Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2021 Mar 26;119:106922. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.106922

Shyness and Susceptibility to Social Influence: Stronger Concordance between Norms and Drinking among Shy Individuals

Chelsie M Young 1, Mai-Ly N Steers 2, Faith Shank 1, Alexcia Aris 1, Paige Ryan 1
PMCID: PMC8113114  NIHMSID: NIHMS1689319  PMID: 33838576

Abstract

Despite a large body of work exploring associations between perceived norms and drinking and norms-based interventions for drinking, less work has examined moderators of associations between norms and drinking outcomes to determine potential sub-groups that might benefit most from brief norms-based interventions. The present study investigates shyness as a moderator of associations between drinking norms and alcohol use. We hypothesized that shyness would moderate associations between drinking norms and alcohol use such that individuals who are higher in shyness might be more sensitive to social influence and thus show stronger associations between drinking norms and alcohol use. Participants included 250 college students (70% female; 44.5% White/Caucasian) aged 18–26 (M = 21.02, SD = 2.16) who met heavy drinking criteria (4/5 drinks on one or more occasions in the past month for women/men). Participants completed measures of demographics, shyness, alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, and drinking norms remotely at baseline and one-month follow-up (N = 169). Drinking norms were negatively associated with shyness and positively associated with baseline and follow-up drinking. Shyness was negatively associated with baseline drinking but not associated with follow-up drinking. Interaction models tested longitudinal associations between shyness, descriptive drinking norms, and follow-up drinking, controlling for baseline drinking and gender. Results showed that associations between drinking norms and drinks per week were strongest among people who were higher in shyness. Individuals who are shy may be more susceptible to social influence and thus may benefit more from a norms-based drinking intervention. Future work may explore shyness as a moderator of norms-based intervention efficacy.

Keywords: alcohol, descriptive norms, college students, individual differences

1. Introduction

1.1. College Drinking

Alcohol consumption among college students is a long-standing social problem. Drinking heavily is particularly common among college student samples. Specifically, college students are more likely to engage in heavy episodic drinking, defined as 5 or more drinks in one sitting, at least once in the past two weeks, and are more likely to report having been drunk in the previous month as compared to their non-college peers (29% vs. 25% and 38% vs. 24% respectively; Schulenberg, Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, Miech & Patrick, 2019). This heavy episodic drinking can be problematic in that heavier drinkers are more likely to experience negative consequences as a result of their drinking, such as arrests while under the influence, car accidents, physical/verbal fights, risky sexual behaviors, and even unintended death (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler, 2005; Hingson, Zha, & Weitzman, 2009). In an effort to reduce such problematic drinking, researchers have investigated factors that are associated with college drinking that can be used as intervention targets. One such factor that has consistently been associated with college alcohol use and has been the focus of personalized normative feedback interventions aimed at reducing college drinking, is drinking norms.

1.2. Perceived Drinking Norms

Perceived norms for drinking are among the strongest predictors of alcohol use in college students (Borsari & Carey, 2001; Neighbors, Lee, Lewis, Fossos, & Larimer, 2007; Perkins, 2002; Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005). Perceived descriptive norms for drinking (e.g., estimating that the typical same-sex same university student drinks 15 drinks per week), much like norms for other behaviors, are based on attending to how others in one’s social environment behave and interactions with others about these behaviors, in addition to one’s own attitudes and thoughts about the behavior (Miller & Prentice, 1996). Thus, these normative perceptions are often inaccurate. Research has repeatedly shown that college students overestimate how much their peers drink, (e.g., Baer, 2002; Garnett, Crane, West, Michie, Brown, & Winstock, 2015; Neighbors, Dillard, Lewis, Bergstrom, & Neil, 2006; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins, Meilman, Leichliter, Cashin, & Presley, 1999), and this overestimation is positively associated with students’ own drinking (Dumas, Davis, & Neighbors, 2019; Martens et al., 2006; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986; Perkins, & Wechsler, 1996).

These overestimations of others’ drinking, particularly among heavy drinkers, led to the creation of personalized norm feedback interventions. Personalized normative feedback interventions aim to decrease alcohol consumption by directly comparing an individual’s own drinking and their perceptions of others’ drinking to actual rates of others’ drinking behavior. Personalized normative feedback interventions have been found to reduce perceived drinking norms and alcohol use from one-month (Dimeff & McNeely, 2001; Doumas, McKinley, & Book, 2009; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006) to up to 2-years post-intervention (Neighbors et al., 2010). These reductions in drinking have been replicated among different delivery methods (feedback through mail, email, text messages, social media; Agostinelli, Brown & Miller, 1995; Bernstein et al., 2018; Neighbors, Larimer & Lewis, 2004; Palfai et al., 2011; Ridout & Campbell, 2014), as well as for specific events (21st birthdays and Mardi Gras; Bernstein et al., 2018; Buckner et al., 2019; Lewis et al., 2008).

