Relation with Peer Victimization, Self-Esteem and

Child Ind Res https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9506-3

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation with Peer Victimization, Self-Esteem and Emotion Regulation Olga Gómez-Ortiz 1,2 & Rosa Roldán 1 & Rosario Ortega-Ruiz 1,3 & Luis-Joaquín García-López 4

Accepted: 22 October 2017 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Abstract This study explores the levels and psychosocial consequences of social anxiety in adolescents to determine the predictive value of social anxiety in these effects. A total of 2.060 secondary school students (47.9% girls; mean age: 14.34) completed five scales to measure social anxiety, self-esteem, emotion regulation, and peer victimization (off and online). Three groups of youth with social anxiety along a continuum ranging from very low to higher degrees of the disorder were stablished. Differences were found among the groups regarding self-esteem, use of the cognitive reappraisal strategy, and peer and online victimization, with students suffering from higher levels of social anxiety showing the most negative effects. The predictive value of anxiety on these effects ranged from 9% to 33.5%. The results are discussed regarding the impact of social anxiety on well-being versus social discomfort and the need for interventions depending on the degree of this condition. Keywords Social anxiety . Self-esteem . Emotion regulation . Bullying . Cyberbullying . Adolescence

* Olga Gómez-Ortiz [email protected]

1

Department of Psychology, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain

2

Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Córdoba, Avda. San Alberto Magno s/n., 14004 Córdoba, España

3

Department of Psychology, Social Work & Counselling, University of Greenwich, London, UK

4

Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain

O. Gómez-Ortiz et al.

1 Introduction Research seems to support the existence of a social anxiety continuum during adolescence, with concern or apprehension about a particular social situation or situations at the lower end, and intense social anxiety at the upper end, which could lead to the avoidance of a wide range of social situations (Blöte et al. 2015). Conceivably, the increasing severity of social anxiety could be related to greater psychosocial problems, thus suggesting that these problems will intensify with an increasing severity of social anxiety. However, this assumption has yet to be proven since the existing studies on social anxiety in adolescence have either been based on clinical samples with a small range of social anxiety levels (Ginsburg et al. 1998) or have used a community sample with subclinical and clinical levels of this disorder, but have not investigated potential problems of adjustment associated with different degrees of social anxiety (Piqueras et al. 2008). It is therefore of interest to analyze the different manifestations of social anxiety in youth from subclinical or moderate levels up to more serious forms that meet the diagnostic criteria for social anxiety disorder (SAD) in order to determine the level at which the psychological adjustment and social competence of adolescents may be compromised. La Greca and Ranta (2015) have examined the role of developmental transitions in adolescence in the development of social anxiety symptoms or disorder and its consequences. In this sense, in the most of educational systems, students have to move to a different and probably larger school as they grow and advance in courses. This change affect not only to their social lives but also their skills to manage difficulties related to this context, increasing the likelihood to develop social anxiety, and as consequence, other problems related to peer group management such as social exclusion and peer victimization experiences. Moreover, puberal maduration and body morphological transitions may increase teenagers’ feelings of discomfort around others and, hence, favour the heighten of social anxiety, and threat also their self-esteem, especially when these changes have an important impact on physical appearance. These transitions along with other physiological and neurological changes, such as the maturation of prefrontal cortex which extend until the end of this stage or the beginning of adulthood, have been associated to regulation problems which hinder behavioral and emotion regulation and favour also social anxiety. Taking into account this theoretical framework, the analysis of consequences of social anxiety in adolescence should be focused on problems linked to developmental transitions such as peer victimization, low self-esteem and emotion regulation difficulties. In the next lines, the literature about the relationship between social anxiety and these psychosocial problems is examined. An important line of research on the consequences of social anxiety in children analyzes victimization within the framework of various phenomena of interpersonal violence that occur primarily in the school setting, or have their origin in interpersonal relationships occurring in school life, such as bullying or cyberbullying. Cross-sectional studies on the association between bullying victimization and social anxiety have shown a reciprocal relationship between the two, explaining victimization, especially of a relational type, as a consequence of social anxiety and also as a risk factor for this

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation...

