Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive
All Theses and Dissertations
2015-06-01
Social Withdrawal and Internalizing Problems in
Emerging Adulthood: Does Parenting Matter?
Stephanie Shea Luster
Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Luster, Stephanie Shea, "Social Withdrawal and Internalizing Problems in Emerging Adulthood: Does Parenting Matter?" (2015). All
Theses and Dissertations. Paper 5532.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations
by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Social Withdrawal and Internalizing Problems in Emerging Adulthood:
Does Parenting Matter?
Stephanie Shea Luster
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of
Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Larry J. Nelson, Chair
Laura M. Padilla-Walker
Jason S. Carroll
Brian J. Willoughby
Dean M. Busby
School of Family Life
Brigham Young University
June 2015
Copyright © 2015 Stephanie Shea Luster
All Rights Reserved
ABSTRACT
Social Withdrawal and Internalizing Problems in Emerging Adulthood:
Does Parenting Matter?
Stephanie Shea Luster
School of Family Life, BYU
Doctor of Philosophy
The first purpose of this study was to investigate the direct effects of three subtypes of social
withdrawal (shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability, respectively) on internalizing outcomes
(depression, emotional dysregulation, and self-worth, respectively) in emerging adulthood and to
examine these effects by gender. A second purpose was to examine if parenting moderates (i.e.,
exacerbates or buffers) the main effects of social withdrawal on internalizing outcomes.
Participants included 790 undergraduate students from four universities in the United States
(Mage = 19.61, SD = 1.85, range = 18–29; 243 males, 547 females) and their mothers. Regression
analyses established that shyness was associated with higher levels of depression and emotional
dysregulation as well as lower self-worth for males and females. Social avoidance was linked
with higher levels of depression and emotional dysregulation for females only. Finally,
unsociability was associated with lower levels of depression and dysregulation for both genders.
Analyses also established that parenting did not moderate depression, emotional dysregulation,
or self-worth with regard to shyness or social avoidance. However, helicopter parenting
moderated the links between unsociability and depression. Authoritative parenting moderated
the links between unsociability and dysregulation and self-worth. Discussion focuses on the
outcomes for emerging adults and the moderating roles of gender and parenting.
Keywords: emerging adulthood, social withdrawal, internalizing outcomes, helicopter parenting,
authoritative parenting
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge and sincerely thank the many who have supported, counseled,
loved, and encouraged me to begin and ultimately complete this journey. To our Heavenly
Father, I am so very thankful for the many blessings bestowed upon me and my loved ones. To
my husband, I am ever grateful for your encouragement and your belief in me. Without you, this
would not have been possible. I love you with all my heart. To my three girls, Kora, Brightyn,
and Penelope… words cannot convey the love I have for each of you. My greatest blessing and
accomplishment is to be a mother to you three. To all of the family and friends who have
believed in me, thank you. A special acknowledgement is due to my mother, my mother-in-law,
and my grandmother-in-law for the immeasurable support that you continue to provide to me and
my family.
To Dr. Larry Nelson for being the very best mentor I could have wished for, thank you. I
looked forward to each of our meetings and am so thankful you encouraged me to stretch past
my perceived limits but to always keep what is most important in my sights… my relationships
with our Heavenly Father, my husband, and my children. Thank you for being such an amazing
example. To the members of my committee, Dr. Laura Walker, Dr. Dean Busby, Dr. Jason
Carroll, and Dr. Brian Willoughby, thank you for your thoughtful support along the way. I
appreciate and look up to every one of you! To Dr. Chongming Yang for his tremendous
patience and statistical expertise, you are amazing! To the faculty, staff, and my fellow graduate
students at Brigham Young University, I have enjoyed this journey alongside you.
Finally, I dedicate this work to my dad. As my first champion, he encouraged me to
dream bigger and aim higher than I ever aspired to myself. With love. ‘Till we meet again.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review............................................................................................................................ 3
Emerging adulthood: A theory of development.................................................................. 3
Social Withdrawal............................................................................................................... 4
Shyness ................................................................................................................... 6
Avoidance ............................................................................................................... 7
Unsociability ........................................................................................................... 8
Gender ................................................................................................................... 10
The Role of Parenting ....................................................................................................... 11
Social Withdrawal and Helicopter Parenting.................................................................... 15
Social Withdrawal and Authoritative Parenting ............................................................... 17
Present Study ................................................................................................................................ 18
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 20
Participants........................................................................................................................ 20
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 21
Measures ........................................................................................................................... 21
Social withdrawal subtypes................................................................................... 21
Depression............................................................................................................. 22
Emotional dysregulation ....................................................................................... 22
Self-worth ............................................................................................................. 22
v
Helicopter parenting (maternal report) ................................................................. 23
Authoritative parenting (maternal report) ............................................................. 23
Analyses ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Measurement Model of Subtypes of Social Withdrawal .................................................. 26
Measurement Model of Internalizing Outcomes .............................................................. 27
Measurement Model of Moderating Variables ................................................................. 28
Full Structural Equation Model ........................................................................................ 28
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Main Effects ...................................................................................................................... 31
Social Withdrawal and Parenting...................................................................................... 35
Helicopter Parenting ............................................................................................. 35
Authoritative Parenting ......................................................................................... 36
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 38
Future Work and Limitations ............................................................................................ 40
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42
References ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 63
Comprehensive Literature Review ............................................................................................... 75
Emerging adulthood: A theory of development................................................................ 75
Social Withdrawal............................................................................................................. 76
Shyness, Unsociability, and Avoidance ............................................................................ 78
Shyness ................................................................................................................. 78
vi
Unsociability ......................................................................................................... 82
Avoidance ............................................................................................................. 83
The Role of Parenting ....................................................................................................... 85
Social Withdrawal and Helicopter Parenting .................................................................... 89
Social Withdrawal and Authoritative Parenting ............................................................... 91
Comprehensive Literature Review References ............................................................................. 94
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables ................ 63
Table 2. Factor Loadings and Reliability of Study Variables ....................................................... 64
Table 3. Standardized Coefficients for Significant Main Effects and Interaction Effects............ 67
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Model of direct effects of social withdrawal and parenting on internalizing problems as
moderated by the interactions of social withdrawal subtypes and parenting for males and females
....................................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Dysregulation for
Males ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 3. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Self Worth for Males
....................................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Helicopter Parenting on Depression for Males
...................................................................................................................................................... .71
Figure 5. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Dysregulation for
Females ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 6. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Self Worth for
Females ......................................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 7. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Helicopter Parenting on Depression for Females
....................................................................................................................................................... 74
1
Introduction
As emerging adulthood becomes a more widely studied phenomenon in the United States,
a growing number of scholars are interested in the outcomes and experiences of this particular
period. Primary tasks for emerging adults include establishing self-identity, developing social
competence and mature interpersonal relationships, and moving through autonomy and
independence toward a more balanced notion of interdependence (Chickering, 1993). Some
researchers have suggested that an inability to succeed in these tasks may result in negative
outcomes for young people (e.g., Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1994). Many factors influence
how successful emerging adults may be during this time period and one such factor that may thwart
success is social withdrawal. Social withdrawal has been shown to influence individuals in many
negative respects throughout the life course (Caspi, Elder & Bem, 1988); however, it may have an
especially salient impact in emerging adulthood due to the novel and social tasks required of this
developmental period.
Though the term social withdrawal has been used as an “umbrella term” in extant
literature, researchers have conceptually distinguished multiple forms of withdrawal among
children and adolescents (see, Coplan & Rubin, 2010, for a review). Only recently has this
conceptual distinction been made in emerging adulthood as well (see, Nelson, 2013). Nelson
(2013) found that three distinct forms of social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, unsociability,
avoidance) exist in emerging adulthood and that each form has its own unique constellation of
outcomes. For example, Nelson found that shy emerging adults experienced a host of
maladaptive outcomes including higher levels of depression, emotional dysregulation, suicidal
ideation, and lower levels of self-esteem as well as lower quality relationships with parents,
friends, and romantic partners. Socially avoidant emerging adults also reported higher levels of
2
depression and dysregulation as well as self-harm and suicidal ideation, lower self-worth, and
poorer quality relationships. On the other hand, unsociable emerging adults were comparable
with the control group on all outcomes with the exception of depression. Taken together, it is
likely that each form of social withdrawal influences emerging adults negatively in some
respects, though some forms of withdrawal may illicit greater problems than others.
Though scholars have established links between the subtypes of social withdrawal and
various internalizing problems, it is possible that moderating variables may exacerbate or buffer
some of the negative effects. One such variable that might exacerbate the effects of social
withdrawal is overprotective (i.e., helicopter) parenting. Helicopter parenting is defined by
parental over-management of emerging adult children including restricting behaviors and
discouraging independence and autonomy (Schiffrin, Liss, Miles-McLean, Geary, Erchull, &
Tashner, 2013). On the other hand, one variable that might buffer is authoritative parenting,
which has been shown to provide the most positive outcomes for emerging adults (Nelson,
Walker, Christensen, Evans, & Carroll, 2011). Authoritative parenting is comprised of warmth,
involvement, and appropriate autonomy-granting and has been found to play an important role in
fostering the social and emotional competence necessary for success in emerging adulthood. No
studies to date have examined how parenting may serve as a possible negative (i.e.,
exacerbating) or protective (i.e., buffering) factor of internalizing outcomes for emerging adults
who exhibit socially withdrawn behaviors. Therefore, the primary study goals are: first, to
explore the direct effects of the subtypes of social withdrawal as they related to internalizing
outcomes for emerging-adult males and females; second, to explore the potential interactive
effects of parenting (i.e., helicopter parenting and warm, involved, autonomy-granting parenting)
and subtypes of social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, avoidance, unsociability) as they related to
3
internalizing adjustment (i.e., depression, dysregulation, self-worth) of emerging-adult males and
females.
Literature Review
Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development
There is a great deal of individual variation in the paths that young people take as they
mature and develop throughout the third decade of life. Culture, socio-economic status, and
individual characteristics shape expectations and opportunities that impact individuals during
this period of time (Bowker, Nelson, Markovic, & Luster, 2014). Because of this individual
variance, no one theory captures all developmental pathways out of adolescence and through the
third decade of life. However, emerging adulthood theory (Arnett, 2000) is useful in capturing
some of the unique aspects of this time period. This theory will provide the foundation for
understanding the potential impacts of social withdrawal during this period of development
(Bowker et al., 2013).
In 2000, Arnett proposed a theory of a new developmental period beginning in the late
teens and continuing through the mid-twenties called emerging adulthood. This developmental
period is characterized by profound change and importance in the lives of young people in
industrialized countries, where marriage and parenthood are typically postponed until after
schooling has concluded (Arnett, 2000, 2010). Five features have been outlined as important
facets of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). First, it is an age of feeling in-between, wherein the
majority of Americans in their late teens to early twenties characterize themselves as reaching
adulthood in some respects but not others. Second, it is an age of possibilities as most emerging
adults report feeling optimistic about their futures. Despite the number of possible hurdles in
emerging adulthood, nearly 96% of 18-24 year olds reported that they would achieve their
4
personal expectations for the future (Hornblower, 1997), and nearly nine out of ten are confident
that they will eventually get what they want out of life (Clark University, 2012). Third, it is an
age of instability, as emerging adults experience many changes in their work, study, and
relationships. Fourth, it is an age of identity exploration. Intra- and inter-personal exploration in
love, work, and worldview is at an all-time high. “Explorations in love become more intimate
and serious” in emerging adulthood and require a deeper focus on the potential for intimacy
(Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults are also able to try out a number of different jobs to discover
what they really want in a long-term, satisfying adult career. Finally, it is a self-focused age of
life because emerging adults are free from many of the obligations that shift focus away from
learning about who they truly are and what they want from life.
Though there is individual variance in emerging adulthood, each of the five features
detailed above (i.e., feeling in-between, possibilities, instability, exploration, and self-focus) may
be struggling points for socially withdrawn emerging adults. Emerging adults are expected to
engage in a variety of novel and social interactions (e.g., dating, hanging out, work
environments, apartments/dorms, classrooms; Bowker et al., 2014). It is likely that social
withdrawal will hamper emerging adults’ participation and success in these social situations and
may also influence how they feel about themselves. Therefore, the study of social withdrawal in
emerging adulthood is deserving of more empirical attention.
Social Withdrawal
Social withdrawal has been defined as a consistent display of solitary behavior across
both familiar and unfamiliar social situations (Burgess, Rubin, Cheah, & Nelson, 2001). Simply
put, social withdrawal entails individuals actively isolating or withdrawing themselves from
social interaction. The study of solitary behaviors throughout the life span has included
5
numerous constructs such as behavioral inhibition, reticence, shyness, avoidance, and
unsociability, all of which fall under a larger umbrella term “social withdrawal” (Nelson, 2013;
Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Often these terms have been used interchangeably leading to
inconsistencies in both definition and assessment (Rubin et al., 2009b). However, scholars have
begun to deconstruct social withdrawal into psychologically meaningful, consistent, and distinct
subtypes of behaviors based on underlying motivations (i.e., approach-avoidance) for withdrawal
(e.g., Asendorpf, 1990; Nelson, 2013; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993; Rubin, Bowker, & Kennedy,
2009; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Therefore, utilizing an approach-avoidance conceptual model
(Asendorpf, 1990, 1993) may provide a helpful framework for understanding the subtypes of
social withdrawal.
Asendorpf (1990) suggested that social withdrawal may be the result of two relatively
independent motivational drives: social approach and social avoidance. Using this framework,
Asendorpf identified three distinct sub-groups of socially withdrawn children. Shyness is
characterized by an approach-avoidance conflict, wherein a high social approach motivation is
coupled with a high social avoidance motivation (Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, & Armer, 2004;
Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Thus, shy individuals want to engage in peer interaction but are
hampered by the wariness, fear, and anxiety they experience (Rubin & Burgess, 2002). Second,
avoidance is characterized by low social approach and high social avoidance motivations
(Asendorpf, 1990, 1993). Individuals who are avoidant purposefully withdraw from and avoid
social interaction. Finally, unsociability is defined by a low social approach motivation coupled
with a low social avoidance motivation (Asendorpf, 1990, 1993). Unsociable individuals appear
to neither oppose nor desire peer interaction and thus appear to be quite comfortable in solitude.
6
This approach-avoidance model has been useful in determining how shyness, avoidance,
and unsociability are related but unique dimensions of withdrawal in childhood, adolescence, and
emerging adulthood (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan & Weeks, 2010; Coplan, Rose-Krasnor,
Weeks, Kingsbury, Kingsbury, & Bullock, 2013; Nelson, 2013). It is important that scholarly
work in emerging adulthood differentiates between those who want to interact with others but are
too fearful or wary to do so (i.e., shy), those who actively avoid social interaction (i.e., avoidant)
and finally, those who are not afraid to interact but simply do not desire to initiate social
interaction (i.e., unsocial). Nelson (2013) was the first to validate the subtypes of social
withdrawal in emerging adulthood following the work by Coplan in early childhood and Bowker
in adolescence. In his piece, Nelson identified shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability in a
college sample of emerging adults. In addition to identifying these subtypes, Nelson also related
each unique construct to various internalizing, externalizing, and relationship outcomes. These
relationships will be discussed further below. Unfortunately, to date, little work outside of
Nelson’s has examined the correlates and outcomes of each form of social withdrawal during
emerging adulthood.
Shyness. Employing the approach-avoidance conceptual model, shyness may best be
defined as an internal conflict between the desire for and the avoidance of social interaction.
Shyness is the most frequently studied form of social withdrawal and is characterized by socially
wary behaviors and anxiety in the face of novel social situations and perceived social evaluation
(Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). A number of researchers have
directly linked shyness to various indices of maladjustment, especially of an internalizing nature,
across the life span (Coplan & Armer, 2007). For example, in preschool and kindergarten,
shyness is linked to poor social competence, low self-esteem and high anxiety (Coplan & Armer,
7
2007; Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Coplan, Findlay, & Nelson, 2004). In elementary grades, these
same children suffer from peer rejection, isolation, and poor academics (Coplan, GavinskiMolina, Lagace-Sequin, & Wichmann, 2001; Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Hart, Yang, Nelson,
Robinson, Olsen, & Nelson, et al., 2000). As they enter middle and late childhood, shy children
continue to suffer with low self-esteem and internalizing problems such as depression and
anxiety (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hymel, Bowker, &
Woody, 1993; Rubin 1993). In adolescence, similar outcomes are found including loneliness,
depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon,
1995). Nelson et al. (2008) and Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, and Boswell (2006) found that
shy emerging adults reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness, along with
lower levels of self-worth, and they perceived themselves more negatively in social acceptance
than their non-shy peers. In extension of the work above, Nelson’s 2013 study also found that
shy emerging adults struggle with internalizing problems (i.e., depression, emotional
dysregulation, self-worth, suicidal ideations) and quality relationships. Shy individuals reported
lower quality relationships with their mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners.
Taken together, the implications of shyness appear to be relatively well-defined. Many studies
have found those exhibiting shy behaviors to be “at risk” for a number of poor outcomes
throughout the life span.
Avoidance. Second, using the approach-avoidance motivation as a guiding framework,
avoidance has been determined as a subtype of social withdrawal in emerging adulthood (i.e.,
low-social approach coupled with high-social avoidance, Asendorpf, 1990). Individuals who
display avoidant behaviors appear to seek solitude while actively avoiding social interaction.
