Examining the Distinctiveness and the Socio-Emotional Correlates of Anxious-Withdrawal and Unsociability During Early Adolescence in Finland

Abstract

This study examined the distinctiveness of and the correlates associated with anxious-withdrawal and unsociability during early adolescence in Finland (N = 384; 12-14 years; 53% girls). As expected, confirmatory factor analyses revealed that anxious-withdrawal and unsociability were distinct and moderately positively correlated constructs. Only anxious-withdrawal was found to be related uniquely and positively to fearful temperament, anxious attachment, low self-esteem, and peer victimization. In addition, anxious-withdrawal was found to be more strongly related to negative affect than unsociability, but adolescents reported higher levels of unsociability than anxious-withdrawal. Theoretical and practical implications for the study of social withdrawal during adolescence are discussed.

Keywords

social withdrawal anxious-withdrawal unsociability adolescence

Social withdrawal is a strong risk factor for psychopathology during childhood and adolescence (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Most research, however, has focused exclusively on withdrawal due to anxiety and fear, which is commonly referred to as anxious-withdrawal or shyness. As a result, little is known about social withdrawal that is not motivated by anxiety/fear, or unsociability. Recent research with samples of children (or children and adolescents considered together) suggests that anxious-withdrawal may carry a greater risk than unsociability (e.g., Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, & Armer, 2004; Coplan et al., 2013). However, norms and expectations for social behaviors and peer interaction change as children transition into adolescence (Bowker, Nelson, Markovic, & Luster, 2014), leaving it unclear whether these findings generalize to adolescents. Although there exist some withdrawal subtype research conducted in North America (e.g., Canada) and non-Western societies (e.g., India, China), little is known about forms of withdrawal in Western societies outside North America, particularly when young adolescents are considered. This gap is notable given the significant variability in social norms and expectations (which likely influence the expression of different motivations for withdrawal as well as the associated correlates) across Western and non-Western societies and also among Western (and non-Western) societies (Chen, Chung, & Hsiao, 2009). Thus, to advance research on withdrawal and adjustment during early adolescence, we examined the factorial validity and socio-emotional concomitants of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability during early adolescence in one Western society outside North America not previously considered in this area of research: Finland.

Social Withdrawal Subtypes During Early Adolescence

According to approach and avoidance models of withdrawal, anxious-withdrawn youth avoid peers because they are fearful, anxious, and conflicted by strong approach and strong avoidance motivations (Asendorpf, 1990). They want to be with peers but are too fearful to do so. Anxious-withdrawal has been consistently and strongly associated with internalizing difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depressive symptoms), poor self-concept, and delays in critical life transitions during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (e.g., Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993; Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1988; for exceptions, see research in China conducted by Chen and colleagues, including Chen, Wang, & Cao, 2011). By definition, anxious-withdrawn youth rarely interact with peers, but when they do, many encounter rejection, exclusion, and victimization, likely because their timid and hovering behaviors are judged by peers as contrasting sharply with norms and expectations for peer interaction and relationship involvement (Bowker et al., 2014).

Some youth, however, are withdrawn due to weak approach and weak avoidance motivations. Unsociable youth avoid their peers due to a non-anxious preference for solitary activities (Asendorpf, 1990; Coplan et al., 2004) and disinterest in peer interaction (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2013). In young children, parental reports of unsociability are unrelated to fear and emotional difficulties (Coplan et al., 2004). Also during middle childhood, unsociability has been related to relatively few adjustment difficulties (with the exception of peer exclusion; Coplan et al., 2013; Spangler & Gazelle, 2009), leading to characterization of unsociability as a relatively “benign” form of withdrawal.