To further refine and extend this research area, social and contextual factors that may influence drinking norms and alcohol use are being considered. Recent work related to specific situations where drinking norms are operating has found that peer-group specific norms (Dumas et al., 2019) and location-specific norms (Boyle, Merrill, & Carey, 2020) predict drinking behavior. Additionally, some moderators of the association between norms and drinking have been identified, including group identity (Neighbors et al., 2010), emotional intelligence (Ghee & Johnson, 2008), self-consciousness (LaBrie, Hummer, & Neighbors, 2008), social comparison orientation (Litt, Lewis, Stahlbrandt, Firth, & Neighbors, 2012), social motives for drinking (Halim, Hasking, & Allen, 2012; Lee, Geisner, Lewis, Neighbors, & Larimer, 2007) and social anxiety (Neighbors et al., 2007). Specifically, these studies have revealed that identifying more strongly with a group (Neighbors et al., 2010), having lower emotional intelligence (Ghee & Johnson, 2008), being a man who is lower in public self-consciousness and higher in private self-consciousness and social anxiety (LaBrie et al., 2008), scoring higher in social comparison orientation (Litt et al., 2012), reporting more frequent engagement in drinking for social reasons (Halim et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2007), and being higher in social anxiety (Neighbors et al., 2010) were associated with stronger relationships between perceived norms and alcohol use behavior. Building on previous research examining self-consciousness (LaBrie et al., 2008) and social anxiety (Neighbors et al., 2007) as moderators of associations between perceived norms and drinking behavior, we propose that shyness will moderate associations between norms and alcohol use behavior.

1.3. Shyness

Shyness is defined by a range of symptomology including a sub-clinical level of awkwardness, inhibition, and fear of negative evaluation in social situations (Cheek & Buss, 1981; Crozier, 1979; Henderson & Zimbardo, 2001; Jones, Briggs, & Smith, 1986). Shy individuals tend to be preoccupied to differing degrees by how others perceive them and thus develop negative outcome expectancies for social encounters that lead them to actively avoid or withdraw from various social interactions (Crozier, 1979; Henderson, Gilbert, & Zimbardo, 2014). People who are highly embarrassable, which is common among extremely shy individuals, have been shown to be especially sensitive to norms for behavior as they fear others’ disapproval and social rejection (Miller, 1995). Shyness is a very common trait that encapsulates a range of experiences (Carducci, Golant, & Kaiser, 1999) and is an important area of study because depending on the degree of shyness, it can significantly hinder a person’s communication and participation within their community, which can impede the development of social relationships (Maroldo, 1981). Furthermore, shyness tends to be positively associated with loneliness, anxiety, and depression (Booth, Barlett, & Bohnsack, 1992; Nelson et al., 2008; Schmidt & Fox, 1995; Traub, 1983) and negatively associated with happiness and self-esteem (Booth et al., 1992; Schmidt & Fox, 1995).

Importantly, while shyness and social anxiety are similar, shyness is theoretically and empirically distinct from social anxiety. One key distinction between the two is in the degree of symptomology. Social anxiety is characterized by persistent physiological reactivity in response to and fear of social interactions; whereas, shyness involves a range of feelings of discomfort in novel social situations that is usually temporary (Heiser et al., 2003). Sociability is another important distinguishing feature between shyness and social anxiety. Social anxiety often leads individuals to avoid social interactions (Poole, Lieshout, & Schmidt, 2017), while shy individuals typically do not fear social settings and do not entirely withdraw from social interactions. Thus, shy individuals are typically less impaired by their discomfort and any distress they feel from social interactions are often short-lived; whereas social anxiety is a chronic and more debilitating condition. Finally, shyness is much more common, with a prevalence of 40–50% of the population while social anxiety rates range from 3–16% of the population (Chavira et al., 2002).

Past work in the area of alcohol use has historically focused more on social anxiety than shyness. The current literature on social anxiety and drinking contains conflicting results regarding the nature of associations between social anxiety and drinking. Some studies have found a positive relationship between social anxiety and drinking (Kidorf & Lang, 1999; Neighbors et al., 2007), while others have found a negative association or no relationship between the two (e.g., Ham & Hope, 2005; Ham & Hope, 2006; Stewart, Morris, Mellings, & Komar, 2006). While the findings on alcohol use and social anxiety are mixed, several studies have found that social anxiety and social phobia are associated with problematic drinking and increased risk of alcohol use disorder (AUD; e.g., Carrigan, & Randall, 2003; Crum & Pratt, 2001; Kushner, Sher, & Beitman, 1990). Interestingly, one study found that both shyness and social anxiety were more likely among undergraduate problem drinkers relative to non-problem drinkers (Lewis & O’Neill, 2000).

Much is yet to be examined in the realm of shyness and drinking. Some work examining associations between shyness and alcohol use has shown that shy individuals tend to drink less than non-shy individuals (Bruch et al., 1992; Bruch, Rivet, Heimburg, & Levin, 1997; Nelson et al., 2008). Specifically, Nelson et al. (2008) found that average and high levels of shyness were associated with drinking less frequently relative to low levels of shyness. Similarly, Young et al. (2015) found that shyness was negatively associated with the total number of drinks consumed per week. However, similar to findings on social anxiety (Buckner, Eggleston, & Schmidt, 2006; Gilles, Turk, & Fresco, 2006; Stewart et al.2006), shy individuals tend to experience more alcohol-related problems (Lewis & O’Neill, 2000; Young, DiBello, Traylor, Zvolensky, & Neighbors, 2015). One investigation explored drinking motives in relation to shyness and alcohol-related problems and found that shy individuals experienced more alcohol-related problems, due in part to overlap in coping and social drinking motives (Young et al., 2015). Thus, shy individuals tend to conflate drinking for social reasons (e.g., “because it helps you enjoy a party”) with drinking for coping reasons (e.g., “because it helps you when you feel depressed or nervous”). A recent investigation found that people who are highly shy tend to experience more severe anxiety the day after drinking, termed “hangxiety”, and this hangxiety was in turn associated with increased AUDIT scores, signaling risk for AUD (Marsh et al., 2019). Thus, it is important to continue to investigate how shyness relates to both drinking and alcohol-related problems. In particular, the relationship between shyness and drinking norms and drinking behavior has yet to be explored and could be a fruitful avenue for better understanding more about shy individuals’ drinking patterns.