condition (Bjereld et al. 2015; Caballo et al. 2011; Erath et al. 2007; Ranøyen et al. 2014; Ranta et al. 2013). Recent longitudinal studies seem to support the first assumption. Pabian and Vandebosch (2016), for instance, found that students with social anxiety are more likely to be victimized by their peers. As regards cybervictimization, the existing literature is scarce. Some studies have reported a bidirectional relationship between social anxiety and being victimized through information and communications technology (Juvonen and Gross 2008; Navarro et al. 2012), while others have found a onedirectional relationship, considering cybervictimization a possible consequence of social anxiety (Pabian and Vandebosch 2016). On the other hand, self-concept, self-esteem, and emotion regulation are among the individual qualities that have been linked to social anxiety. Although the literature on the subject is not abundant, some research has shown that fear of negative evaluation and avoidance of familiar or new social situations interfere with the development of general, physical, athletic and academic self-concept (Delgado et al. 2013) and general self-esteem (Epkins and Seegan 2015; Ginsburg et al. 1998; Van Tuijl et al. 2014). In relation to emotion regulation, studies suggest that people with social anxiety find it more difficult to engage in strategies to mitigate the emotional impact of the situation before the emotion is generated. This is the case of what is known as ‘cognitive reappraisal’; a strategy linked to positive adjustment that is accomplished by modifying or cognitively reinterpreting the situation that generates a negative emotion before it is manifested (Werner et al. 2011; Ziv et al. 2013). In this regard, it has been reported that people with social anxiety show a greater tendency to use regulation strategies focused on controlling the emotional response, once the emotion has manifested (Aldao et al. 2014; Gómez-Ortiz et al. 2016a). It is known that this type of strategy is not functional, because although it favors the behavioral control of emotion, it does not prevent the development of physiological responses linked to the emotion and the manifestation of subjective emotional experience, with all the psychological effects this entails (John and Gross 2004). Despite notable progress in this research field, it is not yet known with certainty the influence that social anxiety may have on the development of each of these adjustment problems. It is therefore necessary to establish which difficulties are most closely linked to this problem and their impact on youth psychosocial adaptation. Similarly, the impact that a moderate degree of social anxiety may have on the psychological and social adaptation of adolescents has been scarcely explored. The aim of this research was to analyze different degrees of social anxiety in adolescents in the school setting and their implications in terms of psychosocial adjustment to determine the predictive value of social anxiety on self-esteem, emotion regulation, and peer victimization (off and online). This general aim can be broken down into more specific objectives: a) classify young people according to their degree of social anxiety and compare the results with the clinical cut-off points established for the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A); b) examine the relationship between degrees of social anxiety and the use of different emotion regulation strategies, self-esteem and peer victimization; and c) determine the predictive ability of specific levels of social anxiety on emotional phenomena and within the sphere of adolescents’ interpersonal relationships.

O. Gómez-Ortiz et al.

2 Method 2.1 Compliance with Ethical Standards All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cordoba, Spain. Prior to the data collection, informed consent was obtained from the parents to allow the children to participate in the study. 2.2 Sample The reference population used to conduct the study comprised students attending compulsory secondary education (ESO) in Andalusia (368,838 students). A singlestage, stratified, cluster random probability sampling method with proportional allocation was used (Cea D’Ancona 2004). Different strata were formed according to geographic area (Eastern and Western Andalusia), type of school (private and public) and population size of the municipality (less than 10,000 inhabitants, 10,001–100,000 inhabitants, and more than 100,000 inhabitants). A confidence level of 95.5% and a sampling error of 2.5% were established, assuming the greatest variability (p = q = 0.5). The formula to estimate the appropriate sample size was the established by Cea D’Ancona (1996): n¼

Z 2 ⋅P⋅Q⋅N E 2 ðN −1Þ þ Z2 ⋅P⋅Q

Where: Z P

Q N E

Units of standard deviation (σ) corresponding to the chosen confidence level. In In this case we have chosen a confidence level of 95.5%, which corresponds to 2σ. It is the probability of occurrence of the study phenomenon in the population. We chose the more demanding assumption, which entails an upper sample size, being BP = 0.5^. Probability of non-appearance of the study phenomenon in the population. It is equal to B1-P^ (in our case, 0.5) Population size. Desired sampling error. In this case, 2.5%