Only three studies have examined unsociability during adolescence. In these studies of Indian, Korean, and Australian young and middle adolescents, unsociability emerged as a distinct construct from anxious-withdrawal and was less strongly related to indices of peer and psychological impairment (Bowker, Markovic, Cogswell, & Raja, 2012; Bowker & Raja, 2011; Kim, Rapee, Oh, & Moon, 2008). Further research is needed, however, to evaluate adjustment correlates of unsociability during adolescence, especially in Western societies. Non-Western societies such as India and Korea are characterized as interdependent or collectivistic and as emphasizing inter-group harmony and connectedness, whereas Western societies such as the United States, Finland, Canada, and Australia are characterized as independent or individualistic and as placing importance on self-assertion and active agency (Chen et al., 2009). There is some evidence suggesting that the correlates associated with unsociability may depend on the cultural context, with more negative consequences found in interdependent societies, such as China (e.g., Chen et al., 2011), relative to Western societies, at least during childhood. Thus, unsociability may be viewed as more problematic in non-Western societies. However, it is heretofore unknown whether unsociability continues to be relatively “benign” in Western societies, particularly during early adolescence (10-14 years), where and when defiant and assertive behaviors become more accepted and valued, and interacting with peers in positive ways becomes increasingly influential on psychological well-being (Bukowski, Sippola, & Newcomb, 2000). With the exception of the Kim et al. (2008) study, which relied on retrospective data, no researchers have examined the factorial validity and adjustment correlates of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability during early adolescence in a Western society.

Present Study

To extend past research, we examined anxious-withdrawal, unsociability, and their socio-emotional correlates during early adolescence in one Western society: Finland. Although generalizations are difficult, Finland can be best characterized as a society that emphasizes individualistic or independent socialization norms and expectations (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995). However, relative to Australia and other non-Western societies, Finnish individuals appear to score lower in self-assertion and initiative (Diener et al., 1995); there is also some indication that humility and solitude are valued and more normative in North Europe than in the United States (Kerr, Lambert, & Bem, 1996). Thus, it is not known whether results with children (or children and adolescents; for example, Coplan et al., 2013) conducted in the United States and Canada will generalize. Nevertheless, similar (albeit slightly weaker) associations were hypothesized.

Our specific study goals and hypotheses were as follows. First, we sought to establish and replicate factorial validity for anxious-withdrawal and unsociability. Consistent with past research on self-reported anxious-withdrawal and unsociability in young adolescents in India (Bowker & Raja, 2011), items measuring anxious-withdrawal and unsociability were expected to load on two distinct, moderately positively correlated factors in our sample of young adolescents from Finland. Second, anxious-withdrawal and unsociability were expected to evidence divergent associations with socio-emotional correlates. Because anxious-withdrawal is related to poor self-concept, fearfulness, and emotional difficulties in non-Western and Western societies, including Finland, whereas unsociability is unrelated to fear and emotional difficulties (e.g., Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2004), self-esteem, fearful temperament, and negative affect were examined as critical correlates for the distinction between anxious-withdrawal and unsociability. Accordingly, we expected anxious-withdrawal to be related to low self-esteem, fearful temperament, and negative affect (even after controlling for unsociability), but unsociability to be unrelated to these constructs, especially when controlling for anxious-withdrawal.

Third, additional adjustment indices were assessed. Specifically, we assessed attachment and peer-reported victimization. Because behavioral inhibition and social reticence (early precursors to shyness/anxious-withdrawal) are related to insecure attachment (Rubin et al., 2009), anxious-withdrawal (but not unsociability) was expected to be related to anxious attachment. Furthermore, as anxious-withdrawn youth are often victimized by peers because they are perceived as “easy targets” across cultures (e.g., Rubin, Wojslawowicz, Rose-Krasnor, Booth-LaForce, & Burgess, 2006), anxious-withdrawal was also expected to be related positively to victimization. However, being unrelated to peer-reported anxious-withdrawn behaviors (Bowker & Raja, 2011), unsociability was expected to be unrelated to victimization.

Based on known gender differences in psychosocial adjustment (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), boys were expected to score higher in self-esteem than girls, who, in turn, were expected to score higher in fearful temperament and negative affect. However, gender differences in mean levels of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability have not been consistently found (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan & Weeks, 2010) and were thus presently explored. Associations of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability with adjustment were expected to be generally similar for boys and girls (Bowker & Raja, 2011), but as some gender differences are possible (e.g., anxious-withdrawal may be related to victimization more for boys than girls; see Rubin et al., 2009), we examined gender differences in all associations.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected in Southeast Finland and included 384 seventh- and eighth-grade students (M_age = 12-14 years; 53% girls; 96% Finnish; participation rate = 77%) from two middle schools. Active parental and adolescent consent were obtained prior to the data collection, which lasted approximately 45 minutes. Data were collected at school, during school hours. Teachers were not directly involved in the data collection.

