Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

Social anxiety and socially prescribed perfectionism: Uniqueand interactive relationships with maladaptive appraisal

of interpersonal situations

Helene J. Laurenti, Monroe A. Bruch, Richard F. Haase *

University of Albany, State University of New York, United States

Received 11 September 2007; received in revised form 19 February 2008; accepted 22 February 2008Available online 3 April 2008

Abstract

Although investigators have suggested that maladaptive appraisal of interpersonal situations may be related to perfectionist charac-teristics of socially anxious persons, little research has addressed this notion. In this study, the joint role of social anxiety and sociallyprescribed perfectionism (SPP; Hewitt & Flett, 1991a) was assessed relative to participants’ appraisal of an interpersonal situation.Results showed that social anxiety and SPP were related with the discrepancy between participants’ ratings of others’ performance stan-dards for them and ratings of their own self-efficacy for an upcoming conversation, and that SPP moderated the relationship betweensocial anxiety and the discrepancy. Second, only social anxiety was related with the frequency of negative self-statements; however, SPPmoderated the relationship between social anxiety and participants’ negative self-statements relative to the conversation. For both inter-actions, the greater an anxious person’s SPP, the greater their degree of maladaptive appraisal. Results are discussed relative to theoret-ical and clinical implications of the findings.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Perfectionism; Social anxiety; Maladaptive appraisal; Social performance standards; Social self-efficacy; Negative self-statements

1. Introduction

Although a number of theorists have discussed thepotential role of perfectionism in problems of social anxiety(e.g., Heimberg & Becker, 2002; Schlenker & Leary, 1982),there has been little investigation of how perfectionist per-sonality characteristics relate to social anxiety and its con-sequences. Recently, Alden, Ryder, and Mellings (2002),Bieling and Alden (1997) provided initial evidence as tothe role of perfectionistic characteristics in social anxiety.Using a multidimensional measure of perfectionism, Alden,Bieling, and Wallace (1994) found that socially anxiouswomen were higher in socially prescribed perfectionism(SPP) but the two groups did not differ in self-oriented per-fectionism (SOP). According to Hewitt and Flett (1991a),

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.02.018

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 518 442 5046.E-mail address: rfhremote@aol.com (R.F. Haase).

SPP consists of a person’s beliefs that others exert pressureon the individual to be perfect while SOP involves self-directed perfectionistic standards. The same differences inSPP but not in SOP were also found in a sample of maleand female social phobics (Bieling & Alden, 1997). Thus,Alden et al. (2002) concluded that socially anxious andnon-anxious people do not necessarily differ in self-imposed perfectionism but instead differ in their perceptionthat others hold unreasonable expectations for them.

Cognitive-personality models of social anxiety (e.g.,Clark & Wells, 1995) posit that trait social anxiety leadsto a chronic discrepancy between a person’s social self-effi-cacy and their perception of what constitutes desirablesocial performance. Based on this notion, Bieling andAlden (1997) evaluated whether social anxiety and SPPwere related to one or both of these appraisal responses.They found that social anxiety was related to lower socialself-efficacy but not to higher expectancies of others’

56 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

standards. SPP was unrelated to social self-efficacy but wasrelated to higher expectations of others’ standards. Also,they found that SPP moderated the relationship betweensocial anxiety and expectations of others’ standards suchthat only anxious participants who were also high in SPPreported higher expectations of others’ standards. Basedon the previous findings, the present study sought to clarifythe potential unique and interactive roles of social anxietyand SPP in relation to maladaptive appraisal of interper-sonal situations. According to cognitive theories of socialanxiety (e.g., Schlenker & Leary, 1982), appraisal of inter-personal situations typically involves two judgments: anestimate of one’s own abilities (i.e., social self-efficacy)and an estimate of what is acceptable performance in thesituation (i.e., others’ standards) and, presumably, it isthe discrepancy between these two appraisal responses thattriggers social avoidance and negative affect. It is unclear,however, whether one or both of the traits of social anxietyand SPP make an additive and/or interactive contributionto such a discrepancy because previous research has notevaluated these appraisal responses as a discrepancy.