Although Asendorpf (1990) suggested that avoidant individuals would be particularly at risk for
8
social and emotional maladaptation, these individuals remain the least studied (Coplan & Armer,
2007). Though the basis of social avoidance is unknown, a few researchers have suggested that
it is actually a manifestation of extreme fearful shyness (Coplan & Armer, 2007; Schmidt & Fox,
1999). This fear may have a physiological basis that contributes to low-social approach and
high-social avoidance motivation (Coplan & Armer, 2007).
Coplan et al. (2006) found that avoidant children had the highest levels of negative affect
and depressive symptoms along with the lowest levels of positive affect and overall well-being
when compared with other children. Children who avoid social interaction may be at risk for
social isolation during the critical years of adolescence, when their self-exclusion from peers
further denies opportunities to experience the benefits of positive social interactions with others
(Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Numerous researchers have linked peer rejection with
several indices of maladjustment including depression, loneliness, poor self-concept, and
psychopathology (see, McDougall, Hymel, Vaillancourt, & Mercer, 2001, for a review). Nelson
(2013) identified similar findings in emerging adulthood for socially avoidant emerging adults.
Specifically, Nelson found that avoidant emerging adults reported internalizing problems
including lower self-worth, and higher levels of depression, emotional dysregulation, suicidal
ideation, and self-harm than the control group. Also, social avoidant emerging adults reported
lower quality relationships with their mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partner. In
sum, these studies suggest that social avoidance may be a serious risk factor for emerging adults.
Unsociability. Finally, using the approach-avoidance model, a non-fearful preference for
solitude has been labeled unsociability or social disinterest in childhood, adolescence, and
emerging adulthood (i.e., low-social approach and low-social avoidance) (e.g., Asendorpf, 1993;
Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2004b; Nelson, 2013; Rubin et al., 2009). Individuals who
9
display unsociable behaviors do not appear to be strongly averse to or fearful of social
interaction with peers; however, they also do not appear to have a desire to initiate social
interaction (Asendorpf, 1990; Coplan et al., 2004b; Nelson, 2013; Rubin & Coplan, 2004; Rubin,
Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995). If called upon, these individuals are competently capable of
participating in social situations (Asendorpf, 1993). As such, some have suggested that
unsociability may be less detrimental than shyness (Coplan & Weeks, 2010).
Indeed, results from several studies have found only a few associations between
unsociability and internalizing problems (e.g., Asendorpf & Meier, 1993; Coplan, Wilson,
Frohlick, & Zelenski, 2006; Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997). Harrist et al. (1997)
used a cluster approach to identify subtypes of withdrawal among children, and they found that
though unsociable children engaged in less social interaction with their peers, they were
otherwise indistinguishable from their non-withdrawn peers on a number of social and cognitive
variables. Similarly, in another study, unsociable children were not found to experience more
internalizing problems, anxiety, or loneliness than comparison peers (Coplan & Weeks, 2010).
The fact that these children do not experience increased loneliness suggests that they do indeed
prefer to be alone.
Overall, unsociability is assumed to be relatively benign in the early years (Rubin &
Asendorpf, 1993). However, some scholars have suggested that unsociability may become
increasingly maladaptive with age (Coplan & Weeks, 2010; Mills & Rubin, 1988; Nelson et al.,
2006; Younger & Piccinin, 1989), whereas others suggest that the positive benefits of solitude in
later adolescence and early adulthood may negate the maladaptive features of unsociability
(Burke, 1991; Larson, 1997; Long & Averill, 2003; Long, Seburn, Averill, & More, 2003; Wang,
Rubin, Laursen, Booth-LaForce, & Rose-Krasnor, 2013). In support of the latter notion, Nelson
10
(2013) found that unsociable emerging adults did not differ from a control group on any
internalizing or relationship outcomes with the exception of depression, wherein the unsociable
group had higher levels of depression than the control group but lower levels than the shyness
and avoidance groups. Due to limited study of unsociability in emerging adulthood, individuals
who exhibit unsociable behaviors deserve further attention.
Gender. It is also important to note the possible gender differences regarding outcomes
for the subtypes of social withdrawal. First regarding shyness, early work found that shy boys
are more likely to suffer from negative outcomes than shy girls (Caspi, 2000; Caspi et al., 1988;
Kerr, Lambert, & Bem, 1996). Specifically, earlier work found that shy boys were more likely
to delay entry into marriage, parenthood, and stable careers (Caspi et al., 1988; Kerr et al., 1996).
Shy women were more likely to follow a traditional pattern of marriage, childbearing, and
homemaking (Caspi et al., 1988). It has been suggested that shy women may have been more
likely to follow this conventional pattern because their shyness inhibited them from pursuing
other opportunities (Nelson et al., 2008). It is also possible that these shy women were simply
following the gendered expectations of the times and culture. Kerr et al. studied a birth cohort
from the 1950’s in Sweden, where shy behavior was more positively viewed than it is in North
America (Chen, 2010). Similarly, Caspi and Caspi et al. studied birth cohorts from the 1920’s
through the 1970’s and trends have drastically changed over the past few decades (McLanahan,
2004). Indeed, more recent research has found few gender differences in middle childhood
(Coplan & Weeks, 2010), adolescence (Bowker & Raja, 2011), and emerging adulthood
outcomes (Nelson et al., 2008; Nelson, 2013) regarding shyness, social avoidance, and
unsociability. It is possible that the few gender differences seen by Nelson et al. (2008) and
Nelson (2013) are a reflection of these changed expectations and the different cultures in which
11
the studies were conducted. In generations past, it was expected that children would leave home,
set up their own households, get married, and have children (Whitehead & Popenoe, 2002).
Today, emerging adults are delaying marriage and parenthood (Carroll, Willoughby, Badger,
Nelson, Madsen, & Barry, 2007; Jamison & Ganong, 2011). Women are more likely to initiate
dating or hanging out (Arnett, 2004). More men and women are seeking college educations
(Arnett, 2000; Carroll et al., 2007). In fact, women today are more likely to obtain college
degrees and to enroll in graduate school than men (Diprete & Buchmann, 2013). These changing
dynamics may be bridging the gap between expectations for men and women in emerging
adulthood especially in North America. Thus it is expected that each of the subtypes of social
withdrawal will impact both men and women more equally in today’s world as both genders are
both expected to take a more equal role in initiating romantic relationships, furthering their
educations, and securing employment. Therefore, either men or women who struggle to do these
things due to fear, anxiety, or simple lack of desire may experience problematic outcomes.The
Role of Parenting
Thus far, this review has demonstrated how different typologies of social withdrawal
might impact individuals at different stages of development. Though research has linked the
subtypes of social withdrawal with internalizing difficulties, shyness, social avoidance, and
unsociability likely does not equal maladaptive outcomes for all. It has been suggested that
withdrawn behavior may be exacerbated or ameliorated through environmental influences such
as parenting (Burgess et al., 2001). Some research has focused on the joint effects of parenting
and individual characteristics (i.e., temperamental and personality) to determine how together
they might influence adjustment. Gallagher (2002) stated that modest relations and limited
theoretical support have rendered main-effects models of temperament/personality and parenting
12
obsolete and that researchers should consider focusing on the interactive effects of both.
Similarly, decades ago, Bronfenbrenner (1979) stated that the principal effects of parenting and
individual characteristics are likely to be interactions. Gallagher (2002) further issued this
challenge “It is clear that the socialization needs of children change as development progresses;
further research is needed to examine parenting and temperament interaction at different
developmental periods” (p. 638).
Emerging adulthood is an interesting period, where the majority of 18-29 year olds
attending college do not consider themselves to be adults and neither do their parents (e.g.,
Arnett, 2000; Nelson et al., 2008, 2011). In fact, many parents still feel the need to be active in
parenting to help their children navigate this developmental period (Arnett, 2000). Many
emerging adults and their parents report frequent communication via cell phone, text messaging,
email, and social networking, and this “electronic tether” has been regarded as one such vehicle
for maintaining parental influence during emerging adulthood (Hofer, Souder, Kennedy,
Fullman, & Hurd, 2009). This work suggests the capacity for parental influence even during this
time of growing autonomy. As McKinney and Renk (2008) suggest, parenting may function as a
moderator to facilitate or impede adjustment for young individuals even in this transitional
developmental period.
Though parenting is important, it is important to remember that individuals may vary in
their susceptibility to socialization influences including parenting. Thus, some will be more or
less affected in positive and/or negative ways depending on their individual characteristics such
as shyness, avoidance, and unsociability. Thomas and Chess (1977) hypothesized that positive
adjustment is a result of “good-of-fit” between an individual and their environment. Their
“goodness-of-fit theory” (Thomas & Chess, 1977; Thomas, Chess & Birch, 1968) suggests that
13
adaptive and maladaptive outcomes are determined by the match between an individual’s
temperament and the demands of specific contexts such as parenting (Rothbart & Putnam, 2002;
Sanson & Rothbart, 1995). “Simply defined, goodness of fit results when the child’s capacities,
motivations and temperament are adequate to master the demands, expectations, and
opportunities of the environment” (Chess & Thomas, 1989, p. 380). Essentially, different
approaches to parenting will fit different children and outcomes may be optimized when
parenting is sensitive to the child’s temperamental characteristics (Sanson & Rothbart, 1995).
Goodness-of-fit theory provides a framework for understanding the potential interaction
effects of parenting and subtypes of social withdrawal on young peoples’ internalizing outcomes.
Indeed, thus far, this review has demonstrated how social withdrawal might impact individuals at
different stages of development generally and during emerging adulthood specifically. Though
research has linked the subtypes of social withdrawal with internalizing difficulties, withdrawn
behavior is not associated with maladaptive outcomes for all. It is possible that shyness, social
avoidance, and unsociability may be moderated through environmental influences such as
parenting (Burgess et al., 2001). Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggested that parenting may
alter the efficacy of the parents’ socialization efforts and thereby, may moderate specific child
developmental outcomes.
Much research has focused on the moderating influence of parenting in child and
adolescent development, however, less work has focused on this influence in emerging
adulthood and none has specifically looked at the interactive influences of parenting and social
withdrawal. Though emerging adulthood is commonly thought of as a time when parents have
less influence on their children, researchers have suggested that most emerging adults are still
quite connected with their parents and that this relationship remains influential in emerging
14
adults’ lives (Aquilino, 1997; Pagano, Hirsch, Deutsch, & McAdams, 2002; Simpson, 2001;
Steinberg & Sheffield Morris, 2001). Thus, as McKinney and Renk (2008) suggest, parenting
may still facilitate or impede adjustment during this developmental period.
I propose that parenting may have a profound influence on child outcomes and that
certain parenting approaches may provide a particularly “bad” or “good” fit with regard to
shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability. Research conducted thus far has focused on
parenting and shyness in childhood (see, Rubin & Burgess, 2002; Coplan, Arbeau, & Armer,
2008), however, this work provides a foundation for understanding how the two might also
interact in emerging adulthood. Much of this research in childhood focused on “over-protective”
parenting. Overprotective parents tend to micromanage, restrict and direct child behaviors, and
discourage child independence (Rubin et al., 2007). This type of parenting is believed to
undermine the development and practice of coping strategies that are necessary for children to
experience optimal adjustment. Thus, overprotective parenting may actually serve to maintain or
exacerbate social wariness and shyness (Rubin & Burgess, 2002). On the other hand,
authoritative parenting encourages age-appropriate autonomy coupled with high levels of
warmth and involvement (Baumrind, 1971). This parenting approach is often regarded as most
advantageous for children (e.g., Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) and it may be
particularly beneficial in terms of socialization for those who exhibit shy and socially avoidant
behaviors. Specifically, autonomy support has been found to promote self-regulation and
increase social and emotional competence (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). It is possible that all who
exhibit socially withdrawn behaviors may benefit greatly by learning to self-regulate, thereby
increasing their social and emotional competence and their confidence to overcome difficult
situations on their own.
15
In sum, the goodness-of-fit theory and studies reviewed above suggest that parenting
likely continues to play an important role in the lives of emerging adults but parenting also likely
has differing effects on individuals because of their internal constitutions and behaviors. As
noted previously, emerging adulthood is a time marked by a number of new experiences that
must be navigated. Many of these experiences, such as securing employment, attending college,
dating, and having roommates require social interaction and social skills. Shyness and social
avoidance (and perhaps unsociability to a lesser degree) likely hamper success in meeting these
important milestones. However, parental interventions that involve “taking over” may actually
exacerbate the situation. Overprotective parenting may result in negative consequences when
combined with shyness and social avoidance because the child is denied opportunities to
experience healthy psychosocial development and to practice social skills and self-regulation that
are necessary for success (Hastings & Rubin, 1999; Ungar, 2009). On the other hand, warm,
involved, and autonomy-granting parenting may bolster feelings of confidence that are necessary
to succeed by encouraging their children to take an active part in solving their own problems
(Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991). Unfortunately, little empirical work has been done to examine
the veracity of these conceptual and theoretical notions in emerging adulthood. However, there
is a growing amount of empirical evidence regarding over-protective and over-controlling
parenting and social withdrawal in childhood and adolescence, as well as emerging work on
parenting in emerging adulthood. Indeed, research seems to support the notion that specific
parenting approaches (i.e., authoritative, helicopter) in emerging adulthood may exacerbate or
enhance functioning, especially related to internalizing outcomes that have been associated with
shyness and social avoidance.
Social Withdrawal and Helicopter Parenting
16
Emerging adulthood is a time characterized by an increased need for autonomy and as
such, parents should adjust their level of involvement and control accordingly (Schiffrin et al.,
2013). However, there is growing concern that some parents are not making this adjustment and
are continuing to exert a tremendous amount of control over their emerging adult children. This
phenomenon has been labeled “helicopter parenting” in the media and in scholarly work
(Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012). Padilla-Walker and Nelson (2012) believe helicopter
parenting in emerging adulthood is akin to over-protective, over-involved, and over-solicitous
parenting studied in childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood (see, Hastings et al., 2010).
Previous work has established links between over-protective parenting and socially
withdrawn children. Over-protective parenting has been associated with social withdrawal
wherein parents may attempt to shield their withdrawn child from difficult or anxiety-inducing
situations (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Coplan et al., 2004a; Mills & Rubin, 1998; Rubin et al., 1999;
Rubin, Cheah, & Fox, 2001; Rubin et al., 2002). It has been argued that throughout the lifespan,
overprotective parenting may also indirectly influence child outcomes by limiting the acquisition
of social skills and social competence as well as opportunities to practice self-regulation. Indeed,
researchers have found that overprotective parenting has been associated with negative child
outcomes including higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems (Barber, Olsen, &
Shagle, 1994; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000). Emerging evidence suggests that
helicopter parenting is linked to negative outcomes in emerging adulthood as well. Emerging
adults who report having helicopter parents also report decreased feelings of autonomy,
competence, and connection (Schiffrin et al., 2013.) These parents may inadvertently stunt
exploration and independence by “doing” for their children rather than nurturing the ability of
emerging adults to “do” for themselves (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). Not surprisingly,
17
research has shown that emerging adults who claim they have overly involved or helicopter
parents report higher levels of depression and anxiety, more negative views of themselves, and
feel less competent and able to handle life and its stressors (Bronson & Merryman, 2009; Gibbs,
2009; LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Levine, 2006; Marano, 2008; Schiffrin et al., 2013). Taken
together, it is possible that helicopter parenting may exacerbate the links between forms of
withdrawal and negative child outcomes discussed previously but to date, no study has examined
whether or not this is the case.
Social Withdrawal and Authoritative Parenting
In contrast to the possible dangers of helicopter parenting, authoritative parenting is
generally considered to be most advantageous for healthy adjustment among children,
adolescents, and emerging adults (Baumrind, 1971; Nelson et al., 2011; Wood, McLeod,
Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Authoritative parenting includes high levels of warmth and
involvement (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003) however, it also
allows for age-appropriate autonomy granting. The “authoritative” parenting measure utilized in
this study includes the three dimensions associated with authoritative parenting, namely, warmth,
involvement, and autonomy-support. The use of the term “authoritative parenting” throughout
this manuscript is for parsimony though the author acknowledges that the measures utilized refer
to the three dimensions of parenting specifically rather than an overall authoritative parenting
style. This approach to parenting allows for children to take an active role in solving their own
problems and has been found to lead to better social and emotional adjustment, including less
anxiety and depression (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Kenney-Benson & Pomerantz, 2005).
Authoritative parenting may benefit well-being indirectly by fostering a sense of autonomy and
18
social competence, which are associated with success in Western cultures (Baumrind, 1978:
Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003).
Despite the numerous findings related to the positive outcomes of authoritative parenting
for children generally, there is a paucity of literature regarding authoritative parenting and the
relationship it may have with shyness, avoidance, and unsociability. Coplan and colleagues
(2004a) found a negative association between shyness and maternal authoritative parenting
among preschool children. Similarly, Coplan et al., (2007) found that relationships between
shyness and indices of maladjustment were weaker when mothers displayed an authoritative
parenting style. Indeed, researchers have found that parents who are sensitive and warm and
who encourage independence and peer interaction, can help their children to become less
inhibited and gain positive social skills (e.g., Rubin et al., 2001, 2002).
Though these few studies are a good first step to understanding how helicopter and
authoritative parenting may interact with social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, avoidance, and
unsociability), very little is known about the current influence of parenting in the links between
subtypes of social withdrawal and internalizing problems in emerging adulthood. There is a
need to conduct an examination of how parenting might exacerbate or ameliorate (i.e., moderate)
internalizing outcomes associated with shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability.