Measures

Anxious-withdrawal and unsociability

Self-reported items were used to assess anxious-withdrawal and unsociability on a 5-point scale (1 = I strongly disagree; 5 = I strongly agree). Similar to previous studies (e.g., Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2013), four items assessed anxious-withdrawal (“I’m fearful when with others”; “I’m shy around others”; “I’m anxious in social situations”; and “I’m timid when with others”). Another set of four items assessed unsociability in terms of disinterest for social contact and preference for solitude (“I enjoy spending time alone more than with others”; “I like to do things alone when I have a chance to do so”; “I like to spend time alone”; and “I’m happy when doing things alone”; α = .79).

Self-esteem among peers

Self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Participants were prompted with a lead question, “When with your peers, how do you feel about yourself?” (Salmivalli, Ojanen, Haanpää, & Peets, 2005), after which they rated 10 items assessing self-esteem (e.g., “At times I think I am no good at all”; “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”; α = .86) on a 7-point scale (1 = I disagree/not at all important; 7 = I agree/very important).

Fearful temperament

Fear was measured with the respective scale from the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire–Revised (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). Participants evaluated six items (e.g., “I worry about my family when I’m not with them”; “I am nervous of some of the kids at school who push people into lockers and throw yours books around”; α = .59) on a 7-point scale (1 = I disagree/not at all important; 7 = I agree/very important). Due to low internal consistency, caution should be exercised when interpreting results with this scale.

Negative affect

A measure based on the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess emotional adjustment (Walls & Little, 2005). The frame “In the past couple of weeks, I have felt . . . ” was presented in combination with three items assessing negative affect: “sad,” “down,” and “unhappy” (α = .89). Participants rated these statements on a 7-point scale (1 = I disagree/not at all important; 7 = I agree/very important).

Attachment

Maternal anxious attachment was measured with the Anxiety scale from the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Participants rated 18 items (e.g., “ . . . I prefer not to show my mother how I feel deep down inside”; “ . . . I worry about things when with my mother”) on a 7-point scale (1 = I disagree/not at all important; 7 = I agree/very important).

Victimization

Participants were asked to nominate up to 10 classmates from their homeroom that fit the description of two peer victimization items: “Who in your class . . . ” “ . . . is being made fun of or put down by others”; “ . . . gets pushed around by others” (α = .84). Participants were told that they could nominate fewer than 10 classmates, or no one (nominations for non-participating students were not considered). The total number of nominations received for each item was calculated for each participant. To control for variation in class sizes, scores were divided by the number of nominators present and participating in each class.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (Mplus 5.2; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007) was conducted to examine the factorial validity of unsociability and anxious-withdrawal. A two-factor solution where items measuring each construct loaded on separate factors fit the data well—χ²(19) = 49.91, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06—and significantly better—Δχ²(1, N = 384) = 353.77, p < .001—than a one-factor solution, which showed unacceptable fit—χ²(20) = 403.68, CFI = 0.68, RMSEA = 0.22. The two factors were moderately positively correlated, r = .44.

Zero-order correlations and mean-level comparisons

Zero-order correlations among the study variables are reported in Table 1. As seen, the overall pattern of these associations supported the hypotheses that, compared with anxious-withdrawal, unsociability was less strongly related to adjustment difficulties. Mean-level comparison of unsociability versus anxious-withdrawal indicated that, on average, adolescents reported higher levels of unsociability than anxious-withdrawal, t(383) = 47.69, p < .001. Mean levels of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability were similar across gender. However, boys scored higher in self-esteem, t(381) = −3.10, p < .01, and victimization, t(381) = −3.92, p < .01, whereas girls scored higher in negative affect, t(381) = −3.10, p < .01.

Table 1.

Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	X—	SD
1. Anxious-withdrawal	—	.38***	−.52***	.34***	.51***	.24***	.09*	2.71	1.31
2. Unsociability		—	−.17***	.17***	.32***	.13**	.05	3.62	1.49
3. Self-esteem			—	−.15***	−.49***	−.18***	.01	5.18	1.24
4. Fearful temperament				—	.22***	.28***	.04	3.36	1.10
5. Negative affect					—	.24***	.03	2.76	1.71
6. Anxious attachment						—	.07	2.27	0.93
7. Victimization							—	0.07	0.18

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Anxious-Withdrawal and Unsociability: Unique Associations With Social-Emotional Adjustment