The calculations determined that the sample consisted of a total of 1593.09 subjects. To this amount 30% was added to compensate for the missing data, and a total of 2071 students were obtained. The final sample comprised 2060 students. This difference between the planned and the real sample was due to the fact that sampling was done by centers, but the calculation of sample size was done by students. Of the final sample (2060 students), 52.1% were boys and 47.9% girls ranging in age from 12 to 19 years old (M = 14.34, SD = 1.34). As regards the grade in which the students were enrolled, 28.4% were in the first year of ESO, 28.4% were in the second

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation...

year, and 22.1% and 21.1% were in the third and fourth year, respectively.1 As for type of school, 66.8% attended public schools, while 33.2% attended private schools. 2.3 Instruments Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) (La Greca and Lopez 1998) The SAS-A, which has been validated in Spanish adolescents (García-López et al. 2015; Inglés et al. 2010; La Greca et al. 2015), includes 22 items (18 descriptive selfstatements and 4 filler items) scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents indicate how much each item characterizes themselves, where 1 = not at all and 5 = all the time. The items are structured into three factors or subscales: Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE), which comprises eight items (e.g., BI feel that peers talk about me behind my back.^); Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations (SAD-New), which includes 6 items (e.g., BI get nervous when I talk to peers I don’t know very well.^); and Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress (SAD-General), which uses four items (e.g., BIt’s hard for me to ask other to do things with me.^). The overall scale has shown in our study good internal consistency (α = .90) as well as each of its subscales (αFNE = .87, αSAD-New = .83 and αSAD-General = .77). A recent study has shown that a score of 48 is the optimal cut-off point of the scale (García-López et al. 2015). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (Rosenberg 1965) The RSES evaluates individual self-esteem by means of ten items related to self-respect and self-acceptance. The items are measured on a 4-point Likert scale that reflect the respondent’s degree of agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). The results of the validation of the scale in adolescents indicated the presence of two factors: positive self-esteem (6 items) and negative self-esteem (4 items) (Gómez-Ortiz et al. 2016b; Supple et al. 2013). Our study showed that the internal consistency of the scale was adequate. (αpositive self-esteem = .77; αnegative self-esteem = .76). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Gross and John 2003) The ERQ consists of ten 7-point Likert type items (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The scale is structured into two factors related to the use of two emotion regulation strategies: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, comprising six and four items, respectively. An example of a question related to the cognitive reappraisal strategy is BWhen I want to feel more positive emotion (e.g. joy, fun), I change the way I’m thinking about the situation^. Expressive suppression is evaluated by questions such as BWhen I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.^ This measurement instrument was validated in Spanish adolescents by Gómez-Ortiz et al. (2016a) showing, as in this study, adequate internal consistency (αcognitive reappraisal = .72; αemotion suppression = .70; αtotal = .75). European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIPQ) (Ortega-Ruiz et al. 2016) This self-report has 14 Likert-type items with 5 response options to 1

Education in Spain is compulsory until the age of 16. ESO (literally, compulsory secondary education) is approximately equivalent to middle or junior high school and comprises four years or grades beginning at the age of 12 until completion at the age of 16.

