Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety.

Heerey, Erin A.; Kring, Ann M.

doi:10.1037/0021-843x.116.1.125

Cited by 208 publications

(195 citation statements)

References 58 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is notable, however, that peer reactions to socially anxious individuals are not invariably negative. Although peers recognized that these individuals were anxious and nonexpressive, peers were also found to be empathic and supportive of their socially anxious conversation partners (Heerey & Kring, 2007) and to like them as well as non-socially anxious individuals (Christensen et al, 2003). The first impressions that people form of a socially anxious target individual are likely to be important to friendship development.…”

Section: Social Anxiety and First Impressionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In a move toward ecological validity, several studies also examined peers' impressions (Christensen, Stein, & Means-Christensen, 2003;Heerey & Kring, 2007). Both research personnel and peers viewed socially anxious targets as nervous, tense, and anxious, but in addition, as quieter, less sociable, more reserved, and emotionally nonexpressive than non-socially anxious people (e.g., Alden & Wallace, 1995;Christensen et al, 2003;Creed & Funder, 1998).…”

Section: Social Anxiety and First Impressionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Try to Find Me: Social Anxiety and Peer First Impressions

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Social Anxiety and First Impressionsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Social Anxiety and First Impressionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Try to Find Me: Social Anxiety and Peer First Impressions

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…People with high social anxiety tend to focus on themselves and feel awkward during conversations (Heerey & Kring, 2007). Therefore it is not surprising that women with high social anxiety mimic others less than non-socially anxious women (Vrijsen, Lange, Becker, & Rinck, 2010).…”

Section: Mimickee Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context, video scoring of mimicry behaviours and post-session questionnaires are available to monitor the interaction, but critically the mimicry itself is generated spontaneously rather than being instructed. This method has been used to good effect in some studies (Heerey & Crossley, 2013;Heerey & Kring, 2007). However, there is little experimental control in these contexts.…”

Section: Future Directions: Overcoming Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Hale

Hamilton

2016

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

unclear how the complex behavioural effects of mimicry relate to neural systems which respond to being mimicked. Mimicry activates regions associated with mirror properties, selfother processing and reward. In this review, we outline three potential models linking these regions with cognitive consequences of being mimicked. The models suggest that positive downstream consequences of mimicry may depend upon self-other overlap, detection of contingency or low prediction error. Finally, we highlight limitations with traditional research designs and suggest alternative methods for achieving highly ecological validity and experimental control. We also highlight unanswered questions which may guide future research. Keywords: mimicry, imitation, nonverbal behaviour, neurocognitive modelsIt is often said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and copying what other people do is a central feature of human social interaction (Frith & Frith, 2012; Hamilton, 2014; Meltzoff, 2010; Over & Carpenter, 2013). One way we copy others is through unconscious behavioural mimicry, also described as 'behaviour matching' (Bernieri & Rosenthal, 1991;Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) or the 'chameleon effect' (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). This kind of mimicry occurs when one person unintentionally and effortlessly copies another person's posture or body movements without either one being aware (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013;Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009). Mimicry may extend to the contagion of facial expressions (Bavelas, Black, Lemery, & Mullett, 1986, 1987 Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2000;Hsee, Hatfield, Carlson, & Chemtob, 1990), moods (Hsee et al., 1990;Neumann & Strack, 2000) and speech (Giles & Powesland, 1975;Neumann & Strack, 2000).As well as mimicry, there are many other ways we coordinate our behaviour with other people during social interactions (Table 1). The umbrella term 'interpersonal coordination' covers a range of coordinated actions between two people, which can be linked in both space and time. Actions occurring at the same time are described as entrained or synchronous; this includes perfect synchrony where actions are matched in form and timing, as well as general synchrony where different actions are coordinated in time (see Table 1, column 1). Actions that occur after a delay but which are contingent on the other are termed imitation or mimicry if the form is the same, and complementary if the form is different (see column 2). There is a distinction between imitation, which is deliberate and goal-directed,and mimicry, which is unconscious and spontaneous. In this paper we will focus specifically on mimicry. For the main part we will limit our review to mimicry of postures and body movements, and we will not include literature on facial, emotional or vocal mimicry. We will also concentrate on adult mimicry rather than developmental literature. At the end, we will return to consider how future research may situate mimicry within a wider framework of interpersonal coordination. Whilst partners in real life social interac...

show abstract

“…This example shows that gender can influence the meaning of specific nonverbal cues. Fidgeting is generally considered to be an indicator of social anxiety (Heerey & Kring, 2007). So maybe fidgeting is perceived as a sign of social anxiety in men and thus related to low perceived assertiveness, whereas in women fidgeting might be seen as a sign of agitation or effortful involvement in the interaction and thus related to high perceived assertiveness.…”

Section: Moderators Of How Power Is Perceivedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model

Mast

2010

European Review of Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Power is a core dimension of social interactions and relationships. The present article addresses how power hierarchies form, how power is expressed and perceived via verbal and nonverbal behaviour during social interactions, and whether power of others can accurately be assessed. Taking into account the inherently relational and interactional nature of the power concept, an interpersonal power and behaviour model is presented. The model explicitly differentiates between different facets of power (status, position power, personality dominance, competence, experienced power, and perceived power) and it is suggested that these facets can moderate the powerbehaviour link. Research evidence is provided to illustrate the importance of a refined view of the concept of power and of integrating the different power facets in theorizing about power.

show abstract

Interpersonal consequences of social anxiety.

Cited by 208 publications

References 58 publications

Try to Find Me: Social Anxiety and Peer First Impressions

Try to Find Me: Social Anxiety and Peer First Impressions

Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others

Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About