerr, M. (1981). Modifying children's social withdrawal: Issues in assessment and
clinical intervention. In M. Herson, R. Eisler, & P. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior
modification, Vol. 2 (pp. 203-248). New York: Academic Press.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Wicks-Nelson, R., & Israel, A. (1991). Behavior disorders of childhood. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Younger, A., & Daniels, T. (in press). Children's reasons for nominating their peers as
withdrawn: Passive withdrawal vs. active isolation? Developmental Psychology.
This page intentionally left blank
References
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Birch, H., Herzig, M. E., & Korn, S.
(1963). Behavioral individuality in early childhood. New
York: New York University Press.
Kagan, J., Hans, S., Markowitz, A., Lopez, D., & Sigal, H.
(1982). Validity of children's self reports of
psychological qualities. In B. Maher (Ed.) Progress in
experimental personality research, Vol. II (pp. 171-211).
New York: Academic Press.