Present Study
Based on the aforementioned research findings, shyness and social avoidance can be
regarded as maladaptive forms of social withdrawal from childhood on. Though unsociability
has been regarded as potentially benign, there is still much work to be done regarding this form
of social withdrawal. At this time, only one study has examined the correlates and consequences
of these subtypes of social withdrawal in emerging adulthood and this work did not consider the
19
potentially moderating role of parenting (see, Nelson, 2013). Therefore, the primary study goals
are: first, to explore the direct effects of the subtypes of social withdrawal as they related to
internalizing outcomes for emerging-adult males and females; second, to explore the potential
interactive effects of parenting (i.e., helicopter parenting and warm, involved, autonomy-granting
parenting) and subtypes of social withdrawal (i.e., shyness, avoidance, unsociability) as they
related to internalizing adjustment (i.e., depression, dysregulation, self-worth) of emerging-adult
males and females.
Given the evidence that shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability are not immutable, it
is important to investigate conditions in the social environment that may promote healthy
adjustment and may also lessen problematic adjustment. It was proposed that parenting may be
one such condition in the social environment that can act as a moderator of risk in emerging
adulthood. As such, it was expected that helicopter parenting would be detrimental for shyness,
social avoidance, and unsociability, respectively, as helicopter parenting negatively impacts
young people by (a) interfering with the acquisition of independent and self-regulated behavior,
(b) not allowing children to develop competent social skills, and (c) harming confidence in one’s
skills and abilities, all of which are areas with which these individuals may already struggle
(Nelson, 2013; Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2012; Schiffrin et al., 2013). Therefore, it was
hypothesized that helicopter parenting would moderate (i.e., exacerbate) the links between
shyness, avoidance, and unsociability, respectively, and internalizing problems including
depression, emotional dysregulation, and self-worth.
It was also proposed that authoritative parenting would be beneficial with regard to
shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability, respectively, in emerging adulthood because
authoritative parenting has been shown to (a) support the development of self-regulation, (b) aid
20
in the development of social skills, and (c) support the development of positive self-concept and
self-esteem, all of which are important for developmental success (Baumrind, 1966, 1971, 1977;
Hart et al., 2003). These may be areas of especially critical need for those who are shy, avoidant,
or unsociable. Therefore, it was hypothesized that authoritative parenting would moderate (i.e.,
buffer) the links between shyness, avoidance, and unsociability, respectively, and internalizing
problems including depression, emotional dysregulation, and self-worth.
In addition, little work has been done to examine how the direct effects of social
withdrawal subtypes as well as how the moderating roles of parenting in the links between social
withdrawal and internalizing problems may differ for young men and women. Though previous
work (Caspi et al., 1988; Kerr et al., 1996) found more negative outcomes for shy men than shy
women, more recent work has found few gender differences for shy, avoidant, and unsociable
emerging adults (Nelson, 2013). Because of these conflicting results, it was important to
examine results for males and females respectively, but no specific hypotheses on gender were
given.
Methods
Participants
Participants (Mage = 19.61, SD = 1.85, range = 18–29) in the study included 790
undergraduate students (547 women, 243 men) and their mothers. Participants were recruited
from four universities across the USA: a mid-sized East Coast private university, a large West
coast public university, a large Midwestern public university, and a large Southern public
university. The majority of emerging adults were European-American (69% EuropeanAmerican, 3% African-American, 17% Asian-American, 5% Latino-American, and 3%
mixed/biracial) and living outside of their parents’ homes (90%). Emerging adults reported that
21
60% of fathers and 35% of mothers reported having a bachelor’s degree or more. They also
reported that 23% of parents had a combined income of less than $50,000 per year, and 28%
reported their parents having a combined income of over $100,000 per year.
Procedure
Participants completed the Project READY questionnaire. The use of an online data
collection protocol facilitated unified data collection across multiple university sites and allowed
for the survey to be administered to emerging adults and their parents who were living in
separate locations throughout the country. Participants were recruited through faculty’s
announcement of the study in undergraduate and graduate courses. Informed consent was
obtained online, and only after consent was given could the participants begin the questionnaires.
Each participant was asked to complete a survey battery of 448 items however only a small
portion of these items were utilized in the current study. Sections of the survey addressed topic
areas such as background information, parental characteristics, self-perceptions, personality
traits, values, risk behaviors, dating behaviors, and prosocial behaviors.
Measures
As noted, all measures were collected via the Internet. Because of the number of items in
the survey, some variables (noted below) were measured using shortened versions of established
measures (e.g., self-perception profile, Neeman & Harter, 1986).
Social withdrawal subtypes. Participants completed a 20-item revised version of the
Child Social Preference Scale (Nelson, 2013). For example, items in the child and adolescent
measures frequently use the term ‘play’ or ‘playing’ (e.g., ‘prefer to play with kids than alone’, ‘I
like to play with others, but am nervous to’). In revising the measure for use with emerging
adults, a broader range of settings for social interaction was used (e.g., ‘I prefer working with
22
others rather than alone’, ‘I’d like to hang out with other people, but I’m sometimes nervous to’,
‘I feel nervous at parties and other social settings’). Questions were answered on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). From these twenty items, four scales
emerged (i.e., shy, avoidant, unsocial, isolated), three of the subscales that emerged will be
utilized in this study. The shyness subscale utilized consisted of six items (e.g., ‘I feel tense in
social situations’). The avoidance subscale utilized consisted of six items (e.g., ‘I don’t really
like being with other people and prefer to be alone’). The unsociable subscale utilized consisted
of four items (e.g., ‘I’m just as happy to be by myself as with other people’, and ‘I like spending
time alone more than I like spending time with other people’.
Depression. Participants answered four questions from the original Center for
Epidemiologic Study Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977) in order to assess depression levels over
the last two weeks. Questions were answered on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 3
(most of the time). Sample questions include, ‘I felt everything I did was an effort’, and ‘I felt
sad’.
Emotional dysregulation. In order to measure emotional self-dysregulation, participants
answered five questions on the Emotional Self-Regulation Subscale (Novak & Clayton, 2001).
Participants answered questions on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true).
Sample questions include, ‘I get upset easily’, and ‘I slam doors when I am mad’.
Self-worth. To measure self-worth, participants answered questions from the self-worth
subscale of the Self-Perceptions Profile for college students (Neeman & Harter, 1986). Five
questions were answered on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 4 (very true
for me). Sample questions include, ‘I am often disappointed with myself ’, and ‘I am happy
23
being the way I am’. Negatively worded items were reversed scored so that higher scores
reflected higher levels of self-esteem.
Helicopter parenting (maternal report). To assess helicopter parenting, five items
were used to assess the degree to which mothers make important decisions for their emerging
adult child/ren (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2011). Mothers of emerging adults answered
questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (a lot like me).
Sample items used were, ‘I make important decisions for my child (e.g., where he/she lives,
where he/she works, what classes he/she takes)’, ‘I intervene in settling disputes with my child’s
roommates or friends’, and ‘I solve any crisis or problem my child might have’.
Authoritative parenting (maternal report). To assess participants’ perceived
authoritative parenting, mothers of emerging adults were asked to rate their own parenting on
twenty items derived from the warmth, involvement, and autonomy support subscales of the
Perception of Parents Scale (POPS): College Student Version (Grolnick et al., 1991; Robbins,
1994). Participants responded to items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true)
to 7 (very true). Sample questions include, ‘I find time to talk with my child,’ and ‘I, whenever
possible, allow my child to choose what to do.’
Analyses
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted with Mplus version 7 (Muthén &
Muthén, 1998-2012) to examine measurement qualities and relations of the constructs in this
study. SEM enables us to specify which items are indicators of which latent constructs, test
measurement invariance across gender groups, and estimate correlates of the constructs without
the influence of measurement errors. The result can also be evaluated by certain goodness-of-fit
indices. Prior research suggests that the relations of latent constructs were underestimated when
24
ordinal data were treated as continuous in confirmatory factor analysis (Babakus, Ferguson, &
Joreskog, 1987; Yang et al., 2004). Consequently, all the indicators of the latent constructs were
specified as categorical in the SEMs. In addition, the Omega reliability coefficient (ω) was
utilized as it is particularly appropriate for categorical variables and can overcome the
underestimation of the traditional internal consistency coefficient (McDonald, 1999, p. 88). In
Table 2, the reliability coefficient (OMEGA) of the items of each construct is reported together
with factor loadings.
The SEMs for this study were carried out in three steps (first, measurement model;
second, direct effects SEM; third, full SEM including interaction effects). First, a two group
(males and females) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the social
withdrawal measurement model consisting of shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability. A
second two-group (males and females) CFA was conducted to test the internalizing outcomes
measurement model consisting of depression, emotional dysregulation, and self-worth. A third
and final CFA was conducted to test the moderating variables measurement model consisting of
maternal report of authoritative parenting and maternal report of helicopter parenting. The CFA
for the moderating variable was a single group analysis because only females/mothers response
was utilized for this study thus there was no gender component to the responses.
To ensure that latent constructs were measured invariantly or at least partially invariantly
between the two gender groups, invariance of factor loadings was assessed by comparing
measurement models without equality constraints imposed on the factor loadings with models
that had such constraints utilizing the Wald Chi-square statistic. This Wald Chi-square
difference test between the freely estimated model and a constrained model served as the test of
invariance. Measurement properties of the constructs in this study were reported as factor
25
loadings and omega reliability (ω) in Table 2. Because the computation was too heavy with the
several interaction effects (to be discussed below) to run a typical latent variable structural
model, factor scores were saved for each latent variable assessed in the CFA. Factor scores were
utilized in the full structural model.
Second, the associations of each subtype of social withdrawal and the associations of the
parenting variables with the internalizing outcomes were estimated with a two-group SEM, in
which each subtype of social withdrawal and both parenting variables were specified as predictor
variables and internalizing outcomes were specified as outcome variables.
Third, the relations of each subtype of social withdrawal with the internalizing outcomes
as moderated by authoritative and helicopter parenting (mother report) were estimated with a
two-group SEM. Specifically, the model included three internalizing outcomes that were
specified as outcome variables and each subtype of social withdrawal, authoritative parenting,
and helicopter parenting as the main predictor variables. The moderating effects of authoritative
and helicopter parenting were examined by incorporating the product-terms of parenting factor
score variables with social withdrawal factor score variables into the model. Factor loadings of
variables were constrained to be equivalent between males and females based on previous
invariance tests. Because of a rather large variation in participants’ age (18-29 years), age was
incorporated as a covariate in each SEM to account for the effect of age. Similarly, emerging
adult race/ethnicity was considered as a covariate to account for differences in the sample
population. Gender differences were examined through chi-square difference tests with model
comparisons. Whenever the effect was found statistically equivalent across genders, an equality
constraint was imposed on the paths in the final model for both genders. The final path
coefficients for the relationships are presented in Table 3.
26
Results
Measurement Model of Subtypes of Social Withdrawal
The baseline measurement model of social withdrawal was first estimated with all the
factor loadings freely estimated across the two gender groups, which yielded good fit to the data
(χ² =376.55, df = 163, p<.001, comparative fit index [CFI]=0.99, root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA]=0.06. Measurement invariance of the factor loadings for the social
withdrawal model was tested using the Wald Chi-square test. The non-significance of this test
(χ²diff =1.82, df diff =10, p=.99) indicated that the items used to measure the social withdrawal
subtypes were statistically equivalent for males and females in this sample. Model fit of the
constrained model was also good: (χ² =470.26, df =160, p<.001, CFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.07).
The standardized factor loadings and omega reliability (ω) for the social withdrawal
measurement model are presented in Table 2. For the shyness subtype, all six items were
retained and the factor loadings ranged from .74-.94. The (ω) was .94 for males and .93 for
females. For the social avoidance subtype, two items with high cross loadings were dropped and
thus the final factor included four items with loadings ranging from .49-.95. The (ω) reliability
for this four-item social avoidance factor was .87 for males and .83 for females. For the
unsociability subtype, one item with high cross loading was dropped so the final factor included
three items with factor loadings ranging from .28-.95. The (ω) reliability for the three-item
unsociability factor was .64 for males and .61 for females.
The latent correlations of the subtypes of social withdrawal were relatively high. The
latent correlations for males between the avoidance subscale and the unsociable subscale was
.52. However, the latent correlations for females between the avoidance subscale and the
unsociable subscale was .77 and the latent correlations for females between the shyness subscale
27
and the unsociable subscale was .55. Because of the high intercorrelations among the subtypes
of social withdrawal, alternative models merging constructs were examined to test whether the
three constructs of withdrawal could be distinguished statistically. The chi-square difference
tests and goodness of fit indices showed that the measurement model with three separate social
withdrawal factors fits the data much better than a two-factor or one-factor model. Specifically,
the three-factor model fit was good (χ² =275.80, df =75, p<.001, CFI=0.97, RMSEA=0.06). The
two factor model fit was poor (χ² =718.74, df =89, p<.001; CFI=0.89; RMSEA=0.10). The one
factor model fit was extremely poor (χ² =2421.51, df =104, p<.001; CFI=0.61; RMSEA=0.17).
Measurement Model of Internalizing Outcomes
The baseline measurement model of internalizing outcomes (depression, emotional
dysregulation, and self-worth) was first estimated with all the factor loadings freely estimated
across the two gender groups and yielded acceptable fit to the data (χ² =517.96, df =149, p<.001,
CFI=0.97; RMSEA=0.08. Measurement invariance of the factor loadings for the internalizing
outcomes was assessed using the Wald Chi-square test (χ²diff =9.43, df diff =10, p=.49). The nonsignificance of this test indicated that the factor loadings of the internalizing outcomes tested are
invariant across gender.
The standardized factor loadings and omega reliability (ω) for the internalizing outcomes
measurement model are presented in Table 2. For depression, one item was deleted due to crossloading. The final depression factor consisted of three items, the factor loadings ranged from
.72-.95, and the (ω) was .93 for males and .87 for females. All five items were retained for
emotional dysregulation, the factor loadings ranged from .41-.92, and the (ω) was .88 for males
and .85 for females. Finally, all five items were retained on the self-worth factor, the factor
loadings ranged from .70-.92, and the (ω) was .93 for males and .91 females.
28
Measurement Model of Moderating Variables
The baseline measurement model of the moderating variables: authoritative parenting and
helicopter parenting was first estimated with all the factor loadings freely estimated and yielded
acceptable fit to the data (χ²=713.30, df =151, p<.001, CFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.09). The
standardized factor loadings and omega reliability (ω) for the moderating variables measurement
model are presented in Table 2. For authoritative parenting, 14 items were retained in the final
measure. The range of factor loadings was .52-.82 and the (ω) was .93. For helicopter
parenting, all five items were retained, the range of factor loadings was .51-.91, and the (ω) was
.88.
Full Structural Equation Model
The first full SEM model included only main effects of social withdrawal and parenting.
The moderating effects of respondent gender were examined as non-variant effects of these main
effects between the two groups. This direct effects model yielded good fit to the data (χ²
=104.03, df =56, p<.001; CFI=0.96; RMSEA=0.05; standardized root mean square residual
[SRMR] =0.03. The subsequent model had equality constraints imposed on these main effects
that were ascertained to be non-invariant by Wald Chi-square difference tests. This direct effects
model with equality constraints also yielded good fit to the data (χ² =130.72, df =80 p<.001,
CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.04).
Results showed that for males, standardized main effects of shyness included a positive
association with depression (β= .61) and emotional dysregulation (β= .37) and a negative
association with self-worth (β= -.53). There were no significant main effects for males and
avoidance. Main effects for males and unsociability included a negative association with
depression (β= -.08) and emotional dysregulation (β= -.12). Also, for males, main effects were
29
noted for the following: authoritative parenting was negatively associated with depression (β= .12) and emotional dysregulation (β= -.13) and positively associated with self-worth (β= .13).
Results also indicated that for females, standardized main effects of shyness included a
positive association with depression (β= .24) and emotional dysregulation (β= .18) and a
negative association with self-worth (β= -.42). Main effects for females and avoidance included
a positive association with depression (β= .27) and dysregulation (β= .26). Main effects for
females and unsociability included a negative association with depression (β= -.13) and
dysregulation (β= -.17). Also, for females, main effects were noted for the following:
authoritative parenting was negatively associated with depression (β= -.12) and emotional
dysregulation (β= -.14) and positively associated with self-worth (β= .20).
The next full SEM explored the moderating effects of parenting on social withdrawal by
expanding the direct effects model with one interaction term a time. The interaction was
eliminated for further inclusion if it had no significant effect on any of three endogenous
variables in either males or females. Two interaction terms (unsociability and helicopter
parenting; unsociability and authoritative parenting) were found to have certain significant
effects in at least in one group. However, their effects no longer held when they were pitted
against each other in the same model due to their small effect sizes. Consequently, two separate
models were estimated to include only one interaction effect in each model. Further moderating
effects of gender on these two interactions were respectively examined by testing their
invariance across gender groups. The results reported are based on the models with equality
constraints that Wald Chi-square difference tests proved to be invariant.
Interaction effects SEM Model 1 explored the interaction effects of unsociability and
helicopter parenting and fit the data well (χ²=135.56, df =91, p<.001, CFI=0.97, RMSEA=0.04).
30
Interaction effects for SEM Model 2 explored the interaction effects of unsociability and
authoritative parenting and fit the data well (χ² =139.394, df =91, p<.001, CFI =0.96, RMSEA
=0.04).
