The social phobia and social interaction anxiety scales: An exploration of the dimensions of social anxiety and sex differences in structure and relations with pathology

Abstract

This study sought to provide information on the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) of Mattick and Clarke (1989)

Refining and validating the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale

“…[6] There is evidence to support this structure based on correlational analyses that have found only moderate correlations between the measures [e.g., [3,7,9] ]; however, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have yielded substantially different factor structures across studies. [10,11] There has been some support found for both two- [12] and three-factor solutions. [13] Specifically, the SIAS has been suggested to be unidimensional, whereas the SPS has been suggested to have either one or two dimensions.…”

“…[15] Investigations of the psychometric properties of the SIAS and SPS have resulted in various conclusions regarding whether the scales should be administered and interpreted independently or simultaneously. [11] Specifically, the EFAs to date have assessed all of the items from both scales simultaneously, [11,12] rather than independently. Such simultaneous assessment was the result of recommendations by Mattick and Clarke [6] that the measures be administered and interpreted together.…”

“…[13] Specifically, the SIAS has been suggested to be unidimensional, whereas the SPS has been suggested to have either one or two dimensions. Many of the psychometric studies on the SIAS and SPS [3,[11][12][13] were completed using the original 20-item SIAS and 20-item SPS from an unpublished article [Mattick and Clarke, unpublished manuscript]. More recent psychometric studies [e.g., [14,15] ] have used the revised 19-item SIAS, which is the published revision endorsed by the authors of the scales.…”

How do the success factors driving repurchase intent differ between male and female customers?

“…More compromises on quality (Chiu 2002;Iacobucci and Ostrom 1993) and price (Gelfand et al 2006;Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999) • Less collectively interdependent self-construal (Baumeister and Sommer 1997;Melnyk et al 2009) • Greater relationship orientation (Cataldi and Reardon 1996;Cron et al 2009;Iacobucci and Ostrom 1993), more interdependent self-construal (Cross and Madson 1997), more relationally interdependent self-construal (Baumeister and Sommer 1997;Melnyk et al 2009), and higher sensitivity to interpersonal cues (Rubin and Brown 1975;Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999) • In consumption decisions, higher importance of personal interaction (Chiu 2002;Iacobucci and Ostrom 1993;Mittal and Kamakura 2001;Noble et al 2006;Otnes and McGrath 2001), personal recommendations (Garbarino and Strahilevitz 2004), and service worker commitment (Shemwell and Cronin 1995) • Higher importance of trust (Ndubisi 2006;Shemwell and Cronin 1995), risk reduction (Garbarino and Strahilevitz 2004), and security RubelLifschitz 2005, 2009) • Greater fear of negative evaluations in social settings (Carleton et al 2007;Habke et al 1997), higher sensitivity to interpersonal cues (Rubin and Brown 1975;Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999), higher importance of security Rubel-Lifschitz 2005, 2009), and higher importance of impressing others (Lawrence et al 2006;Moutinho et al 1996) • Stronger attraction by exclusivity and uniqueness of products (Noble et al 2006) • Greater r...…”

“…Moreover, the gender literature reports that women have greater fear of negative evaluations in social settings (Carleton et al 2007;Habke et al 1997), higher sensitivity to interpersonal cues (Rubin and Brown 1975;Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999), and a stronger appreciation of security than do men Rubel-Lifschitz 2005, 2009). Thus, women's social confidence depends more strongly on their self-image and on how they impress others (Lawrence et al 2006;Moutinho et al 1996).…”