O. Gómez-Ortiz et al.

determine the frequency of young people’s involvement in bullying (0 = no, never, 1 = yes, once or twice, 2 = yes, once or twice a month, 3 = yes, about once a week, 4 = yes, more than once a week). Seven of the items reflect aggressive behavior (e.g., BI have insulted and I have said bad words to someone,^ while the remaining seven items are related to peer victimization (e.g., BSomeone has hit me, has kicked me or has pushed me^) of a direct or indirect verbal, physical or relational nature. As in this study we only wanted to know the peer victimization experiences of students and not their involvement in the overall bullying phenomenon, we only used victimization scale. However, the complete questionnaire has shown to be valid and reliable to assess a complex interpersonal violent dynamic as bullying involvement (Ortega-Ruiz et al. 2016; see procedure to know the instructions given to students to answer these questions appropriately). The indices of internal consistency were found to be good (αvictimization = .80; αaggression = .76; αtotal = .83). European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ) (OrtegaRuiz et al. 2016) This scale was designed to assess the involvement of young people in cyberbullying and comprises 24 Likert items with 5 response options of the frequency of involvement (0 = no, never; 1 = yes, once or twice; 2 = yes, once or twice a month; 3 = yes, about once a week; 4 = yes, more than once a week). Perceived victimization is measured by 12 items (e.g., BSomeone created a fake account, pretending to be me [e.g. on Facebook or MSN]), while the remaining 12 items are related to aggression (e.g. BI posted embarrassing videos or pictures of someone online^). The internal consistency of the scale was found to be adequate for both aggression (α = .68) and victimization (α = .76), as well as in the overall scale (α = .81). Although this questionnaire has shown to be valid and reliable to assess a complex interpersonal violent dynamic such as cyberbullying involvement of adolescents from six European countries (Del Rey et al. 2015; see procedure to know the instructions given to students to answer these questions appropriately), in this study only victimization scale was used because our aim was to know the online victimization experiences of students and not their involvement in the overall cyberbullying phenomenon.

2.4 Procedure After obtaining authorization from the school officials, a team of researchers who had previously completed a 2-h training seminar led by the first author, visited the schools to administer the instruments. The students were informed of the anonymous and confidential nature of the research and told that participation was voluntary. To categorize the victimization situations appropriately, the concept of bullying was explained to the students, according to their defining characteristics (Olweus 1999). In this sense, we asked to the students that they answered positively the victimization questions only if they had suffered these aggressions from a peer which caused them intentionally and with a harmful intention, but not if they felt them as a Bjoke^ or they could defend themselves easily. With these specification, we covered the criteria on intentionality of aggressor and power imbalance between bully and victim. The last criteria, persistence over time, was assessed taking into account the answers of the students, indicating the higher

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation...

alternatives, a more frequent and, hence, severe victimization. Before requesting consent, any questions or doubts that arose were clarified. The average time taken to complete the questionnaire was 45–60 min. 2.5 Data Analysis In a first phase, the descriptive statistics for each dimension in the overall sample were calculated. A hierarchical cluster analysis was then performed with all the variables referring to the social anxiety construct to determine the appropriate number of clusters that could represent groups of adolescents based on their social anxiety. The Ward method was used to minimize intra-group differences and avoid long strings of observations. A k-means cluster analysis was performed to classify the students into groups according to their degree of social anxiety. In the absence of empirical evidence, a hierarchical cluster analysis was not used to obtain the classification in order to avoid the creation of clusters with a similar number of individuals and the imposition of a hierarchical structure on the construct. To confirm the validity of the results of the cluster analysis, inclusion in each group was tested using the cut-off point of the total SAS-A score (García-López et al. 2015), which determines the possible presence of clinically significant social anxiety in each group. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis H test was then performed to determine possible differences between the groups established according to their social anxiety as manifested in the different consequences or measures of psychosocial adjustment, such as peer victimization (off and online), negative and positive self-esteem, and the use of emotion regulation strategies. Post hoc tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test for the comparison of pairs of groups. The effect size of the sample was pffiffiffi estimated using the formula r = Z/ n. As defined by Cohen (1992), the intervals for this measure of effect size are as follows: .1–.3: small effects; .3–.5: medium effects; .5 and greater: large effects. A Spearman’s correlations analysis was also performed to understand the relationship between social anxiety (measured by the mean of all the SAS-A questionnaire items) and each of the dimensions of adjustment. The significance level for the analyses was p < .05. SPSS software version 18.0 was used for the statistical analyses. Finally, a structural equation model (SEM) was performed to determine the predictive value of social anxiety on the psychosocial consequences that differed between groups. In this case, social anxiety was configured as a latent variable composed of all the factors of the SAS-A questionnaire, hence we worked on a second-order model. The model was calculated using EQS 6.2 software. Given the categorical nature of the questionnaire variables and the descriptive results of some items, which reflected a nonnormal distribution (with values much higher than 0 for skewness and greater than 2 for kurtosis; (Bollen and Long 1994), the least squares estimation method with robust correction was used (Bryant and Satorrra 2012). To assess the model fit, the value of the following indices were considered: the comparative fit index (CFI), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) (values of .90 or above indicate a good fit, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (values lower than .08 indicate a good fit) (Hu and Bentler 1999). To examine the validity of the model, convergent validity was examined revising the value of the standardized factor loadings

