Linking Shyness With Social and School Adjustment in Early Childhood: The Moderating Role of Inhibitory Control

Shyness and prosocial tendencies during adolescence: Prospective influence of two types of self-regulation.

“…Specifically, as predicted, there was a negative association between shyness and prosociality in the context of relatively high levels of emotion self-regulation, and a positive association between shyness and prosociality in the context of relatively low levels of nonemotion self-regulation. In the case of the former relation, these results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that relatively high levels of self-regulation might reflect overcontrolled processes that impede positive socioemotional outcomes for shy children (Hassan et al, 2020;Henderson, 2010;McDermott et al, 2009;Sette et al, 2018;Thorell et al, 2004;White et al, 2011). In the case of the latter relation, these results also highlight the importance in studying heterogeneity in both shyness and the adaptiveness of different types of selfregulation (i.e., emotional and nonemotional) during key developmental periods.…”

“…Sample size was determined by conducting a power analysis in G*Power for linear regression (Faul et al, 2007). We used the average effect size ( f 2 = .28) from two previous studies that examined the moderating role of self-regulation in the relation between shyness and socioemotional outcomes (i.e., Henderson, 2010; Sette et al, 2018). This power analysis revealed that for our objective of examining the interaction of shyness and self-regulation in predicting social behavior, we would require a minimum sample size of 38 participants to detect a large effect size (Power = .80, α = .05).…”

“…We also predicted that each type of self-regulation would emerge as a significant moderator in the relation between shyness and prosocial tendencies. Although self-regulation generally has been positively associated with prosociality (Diener & Kim, 2004; Eisenberg et al, 1995, 1997, 2007), we predicted that shyness would only be negatively associated with prosocial tendencies in the context of relatively higher levels of emotion and nonemotion self-regulation, because of the emerging literature suggesting that shyness is positively associated with overcontrol and negative socioemotional outcomes in the context of relatively higher levels of self-regulation (Hassan et al, 2020; Henderson, 2010; McDermott et al, 2009; Sette et al, 2018; Thorell et al, 2004; White et al, 2011).…”

“…The second goal was to explore whether each type of self-regulation differentially moderated the association between shyness and prosocial tendencies prospectively during this same time period. We controlled for sex and age in all analyses because girls have been found to be more prosocial than boys, and there are developmental differences in prosociality (Bryant, 1982; Carlo et al, 2003; Menesini, 1997; Sebanc, 2003; Sette et al, 2018).…”

“…In support of the risk potentiation model of control, one study found that shyness was related to lower teacher-reported prosocial behavior when preschoolers exhibited higher levels of inhibitory control, but positively associated with regulated school behaviors when children displayed lower levels of inhibitory control (Sette et al, 2018). Another study examining the moderating role of individual differences in children’s self-regulation (i.e., inhibitory control and attentional shifting) in the relation between shyness and social behavior in multiple social contexts found that, in children with relatively high attentional shifting, shyness was negatively associated with social support seeking during a frustration task and social engagement observed during a stranger approach task (Hassan et al, 2020).…”