Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of social standards, self-efficacy, and social feedback in social anxiety Wallace, Scott Taylor 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 W34.pdf [ 4.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097812.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097812-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097812-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097812-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097812-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097812-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097812-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097812-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097812.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE DF SOCIAL STANDARDS, SELF-EFFICACY, AND SOCIAL FEEDBACK IN SOCIAL ANXIETY By SCOTT TAYLOR WALLACE B.A. (Hons) University o-f Western Ontario, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o-f Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF Jul y , (c) Scott Taylor BRITISH COLUMBIA 1988 Wallace, 1988 In p resen t ing this thesis in part ia l f u l f i lmen t o f t he requ i remen ts fo r an a d v a n c e d deg ree at t h e Univers i ty o f Bri t ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that t h e Library shall m a k e it f reely avai lable fo r re ference a n d s tudy . I f u r the r agree that permiss ion fo r ex tens ive c o p y i n g o f th is thesis fo r scholar ly p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the head o f m y d e p a r t m e n t o r b y his o r her representa t ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r pub l i ca t i on o f th is thesis f o r f inancia l gain shall n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n permiss ion . D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y T h e Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a 1956 M a i n Ma l l Vancouver , Canada V6T 1Y3 Date A u g u s t 8, 1988 DE-6(3/81) A b s t r a c t The p r e s e n t study was conducted t o examine th e s e l f - r e p o r t e d s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s of s o c i a l l y e f f i c a c i o u s and n o n - e f f i c a c i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . C onverging e v i d e n c e from d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h domains, i n c l u d i n g s t u d i e s on s e l f - a t t e n t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s and s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g i n performance m o t i v a t i o n , s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s person may have s t a n d a r d s f o r him or h e r s e l f t h a t a r e beyond t h a t p e r s o n ' s p e r c e i v e d a b i l i t i e s ; a l t e r n a t i v e l y , s t a n d a r d s may be so h i g h t h a t they a r e beyond t h e r e a c h of even the most s o c i a l l y c o n f i d e n t p e r s o n . N i n e t y - s i x male undergraduate s t u d e n t s were d i c h o t o m i z e d i n t o low and h i g h s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y groups on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r r e s p onse t o a measure of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and a n x i e t y i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . The s u b j e c t s were t o l d they would be i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a female r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t i n o r d e r t o practice b e f o r e meeting another s u b j e c t . The s u c c e s s of t h e p r a c t i c e i n t e r a c t i o n was m a n i p u l a t e d by v a r y i n g t h e a s s i s t a n t ' s b e h a v i o r and feedback by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r so t h a t s u b j e c t s b e l i e v e d they handled t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w e l l or not w e l l ; a t h i r d c o n d i t i o n was i n c l u d e d w i t h no feedback. S u b j e c t s were asked t o r a t e t h e i r s t a n d a r d s u s i n g a v i s u a l s c a l e t h a t d i s p l a y e d d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . The s t a n d a r d s r a t e d were: (1) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t they c o n s i d e r s u c c e s s f u l , (2) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t they would be happy w i t h , (3) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they t h i n k t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r wants, and (4) t h e l e v e l of a t y p i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l measures were i n c l u d e d t o a s s e s s o t h e r a s p e c t s of s t a n d a r d and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s u c c e s s of the m a n i p u l a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e i s a consensus among high and low s o c i a l -ef f i cacy persons of what c o n s t i t u t e s a s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r a c t i o n . The d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e appeared t o be what l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n high and low e f f i c a c y persons are happy with and the l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they f e l t capable of a c h i e v i n g . Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s had lower e x p e c t a t i o n s and lower minimum go a l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n whereas high e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s expected t o achieve a l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n at l e a s t as high as t h e i r personal standard and beyond the l e v e l t h a t they thought most o t h e r s a c h i e v e . F u r t h e r , when the i n t e r a c t i o n was s u c c e s s f u l , high e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s thought the s i t u a t i o n demanded a lower l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n than they were capable of; low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , given the same s u c c e s s f u l experience, r e p o r t e d the demands of the s i t u a t i o n t o be hig h e r than they f e l t capable of. The r e s u l t s h i n t at a d y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g process i n s o c i a l l y anxious persons whereby suc c e s s i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n a manner t h a t may maintain a n x i e t y . The i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t these r e s u l t s have f o r the treatment of shyness, and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h on s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g are d i s c u s s e d . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract L i s t o-f Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgements Introduction 1 The Theory o-f Objective Sei f-Awareness 1 The Theory of Sei-f-Consciousness 3 The Theory o-f Behavioral Sei-f-Regul ation 6 Comparison o-f the Theories 7 Sel f - E f f i c a c y and Social Anxiety 12 Efficacy 13 Standards 14 Feedback 18 The Present Study 19 Method 21 Subjects 21 Procedure 21 Social Interaction Task 22 Experimental Manipulations 24 Visual Rating Task 24 Assistant's Behavior 25 Questionnaires 27 Standard 27 Factors Influencing Standard 28 Manipulation Checks 28 Results 29 Preliminary Analyses 29 Subject Selection Measures 29 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y of the Efficacy Measure 33 Experimenter and Collaborator Checks 35 Manipulation Checks 35 i i vi v i i v i i i Dependent Measures Preliminary Analyses Hypothesis 1: Differences between efficacy groups in reported l e v e l s of standard Hypothesis 2: Discrepancies between standards and e f f i c a c y expectations Hypothesis 3: C l a r i t y of standards Hypothesis 4: Confidence to meet standards Supplementary Analyses: E f f e c t s of social feedback on ratings of standard The effect of feedback on ratings of standard The effect of feedback on level of standard for each efficacy group The effect of feedback on efficacy ratings The effect of feedback on the standard-effic a c y discrepancy C l a r i t y of standards Confidence to meet standards Di scussi on Standards of Social Interaction Standards and Efficacy Expectations C l a r i t y and Confidence to Meet Standards Social Interaction Feedback Effect of Feedback on Levels of Standard Effect of Feedback on Efficacy Effect of Feedback on the Standard-Efficacy Di screpancy Implications of Social Feedback Treatment Implications Design of the Study Problems and Limitations of the Study Future Research Concluding Comments References Appendi ces A. Efficacy Questionnaire B. Videotape Rating Scale C. Visual Rating Questionnaire D. Factors Influencing Standard and Manipulation Checks v i LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Means and standard deviations o-f 31 selection measures Table 2. Means and standard deviations of 36 manipulation checks Table 3. Means and standard deviations for 38 measures of standard Table 4. Means and standard deviations for 39 measures of standard c l a r i t y Table 5. Means and standard deviations for 40 measures of confidence to meet standards Table 6. Means and standard deviations of effic a c y 41 expectations for the upcoming interaction and confidence to meet that level LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Levels of standard collapsed across 44 efficacy groups Figure 2. Levels of standard reported by each 46 efficacy group Figure 3. Levels of standard r e l a t i v e to 48 expectations for the next interaction Figure 4. Levels of confidence to reach each 52 standard Figure 5. Levels of standard as a function of 54 feedback r e l a t i v e to expectations for the next int e r a c t i o n Figure 6. Levels of efficacy following feedback 55 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There a r e a -few people I f e e l i n d e b t e d t o f o r h e l p i n g w i t h t h i s paper. My g r a t i t u d e i s extended t o both D i m i t r i P a p a g e o r g i s and J e r r y Wiggins who s e r v e d as committee members and were h e l p f u l i n t h e i r own ways. A l s o , I would l i k e t o e x p r e s s more than j u s t g r a t i t u d e t o V i r g i n i a Green f o r her p a t i e n c e w i t h me as I s t r u g g l e d w i t h F - t e s t s and o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s . F i n a l l y , I am i n d e b t e d t o Lynn Ald e n who was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n g e t t i n g t h i s r e s e a r c h from " r i g h t b r a i n " t o pen and paper. She never f a i l e d t o remind me t h a t every s i n g l e d a t a p o i n t i s a p i e c e of a p u z z l e , i n t h i s c a s e , s h y n e s s , and t h a t i t i s a l l t o o easy t o become d i s t a n c e d from t h e e x p e r i e n c e t h a t we s e t out t o understand. 1 Introductory Comments Shy people o-ften complain o-f a sense of pain-ful s e l - f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s — a sense that they are being watched and judged by o t h e r s . Alden and Cappe (1986) commented that t h i s concern may promote a c o n t i n u a l process o-f s e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . Indeed, i t seems that worrying whether or not one's a c t i o n s are a p p r o p r i a t e may a c t u a l l y feed the anxiety t h a t the shy person wants desp e r a t e l y to a v o i d . T h i s t h e s i s i s d i r e c t e d at examining two aspects of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , standards and s e l f - e f f i c a c y , and o u t l i n i n g the i m p l i c a t i o n s that they may have f o r understanding and t r e a t i n g shyness. The Theory of Objective Self-Awareness One of the e a r l i e s t t h e o r i e s of s e l f - a t t e n t i o n was Duval and Wicklund's theory of o b j e c t i v e s elf-awareness (1972). The main tenet of t h i s theory i s that c o n s c i o u s a t t e n t i o n i s b i d i r e c t i o n a l . T h i s means that at any one moment a t t e n t i o n can be d i r e c t e d toward the s e l f ( o b j e c t i v e self-awareness) or the environment ( s u b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e n e s s ) . In a d d i t i o n , the authors suggest that a t t e n t i o n d i r e c t e d toward the s e l f e l i c i t s a process of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . The s t a t e of s u b j e c t i v e s elf-awareness (environment-d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n ) i s so named because events ex t e r n a l to the i n d i v i d u a l are the focus of a t t e n t i o n ; hence, the person i s the " s u b j e c t " of the consciousness that i s d i r e c t e d away from the s e l f . O b j e c t i v e self-awareness, i n c o n t r a s t , has the s e l f as the " o b j e c t " of i t s own a t t e n t i o n . T h i s i m p l i e s that any. s t i m u l u s or s i t u a t i o n that f o r c e s a t t e n t i o n inward (e.g., m i r r o r s , t e l e v i s i o n cameras, the presence o-f an e v a l u a t i v e audience) w i l l heighten o b j e c t i v e self-awareness. As a consequence, any d i s c r e p a n c i e s that e x i s t between one's present a c t i o n s and standards ( i . e . the g o a l s t h a t one a s p i r e s to) become more s a l i e n t . Assuming that one's present s t a t e i s s h o r t o-f these standards, the theory suggests t h a t n e g a t i v e a-f-fect w i l l be experienced and the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek t o reduce i t . Furthermore, Duval and Wicklund t h e o r i z e d t h a t the degree o-f negative a-f-fect experienced would be a -function o-f the amount o-f a t t e n t i o n focused on the discrepancy as well as the s i z e of the discrepancy i t s e l f . In other words, the more o b j e c t i v e l y self-aware a person i s , and the more d i s c r e p a n t the behavior i s from i d e a l s , the more that i n d i v i d u a l w i l l e x p e r i e n c e n e g a t i v e a f f e c t and e x e r t g r e a t e r e f f o r t t o reduce i t . Duval and Wicklund o r i g i n a l l y suggested t h a t t h i s a f f e c t could be reduced by a v o i d i n g the s t i m u l i t h a t induced the s e l f - f o c u s e d s t a t e or by changing one's behavior t o be more i n l i n e with the standard. However, Wicklund l a t e r s p e c i f i e d (1975) that p r e f e r e n c e would be given t o the e a s i e s t o p t i o n — a v o i d i n g the s t i m u l u s that induces self-awareness. Indeed, i n examining responses to s e l f - f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n , Duval, Wicklund, and F i n e (1972) found that s u b j e c t s seated i n a w a i t i n g room with a mirror (heightened o b j e c t i v e self-awareness) l e f t the room sooner a f t e r they r e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e feedback from a p e r s o n a l i t y inventory than d i d s u b j e c t s t h a t were not exposed to the m i r r o r . Presumably, s u b j e c t s l e f t the s i t u a t i o n to avoid the s e l f - f o c u s i n g stimulus because they had been made aware that t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s were u n d e s i r a b l e and t r a i t s are something not r e a d i l y changed. Conversely, when a s e i f — f o c u s i n g s t i m u l u s could not be e a s i l y avoided, Wicklund and Duval (1971, experiment three) -found an i n c r e a s e i n task performance (copying f o r e i g n prose) which reduced the discrepancy between behavior and a s p i r a t i o n s . Evidence f o r the v a l i d i t y of s e i f - f o c u s i n g m a n i p u l a t i o n s was not d i r e c t l y examined by Duval and Wicklund. In f a c t , they have s t a t e d that "we can think of no easy way t o ask a s u b j e c t how self-aware he i s without c r e a t i n g s e i f - a w a r e n e s s " (1972, p. 221). Later r e s e a r c h e r s , though, found d i r e c t support f o r the v a l i d i t y of m i r r o r , audience, and camera m a n i p u l a t i o n s (e.g., Davis & Brock, 1975; Carver ?< Sch e i e r , 1978; G e l l e r & Shaver, 1976). In a d d i t i o n , when compared t o non-self-aware counterparts, o b j e c t i v e l y self-aware persons demonstrate behavior that more c l o s e l y corresponds to s e l f - r e p o r t s of aggression (Carver, 1975), s o c i a b i l i t y (Pryor, Gibbons, Wicklund, F a z i o , & Hood, 1977), and a t t i t u d e s toward pornography (Gibbons, 1978). They a l s o a t t r i b u t e g r e a t e r c a u s a l i t y of a h y p o t h e t i c a l event t o themselves r e g a r d l e s s of whether the event i s f a v o r a b l e or not (Duval & Wicklund, 1973), and reduce a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r n e g a t i v e events when engaged i n a p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y t h a t d i s t r a c t s them from the s e i f - a w a r e n e s s manipulation (Duval' & Wicklund, 1972, pp. 193-205). The Theory of S e i f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s Buss's (1980) theory of s e i f - c o n c i o u s n e s s emphasizes i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . He views s e l f - f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n as a manipulable and t r a n s i e n t s t a t e of s e l f - f o c u s (termed s e i f - a w a r e n e s s ) as w e l l as an e n d u r i n g d i s p o s i t i o n a l tendency or t r a i t o-f c h r o n i c s e l - f - a t t e n t i o n (termed s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) . F u r t h e r , he s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e a re two a s p e c t s o-f t h e s e l f t o c o n s i d e r — o v e r t a s p e c t s t h a t a r e o b s e r v a b l e and known by o t h e r s (the p u b l i c s e l f ) , and c o v e r t a s p e c t s hidden from o t h e r s but known t o t h e e x p e r i e n c i n g person (the p r i v a t e s e l f ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y , Buss a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o c l a r i f y whether a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d toward p r i v a t e or p u b l i c a s p e c t s of t h e s e l f . A c c o r d i n g t o s e i f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h e o r y , t h e s t a t e of p r i v a t e s e l f - a w a r e n e s s can be induced by a s t i m u l u s , such as a s m a l l m i r r o r , or t h r o u g h s e i f - r e f 1 e c t i v e s t a t e s , such as m e d i t a t i o n and i n t r o s p e c t i o n . The r e s u l t i s a h e i g h t e n e d awareness and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r n a l s t a t e s (e.g. mo t i v e s , f e e l i n g s , mood) and, depending on how c l o s e l y l i n k e d t h e i n t e r n a l s t a t e i s t o b e h a v i o r , a c t i o n based on t h a t awareness (e.g. a h e i g h t e n e d awareness of angry mood may r e s u l t i n a g g r e s s i o n ) . In c o n t r a s t , p u b l i c s e i f - a w a r e n e s s can be induced by s o c i a l feedback (e.g. b e i n g p u b l i c l y s c r u t i n i z e d or s t a r e d a t ) or n o n - s o c i a l feedback (e.g. . l a r g e m i r r o r , r e c o r d i n g s of one's own v o i c e p l a y e d back) w i t h d i s c o m f o r t and concern f o r one's appearance as a consequence. The t r a i t s of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s r e f e r t o c h r o n i c t e n d e n c i e s of s e i f - a w a r e n e s s . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s p l a y a r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t t o which a person engages i n s e i f - r e f 1 e c t i o n ( h i g h v e r s u s low p r i v a t e s e i f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) or i s aware of o n e s e l f as a s o c i a l o b j e c t ( h i g h or low p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Buss s t a t e s t h a t i n t h e presence p-f an inducer o-f p u b l i c self-awareness persons high or low i n the t r a i t of p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s r e a c t d i f f e r e n t l y — t h e former r e a c t more s t r o n g l y t o the inducer (as evidenced by more discomfort and concern with s o c i a l appearance) than do the l a t t e r . S i m i l a r l y , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the tendency t o s e l f - r e f l e c t (high and low p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) only come i n t o play d u r i n g impersonal contexts. To assess i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , Fenigstein., Scheier, and Buss (1975) devised the Self - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e which d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h r e e f a c t o r s — p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (e.g. " I r e f l e c t about myself a l o t " ) , p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (e.g. "I'm concerned about what others t h i n k of me") and s o c i a l a n x i e t y ("I f i n d i t hard t o t a l k to s t r a n g e r s " and "I am anxious i n the presence of o t h e r s " ) . The d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of the s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s s c a l e i s supported by the low c o r r e l a t i o n between the two sub s c a l e s of p r i v a t e and p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (Carver & Glass, 1976; F e n i g s t e i n et a l . , 1975; Turner, S c h e i e r , Carver, S< Ickes, 197S), and low c o r r e l a t i o n s with measures of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (Turner et a l . , 1978). As w e l l , s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s as a t r a i t has e s s e n t i a l l y the same b e h a v i o r a l consequence as does s e l f -awareness t h a t i s induced s i t u a t i onal 1 y (e.g. Buss S< Sche i e r , 1976; Carver ?< S c h e i e r , 1978; S c h e i e r , 1976; S c h e i e r & Carver, 1977). In a d d i t i o n , persons high i n p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s l i s t more s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e t r a i t s than do persons low i n p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (Turner, 1978b), are more re s p o n s i v e t o t h e i r t r a n s i e n t a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s ( S c h e i e r , 1976; Scheier & Carver, 1977), and make more accurate s e i f - r e p o r t s regarding th e i r bodily sensations (Scheier, Carver, & Gibbons, 1979) and future behavior (Scheier, Buss, & Buss, 1978; Turner, 1978a). In a l l , the Seif-Consciousness Scale appears t h e o r e t i c a l l y , as well as empirically, v a l i d . The Theory o-f Behavioral Sei - f-Regulation Carver and Scheier (1981a) proposed a theory that suggests attentional -focus i s an important determinant o-f behavior. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they suggest that self-focused attention heightens attempts to match behavior with s a l i e n t standards. In general, cybernetic or "control theory" s p e c i f i e s that i f a discrepancy i s perceived between one's present state or action and a reference value or standard, e f f o r t s w i l l be made to reduce t h i s discrepancy. Despite the s i m i l a r i t y of self-focused attention to objective self-awareness, Carver and Scheier believe that attention directed toward the s e l f i s not necessarily an aversive state. As Carver (1979, p. 1268) comments, "se i f - d i r e c t e d attention leads to negative affect only when the person perceives that he or she cannot a l t e r his or her present state in the direction of the standard". In retrospect, Carver indicates that most of the o r i g i n a l research on seif-awareness prevented subjects from a l t e r i n g their behavior to conform more closely with standards, hence negative affect was i n e v i t a b l e (e.g., Duval et al . , 1972; Ickes, Wicklund, 8< F e r r i s , 1973). Carver and Scheier's theory has three important aspects: (1) when a standard i s s a l i e n t , self-focused attention induces an attempt to conform to that standard, (2) i f attempts to match the standard are interrupted (e.g., the individual -feels anxious) the likelihood o-f doing so w i l l be assessed (outcome expectancy), and (3) i f the outcome expectancy i s favourable (i.e. the person believes that he or she can match the standard) the result i s a continued attempt at discrepancy reduction; i f the assessment i s negative ( i . e . the person does not feel that the discrepancy can be reduced) then the person w i l l withdraw from the si t u a t i o n (physically or mentally). Hence, the crux of Carver and Scheier's theorizing i s the in t e r a c t i o n of s e l f - f o c u s and expectancy. For example. Carver et a l . (1979b) found that after f a i l i n g on an i n i t i a l problem-solving task (which created a large discrepancy between achievement and aspiration) subjects that were hopeful of completing a second task increased t h e i r persistence on i t whereas doubtful subjects e s s e n t i a l l y gave up. These differences were only found under conditions of high self-focus. Comparison of the Theories The impact of self-focused attention upon behavior i s described by each of these three theories. In addition to t h e i r s i m i l a r i t i e s , there are important differences that r e f l e c t points of disagreement or elaborations upon some e a r l i e r finding. For example. Buss refined the concept of s e l f to include both private and public aspects. In addition, he suggested that individual differences in self-focusing tendencies exist. Duval and Wicklund, however, regard individual differences as secondary to environmental determinants of focus of attention and do not e x p l i c i t l y distinguish public and private aspects of the s e l f . In reviewing t h e i r writings, though, i t i s clear that Duval and Wicklund considered the p o s s i b i l i t y that an individual might hold personal standards d i s t i n c t from a social consensus. In fact, they designed their studies to reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n f l i c t i n g influences on behavior a pa r t i c u l a r standard was either i n s t i l l e d pr i t was insured that the subject's personal standard was in agreement with the social consensus. Similarly Carver and Scheier design their studies to ensure that individual differences in both self-focused attention and standards are considered. A major point of disagreement between the theories i s the role played by negative a f f e c t . Duval and Wicklund propose to understand the motivational consequences of objective self-awareness and, as a re s u l t , consider discrepancy-induced affect a c r u c i a l determinant of behavior. However, negative discrepancies are regarded by Buss, and Carver and Scheier, as only one p o s s i b i l i t y of self-focused attention, the other being an increased salience of seif-elements (e.g. moods, motives). As such, t h e i r theories consider situations in which standards do not e x i s t . For example, Scheier (1976) found that a small mirror i n t e n s i f i e d male subjects' experience of anger as evidenced by increased aggression toward other males compared t a no-mirror control group. In t h i s situation, men aggressing towards other men. Buss (1966) has suggested that there i s no clear standard that behavior f a l l s short of and so Duval and Wicklund's theory i s at a loss to explain the findings. Instead, he suggests that the subjects became more aggressive s i m p l y because they were d i r e c t i n g a t t e n t i o n toward t h e i r s e l f . In a s i m i l a r manner, s e l f - f o c u s e d s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g more depressed or e l a t e d a f t e r t h e s e moods had been i n d u c e d ; n o n - s e l f - f o c u s e d s u b j e c t s d i d not r e p o r t any i n c r e a s e s i n mood. Although Buss (1980, p.100) s t a t e s " s t a n d a r d s , g o a l s , r u l e s , and e n d - p o i n t s a r e not an i n t r i n s i c p a r t of my t h e o r y but merely another d e t e r m i n a n t of b e h a v i o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d " , he o f f e r s a d i s t i n c t i o n between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e s t a n d a r d s t h a t i s c r u c i a l when s t a n d a r d s a r e r e l e v a n t . Here, Buss's t h e o r y makes s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s about t h e e f f e c t s of s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s on b e h a v i o r depending on whether a p r i v a t e or p u b l i c s t a t e i s i n d u c e d . In c a s e s where a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d toward t h e p r i v a t e a s p e c t s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s , one's b e h a v i o r would more c l o s e l y f o l l o w p e r s o n a l l y h e l d s t a n d a r d s ; when p u b l i c a s p e c t s of c o n s c i o u s n e s s a r e h e i g h t e n e d , b e h a v i o r would presumably f o l l o w p u b l i c or s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s apparent i n a study by Froming and Walker ( c i t e d i n C a r v e r & S c h e i e r , 1981). S u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d t h a t r e p o r t e d h o l d i n g o p i n i o n s toward punishment t h a t they t h e m s e l v e s r e g a r d e d as d i f f e r e n t from t h e o p i n i o n s of most o t h e r s ( s u b j e c t s b e l i e v e d t h a t punishment was i n e f f e c t i v e as a l e a r n i n g t o o l but f e l t t h a t o t h e r s h e l d t h e o p p o s i t e o p i n i o n ) . L a t e r , s u b j e c t s were i n d u c e d t o d e l i v e r s h o c k s t o a c o n f e d e r a t e under one of two m a n i p u l a t i o n s of s e l f - a w a r e n e s s — p u b l i c ( p r e s e n c e of an e v a l u a t i v e a udience) or p r i v a t e ( p r e s e n c e of a m i r r o r ) . They found t h a t p r i v a t e l y s e l f - a w a r e s u b j e c t s d e l i v e r e d l e s s shocks than a c o n t r o l group (thereby c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e i r p e r s o n a l standard) whereas s u b j e c t s p u b l i c l y s e l f - a w a r e d e l i v e r e d more shocks than t h e c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s (con-forming t o t h e p e r c e i v e d s o c i a l s t a n d a r d ) . Fronting, Lopyan, and Walker ( c i t e d i n C a r v e r & S c h e i e r , 1981) r e p l i c a t e d t h i s study u s i n g s u b j e c t s whose a t t i t u d e s were o p p o s i t e t o t h o s e o-f s u b j e c t s i n t h e - f i r s t s t u d y , but s t i l l r e g a r d e d as d i f f e r e n t -from th e s o c i a l c o nsensus. Aga i n , t h e r e s u l t s s u p p o r t e d t h e p u b l i c / p r i v a t e d i s t i n c t i o n . A s i m i l a r e f f e c t was -found i n t h e domain of s e i f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t (Diener ?< S k r u l 1 , 1979). S u b j e c t s were t o reward t h e m s e l v e s f o r performances on a p e r c e p t u a l judgement t a s k . P u b l i c l y s e l f - f o c u s e d s u b j e c t s rewarded t h e m s e l v e s more i f they s u r p a s s e d t h e s o c i a l s t a n d a r d than i f they s u r p a s s e d t h e i r own s t a n d a r d ; s u b j e c t s i n a p r i v a t e s e l f - f o c u s m a n i p u l a t i o n rewarded themselves more f o r performances e x c e e d i n g t h e i r p e r s o n a l s t a n d a r d . The s t r e n g t h of C a r v e r and S c h e i e r ' s t h e o r y i s t h e a d d i t i o n of outcome expectancy as another v a r i a b l e i n s e l f - a t t e n t i o n . In t h e domain of t e s t a n x i e t y , f o r example, a number of s t u d i e s suggest t h a t t e s t - a n x i o u s p e r s o n s a r e s e l f - f o c u s e d i n e v a l u a t i v e s i t u a t i o n s t h e r e b y d e v o t i n g l e s s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i r r e q u i r e d t a s k (e.g., Wine, 1980, 1982). Indeed, t a s k - r e l e v a n t cues a r e o f t e n i g n o r e d or m i s i n t e r p r e t e d by t e s t - a n x i o u s p e r s o n s (e.g., West, Lee, & Anderson, 1969). However, e v a l u a t i v e s i t u a t i o n s sometimes f a c i l i t a t e performance on a t a s k (e.g. W i c k l u n d & D u v a l , 1971). These e f f e c t s can be r e c o n c i l e d i f outcome e x p e c t a n c i e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d because s e i f - d i r e c t e d a t t e n t i o n presumably i n t e r a c t s w i t h expectancy t o d e t e r m i n e p e r s i s t e n c e or w i t h d r a w a l . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h C a r v e r and S c h e i e r ' s model. Carver, P e t e r s o n , F o l l a n s b e e , and S c h e i e r (1983) found t h a t h i g h test-anxious subjects (doubtful o-f successfully completing the task) and low test-anxious subjects (confident of their performance) di f f e r e d in t h e i r persistence on an anagram-solving task. Specifically., under conditions of self-focus, the performance of high anxiety subjects was impaired; the low anxiety subjects improved. Sim i l a r l y , Brockner and Hulton (1978) found that self-focused attention impaired the performance of low self-esteem subjects r e l a t i v e to high self-esteem subjects on a task, but the l a t t e r performed better than high self-esteem subjects when instructed to focus completely on the task. Fear-based anxiety may also lead to a divergence in behavior depending upon one's expectancies for successful coping. For example, Carver, Blaney, and Scheier (1979a) selected subjects with an equivalent self-rated fear of snakes but d i f f e r e n t expectancies of being able to approach and handle the snake. Consistent with the theory, expectancy interacted with self-focus in determining subsequent behavior—doubtful subjects withdrew e a r l i e r from their attempts to approach the snake; confident subjects increased their e f f o r t s . Furthermore, these differences were only found amongst subjects who performed in the presence of a mirror. Seeing the implications that attentional focus might have for the treatment of shyness, Alden and Cappe (1986) provided shy c l i e n t s with a strategy for dir e c t i n g attention to t h e i r partner in a social i nteraction. Their e f f o r t s were successful at increasing c l i e n t s ' s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and, although interpreted cautiously by the authors, provide evidence that shyness may be maintained by an 12 attentional -focus directed to the self instead of upon the concrete aspects of interacting. S e l f - E f f i c a c y and Social Anxiety Carver and Scheier's model bears a resemblance to Bandura's (1986) theory of se i f - r e g u l a t i o n . Although there are conceptual differences between the two, i t i s interesting to consider their analysis of fear-based avoidance behavior. Both theories incorporate: (1) efficacy judgements that the behavior required to achieve an outcome can be executed, (2) judgements of actual s k i l l l evels achieved, and (3) standards or goals that are aspired to. In their discussions these t h e o r i s t s d i f f e r on which of two concepts, outcome expectancy or s e l f - e f f i c a c y , determines whether coping behaviors w i l l be i n i t i a t e d . This argument w i l l not be taken up here except to acknowledge Carver's comment that "in applying the two models to si t u a t i o n s in which the like l i h o o d of a p o s i t i v e outcome i s e n t i r e l y dependent on intrapersonal factors, which i s the case in fear-based behavior, the two are functionally equivalent" (1979, p. 1275). In addition, both agree that people are not l i k e l y to persi s t in situations that exceed their perceived coping a b i l i t i e s and, i f task demands are under- or over-estimated, there may be discrepancies between efficacy judgements and performance (Bandura, 1984; Carver, 1979). Assuming that shy persons are highly public self-conscious or self-focused when interacting, i t would seem f r u i t f u l to determine i f shy people show discrepancies between the i r efficacy expectations and their social performance. S p e c i f i c a l l y : (1) the shy person's 13 expectancy -for social success, and (2) the standards by which shy people judge their social effectiveness. E f f i c a c y Compared to people low in social anxiety, shy persons often underestimate their level of s o c i a l s k i l l , generate more negative self-statements both before and during social i n t e r a c t i o n , s e l e c t i v e l y attend to negative information about their performance in a social situation when both p o s i t i v e and negative information are equally available, and expect to perform more poorly in social situations <Cacioppo, Glass, & Merluzzi, 1979; Clark S< Arkowitz, 1975; Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss, 1973; Smith ?< Sarason, 1975; Watson S< Friend, 1969). Most notably, the shy person's negative self-evaluations are limited to s o c i a l l y relevant attributes and are not part of other areas of competence such as a t h l e t i c s or i n t e l l i g e n c e <Efran 8< Korn, 1969) or of judgements of social s k i l l in others (Clark & Arkowitz, 1975). Taken together, these findings suggest that shyness may involve low efficacy expectations for success in social interactions. In a recent study of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and social performance, Burgio, Merluzzi, and Pryor (19S6) sought to determine the e f f e c t s of expectancy and self-focus upon the persistence of s o c i a l l y anxious subjects in a phone conversation. A median s p l i t of scores on the Social Anxiety and Distress Inventory (Watson ?< Friend, 1969) determined the selection of two groups of s u b j e c t s — h i g h and low s o c i a l l y confident men. The subjects were given the telephone number of a female confederate and spoke with her on the phone under conditions of self-focus (a mirror). Relative to a non self-focused group, the expectancies of self-focused subjects were enhanced—doubtful subjects spoke for shorter periods of time and spoke less during the conversation than did confident subjects. In addition, the confident and doubtful subjects were only perceived to d i f f e r in s k i l l when self-focused. It was concluded that self-focused attention enhanced the comparison between actual performance and the conversational goal (to talk 4 to 5 minutes on the phone) which resulted in performances i n d i c a t i v e of expectancies. Consistent with the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed here, these findings support the idea that low s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y may play an important role in soc i a l anxiety. Standards In addition to low expectancies for successful i n t e r a c t i o n , the theories of attentional focus suggest that standards may play a ro l e in social anxiety. Deffenbacher and Suinn (1982) maintain that anxious persons often expect of themselves such excessively high performance standards that they e l i c i t s e l f - c r i t i c i s m for v i r t u a l l y any feedback they receive. "Even when they have done or are doing well, [ s o c i a l l y anxious people!) tend to be preoccupied with the p o s s i b i l i t y that they w i l l not meet the standard on another occassion. In extreme form, such individuals are anxious a great deal of the time because some aspect of the i r being or behavior might be evaluated negatively by someone else" (p. 403). S i m i l a r l y , Bandura (1986) observes that "people who are prone to psychological d i s t r e s s often 15 exhibit quite u n r e a l i s t i c standard s e t t i n g " (p. 348) and that "a sure way o-f inducing self-discouragement and a sense o-f personal inadequacy i s to judge one's ongoing performances against l o f t y , global, or d i s t a l goals" (p. 359). Shy people are known to desire to make good social impressions. In fact, people who are more concerned with the impressions that they are making on others experience so c i a l anxiety more acutely than do those who are less concerned (Leary & Schlenker, 1981; Zimbardo, 1977, 1981). Schlenker and Leary (1982) view social anxiety as a r i s i n g when people are motivated to make an impression upon others but doubt that they w i l l do so. They suggest that self-presentational standards r e f l e c t the images people would l i k e others to have of them and that "the less l i k e l y people believe they are able to receive the preferred reaction from audiences, the more anxiety they w i l l experience" (pp. 645-646). In other words, they believe that social anxiety arises when people seriously doubt their a b i l i t y to come across to others in a way that w i l l be admired. There i s very l i t t l e l i t e r a t u r e on the role of standards in social anxiety. However, standard-setting by depressed people has received a moderate amount of attention in recent years. Self-reports of depression have been found to correlate with high expectations on an i r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s measure (e.g. LaPointe & Crandell, 1980; Nelson, 1977), and some investigators have found that, compared to non-depressed subjects, depressed subjects set higher goals of performance on a laboratory task r e l a t i v e to their accomplishments (e.g. Golin & T e r r e l l , 1977). However, the majority of the current l i t e r a t u r e supports the hypothesis that depressed subjects set performance-related goals at a similar level to non-depressed subjects but have lower expectancies to achieve them. For example, Kanfer and Zeiss (1983) studied the r e l a t i o n of standards and expectancies in depression. Interestingly, they found that depressed and nondepressed subjects did not d i f f e r in the level of standard they set (number of a c t i v i t i e s needed to feel better and the level of performance needed to enjoy them) but depressed subjects f e l t t h e i r standards were higher than they could achieve. In a comparative sense, the standards set by the depressed subjects were overly stringent. This study, and others drawing similar conclusions (e.g. Lewinsohn & Hoberman, 1982; Nelson & Craighead, 1981) suggest that the c r i t i c a l factor r e l a t i n g standards to depression i s not the absolute level of the standards but the level set r e l a t i v e to efficacy judgements of reaching that standard. It i s possible that shy persons may p a r a l l e l the depressed in how standards of performance are set. S i m i l a r l y , s o c i a l l y nonassertive indiv i d u a l s have been found to report i r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s related to competency and approval by others (Alden & Safran, 1978). Hence, as found in depression, shy people may set excessively stringent standards of achievement in s o c i a l interactions r e l a t i v e to th e i r accomplishments, or standards that are not p a r t i c u l a r l y high but exceed efficacy expectations. If standards are excessivly high (e.g. "there should never be an awkward moment in a conversation") then anything less than perfection could be regarded as a f a i l e d attempt. Consequently, judging one's so c i a l s k i l l in r e l a t i o n to t h i s standard would n e c e s s a r i l y imply low e f f i c a c y and c o u l d e l i c i t s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f an i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s c o m p l e t e l y i n e f f i c a c i o u s a t a t t a i n i n g even a minimal l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n , s t a n d a r d s c o u l d appear beyond r e a c h i n a r e l a t i v e sense. C e r t a i n l y , shy pers o n s judge themselves as i n e f f i c a c i o u s a t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , but t h e s e judgements do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t an a c c u r a t e a p p r a i s a l of s o c i a l d e f i c i t s . As S c h l e n k e r and Leary (1982) p o i n t o u t , " i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a n d a r d s h e l p t o e x p l a i n why people who a r e , as judged by o u t s i d e o b s e r v e r s , coming a c r o s s w e l l s o c i a l l y may s t i l l f e e l a n x i o u s . Given the same p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s from o t h e r s , p e o p l e w i t h low s t a n d a r d s may f e e l q u i t e s a t i s f i e d , whereas t h o s e w i t h h i g h e r s t a n d a r d s might f e e l d i s s a t i s f i e d and s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s " (p. 645). Another q u e s t i o n t h a t i s r a i s e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e on s e l f - f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n i s whether shy persons have s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s a t a l l . Buss n o t e s t h a t "the most f r e q u e n t and i m p o r t a n t s i t u a t i o n a l cause Cof shynessD appears t o be n o v e l t y " (P. 187) and Dibner (1958) and Leary (1982) found t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t s of a n x i e t y were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n a l n o v e l t y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , p e o p l e low i n s e l f - e s t e e m tend t o model t h e i r co-workers when they a r e u n c e r t a i n of a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e b e h a v i o r s (Weiss, 1977, 1978), p e o p l e s e a r c h f o r i n f o r m a t i o n about t a s k r e q u i r e m e n t s more when they a r e u n c e r t a i n of what i s r e q u i r e d (Crawford, 1984), t h e i n f l u e n c e of models i s most pronounced on u n s t r u c t u r e d t a s k s ( M a r l a t t , 1971), and a d u l t s a r e more l i k e l y t o adapt modeled s t a n d a r d s when they have l i t t l e e x p e r i e n c e at some a c t i v i t y (Rakestraw & Weiss, 1981). Not o n l y might s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e r s o n s model o t h e r s because they a r e uncertain of the standards operating in a s i t u a t i o n , but the models they choose may be c r i t i c a l to self-evaluation (Bandura, 1986). Comparison with persons whose accomplishments far exceed one's own c a p a b i l i t i e s , or modeling stringent standards, can lead to an unfavourable self-evaluation. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , adhering to those standards without considering the circumstances under which they are performed may produce negative seif-evaluation i f those standards cannot be met. Taken together, these findings suggest that s o c i a l l y anxious people may be motivated to access information regarding appropriate behaviors in s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s but the standards they adopt may be u n r e a l i s t i c and anxiety-producing. Feedback Recent research into standard-setting and depression suggests that the rela t i o n s h i p between performance e f f o r t and standards i s not a linear one as early studies of performance motivation suggest (e.g. Locke, 1968). In other words, setting high standards does not ensure maximal e f f o r t . For example, Bandura and Cervone (1983) studied performance motivation on a strenuous a c t i v i t y . They found that performances f a l l i n g far short of goals led to discouragement and abandonment of the goal whereas moderate discrepancies between goals and performance led to d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and increases in e f f o r t . The c r i t i c a l factor here was a subject's sense of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . E f f o r t was greatest when subjects were d i s s a t i s f i e d with their performance but had a strong sense of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Hence, moderate discrepancies between goals and achievement mobilize e f f o r t to achieve goals as long as individuals feel e f f i c a c i o u s . If feedback i s received that e f f o r t s to achieve a goal are being realized, t h i s may lead people to rai s e their performance standards to create new "motivating discrepancies" (Bandura & Cervone, 1983). On the other hand, feedback about performance may be interpreted in a manner that maintains self-perceptions of social ineffectiveness. Alden (1986) observed that persons who doubted their a b i l i t y to successfully interact (low efficacy) attributed positive feedback to external factors and negative feedback to internal factors. She concluded that t h i s kind of a t t r i b u t i o n a l bias would l i k e l y perpetuate doubts about performance in the future. The Present Study In the present study we sought to extend Carver and Scheier's s e l f - c o n t r o l model to a s o c i a l context. The evaluative apprehension that shy persons report, and the evaluative reactions observed when self-awareness i s heightened, suggest that s o c i a l l y anxious persons may be searching f o r , or be more aware of the social standards operating in a s i t u a t i o n . Research on standard setting suggests three factors that could influence experiences of social anxiety—judgements of s o c i a l s k i l l , the quality or level of social standards aspired to, and expectancies to meet those standards. This study focuses on the l a t t e r two f a c t o r s — s o c i a l standards and self-percepts of eff i cacy. 20 The s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s of i n t e r e s t a r e as f o l l o w s : 1. Low and h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o r e p o r t s i m i l a r s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s ( i . e . b e l i e f s about what l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they s h o u l d be a b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h ) . 2. Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o r e p o r t h i g h e r s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s t h a n e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e upcoming i n t e r a c t i o n ; h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o r e p o r t s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s at t h e same l e v e l as e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . 3. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g s i t u a t i o n a l n o v e l t y t o s o c i a l a n x i e t y , and C a r v e r and S c h e i e r ' s model of a t t e n t i o n a l f o c u s , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a r e ex p e c t e d t o r e p o r t a l e s s c l e a r sense of s t a n d a r d than do h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s . If t h i s i s found, i t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s w i l l view t h e r a t i n g s c a l e more o f t e n than h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s . 4. Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a r e ex p e c t e d t o r e p o r t b e i n g l e s s c o n f i d e n t t h a t they w i l l a c h i e v e t h e i r s t a n d a r d s than a r e h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s . 5. In a d d i t i o n t o t h e above hy p o t h e s e s , a second o b j e c t i v e i s t o examine how p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e s o c i a l feedback m o d i f i e s t h e l e v e l s of s t a n d a r d s e t f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . S p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l not be made because of t h e l a c k of r e s e a r c h i n t o s o c i a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g and, hence, t h e e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e of t h i s r e s e a r c h . Method Sub i e c t s Ninety-six male undergraduate students were recruited to take part in a study o-f goal-setting in s o c i a l interactions. The study was advertised through announcements made in classes and p a r t i c i p a t i o n was on a voluntary basis -for course c r e d i t . The subjects were selected on a 10-point scale assessing e-f-ficacy expectations -for handling a -first-meeting heterosocial interaction (Appendix A). A median s p l i t was used to establish two groups of 48 subjects, high and low s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y , and, within each group, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three social feedback c o n d i t i o n s — p o s i t i v e s o c i a l feedback, negative social feedback, and no social feedback. Subjects also completed the Beck Depression Inventory and the Self-Consciousness Scale. Procedure Upon entering the laboratory, subjects were led to believe that they would be talking with a female subject whom they had never met before. It was explained that, in order to get used to t h i s s i t u a t i o n , a female research assistant would practice with them f i r s t . The success of the practice interaction was manipulated by varying the assistant's behavior and the experimenter's feedback so that subjects would believe they handled the conversation well or not well. Subjects were then asked to rate the following standards for the upcoming interaction: (1) the level of interaction that they consider s u c c e s s f u l , (2) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t they would be happy w i t h , (3) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they t h i n k t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r wants, and < 4 ) t h e l e v e l of a t y p i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n . S u b j e c t s a l s o r a t e d how c l e a r an image they have of each s t a n d a r d and t h e i r expectancy f o r how w e l l they would handle t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . F o l l o w i n g t h e s e r a t i n g s , s u b j e c t s completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t c o n t a i n e d m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k s and a q u e s t i o n a s k i n g about t h e f a c t o r s t h a t may have i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r judgement of s t a n d a r d . F i n a l l y , t h e s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d and thanked f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n Task. Upon e n t e r i n g t h e l a b o r a t o r y , t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d : "In t h i s study we a r e l o o k i n g at t h e k i n d s of g o a l s t h a t p e o p l e s e t f o r t h e m s e l v e s i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s , i n o t h e r words, how w e l l you would l i k e i t t o go when you meet someone f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . So you w i l l be meeting a female s u b j e c t and asked t o t a l k f o r a w h i l e t o get t o know each o t h e r as i f you had met somewhere on campus f o r t h e f i r s t t ime. We j u s t want you t o t a l k t o her as i f you were meeting a f t e r c l a s s or i n t h e SUB [ S t u d e n t Union B u i l d i n g ] , f o r example. What we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out i s t h e goal or s t a n d a r d t h a t you s e t f o r y o u r s e l f i n j u d g i n g how w e l l t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n goes. From our r e s e a r c h l a s t y e a r , we found t h a t meeting i n a l a b i s not a f a m i l i a r s i t u a t i o n f o r most peopl e so we'd l i k e you t o have some p r a c t i c e i n t h e s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e a c t u a l l y meeting your partner. "We have a research assistant, her name i s C 1. She'll practice with you be-fore you meet your partner so you can get used to the room. Your partner w i l l be doing the same thing. Do you have any questions about what you'll be doing then?" Questions were answered by restating parts o-f the instructions. At t h i s point, the assistant entered the room and the experimenter said: " I ' l l leave you two to talk -for about 5 minutes. Just spend some time talking and getting to know each other so that you can become more familiar with the s i t u a t i o n . I ' l l be behind t h i s one-way mirror and w i l l stop the conversation after about 5 minutes. I ' l l t e l l you when to begin after I get back there." The conversation continued u n t i l 5 minutes had passed. The assistant then l e f t the room. At t h i s point the experimental manipulations were introduced and the visual rating task was explained. Subjects completed questionnaires assessing the level of standard they expected to attain during the upcoming interaction. After completing the questionnaires, subjects were asked open-ended questions about the purpose of the study and any suspicions they had. Subjects correctly i d e n t i f y i n g the purpose of the social feedback were excluded from data analyses. A l l subjects were debriefed and thanked for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 24 Experimental Manipulations. Positive and negative -feedback was provided to subjects through comments made by the experimenter a-fter the assistant had le-ft the room. In the p o s i t i v e -feedback condition, the experimenter commented "well that was r e a l l y good. You seemed to handle the conversation quite well and made your partner feel comfortable". In the negative feedback condition, the experimenter said "well that was a l i t t l e awkward. You seemed to have some d i f f i c u l t y in handling the conversation and making you partner feel comfortable." And in the no feedback condition, no comment was made by the experimenter. Visual Rating Task. Following feedback manipulations the visual rating scale was explained. The scale demonstrates different l e v e l s of s o c i a l interactions (Appendices B and C). The scale ranged from 0 (an extremely awkward interaction) to 10 (extremely smooth) with visual anchors corresponding to points 2, 5, and 8 on the scale. Each anchor was a two-minute videotaped interaction between a male and female undergraduate trained to demonstrate the corresponding level of performance. The interactions d i f f e r e d on two dimensions—verbal behavior (number of questions asked, length and frequency of pauses) and nonverbal behavior (eye contact, body posture, smiles and headnods). In explaining the rating scale to subjects, the experimenter commented: "Now that you're fa m i l i a r with t h i s s i t u a t i o n and the lab setting, we're interested in your personal standard for the interaction. That i s , we're interested in what level of performance you would personally be happy with. We have a scale that measures di f f e r e n t l e v e l s of interactions. The scale goes from 0 to 10, where 0 i s a f a i r l y slow, perhaps a b i t awkward interaction, and 10 i s a smooth, animated interaction. Here are examples of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of interactions. CShow visual anchor 13 This interaction went okay. It would be a level 2 on our scale. CShow visual anchor 23 This interaction i s at a somewhat higher l e v e l . This would be a 5 on our scale. CShow visual anchor 3D This interaction i s at a s t i l l higher l e v e l . This would be an 8 on our scale". It was explained to subjects that the scale was to be used when answering the questionnaire and that they were free to review the scale when answering questions. Assistant's Behavior. Credible feedback involved manipulating both the experimenter's comments and the a s s i s t a n t ' s behavior because t h i s was an unstructured task in which subjects may have 26 e a s i l y d i s c e r n e d how w e l l t h e i n t e r a c t i o n a c t u a l l y went. A l s o , i t was i m p o r t a n t t h a t s u b j e c t s were t o l d they were i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a c o l l a b o r a t o r . E a r l i e r r e s e a r c h i n t h i s l a b o r a t o r y s u g g e sted t h a t e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n a r e sometimes based on c o n c l u s i o n s drawn about t h e person i n t e r a c t e d w i t h . T h e r e f o r e , by i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h a known c o l l a b o r a t o r , s u b j e c t s were l i k e l y t o be u n c e r t a i n of how t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n would go w i t h a " r e a l " s u b j e c t . T h i s , i n t u r n , may h e i g h t e n c o n c e r n s about expected performance and s t a n d a r d s of e v a l u a t i o n . The a s s i s t a n t was one of two female undergraduate s t u d e n t s t r a i n e d t o d i s p l a y c o n s i s t e n t b e h a v i o r a c r o s s s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each c o n d i t i o n . The a s s i s t a n t s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o feedback c o n d i t i o n s and each i n t e r a c t e d w i t h an equal number of s u b j e c t s . Both a s s i s t a n t s , and t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r , were b l i n d t o the s u b j e c t ' s e f f i c a c y l e v e l . The a s s i s t a n t ' s r o l e was assumed upon e n t e r i n g t h e l a b o r a t o r y . She t a l k e d w i t h t h e s u b j e c t f o r 5 minutes, a s k i n g her f i r s t q u e s t i o n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t n a t u r a l pause. The a s s i s t a n t ' s b e h a v i o r i n each c o n d i t i o n was as f a l l o w s : No feedback c o n d i t i o n : The a s s i s t a n t asked q u e s t i o n s a t 30-second i n t e r v a l s , t a l k e d i n a n e u t r a l but p l e a s a n t v o i c e , and d i s p l a y e d two d i s t i n c t s m i l e s and headnods per minute. The a s s i s t a n t ' s body p o s t u r e was u p r i g h t and n e u t r a l n e i t h e r l e a n i n g f o r w a r d or back. P o s i t i v e feedback c o n d i t i o n : The a s s i s t a n t asked q u e s t i o n s at 20-second i n t e r v a l s , t a l k e d i n a warm and i n t e r e s t e d v o i c e , d i s p l a y e d -four d i s t i n c t s m i l e s and headnods per minute. The a s s i s t a n t ' s body posture was s l i g h t l y forward d i s p l a y i n g warmth and i n t e r e s t . Negative feedback c o n d i t i o n : The a s s i s t a n t asked q u e s t i o n s at one-minute i n t e r v a l s , d i s p l a y e d one d i s t i n c t s m i l e and headnod per minute, answered q u e s t i o n s with l i t t l e e l a b o r a t i o n , and adopted a c o l d body posture, l e a n i n g back. Questi onnaires Standard. There are d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of "standard" i n the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed. It may be t h a t a person's sense of personal standard ( i . e . the minimum performance goal they d e s i r e f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n ) may d i f f e r from what they b e l i e v e they should a c h i e v e ( i . e . an e x t e r n a l standard) or from what they b e l i e v e most o t h e r s achieve ( i . e . a t y p i c a l l e v e l of performance). Based on p r e v i o u s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s , the l i t e r a t u r e on seif-awareness, and i n t u i t i o n , standards were d e f i n e d i n four ways: 1 . the standard that s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r a s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r a c t i o n 2. the standard that s u b j e c t s would p e r s o n a l l y be happy with 3. the standard that s u b j e c t s t h i n k the experimenter demands of them, and 4 . the standard that s u b j e c t s expect o t h e r s can do. The v i s u a l r a t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix C) had f o u r t e e n questions assessing standards. Subjects rated the level o-f standard on a 10-point scale employing the videotapes as visual anchors -from 0 (awkward) to 10 (smooth and flowing). As well, subjects rated how clearly they perceived each standard on a 10-point scale ranging from 0 (not at a l l clear) to 10 (very c l e a r ) , and their confidence to reach each standard from 0 (not at a l l confident) to 10 (completely confident). During t h i s task, the experimenter unobtrusively recorded the number of times subjects viewed each visual anchor. Factors influencing standard. A second questionnaire (Appendix D) contained six items, one of which asked the extent to which certain f a c t o r s were involved in the subject's judgement of how well t h e i r practice interaction went. These are: (1) past experience in social situations, (2) what the subject thought the experimenter expected, (3) how well the subject thought other people did, and (4) any other factors involved in their judgement. Subjects rated each factor on a 10-point scale from 0 (not involved in the judgement) to 10 (very much involved in the judgement). Manipulation Checks. The remaining f i v e questions (Appendix C) assessed the success of the feedback manipulation. Subjects were asked to rate, on 10-point scales, how well they thought they handled the interaction (ranging from "not at a l l well" to "very well"), how often they thought of being evaluated by the partner or experimenter ("not at a l l " to "constantly"), how often they evaluated themselves ("not at a l l " to "constantly"), how s e l f - c o n s c i o u s they - f e l t d u r i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n ("not at a l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s " t o "very much s e l f - c o n s c i o u s " ) , and how r e s p o n s i v e they thought t h e i r p a r t n e r was t o them ("not a t a l l r e s p o n s i v e " t o "very r e s p o n s i v e " ) . R e s u l t s Preliminary Analyses S u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n measures, e x p e r i m e n t e r and c o l l a b o r a t o r checks, and m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k s , were each a n a l y s e d by a 2 x 3 ( e f f i c a c y group by feedback c o n d i t i o n ) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA). For each MANOVA, a check on assumptions of n o r m a l i t y , homogeneity of v a r i a n c e - c o v a r i a n c e m a t r i c e s , and l i n e a r i t y was s a t i s f a c t o r y . T h i s e n s u r e s r o b u s t n e s s of t h e MANOVA p r o c e d u r e and j u s t i f i e s r e t a i n i n g a l l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l form. W i l k s ' s lambda was used as t h e c r i t e r i o n of s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were f o l l o w e d w i t h s i m p l e e f f e c t s a n a l y s e s ; s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s were f o l l o w e d w i t h post hoc a n a l y s e s (Student Newman K e u l s ) w i t h t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l c o n s i d e r e d as a f u n c t i o n of t h e t o t a l number of comparisons made (B o n f e r o n n i a d j u s t e d a l p h a , p<.05). Subject S e l e c t i o n Measures E f f i c a c y groups were formed from t h e top 30% of v o l u n t e e r s who completed t h e e f f i c a c y q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( r a t i n g s of 7-10 on a 10-PDint s c a l e ) and bottom 307. of v o l u n t e e r s ( r a t i n g s of 0-5). Three s u b j e c t s were not i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u b j e c t pool because of hig h BDI s c o r e s (above 19); t h e r e m a i n i n g s u b j e c t s were randoml a s s i g n e d t o -feedback groups based on e-f-ficacy r a t i n g s ( h i g h or l o w ) . D u r i n g t h e s t u d y , e i g h t s u b j e c t s e x p r e s s e d s u s p i c i o n ( s i x h i g h e f f i c a c y ; two low) and were r e p l a c e d w i t h randomly s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t s -from t h e r e m a i n i n g s u b j e c t pool t o m a i n t a i n an equal number of s u b j e c t s i n each group. The f i r s t MANOVA c o n t a i n e d s u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n measures ( i n t a k e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s of e f f i c a c y , a n x i e t y , d e p r e s s i o n , and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) . T a b l e 1 p r e s e n t s t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s of t h e s e measures. U s i n g W i l k s ' s lambda as t h e c r i t e r i o n , a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r e f f i c a c y emerged, P<.001; no s i g n i f i c a n t feedback or i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was apparent. U n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between low and h i g h e f f i c a c y groups on r a t i n g s of e f f i c a c y , F(1,90)=82.34, P<.001, and a n x i e t y , F(1,90)=23.12, p<.001. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t two d i s t i n c t groups were formed on the b a s i s of e f f i c a c y r a t i n g s and t h a t t h e s e groups a l s o d i f f e r e d i n a n x i e t y . R a t i n g s on t h e a n x i e t y s u b s c a l e of t h e S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r f o r t h e low e f f i c a c y group, F(1,90)=24.40, p<.001, but no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged between groups on p u b l i c or p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s . When compared w i t h F e n i g s t e i n e t a l . ' s (1975) o r i g i n a l sample of s u b j e c t s , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t more p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t(225)=4.58, p<.001, l e s s p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t(225)=9.73, p<.001, and more s o c i a l a n x i e t y , t(225)=18.91, p<.001; h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , compared w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l sample, r e p o r t a s i m i l a r degree of p u b l i c s e i f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t(225)=1.35, p>,10, l e s s p r i v a t e s e i f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , t(225)=4.5, p<.001, and l e s s s o c i a l a n x i e t y , I 31 T a b l e 1 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s o-f s e l e c t i o n measures S e l e c t i o n Measures E f f i c a c y Group n E f f i cacy An:: i ety BDI Low 48 3.81(1.07) 3.79(1.52) 8.06(4.33) i n c l a s s 8 4.25( .89) 3.75( .71) i n 1 ab 8 4.00(1.31) 3.75( .93) High 48 8.29( .58) 7.29(1.37) 6.40(4.39) i n c l a s s 30 8.17( .46) 7.13(1.41) i n 1 ab 50 7.50(1.01) 6.60(1.35) Note: E f f i c a c y and a n x i e t y measures range from 0 (low) t o 10 (high) ( t a b l e continues) 3 2 Selection Measures Efficacy Group _ Self-Consciousness Subscales a b e Public Private Anxiety Low 48 22.38(6.68) 17.92(5.07) 14.58(4.21) in class 8 - - -i n l a b 8 High 48 18.02(3.85) 22.21(5.28) 10.25(4.31) in class 30 - - -in lab 30 - _ _ Normative mean for the public subscale i s x=18.9 ^normative mean for the private subscale i s x=25.9 cnormative mean for the social anxiety subscale i s TT=12.5 33 t (225) =20.45, p<.001. Hence, low efficacy subjects report a high sense of social anxiety and a concern with how they appear to others as measured by the Self-Consciousness Scale. F i n a l l y , among scores on the DDI, no s i g n i f i c a n t interaction or main eff e c t s were found, and thus depression was not considered as a potential covariate. R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y of the Efficacy Measure The s e l f - e f f i c a c y questionnaire has face v a l i d i t y as outlined by the c r i t e r i a of efficacy measurement (Bandura, 1977) and has been employed in previous studies in t h i s laboratory. For example, Wallace and Alden (1987) found that the questionnaire r e l i a b l y distinguished between groups of subjects that behaved in accord with the predicted behavior of high and low efficacy subjects in Carver and Scheier's (1986) theory. In addition, efficacy ratings correlate with ratings of anxiety from the efficacy questionnaire, r(96)=.81, p<.001, and low efficacy subjects also report a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of social anxiety as measured by the Self-Consciousness Scale, whereas high efficacy subjects do not. These r e s u l t s suggest that efficacy ratings are associated with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of social anxiety suggesting that the res u l t s of t h i s study may be extended to social anxiety. However, i t may also be that the efficacy and anxiety question measured the same concept. A subset of subjects (n=38) completed the efficacy questionnaire in class and in the lab to test r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure across time and set t i n g . A repeated measures analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between settings within each efficacy group on efficacy and anxiety ratings <P>.10) and s i g n i f i c a n t differences were maintained between groups on these ratings, F(1, 33)=11.98, p<.01, for ratings of e f f i c a c y , and F(1,33)=13.75, p<.001 for ratings of anxiety. A l l low e f f i c a c y subjects maintained low ratings across time and settings; two high efficacy subjects lowered their rating to the median value used for assigning subjects to groups <6 on the scale 0-10) and one rated his efficacy below t h i s . Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t . Efficacy ratings in class and the laboratory correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y , r<38)=.85, p<.001, and anxiety ratings in class and the laboratory correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y , r(3B)=.75, p<.001. These data support the r e l i a b i l i t y of the efficacy measure for selecting d i s t i n c t efficacy groups across time (an interval of approximately one month) and setting. Ratings were also made of subjects' interpersonal s t y l e by the collaborator. Two ratings were made on 10-point r a t i n g scales—whether the subject appeared outgoing and self-assured or timid and self-conscious, and whether he appeared warm and amiable or cold and aloof. Ratings revealed that low e f f i c a c y subjects were seen as more timid and aloof than high e f f i c a c y subjects, F(1,78)=9.99, P<.01, and F(1,78)=14.34, P<.01, respectively. This suggests that low e f f i c a c y subjects were seen as interpersonally distant and more timid than high efficacy subjects. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these r e s u l t s . They were included to see i f high and low efficacy subjects handled themselves d i f f e r e n t l y in t h i s situation but the ratings are prone to biased perception. A l t h o u g h c o l l a b o r a t o r s were n o t in - formed o-f t h e e-f - f icacy s t a t u s o-f s u b j e c t s , t h e y were r e q u i r e d t o know t h e f e e d b a c k c o n d i t i o n i n o r d e r t o a l t e r t h e i r r e s p o n s e t o t h e s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , no o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f " t i m i d " o r " a l o o f " was p r o v i d e d and s o t h e s e r a t i n g s a r e r e l a t i v e l y i n f o r m a l and may s i m p l y r e f l e c t a n x i o u s b e h a v i o r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e y do s u g g e s t t h a t h i g h and low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s a p p e a r e d t o h a v e u n i q u e i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y 1 e s . E x p e r i m e n t e r and C o l l a b o r a t o r C h e c k s T h e s e c o n d and t h i r d MANOVAs, c o n t a i n e d e v e r y m e a s u r e t h a t s u b j e c t s c o m p l e t e d , w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r (two l e v e l s ) and a s s i s t a n t (two l e v e l s ) a s a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s t o c h e c k f o r demand e f f e c t s . T h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f t h e s e m e a s u r e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 2 - 6 . Two MANOVA a n a l y s e s w e r e e m p l o y e d — o n e t o e x a m i n e e f f e c t s on m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k s ; t h e o t h e r t o e x a m i n e e f f e c t s on d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s . No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n o r m a i n e f f e c t s were f o u n d , p > . 0 5 . T h e s e f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n e x p e r i m e n t e r s and a s s i s t a n t s d i d n o t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e t h e r e s u l t s . M a n i p u l a t i o n C h e c k s T h e f o u r t h MANOVA c o n t a i n e d s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n , s e l f - and p e r c e i v e d p a r t n e r - e v a l u a t i o n , s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , and p a r t n e r ' s r e s p o n s i v e n e s s ( q u e s t i o n n a i r e t w o , s e e T a b l e 2 ) . A s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t emerged f o r e f f i c a c y and f e e d b a c k , p < . 0 0 1 . S u b s e q u e n t u n i v a r i a t e ANOVAs r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n e f f i c a c y g r o u p s on I 36 Table 2 Means and standard deviations of manipulation checks Low Efficacy Group Questions a F'osi t i ve Feedbac k Negati ve Neutral how well you handled the conversation extent to which t h i s rating i s based on: past experience what we expect how others do how o-ften you thought o-f being evaluated 6.06(1.61) 4.56(1.55) 5.06(1.57) 6.56(2. 5.13(2. 4.19(2. 6.75(2. how often you questioned 6.81(2. your own performance 22) 69) 69) 38) 14) how self-conscious you f e l t how responsive was your partner to you 7.38(1.67) 7.75(1.65) 6.00(2.37) 4.56(2.00) 4.63(2.99) 5.69(2.96) 6. 31(2.33) 6.31(2.21) 4.44(1.86) 7. 25(1.69) 4.81(2.26) 3.88(2.60) 4.00(2. 16) 6.13(2.28) 5.84(1.84) 5.50(2.53) Note: A l l measures are reported on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 10 (high). a n=16 for each measure (table continues) 37 High Efficacy Group Questions Feedback Positive Negative Neutral how well you handled the conversation extent to which t h i s ratings i s based on: past experience what we expect how others do how often you thought of being evaluated 7.00(1.03) 7.94(1. 4.94(2. 4.56(2. 5.31(2. how often you questioned 6.25(1 your own performance 48) 52) 61) 06) 98) how self-conscious you f e l t 5.63(1.96) how responsive was your 7.25(1.81) partner to you 5.44(1.63) 6.56(1.46) 5.94(2.60) 4.56(2.50) 5.38(2.28) 6.56(1.59) 5.75(2.05) 4.63(2.00) 6.63(1.20) 7.44(1.55) 5.44(2.85) 5.19(2.71) 5.94(2.08) 6.63(1.89) 5.69(2.02) 6.00(2.31) Note: A l l measures are reported on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 10 (high). an=16 for each measure Table 3 Means and standard deviations -for measures o-f standard Low Ef f i c a c y Group Feedback Standards a Positive Negative Neutral Global Success 7. Personal Success 6. Experimenter 7. Average Subject 5. 25 (1.13) 6.56 38 (1.67) 5.75 00 (1.46) 6.19 31 ( .95) 5.13 (1.09) 6.88 (1.31) (1.07) 5.81 (1.22) (1.42) 6.44 (1.46) ( .96) 5.13 <1.26) High E f f i c a c y Group Feedback Standards 3 Positive Negative Neutral Global Success 6. Personal Success 7. Experimenter 6. Average Subject 5. 94 (1.29) 7.00 31 ( .79) 6.44 56 (1.32) 6.75 69 (1.58) 5.06 (1.16) 7.38 (1.15) (1.15) 7.75 ( .68) (1.24) 6.38 (1.63) (1.06) 5.75 (1.13) Note: A l l measures of standard are reported on a scale ranging from 0 (awkward and slow) to 10 (smooth and interesting) n=16 for each measure Table 4 Means and standard deviations -for  measures o-f standard c l a r i t y Low Efficacy Group Feedback Standards a Positive Negative Neutral Global Success Personal Success Experimenter Average Subject 7.69 (1.67) 7.31 7.69 (1.25) 7.31 5.31 (2.77) 6.94 6.50 (2.10) 6.63 (1.30) 7.88 ( .89) (1.45) 7.75 (1.13) (1.88) 6.19 (2.11) (1.09) 6.13 (1.82) High Efficacy Group Feedback Standards a Positive Negative Neutral Global Success 8.13 (1.71) 7.50 (1.21) 8.06 (1.29) Personal Success 8.13 (1.31) 7.00 (1.16) 8.56 ( .96) Experimenter 7.06 (1.39) 5.75 (2.11) 5.69 (2.96) Average Subject 6.63 (1.50) 6.56 (1.86) 7.19 (1.42) Note: A l l measures of c l a r i t y are reported on a scale ranging from 0 (not at a l l clear) to 10 (very clear) an=16 for each measure Table 5 Means and standard deviations -for  measures of confidence to meet standards Low Efficacy Group Feedback a Standards P o s i t i v e Negative Neutral Global Success 5.13 (1.63) 5.25 (1.65) 5.38 (1.26) Personal Success 6.00 (1.75) 6.44 (1.32) 6.13 (1.36) Experimenter 5.75 (2.02) 5.69 (1.78) 4.56 (1.67) Average Subject 6.56 (1.90) 6.19 (1.56) 6.13 (2.13) High Efficacy Group Feedback a Standards P o s i t i v e Negative Neutral Global Success 6. Personal Success 7. Experimenter 7. Average Subject 6. 75 (1.20) 5.81 38 (1.31) 6.63 81 (1.52) 6.31 75 (2.70) 7.31 (1.33) 7.25 (1.13) (1.20) 7.13 (1.03) (1.96) 7.25 (1.69) ( .79) 8.19 ( .98) Note: A l l measures of confidence are reported on a scale ranging from 0 (not at a l l confident) to 10 (completely conf i dent) n=16 for each measure Table 6 Means and standard deviations o-f  efficacy expectations -for the  upcoming interaction and confidence  to meet that expected level Feedback a Efficacy Positive Negative Neutral Low expected l e v e l b 5.50 (1.37) 5.50 (1.03) 5.25 (1.29) confidence 0 7.00 (1.59) 6.75 (1.34) 7.13 (1.41) High expected level 7.44 ( .81) 6.50 (1.27) 7.13 ( .96) confidence 7.69 (1.01) 6.88 (1.15) 7.63 (1.09) aD=48 for each efficacy group expected level ranges from 0 (awkward) to 10 (smooth) Confidence ratings range from 0 (not at a l l confident) to 10 (completely confident) s e l f - r a t i n g s of how the conversation was handled, F(1,90)=14.43, P<.001, and self-consciousness during the i n t e r a c t i o n , F(1,90)=4.52, p<.05. Thus low efficacy subjects reported that they handled the interaction less well and reported f e e l i n g more self-conscious than did high efficacy subjects. No differences were found between groups on the extent to which past experience, what they thought was expected of them, or how well they thought others do, influenced ratings of how well the conversation was handled. The s i g n i f i c a n t difference between feedback groups was due to differences in s e l f - r e p o r t s of how well the conversation was handled, F(2,90)=7.8B, p<.001, the extent to which t h i s rating was based on past experience, F(2,90)=3.22, p<.05, and how responsive the partner seemed, F(2,90)=17.35, p<.001. Planned comparisons revealed that subjects given p o s i t i v e feedback reported handling the interaction better than subjects given no feedback (p<.01); s i m i l a r l y , subjects given negative feedback reported handling the conversation less well than both of these groups (p<.001). Post hoc analyses revealed that ratings were more l i k e l y based on comparisons with past experience for subjects given p o s i t i v e feedback than those given negative feedback. F i n a l l y , planned comparisons revealed that each feedback group perceived the assistant's response d i f f e r e n t l y (p<.001) with rank ordering from most responsive (positive feedback) to least (negative feedback). Taken together, these data confirm that the experimental feedback manipulation produced the desired e f f e c t s — t h e more negative the feedback, the worse subjects f e l t they handled the conversation and the more they perceived the collaborator as unresponsive. When feedback was positive, subjects reported that they came to the conclusion the conversation was handled well by comparing their performance here with previous social situations. Dependent Measures-Preliminary Analyses. A 2 x 3 x 4 (efficacy group by feedback by standard) repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to check whether the four conceptualisations of standard (global success, personal success, experimenter's, and average subject) were actually measuring the same concept. A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for standard emerged, F(3,270)=48.IS, P<.001, indicating that subjects reported d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of standard depending on how i t was conceptualised. Post hoc analyses (Student Newman Keuls) indicated that the standard of global success (what you consider to be a successful interaction) was reported to be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher level of performance than both the standard of personal success (what you would be happy with) and the experimenter's standard. These standards, in turn, were higher than the average subject standard (what you think the average subject does), p<.05 (see Figure 1). A s i g n i f i c a n t interaction between efficacy and standard suggests that subjects' reported level of standards also depend on s e l f - e f f i c a c y , F(3,270)=6.35, p<.001. Post hoc analyses revealed that, amongst both low and high, e f f i c a c y subjects, the levels of global success, personal success and experimenter's standard are higher than their standard for the average subject. In addition, amongst low effi c a c y subjects 44 10 o 4J TS U (0 c (0 0) > CD (0 cn (0 d) o (0 (0 u o o c o CD <D •p c e • H (1) a w <1J +J tj> o (U Xi > a Standard Type Figure 1. Levels of standard collapsed across e f f i c a c y groups. only, the levels o-f global success and experimenter's standard exceed the standard of personal success (see Figure 2). Hence, the four concepts of standard employed in t h i s study are psychometrically d i s t i n c t and reported levels of each standard are not equivalent but vary depending on subjects' e f f i c a c y . Therefore, a l l subsequent analyses that compare efficacy groups on standard w i l l include each of the four conceptualisations. Hypothesis l i Differences between efficacy groups in reported levels of standard. The f i r s t hypothesis stated that no differences would be found between efficacy groups on the level of standard reported. From the preliminary analysis of standard, i t i s apparent that the level of standard reported i s influenced by how standard i s conceptualised. A one-way (efficacy group) MANOVA was employed with reported level of each standard as the dependent measures. Using Wilks's lambda as the c r i t e r i o n , a main effect for efficacy emerged, p<.001. Univariate ANOVAs revealed t h i s was due to differences between groups on the standard of personal success, F(1,90)=25.91, p<.001. The prediction that efficacy groups would not report dif f e r e n t levels of standard was supported for standards of global success, experimenter's standard, and the average subject standard. However, contrary to predictions, low efficacy subjects reported a lower standard of personal success than high efficacy subjects. - High E f f i c a c y J j - Low E f f i c a c y o u m c • p U5 > Standard Type Figure 2. Levels of standard reported by each ef f i c a c y group 47 HYPOthesiS 2 ; D i s c r e p a n c i e s between s t a n d a r d s and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . The second h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d t h a t low e f - f i c a c y s u b j e c t s would show a g r e a t e r d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e i r r e p o r t e d l e v e l s of s t a n d a r d and t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were e x p e c t e d t o r e p o r t s t a n d a r d s h i g h e r than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s ; h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were expected t o r e p o r t performance g o a l s at t h e l e v e l of t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . A s e r i e s of a p r i o r i o r t h o g o n a l c o n t r a s t s f o r r e p e a t e d measures compared t h e l e v e l of each s t a n d a r d w i t h e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s for. t h e upcoming i n t e r a c t i o n , w i t h s t a n d a r d and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s as w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r s . I f t h e p r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e s between e f f i c a c y and s t a n d a r d s d i d not emerge, t h e one-way ( e f f i c a c y group) r e p e a t e d measures a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e were examined f o r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s and then f o l l o w e d w i t h p o s t hoc comparisons (see F i g u r e 3 ) . (a) S t a n d a r d f o r g l o b a l s u c c e s s ( i . e . what i s c o n s i d e r e d a s u c c e s s f u l l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n ) . The p r e d i c t e d d i s c r e p a n c y between th e s t a n d a r d f o r g l o b a l s u c c e s s and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s was s u p p o r t e d , F(1,47)=52.5, p<.001. Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d of g l o b a l s u c c e s s than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s would emerge between l e v e l of g l o b a l s u c c e s s and e f f i c a c y f o r h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s was s u p p o r t e d , F( 1,47)=. 165, p>. 10. L e v e l o f S t a n d a r d (0 t o 10) u3 c CD 3" CD (D < CD 3 t—' CD cn X ft o 3 rt CD 0) 1 3 0) Q, O Qi rt h p. a o 3 cn CD rt (—* cu CU 3 rt CL H - Cu < i-l CD a rt •-3 O *< TI CD CD TJ CD 0 rt Oi rt H -0 3 cn i-h 0 i-i O Ul H' i G l o b a l Success E f f i c a c y T " oo VO n n r P e r s o n a l Success E f f i c a c y 0 0 vo O Ul « — r E x p e r i m e n t e r E f f i c a c y T -oo VO CO U l Average S u b j e c t E f f i c a c y CO vo 0 # I I o H-* vQ 3-M i-h M O H-Cu O O Di O (b) Standard of p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s ( i . e . minimal a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l of performance). As p r e d i c t e d , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d of p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s , F(1,47)=10.17, p<.01. In a d d i t i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged among h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , F ( l , 4 7 ) = . 6 9 , P>.10. <c) E x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d ( i . e . what performance you t h i n k t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r demands). As p r e d i c t e d , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s , F(1,47)=19.21, p<.001. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged f o r h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , F ( 1 , 4 7 ) = 3 . 1 8 , p>.05. (d) Average s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d ( i . e . what l e v e l of performance you t h i n k o t h e r s a c h i e v e ) . C o n t r a r y t o p r e d i c t i o n s , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d t h e average s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d t o be at about t h e same l e v e l as t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s , F (1,47)=1.44, p>.10. However, a r e p e a t e d measures a n a l y s i s of t h e s e d a t a r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between e f f i c a c y and s t a n d a r d , F(1,94)=22.89, p<.001. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , post hoc comparisons r e v e a l e d t h a t h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d a h i g h e r l e v e l of e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n than what they c o n s i d e r t o be t h e s t a n d a r d f o r t h e average s u b j e c t , P<.01. O v e r a l l , t h e p r e d i c t e d d i s c r e p a n c y between l e v e l s of s t a n d a r d r e p o r t e d and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s was s u p p o r t e d f o r t h r e e of t h e f o u r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of s t a n d a r d . Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d h i g h e r s t a n d a r d s of p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s , g l o b a l s u c c e s s , and e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d , than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s -for t h e upcoming i n t e r a c t i o n . No d i f f e r e n c e s emerged on t h e s e r a t i n g s amongst h i g h e f f i c a c y groups as p r e d i c t e d . F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d h i g h e r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e upcoming i n t e r a c t i o n than t h e s t a n d a r d they c o n s i d e r t o be t h e average f o r s u b j e c t s . A l t h o u g h t h i s was not a n t i c i p a t e d , t h e p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s would not have lower e x p e c t a t i o n s than s t a n d a r d s . Hypothesis 5i C l a r i t y of standards. A one-way ( e f f i c a c y group) MANOVA was performed t o examine how c l e a r a sense of s t a n d a r d s u b j e c t s had. U s i n g W i l k s ' s lambda as t h e c r i t e r i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged between e f f i c a c y groups, p>.10. The p r e d i c t i o n t h a t low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s would have a l e s s c l e a r sense of s t a n d a r d than h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s was not s u p p o r t e d f o r any c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of s t a n d a r d . An a n a l y s i s of how o f t e n s u b j e c t s viewed t h e v i d e o t a p e d r a t i n g s c a l e was not performed because t h e p r e d i c t e d d i f f e r e n c e between e f f i c a c y groups on c l a r i t y of s t a n d a r d d i d not emerge, and only 4 of t h e 96 s u b j e c t s viewed t h e v i d e o t a p e s a f t e r t h e f i r s t showing which i s t o o s m a l l a number t o w a r r a n t s t a t i s t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A l l f o u r of t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t r e v i e w e d t h e r a t i n g s c a l e were i n t h e low e f f i c a c y g r o u p — t w o i n t h e group t h a t r e c e i v e d no feedback and two i n t h e group t h a t r e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e feedback. 51 Hypothesis 4: Confidence to meet standards. A one-way (efficacy group) MANOVA was performed to examine ratings of confidence to meet each standard (i.e. how confident subjects are that t h e i r performance w i l l achieve the level of standard reported). Wilks's lambda revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t effect for ef f i c a c y , p<.001. Univariate ANOVAs revealed that efficacy groups d i f f e r e d in confidence to meet the standard for global success, F(1,90)=35.01, p<.001, their standard of personal success, F(1,90)=9.67, p<.01, the experimenter's standard, F(1,90)=24.31, p<.001, and the average subject standard, F(1,90)=9.39, p<.01. As predicted, low efficacy subjects were less confident that they could achieve t h e i r standard than were high efficacy subjects. This prediction was supported for a l l conceptualizations of standard (see Figure 4). Supplementary Analyses: E f f e c t s of social feedback on ratings of standard Because of the lack of research into standard-setting as a function of feedback, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the area of s o c i a l anxiety, these analyses are exploratory and no s p e c i f i c predictions were made. The effect of feedback on ratings of standard. This analysis, a one-way (feedback) ANOVA, examined the effect of feedback on subjects' ratings of standard. A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for feedback emerged on the standard of personal success, F(2,93)=3.25, p<.05. Post hoc analyses revealed that subjects given negative feedback reported a lower standard of personal - High E f f i c a c y | |- Low E f f i c a c y o 0) o c T3 c o u o > Standard Type igure 4 . Levels of confidence to reach each standard. 53 success than subjects given no -feedback; the di-f-ference between negative and posi t i v e -feedback was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The e f f e c t of feedback on level of standard for each efficacy group. A two-way (efficacy group by feedback) MANOVA was employed with the level of each standard as the dependent measure. Using Wilks's lambda as the c r i t e r i o n , a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t for efficacy emerged, p<.001. Univariate ANOVAs revealed that t h i s was due to differences between groups on the standard of personal success, F(1,90)=25. 91, p<.001. Post hoc analyses revealed that high efficacy subjects given p o s i t i v e or no feedback had a higher standard of personal success than high effic a c y subjects given negative feedback and a l l low effi c a c y subjects (see Figure 5). No differences emerged between groups on the standards of global success, the experimenter's standard, and the average subject standard, regardless of feedback. The e f f e c t of feedback on efficacy ratings. A two-way ANOVA (efficacy group by feedback) was conducted on subjects' ratings of e f f i c a c y . A s i g n i f i c a n t main effect for efficacy emerged, F(1, 90)=47.64, P<.001. Post hoc analyses (P<.05) revealed that high efficacy subjects given p o s i t i v e or no feedback had higher ratings of efficacy than a l l low efficacy subjects. However, when given negative feedback, the high efficacy group reported ef f i c a c y ratings that were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the low efficacy group. There were no differences in expectations among low efficacy subjects regardless of how well the inte r a c t i o n was handled (see Figure 6). o -p u (0 c ItJ +J w > 1 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 5 0 a o A CO <t j Q ) o u > 1 o (0 u It) W c o to o M O & OT u I t J u • H M-t 4-1 W M (D •P C <u e • H W a x w H i g h E f f i c a c y P o s i t i v e H i g h E f f i c a c y N e g a t i v e H i g h E f f i c a c y N e u t r a l Low E f f i c a c y P o s i t i v e Low E f f i c a c y N e g a t i v e Low E f f i c a c y N e u t r a l J o m o 4-1 w 0) -P CT. O H - n Q) X> > 3 < OT >i O <tJ o 4-1 4-1 W Standard Type F i g u r e 5 . L e v e l s o f s t a n d a r d as a f u n c t i o n of feedback r e l a t i v e t o e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e next i n t e r a c t i o n . F i g u r e 6 . L e v e l s of e f f i c a c y f o l l o w i n g f e edback. 56 Taken together, these data reveal that, among high efficacy subjects, negative -feedback was associated with lower standards of personal success. S i m i l a r l y , negative feedback was associated with a low efficacy expectation among high efficacy subjects for how well they thought they would handle the next interaction. Low efficacy subjects, on the other hand, were not influenced by feedback and reported the same level of standard regardless of how well the interaction went. In addition, their efficacy ratings did not change when feedback was varied. The effect of feedback on the standard-efficacy discrepancy. Here, 2 x 2 x 3 (efficacy by standard-expectation difference by feedback) repeated measures analyses compared the level of each standard with efficacy expectations, with feedback as an additional factor; s i g n i f i c a n t differences were followed with post hoc comparisons for repeated measures (see Figure 5). (a) Standard of global success. A discrepancy between global success and efficacy emerged among low efficacy subjects regardless of feedback, p<.05; high e f f i c a c y subjects reported a standard of global success that did not d i f f e r from th e i r expectations. (b) Standard for personal success. There were no differences between the standards of personal success and efficacy expectations for either efficacy group, p>.10. Both high and low e f f i c a c y subjects reported a standard of personal success that was abs o l u t e the high at the l e v e l of t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s although the l e v e l of personal success and e f f i c a c y was higher f o r e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s . (c) The experimenter's standard. High e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s given p o s i t i v e or no feedback, expected to achieve a higher l e v e l of standard than they thought the experimenter demanded, p<.05; when given negative feedback, they r e p o r t e d a standard that was at the same l e v e l as t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r a t e d the experimenter's standard higher than t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s when given p o s i t i v e feedback, p<.05. The d i f f e r e n c e between r a t i n g s of experimenter standard and ex p e c t a t i o n s was not s i g n i f i c a n t when low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were given negative or no feedback. <d) The average s u b j e c t standard. High e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r a t e d the average s u b j e c t standard lower than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s when they were given p o s i t i v e or no feedback, P<.01: when given negative feedback, t h e i r r a t i n g of e f f i c a c y was at the same l e v e l as t h e i r r a t i n g of t h i s standard. There were no d i f f e r e n c e s between e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s and average s u b j e c t standard among low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , r e g a r d l e s s of feedback. Taken together, these data r e v e a l that low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s given p o s i t i v e feedback have higher e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r what they t h i n k the experimenter demands than they b e l i e v e themselves capable of. On r a t i n g s of t h i s same standard, low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s given n e g a t i v e or no feedback r e p o r t e d the level of standard at the same level as t h e i r expectations for the next i n t e r a c t i o n . On ratings of global success, personal success, and average subject standard, low ef f i c a c y subjects were not influenced by feedback—their ratings of global success exceeded effi c a c y expectations; their ratings of personal and average subject standard were at the same level as expectations. Feedback influenced the standard-efficacy discrepancies of high effi c a c y subjects. High efficacy subjects expected to achieve a higher level of interaction than they thought the experimenter demanded when given p o s i t i v e or no feedback and higher than the average subjects' performance when given p o s i t i v e feedback. Feedback had no apparent e f f e c t on ratings of global or personal success in r e l a t i o n to effic a c y expectati ons. C l a r i t y of standards. A 2 x 3 (efficacy group by feedback) MANOVA was performed to examine ratings of how clear an image of standards each subject had under conditions of positive, negative, or no feedback. Using Wilks's lambda as the c r i t e r i o n , a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction emerged, p<.05, accounted for by how clear an image subjects had of the experimenter's standard, F(2,90)=3.68, p<.05. A simple main ef f e c t s analysis revealed differences between high and low eff i c a c y groups under conditions of p o s i t i v e feedback, F(1,90)=4.77, p<.05; no s i g n i f i c a n t differences emerged between e f f i c a c y groups when given negative or no feedback). The d i r e c t i o n of the effect indicates that low effic a c y subjects, given feedback that they 59 a r e meeting t h e s t a n d a r d , had a l e s s c l e a r sense o-f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d than d i d h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s w i t h s i m i l a r feedback. C o n f i d e n c e t o meet s t a n d a r d s . A 2 x 3 ( e f f i c a c y group by feedback) MANOVA was employed t o examine how c o n f i d e n t s u b j e c t s were t o meet each s t a n d a r d a f t e r r e c e i v i n g feedback about t h e i r performance. No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t emerged, p>.10. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p r o v i d i n g h i g h and low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s w i t h feedback about how they were h a n d l i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n d i d not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e t h e i r r a t i n g s of c o n f i d e n c e t o meet s t a n d a r d s . However, low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were l e s s c o n f i d e n t t o meet each s t a n d a r d than were h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , p<.001, as r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n . O v e r a l l , v a r y i n g t h e c o l l a b o r a t o r ' s b e h a v i o r and p r o v i d i n g v e r b a l feedback t o s u b j e c t s about how they were h a n d l i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n f l u e n c e d r a t i n g s of s t a n d a r d and s t a n d a r d - e f f i c a c y d i s c r e p a n c i e s . Feedback a l s o i n f l u e n c e d how c l e a r an image s u b j e c t s had of what was demanded i n t h e s i t u a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , a f t e r e x p e r i e n c i n g a r e s p o n s i v e p a r t n e r and b e i n g t o l d t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was handled w e l l , r e p o r t e d b e i n g l e s s c l e a r of what was expected of them than h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e same feedback. 60 D i s c u s s i o n S t a n d a r d s o-f S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n The - f i n d i n g s of t h i s study s u p p o r t t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t h i g h and low s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s have s i m i l a r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s t a n d a r d s but d i f f e r i n how c o n f i d e n t they a r e t o meet them. S p e c i f i c a l l y , low and h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r s t a n d a r d s when " s t a n d a r d " was d e f i n e d as: (1) t h e i r i d e a of a s u c c e s s f u l i n t e r a c t i o n ( g l o b a l s u c c e s s ) , (2) t h e l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they thought t h e ex p e r i m e n t e r demanded (the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d ) , and (3) what they thought o t h e r s a r e a b l e t o a c h i e v e (average s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d ) . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t h i g h and low s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s have a common s t e r e o t y p e of s o c i a l s u c c e s s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e r e s u l t s a r e p a r t l y dependent upon how " s t a n d a r d " i s c o n c e i v e d . When s u b j e c t s were asked what l e v e l of i n t e r a c t i o n they would p e r s o n a l l y be happy w i t h ( p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s ) a d i f f e r e n c e between h i g h and low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s emerged. Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d t h a t they would be happy w i t h a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t was below t h e l e v e l t h a t h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s would be s a t i s f i e d w i t h . Thus when " s t a n d a r d " i s c o n c e i v e d i n terms of p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s , t h e p r e d i c t i o n t h a t low and h i g h e f f i c a c y groups do not d i f f e r i s not s u p p o r t e d ; when " s t a n d a r d " i s c o n c e i v e d i n terms of t h e g o a l s o t h e r s a r e thou g h t t o h o l d or a c h i e v e (the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d and t h e average s u b j e c t s t a n d a r d ) , or t h e g o a l s t h a t a r e h e l d s u c c e s s f u l i n everyone's eyes ( g l o b a l s u c c e s s ) , the p r e d i c t i o n i s s u p p o r t e d . 61 Standards and Efficacy Expectations When e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e compared t o t h e l e v e l s of s t a n d a r d t h a t s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d , t h e p r e d i c t e d d i s c r e p a n c y between s t a n d a r d s and e x p e c t a t i o n s i s found, b u t , a g a i n , the d i s c r e p a n c y depends on how s t a n d a r d i s c o n c e i v e d . Low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r h a n d l i n g t h e next i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t were below t h e l e v e l they c o n s i d e r e d t o be a good i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e l e v e l they thought t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r demanded, and the l e v e l they would be happy w i t h . The o n l y s t a n d a r d t h a t was not below t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s was how w e l l they thought everyone e l s e does. Hence, t h e p r e d i c t e d d i s c r e p a n c y between s t a n d a r d s and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s emerged f o r t h e s t a n d a r d of g l o b a l s u c c e s s , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s t a n d a r d , and p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s . In c o n t r a s t , h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d s t a n d a r d s t h a t were at t h e same l e v e l as t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e s e same s t a n d a r d s . T h i s p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d and p r o v i d e s e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t f o r the theory t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e o p l e have lower e x p e c t a n c i e s t h a t they can meet t h e i r g o a l s than do n o n - a n x i o u s , more c o n f i d e n t , people (e.g. C a r v e r & S c h e i e r , 1986; S c h l e n k e r & Lear y , 1982). High and low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s i n t h i s s t u d y d i f f e r e n t i a l l y r e p o r t e d f e e l i n g a n x i o u s i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , and a c o r r e l a t i o n was found between e f f i c a c y and a measure of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e s u b j e c t s were a l s o h i g h and low i n s o c i a l a n x i e t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y . R e l a t i n g t h e s e r e s u l t s t o l i t e r a t u r e on s o c i a l a n x i e t y , i t may be t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e o p l e have a d e s i r e t o c r e a t e a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l i m p r e s s i o n t h a t i s r e a l i s t i c t o t h e e x t e n t t h e r e i s consensus agreement of both a n x i o u s and non-anxious p e o p l e , yet the s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s person may doubt h i s a b i l i t y t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i s goal and t o p r e s e n t h i m s e l f i n a d e s i r a b l e l i g h t . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h e o r y (Carver and S c h e i e r , 1986), and s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e o r y ( S c h l e n k e r and Leary, 1982), t h e r e s u l t s suggest t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s people a r e c o n s c i o u s of t h e s t a n d a r d s o p e r a t i n g i n a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n and d e s i r e t o meet t h o s e s t a n d a r d s , y e t doubt t h e i r a b i l i t y t o a c h i e v e them. There i s a l s o e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s e doubts a r e mediated by c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s whereby s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s people produce n e g a t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s when a n t i c i p a t i n g an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h another person (e.g. Cacioppo e t a l . , 1979). The e x p e c t a t i o n s of h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s f o r how w e l l they would h a n d l e t h e next i n t e r a c t i o n exceeded t h e i r r a t i n g s of the average l e v e l of performance. In o t h e r words, h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s e x p e c t e d t o a c h i e v e a b e t t e r performance i n t h e next i n t e r a c t i o n than they thought most peop l e are c a p a b l e o f . A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s was found by Ahrens e t a l . , (1988). In t h a t s t u d y , non-depressed s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s as h a v i n g h i g h e r i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t a n d a r d s and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s than t h e i r p e e r s . T h i s "self-enhancement" e f f e c t , which may m a i n t a i n s e l f - e s t e e m , s u g g e s t s t h a t non-depressed persons see t h e m s e l v e s as s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r s , and i s c o n t r a s t e d by t h e s e l f - d e p r e c a t i o n t h a t i s sometimes thought t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the d e p r e s s e d . Ahrens et a l . , comment t h a t " s i n c e others'" g o a l s p r o v i d e one y a r d s t i c k f o r measuring one's own g o a l s . . . C t h e n l having h i g h g o a l s r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s might p r o v i d e a c h a l 1 e n g e . . . u l t i m a t e l y , t h i s enhanced i n c e n t i v e might make i t e a s i e r f o r non-depressed p e o p l e t o a t t a i n t h e i r g o a l s , even though they a r e h i g h e r than t h o s e of d y s p h o r i c p e o p l e " (p. 6 3 ) . Perhaps t h e h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study found t h e i r g o a l s c h a l l e n g i n g because they presumed t h a t t h e i r g o a l s exceeded what o t h e r s c o u l d a c h i e v e . I t has been demonstrated i n t h e e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e t h a t d epressed persons see t h e m s e l v e s as o r d i n a r y r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r s w h i l e non-depressed sometimes show an i l l u s o r y s e i f - p e r c e p t i o n t h a t they a r e s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r s (e.g. A l l o y & Ahrens, 1987; Lewinsohn, M i s c h e l , C h a p l i n , Z< B a r t o n , 1980; M a r t i n , Abramson, & A l l o y , 1984; Wright & M i s c h e l , 1982). I t has a l s o been suggested t h a t t h i s "warm glow" of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t (Wright & M i s c h e l , 1982) may m o t i v a t e p e o p l e t o s e l e c t i v e l y a t t e n d t o i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e m s e l v e s , ( M i s c h e l e t a l . , 1973), d e c r e a s e r e c a l l of p e r s o n a l i t y weaknesses ( M i s c h e l e t a l . , 1976), i n c r e a s e g e n e r o s i t y toward o t h e r s (Isen & L e v i n , 1972) and toward t h e s e l f (Rosenhan e t a l . , 1974). T h i s e f f e c t or c o g n i t i v e b i a s might be o c c u r i n g i n s o c i a l a n x i e t y as w e l l . Low a n x i o u s s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e t h e same s o c i a l feedback as l e s s n e g a t i v e than do h i g h a n x i o u s s u b j e c t s and say they a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o r e c e i v e such feedback (e.g. Smith & S a r a s o n , 1975), they r a t e themselves as more s o c i a l l y s k i l l e d t h a n o t h e r s r a t e them (e.g. Alden 2< Cappe, 1981; C l a r k & A r k o w i t z , 1975) and they g e n e r a t e more p o s i t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n than do h i g h l y a n x i o u s s u b j e c t s ( C a c i o p p o e t a l . , 1979). Hence, i n l i n e w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s from a mood-congruity account (Wright & M i s c h e l , 1982), a n t i c i p a t i n g that one can achieve self-presentations above what others can do may lead to more favorable self-assessments, r e c a l l of one's strengths as opposed to weaknesses, and favorable expectations for future performance. C l a r i t y and Confidence to Meet Standards Low and high efficacy subjects did not d i f f e r on c l a r i t y of standard, regardless of how i t was conceptualized. These r e s u l t s are contrary to the prediction that low efficacy subjects would have a less clear sense of standards for s o c i a l i nteraction and appear to be inconsistent with the empirical l i t e r a t u r e suggesting that shyness i s related to not knowing what the demands of a social s i t u a t i o n are (e.g.. Buss, 1980; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). In fact, the results suggest that low efficacy subjects have as clear a sense of standard as do high efficacy subjects and that the standard they are imagining i s in agreement with the consensus of high efficacy subjects. It i s not surprising, then, that few subjects viewed the videotaped rating scale more than once. It appears that subjects took to the task of rating standards readily and that they had formed a clear idea of standard without needing a lengthy explanation. However, having a clear sense of standards did not necessarily imply that the subjects in t h i s study would be confident to meet them. As predicted, low efficacy subjects were less confident that they would meet standards regardless of how they were defined. These r e s u l t s t e s t i f y to the importance of distinguishing between knowing what i s required in a social s i t u a t i o n and feeling capable of achieving i t . 65 S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n Feedback. The -feedback that s u b j e c t s were given was a -function of both the confederate's behavior and comments made by the experimenter on how well the s u b j e c t handled the c o n v e r s a t i o n . Manipulation checks i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n as had been intended and accepted the feedback. Because of the paucity of r e s e a r c h i n t o s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g i n s o c i a l a n x i e t y , and i n p a r t i c u l a r how standards are modified by s o c i a l feedback, no s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s were made of what e f f e c t feedback might have on s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s of standard. However, th e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h i n t o the e f f e c t s of performance feedback on m o t i v a t i o n (e.g. Locke, 1968; Locke, Car t l e d g e , 2< Knerr, 1970) and r e s e a r c h t h a t examines the g o a l s people set f o r themselves as a f u n c t i o n of t h e i r p a t t e r n and l e v e l of progress (e.g. Campion 2< Lord, 1982). For example, Bandura and Cervone (1986) found t h a t p r o v i d i n g feedback t o s u b j e c t s about t h e i r accomplishments on a strenuous a c t i v i t y had v a r y i n g e f f e c t s on s e l f - e f f i c a c y and g o a l - s e t t i n g . The authors commented t h a t "accomplishments are more complexly r e l a t e d to p e r c e i v e d s e l f - e f f i c a c y and personal goal s e t t i n g than might appear i n t u i t i v e l y . Knowledge of having surpassed a demanding standard through l a b o r i o u s e f f o r t does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y strengthen p e r c e i v e d s e l f - e f f i c a c y and r a i s e a s p i r a t i o n " (p. 110). However, they d i d f i n d t h a t "when performance f e l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y short of the s e l e c t e d standard, most s u b j e c t s continued to s u b s c r i b e to t h a t standard or a s l i g h t l y lower one" (p. 111). These r e s u l t s p o i n t to the d i f f i c u l t y of p r e d i c t i n g how s e l f - s e t standards w i l l be affected by d i f f e r e n t performance feedback especially since there i s so l i t t l e research that examines standard-setting in social interaction. Effect of Feedback on Levels of Standard Manipulating the success of interactions and verbally reinforcing t h i s with feedback d i f f e r e n t i a l l y influenced subjects'" ratings of what level of interaction they would personally be happy with. Low efficacy subjects had the same standard for personal success, regardless of feedback, whereas high efficacy subjects given negative feedback had a lower standard of personal success. High and low efficacy subjects reported the same standard of global success, experimenter, and average subject, regardless of the feedback they were given. Therefore, feedback had an impact on what high efficacy subjects were happy with, especially feedback that they were not doing well, whereas low efficacy subjects did not appear to be influenced by how well the interaction was going. Effect of Feedback on Efficacy T e l l i n g low efficacy subjects that they were or were not handling the conversation well had no e f f e c t upon efficacy; high efficacy subjects, on the other hand, had lower expectancies when they were not doing well. Looking at Figure 5, i t i s apparent that high efficacy subjects were more eff i c a c i o u s than low efficacy subjects but t h i s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t only with p o s i t i v e or no feedback. When the interaction did not go well, high efficacy subjects had lower expectations. 67 Effect of Feedback on the Standard-Efficacy Discrepancy Low efficacy subjects had higher standards for what they thought the experimenter demanded of them when given p o s i t i v e feedback than they expected to do; they had lower expectations than standards for global success regardless of feedback. No differences were found on the standard of personal success or the average subject standard where expectations were at the same level as standards. High efficacy subjects had expectations si m i l a r to the standards they held for global and personal success, and their expectancies were never s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than their standards. Yet, unexpectedly, when told nothing or that they were handling the interaction well, high efficacy subjects thought the experimenter demanded less than they f e l t capable of doing. Similarly, when to l d they were doing well, high efficacy subjects thought the average subject interacted at a lower level than they f e l t they could do. Cl a r i t y of standards was a dimension on which low efficacy subjects were influenced by the feedback received. It seems that low efficacy subjects, given feedback that they handled the interaction well, were less clear about what the experimenter wanted than were high efficacy subjects given the same feedback; on the other hand, low efficacy subjects given negative feedback or none at a l l , did not d i f f e r from high e f f i c a c y subjects in how clearly they imagined t h i s standard. Hence, providing low efficacy subjects with an interaction that was inconsistent with their expectations made them unsure of what they were expected 68 to do. Even though they report experimenter standards similar to low efficacy subjects that received negative or no feedback, they appear to be less certain of them. Feedback also did not appear to affect the confidence that high and low efficacy subjects expressed about interacting at the level of each standard. It may be that subjects' confidence i s not easily influenced by information s p e c i f i c to one si t u a t i o n , especially when i t i s contrasted with expectancies that have been based on a long history of s o c i a l interaction. As Bandura (1977) observes, once established, the e f f e c t s of occasional f a i l u r e s or accomplishments on s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s not l i k e l y to have much impact. Implications of Social Feedback These e f f e c t s imply that the efficacy ratings of low efficacy subjects were not influenced by feedback. They consistently maintained that they could not handle the next interaction well regardless of the responsiveness of the collaborator or the experimenter's praise. High efficacy subjects, in contrast, always thought they would handle the next interaction well although the difference between their expectations and those of low efficacy subjects was not s i g n i f i c a n t when negative feedback was given. When told that they are doing well, low e f f i c a c y subjects report that the experimenter demands more than they feel capable of achieving. They even seem confused as to what exactly i s demanded of them when given feedback inconsistent with their expectations (e.g. expressing less certainty about what the e x p e r i m e n t e r wants a f t e r b e i n g t o l d they a r e d o i n g w e l l ) . T h i s e f f e c t i s c o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e i n terms of a s e l f - c o n t r o l model of a t t e n t i o n (Carver & S c h e i e r , 1986) which s u g g e s t s t h a t p o s i t i v e feedback r a i s e s e x p e c t a t i o n s t o meet s t a n d a r d s ; i n s t e a d , t h e p a t t e r n of s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g f o l l o w i n g p o s i t i v e feedback appears d y s f u n c t i o n a l and s u g g e s t s a r i g i d i l y h e l d e x p e c t a t i o n t o do p o o r l y i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . These d a t a s u g g e s t t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e r s o n s may have a c o g n i t i v e r i g i d i t y and d y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g t h a t s e r v e s t o m a i n t a i n an e x pectancy t o do p o o r l y i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . D y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g was a l l u d e d t o i n an u n p u b l i s h e d d i s s e r t a t i o n by Simon ( r e p o r t e d i n Bandura, 1986). She s t u d i e d s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g i n d e p r e s s e d p e r s o n s as a f u n c t i o n of performance feedback whereby s u b j e c t s were g i v e n feedback t h a t they were doi n g w e l l ( s u c c e e d i n g ) or not. She r e p o r t e d t h a t , when g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e i r performance on a speech t a s k was d e c l i n i n g , d e p r e s s e d s u b j e c t s s e t h i g h e r g o a l s f o r t h e m s e l v e s even though they were p e r f o r m i n g a t t h e same l e v e l as nondepressed s u b j e c t s . Bandura (1986) commented t h a t t h i s p r o c e s s of s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by u n r e a l i s t i c a s p i r a t i o n s and b e l i t t l i n g of accomplishments, may i n c r e a s e v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o d e p r e s s i o n . Here, feedback t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was not h a n d l e d w e l l d i d not i n f l u e n c e t h e e f f i c a c y r a t i n g s of low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s . In c o n t r a s t , t e l l i n g t h e s e s u b j e c t s t h a t they were d o i n g w e l l had t h e e f f e c t of r a i s i n g s t a n d a r d s . When t o l d t h a t they had handled t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w e l l , low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s thought t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r wanted more than they c o u l d g i v e , and were u n c l e a r of what was demanded of them. T h i s s u g g e s t s a d y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g p r o c e s s as w e l l , but one t h a t i s d i s t i n c t -from t h a t r e p o r t e d i n d e p r e s s i o n . Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e s e r e s u l t s t e s t i f y t o t h e c o g n i t i v e r i g i d i t y of s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e r s o n s and imply t h a t t r e a t m e n t e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d at p r o v i d i n g r e i n f o r c i n g feedback may i n c r e a s e t h e doubts they a r e i n t e n d e d t o re d u c e . Recent r e s e a r c h completed i n our l a b o r a t o r y ( W a l l a c e l>. A l d e n , 1987) may a l s o shed some l i g h t on d y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g . Low and h i g h s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were p r o v i d e d w i t h a s t a n d a r d of i n t e r a c t i o n and then c o n v e r s e d w i t h a c o n f e d e r a t e . By v a r y i n g t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ' s b e h a v i o r , t h e s t a n d a r d c o u l d or c o u l d not be met. What we found was t h a t h i g h e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s p e r s i s t e d a t c o n v e r s i n g as l o n g as t h e s t a n d a r d was bei n g met, and they c u t t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s h o r t when th e s t a n d a r d c o u l d not be met. T h i s p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Carver and S c h e i e r ' s t h e o r y of a t t e n t i o n a l s e l f - f o c u s (e.g. 1986) where p e r s i s t e n c e a t meeting s t a n d a r d s i s e x p e c t e d as l o n g as outcome e x p e c t a n c i e s a r e p o s i t i v e . However, low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s d i d t h e o p p o s i t e . When t h e s t a n d a r d was not b e i n g met and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was awkward, they p e r s i s t e d i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n ; when t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was smooth and they succeeded i n meeting t h e s t a n d a r d , t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was c u t s h o r t . Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e s t u d i e s p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t h a t p e o p l e low i n s o c i a l e f f i c a c y s e t s t a n d a r d s i n a manner t h a t m a i n t a i n s t h e i r low e x p e c t a t i o n s . They may even r a i s e t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s of what i s demanded of them when t o l d they a r e doin g wel1. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t p o s i t i v e feedback, i . e . t e l l i n g low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s t h a t they were s u c c e s s f u l and even v a r y i n g how r e s p o n s i v e the c o n f e d e r a t e was, d i d not i n f l u e n c e e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . I t c o u l d be t h a t s u b j e c t s a t t r i b u t e d t h e s u c c e s s of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n t o t h e c o n f e d e r a t e because s u b j e c t s t h a t a r e low i n s o c i a l e f f i c a c y have been shown t o a t t r i b u t e e f f i c a c y - c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o i n t e r n a l s o u r c e s and e f f i c a c y - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o e x t e r n a l s o u r c e s which s e r v e s t o m a i n t a i n e x p e c t a n c i e s (Alden, 1986). There was no measure i n t h i s study t o examine t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , such as a s k i n g s u b j e c t s " t o what e x t e n t do you c o n s i d e r y o u r s e l f r e s p o n s i b l e f o r how t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was handled" but i t i s an i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n t o ask i n f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . However, even i f low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s do a t t r i b u t e the s u c c e s s of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n t o t h e c o n f e d e r a t e , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t they q u e s t i o n t h e i r p a r t i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . I t may be t h a t e x t r a l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e s have r e i n f o r c e d a low expectancy t h a t cannot be m a n i p u l a t e d by one r e i n f o r c i n g e x p e r i e n c e o r t h a t e x p e c t a n c i e s a re based on a presumed d e f i c i t i n s o c i a l s k i l l . I f low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s e x p e c t e d t o do p o o r l y s i m p l y because t h a t has been t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e p a s t , then they would p r o b a b l y base t h e i r r a t i n g of how w e l l the c o n v e r s a t i o n went on pa s t e x p e r i e n c e , when t h e i n t e r a c t i o n was awkward; however, t h i s was not t h e case. In f a c t , they based t h e i r r a t i n g of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n on pa s t e x p e r i e n c e o n l y when t h e i n t e r a c t i o n went w e l l and they r e c e i v e d p o s i t i v e feedback. These d a t a argue a g a i n s t t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t e x t r a l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e i s so r e i n f o r c i n g t h a t low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s have d i f f i c u l t y a c c e p t i n g p o s i t i v e feedback. Furthermore, a l t h o u g h i t was apparent from c o l l a b o r a t o r ' s r a t i n g s t h a t low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s appeared uncomfortable and awkward r e g a r d l e s s o-f how well the c o n v e r s a t i o n was going, t h i s does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean they lacked the a b i l i t y t o handle the c o n v e r s a t i o n , they j u s t may not have -felt c o n f i d e n t i n c o n v e r s i n g and t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e r e f l e c t e d anxiety. Treatment I m p l i c a t i o n s C o n s i d e r i n g a l l of t h i s , i t i m p l i e s that i s o l a t e d success experiences, even with d i r e c t feedback from a t h e r a p i s t , may have no e f f e c t on s o c i a l anxiety and may even be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e . These r e s u l t s , together with the theory of a t t e n t i o n a l s e l f - f o c u s (Carver Z>. S c h e i e r , 1986) suggest t h a t t h e r e are two p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r r e d u c i n g s t a n d a r d - e f f i c a c y d i s c r e p a n c i e s — l o w e r i n g standards or r a i s i n g e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . The f i r s t of these, r e d u c i n g standards, does not seem r e a l i s t i c given that both low and high e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s had a s i m i l a r consensus of what standards are. Instead, i t may be important t o focus upon l o w - l e v e l , short-term proximal g o a l s , while maintaining h i g h e r - l e v e l , d i s t a l g o a l s . T h i s type of s t r a t e g y , which maximises the p r o b a b i l i t y of a t t a i n i n g p o s i t i v e reinforcement, has proven e f f e c t i v e at a l l e v i a t i n g a number of p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems, i n c l u d i n g s o c i a l a n x i e t y . For example, Rehm and Marston (1968) o u t l i n e d a treatment approach t o s o c i a l anxiety which i n c l u d e d modifying standards and p r o v i d i n g accurate s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t when standards were met. They found that anxious c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s i n c r e a s e d t h e i r attempts at h e t e r o s e x u a l c o n t a c t , and r e p o r t e d - f e e l i n g l e s s a n x i o u s , a f t e r f o l l o w i n g t h e program. The approach f o c u s e d on s e t t i n g minimal b e h a v i o r a l g o a l s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and encouraged s u b j e c t s t o attempt g o a l s i n a s y s t e m a t i c f a s h i o n ( i . e . h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ) b e i n g s u r e t o reward themselves f o r a l l a t t e m p t s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r s u c c e s s . The g o a l s were " b e h a v i o r a l " t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t absence of a n x i e t y was not used as a c r i t e r i o n f o r r e i n f o r c e m e n t , i . e . g o a l s i n v o l v e d a c t i o n and not e l i c i