No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Adolescents who experience social anxiety tend to hold fears about negative evaluations (e.g., taunting) and may also hold fears about positive evaluations (e.g., praise from a teacher). The Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation (BFNE) scale and Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) are 2 widely used measures of adults' evaluative concerns. Yet we know little about their psychometric properties when assessing adolescents. In a mixed clinical/community sample of 96 adolescents (66.7% female; M = 14.50 years, SD = 0.50; 63.3% African American), we examined both self-report and parent report versions of the BFNE and FPES. Adolescents and parents also provided reports about adolescents on survey measures of social anxiety and depressive symptoms. Adolescents participated in multiple social interactions in which they self-reported their state arousal before and during the tasks. Adolescent and parent BFNE and FPES reports distinguished adolescents who displayed elevated social anxiety from those who did not. Both informants' reports related to survey measures of adolescent social anxiety, when accounting for domains that commonly co-occur with social anxiety (i.e., depressive symptoms). Further, both the BFNE and FPES displayed incremental validity in relation to survey measures of adolescent social anxiety, relative to each other. However, only adolescents' BFNE and FPES reports predicted adolescents' self-reported arousal within social interactions, and only adolescents' FPES displayed incremental validity in predicting self-reported arousal, relative to their BFNE. Adolescent and parent BFNE and FPES reports display convergent validity and in some cases incremental and criterion-related validity. These findings have important implications for evidence-based assessments of adolescents' evaluative concerns.

Attempts to understand subjectivity have historically involved distinguishing the strengths of subjective methods (e.g., survey ratings from informants) from those of alternative methods (e.g., observational/performance-based tasks). Yet a movement is underway in Psychology that considers the merits of intersubjectivity: Understanding the space between two or more informant’s subjective impressions of a common person or phenomenon. In mental health research, understanding differences between subjective impressions have less to do with informants’ characteristics and more to do with the social environments or contexts germane to the people or phenomena examined. Our article focuses on one relatively understudied social environment: the cultural context. We draw from seminal work on psychological universals, as well as emerging work on cultural norms (i.e., cultural tightness) to understand intersubjectivity effects through a cross-cultural lens. We report a meta-analysis of 314 studies of intersubjectivity effects in mental health, revealing that (a) this work involves independent research teams in more than 30 countries, (b) informants rating a target person’s mental health (e.g., parent and teacher ratings of a child’s behavior) commonly provide diverging estimates of that person’s mental health, and (c) greater convergence between subjective reports relates to a “tighter” or more norms-bound culture. Our article illustrates strategies for understanding divergence between subjective reports. In particular, we highlight theoretical and methodological frameworks for examining patterns of divergence between subjective reports in relation to data from nonsubjective methods. We also describe how research on intersubjectivity informs efforts to improve the interpretability of subjective assessments in multiple subdisciplines in Psychology.