Interaction effects for males indicated that authoritative parenting moderated effects of
unsociability on dysregulation (β= -.06) and self-worth (β= .05) whereas helicopter parenting
moderated effects of unsociability on depression (β= .05). Finally, interaction effects for females
indicated that authoritative parenting moderated effects of unsociability on dysregulation (β= .06) and self-worth (β= .05) whereas helicopter parenting moderated effects of unsociability on
depression (β= .08). See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the structural equation model and
Table 3 for all standardized coefficients of main effects and interaction effects for each model.
In order to examine the significant interaction effects of unsociability and helicopter
parenting and unsociability and authoritative mothering on the internalizing outcomes, simple
regression slopes were calculated for males and for females wherein each predictor had values
corresponding to one standard deviation above the mean and one standard deviation below the
mean (Aiken & West, 1991). These simple slopes are shown in figures 2-8.
Discussion
One purpose of this study was to examine the main effects of subtypes of social
withdrawal (i.e., shyness, social avoidance, and unsociability) on internalizing outcomes (i.e.,
depression, dysregulation, and self-worth) and how these main effects may be different for male
and female emerging adults. It was important to explore these main effects by gender because it
remains unclear how different types of withdrawal may influence outcomes differently
depending on gender. A second purpose of this study was to explore the moderating roles of
helicopter and authoritative parenting in the associations between subtypes of social withdrawal
31
and internalizing outcomes for both males and females in emerging adulthood. It was
hypothesized that helicopter parenting would moderate (i.e., exacerbate) and that authoritative
parenting would moderate (i.e., buffer) the links between shyness, avoidance, and unsociability
respectively, and internalizing outcomes.
Main Effects
Main effects showed that shyness was positively linked with depression and
dysregulation, and negatively associated with self-worth for both genders. Main effects for
avoidance existed only for females and indicated that avoidance was positively associated with
depression and dysregulation. Interestingly, unsociability was negatively associated with
depression and dysregulation for both males and females. Though direct effects of parenting and
internalizing outcomes were not of principle interest in this study, it was important to investigate
how the parenting variables and internalizing outcomes were related in this sample.
Interestingly, this study found no significant main effects for helicopter parenting and the
outcome variables of depression, dysregulation, and self-worth. However, as expected, main
effects for authoritative parenting were such that authoritative parenting was associated with
lower levels of depression and dysregulation and higher levels of self-worth for both males and
females.
These findings make a significant contribution to our growing understanding of the roles
that different types of social withdrawal and parenting may play in the lives of emerging-adult
males and females. First, results of this study support Nelson’s (2013) findings that distinct
forms of social withdrawal can be identified in emerging adulthood, that each form is uniquely
related to internalizing outcomes, and that these relationships vary by gender. Previous research
found shyness and social avoidance to be detrimental in terms of depression, emotional
32
dysregulation, and self-worth whereas unsociability was assumed to be more “benign” (Nelson et
al., 2008; Nelson, 2013). Indeed, in extension of Nelson’s work, this study found that shyness
was detrimental for both emerging adult males and females as shyness was positively associated
with depression and dysregulation and negatively associated with self-worth for both genders.
These gender findings are important because early work had suggested that shyness was
potentially more detrimental for males than females during the transition to adulthood (e.g.,
Caspi et al., 1988; Kerr et al., 1996); however, Nelson’s more recent work (2013) suggested that
the effects of shyness may not vary by gender for today’s emerging adults. This study provides
more support to the notion that shyness may be detrimental regardless of gender. As discussed
previously, gender expectations have evolved from a traditional stance that characterized the
cohorts studied by Caspi and Kerr. Whereas traditional cultures saw the world contracting for
females and expanding for males as they got older, emerging adulthood today is characterized by
increased educational opportunities and delayed entry into the workforce, marriage, and
parenting for both genders (Arnett, 2004). It is possible that the few gender differences seen
(i.e., negative outcomes experienced regarding shyness were found for both genders) in the
results of this study, support the growing notion (e.g., Nelson et al., 2008; Nelson, 2013) that
shyness is a risk factor for both males and females during the third decade of life.
Second, this study found that social avoidance was linked with higher levels of
depression and emotional dysregulation for females but there were no significant associations
between social avoidance and these same outcomes for males. There are many possibilities as to
why social avoidance may be related to more indices of harm for young women than young men
during the third decade of life. Using the approach-avoidance motivation framework, it is
believed that socially avoidant emerging adults not only desire solitude but they also actively
33
avoid social interaction (Asendorpf, 1990; Nelson, 2013). However, emerging adulthood
requires regular interactions with others in university classes, dorms/apartments, jobs,
friendships, and dating. In earlier work, researchers had speculated that socially withdrawn
females could take a more traditional route of wife and mother, in effect reducing the demands
on her socially (Caspi et al., 1988.) Recent statistics, however, show that young females are
graduating college and entering graduate school at higher rates than young males and these
females are also initiating romantic relationships (Arnett, 2004; Diprete & Buchmann, 2013). As
the expectations for females change (i.e., education, work as opposed to early marriage, etc.), it
is possible that emerging adult women who are socially avoidant may feel an increased conflict
between their desire to limit social interactions and the demands placed upon them resulting in
higher levels of maladjustment of an internalizing nature.
Further, this developmental period is critical for developing social connectedness (Lee &
Robbins, 2000.) Social connectedness has been directly linked to internalizing outcomes. High
levels of social connectedness have been associated with lower levels of depression and higher
levels of self-worth (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Though social connectedness is important for
both genders, it may be that gender differences remain in how females and males define
themselves in terms of social connectedness (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993.) Previous work has
shown that females tend to define the self in terms of relationships whereas males define the self
in terms of separateness (see, Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Gilligan, 1982; Manago, Graham,
Greenfield, & Salimkhan, 2008). This early work shows that females tend to rate interpersonal
domains as more important to self and well-being than males (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993).
Further, females and males may use different types of relationships to meet the need for social
connectedness. Females develop connectedness through intimacy and physical proximity
34
whereas males do not (Lee & Robbins, 2000). Males are less likely to depend on mutual support
and presence of others to feel connected and thus may be able to maintain a positive sense of self
with less intimate and fewer supportive relationships than females (Lee & Robbins, 2000).
In sum, young males who are socially avoidant may still feel a healthy sense of social
connectedness regardless of their lack of intimate relationships because they may simply require
lower thresholds of social interaction to feel socially connected (i.e.., to meet needs of
connectedness) and to retain a healthy view of self. Though females who are socially avoidant
may not desire to be in social settings per se, this may have more significant repercussions on
their overall well-being as other needs, such as connectedness, may not be met. This is
especially likely if, as suggested by Bowker and Raja (2011), social avoidance results from long
periods of peer exclusion. It is important to note that the simple fact that females are at greater
risk for internalizing symptoms including depression and emotional dysregulation, may also
explain why social avoidance was linked with higher levels of depression and dysregulation for
females only. Female emerging adults may be more susceptible to experiencing these
internalizing problems in the face of challenges (Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog,
1999) including those that might arise when their preference to avoid social interactions
competes with the requirements of their daily lives (e.g., school, work).
Finally, main-effect findings for withdrawn subtypes also indicate that unsociability does
not appear to be maladaptive with regard to depression, dysregulation, and self-worth for
emerging adult males and females. To reiterate, unsociability is characterized by low approach
but also low avoidance motivation. Thus, when novel or social situations arise that might
overwhelm a shy or avoidant individual, those who are unsociable may be up to the task. They
may not prefer to engage socially but they are able to when needed. Again, the lack of gender
35
differences with regard to unsociability are novel as preliminary work with younger children
suggested unsociability may be more harmful for males (Coplan et al., 2001; Coplan & Weeks,
2010). It may be that, as past research has suggested (e.g. Wang et al., 2013), unsociability has
differing effects based on developmental period and that unsociability may have few direct ties
with maladjustment in emerging adulthood for males and females.
Social Withdrawal and Parenting
The second set of findings examined the direct effects of helicopter and authoritative
parenting on depression, dysregulation, and self-worth as well as the interactive effects of social
withdrawal subtypes and parenting on the same outcomes. Results revealed no direct effects of
helicopter parenting on any of the internalizing outcomes for male or female emerging adults;
however, as expected, direct effects indicated that authoritative parenting was associated with
lower levels of depression and emotional dysregulation as well as higher levels of self-esteem for
both genders. In general, only a few of the hypotheses regarding moderation were supported.
Significant findings regarding moderation revealed that unsociability was linked to higher levels
of depression for males and females when in the presence of helicopter parenting. Conversely,
unsociability was related to lower levels of dysregulation and higher levels of self-worth for
males and females when parents were authoritative.
Helicopter parenting. The findings, or lack thereof, regarding helicopter parenting are
important to consider. The null findings regarding direct effects of helicopter parenting are
extremely interesting given previous work showing several negative outcomes of helicopter
parenting including more depression (Schiffrin et al., 2013), lower psychological well-being
(LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011), and lack of confidence (Boen, 2007). The results of this study
suggest that more important than the question of whether or not helicopter parenting is harmful is
36
the question of for whom might helicopter parenting be harmful. Indeed, when examined as a
moderator, it appears that helicopter parenting may be problematic for young people who are
unsocial. This is an important finding because typically unsocial behavior is rather benign. In
fact, the present study found unsociability was directly associated with lower levels of depression
and dysregulation. However, when helicopter parenting and unsociability are combined,
negative results appear to occur (i.e., more depression). This finding may suggest that indeed
goodness, or perhaps “poorness”, of fit is important. As described previously, goodness of fit is
defined as the compatibility between an individuals’ temperament and the environment (Thomas
& Chess, 1977). It has been suggested that individuals are more likely to experience positive
outcomes and adjustment when there is goodness of fit in that their individual personality is
respected and accommodated (Thomas & Chess, 1977). When parental expectations and
demands do not fit well with their child’s personality, there is a poor fit and previous research
has shown that children who experience a poor fit between their temperament/personality and
parenting style are more likely to experience both internalizing and externalizing problems
(Chess & Thomas, 1986). Thus, parents’ ability to assess their child’s needs and respond
accordingly appears to be a predictor of outcomes throughout this developmental period as well.
Authoritative parenting. Although the findings regarding authoritative parenting were
few as well, they too are significant in the contributions they make. First, as expected,
authoritative parenting was directly linked with lower levels of depression and emotional
dysregulation and higher levels of self-worth for emerging adult males and females. These
findings mirror other studies touting the positive outcomes for those raised in authoritative
households (Arnett, 2007; Nelson et al., 2011; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992).
37
However, expectations that authoritative parenting would moderate negative outcomes for social
withdrawal in emerging adulthood were largely but not completely unsupported.
Most surprisingly is the fact that warm, supportive, autonomy-granting parenting during
emerging adulthood did not appear to provide a protective or buffering effect regarding shyness
and social avoidance among emerging adults. This is interesting given empirical data showing
links between parenting style and current functioning in emerging adulthood. Several previous
studies (see, Berzonsky, 2004; Buri et al., 1988; Masten et al., 2004; Nelson et al., 2001) have
found that emerging adults who report having positive, authoritative parenting throughout
development also appear to have positive outcomes related to self-esteem and psychological
adjustment whereas a reported lack of warm, involved and supportive parenting has been linked
to more depression (Gomez & McLaren, 2006). Given these findings, it is rather surprising that
authoritative parenting did not moderate the link between shyness or avoidance and internalizing
problems. As is the case with null findings, it is impossible to know if the lack of findings were
due to our inability to detect a finding that actually does exist, or if there is really no association.
It might also point to the fact that authoritative parenting is not often used by parents when they
see shy or avoidant behaviors from their emerging-adult children. In other words, these forms of
withdrawal might elicit other forms of parenting as has been found to be the case with younger
children (e.g., Rubin et al., 1999). Regardless, these null findings point to a need for further
research to identify what other variables may be most supportive in intervening between shyness
and social avoidance and maladaptive outcomes in emerging adulthood.
Among the significant findings regarding authoritative parenting were the interaction
effects of unsociability and authoritative parenting on emotional regulation and self-worth for
both males and females. Previous work has found that supportive parenting predicts better self-
38
regulation and self-confidence (Hess & McDevitt, 1984; Ginsburg & Bronstein, 1993). Results
from this study support these early findings in that authoritative parenting is directly and
negatively linked with depression and dysregulation but positively linked with self-worth.
Further, when authoritative parenting was tested as a moderator of unsociability, results revealed
more positive outcomes for both regulation and self-worth. Thus, in a supportive, warm, and
autonomy-granting home, unsociability may truly be benign for male and female emerging
adults.
Summary
The results of this study make a few important contributions to our understanding of the
role of parenting in the associations between social withdrawal and individual outcomes in
emerging adulthood. First, results of the study make a significant contribution by showing that
gender plays a complex role in the link between withdrawal and maladjustment in emerging
adulthood. On the one hand, results suggest that shyness cannot be considered a risk factor for
men only as they make the transition to adulthood. Instead, the ability to overcome fears and
interact socially is a requisite for avoiding internalizing problems for both emerging-adult men
and women. On the other hand, gender appears to matter quite a bit in the link between social
avoidance and maladjustment with socially avoidant young women experiencing higher levels of
internalizing problems. Taken together, the findings point to the need to better understand the
ways in which multiple forms of withdraw might impact young men and women similarly but in
other ways very differently.
Another significant contribution that the results of this study make is to underscore the
importance of fit between emerging adults’ tendencies towards solitude and various types of
parenting. On the one hand, results (or lack thereof) might suggest that helicopter parenting may
39
not necessarily provide a “poor” fit with regard to shyness and social avoidance. It may be that
shy and socially avoidant emerging adults welcome parental intervention. It may be that a little
more involvement on the part of parents is what is needed for certain withdrawn individuals in
emerging adulthood. Indeed, it is possible to draw upon work conducted with children to
demonstrate this notion of fit for shy and avoidant young people. In a study four-year-old
children (Rubin et al., 2001), it was found that emotionally-dysregulated children whose mothers
provided little control in a task that demanded it (i.e., a structure Lego-building teaching task)
were more likely to demonstrate shy, anxious, hovering behaviors. However, these were not the
outcomes for emotionally-dysregulated children whose mothers provided high levels of
guidance. These findings with young children may be informative for understanding the fit
between shy and avoidant behaviors, respectively, and more involved parenting in emerging
adulthood. Rather than seeing parental involvement as being a burden, these emerging adults
may depend on this support because of the novel and social experiences expected during this
transitional period.
On the other hand, unsociability and helicopter parenting appear to represent a bad fit.
Unsociability is thought to be “benign” in emerging adulthood (Nelson, 2013) and this study
supports these claims except in the presence of high levels of helicopter parenting for both men
and women suggesting that this particular combination of emerging adult behavior and parenting
may be maladaptive. Thus, it might not be a question of whether or not helicopter parenting is
negative but, instead, for whom it is negative as intrusive parenting may be especially
unwarranted in emerging adulthood for certain individuals. Work with younger children has
shown that when parents are involved and directive with their children in contexts that merit
parental involvement and directedness (i.e., a task needed to be completed), then there are no
40
negative outcomes for the children. It was found though that when parents started to direct and
control children’s behavior in contexts that did not warrant it (i.e., free play) then their children
manifested more negative outcomes (Rubin et al., 2002). This work suggests that when parents
engage in more intrusive behaviors when they are not needed, or wanted, then problems arise.
Whereas shy and avoidant young people may benefit from (or at least not be harmed by) higher
parental over-control, unsociable emerging adults may be fully capable of meeting the demands
of this developmental period and, thus, parental insertion into their lives is experienced as
intrusive or smothering rather than supportive and, as a result, thwarts self-regulation, promotes
negative views of the self, and increases depression. Indeed, it appears that, for unsociability
experienced in emerging adulthood, helicopter parenting might interfere with adaptive
functioning whereas authoritative, supportive parenting might increase adaptive functioning and
well-being. In sum, it appears that the appropriate fit between emerging adults’ motivations for
withdrawing and approaches to parenting plays a role in the possible outcomes young people
experience in the third decade of life.
Future Work and Limitations
Despite addressing an area of need in terms of the existing literature on the intersections
of social withdrawal and parenting in emerging adulthood, this study has limitations that should
be considered. First, all data used within this study were cross-sectional. Though the discussion
section discussed results in a manner that suggested causality (i.e., social withdrawal and
parenting predicted internalizing outcomes), the cross-sectional data prevents determining the
actual directionality. There is a need for longitudinal data to examine the directional (and bidirectional effects) in the relationships between withdrawn behaviors, parenting, and
internalizing problems.
41
Another limitation of this study is that the sample consisted entirely of university students
from the United States. Thus, results may be influenced by those who live in the unique college
environment and may not be generalizable to all emerging adults. A future investigation would
benefit from including emerging adults in other situations to be confident in the generalizability
of findings. Additionally, though previous research suggests that self-reports of parenting style
are reflective of parenting practices (Deal, Halverson, & Wampler, 1999), it has also been
suggested that parents’ perceptions of others’ style such as spouse may be a more accurate
indicator compared to self-reported parenting style (Winsler, Madigan, & Aquilino, 2005).
Including father’s perspectives in the future would be beneficial.