Consequently, the first purpose of the present study wasto assess the separate and/or interactive relationships oftrait social anxiety and SPP with the discrepancy thatresults from the difference between ratings of others’ stan-dards and ratings of one’s own self-efficacy. Because anindividual is likely to make both estimates in a simulta-neous fashion, the estimates are just as likely to be relatedwith personality dimensions that have an internal, individ-ual origin or an external, interpersonal origin.

A second purpose of the study was to extend the analysisof how social anxiety and SPP relate to other maladaptiveappraisal responses relative to an interpersonal situationsuch as negative and positive self-statements (e.g., Caciop-po, Glass, & Merluzzi, 1979). Although self-statements arelikely related to the discrepancy between others’ standardsand self-efficacy, there is substantial evidence that greaternegative self-statements and fewer positive self-statementsare associated with social avoidance and negative affect(e.g., Mahone, Bruch, & Heimberg, 1993; Schwartz &Garamoni, 1989). Thus, the present study evaluatedwhether in addition to social anxiety, SPP has any director interactive relationship with the tendency to reportgreater negative self-statements and fewer positive self-statements relative to an interpersonal situation.

The present research exposed participants to a labora-tory assessment procedure in which they were told thatthey would be meeting a stranger of the other gender andwere to engage in a conversation to get to know the person.Prior to this anticipated interaction, participants rated theirsocial self-efficacy as well as their perceptions of others’standards (i.e., the interaction partner) for their perfor-mance in the upcoming interaction. Because perceivedsocial standards and efficacy ratings are complicated bysubjective judgments, Wallace and Alden’s (1991) ‘‘visualrating scale” procedure was used in this assessment. Thisprocedure uses videotaped interactions of people display-

ing various levels of social effectiveness to serve as commonanchors of skillfulness when rating both others’ standardsand self-efficacy.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 77 (47 female) community col-lege students in the Northeastern United States. They ran-ged in age from 17 to 36 years, with a mean of 21.40 years.In terms of ethnic background, 53.1% of the participantsidentified themselves as white, 7.6% as African–American,16.5% as Hispanic, 3.8% as Asian, 2.5% as Native Ameri-can, and 16.5% as other. Participants volunteered for astudy involving self and other perceptions when interactingwith a stranger. All participants received a monetaryremuneration.

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Social anxiety

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick &Clarke, 1998) was used to measure social anxiety whichinvolves fears of being inarticulate, boring, and appearingawkward when interacting with others. Mattick and Clarke(1998) report an alpha of .88 in a college sample and analpha of .90 in a community sample. Alpha in the presentsample was .96. Relative to validity, the SIAS is correlatedwith the social avoidance and distress scale and the fear ofnegative evaluation scale (Watson & Friend, 1969) and dis-criminated among groups of social phobics, agoraphobics,and simple phobics (Mattick & Clarke, 1998).

2.2.2. Socially prescribed perfectionism

The socially prescribed perfectionism (SPP) subscalefrom Hewitt and Flett (1991a) Multidimensional perfec-tionism scale was used to assess interpersonal sources ofperfectionism. A sample item is ‘‘The better I do, the betterI am expected to do”. Hewitt and Flett (1991a) report analpha of .87 and a test–retest reliability of .60 for theSPP. Coefficient alpha for the present sample was .90. Rel-ative to validity, the SPP is related to measures of self-blame, fear of negative evaluation, depression and anxiety(Hewitt & Flett, 1991b). In addition, Hill, Zrull, and Tur-lington (1997) found that SPP was associated with severalmeasures of maladaptive interpersonal behaviour includingsocial distancing, conflict, and distrust.

