Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 83, No. 4, 1009 1024 0022-3514/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.1009

Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness

Jennifer S. Beer
University of California, Berkeley

Three studies examined implicit self-theories in relation to shy peoples goals, responses, and conse-
quences within social situations. Shy incremental theorists were more likely than shy entity theorists to
view social situations as a learning opportunity and to approach social settings (Study 1). Shy incremental
theorists were less likely to use strategies aimed at avoiding social interaction (Studies 2 and 3) and
suffered fewer negative consequences of their shyness (Study 3). These findings generalized across both
hypothetical and actual social situations as well as both self-reports and observer reports and could not
be attributed to individual differences in level of shyness. Together, these studies indicate that implicit
self-theories of shyness are important for understanding individual differences among shy people and
suggest new avenues for implicit self-theories research.

Suppose you had to predict whether a particular person would
strike up a conversation with a complete stranger. Would knowing
that persons level of shyness be enough? Or would you want to
know how much control that person believed he or she had over
his or her feelings of shyness? Most likely the best prediction
would come from knowing both. Whereas personal characteristics
are often powerful predictors of behavior, research suggests that
individuals perceptions of the malleability of their personal char-
acteristics are also important for shaping behavior. For example,
research has highlighted the importance of beliefs about the mal-
leability of intelligence in studies of success in the face of aca-
demic challenge. Individuals who believe they can do nothing to
change their level of intelligence differ in their goals and responses
to challenging academic situations in comparison with individuals
who believe they can change their level of intelligence. These
effects are independent of ability level (Butler, 2000; Dweck,
Chiu, & Hong, 1995a; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Goetz & Dweck,
1980; Rhodewalt, 1994).
If beliefs about the malleability of personal characteristics are
useful for understanding motivational patterns in challenging ac-
ademic situations, then they may also be useful in challenging
social situations. For example, shy people tend to be particularly
challenged by the prospect of social interaction. Although much of
shyness research emphasizes the motivation of shy people to avoid
the challenge of social interaction, individual differences in shy-
ness may not tell the whole story. Research has shown that people
who report similar levels of shyness often respond to social chal-
lenge very differently. Therefore, individuals perceived control
over their shyness may also be important in understanding their
social motivation and behavior. Individuals who believe they can
Preparation of this article was supported by a graduate research fellow-
ship from the National Science Foundation. Many thanks go to Rick
Robins, Delroy Paulhus, and Oliver John and his lab group for helpful
comments on drafts of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jennifer S.
Beer, Department of Psychology, University of California, 3210 Tolman
Hall, Berkeley, California 94720-1650. E-mail: jbeer@socrates.berkeley
.edu
do nothing about their intense feelings of shyness may have
different goals and responses in social interactions than do indi-
viduals who believe their shyness can change over time. The
present research explores the usefulness of studying implicit self-
theories of shyness for understanding individual differences
among shy peoples response to social challenge.
Implicit Self-Theories: The Case of Intelligence
Previous research supports the hypothesis that understanding
perceived control over personal characteristics may be just as
important as understanding individual differences in personal char-
acteristics. For example, implicit beliefs about the malleability of
intelligence shape the way people interpret and react to achieve-
ment situations (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a, 1995b; Dweck
& Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, in press). Two implicit self-
theories of intelligence have been discussed. Entity theorists be-
lieve their intelligence is fixed and cannot change, whereas incre-
mental theorists believe their intelligence is malleable. Research
has shown that entity and incremental theorists tend to have
different goals in academic contexts (e.g., Dweck & Leggett,
1988). Entity theorists focus on their academic performance be-
cause of their belief that their performance documents their per-
manent intelligence level. Individuals with performance goals aim
to maximize positive judgments of their performance and mini-
mize negative judgments. In contrast, incremental theorists focus
on learning in academic contexts because of their belief that they
can increase their intelligence. Individuals with learning goals aim
to achieve self-improvement.
Entity and incremental theorists also differ in their responses to
failure in achievement contexts (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Entity
theorists, particularly those who have low self-confidence, respond
to failure with a helpless response pattern. They purposely avoid
challenge or perform increasingly poorly once obstacles are en-
countered. In contrast, incremental theorists, regardless of self-
confidence, respond to failure with a mastery-oriented response
pattern. Incremental theorists seek challenging tasks and persist in
the face of failure (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980).
In summary, Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck et al., 1995a,
1995b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) proposed that individuals hold

