Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 May 8.
Published in final edited form as: Emotion. 2020 Jan 16;21(3):595–606. doi: 10.1037/emo0000725

The momentary benefits of positive events for individuals with elevated social anxiety

James D Doorley 1, Fallon R Goodman 1, David J Disabato 1, Todd B Kashdan 1, Jennifer S Weinstein 2, Alexander J Shackman 2
PMCID: PMC7363503  NIHMSID: NIHMS1062502  PMID: 31944786

Abstract

Understanding how individuals with varying levels of social anxiety respond to daily positive events is important. Psychological processes that increase positive emotions are being widely used as strategies to not only enhance well-being but reduce the symptoms and impairment tied to negative emotional dispositions and conditions, including excessive social anxiety. At present, it is unclear whether/how levels of social anxiety impact the psychological benefits derived from momentary positive events. We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to examine the impact of trait social anxiety on momentary changes in emotions, sense of belonging, and social approach versus avoidance motivation following positive events in daily life. Over the course of a week, people with elevated social anxiety experienced greater momentary anxiety and social avoidance motivation and lower momentary happiness and sense of belonging on average. Despite these impairments, individuals with elevated social anxiety experienced greater psychological benefits – in the form of less anxiety and motivation to avoid social situations, and a greater sense of belonging– following positive events during the past hour that were ranked as particularly intense. Findings failed to show specificity to social anxiety, with evidence of similar effects for other forms of internalizing psychopathology (general anxiety and depression). These observations detail circumstances in which individuals with social anxiety, and other emotional disturbances, can thrive – creating potentially important targets for intervention.

Keywords: ecological momentary assessment (EMA), emotion, experience sampling method (ESM), positive affect, social anxiety

Individuals with elevated levels of social anxiety are prone to frequent, excessive fear and avoidance of social interactions and other situations that carry the potential for social scrutiny (e.g., Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). There is growing evidence that socially anxious individuals are also marked by deficits in positive affect. Research using diary techniques and other retrospective methods indicates that individuals with elevated social anxiety tend to experience blunted positive affect and, in some cases, report fewer and less intense positive events (Blanco & Joorman, 2017; Brown, Chorpita, & Barlow, 1998; Farmer & Kashdan, 2012; Geyer et al., 2018; Kashdan, 2002; 2007; Kashdan & Breen, 2008; Kashdan & Steger, 2006; Kashdan & Collins, 2010; Kashdan, Weeks, & Savostyanova, 2011). For example, Farmer and Kashdan (2012) used 2 weeks of diary data to demonstrate that individuals with higher levels of social anxiety report significantly less intense positive affect in their daily lives. In the laboratory, individuals with elevated social anxiety have been shown to experience distress in response to normatively rewarding social interactions, such as receiving positive feedback from an unfamiliar, but warm and personable confederate (e.g., Kashdan & Roberts, 2006; Wallace & Alden, 1997; Weeks et al., 2008).

Other research motivates the hypothesis that individuals with elevated social anxiety can derive enhanced emotional benefits – that is, a steeper reduction in negative affect – from positive events compared to those with low social anxiety. Using a daily diary approach, Kashdan and colleagues (2014) showed that individuals with higher levels of social anxiety experience larger reductions in anxiety on days following especially pleasurable and intimate sexual experiences. Indirect support for this hypothesis comes from evidence that individuals with low levels of well-being or high levels of depression—features characteristic of many individuals with extreme social anxiety (e.g., Eng, Coles, Heimberg, & Safren, 2005; Kashdan et al., 2007; Stein & Kean, 2000)—tend to profit more from positive daily events, as indexed by larger decrements in negative affect and larger increments in positive affect (Bylsma, Taylor-Clift, & Rottenberg, 2011; Rueschkamp, Kuppens, Riediger, Blanke, & Brose, in press; Lamers et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2012). Whether socially anxious individuals show similar ‘mood-brightening’ effects (Rottenberg, 2017) remains unknown.

In the present study, we used smartphone ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to intensively sample changes in mood (happiness and anxiety), sense of belonging, and social motivation (approach and avoidance) in the daily lives of 125 young adults. Prior to the EMA portion of the study, participants completed measures of trait social anxiety, general anxiety, and depression. At each assessment, participants also rated the intensity of their most positive event during the past hour, enabling us to assess momentary perceptions of naturally occurring, subjectively positive events. Because EMA data are captured in the real world, in real time, they circumvent many of the biases that can distort retrospective reports and provide insights into how emotional experience dynamically changes in response to positive events in the real world (Barrett, 1997; Lay, Gerstorf, Scott, Pauly, & Hoppmann, 2017; Stone, Shiffman, Atienza, & Nebeling, 2007). We focused on young adulthood because it is a time of profound, often stressful developmental transitions (e.g., moving away from home, forging new social relationships; Arnett, 2000; Alloy & Abramson, 1999; Hays & Oxley, 1986). In fact, more than half of undergraduate students report overwhelming anxiety (American College Health Association, 2016), with many experiencing the first onset or recurrence of internalizing disorders during this period (Vos et al., 2016; Kessler, Chiu, Demler, & Walters, 2005; Auerbach et al.,2016; Auerbach et al., 2018; Russell & Shaw, 2009). In particular, young adults with elevated social anxiety tend to experience substantial distress and impairment and are more likely to develop a range of psychological disorders (Merikangas, Avenevoli, Acharyya, Zhang & Angst, 2002).