2.2.3. Other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy

The first dependent variable consisted of the discrepancybetween ratings of the perceptions of other peoples’ stan-dards minus ratings of social self-efficacy for one’s perfor-mance. Participants rated their perceptions of others’standards and their social self-efficacy using a 10-pointVisual Rating Scale (VRS) developed by Wallace andAlden (1991). The VRS uses videotapes of social interac-

H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 57

tions differing in skillfulness to define various points alongthe scale. Consequently, the procedure provides objectivereferents for various skill levels in contrast to using printeddescriptions as anchors. The VRS consists of three video-taped heterosocial interactions between two strangerswho are confederates. The three vignettes are very similarin content but vary in the social skills and comfort level dis-played to reflect anchor points of 2, 5, and 8 on a 10-pointscale. The higher the number, the better the videotapedinteractants’ observable social performance. For instance,at an anchor of 2 there was little eye contact, few verbaliza-tions, anxious facial expressions, and tense body posture,while an anchor of 8 evidenced appropriate eye contact,spontaneous verbalization, interested facial expression,and receptive posture. Participants were allowed to viewthe VRS as much as they desired and were instructed touse its anchors to rate their perceptions relative to theupcoming interaction.

2.2.4. Others’ standards rating

Participants rated their perceptions of others’ standardsfor them in the upcoming interaction using a 4-item scaledeveloped by Wallace and Alden (1991). A sample itemis: ‘‘What level of behaviour will your partner (that is,the person you are meeting for the first time) expect fromyou?” Each item is rated on a 0–10 scale and the four itemswere averaged to yield a composite score. Wallace andAlden (1991) report a coefficient alpha of .90, while alphafor the current sample was .89.

2.2.5. Social self-efficacy ratingParticipants rated their social self-efficacy for the inter-

action using a 4-item scale developed by Wallace andAlden (1991). A sample item is: ‘‘What level of behaviorare you certain you could match in this upcoming conver-sation?” These items were rated on a 0–10 scale and aver-aged to obtain a composite score. Wallace and Alden(1991) report an alpha of .93 for the social self-efficacy rat-ing scale, while in the present sample alpha was .95. Evi-dence for the validity of these two VRS-based ratingscales is found in Wallace and Alden (1991), Wallace andAlden (1995) and Bieling and Alden (1997). In the presentstudy, the discrepancy score was created by subtracting aparticipant’s Social Self-efficacy composite rating fromhis or her other standards composite rating.

2.2.6. Cognitive self-statementsThe Social Interaction Self-Statement Test (SISST;

Glass, Merluzzi, Biever, & Larsen, 1982) was used to assessthe frequency of participants’ negative and positive self-statements. The SISST has good internal consistency reli-ability and test–retest reliability (Glass et al., 1982). Rela-tive to validity, Glass et al. (1982) found that sociallyanxious individuals, as compared with non-anxious indi-viduals, reported a greater frequency of negative and alower frequency of positive self-statements following aninteraction. Also, Glass and Arnkoff (1997) provide evi-

dence for the content and concurrent validity of the SISST,including evidence of the SISST’s sensitivity to change fol-lowing treatment. Although typically administered follow-ing an interaction, it has been used to evaluate a person’sself-statements relative to imagined (e.g., Zweig & Brown,1985) or anticipated interpersonal situations (e.g., Dodge,Hope, Heimberg, & Becker, 1988). In the present study,participants rated the frequency of their thoughts relativeto an anticipated interaction with a stranger of the othersex. Based on Glass et al. (1982) factor analysis of the SIS-ST, only the six negative items with the highest factor load-ings on the negative scale and the six positive items with thehighest factor loadings on the positive scale were used toassess self-statements in the current study. In the presentsample, coefficient alpha was .90 for the set of negativeitems and .87 for the set of positive items. Evidence forthe validity of this brief version of the SISST is found inBruch, Rivet, Heimberg, Hunt, and McIntosh (1999).