1009
1010 BEER
either entity or incremental implicit self-theories of intelligence.
Each implicit self-theory is associated with a unique motivational
pattern and predicts goals and responses in the face of failure.
Entity theorists focus on the performance aspects of situations and
tend to avoid challenge. This is particularly true for those entity
theorists with low self-confidence. In contrast, regardless of self-
confidence, incremental theorists focus on learning from situations
and tend to approach challenge. Finally, entity theorists tend to
perform more poorly because they give up once obstacles arise,
whereas incremental theorists try harder in the face of challenge.
Implicit Self-Theories: The Case of Shyness
If implicit self-theories account for motivational patterns in
response to academic challenge, might they also relate to responses
to social challenge? Theoretical parallels can be drawn between
achievement contexts and social contexts. Both situations are ego
involving and require individuals to publicly display ability (either
intellectual or social), which is then subject to the evaluation of
others. Therefore, implicit self-theories of interpersonal character-
istics may be useful for understanding social motivation and
behavior.
Relatively little research has examined the relation between
implicit self-theories and response to social challenge (but see
Erdley, Cain, Loomis, Dumas-Hines, & Dweck, 1997; Goetz &
Dweck, 1980). For example, Erdley et al. (1997) examined entity
and incremental beliefs about personality. In one study, childrens
implicit theories of personality predicted their preference for per-
formance goals. Children with entity theories of personality pre-
ferred gaining the approval of others more than did children with
incremental theories of personality. In another study, children
participated in a pen pal club tryout. Children were randomly
assigned to one of two conditions. In the performance goal con-
dition, the evaluative nature of the tryout process was emphasized.
In the learning goal condition, the learning potential in the tryout
process was emphasized. All children were told that their first
tryout was not acceptable and that they would have to try again.
During the second tryout, children in the performance goal con-
dition tended to avoid the task by giving up and engaging in
self-defeating behaviors. In contrast, children in the learning goal
condition persisted in trying to become part of the pen pal club.
Taken together, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories
predict goals and goals predict response to social challenge.
It is important to note that this research has focused on implicit
self-theories of a very broad construct: personality. Dweck et al.
(1995a) have found that implicit self-theories are domain specific.
In other words, an individual may have an entity theory about his
or her intelligence and an incremental theory about his or her
personality. Both intelligence and personality have been theorized
to have multiple subcomponents, and it is possible that individuals
might have different implicit self-theories about each subcompo-
nent. Given this domain specificity, it is perhaps most relevant to
examine implicit self-theories about specific personality traits that
put people at risk for social failure.
One personality trait that is associated with social failure is
shyness. Generally, shyness is conceptualized as an affective
behavioral syndrome characterized by social anxiety and interper-
sonal inhibition that results from the prospect or presence of
interpersonal evaluation (Leary, 1986, p. 30). From this perspec-
tive, shy individuals are particularly motivated to create a good
impression on others yet are also particularly doubtful of their
ability to achieve that goal (Leary & Buckley, 2000). Shyness has
also been viewed as a syndrome consisting of behavioral, physi-
ological, and cognitiveaffective components (e.g., Cheek & Mel-
chior, 1990; Zimbardo, 1977/1990). Shy individuals exhibit avoid-
ance behaviors such as inhibited behavior, avoidance of eye
contact, reluctance to talk, and avoidance of other people (e.g.,
Cheek & Buss, 1981). Physiological symptoms of shyness may
include racing pulse, pounding heart, and blushing at the prospect
of social interaction. Shy individuals are also prone to chronic
negative self-appraisals, intense concerns about evaluations of
others, and aversion toward entering into social interaction as well
as feelings of anxiety and embarrassment (e.g., Cheek & Melchior,
1990; Pilkonis, 1977a, 1977b; Schlenker & Leary, 1982; Zim-
bardo, 1977/1990). A host of negative social consequences have
also been associated with shyness. The social consequences of
shyness may be best described as involving both private (internal)
and public (external) aspects (e.g., Jones & Carpenter, 1986;
Paulhus & Trapnell, 1998). For example, shy individuals have
been shown to experience greater internal feelings of anxiety,
loneliness, and low self-esteem. Public consequences of shyness
include negative evaluations by others (i.e., negative perceptions
of intelligence, social skills, friendliness, poise, and talent) and
fewer dating experiences and friendships (e.g., Jones & Briggs,
1984; Jones & Carpenter, 1986; Meleshko & Alden, 1993; Paulhus
& Morgan, 1997).
In contrast, research has shown that not all shy people are
necessarily avoidant of social situations, nor are they necessarily
social failures (e.g., Arkin, Lake, & Baumgardner, 1986; Cheek &
Melchior, 1990; Gough & Thorne, 1986; Zimbardo, 1977/1990).
For example, some shy individuals consider themselves shy but are
perceived as socially adept by others (Zimbardo, 1977/1990).
Other research suggests that some shy individuals participate in
social activity when they are certain their performance will be
successful (Arkin et al., 1986). It has been difficult to understand
these individual differences among shy people because they are
not explained by different levels of shyness. In other words,
individual differences in shyness have not sufficiently explained
individual differences among shy peoples social motivation and
behavior.
How are researchers to explain individual differences among
shy peoples social motivation and behavior? The concept of
implicit self-theories and their associated motivational patterns
might provide a useful overarching framework for integrating
previous research on the individual differences among shy people.
Just as there are individual differences in beliefs about ability in
the academic domain, it may be that there are individual differ-
ences in how shy people perceive their ability to become less shy.
These differences in perceived control over feelings of shyness
may have important implications for the goals and response pat-
terns shy people adopt in the face of social challenge. Conse-
quently, different implicit self-theories and their associated moti-
vational patterns may explain why shy people differ from one
another in their social behavior. From this perspective, shy indi-
viduals with entity views (shy entity theorists) should endorse
performance goals in social situations. Furthermore, shy entity
theorists, particularly those with low self-confidence, should use
avoidant strategies and suffer from the public and private negative
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS
consequences of shyness. In comparison, shy individuals with
incremental views (shy incremental theorists) should endorse
learning goals in social situations. Shy incremental theorists, re-
gardless of social confidence, should be more approach oriented
and suffer from fewer of the public and private consequences of
shyness. Conceptualizing previous work in terms of implicit self-
theories of shyness and their associated social goals and social
response patterns may provide an overarching framework to syn-
thesize previous work that has explored individual differences
among shy people.
Previous research has shown that shy individuals differ in their
perceptions of their shyness and that these perceptions have im-
plications for their social behavior. Wurf (1989) found that indi-
viduals who downplay the inevitability of their shyness differed
from individuals who felt their shyness was inevitable. Shyness-
downplaying individuals tended to seek specific feedback to im-
prove their social interactions. This feedback was sought even as
their social anxiety increased. In contrast, shyness-emphasizing
individuals sought to confirm their negative self-views as their
social anxiety increased. From an implicit self-theories perspec-
tive, it may be that shyness-downplaying and shyness-emphasizing
individuals differ in their implicit beliefs about the malleability of
their shyness and their social goals. The very reason that some shy
individuals can downplay the importance of their shyness may be
because they implicitly believe they can change their level of
shyness. In this case, shyness-downplaying individuals motiva-
tion for self-improvement may not have been that they discounted
their shyness but rather that their belief that their shyness could
change made improvement a possibility. In contrast, the very
reason that other shy individuals emphasize the importance of their
feelings of shyness may be that they implicitly believe they can do
nothing to change their level of shyness. Shyness-emphasizing
individuals focus on their failings may not have been because
their feelings of shyness were more central to their identity but
rather because their belief that their shyness could not change
made failing the only option.
Other research has shown that shy people differ in their tenden-
cies to avoid or approach social challenge. Whereas some shy
people adopt an avoidant strategy for coping with their shyness,
other shy people actively approach social situations. For example,
some shy individuals may withdraw from social situations despite
intense feelings of loneliness (Snyder & Smith, 1986). These
individuals may avoid social situations completely or, once stuck
in a social setting, remain quiet and avoid eye contact. Other shy
individuals assign themselves the role of an interviewer. By asking
questions of other people, these shy individuals are able to partic-
ipate in social interaction while remaining out of the spotlight.
These shy individuals care more about avoiding a negative eval-
uation by others than about making a good impression (Arkin et
al., 1986). In contrast, other shy individuals use strategies to make
social environments more manageable and less threatening. Lang-
ston and Cantor (1989) found that socially anxious individuals
adopted either avoidant or approach strategies to cope with their
anxiety in social situations. The more avoidant group had trouble
recognizing what social situations required, felt poorly about them-
selves, and rarely attempted to better their situation. In contrast, the
more approach-oriented group behaved in an outgoing manner
regardless of their feelings of anxiety. All of these findings may be
explained by individual differences in implicit self-theories of
1011
shyness. The avoidant tendencies of many shy people may arise
from beliefs that shyness is fixed. Therefore, persistence in the
face of challenge is futile. Similarly, the approach tendencies of
other shy people may arise from beliefs that shyness can change.
Therefore, challenge is approached as a chance to practice acting
less shy.
Overview of the Present Research
Three studies were conducted to examine whether implicit self-
theories and their associated goals and response styles explained
