Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Anxiety Disorders

The hierarchical model of social interaction anxiety and depression: The critical
roles of fears of evaluation
Wei-Ting Wang a , Wen-Yau Hsu a,b,∗ , Yu-Chen Chiu a , Chi-Wen Liang a
a
Department of Psychology, National Chengchi University, 64, Sec. 2, Zhinan Road, Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan
b
Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, we articulate a hierarchical model of social interaction anxiety (SIA) and depression to
Received 16 April 2011 account for their comorbidity and the uniqueness of SIA. First, negative affect (NA) and positive affect
Received in revised form 31 October 2011 (PA) are conceptualized as general factors shared by SIA and depression; the fear of negative evaluation
Accepted 7 November 2011
(FNE) is operationalized as the specific factor, which accounts for more of the variance in SIA than in
depression, and the fear of positive evaluation (FPE) is operationalized as the factor unique to SIA. FPE is
Keywords:
the key feature that differentiates SIA from depression. Second, the proposed hierarchical model describes
Depression
structural relationships among these factors, in which the higher-level factors (i.e., high NA and low PA)
Social phobia
Comorbidity
represent the vulnerability markers of both SIA and depression and the lower-level factors (i.e., FNE and
Social interaction anxiety FPE) are the dimensions of specific cognitive features. In addition, an alternative model, in which all
Fear of negative evaluation of the relationships are the same, except that FPE is operationalized as a specific factor, is proposed to
Fear of positive evaluation clarify the role of FPE. The results from the hierarchical regression and the structural equation modeling
Hierarchical model support the hypothesized hierarchical model. Further theoretical and practical implications for FPE and
Structural model of affect the multilevel model are discussed.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction comorbidity and, most importantly, the distinguishability between

Among anxiety disorders, social anxiety disorder is second only
to general anxiety disorder in terms of comorbidity with depres-
sion (Kessler, Chiu, Demler, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005). The
remarkable rate of comorbidity that exists between social anxi-
ety and depression has also been documented in a large body of
literature (e.g., Belzer & Schneier, 2004; Brunello et al., 2000). In
spite of extensive empirical covariation between social anxiety
and depression, they are viewed as theoretically distinct con-
structs (Gibb, Coles, & Heimberg, 2005; Krueger, 1999; Sellbom,
Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008; Watson, 2005; Watson & Clark, 2006).
Recent psychopathological studies have shown a growing inter-
est in discriminating phenotypic features between highly comorbid
diagnostic classes, and explicating the underlying mechanisms of
comorbidity and heterogeneity between social anxiety and depres-
sion could advance our knowledge of the taxonomic and etiological
issues.
Structural models of affect have been developed to pro-
vide a theoretical framework for explaining the complexity of
depression and anxiety disorders. The tripartite model of anxiety
and depression (Clark & Watson, 1991), the hierarchical model of
anxiety disorders (Zinbarg & Barlow, 1996), the integrative hierar-
chical model of anxiety and depression (Mineka, Watson, & Clark,
1998), and the multilevel trait predictor model of anxiety dis-
orders (Kotov, Watson, Robles, & Schmidt, 2007) share the core
assumptions that mood and anxiety disorders both subsume a
common component, which contributes to the comorbidity, and
a unique component, which makes them distinguishable. Never-
theless, structural models of depression and anxiety have reached
a bottleneck in differentiation in that two well-established charac-
teristics, positive affectivity (PA) and physiological hyperarousal,
which differentiate anxiety disorders from major depression, have
failed to explain the difference between social anxiety and depres-
sion (Brown, Chorpita, & Barlow, 1998; Hughes et al., 2006).
Following the rationale of the structural models of affect, the cur-
rent study aims to add new components to the structural model
of depression and social anxiety to clarify relationships of their
correlates and address the issue of discriminability.

∗ Corresponding author at: National Chengchi University, Department of Psychol-

1.1. Structural models of affect
ogy, 64, Sec. 2, Zhinan Rd., Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan.
Tel.: +886 2 29387379; fax: +886 2 29366725. According to the structural models of affect, three distinguish-
E-mail addresses: ashleyw1130@gmail.com, hsu@nccu.edu.tw (W.-Y. Hsu). ing components can be used to explain the relationships between