2.3. Procedure

An experimenter met each participant at a research labto explain the purpose of the study and to sign a writtenconsent form. Participants were administered the SIASand the SPP scales, which were administered in counterbal-anced order across the sample. Next, the participant wastold that they would be introduced to a stranger of theother sex and asked to engage in a conversation. The pur-pose of exposing participants to the possibility of engagingin a conversation was to elicit the usual anticipatory anxi-ety associated with this type of event for persons who aresocially anxious (Russell, Cutrona, & Jones, 1986). Subse-quently, the participant was informed that he or she was tocomplete several rating procedures involving self-percep-tions and perceptions of other people as they pertained tothe upcoming interaction. Following this, the participantwas instructed on how to operate the videotape equipmentin order to complete the VRS procedure that included theothers’ standards and social self-efficacy rating scales.Finally, the participant completed the brief SISST. Aftercompleting all of the assessments, the participant wasinformed that the interaction would not occur, and thenwas debriefed regarding the purpose of the research. Allparticipants reported that they believed they would be hav-ing an actual conversation with someone.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary analysis

Multivariate analysis of variance tests (Pillai’s Trace) forage, gender, and ethnicity on the dependent variables werenot significant (all p’s > .10). Descriptive statistics andbivariate correlations for all variables are presented inTable 1. The correlations show that social anxiety was sig-nificantly related with SPP which is consistent with previ-ous research (e.g., Bieling & Alden, 1997). The analyses

Table 1Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics for variables in the study

Scale 2 3 4 5 M SD

1. Social anxiety .57** .74** .79** �.39** 26.30 17.752. Socially prescribed

perfectionism.67** .62** �.26** 58.90 18.47

3. Other standards –self-efficacy discrepancy

.73** �.31** 2.79 6.96

4. Negative self-statements �.29* 12.21 6.385. Positive self-statements – 16.75 5.23

Note: N = 77.** p < .01.* p < .05.

Table 2Hierarchical regression analyses of self appraisal variables

Predictors R2 DR2 B b t p

Other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy

Step 1SISSTN .53 .528 5.06 .73 9.16 .0001

Step 2Social anxiety (SA) 2.50 .36 3.17 .002SPP .65 .125 2.21 .31 3.43 .001

Step 3SA � SPP .70 .042 1.57 .24 3.13 .002

Negative self-statements

Step 1O – S discrepancy .53 .528 4.64 .73 9.16 .0001

Step 2Social anxiety (SA) 3.36 .53 5.42 .0001SPP .69 .158 1.08 .16 1.82 .073

58 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

also revealed that the other standards – self-efficacy dis-crepancy scores and the SISST negative scale scores werehighly correlated (i.e., r = .73).

Step 3SA � SPP .72 .036 1.34 .27 3.06 .003

Positive self-statements

Step 1Social anxiety (SA) �1.89 �.37 �2.80 .006SPP .16 .155 �0.26 �.05 <1 n.s.

Step 2SA � SPP .16 .004 0.34 .07 <1 n.s.

Note: B = unstandardized beta coefficient, b = standardized beta coeffi-cient, SISSTN = Social Interaction Self-Statements Test-Negative scale,SPP = socially prescribed perfectionism, O – S discrepancy = other stan-dards – self-efficacy discrepancy score.

4 12 20 28 36

Social Anxiety

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Oth

ersS

tand

ards

- S

elf-

Eff

icac

y D

iscr

epan

cy

High = Medium =Low =

Fig. 1. Relationship of social anxiety with other standards – self-efficacydiscrepancy score at low, medium, and high levels of socially prescribedperfectionism.

3.2. Major analyses

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed oneach of the dependent variables. Because of the high corre-lation between the discrepancy score and the negative self-statements measure, the regression analysis for each ofthese two criterion variables controlled for this shared var-iance by including the other dependent variable in the firststep of the analysis. The main effects of social anxiety andSPP were then entered in the second step followed by theproduct of these two predictors (the interaction) in thethird step.

Results from the analysis of the other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy are presented in the top of Table 2.They show that after controlling for the overlap with neg-ative self-statements, both social anxiety and SPP made sig-nificant, unique contributions to predicted variance in thediscrepancy score with social anxiety contributing 6.9%and SPP contributing 5.6%. Thus, the higher a partici-pant’s social anxiety and SPP the more likely the personwas to evidence a positive discrepancy score. Also, theresults showed that there was a significant interactionwhich accounted for an additional increment of 4.2% inpredicted variance and indicated that SPP moderated therelation between social anxiety and the discrepancy score.

