Shyness as a Predictor of Emotional Intimacy in Close Relationships

146 Pages·2011·0.68 MB·English

SHYNESS AS A PREDICTOR OF EMOTIONAL INTIMACY IN CLOSE
RELATIONSHIPS

by

KRISTY TERBLANCHE

DISSERTATION

submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree

MASTER OF ARTS

in

PSYCHOLOGY

in the

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

SUPERVISOR: DR. G. KRUGER

MAY 2011

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my parents for their support throughout my studies. I will forever
be grateful for the opportunities they have provided me to accomplish what I have.
Mom and Dad, I love you both endlessly.

I would like to send a heart-felt thank you to Dr. Gert Kruger for sacrificing his time to
review my work and for the valuable advice that he has given me. Gert, it was a great
privilege to have you as my supervisor.

I would like to thank Prof. Gideon De Bruin for his technical input regarding my
statistics, and Dr. Karina De Bruin for taking the time to review my work and provide
suggestions.

I would like to extend my gratitude to all of the students who took part in this study. I
wish you all success in your studies.

Finally, I would like to thank the Faculty of Humanities and the University of
Johannesburg for awarding me with a bursary, without which I may not have been
compelled to start this project in the first place.

2
SUMMARY

Shyness is an individual difference variable that has the potential to impact on the
processes that facilitate the development of emotional intimacy. There has been little
research that has focussed on shyness within the context of close relationships,
providing an opportunity for further research.

Reis and Shaver (1988) and Reis and Patrick (1996) described the interpersonal
process model of intimacy, which provides a comprehensive and integrated model
from which to examine emotional intimacy. The model is supported by research
within the field of interpersonal relationship studies. Emotional intimacy is believed to
be experienced as a subjective sense of connectedness, which is the outcome of an
interpersonal, transactional and dynamic process that consists of self-disclosure and
partner responsiveness. The model incorporates the notion that individual difference
variables can interfere with the development of emotional intimacy at the level of
these processes of self-disclosure and partner responsiveness. However, these
individual differences do not appear to be the focus of previous studies utilising this
model as a framework. Thus, the opportunity was presented to examine the
relationship between shyness and emotional intimacy within the context of other
variables.

This study involved 703 first year students from the University of Johannesburg. The
instruments used for the study included the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale,
the Emotional Intimacy Scale, the Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised, the
Measure of Emotional Empathy, and the Emotional Expressivity Scale. A hierarchical
multiple regression was used to investigate the moderating effect of shyness on
emotional intimacy.

For avoidant attachment style the study found that, as expected, the variable was
statistically significantly related to emotional intimacy in the presence of all remaining
predictors. Unexpectedly, however, was the finding that empathic ability was not a
significant predictor of emotional intimacy. While the variable correlated weakly with
emotional intimacy, it was not found to be a predictor. In the current study emotional
expressivity was, surprisingly, not found to be a significant predictor of emotional
3
intimacy, but the two variables did correlate weakly. As expected, gender was
statistically significantly related to emotional intimacy. Shyness was found to be
significantly, however weakly, negatively correlated with emotional intimacy as
expected. Further examination indicated that a quadratic prediction better explained
the relationship between shyness and emotional intimacy with differences in this
relationship existing for males and females.

It is recommended that future studies obtain a more specific focus by utilising a
qualitative approach; utilise a more focussed sample such as one consisting only of
people in romantic relationships; utilise fewer participants in order to engage in a
more thorough exploration of each of the variables; or utilise different assessment
measures such as observations and objective ratings.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 10
INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Orientation 10
1.2 Problem statement 13
1.3 Purpose of the study 14
1.4 Chapter review 14

CHAPTER 2 16
SHYNESS 16
2.1 Defining shyness 16
2.2 Differentiating shyness from social phobia 17
2.3 Prevalence 19
2.4 Situations that elicit shyness 19
2.5 Components of shyness 20
2.6 Cognitive, emotional and behavioural characteristics associated
with shyness 21
2.6.1 Self-consciousness 22
2.6.2 Anxious self-preoccupation 22
2.6.3 Perceived incompetence and fear of evaluation or rejection 23
2.6.4 Social skills 23
2.6.5 Attribution style 24
2.7 State versus trait shyness 24
2.7.1 State shyness 25
2.7.2 Shyness as a personality trait 25
2.8 Types of shyness 26
2.8.1 Private versus public shyness 27
2.8.2 Withdrawn versus dependent shyness 27
2.8.3 Fearful versus self-conscious shyness 27
2.9 Development of shyness 28
2.9.1 Genetics 28
2.9.2 Neurobiology 28
2.9.3 Heart rate studies 31
5
2.9.4 Temperament and personality 31
2.9.5 Development of the self 33
2.9.6 Environmental and social factors 34
2.9.6.1 Attachment 34
2.9.6.2 Self-efficacy 34
2.9.7 Shyness and Technology 35
2.10 Gender and shyness 36
2.11 Culture and shyness 36
2.12 Consequences of shyness 37
2.12.1 General physical and mental health 38
2.12.2 Substance abuse 38
2.12.3 Language and communication competence 38
2.12.4 Career influences 39
2.12.5 Interpersonal relationships 39
2.13 Treatment of shyness 42
2.14 Summary 43