Using these data, we tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Consistent with decades of emotion research, we expected that positive events from the previous hour that are judged as more intense will enhance momentary mood (increase happiness, decrease anxiety), sense of belonging, and social motivation (increase approach, decrease avoidance) (e.g., Rolls, 2018).

Hypothesis 2: Consistent with prior work by our group and others (e.g., Brown et al., 1998; Geyer et al., 2018; Kashdan & Collins, 2010; Kashdan & Steger, 2006; Kashdan et al., 2011), we anticipated that elevated social anxiety will be associated with lower average levels of happiness, social belonging, and social approach motivation; and average levels of anxiety and social avoidance motivation. We also expected that individuals with elevated trait social anxiety would perceive positive events during the past hour as less intense.

Hypothesis 3a: Based on findings from positivity deficit research in social anxiety (e.g., Kashdan, 2007; Wallace & Alden, 1997; Weeks et al., 2008), it may be that individuals with elevated social anxiety derive smaller psychological benefits from positive events (i.e., attenuated improvements in mood, sense of belonging, and social motivation).

Hypothesis 3b: In contrast, recent research on social anxiety and other emotional disturbances motivates the competing hypothesis that individuals with elevated social anxiety will derive larger psychological benefits (i.e., amplified improvements in mood, social belonging, and social motivation) following momentary positive events (e.g., Grosse et al., in press; Kashdan et al., 2014; Morgan et al., 2017; Rottenberg, 2017).

Exploratory Hypothesis 4: To test for the specificity of the hypothesized effects of social anxiety, we collected data on trait levels of general anxiety and depression and explored whether scores on each measure impacted the psychological benefits of momentary positive events (cf. Conway et al., 2019).

Understanding how individuals with varying levels of social anxiety respond to daily positive events is important. Psychological processes that increase positive emotions are being widely used as strategies to not only enhance well-being but reduce the symptoms and impairment tied to negative emotional dispositions and conditions, including excessive social anxiety (e.g., Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Gross, 2015; Taylor, Lyubomirsky, & Stein, 2017). At present, it is unclear whether/how levels of social anxiety impact the psychological benefits derived from momentary positive events. Addressing this question should help propel the field forward by providing clues about etiology, identifying potentially modifiable targets (e.g., positive event exposure and appraisal), and informing the development of more effective interventions for individuals at increased risk for developing social anxiety and related disorders.

Method

Participants and Procedure

As part of an ongoing program of research focused on the etiology of mood and anxiety disorders, 2,501 individuals completed screening measures of negative emotionality—the propensity to experience and express more frequent, intense, and enduring anxiety, worry, and other negative emotions (Shackman et al., 2016, 2018)—in exchange for course extra credit. Data from the screening assessment were stratified by tertile (high, medium, low) and sex (male, female). For the EMA study, 133 university students with consistent smartphone access were independently and randomly recruited via email from each of the resulting six strata, enabling us to sample a broad spectrum of social anxiety without gaps or discontinuities.

Eight participants were excluded from data analysis: six were excluded for insufficient compliance with the EMA protocol (<50% completed assessments) and two were excluded due to missing SA data. Thus, the final sample was comprised of 125 participants (50.4% women; 53.2% White, 16.1% Asian, 12.9% Black, 11.3% Multiracial/Other, and 6.5% Hispanic). The mean age was 19.3 years old (SD = 1.6). The final sample did not differ significantly from the initial screening sample on demographics. At enrollment, participants provided written informed consent, were trained on the EMA protocol, and completed trait measures of social anxiety, general anxiety, and depression.

SurveySignal (Hofmann & Patel, 2015) was used to deliver 10 text messages per day to each subject’s smartphone. Messages were delivered between 8:30 AM and 11:00 PM, with 1–2 hours between successive messages (M = 86.5 minutes, SD = 14.7 minutes). Surveys took an average of 3.25 minutes to complete (SD = 5.65 minutes). During weekday hours, messages were delivered between regularly scheduled university courses to maximize compliance. Messages contained a link to a secure on-line survey. Participants were instructed to respond within 30 minutes of receiving the message and cautioned to avoid responding at unsafe or inconvenient moments (median response latency = 8.78 minutes, SD = 15.85 minutes). At enrollment, several well-established procedures were used to maximize compliance (Palmier-Claus et al., 2011). These procedures included: (1) delivering a test message to the subject’s phone in the laboratory and confirming that they were able to successfully complete the on-line survey, (2) providing subjects with a 24/7 technical support number, (3) 24-hour and 72-hour check-in calls or emails, (4) real-time monitoring of compliance using the SurveySignal dashboard and re-contacting subjects showing low levels of compliance, and (5) monetary bonuses for increased compliance. Participants were debriefed and compensated after the seventh day of data collection. In the final sample, EMA compliance was acceptable (M = 79%, SD = 11%) and unrelated to social anxiety (r = .04, p = .66). Participants provided informed written consent and the University of Maryland’s Institutional Review Board approved all procedures.

Trait Measures

Social Anxiety.

Trait-level Social anxiety symptoms were assessed using the 19-item Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Items assess fear and avoidance of social interactions using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all characteristic of me; 5 = extremely characteristic of me). Sample items include, “I worry about expressing myself in case I appear awkward,” “I find myself worrying that I won’t know what to say in social situations,” and “I feel tense if I am alone with just one other person.” The SIAS reliably discriminates individuals with social anxiety disorder from those with other anxiety disorders (Brown et al., 1997; Cox, Ross, Swinson, & Direnfeld, 1998) and shows excellent psychometric properties (Rodebaugh, Woods, Heimberg, Liebowitz, & Schneier, 2006). Reliability was acceptable in the present sample (α = .96).