Following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Akin (2003)regarding the decomposition of interactions for continuousvariables, regression slopes were plotted for three values inthe moderator variable (SPP). Fig. 1 depicts the nature ofthe moderating effect of SPP in the relationship betweensocial anxiety and the discrepancy score. It shows thatfor participants with low SPP (�1.00 sd), there appearsto be some relationship between social anxiety and the dis-crepancy score. However, at the medium (mean = 0.00)and high (+1.00 sd) levels of SPP, the slope of the relation-ship between social anxiety and the discrepancy ratingsincreases markedly. As seen in Fig. 1, the pitch of theregression slopes for the medium and high SPP scoregroups is steep compared to the low SPP group. Tests of

the significance of the simple slopes for all three plot linesshowed that all three slopes were significantly differentfrom zero (low: b = 1.13, t (73) = 2.26, p < .05; medium:

H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 59

b = 2.70, t (73) = 3.61, p < .001; high: b = 4.30, t (73) =4.57, p < .001).

Results from the regression analysis of participants’ neg-ative self-statements are displayed in the middle of Table 2.They revealed a significant, unique relation between socialanxiety and negative self-statements, but not between SPPand negative self-statements. Social anxiety accounted for14.4% of the predicted variance in the frequency of nega-tive self-statements, while SPP accounted for only 1.4%.Consistent with previous research, participants whoreported greater social anxiety also reported a greater fre-quency of negative thoughts. Although SPP had evidenceda significant bivariate correlation with negative self-state-ments, once the overlapping variance with social anxietywas controlled, the relationship between SPP and negativethoughts was non-significant.

Table 2 also indicates that the social anxiety by SPPinteraction was significant and accounted for an additional3.6% in predicted variance. As evident from Fig. 2, thegreater a participant’s SPP the more extreme the slope isfor the relation between social anxiety and frequency ofnegative self-statements. In other words, for those partici-pants who were high in SPP (i.e., +1.00 sd), there is a muchstronger relationship between social anxiety and negativeself-statements than for participants who were low in SPP(i.e., �1.00 sd). Tests of the significance of the simple slopesfor all three plot lines showed that all three slopes were sig-nificantly different from zero (low: b = 2.06, t (73) = 5.49,p < .001; medium: b = 3.40, t (73) = 5.79, p < .001; high:b = 4.74, t (73) = 6.40, p < .001).

Results from the regression analysis for positive self-statements are displayed in the lower part of Table 2. Theyshow that social anxiety had a significant, inverse relationwith the frequency of positive thoughts accounting for

204 12 28 36

Social Anxiety

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

Neg

ativ

e Se

lf-

Stat

emen

ts

High =Medium =Low =

Fig. 2. Relationship of social anxiety with frequency of negative self-statements at low, medium, and high levels of socially prescribedperfectionism.

15.4% of the predicted variance. Although SPP evidenceda significant inverse, bivariate correlation with positiveself-statements (see Table 1), once the overlapping variancewith social anxiety was controlled, there was no significantrelationship between SPP and positive self-statements andthere was no social anxiety by SPP interaction.

4. Discussion

The present results extend previous research (e.g., Bieling& Alden, 1997) and showed that both social anxiety andSPP were uniquely related with the discrepancy score andthat SPP moderated the relationship between social anxietyand the discrepancy score. The interaction is interestingbecause at a lower level of social anxiety, participants’ dis-crepancy scores were negative (i.e., others’ standards arerated lower than one’s own self-efficacy) regardless of thelevel of SPP. Thus, participants who were low in social anx-iety across all levels of SPP believed that they could eithermatch or slightly exceed the expectations that they per-ceived the experimenter and anticipated interaction partnerto have for them. In contrast, for those participants whowere high in social anxiety, only positive discrepancy scoreswere observed. Individuals high in anxiety displayed posi-tive discrepancy scores that ranged from an average of1.04 for those low in SPP to an average of 8.37 for thosehigh in SPP. Such scores indicate that these individualsbelieve that other people hold them to higher standards ofsocial performance than they are capable of meeting. Thenature of the interaction supports Bieling and Alden(1997) contention that the relationship between social anx-iety and maladaptive appraisal responses may be dependenton the coexistence of other personality characteristics (e.g.,SPP). In addition, the interaction is conceptually consistentwith Alden et al. (2002) two-component model of perfec-tionism which states that the nature of perfectionism is acombination of performance expectations and self-apprai-sal. Supposedly when performance expectations are unrea-sonably high and self-appraisal is derogatory, this results inpathological forms of perfectionism. In the present study,persons high in both social anxiety (derogatory self-apprai-sal) and SPP (unreasonable expectations by others) showedthe most maladaptive discrepancy score.

