Social Anxiety, Emotional Intelligence, and ... - Springer Link

13 downloads 352 Views 145KB Size Report
emotional intelligence (EI), or of their shared impact upon interpersonal adjustment. This study .... sessing social network, and five items assessing feelings.
C 2006) Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2006 ( DOI: 10.1007/s10862-006-4542-1

Social Anxiety, Emotional Intelligence, and Interpersonal Adjustment Laura J. Summerfeldt,1,2,3 Patricia H. Kloosterman,1 Martin M. Antony,2 and James D. A. Parker1 Accepted March 5, 2005

There has been no published investigation made of the relationship between social anxiety and emotional intelligence (EI), or of their shared impact upon interpersonal adjustment. This study examined these questions using structural equation modeling with self-report data from a large nonclinical sample (N = 2629). EI was found to be highly related to social interaction anxiety, but not performance anxiety. A model permitting these three predictors to inter-correlate indicated that the EI factor was the dominant predictor of interpersonal adjustment, substantially reducing the unique contribution made by interaction anxiety. This pattern reflected the principal contributions made to interaction anxiety by the interpersonal and, particularly, intrapersonal domains of EI. KEY WORDS: social anxiety; emotional intelligence; adjustment.

Social anxiety, a characteristic fear about interacting in social situations, has long been studied by personality researchers, as have other normally distributed traits posited to play a role in its nature and consequences (Creed & Funder, 1998; Leary & Kowalski, 1995). However, these traits, among them the constructs of behavioral inhibition, introversion, shyness, and trait anxiety, often overlap with the defining features of social anxiety itself. Moreover, several are nonspecifically related to social anxiety in either its nonclinical or clinical range: “mark(ing) an increased risk for anxiety disorders in general” (Hudson & Rapee, 2000, p. 106). As such, these personality variables may have limited incremental explanatory value. Difficulties in interpersonal functioning represent a pivotal focus in the literature on social anxiety, both as a general outcome and as a mediator of other life outcomes (e.g., achievement, life satisfaction).

A cohesive individual-differences construct embodying the competencies integral to this functioning would have considerable value in the further understanding of these interrelationships. One such construct is that of emotional intelligence (EI). There has been no published investigation made either of the relationship between social anxiety and EI, or of their shared impact upon meaningful life outcomes. In recent years, increased interest in EI has resulted in ongoing refinements to its definition and hypothesized composition. Perhaps the most enduring conceptualization was the seminal one offered by Salovey and Mayer (1990): “(it is) the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). This broad description reveals the close links among this construct and others long recognized in the personality literature, among them alexithymia (Sifneos, 1973), emotional competence (Saarni, 1999) intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences (Gardner, 1983/1993), and social intelligence (Sternberg & Smith, 1985; Thorndike & Stein, 1937). These intrapersonal (i.e., emotional) and interpersonal competencies—operationalized by such domains as the appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others, regulation of emotions in self and others, and use of emotions to facilitate performance—are central

1 Department

of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. 2 Anxiety Treatment and Research Centre, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8; e-mail: [email protected].

57 C 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 0882-2689/06/0300-0057/0 

58 to contemporary conceptualizations of EI (Bar-On, 2000; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). The association between social anxiety and various indices of impaired interpersonal functioning has been well demonstrated in both nonclinical and clinical samples (Jones & Carpenter, 1986; Westenberg, 1998). Individuals with clinical levels of social anxiety are likely to live alone, be single, and to report impaired relationships with family and peers (Norton et al., 1996; Schneier et al., 1994). In nonclinical populations, social anxiety and its variants (e.g., shyness) have been linked with loneliness and lessened social support and quality of relationships (e.g., Montgomery, Haemmerlie, & Edwards, 1991; Prisbell, 1997; Schmidt & Fox, 1995; Segrin, 1999). Such difficulties appear to be most true of social anxiety in its generalized form, or fear of most social situations, rather than nongeneralized social anxiety, involving circumscribed fears, such as of public speaking (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). This important distinction may be best represented by the relative contribution of two distinct social anxiety constructs—fears solely about activities where one might be observed or scrutinized by others, perhaps best conceptualized as performance anxiety, versus fears about interpersonal interactions, or interaction anxiety (see Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992; Liebowitz, 1987; Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Several mechanisms may underlie the link between social anxiety and impaired social functioning. Two of these may be considered as problems with interpersonal competencies. The first, actual social skills deficits, has received much attention in this literature, with evidence, albeit often inconsistent, found for both self-perceived and other-ratings of impairment in behaviors requisite to interpersonal engagement (e.g., Creed & Funder, 1998; Fydrich, Chambless, Perry, Buergener, & Beazley, 1998). A second may not be deficits per se, but rather distorted cognitive appraisals of the self and social interactions, leading to inaccurate judgements both of one’s own and others’ social behaviors (e.g., Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985; Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). These two mechanisms, despite fundamental differences in their theoretical origins, may have a comparable impact on functioning. Both may lead, ultimately, to disruptive levels of situational distress, the appearance of social ineptness, and negative evaluation by others. Also implicated are difficulties with intrapersonal competencies, or the facility with which the individual manages his or her own emotional state within social interactions. Such intrapersonal variables as increased self-focus, anxiety over one’s potential emotional responses, and inaccurate appraisals of one’s emotional displays figure prominently in cognitive appraisal models of social anxiety (Clark &