1.4. Current Study

The current investigation expands on the current literature by evaluating shyness as a potential moderator of associations between perceived descriptive drinking norms and alcohol use and alcohol-related problems. As shyness is evoked by social situations similar to those college students frequently drink in and shy individuals are particularly sensitive to norms for behavior (Miller, 1995), it follows that individuals who are shy may also be more sensitive to norms for drinking. Thus, we hypothesized that shyness would moderate the associations between drinking norms and alcohol use such that individuals who are higher in shyness (compared to those lower in shyness) would be more sensitive to social influence and thus show stronger associations between drinking norms and alcohol use. Furthermore, as past research has shown that shy individuals tend to drink less than non-shy individuals but have more alcohol-related problems (Bruch et al., 1992; Bruch et al., 1997; Lewis & O’Neill, 2000; Nelson et al., 2008; Young et al., 2015), we hypothesized that shyness would also moderate associations between drinking norms and alcohol-related problems such that highly shy college students would thus show stronger concordance between drinking norms and alcohol-related problems relative to non-shy students. Furthermore, the current study expands upon previous work by examining these relationships both cross-sectionally and prospectively using longitudinal data.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

Participants consisted of 250 college students (70.4% female) aged 18–26 years of (M = 21.02, SD = 2.16) who provided consent to participate in an intervention study (Young & Neighbors, 2019). At the baseline assessment, participants completed measures regarding demographics, alcohol use, drinking norms, and shyness. To be eligible for the baseline and intervention assessment , participants needed to meet the following criteria: (1) report consuming at least four/five (females/males) drinks in one sitting and (2) be between 18–26 years old. Participants who completed the baseline and intervention assessment (N=244) were invited to complete the one-month follow-up. Participants completed online surveys asking about their drinking and alcohol-related problems at follow-up. Participants’ racial backgrounds were diverse, with 44.5% Caucasian, 1.6% Native American/American Indian, 12.1% Black/African American, 22.7% Asian, 1.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 4.9% Multiethnic, and 13.0% Other. Ethnically, 30.8% of participants identified as Hispanic/Latino. Participants who completed the baseline assessments received extra course credit and those who completed the 1-month follow up received a $25 Amazon gift card code.

2.2. Measures

Demographics.

In the baseline assessment, participants were asked to provide demographic information such as their age, sex, year in school, ethnicity, and racial background.

Shyness.

Shyness was evaluated using the Revised Shyness Scale (Cheek, 1983). This scale consists of 13 items asking whether specific experiences of shyness are characteristic or not characteristic of participants. Example items include “I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well.” and “When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about.” Possible responses were on a 1 to 5 Likert scale, with 1 representing very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree and 5 representing very characteristic or true, strongly agree (Cronbach’s α= .86).

Perceived Drinking Norms.

Drinking norms were assessed in the baseline survey using The Drinking Norms Rating Form (Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991). Specifically, this scale assessed beliefs regarding alcohol consumption behaviors for the typical same-sex student from their respective university. Participants were asked how often/much they think the typical same-sex student from their university drinks each day of a typical week. Perceived norms was computed by summing the number of drinks reported each day of the week.

Alcohol Use.

Drinking was assessed both at baseline and follow-up using The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins, Parks, & Marlatt, 1985; Kivlahan, Marlatt, Fromme, Coppel, & Williams, 1990). The DDQ asked participants the number of standard drinks they consumed each day during a typical week (Monday through Sunday) in the previous month. Participants were given a visual depiction of a standard drink for beer, wine and liquor. The visual depiction was displayed so the participants were aware of the size of a standard drink for each alcohol type. The numbers of drinks reported each day of the week were summed together to determine typical weekly drinking.

Alcohol-Related Problems.

Alcohol consequences were assessed at baseline and follow-up assessments using the Rutgers Alcohol Problems Index (RAPI; White & Labouvie, 1989). The RAPI focuses on negative alcohol-related consequences occurring within the past month. Respondents rated 23 items on a 5 point Likert scale from 0 (never) to 4 (more than 10 times). Example items include, “got into fights, acted bad, or did mean things”, “neglected your responsibilities”, “tried to cut down or quit drinking”, and “had a bad time” (Cronbach’s α = .93 at baseline; Cronbach’s α = .97 at follow-up).

2.3. Attrition

Of the 244 participants who completed the baseline and intervention assessment and were invited to the one-month follow-up, only 169 completed the follow-up. To examine the potential influence of attrition on our findings, we created a dichotomous variable differentiating between those who completed the follow-up assessment and those who did not. A logistic regression model was run with baseline shyness, sex, norms, drinking, and alcohol-related problems as a function of attrition. Only baseline alcohol-related problems were significantly associated with attrition. Individuals who reported more alcohol-related problems at baseline were more likely to drop out of the study.