O. Gómez-Ortiz et al.

(values higher than .40 indicated that the items were reliable; Worthington and Whittaker 2006) and their statistical significance (the Student’s t value of the item must be higher than the critical value of t). To estimate the construct reliability, composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha of each dimension were calculated. The cut-off point for these indexes is .70 (Geldhof et al. 2014). Average variance extracted (AVE) let also to assess the construct reliability of the factors, being the cut-off point .50. However, this is a very conservative index which is better to use in Confirmatory Factor Analysis than in SEM when the parameters of the latent variables are affected by their relationship with other variables included in the model, being enough the value of CR to establish the convergent validity of a SEM (Malhotra and Dash 2015). Discriminant validity was examined comparing the average of AVE between pairs of latent variables to shared variance (square of the correlation between pairs of variables). If the first is higher than the last indicator, the construct will show a good discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

3 Results In what follows, we first provide the descriptive statistics for each of the dimensions analyzed in the entire sample. As can be seen in Table 1, Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress was the social anxiety factor in which the lowest mean was got. Regarding self-esteem and emotion regulation, the highest mean score was observed in positive self-esteem and in the use of the cognitive reappraisal strategy. In general, the scores of cybervictimization and peer victimization were very close of the lowest level, being this last dimension, those in which the highest level of involvement was observed. Although some variables showed kurtosis and skewness values within normal limits, others were very high. Table 1 Descriptive statistics of each dimension Dimension

Mean

SD

Kurtosis

Skewness

Fear of Negative Evaluation

2.53

91

−.37

.44

Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations

2.61

.99

−.77

.27

Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress

1.89

.89

.96

1.16

Total social anxiety

2.41

0.76

−0.48

0.56

SAS-A (1–5 scale)

RSES (1–4 scale) Positive self-esteem

3.27

.53

1.16

−.81

Negative self-esteem

2.08

.75

−.40

.47

Cognitive reappraisal

4.86

1.13

.34

−.41

Emotion suppression

3.97

1.44

−.61

−.00

EBIPQ victimization (0–4 scale)

.57

.59

4.82

1.90

ECIPQ victimization (0–4 scale)

.16

.26

24.15

3.82

ERQ (1–7 scale)

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation...

A hierarchical cluster analysis was subsequently performed to determine the number of groups in which to classify the young people according to their social anxiety, as evaluated by the different dimensions of the SAS-A. The results of the dendrogram and the cluster history showed that 2-cluster, 3-cluster, and 4-cluster solutions were adequate to classify the students based on their levels of social anxiety. Moreover, the distance between clusters was examined in each successive step to determine the optimal number of clusters from the large jumps between the successive values of the correlation coefficient. This implied that adding the following case to the cluster would result in a loss of homogeneity in that cluster. The test confirmed the previous results. In the k-means cluster analysis, three groups were requested to obtain a classification that captured the greatest variability between groups and the maximum intra-group homogeneity. Classifications based on a different number of clusters were rejected because the results were inconsistent with the proposed objectives (2 cluster solution offered little variability and 4 cluster solution showed a classification based on the kind of social fears suffered by teenagers and not on the degree of social anxiety). The results indicated three groups whose main difference was the reported level or degree of social anxiety. The adolescents in the first group obtained the lowest score of all the groups in Fear of Negative Evaluation, Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations, and Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress. This group was labelled as BLow Social Anxiety.^ The second group encompassed young people who had a higher score than the previous group, but a lower score than the following group. This group was therefore labelled as BModerate Social Anxiety.^ The adolescents who obtained the highest scores of all the groups in Fear of Negative Evaluation, Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations, and Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress were categorized in the third group, which was called BHigh Social Anxiety.^ Table 2 shows the final cluster centers of each factor for all the groups and the number of adolescents categorized in each cluster. It is important to note that the final cluster center for each group refers to the mean of that group in that dimension, and not the summation. The comparison between inclusion in each of the groups according to level of social anxiety and the classification of each participant’s scores as subclinically or clinically significant taking into account the cut-offs of the SAS-A scale revealed that 100% of

Table 2 Final cluster centers (mean scores) of each group in the SAS-A scale and classification of subclinical and clinical levels of social anxiety Low SA

Moderate SA

High SA

Fear of Negative Evaluation

1.95

2.77

3.55

Social Avoidance and Distress in New Situations

1.78

2.99

3.93

Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress

1.30

1.92

3.34 325

SAS-A

N

873

760

Cases with a total SA score ≤ 48 (subclinical)

100%

51.4%

0%

Cases with a total SA score > 48 (clinical)

0%

48.6%

100%

SA Social anxiety, N Number of participants in each group

O. Gómez-Ortiz et al.

the young people in the first group showed scores indicating subclinical levels of social anxiety, compared to 0% of those in the group of high social anxiety group. In the second group, about half of the students scored within the limits established as clinically significant and the other half as subclinical. As regards the relationship between levels of social anxiety and psychosocial adjustment as measured by self-esteem, the capacity for emotion regulation, and peer and online victimization, the results of the Kruskal-Wallis H test showed statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of positive and negative selfesteem, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression and both types of victimization (see Table 3).The post hoc tests revealed that adolescents with less social anxiety scored the highest in positive self-esteem and the lowest in negative self-esteem, use of expressive suppression, and off-line and online victimization. Moreover, these young people obtained the lowest score in cognitive reappraisal, but differences in the use of this strategy were only significant when compared with the group with the highest degree of social anxiety. Overall, the effect size of the differences between the first and second group was small. Most of the effects of the differences between groups 1 and 3 were also small, except for positive and negative self-esteem, which was moderate. Differences between moderate and high social anxiety were also found, with the latter reflecting the highest negative self-esteem and lowest positive self-esteem, the highest use of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal and the highest rates of peer victimization (off and online). The effect size on the differences between the two groups was moderate for negative self-esteem, use of expressive suppression and offline peer victimization, and low for positive self-esteem, use of cognitive reappraisal and online victimization. The correlation analysis showed a positive and significant relationship between social anxiety and negative self-esteem, peer off-line victimization, the use of expressive suppression, cybervictimization and the use of cognitive reappraisal, by order of coefficient. The relationship between social anxiety and positive self-esteem was negative (see Table 4). Given the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test and the correlation analysis, the SEM was calculated using only the negative dimensions that showed a stronger relationship with social anxiety: negative self-esteem, peer off-line victimization, and the use of expressive suppression. The model developed to determine the predictive value of anxiety on these effects showed a good fit (X2 S-B 4202.95; d.f. = 489; NNFI = .96 CFI = .96; RMSEA = .04). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the model showed a direct and significant relationship between social anxiety and negative self-esteem (β = .58; p ≤ .05), peer victimization (β = .40; p ≤ .05), and the use of the expressive suppression strategy (β = .38; p ≤ .05). The model explains 33.2%, 15.9%, and 14.3% of the variance in the variables, respectively. Regarding the assessment of validity, all the factor loadings were higher than .45 and statiscally significant. As can be seen in Table 5, although the AVE values of each latent variable were not higher than .50, all the dimensions showed values of CR and Cronbach’s alpha (see these last data in the description of the questionnaires) higher than .70, indicating a good construct reliability. Moreover, all the pair’s factors, except SAD-General and SAD-New (which are both dimensions of the social anxiety construct, being, therefore, a logical result, coherent with previous findings – Olivares et al. 2005), showed an average AVE higher than their shared variance, showing good discriminant validity.

Social Anxiety and Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents: Relation... Table 3 Differences in positive and negative self-esteem, emotion regulation, and peer victimization (offline and online) according to social anxiety degree Groups

N

Low SA

X2(d.f.)

Range (Mean) p

Post Hoc U Mann Whitney p

r

788 105.33(2)

1017.22(3.41)