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; see also Hofmann, 2000). As summarized by Creed and Funder (1998), “social anxiety is a trait with negative inter and intrapersonal consequences” (p. 31). Competencies integral to the EI construct exhibit marked overlap with these potential mechanisms linking social anxiety with social functioning. Not surprisingly, research has found links between levels of EI and such indices of interpersonal functioning as peer ratings of relationship and emotional success (Mehrabian, 2000), and self-reported empathy, relationship quality, secure attachment, perceived well-being, and, particularly, general life satisfaction and happiness (Bar-On, 1997; Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Kafetsios, 2004; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003; Martinez-Pons, 1997; Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough, 2002; Schutte, Malouff, Simunek, McKenley, & Hollander, 2002). Evidence is also accumulating for the association of EI with deficits in fundamental abilities likely essential to such outcomes, including identifying feelings in oneself and describing one’s feelings to others (Dawda & Hart, 2000; Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001), and interpersonal perception, including the decoding of others’ emotional expressions (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990). Such findings suggest that abilities captured by the EI construct may be valuable in the understanding of how social anxiety impacts on interpersonal functioning. This possibility has been made explicit by Vertue (2003), in the proposal that real or self-perceived deficits in the ability to regulate others’ emotions are fundamental to social anxiety. In light of these converging theoretical and empirical literatures, the present study was undertaken to determine the relationship between EI and social interaction and performance anxieties, and their combined impact upon interpersonal adjustment. Self-report data from a large nonclinical sample were used, and research questions were investigated using structural equation modeling. This analytic technique was considered highly suitable for these purposes, as it enabled the testing of specific hypotheses about the direction and degree of relationship existing among these constructs while using latent variables—the most reliable indices—as both predictors and outcomes. Both EI and social anxiety were expected to be predictive of variability in interpersonal adjustment. A significant degree of relationship was anticipated between EI and social anxiety, particularly in its most generalized form (i.e., interaction anxiety), and it was hypothesized that variability contributed by EI would be responsible for much of the relationship between social interaction anxiety and the interpersonal adjustment criterion.

Social Anxiety and Emotional Intelligence METHOD Participants The sample consisted of three independent cohorts of first year undergraduate students, successively recruited during the years 2000 (Cohort 1), 2001 (Cohort 2), and 2002 (Cohort 3) from a Canadian university. Cohort I consisted of 831 students (246 men; 585 women) with a mean age of 20.54 years, SD = 3.60. Cohort 2 consisted of 882 students (245 men; 637 women) with a mean age of 20.14 years, SD = 3.99. Cohort 3 consisted of 916 students (270 men; 646 women) with a mean age of 19.82, SD = 3.02.4 All participants provided written informed consent to the procedures, as approved by the university’s Ethics Review Board. As incentive, participants in each cohort were enrolled in a lottery for prizes valued at $100 or less. Refusal and discontinuation rate in each cohort was less than 5%.

Procedure and Measures During the first week of classes, participants completed a multiple-questionnaire booklet that included a consent form, demographic information, and measures of EI and social anxiety. A subset of the sample (Cohorts 2 and 3) also received measures of loneliness and life satisfaction. For all cohorts, measures were randomly ordered and intermixed with other questionnaires not relevant to the present study.

Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (EQ-i:S) The EQ-i:S (Bar-On, 2002) is a 51-item self-report measure derived from the 133-item Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) to assess the core features of EI. It comprises four composite ability scales: intrapersonal (self-awareness and self-expression; e.g., “It’s hard to express my intimate feelings”), interpersonal (social awareness and interpersonal relationship; e.g., “I’m good at understanding the way other people feel”), stress management (e.g., “I believe that I can stay on top of tough situations”), and adaptability (e.g., “My approach in overcoming difficulties is to move step by 4 Higher

mean ages in the first two cohorts likely reflect changes in the Ontario school system taking place during this period. Cohorts 1 and 2 attended 5 years (Grades 9–13) of secondary school, whereas many in Cohort 3 fast-tracked through secondary school in anticipation of the province’s elimination of Grade 13 in 2003.