0887-6185/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.004
216 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
social interaction anxiety (SIA) and depression: (1) general factors,
which are higher-order trait variables responsible for the common
variance shared by all disorders, such as negative affectivity (NA)
(Brown et al., 1998); (2) specific factors, which account for dif-
ferent attributable variances among distinct syndromes (Mineka
et al., 1998); and (3) a unique factor, which is the unique contrib-
utor to one disorder and the only component for distinguishing
the disorder among the observed comorbidity (Kotov et al., 2007).
The specific and unique factors might be lower-order psychological
correlates.
The structural models of affect, as mentioned above, implicate
two sets of hypotheses—generality and causality. First, generality
refers to the extent to which a component accounts for the shared
variance among the observed syndromes. That is, general, specific,
and unique factors reflect the degree of the generality-specificity of
their contributions to the observed emotional disorders. An emo-
tional disorder is viewed as a combination of different variances
attributable to the general, specific, and unique factors (Mineka
et al., 1998). Moreover, the so-called general, specific, and unique
factors are relative terms, defined in terms of specificity in com-
parison to other given disorders. Second, relationships among
these factors can be hypothetically presented in a structural order.
Higher-order factors are reflective of dispositional characteristics,
such as the traits of NA and PA, which reflect heritable and rela-
tively stable trait dimensions. At the second hierarchical level are
emotional disorders that are, to a certain degree, influenced by the
vulnerable dimensions. At the lowest level, certain symptoms or
psychological features, such as physiological hyperarousal, charac-
terize emotional disorders (Brown et al., 1998).
1.2. The general factors
Based on extensive evidence from the structural model lit-
erature, negative affectivity, a basic personality dimension, is
undoubtedly a common factor between social anxiety and depres-
sion. In addition, as same as what has found in depression, recent
research has found that social anxiety is characterized by anhedo-
nia (Brown et al., 1998; Hughes et al., 2006; Kashdan, 2002, 2004;
Naragon-Gainey, Watson, & Markon, 2009; Sellbom et al., 2008;
Watson, Gamez, & Simms, 2005). A meta-analysis revealed that
a reliable negative association between social anxiety and posi-
tive emotions even holds after controlling for depression (Kashdan,
2007). According to the self-regulatory model proposed by Kashdan
(2007) and colleagues (Kashdan & Breen, 2008; Kashdan & Steger,
2006), excessive concerns about potential social threats exhaust
individuals’ finite self-regulatory resource, eroding opportunities
for pursuing reward-seeking activities, and resulting in hedonic
deficiency. In addition, social activities and interpersonal engage-
ments, which individuals with social anxiety avoid, have been
shown to be vital sources of positive emotion (Clark, Watson, &
Mineka, 1994; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
In short, although these shared characteristic patterns might
explain the high comorbidity between the two syndromes, rela-
tively sparse evidence exists regarding the discrimination between
social anxiety and depression. Past research has indicated two dis-
tinguishable types of social anxiety: performance anxiety and social
interaction anxiety. Compared with performance anxiety, the fea-
tures of SIA overlap more extensively with depression due to its
relative unique relation to anhedonia (Alden, Taylor, Mellings, &
Laposa, 2008; Brown et al., 1997; Hughes et al., 2006; Kashdan,
2002, 2007). This makes sense because SIA interferes with a perva-
sive range of social encounters, which serve as sources of pleasure
(Kashdan, 2002, 2007). Moreover, compared to performance anx-
iety, SIA exhibits higher comorbidity with depression (Stein &
Chavira, 1998) and more severely impairs daily life, chronicity, and
the recovery process. For these reasons, we restricted our focus in
this study to SIA rather than the broad category of social anxiety.
To resolve the predicament of the discriminability among social
anxiety and depression in structural models, Watson and Clark
(1997) have noted that, as NA and PA are both higher-order per-
sonality traits that do not serve for discrimination, studies should
investigate the lower-order traits influenced by these syndromes.
Naragon-Gainey et al. (2009) investigated the relationships among
lower facets of positive emotionality with respect to social anxiety
and depression. They found that depression is related to positive
emotionality; social anxiety, however, is related to all four facets of
PA (positive emotionality, sociability, ascendance, and fun-seeking)
and, in particular, is strongly associated with sociability. Never-
theless, this warrants further investigation because the concepts
between positive emotionality and depression and between socia-
bility and social anxiety overlap. In light of these propositions,
lower-order correlates subsumed into a structural model could be
considered as an improvement over the existing structural models.
Based on structural models of affect, we attempted to synthesize
other crucial lower-level factors to shed light on the specific and
unique factors between SIA and depression.
1.3. Factors specific and unique to SIA
Cognitive-behavioral models have been one of the major the-
oretical conceptualizations for social anxiety. In these models,
social evaluative fears have been theorized to be the central cogni-
tive features of socially anxious individuals (Clark & Wells, 1995;
Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). They perceive themselves as not meet-
ing the expectations of others and believe that others will evaluate
them negatively, which leads to undesirable social consequences.
Similarly, from the interpersonal point of view, social anxiety is
conceptualized as a self-protective interpersonal pattern in which
socially anxious individuals possess an overriding fear of disgrace
and strongly attempt to avoid evaluation from others (Stravynski,
2007, p. 9). Moreover, according to the DSM-IV-TR (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000), marked and persistent fear of evalu-
ation and rejection are characterized as the cognitive symptoms of
social anxiety. In the current study, we attempt to propose a hier-
archical model of SIA and depression with fears of evaluation as
lower-order specific or unique factors.
1.3.1. Fear of negative evaluation
The fear of negative evaluation (FNE) is among the best estab-
lished cognitive-behavioral features of social anxiety (Clark &
Wells, 1995; Collins, Westra, Dozois, & Stewart, 2005; Kocovski &
Endler, 2000; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). Studies indicate that indi-
viduals with social anxiety show a more extreme level of FNE than
normal controls (Weeks et al., 2005). Additionally, it is noteworthy
that FNE shows considerable specificity to social anxiety compared
to other anxiety disorders, such as panic disorder and obsessive-
compulsive disorder (Ball, Otto, Pollack, Vccello, & Rosenbaum,
1995; Kotov et al., 2007; Saboonchi, Lundh, & Ost, 1999).
With respect to depression, although there is no direct theo-
retical insight into the relationship between FNE and depression,
empirical data have revealed moderate correlations between FNE
and depression (Collins et al., 2005; Duke, Krishnan, Faith, & Storch,
2006; Kocovski & Endler, 2000; O’Connor, Berry, Weiss, & Gilbert,
2002; Sato, McCann, & Ferguson-Isaac, 2004). Some indirect evi-
dence has suggested that symptoms of depression are related to the
fear of rejection, disapproval, and criticism (Clark, Steer, Haslam,
Beck, & Brown, 1997; Sato, 2003). According to the prominent cog-
nitive theory of depression by Beck (1976), negative thought is
central to depression. It makes sense that FNE is related to depres-
sion because negative evaluation from others verifies the biased
schema of personal failure and deteriorates their depressive mood.
 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
For these reasons, we hypothesized that FNE, which is to some
extent related to depression, can be formulated as a specific fac-
tor that is shared by SIA and depression but accounts for larger
variances in SIA than in depression.
1.3.2. Fear of positive evaluation
As supported by the psycho-evolutionary point of view (Gilbert,
2001), Weeks, Heimberg, and Rodebaugh (2008) have advocated
that socially anxious individuals have a tendency to disqualify their
positive experiences and have found that the fear of positive eval-
uation (FPE) is a distinguishable and important cognitive feature
of social anxiety. The intent of social anxiety is to avoid unneces-
sary conflicts and maintain safe interactions. Individuals with social
anxiety regard themselves as incapable or inferior, and they believe
that favorable appraisal and receiving acclaim elevates their social
status. This elevation is believed to induce clash and competition,