individual differences among shy peoples response to social in-
teraction. Studies 1 and 2 establish the usefulness of implicit
self-theories of shyness for understanding social motivation and
behavior among shy individuals. These two studies rely on self-
report measures and hypothetical situations to test basic hypothe-
ses about implicit self-theories of shyness derived from the re-
search on implicit self-theories of intelligence. In particular,
Study 1 tests whether shy individuals social goals and general
approachavoidance tendencies depend on their implicit self-
theories. Study 2 moves beyond general tendencies to examine
whether shy individuals specific strategies in social situations
depend on their implicit self-theories. The second study also tests
whether low social confidence puts entity theorists particularly at
risk for avoidant social strategies in comparison with incremental
theorists. A final purpose of Study 2 is to examine whether
measuring beliefs about specific traits (i.e., shyness) provides any
advantage over measuring beliefs about personality in general.
Parallel analyses of the relations between implicit self-theories and
avoidant strategies were conducted using implicit self-theories of
shyness as well as implicit self-theories of personality.
Study 3 extends the first two studies by examining implicit
self-theories of shyness in an actual social interaction and incor-
porating both self-report and observer measures. As in Study 2,
Study 3 tests whether implicit self-theories and shyness interact to
predict social strategies. Additionally, Study 3 examines whether
shy individuals public and private experiences in social situations
are dependent on their implicit self-theories.
Study 1: Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness, Social Goals,
and ApproachAvoidance Tendencies
Study 1 tests whether implicit self-theories of shyness predict
social goals and general tendencies to approach and avoid social
challenge. Three hypotheses were derived from research on im-
plicit self-theories of intelligence. First, it was hypothesized that
implicit self-theories would be important for predicting individual
differences among shy peoples social goals. Specifically, an in-
teraction between shyness and implicit self-theory of shyness
should predict preferences for (a) learning and (b) performance
goals. It was expected that shy incremental theorists would view
social situations as learning opportunities and be less concerned
with performing well. In contrast, shy entity theorists should view
social challenge as a demonstration of their poor social ability.
Therefore, they should be concerned with their social performance
but less concerned with learning in social contexts.
Second, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories would be
important for understanding individual differences among shy
peoples tendencies to approach social situations. Implicit self-
1012
theories should interact with shyness to predict approach tenden-
cies. Shy incremental theorists belief that they can master their
shyness should be associated with a preference to approach social
situations in comparison with shy entity theorists.
Third, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories would be
important for understanding individual differences among shy
peoples tendencies to avoid social situations. Implicit self-theories
should interact with shyness to predict avoidance tendencies. Shy
entity theorists belief that they are doomed to fail in social
situations should be associated with a preference to avoid social
interaction in comparison with shy incremental theorists.
Method
Participants and procedures. Participants were 202 students (134
women) in a psychology course who took part in the experiment for course
credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous: 51.3% Asian Ameri-
cans, 4.1% African Americans, 27.7% Caucasians, 8.2% Hispanics, 0.5%
Native Americans, and 8.2% other ethnicity. Participants were 20.2 years
old on average (SD ! 3.2) and ranged in age from 18 to 46 years old. The
experiment took place in 1-hr group sessions. For the first portion of the
experiment, participants filled out a series of questionnaires. Next, partic-
ipants were led to believe they would be taking part in a videotaped social
interaction task and were asked to rate their preference for two possible
task options. After the task options were rated, the participants were
debriefed, and the experiment ended.
Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed six items to
assess implicit self-theories of shyness. Three items were modified from
Erdley and Dwecks (1993) measures of implicit self-theories of intelli-
gence, and three items keyed toward the incremental orientation were
added to balance the scale (! ! .75). The six items included, I have a
certain level of shyness, and it is something that I cant do much about, I
can change how outgoing I appear in social situations, but I cant change
my true level of shyness, My shyness is something about me that I cant
change very much, I can change aspects of my shyness if I want to
(reversed), How shy I am changes as I go through life (reversed), and
My shyness is not fixed, but changes over time (reversed). Each item was
rated on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) scale. In the present
research, implicit self-theories of shyness were scored so that high scores
reflect an entity theory. Implicit self-theories of shyness were analyzed as
a continuous variable (but see Dweck et al., 1995a, for a dichotomous
approach). To encourage nonshy participants to answer the implicit self-
theories items in a meaningful manner, the instructions for this scale
included the statement, Even if you do not consider yourself a shy person,
think of the times you have felt shy when answering the following items.1
Shyness. Participants completed Cheek and Melchiors (1985) Shyness
Scale (! ! .65), which assesses three components of shyness: physiolog-
ical (e.g., racing pulse, blushing), observable (e.g., avoiding people, re-
duced eye contact), and cognitive (e.g., feelings of anxiety or embarrass-
ment). Participants rated the frequency of each of the components using a 1
(never) to 5 (always) scale. Shyness correlated .25 with the entity implicit
self-theory of shyness.
Social goals. Participants were led to believe they would take part in
a videotaped social interaction task and rated their preference for two task
options. One option reflected a learning goal and ensured participants that
they would learn some social skills applicable beyond the laboratory
setting even though they might appear awkward on the videotape. A second
option reflected a performance goal and ensured participants that they
would be paired with individuals of lesser social ability so that their social
skills would be perceived positively by others. Participants were asked to
rate their preference for each option on a 1 (not at all preferable) to 5
(extremely preferable) scale. The learning-goal task option correlated ".14
with the performance-goal task option.
BEER
Approach tendencies. Measures of both general and social approach
tendencies were composited. Approach tendencies were measured using a
standardized composite of the Behavioral Approach System Scale (BAS;
Carver & White, 1994) and the reverse-scored Social Avoidance and
Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). The BAS is a well-
validated scale that measures general approach tendencies, that is, how
likely individuals are to identify and approach rewards in their environment
(13 items; ! ! .84). An example item is, If I see a chance to get something
I want, I move on it right away. The reverse-scored SAD was included in
the composite to add a dimension of approach tendencies specific to social
situations (28 items; ! ! .96). An example item is, If the chance comes
to meet new people, I often take it. The BAS and reverse-scored SAD
correlated .50.
Avoidance tendencies. Measures of both general and social avoidance
tendencies were composited. Avoidance tendencies were measured using a
standardized composite of the Behavioral Inhibition System Scale (BIS;
Carver & White, 1994) and the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE;
Watson & Friend, 1969). The BIS is a well-validated scale that measures
general avoidance tendencies, that is, how likely individuals are to identify
and avoid threatening stimuli in their environment (7 items; ! ! .76). An
example item is, I worry about making mistakes. The FNE was included
in the composite to add a dimension of avoidance tendencies specific to
social situations (30 items; ! ! .94). An example item is, I feel very upset
when I commit some social error. The BIS and FNE correlated .68.
Results
For all variables reported in Study 1, means and standard devi-
ations are reported in Table 1, and intercorrelations are reported in
Table 2.
Learning goals. Are shy incremental theorists more likely than
shy entity theorists to prefer learning goals? Yes, shy incremental
theorists preferred the opportunity to learn how to master their
shyness in comparison with shy entity theorists. A moderated
multiple regression was conducted to examine the effect of im-
plicit self-theory and shyness on preference for the learning option
in the social interaction task. This analysis controls for main
effects of shyness and implicit self-theories before evaluating
whether shy individuals responses depend on their implicit self-
theories. As predicted, a significant interaction between implicit
self-theories and shyness was found for learning goals (" ! ".21,
p # .05). No main effects were found for shyness (" ! .01, p $
.05) or implicit self-theories (" ! .00, p $ .05).
Consistent with the approach advocated by Aiken and West
(1991), Figure 1 (left panel) portrays the predicted interaction
effect by showing the regression lines relating implicit self-
theories to learning goals separately for individuals with shyness
scores of one standard deviation above the mean (labeled high
shyness in the figure) and one standard deviation below the mean
(labeled low shyness in the figure). In all figures, the angle of
intersection between the two regression lines reflects the size of
1
Theory and research have shown that most people feel shy at one time
or another, therefore making it possible for nondispositionally shy partic-
ipants to answer the implicit self-theories questions (e.g., Leary & Buckley,
2000; Zimbardo, 1977/1990). Analyses of the data from Studies 13 show
that the means and standard deviations on the implicit self-theories mea-
sures are similar for shy and nonshy participants. Additionally, the overall
pattern of findings and the magnitude of the hypothesized effects remain
the same if participants who claim to never feel shy or almost never feel
shy are dropped from the analyses.
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 1
Variable M SD
Implicit self-theories 2.49 0.55
Shyness 3.06 0.74
Learning goals 3.66 0.99
Performance goals 3.02 0.96
Approach tendencies 3.27 0.41
Avoidance tendencies 2.90 0.56
the interaction between implicit self-theories and shyness (or so-
cial confidence) in explaining variance in the outcome variables. In
cases where there is no interaction, the two lines will be parallel.
Performance goals. Are shy entity theorists more likely to
prefer performance goals than are shy incremental theorists? No,
no effects were found. It may be that people generally prefer to
make a good impression when meeting new people regardless of
shyness or implicit self-theory. A moderated multiple regression
was conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory and
shyness on preference for the performance option in the social
interaction task. No effects were found for shyness (" ! .12, p #
.05), implicit self-theory (" ! .13, p # .05), or their interaction
term (" ! .03, p # .05).
Approach tendencies. Do shy incremental theorists report
more approach tendencies than do shy entity theorists? Yes, shy
incremental theorists were more oriented to potential rewards than
were shy entity theorists. A moderated multiple regression was
conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory and shyness
on approach tendencies. As predicted, a significant interaction
between implicit self-theories and shyness was found for approach
tendencies (" ! ".16, p # .05). A main effect was found for
shyness (" ! ".35, p # .05) and for implicit self-theories (" !
".26, p # .05). Figure 1 (right panel) portrays the predicted
interaction effect by showing the regression lines relating implicit
self-theories to approach tendencies separately for individuals with
shyness scores of one standard deviation above the mean (labeled
high shyness in the figure) and one standard deviation below the
mean (labeled low shyness in the figure).
Avoidance tendencies. Do shy entity theorists report more
avoidance tendencies than do shy incremental theorists? No, re-
gardless of implicit self-theory, shy individuals were more oriented
toward potential threats than were extraverted individuals. A mod-
erated multiple regression was conducted to examine the effect of
implicit self-theory and shyness on avoidance tendencies. In con-
trast to the hypothesis, only a main effect was found for shyness on
avoidance tendencies (" ! .64, p # .05). No significant effects
were found for implicit self-theories (" ! .05, p $ .05) or the
interaction term (" ! .01, p $ .05).
Discussion
Together, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories of
shyness are important for understanding the social goals and the
approach tendencies of shy individuals. Consistent with the first
hypothesis, implicit self-theories interacted with shyness to predict
learning goals. Shy individuals were more concerned with learning
in social situations if they had incremental theories about their
1013
shyness. Consistent with the third hypothesis, implicit self-theories
interacted with shyness to predict approach tendencies. Shy indi-
viduals were more attuned to the potential rewards in their envi-
ronment if they had incremental theories about their shyness.
Implicit self-theories did not predict shy individuals avoidance
tendencies. Consistent with previous research, shy individuals had
a general tendency to avoid challenge. In other words, shy indi-
viduals were particularly sensitive to the potential threats in their
environment.
These findings raise the question of why shy incremental theo-
rists report tendencies to both approach and avoid social situations.
Generally, shy individuals are theorized to experience a conflict
between their desire for social acceptance and their doubts about
their ability to be accepted (e.g., Leary & Buckley, 2000; Leary &
Kowalski, 1995). In other words, shy people may be motivated to
approach other people. However, their intense concern about cre-
ating a positive impression coupled with their fears of failure
render social interaction a threatening prospect. In contrast, shy
individuals with incremental theories may not be as crippled by
fears of failure because they also have a strong motivation to
master their feelings of shyness. It may be that social interactions
pose a simultaneous threat and reward for shy incremental theo-
rists. For example, although social interactions provide a venue for
social failure and negative evaluations by others, they are also a
chance to practice social skills and gauge improvement in social
ability from the evaluations of others. If this is the case, then shy
individuals with incremental theories may report avoidance ten-
dencies in anticipation of social interaction, but their response to
social challenge may not be avoidance.
Study 2: Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness
and Avoidant Strategies
Study 2 examines how implicit self-theories can further under-
standing of who is most likely to adopt social strategies aimed at
avoiding social interaction. Study 1 raises the question of which
social strategies shy incremental theorists might use given their
simultaneous tendencies to approach and avoid social challenge.
Therefore, Study 2 tests the possibility that shy individuals social
strategies depend on their implicit self-theories. Although shy
incremental theorists may initially feel threatened by social inter-
action, their dominating belief that they can become less shy
should be associated with a reduction in the use of strategies aimed
at being inconspicuous in comparison with shy entity theorists.
Therefore, it was hypothesized that implicit self-theories should
interact with shyness to predict avoidant social strategies. Addi-
tionally, Study 2 tests whether implicit self-theories of shyness are
Table 2
Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 1
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Implicit self-theories
2. Shyness .25
3. Learning goals .01 .01
4. Performance goals .16 .12 ".14
5. Approach tendencies ".39 ".47 .14 ".15
6. Avoidance tendencies .21 .66 .04 .19 ".33
1014
Figure 1. Preference for learning goals (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (left panel)
and approach tendencies (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (right panel). Regression
results are graphed for individuals one standard deviation above and below the mean in shyness.
dependent on social confidence in predictions of avoidant social
strategies. Previous research on implicit self-theories of intelli-
gence has shown that confidence in ones ability is most likely to
affect the use of avoidant strategies for entity theorists. Entity
theorists with low confidence in their abilities tend to show the
most helpless, avoidant response to challenge. Therefore, it was
hypothesized that entity theorists with low social confidence
should report more avoidant strategies than should entity theorists
who feel more confident in their social ability. Incremental theo-
rists, regardless of their confidence in their social skills, should
report fewer avoidant strategies than should entity theorists.
Finally, Study 2 examines whether there is any advantage in
assessing implicit self-theories of shyness in comparison with the
broader construct of implicit self-theories of personality. Theoret-
ically, individuals may hold entity beliefs about themselves in a
particular domain and incremental beliefs about themselves in
another domain (e.g., Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b). The domain
specificity of implicit self-theories suggests that individuals may
have entity theories about some of their traits and incremental
theories about other traits. Therefore, measuring implicit self-
theories at the broad level of personality may not provide the
strongest test of understanding how implicit self-theories about
particular traits influence social motivation and behavior. Ideal
measurement captures some level of specificity without sacrificing
the generalizability of empirical findings. To test whether it is
useful to test implicit self-theories of specific traits (i.e., shyness),
a parallel set of analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized
relations using implicit self-theories of personality instead of im-
plicit self-theories of shyness.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 238 students (137
women) in a psychology course who took part in the experiment in
exchange for course credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous:
44.1% Asian Americans, 4.0% African Americans, 30.6% Cauca-
sians, 9.0% Hispanics, and 12.3% other ethnicity. Participants were 20.3
years old on average (SD ! 2.5) and ranged in age from 18 to 37 years old.
Participants were asked to fill out questionnaire packets in sessions last-
ing 1 hr.
Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed the six-item
scale used in Study 1 (! ! .75).
BEER
Implicit self-theories of personality. Participants completed the same
six-item scale used to assess implicit self-theories of shyness, with the
word personality substituted for shyness (! ! .78). The six items included,
I have a certain personality, and it is something that I cant do much
about, I can change how I appear in social situations, but I cant change
my true personality, My personality is something about me that I cant
change very much, I can change aspects of my personality if I want to
(reversed), My personality changes as I go through life (reversed), and
My personality is not fixed, but changes over time (reversed). Each item
was rated on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) scale. In the
present research, implicit self-theories of personality were scored so that
high scores reflect an entity theory and were analyzed as a continuous
variable (but see Dweck et al., 1995a, for a dichotomous approach).
Implicit self-theories of personality correlated .58 with implicit self-
theories of shyness but were not correlated with shyness (r ! .06).
Shyness. As in Study 1, participants rated the frequency of their
shyness symptoms on Cheek and Melchiors (1985) three-component
Shyness Scale (! ! .60). Shyness correlated .31 with entity implicit
self-theory of shyness.
Social confidence. Social confidence was measured by two items: I
am somewhat socially awkward (reversed) and I am confident of my
social skills (! ! .76). Items were rated on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) scale.
Social confidence correlated ".45 with shyness.
Avoidant social strategies. To assess avoidant social strategies, an
eight-item scale was developed from previously identified strategies for
coping with social situations (e.g., Arkin et al., 1986; Cheek & Melchior,
1990; Langston & Cantor, 1989; Snyder & Smith, 1986; Zimbardo, 1977/
1990). Participants rated eight items (! ! .73) on a 1 (disagree strongly)
to 5 (agree strongly) scale: Reduce my anxiety, Ask questions of the
other person to keep the conversation from focusing on me, Avoid eye
contact, Smile so I look interested but dont have to talk much myself,
Try to shift attention onto my partner, Try to avoid social situations,
Find a task to keep me occupied so I dont have to socialize, and I try
to leave as soon as possible.
Results and Discussion
For all variables reported in Study 2, means and standard devi-
ations are reported in Table 3, and intercorrelations are reported in
Table 4.
Shyness and avoidant social strategies. Do shy entity theorists
report more avoidant social strategies than do shy incremental
theorists? Yes, shy entity theorists reported more avoidant social
strategies than did shy incremental theorists. A moderated multiple
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 2
Variable M SD
Implicit self-theories of shyness 2.65 0.65
Implicit self-theories of personality 2.99 0.71
Shyness 2.85 0.68
Social confidence 3.59 0.87
Avoidant social strategies 3.91 1.07
regression was conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-
theory of shyness and shyness on avoidant social strategies. The
high correlation between shyness and social confidence made it
necessary to enter social confidence, shyness, implicit self-theory
of shyness, and the interaction between shyness and implicit self-
