Shyness

Abstract

Shyness, which MeSH classifies under social behavior, is discomfort, inhibition, and wariness in social situations, especially novel ones or those involving perceived evaluation. Cognitive psychology studies it along several converging lines: the temperament tradition, which traces shyness to an inherited behavioral-inhibition profile detectable in infancy; the dimensional tradition, which separates shyness from low sociability and from other forms of social withdrawal; the clinical tradition, which asks how ordinary shyness relates to social anxiety disorder; and the componential tradition, which distinguishes fearful from self-conscious shyness. This article sets out each account, works through a Bayesian example of the shyness–social-anxiety relationship, and offers three interactive demonstrations of reactivity, the shyness-by-sociability typology, and the conditional probabilities that link shyness to clinical anxiety.

Keywords: shyness, behavioral inhibition, sociability, social anxiety disorder, temperament

What Shyness Is

Shyness is a tendency to feel tense, worried, or awkward in social situations, particularly those that are unfamiliar or that carry the possibility of being judged. MeSH defines it as a feeling of discomfort and inhibition in interpersonal situations, and files the descriptor under social behaviour. That placement is partly an indexing convention: shyness is an internal, dispositional state as much as an interpersonal one, but it is defined by its expression in social encounters and its consequences for social life, so the classification under social behaviour reflects where the construct makes itself felt rather than a claim that shyness is only a behaviour.

What makes shyness psychologically distinctive is that it couples two motivations that ordinarily oppose one another. The shy person is drawn toward social contact and at the same time wary of it, so the hallmark of shyness is an approach-avoidance conflict: a wish to engage that is held in check by anticipated discomfort. This is the feature that separates shyness from related states it is often confused with. A person low in sociability simply finds solitude rewarding and feels little pull toward company; a shy person feels the pull but is inhibited from acting on it. The distinction matters because the two look similar from the outside — both produce quiet, withdrawn behaviour — yet they have different causes, different subjective textures, and different consequences.

Shyness also sits within a family of terms worth keeping apart. Behavioral inhibition is the temperamental substrate, a biologically based disposition to react to novelty with wariness and restraint. Social withdrawal is the broad behavioural outcome of removing oneself from social opportunities, which shyness is only one route to. Social anxiety disorder (also called social phobia) is the clinical condition in which social fear becomes intense and impairing enough to warrant diagnosis. Shyness is the everyday dispositional trait that these other terms variously underlie, describe the extreme of, or sit beneath. The sections that follow take these up in turn: the temperamental origins, the dimensional structure, the clinical boundary, and the internal components of shyness.

Temperament and Behavioral Inhibition

The deepest roots of shyness lie in temperament. Jerome Kagan and colleagues established that a sizeable minority of infants are constitutionally disposed to react to unfamiliar people, objects, and events with distress and motor arousal, a profile they termed behavioral inhibition (Kagan et al., 1988). In their longitudinal work, around a fifth of four-month-old infants were high-reactive — they arched, fretted, and flailed at novel sights, sounds, and smells — while about two-fifths were low-reactive, lying calmly. These early reactivity profiles were not fleeting: high-reactive infants were substantially more likely to become subdued, cautious, inhibited toddlers and shy children, and low-reactive infants to become sociable and bold ones (Kagan & Snidman, 1991).

Kagan's interpretation was explicitly biological. He proposed that high-reactive children inherit a lower threshold of excitability in the amygdala and its projections, so that novelty more readily triggers the physiological signatures of wariness. The strongest evidence for this claim came much later, when Carl Schwartz and colleagues brought a subset of Kagan's original cohort back as adults and scanned them: those who had been categorised as inhibited two decades earlier showed a heightened amygdalar response to novel faces, a neural signature of the temperament persisting into adulthood long after the overt behaviour had often softened (Schwartz et al., 2003). The finding is a landmark because it links an infant behavioural classification to an adult brain response across an interval of twenty years.

Temperament is a disposition, not a destiny. Many inhibited infants do not become conspicuously shy adults, and the developmental path from early reactivity to later shyness is moderated by parenting, culture, and the child's own experiences. The contemporary longitudinal evidence sharpens this point: Kristie Poole and colleagues, following a cohort across four decades, found that early temperamental shyness that persisted was associated with a different developmental signature than shyness that emerged later, consistent with the idea that an early-appearing, temperamentally rooted shyness is a partly distinct phenomenon from shyness that arises later in development (Poole et al., 2019). The temperament tradition thus supplies the biological floor of shyness without reducing the trait to biology.