2.4. Analytic Strategy

Both the outcome variables of drinking and alcohol-related problems at one-month follow-up were positively skewed which indicated that generalized linear models would be most appropriate (Hilbe, 2011). Results of deviance tests in which the fit of multiple generalized linear models were compared against one another indicated that negative binomial models should be run. The analysis was conducted in STATA 15/SE (StataCorp, 2017) in which missing values were deleted in a listwise manner. All parameter estimates were log-linked. Furthermore, exponentiated parameter estimates (eb) or incident rate ratios (IRRs) represented the expected percentage of change in the outcome variable for the model for every one-unit increase in the predictor variable. Values over 1 indicated proportional increases in the outcome and values below 1 indicated proportional decreases.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. Of the 250 individuals who completed baseline, 169 completed one-month follow-up (68%). The mean for students on shyness at baseline was 2.83 (SD = .70) and the mean for perceived norms at baseline was 12.74 (SD = 9.29). On average, students reported consuming 9.60 drinks per week at baseline (SD = 8.76) and 5.43 drinks per week at one-month follow-up (SD =28.75). Students also reported on average 7.13 alcohol-related problems at baseline (SD =10.73) and 4.47 alcohol-related problems at one-month follow-up (SD =9.77).

Table 1.

Zero-order Correlations between the main variables.

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Gender --
2. Shyness −.064 --
3. Drinking Norms .17** −.13* --
4. T1 Drinking .13* −.23*** .65*** --
5. T1 Problems .09 .02 .19** .44*** --
6. T2 Drinking .15† −.15 .28*** .46*** .43*** --
7. T2 Problems .22** .00 .34*** .34*** .57*** .39*** --
Means .30 2.83 12.74 9.60 7.13 5.43 4.47
Standard Deviation .46 .70 9.29 8.76 10.73 5.83 9.77
Open in a new tab

Note: T1 = baseline; T2 = 1-month follow-up;

†

p=.05

*

p<.05,

**

p<.01,

***

p<.001

3.2. Negative binomial regression analysis main effects and interactions.

Tables 2 and 3 present the results for the two negative binomial models that were run. Our first negative binomial regression model included the main effects of shyness (baseline), perceived drinking norms (baseline), and the interaction term of shyness (baseline) X perceived drinking norms (baseline) in predicting drinking (baseline). Next, we tested the same models with alcohol-related problems at baseline as the outcome. Finally, we tested these relationships longitudinally, with drinking and alcohol-related problems at one-month follow-up as the outcomes. Because men typically drink more than women (e.g. Barry, Whiteman, Piazza-Gardner, & Jensen, 2013; McCabe et al., 2007; McCabe, 2002), we controlled for gender in all models. We also controlled for baseline drinking and alcohol-related problems in longitudinal models. The predictor variables of shyness, drinking norms, and baseline drinking were mean-centered such that the results represented students’ average responses for each of these variables. Gender was dummy-coded such that “1” represented men and “0” represented women. Because the initial study was designed to test an intervention (Young & Neighbors, 2019), analyses were performed controlling for intervention condition but results did not change. Additionally, due to the high level of attrition in the sample, attrition was tested as a covariate in the longitudinal models. The longitudinal results did not change when controlling for attrition. Thus, the more parsimonious models (not including intervention condition or attrition as covariates) are presented below.

Table 2.

Negative Binomial Regression Results for Cross-sectional Models

Outcome Predictor b SE b Z P eB eB 95% CI
T1 Drinks per week Intercept 2.166 .049 44.63 .000 8.723 −1.523– −1.015
Gender .187 .089 .21 .834 1.206 −.157–.194
Shyness −.158 .059 −2.67 .007 .854 −.273– −.042
Drinking Norms .040 .005 7.46 .000 1.041 .029–.051
Shyness X Norms .002 .006 0.38 .705 1.002 −.009–.139
T1 Alcohol-related problems Intercept 1.785 .091 19.68 .000 5.960 1.607–1.962
T1 Drinks per week .083 .013 6.36 .000 1.087 .057–.109
Gender .091 .167 .54 .586 1.095 −.236 –.417
Shyness .241 .119 2.02 .043 1.273 .007 –.476
Drinking Norms −.017 .011 −1.52 .128 .983 −.039 –.004
Shyness X Norms .030 .015 1.98 .048 1.030 .001–.060
Open in a new tab

Note. eB are exponentiated coefficients, which are interpretable as rate ratios; Male = 1; Female = 0; T1 = baseline.

Table 3.

Negative Binomial Regression Results For Longitudinal Models

Outcome Predictor b SE b Z P eB eB 95% CI
T2 Drinks per week Intercept 1.639 .088 18.58 .000 5.150 4.333–6.122
Gender −.060 .169 −.35 .723 .942 .676–1.312
T1 Drinks per week .063 .012 5.02 .000 1.065 1.039–1.091
Shyness −.060 .099 −.61 .544 .942 .775–1.143
Drinking Norms .009 .012 .73 .463 1.009 .985–1.033
Shyness X Norms .035 .014 2.61 .009 1.036 1.008–1.064
T2 Alcohol-related problems Intercept 1.269 .144 8.79 .000 3.556 2.679 – 4.718
T1 Problems .058 .017 3.31 .001 1.059 1.024 –1.096
T1 Drinks per week .025 .022 1.11 .268 1.025 .981 – 1.071
Gender −.056 .291 −.19 .848 .946 .535 – 1.672
Shyness .140 .194 .72 .472 1.150 .786 – 1.683
Drinking Norms .017 .018 .97 .333 1.017 .983 – 1.053
Shyness X Norms .007 .025 .29 .772 1.007 .959– 1.057
Open in a new tab

Note. eB are exponentiated coefficients, which are interpretable as rate ratios; Male = 1; Female = 0; T1 = baseline; T2 = 1-month follow-up.