The results for negative self-statements showed thatalthough social anxiety was significantly, uniquely relatedto frequency of negative thoughts, SPP made no significant,additive contribution. The fact that negative self-statementitems focus more on heightened feelings of self-consciousnessas compared to critical remarks by other people suggests thatSPP may not directly relate to an increased frequency of suchnegative thoughts. However, the significant social anxiety bySPP interaction suggests that higher levels of SPP may exac-erbate the socially anxious person’s tendency to dwell on self-derogatory thoughts and feelings relative to the anticipatedconversation.

The fact that socially anxious persons who were also highin SPP reported the greatest frequency of negative thoughts

60 H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61

suggests that heightened concerns about the demandingnature of others’ performance expectations in combinationwith their anxious self-preoccupation may increase thebelief that one’s perceived inadequacies will become evidentduring a conversation, leading people to experience greaterself-derogatory thinking (i.e., negative SISST). Assumingthat these findings would replicate using an actual conversa-tion, the observed interaction in the current study may helpexplain previous research which found that socially anxiousparticipants greatly overestimate the visibility of their ner-vousness compared to the actual frequency of visible anxi-ety behaviors based on videotape ratings (Bruch, Gorsky,Collins, & Berger, 1989, Study 2). The present interactionsuggests that participants high in both social anxiety andSPP may be prone to exaggerate the extent of their anxiousbehavior because they believe that the unreasonable expec-tations of others will lead to a greater degree of negativeevaluation than the negative evaluation expected by sociallyanxious people who are low in SPP. This interpretation isconsistent with Bruch et al.s (1989; Study 2) finding thatparticipants’ overestimates of the visibility of their anxietywere correlated with the frequency of their negative self-statements but not with a physiological index of their anx-iety (i.e., increased heart rate).

Although social anxiety evidenced a significant, inverserelationship with positive thoughts, SPP showed no directrelationship with positive thoughts (once the covariancebetween social anxiety and SPP was controlled) nor didit serve as a moderator variable. The fact that SPP playedno role in predicting positive thoughts may indicate thatpositive thinking stems more from an individual’s ownconfidence in their social skills than from any concernsregarding the expectations and demands of others. Also,the fact that SPP did not moderate the relationshipbetween social anxiety and positive self-statements sug-gests that SPP is more likely to moderate relationshipsthat involve social anxiety and negative rather than posi-tive types of appraisals.

There are a number of limitations to the current studywhich should be considered when interpreting the results.First, the use of an anticipated conversation rather thanan actual conversation requires caution regarding the gen-eralizability of the findings. Although it might be assumedthat an actual conversation would yield even stronger find-ings, it is possible that aspects of the other person (e.g.,non-threatening demeanor) could diminish the effects ofthe cognitive concerns associated with higher levels ofsocial anxiety and SPP.

Second, it would be useful to separate the assessment ofself-reported social anxiety and SPP from the assessment ofmaladaptive appraisal processes relative to an anticipatedor actual conversation. This approach would allow for amore precise determination of the relationship between par-ticipants’ typical self-report level of social anxiety and SPPand the appraisal responses that are elicited by specificsocial situations. In addition, the present study did not dis-tinguish between two types of target persons holding exter-

nal standards (i.e., experimenter and interaction partner)when assessing others’ standards. Although no differenceswere found between ratings based on these different sourcesof external standards in the present study, future researchshould consider comparing discrepancy ratings that employdifferent target persons as the source of the other standardto evaluate whether SPP moderates the relation of socialanxiety and discrepancy ratings regardless of the target per-son or for just certain ones (e.g., authority figures).