as well as higher expectations, which they are unable to reach (see
also Wallace & Alden, 1995, 1997). Weeks et al. demonstrated that
FNE and FPE are independent dimensions and that FPE accounted
for unique variances in the prediction of SIA beyond that accounted
for by FNE, implying that FPE is a critical feature of SIA that is
independent from FNE.
Do depressed individuals also show characteristics of FPE? To
our knowledge, no studies have directly addressed this issue.
Some relevant evidence has shown that FPE is significantly more
strongly related to SIA than to depression; one study, however, has
shown that there is no significant difference between these two
correlations and that the relationship between FPE and depres-
sion remained significant upon controlling for SIA (Fergus et al.,
2009; Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks, Heimberg,
Rodebaugh, & Norton, 2008). As a result of these data, it remains
unclear whether FPE is related to depression or is a unique quality of
SIA because these findings were derived from correlation (or partial
correlation) analyses, which were confounded by other shared vari-
ances. Thus, although correlation evidence has indicated a possible
trend suggesting that FPE is specific to SIA, multivariate analyses are
required to depict the nature of its uniqueness (Naragon-Gainey &
Watson, 2010). In the current study, we adopt hierarchical regres-
sions and structural equation modeling to answer this question
because the multilevel structural approach enables us to model
and control for the correlations among shared constructs, thereby
enabling us to identify specific and unique constructs that show
incremental associations with the target disorder (Naragon-Gainey
& Watson, 2010).
Theoretically, on the basis of the interpersonal theory of depres-
sion, depressed individuals are characterized by an overwhelming
and constant demand for reassurance of their self-worth and attrac-
tion, even when the guarantee has been offered (Coyne, 1976;
Joiner, Alfano, & Metalsky, 1992). This quality contradicts the con-
cept of FPE. Secondly, according to behavioral approach/inhibition
systems (BAS/BIS; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Carver & White,
1994), anxiety-related emotions are linked to avoidance, whereas
depression-related emotions are linked to approach behaviors.
While the underlying drive for SIA is fear and attempts to avoid
any kind of perceived social threats, including FNE and FPE, the
underlying tendency for depression is the inability to move toward
desired goals. Therefore, positive evaluation, a type of favorable
reward, might not be a threat to depressed individuals.
To summarize, according to empirical data and relevant theo-
retical speculation, the current study aims to clarify whether FPE
is a factor unique to SIA. Another possibility is that FPE is not a
unique factor, but a factor specific to SIA, accounting for more
of the variance in SIA than in depression. This possibility echoes
the assertion of Mineka and colleagues (1998), “Symptom speci-
ficity must be viewed in relative rather than absolute terms.” It is
highly unlikely to find a unique factor that correlate only to a single
217
NA PA NA PA
SIA Dep. SIA Dep.
FPE FNE FPE FNE
The hypothesized hierarchical model The alternative model
Fig. 1. The hypothesized hierarchical model of social interaction anxiety and
depression and the alternative model. NA: negative affect; PA: positive affect; SIA:
social interaction anxiety; Dep: depression; FPE: fear of positive evaluation; FNE:
fear of negative evaluation.
disorder. That is to say, we could only find specific factors that
contribute more variance to one disorder than to another in the
hierarchical model.
1.4. The current study and hypotheses
FPE and FNE represent two distinct constructs, and this dis-
tinction is the prerequisite for testing the hypothesized model.
Although Weeks, Heimberg, and Rodebaugh (2008) and Fergus et al.
(2009) provided evidence for the distinctness of FNE and FPE, these
results have not been replicated in a Taiwanese sample. Therefore,
before testing the main hypotheses in the current study, we con-
duct a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the validity of the
two-factor structure of FNE and FPE in our sample.
Building on and expanding the structural models of Mineka et al.
(1998) and Brown et al. (1998), we propose a hierarchical model of
SIA and depression. We assume that NA and PA are the higher-order
general factors, FNE is the lower-order specific factor that accounts
for more variance in SIA than in depression, and FPE is the lower-
order unique factor, which is the key feature that differentiates SIA
from depression. With all of the relationships among these factors
being equal, except for FPE being a specific factor rather than a
unique factor, an alternative model was also tested (see Fig. 1 for
the hypothesized hierarchical model and the alternative model).
To examine these two models, we first test the incremental vari-
ance contributed by FPE, upon the variance explained by NA, PA,
and FNE. We expected that the incremental variance in the SIA
could be accounted for by FPE, whereas the incremental variance in
depression could not be accounted for by FPE. If this were true, FPE
would represent a unique contributor to SIA rather than a specific
factor.
Secondly, we organized these factors by their structural rela-
tionships and tested the hierarchical model in which NA and PA
are considered to be higher-order factors, and FNE and FPE are
considered to be lower-order factors. In the proposed hierarchical
model, we assumed significant paths from NA and PA to both SIA
and depression, significant paths from SIA and depression to FNE,
and a significant path from SIA to FPE. However, what if FPE is not
unique to SIA but specific to SIA? To test this, we evaluate the alter-
native model with all the above relationships being equal, but we
add a path from depression to FPE. We predicted that the proposed
hierarchical model would fit the data better than the alternative
model.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The participants were 612 undergraduates who were enrolled
in introductory psychology classes at two universities in Taiwan;
218 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
566 of them provided a complete set of answers, and of these, 344
(60.8%) were female, 220 (38.9%) were male, and 2 failed to report
their gender. The average age was 20.14 years (S.D. = 1.34) with a
range of 18–31 years.
2.2. Measures and procedures
With the teachers’ approval, the participants completed a bat-
tery of seven measures during class. We translated all of the
measures into Chinese except for the Beck Depression Inventory,
Second Edition (BDI-II); for this measure, we used a published Chi-
nese version (see Chang, 2005). Following published guidelines
(Brislin, 1986), these measures were translated into Chinese by
one of the authors of this manuscript with a Master’s degree in
clinical psychology. The Chinese items were then back-translated
by a bilingual professional and an experienced translator with a
Master’s degree in psychology. Discrepancies between the back-
translated English version and the original English version were
discussed carefully by the two translators and the second author, a
clinical psychology professor. At this stage, the items that might be
inappropriate at a conceptual level and the cognitive equivalence
of the translations were discussed. Each item was discussed until
the three translators agreed that the original meaning of the item
was appropriately retained in the Chinese item. At the final stage, a
pretest was conducted on undergraduate students to ensure com-
prehensibility and to refine the statements to be reader friendly.
Only minor changes were made according to students’ feedback.
2.2.1. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson
et al., 1988)
The PANAS consists of two 10-item scales that measure positive
affect (PANAS-P) and negative affect (PANAS-N). The trait version
of the PANAS, in which responses are made according to the general
feelings, was adopted in the current study. The ratings were made
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = “very slightly or not at all” to
5 = “extremely.” In the current study, both the PANAS-P (˛ = .83)
and the PANAS-N (˛ = .87) subscales exhibited very good internal
consistency.
2.2.2. The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
Straight-forward score (BFNE-S; Rodebaugh et al., 2004; Weeks
et al., 2005)
The BFNE (Leary, 1983) consists of 12 items describing wor-
rying thoughts about receiving negative evaluations from others.
All of the items are rated on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all to
5 = extremely). Rodebaugh et al. (2004), Weeks et al. (2005), and
Carleton, Collimore, McCabe, and Antony (2011) have suggested
utilizing the eight straightforward BFNE items (BFNE-S) to calcu-
late the total score for parsimony because BFNE-S demonstrated
excellent reliability (all ˛s > .92), factorial validity, and construct
validity comparable to the BFNE. Consequently, the BFNE-S were
utilized in the present analyses and demonstrated excellent inter-
nal consistency (˛ = .88).
