چه عملکرد اجتماعی مشاهده شده در افراد مبتلا به اختلال اضطراب اجتماعی را تعیین می کند؟

Abstract Clark and Wells (1995) proposed that cognitive variables and safety behaviors are related to social performance in social anxiety disorder (SAD). Here, we tested this relationship by concurrent assessment of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological variables and social performance in a prototypical social interaction situation. 103 participants with SAD and 23 healthy controls interacted with a confederate. Anxiety, self-focused attention, cognitions, and safety behaviors were assessed by self-report and by confederate ratings. Social performance was evaluated by independent observers using a behavioral coding system. Social performance was predicted using two regression models for self-report and confederate ratings. Between-group differences in social performance disappeared when talking time was taken into account. Talking time emerged as the most powerful predictor of social performance (54% and 58% accounted variance). Positive cognitions, self-focused attention and safety behaviors accounted for an additional, but marginal amount of variance. Reduced talking time might represent a safety behavior and may be considered an easy to measure final common behavioral outcome of cognitive processes underlying social anxiety.

1. Introduction Social performance refers to overt behavior in a social situation that is observable to others and that likely is a primary source of information for others’ judgment. By contrast, social skills are defined as the knowledge and availability of behaviors that the individual can flexibly and appropriately adjust depending on the social situation (Fydrich & Bürgener, 1999). Hopko, McNeil, Zvolensky, and Eifert (2001) have suggested that the term “social performance” should be used when describing an individual's behavior in observational studies, because the term “social skill” not only refers to the actual behavior, but implies that the individual may not be able to show adequate behavior despite having the behavior repertoire and knowledge (see also Bögels & Voncken, 2008). Observational studies do not usually allow distinguishing between lack of ability and situational inhibiting factors (e.g., anxiety). Indeed, social performance may be more relevant for understanding and treating social anxiety because it determines how an individual is perceived by others (Alden & Taylor, 2004). A standard approach in examining putative differences in social performance between individuals with and without social anxiety is exposing participants to common social situations such as a speech or an interaction. Discrepancies between self versus other ratings of social performance have supported the notion of a biased perception of the self as suggested by modern cognitive theories of social anxiety disorder (SAD; Clark and Wells, 1995 and Rapee and Heimberg, 1997). Most consistently, individuals with SAD underestimate their actual performance when compared to observer performance ratings in speech (Rapee & Lim, 1992) as well as in interaction situations (Stopa & Clark, 1993). Moreover, socially anxious and nonanxious participants have been compared with regard to specific overt behaviors (e.g., gaze contact, pauses during speech: Hofmann, Gerlach, Wender, & Roth, 1997) or overall impression of their performance (Norton & Hope, 2001) as perceived by independent observers or the confederate. Individuals with SAD seem to perform worse in social interaction situations compared to healthy participants (Baker and Edelmann, 2002, Norton and Hope, 2001 and Voncken and Bogels, 2008), participants with other anxiety disorders (Fydrich, Chambless, Perry, Buergener, & Beazley, 1998) and individuals with dysthymia (Norton & Hope, 2001). For speech tasks, the findings are more complex. Some studies suggest lower performance in individuals with SAD compared to controls (Moscovitch & Hofmann, 2007), others failed to detect differences (Voncken & Bogels, 2008). In their review on the effects of social anxiety on social performance, Strahan and Conger (1999) underline that the performance of socially anxious individuals is often comparable to the one of healthy controls. They propose that this may reflect the highly idiosyncratic nature of situationally elicited fear. Between group differences may not consistently be obtained due to high within-group variability with regard to elicited fear. They also suggest that social performance is disrupted depending on cognitive and physiological arousal. Consistent with this view, current cognitive models of social anxiety assume that actual social performance should be reduced due to anxiety-related inhibition of situationally adequate behaviors (Clark and Wells, 1995 and Rapee and Heimberg, 1997) and therefore is likely to depend on the specific situation (e.g., Beidel et al., 1985 and Rapee and Lim, 1992). Clark and Wells (1995) proposed that individuals rely on safety behaviors to cope with anxiety related symptoms, which are subsequently interpreted by others as unfriendly or arrogant (Alden & Wallace, 1995). Hence, safety behaviors and cognitive factors, as suggested in the Clark and Wells model, may account for the variance of social performance across situations. If anxiety inhibits social performance, observed social performance should depend on the severity of the cognitive, behavioral and physiological anxiety response. Interestingly, the relationship between model-derived cognitive, behavioral, and physiological variables and social performance has not been studied extensively. It is unclear which factors contribute to social performance as perceived by others. In socially anxious individuals participating in an opposite-sex interaction, higher self and confederate ratings of anxiety were related to lower perceived social performance (Beidel et al., 1985). In a conversation task, self-reported negative cognitions were the only significant predictor of a social performance score as rated by independent video raters (Norton & Hope, 2001). Furthermore, greater self-focused attention has been related to low social performance in a speech as rated by the participant and the audience, but only when the participants lacked confidence in their social skills prior to the task (Burgio, Merluzzi, & Pryor, 1986). Finally, self-reported anxiety and physiological arousal have been associated with lower observer rated social performance, but only when impression management demands were low (Sheffer, Penn, & Cassisi, 2001). To summarize, there is some evidence for a potential influence of situational anxiety, cognitive processes, safety behaviors and self-focused attention on how an individual is perceived by others in a social situation. However, more generalized conclusions are difficult because, across studies, the reporting source of the predictor and the criterion variables (participants themselves, confederates, independent observers) greatly varied as did the measure used for determining social performance (single-item, standard behavioral ratings systems). In the present study, participants with SAD and healthy controls (HC) participated in an interaction task. Based on the Clark and Wells (1995) model, core cognitive (anxiety, negative/positive cognitions, and self-focused attention), behavioral (safety behaviors) and physiological (heart rate, perceived physical symptoms) variables were measured by self-report of the participant and by confederate report. Since the ratings of the various variables may affect the rating of perceived social performance and vice versa, independent observers assessed social performance using a standard behavioral coding system. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate variables derived from the cognitive model as predictors of observer rated social performance, taking into account the reporting source, i.e. the participant him/herself or the confederate as a proxy of the observer's perspective. Specifically, we predicted individuals with SAD to perform worse during social interaction compared to HC using a standardized behavioral coding system. Furthermore, as suggested by Clark and Wells (1995), we expected individuals with SAD to report more dysfunctional cognitions, greater self-focused attention, as well as more safety behaviors, and to be more physiologically aroused which in turn would impair social performance. We further expected that these cognitive, behavioral and physiological variables would emerge as significant predictors for social performance both when assessed by self-report and when judged by the confederate.

3. Results 3.1. Clinical measures The MANOVA revealed a main effect of group (F(4,123) = 38.87, p < .001; ηp2 = .6), with univariate follow-up ANOVAs indicating that individuals with SAD reported significantly more social fears (SIAS, SPS), fear of negative evaluation (FNE) and depressive symptoms (CES-D) compared to HC (p's < .05; Table 1). 3.2. Behavioral test Self-report ratings: Using all self-report cognitive, behavioral and physiological variables measured during the behavioral test as dependent measures, the MANOVA revealed a significant between group effect (F(8,123) = 5.2, p < .001; ηp2 = .28). Participants with SAD endorsed higher self-reported anxiety (F(1,123) = 18.91, p < .001), fewer positive cognitions (F(1,123) = 7.48, p < .01), more negative cognitions (F(1,121) = 43.38, p < .001), a greater internal focus of attention (F(1,123) = 22.09, p < .001), more safety behaviors (F(1,118) = 29.59, p < .001) and perceived more physical symptoms ( Table 2). Table 2. Means (standard deviations) of self-reported and confederate rated cognitive, behavioral, and physiological measures for participants with social anxiety disorder (SAD) and healthy controls (HC). SAD M (SD) HC M (SD) Self-report Anxiety (VAS) 37.0 (26.7) 19.4 (26.9) Self-focused attention (FAQ) 20.00 (8.0) 11.00 (8.0) Safety behaviors (SBQ) 26.4 (8.8) 17.6 (6.6) Positive cognitions (SISST) 19.5 (10.5) 25.5 (9.0) Negative cognitions (SISST) 30 (13.5) 10.5 (12.0) Perceived body symptoms (0–40) 10.00 (13.1) 3.00 (2.00) Confederate rating Anxiety (0–5) 3.9 (2.52) 0.39 (0.87) Self-focused attention (0–100) 53.03 (21.51) 36.67 (19.51) Safety behaviors (SBQ-other) 20.61 (9.46) 10.54 (3.96) Absolute talking time (s) 118.6 (55.1) 159.8 (39.3) Heart rate (bpm) during interaction 83.2 (13.2) 85.5 (10.9) Note: VAS: Visual Analoque Scale; FAQ: Focus of Attention Questionnaire; SBQ: Safety Behavior Questionnaire; SISST: Social Interaction and Self-Statement Test. Table options Confederate ratings: The overall MANOVA revealed a significant group effect (F(3,123) = 10.09, p < .001; ηp2 = .22). Individuals with SAD were rated as showing more safety behaviors (F(1,123) = 16.52, p < .001), being more self-focused (F(1,123) = 7.7, p < .001) and being more anxious as compared to controls (F(1,123) = 31.13, p < .001) ( Table 2). Social performance and talking time: Social performance of participants with SAD (M = 13.5, SD = 4.2) was rated as significantly poorer than that of HC (M = 10.1, SD = 3.2; F(1,123) = 7.5, p = .01, ηp2 = .07; higher scores reflecting lower performance). As individuals with SAD talked significantly less compared to HC (F(1,123) = 7.64, p = .007), this analysis was repeated with absolute talking time as covariate. The between group effect failed to reach significance when considering absolute talking time (F(1,123) = 1.40, p = .24, ηp2 = .01), which was revealed as significant covariate (F(1,123) = 81.92, p < .001, ηp2 = .42). Heart rate: No group differences emerged for heart rate (F(1,90) = .31, p = .58). 3.3. Relationship between self- and confederate report Self- and confederate ratings for anxiety, safety behaviors, and self-focused attention were significantly correlated at a moderate to high level (Table 3). Table 3. Bivariate correlations between self and confederate rated variables. Confederate rating anxiety Confederate rating self-focused attention Confederate rating safety behaviors Self-report anxiety .54** .22* .35** Self-report self-focused attention .36** .35** .26** Self-report safety behaviors .40** .23* .28** * p < .05. ** p < .001. Table options 3.4. Prediction of observer-rated social performance As absolute talking time differed between groups, hierarchical regressions were computed with absolute talking time entered in step one and the model variables entered in step two. Model 1—self-ratings as predictors: Absolute talking time emerged as the best predictor for observer rated social performance (F(1,123) = 80.32, p < .001; R2 = .49, Table 4). Above and beyond talking time, only self-reported positive cognitions further increased the amount of accounted variance (F(8,123) = 12.5, p < .001). However, although significant, the change in R2 was only marginal (ΔR2 = .07). Table 4. Regression analysis predicting observer rated social performance during conversation using participants self-report and confederate ratings. Self-report variable B SE B β R2 Step 1 Absolute talking time (s) −.05 .01 −.68*** .49*** Step 2 Absolute talking time (s) −.05 .01 −.64*** .54*** Anxiety (VAS) −.03 .02 −.20 Perceived physical symptoms 1.38 .87 .22 Positive cognitions (SISST) −1.14 .56 −.17** Negative cognitions (SISST) .71 .57 .15 Self-focused attention (FAQ) −.54 .53 −.11 Safety behaviors (SBQ) −.01 1.28 .00 Heart rate (bpm) −.03 .03 −.1 Confederate ratings Step 1 Absolute talking time (s) −.05 .01 −.67*** .48*** Step 2 Absolute talking time (s) −.04 .01 −.52*** Anxiety (0–5) −.70 .45 −.14 .58*** Self-focused attention (FAQ) .05 .02 .25** Safety behaviors (SBQ-other) 1.90 1.14 .19* Note: VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; FAQ: Focus of Attention Questionnaire; SBQ: Safety Behavior Questionnaire; SISST: Social Interaction and Self-statement Test. ***p < .001, **p < .05, *p < .1. Table options Model 2—confederate ratings as predictors: Consistent with the regression model using self-ratings, absolute talking time contributed most to observer rated social performance (F(1,123) = 90.43, p < .001; R2 = .48; Table 4). Confederate rated self-focused attention further increased the amount of explained variance (F(4,123) = 30.96, p < .001). Yet, R2 increased only slightly (ΔR2 = .09). 3.5. Relationship between talking time and Clark and Wells (1995) variables As absolute talking time turned out to be the strongest predictor of observer rated social performance regardless of whether participants’ self-report or the confederate's ratings were included as predictors, zero-order correlations between talking time and the participant's self-report and the confederate's ratings were computed. Longer talking time was significantly associated with a lower confederate's rating of the participant's safety behaviors (Table 5). A similar pattern was obtained for the participants’ self-ratings of anxiety, safety behaviors, and negative cognitions with the obtained correlation coefficients being small in size. Self-reported positive cognitions were significantly related to greater observer-rated social performance, though at a low level. Table 5. Zero-order correlations among self-report and confederate rated variables, absolute talking time and social performance. Social performance Talking time Self-report Anxiety (VAS) .23* −.24* Self-focused attention (FAQ) .20* −.19* Safety behaviors (SBQ) .24* −.20* Positive cognitions (SISST) −.20* .18 Negative cognitions (SISST) .30* −.23* Perceived body symptoms (0–40) .13 −.11 Confederate rating Anxiety (0–5) .47** −.46** Self-focused attention (0–100) .56** −.48** Safety behaviors (SBQ-other) .57** −.48** Heart rate (bpm) during interaction −.1 .14 Social performance – .67** Note: VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; FAQ: Focus of Attention Questionnaire; SBQ: Safety Behavior Questionnaire; SISST: Social Interaction and Self-statement Test. ***p < .001,**p < .05, *p < .1.