The ReactivityProfile demonstration below lets the infant reactivity distribution be adjusted and a classification threshold moved, showing how the proportion of infants classified as high-reactive — and the predicted share who become inhibited children — changes with where the line is drawn.

Shyness, Sociability, and Social Withdrawal

A central conceptual advance was the realisation that shyness is not merely the low end of sociability. Jonathan Cheek and Arnold Buss showed that shyness (tension and inhibition with others) and sociability (the preference for being with others rather than alone) are separable dimensions rather than opposite poles of one scale (Cheek & Buss, 1981). The two correlated only modestly and negatively, which means a person can occupy any combination of them. Crucially, Cheek and Buss found that the shy-but-sociable combination was the most troubled: children and adults who wanted contact yet were inhibited from pursuing it showed the most tension and the most awkward behaviour, precisely because they were caught in the approach-avoidance conflict that a shy-and-unsociable person, content alone, largely escapes.

This two-dimensional view reshaped how the quiet child is understood. Robert Coplan and colleagues argued that solitude in early childhood is not one thing: a child may be shy (motivated to interact but held back by wariness), unsociable (simply preferring solitary play, with no social fear), or avoidant (actively disliking social contact), and these subtypes carry different risks (Coplan & Armer, 2007). Shyness, with its unresolved wish to belong, tends to carry the greatest cost to well-being; benign unsociability may carry little or none. Jens Asendorpf made the parallel case developmentally, distinguishing withdrawal driven by social fear from withdrawal driven by low interest, and showing that these have different antecedents and different peer consequences (Asendorpf, 1990).

Kenneth Rubin, Coplan, and Julie Bowker synthesised this literature into an influential account of social withdrawal in childhood, treating observed solitude as the common surface of several distinct underlying motivations and charting how shyness in particular predicts internalising problems, peer exclusion, and difficulties with friendship over development (Rubin et al., 2009). Their review made clear that the behaviour of being alone is diagnostically ambiguous: to understand a quiet child one must know why the child is quiet, and shyness is only one of the answers. The dimensional distinction between shyness and sociability continues to do work in adulthood as well; Poole and colleagues found that the long-run outcomes of shyness depend on the person's level of sociability, with highly shy and highly sociable adults faring differently from shy and unsociable ones (Poole et al., 2017b).

The ShynessSociabilityGrid demonstration below makes this two-dimensional structure interactive, placing a person in the shyness-by-sociability space and reporting the behavioural profile and the degree of approach-avoidance conflict each quadrant implies.

Shyness and Social Anxiety Disorder

The most consequential boundary question is how ordinary shyness relates to social anxiety disorder (social phobia), the clinical condition marked by intense fear of social or performance situations and significant impairment. The two are plainly related: both involve fear of negative evaluation, and Mark Leary's early work on social anxiousness provided the measurement foundation for treating social anxiety as a continuous trait that shades from mild shyness to clinical severity (Leary, 1983). The question is whether shyness and social anxiety disorder differ in kind or only in degree.

The evidence favours a continuum with a clinical threshold rather than two distinct categories. Denise Chavira, Murray Stein, and Vanessa Malcarne found that highly shy individuals were far more likely than non-shy ones to meet criteria for social phobia, yet the majority of even the highly shy did not — shyness raised the probability of the disorder without being equivalent to it (Chavira et al., 2002). Nancy Heiser, Samuel Turner, and Deborah Beidel reached a complementary conclusion from the other direction: highly shy people resembled those with social phobia on many measures but were, on average, less impaired, placing shyness and the generalised form of social phobia on the same dimension with the disorder at the severe end (Heiser et al., 2003). A later study refined the boundary, showing that what best differentiated the socially phobic from the merely shy was the breadth and the functional impact of the fear rather than its basic character (Heiser et al., 2009).

Why some shy people develop the disorder and most do not is partly explained by the cognitive model of social anxiety. Ronald Rapee and Richard Heimberg proposed that socially anxious individuals construct a distorted mental representation of how they appear to an audience, allocate attention to monitoring that representation and to perceived threat, and thereby confirm their fears — a self-maintaining cycle that converts a disposition to wariness into a clinical problem (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). On this account the shy temperament supplies the raw fear, and the cognitive processes of self-focused attention and biased appraisal determine whether it escalates. Contemporary work continues to probe the shyness–disorder link; Poole and colleagues found that sociability moderates the relationship, such that high shyness was most strongly associated with social anxiety disorder when it was not accompanied by a countervailing drive to affiliate (Poole et al., 2017a).