theory in the analyses. As predicted, a significant interaction was
found between implicit self-theories and shyness for avoidant
social strategies (Figure 2, left panel; " ! .17, p # .05). Main
effects were found for shyness (" ! .38, p # .05) and social
confidence (" ! ".14, p # .05). No effects were found for
implicit self-theory (" ! .10, p $ .05).
Do implicit self-theories of personality predict shy peoples
avoidant social strategies? No, unlike the analyses using the im-
plicit self-theories of shyness measure, no effects were found for
implicit self-theory of personality on the avoidant social strategies
of shy people. A moderated multiple regression was conducted to
examine the effect of implicit self-theory of personality and shy-
ness on avoidant social strategies. The interaction term between
implicit self-theory of personality and shyness was not significant
(" ! .05, p $ .05). Main effects were found for shyness (" ! .39,
p # .05), implicit self-theory of personality (" ! .15, p # .05), and
social confidence (" ! ".16, p # .05).
Social confidence and avoidant social strategies. Do individ-
uals with entity beliefs about their shyness, particularly those with
low social confidence, report more avoidant social strategies than
incremental theorists? Yes, individuals with entity theories about
their shyness tended to respond avoidantly to social challenge, and
this was particularly true if they had low social confidence. A
moderated multiple regression was conducted to examine the
effect of implicit self-theory of shyness and social confidence on
avoidant social strategies. The high correlation between social
confidence and shyness made it necessary to enter shyness, social
confidence, implicit self-theories of shyness, and the interaction
between implicit self-theories and social confidence into the re-
gression analyses. As predicted, a significant interaction was found
between social confidence and implicit self-theories for avoidant
social strategies (Figure 2, right panel; " ! ".16, p # .05). Main
effects were found for shyness (" ! .37, p # .05) and implicit
self-theory of shyness (" ! .14, p # .05). No effects were found
for social confidence (" ! ".11, p $ .05).
Is the same relation between implicit self-theories, social con-
fidence, and avoidant social strategies found if theories of person-
ality are measured instead of theories of shyness? Yes, people who
were entity theorists about their personality tended to respond
avoidantly to social challenge, and this was particularly true if they
had low social confidence. A moderated multiple regression was
conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory of person-
ality and social confidence on avoidant social strategies. The high
1015
correlation between social confidence and shyness made it neces-
sary to enter shyness, social confidence, implicit self-theories of
personality, and the interaction between implicit self-theories and
social confidence into the regression analyses. Consistent with the
implicit self-theory of shyness findings, a significant interaction
was found between social confidence and implicit self-theories of
personality for avoidant social strategies (" ! ".15, p # .05).
Main effects were found for social confidence (" ! ".14, p #
.05), implicit self-theory of personality (" ! .17, p # .05), and
shyness (" ! .40, p # .05).
In summary, these findings suggest that implicit self-theories of
shyness are important for understanding shy individuals use of
avoidant social strategies. Consistent with the first hypothesis, shy
individuals with incremental theories about their shyness were less
likely to report avoidant social strategies. In addition, consistent
with the second hypothesis, entity theorists with low social self-
confidence were most at risk for adopting a helpless response style
in social situations. Finally, measuring implicit self-theories about
specific traits does provide some advantage over measuring im-
plicit self-theories about personality in general. In particular, the
relation between implicit self-theories and avoidant social strate-
gies would have been obscured if only implicit self-theories of
personality had been measured.
Study 3: Implicit Self-Theory of Shyness in a Novel
Social Interaction
Study 3 provides a methodological and theoretical extension of
Studies 1 and 2. Basic methods were used in Studies 1 and 2 to
establish implicit self-theories of shyness as a meaningful con-
struct. The next logical step for understanding implicit self-
theories of shyness is to conduct tests using more rigorous meth-
ods. For example, Studies 1 and 2 relied on social situations that
were only anticipated or hypothetical to test questions about im-
plicit self-theories of shyness. Study 3 enhances the ecological
validity of this research by requiring participants to actually inter-
act with a stranger. Additionally, Studies 1 and 2 used only
self-report to test hypotheses about implicit self-theories of shy-
ness. The sole use of self-report raises concerns that findings may
reflect artificial inflation because of shared method variance. Gen-
erally, interactions among self-report measures such as those found
in Studies 1 and 2 provide some reassurance that findings are not
artificially inflated. Still, a more rigorous test of these questions
should include measures other than self-report. A stronger case for
the importance of implicit self-theories of shyness can be made if
self-perceived differences among shy people are noticed by other
people. If implicit self-theories of shyness are important for un-
derstanding individual differences among shy peoples social be-
Table 4
Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Implicit self-theories of shyness
2. Implicit self-theories of personality .58
3. Shyness .31 .06
4. Social confidence ".26 ".03 ".49
5. Avoidant social strategies .29 .17 .49 ".36
1016
Figure 2. Avoidant strategy use (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness (left panel) and
implicit self-theories and confidence (right panel). Regression results are graphed for individuals one standard
deviation above and below the mean in shyness (left panel) and individuals one standard deviation above and
below the mean in social confidence (right panel).
havior (and not just their self-perceptions), then these differences
should be noticeable to other people. Therefore, Study 3 includes
both self- and observer-reports of the dependent variables.
Study 3 also extends Studies 1 and 2 from a theoretical perspec-
tive. As in Study 2, Study 3 tests whether implicit self-theories of
shyness interact with shyness to predict avoidant social strategies.
It was hypothesized that shy entity theorists would adopt more
avoidant social strategies than would shy incremental theorists. It
was expected that this relation would hold regardless of whether
social strategies were self-reported or observer reported. Addition-
ally, Study 3 moves beyond social strategies to examine whether
implicit self-theories of shyness explain individual differences
among shy peoples social consequences. It may be that implicit
self-theories are important for understanding social strategies but
do not have implications for the negative social consequences
generally suffered by shy individuals. Two classes of social con-
sequences have been identified. Private consequences are internal
experiences such as feelings of rising anxiety. Public consequences
are external experiences such as being perceived as socially un-
skilled and unlikable (e.g., Jones & Carpenter, 1986). The present
research makes social challenge salient by requiring participants to
interact with a stranger while intermittently stopping to evaluate
the public and private consequences of their social performance
within the context of the interaction. Previous research on implicit
self-theories of intelligence and personality suggests that implicit
self-theories should interact with shyness to predict performance
consequences, whether public or private. Entity theorists are more
likely to feel bad, tend to give up, and consequently exhibit poorer
performance once they have been challenged. In contrast, incre-
mental theorists are less likely to feel bad, tend to persist in the
face of challenge, and reap the benefits of their efforts with
stronger performances (Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Erdley et al., 1997). Therefore, it was expected that
shy incremental theorists should self-report fewer public and pri-
vate social consequences than should shy entity theorists. Previous
studies have shown that private experiences such as feelings of
nervousness can sometimes be difficult for observers to detect
in a short time (e.g., Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). Therefore, it
was expected that observers would detect differences in shy peo-
BEER
ples public social consequences as a function of their implicit
self-theories but not necessarily differences in private social
consequences.
Method
Participants and procedure. Participants were 122 students (72
women) in a psychology class who took part in the experiment for course
credit. The sample was ethnically heterogeneous: 44.8% Asian Ameri-
cans, 8.2% African Americans, 27.7% Caucasians, 9.0% Hispanics,
and 10.3% other ethnicity. Participants were 19.4 years old on average
(SD ! 1.8) and ranged in age from 18 to 30 years old. Participants were
videotaped while engaging in three 5-min dyadic interactions with a
complete stranger. The instructions for these dyads were simply get
acquainted with one another. After each 5-min time period, participants
paused to fill out questionnaires about their behavior in the interaction.
After all three dyads had occurred, participants filled out a longer ques-
tionnaire. Finally, videotaped interactions were coded for social interaction
strategies and public and private social consequences.
Self-ratings of social interaction strategies. Five items that applied to
the social interaction task were selected from the social interaction strategy
scale from Study 2. The items were, Reduce my anxiety, Ask questions
of the other person to keep the conversation from focusing on me, Avoid
eye contact, Smile so I look interested but dont have to talk much
myself, and Try to shift attention onto my partner. Participants rated the
items on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descriptive) scale. The
alpha reliability for these items was .70 (Dyad 1), .84 (Dyad 2), and .85
(Dyad 3).
Observer ratings of social interaction strategies. Three observers
watched videotapes of the dyadic interactions and rated participants on the
five self-reported social interaction strategies on a 1 (not at all descriptive)
to 9 (extremely descriptive) scale. Interrater reliability was .82 (Dyad 1),
.82 (Dyad 2), and .83 (Dyad 3).
Self-ratings of public and private social consequences. A composite
measure of public social consequences asked participants to rate how
socially skilled, likable, and talkative (all items reverse scored) they were
during the interaction on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely
descriptive) scale. The alpha reliability for public social consequences was
.78 (Dyad 1), .78 (Dyad 2), and .81 (Dyad 3). The measure of private social
consequences required participants to rate how shy and nervous they felt
during the interaction on 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descrip-
tive) scale. The alpha reliability for private social consequences was .70
(Dyad 1), .77 (Dyad 2), and .81 (Dyad 3).
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS 1017