59 step”). Respondents are asked to rate how a statement describes them using a five-point Likert rating scale (1 = very seldom true of me; 5 = very often true of me). The EQ-i:S subscales and total scale possess good reliability (e.g., 5-month total test–retests between .58 and .70; subscale alphas between .76 and .84) and good factorial and discriminant validity (Bar-On, 2002).

Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) is a 20-item self-report scale developed to assess subjective feelings of loneliness or social isolation. Ten items are worded in a positive or nonlonely direction (e.g. “I can find companionship when I want it”) and 10 items are worded in a negative or lonely direction (e.g. “I lack companionship”). Respondents are asked to rate how they currently feel using a seven-point Likert rating scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale has been found to have three structural factors: 10 items assessing feeling of distance from intimate others, five items assessing social network, and five items assessing feelings of belonging and affiliation (Austin, 1983). This widely used scale appears to have good concurrent and discriminant validity, internal consistency and stability (Cramer & Barry, 1999; Russell et al., 1980).

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) The SWLS (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a five-item self-report scale designed to measure global life satisfaction. For each item (e.g. “I am satisfied with my life”), individuals are asked to indicate their extent of agreement using a seven-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The SWLS has been shown to possess good discriminant and convergent validity (Diener et al., 1985), good internal consistency, and generally acceptable test–retest reliabilities (Pavot & Diener, 1993).

Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) The SPS and the SIAS were developed by Mattick and Clarke (1998) as two companion self-report measures for the comprehensive assessment of social anxiety. Although typically administered together, the scales are designed to measure different aspects of the social anxiety

60 construct. The SPS measures anxiety related specifically to social performance (i. e. “I can get tense when I speak in front of other people”), whereas the SIAS assesses anxiety related to general social interaction (i.e. “I am tense mixing in a group”). Both measures consist of 20 items each and are rated using a five-point Likert scale indicating how characteristic or true the statements are of the respondent (0 = not at all; 4 = extremely). The SPS and the SIAS have been shown to have high levels of internal consistency and test–retest reliability, as well as good discriminant validity (Mattick & Clarke, 1998; Olivares et al., 2002; Peters, 2000). Following Brown et al. (1997), the SIAS and SPS were both treated as unidimensional measures for the purpose of the present study.

Statistical Analysis Data were examined with the Structural Equation Modelling (SEPATH) module of Statistica 5.3 for Windows, using path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation based on correlation matrices. To determine whether analyses should be conducted separately for each of the three cohorts, multi-group latent variable path analyses were conducted to test the models separately by cohort, as well as by gender (see Byrne, Shavelson, & Muth´en, 1989). The goodnessof -fit indicators used included the Steiger-Lind RMSEA index (RMSEA), the population gama index (GAMA), and the adjusted population gama index (AGAMA). Recommended levels for each of these indicators are as follows: RMSEA < .10, GAMA > .85, and AGAMA > .80 (Steiger, 1989). If goodness-of-fit indicators meet these criteria, it can be assumed that the models are virtually identical for the group variables of interest, and therefore, separate analyses do not need to be conducted. This was found to be the case, with no differences in correlation matrices observed among the three cohorts (RMSEA = .02, GAMA = .99, and AGAMA = .99) or between men and women (RMSEA = .02, GAMA = .99, and AGAMA = .99). Consequently, analyses were undertaken using data from a single collapsed sample, which was thought to more closely approximate population characteristics. Analyses proceeded in three separate stages, with the goal of successive model testing. The first two stages, using data from the full sample (n = 2629), sought to determine the pattern and degree of relationship of EI, and its subdomains, to the two social anxiety variables. The final stage of analysis sought to examine the direct joint relationships of these three variables to interpersonal adjustment, using path analysis to sequentially test two