General Anxiety.

Trait-level general anxiety symptoms were assessed using the 10-item trait anxiety scale from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP, 2001), which provides a variety of freely-available, expert-developed scales of personality and individual differences. Items assess symptoms of general trait anxiety using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very inaccurate; 5 = very accurate). Sample items include, “I worry about things,” and “I am relaxed most of the time.” The trait anxiety scale of the IPIP demonstrates strong test-retest reliability (r = .91; see DiBattista & Gosse, 2006) and strong, positive correlations with other measures of anxiety (e.g., the NEO-PI-R anxiety scale; Costa & McCrae, 1992) (Goldberg, 1999). Reliability was acceptance in the present sample (α = .81).

Depression.

Trait-level depression symptoms were assessed using the 20-item General Depression scale from the Inventory for Depression and Anxiety (IDAS; Watson et al., 2007). Items assess symptoms of depression on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely). Sample items include “I felt depressed” and “I felt inadequate.” The General Depression scale has acceptable test-retest reliability over one week (r = .84; Watson et al., 2007), strong criterion validity with DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) diagnoses of major depression, and strong incremental validity in predicting DSM-IV depressive disorder diagnoses above and beyond the BDI-II (Watson et al., 2008). Reliability was acceptable in the present sample (α = .89).

EMA Survey

Happiness (cheerful, happy, joyful), anxiety (anxious, nervous, worried), sense of belonging (acceptance, connectedness), and social approach/avoidance motivation (want to be with other people, want to be alone) were rated using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very) scale. Participants also recorded their best (most positive) event in the past hour with a brief, one-to-three-word response. Common positive events included, “watching TV,” “working out,” “walking,” “showering,” “seeing friends,” “napping,” and “relaxing.” Participants then rated the intensity of their most positive event during the past hour using the same 5-point scale.

EMA Data Reduction

Given strong within-person correlations between cheerful, joyful, and happy (rs = .84–.89) and nervous, anxious, and uneasy (rs = .75 – .79), we created composite happiness and anxiety scales. We used procedures outlined by Lane and Shrout (2010) to compute within-person scale reliability across repeated measurements for these three-item composite scales. Both the happiness (RCN = .88) and anxiety (RCN = .82) scales demonstrated acceptable reliability. We also combined momentary perceived social acceptance and connectedness items to form a composite measure of sense of belonging. There is disagreement in the literature regarding best practices for calculating reliability for two-item scales (e.g., Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013), so we calculated a simple within-person correlation between the two scale items across time points (r = .60).

Data Analytic Strategy

Analyses were conducted using R Version 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2019). For primary analyses, data were hierarchically nested in two-level models with momentary observations (Level 1) nested within people (Level 2). While momentary observations were theoretically nested within days, then within people, a likelihood ratio test revealed that including the random effect for days did not significantly improve model fit (χ2 = 0, df = 6, p = 1.00). Thus, we chose the more parsimonious two-level model. All models were analyzed using maximum likelihood estimation. All Level 1 predictors were person mean-centered prior to analyses. This approach captured the within-person effect of the hourly predictors, while parsing out variance attributed to between-person differences.

We examined whether positive events perceived as more intense predicted changes in momentary mood (increase happiness, decrease anxiety), sense of belonging (acceptance, connectedness), and social motivation (increase approach, decrease avoidance). We also tested whether trait levels of social anxiety moderated association between the intensity of positive events and changes in each outcome. General anxiety and depression were entered as moderators in exploratory analyses (all moderators were at Level 2 and centered at the grand mean). To measure hourly change in outcomes, we included a time-lagged version of each outcome as a covariate in all models (i.e., outcome scores an hour earlier, before the events occurred). When creating lagged variables, the first observation of each day was coded as missing to correct for the longer overnight time lapse. Collectively, this resulted in random effects attributable to: (a) day-to-day intercept differences, (b) person-to-person intercept differences, (c) person-to-person slope differences, and (d) relations between person-to-person intercept differences and slope differences. Standardized (β) effects are reported for moderation and simple slope analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The mean score on the SIAS was 26.39 (SD = 18.17; range = 64), consistent with other samples of undergraduates recruited based on negative emotionality (e.g., Adkins, Weathers, McDevitt-Murphy, & Daniels, 2008). Mean levels of momentary anxiety (scored on a 5-point Likert scale) were slightly lower than anticipated (M = 1.76) given that dispositional negativity was normally distributed in the present sample. However, baseline levels of dispositional negativity, or any other trait, do not guarantee elevated manifestations of that trait at the momentary level over a single week. Further, while we selected participants to obtain normally distributed scores on dispositional negativity, this was neither an extreme groups design (with very high dispositional negativity exclusively) nor a clinical sample, so lower mean scores should not be considered abnormal. Other mean scores fell within expected ranges.

Table 1.