Observer ratings of public and private social consequences. Three
observers watched videotapes of the social interactions and rated each
participant on public and private social consequences. A composite mea-
sure of public social consequences asked observers to rate participants on
their social skills, likability, and enjoyment of the interaction (all items
reverse scored) on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely descriptive)
scale. Interrater reliability for public social consequences was .87 (Dyad 1),
.80 (Dyad 2), and .75 (Dyad 3). The measure of private social conse-
quences required observers to rate how shy and nervous each participant
felt during the interaction on a 1 (not at all descriptive) to 9 (extremely
descriptive) scale. Interrater reliability for private social consequences was
.80 (Dyad 1), .75 (Dyad 2), and .82 (Dyad 3).
Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed the six-item
scale used in Studies 1 and 2 on a 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly) scale (! ! .70).
Shyness. As in Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the frequency of their
shyness symptoms on Cheek and Melchiors (1985) three-component
Shyness Scale (! ! .68). Shyness correlated .31 with implicit self-theory
of shyness.
Results
For all variables reported in Study 3, means and standard devi-
ations are reported in Table 5, and intercorrelations are reported in
Table 6.
Self-reported avoidant social interaction strategies. Do shy
entity theorists report more avoidant social interaction strategies
than do shy incremental theorists? Yes, shy entity theorists re-
ported more avoidant social interaction strategies during the sec-
ond and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was con-
ducted to examine the effects of implicit self-theories and shyness
on self-reported social interaction strategies within each of the
three dyads (see Table 7). In Dyad 1, a main effect of shyness on
social interaction strategies was found (" ! .34, p # .05). In
Dyad 2 and Dyad 3, implicit self-theories and shyness interacted to
predict avoidant social interaction strategies (Dyad 2: " ! .25, p #
.05; Dyad 3: " ! .27, p # .05).
Observer-reported avoidant social interaction strategies. Do
observers perceive shy entity theorists as using more avoidant
social interaction strategies than shy incremental theorists? Yes,
observers perceived shy entity theorists as more avoidant in the
second and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was
conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theories and shy-
ness on observer-reported social interaction strategies within each
of the three dyads (see Table 7). In Dyad 1, a main effect of
shyness and implicit self-theories was found for observer-reported
social interaction strategies. In Dyad 2 and Dyad 3, implicit
self-theories interacted with shyness to predict avoidant social
interaction strategies (Dyad 2: " ! .24, p # .05; Dyad 3: " ! .25,
p # .05). Consistent with the self-report findings, all shy individ-
uals were perceived as more avoidant in Dyad 1, but shy incre-
mental theorists were perceived as less avoidant than shy entity
theorists in Dyads 2 and 3.
Self-reported public and private social consequences. Do shy
peoples self-reported public social consequences depend on their
implicit self-theories? No, shy individuals generally viewed their
social behavior as having poor public consequences during all
dyads. A multiple moderated regression was conducted to examine
the effect of implicit self-theories and shyness on self-reported
public social consequences within each of the three dyads. In
Dyads 13, a main effect of shyness was found for public social
consequences (see Table 8).
Do shy peoples self-reported private social consequences de-
pend on their implicit self-theories? Yes, shy incremental theorists
reported fewer internal feelings of shyness and nervousness during
the second and third dyads than did shy entity theorists. A multiple
moderated regression was conducted to examine the effect of
implicit self-theories and shyness on self-reported private social
consequences within each of the three dyads. In Dyad 1, a main
effect of shyness was found for private social consequences. Im-
plicit self-theories interacted with shyness to predict private social
consequences in Dyad 2 (" ! .23, p # .05) and Dyad 3 (" ! .23,
p # .05; Figure 3, left panel).
Observer-reported public and private social consequences.
Do implicit self-theories explain differences among observer per-
ceptions of shy individuals public social consequences? Yes,
observers attributed fewer undesirable public social consequences
to shy incremental theorists than to shy entity theorists in the
second and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was
conducted to examine implicit self-theories and shyness on
observer-reported public social consequences within each of the
three dyads (see Table 9). Implicit self-theories interacted with
shyness to predict public social consequences in Dyad 2 (" !
".26, p # .05) and Dyad 3 (" ! ".28, p # .05; Figure 3, right
panel). In contrast to the self-report findings, observers attributed
more positive public social consequences to shy incremental the-
orists than to shy entity theorists in the latter dyads.
Are shy incremental theorists perceived as experiencing fewer
private social consequences than shy entity theorists? No, observ-
ers generally perceived all shy individuals as experiencing shyness

Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 3

Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD

Implicit self-theories 2.37 0.69

Shyness 2.95 0.79
Self-reported social interaction strategies 3.10 1.22 2.99 1.35 2.68 1.40
Observer-reported social interaction strategies 2.96 1.04 2.72 0.94 3.74 0.84
Self-reported private social consequences 3.32 1.65 2.89 1.71 2.66 1.69
Observer-reported private social consequences 3.68 1.35 3.37 1.37 3.28 1.23
Self-reported public social consequences 6.49 1.19 6.61 1.27 6.67 1.32
Observer-reported public social consequences 5.89 0.97 6.02 1.17 5.99 0.87
 1018
Table 6
Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 3

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1. IST
2. Shy .31
3. SRSIS D1 .32 .36
4. SRSIS D2 .32 .42 .83
5. SRSIS D3 .28 .34 .71 .87
6. ORSIS D1 .20 .11 .27 .34 .30
7. ORSIS D2 .12 .14 .23 .36 .36 .80
8. ORSIS D3 .05 .07 .13 .20 .25 .71 .79
9. SRPR D1 .38 .47 .59 .58 .50 .27 .25 .15

BEER
10. SRPR D2 .32 .45 .49 .64 .62 .34 .33 .25 .69
11. SRPR D3 .36 .44 .51 .63 .64 .38 .35 .38 .64 .83
12. ORPR D1 .27 .17 .24 .33 .33 .79 .70 .67 .36 .38 .39
13. ORPR D2 .18 .18 .23 .32 .31 .70 .81 .68 .38 .38 .37 .83
14. ORPR D3 .19 .21 .23 .30 .28 .66 .73 .75 .35 .36 .36 .85 .89
15. SRPU D1 ".29 ".35 ".36 ".29 ".26 ".20 ".21 ".15 ".43 ".47 ".49 ".22 ".28 ".25
16. SRPU D2 ".22 ".36 ".30 ".27 ".23 ".13 ".20 ".17 ".33 ".50 ".44 ".14 ".20 ".20 .32
17. SRPU D3 ".18 ".38 ".35 ".31 ".33 ".23 ".35 ".31 ".31 ".47 ".50 ".26 ".38 ".35 .76 .84
18. ORPU D1 ".26 ".18 ".25 ".35 ".31 ".48 ".38 ".36 ".40 ".37 ".37 ".52 ".49 ".40 .33 .32 .34
19. ORPU D2 ".12 ".09 ".17 ".28 ".26 ".26 ".30 ".25 ".20 ".24 ".25 ".29 ".34 ".29 .28 .32 .34 .67
20. ORPU D3 ".16 ".12 ".16 ".27 ".27 ".32 ".35 ".33 ".23 ".28 ".31 ".34 ".42 ".37 .31 .33 .39 .79 .73

Note. IST ! implicit self-theories of shyness; Shy ! shyness; SRSIS ! self-reported social interaction strategies; ORSIS ! observer-reported social interaction strategies; SRPR ! self-reported
private social consequences; ORPR ! observer-reported private social consequences; SRPU ! self-reported public social consequences; ORPU ! observer-reported public social consequences; D1 !
Dyad 1; D2 ! Dyad 2; D3 ! Dyad 3.
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS 1019

Table 7
Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on Self-Reported and Observer-Reported
Social Interaction Strategies

Self-report Observer

Social interaction strategy Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3

Shyness .34* .42* .41* .28* .39* .37*

IST .18 .13 .10 .25* .13 .13
Shyness % IST .09 .25* .27* .05 .24* .25*

Note. Values are betas. IST ! implicit self-theory.

* p # .05.

and nervousness during all three dyads. A multiple moderated
regression was conducted to examine implicit self-theories and
shyness on observer-reported private social consequences within
each of the three dyads (see Table 3). In Dyads 13, a main effect
of shyness was found for private social consequences. In contrast
to the self-report findings, observers found shy individuals to
generally exhibit private social consequences throughout the three
dyads.
Discussion
These findings replicate and extend Study 2. Consistent with the
findings in Study 2, shy incremental theorists were less avoidant in
response to social challenge than were shy entity theorists. This
difference held whether interaction strategies were self-reported or
observer reported. Mixed support was found for the importance of
implicit self-theories for explaining individual differences among
shy peoples public and private social consequences. The private
experience of the shy individuals subjective feelings of shyness
and nervousness during social interaction is a function of his or her
implicit self-theory of shyness. After 10 min of social interaction,
shy incremental theorists reported fewer private consequences than
did shy entity theorists. From an observers standpoint, implicit
self-theories are predictive of individual differences among shy
peoples ability to behave competently during a social interaction.
After 10 min of social interaction, shy incremental theorists ex-
hibited fewer undesirable public consequences than did shy entity
theorists. Taken together, these findings suggest that shy individ-
uals initially experienced the inhibition and anxiety associated
with shyness, but, over time, shy individuals with incremental
Table 8
Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on Self-
Reported Public and Private Social Consequences
Social consequences Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3
Public
Shyness .29* .33*
IST .19 .08 ".02
Shyness % IST .03 ".01
Private
Shyness .40* .48*
IST .19 .09
Shyness % IST ".02 .23*
Note. Values are betas. IST ! implicit self-theory.
* p # .05.
theories began to feel less shy and nervous. As their private
experiences of shyness and nervousness diverged from those of
shy individuals with entity theories, shy incremental theorists were
perceived by observers as more competent and likable when han-
dling the challenge of interacting with a stranger.
It is important to note that implicit self-theories were most
effective in differentiating among shy individuals in the second
and third dyads. There are two possible explanations for this
difference. Previous research on implicit self-theories has shown
that the avoidance and approach patterns associated with implicit
self-theories and goals are usually seen in response to rejection or
negative feedback (e.g., Erdley et al., 1997; Goetz & Dweck,
1980). For example, Erdley et al. (1997) found that children
initially tried equally as hard to be chosen for a pen pal tryout; it
was only after negative feedback was presented that differences in
avoidance and approach behavior became evident. In the present
study, participants were initially instructed to get to know one
another. They were unaware that they would be stopping to ex-
plicitly evaluate their performance until they were asked to do so
after the first dyad. This manipulation was intended to make
negative social evaluation a salient property of the second and
third dyads. The second and third dyads also began with the simple
instruction to get to know one another, but now shy participants
had just given themselves negative feedback about their social
behavior during Dyad 1. This is consistent with the main effects of
shyness on self-reports of avoidant social interaction strategies and
private and public social consequences. During the first dyad, all
shy participants may have been trying equally as hard to be
perceived positively by others. However, after negative social
evaluation was made salient, shy participants focus on the inev-
itability of their social failure or on the possibility for change may
have activated individual differences in response patterns. There-
fore, the implicit self-theories of shy participants began to signif-
icantly predict their social behavior in the second and third dyads.
Although this first explanation is consistent with previous research
on implicit self-theories, it is also possible that implicit self-
theories may have only begun to influence social behavior after a
certain amount of interaction had transpired. In this case, time
.39*
rather than the evaluative periods may have been the critical factor
.08 for activating the motivational patterns associated with entity and
incremental theories of shyness.
.46*
.13
.23* General Discussion
The present research provides support for the proposition that
individual differences among shy people may be synthesized and
1020 BEER

Figure 3. Self-reported private social consequences (z score) as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness
in Dyad 3 (left panel). Observer-reported public consequences as a function of implicit self-theories and shyness
in Dyad 3 (right panel). Regression results are graphed for individuals one standard deviation above and below
the mean in shyness.