Path modeling was used to regress the adjustment correlates on anxious-withdrawal and unsociability (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007). As expected, paths from unsociability to self-esteem, fearful temperament, anxious attachment, and peer victimization were non-significant and thus removed from the model. The final model included only significant paths and fit the data well, χ²(4) = 1.84, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00. As seen in Figure 1, only anxious-withdrawal was related to low self-esteem, fearful temperament, anxious attachment, and victimization, when controlling for unsociability. Unexpectedly, anxious-withdrawal and unsociability both were positively related to negative affect. However, this path was weaker for unsociability than anxious-withdrawal, Δχ² = 19.75, p < .05. Multi-group comparisons by gender (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) were used to examine gender differences in paths depicted in Figure 1. No gender differences were observed; that is, the paths were similar for boys and girls.

Figure 1.

Unique associations of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability with social-emotional adjustment.

Discussion

This brief report examined the factorial validity of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability and their unique associations with social-emotional adjustment correlates during early adolescence in Finland. As expected, anxious-withdrawal and unsociability emerged as distinct, moderately positively correlated constructs among Finnish young adolescents. Aligning with research in Indian adolescents (Bowker & Raja, 2011), the findings indicate that anxious-withdrawal and unsociability are also distinct dimensions of social withdrawal among adolescents in individualistic/independent Western societies. Because the only existing study in a Western society relied on retrospective data on anxious-withdrawal and unsociability (in Australian youth; Kim et al., 2008), this is thus far the strongest evidence in this emerging research area that the distinction between anxious-withdrawal and unsociability found in children (e.g., Coplan et al., 2013) and adults (e.g., Cheek & Buss, 1981) also applies to Western adolescents.

We also found that adolescents reported higher average levels of unsociability than anxious-withdrawal. Children during early childhood exhibit similar levels of anxious-withdrawal and unsociability (Coplan et al., 2004), but peers report higher levels of unsociability during late childhood (Spangler & Gazelle, 2009). Thus, it may be that unsociability becomes increasingly common and normative with increased age and as children transition into adolescence, perhaps due to increased desire for autonomy and privacy and enjoyment of constructive solitary activity (e.g., spending time on the computer, see Larson, 1997). However, longitudinal research is needed to test this hypothesis. Of note, boys scored higher in self-esteem and peer victimization, whereas girls scored higher in negative affect. And yet, there were no gender differences in mean levels of anxious-withdrawal or unsociability, or in the pattern of associations between the two types of withdrawal and the adjustment outcomes, suggesting that young adolescent boys and girls experience similar levels and do not differ in terms of the risks associated with anxious-withdrawal and unsociability (which is consistent with past research with Indian young adolescents; Bowker & Raja, 2011). Nevertheless, we recognize the possibility of unobserved gender differences, particularly in terms of victimization, which in this study, was assessed solely in terms of direct forms of victimization (e.g., being pushed by peers) to the neglect of more indirect forms (e.g., gossip) often used and experienced by girls. Moreover, due to the weak (albeit significant) association between victimization and anxious-withdrawal found in this study, it may be illuminating for researchers to include other types of peer difficulties (such as exclusion, which has been more strongly associated with withdrawal) in future research as well as consider which anxious-withdrawn youth are most at risk for peer abuse.

Only anxious-withdrawal was related uniquely to low self-esteem, fearful temperament, and victimization. In line with research associating anxious-withdrawal, but not unsociability, with poor self-concept and other peer and psychological adjustment difficulties in young children (e.g., Coplan et al., 2004) and adults (Cheek & Buss, 1981) in Western societies and young adolescents in India (Bowker & Raja, 2011), these findings indicate that anxious-withdrawal is also more strongly related to emotional difficulties during early adolescence in Western societies. In fact, the general pattern of findings found herein suggests that the greater risk associated with anxious-withdrawal relative to unsociability may not differ across culture or developmental period (although the recent research in China suggests that additional within-culture studies are needed). In addition, only anxious-withdrawal was related uniquely to anxious attachment. This finding is consistent with the well-established associations between social anxiety and insecure attachment, but is the first to our knowledge linking anxious-withdrawal (and not unsociability) to anxious attachment during early adolescence.