Between- and within-person correlations and descriptive statistics for study variables

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
States
 1. PE Intensity -- .39 −.16 .31 .16 −.18 N/A N/A N/A
 2. Happiness .41 -- −.32 .72 .39 −.39 N/A N/A N/A
 3. Anxiety −.09 −.22 -- −.21 −.11 .24 N/A N/A N/A
 4. Sense of Belonging .42 .88 −.20 -- .39 −.39 N/A N/A N/A
 5. Social Approach .10 .39 .02 .47 -- −.52 N/A N/A N/A
 6. Social Avoidance −.01 −.20 .55 −.20 −.11 -- N/A N/A N/A
Traits
 7. Social Anxiety −.05 −.29 .42 −.32 −.11 .45 -- N/A N/A
 8. General Anxiety .05 −.28 .46 −.24 −.12 .42 .65 -- N/A
 9. Depression −.03 −.40 .51 −.39 −.22 .36 .53 .63 --
Descriptives
 M 3.45 3.09 1.76 3.16 2.79 2.18 26.39 29.64 42.95
 SD 1.21 1.16 .91 1.14 1.32 1.26 18.17 6.97 11.28
 ICC .33 .51 .39 .44 .40 .33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note: Coefficients below the diagonal represent between-person correlations. Coefficients above the diagonal represent within-person correlations. Because Social Anxiety is a trait-level measure, there are no within-person correlations. PE Intensity = The intensity of the most positive event during the past hour. ICC = Intraclass correlation.

Primary Hypothesis Testing

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, positive events rated as more intense during the past hour were associated with adaptive changes in momentary mood (increased happiness, decreased anxiety), sense of belonging, and social motivation (increased approach, decreased avoidance) after controlling for these outcomes at the prior assessment (Table 2).

Table 2.

Main and interaction effects of the intensity of the most positive event during the past hour, social anxiety, depression, and general anxiety on momentary happiness, anxiety, sense of belonging, and social approach and avoidance motivation.

Outcome: Happiness Anxiety Sense of Belonging Soc. Approach Motivation Soc. Avoidance Motivation
Moderation models: β t β t β t β t β t
Social Anxiety
 Lagged Outcome .26*** 18.36 .26*** 15.12 .24*** 17.57 .29*** 16.54 .27*** 14.18
 Past Hour PE Intensity .29*** 15.68 −.10*** −7.57 .25*** 14.70 .14*** 6.90 −.16*** −9.25
 Social Anxiety −.25*** −3.57 .24*** 5.16 −.24*** −3.80 −.09 −1.18 .32*** 5.46
 PE × SA Interaction .03 1.43 −.03* −2.20 .04* 2.44 .03 1.39 .07*** −3.81
General Anxiety
 Lagged Outcome .26*** 18.31 .26*** 15.22 .24*** 17.59 .29*** 16.51 .28*** 14.29
 Past Hour PE Intensity .29*** 15.86 −.10*** −7.66 .24*** 14.97 .14*** 6.85 −.16*** −9.39
 General Anxiety −.24*** −3.40 .26*** 5.66 −.19** −2.90 −.09 −1.24 .28*** 4.73
 PE × GA Interaction .05*** 2.86 −.04** −3.37 .06*** 3.72 .04 1.81 −.08*** −4.74
Depression
 Lagged Outcome .26*** 18.18 .26*** 15.32 .24*** 17.44 .29*** 16.54 .28*** 14.24
 Past Hour PE Intensity .29*** 16.14 −.10*** −7.71 .24*** 14.95 .14*** 6.85 −.16*** −9.13
 Depression −.34*** −4.98 .29*** 6.48 −.31*** −4.90 −.18* −2.39 .24*** 3.99
 PE × Dep Interaction .06*** 3.58 −.06*** −3.58 .06*** 3.63 .03 1.29 −.06*** −3.65
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p<.05.

**

p<.01.

***

p<.001.

Lagged Outcome = A given outcome measured at the previous momentary observation (entered as a covariate in each model to measure change over time).

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Social anxiety predicted worsened momentary mood (decreased happiness and increased anxiety), a lower sense of belonging, and greater social avoidance motivation. Contrary to our hypothesis, social anxiety was not associated with the intensity of momentary positive events (Table 2). A similar pattern of results emerged when examining between-person correlations between social anxiety and momentary outcomes. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was only a weak negative correlation between social anxiety and the intensity of positive events (Table 1).

Lastly, we found support for Hypothesis 3b. Results showed that social anxiety amplified associations between the intensity of positive events during the past hour and momentary anxiety, sense of belonging, and social avoidance motivation (Table 2, Figure 1). Although individuals with elevated trait social anxiety reported higher levels of momentary anxiety on average, analyses of simple slopes revealed a significantly larger reduction in anxiety following more intense positive events (Table 3). The same pattern was evident for sense of belonging and social avoidance motivation. Although individuals with elevated social anxiety reported lower average levels of sense of belonging, simple slopes analyses revealed a significantly larger increase in sense of belonging following more intense positive events (Table 3). Likewise, although individuals with elevated social anxiety reported greater social avoidance motivation on average, analyses of simple slopes revealed a significantly larger reduction in social avoidance motivation following more intensely positive events during the past hour (Table 3). Social anxiety did not significantly influence the impact of positive events on momentary happiness or social approach motivation.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Interactions of the intensity of the most positive event during the past hour and trait social anxiety predicting momentary anxiety, sense of belonging, and social avoidance motivation

Table 3.

Simple slope for association between the intensity of the most positive event during the past hour predicting momentary happiness, anxiety, sense of belonging and social avoidance motivation moderated by social anxiety, general anxiety, and depression.