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker structural models with data from a subset of the sample (Cohorts 2 and 3, n = 1798). All constructs were analyzed as latent variables, with indicators only considered reliable if displaying loadings ≥.35 on their specified latent variable. For all analyses, all indicators met this criterion, with parameter estimates ranging between .35 and .94. On the basis of prior factor analyses of the EQ-i:S, indicators for the latent variable of EI consisted of four subscales: Interpersonal, intrapersonal, adaptability and stress management. Due to the unidimensionality of both the SIAS and the SPS, and the view that these scales measure two distinct aspects of social anxiety, these constructs were entered into all models as two separate, yet inter-correlated, latent variables (interaction anxiety and performance anxiety). For these two latent variables, the structural equation modeling technique of parceling was employed. This uses a set of items rather than single items as indicators (Kishton & Widaman, 1994), and is considered appropriate when utilizing unidimensional structures (Bandalos, 2002). In line with a recommended minimum of three indicators per factor (Hall, Snell, & Foust, 1999), and to ensure equal representation of these companion measures, three randomly derived parcels were constructed from the SIAS for the latent variable of interaction anxiety and three from the SPS for the latent variable of performance anxiety. A similar parceling technique was also used for the one analysis including the unidimensional EI subscales as latent exogenous variables.5 The latent criterion variable of interpersonal adjustment had four indicators: Three subscales of the UCLA (intimate, social, affiliate), as well as the sum of the five items comprising the SWLS. To accomplish the principal aim of these analyses— to determine relationships among latent factors—the adequacy of the relevant models first needed to be assessed. A range of indices may be used to assess the degree to which observed data are explained by a proposed model. The frequently used chi-square (χ 2 ) value is considered minimally informative in the case of large samples (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Consequently, it is recommended that multiple additional criteria be used to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of a model (Cole, 1987; Marsh et al., 1988; Tanaka, 1993), including the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), the root mean square standardized residual (RMSSR), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI; Bentler

5 Information regarding item composition of all parcels is available from

the corresponding author.

Social Anxiety and Emotional Intelligence

61

Table I. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations for Measured Variables Variable

Mean ± SD

EQ-I Inter

EQ-I Intra

EQ-I Adapt

EQ-I Stress

EQ-I Total

SPS

SIAS

SWLSa

EQ-I Inter EQ-I Intra EQ-I Adapt EQ-I Stress EQ-I Total SPS SIAS SWLSa UCLAa

42.10 ± 5.43 35.59 ± 7.08 24.77 ± 4.82 29.85 ± 5.66 132.30 ± 15.71 21.71 ± 14.82 26.29 ± 15.11 24.69 ± 6.57 52.51 ± 21.41

.35 .31 .21 .67 −.25 −.40 .30 −.52

.29 .29 .77 −.53 −.64 .40 −.56

.23 .63 −.16 −.20 .24 −.22

.63 −.32 −.28 .24 −.26

−.49 −.59 .45 −.60

.78 −.36 .46

−.43 .65

−.59

Note. All correlations significant at p < .05. EQ-I = Emotion Quotient Inventory (short), Inter = Interpersonal, Intra = Intrapersonal, Adapt = Adaptability, Stress = Stress Management, SPS = Social Phobia Scale, SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale, UCLA = Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. a Reported for subset of sample only (n = 1798), all other values for full sample (N = 2629).

& Bonnet, 1980). Based on the large sample size, and following the recommendations of Bentler (1990), Hu and Bentler (1999), Marsh et al. (1988), and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) the following criteria were used to indicate the closeness of fit of the model to the data: GFI ≥ 0.85, AGFI ≥ 0.80, RMSSR ≤ 0.10, CFI > .90, and NFI ≥ .90.

RESULTS Descriptive Statistics The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for measured variables are shown in Table I. The observed correlations were all in the expected directions.

Relationship of Emotional Intelligence to Social Anxiety Variables To test the relationship of EI to the two social anxiety variables, a single latent variable path analysis was conducted. Direct paths were specified from the EI factor to both performance anxiety and interaction anxiety factors, which were allowed to inter-correlate. The fit of this model to the observed intercorrelations was acceptable (RMSSR = .04, GFI = .96, AGFI = .93, CFI = .97, NFI = .97). As shown in Fig. 1, parameter estimates among factors indicated a strong negative relationship of EI to the interaction anxiety factor, accounting for more than 65% of its variance. The relationship of EI to the performance anxiety variable was nonsignificant.

Relationship of Domains of Emotional Intelligence to Social Anxiety To determine the pattern and strength of relationship of the four EI subdomains to the two social anxiety variables, a second latent variable path analysis was conducted. Direct paths were specified from the four EI factors to both the performance anxiety and interaction anxiety factors, which were again allowed to inter-correlate. The model showed acceptable fit to the observed intercorrelations (RMSSR = .05, GFI = .94, AGFI = .91, CFI = .96, NFI = .95). As shown in Fig. 2, although all four EI domains were significant predictors of interaction anxiety, the greatest unique contributions were made by the intrapersonal and interpersonal EI domains, with parameter estimates of −.51 and −.32, respectively.6 The interpersonal and stress EI domains alone emerged as significant, though not robust, predictors of performance anxiety. Social Anxiety, Emotional Intelligence, and Interpersonal Adjustment In the final stage of analyses, the goal was to determine whether emotional intelligence had an impact on the relationships of the social anxiety variables to interpersonal adjustment. The direct relationships of the two inter-correlated social anxiety factors to the interpersonal 6 To

lessen complexity of figures, loadings of indicators are shown only for models where latent variables are first presented. As described in the method section, indicator loadings for models tested all met or exceeded the reliability criterion of ≥.35. In addition, loadings depicted in Fig. 1 showed consistency across subsequent models. Indicator loadings for all models are available from the corresponding author.

62

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker

Fig. 1. Relationship of emotional intelligence to social anxiety factors. (SIAS = Social Interaction Anxiety Scale, SPS = Social Phobia Scale. a Numbers denote parcels. ∗ p < .05).

adjustment factor were first tested. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicated an acceptable fit to the data (RMSSR = .03, GFI = .97, AGFI = .95, CFI = .99, NFI = .98). Figure 3 shows a strong negative association between interpersonal adjustment and social interaction anxiety (parameter esti-

mate = −.92), and a comparatively weak positive association between this variable and social performance anxiety (parameter estimate = .25), p < .05 in both cases. As a final step, EI was added to the model as a third predictor, with direct paths specified from the social

Fig. 2. Relationship of emotional intelligence (EI) domains to social anxiety factors (∗ p < .05).

Social Anxiety and Emotional Intelligence

63

Fig. 3. Relationship of social anxiety factors to interpersonal adjustment. (UCLA = Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. ∗p < .05).

performance anxiety, social interaction anxiety, and EI factors, to interpersonal adjustment. All three predictors were allowed to inter-correlate. Goodness-of-fit statistics indicated an acceptable fit to the data (RMSSR = .05, GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, CFI = .96, NFI = .95). Figure 4 illustrates that while all parameter estimates were significant, the addition of emotional intelligence to the model greatly reduced the association between

interaction anxiety and interpersonal adjustment (i.e., from −.92 to −.19), and slightly reduced the association between performance anxiety and interpersonal adjustment (i.e., from .25 to .18). Although all three predictors were significantly intercorrelated, the parameter estimate of .80 indicates that EI was the foremost contributing factor to variability in interpersonal adjustment.

Fig. 4. Relationship of emotional intelligence and social anxiety factors to interpersonal adjustment. (∗p < .05).

64 DISCUSSION The present research is the first reported investigation of the relationship between EI and indices of social anxiety, and their joint prediction of interpersonal adjustment. This study used data from a large multi-cohort sample, permitting approximation of population values, and operationalized the constructs of interest as latent variables, thus removing measurement error and optimizing the reliability of the findings. In addition, the use of path analysis permitted simultaneous tests of hypothesized relationships while accounting for conceptually meaningful overlap among variables (e.g., the variance shared by interaction and performance anxiety). Results were in the anticipated directions. Emotional intelligence was highly related to social interaction anxiety, though less so to performance anxiety. The relationship between performance anxiety and EI, evident in the preliminary correlational analyses, was shown in the path analyses to be principally due to the substantial variability it shares with interaction anxiety. The final model, which permitted these three predictors to inter-correlate, indicated that once the strong shared variability between EI and social interaction anxiety was included, the EI factor emerged as the dominant predictor of interpersonal adjustment, substantially reducing the unique contribution made by interaction anxiety. The unique predictive value of interaction anxiety was rendered minimal, by comparison. In other words, whatever common variance the two share—perhaps best conceptualized as a common “selfperceived social and emotional competence” factor—was, along with the unique features of EI, the foremost predictor of interpersonal adjustment. These analyses also suggested that this pattern largely reflected the principal contributions made to interaction anxiety by the interpersonal and, most notably, the intrapersonal domains of EI. Different findings were obtained for the two social anxiety variables. Interaction anxiety and performance anxiety are both features of the broader construct of generalized social anxiety (APA, 2000). It is therefore not surprising that the two social anxiety factors shared over 70% of their variance (for similar findings see Brown et al., 1997, Heimberg et al., 1992; Mattick & Clarke, 1998). However, the interaction anxiety factor was by far the most related both to EI and (uniquely, negatively) to interpersonal adjustment. This finding is in line with models of how the two social anxiety constructs differ. Leary (1983) described social situations as either contingent or noncontingent. In contingent interactions (i.e., conversations), individuals must make continuous adjustments to their own behaviors according to the real or perceived feedback of the other person. Noncontingent interactions

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker (e.g., public speaking), in contrast, are more one-sided, thus requiring less regulation of self and other. By this account, intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies are most essential to contingent, interactive, social situations. These findings are also in line with research distinguishing between the two forms of social anxiety as clinical diagnoses. Contrasted with nongeneralized social phobia, generalized social phobia, which usually entails both performance and interaction anxiety, is associated with more difficulties with interpersonal abilities (see Stravynski & Amado, 2001), more likely expression as pervasive personality traits or patterns (Heimberg, 1996; Holt, Heimberg, & Hope, 1992; Stemberger, Turner, Beidel, & Calhoun, 1995), and greater functional impairment (APA, 2000). Unexpectedly, the EI intrapersonal domain emerged as the foremost predictor of interaction anxiety. This domain assesses emotional self-awareness and expression, represented by such items as “I’m unable to express my ideas to others,” as well as the ability to use emotions in thought (e.g., “It’s hard for me to make decisions on my own”). This finding is congruent with cognitive models of social anxiety that incorporate the perpetuating roles played by both problematic appraisals and management of one’s own emotional state (Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; Wells, 1997). The facility with which the individual accurately perceives his or her emotions may be particularly key. People high in social anxiety tend to be hypervigilant for possible signs of anxiety, have lowered flexibility in explaining their anxiety states, and misjudge both their severity and visibility to others and their likelihood of being interpreted by others in negative ways (Edelmann & Baker, 2002; Roth, Antony, & Swinson, 2001; Wells & Papageorgiou, 2001). Most of this evidence points to emotion and situation-specific difficulties (i.e., perceptions of anxiety states in social situations). In contrast, the measure of intrapersonal EI used in the present study was not situation or anxiety-specific. The findings, then, suggest that interaction anxiety may be linked with more global self-perceived intrapersonal difficulties than are suggested by much existing research. As predicted, the EI interpersonal domain was a robust predictor of interaction anxiety. Interpersonal competencies are proposed in both the deficit and cognitive appraisal literatures on social anxiety and social functioning. It must be noted that the present study’s use of self-report data precludes the conclusion that this reflects actual deficits in interpersonal skills. Discrepancies between self and other’s ratings of social performance have been found in social phobia research (e.g., Rapee & Lim, 1992), with individuals high in social anxiety often underestimating their performance, or evaluating it in

Social Anxiety and Emotional Intelligence excessively critical ways (Stopa & Clark, 2000). Thus, rather than being solely regarded as a methodological limitation, this finding underscores the importance of selfperceived social skills difficulties in social anxiety. Such biased self-appraisals play a pivotal role in prevailing theories of social anxiety. Rapee and Heimberg (1997; see also Turk, Heimberg, & Hope, 2001), for example, propose that distorted mental representations of the self, accompanied by such problematic behaviors as hypervigilance for confirming information, may actually result in disrupted social performance. It is possible, however, that actual skills deficits may underlie the finding that lowered levels of self-reported interpersonal EI predicted interaction anxiety. There is little consensus about the role played in social anxiety by faulty social skills, particularly when they are operationalized as discrete behaviors such as eye gaze and pauses in speech (see Stravynski & Amado, 2001; Vertue, 2003). There is another potential mechanism, however. This involves the accurate processing of social information, as seen in the monitoring and decoding both of others’ emotional states and of ambiguous social interactions. There is considerable evidence linking social anxiety with difficulties in this aspect of interpersonal competency. Individuals high in social anxiety have been found to interpret even neutral social interactions as threatening (Amir, Foa, & Coles, 1998; Pozo, Carver, Wellens, & Scheier, 1991; Stopa & Clark, 2000). These fearcongruent distortions may be facilitated by more fundamental individual differences in interpersonal perception skills. In research on individuals’ abilities to accurately interpret social situations, levels of social anxiety have been found to predict lowered confidence in one’s correct neutral interpretations (Stopa & Clark, 2000), and generally lowered acuity (Schroeder & Ketrow, 1997). There is also evidence of difficulties with perceptions of the constituent components of social interactions (i.e., others’ facial expressions). Individuals high in generalized social anxiety have been found to shift attention away from emotional faces under evaluative conditions (Mansell, Clark, Ehlers, & Chen, 1999), and to avoid emotion-salient features of others’ faces (Horley, Williams, Gonsalvez, & Gordon, 2003), thus limiting their ability to process either positive or negative social cues. In short, poor abilities in decoding interpersonal interactions, at both the macro and the micro level, may contribute to the impairments in social functioning often linked with social anxiety. This may underlie the finding with the interpersonal EI domain. The present research has limitations. First, its findings rely on self-report data. As discussed, this is itself meaningful given the conceptual importance of self-

65 perceptions in social anxiety. However, it has been proposed that performance measures of EI may have greater predictive validity than self-reports (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2000), thus suggesting an area for future research. Comparison of the associations between social anxiety and indices of self-reported versus performance EI, and their joint prediction of meaningful life outcomes, would also be of theoretical value. Cognitive appraisal models of social anxiety suggest a significant disparity between the two, with self-perceived abilities being less than actual performance. Use of performance measures would therefore help to determine the relative merits of cognitive appraisal versus deficit positions. One basis for the recommended use of performance measures is the possibility that self-report measures of EI such as the one used here are actually tapping other more well-established personality traits (Mayer, Caruso, et al., 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000). It is worth noting that recent research suggests that trait EI, as measured by the EQ-i, can be regarded as a distinct construct at the level of hierarchical trait models of personality (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). With regard to the present study, visual inspection of the EQ-i:S, SIAS, and SPS did not provide compelling evidence that the high degree of interrelationship among EI and interaction anxiety was due to overlap in item content. Only cross-sectional data were analysed in the present study, which does not permit true determination of the directionality or nature of the relationship between EI, social anxiety, and interpersonal adjustment. As these inter-relationships have not yet been reported in the literature, the data were approached with neutral analytic techniques (i.e., positing EI and the two social anxiety variables as equivalent, inter-related, direct predictors). An obvious goal for future research is to investigate more complex models, exploring the possibility of mediating relationships. However, this will pose conceptual and methodological challenges. The existing literature provides compelling support for two incompatible possibilities: generalized social anxiety may mediate the impact of EI, or the converse. In their respective literatures, both constructs are regarded as basic personality characteristics established early in life, with implications for the development of a host of subsidiary traits and life outcomes (e.g., Saarni, 2000; Vertue, 2003). Consequently, the present exploratory investigation did not posit developmental priority or a functional relationship between the two. Statistical evidence for the goodness-of-fit of a mediational model taking either stance will need to be tempered by careful conceptual consideration. Performance measures of EI, as well as longitudinally collected outcome variables, would help with this interpretive point.

66 In the present study, the outcome variable was a latent factor incorporating loneliness and global satisfaction with life, constructs with demonstrated utility in research on well-being and adjustment (see Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Palmer et al., 2002). Other meaningful life outcomes, using different operationalizations, are strong candidates for future research. Of particular value would be measurement of real-life indices of interpersonal adjustment, such as relationship stability over time or otherratings of social interactions. Finally, the sample used in the present study may be minimally representative of the general population, and replication is needed. In addition, future research with clinical populations would not only provide validation of the present study’s findings, but help to clarify the specificity of this result to social phobia, and, particularly, to its generalized subtype.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by an Ontario Mental Health Foundation (OMHF) New Investigator fellowship to Laura J. Summerfeldt. Research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and an Ontario government’s Premier’s Research Excellence Award to James D.A. Parker. The authors thank Dr. Richard Heimberg for his comments on an earlier version of this research, and Barbara Bond, Marjorie Hogan, and Sarah Majeski, for their research assistance.

REFERENCES Amir, N., Foa, T. B., & Coles, M. E. (1998). Negative interpretation bias in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 945–957. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author. Austin, B. A. (1983). Factorial structure of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 883–889. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-offit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78–102 Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: MultiHealth Systems Inc. Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363–388). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short version: Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: MultiHealth Systems Inc. Beck, A. T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. New York: Basic Books. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172. Brown, E. J., Turovsky, J., Heimberg, R. G., Juster, H. R., Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 21–27. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muth´en, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456– 466. Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561. Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York: Guilford Press. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 584–594. Cramer, K. M., & Barry, J. E. (1999). Conceptualizations and measures of loneliness: A comparison of subscales. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 491–502. Creed, A. T., & Funder, D. C. (1998). Social anxiety: From the inside and outside. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 19–33. Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797–812. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Edelmann, S. J., & Baker, S. R. (2002). Self-reported and actual physiological responses in social phobia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 1–14. Furnham, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence and happiness. Social Behavior & Personality, 31, 815–824. Fydrich, T., Chambless, D. L., Perry, K. J., Buergener, F., & Beazley, M. B. (1998). Behavioral assessment of social performance: A rating system for social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 995–1010. Gardner, H. (1983/1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233– 256. Heimberg, R. G. (1996). Social phobia, avoidant personality disorder, and the multiaxial conceptualization of interpersonal anxiety. In P. Salkovskis (Ed.), Trends in cognitive and behavioural therapies (Vol. 1, pp. 43–62). Chichester, England: Wiley. Heimberg, R. G., Mueller, G. P., Holt, C. S., Hope, D. A., & Liebowitz, M. R. (1992). Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior Therapy, 23, 53–73. Hofmann, S. G. (2000). Treatment of social phobia: Potential mediators and moderators. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 7, 3–16. Holt, C. S., Heimberg, R. G., & Hope, D. A. (1992). Avoidant personality disorder and the generalized subtype of social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 318–325. Horley, K., Williams, L. M., Gonsalvez, C., & Gordon, E. (2003). Social phobics do not see eye to eye: A visual scanpath study of emotional expression processing. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 33–44. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Hudson, J. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2000). The origins of social phobia. Behavour Modification, 24, 102–129.