In our cross-sectional model with baseline drinking as the outcome, shyness was negatively associated with drinking (b= −.16, IRR =.85, p = .007), such that for every one unit increase in shyness was associated with 15% less drinking, and norms were positively associated with drinking (b= .04, IRR =1.04, p < .001), such that every one-unit increase in norms resulted in 4% more drinking. The interaction between shyness and norms predicting baseline drinking was not significant (b= .01, IRR =1.00, p = .705). When alcohol-related problems at baseline was the outcome, baseline drinking (b= .08, IRR =1.09, p < .001) and shyness (b= .024, IRR =1.27, p < .001) were both positively associated with problems such that for every one unit increase in drinking resulted in 9% more alcohol-related problems and every one unit increase in shyness was associated with 27% more alcohol-related problems. Additionally, the interaction between shyness and norms with baseline problems as the outcome was significant (b= .03, IRR =1.03, p = .048). Simple slopes analyses revealed a negative association between drinking norms and alcohol-related problems for individuals who are lower in shyness (see Figure 1), such that individuals low in shyness with high perceived drinking norms report fewer alcohol-related problems (b= −.04, IRR = .959, p = .003). Results of these models are displayed in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Negative binomial moderation analysis revealed that shyness was a moderator of the association between perceived drinking norms and alcohol-related problems at baseline

Note. IRR = Incidence rate ratio; * p < .05

Next we examined these associations longitudinally (see Table 3). Although the direction of the beta coefficients were in the expected directions, the main effects of shyness (b= −.06, IRR =.94, p =.544),perceived drinking norms (b=.01, IRR=1.00, p=.463),and gender (b= −.06, IRR= .94, p=.723) were all non-significant in predicting drinking at follow-up. Only baseline drinking (b=.06, IRR =1.06, p <.001) emerged as a significant predictor of drinking at follow-up such that every one-unit increase in baseline drinking represented a 6% increase in drinking at follow-up. As expected, shyness was a significant moderator of the positive link between perceived drinking norms and drinks per week, such that this association was stronger among participants who indicated that they were higher in shyness (b=.04, IRR=1.03, p <.01). A test of the simple slopes revealed that the line representing higher levels of shyness was found to be significantly different from zero (See Figure 2). Thus, it appears that students who are higher in shyness who also perceive others to drink more, tend to drink more at follow-up.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Negative binomial moderation analysis revealed that shyness was a moderator of the association between perceived drinking norms and drinking at one-month follow-up.

Note. IRR = Incidence rate ratio; * p < .05

Our second negative binomial regression model longitudinally included the main effects for shyness (baseline), perceived drinking norms (baseline), and the interaction term of shyness (baseline) X perceived drinking norms (baseline) in predicting alcohol-related problems at follow-up. In addition to baseline drinking and gender, we controlled for baseline alcohol-related problems (which was also mean centered). Similar to our first model, only alcohol-related problems at baseline emerged as a significant predictor of alcohol-related problems at follow-up (b=.06, IRR =1.06, p <.001), such that every-one unit increase in problems at baseline represented a 6% increase in problems at follow-up. Although all predictors were in the expected directions, the main effects for shyness (b=.14, IRR =1.14, p =.472) and perceived drinking norms (b=.02, IRR=1.02, p=.333) were not significant predictors of alcohol-related problems at follow-up. Likewise, gender (b= −.06, IRR= .94, p=.848) and baseline drinking (b=.02, IRR=1.02, p=.268) were also not significant predictors. Finally, the interaction between shyness (baseline) X perceived drinking norms (baseline) was not significant (b=.01, IRR=1.01, p=.772).

4. Discussion

This investigation is the first to our knowledge that explores longitudinal associations between drinking norms, shyness, and alcohol use. These findings extend our understanding of how shyness relates to alcohol use and in particular suggest that individuals who are very shy might be more sensitive to social cues in their drinking environment such as norms, and may alter their alcohol use behavior accordingly to fit their perceptions of normative drinking behavior. Initial regression analyses found no main effects of shyness on follow-up alcohol use and alcohol-related problems. As predicted, our primary analyses found that shyness moderated associations between drinks norms and alcohol-related problems at baseline and moderated associations between drinking norms and follow-up alcohol use. However, shyness did not moderate associations between drinking norms and alcohol use at baseline or between drinking norms and alcohol-related problems at one-month follow-up.

Findings from the current study add to our growing knowledge of how shyness relates to alcohol use behavior. Much of the current literature has focused on social anxiety rather than shyness due to its more severe nature, however, shyness is more common than social anxiety. Thus, research examining specific relationships between shyness and alcohol use behavior may provide insight into the drinking behavior of a broader segment of the population. Echoing the mixed findings of past work examining associations between shyness and drinking and extending this beyond the cross-sectional level, the current study did not find main effects of baseline shyness on follow-up alcohol use and alcohol-related problems. This lack of association could be due to variability within shy behavior such that some shy individuals avoid situations where drinking occurs, while other shy individuals drink to fit in when they find themselves in social situations. This would fit with prior work that found the shy individuals tend to conflate social and coping drinking motives and that these drinking motives mediate associations between shyness and alcohol use and alcohol-related problems (Young et al., 2015). More research is needed to better understand how shyness relates to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among college students.