Outcome: Happiness Anxiety Sense of Belonging Soc. Avoidance Motivation
Moderators: β t β t β t β t
Social Anxiety
 −1 SD N/A N/A −.08*** −3.86 .18*** 8.95 −.08*** −3.95
 M N/A N/A −.11*** −7.57 .22*** 14.70 −.13*** −9.25
 +1 SD N/A N/A −.14*** −6.80 .25*** 12.11 −.18*** −9.07
General Anxiety
 −1 SD .20*** 9.54 −.06** −3.08 .16*** 8.22 −.07*** −3.42
 M .25*** 15.86 −.11*** −7.66 .21*** 14.97 −.13*** −9.39
 +1 SD .29*** 13.67 −.15*** −7.88 .26*** 13.56 −.19*** −10.11
Depression
 −1 SD .19*** 9.11 −.06** −2.85 .16*** 8.06 −.08*** −3.80
 M .25*** 16.14 −.11*** −7.71 .21*** 14.95 −.13*** −9.13
 +1 SD .30*** 14.29 −.15*** −8.02 .27*** 13.34 −.18*** −9.07
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p<.05.

**

p<.01.

***

p<.001.

Exploratory Hypothesis Testing

We tested whether the observed effects were specific to social anxiety by running similar moderation models as above but replacing social anxiety as the level-three moderator with other forms of internalizing psychopathology: general anxiety and depression. Similar to the social anxiety results, trait levels of general anxiety and depression amplified associations between the intensity of positive events during the past hour and momentary happiness, anxiety, sense of belonging, and social avoidance motivation (Figures 2 and 3). Interaction effects between the intensity of positive events and all three forms of internalizing psychopathology predicted momentary outcomes in similar directions (increased happiness and sense of belonging and decreased anxiety and social avoidance motivation). One small yet notable difference was that interactions between the intensity of positive events and both general anxiety and depression significantly predicted increased momentary happiness while the interaction with social anxiety did not (Table 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Interactions of the intensity of the most positive event during the past hour and trait general anxiety predicting momentary happiness, anxiety, sense of belonging, and social avoidance motivation

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Interactions of the intensity of the most positive event during the past hour and trait depression predicting momentary happiness, anxiety, sense of belonging, and social avoidance motivation

Discussion

Young adults with elevated social anxiety experience a range of emotional difficulties in daily life, yet the real-world factors that govern the hour-by-hour expression of social anxiety have only recently come into focus. Leveraging intensive EMA sampling, our findings show that positive events have a meaningful impact on the emotional lives of young adults. On average, more intense positive events during the past hour were associated with adaptive changes in momentary emotion (increased happiness, decreased anxiety), sense of belonging, and social motivation (increased approach, decreased avoidance). As expected, social anxiety was associated with impairments in these emotional and social domains. On average, young adults with elevated social anxiety experienced higher levels of momentary anxiety and social avoidance motivation and lower levels of momentary happiness and sense of belonging. The present results provide new evidence that individuals with elevated social anxiety experience greater psychological benefits (e.g., decreased anxiety, increased sense of belonging, and decreased motivation to avoid others) following positive events during the past hour that are perceived as more intense. These observations provide insight into the circumstances in which individuals with elevated social anxiety experience well-being and/or the absence of psychological difficulties.

Exploratory analyses revealed similar patterns of effects for individuals with elevated trait levels of general anxiety and depression. On average, these individuals exhibited similar impairments in momentary emotional (less happiness, more anxiety) and social functioning (lower sense of belonging, less social approach motivation, more social avoidance motivation) compared to individuals with elevated social anxiety. Individuals with elevated general anxiety and depression also experienced greater psychological benefits following more intensely positive events in the form of greater increases in momentary happiness and sense of belonging and greater decreases in momentary anxiety and social avoidance motivation. Of note, elevated general anxiety and depression did not predict greater increases in momentary social approach motivation following intensely positive events, which mirrors our social anxiety findings. Elevated general anxiety and depression did predict greater increases in momentary happiness, however, and these effects were not significant for elevated social anxiety.

The observed moderating role of elevated internalizing symptoms on momentary emotions following positive events is consistent with “mood brightening” effects found in previous research (e.g., Bylsma et al., 2011; Lamers et al., 2018; Rottenberg, 2017; Thompson et al., 2012). These studies found “larger decreases in negative affect after positively appraised life events” for individuals with major depressive disorder compared to controls (Rottenberg, 2017 p. 248). While these studies have primarily discovered mood brightening effects among individuals with mood disorders, our results suggest that mood brightening may occur for individuals with elevated levels of internalizing symptoms more broadly following intensely positive events. Our findings also suggest that mood brightening phenomena may not be specific to decreased negative affect as previous findings suggest (e.g., Bylsma et al., 2011; Lamers et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2012), but may also extend to increased positive affect (e.g., happiness) and other adaptive cognitive/affective states (e.g., sense of belonging, social motivation).

The fact that individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms exhibited a wider range of momentary benefits following positive events than those observed in previous studies may be due to differences in sampling. For example, other studies of mood brightening effects have focused on individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder while we selected young adults with normally distributed levels of dispositional negativity; non-clinical samples of individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms may experience a wider array of “brightening” effects following positive events. Further, our results suggest that other psychological states may be more reactive to positive events among individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms beyond just affect (e.g., perceptions of social belonging, motives to socialize with others). Future studies should seek to replicate and extend these findings with community and clinical samples.

Individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms did not experience greater increases in momentary social approach motivation, although they did experience adaptive momentary changes in nearly every other outcome following more intensely positive events. There is insufficient research that examines changes in social motives following daily positive events. However, it makes intuitive sense that individuals with elevated internalizing pathology would not be more motivated to be with others following positive events. These individuals tend to avoid social situations, so it perhaps makes more sense that this preexisting motive to avoid would be dampened following positive events as opposed to a substantial increase in low desires to affiliate. It may also be the case that these individuals were already with others during/following their more intensely positive events; it would make little sense for social approach motivation to markedly increase if they were already socializing. Further, the observed non-significant findings cannot be adequately explained by lack of statistical power. Simulation studies of multilevel power suggest that designs with at least 80 level-2 units (e.g., participants) and 14 level-1 units (e.g., observations) are sufficient to detect effect sizes greater than .20 (Nezlek, 2011, 2012; Raudenbusch & Liu, 2000).

Limitations and Future Directions

While we believe the present results make an important contribution to the literature, there are several limitations worth addressing. First, it is possible that floor effects contributed to the greater observed reductions in momentary anxiety and social avoidance motivation among individuals with higher versus lower levels of internalizing symptoms. Descriptive statistics showed that mean levels of these outcomes were close to 1 on 1–5 scales (M range = 1.32 – 1.86) (see Supplemental Table 1). These floor effects may be due to measurement limitations. For example, our measure of anxiety was a composite of three items, and our measure of social avoidance motivation was a single-item scale. The fact that participants rated these items 10 times per day is a strength of this study, but the high number of assessments may have inflated the number of ratings of “1” from participants with lower levels of internalizing symptoms.

We believe the present findings cannot be solely explained by floor effects, however. Similar moderation effects emerged when examining “positive” momentary outcomes (e.g., happiness) as well as “negative” ones (social avoidance motivation). This suggests that, beyond floor effects, there is something about higher compared to lower internalizing symptoms that both alleviates negative states following intensely positive events and enhances positive states. Further, our results partially replicate and extend findings demonstrating that individuals with elevated depression (e.g., Bylsma et al., 2011; Lamers et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2012) and social anxiety (e.g., Shackman et al., 2018) experience greater momentary benefits from positive daily experiences (e.g., “mood brightening” effect). Future studies should seek to replicate these effects with measures that are less susceptible to floor effects and/or with clinical samples with higher mean levels of momentary anxiety and social avoidance motivation.

Future studies may benefit event-contingent responding in which participants endorse positive events precisely when they occur rather than asking participants to endorse a positive event at each assessment. It may be that forced response methods lead to the reporting of some positive events that are not truly positive. However, we accounted for this in our study by obtaining participants’ subjective ratings of positive event intensity. Event-contingent responding could provide valuable contextual clues as to where and when positive events are most likely to occur. Our study would have also benefited from more detailed qualitative data on momentary positive events. Participants provided qualitative event descriptions in the present study, but these descriptions were too brief/vague to be coded without substantial measurement error. Future studies should collect richer qualitative information to assess whether 1) the daily positive events of individuals with elevated social anxiety/internalizing symptoms differ from those of the general young adult population, and 2) whether our conclusions generalize across different types of positive events—especially in light of evidence that individuals with elevated social anxiety fail to extract rewards from social situations specifically (e.g., Wells et al., 1995).

It would also be fruitful to investigate predictors of intensely positive events for individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms, including individual differences (e.g., savoring, meta-beliefs about emotions, reliance on experiential avoidance as a self-regulatory strategy), features of positive events (e.g., levels of physical activity, exposure to nature, consistency of event with personal values), and other contextual features (e.g., presence of close friends). Individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms may deploy less adaptive emotion regulation strategies in response to positive events (e.g., emotional suppression), while others respond in healthier ways – thereby upregulating momentary benefits from these events. Exploring these moderators of responses to daily positive events could elucidate factors that promote positive functioning among people with elevated internalizing symptoms and shape interventions to enhance well-being in daily life (Goodman, Doorley, & Kashdan, 2019).

Given the observed psychological benefits of intensely positive events, behavioral activation strategies (e.g., deliberately scheduling pleasurable activities into one’s daily routine) may improve affect, enhance feelings of social belonging, and decrease motivations for social withdrawal among individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms. Simply attending to and recording positive events throughout the day may also help these individuals experience more positivity than normal. Individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms often display maladaptive attentional biases toward negative self-relevant information and emotional stimuli (depression; Clasen, Wells, Ellis, & Beevers, 2013; Mogg & Bradley, 2005), negative thoughts and emotions, external social threats (social anxiety; Mogg & Bradley, 2002), and hypothetical/future threats (general anxiety; e.g., Stefanopoulou, Hirsch, Hayes, Adlam, & Coker, 2014) – making it challenging to fully attend to positive events. Reporting on positive events throughout the day may serve as an ecological momentary intervention (EMI) – helping individuals shift attention toward positive environmental cues and reap more psychological benefits. EMIs have received increasing support (e.g., Businelle et al., 2016; Pramana, Parmanto, Kendall, & Silk, 2014; Riordan, Connor, Flett, & Scarf, 2015) and have a number of benefits compared to traditional therapy, including reduced cost and barriers to treatment, greater flexibility, and potential for wider dissemination of evidence-based interventions (Andrews & Erskine, 2003; Griffiths, Lindenmeyer, Powell, Lowe, & Thorogood, 2006; Titov, 2007). Future studies should test EMIs that prompt individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms to plan, pay attention to, record, and reflect on daily positive experiences.

Conclusions

To date, the momentary consequences of positive events have been largely overlooked among individuals with elevated social anxiety and other internalizing symptoms. The present results suggest that positive events play a key role in governing the momentary dynamics of real-world emotional experience, highlighting a potential pathway to enhance well-being and better understand the circumstances under which individuals with elevated internalizing symptoms can thrive. The use of well-established EMA techniques, a sample selectively recruited from a pool of more than 2,500 pre-screened individuals, and our exploration of multiple forms of internalizing psychopathology increases our confidence in the reproducibility and clinical relevance of these findings. These results set the stage for developing improved strategies for preventing or treating the deleterious consequences of anxiety and depression.