Fearful and Self-Conscious Shyness

Shyness is not a single component. W. Ray Crozier drew the influential distinction between fearful shyness and self-conscious shyness, which differ in both timing and mechanism (Crozier, 1999). Fearful shyness appears early, in the first year or two of life, and is the direct behavioural expression of Kagan's inhibited temperament: a wariness of strangers and novelty that needs no sense of being evaluated to operate. Self-conscious shyness appears later, from roughly the age of four or five onward, and depends on a cognitive achievement — the capacity to represent oneself as an object of others' attention and judgement. It is the shyness of embarrassment, of being looked at, of blushing.

Jonathan Cheek and Lisa Melchior developed the self-conscious side of this distinction, linking shyness to self-esteem and to heightened public self-consciousness — the chronic awareness of oneself as a social object (Cheek & Melchior, 1990). On their account, the self-conscious shy person is preoccupied with how they are coming across, and this evaluative self-focus both generates discomfort and disrupts the fluent social behaviour that would reassure them. The two components can co-occur in the same person, but they have different developmental origins: one is temperamental and present before any theory of mind, the other awaits the child's growing understanding that they can be seen and judged.

A striking marker of self-conscious shyness is blushing, the involuntary reddening of the face in response to unwanted social attention. Milica Nikolic and colleagues showed experimentally that children blush in response to social-evaluative situations, and that inflated praise — being lavished with attention that exceeds what feels warranted — is a potent trigger, linking blushing to the developing sensitivity to evaluation that defines self-conscious shyness (Nikolic et al., 2018). Blushing is informative precisely because it is hard to fake or suppress: it is an honest physiological signal of the evaluative concern at the heart of the self-conscious component.

The two-component view has clinical and developmental payoffs. It explains why shyness that looks similar on the surface can have very different roots, and it predicts that interventions aimed at the fearful component (reducing physiological reactivity and avoidance) may differ from those aimed at the self-conscious component (reducing evaluative self-focus and maladaptive appraisal).

Worked Example: Shyness as a Risk Marker for Social Anxiety Disorder

Figure 1

The relationship between shyness and social anxiety disorder can be made precise with a little conditional probability, which clarifies exactly why the two are related without being the same. Suppose, in an illustrative population, that 40% of people are highly shy, that the probability of having the disorder is P(SAD | shy) = 0.25 among the highly shy, and that it is P(SAD | not shy) = 0.05 among everyone else. These numbers are chosen for clarity rather than taken from a single study, but they are of the order the clinical literature reports (Chavira et al., 2002; Heiser et al., 2009).

First, the overall rate of the disorder follows from the law of total probability:

P(SAD) = P(shy)·P(SAD | shy) + P(not shy)·P(SAD | not shy) = 0.40 × 0.25 + 0.60 × 0.05 = 0.100 + 0.030 = 0.130

So about 13% of the population has the disorder. Now the two conditional probabilities that matter point in opposite directions. Working backward by Bayes' theorem, the probability that someone with the disorder is highly shy is

P(shy | SAD) = P(shy)·P(SAD | shy) / P(SAD) = 0.100 / 0.130 = 0.77

Most people with the disorder — just over three-quarters — are highly shy. Yet the forward probability tells the other half of the story: P(SAD | shy) = 0.25 means that only a quarter of highly shy people have the disorder, so fully 75% of shy people do not meet criteria for it. Both facts are true at once, and together they capture the clinical consensus exactly. Shyness is a powerful risk marker for social anxiety disorder, and it accounts for the majority of cases, which is why the two sit on a single underlying dimension of social fear. But shyness is emphatically not the disorder: three of every four shy people never cross the threshold of severity and impairment that a diagnosis requires. The arithmetic also makes the levers visible: raising P(SAD | shy) — a stronger temperament, a more self-maintaining cognitive cycle in Rapee and Heimberg's sense — narrows the gap between disposition and disorder, while a low P(SAD | shy) widens it, which is the quantitative face of the observation that most shy people are not clinically anxious.

The demonstration below makes this interactive. Moving the base rate of shyness and the two conditional probabilities recomputes the overall rate of the disorder, the proportion of shy people who have it, and the proportion of cases who are shy, so the double-edged relationship — strong association, far from identity — can be read off directly.