Results of the cross-sectional moderation analyses revealed that individuals lower in shyness showed a negative association between drinking norms and alcohol-related problems. In other words, individuals who are on the low end of the shyness spectrum and report high perceived drinking norms tended to report experiencing few alcohol-related problems. The simple slopes for individuals at medium and high levels of shyness were not significant. This finding might provide insight into the mixed findings regarding shyness and alcohol use and consequences in the literature. Individuals on the lower end of the shyness continuum may still have inflated perceived norms for drinking due to their immersion in social environments where drinking is likely to occur at higher rates. Due to their experience with drinking environments they may have more well-developed schemas for drinking that may include tolerance and use of protective behavioral strategies. Accordingly, they may frequent drinking environments more than very shy individuals and it is possible that their experience and immersion in the drinking environment results in fewer consequences. Future studies should investigate whether less shy individuals utilize more protective behavioral strategies when drinking.

Results of longitudinal moderation analysis found that individuals who are more shy showed greater concordance between their drinking norms and own alcohol use at follow-up. This finding suggests that individuals who are shy may be more susceptible to normative social influences, perhaps in part because they desire to fit in and avoid social rejection from others (Miller, 1995). One way shy individuals, and shy college students in particular, may attempt to fit in within the college environment is through observing others’ drinking behavior and imitating them by drinking similarly. Shy individuals may therefore overestimate peer drinking norms and have prototypical ideas about social drinkers as popular and likeable (Young et al., 2016) and thus want to be like them by imitating their drinking behavior. Conversely, less shy individuals might be less affected by perceptions of others’ drinking as they may feel better equipped to interact with others in social situations. Despite significant findings examining shyness as a moderator of drinking norms and alcohol use, we did not find evidence that shyness moderated longitudinal associations between norms and alcohol-related problems. These null results could be due to the difference in norms for drinking that focus on quantity and frequency of alcohol use and the experience of alcohol-related problems.

Perceived descriptive norms have often been targeted in brief interventions to reduce problem drinking among college students. Several studies have found significant reductions in drinking following a personalized normative feedback intervention (e.g., Lewis & Neighbors, 2007; Neighbors, Larimer, & Lewis, 2004; Neighbors, Dillard, Lewis, Bergstrom, & Neil, 2006; Walters, Vader, & Harris, 2007), but others have not found such reductions in drinking (e.g., Moreira, Oskrochi, & Foxcroft, 2012; Young & Neighbors, 2019). Therefore, research that can provide insight into factors that moderate associations between norms and alcohol use is particularly important. Such work can inform examinations of potential moderators of intervention efficacy to better understand for whom specific interventions such as personalized normative feedback are best suited and for whom such interventions are not effective. This work would allow for better targeting of intervention efforts based on personal characteristics such as shyness.

4.1. Limitations and Future Directions

This study was not without limitations. One limitation is that participants were comprised of college students from the psychology subject pool, a majority of whom (70%) were female. Thus, findings may not generalize to other samples. Additionally, despite offering gift cards for completion of the follow-up survey, there was notable attrition from the baseline assessment to one-month follow-up. It is also worth noting that participants who reported more alcohol-related problems at baseline were more likely to drop out of the study. Thus, findings might not be representative of problematic college drinking. Like many studies of alcohol use in the college population, the measures were all self-reports. Finally, the time course explored in this study from baseline to follow-up was relatively short (1-month). Thus, future studies may wish to examine this relationship over a more extended time period than the current study.

4.2. Conclusions

Findings from the current study add to the growing literature on factors that moderate associations between drinking norms and drinking behaviors and aid in our understanding of shyness and how it relates to drinking behavior. These results echo previous work (Miller, 1995) that suggests that individuals who are shy may be more susceptible to social influence. This is notable as previous research has suggested that 40–50% of the population experience shyness (Chavira et al., 2002). Future work should continue to explore relationships among shyness and drinking and may also evaluate shyness as a potential moderator of norms-based intervention efficacy.

Highlights.

  • Shy individuals focus on how others perceive them and are sensitive to social cues.

  • Shyness might make individuals more susceptible to social influences such as norms.

  • Associations between norms and drinking were strongest among shy individuals.

  • Shy individuals who perceive that others drink more heavily, drink more themselves.