A third limitation to consider is reliability of the unsociability scale considering the
omega reliability and factor loadings of the items that make this scale. The omega reliability of
this scale was minimally acceptable at .6. One item on this scale (i.e., I don’t really mind
spending time alone) had a factor loading of .3, indicating poor fit to the scale. Though this item
was shown to fit the unsociability construct in previous work (i.e., Nelson, 2013), the poor
reliability of the scale in this study prompted further investigation into the overall construct of
social withdrawal and the potential for items to be combined in such ways that provided better fit
to the data. As discussed in the results section, the three factor model (shyness, social avoidance,
and unsociability) provided the best fit. The significant chi-square difference between the
baseline three factor model and constructs-combined models indicated that the three factor model
fits the data best and implies the constructs are well-distinguished in the
measurement. However, in light of this measurement limitation, results stemming from the
unsociability construct (i.e., the interaction effects) should be viewed with caution. Future work
42
could benefit by confirming the subtypes of withdrawal stand as unique and distinguishable
constructs across different data sets.
Finally, as with other work (Bates & Pettit, 2007), this study found that both social
withdrawal and parenting independently predicted emerging adults’ adjustment; however, the
evidence for their additive prediction is not as impressive as each considered separately. To
more fully understand emerging adults’ adjustment, it is important for future work to consider
further how their characteristics (i.e., shyness) fit with their social environment (Thomas et al.,
1968) and also how their social environment (i.e., parents) fits with their characteristics. Parents
may respond differently to particular temperaments just as emerging adults may respond
differently to different parenting (Bates & Pettit, 2007). Basic correlations from this study
indicated that all three types of social withdrawal were negatively associated with authoritative
parenting and positively associated with helicopter parenting, albeit the correlations were small.
Future research could expand on this notion of child temperament/personality eliciting certain
parenting approaches and behaviors.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, this study was an important first step in understanding how
parental behaviors might moderate the associations between different types of social withdrawal
and indices of adjustment and maladjustment such as depression, emotional dysregulation, and
self-worth among emerging adult males and females. Although few in number, the results make
several notable contributions to the field. First, in support of past work (e.g., Nelson, 2013), this
study indicates that negative outcomes exist for shyness and social avoidance in emerging
adulthood regardless of the parenting approach employed. Second, gender plays a complex role
in the link between withdrawal and maladjustment in emerging adulthood. Finally, findings
43
underscore the importance of “fit” between emerging adults’ tendencies towards solitude and
various types of parenting. Specifically, results show that unsociability appears to be relatively
benign in general, but in the presence of helicopter parenting it is linked to indices of
maladjustment but in the presence of authoritative parenting it is linked to indices of adjustment.
Taken together, these findings lay the foundation for the exploration of additional ways that
parents may either support or hinder socially withdrawn young men and women as they navigate
the third decade of life.
44
References
Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child
relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56,
908-922.
Arcus, D. (2001). Inhibited and uninhibited children: Biology in the social context. In T.
Wachs & D. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (pp. 43-60). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Arnett, J. J. (1994). Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to
adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 1, 154-168.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2010). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer
avoidance. Human Development, 33, 250-259.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Abnormal shyness in children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Pyschiatry, 34, 1069-1081.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday
life: Sociability mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations.
Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 65, 1072-1083.
45
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological
and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child
Development, 65, 1120-1136.
Barry, C. M., Nelson, L. J., & Christofferson, J. (2013). Asocial and afraid: An examination of
shyness and anxiety in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Studies, 19(1), 2-18.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-102.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth
and Society, 9(3), 239-276.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Bayer, J. K., Sanson, A. V., & Hemphill, S. A. (2006). Parent influences on early childhood
internalizing difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 542–559.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
103, 238-246.
Bell, I. R., Jasnoski, M. L., Kagan, J., & King, D. S. (1990). Is allergic rhinitis more frequent
in young adults with extreme shyness? A preliminary survey. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 52(5), 517-525.
46
Berzonsky, M. D. (2004). Identity style, parental authority, and identity commitment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 33, 213-220.
Boen, J. (2007, January 15) ‘Helicopter parenting’ hurts more than helps: such parenting
impedes child’s confidence. Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential
model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135-145.
Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer
rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in
childhood. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurture shock: New thinking about children. New York,
NY: Twelve.
Bowker, J. C., Markovic, A., Cogswell, A., & Raja, R. (2012). Moderating effects of
aggression on the associations between social withdrawal subtypes and peer difficulties
during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 995–1007.
Bowker, J. C., Nelson, L. J., Markovic, A. K., & Luster, S. S., (2014). Social withdrawal in
adolescence and emerging adulthood. In R. J. Coplan and J. C. Bowker (Eds.), A
handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal,
and being alone (pp. 167-183). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bowker, J. C., & Raja, R. (2011). Social withdrawal subtypes during early adolescence in
India. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 91–126.
47
Burgess, K. B., Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Nelson, L. J. (2001). Behavioral inhibition,
social withdrawal, and parenting. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.), International
handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research, and interventions relating to the self and
shyness (pp. 137–158). Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Buri, J. R. (1988). The nature of humankind, authoritarianism, and self-esteem. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 7, 32-38.
Burke N. (1991). College psychotherapy and the development of a capacity for solitude.
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 6, 59-86.
Carroll, J.S., Willoughby, B., Badger, S., Nelson, L.J., Barry, C.M., and Madsen, S.D. 2007. So
close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 219-247.
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158–172.
Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course
patterns of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831.
Chen, Xinyin. (2010). Shyness-inhibition in childhood and adolescence: A cross-cultural
perspective. In K. H. Rubin, & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and
social withdrawal (pp. 213-235). New York: The Guilford Press.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1989). Issues in the clinical application of temperament. In G. A.
Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 378386). Chichester: Wiley.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
48
Chickering, A. W. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Photographic depictions of the self: Gender and age
differences in social connectedness. Sex Roles, 29, 477-495.
Clark University. (2012). Clark poll shows nearly 90% of emerging adults are confident they’ll
get what they want out of life [Press release]. Retrieved from http://news.clarku.edu/
news/212/11/8/clark-poll-shows-nearly-90-of-emerging-adults-are-confident-theyll-getwhat-they-want-out-of-life/
Clawson, M.A. & Robila, M. (2001). Relations between parenting style and children’s
play behavior. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 8(3), 13-19.
Coplan, R. J., Arbeau, K. A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don't fret, be supportive! Maternal
characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 359–71.
Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A ‘multitude’ of solitude: A closer look social withdrawal
and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 26–32.
Coplan, R. J., Findlay, L. C., & Nelson, L. J. (2004). Characteristics of preschoolers with lower
perceived competence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 399-408.
Coplan, R. J., Gavinski-Molina, M. H., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Wichmann, C. (2001). When
girls versus boys play alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 464-474.
Coplan, R. J., Girardi, A., Findlay, L. C., & Frohlick, S. L. (2007). Understanding solitude:
Young children’s attitudes and responses towards hypothetical socially-withdrawn peers.
Social Development, 16, 390-409.
49
Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of
preschoolers who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 143-158.
Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O'Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004b). Do you 'want' to play?
Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood.
Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 244-258.
Coplan, R. J., Rose-Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A., Kingsbury, M., & Bullock, A.
(2013). Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socio-emotional
functioning in later childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 861-875.
Coplan, R. J., & Rubin, K. H. (2010). Social withdrawal and shyness in childhood: History,
theories, definitions, and assessments. In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The
development of shyness and social withdrawal in childhood (pp. 3-20). New York:
Guilford Press.
Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Stewart, S. L. (1994). Being alone,
playing alone, and acting alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active
solitude in young children. Child Development, 65, 129–137.
Coplan, R. J., Wilson, J., Frohlick, S. L., & Zelenski, J. (2006). A person-oriented analysis of
behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in childhood. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 917-927.
Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Unsociability and the preference for solitude in childhood.
In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and social
withdrawal (pp. 64–83). New York: Guilford.
50
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Deal, J. E., Halverson, C. F., & Wampler, K. S. (1999). Parental similarity on child-rearing
orientations: Effects of stereotype similarity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 16, 87–102.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological wellbeing across life’s domains. Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2006). Comparing groups on latent variables: A structural equation modeling
approach. Work, 26, 429-436.
DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in
education and what it means for American schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Nichols, K. E., & Ghera, M. M. (2005).
Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 235-262.
Garcia-Coll, C., Kagan, J., & Reznick, J. S. (1984). Behavioral inhibition in young children.
Child Development, 55(3), 1005-1019.
Gibbs, N. (2009). The growing backlash against overparenting. Time Magazine. Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940697,00.html
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ginsburg, G. S. & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children's intrinsic/extrinsic
motivational orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461-1474.
51
Gomez, R., & McLaren, S. (2006). The association of avoidance coping style, and perceived
mother and father support with anxiety/depression among late adolescents: Applicability
of resiliency models. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1165-1176.
Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources and the
transition to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 465–488.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R., M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediatiors of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Hamer, R. J., & Bruch, M. A. (1997). Personality factors and inhibited career development:
Testing the unique contribution of shyness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 382400.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies:
Developmental continuity or developmental change. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 1738.
Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and social-communicative
competence in childhood. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and social interaction skills (pp. 753-797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
52
Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L.J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L.,
Jin, S., Olsen, S. F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of
socially withdrawn behaviour in China, Russia and the United States. International
Journal of Behavior Development, 241, 73-81.
Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social
withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across
four years. Child Development, 682, 278-294.
Hastings, P. D., & Rubin, K. H. (1999). Predicting mothers' beliefs about preschool-aged
children's social behavior: Evidence for maternal attitudes moderating child effects. Child
Development, 703, 722–741.
Hess, R. D., & McDevitt, T. M. (1984). Some cognitive consequences of maternal intervention
techniques: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 55, 2017-2030.
Hofer, B. K., Souder, C., Kennedy, E. K., Fullman, N., & Hurd, K. (2009). The electronic tether:
Communication and parental monitoring during the college years. In M. K. Nelson & A.
I. Garey (Eds.), Who’s watching? Daily practices of surveillance among contemporary
families (pp. 277-294). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hojat, M., Vogel, W. H., Zeleznik, C., & Borenstein, B. D. (1988). Effects of academic and
psychosocial predictors of performance in medical school on coefficients of
determination. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 383-394.
Holahan, C. J., Valentiner, D. P., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Parental support and psychological
adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of
Family Psychology, 8, 215-223.
53
Holden, G.W., & Edwards, L.E. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments,
issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29–58.
Hornblower, M. (1997, June 9). Great Xpectations. Time, pp. 58-68.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children:
Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879896.
Jamison, T. B., & Ganong, L. (2011). “We're not living together:'' Stayover relationships among
college-educated emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4),
536-557.
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1998). Childhood derivatives of high and low reactivity in
infancy. Child Development, 69(6), 1483-1493.
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Zentner, M., & Peterson, E. (1999). Infant temperament and anxious
symptoms in school age children. Developmental Psychopathology, 11(2), 209-224.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style
and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27(2), 153–164.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in
children’s perfectionism: Implications for the development of children’s depressive
symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73, 23–46.
Kerr, M., Lambert, W. W., & Bem, D. J. (1996). Life course sequelae of childhood shyness in
Sweden: Comparison with the United States. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1100–1105.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
54
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child
compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early
internalization. Child Development 66(1), 236-254.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Larson R. (1997). The emergence of solitude as a constructive domain of experience in early
adolescence. Child Development, 68, 80–93.
Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of
gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems.
Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1268–1282.
Leary, M. R. (2001). Shyness and the self: Attentional, motivational, and cognitive selfprocesses in social anxiety and inhibition. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.)
International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research, and interventions relating
to the self and shyness (pp. 217-234). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Leary, M. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (1981). The social psychology shyness: A self-presentational
model. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological
research (pp. 335-358). New York: Academic Press.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (2000). Understanding social connectedness in college women and
men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 484-491.
LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its
effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399–418.
Levine, M. (2006). The price of privilege. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
55
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone. Journal
of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33, 21–44.
Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties,
settings, and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 578–
583.
Manago, A., Graham, M., Greenfield, P., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender
on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 446-458.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1101). New York: Wiley.
Marano, H. E. (2008). A nation of wimps: The high cost of invasive parenting. New York, NY:
The Crown Publishing Group.
Masten, A. S., Burt, K., Roisman, G. I., Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004).
Resources and resilience in the transition to adulthood: Continuity and change.
Development and Psychopathology, 16, 1071-1094.
McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of
childhood peer rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213-247).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McKinney, C. & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers:
Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806-827.
McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second
demographic transition. Demography, 41(4), 607-627.
56
Mills, R. S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural and psychological control both
differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 30(2), 132-136.
Mounts, N., Valentiner, D., Anderson, K., & Boswell, M. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and
parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 68-77.
Muthe´n, L. K., & Muthe´n, B. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide, 7th. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthe´n & Muthe´n.
Neeman, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
Nelson, L. J. (2013). Going it alone: Comparing subtypes of withdrawal on indices of
adjustment and maladjustment in emerging adulthood. Social Development, 22, 522–
538.
Nelson, L. J., Hart, C. H., Wu, B., Yang, C., Roper, S. O, & Jin, S. (2006). Relations between
Chinese mothers’ parenting practices and social withdrawal in early childhood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 261-271.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Badger, S., Barry, C. M., Carroll, J. S., & Madsen, S. D.
(2008). Associations between shyness and internalizing behaviors, externalizing
behaviors, and relationships during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37(5), 605-615.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L., Christensen, K., Evans, C. A., & Carroll, J. S. (2011).
Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates for
mothers and fathers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 730-743.
57
Neto, F. (2001). Personality predictors of happiness. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 817-824.
Novak, S. P., & Clayton, R. R. (2001). The influence of school environment and self-regulation
on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking:A multilevel analysis. Health
Psychology, 20, 196–207.
Nucci, L., & Smetana, J. G. (1996). Mothers’ conceptions of young children’s areas of personal
freedoms. Child Development, 67, 1870-1876.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down? Establishing helicopter
parenting as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging
adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190.
Pagano, M.E., Hirsch, B.J., Deutsch, N.L., & McAdams, D.P. (2002). The transmission of values
to school-age and young adult offspring: Race and gender differences in parenting.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 14, 13-36.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom and why of
parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of
Educational Research, 77(3), 373–410.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and
academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive
regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support in parenting practices.
Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1119-1142.
58
Rothbart, M. K., & Putnam, S. (2002). Temperament and socialization. In L. Pulkinnen & A.
Caspi, (Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 19-45).
Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, K.H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessarily evil? Child Development, 53,
651-657.
Rubin, K. H. (1993). The Waterloo Longitudinal Project: Correlates and consequences of social
withdrawal from childhood to adolescence. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf
(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, shyness in childhood. (pp. 291–314). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. A., (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in
childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J. C., & Kennedy, A. E. (2009a). Avoiding and withdrawing from the
peer group. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 303-321). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski,W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 619–
700). New York: Wiley.
Rubin, K. H. & Burgess, K. (2002). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol.1, pp. 383-418). Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social-behavioral
consequences of toddlers' inhibited temperament and parenting. Child Development, 73,
483–495.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. (2003). Social withdrawal and
inhibition in childhood. In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp.
372–406). New York: Guilford.
Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. A. (2001). Emotion regulation, parenting and display
of social reticence in preschoolers. Early Educational Development, 121, 97–115.
Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., McDougall, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo
longitudinal project: Predicting adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems from
early and mid-childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751–764.
Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal
and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506–34.
Rubin, K.H. & Coplan, R.J. (2010). The development of shyness and social withdrawal. New
York: Guilford.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. (2009b). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 11.1–11.31.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Bowker, J. C., & Menzer, M. (2011). Social withdrawal and shyness.
In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social
development (2nd ed., pp. 434–452). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion
regulation and preschooler’s social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 4962.
60
Rubin, K. H., Hastings, P. D., Stewart, S. L., Henderson, H. A., & Chen, X. (1997). The
consistency and concomitants of inhibition: Some of the children, all of the time. Child
Development, 68, 467-483.
Rubin, K. H., & Mills, R. S. L. (1988). The many faces of social isolation in childhood. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 916-924.
Rubin, K. H., Nelson, L. J., Hastings, P. D., & Asendorpf, J. (1999). The transaction between
parents' perceptions of their children's shyness and their parenting styles. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 937–958.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1995). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bornstein
(Ed.) Applied and practical parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 299-321). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, H. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull, M. J., & Tashner, T.
(2013). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students'
well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 548-557.
Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults' shyness and
sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences,
19(4), 455-462.
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of
inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1008-1015.
Simpson, A. R. (2001). Raising teens: A synthesis of research and a foundation for action.
Boston: Center for Health Communication, Harvard School of Public Health.
61
Spangler, T., & Gazelle, H. (2009). Anxious solitude, unsociability, and peer exclusion in
middle childhood: A multitrait-multimethod matrix. Social Development, 18, 833-856.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent
achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47(6), 723-729.
Steinberg, L., & Sheffield Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 83-110.
Stevenson-Hinde, & Glover, (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(2), 181-187.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and behavior disorders in
children. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Ungar, M. (2009). Overprotective parenting: Helping parents provide children the right
amount of risk and responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 258-271.
Wachs, T. D., & Kohnstamm, G. A. (Eds.). (2001). Temperament in context (pp. 201–222).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wang, J. M., Rubin, K. H., Laursen, B., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2013).
Preference-for-solitude and adjustment difficulties in early and late adolescence. Journal
of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 0(0), 1-9.
Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2001). The state of our unions: The social health of
marriage in America. Retrieved September 2013 from http://
nationalmarriageproject.org/reports/
62
Winsler, A., Madigan, A. L., & Aquilino, S. A. (2005). Correspondence between maternal and
paternal parenting styles in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 112.
Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu, B. C. (2003). Parenting and
childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 134-151.