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of shyness has converged, from several starting points, on a layered picture. At the base is temperament: an inherited behavioral-inhibition profile, visible in infancy and traceable to amygdalar reactivity, that biases a minority of people toward wariness in the face of novelty and social evaluation (Kagan et al., 1988; Schwartz et al., 2003). On top of that base sits a dimensional structure: shyness is separable from low sociability, and the shy-but-sociable combination — wanting contact yet inhibited from seeking it — is the most conflicted and the most costly (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Coplan & Armer, 2007). The behaviour of being alone is therefore diagnostically ambiguous, and understanding a quiet person requires knowing the motivation behind the quiet (Rubin et al., 2009).

Two further distinctions give the construct its clinical and developmental shape. The first is the boundary with social anxiety disorder: shyness and the disorder lie on one dimension of social fear separated by a threshold of severity and impairment, so shyness is a risk marker that most shy people never convert into a diagnosis, with cognitive processes of self-focused attention and biased appraisal helping determine who does (Heiser et al., 2003; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). The second is the internal split between a fearful component, early and temperamental, and a self-conscious component, later and dependent on the capacity to experience oneself as an object of evaluation (Crozier, 1999; Cheek & Melchior, 1990). The honest physiological signal of the self-conscious component, blushing, ties it directly to the developing sensitivity to being watched (Nikolic et al., 2018).

The practical upshot is that shyness should be neither pathologised nor dismissed. It is common, partly heritable, and for many people compatible with a full and satisfying life; its costs fall most heavily on those in whom a strong wish to belong meets a strong inhibition against acting on it. That same analysis points to where intervention helps most — not at shyness as such, but at the approach-avoidance conflict and the evaluative self-focus that make some forms of it painful.

Current Directions

The most active contemporary line is longitudinal and developmental. Kristie Poole, Louis Schmidt, and colleagues have used multi-decade cohorts to ask not merely whether shyness persists but what distinguishes its adaptive from its maladaptive forms. Their four-decade analysis of developmental programming found that the trajectory of shyness — early-onset and stable versus later-emerging — carries more information than a single measurement, consistent with the fearful/self-conscious distinction having a developmental signature (Poole et al., 2019). A related strand re-examines the moderating role of sociability in adulthood, showing that the long-run consequences of being shy depend heavily on whether the shy person also wants social contact and on the coping resources they bring to the conflict (Poole et al., 2017b).

A second direction reframes shyness as potentially adaptive rather than simply a vulnerability. The edited synthesis by Schmidt and Poole gathers evidence that shyness, in moderate forms and the right contexts, can be associated with careful social monitoring, cooperativeness, and reduced risk-taking, pushing the field beyond a purely deficit-based view toward asking when and for whom shyness is costly and when it is benign (Poole & Schmidt, 2020). A third front builds on the neuroscience opened by the amygdala findings, treating the inhibited temperament as an endophenotype and asking how early reactivity, cognitive appraisal, and environment interact over development to produce the full range of shy outcomes (Schwartz et al., 2003). Across these efforts the trajectory is away from treating shyness as a single fixed trait and toward specifying the developmental paths, moderators, and contexts that determine its consequences.

Common Misconceptions

Shyness and introversion are the same thing.

They are not. Shyness is wariness and inhibition in social situations, driven by an approach-avoidance conflict; introversion, in the sense of low sociability, is simply a weaker preference for company. Cheek and Buss showed shyness and sociability are separable dimensions, so a person can be a shy extravert who wants contact but is inhibited from seeking it (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Coplan & Armer, 2007).

Shyness is just social anxiety disorder by another name.

Shyness is a common dispositional trait; social anxiety disorder is a clinical condition defined by intense fear and significant impairment. They lie on one dimension of social fear, but the great majority of shy people never reach the threshold of severity a diagnosis requires (Chavira et al., 2002; Heiser et al., 2009).

Shyness is learned and can be unlearned like a habit.

A substantial part of shyness is temperamental. Kagan showed that behavioral inhibition is detectable in infancy and biologically based, and the inhibited profile leaves a neural signature detectable in adulthood. Experience and environment shape its expression, but shyness is not simply an acquired habit (Kagan et al., 1988; Schwartz et al., 2003).

A quiet, withdrawn child must be shy.