Anxious-withdrawal was also related to negative affect. Unsociability also showed a weak positive association with negative affect when controlling for anxious-withdrawal. This may suggest that even youth who enjoy solitary activities struggle somewhat during early adolescence when peer interaction is critical for socio-emotional adjustment. Indeed, because links between peer support and emotional well-being become stronger during adolescence (Rubin et al., 2006), solitude for any reason may be related to some psychological distress and uncertainty during early adolescence. It would be important to test these associations during later adolescence when pressures for peer interaction decrease and privacy/alone time becomes even more important.

Collectively, the present findings provide among the first empirical evidence for the distinction between anxious-withdrawal and unsociability during early adolescence in a Western society and provide important theoretical and practical implications. First, they provide additional support for the applicability of approach and avoidance models of social withdrawal to understanding solitude during early adolescence. Second, they support the view that intervention efforts might be best directed toward anxious-withdrawn rather than unsociable young adolescents (e.g., Bowker & Raja, 2011). However, more research is clearly needed to understand adjustment related to unsociability in more detail, in both Western and non-Western societies. For instance, given the previously noted differences between Finnish and other Western individuals in their beliefs about self-assertion and solitude (Diener et al., 1995), an important next step will be to compare the results found herein with those with young adolescents in Western societies other than Finland. It may be that both anxious-withdrawal and unsociability are stronger risk factors in Western societies, such as the United States, that place relatively more value on independence and self-assertion. In addition, although unsociable youth experience some peer exclusion during childhood, potentially because their perceived intention to play alone signals aloofness to their peers (Coplan et al., 2004), it remains unclear whether this also applies to adolescence when needs for privacy become more accepted and valued (Larson, 1997). It is plausible that unsociable adolescents may become viewed as not only aloof but also “cool” for not trying too hard, but engaging socially if asked to hang out. In such research, investigators should utilize measures such as the Preference for Solitude Scale (Burger, 1995), which may best capture actual preferences for solitude and its associated correlates (and better capture the unsociability construct than did the measure used herein). Indeed, in our study, several of the unsociability items, such as “I like to spend time alone,” may have been rated highly by adolescents who are both happy to be alone and happy to interact with peers (and thereby did not capture actual preferences for solitude).

This study was limited to cross-sectional data, thus precluding conclusions about the direction of the examined associations. For instance, although victimization was examined as one of the “outcomes” in this investigation, victimization may also lead to increased social withdrawal (especially anxious-withdrawal) over time. Also, social withdrawal subtypes and peer experiences such as victimization or exclusion may interact to affect behavioral and psychological adjustment. Past research supports this notion for anxious-withdrawal and related constructs, but virtually nothing is known about the developmental course of unsociability. Thus, longitudinal studies including an array of socio-emotional correlates (exclusion, friendship, loneliness) are critical to understanding the direction of effects and the ways in which peer experiences affect the stability, adjustment correlates, and consequences of distinct forms of social withdrawal. For a more comprehensive understanding of social withdrawal, future research should also consider social avoidance (characterized by strong avoidance motivations and weak approach motivations) as a third dimension of social withdrawal during early adolescence, in both Western and non-Western societies (only one study considered avoidance during adolescence, in India; Bowker & Raja, 2011). Future researchers may also do well to include measures of aversion and affinity to aloneness (e.g., Teppers, Luyckx, Vanhalst, Klimstra, & Goossens, 2014), which could reveal new information about for whom and why approach and avoidance motivations are (and are not) translated into behavior and cause psychological difficulties. Such measures might also help disentangle whether it is the approach and avoidant behaviors (or lack thereof) that lead to difficulties or the emotions that accompany them that are responsible. Finally, it should be acknowledged that the reliance on self-report measures (with the exception of peer victimization) may have led to shared method variance that artificially inflated associations among measures. Despite the limitations, the present findings provide the first empirical evidence for the heterogeneity of social withdrawal among young adolescents in a Western society. Our results suggest that it is critical to differentiate between anxious-withdrawal and unsociability to further understand social-emotional adjustment during adolescence and call for longitudinal research on this topic.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Tiina Ojanen received her PhD at the University of Turku, Finland, and completed post-doctoral research training at the University of Kansas. She is currently an associate professor at the University of South Florida. Her research focuses on forms of aggression, social withdrawal, and adolescent peer relationships from a social-motivational perspective.

Danielle Findley-Van Nostrand is a doctoral student at the University of South Florida, specializing in social development. Her research examines social behaviors, peer relationships, and associated personality processes and psychosocial adjustment during adolescence and early adulthood.

