زیر گروههای هراس اجتماعی: آیا آنها هرگونه استفاده می شوند؟

This study investigated the existence of DSM-IV social phobia subtype models in the community. Data came from the Dresden Predictor Study of a representative sample of 1877 German women (aged 18–24 years) who completed a diagnostic interview and filled out various self-report questionnaires. The number of feared social situations was distributed continuously without a clear-cut for delineation of subtypes and significantly increased functional impairment, comorbidity, subjective need for psychotherapy, seeking psychotherapeutic help and dysfunctional attitudes, and decreased social support and mental health. Subtype models based on the number (1, 2–4 and >4) and type (‘formal speaking fear’ versus ‘other fears’) of social fear did not have extra value above the continuum model of social phobia. The heterogeneity within social phobia has to be seen as a continuum of severity of social phobia, with a greater number of feared situations associated with more functional, social and psychological disability.

Social phobia (social anxiety disorder) is an anxiety disorder characterized by an intense fear of embarrassment or humiliation in social and performance situations (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). People with social phobia represent a heterogeneous group of patients. Differences within social phobics have for example been found with respect to the number and type of social fears, the frequency of avoidance, impairment due to the fears, sociodemographics, onset age, life satisfaction, social skills, and self-esteem (e.g. Boone et al., 1999; Eng, Heimberg, Coles, Schneier, & Liebowitz, 2000; Heimberg, Holt, Schneier, & Spitzer, 1993; Hofmann, Heinrichs, & Moscovitch, 2004; Mannuzza et al., 1995; Stemberger, Turner, Beidel, & Calhoun, 1995). This observed heterogeneity raises the question if social phobia can be divided into several or more or less distinct subtypes comprising different features (e.g. symptoms and etiological models) with different therapeutic implications or if these differences within social phobia instead have to be seen as a continuum of severity of social phobia for which no sharp boundaries can be drawn. In recent decades, the body of research on identifying subtypes of social phobia has been expanding but the topic remains controversial. The revised third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R, APA, 1987) introduced a “generalized social phobia” subtype that was retained in the fourth edition (DSM-IV, APA, 1994). According to the DSM-IV generalized social phobia should be diagnosed if an individual fears most social situations. This definition leaves room for different interpretations. Some researchers (e.g. Heimberg et al., 1993 and Hofmann et al., 1999; Hofmann & Roth, 1996) interpret “most situations” to be a quantitative dimension and hold that generalized social phobia is distinct from other subtypes of social phobia (e.g. non-generalized, circumscribed, distinct, specific social phobia) because of a higher number of feared social situations. For example, according to Heimberg et al.'s (1993) definition, individuals with non-generalized social phobia function in at least one broad social domain without experiencing clinically significant anxiety. People with circumscribed social phobia, on the other hand, experience social anxiety in only one or two discrete situations. Hofmann and Roth (1996) as another example assigned a generalized social phobia subtype diagnosis if at least four commonly occurring social situations were feared. Other researchers (e.g. Stemberger et al., 1995; Turner, Beidel, & Townsley, 1992) provide a qualitative explanation of “most social situations” and distinguish generalized social phobia from other subtypes on the basis of the type of feared social situations. Typically, individuals who fear social situations involving interactions with others such as attending parties or initiating a conversation are assigned to the generalized social phobia. A “specific” subtype is assigned if individuals fear only performance-oriented situations, such as giving speeches, speaking up in meetings, eating or writing in public, and/or using public restrooms. Individuals assigned to this latter group could fear multiple “specific” social situations. Further, some researchers (e.g. Holt, Heimberg, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992; Perugi et al., 2001) have attempted to examine situational domains defined as classes of similar social situations that could capture the heterogeneity of social phobia. Even though two types of social situations (interactional and performance social anxiety) are commonly discussed in the theoretical literature factor analytic techniques found support for three (Safren, Turk, & Heimberg, 1998; Sakurai et al., 2005), four (Safren et al., 1999), and even five (Perugi et al., 2001) situational domains. Unfortunately, not only the number but also the content of these factors varies across the different studies owing to the different samples, methods and cultures used. For example, Perugi et al. (2001) and Safren et al. (1999) found that social interaction anxiety proved to be a unifactorial dimension, whereas performance–observation anxiety was multifactioral. In Safren et al. (1998), three factors (interaction anxiety, anxiety about being observed by others and fear that others will notice anxiety symptoms) were yielded. In addition, in eastern cultures other