CHAPTER 3 45
EMOTIONAL INTIMACY 45
3.1 The nature of emotional intimacy 45
3.2 The interpersonal process model of intimacy 47
3.3 Processes involved in emotional intimacy 48
3.3.1 Self-expansion and the inclusion of others into the concept of self 49
3.3.2 Self-disclosure 49
3.3.3 Partner responsiveness 52
3.4 Empirical support for the interpersonal process model of intimacy 54
3.5 Factors that impact on emotional intimacy 55
3.5.1 The effect of perceptual filters on the process of intimacy 55
3.5.2 Group differences affecting emotional intimacy 57
3.5.2.1 Gender 57
3.5.2.2 Culture 60
3.5.2.3 Social factors 62
3.6 Summary 62
6
CHAPTER 4 64
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN EMOTIONAL INTIMACY 64
4.1 The effect of individual differences on emotional intimacy 64
4.2 The desire for intimacy 65
4.3 Shyness 67
4.3.1 Shyness and self-disclosure 71
4.3.2 Shyness and partner responsiveness 72
4.4 Adult attachment style 75
4.5 Empathic ability and empathic accuracy 79
4.6 Emotional expressivity 81
4.7 Summary 83

CHAPTER 5 86
METHODOLOGY 86
5.1 Research problem 86
5.2 Purpose of the study 86
5.3 Sample 87
5.4 Measurement instruments 87
5.4.1 Shyness 88
5.4.2 Emotional intimacy 89
5.4.3 Adult attachment style 90
5.4.4 Empathic ability 92
5.4.5 Emotional expressivity 93
5.5 Procedure 94
5.6 Research hypotheses 95
5.7 Statistical analysis 95
5.8 Ethical considerations 97
5.9 Summary 97
7
CHAPTER 6 98
RESULTS 98
6.1 Descriptive statistics 98
6.2 Relationship between shyness, gender, avoidant adult
attachment style, empathic ability, emotional expressivity,
and emotional intimacy 101
6.2.1 Correlations between shyness, avoidant adult attachment style,
empathic ability, emotional expressivity, and emotional intimacy 102
6.2.2 Shyness as a predictor of emotional intimacy when controlling
for the influence of avoidant adult attachment style, empathic
ability, emotional expressivity 104
6.3 Summary 108

CHAPTER 7 109
DISCUSSION 109
7.1 Avoidant attachment style 109
7.2 Empathic ability 109
7.3 Emotional expressivity 110
7.4 Gender 111
7.5 Conclusions regarding the control variables 111
7.6 Shyness 112
7.7 Methodological limitations and directions for future studies 114
7.8 Conclusion 115

REFERENCES 117
8
TABLES
Table 6.1: Age statistics for the sample 98
Table 6.2: Gender statistics for the sample 98
Table 6.3: Ethnic group statistics for the sample 99
Table 6.4: Closest current relationship statistics for the sample 100
Table 6.5: Length of closest current relationship 101
Table 6.6: Correlation matrix representing the five variables of the study 102
Table 6.7: Predictive effect of shyness on emotional intimacy 104
Table 6.8: Standardised regression weights, t-values, p-values and
semi-partial correlations of the predictor variables 106

FIGURES
Figure 1: Quadratic relationship between shyness and emotional intimacy
for males and females 107

9
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Orientation

Aspects of an individual’s personality have been known to affect the development of
emotional intimacy (Aron, 2004). Specifically, it has been suggested that shyness
can play a large role in the difficulty many people feel in relating to others, even in
close and established relationships (Bradshaw, 2006). Studies indicated that while
shy people may have friends, many of them report having few friends that satisfy
their intimacy needs (Jones & Carpenter, 1986).

The development of emotional intimacy can be seen as being comprised of various
interpersonal processes (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). A review of
relevant literature suggested that shyness may specifically impact on those
processes that facilitate emotional intimacy (Bradshaw, 2006; Henderson, Horowitz,
Tatar, & Bortnik, 2003). By impacting on these processes, shyness may hamper the
development of intimacy within close relationships.

Emotional intimacy refers to feelings of psychological closeness within a relationship.
It is a core component of loving relationships, regardless of whether the relationship
is with a parent, sibling, lover or close friend (Sternberg, 1986). The interpersonal
process model of intimacy (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988) describes
intimacy as the product of various interpersonal processes, including self-disclosure
and partner responsiveness as the key components. According to this model, self-
disclosure involves verbally communicating personal information, thoughts and
feelings to another individual (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). It is
believed that self-disclosure of an emotional nature facilitates the experience of
intimacy by allowing core aspects of the discloser to be revealed and providing an
opportunity for understanding and validation. Partner responsiveness refers to the
degree to which partner behaviours, such as disclosures and expressions of emotion
address the needs, wishes, communications, or actions of the person with whom the
interaction is taking place (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). This allows
10