Quiet behaviour is diagnostically ambiguous. A child may be shy (wanting contact but inhibited), unsociable (content with solitude), or avoidant (disliking contact), and these have different causes and consequences. One must know why a child is quiet before concluding the child is shy (Rubin et al., 2009; Asendorpf, 1990).

Glossary

Approach-avoidance conflict.

The simultaneous pull toward social contact and push away from it that defines shyness; it is what distinguishes a shy person, who wants to engage but is inhibited, from an unsociable one who feels little pull toward company.

Behavioral inhibition.

A biologically based temperament, detectable in infancy, marked by wary, restrained reactions to novel people, objects, and situations; the temperamental substrate of fearful shyness.

Blushing.

The involuntary reddening of the face under unwanted social attention; an honest physiological signal of the evaluative concern central to self-conscious shyness.

Fearful shyness.

The early-appearing component of shyness, present in the first years of life, that expresses the inhibited temperament as wariness of strangers and novelty and needs no sense of being evaluated to operate.

High reactivity.

In Kagan's scheme, the infant profile of vigorous distress and motor arousal to novelty seen in roughly a fifth of babies; a precursor of later inhibited, shy behaviour.

Public self-consciousness.

The chronic tendency to attend to oneself as a social object, aware of how one appears to others; heightened in self-conscious shyness, where it fuels evaluative concern and disrupts fluent social behaviour.

Self-conscious shyness.

The later-appearing component of shyness, emerging around age four or five, that depends on the capacity to represent oneself as an object of others' attention and judgement; the shyness of embarrassment and blushing.

Shyness.

Discomfort, tension, and inhibition in social situations, especially novel ones or those involving perceived evaluation; classified by MeSH under social behaviour.

Sociability.

The dispositional preference for being with others rather than alone; separable from shyness, so a person can be high or low on each independently.

Social anxiety disorder.

Also called social phobia; the clinical condition of intense fear of social or performance situations with significant impairment, lying at the severe end of the social-fear dimension that shyness occupies more mildly.

Social anxiousness.

Leary's construct treating social anxiety as a continuous trait running from mild shyness to clinical severity, providing the measurement basis for a dimensional view of social fear.

Social withdrawal.

The broad behavioural pattern of removing oneself from social opportunities; a common surface produced by several distinct motivations, of which shyness is only one.

Temperament.

Early-appearing, partly heritable individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation that form the constitutional foundation on which traits such as shyness develop.

Unsociability.

A non-fearful preference for solitude, in which a person simply finds solitary activity rewarding and feels little motivation to seek company; distinct from shyness because it involves no approach-avoidance conflict.

Key Researchers

Jonathan M. Cheek

(Wellesley College). Co-developed the Cheek-Buss Shyness Scale and the distinction between shyness and sociability as separable dimensions, and elaborated the self-conscious component of shyness. ORCID

Robert J. Coplan

(Carleton University). Distinguished shyness from unsociability and avoidance as motivations for childhood solitude, clarifying that quiet children differ in why they withdraw and in the risks they face. ORCID

Jerome Kagan

(Harvard University, 1929–2021). Identified behavioral inhibition as a biologically based temperament underlying childhood shyness, showing that a minority of infants react to novelty with distress and that this reactivity forecasts later inhibited behaviour. Wikipedia

Kristie L. Poole

(developmental psychology). Leads contemporary longitudinal work on the developmental programming of shyness, the moderating role of sociability, and the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive shy profiles across decades. ORCID

Kenneth H. Rubin

(University of Maryland). Synthesised the developmental literature on social withdrawal, situating shyness within a broader taxonomy of solitary behaviour and charting its peer-relational consequences. ORCID

Philip Zimbardo

(Stanford University, 1933–2024). Founded the Stanford Shyness Clinic and reframed shyness as a widespread, treatable social problem, drawing public and scientific attention to its prevalence and its costs. Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is shyness?

Shyness is a tendency to feel tense, worried, or inhibited in social situations, especially unfamiliar ones or those in which one might be evaluated. Its defining feature is an approach-avoidance conflict: the shy person is drawn toward social contact yet held back by anticipated discomfort. That conflict is what separates shyness from simply preferring to be alone.

Is shyness the same as introversion?

No. Introversion, understood as low sociability, is a weak preference for company; shyness is wariness and inhibition in social situations. Research shows the two are separable dimensions, so a person can be a shy extravert who strongly wants social contact but is inhibited from pursuing it, or an unsociable non-shy person who is content alone without any social fear.

Is shyness a disorder?