Younger, A. J., & Piccinin, A. M., (1989). Children’s recall of aggressive and withdrawn
behaviors: Recognition memory and likability judgements. Child Development, 60, 580590.
63
Appendices
Table 1. Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shyness
1
.23**
.38**
.59**
.35**
-.57**
.20
-.18**
Avoidance
.55**
1
.59**
.10
.16*
-.28**
.07
-.25**
Unsociability
.57**
.81**
1
.18**
.16*
-.29**
-.02
-.08
Depression
.34**
.30**
.23**
1
.54**
-.73**
-.00
.17**
Dysregulation
.25**
.23**
.13**
.47**
1
-.67**
.12
-.16*
Self-Worth
-.50**
-.30**
-.30**
-.74**
-.50**
1
-.05
.23**
Helicopter
Mothering
Authoritative
Mothering
Mean (SD)
Males
Mean (SD)
Females
.14**
.12**
.14**
.04
.02
-.09*
1
-.24**
-.24**
-.20**
-.13**
-.22**
-.21**
.33**
-.24**
1
2.81(1.04)
Range: 1-5
2.77(1.02)
Range: 1-5
2.32(.70)
Range: 1-5
2.22(.67)
Range: 1-5
3.19(.69)
Range: 1-5
3.19(.67)
Range: 1-5
1.54(.41)
Range: 1-5
1.58(.37)
Range: 1-5
2.24(.85)
Range: 1-5
2.21(.75)
Range: 1-5
3.17(.67)
Range: 1-5
3.33(.54)
Range: 1-5
2.27(.90)
Range: 1-7
2.10(.75)
Range: 1-7
5.91(.76)
Range: 1-7
6.18(.64)
Range: 1-7
Note: Males above the diagonal and females below the diagonal for correlations. *p< 0.05 **p < .01
64
Table 2. Factor Loadings and Reliability of Study Variables
Variables
Measurement items
Factor
loadings
Male
Factor
loadings
Female
Shyness
I tend to be shy.
.83
.80
I’d like to hang out with other people, but I’m sometimes nervous to.
.80
.75
Although I desire to talk to and be with other people, I feel nervous about interacting with them.
.93
.92
I feel tense in social situations.
.92
.94
Sometimes I turn down chances to hang out with other people because I feel too shy.
.76
.74
I feel nervous at parties and other social settings.
.83
.82
When given the choice, I prefer to do something with others than to be alone. (reversed)
.72
.64
I prefer working with others rather than alone. (reversed)
.60
.49
I am the happiest when I am hanging out with other people. (reversed)
.89
.89
I like to be with people. (reversed)
.95
.91
I don’t really mind spending time alone.
.28
.31
I don’t have a strong need to be with other people.
.53
.56
I like spending time alone more than I like spending time with other people.
.95
.89
I felt depressed.
.91
.92
I felt lonely.
.83
.72
I felt sad.
.95
.85
I have difficulty controlling my temper.
.88
.80
I get so frustrated I am ready to explode.
.92
.83
Avoidant
Unsociable
Depression
Dysregulation
Reliability
(ω)
M
F
.94 .93
.87
.73
.64
.61
.93
.87
.88
.85
65
Self-Worth
Helicopter
Authoritative
I get upset easily.
.81
.70
Often I am afraid I will lose control over my feelings.
.76
.77
I slam doors when I am mad.
.41
.49
I like the kind of person I am.
.85
.86
I am often disappointed with myself. (reversed)
.88
.76
I often don’t like myself as a person. (reversed)
.92
.87
I would really rather be different. (reversed)
.76
.70
I am happy being the way I am. (reversed)
.84
.88
I make important decisions for my child (e.g., where she/he lives, work, what classes he/she takes)
.76
I intervene for my child in settling disputes with roommates or friends.
.91
I intervene for my child in solving problems with employers or professors.
.90
I solve any crisis my child might have.
.73
I look for jobs or try to find opportunities for my child (e.g., internships, study abroad).
.51
I know how my child feels about things.
I, whenever possible, allow my child to choose what to do.
.76
.69
I listen to my child’s opinion or perspective when he/she has a problem.
.82
I allow my child to decide things for him/herself.
.74
I find time to talk with my child.
.77
I often am too busy to attend to my child. (reversed)
.58
I am not very involved with my child’s concerns. (reversed)
.56
I accept my child and like him/her as he/she is.
.78
.93
.91
.88
.93
66
I clearly convey my love for my child.
.77
I make my child feel very special.
.76
I am typically happy to see my child.
.73
I am usually willing to consider things from my child’s point of view.
.74
I put time and energy into helping my child.
.75
I help my child choose his/her own direction.
.52
67
Table 3. Standardized Coefficients for Significant Main Effects and Interaction Effects
Direct Effects Model w. Equality
Constraints
Shyness
Avoidance
Unsociability
Helicopter Parenting
Authoritative Parenting
Interaction Effects Model 1
(Unsociability by Helicopter)
Shyness
Avoidance
Unsociability
Helicopter
Authoritative
Unsociability X Helicopter
Interaction Effects Model 2
(Unsociability by Authoritative)
Shyness
Avoidance
Unsociability
Helicopter
Authoritative
Unsociability X Authoritative
*p =.05, **p =.01, *** p <.001
Depression
Males
Dysregulation
Depression
Females
Dysregulation
Self-Worth
Self-Worth
.611**
-.071
-.079*
-.039
-.119***
.372**
.062
-.118**
-.008
-.12
-.533**
-.064
.018
.03
.127***
.237***
.269***
-.128*
-.047
-.115***
.177***
.258***
-.173**
-.008
-.136***
-.419***
-.076
.028
.034
.203***
.610***
-.073
-.076*
-.033
-.115**
.053*
.372***
.062
-.116**
-.004
-.117*
.031
-.533***
-.066
.016
.026
.124*
-.033
.238***
.275***
-.124*
-.039
-.111**
.077*
.178***
.261***
-.171**
-.004
-134**
.04
-.42***
-.078
.025
.03
.201***
-.045
.615***
-.068
-.083*
-.041
-.123***
-.033
.382***
.069
-.126**
-.011
-.122*
-.064*
-.541***
-.069
.024
.033
.13**
.051*
.24***
.273***
-.184**
-.049
-.118***
-.036
.183***
.264***
-.184**
-.012
-.145**
-.064*
-.423***
-.081
.037
.038
.209***
.053*
68
Figure 1. Model of direct effects of social withdrawal and parenting on internalizing problems as
moderated by the interactions of social withdrawal subtypes and parenting for males and females
Shy
Shy x
Authoritative
Shy x
Helicopter
Avoidant
Avoid x
Helicopter
Depression
Avoid x
Authoritative
Dysregulation
Unsocial
Self-worth
Unsoc x
Helicopter
Unsocial x
Authoritative
Helicopter
Authoritative
Emerging adult
age and race
entered as
controls
69
Figure 2. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Dysregulation for
Males
Level of Dysregulation
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
70
Figure 3. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Self Worth for
Males
Level of Self Worth
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
71
Figure 4. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Helicopter Parenting on Depression for Males
Level of Depression
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
72
Figure 5. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Dysregulation for
Females
Level of Dysregulation
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
73
Figure 6. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Authoritative Parenting on Self Worth for
Females
Level of Self Worth
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
74
Figure 7. Interaction Effect of Unsociability and Helicopter Parenting on Depression for Females
Level of Depression
2
x2 on Average
1
x2 One Standard
Deviation above
Average
0
-2
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
x2 One Standard
Deviation Below
Average
75
Comprehensive Literature Review
Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development.
There is a great deal of individual variation in the paths that young people take as they
mature and develop throughout the third decade of life. Culture, socio-economic status, and
individual characteristics shape expectations and opportunities that impact individuals during this
period of time (Bowker, Nelson, Markovic, & Luster, 2014). Because of this individual
variance, no one theory captures all developmental pathways out of adolescence and through the
third decade of life. However, emerging adulthood theory (Arnett, 2000) is useful in capturing
some of the unique aspects of this time period. This theory will provide the foundation for
understanding the potential impacts of social withdrawal during this period of development
(Bowker et al., 2013).
In 2000, Arnett proposed a theory of a new developmental period beginning in the late
teens and continuing through the mid-twenties called emerging adulthood. This developmental
period is characterized by profound change and importance in the lives of young people in
industrialized countries, where marriage and parenthood are typically postponed until after
schooling has concluded (Arnett, 2000, 2010). Five features have been outlined as important
facets of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004). First, it is an age of feeling in-between, wherein the
majority of Americans in their late teens to early twenties characterize themselves as reaching
adulthood in some respects but not others. Second, it is an age of possibilities as most emerging
adults report feeling optimistic about their futures. Despite the number of possible hurdles in
emerging adulthood, nearly 96% of 18-24 year olds reported that they would achieve their
personal expectations for the future (Hornblower, 1997), and nearly nine out of ten are confident
that they will eventually get what they want out of life (Clark University, 2012). Third, it is an
76
age of instability, as emerging adults experience many changes in their work, study, and
relationships. Fourth, it is an age of identity exploration. Intra- and inter-personal exploration in
love, work, and worldview is at an all-time high. “Explorations in love become more intimate
and serious” in emerging adulthood and require a deeper focus on the potential for intimacy
(Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults are also able to try out a number of different jobs to discover
what they really want in a long-term, satisfying adult career. Finally, it is a self-focused age of
life because emerging adults are free from many of the obligations that shift focus away from
learning about who they truly are and what they want from life.
Though there is individual variance in emerging adulthood, each of the five features
detailed above (i.e., feeling in-between, possibilities, instability, exploration, and self-focus) may
be struggling points for socially withdrawn emerging adults. Emerging adults are expected to
engage in a variety of novel and social interactions (e.g., dating, hanging out, work
environments, apartments/dorms, classrooms; Bowker et al., 2014). It is likely that social
withdrawal will hamper emerging adults’ participation and success in these social situations and
may also influence how they feel about themselves. Therefore, the study of social withdrawal in
emerging adulthood is deserving of more empirical attention.
Social Withdrawal
To begin, it is important to understand how social withdrawal (in all its various forms, a
topic addressed below) has been conceptualized in childhood and how the construct carries
through to emerging adulthood. Social withdrawal has been defined as a consistent display of
solitary behavior across both familiar and unfamiliar social situations (Burgess, Rubin, Cheah, &
Nelson, 2001). Simply put, social withdrawal entails individuals actively isolating or
withdrawing themselves from social interaction. The study of solitary behaviors throughout the
77
developmental life span has included numerous constructs such as behavioral inhibition,
reticence, shyness, avoidance, and unsociability, all of which fall under a larger umbrella term
“social withdrawal” (Nelson, 2013; Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Often these terms have
been used interchangeably leading to inconsistencies in both definition and assessment (Rubin et
al., 2009). However, scholars have begun to deconstruct social withdrawal into psychologically
meaningful, consistent, and distinct subtypes based on underlying motivations (i.e., approachavoidance) for withdrawal (e.g., Asendorpf, 1990; Nelson, 2013; Rubin & Asendorpf, 1993;
Rubin & Coplan, 2004; Rubin et al., 2009). Therefore, utilizing an approach-avoidance
conceptual model (Asendorpf, 1990, 1993) may provide a helpful framework for understanding
the subtypes of social withdrawal.
Asendorpf (1990) suggested that social withdrawal may be the result of two relatively
independent motivational drives: social approach and social avoidance. Using this framework,
Asendorpf identified three sub-groups of socially withdrawn children, which he labeled shy,
unsociable, and avoidant based on their approach-avoidance tendencies. According to
Asendorpf and others, shyness is characterized by an approach-avoidance conflict, wherein a
high social approach motivation is coupled with a high social avoidance motivation (Coplan,
Prakash, O’Neil, & Armer, 2004; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Thus, shy individuals want to engage
in peer interaction but are hampered by the wariness, fear, and anxiety they experience (Rubin &
Burgess, 2001). Second, unsociability is defined by a low social approach motivation coupled
with a low social avoidance motivation (Asendorpf, 1990, 1993). Unsociable individuals appear
to neither oppose nor desire peer interaction and thus appear to be quite comfortable in their
solitude. Finally, avoidance is characterized by low social approach and high social avoidance
78
motivations (Asendorpf, 1990, 1993). Individuals who are avoidant purposefully withdraw from
and avoid social interaction.
This approach-avoidance model has been useful in determining how shyness,
unsociability, and avoidance are related but unique dimensions of withdrawal in childhood,
adolescence, and emerging adulthood (Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan & Weeks, 2010; Coplan,
Rose-Krasnor, Weeks, Kingsbury, Kingsbury, & Bullock, 2012; Nelson, 2013). It is important
that scholarly work in emerging adulthood differentiates between those who want to interact with
others but are too fearful or wary to do so (i.e., shy, high approach and high avoidance
motivation), those who are not afraid to interact but simply do not desire to initiate social
interaction (i.e., unsocial, low avoidance and low approach motivation), and finally, those who
actively avoid social interaction (i.e., avoidant, high avoidance motivation and low approach
motivation). Unfortunately, to date, little work has examined the correlates and outcomes of
each form of social withdrawal during this particular developmental period, emerging adulthood.
Shyness, Unsociability, and Avoidance
Shyness. Following the approach-avoidance conceptual model, shyness may best be
defined as an internal conflict between the desire for and the avoidance of social interaction.
Shyness is the most often studied form of social withdrawal and is characterized by socially wary
behaviors and anxiety in the face of novel social situations and perceived social evaluation
(Rubin, Burgess, & Hastings, 2002; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Many researchers believe that
childhood shyness has its roots in the biological components of temperament that predispose
some to be fearful and anxious in response to novel or social situations (Coplan et al., 2004;
Garcia-Coll, Kagan, & Reznick, 1984; Kagan, Snideman, & Arcus, 1998). Biological and
physiological reactions may lead some children to withdraw from social interaction as a way to
79
reduce fear and anxiety. Others suggest that self-consciousness may play an additional role in
later shyness (Leary, 2001; Leary & Schlenker, 1981).
A number of researchers have linked shyness to various indices of maladjustment,
especially of an internalizing nature, across the life span (Coplan & Armer, 2007). For example,
in preschool and kindergarten, shyness is linked to poor social competence, low self-esteem and
high anxiety (Coplan & Armer, 2007; Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Coplan, Findlay, & Nelson,
2004). When compared to their non-withdrawn peers, shy preschool children display higher
levels of anxiety, lower levels of self-worth, and have more internalizing problems (e.g., Coplan
et al., 2004; Rubin, 1982; Stevenson-Hinde & Glover, 1996). In elementary grades, these same
children suffer from peer rejection, isolation, and poor academics (Coplan, Gavinski-Molina,
Lagace-Sequin, & Wichmann, 2001; Coplan & Prakash, 2003; Hart, Yang, Nelson, Robinson,
Olsen, & Nelson, et al., 2000). As they enter middle and late childhood, shy children continue to
suffer with peer rejection, low self-esteem, and internalizing problems such as depression and
anxiety (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Hymel, Bowker, &
Woody, 1993; Rubin 1993). In adolescence, similar outcomes are found including loneliness,
depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon,
1995). Further, extremely shy children are at increased risk for anxiety disorders in later
developmental periods (e.g., Kagan, Snidman, Zentner, & Peterson, 1999; Schwartz, Snidman, &
Kagan, 1999). These findings support the notion that shy children and adolescents strongly
desire peer interaction and they experience high levels of loneliness when this need goes unmet.
Scholars have reported similar outcomes for shy emerging adults. For example, Barry
and colleagues found that compared to their non-shy peers, shy emerging adults appear to
struggle with both identity exploration and achievement (Barry, Nelson, & Christofferson, 2013).
80
They also struggle more academically (Hojat, Vogel, Zeleznik, & Borenstein, 1988) and engage
in less career exploration (Hamer & Bruch, 1997). Nelson et al. (2008) and Mounts, Valentiner,
Anderson, and Boswell (2006) found that shy emerging adults reported higher levels of
depression, anxiety, and loneliness, lower levels of self-worth, and perceived themselves more
negatively in social acceptance than their non-shy peers. Further, Bell, Jasnoski, Kagan, and
King (1990) found that extremely shy young adults are likely to be more depressed and fearful
than their non-shy peers. Schmidt and Fox (1995) found similar results in their young adult
sample, wherein the high-shy reported more depression, loneliness, fearfulness, social anxiety,
neuroticism, inhibition, and less self-esteem than their low-shy counterparts. Neto (2001) found
that shyness was negatively associated with happiness.
It is also important to note the possible gender differences regarding shyness. Earlier
work found that shy boys are more likely to suffer from negative outcomes than shy girls (Caspi,
2000; Caspi et al., 1988; Kerr, Lambert, & Bem, 1996). However, more recent research has
found few gender differences in middle childhood (Coplan & Weeks, 2010) and emerging
adulthood outcomes (Nelson et al., 2008; Nelson, 2013). Specifically, earlier work found that
shy boys were more likely to delay entry into marriage, parenthood, and stable careers (Caspi et
al., 1988; Kerr et al., 1996). On the other hand, shy women were more likely to follow a
traditional pattern of marriage, childbearing, and homemaking (Caspi et al., 1988). It has been
suggested that shy women may have been more likely to follow this conventional pattern
because their shyness inhibited them from pursuing other opportunities (Nelson et al., 2008).