domains of social fear could be recognized. In Japanese patient samples “relationship fear” (Sakurai et al., 2005) and “offensive fear” (Taijin Kyofusho) appeared to be culture-specific situational domains of social phobia ( Iwase et al., 2000). Although factor analysis is a useful technique for detecting common underlying dimensions of feared social situations, it cannot indicate group membership on the basis of these variables. Studies that used cluster analysis to determine whether distinct social phobia patient groups could be identified on the basis of their pattern of feared social situations found a continuum of dominant public speaking anxiety, moderate social interaction anxiety, and pervasive social anxiety rather than distinct subtypes of qualitatively different feared social situational domains (Eng et al., 2000; Furmark, Tillfors, Stattin, Ekselius, & Fredrikson, 2000). Also Holt et al. (1992) found that the majority of patients with social phobia experienced fear in more than one of four conceptually derived situational domains (assertive interaction, informal speaking/interaction, formal speaking, and observation by others) and that if one social situational domain was feared this was dominated by formal speaking fear. Although the identification of subtypes of social phobia has clinical utility it needs to be shown that these subtypes reflect phenomenological reality in the first place. Epidemiological studies with non clinical samples that are not constrained by the greater severity seen among persons seeking treatment for their social phobia are needed. Kessler, Stein, and Berglund (1998) provided support for the distinction between persons with solely speaking fear and those with other social fears in a community. However, this study was restricted because only six social situation probes were assessed and only one of these concerned fear of social interaction. Assessment of many situations is important, not only to obtain fine-grained subgroups but also to avoid missing cases (Heckelman & Schneier, 1995). Stein, Torgrud, and Walker (2000) utilized a higher number of social fear items and found that impairment attributed to social phobia increased linearly as the number of social fears increased, with no clear evidence of a threshold. They noted that this continuum of social fears makes classification system arbitrary. Furmark et al. (2000) found a similar continuum but acknowledged that categorical distinctions might have some useful purpose and divided social phobics into three subgroups according to the Heimberg subtype model (Heimberg et al., 1993). Thus epidemiological studies that assessed a wide variety of social situation probes actually question the use of subtypes because of the continuum of the number of social fears. Still it might be possible that other qualitative variables such as psychological or social factors would validate subtyping of social phobia within a community. In summary, the DSM-IV definition of the subtype “generalized social phobia” is open to interpretational differences and has left researchers to devise their own classification criteria, which likely has contributed to the inconsistencies found in the literature. Further, different analytic techniques (e.g. cluster analysis, factor analyses) and different samples (e.g. community versus clinical) have yielded somewhat different views on the subject of social phobia subtypes. In the community, the heterogeneity was rather shown to be a continuum of severity of social phobia, bringing the use of social phobia subtypes into question. Unfortunately, these community studies only included number and distress of social fears, functional impairment and criteria of avoidant personality to examine subtypes in social phobia. Actually, the use of subtypes of social phobia should not only be examined on the basis of these variables, but on differences in subjective need for therapy, seeking psychotherapeutic help, sociodemographics, comorbidity, and social and psychological variables as well. The present study investigates the use of subtypes of DSM-IV social phobia in young women. It improves on previous research in the following ways. First, the present study sample consisted of a representative community sample that was not biased by the severity of social phobia that is naturally paired with treatment-seeking populations. Second the diagnosis of social phobia was based on a detailed structural interview (F-DIPS: Diagnostisches Interview für Psychische Störungen–Forschungsversion [Diagnostic Interview for Psychiatric Disorders—research version]; Margraf, Schneider, Soeder, Neumer, & Becker, 1996). This interview included 13 social situation probes that were rated for degree of fear and frequency of avoidance, in contrast to previous studies that often had either a small range of social situation probes or had dichotomous fear answers (yes–no). Further, the interview was designed to extract detailed information about the degree of impairment due to social fears. Third, we evaluated several possible subtyping schemata for social phobia. Subtyping on the basis of the number of social fears as well as on the basis of type of feared social situation was investigated. Fourth, the subtyping models were evaluated not only on the basis of information on the number and type of feared social situation and impairment, but on qualitative differences such as subjective need for therapy, sociodemographics, comorbidity, and social and psychological variables.