2.2.3. The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES; Weeks,
Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks, Heimberg, Rodebaugh, &
Norton, 2008)
The FPES is a 10-item scale that ranges from 0 (not at all true)
to 9 (very true). Items 5 and 10 are designed to avoid acquiescence
response styles and are not utilized in the calculation of the FPES
total score. The FPES has been shown to have acceptable internal
consistency (˛ = .80) and 5-week test-retest reliability (r = .70), and
adequate convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha for the FPES items
was very good in the current sample (˛ = .82).
2.2.4. The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick &
Clarke, 1998)
The SIAS is a 20-item measure of social interaction anxiety.
The respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which the
description of the items on the SIAS is true. The items are rated using
a 0 (not at all characteristic or true of me) to 4 (extremely character-
istic or true of me) scale. Mattick and Clarke (1998) have provided
evidence demonstrating that the SIAS exhibits high test-retest reli-
ability (r = .92), excellent internal consistency (˛ = .94), and strong
convergent and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha for the SIAS
was very good in the current sample (˛ = .88). In the current study,
the SIAS was used as one of two indicators of social interaction
anxiety.
2.2.5. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report
Format-Social Interaction Subscale (LSAS-SR-SI; Safren et al.,
1999)
The LSAS-SR-SI was used as the second indicator of social inter-
action anxiety in the current study. The original Liebowitz Social
Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 1987) is a clinician-administered
measure designed to assess social anxiety. Currently, the LSAS has
been made into a self report version (LSAS-SR) for convenience
in research settings, and each subscale of the LSAS-SR has been
shown to possess good internal consistency (Cox, Ross, Swinson, &
Direnfeld, 1998). The 12-item LSAS Fear of Social Interaction Sub-
scale (LSAS-SR-SI), which assesses fear and avoidance in 12 social
interaction situations, was used in the current study (Safren et al.,
1999). Internal consistency for the LSAS-SR-SI was very good in the
current sample (˛ = .88).
2.2.6. The BDI-II (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996)
The BDI-II is a widely used 21-item measure that assesses
the severity of depressive symptoms. High internal consistency
(˛ = .91–.93) and robust construct validity have been observed
(Beck et al., 1996; Buckley, Parker, & Heggie, 2001). The Chinese
version of the BDI-II was translated from the English BDI-II by the
Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation in Taiwan. The Chinese ver-
sion of the BDI-II has been shown to possess adequate internal
consistency in a college student sample (˛ = .86) and good construct
validity (Chang, 2005). Data from our sample indicated that the
Chinese BDI-II possesses very good internal consistency (˛ = .89).
2.2.7. The Short-Form Version of the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scales (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)
The DASS-21 is a 21-item, 4-point instrument measuring the
severity of the core symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress.
The depression scale of DASS-21 (DASS-21-Dep) was used in the
current study as an indicator for depression. The DASS-21-Dep
consists of seven items emphasizing dysphoria, hopelessness, self-
deprecation, lack of interest and involvement, and so forth. The
responses range from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied
to me very much or most of the time). Strong psychometric prop-
erties have been reported for the DASS-21-Dep (˛ = 83–.88; Henry
& Crawford, 2005; Norton, 2007). The internal consistency for the
DASS-21-Dep was very good in the current sample (˛ = .82).
2.3. Analysis plans
To address the first research question, hierarchical regression
analyses were used to assess the incremental validity of specific fac-
tors over more general traits. Because these factors are invariably
correlated, Kotov et al. (2007) suggested that their independent
contributions can only be evaluated appropriately by partialling
out the variances of correlated factors in the order from general to
unique.
 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
.29
BDI-II
.84
NAo
.17 .91
.21 NA Dep.
NAe .49
.89 .44
-.45
.85
.28
PAo
PA SIA
.39 -.37
PAe .78
.82
SIAS
.33
Fig. 2. The completely standardized solution of the hypothesized structural model. All of the regression coefficients of the paths in the model reached significance at the
˛ = .05 level. NA: negative affect; PA: positive affect; SIA: social interaction anxiety; Dep: depression; FPE: fear of positive evaluation; FNE: fear of negative evaluation. The
subscripts “o” and “e” indicate that the observed variables are the sum of odd and even items, respectively.
Secondly, to evaluate the proposed hierarchical structural rela-
tionships, we adopted a structural equation model (SEM) using
Lisrel 8.7 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2004). The models are illustrated in
Fig. 1. The model testing also provides further confirmation of the
hypotheses of the general, specific, and unique factors. As noted
earlier, the SIAS and the LSAS-SR-SI are indicators of the latent
variable SIA, and the BDI-II and the DASS-21-Dep are markers of
depression. Because there should be at least two indicators for each
latent variable, the PANAS-P, the PANAS-N, the BFNE-S and the FPES
were even-odd halved (see Fig. 2).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations among
all of the study measures. The means and the standard deviations
for the FPES, the LSAS-SR-SI, and the BDI-II were similar to those
reported in other undergraduate samples in the literature. Of inter-
est, participants had elevated score on the SIAS compared to the
other undergraduate samples reported by Gilbert (2001), Kashdan
(2002), and Schofield, Coles, and Gibb (2009) and an elevated score
on the BFNE-S compared to those reported by Weeks et al. (Weeks,
Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks Heimberg, Rodebaugh, &
Norton, 2008; Weeks et al., 2009). Moreover, the average score
for the SIAS was more than one standard deviation above those
reported by Mattick and Clarke (1998). It is worth noting that 45.4%
of the participants had a SIAS score above the recommended cut-
off value of 34 or higher (Brown et al., 1997; Rodebaugh, Woods,
Heimberg, Liebowitz, & Schneier, 2006), 48.1% had a BFNE-S score
above the cut-off value of 25 or higher (Carleton et al., 2011), and
28.1% of the participants had a BDI-II above the mild depression
cut-off value of 14.
All of the correlation coefficients were significant, except for
the correlation between PANAS-N and PANAS-P (r = −.08). This
suggests that NA and PA are two independent dimensions. As
219
.25
DASS-21-
Dep.
.87
.80 FNEo .35
FNE
.15
FNEe .05
.97
.47
.82
FPEo .32
FPE
.65
.83 FPEe .32
.80
LSAS-SR
SI
.36
expected, PANAS-P was negatively correlated with the FPES, the
BFNE-S, the SIAS, the LSAS-SR-SI, the BDI-II, and the DASS-21-Dep,
whereas PANAS-N was positively correlated with these measures.
Most notably, the correlations of the FPES and BFNE-S scores
with makers of SIA were larger than those with markers of
depression. Furthermore, although indicators of SIA significantly
correlated with indicators of depression, these coefficients did not
exceed .30.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
We conducted CFA in LISREL to ensure the construct of FPE was
separable from the construct of FNE. That is, we examine whether
the two-factor model (the BFNE-S and FPES items loaded onto sep-
arate latent factors) fit the data better than the unitary factor model
(all of the BFNE-S and FPES items load onto a single latent factor).
According to Hu and Bentler (1999), several indicators of model
fit were used to assess the congruence between the data and the
hypothesized model. These include the Bentler–Bonett Normed Fit
Index (NFI), the Non-Norm Fit Index (NNFI), the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), the Standardized Root-Mean-Square Residual (SRMR),
and the Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).
According to Hu and Bentler’s (1999), criteria, the results
showed that the hypothesized two-factor model fit the data
well (2 (103) = 460.76, 2 /df = 4.47; CFI = .95; NFI = .94; NNFI = .94;
RMSEA = .078; SRMR = .063). Relative to the two-factor model,
the unitary factor model showed a significantly worse fit
(2 (104) = 2622.30, 2 /df = 25.21; CFI = .78; NFI = .77; NNFI = .75;
RMSEA = .21; SRMR = .16). These results support the discriminant
validity of FNE and FPE in the Taiwanese sample. The factor load-
ings for the BFNE-S items ranged from .52 to .83, and those for the
FPES items ranged from .51 to .81, except for item 7, which had weak
but significant (.21, p < .001) factor loading on the FPES. Moreover,
the two fear of evaluation factors only showed low positive corre-
lation (r = .24, p < .001), indicating that they are quite independent
from each other.
220 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study measures.

M (S.D.) Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. PANAS-N 21.84 (6.61) .34 −.29

2. PANAS-P 30.77 (5.69) −.26 .66 −.08
3. BFNE-S 24.19 (5.95) −.01 −.54 .34*** −.10*
4. FPES 26.61 (12.63) .08 −.57 .25*** −.23*** .25***
5. SIAS 32.54 (9.27) .12 −.32 .42*** −.30*** .45*** .48***
6. LSAS-SR-SI 13.19 (5.70) .29 .36 .31*** −.35*** .37*** .48*** .69***
7. DASS-21-Dep 3.54 (3.55) 1.25 1.37 .41*** −.38*** .30*** .25*** .23*** .27***
8. BDI-II 9.73 (7.84) 1.39 3.44 .43*** −.35*** .27*** .25*** .29*** .29*** .73***

Note: N = 566. PANAS-N: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, negative affect subscale; PANAS-P: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, positive affect subscale; BFNE-S:
The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; FPES: The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SIAS: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; LSAS-SR-SI: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety
Scale, self report format, social interaction subscale; DASS-21-Dep: The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, depression subscale; BDI-II: The Beck
Depression Inventory, Second Edition.
*
p < .05.
***
p < .001

3.3. Hierarchical regression analyses
The SIAS, the LSAS-SR-SI, the DASS-21-Dep, and the BDI-II were
examined individually as dependant variables. The entering steps
of the independent variables were as follows: NA and PA were
assessed first, the contributions of FNE were estimated next, and
FPE was examined last. The results are presented in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2, PANAS-N and PANAS-P significantly
predicted all of the dependent variables, accounting for 20.3–29.8%
of the variance. Step 2 revealed that the BFNE-S had significant
effects associated with all of the symptom indicators. Specifically,
the amount of variance explained by the BFNE-S was larger for SIA
(10.7% and 6.8%) than for depression (1.8% and 1.1%). The final step
revealed that the FPES made an independent contribution to both
indicators of SIA but not to those of depression.
Consistent with our expectation, the results revealed that NA
and PA are general factors. FNE was found to be a specific fac-
tor because it had a larger effect on SIA than on depression. FPE
emerged as a unique factor linked only to SIA.
3.4. SEM analyses
To address the hierarchical relationships and the role of FPE,
we tested two SEM models utilizing the maximum likelihood esti-
mation method. Fig. 2 presents the standardized solutions of the
hypothesized model. The hypothetical model provided an excellent
fit to the data [2 (47) = 99.67, 2 /df = 2.12, less than 3, indicat-
ing very good model fit (Carmines & McLver, 1981)]. The NFI (.98),
the NNFI (.98), the Goodness-Of-Fit Index (GFI = .97), the Adjusted
Goodness-Of-Fit Index (AGFI = .95), and the CFI (.99) were all above
.90, whereas the SRMR (.043) and the RMSEA (.045) were both far
below .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002). The alterna-
tive model resulted in a very close fit [2 (46) = 97.33, 2 /df = 2.12,
NFI (.98), NNFI (.98), GFI (.97), AGFI (.95), CFI (.99), SRMR (.041),
and RMSEA (.044)]. The difference between these two models [2
(1) = 2.34, p > .05] was not significant. For the principle of parsi-
mony, we retained the hypothesized model. Moreover, the sole
additional path in the alternative model – depression to the FPES
– was not significant (standardized path coefficient = .08, p > .05).
Therefore, we concluded that the hypothesized model is more
acceptable than the alternative model.
In addition, it is worth noting that, again, SIA showed a stronger
association to FNE than depression (standardized path coeffi-
cient = .47 and .16, respectively).
4. Discussion
The hierarchical model proposed in this study was confirmed
with hierarchical regression and SEM analyses. First, in agreement
with the findings of Brown et al. (1998), Hughes et al. (2006),
and Watson et al. (2005), our results revealed that NA and PA are
the higher-order general factors (i.e., shared features) of SIA and

Table 2
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses.

Dependant variable SIAS LSAS-SR-SI

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 R2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 R2

ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

NA .36*** .24*** .18*** 20.3 .29*** .20*** .13*** 20.7

PA −.25*** −.23*** −.17*** −.33*** −.31*** −.24***
FNE .35*** .30*** 10.7 .28*** .22*** 6.8
FPE .30*** 8.0 .36*** 11.0

Dependant variable BDI-II DASS-21-Dep

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 R2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 R2

ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

NA .41*** .36*** .35*** 27.8 .38*** .34*** .33*** 29.8

PA −.31*** −.30*** −.28*** −.36*** −.36*** −.35***
FNE .15*** .14*** 1.8 .11** .10** 1.1
FPE .06 .3 .05 .3

Note: PANAS-N: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, negative affect subscale; PANAS-P: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, positive affect subscale; BFNE-S: The Brief
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale Straight-forward score; FPES: The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale; SIAS: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; LSAS-SR-SI: The Liebowitz
Social Anxiety Scale, self report format, social interaction subscale; DASS-21-Dep: The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, depression subscale; BDI-II:
The Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
depression. Second, consistent with the findings by Kotov et al.
(2007), FNE accounted for a fair amount of variance in SIA mea-
sures above that accounted for by NA and PA, indicating that FNE
is a significant characteristic of SIA. Moreover, the fact that FNE
accounted for a larger amount of variance in SIA than in depres-
sion (in both hierarchical regressions and SEM path coefficients),
a pattern also demonstrated by Weeks et al. (2005), validated the
hypothesis that FNE is the specific factor in the hierarchical model.
The results of the present study are in accordance with the notion
that FNE is the crucial feature of social anxiety (Clark & Wells, 1995;
Rapee & Heimberg, 1997), and FNE is more important in SIA than
in depression. As suggested by cognitive-behavioral models (Clark
& Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997), socially anxious individ-
uals have a negative self-image and mainly allocate their attention
resources to external threats that result from their biased men-
tal representation. Therefore, they view others critically and focus
on any indicator of negative evaluation in a social environment.
Collectively, the comorbidity between SIA and depression may be
accounted for by NA and PA and partly by FNE.
Finally, the major contribution of the current study is the discov-
ery that FPE is significantly associated with SIA, but not depression;
this verifies its role as a unique predictor of SIA. Past research
has tested the relationship between SIA or depression and FPE
using correlation (or partial correlation) analyses (Fergus et al.,
2009; Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008; Weeks Heimberg,
Rodebaugh, & Norton, 2008), and the findings merely and conser-
vatively concluded that FPE was less related to depression than to
SIA (Weeks et al., 2010). This raised the question of whether FPE is
unique to SIA. The multivariate analyses (hierarchical regressions
and SEM) adopted in the current study are improvements over
correlation analysis with respect to controlling for more general
factors in the model, specifying the contribution of FPE. Therefore,
we are more confidently able to argue that FPE plays a unique role
in SIA.
With respect to the discriminant validity of FNE and FPE, the
results of the CFA in the present study corroborate the argument
and the findings of Weeks, Heimberg, and Rodebaugh (2008) and
Fergus et al. (2009) suggesting that FPE is a characteristic dis-
tinct from FNE. This distinction is also supported by the underlying
mechanisms argued in the literature. While FNE is related to biased
mental representation and attentional allocation, FPE underscores
their discomfort in response to positive social feedback, leading to
minimization of positive social experience (Weeks et al., 2010). It
should be noted that the results of the CFA showed that FNE and
FPE are only mildly correlated (r = .24), whereas the results from the
aforementioned studies showed moderate correlations (r = .59 and
.74, respectively). This implies that the constructs of FNE and FPE
could be more independent among the Taiwanese. Because the Chi-
nese culture emphasizes humility, this value might permeate the
environment of social interaction. Therefore, FPE not only served
as part of the fears of evaluation, but also represented a concept
of manner, making it more separable from FNE. Nonetheless, this
explanation needs more empirical support from future studies.
The present findings especially highlight the importance of FPE
as a unique factor in SIA, which has implications for the theoretical
conceptualization of SIA. This argument is endorsed by the find-
ings of Weeks (2010) demonstrating that positive minimizing is
a core feature of social anxiety. Several lines of theoretical per-
spectives echo this quality in SIA. Disqualifying the positive (Beck,
1976) is a cognitive bias that emphasizes that socially anxious
individuals tend to attribute their success to external factors and
disqualify their own self-worth. Alden et al. (2008) have claimed
that socially anxious individuals are prone to negatively interpret-
ing positive social events as threatening. In accordance with these
studies, findings by Kashdan (2007) also underscore the diminished
and impaired positive psychological experiences in SIA.
221
There are two theoretical perspectives that describe the under-
lying mechanisms for FPE, which have been raised by Gilbert (2001)
and Wallace and Alden (1995, 1997). Gilbert’s psycho-evolutionary
model highlights the cognitive bias of “fear of doing well”. Accord-
ing to Gilbert, individuals with social anxiety consider themselves
disadvantaged, but believe that improving their social status will
incite competition and conflicts with more dominant individu-
als, which will, in turn, lead to the loss of the benefits gained by
being ordinary. Socially anxious individuals would rather main-
tain nonviolent social interactions and keep a low profile. Indeed,
Weeks, Heimberg, Rodebaugh, and Norton (2008) found a mod-
erate correlation between FPE and the scores on the Submissive
Behavior Scales, which are an indication of keeping oneself in com-
pliance with group rules and avoiding conflicts with people high
on the social hierarchy. Similarly, Naragon-Gainey et al. (2009)
have presented evidence that social anxiety is significantly neg-
atively related to ascendance, an indicator of exhibitionism and
dominance. Furthermore, while social anxiety had a remarkable
association with ascendance, depression did not. These findings
echo our assertion that FPE is unique to SIA. Collectively, find-
ings from Weeks and Naragon-Gainey and their colleagues have
paralleled the view of Gilbert that individuals with social anxi-
ety perceive that positive evaluation would lead to threatening
outcome of conflicts, which would afflict them by losing benefits,
which may lead to social exclusion. Secondly, Wallace and Alden
have proposed an explanation similar to the above-mentioned
etiology, albeit somewhat different: socially anxious individuals
regard the price of success as being scrutinized more critically and
others having higher expectations of them. While they consider
their success as contingent and their typical performance of not
being praiseworthy, they dread higher expectations and failure.
With respect to depressed people, a nonsignificant relation-
ship between FPE and depression has suggested that depressed
individuals do not show FPE. Consistent with the interpersonal
point of view, their constant demands for reassurance of their self-
worth might not lead to FPE. Moreover, this difference is in line
with the perspective that social anxiety and depression are dis-
tinct emotional distress that results from BIS and BAS, respectively.
The inability of depressed individuals to pursue desired rewards
should not result in the refusal of positive feedback. Also in line with
Beck’s cognitive-content specificity model, anxiety and depression
can be discriminated in terms of unique cognitive content (Beck,
1976; Beck & Emery, 1985); therefore, we can speculate that dis-
qualifying the positive is specific to social anxiety. While anxious
individuals allocate extensive attention to future threats, depressed
people are more focused on self-depreciation. It therefore makes
sense that the attentional bias for threatening information directly
and strongly links FNE and FPE to social anxiety. On the contrary,
depressed people are characterized by biases for self-referential
negative information (Mineka et al., 1998). Negative evaluation by
others might verify their biased schema of personal failure, thereby,
to a lesser degree, linking depression to FNE. However, FPE is not
related to depressive self-depreciation. Collectively, findings on the
specific role of FNE and the unique role of FPE echo the conceptu-
alization of the psychopathology of social anxiety and depression
in Beck’s theory, the interpersonal model, and the BIS/BAS model.
In contrast, an alternative perspective involving the goals of the
defense system has been proposed by Trower and Gilbert (1989).
They have suggested that social anxiety and depression are states
on a continuous dimension, in which depression is an end state of
despair at failure of avoidance (anxious state). Based on this per-
spective, socially anxious individuals adopt submissive strategies
to avoid harm or rejection. If unsuccessful, they will escape from
or avoid perceived threats. When all of these strategies are unsuc-
cessful, depression is experienced by socially anxious individuals
(Weeks et al., 2009). According to the current findings, FPE can
222 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
differentiate SIA from depression. However, Trower and Gilbert’s
model implies that SIA utilizes strategies that involve FNE- and FPE-
related cognition in the beginning stage, and if these strategies fail,
they experience depressive mood in a later stage. Future research
is required to clarify whether social anxiety and depression are two
distinct categorizations or different stages on the same continuum.
Because FPE is the unique contributor to SIA, this implies a
role for FPE in psychological interventions. Two major cognitive-
behavioral models (Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997)
have underscored the importance of excessive worry over negative
evaluation and its detrimental consequences. Our findings, how-
ever, indicated that the significance of FPE might be greater than
that of FNE, as the results of the SEM analysis revealed that the
standardized path coefficient from SIA to FPE was .65, while that
from SIA to FNE was only .47. This implies that, for assessment
and treatment, focusing on the negative impact of FNE on individ-
uals with social anxiety would be unsatisfactory. Merely providing
positive social feedback or social experiences (e.g., interactions
with friendly individuals) does not diminish their social anxiety
because they typically feel uncomfortable toward compliments and
consider them inaccurate, which foreshadow their future failure
(Weeks, Heimberg, & Rodebaugh, 2008). Taken together, socially
anxious individuals do not absorb positive information into their
existing schema, and even worse, this feedback causes remarkable
distress. This has been an obstacle in psychotherapy (Heimberg &
Becker, 2002). According to the self-verification theory (Giesler,
Josephs, & Swann, 1996), people desire and look for evaluative
feedback that they believe to be accurate because this enhances
their senses of predictability and controllability. It is possible
that socially anxious individuals are not confident in their social
skills, and as a result, positive feedback is inconsistent with their
self-concept and produces discomfort. To reduce this discomfort,
individuals doubt of the accuracy of the information because they
expected negative feedback. Future work will hopefully clarify this
cognitive-interpersonal mechanism.
Gilboa-Schechtman, Franklin, and Foa (2000), Wallace and
Alden (1997), and Weeks, Heimberg, and Rodebaugh (2008)
have suggested efficiently incorporating FPE-related elements
in the contemporary cognitive-behavioral therapy of social
anxiety. Examples include cognitive reconstructions of FPE-
related automatic thinking and exposure therapy directed at
the agony associated with positive social feedback. According to
the present findings, cognitive behavioral intervention involving
psycho-education of FPE-related thoughts and challenging their
self-schema by addressing positive social experiences and the dis-
crepancy between their self-evaluation and their actual ability can
systematically reduce the barrier in cognitive-behavior therapy.
Moreover, introducing FPE-related cognitive change would inval-
idate their tendency to disqualify positive feedback from others
and their exaggeration of others’ expectations of them, and in turn,
ameliorating the negative feelings toward positive evaluations may
eventually lessen social interaction anxiety.
The current study is not without limitations. First, although the
results in the current study consistently indicate the unique con-
tribution of FPE to SIA, the current study adopted a correlational
design. To obtain more reliable data, further research is needed
to replicate our findings and improve our methodology, for exam-
ple, by conducting experiments. Second, we used an undergraduate
sample rather than a clinical sample to address the differences
between SIA and depression. However, many researchers have
advocated conceptualizing psychopathology in a dimensional con-
struct (e.g., Kotov et al., 2007; Sellbom et al., 2008), and they
have argued that the results obtained from clinical and nonclinical
respondents are highly consistent (O’Connor et al., 2002; Sellbom
et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2005). Moreover, our sample had ele-
vated scores on the SIAS and the BFNE-S; approximately half of
the participants reached the cut-off scores. Therefore, our sample
might share similar characteristics with respect to the SIAS and
the BFNE-S. Although our results provide strong support for all
of these hypotheses, replicating the hierarchical model of SIA and
depression in clinical samples is required. Third, the proposed hier-
archical model primarily focuses on the roles of FNE and FPE but
does not attempt to elaborate all of the related correlates concern-
ing SIA and depression. Thus, the current model may have ignored
several related correlates, such as blushing propensity, rejection
sensitivity, and rewards of social attention. We speculate that these
constructs may be related to the concept of fears of evaluation, and
their relationships warrant further studies. In addition, the rela-
tion between PA and SIA in the current model might be simplistic.
Research has shown that this association is not straightforward and
that affect regulatory strategies serve as moderators (Kashdan &
Breen, 2008; Kashdan & Steger, 2006). Again, future studies that
aim to clarify the structural model of SIA and depression should take
this delicate association into consideration. Fourth, the present data
were obtained exclusively from self-report measures, which may
be suspect due to shared method effects. It is noteworthy that the
findings have been paralleled by results obtained from interviews
for DSM diagnoses (e.g., Brown et al., 1998). However, examina-
tion of the generalizability using multiple forms and modalities of
measurements is required. Last, because the current study mainly
focused on the unique feature of SIA, the unique factor for depres-
sion remains an issue for future exploration.
5. Conclusions
Despite these limitations, our findings are encouraging in that
they are among the first to address the unique role of FPE in SIA
relative to depression and to examine their hierarchical relation-
ships. We developed a hierarchical model of SIA and depression
based not only on the specificity/generality of the correlated fea-
tures but also on their hierarchical relationships. The results from
the hierarchical regression and SEM analyses support our hypoth-
esized hierarchical model. These structural relationships provide
further evidence with respect to the underlying etiology of these
disorders and should facilitate the development of interventions
for social anxiety.
References
Alden, L. E., Taylor, C. T., Mellings, T. M. B., & Laposa, J. M. (2008). Social anxiety
and the interpretation of positive social events. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22,
577–590.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatr. Assoc. Text Version.
Ball, S. G., Otto, M. W., Pollack, M. H., Uccello, R., & Rosenbaum, J. F. (1995). Differen-
tiating social phobia and panic disorder: a test of core beliefs. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 19, 473–781.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: Interna-
tional Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: a cognitive perspective.
New York: Basic Books.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-
II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Belzer, K., & Schneier, F. R. (2004). Comorbidity of anxiety and depressive disorders:
issues in conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Journal of Psychiatric
Practice, 10, 296–306.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In: W. L.
Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164).
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Brown, E. J., Turovsky, J., Heimberg, R. G., Juster, H. R., Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H.
(1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia
Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 21–27.
Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). Structural relationships among
dimensions of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders and dimensions of
negative affect, positive effect, and autonomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 107, 179–192.
Brunello, N., den Boer, J. A., Judd, L. L., Kasper, S., Kelsey, J. E., Lader, Y., et al. (2000).
Social phobia: diagnosis and epidemiology, neurobiology and pharmacology,
comorbidity and treatment. Journal of Affective Disorders, 60, 61–74.
 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
Buckley, T. C., Parker, J. D., & Heggie, J. (2001). A psychometric evaluation of the BDI-
II in treatment-seeking substance abusers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
20, 197–204.
Carleton, R. N., Collimore, K. C., McCabe, R. E., & Antony, M. M. (2011). Addressing
revisions to the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale: measuring fear of nega-
tive evaluation across anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
25, 822–828.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
analysis of covariance structures. In: G. W. Bhrnstedt, & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social
measurement: current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Chang, H. W. (2005). Dimensions of the Chinese beck depression inventory-II in a
university sample. Individual Differences Research, 3, 193–199.
Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., Haslam, N., Beck, A. T., & Brown, G. K. (1997). Personal-
ity vulnerability, psychiatric diagnoses, and symptoms: cluster analyses of the
Sociotropy-Autonomy Subscales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 267–283.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psy-
chometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
100, 316–336.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social anxiety. In: R. G. Heim-
berg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: diagnosis,
assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York: The Guilford Press.
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood
and anxiety disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 103–116.
Collins, H. A., Westra, H. A., Dozois, D. J. A., & Stewart, S. H. (2005). The validity of
the brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Anxiety Disorders, 19,
345–359.
Cox, B. J., Ross, L., Swinson, R. P., & Direnfeld, D. M. (1998). A comparison of social
phobia outcome measures in cognitive-behavioral group therapy. Behavior Mod-
ification, 22, 285–297.
Coyne, J. C. (1976). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39,
28–40.
Duke, D., Krishnan, M., Faith, M., & Storch, E. A. (2006). The psychometric properties
of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Anxiety Disorders, 20, 807–817.
Fergus, T. A., Valentiner, D. P., McGrath, P. B., Stephenson, K. L., Gier, S. L., & Jencius,
S. (2009). The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale: psychometric properties in a
clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 1177–1183.
Gibb, B. E., Coles, M. E., & Heimberg, R. G. (2005). Differentiating symptoms of social
anxiety and depression in adults with social anxiety disorder. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 36, 99–109.
Giesler, R. B., Josephs, R. A., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1996). Self-verification in clinical
depression: the desire for negative evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
105, 358–368.
Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: the role of attraction, social compe-
tition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24, 723–751.
Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Franklin, M. E., & Foa, E. B. (2000). Anticipated reactions
to social events: differences among individuals with generalized social phobia,
obsessive compulsive disorder, and nonanxious controls. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 24, 731–746.
Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral group therapy for Social
Phobia: Basic mechanisms and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS-21): normative data and psychometric evaluation in a large
non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
tural analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Hughes, A. A., Heimberg, R. G., Coles, M. E., Gibb, B. E., Liebowitz, M. R., & Schneier, F.
R. (2006). Relations of factors of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression
to types of social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1629–1641.
Joiner, T. E., Jr., Alfano, M. S., & Metalsky, G. I. (1992). When depression breeds con-
tempt: reassurance seekings, self-esteem, and rejection of depressed college
students by their roommates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 165–173.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kashdan, T. B. (2002). Social anxiety dimensions, neuroticism, and the contours of
positive psychological functioning. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 789–810.
Kashdan, T. B. (2004). The neglected relationship between social interaction anx-
iety and hedonic deficits: differentiation from depressive symptoms. Anxiety
disorders, 18, 719–730.
Kashdan, T. B. (2007). Social anxiety spectrum and diminished positive experiences:
theoretical synthesis and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 348–365.
Kashdan, T. B., & Breen, W. E. (2008). Social anxiety and positive emotions: a prospec-
tive examination of a self-regulatory model with tendencies to suppress or
express emotions as a moderating variable. Behavior Therapy, 39, 1–12.
Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. (2006). Expanding the topography of social anxiety: an
experience sampling assessment of positive emotions and events, and emotion
suppression. Psychological Science, 17, 120–128.
Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005).
Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the
national comorbidity survey replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62,
617–627.
223
Kocovski, N., & Endler, N. S. (2000). Social anxiety, self-regulation, and fear of nega-
tive evaluation. European Journal of Personality, 14, 347–358.
Kotov, R., Watson, D., Robles, J. P., & Schmid, N. B. (2007). Personality traits and
anxiety symptoms: the multilevel trait predictor model. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 1485–1503.
Krueger, R. F. (1999). The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 56, 921–926.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375.
Liebowitz, M. R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry, 22,
141–173.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Psychological Foundation of Australia.
Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of
social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 36, 455–470.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analysis. Psychometrika, 58, 431–443.
Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar
mood disorders. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 377–412.
Naragon-Gainey, K., & Watson, D. (2010). Clarifying the dispositional basis of social
anxiety: a hierarchical perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 49,
926–934.
Naragon-Gainey, K., Watson, D., & Markon, K. E. (2009). Differential relations of
depression and social anxiety symptoms to the facets of extraversion/positive
emotionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 118, 299–310.
Norton, P. J. (2007). Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS): psychometric anal-
ysis across four racial groups. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal,
20, 253–265.
O’Connor, L. E., Berry, J. W., Weiss, J., & Gilbert, P. (2002). Guilt, fear, submission, and
empathy in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 71, 19–27.
Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in
social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Heimberg, R. G., Liebowitz, M. R., & Schneier, F.
R. (2006). The factor structure and screening utility of the Social Interaction
Anxiety Scale. Psychological Assessment, 18, 231–237.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M., Heimberg, R. G., Chambless, D. L., &
Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: the factor structure
and item properties of the original and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale.
Psychological Assessment, 16, 169–181.
Saboonchi, F., Lundh, L., & Ost, L. (1999). Perfectionism and self-consciousness in
social phobia and panic disorder with agoraphobia. Behaviour Research and Ther-
apy, 37, 799–808.
Safren, S. A., Heimberg, R. G., Horner, K. J., Juster, H. R., Schneier, F. R., & Liebowitz,
M. R. (1999). Factor structure of social fears: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 253–270.
Sato, T. (2003). Sociotropy and autonomy: the nature of vulnerability. The Journal of
Psychology, 137, 447–466.
Sato, T., McCann, D., & Ferguson-Isaac, C. (2004). Sociotropy-autonomy and
situation-specific anxiety. Psychological Reports, 94, 67–76.
Schofield, C. A., Coles, M. E., & Gibb, B. E. (2009). The Fear of Positive Evaluation
Scale: psychometric properties in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
23, 884–890.
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On the hierarchical
structure of mood and anxiety disorders: confirmatory evidence and an elab-
orated model of temperament markers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117,
576–590.
Stein, M. B., & Chavira, D. A. (1998). Subtypes of social phobia and comorbidity
with depression and other anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 50,
S11–S16.
Stravynski, A. (2007). Fearing others: the nature and treatment of social phobia (chap.
1). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Trower, P., & Gilbert, P. (1989). New theoretical conceptions of social anxiety and
social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 19–35.
Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard setting
following social success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19,
613–631.
Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1997). Social phobia and positive social events: the price
of success. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 416–424.
Watson, D. (2005). Rethinking the mood and anxiety disorders: a quantita-
tive hierarchical model for DSM–V. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114,
522–536.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In:
R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp.
767–793). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (2006). Clinical diagnosis at the crossroads. Clinical Psychol-
ogy: Science and Practice, 13, 210–215.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Watson, D., Gamez, D., & Simms, W. (2005). Basic dimensions of temperament and
their relation to anxiety and depression: a symptom-based perspective. Journal
of Research in Personality, 39, 46–66.
Weeks, J. W. (2010). The Disqualification of Positive Social Outcomes Scale: a novel
assessment of a long-recognized cognitive tendency in social anxiety disorder.
Journal of Anxiety disorders, 24, 856–865.
224 W.-T. Wang et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 26 (2012) 215–224
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Hart, T. A., Turk, C. L., Schneier, F. R., et al.
(2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Fear of
Negative Evaluation Scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological
Assessment, 17, 179–190.
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2008). The Fear of Positive Evalua-
tion Scale: assessing a proposed cognitive component of social anxiety disorder.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 44–55.
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Rodebaugh, T. L., & Norton, P. J. (2008). Exploring the
relationship between fear of positive evaluation and social anxiety. Journal of
Anxiety disorders, 22, 386–400.
Weeks, J. W., Jakatdar, T. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2010). Comparing and contrasting
fears of positive and negative evaluation as facets of social anxiety. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 68–94.
Weeks, J. W., Rodebaugh, T. L., Heimberg, R. J., Norton, P. J., & Jakatdar, T. A. (2009). To
avoid evaluation, withdraw: Fears of evaluation and depressive cognitions lead
to social anxiety and submissive withdrawal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33,
375–389.
Zinbarg, R. E., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Structure of anxiety and the anxiety disorders:
a hierarchical model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 181–193.