No. Shyness is a common and normal dispositional trait. It lies on the same underlying dimension of social fear as social anxiety disorder, but the great majority of shy people never reach the level of fear and impairment that a clinical diagnosis requires. Shyness becomes a clinical concern only when it is severe, pervasive, and significantly impairing.

How is shyness related to social anxiety disorder?

Shyness is a risk marker for social anxiety disorder rather than the disorder itself. Highly shy people are much more likely than others to develop the disorder, and most people with the disorder are shy, yet only a minority of shy people ever meet diagnostic criteria. Cognitive processes such as self-focused attention and biased self-appraisal help determine who crosses the threshold.

Where does shyness come from?

A substantial part of shyness is temperamental. Kagan showed that behavioral inhibition, a disposition to react to novelty with wariness, is detectable in infancy and biologically based, and that the inhibited profile leaves a neural signature into adulthood. Temperament is a starting point rather than a destiny: parenting, culture, and experience shape whether early reactivity becomes lasting shyness.

Are there different kinds of shyness?

Yes. Researchers distinguish fearful shyness, which appears early and expresses the inhibited temperament as wariness of novelty, from self-conscious shyness, which appears later and depends on the capacity to feel oneself watched and judged. The self-conscious form is the shyness of embarrassment and blushing, and the two can occur together in the same person.

Why do shy people blush?

Blushing is an involuntary reddening of the face triggered by unwanted social attention, and it is a hallmark of self-conscious shyness. Because it is difficult to suppress or fake, it functions as an honest physiological signal of concern about being evaluated. Experiments show that children blush in evaluative situations and that excessive or inflated attention is a particularly strong trigger.

Can shyness be an advantage?

It can. In moderate forms and suitable contexts, shyness is associated with careful observation of social situations, cooperativeness, and lower risk-taking. The costs of shyness fall most heavily on people in whom a strong wish to belong meets a strong inhibition against acting on it; for many others, shyness is compatible with a full and satisfying social life.

References

Asendorpf, J. B. (1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33(4-5), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276522

Chavira, D. A., Stein, M. B., & Malcarne, V. L. (2002). Scrutinizing the relationship between shyness and social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16(6), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(02)00124-x

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330

Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 47–82). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2504-6_3

Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A "multitude" of solitude: A closer look at social withdrawal and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00006.x

Crozier, W. R. (1999). Individual differences in childhood shyness: Distinguishing fearful and self-conscious shyness. In L. A. Schmidt & J. Schulkin (Eds.), Extreme fear, shyness, and social phobia: Origins, biological mechanisms, and clinical outcomes (pp. 14–29). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195118872.003.0002

Heiser, N. A., Turner, S. M., & Beidel, D. C. (2003). Shyness: Relationship to social phobia and other psychiatric disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(02)00003-7

Heiser, N. A., Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2009). Differentiating social phobia from shyness. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(4), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.10.002

Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1988). Biological bases of childhood shyness. Science, 240(4849), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3353713

Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Temperamental factors in human development. American Psychologist, 46(8), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.46.8.856

Leary, M. R. (1983). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4701_8

Nikolic, M., Brummelman, E., Colonnesi, C., de Vente, W., & Bogels, S. M. (2018). When gushing leads to blushing: Inflated praise and young children's blushing after success. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 106, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.04.003

Poole, K. L., Van Lieshout, R. J., & Schmidt, L. A. (2017). Exploring relations between shyness and social anxiety disorder: The role of sociability. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.020

Poole, K. L., Van Lieshout, R. J., & Schmidt, L. A. (2017). Shyness and sociability beyond emerging adulthood: Testing the roles of coping and professional employment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36(4), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2017.36.4.316

Poole, K. L., Saigal, S., Van Lieshout, R. J., & Schmidt, L. A. (2019). Developmental programming of shyness: A longitudinal, prospective study across four decades. Development and Psychopathology, 31(4), 1253–1263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579419000208

Poole, K. L., & Schmidt, L. A. (2020). Shyness and sociability revisited. In L. A. Schmidt & K. L. Poole (Eds.), Adaptive shyness: Multiple perspectives on behavior and development (pp. 155–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38877-5_9

Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(97)00022-3

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163642

Schwartz, C. E., Wright, C. I., Shin, L. M., Kagan, J., & Rauch, S. L. (2003). Inhibited and uninhibited infants "grown up": Adult amygdalar response to novelty. Science, 300(5627), 1952–1953. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083703