However, Caspi, Caspi et al., and Kerr et al. studied birth cohorts from the 1920’s through the
1970’s and trends have drastically changed over the past few decades (McLanahan, 2004). It is
possible that the few gender differences seen by Nelson et al. (2008) and Nelson (2013) were a
81
reflection of these changed expectations. In generations past, it was expected that children
would leave home, set up their own households, get married, and have children (Whitehead &
Popenoe, 2002). Today, emerging adults are delaying marriage and parenthood (Carroll,
Willoughby, Badger, Nelson, Madsen, & Barry, 2007; Jamison & Ganong, 2011). Women are
more likely to initiate dating or hanging out (Arnett, 2004). More men and women are seeking
college educations (Arnett, 2000; Carroll et al., 2007). In fact, women today are more likely to
obtain college degrees and to enroll in graduate school than men (Diprete & Buchmann, 2013).
These changing dynamics may be bridging the gap between expectations for men and women in
emerging adulthood. Thus I expect shyness to impact both men and women more equally in
today’s world as they are both expected to take a more equal role in initiating romantic
relationships, furthering their educations, and securing employment. Therefore, either men or
women who struggle to do these things due to fear and anxiety may experience problematic
outcomes.
Taken together, the implications of shyness appear to be relatively well-defined. Many
studies have found shy individuals are “at risk” for a number of poor outcomes throughout the
life span. However, not all who are shy are maladjusted (e.g., Arcus, 2001; Wachs &
Kohnstamm, 2001). This has led researchers to begin exploring protective factors and potential
moderating variables between shyness and adjustment. Parenting is one such variable that has
been investigated in relation to shyness in childhood (e.g., Rubin, Nelson, Hastings, &
Asendorpf, 1999); however, it is not known how overall approaches to parenting may influence
the outcomes experienced by emerging adults who display shy behaviors. Thus, there remains
much to be learned about how parenting may alter the life pathways those who are shy.
82
Unsociability. Second, using the approach-avoidance model, a non-fearful preference
for solitude has been labeled unsociability or social disinterest in childhood, adolescence, and
emerging adulthood (i.e., low-social approach and low-social avoidance) (e.g., Asendorpf, 1993;
Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2004; Nelson, 2013; Rubin et al., 2009). Unsociable
individuals are not strongly averse to or fearful of social interaction with peers; however, they
also do not appear to have a desire to initiate social interaction (Asendorpf, 1990; Coplan et al.,
2004; Nelson, 2013; Rubin, Coplan, Fox, and Calkins, 1995; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). If called
upon, unsociable individuals are competently capable of participating in social situations
(Asendorpf, 1993). As such, some have suggested that unsociability may be less detrimental
than shyness (Coplan & Weeks, 2010).
Indeed, results from several studies have found few associations between unsociability
and internalizing problems (e.g., Asendorpf & Meier, 1993; Coplan, Wilson, Frohlick, &
Zelenski, 2006; Harrist, Zaia, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1997). Harrist et al. (1997) found that
though unsociable children engaged in less social interaction with their peers, they were
otherwise indistinguishable from their non-withdrawn peers on a number of social and socialcognitive variables. Unsociable children were not found to experience more internalizing
problems, anxiety, or loneliness than comparison peers (Coplan & Weeks, 2010). The fact that
these children do not experience increased loneliness suggests that they do indeed prefer to be
alone. Unsociable children may spend less time engaged in peer conversation than sociable
children; however, overall both groups appeared to engage in similar levels of verbal
participation in regular conversations (Asendorpf & Meier, 1993). Rubin and Asendorpf (1993)
found that unsociable children were competent in social interactions when they chose to
participate. However, it is important to note that unsociable children were deemed less attractive
83
playmates and liked less than other children (Coplan, Girardi, Findlay, & Frohlick, 2007).
Unsociability was also associated with peer rejection in young adolescents (Bowker et al., 2012;
Bowker & Raja, 2011). Still, there appear to be fewer negative consequences of unsociability
than shyness across development (see, Coplan & Weeks, 2010; Wang et al., 2013).
Overall, unsociability is assumed to be relatively benign in the early years (Rubin &
Asendorpf, 1993). Because solitude appears to become more salient and normative in later
developmental periods (i.e., adolescence and emerging adulthood), these individuals may
experience fewer indices of maladjustment (Coplan & Weeks, 2010). It is possible that the
positive benefits of solitude in later adolescence and early adulthood may negate the maladaptive
features of unsociability (Burke, 1991; Larson, 1997; Long & Averill, 2003; Long, Seburn,
Averill, & More, 2003; Wang et al., 2013). In support of this notion, Nelson (2013) found that
unsociable emerging adults did not differ from a control group on any internalizing or
relationship outcomes with the exception of depression. Some researchers have found evidence
that unsociability may have more negative outcomes for boys than girls (Spangler & Gazelle,
2009) whereas others found few gender differences in middle childhood (Coplan & Weeks,
2010) or emerging adults’ outcomes (Nelson, 2013). Overall, this form of social withdrawal
appears to be fairly benign however the lack of research on unsociability in emerging adulthood
warrants additional exploration.
Avoidance. Finally, using the approach-avoidance motivation as a guiding framework,
avoidance, has been determined as a third subtype of social withdrawal in emerging adulthood
(i.e., low-social approach coupled with high-social avoidance, Asendorpf, 1990). Avoidant
individuals appear to seek solitude while actively avoiding social interaction. Although
Asendorpf (1990) suggested that avoidant individuals would be particularly at risk for social and
84
emotional maladaptation, this group of individuals remain the least studied (Coplan & Armer,
2007). Though the basis of social avoidance is unknown, a few researchers have suggested that
it is actually a manifestation of extreme fearful shyness (Coplan & Armer, 2007; Schmidt & Fox,
1999). This fear may have a physiological basis that contributes to low-social approach and
high-social avoidance motivation (Coplan & Armer, 2007).
Coplan et al. (2006) found that avoidant children had the highest levels of negative affect
and depressive symptoms along with the lowest levels of positive affect and overall well-being
when compared with other children. Children who avoid social interaction may be at risk for
social isolation during the critical years of adolescence, when their self-exclusion from peers
further denies opportunities to experience the benefits of positive social interactions with others
(Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). The consequences of this social isolation may result in
social incompetence and predict peer rejection (Rubin, 1993). Biovin and Hymel (1997)
suggested that self-recognition of social incompetence and peer rejection may cause negative
self-regard, which has been associated with increased feelings of loneliness, low self-worth, and
depression. Bowker and colleagues found that avoidant young adolescents do suffer from peer
rejection (Bowker et al., 2012; Bowker & Raja, 2011). Numerous researchers have linked peer
rejection with several indices of maladjustment including depression, loneliness, poor selfconcept, and psychopathology (see, McDougall, Hymel, Vaillancourt, & Mercer, 2001, for a
review). Nelson (2013) identified similar findings in emerging adulthood. Specifically, Nelson
found that avoidant emerging adults reported more internalizing problems including lower selfworth, depression, emotional dysregulation, self-harm and suicidal ideations than the control
group.
85
In sum, these studies suggest that social avoidance may be a serious risk factor for
emerging adults. Social avoidance may actually be more problematic during this stage of
development than any other because emerging adults are expected to seek out novel experiences
in the development of the self (Arnett 2000, 2004). Social avoidance may thwart exploration of
these developmentally important areas. However, it is likely that not all emerging adults who
exhibit socially avoidant behaviors suffer equally from internalizing problems. I propose that
parenting may serve as a risk (i.e., exacerbating) or protective (i.e., buffering) factor for these
individuals, which is discussed in detail below.
The Role of Parenting
Thus far, this review has demonstrated how social withdrawal might impact individuals
at different stages of development, especially emerging adulthood. Though research has linked
the subtypes of social withdrawal with internalizing difficulties, not all shy, unsociable, or
avoidant individuals will suffer from maladaptive outcomes. It has been suggested that
withdrawn behavior may be exacerbated or ameliorated through environmental influences such
as parenting (Burgess et al., 2001). Parenting style has been defined as a socialization approach
to raising children through which parents teach social skills and accepted norms, values, and
behaviors (Deci, Eghari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1995). It is the overall set of
parenting attitudes, goals, and patterns of parenting behaviors that set the stage for parent-child
interactions (Wood, McLeod, Sigman, Hwang, & Chu, 2003). Parenting style likely influences
children’s social competence and adjustment via processes commonly known as socialization,
‘‘...whereby children acquire the habits, values, goals, and knowledge that will enable them to
function satisfactorily when they become adult members of society’’ (Maccoby, 1980, p. v).
86
Darling and Steinberg (1993) suggest that parenting style may alter the efficacy of the parent’s
socialization efforts and thereby, may moderate specific child developmental outcomes.
Much research has focused on the influence of parenting approaches and style in child
and adolescent development, however, less work has focused on the continued and current
influence of parenting in emerging adulthood. Though emerging adulthood is commonly
thought of as a time when parents have less influence on their children, research has suggested
that most emerging adults are still quite connected with their parents and that this relationship
remains influential in emerging adult lives (Aquilino, 1997; Pagano, Hirsch, Deutsch, &
McAdams, 2002; Simpson, 2001; Steinberg & Sheffield Morris, 2001). Many emerging adults
and their parents report frequent communication via cell phone, text messaging, email, and social
networking, and this “electronic tether” has been regarded as one such vehicle for maintaining
parental influence during emerging adulthood (Hofer, Souder, Kennedy, Fullman, & Hurd,
2009). This work suggests the capacity for parental influence even during this time of growing
autonomy. As McKinney and Renk (2008) suggest, parenting may function as a moderator to
facilitate or impede adjustment for young individuals in this transitional developmental period.
Two theories, goodness-of-fit and self-determination, provide frameworks for
understanding the potential interaction between parenting approach and subtypes of social
withdrawal. First, goodness-of-fit theory (Thomas & Chess, 1977; Thomas, Chess & Birch,
1968) suggests that adaptive and maladaptive outcomes are determined by the match between an
individual’s temperament and the demands of specific contexts such as parenting (Rothbart &
Putnam, 2002; Sanson & Rothbart, 1995). “Simply defined, goodness of fit results when the
child’s capacities, motivations and temperament are adequate to master the demands,
expectations, and opportunities of the environment” (Chess & Thomas, 1989, p. 380).
87
Essentially, different approaches to parenting will fit different children and development may be
optimized when parenting is sensitive to the child’s temperamental characteristics (Sanson &
Rothbart, 1995). Thus, the ability to assess a child’s needs and parent accordingly is a key
predictor of child outcomes (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Pomerantz,
Moorman, & Litwack, 2007).
I propose that approaches to parenting may have a profound influence on child outcomes
and that certain styles may provide a particularly “bad” or “good” fit for emerging adults who are
socially withdrawn (i.e., shy, avoidant, unsocial). Though all research on parenting and shyness
(see, Rubin & Burgess, 2002; Coplan, Arbeau, & Armer, 2008) was conducted on young
children, this work provides a foundation for understanding how the two might also interact in
emerging adulthood. Much of this research in childhood focused on “over-protective” parenting.
Overprotective parents tend to micromanage, restrict and direct child behaviors, and discourage
child independence (Rubin et al., 2007). This type of parenting is believed to undermine the
development and practice of coping strategies that are necessary for shy children and thus,
overprotective parenting may actually serve to maintain or exacerbate social wariness (Rubin &
Burgess, 2002). On the other hand, authoritative parenting encourages age-appropriate
autonomy coupled with high levels of warmth and involvement (Baumrind, 1971). This style of
parenting is often regarded as advantageous for children (e.g., Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, &
Dornbusch, 1991) and it may be particularly beneficial in terms of socialization for those who
exhibit shy and socially avoidant behaviors. Specifically, autonomy support has been found to
promote self-regulation and increase social and emotional competence (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
It is possible that all who exhibit socially withdrawn behaviors may benefit greatly by learning to
88
self-regulate, thereby increasing their social and emotional competence and their confidence to
overcome difficult situations on their own.
Second, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci &
Ryan, 2008) may help to explain how overly controlling parenting may lead to negative
outcomes or, conversely, how autonomy-granting parenting facilitates positive outcomes (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory posits that individuals need to feel competent,
autonomous, and connected to others in order to function optimally (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Thus,
this theory argues that environments that facilitate the meeting of these three basic needs will
yield the most positive psychological, developmental, and behavioral outcomes (Ryan & Deci,
2000). In contrast, social contexts that thwart satisfaction of these needs will have negative
effects on a variety of indices of well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Autonomy granting and
allowing freedom from parental constraint may allow emerging adults to engage in competencedeveloping activities, thus enhancing their skill set and sense of self-efficacy. Furthermore,
granting autonomy also intimates that parents believe their child is capable of managing
situations, which has further consequences for the emerging adult’s sense of efficacy and ability.
On the other hand, parental over-control may reduce an emerging adult’s sense of autonomy and
competence, thus undermining success in emerging adulthood.
Taken together, these theories suggest that parenting may play a particularly important
role in the lives of socially withdrawn emerging adults. Indeed, as noted previously, emerging
adulthood is a time marked by a number of new experiences that must be navigated. Many of
these experiences, such as securing employment, attending college, dating, and having
roommates require social interaction and social skills. An individual who exhibits socially
withdrawn behaviors is likely struggling in or withdrawing from such encounters. However,
89
parental interventions that involve “taking over” may exacerbate shyness and social avoidance
because the child is denied opportunities to practice social skills and self-regulation (Hastings &
Rubin, 1999). On the other hand, autonomy-granting parents may bolster feelings of confidence
that are necessary to succeed by encouraging their children to take an active part in solving their
own problems (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991). Unfortunately, little empirical work has been
done to examine the veracity of these conceptual and theoretical notions in emerging adulthood.
However, there is a growing amount of empirical evidence regarding over-controlling parenting
and social withdrawal in childhood and adolescence, as well as emerging work on parenting in
emerging adulthood. Indeed, research seems to support the notion that specific parenting
approaches (i.e., authoritative, helicopter) in emerging adulthood may exacerbate or enhance
functioning, especially related to outcomes of the internalizing nature of socially withdrawn
emerging adults.
Social Withdrawal and Helicopter Parenting
Emerging adulthood is a time characterized by an increased need for autonomy and as
such, parents should adjust their level of involvement and control accordingly (Schiffrin, Liss,
Miles-McLean, Geary, Erchull, & Tashner, 2013). However, there is growing concern that
parents are not making this adjustment and are continuing to exert a tremendous amount of
control over their college-age children. This phenomenon has been labeled “helicopter
parenting” in the media, scholarly works, and popular vernacular (Padilla-Walker& Nelson,
2012). Walker and Nelson (2012) believe helicopter parenting in emerging adulthood is akin to
overprotective, overinvolved, and “oversolicitous” parenting studied in childhood (see, Hastings
et al., 2010). This parenting approach includes intrusive and unnecessary micro-management of
a child’s independent activities (Rubin, Hastings, Stewart, Henderson, & Chen, 1997; Walker &
90
Nelson, 2012). This particular approach has been associated directly with several poor outcomes
in young children (e.g., Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill, 2006; Nelson et al., 2006; Rubin et al.,
2002; Rubin et al., 1997; Rubin, Nelson, Hastings, & Asendorpf, 1999). Over-involved
parenting has been linked to higher levels of depression and anxiety in children (Gibbs, 2009;
Levine, 2006; Marano, 2008). Such over-protective parenting has also been linked to social
withdrawal wherein parents may attempt to shield their withdrawn child from difficult or
anxiety-inducing situations (e.g., Baumrind, 1971; Coplan et al., 2004; Mills & Rubin, 1998;
Rubin, Nelson, Asendorpf, & Hastings, 1999; Rubin, Cheah, & Fox, 2001; Rubin et al., 2002).
Rubin, Coplan, Bowker, and Menzer (2011) suggested that mothers of shy children are “more
likely to endorse and practice intrusive, controlling, and overprotective parenting strategies” (p.
9). Not surprisingly, several researchers have linked shy behavior among children with highly
controlling, intrusive, and “suffocatingly warm” mothers (Coplan, Arbeau, & Armer, 2008;
Rubin et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 1997; Rubin, Burgess, Kennedy, & Stewart, 2003, p. 389).
It has been argued that throughout the lifespan, overprotective parenting might limit the
acquisition of social skills because it limits opportunities to practice self-regulation and social
competence. Indeed, researchers have found a link between overprotective parenting and
negative child outcomes including higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems
(Barber et al. 1994; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000). Although little research has
been done to examine this in emerging adulthood, there is no reason to expect it would be any
different in emerging adulthood. Indeed, helicopter parenting might limit young peoples’
development by taking over tasks that emerging adults should be able to manage on their own.
Though parental actions may be prompted by genuine concern for their children’s success,
helicopter parents act on their concern by taking over tasks that children should be conquering as
91
they mature. Therefore, these parents may inadvertently stunt exploration and independence by
“doing” for their children rather than nurturing the ability of emerging adults to “do” for
themselves (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). A lack of independence may also lead to a lack of
confidence (Boen, 2007). Not surprisingly, research has shown that emerging adults who claim
they have overly involved or helicopter parents report higher levels of depression and anxiety,
more negative views of themselves, and feel less competent and able to handle life and its
stressors (Bronson & Merryman, 2009; Gibbs, 2009; LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011; Levine,
2006; Marano, 2008; Schiffrin et al., 2013). Taken together, there is growing conceptual and
empirical evidence suggesting that helicopter parenting may exacerbate the link between forms
of withdrawal and negative child outcomes.