Third, the study did not control for other participantcharacteristics that might coexist with social anxiety and/or with SPP, such as depression or neuroticism. One ormore of these other factors could have contributed to theresults given the fact that a variety of psychological condi-tions are associated with maladaptive appraisal processes.

In terms of clinical implications, the present results sug-gest that cognitive-behavioral treatments of social anxiety(e.g., Heimberg & Becker, 2002) need to incorporate spe-cific steps that enable clients to learn to question and dis-pute their beliefs about others’ standards for theirperformance. The fact that low and average levels of SPPmoderated the relationship between social anxiety andthe other standards – self-efficacy discrepancy suggests thateven a minimal belief that others will hold unreasonableand demanding expectations for one’s performance needsto be challenged and disputed. Thus, in addition to modi-fying cognitive distortions related to self-perceived inade-quacies, cognitive techniques need to identify keydistortions that contribute to misperceptions of the stan-dards typically held by other people. Subsequent behav-ioral exposures, designed so that clients receive feedbackabout others’ actual expectations, could then provideobjective evidence that acts to disconfirm a client’s errone-ous hypotheses about others’ standards.

References

Alden, L. E., Bieling, P. J., & Wallace, S. T. (1994). Perfectionism in aninterpersonal context: A self-regulation analysis of dysphoria andsocial anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 297–316.

Alden, L. E., Ryder, A. G., & Mellings, T. M. B. (2002). Perfectionism inthe context of social fears: Toward a two-component model. In G. L.Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and

treatment (pp. 373–391). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Bieling, P. J., & Alden, L. E. (1997). The consequences of perfectionismfor patients with social phobia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

36, 387–395.Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. A., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989).

Shyness and sociability reexamined: A multicomponent analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 904–915.

Bruch, M. A., Rivet, K. M., Heimberg, R. G., Hunt, A., & McIntosh, B.(1999). Shyness and sociotropy: Additive and interactive relations inpredicting interpersonal concerns. Journal of Personality, 67, 373–406.

Cacioppo, J. T., Glass, C. R., & Merluzzi, T. V. (1979). Self-statementsand selfevaluations: A cognitive-response analysis of heterosexualsocial anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 249–262.

Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. InR. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier(Eds.), Social phobia: Research, assessment and treatment (pp. 69–93).New York: Guilford Press.

H.J. Laurenti et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 45 (2008) 55–61 61

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West & Akin (2003). Applied multiple regression/

correlation: Regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dodge, C. S., Hope, D. A., Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (1988).Evaluation of the Social Interaction Self-Statement Test with a socialphobic population. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 211–222.

Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1997). Questionnaire methods of cognitiveself-statement assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-

ogy, 65, 911–927.Glass, C. R., Merluzzi, T. V., Biever, J. L., & Larsen, K. H. (1982).

Cognitive assessment of social anxiety: Development and validation ofa self-statement questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6,37–55.

Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral group

therapy for social phobia: Basic mechanisms and clinical strategies. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991a). Perfectionism in the self andsocial contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association withpsychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,456–470.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991b). Dimensions of perfectionism inunipolar depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 98–101.

Hill, R. W., Zrull, M. C., & Turlington, S. (1997). Perfectionism andinterpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 81–103.

Mahone, J. E., Bruch, M. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1993). Focus ofattention and social anxiety: The role of negative self-thoughts and

perceived positive attributes of the other. Cognitive Therapy and

Research, 17, 209–224.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.

Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., & Jones, W. H. (1986). A trait – situationalanalysis of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 239–249). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin,

92, 641–669.Schwartz, R. M., & Garamoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and

psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model ofpositive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review, 9,271–294.

Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1991). A comparison of social standardsand perceived ability in anxious and nonanxious men. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 15, 237–254.Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard setting

following social success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,613–631.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluativeanxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448–457.

Zweig, D. R., & Brown, S. D. (1985). Psychometric evaluation of a writtenstimulus presentation format for the Social Interaction Self-StatementTest. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 285–295.