Social Anxiety and Emotional Intelligence Jones, W. H., & Carpenter, B. N. (1986). Shyness, social behavior, and relationships. In A. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 227–238). New York: Plenum. Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course. Personality & Individual Differences, 37, 129–145. Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757– 765. Leary, M. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford Press. Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems in Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality & Individual Differences, 35, 641–658. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., & Chen, Y. (1999). Social anxiety and attention away from emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 673–690. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 305–312. Martinez-Pons, M. (1997). The relation of emotional intelligence with selected areas of personal functioning. Imagination, Cognition & Personality, 17, 3–13. Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 772–781. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge University Press. Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement of individual success potential or “emotional intelligence”. Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 126, 133–239. Montgomery, R. L., Haemmerlie, F. M., & Edwards, M. (1991). Social, personal, and interpersonal deficits in socially anxious people. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 859–872. Norton, G. R., McLeod, L., Guertin, J., Hewitt, P. L., Walker, J. R., & Stein, M. B. (1996). Panic disorder or social phobia: Which is worse? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 273–276. Olivares, J., Garcia-Lopez, L. J., Hidalgo, M. D., La Greca, A. M., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (2002). A pilot study on normative data for two social anxiety measures: The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory and the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents. International Journal of Clinical & Health Psychology, 2, 467–476. Palmer, B., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Personality & Individual Differences, 33, 1091–1100. Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G., & Bagby, R. M. (2001). The relationship between emotional intelligence and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 107–115. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Peters, L. (2000). Discriminant validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and the Social

67 Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). Behaviour Research & Therapy, 38, 943–950. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42, 449– 461. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425– 448. Pozo, C., Carver, C. S., Wellens, A. R., & Scheier, M. F. (1991). Social anxiety and social perception: Construing others’ reactions to the self. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 355–362. Prisbell, M. (1997). Dating, social avoidance, and distress. Psychological Reports, 81, 463–466. Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756. Rapee, R. M., & Lim, L. (1992). Discrepancy between self and observer ratings of performance in social phobics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 727–731. Roth, D., Antony, M. M., & Swinson, R. P. (2001). Interpretations for anxiety symptoms in social phobia. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 39, 129–138. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472– 480. Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford. Saarni, C. (2000). Emotional competence: A developmental perspective. In R. Bar-On & J. D.A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 68–91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211. Schmidt, L., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults’ shyness and sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 455–462. Schneier, F. R., Heckelman, L. R., Garfinkell, R., Campeas, R., Fallon, B. A., Gitow, A., et al. (1994). Functional impairment in social phobia. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 322–331. Schroeder, J. E., & Ketrow, S. M. (1997). Social anxiety and performance in an interpersonal perception task. Psychological Reports, 81, 991– 996. Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Simunek, M., McKenley, J., & Hollander, S. (2002). Characteristic emotional intelligence and emotional wellbeing. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 769–785. Segrin, C. (1999). Social skills, stressful life events, and the development of psychosocial problems. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 14–34. Sifneos, P. E. (1973). The prevalence of alexithymic characteristics in psychosomatic patients. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 22, 255–262. Steiger, J. H. (1989). EZPATH: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. (Evanston, IL: SYSTAT). Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 3, 168– 192. Stemberger, R. T., Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Calhoun, K. S. (1995). Social phobia: An analysis of possible developmental factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 526–531. Stopa, L., & Clark, D. M. (2000). Social phobia and the interpretation of social events. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 273– 283. Stravynski, A., & Amado, D. (2001). Social phobia as a deficit in social skills. In S. G. Hofmann & P. M. DiBartolo (Eds.), From social anxiety to social phobia: Multiple perspectives (pp. 107–129). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

68 Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10–39). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Thorndike, R. L., & Stein, S. (1937). An evaluation of the attempts to measure social intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 34, 275– 284. Turk, C. L., Heimberg, R. G., & Hope, D. A. (2001). Social anxiety disorder. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.), Clinical handbook of psychological disorders: A step-by-step treatment manual (3rd ed.). (pp. 114– 153). New York: Guilford.

Summerfeldt, Kloosterman, Antony, and Parker Vertue, F. M. (2003). From adaptive emotion to dysfunction: An attachment perspective on social anxiety disorder. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 7, 170–191. Wells, A. (1997). Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders: A practice manual and conceptual guide. New York: Wiley. Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (2001). Social phobic interoception: Effects of bodily information on anxiety, beliefs and self-processing. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 39, 1–11. Westenberg, H. (1998). The nature of social anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 20–26.