Supplementary Material

1

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of K. DeYoung, L. Friedman, and members of the Affective and Translational Neuroscience laboratory as well as critical feedback from J. Hur and M. Barstead. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (DA040717 and MH107444) and University of Maryland. Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Data Availability

The data featured in this report are available via the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/b83rv/).

References

  1. Adkins JW, Weathers FW, McDevitt-Murphy M, & Daniels JB (2008). Psychometric properties of seven self-report measures of posttraumatic stress disorder in college students with mixed civilian trauma exposure. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 1393–1402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews G, & Erskine A (2003). Reducing the burden of anxiety and depressive disorders: The role of computerized clinician assistance. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16, 41–44. [Google Scholar]
  3. Auerbach RP, Alonso J, Axinn WG, Cuijpers P, Ebert DD, Green JG, … & Nock MK (2016). Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization world mental health surveys. Psychological Medicine, 46, 2955–2970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Auerbach RP, Mortier P, Bruffaerts R, Alonso J, Benjet C, Cuijpers P, … & Murray E (2018). WHO World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 623–638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett LF (1997). The relationships among momentary emotion experiences, personality descriptions, and retrospective ratings of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1100–1110. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blanco I, & Joormann J (2017). Examining facets of depression and social anxiety: The relation among lack of positive affect, negative cognitions, and emotion dysregulation. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, e51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown EJ, Turovsky J, Heimberg RG, Juster HR, Brown TA, & Barlow DH (1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown TA, Chorpita BF, & Barlow DH (1998). Structural relationships among dimensions of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders and dimensions of negative affect, positive affect, and autonomic arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 179–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Businelle MS, Ma P, Kendzor DE, Frank SG, Vidrine DJ, & Wetter DW (2016). An Ecological Momentary Intervention for Smoking Cessation: Evaluation of Feasibility and Effectiveness. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bylsma LM, Taylor-Clift A, & Rottenberg J (2011). Emotional reactivity to daily events in major and minor depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Clasen PC, Wells TT, Ellis AJ, & Beevers CG (2013). Attentional biases and the persistence of sad mood in major depressive disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 74–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Conway CC, Forbes MK, Forbush KT, Fried EI, Hallquist MN, Kotov R, … & Sunderland M (2019). A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 419–436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa PT, & MacCrae RR (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cox BJ, Ross L, Swinson RP, & Direnfeld DM (1998). A comparison of social phobia outcome measures in cognitive-behavioral group therapy. Behavior Modification, 22, 285–297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dibattista D, & Gosse L (2006). Test anxiety and the immediate feedback assessment technique. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 311–328. [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisinga R, Te Grotenhuis M, & Pelzer B (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Eng W, Coles ME, Heimberg RG, & Safren SA (2005). Domains of life satisfaction in social anxiety disorder: Relation to symptoms and response to cognitive-behavioral therapy. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 143–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Farmer AS, & Kashdan TB (2012). Social anxiety and emotion regulation in daily life: Spillover effects on positive and negative social events. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41, 152–162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Geyer EC, Fua KC, Daniel KE, Chow PI, Bonelli W, Huang Y, … & Teachman BA (2018). I Did OK, but Did I Like It? Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Examine Perceptions of Social Interactions Associated With Severity of Social Anxiety and Depression. Behavior Therapy, 49, 866–880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg LR (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodman FR, Doorley JD, & Kashdan TB (2018). Well-being and psychopathology: A deep exploration into positive emotions, meaning and purpose in life, and social relationships. Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers. DOI: nobascholar.com. [Google Scholar]
  22. Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, & Thorogood M (2006). Why Are Health Care Interventions Delivered Over the Internet? A Systematic Review of the Published Literature. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8, e10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hofmann W, & Patel PV (2015). SurveySignal: A convenient solution for experience sampling research using participants’ own smartphones. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 235–253. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hufford MR, Shields AL, Shiffman S, Paty J, & Balabanis M (2002). Reactivity to ecological momentary assessment: An example using undergraduate problem drinkers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, 205–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. International Personality Item Pool. (2001). A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences. Retrieved September 2002 from http://ipip.ori.org/
  26. Kashdan TB (2002). Social anxiety dimensions, neuroticism, and the contours of positive psychological functioning. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 789–810. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kashdan TB (2007). Social anxiety spectrum and diminished positive experiences: Theoretical synthesis and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 348–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kashdan TB, Adams LM, Farmer AS, Ferssizidis P, McKnight PE, & Nezlek JB (2014). Sexual healing: Daily diary investigation of the benefits of intimate and pleasurable sexual activity in socially anxious adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1417–1429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kashdan TB, & Breen WE (2008). Social anxiety and positive emotions: A prospective examination of a self-regulatory model with tendencies to suppress or express emotions as a moderating variable. Behavior Therapy, 39, 1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kashdan TB, & Collins RL (2010). Social anxiety and the experience of positive emotion and anger in everyday life: An ecological momentary assessment approach. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 23, 259–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kashdan TB, & Roberts JE (2006). Affective outcomes in superficial and intimate interactions: Roles of social anxiety and curiosity. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 140–167. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kashdan TB, & Steger MF (2006). Expanding the topography of social anxiety: An experience-sampling assessment of positive emotions, positive events, and emotion suppression. Psychological Science, 17, 120–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kashdan TB, Weeks JW, & Savostyanova AA (2011). Whether, how, and when social anxiety shapes positive experiences and events: A self-regulatory framework and treatment implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 786–799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, & Walters EE (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 617–627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lamers F, Swendsen J, Cui L, Husky M, Johns J, Zipunnikov V, & Merikangas KR (2018). Mood Reactivity and Affective Dynamics in Mood and Anxiety Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 659–669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lay JC, Gerstorf D, Scott SB, Pauly T, & Hoppmann CA (2017). Neuroticism and extraversion magnify discrepancies between retrospective and concurrent affect reports. Journal of Personality, 85, 817–829. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mattick RP, & Clarke JC (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Merikangas KR, Avenevoli S, Acharyya S, Zhang H, & Angst J (2002). The spectrum of social phobia in the Zurich cohort study of young adults. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 81–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mogg K, & Bradley BP (2002). Selective orienting of attention to masked threat faces in social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40, 1403–1414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mogg K, & Bradley BP (2005). Attentional bias in generalized anxiety disorder versus depressive disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 29–45. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mogg K, Philippot P, & Bradley BP (2004). Selective attention to angry faces in clinical social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 160–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Palmier-Claus JE, Myin-Germeys I, Barkus E, Bentley L, Udachina A, Delespaul PAEG, … & Dunn G (2011). Experience sampling research in individuals with mental illness: reflections and guidance. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 123, 12–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pramana G, Parmanto B, Kendall PC, & Silk JS (2014). The SmartCAT: an m-health platform for ecological momentary intervention in child anxiety treatment. Telemedicine and e-Health, 20, 419–427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Quoidbach J, Mikolajczak M, & Gross JJ (2015). Positive interventions: An emotion regulation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 655–693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Rapee RM, & Heimberg RG (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741–756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Riordan BC, Conner TS, Flett JA, & Scarf D (2015). A brief orientation week ecological momentary intervention to reduce university student alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76, 525–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rodebaugh TL, Woods CM, Heimberg RG, Liebowitz MR, & Schneier FR (2006). The Factor Structure and Screening Utility of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale. Psychological Assessment, 18, 231–237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rolls ET (2018). What are emotional states and what are their functions. In Fox AS, Lapate RC, Shackman AJ, & Davidson RJ (Eds.), The nature of emotion. Fundamental questions (2nd ed., pp. 19–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rottenberg J (2017). Emotions in depression: What do we really know?. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 241–263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rueschkamp G, Johanna M, Kuppens P, Riediger M, Blanke ES, & Brose A (in press). Higher well-being is related to reduced affective reactivity to positive events in daily life. Emotion. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Russell G, & Shaw S (2009). A study to investigate the prevalence of social anxiety in a sample of higher education students in the United Kingdom. Journal of Mental Health, 18, 198–206. [Google Scholar]
  52. Shackman AJ, Tromp DP, Stockbridge MD, Kaplan CM, Tillman RM, & Fox AS (2016). Dispositional negativity: An integrative psychological and neurobiological perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1275–1314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Shackman AJ, Weinstein J, Hudja SN, Bloomer C, Barstead MG, Fox AS & Lemay EP Jr. (2018). Dispositional negativity in the wild: Social context governs momentary emotional experience. Emotion, 18, 707–724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Shiffman S, Gwaltney CJ, Balabanis MH, Liu KS, Paty JA, Kassel JD, … & Gnys M (2002). Immediate antecedents of cigarette smoking: an analysis from ecological momentary assessment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 531–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Stefanopoulou E, Hirsch CR, Hayes S, Adlam A, & Coker S (2014). Are attentional control resources reduced by worry in generalized anxiety disorder?. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 330–335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lane SP, & Shrout PE (2010). Assessing the reliability of within-person change over time: A dynamic factor analysis approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 1027–1027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Stein MB, & Kean YM (2000). Disability and quality of life in social phobia: epidemiologic findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1606–1613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Stone A, Shiffman S, Atienza A, & Nebeling L (2007). The science of real-time data capture: Self-Reports in Health Research. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Taylor CT, Lyubomirsky S, & Stein MB (2017). Upregulating the positive affect system in anxiety and depression: Outcomes of a positive activity intervention. Depression and Anxiety, 34, 267–280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Team RC (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.3.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  61. Thompson RJ, Mata J, Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Jonides J, & Gotlib IH (2012). The everyday emotional experience of adults with major depressive disorder: Examining emotional instability, inertia, and reactivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 819–829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Titov N (2007). Status of computerized cognitive behavioural therapy for adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 95–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown A, … & Coggeshall M (2016). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. The Lancet, 388, 1545–1602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wallace ST, & Alden LE (1997). Social phobia and positive social events: The price of success. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 416–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Watson D, O’Hara M, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez E, Koffel E, Naragon K, & Stuart S (2008). Further Validation of the IDAS: Evidence of Convergent, Discriminant, Criterion, and Incremental Validity. Psychological Assessment, 20, 248–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Watson D, O’Hara MW, Simms LJ, Kotov R, Chmielewski M, McDade-Montez EA, … & Stuart S (2007). Development and validation of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS). Psychological Assessment, 19, 253–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Weeks JW, Heimberg RG, Rodebaugh TL, & Norton PJ (2008). Exploring the relationship between fear of positive evaluation and social anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22, 386–400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1062502-supplement-1.pdf (130.9KB, pdf)

RESOURCES