Social Withdrawal Subtypes during Early Adolescence in India

Abstract

The overarching goal of this study was to examine the associations between three social withdrawal subtypes (shyness, unsociability, avoidance), peer isolation, peer difficulties (victimization, rejection, exclusion, low acceptance), and loneliness in India during early adolescence. Participants were 194 adolescents in Surat, India (M age = 13.35 years). Peer nominations of peer relations and socioemotional behaviors were gathered, along with self-reports of reasons for being alone and loneliness. Preliminary evidence of validity for the self-report measure of withdrawal subtypes and isolation was found, and factor analyses indicated that shyness, unsociability, and avoidance represent related, but distinct forms of withdrawal that are distinct from isolation. Shyness and avoidance were uniquely associated with loneliness and exclusion, but unsociability was not. The association between avoidance and loneliness was mediated by exclusion. Findings suggest that social withdrawal may be best conceptualized as a multifaceted construct during childhood and adolescence, in Western and non-Western societies.

Moderating Effects of Aggression on the Associations Between Social Withdrawal Subtypes and Peer Difficulties During Early Adolescence

“…For instance, in a series of studies, Coplan et al (2004;Coplan and Weeks 2010) demonstrated that teacher-and parent-reported shyness and unsociability are distinct subtypes of withdrawal during early and middle childhood, and that although unsociability carries some risk, the psychosocial risks (e.g., anxiety, peer difficulties) associated with shyness are significantly greater. Similar findings have emerged during early adolescence (10-14 years), with compelling evidence that the distinctions between shyness, unsociability, and avoidance are meaningful, and that relative to unsociability, the psychological (e.g., loneliness; depressive symptomology) and peer difficulties (e.g., peer exclusion, peer victimization) associated with shyness and avoidance are greater (Bowker and Raja 2011;Coplan et al 2006). Specific processes accounting for these differential risks have not yet been tested.…”

“…However, not all withdrawn youth experience peer and other psychosocial difficulties; in the aforementioned studies, the associations between the subtypes and peer difficulties such as peer rejection, victimization, and exclusion, were only small-to-moderate in size (e.g., rs = .19-.23, Bowker and Raja 2011). Given that peer difficulties are one mechanism by which the withdrawal subtypes lead to psychological maladaptation (Bowker and Raja 2011;Boivin et al 1995), additional research addressing why some withdrawn youth are particularly at risk for peer difficulties could help improve the specificity of etiological theories of social withdrawal during childhood and adolescence, as well as intervention and prevention efforts, which to date have been relatively limited in their effectiveness (Greco and Morris 2001).…”

“…Specific processes accounting for these differential risks have not yet been tested. Nevertheless, one possible explanation for the differences in peer difficulties is that many unsociable youth do not appear to turn down social invitations (because they lack strong avoidance motivations), and thus may achieve ''just enough'' peer interaction to avoid some of the negative peer concomitants of solitude (Bowker and Raja 2011). Unsociable youth also may avoid some victimization because, unlike shy and avoidant youth, they do not appear to exhibit visible signs of anxiety (Bowker and Raja 2011;Coplan and Weeks 2010).…”

“…Nevertheless, one possible explanation for the differences in peer difficulties is that many unsociable youth do not appear to turn down social invitations (because they lack strong avoidance motivations), and thus may achieve ''just enough'' peer interaction to avoid some of the negative peer concomitants of solitude (Bowker and Raja 2011). Unsociable youth also may avoid some victimization because, unlike shy and avoidant youth, they do not appear to exhibit visible signs of anxiety (Bowker and Raja 2011;Coplan and Weeks 2010). However, all three withdrawal subtypes may lead to some peer problems because such behaviors contrast sharply with social norms and expectations for positive social interactions and relationship/group involvement during childhood and adolescence (Rubin et al 2009).…”

Untitled

“…This prediction was supported by a recent study conducted in Chinese rural areas, showing that unsociability was associated with adjustment problems including peer rejection, school incompetence, and depression [34]. It was mainly because unsociable behavior was regarded as being selfish and threatening the group well-being in more collectivistic societies [25,40]. The limited previous empirical research in urban areas also provided the evidence showing that unsociable children encounter maladjustment [25,41,42].…”