t i n g p o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s from o t h e r s or f e e l i n g f r e e of n e r v o u s n e s s . The s u c c e s s of t h i s t r e a t m e n t approach may very w e l l have been due t o r e d u c i n g t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between e f f i c a c y and g o a l s by l o w e r i n g s h o r t - t e r m g o a l s t o a l e v e l t h a t s u b j e c t s f e l t they c o u l d a c h i e v e . The second p o s s i b i l i t y f o r r e d u c i n g s t a n d a r d - e f f i c a c y d i s c r e p a n c i e s may be through r a i s i n g e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s . A number of f e a r - b a s e d a n x i e t i e s have been shown t o respond f a v o u r a b l y t o mastery e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e f e a r e d o b j e c t (e.g. Bandura, 1977). Presumably, a n x i e t y i s mediated by e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s so t h a t s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s at c o p i n g i n t h e f e a r e d s i t u a t i o n w i l l r a i s e e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s and s u b s e q u e n t l y reduce a n x i e t y . In t h i s s t u d y , one s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i e n c e a t h a n d l i n g a s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n had no impact upon e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s among s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s s u b j e c t s . However, r e p e a t e d e x p e r i e n c e s at s u c c e s s f u l l y c o p i n g w i t h s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s may f u n c t i o n t o i n c r e a s e a sense of i n t e r p e r s o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s and r e i n f o r c e e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r h a n d l i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s w e l l . I t may a l s o be p o s s i b l e t o reduce c o n c e r n f o r s t a n d a r d - e f f i c a c y d i s c r e p a n c i e s by a v o i d i n g t h e p r o c e s s of seif-evaluation altogether (Carver & Scheier, 19S6) . Seif-evaluation involves attending to one's actions and the standards that are operating in a s i t u a t i o n . Perhaps by-dir e c t i n g attention away -from the sel-f when interacting, the process o-f sei-f-eval uati on and attention to standards can be eliminated and anxiety subsequently reduced. For example, Alden and Cappe (19S6) provided shy c l i e n t s with a strategy -for dir e c t i n g attention to their partner in a social interaction and •found that t h e i r c l i e n t s subsequently increased social a c t i v i t y . The authors speculated that t h i s strategy served to reduce the process of seif-evaluation; however, they also cautioned interpreting the r e s u l t s in t h i s manner because the study was not s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to test t h i s . If s e i f - d i r e c t e d attention cannot be eliminated, an a l t e r n a t i v e could be to direct attention to p o s i t i v e aspects of behavior. This strategy could benefit i n d i v i d u a l s with low s o c i a l efficacy given the tendency of s o c i a l l y anxious people to focus on negative aspects of their social selves (Clark & Arkowitz, 1975). From a treatment standpoint, i t i s interesting that low efficacy subjects are resistant to feedback. Cacioppo et a l . , (1976) found that s o c i a l l y anxious subjects reported more negative thoughts about themselves when they anticipated a social i n t e r a c t i o n than did non-socially anxious subjects. Of p a r t i c u l a r interest i s the fact that both s o c i a l l y - and non social1y-anxiaus subjects rated t h e i r seif-statements as favorable towards themselves. The authors suggest that both shy and non-shy people may have a unique frame of reference for what constitutes a favorable self-statement. This implies that t r e a t m e n t s h o u l d -focus upon t h e c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t u n d e r l i e s o c i a l a n x i e t y and not merely on t h e v a l e n c e of s e l f - d i r e c t e d t h o u g h t s . T h i s may e x p l a i n why feedback had no e f f e c t on t h e e x p e c t a n c i e s of low e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s i n our study and i t s u p p o r t s the i d e a t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e r s o n s have a r i g i d c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s r e l a t i v e l y i m p e n e t r a b l e by s u c c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n . High e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s , on t h e o t h e r hand, appear l e s s r i g i d i n t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s . When t o l d t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n d i d not go w e l l , they q u e s t i o n what t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r demands and expect t o do l e s s w e l l than i f n o t h i n g had been 76 Design o-f the Study The r e s u l t s of analysing the selection measures indicate that two d i s t i n c t groups of subjects were selected on the basis of the efficacy questionnaire and that the subjects in each group reported s i m i l a r levels of anxiety about interacting with another person. Low efficacy subjects said that they would have d i f f i c u l t y t a l k i n g with another subject, they would handle the interaction awkwardly, and that they would experience an uncomfortable amount of anxiety when doing so. High efficacy subjects, on the other hand, said that talking with another subject would be easy for them, they expected to be able to handle the conversation smoothly, and that they would experience very l i t t l e , i f any, anxiety. Additional support for the v a l i d i t y of dividing the two groups on the measure of efficacy comes from the anxiety ratings of subjects on the efficacy questionnaire and t h e i r self-reported social anxiety on the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et a l . , 1975). S p e c i f i c a l l y , low eff i c a c y subjects reported a higher level of anxiety on both measures. Additionally, none of the subjects in the study reported a s i g n i f i c a n t level of depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory so that depression was not considered an explanation of the findings. The r e s u l t s of analysing the eff i c a c y measure provide empirical support for selecting subjects on the basis of the s e l f - e f f i c a c y questionnaire and for extending the findings of t h i s study to s o c i a l l y anxious (low efficacy) and non-socially anxious (high efficacy) persons. The a n a l y s i s of t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k s r e v e a l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s were not s u s p i c i o u s o-f the p r o c e d u r e , t h e c o n f e d e r a t e ' s i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e was p e r c e i v e d as i n t e n d e d , and t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s comments about how they handled t h e i n t e r a c t i o n were c o n s i d e r e d a c c u r a t e . These r e s u l t s t e s t i f y t o t h e s u c c e s s of t h e feedback m a n i p u l a t i o n s . Problems and Limitations of the Study There a r e f o u r c a u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e study t o be noted. F i r s t , t h e e f f i c a c y measure used t o s e l e c t groups i s not a s t a n d a r d i z e d i n s t r u m e n t and c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d b e f o r e e x t e n d i n g the r e s u l t s t o t h e study of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . However, the f i n d i n g s can most l i k e l y be extended t o s o c i a l a n x i e t y because: (1) t h e measure was s t a b l e over t h e t i m e p e r i o d t h a t e l a p s e d between s e l e c t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s c o r e s on t h e e f f i c a c y measure were not t r a n s i e n t phenomena, (2) s c o r e s on the e f f i c a c y measure c o r r e l a t e d h i g h l y w i t h t h e a n x i e t y measure on t h e same q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a d i f f e r e n t measure of a n x i e t y (the a n x i e t y s u b s c a l e of t h e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s measure), and (3) t h e measure a l s o has f a c e v a l i d i t y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c r i t e r i a of e f f i c a c y measurement proposed by Bandura (1977) and has been used i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h on s o c i a l a n x i e t y (e.g. W a l l a c e & A l d e n , 1987). Second, when i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e study i t i s im p o r t a n t t o c o n s i d e r t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . A s s e s s i n g s t a n d a r d s and e f f i c a c y so c l o s e i n t i m e t o t h e t a s k t h a t s u b j e c t s thought they would be d o i n g ( i . e . i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h another s u b j e c t ) has t h e advantage of a l l o w i n g s u b j e c t s t o a c c u r a t e l y a p p r a i s e t h e s i t u a t i o n and what w i l l be r e q u i r e d of them. T h i s may r e s u l t i n more a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e s o-f e-f-ficacy but a t t h e same ti m e may s e n s i t i z e s u b j e c t s t o t h e l e v e l s o-f s t a n d a r d they -feel a r e s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e r a t h e r than the s t a n d a r d s they p e r s o n a l l y s u s c r i b e t o . However, some of the d a t a argue a g a i n s t t h i s problem because " s t a n d a r d " was d e f i n e d i n terms of both s o c i a l and p e r s o n a l s u c c e s s , and t h e l e v e l s endorsed f o r each d e f i n i t i o n v a r i e d between groups. T h i s would not be expected i f s u b j e c t s were p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s i n a s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e l i g h t . T h i r d , t h e use of m i l d l y a n x i o u s u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s c a l l s i n t o q u e s t i o n t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of t h e r e s u l t s t o a c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n . S e l e c t i n g t h i s sample i m p l i e s t h a t s o c i a l a n x i e t y i s on a continuum of s e v e r i t y w i t h m i l d s o c i a l a n x i e t y a t t h e low end and c l i n i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a n x i e t y at t h e o p p o s i t e end. F u r t h e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d might vary depending on t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e a n x i e t y . Yet t h e v a l i d i t y of a c o n t i n u i t y h y p o t h e s i s of s o c i a l a n x i e t y has not been e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated and such hypotheses i n o t h e r a r e a s have been q u e s t i o n e d , f o r example i n d e p r e s s i o n (Coyne & G o t l i b , 1983). However, t h e r e s u l t s argue f o r s t a b i l i t y of a n x i e t y a c r o s s t i m e and a n x i o u s s u b j e c t s appeared t o have c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y h a n d l i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n . F u r t h e r , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , most of t h e r e s e a r c h t o dat e i n t h i s a r e a has employed s i m i l a r s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n s and t h e study of s o c i a l a n x i e t y i n t h e s e samples i s , i n i t s e l f , a l e g i t i m a t e t o p i c of study. F o u r t h , t h e p r o c e d u r e used i n t h i s study does not p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n as t o t h e c a u s a l r o l e t h a t s t a n d a r d s p l a y i n s o c i a l a n x i e t y . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e o p l e have low e x p e c t a n c i e s t o meet s o c i a l s t a n d a r d s , y e t whether expectancy p l a y s a c a u s a l r o l e i n a n x i e t y , m a i n t a i n s a n x i e t y , or i s a symptom of a n x i e t y , remains t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d . S i m i l a r l y , whether th e r e l a t i o n between s t a n d a r d s and e x pectancy i s even a fundamental aspect of s o c i a l a n x i e t y i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . However, the r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t s t h a t s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s p e o p l e a r e concerned w i t h s e i f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s ( S c h l e n k e r and L e a r y , 1982), g e n e r a t e n e g a t i v e s e i f - s t a t e m e n t s when a n t i c i p a t i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n (Cacioppo et a l . , 1979), and a c t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s when s e l f - f o c u s e d ( B u r g i o et a l . , 1986). Hence i t appears t h a t the p r o c e s s of s e i f - e v a l u a t i o n and a t t e n t i o n t o s t a n d a r d s i s an i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . Future Research The next s t a g e f o r r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a i s t o examine whether s t a n d a r d s a r e a fundamental c a u s a l a s p e c t of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . We need t o l o o k at a l l l e v e l s of s o c i a l a n x i e t y , from m i l d l y a n x i o u s t o c h r o n i c and a c u t e s t a t e s , i n o r d e r t o i d e n t i f y t h e f a c t o r s t h a t p o t e n t i a t e and l i m i t t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e problem and i f t h e s e s t a n d a r d - e x p e c t a n c y d i f f e r e n c e s appear i n i n d i v i d u a l s s u s c e p t i b l e t o d e v e l o p i n g s o c i a l a n x i e t y . I t i s c l e a r l y t o o e a r l y t o argue f o r a model of s o c i a l a n x i e t y t h a t can s p e c i f y t h e r e l a t i o n of g o a l s and e f f i c a c y beyond t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p found here. However, t h e model of s e l f - a t t e n t i on (Carver Z< S c h e i e r , 1986) p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l •framework f o r a n a l y s i n g s o c i a l a n x i e t y and many of t h e symptoms of s o c i a l a n x i e t y can e a s i l y be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h some a s p e c t of s e l f - a t t e n t i o n . I t w i l l be i m p o r t a n t t o next d e t e r m i n e whether e f f i c a c y - s t a n d a r d d i f f e r e n c e s cause, m a i n t a i n , or a r e merely symptomatic of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . In a d d i t i o n , f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n t o s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g w i l l r e q u i r e an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e concept " s t a n d a r d " . Thus f a r , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g , mainly i n t h e sphere of d e p r e s s i o n , have employed d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n s of s t a n d a r d and used achievement t a s k s f o r s e t t i n g g o a l s . T h i s may account f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n t o the l e v e l s of s t a n d a r d d e p r e s s e d persons s e t f o r t h e m s e l v e s . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have found t h a t depressed s u b j e c t s s e t g o a l s t h a t a r e h i g h e r than non-depressed s u b j e c t s <e.g. Rehm, 1977), some have found t h a t t h e g o a l s depressed s u b j e c t s a s p i r e t o are not h i g h e r than f o r non-depressed s u b j e c t s but a r e h i g h e r than t h e i r e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s (e.g. C a r v e r & G a n e l l e n , 1983; Kanf e r Z< Z e i s s , 1983; L a x e r , 1964; Wright & M i s c h e l , 1982), and one study found t h a t d e p r e s s e d s u b j e c t s s e t lower g o a l s than non-depressed s u b j e c t s (Ahrens e t a l . , 1988). In t h i s s t u d y , th e p a r t i c u l a r d e f i n i t i o n of s t a n d a r d used was c r i t i c a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether d i s c r e p a n c i e s between s t a n d a r d and e f f i c a c y would emerge or whether feedback would have an impact on s t a n d a r d . Thus an i m p o r t a n t t o p i c of f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i s t o de t e r m i n e t h e di m e n s i o n s and c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n s of s t a n d a r d t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e x p e r i e n c e of s o c i a l a n x i e t y . Along t h e s e same l i n e s , b e t t e r methodology i s r e q u i r e d t o measure t h e concept of s t a n d a r d which was here i n v e s t i g a t e d by s e l f - r e p o r t . 81 T h i s p r o c e d u r e i s s u s c e p t i b l e t o t h e demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s i t u a t i o n and i s l i m i t e d by t h e q u a l i t y and v a r i e t y of s t a n d a r d s p r e s e n t e d . S i m i l a r l y , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o examine t h e e x t e n t t o which s t a n d a r d and e f f i c a c y e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e unique t o s o c i a l a n x i e t y and not a s p e c t s of ps y c h o p a t h o l o g y per se. Because r e s e a r c h i n t o s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g i n d e p r e s s i o n and s o c i a l a n x i e t y has i d e n t i f i e d a d y s f u n c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g p r o c e s s , t h e q u e s t i o n remains as t o what d e t e r m i n e s t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l r esponse t h a t p e o p l e have t o a d i s c r e p a n c y between s t a n d a r d s and e x p e c t a n c i e s . The s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study had low e x p e c t a n c i e s t h a t they c o u l d perform at t h e l e v e l they thought was s o c i a l l y s u c c e s s f u l and yet they d i d not r e p o r t b e i n g d e p r e s s e d . B e t t e r a r t i c u l a t i o n of r i v a l h y p o theses i s needed when exa m i n i n g t h e r o l e of s t a n d a r d s i n s o c i a l a n x i e t y because t h e f a c t o r s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h a s o c i a l goal from t h e t y p e s of g o a l s found i m p o r t a n t i n r e s e a r c h on d e p r e s s i o n , a r e u n c l e a r . C o n v e r s e l y , r u l i n g out t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s o c i a l a n x i e t y may p l a y a r o l e i n r e s e a r c h on s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g i n d e p r e s s i o n i s i m p o r t a n t . Research of s t a n d a r d - e f f i c a c y , d i s c r e p a n c i e s may, on t h e one hand, have a p p l i c a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems such as s o c i a l a n x i e t y or d e p r e s s i o n , or on t h e o t h e r , i t may r e v e a l something about psychopathology i n g e n e r a l . Concluding Comments To t h e e x t e n t t h a t low s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were s o c i a l l y a n x i o u s and h i g h s o c i a l - e f f i c a c y s u b j e c t s were n o t , t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s study shed some l i g h t on t h e e x p e r i e n c e of s o c i a l anxiety. The r e s u l t s o-f t h i s study are in l i n e with a cognitive sel-f-evaluation model where social anxiety i s seen to a r i s e from perceptions of personal inadequacy (Rehm & Marston, 1968) and doubts that one can present oneself in s o c i a l l y desirable ways (Schlenker ?< Leary, 1982). This research suggests that there i s a consensus between s o c i a l l y e f f i c a c i o u s and non-efficacious people as to the level of interaction that i s s o c i a l l y desirable. Socia l l y i n e f f i c a c i o u s people do not appear to hold i r r a t i o n a l l y high goals for themselves but feel that they cannot reach the level of standard that i s considered to be a success. In contrast, they report being happy with a lower level of interaction but that does not necessarily mean that they are not anxious about how they appear to others. Additionally, p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a successful interaction does not appear to penetrate the r i g i d i l y held efficacy that such persons appear to have. Standards seem to play a role in judgements of how one has handled a s i t u a t i o n , whether or not these standards are apparent. For example, when a shy c l i e n t says that he or she f e e l s s o c i a l l y inadequate and evaluated by others, t h i s would seem to imply some kind of comparison value that the c l i e n t f e e l s i s not being met. That standard, and the role that standards per se play in social anxiety, are important directions for future research. Ref erences Ahrens, A.H., Zeiss, A.M., S< Kan-fer, R. (1988). Dysphoric d e f i c i t s in interpersonal standards, s e i f - e f f i c a c y , and social comparison. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 53-67. Alden, L. (1986). S e i f - e f f i c a c y and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s for social feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 460-473. Alden, L. , ?•< Cappe, R. (1981). Nonasserti veness: S k i l l d e f i c i t or s e l e c t i v e seif-evaluation? Behavior Therapy, 12, 107-114. Alden, L. , ?< Cappe, R. (1986). Interpersonal process training for shy c l i e n t s . In W.H. Jones, J.M. Cheeck, & S.R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness. New York: Plenum. Alden, L., & Safran, J. (1978). Irrational b e l i e f s and nonassertive behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4_, 357-364. Alloy, L.B., ?< Ahrens, A.H. (1987). Depression and pessimism for the future: Biased use of s t a t i s t i c a l l y relevant information in predictions for self versus other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, j2, 366-378. Bandura, A. (1977). S e i f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Cognitive Therapyand Research, 8, 231-255. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A so c i a l cognitive theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura., A.., 2< Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and s e l f - e f f i c a c y mechanisms governing the motivational e f f e c t s of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028. Bandura, A., S< Cervone, D. (1986). D i f f e r e n t i a l engagement of s e l f - r e a c t i v e influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113. Brockner, J., & Hulton, A.J.B. (1978). How to reverse the vicious cycle of low self-esteem: The importance of attentional focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 564-578. Burgio, K.L., Merluzzi, T.V., & Pryor, J.B. (1986). E f f e c t s of performance expectancy and self-focused attention on social i n t e r a c t i o n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1216-1221. Buss, A.H. (1966). The effect of harm on subsequent aggression. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, _1, 249-255. Buss, A.H. (1980). Self-consciousness and soc i a l anxiety. San Fransisco: Freeman. Buss, D.M., ?< Scheier, M.F. (1976). Sel f-awareness, self-consciousness, and s e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n . Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 463-468. Cacioppo, J.T., Glass, C.R., & Merluzzi, T.V. (1979). Seif-statements and sei-f-eval uati ons: A cognitive-response analysis of heterosocial anxiety. Cognitive Therapy  and Research, 3, 249-262. Campion, M.A., S< Lord, R.G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 265-287. Carver, C.S. (1975). Physical aggression as a function of objective self-awareness and attitudes toward punishment. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 45, 501-512. Carver, C.S. (1979). A cybernetic model of s e i f - a t t e n t i o n processes. Journal of Personality and Social Pscyhology, 37, 1251-1281. Carver, C.S. , Blaney, P.H., ?< Scheier, M.F. (1979a). Focus of attention, chronic expectancy, and responses to a feared stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1186-1195. Carver, C.S., Blaney, P.H., & Scheier, M.F. (1979b). Reassertion and giving up: The i n t e r a c t i v e r o l e of s e i f - d i r e c t e d attention and outcome expectancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1859-1870. Carver, C.S., S< Glass, D.C. (1976). The sei f-consci ousness scale: A discriminant v a l i d i t y study. Journal of Personality  Assessment, 40, 169-172. Carver, C.S., Peterson, M. , Follansabee, D.J., & Scheier, M.F. (1983). Effects of sel f -di rected attention on performance and persistence among persons high and low in test anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 333-354. Carver, C.S. , S< Scheier, M.F. (1978). Sel f - f ocusi ng e-f-fects o-f dispositional sel f -consci ousness, mirror presence, and audience presence. Journal o-f Personality and Social  Psychology, 36, 324-332. Carver, C.S. , S< Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and sel f - r e g u l a t i o n : A control theory approach to human behavior New York: Springer-Verlaag. Carwer, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1986).. Analysing shyness: A s p e c i f i c application of broader self-regulatory p r i n c i p l e s In W.H. Jones, J.M. Cheek, S.R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness. New York: Plenum Press. Clark, J.V., 2< Arkowitz, H. (1975). Social anxiety and s e l f -evaluation of interpersonal performance. Psychological  Reports, 36, 211-221. Coyne, J.C., 2< Gotlib, I.H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A c r i t i c a l appraisal. Psychological  B u l l e t i n , 94, 472-505. Crawford, J.L. (1984). Task uncertainty, decision importance, and group reinforcement as determinants of communication processes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 619-627. Davis, D. , Z( Brock, T.C. (1975). Use o-f -first person pronouns as a -function o-f increased objective sel-f-awareness and prior feedback. Journal of Experimental Social  Psychology, 11, 381-388. Def f enbacher, J.L., S< Suinn, R.M. (1982). The self-control of anxiety. In P. Karoly, S<: F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management and behavior change. New York: Pergamon. Dibner, A.S. (1958). Ambiguity and anxiety. Journal  of Abnormal Social Psychology, 56, 165-174. Diener, E. , ?< S k r u l l , T.K. (1979). Sel f -awareness, psychological perspective, and self-reinforcement in r e l a t i o n to personal and social standards. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 413-423. Duval, S. , S< Wicklund, R.A. (1972). A theory of objective  self-awareness. New York: Academic Press. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R.A. (1973). E f f e c t s of objective self-awareness on a t t r i b u t i o n of causality. Journal of  Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 17-31. Duval, S., Wicklund, R.A., 3< Fine, R.L. (1972). Avoidance of objective self-awareness under conditions of high and low i n t r a - s e l f discrepancy. In S. Duval & R.A. Wicklund (Eds.), A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press. Efran, J.S., & Korn, P.R. (1969). Measurement of social caution: S e l f - a p p r a i s a l , r o l e playing, and discussion behavior. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, F e n i g s t e i n , A., S c h e i e r , M.F., Z< Buss, A.H. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . P u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s : A s s e s s m e n t and t h e o r y . J o u r n a l o-f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 522-527. G e l l e r , V., 2< S h a v e r , P. (1976). C o g n i t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s o-f s e l f - a w a r e n e s s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 12, 99-108. G i b b o n s , F.X. (1978). S e x u a l s t a n d a r d s and r e a c t i o n s t o p o r n o g r a p h y : E n h a n c i n g b e h a v i o r a l c o n s i s t e n c y t h r o u g h s e l f - f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 36, 976-987. G o l i n , S., S< T e r r e l l , F. (1977). M o t i v a t i o n a l and a s s o c i a t i v e a s p e c t s of m i l d d e p r e s s i o n i n s k i l l and c h a n c e t a s k s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 86, 440-442. I c k e s , W.J., W i c k l u n d , R.A., 2< F e r r i s , C.B. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . O b j e c t i v e s e l f - a w a r e n e s s and s e l f - e s t e e m . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , __, 202-219. I s e n , A.M., 8/ L e v i n , P.F. (1972). The e f f e c t o f f e e l i n g good on h e l p i n g : C o o k i e s and k i n d n e s s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 21, 384-388. Kan-fer, R. , & Z e i s s , A.M. (1983). D e p r e s s i o n , i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g , and j u d g e m e n t s of s e i f - e f f i c a c y . J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 92, 319-329. L a P o i n t e , K.A., & C r a n d e l l , C . J . (1980). R e l a t i o n s h i p of i r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s t o s e i f - r e p o r t e d d e p r e s s i o n . C o g n i t i v e Therapy and R e s e a r c h , 4, 247-250. Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review o-f personality and social psychology (Vol. 3). C a l i f o r n i a : Sage. Leary, M.R., 2< Schlenker, B.R. (1981). The social psychology of shyness: A seif-presentationai model. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press. Lewinsohn, P.M., Mischel, W. , Chaplin, W. , ?< Barton, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role of i l l u s o r y sei f-per'cepti ons. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 203-212. Lewinsohn, P.M., & Hoberman, H.M. (1982). Depression. In A.S. Bel lack, M. Hersen, & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and therapy. New York: Plenum Press. Liebling, B. A. , 2< Shaver, P. (1973). Evaluation, seif-awareness, and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, J9, 297-306. Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C.S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between s a t i s f a c t i o n , goal setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 135-158. Marlatt, G.A. (1971). Exposure to a model and task-ambiguity as determinants o-f verbal behavior i n an interview. Journal o-f Consulting and C l i n i c a l F'sychology, 36, 268-276. Martin, D.J., Abramson, L.Y., ?< Alloy, L.B. (1934). The i l l u s i o n o-f control -for se l f and others in depressed and nondepressed college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 125-136. Mischel, W. , Ebbesen, E.B., & Zeiss, A.R. (1973). Selective attention to the s e l f : Situational and dispositional determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 129-142. Mischel, W. , Ebbesen, E.B., S< Zeiss, A.R. (1976). Determinants of s e l e c t i v e memory about the s e l f . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l F'sychology, 44, 92-103. Nelson, R.E. (1977). I r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s in depression. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 45, 1190-1191. Nelson, R.E., S< Craighead, W.E. (1981). Tests of a self - c o n t r o l model of depression. Behavior Therapy, 12, 123-129. Pryor, J.B., Gibbons, F.X., Wicklund, R.A., Fazio, R.H., & Hood, R. (1977). Self-focused attention and se l f - r e p o r t v a l i d i t y . Journal of Personality, 45, 514-527. Rakestraw, T.L.Jr., 2< Weiss, H.M. (1981). The interaction of social influences and task experience in goals, performance, and performance s a t i s f a c t i o n . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 326-344. Rehm, L.P., S< Marston, A.R. (1968). Reduction o-f social anxiety through modification of self-reinforcement: An in s t i g a t i o n therapy technique. Journal of Consulting  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 32, 565-574. Rosenhan, D.L., Underwood, B. , ?< Moore, B. (1974). Affect moderates s e l f - g r a t i f i c a t i o n and altruism. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 546-552. Scheier, M.F. (1976). Seif-awareness, seif-consciousness, and angry aggression. Journal of Personality, 44, 627-644. Scheier, M.F., Buss, A.H., S< Buss, D.M. (1978). Self-consciousness, self-report of aggressiveness, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 133-140. Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1977). Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 625-636. Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., ?< Gibbons, F.X. (1979). Self-directed attention, awareness of bodily states, and s u g g e s t i b i l i t y . Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 37, 1576-1588. Schlenker, B.R., S< Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and. seif-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 92, 641-669. Smith, R.E., & Sarason, I.G. (1975). Social anxiety and the evaluation of interpersonal feedback. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 43, 429. Turner, R.G. (1978a). Consistency, sel-f-consc i ousness, and the predictive v a l i d i t y o-f t y p i c a l and maximal personality measures. Journal o-f Research in Personality, 12, 117-132. Turner, R.G. (1978b). E-f-fects of d i f f e r e n t i a l request procedures and self-consciousness on t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n s . Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 431-438. Turner, R.G., Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., 2< Ickes, W. (1978). Correlates of self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 285-289. Watson, D. , S< Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 33, 448-457. Weiss, H.M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organisational s o c i a l i s a t i o n . Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 89-105. Weiss, H.M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organisations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711-718. West, C.K., Lee, J.F., & Anderson, T.H. (1969). The influence of test anxiety in the selection of relevant from irrelevant information. Journal of Educational  Research, 63, 51-52. Wicklund, R.A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. In L. Berkowits (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social  Psychology (Vol.9). New York: Academic Press. Wicklund, R.A., & Duval, S. (1971). Opinion change and performance f a c i l i t a t i o n as a res u l t of objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, J_, 319-342. Wine, J.D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional theory of test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and application. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Wine, J.D. (1982). Evaluation anxiety: A cognitive-attentional construct. In H.W. Krohne ?< L. Laux (Eds.), Achievment, stress, and anxiety. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Wright, J., 2< Mischel, W. (1982). Influence of affect on cognitive social learning person variables. Journal  of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 901-914. Zimbardo, P.G. (1977). Shyness; What i t i s and what  to do about i t . New York: Jove. Zimbardo, P.G. (1981). The Shy c h i l d . New York: McGraw-Hill. 94 Appendix A E f f i c a c y Quest ionnai r P Note: E f f i c a c y group (high or low) i s determined by q u e s t i o n 2 which i s s p e c i f i c t o the l a b o r a t o r y i n t e r a c t i o n . 95 1. Imagine that you have met an old -friend, someone you haven't seen in years, and you have -forgotten her name. How confident are you that you could handle t h i s interaction well ( i . e . apologise that you have forgotten her name, f i n d i t out without hurting her feelings)? Rate your degree of confidence by c i r c l i n g a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below. Rate what you can do (i . e . how well you could handle the situation) not what you would l i k e to be able to do. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 completely completely uncertain certain In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I would f e e l : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 very very uncomfortable comfortable or anxious not at a l l anx i ous 2. Imagine that you are meeting a female student for the f i r s t time. Perhaps you have met after class or in the l i b r a r y , for example. How confident are you that you could handle t h i s interaction well (i.e. keep the conversation going smoothly, talk about things you might have in common, f i n d out her interests, etc.)? Rate your degree of confidence by c i r c l i n g a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below. Rate what you can do ( i . e . how well you could handle the situation) not what you would l i k e to be able to do. 0 10 20 30 40 50 .60 70 80 . 90 100 completely completely uncertain ' certain In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I would f e e l : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 very very uncomfortable comfortable or anxious not at a l l anxious 96 3. Imagine that you are at a party and have brought a -Friend with you that wants to be introduced to everyone. How confident are you that you could handle t h i s s i t u a t i o n well (i.e. take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y -for introducing her to others, etc.)? Rate your degree o-f confidence by c i r c l i n g a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below. Rate what you can do (i.e. how well you could handle the situation) not what you would l i k e to be able to do. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 camp 1etely uncertai n completely certai n In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I would f e e l : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 very very uncomfortable comfortable or anxious not at a l l anx i ous 4. Imagine that you meet a friend who has just bought a jacket in the l a t e s t s t y l e and you think i t looks awful. She asks "what do you think?". How confident are you that you could handle t h i s s i t u a t i o n well (i.e. make your opinion known without hurting her f e e l i n g s ) ? Rate your degree of confidence by c i r c l i n g a number from 0 to 100 using the scale given below. Rate what you can do ( i . e . how well you could handle the situation) not what you would l i k e to be able to do. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 completely uncertain completely certai n In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , I would f e e l : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 very uncomfortable or anxious very comfortable not at al1 anxious Appendix B Videotape Rating Scale The video rating scale used -for reporting standards had three anchor points, 2, 5, and 8, corresponding to an awkward interaction, an average interaction, and a smooth i n t e r a c t i o n . The scale was constructed by having a male and female con-federate role-play the part of two subjects meeting in the laboratory for the f i r s t time. A series of 9 d i f f e r e n t meetings were enacted which varied along two dimensions—verbal and nonverbal. Verbally, the confederates role-played increasingly smooth interactions by speaking with increasing animation and less frequent and shorter pauses; nonverbally, the confederates displayed increasingly animated gestures and f a c i a l expressions, and leaned towards their partner to display i n t e r e s t . The videotapes were shown to 30 undergraduate volunteers, 20 female and 10 male, who were asked to rate each meeting on a 10-point scale similar to the scale used by subjects in the study. The scale had two anchor points, 0 (extremely awkward) and 10 (extremely smooth). Raters were shown the tapes in a randomized order. The tapes were presented one following the other with no explanation as to the purpose of th e i r task other than that outlined above, and no comment regarding whether tapes should be rated r e l a t i v e to one another. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on ratings of the interactions with rating as the dependent measure. The interactions were rated s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other, F(8,261)=8.71, P<.001. Post hoc analyses (Student Newman Keuls) revealed that 7 o-f the tapes were rated si gni -f i cantl y di-f-ferent from each other (p<.01> and from these tapes, 3 meetings were selected that had a mean rating of approximately 2, 5, and S. These meetings became the visual anchors used in the study for reporting standards. 99 Appendix C Visual Rating Questionnaire Please answer the -following questions using the visual rating scale. To answer a question, c i r c l e the number -from 0 to 10 that matches our rating scale. Feel -free to view the scale as much as you want. If you don't understand a question or how to use the scale, just ask the experimenter. It i s important that your answers r e f l e c t how you r e a l l y feel so please consider each question car e f u l l y before choosing your answer. 1. In your mind, what level r e f l e c t s a good in t e r a c t i o n (i.e. what would be your standard for success in t h i s s etting)? 8 9 10 How clear i s your sense of t h i s standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at very al 1 clear clear 3. How confident are you that you w i l l reach t h i s standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 1 0 . not at completely a l l confident conf i dent 100 4, In your mind, what level of interaction would you be happy with? ( i . e . what i s your personal standard for t h i s interaction in t h i s setting)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5. How clear i s your sense of t h i s personal standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at very al 1 clear clear 6. How confident are you that you w i l l reach t h i s standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at completely a l l confident conf i dent 7. What level o-f interaction do you think we would be happy with ( i . e . in your mind, what level would we see as success) 7 8 9 10 8. How clear a sense do you have o-f our standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at very a l l clear clear 9. How confident are you that you can meet our standard? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at completely a l l confident conf i dent 102 10. How do you t h i n k the average i n t e r a c t i o n goes ( i . e . what l e v e l r e f l e c t s t h e t y p i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n on t h i s t a s k ) ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. How c l e a r a sense do you have o-f t h e t y p i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t very a l 1 c l e a r c l e a r 12. How c o n f i d e n t are you t h a t your i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l be at t h i s l e v e l ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t c o m p l e t e l y a l 1 conf i dent c o n f i d e n t 13. How do you a c t u a l l y expect t o do ( i . e . how do you expect t o h a n d l e t h e t a s k ) ? 8 9 10 14. How c o n f i d e n t a r e you t h a t you can do as you e x p e c t ? 0 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not a t very a l l c o n f i d e n t conf i dent 103 Appendix D Factors Influencing Standard and Manipulation Checks These questions are about the practice conversation you had with our assistant. You do not need to use the visual scale to answer these. 1. How well did you handle t h i s interaction? 0 8 10 not at a l l wel 1 very wel 1 2.. We are interested in what you might be thinking about when you rate how well the conversation went. Please rate how much you think the following factors were involved in the rating you made. a. your past experiences in social s i t u a t i o n s 0 8 10 not at a l l involved very much involved b. what you thought we expected 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 not at al 1 i nvolved very much i nvolved how well you thought other people did. 0 8 10 not at a l l involved very much i nvolved d. please l i s t anything else that you thought about in making your rating. 104 3. How often did you think about being evaluated by the partner or the experimenter 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at constantly al 1 4. How often did you think about how well you were handling the conversation ( i . e . how often did you evaluate yourself)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at constantly a l l 5. How self-concious did you feel during the interaction? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at very a l l self-conscious self-consci ous 6. During the interaction, how responsive was your partner to you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 not at very a l l responsive responsive 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097812/manifest

Comment

Related Items