Social Withdrawal and Authoritative Parenting
In contrast to the possible dangers of helicopter parenting, authoritative parenting is
generally considered to be most advantageous for healthy adjustment among children,
adolescents, and emerging adults (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Lamborn
et al., 1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Nelson et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2003). Authoritative
parenting includes high levels of warmth and involvement (Baumrind, 1971, 1991; Karavasilis,
Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003) however, it also allows for age-appropriate autonomy granting and
behavioral control. Authoritative parenting is aimed at 1) fostering a close emotional bond
between parent and child, 2) providing rules that place fair and consistent limits on child
behaviors, and 3) allowing for child autonomy when appropriate (e.g., Baumrind, 1966; Barber
& Olsen, 1997; Nucci & Smetana, 1996). This style of parenting allows for children to take an
active role in solving their own problems and has been found to lead to better social and
emotional adjustment, including less anxiety and depression (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Kenney-
92
Benson & Pomerantz, 2005). Authoritative parenting may benefit well-being by fostering a
sense of autonomy and social competence, which are associated with success in Western cultures
(Baumrind, 1978: Hart, Newell, & Olsen, 2003). Authoritative parenting is associated with more
positive self-perceptions and better mental health (e.g., Clawson & Robila, 2001; Lamborn et al.,
1991; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Others have found that children and adolescents who are
raised by authoritative parents are better socially and academically adjusted, less aggressive, and
less likely to use drugs. These children and adolescents are also more likely to be accepted by
their peers, display good self-control and competent communication, and to be more successful
in their academic pursuits (e.g., Hart, Newell, & Frost, 2003; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995).
Despite the numerous findings related to the positive outcomes of authoritative parenting
for children generally, there is a paucity of literature regarding authoritative parenting and the
relationships it has with shyness, unsociability, and avoidance. Coplan et al. (2004) found a
negative association between shyness and maternal authoritative parenting among preschool
children. Similarly, Coplan et al. (2007) found that relationships between shyness and indices of
maladjustment were weaker when mothers displayed authoritative parenting. Indeed, researchers
have found that parents who are sensitive and warm and who encourage independence and peer
interaction, can help their children to become less inhibited and gain positive social skills (e.g.,
Rubin et al., 2001, 2002).
Though these few studies are a good first step to understanding how helicopter and
authoritative mothers may influence socially withdrawn children, very little is known about the
current influence of parenting in the links between social withdrawal subtypes and internalizing
problems in emerging adulthood. There is a need to conduct an examination of how different
93
parenting approaches might exacerbate or ameliorate internalizing outcomes those who display
withdrawn (i.e., shy, unsocial, avoidant) behaviors in emerging adulthood.
94
Comprehensive Literature Review References
Aquilino, W. S. (1997). From adolescent to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child
relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 908922.
Arcus, D. (2001). Inhibited and uninhibited children: Biology in the social context. In T.
Wachs & D. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Temperament in context (pp. 43-60). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Arnett, J. J. (1994). Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to adulthood.
Journal of Adult Development, 1, 154-168.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the
twenties. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.
Arnett, J. J. (2010). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (4th Ed.).
Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance.
Human Development, 33, 250-259.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday
life: Sociability mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations.
Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 65, 1072-1083.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological
and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child
Development, 65, 1120-1136.
95
Baron, R. M.,&Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barry, C. M., Nelson, L. J., & Christofferson, J. (2013). Asocial and afraid: An examination
of shyness and anxiety in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Studies, 19(1), 2-1
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 37(4), 887-907.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monographs, 4, 1-102.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth
and Society, 9(3), 239-276.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance
use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56-95.
Bayer, J. K., Sanson, A. V., & Hemphill, S. A. (2006). Parent influences on early childhood
internalizing difficulties. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 542–559.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
238-246.
Bell, I. R., Jasnoski, M. L., Kagan, J., & King, D. S. (1990). Is allergic rhinitis more frequent in
young adults with extreme shyness? A preliminary survey. Psychosomatic Medicine,
52(5), 517-525.
Boen, J. (2007, January 15) ‘Helicopter parenting’ hurts more than helps: Such parenting
impedes child’s confidence. Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, p. 1.
96
Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and social self-perceptions: A sequential
model. Developmental Psychology, 33, 135-145.
Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer
rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in
childhood. Developmental Psychopathology, 7, 765-785.
Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurture shock: New thinking about children. New York,
NY: Twelve.
Bowker, J. C., Markovic, A., Cogswell, A., & Raja, R. (2012). Moderating effects of aggression
on the associations between social withdrawal subtypes and peer difficulties during early
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 995–1007.
Bowker, J. C., Nelson, L. J., Markovic, A. K., & Luster, S. S., (2014). Social withdrawal in
adolescence and emerging adulthood. In R. J. Coplan and J. C. Bowker (Eds.), A
handbook of solitude: Psychological perspectives on social isolation, social withdrawal,
and being alone (pp. 167-183). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bowker, J. C., & Raja, R. (2011). Social withdrawal subtypes during early adolescence in India.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 91–126.
Burgess, K. B., Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Nelson, L. J. (2001). Behavioral inhibition,
social withdrawal, and parenting. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.), International
handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research, and interventions relating to the self and
shyness (pp. 137–158). Sussex, UK: Wiley.
Burke N. (1991). College psychotherapy and the development of a capacity for solitude. Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy, 6, 59-86.
97
Carroll, J.S., Willoughby, B., Badger, S., Nelson, L.J., Barry, C.M., and Madsen, S.D. 2007. So
close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 219-247.
Caspi, A. (2000). The child is father of the man: Personality continuities from childhood to
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 158–172.
Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1988). Moving away from the world: Life-course patterns
of shy children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 824–831.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1989). Issues in the clinical application of temperament. In G. A.
Kohnstamm, J. E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 378386). Chichester: Wiley.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Chickering, A. W. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Clark University. (2012). Clark poll shows nearly 90% of emerging adults are confident they’ll
get what they want out of life [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://news.clarku.edu/news/2012/11/08/clark-poll-shows-nearly-90-of-emerging-adultsare-confident-theyll-get-what-they-want-out-of-life/
Clawson, M.A. & Robila, M. (2001). Relations between parenting style and children’s
play behavior. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 8(3), 13-19.
Coplan, R. J., Arbeau, K. A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don't fret, be supportive! Maternal
characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in
kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 359–71.
98
Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A ‘multitude’ of solitude: A closer look social withdrawal
and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 26–32.
Coplan, R. J., Findlay, L. C., & Nelson, L. J. (2004). Characteristics of preschoolers with lower
perceived competence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 399-408.
Coplan, R. J., Gavinski-Molina, M. H., Lagace-Seguin, D. G., & Wichmann, C. (2001). When
girls versus boys play alone: Nonsocial play and adjustment in kindergarten.
Developmental Psychology, 37, 464-474.
Coplan, R. J., Girardi, A., Findlay, L. C., & Frohlick, S. L. (2007). Understanding solitude:
Young children’s attitudes and responses towards hypothetical socially-withdrawn
peers. Social Development, 16, 390-409.
Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers
who frequently elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 18, 143-158.
Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O'Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you 'want' to play?
Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood.
Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 244-258.
Coplan, R.., Rose-Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A., Kingsbury, M., & Bullock, A. (2012).
Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socio-emotional functioning
in later childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 861-875.
Coplan, R. J., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A., Calkins, S. D., & Stewart, S. L. (1994). Being alone,
playing alone, and acting alone: Distinguishing among reticence and passive and active
solitude in young children. Child Development, 65, 129–137.
99
Coplan, R. J., Wilson, J., Frohlick, S. L., & Zelenski, J. (2006). A person-oriented analysis of
behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in childhood. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 917-927.
Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Unsociability and the preference for solitude in childhood. In
K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and social withdrawal
(pp. 64–83). New York: Guilford.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life’s domains. Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.
Dimitrov, D. M. (2006). Comparing groups on latent variables: A structural equation modeling
approach. Work, 26, 429-436.
DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in
education and what it means for American schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Nichols, K. E., & Ghera, M. M. (2005).
Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 235-262.
Garcia-Coll, C., Kagan, J., & Reznick, J. S. (1984). Behavioral inhibition in young children.
Child Development, 55(3), 1005-1019.
Gibbs, N. (2009). The growing backlash against overparenting. Time Magazine. Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940697,00.html.
100
Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources and the
transition to junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 465–488.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R., M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediatiors of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Hamer, R. J., & Bruch, M. A. (1997). Personality factors and inhibited career development:
Testing the unique contribution of shyness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 382400.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies:
Developmental continuity or developmental change. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 1738.
Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and social-communicative
competence in childhood. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of
communication and social interaction skills (pp. 753-797). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
101
Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Nelson, L.J., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, J. A., Nelson, D. A., Porter, C. L.,
Jin, S., Olsen, S. F., & Wu, P. (2000). Peer acceptance in early childhood and subtypes of
socially withdrawn behaviour in China, Russia and the United States. International
Journal of Behavior Development, 241, 73-81.
Harrist, A. W., Zaia, A. F., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Subtypes of social
withdrawal in early childhood: Sociometric status and social-cognitive differences across
four years. Child Development, 682, 278-294.
Hastings, P. D., & Rubin, K. H. (1999). Predicting mothers' beliefs about preschool-aged
children's social behavior: Evidence for maternal attitudes moderating child effects. Child
Development, 703, 722–741.
Hofer, B. K., Souder, C., Kennedy, E. K., Fullman, N., & Hurd, K. (2009). The electronic tether:
Communication and parental monitoring during the college years. In M. K. Nelson & A.
I. Garey (Eds.) Who’s watching? Daily practices of surveillance among contemporary
families (pp. 277-294). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hojat, M., Vogel, W. H., Zeleznik, C., & Borenstein, B. D. (1988). Effects of academic and
psychosocial predictors of performance in medical school on coefficients of
determination. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 383-394.
Holahan, C. J., Valentiner, D. P., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Parental support and psychological
adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of
Family Psychology, 8, 215-223.
Holden, G.W., & Edwards, L.E. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments,
issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29–58.
Hornblower, M. (1997, June 9). Great Xpectations. Time, pp. 58-68.
102
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children:
Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879896.
Jamison, T. B., & Ganong, L. (2011). “We're not living together:'' Stayover relationships among
college-educated emerging adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(4),
536-557.
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1998). Childhood derivatives of high and low reactivity in
infancy. Child Development, 69(6), 1483-1493.
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Zentner, M., & Peterson, E. (1999). Infant temperament and anxious
symptoms in school age children. Developmental Psychopathology, 11(2), 209-224.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style
and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27(2), 153–164.
Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The role of mothers’ use of control in
children’s perfectionism: Implications for the development of children’s depressive
symptoms. Journal of Personality, 73, 23–46.
Kerr, M., Lambert, W. W., & Bem, D. J. (1996). Life course sequelae of childhood shyness in
Sweden: Comparison with the United States. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1100–1105.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child
compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of
early internalization. Child Development 66(1), 236-254.
103
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of
competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian,
indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.
Larson R. (1997). The emergence of solitude as a constructive domain of experience in early
adolescence. Child Development, 68, 80–93.
Leary, M. R. (2001). Shyness and the self: Attentional, motivational, and cognitive selfprocesses in social anxiety and inhibition. In W. R. Crozier & L. E. Alden (Eds.)
International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research, and interventions relating
to the self and shyness (pp. 217-234). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Leary, M. R., & Schlenker, B. R. (1981). The social psychology shyness: A self-presentational
model. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological
research (pp. 335-358). New York: Academic Press.
LeMoyne, T., & Buchanan, T. (2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its
effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31, 399–418.
Levine, M. (2006). The price of privilege. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Long, C. R., & Averill, J. R. (2003). Solitude: An exploration of benefits of being alone. Journal
of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33, 21–44.
Long, C. R., Seburn, M., Averill, J. R., & More, T. A. (2003). Solitude experiences: Varieties,
settings, and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 578–
583.
104
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1101). New York: Wiley.
Marano, H. E. (2008). A nation of wimps: The high cost of invasive parenting. New York, NY:
The Crown Publishing Group.
McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of
childhood peer rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213-247).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
McKinney, C. & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers:
Implications for late adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806-827.
McLanahan, S. (2004) Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second
demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607-627.
Mills, R. S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural and psychological control both
differentially associated with childhood aggression and social withdrawal? Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 30(2), 132-136
Mounts, N., Valentiner, D., Anderson, K., & Boswell, M. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and
parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 68-77.
Muthe´n, L. K., & Muthe´n, B. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthe´n & Muthe´n.
Neeman, J., & Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the self-perception profile for college students.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado.
105
Nelson, L. J. (2013). Going it alone: Comparing subtypes of withdrawal on indices of
adjustment and maladjustment in emerging adulthood. Social Development, 22, 522–
538.
Nelson, L. J., Hart, C. H., Wu, B., Yang, C., Roper, S. O, & Jin, S. (2006). Relations between
Chinese mothers’ parenting practices and social withdrawal in early childhood.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 261-271.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Badger, S., Barry, C. M., Carroll, J. S., & Madsen, S. D.
(2008). Associations between shyness and internalizing behaviors, externalizing
behaviors, and relationships during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37(5), 605-615.
Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L., Christensen, K., Evans, C. A., & Carroll, J. S. (2011).
Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates for
mothers and fathers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 730-743.
Neto, F. (2001). Personality predictors of happiness. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 817-824.
Novak, S. P., & Clayton, R. R. (2001). The influence of school environment and self-regulation
on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking:A multilevel analysis. Health
Psychology, 20, 196–207.
Nucci, L., & Smetana, J. G. (1996). Mothers’ conceptions of young children’s areas of personal
freedoms. Child Development, 67, 1870-1876.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down? Establishing helicopter
parenting as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging
adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1177–1190.
106
Pagano, M.E., Hirsch, B.J., Deutsch, N.L., & McAdams, D.P. (2002). The transmission of values
to school-age and young adult offspring: Race and gender differences in parenting.
Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 14, 13-36.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom and why of
parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of
Educational Research, 77(3), 373–410.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rothbart, M. K., & Putnam, S. (2002). Temperament and socialization. In L. Pulkinnen & A.
Caspi, (Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 19-45).
Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, K.H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessarily evil? Child Development, 53,
651-657.
Rubin, K. H. (1993). The Waterloo Longitudinal Project: Correlates and consequences of social
withdrawal from childhood to adolescence. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.),
Social Withdrawal, Inhibition, Shyness in Childhood. (pp. 291–314). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rubin, K. H., & Asendorpf, J. A., (1993). Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in
childhood. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, K. H., Bowker, J. C., & Kennedy, A. E. (2009). Avoiding and withdrawing from the peer
group. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer
interactions, relationships, and groups. (pp. 303-321). New York, NY US: Guilford
Press.
107
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski,W.M., & Parker, J.G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 619–
700). New York: Wiley.
Rubin, K.H. & Burgess, K. (2002). Parents of aggressive and withdrawn children. In M.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 383-418.) Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social-behavioral
consequences of toddlers' inhibited temperament and parenting. Child Development, 73,
483–495.
Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K., Kennedy, A. E., & Stewart, S. (2003). Social withdrawal and
inhibition in childhood. In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology. (pp.
372–406). New York: Guilford.
Rubin, K. H., Cheah, C. S. L., & Fox, N. A. (2001). Emotion regulation, parenting and display of
social reticence in preschoolers. Early Educational Development, 121, 97–115.
Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., McDougall, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo
longitudinal project: Predicting adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems from
early and mid-childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751–764.
Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal
and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506–34.
Rubin, K.H. & Coplan, R.J. (2010). The development of shyness and social withdrawal. New
York: Guilford.
108
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 11.1–11.31.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Bowker, J. C., & Menzer, M. (2011). Social withdrawal and shyness.
In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social
development (2nd ed., pp. 434–452). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rubin, K.H., Hastings, P.D., Stewart, S.L., Henderson, H.A., & Chen, X. (1997). The
consistency and concomitants of inhibition: Some of the children, all of the time. Child
Development, 68, 467-483.
Rubin, K. H., Nelson, L. J., Hastings, P. D., & Asendorpf, J. (1999). The transaction between
parents' perceptions of their children's shyness and their parenting styles. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 937–958.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1995). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bornstein
(Ed.) Applied and practical parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 299-321). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiffrin, H. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull, M. J., & Tashner, T.
(2013). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students'
well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 548-557.
Schmidt, L. A., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults' shyness and
sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences,
19(4), 455-462.
109
Schwartz, C. E., Snidman, N., & Kagan, J. (1999). Adolescent social anxiety as an outcome of
inhibited temperament in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1008-1015.
Simpson, A. R. (2001). Raising teens: A synthesis of research and a foundation for action.
Boston: Center for Health Communication, Harvard School of Public Health.
Spangler, T., & Gazelle, H. (2009). Anxious solitude, unsociability, and peer exclusion in middle
childhood: A multitrait-multimethod matrix. Social Development, 18, 833-856.
Steinberg, L., & Sheffield Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 83-110.
Stevenson-Hinde, & Glover, (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(2), 181-187.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Bruner/Mazel.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and behavior disorders in children.
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wachs, T. D., & Kohnstamm, G. A. (Eds.). (2001). Temperament in context (pp. 201–222).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wang, J. M., Rubin, K. H., Laursen, B., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2013).
Preference-for-solitude and adjustment difficulties in early and late adolescence. Journal
of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 0(0), 1-9.
Whitehead, B. D., & Popenoe, D. (2001). The state of our unions: The social health of
marriage in America. Retrieved September 2013 from http://
nationalmarriageproject.org/reports/.
110
Wood, J. J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. C., & Chu, B. C. (2003). Parenting and
childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings, and future directions. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(1), 134-151.