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this publication was conducted as part of the first author’s dissertation project and was supported by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grants R01AA023495 and R00AA02539403. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Agostinelli G, Brown JM, & Miller WR (1995). Effects of normative feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25(1), 31–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry AE, Whiteman S, Piazza-Gardner AK, & Jensen AC (2013). Gender differences in the associations among body mass index, weight loss, exercise, and drinking among college students. J Am Coll Health, 61(7), 407–413. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2013.823973 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baer JS (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, (14), 40–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baer JS, Stacy A, & Larimer ME (1991). Biases in the perception of drinking norms among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 580–586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernstein MH, Stein LAR, Neighbors C, Suffoletto B, Carey KB, Ferszt G, … Wood MD (2018). A text message intervention to reduce 21st birthday alcohol consumption: Evaluation of a two-group randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 32(2), 149–161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Booth R, Bartlett D, & Bohnsack J (1992). An examination of the relationship between happiness, loneliness, and shyness in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 33(2), 157–162. [Google Scholar]
  7. Borsari B, & Carey KB (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(4), 391–424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyle HK, Merrill JE, & Carey KB (2020). Location-specific social norms and personal approval of alcohol use are associated with drinking behaviors in college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruch MA, Heimberg RG, Harvey C, McCann M, Mahone M, & Slavkin SL (1992). Shyness, alcohol expectancies, and alcohol use: Discovery of a suppressor effect. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(2), 137–149. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bruch MA, Rivet KM, Heimberg RG, & Levin MA (1997). Shyness, alcohol expectancies, and drinking behavior: Replication and extension of a suppressor effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(2), 193–200. [Google Scholar]
  11. Buckner JD, Eggleston AM, & Schmidt NB (2006). Social anxiety and problematic alcohol consumption: The mediating role of drinking motives and situations. Behavior Therapy, 37(4), 381–391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buckner JD, Neighbors C, Walukevich-Dienst K, & Young CM (2019). Online personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce event-specific drinking during Mardi Gras. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(5), 466–473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carducci BJ, Golant SK, & Kaiser L (1999). Shyness: A bold new approach: The latest scientific findings, plus practical steps for finding your comfort zone. HarperCollins Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carey KB, Borsari B, Carey MP, & Maisto SA (2006). Patterns and importance of self-other differences in college drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(4), 385–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Carlyle M, Carter E, Hughes P, McGahey S, Marsh B, Lawn W, … & Morgan C, (2019). Shyness, alcohol use disorders and “hangxiety”: A naturalistic study of social drinkers. Personality and Individual Differences., 139, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  16. Carrigan MH, & Randall CL (2003). Self-medication in social phobia: A review of the alcohol literature. Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 269–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chavira DA, Stein MB, & Malcarne VL (2002). Scrutinizing the relationship between shyness and social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16(6), 585–598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheek JM (1983). The revised Cheek and Buss shyness scale. Unpublished manuscript, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheek JM, & Buss AH (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330–339. [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins RL, Parks GA, & Marlatt GA (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(2), 189–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Crozier R (1979). Shyness as anxious self-preoccupation. Psychological Reports, 44(3), 959–962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Crum RM, & Pratt LA (2001). Risk of heavy drinking and alcohol use disorders in social phobia: a prospective analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(10), 1693–1700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Dimeff LA, & McNeely M (2001). Computer-enhanced primary care practitioner advice for high-risk college drinkers in a student primary health-care setting. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7(1), 82–100. [Google Scholar]
  24. Doumas DM, McKinley LL, & Book P (2009). Evaluation of two Web-based alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(1), 65–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Dumas TM, Davis JP, & Neighbors C (2019). How much does your peer group really drink? Examining the relative impact of overestimation, actual group drinking and perceived campus norms on university students’ heavy alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 90, 409–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Garnett C, Crane D, West R, Michie S, Brown J, & Winstock A (2015). Normative misperceptions about alcohol use in the general population of drinkers: A cross-sectional survey. Addictive Behaviors, 42, 203–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ghee AC, & Johnson CS (2008). Emotional intelligence: A moderator of perceived alcohol peer norms and alcohol use. Journal of Drug Education, 38(1), 71–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gilles DM, Turk CL, & Fresco DM (2006). Social anxiety, alcohol expectancies, and self-efficacy as predictors of heavy drinking in college students. Addictive Behaviors, 31(3), 388–398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Halim A, Hasking P, & Allen F (2012). The role of social drinking motives in the relationship between social norms and alcohol consumption. Addictive Behaviors, 37(12), 1335–1341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ham LS, & Hope DA (2005). Incorporating social anxiety into a model of college student problematic drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 30(1), 127–150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ham LS, & Hope DA (2006). Incorporating social anxiety into a model of college problem drinking: Replication and extension. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20(3), 348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Heiser NA, Turner SM, & Beidel DC (2003). Shyness: Relationship to social phobia and other psychiatric disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(2), 209–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Henderson L, Gilbert P, & Zimbardo P (2014). Shyness, social anxiety, and social phobia. In Social Anxiety (pp. 95–115). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Henderson L, & Zimbardo PG (2001). Shyness as a clinical condition: The Stanford model. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hilbe JM (2011). Negative Binomial Regression (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hingson RW, Zha W, & Weitzman ER (2009). Magnitude of and trends in alcohol-related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24, 1998–2005. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Supplement(16), 12–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter M, & Wechsler H (2005). Magnitude of alcohol related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 259–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jones WH, Briggs SR, & Smith TG (1986). Shyness: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kidorf M, & Lang AR (1999). Effects of social anxiety and alcohol expectancies on stress induced drinking. Psychology of Addictive behaviors, 13(2), 134–142. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kivlahan DR, Marlatt GA, Fromme K, Coppel DB, & Williams E (1990). Secondary prevention with college drinkers: Evaluation of an alcohol skills training program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58(6), 805–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kushner MG, Sher KJ, & Beitman BD (1990). The relation between alcohol problems and the anxiety disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, & Neighbors C (2008). Self-consciousness moderates the relationship between perceived norms and drinking in college students. AddictiveBehaviors, 33(12), 1529–1539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee CM, Geisner IM, Lewis MA, Neighbors C, & Larimer ME (2007). Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms in college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 714–721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewis MA, & Neighbors C (2004). Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(4), 334–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewis MA & Neighbors C (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health, 54, 213–218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lewis MA, & Neighbors C (2007). Optimizing personalized normative feedback: The use of gender-specific referents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 228–237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lewis MA, Neighbors C, Lee CM, & Oster-Aaland L (2008). 21st birthday celebratory drinking: Evaluation of a personalized normative feedback card intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(2), 176–185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lewis BA, & O’Neill HK (2000). Alcohol expectancies and social deficits relating to problem drinking among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 25(2), 295–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Litt DM, Lewis MA, Stahlbrandt H, Firth P, & Neighbors C (2012). Social comparison as a moderator of the association between perceived norms and alcohol use and negative consequences among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(6), 961–967. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Maroldo GK (1981). Shyness and loneliness among college men and women. Psychological Reports, 48(3), 885–886. [Google Scholar]
  51. Marsh B, Carlyle M, Carter E, Hughes P, McGahey S, Lawn W, … & Morgan CJ (2019). Shyness, alcohol use disorders and ‘hangxiety’: A naturalistic study of social drinkers. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  52. Martens MP, Page JC, Mowry ES, Damann KM, Taylor KK, & Cimini MD (2006). Differences between actual and perceived student norms: An examination of alcohol use, drug use, and sexual behavior. Journal of American College Health, 54(5), 295–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. McCabe S, Morales M, Cranford J, Delva J, McPherson M, & Boyd C (2007). Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Drug Use and Abuse Among College Students. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 6, 75–95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. McCabe SE (2002). Gender differences in collegiate risk factors for heavy episodic drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(1), 49–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Miller RS (1995). On the nature of embarrassabllity: Shyness, social evaluation, and social skill. Journal of Personality, 63(2), 315–339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Miller DT, & Prentice DA (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In Higgins E, Kruglanski AW (Eds.) , Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 799–829). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Moreira MT, Oskrochi R, & Foxcroft DR (2012). Personalised normative feedback for preventing alcohol misuse in university students: Solomon three-group randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 7(9), e44120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Neighbors C, Dillard AJ, Lewis MA, Bergstrom RL, & Neil TA (2006). Normative misperceptions and temporal precedence of perceived norms and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(2), 290–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Neighbors C, Fossos N, Woods BA, Fabiano P, Sledge M, & Frost D (2007). Social anxiety as a moderator of the relationship between perceived norms and drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(1), 91–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Neighbors C, LaBrie JW, Hummer JF, Lewis MA, Lee CM, Desai S, … & Larimer ME (2010). Group identification as a moderator of the relationship between perceived social norms and alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(3), 522–528. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Neighbors C, Larimer ME, & Lewis MA (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computer delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 434–447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Neighbors C, Lee CM, Lewis MA, Fossos N, & Larimer ME (2007). Are social norms the best predictor of outcomes among heavy-drinking college students?. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(4), 556–565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Atkins DC, Jensen MM, Walter T, Fossos N, & Larimer ME (2010). Efficacy of Web-based personalized normative feedback: A two-year randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 898–911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Nelson LJ, Padilla-Walker LM, Badger S, Barry CM, Carroll JS, & Madsen SD (2008). Associations between shyness and internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, and relationships during emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(5), 605–615. [Google Scholar]
  65. Palfai TP, Zisserson R, & Saitz R (2011). Using personalized feedback to reduce alcohol use among hazardous drinking college students: The moderating effect of alcohol-related negative consequences. Addictive behaviors, 36(5), 539–542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Perkins H (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, (14), 164–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Perkins HW, & Berkowitz AD (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9–10), 961–976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Perkins HW, Haines MP, & Rice RM (2005). Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms, and student alcohol misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 6(4), 470–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Perkins HW, Meilman PW, Leichliter JS, Cashin JS, & Presley CA (1999). Misperceptions of the norms for the frequency of alcohol and other drug use on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 47, 253–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Perkins HW, & Wechsler H (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(4), 961–974. [Google Scholar]
  71. Poole KL, Van Lieshout RJ, & Schmidt LA (2017). Exploring relations between shyness and social anxiety disorder: The role of sociability. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ridout B, & Campbell A (2014). Using Facebook to deliver a social norm intervention to reduce problem drinking at university. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33(6), 667–673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Schmidt LA, & Fox NA (1995). Individual differences in young adults’ shyness and sociability: Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 455–462. [Google Scholar]
  74. Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Miech RA & Patrick ME (2019). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2018: Volume II, College students and adults ages 19–60. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Available at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#monographs [Google Scholar]
  75. StataCorp. (2017). StataCorp. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC. [Google Scholar]
  76. Stewart SH, Morris E, Mellings T, & Komar J (2006). Relations of social anxiety variables to drinking motives, drinking quantity and frequency, and alcohol-related problems in undergraduates. Journal of Mental Health, 15(6), 671–682. [Google Scholar]
  77. Traub GS (1983). Correlations of shyness with depression, anxiety, and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 52(3), 849–850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Walters ST, Vader AM, & Harris TR (2007). A controlled trial of web-based feedback for heavy drinking college students. Prevention Science, 8(1), 83–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. White HR, & Labouvie EW (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50(1), 30–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Young CM, Dibello AM, Traylor ZK, Zvolensky MJ, & Neighbors C (2015). A longitudinal examination of the associations between shyness, drinking motives, alcohol use, and alcohol-related problems. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(9), 1749–1755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Young CM, & Neighbors C (2019). Incorporating writing into a personalized normative feedback intervention to reduce problem drinking among college students. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43(5), 916–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES