Self-Discrepancies and the Situational

Domains of Social Phobia

Adam Johns, and Lorna Peters
Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Australia

The present study explored whether particular discrepancies among an individual’s

self-beliefs, as described by Higgins’ (1987) Self-Discrepancy Theory, were differ-
entially related to the two broad situational domains of social anxiety: performance
and social interaction anxiety. Fifteen people (4 males) with a primary diagnosis of
GSP from Macquarie University’s Emotional Health Clinic, and 25 undergraduate
psychology students from Macquarie University (8 males) with mean chronologi-
cal ages of 31.7 and 20.6 years respectively, participated in the study. As predicted,
the study found that the ‘actual/other:ought/other’ self-discrepancy was uniquely
related to performance anxiety, the ‘actual/own:ought/other’ self-discrepancy was
uniquely associated with social interaction anxiety, and the ‘actual/own:ideal/own’
self-discrepancy was uniquely associated with depression. The results are discussed
in terms of their unique contribution to Self-Discrepancy Theory research, the
current empirical debate regarding the existence of subtypes within social phobia,
and their implications for the cognitive models and treatment of social anxiety.

 Keywords: self-discrepancy theory, social phobia, subtypes, depression, anxiety

Higgins’ Self-Discrepancy Theory (SDT: Higgins, 1987) postulates that two equally
important cognitive dimensions, ‘domains of the self’ and ‘standpoints on the self’,
underlie various self-state representations. Higgins outlined three ‘domains of the
self’: the ‘actual self’ is a person’s representation of the attributes that someone (self
or significant other[s]) believes he or she actually possesses; the ‘ideal self’ is a per-
son’s representation of the attributes that someone (self or significant other[s]) hopes,
aspires, or wishes him or her to possess; and the ‘ought self’ is a person’s representa-
tion of the attributes that someone (self or significant other[s]) believes it is his or
her duty, moral obligation, or responsibility to possess. A ‘standpoint on the self’ is
defined as ‘a point of view from which you can be judged on a set of attitudes or
values’ (Higgins, p. 321). There are two basic standpoints of the self — your own
personal standpoint and the standpoint of some significant other. The representations
related to the inferred perspectives of others are abstractions of experiences within
various significant relationships in a person’s life. The combination of each of the ‘do-
mains of the self’ with each of the ‘standpoints on the self’ produces six basic types of
self-state representations: actual/own, actual/other, ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own,
109
and ought/other. The actual/own and actual/other self-state representations constitute
what is typically defined as a person’s ‘self-concept’. The four remaining self-state rep-
resentations are self-directive standards or acquired guides, called ‘self-guides’, which

Address for correspondence: Adam D. Johns, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW
2109, Australia.
Email: adamdjohns@hotmail.com

Behaviour Change Volume 29 Number 2 2012 pp. 109–125 

c The Authors 2012 doi 10.1017/bec.2012.1
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

regulate and evaluate the ‘actual self’. SDT proposes that individuals experience
psychological distress when they perceive their self-concept as substantially discrepant
from important self-guides. SDT provides for eight possible discrepancies that may ex-
ist between an individual’s self-concept and self-guides. Based upon previous theories
of belief incompatibilities, Higgins chose to focus on four types of discrepancies: ac-
tual/own:ideal/own, actual/own:ideal/other, actual/own:ought/own, and actual/own:
ought/other. Self-discrepancies involving the ‘actual/other’ self-concept have not been
considered by Higgins or subsequent SDT research.
SDT assumes that each type of discrepancy reflects a particular type of neg-
ative psychological situation that is associated with specific emotional problems.
The actual-ideal discrepancies (collapsing standpoints on the self) are found to be
uniquely associated with dejection-related emotions, while the actual-ought discrep-
ancies (collapsing standpoints on the self) are observed to be uniquely associated with
agitation-related emotions (e.g., Higgins, 1987; Higgins, Bond, Klein, & Strauman,
1986; Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985; Scott & O’Hara, 1993; Strauman, 1989,
1992; Strauman & Higgins, 1988; but see Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, & Barlow,
1998). More specifically, research has reported that the actual/own:ideal/own (ASIS)
self-discrepancy is uniquely associated with depression-related feelings, whereas the
actual/own:ought/other (ASOO) self-discrepancy is uniquely associated with anxiety-
related emotions (e.g. Scott & O’Hara; Strauman & Higgins).

SDT and Social Phobia

Strauman (1989) found that people with social phobia (SP) had the largest magni-
tude of and, hence, greater agitation-related responses to priming of the ASOO self-
discrepancy, whereas people with major depression had the largest magnitude of and,
hence, greater dejection-related responses to priming of the ASIS self-discrepancy.
Further, Strauman reported that ASIS-discrepant priming induced a syndrome of de-
jection, and ASOO-discrepant priming induced a syndrome of agitation for people
with both major depression and SP. Strauman only considered participants’ ASIS and
ASOO self-discrepancies, and did not examine any subtypes of SP.
Weilage and Hope (1999) examined the self-discrepancies evident in people with
the generalised (‘fearing most social situations’; p. 640) and nongeneralised (‘marked
social anxiety in multiple situations but having at least one area of social functioning
that is free of anxiety’; p. 640) subtypes of SP (‘marked social anxiety in multiple
situations but having at least one area of social functioning that is free of anxiety’;
p. 640). As predicted, the study found that participants with generalised SP and the
comorbid generalised SP and dysthymia group had larger ASOO self-discrepancies
than control participants. Contrary to expectations, persons with nongeneralised SP
did not differ from control participants on the ASOO self-discrepancy, and individ-
uals with dysthymia had larger ASOO self-discrepancies than control participants.
110 As expected, individuals with generalised or nongeneralised SP did not differ from
control participants on the ASIS self-discrepancy, and participants with comorbid dys-
thymia and generalised SP had significantly higher ASIS self-discrepancies than the
participants without psychiatric disorders and those with nongeneralised SP without
depression. Contrary to the hypothesis, individuals with dysthymia without SP were
not different from control participants on the ASIS discrepancy. Weilage and Hope’s
results identified that the ASOO self-discrepancy was associated with the generalised
SP and comorbid generalised SP and dysthymia groups. Interestingly, Weilage and

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

Hope did not identify a self-discrepancy that uniquely related to non-generalised SP.
Since Weilage and Hope only examined the ASIS and ASOO self-discrepancies, an
unexplored self-discrepancy may be related to the experience of non-generalised SP.

Self-discrepancies in the Cognitive Models of Social Phobia

Rapee and Heimberg’s (1997) cognitive model of SP appears to echo SDT
(Higgins, 1987) in proposing that discrepancies amongst an individual’s self-beliefs
are fundamental in the experience of social anxiety. Rapee and Heimberg assert that
a discrepancy between an individual’s internally generated, negative, mental rep-
resentation of his or her performance or appearance from an audience perspective
(‘actual/other’) and his or her prediction of the audience’s expectations for his or her
performance or appearance (‘ought/other’) is central to the experience of SP. Rapee
and Heimberg report that the spontaneous mental representation created in feared
social situations is not of ‘how one actually views oneself, but is based on how the
individual believes the audience views him or her at any given moment’ (p. 744).
Research widely supports the existence of negative, observer-perspective self-images
in anxiety-provoking social situations (e.g., Hackmann, Clark, & McManus, 2000;
Vassilopoulos, 2005; Wells & Papageorgiou, 1999), and their causal role in the ex-
perience of social anxiety in both performance (Hirsh, Mathews, Clark, Williams, &
Morrison, 2006; Spurr & Stopa, 2003) and social interaction (Hirsh, Clark, Mathews,
& Williams, 2003; Hirsh, Meynen, & Clark, 2004) situations. Libby and Eibach (2002)
reported that self-images from an observer perspective become more pronounced in
self-discrepant, self-conscious situations. Thus, the ‘actual/other’ and/or ‘ought/other’
self-state representations appear relevant to the experience of SP.
The Clark and Wells (1995) cognitive model of SP also appears to support the
importance of self-discrepancies, and the ‘actual/other’ and/or ‘ought/other’ self-state
representations, in the experience of SP. Clark and Wells conceptualise that a dis-
crepancy exists between an individual’s self-evaluation (‘marked insecurity about one’s
ability’, p. 69) and his or her perception of presumed audience expectations (‘desire to
convey a particular favourable impression to others’, p. 69) in the experience of social
anxiety. Clark and Wells specify that people with SP create a mental representation
of themselves in feared social situations, which they assume reflects what other people
actually notice and think about them.
The Clark and Wells (1995) cognitive model of SP additionally specifies the na-
ture of the self-discrepancies involved in SP. Clark and Wells propose that people
with SP may exhibit three categories of dysfunctional beliefs, which influence their
experience of SP. First, individuals with SP may have excessively high standards for
social performance, which are difficult if not impossible to achieve. Second, people
with SP may hold conditional beliefs concerning social evaluation, such as ‘if I show
feelings or make mistakes, people will reject me’ or ‘what people think about me must
be the truth about me’. Third, people with SP may embrace unconditional beliefs 111
about the self, such as ‘I am stupid’, which are unstable and confined to social sit-
uations (Clark & Wells; Wilson & Rapee, 2005). Clark and Wells suggest that SP
may be expressed differently according to the way that an individual’s high expec-
tations, unconditional self-beliefs and conditional self-beliefs interact and develop.
For example, Clark and Wells showed that individuals who reported the onset of
SP following traumatic social experiences exhibited only excessively high standards
and conditional beliefs, whereas individuals who reported always being unconfident

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

about their public self-image and having been shy since childhood were more likely to
experience unconditional self-beliefs. Hughes (2002) reported that unconditional
negative self-statements are not reliably found in people with SP and, thus, may dif-
ferentiate between the subtypes of SP. Clark and Wells reported that people with
generalised SP are more likely to exhibit unconditional beliefs and early onset of SP,
whereas those with specific SP are more likely to have a later onset of SP following a
traumatic social situation where they failed to meet, or thought they were in danger
of failing to meet, their high standards of acceptable social behaviour. Since uncon-
ditional negative beliefs are also a cognitive feature of depression (Clark & Wells;
Cox et al., 2000; Hughes), generalised SP may be uniquely associated with the ASOO
self-discrepancy, which Weilage and Hope (1999) found was elevated in people with
generalised SP, generalised SP and dysthymia, and dysthymia. Alternatively, specific
SP may be associated with the ‘actual/other:ought/other’ (AOOO) self-discrepancy.
This hypothesis is supported by the theoretical underpinnings of Rapee and Heimberg’s
(1997) cognitive model of SP, and the interaction between conditional self-beliefs
(‘actual/other’) and excessively high presumed audience expectations (‘ought/other’)
reported to be a feature of specific SP by Clark and Wells.

Situational Domains of Social Phobia

The theoretical literature suggests that generalised SP (GSP) may be discerned from
the residual subtypes of SP according to differences between the two broad types
of social fears, namely social interaction anxiety and performance anxiety. Such a
proposition is founded upon evidence that finds a stronger association between GSP
and social interaction situations, and the residual subtypes of SP and performance sit-
uations (Furmark, Tillfors, Stattin, Ekselius, & Fredrikson, 2000; Heimberg, Mueller,
Holt, Hope, & Leibowitz, 1992; Stemberger, Turner, Beidel, & Calhoun, 1995), and
upon studies that report social fears statistically clustering into two (Stein & Deutsch,
2003), three (Safren, Turk, & Heimberg, 1998), four (e.g., Safren et al., 1999), or
five (Perugi et al., 2001) situational domains of SP. Although research has varied in
the number of situational domains of SP identified, most investigations have utilised
a two-subtype model of SP that associates social interaction anxiety with GSP and
performance anxiety with the residual subtypes of SP, which will be collectively re-
ferred to as ‘specific’ SP (SSP) for the purpose of this study. People with GSP may fear
both social interaction and performance situations, but are distinguished from SSP
due to their specific fear of social situations involving interactions with other people
(Furmark et al., 2000).
In addition to the selective experience of social interaction anxiety, people with
GSP exhibit greater fears of negative evaluation, higher trait anxiety and depression,
poorer psychosocial functioning, lower self-esteem, more profound social skill deficits,
and more self-reported anxiety than individuals with SSP (Hofmann, Heinrichs, &
112 Moscovitch, 2004; Hook & Valentiner, 2002; Mannuzza et al., 1995). Further, GSP is
associated with greater comorbidity than SSP, particularly major depression, substance
abuse, avoidant personality disorder, and other anxiety disorders (Hook & Valentiner).
People with GSP are also more likely to be unmarried, unemployed, more poorly
educated, and are more likely to exhibit suicidal behaviour than people with SSP
(Furmark et al., 2000; Hook & Valentiner; Mannuzza et al.). The literature also informs
that GSP and SSP differ according to affect. Social interaction anxiety is found to be
more highly associated with anhedonia and low positive affect, whereas performance

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

anxiety is more highly related to panic symptoms (Boone et al., 1999; Heimberg,
Hope, Dodge, & Becker, 1990; Hook & Valentiner; Hughes et al., 2006). This is
disputed by Marmorstein (2006), however, who found that performance-focused SP
was more strongly associated with depressive disorders than GSP. Therefore, GSP
may be uniquely associated with depressive and pervasively anxious self-discrepancies
when compared to SSP. The ASOO self-discrepancy appears applicable to GSP, as
it is associated with pervasive agitation-related emotions (e.g. Strauman & Higgins,
1988), generalised SP, and dysthymia (Weilage & Hope, 1999). SSP may be uniquely
associated with a highly anxious, specific performance-related, self-discrepancy. The
AOOO self-discrepancy appears applicable to SSP, as it appears the most socially
evaluative and performance-specific self-discrepancy outlined in Higgins’ (1987) SDT.
The present study aims to examine the association between specific self-
discrepancies and the experience of social anxiety, particularly performance and social
interaction anxiety. Two groups of participants, those participating in a treatment
program for SP and psychology undergraduate students, completed measures of self-
discrepancies and emotion. Based on the observation that people with generalised SP,
and comorbid generalised SP and depression, had significantly greater ASOO self-
discrepancies than a control group and people with specific SP, we hypothesised that
social interaction anxiety, which differentiates people with GSP from SSP, would be
uniquely related to the ASOO self-discrepancy. In accordance with the SP subtype
literature, we also predicted that the ASOO self-discrepancy would be significantly
related to depression. Based upon Rapee and Heimberg’s (1997) and Clark and Wells’
(1995) cognitive models of SP, which suggest that the ‘actual/other’ and ‘ought/other’
self-state representations may be important in the experience of social anxiety, and
the suggestion from Weilage and Hope’s (1999) study that a previously unexam-
ined self-discrepancy may be associated with performance anxiety, we hypothesised
that performance anxiety would be uniquely related to the AOOO self-discrepancy.
Finally, in accordance with the SDT literature, we hypothesised that the ASIS self-
discrepancy would be uniquely associated with depression.

Method
Participants
Fifteen people (4 males) with a primary diagnosis of GSP from Macquarie University’s
Emotional Health Clinic, and 25 undergraduate psychology students from Macquarie
University (8 males) with mean chronological ages of 31.73 (SD 11.7) and 20.6 (SD
5.4) years, respectively, participated in the study. The clinical group of people with
GSP was significantly older than the non-clinical undergraduate psychology students,
F(1,38) = 16.99, p < .001, while the groups did not significantly differ on gender,
F(1,38) = 0.12, p = .730.
The 15 people with GSP were recruited through Macquarie University’s Emotional
Health Clinic after seeking inclusion in the clinic’s SP group treatment program, of 113
which research participation is a necessary prerequisite. Referrals and respondents to
advertisements for the SP group treatment program who appeared to meet inclusion
and exclusion criteria during brief telephone interviews were administered the Anxiety
Disorders Interview Schedule — IV (ADIS-IV; Brown, DiNardo, & Barlow, 1994).
Masters or doctoral clinical psychology interns at Macquarie University conducted
the ADIS-IV. All diagnostic interviewers met the standards for reliability with an
expert ADIS-IV interviewer. If the respondent was found to have a primary diagnosis

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

of SP according to the DSM-IV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 2000),

he or she was invited to participate in the study, and later in treatment. Participants
in the undergraduate group were recruited through an online recruitment website
for first-year psychology students at Macquarie University, and given course credit in
recompense for their participation. Undergraduate participants were not assessed using
the ADIS-IV and, thus, possible diagnoses for these participants were not attained.

Measures
Measure of self-discrepancies
Participants were administered an adapted version of Hardin and Lakin’s (2007) Inte-
grated Self-Discrepancy Index (ISDI), which was modified to include the ‘actual/other’
self-state representation. Participants were given written instructions that explained
that they would be asked to describe, by listing attributes, different types of selves from
their own and a significant other’s standpoint. The various ‘domains of the self ’ were
described as follows, and differed slightly from the descriptions provided by Hardin
and Lakin:
Your ‘Should’ self: the kind of person that you (or an important person in your life)
believe you have the duty, moral obligation or responsibility to be. It is defined
by the personality traits that you (or an important person in your life) think you
ought to possess, or feel obligated to possess.
Your ‘Ideal’ self: the kind of person that you (or an important person in your life)
would ideally like you to be. It is defined by the personality traits that you (or an
important person in your life) wish, desire, or hope you to have.
After reading these instructions, participants were requested to identify a significant
person in their life whose opinion is most important to them. The identified individual
was utilised as the ‘significant other’ in subsequent tasks. The participants were then
presented with different pages for each ‘domain of the self’, which included lists for
both the ‘own’ and ‘other’ standpoints on the self for each respective domain. For
each list, participants were reminded of the definition of each ‘domain of the self’ with
either the ‘own’ or ‘other’ standpoint on the self, and were asked to list five attributes
to describe each self-state representation. For example, the following instructions were
provided for each standpoint on the ‘ought’ self:
For the ‘ought/own’ self-state representation: Please list the attributes or charac-
teristics of the type of person you believe you should or ought to be; the traits you
believe it is your duty, moral obligation or responsibility to possess.
For the ‘ought/other’ self-state representation: Please list the attributes or charac-
teristics of the type of person that ________ (name of important person) believes
you should or ought to be; the traits he or she believes it is your duty, moral
obligation or responsibility to possess.
114
After generating the traits for each self-state representation, participants were asked to
review their self-generated lists in light of 105 attributes from which they could choose
to complete (if less than 5 attributes were listed) or modify their lists. Hardin and
Lakin (2007) selected the adjectives in the provided list from Anderson’s (1968) list of
555 trait words, with the selected adjectives representing the full range of likeability
ratings. The 105 words were presented in alphabetical order to participants. The
same list was provided to all participants. This dual approach allowed idiosyncratic

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

attributes to be generated as well as provided assistance to those participants for whom

the task of generating attributes was more difficult.
After completing the lists of attributes, participants were asked to revisit each list
and indicate on a scale from 1 (Does not describe me at all) to 5 (Completely describes
me) ‘how much do you think each of the qualities actually describes or applies to
you at this time’ for the ‘actual/own’ self-state representation, and ‘how much do you
think that your most important person, _____, believes that each of the qualities
listed actually describes or applies to you at this time’ for the ‘actual/other’ self-state
representation. Self-discrepancy scores were computed by averaging the ratings of
the five attributes generated for each self-guide for both the ‘actual/own’ and ‘ac-
tual/other’ self-concept representations. The ratings represent the extent to which
the ‘actual/own’ or ‘actual/other’ self-state representation differs from each ‘self-guide’
representation. For example, a score of 1 for the ‘actual/own:ideal/own’ discrepancy
indicates a large discrepancy between those attributes a person aspires to possess and
the attributes the individual feels he or she actually possess, whereas a score of 5
indicates perfect congruence and, thus, no discrepancy. Through inclusion of the ‘ac-
tual/other’ self-concept, the adapted ISDI used in the current study measured eight
self-discrepancies; ‘actual/own:ideal/own’ (ASIS), ‘actual/own:ideal/other’ (ASIO),
‘actual/own:ought/own’ (ASOS), ‘actual/own:ought/other’ (ASOO), ‘actual/other:
ideal/own’ (AOIS), ‘actual/other:ideal/other’ (AOIO), ‘actual/other:ought/own’
(AOOS), ‘actual/other: ought/other’ (AOOO). The ASIS, ASOO and AOOO self-
discrepancies were utilised for the purposes of this study.

Measures of social anxiety

The Leibowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Leibowitz, 1987) is a 24-item self-report
measure that assesses fear and avoidance of 11 social interaction and 13 performance
situations. Responses are scored to provide Total, Interaction (Fear and Avoidance)
and Performance (Fear and Avoidance) scores, with higher scores indicating greater
anxiety. Psychometric studies have revealed that the LSAS is a valid and reliable
measure of social phobia (Baker, Heinrichs, Kim, & Hofmann, 2002). The Social
Performance Scale and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SPS and SIAS; Mattick
& Clarke, 1998) comprise 20-item self-report measures of performance/scrutiny fears
and social interaction anxiety, respectively. Scores on each scale range from 0 to 80,
with higher scores representing greater anxiety. The companion measures have been
shown to be reliable and valid measures of social phobia (e.g. Heimberg et al., 1992;
Mattick & Clarke, 1998).

Measure of Depression
The Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) is a 21-
item self-report measure that assesses cognitive and somatic symptoms of depression
during the past two weeks. Research has revealed that the BDI-II has robust internal
consistency, reliability and validity (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). This questionnaire 115
was used to assess for participants’ experience of chronic depression.

Procedure
Participants were informed upon arrival for the assessment that the purpose of the study
was ‘to investigate whether particular aspects of a person’s self-concept are associated
with the experience of social anxiety in social interaction or performance situations’.

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

In accordance with the suggestion by Hardin and Leong (2005) and Strauman and
Higgins (1988), the ISDI was administered at the start of testing in order to reduce
the likelihood that participants would respond to the questionnaire by relating their
responses to their answers on the emotional distress measures. Participants were then
requested to complete the measures of social anxiety and depression.

Results
Prior to analysis, participant responses on the SPS, SIAS and LSAS measures of
social anxiety were transformed into Performance Anxiety (PA) and Social Interac-
tion Anxiety (SIA) composite variables. The PA composite variable was computed
by averaging z-scores on the SPS, LSAS-Performance Fear, and LSAS-Performance
Avoidance. The SIA composite variable was computed by averaging z-scores on the
SIAS, LSAS-Interaction Fear, and LSAS-Interaction Avoidance. A single outlier
(with a BDI-II score that was 3.1 standard deviations above the mean) was removed
from analyses.
A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, with the
two groups (nonclinical and GSP) as the independent variable, and the social anxiety
and depression measures as dependent variables. As displayed in Table 1, the clinical
group had significantly higher scores on the SPS, SIAS, and LSAS measures of social
anxiety, and the BDI-II measure of depression, than the nonclinical group. The
clinical group also had significantly higher scores on the composite measures of PA
and SIA than the nonclinical group. The clinical group had significantly larger ASIS,
ASOO and AOOO self-discrepancies than the nonclinical group. Therefore, these
results demonstrate that the clinical group, which comprised individuals with GSP,
experienced more severe performance and social interaction anxiety, and had a greater
and more diffuse pattern of self-discrepancies, than the nonclinical participants.
Bivariate correlations were calculated in order to examine the relationships be-
tween the self-discrepancies, with the results displayed in Table 2. The ASIS self-
discrepancy was significantly and moderately correlated with both the ASOO self-
discrepancy at r = .62 (p < .001) and the AOOO self-discrepancy at r = .61 (p < .001).
The ASOO self-discrepancy was significantly and highly correlated with the AOOO
self-discrepancy at r = .90 (p < .001). A partial correlation, which controlled for the
ASIS self-discrepancy, was calculated for the ASOO and AOOO self-discrepancies,
and revealed a significant and high correlation at r = .85 (p < .001). These results
reveal that the ASOO and AOOO self-discrepancies are moderately correlated with
the ASIS self-discrepancy, and that the ASOO and AOOO self-discrepancies are
highly correlated with each other.
Bivariate correlations were also calculated to explore the relationships between
each of the self-discrepancies and the PA, SIA and BDI-II outcome measures. As
displayed in Table 2, the ASIS, ASOO and AOOO self-discrepancies all demonstrated
116 significant and moderate correlations with the PA and SIA measures of social anxiety,
and the BDI-II measure of depression. This finding supports the central hypothesis of
SDT (Higgins, 1987), which proposes that emotional distress arises from the existence
of discrepancies among an individual’s self-beliefs. The ASIS self-discrepancy had the
largest bivariate correlation with the BDI-II at r = -.59 (p < .001), the ASOO self-
discrepancy had the largest bivariate correlation with the SIA composite variable
at r = -.58 (p < .001), and the AOOO self-discrepancy had the largest bivariate
correlation with the PA composite variable at r = -.46 (p < .001). These results provide

Behaviour Change
Behaviour Change

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Independent and Dependent Variables

Group Self-discrepancies Social anxiety Depression

ASIS ASOO AOOO SPS SIAS LSAS — Perf. LSAS — Inter. PA Comp SIA Comp BDI

Nonclinical Mean 3.37 3.61 3.73 13.96 18.88 11.12 10.52 − 0.359 − 0.518 7.76
N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
SD 0.66 0.66 0.92 9.79 10.05 4.07 5.19 0.733 0.620 5.56
Clinical Mean 2.36 2.87 2.93 31.92 52.23 17.46 20.92 0.652 0.882 17.69
N 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

SD 0.77 1.01 1.10 15.81 13.29 5.43 5.91 0.860 0.694 8.23
One-way ANOVA F 18.7 7.6 5.9 18.8 80.0 16.5 31.3 14.4 40.2 19.2
df 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
p 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Mean 3.01 3.34 3.44 20.11 30.63 13.29 14.08 − 0.013 − 0.393 11.16
N 39 39 39 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
SD 0.85 0.87 1.05 14.76 19.89 5.44 7.34 0.908 0.927 8.10
117
 118

Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

TABLE 2
Bivariate and Partial Correlations Among the Independent and Dependent Variables for All Participants

Bivariate Partial
correlations correlations
ASOO AOOO PA SIA BDI-II Controlled PA SIA BDI-II

ASIS 0.62** 0.61** −0.33* − 0.50** − 0.59** AOOO ASIS −0.37* −0.32 −0.29
ASOO 0.90** −0.45** − 0.58** − 0.57** ASIS AOOO −0.04 −0.26 −0.40*
AOOO −0.46** − 0.48** − 0.53**
PA 0.80** 0.54** ASOO ASIS −0.34* −0.42* −0.35*
SIA 0.76** ASIS ASOO −0.07 −0.21 −0.38*

Note: ** P < .01; *p < .05.

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

initial support for our hypotheses regarding the link of specific self-discrepancies with
depression and the subtypes of SP.
Bivariate correlations were also calculated between the outcome measures, with
the results displayed in Table 2. The PA composite measure was significantly and
highly correlated with the SIA composite measure at r = .80 (p ≤ .001), while the
BDI-II was significantly and moderately correlated with PA at r = .54 (p < .001)
and significantly and highly correlated with SIA at r = .76 (p < .001). In order to
establish the unique relationship between each outcome measure, partial correlations
were computed. Controlling for the BDI-II, the PA and SIA composite variables were
significantly and moderately at r = .68 (p < .001). Controlling for the SIA composite
variable, the PA and BDI-II measures were not significantly correlated at r = -.11 (p =
.516). Controlling for the PA composite variable, the SIA and BDI-II measures were
significantly and moderately correlated at r = .62 (p < .001). These results support
the SP literature, which observes that social interaction anxiety is more highly related
to depression than performance anxiety.
A series of partial correlations were computed to establish whether specific self-
discrepancies, regardless of group membership, were uniquely related to the subtypes
of SP and depression. The results are displayed in Table 2. Partial correlations between
the AOOO self-discrepancy and the PA, SIA and BDI-II outcome measures, control-
ling for the ASIS self-discrepancy, revealed a significant and moderate correlation
with the PA composite at r = -.37 (p = .025) and insignificant relationships with
both the SIA composite and BDI-II measures. This result supports our hypothesis
that the AOOO self-discrepancy is uniquely associated with SSP. Partial correlations
between the ASOO self-discrepancy and the PA, SIA and BDI-II outcome measures,
controlling for the ASIS self-discrepancy, revealed significant and moderate correla-
tions with the PA composite at r = -.34 (p = .046), the SIA composite at r = -.42
(p = .012), and the BDI-II at r = -.35 (p = .035). This result supports the hypothesis
that the ASOO self-discrepancy is uniquely associated with GSP, which comprises
both social interaction and performance anxiety and shares characteristics with de-
pression. Partial correlations between the ASIS self-discrepancy and the PA, SIA
and BDI-II outcome measures, controlling for the AOOO self-discrepancy, revealed
a significant and moderate correlation with the BDI-II at r = -.40 (p = .016) and
insignificant correlations with the measures of social anxiety. Partial correlations be-
tween the ASIS self-discrepancy and the PA, SIA and BDI-II outcome measures,
controlling for the ASOO self-discrepancy, revealed a significant and moderate cor-
relation with the BDI-II at r = -.38 (p = .023) and insignificant correlations with the
measures of social anxiety. These results support the SDT hypothesis that the ASIS
self-discrepancy is uniquely related to depression.

Discussion 119
The results support the hypotheses of the current study. We predicted that the ASOO
self-discrepancy would be uniquely related to social interaction anxiety, and also
demonstrate a significant relationship with depression. Accounting for the ASIS self-
discrepancy, the ASOO self-discrepancy was found to be significantly and moderately
related to performance anxiety, social interaction anxiety, and depression. That is, a
discrepancy between the attributes an individual perceives he or she actually possesses,
and the obligations, duties or responsibilities that the individual perceives significant

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

others have set for him or her, creates a fear of being negatively evaluated and/or sanc-
tioned by other people and/or him or herself in performance and social interaction
situations, and produces depressed feelings and symptomatology. This finding is con-
sistent with Weilage & Hope’s (1999) research, which found that participants with
generalised SP, comorbid generalised SP and depression, and dysthymia had larger
ASOO self-discrepancies than control participants. It is also consistent with Tangney
et al.’s (1998) study, which found that the ASOO self-discrepancy was moderately
related to measures of both anxiety and depression, and with Strauman’s (1989) re-
search that demonstrated a unique association between the ASOO self-discrepancy
and the experience of social anxiety.
The SP literature supports the unique association found between the ASOO self-
discrepancy and the experience of social interaction anxiety, performance anxiety,
and depression. Furmark et al. (2000) and Hughes et al. (2006) reported that people
with GSP experience fear in both social interaction and performance situations, and
are distinguished from people with SSP through their experience of social interaction
anxiety. Cox et al. (2000) observed that social interaction anxiety is highly correlated,
and shares unique cognitive and emotional qualities, with depression. Hughes et al.
reported that social interaction anxiety is more highly associated with anhedonia
and low positive affect than performance anxiety. Clark & Watson (1988) reported
that persons with high positive affect are characterised by interpersonal engagement,
which is typically impaired in people with GSP and depression. People with GSP
report higher trait anxiety and depression, and have greater comorbidity with major
depressive and other anxiety disorders, than people with SSP (Hofmann et al., 2004;
Hook & Valentiner, 2002; Mannuzza et al., 1995). Further, the current study found
that the BDI-II measure of depression was uniquely and moderately related to the
Social Interaction Anxiety, but not the Performance Anxiety, composite variable.
Therefore, since people with GSP experience both performance and social interaction
anxiety, and social interaction anxiety is associated with both anxious and depressive
cognitions and emotions, it follows that the self-discrepancy uniquely related to social
interaction anxiety would also be related to performance anxiety and depression.
The results of the current study suggest that the ASOO self-discrepancy is not only
uniquely associated with the experience of social interaction anxiety, but may also
underlie the broader occurrence of GSP.
The current study hypothesised that the AOOO self-discrepancy would be
uniquely related to performance anxiety. Accounting for the ASIS self-discrepancy,
the AOOO self-discrepancy was found to be significantly and moderately related to
performance anxiety, and was insignificantly related to both social interaction anxiety
and depression. That is, a discrepancy between the attributes an individual perceives
that significant others believe he or she actually possesses, and the obligations, duties
or responsibilities that the individual perceives significant others have set for him or
her, creates a fear of being negatively evaluated and/or sanctioned by other people in
120 performance situations. This finding is significant, as previous SDT research has failed
to identify a specific self-discrepancy associated with the experience of performance
anxiety or SSP. The study by Weilage and Hope (1999) was unsuccessful in identifying
a self-discrepancy that was uniquely associated with the experience of nongeneralised
SP. The current findings may explain this result, as Weilage and Hope only exam-
ined the ASIS and ASOO self-discrepancies. If Weilage and Hope had examined the
AOOO self-discrepancy, a self-discrepancy uniquely associated with nongeneralised
SP may have been revealed.

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

The association of the AOOO self-discrepancy with the experience of performance

anxiety has important implications for SDT research. SDT research has not previously
examined associations between self-discrepancies incorporating the ‘actual/other’ self-
state representation and the experience of emotion. Self-discrepancies involving the
‘actual/other’ self-state representation appear relevant to investigations of SP. For
example, Rapee and Heimberg (1997) report that the spontaneous mental representa-
tion created in feared social situations is not of ‘how one actually views oneself, but is
based on how the individual believes the audience views him or her at any given mo-
ment’ (p. 744). Leary (2007) reports that people experience self-conscious emotions
from evaluating themselves through the perspectives of real or imagined other people,
and not from how they evaluate themselves. Rapee and Heimberg propose that not
only does the ‘actual/other’ self-state representation exist, but that it is important in
the cognitive discrepancy that occurs in the experience of social anxiety — a mental
representation of how the audience is likely to view the individual is compared with
the presumed situational standards the audience holds for the individual to create
an estimate of the audience’s perception of the individual’s current performance and,
by extension, of the individual themselves (Rapee & Heimberg, p. 743). The greater
the shortfall of an individual’s self-evaluation of his or her performance relative to
presumed audience expectations, the greater the anxiety experienced. Therefore, the
‘actual/other’ self-state representation needs to be considered in future investigations
of SP using SDT. The significance of the AOOO self-discrepancy in SP also opens
the possibility that self-discrepancies involving the ‘actual/other’ self-state represen-
tation are important to the experience of other emotional experiences and psychiatric
disorders. Such associations could be examined in future investigations using SDT.
The current study predicted that the ASIS self-discrepancy would be uniquely
related to depression. Accounting for either the ASOO or AOOO self-discrepancies,
the ASIS self-discrepancy was found to be significantly and moderately related to
depression, and insignificantly associated with the measures of performance and social
interaction anxiety. That is, a discrepancy between the attributes that an individual
believes he or she actually possesses and the hopes, aspirations, or wishes he or she
desires to possess creates depressed feelings and depressive symptomatology. This
finding confirms previous SDT research that found the ASIS self-discrepancy to be
uniquely associated with the dejection-related emotions, depressive symptomatology,
and mood disorders (e.g., Scott & O’Hara, 1993; Strauman & Higgins, 1988).
The findings of the current study contribute substantially to the empirical debate
regarding subtypes in SP. Although epidemiological research supports the existence of
individual differences in the experience of SP, researchers disagree regarding whether
the subtypes of SP represent a continuum of severity (i.e., the subtypes differ quan-
titatively), or distinct constructs (i.e., the subtypes differ qualitatively). The current
investigation contributes to the qualitative explanation of the subtypes of SP by dis-
covering that marked differences exist in self-discrepant cognitions experienced in
performance and social interaction situations. While such differences have been sug- 121
gested in other investigations (e.g., Cox et al., 2000; Hughes et al., 2006; Wilson
& Rapee, 2005), the current study is unique in specifying the nature of the differ-
ent cognitive processes found in performance and social interaction anxiety, and
this has important implications for treatment. Following confirmatory investigations,
performance anxiety may be treated through examining the reality of the duties, re-
sponsibilities, and moral standards that an individual presumes are held by others, and
through emphasising a self-concept that is more internally generated and, thus, less

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

reliant on the momentary and ambiguous information perceived from others. A more
internal focus may allow the individual to attend to the task they are completing and,
thus, experience improved performance. Alternatively, treatment of social interaction
anxiety may involve examining the reality of the duties, responsibilities, and moral
standards an individual presumes are held by others, and assisting the individual to
self-evaluate in a more realistic, rather than negative, fashion. A focus on improv-
ing the self-esteem and negative schemas of a person with social interaction anxiety
may allow the person to develop confidence and self-regard in social situations, and
relationships in general.
The results of the current study have implications for the cognitive models of SP
by Rapee and Heimberg (1997) and Clark and Wells (1995). While these models
of SP appear to incorporate and emphasise the existence of self-discrepancies in the
experience of social anxiety, they both assume that the subtypes of SP exist on a
continuum of severity and, thus, can be represented by a single model. The findings
of the current study indicate that performance and social interaction anxiety are
characterised by distinct cognitive constructs. Thus, the cognitive models of SP may
need to be amended to fully reflect this distinction. Although both models indicate
individual differences in the experience of social anxiety, neither model predicts how
different self-discrepancies may be associated with the subtypes of SP. As such, the
cognitive models of SP by Rapee and Heimberg (1997) and Clark and Wells (1995)
may benefit from more explicitly identifying the individual differences found in the
self-discrepancies held by people with SP, and uniquely associating them with the
experiences of performance and social interaction anxiety.
This study had a number of limitations. First, unlike most investigations of SDT,
the current study did not administer the ISDI in a preceding session to the comple-
tion of the measures of social anxiety and depression. As such, the responses on the
subsequent self-report measures of emotion may have been influenced by the partic-
ipants’ answers on the ISDI. Second, the current investigation used a new measure
of self-discrepancies, the ISDI, which incorporates both nomothetic and idiographic
methods (Hardin & Lakin, 2007). There is currently some conjecture in the literature
regarding whether nomothetic or idiographic approaches are more favourable in mea-
suring self-discrepancies (e.g., Ozgul, Heubeck, Ward, & Wilkinson, 2003; Tangney
et al., 1998). Further, evidence for the effectiveness of the ISDI is in its infancy
(Hardin & Lakin, 2007). Although the ISDI may not be the most effective measure
of self-discrepancies, the zero-order correlation between the ASOO and ASIS self-
discrepancies in the current study at r = .62 is approximate to that of Weilage and
Hope’s (1999) investigation at r = .63. Third, the current study only examined GSP
and nonclinical groups, which limited the scope of the investigation. Future inves-
tigations are required to replicate the findings of the current study for participants
differentially diagnosed with GSP without depression, SSP without depression, de-
pression, comorbid GSP and depression, and those without any psychiatric illnesses.
122 This would firmly establish the distinct contributions of the AOOO and ASOO
discrepancies in the experience of performance and social interaction anxiety.

References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed., text rev.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Anderson, N.H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality trait words. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9(3), 272–279.

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

Baker, S.L., Heinrichs, N., Kim, H.-J., & Hofmann, S.G. (2002). The Leibowitz Social Anxiety Scale
as a self-report instrument: A preliminary psychometric analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
40, 701–715.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996). Manual for BDI II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Garbin, M.G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the BDI: Twenty-five
years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100.
Boone, M.L., McNeil, D.W., Masia, C.L., Turk, C.L., Carter, L.E., Ries, B.J., & Lewin, M.R. (1999).
Multimodal comparisons of social phobia subtypes and avoidant personality disorder. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 13, 271–292.
Brown, T.A., DiNardo, P., & Barlow, D.H. (1994). Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV
(ADIS-IV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation/Graywind Publications Incorporated.
Clark, D.M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R.G. Heimberg, M.R.
Leibowitz, 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. (1988). Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and
self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 296–308.
Cox, B.J., Rector, N.A., Bagby, R.M., Swinson, R.P., Levitt, A.J., & Joffe, R.T. (2000). Is self-
criticism unique for depression? A comparison with social phobia. Journal of Affective Disorders,
57, 223–228.
Furmark, T., Tillfors, M., Stattin, H., Ekselius, L., & Fredrikson, M. (2000). Social phobia subtypes
in the general population revealed by cluster analysis. Psychological Medicine, 30, 1335–1344.
Hackmann, A., Clark, D.M., & McManus, F. (2000). Recurrent images and early memories in social
phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 601–610.
Hardin, E.E., & Lakin, J.L. (2007). The integrated self-discrepancy index: A reliable and valid measure of
self-discrepancies. Unpublished manuscript.
Hardin, E.E., & Leong, F.T.L. (2005). Optimism and pessimism as mediators of the relations between
self-discrepancies and distress among Asian and European Americans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(1), 25–35.
Heimberg, R.G., Hope, D.A., Dodge, C.S., & Becker, R.E. (1990). DSM-III-R subtypes of social
phobia: Comparison of generalised social phobics and public speaking phobics. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 178(8), 172–179.
Heimberg, R.G., Mueller, G.P., Holt, C.S., Hope, D.A., & Leibowitz, M.R. (1992). Assessment of
anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior Therapy, 23, 53–73.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3),
319–340.
Higgins, E.T., Bond, R.N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T.J. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional
vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 5–15.
Higgins, E.T., Klein, R., & Strauman, T.J. (1985). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological
model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3(1),
51–76.
Hirsh, C.R., Clark, D.M., Mathews, A., & Williams, R. (2003). Self-images play a causal role in
social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(8), 909–921. 123
Hirsh, C.R., Mathews, A., Clark, D.M., Williams, R., & Morrison, J.A. (2006). The causal role of
negative imagery in social anxiety: A test in confident public speakers. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 37(2), 159–170.
Hirsh, C.R., Meynen, T., & Clark, D.M. (2004). Negative self-imagery in social anxiety contaminates
social interactions. Memory, 12(4), 496–506.
Hofmann, S.G., Heinrichs, N., & Moscovitch, D.A. (2004). The nature and expression of social
phobia: Toward a new classification. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 769–797.

Behaviour Change
 Adam Johns and Lorna Peters

Hook, J.N., & Valentiner, D.P. (2002). Are specific and generalized social phobias qualitatively
different? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(4), 379–395.
Hughes, A.A., Heimberg, R.G., Coles, M.E., Gibb, B.E., Leibowitz, M.R., & Schneier, F.R. (2006).
Relations of the factors of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression to types of social anxiety.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(11), 1629–1641.
Hughes, I. (2002). A cognitive therapy model of social anxiety problems: Potential limits on its
effectiveness? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 75, 411–435.
Leary, M.R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58,
317–344.
Leibowitz, M.R. (1987). Social phobia. Modern Problems in Pharmacopsychiatry, 22, 141–173.
Libby, L.K., & Eibach, R.P. (2002). Looking back in time: Self-concept change affects visual per-
spective in autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 167–
179.
Mannuzza, S., Schneier, F.R., Chapman, T.F., Leibowitz, M.R., Klein, D.F., & Fyer, A.J. (1995).
Generalized social phobia: Reliability and validity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 230–237.
Marmorstein, N.R. (2006). Generalized versus performance-focused social phobia: Patterns of co-
morbidity among youth. Anxiety Disorders, 20, 778–793.
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.
Ozgul, S., Heubeck, B., Ward, J., & Wilkinson, R. (2003). Self-discrepancies: Measurement and
relation to various negative affective states. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(1), 56–62.
Perugi, G., Nassini, S., Maremmani, I., Madro, D., Toni, C., Simmonini, E., & Akiskal, H.S. (2001).
Putative clinical subtypes of social phobia: A factor analytical study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinav-
ica, 104(4), 280–288.
Rapee, R.M., & Heimberg, R.G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioural model of anxiety in social phobia.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741–756.
Safren, S.A., Heimberg, R.G., Horner, K.J., Juster, H.R., Schneier, F.R., & Leibowitz, M.R. (1999).
Factor structure of social fears: The Leibowitz social anxiety scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
13(3), 253–270.
Safren, S.A., Turk, C.L., & Heimberg, R.G. (1998). Factor structure of the Social Interaction Anxiety
Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 443–453.
Scott, L., & O’Hara, M.W. (1993). Self-discrepancies in clinically anxious and depressed university
students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 282–287.
Spurr, J.M., & Stopa, L. (2003). The observer perspective: Effects on social anxiety and performance.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1009–1028.
Stein, M.B., & Deutsch, R. (2003). In search of social phobia subtypes: Similarity of feared social
situations. Depression and Anxiety, 17, 94–97.
Stemberger, R.T., Turner, S.M., Beidel, D.C., & Calhoun, K.S. (1995). Social phobia: An analysis
of possible developmental factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 526–531.
Strauman, T.J. (1989). Self-discrepancies in clinical depression and social phobia: Cognitive struc-
tures that underlie emotional disorders? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98(1), 14–22.
Strauman, T.J. (1992). Self-guides, autobiographical memory, and anxiety and dysphoria: Toward
a cognitive model of vulnerability to emotional distress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101,
87–95.
124
Strauman, T.J., & Higgins, E.T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to distinct
syndromes of chronic emotional distress. Journal of Personality 56(4), 685–707.
Tangney, J.P., Niedenthal, P.M., Covert, M.V., & Barlow, D.H. (1998). Are shame and guilt related
to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins’ (1987) hypotheses. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(1), 256–268.
Vassilopoulos, S. (2005). Social anxiety and the effects of engaging in mental imagery. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 29(3), 261–277.

Behaviour Change
 SDT and the Situational Domains of Social Phobia

Weilage, M., & Hope, D.A. (1999). Self-discrepancy in social phobia and dysthymia. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 23(6), 637–650.
Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1999). The observer perspective: Biased imagery in social phobia,
agoraphobia, and blood/injury phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37(7), 653–658.
Wilson, J.K., & Rapee, R.M. (2005). The interpretation of negative social events in social phobia:
Changes during treatment and relationship to outcome. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43,
373–389.

125

Behaviour Change
Copyright of Behaviour Change is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.