Julie C. Bowker, PhD is an associate professor of psychology at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. She received her PhD in human development from the University of Maryland. Her research interests focus on the role of peer relationships in adolescents’ social and emotional development.

Andrea Markovic is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. She received her MA in developmental psychology at Brock University in Canada. Her research interests focus on social withdrawal, peer relationships, and socio-emotional adjustment of adolescents.

References

Asendorpf

J. B.

(1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250-259. doi:10.1159/000276522

Bowker

J. C.

Markovic

Cogswell

Raja

(2012). Moderating effects of aggression on the associations between social withdrawal subtypes and peer difficulties during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 995-1007. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9712-0

Bowker

J. C.

Nelson

Markovic

Luster

(2014). Social withdrawal during adolescence and emerging adulthood. In Coplan

R. J.

Bowker

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal, and being alone (pp. 167-183). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Bowker

J. C.

Raja

(2011). Social withdrawal subtypes during early adolescence in India. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 201-212. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9461-7

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Bukowski

Sippola

Newcomb

A. F.

(2000). Variations in patterns of attraction of same- and other-sex peers during early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 36, 147-154. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.147

Burger

J. M.

(1995). Individual differences in preferences for solitude. Journal of Research of Personality, 29, 85-108. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005

Caspi

Elder

G. H.

Bem

D. J.

(1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824-831. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.824

Cheek

J. M.

Buss

A. H.

(1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330-339. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330

10.

Chen

Chung

Hsiao

(2009). Peer interactions and relationships from a cross-cultural perspective. In Rubin

K. H.

Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 432-451). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

11.

Chen

Wang

Cao

(2011). Shyness-sensitivity and unsociability in rural Chinese children: Relations with social, school, and psychological adjustment. Child Development, 82, 1531-1543. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01616.x

12.

Coplan

R. J.

Prakash

O’Neil

Armer

(2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40, 244-258. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.244

13.

Coplan

R. J.

Rose-Krasnor

Weeks

Kingsbury

Bullock

(2013). Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socioemotional functioning in later childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 861-875. doi:10.1037/a0028861

14.

Coplan

R. J.

Weeks

(2010). Unsociability in middle childhood: Conceptualization, assessment, and associations with socioemotional functioning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 64-83. doi:10.1353/mpq.2010.0005

15.

Diener

(1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.851

16.

Ellis

L. K.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2001, April). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

17.

Hymel

Bowker

Woody

(1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879-896. doi:10.2307/1131224

18.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

19.

Kerr

Lambert

W. W.

Bem

D. J.

(1996). Life course sequelae of childhood shyness in Sweden: Comparison with the United States. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1100-1105. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1100

20.

Kim

Rapee

Moon

(2008). Retrospective report of social withdrawal during adolescence and current maladjustment in young adulthood: Cross-cultural comparisons between Australian and South Korean students. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 543-563. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.011

21.

Larson

R. W.

(1997). The emergence of solitude as a constructive domain of experience in early adolescence. Child Development, 68, 80-93. doi:10.2307/1131927

22.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

23.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98

24.

Rosenberg

(1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

25.

Rubin

K. H.

Coplan

R. J.

Bowker

J. C.

(2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141-171. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642

26.

Rubin

K. H.

Wojslawowicz

Rose-Krasnor

Booth-LaForce

Burgess

K. B.

(2006). The best friendships of shy/withdrawn children: Prevalence, stability, and relationship quality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 143-157. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9017-4

27.

Salmivalli

Ojanen

Haanpää

Peets

(2005). “I’m ok but you’re not” and other peer-relational schemas: Explaining individual differences in children’s social goals. Developmental Psychology, 41, 363-375. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.363

28.

Spangler

Gazelle

(2009). Anxious solitude, unsociability, and peer exclusion in middle childhood: A multitrait–multimethod matrix. Social Development, 18, 833-856. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00517.x

29.

Teppers

Luyckx

Vanhalst

Klimstra

Goossens

(2014). Attitudes towards aloneness during adolescence: A person-centered approach. Infant and Child Development, 23, 239-248. doi:10.1002/icd.1856

30.

Walls

Little

T. D.

(2005). Relations among personal agency, motivation, and school adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 23-31. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.23

31.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063