explained by implicit self-theories of shyness and their associated were perceived as more socially competent than were shy entity
motivational patterns. Shy peoples goals and behaviors in social theorists. These findings have implications for research on shyness
situations depend on their implicit self-theories of shyness. These and implicit self-theories and, most generally, speak to the role of
relations emerged even after the main effects of shyness and self-beliefs in shaping individuals social environments.
implicit self-theories were controlled. Study 1 shows that, in novel
social situations, shy entity theorists are less interested in learning
how to master their shyness and are generally less approach Implications for Research on Shyness
oriented than are shy incremental theorists. Moving beyond the
The present research on implicit self-theories of shyness sug-
general tendencies examined in Study 1, Study 2 tested whether
gests a promising model for organizing the diverse literature on
implicit self-theories of shyness were important for understanding
individual differences within shyness. Previous explanations for
individual differences among shy individuals avoidant social
individual differences among shy peoples social behavior have
strategies. Shy entity theorists reported more avoidant social strat-
alternatively focused on attitudes, goals, and social strategies. The
egies than did shy incremental theorists. This effect was particu-
present research suggests that all of these variablesattitudes,
larly evident for entity theorists who had little confidence in their
goals, and responsesare important for understanding why some
social skills. Study 3 provides further support for the importance of
shy people are willing to extend themselves in social situations,
implicit self-theories in understanding individual differences
whereas others avoid interaction at all costs. From an implicit
among shy peoples avoidant responses to social challenge. Not
self-theories perspective, attitudes toward the malleability of shy-
only did shy entity theorists report more avoidant social behaviors,
ness motivate shy individuals to strive for either avoidance or
but these differences were also perceived by observers. Finally,
approach in social situations and respond in a style that supports
shy peoples public and private social consequences depend on
their desire for either avoidance or approach. The present research
their implicit self-theories. Just as shy incremental theorists re-
supports the proposition that implicit self-theories explain impor-
ported feeling less nervous and shy within a social situation, they
tant differences among shy peoples behavior and suggests a
framework for understanding why shy people sometimes behave
so differently from one another.
Table 9
Consistent with previous research, shy individuals were found to
Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on
be especially sensitive to potential threats in their environment and
Observer-Reported Public and Private Social Consequences
fear the negative evaluations of others when anticipating a novel
Social consequences Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 social situation. Main effects of shyness were found for avoidant
tendencies and strategies as well as increased social inhibition and
Public decreased social competence within the first 5 min of social
Shyness .05 .06 .05 interaction. The general desire to avoid social interaction and
IST .22 .03 .10
Shyness % IST .16 .26* .28* ineffective social interaction is consistent with previous research
Private on shyness.
Shyness .33* .24* .24* However, implicit self-theories of shyness were important for
IST .10 .14 .16 understanding why some shy individuals approach social chal-
Shyness % IST .13 .11 .11
lenge. The present research shows that implicit self-theories sig-
Note. Values are betas. IST ! implicit self-theory. nificantly interacted with shyness to predict general approach
* p # .05. tendencies and observer-reported public social consequences
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS
within 10 min of social interaction. Although shyness is often
associated with doubts about ones ability to create a positive
impression on others (e.g., Leary & Buckley, 2000; Leary &
Kowalski, 1995), the present research demonstrates that some shy
individuals believe they do not always have to fail socially. Shy
incremental theorists are more likely to be sensitive to the potential
rewards in their environment and are perceived as more socially
skilled and likable than are shy entity theorists.
The dual approach and avoidance tendencies of shy incremental
theorists suggest that shy peoples perceptions of their social
experiences may depend on their implicit self-theories. In other
words, shy incremental theorists may experience social interac-
tions very differently than do shy entity theorists. Shy incremental
theorists may be simultaneously motivated to avoid and approach
social situations because past experience has taught them that
social interaction has the potential for both threat and reward.
Unlike shy entity theorists, shy incremental theorists preferred to
learn how to master their shyness, and they experienced less
shyness and nervousness within 10 min of social interaction with
a stranger. Observers perceived shy incremental theorists as being
more socially competent when interacting with strangers. There-
fore, shy incremental theorists may have more experience with
rewarding social situations in which they were able to accomplish
some social success. The drive for self-improvement and past
experiences making progress toward this goal may motivate shy
incremental theorists to approach social interactions that afford the
opportunity to practice behaving in a less shy manner. In contrast,
shy entity theorists may mostly have experience with punishment
in social situations. Shy entity theorists were unable to let go of
their feelings of shyness and anxiety. They tended to avoid others
and therefore may not afford themselves opportunities to have
positive interactions.
Although the present research suggests that implicit self-
theories are related to important differences among shy individu-
als, one must consider potential limitations in the importance of
implicit self-theories. First, are differences among shy peoples
implicit self-theories of shyness accounted for by baseline differ-
ences in social ability? According to Zimbardo (1977/1990), there
are differences in social skills between privately shy and publicly
shy individuals. Privately shy individuals may be better at know-
ing what must be done to please others, to be accepted, [and] to get
ahead (p. 33) and therefore may be more socially successful. Like
privately shy individuals, shy individuals with incremental theories
may be more successful in social situations because they are better
at reading social cues and understanding others expectations. This
would suggest a difference in social ability between shy individ-
uals with entity versus incremental theories and would not be a
true parallel of the research on implicit self-theories of intelli-
gence, where individuals are matched on academic ability. How-
ever, observer reports of shy individuals social skills did not
depend on the individuals implicit self-theories until the second
evaluation period in Study 3. Therefore, differences in social skill
may have had more to do with the activation of implicit self-
theories in response to social challenge and less to do with dispo-
sitional differences in social ability.
Second, do implicit self-theories really just reflect individual
differences among shy peoples need for affiliation? In other
words, are shy incremental theorists more sociable than are shy
entity theorists? Cheek and Buss (1981) found that sociability and
1021
shyness were only moderately correlated, which suggests that there
are individual differences in the sociability of shy people. Zim-
bardo (1977/1990) pointed out that 10 20% of shy people prefer
to be shy. However, most shy people complain of loneliness (e.g.,
Jones & Carpenter, 1986), so it seems to be the exception rather
than the rule that shy people prefer to be alone. Therefore, it is
unlikely that differences in affiliation account for the pattern of
goals and behaviors found to be associated with shy peoples
implicit self-theories in the present research.
Finally, implicit self-theories of shyness are not meant to negate
a long tradition of work that has categorized subtypes of shyness
on bases other than attitudes, goals, and social behavior. Rather,
research is needed to examine the relation between implicit self-
theories and previously established categories of shyness. For
example, shy individuals have been distinguished on the basis of
their internal or external symptoms of shyness (e.g., Pilkonis,
1977a, 1977b). Publicly shy individuals focus their attention on the
external symptoms of their shyness, such as their awkward behav-
ior. Privately shy individuals focus their attention on the internal
symptoms of their shyness, such as their feelings of anxiety in
social situations. Public and private shyness might be understood
from a broader perspective using an implicit self-theories frame-
work. In the case of public shyness, shy individuals who believe
that their shyness cannot change may be particularly concerned
with their social performance and therefore particularly attentive to
the public aspects of their shyness. Privately shy individuals may
believe their shyness is surmountable and want to become less shy.
These individuals may be more concerned with monitoring poten-
tial changes in their internal feelings of shyness to gauge progress
toward their goal of self-improvement.
Other researchers differentiate shy individuals by the cause of
their shyness. A distinction is drawn between heritable shyness
(temperamental shyness) and shyness arising from social factors
such as the onset of puberty (self-conscious shyness; e.g., Buss,
1980; Kagan, 1994). Temperamental shyness is considered to
emerge early, whereas self-conscious shyness usually begins in
adolescence (e.g., Buss, 1986). Do differences in the cause of
shyness relate to different implicit self-theories? For example, are
temperamentally shy individuals more likely to develop entity
theories about their shyness because they have been shy as long as
they can remember? The present research provides a springboard
for future research examining the importance of implicit self-
theories of shyness for synthesizing individual differences among
shy people.
Implications for Research on Implicit Self-Theories
The present research represents a return to studying entity and
incremental beliefs about the self. After initial progress in under-
standing the effects of implicit self-theories of intelligence and
personality, the focus of this research area shifted to understanding
the effects of implicit person theories. Implicit person theories are
beliefs about the changeability of other peoples traits and have
less to do with self-perceptions. For example, a growing literature
has shown that entity and incremental theories relate to evaluations
of other peoples personality (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Erdley
& Dweck, 1993; Heyman & Dweck, 1998; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, &
Sacks, 1997; Ruvolo & Rotondo, 1998; Silvera, Moe, & Iversen,
2000), conceptions of morality and punishment (Chiu, Dweck,
1022
Tong, & Fu, 1997; Gervey, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1999), beliefs
about romantic destiny (Knee, 1998), stereotyping and perceptions
of groups (Levy & Dweck, 1998, 1999; Levy, Plaks, Hong, Chiu,
& Dweck, 2001; Levy, Stroessner & Dweck, 1998; Plaks, Stroess-
ner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001), and athletic coordination (Kasi-
matis, Miller, & Marcussen, 1996).
The present research returns to a focus on entity and incremental
theories about the self, this time in the social domain. Implicit
self-theories are useful for understanding individual differences
among shy peoples social motivation and behavior, but what else
might implicit self-theories explain in the social domain? Plaks et
al. (2001) found that individuals with incremental theories about
other peoples personality were more attentive than were entity
theorists to nonstereotypical information about other people. Do
implicit self-theories affect attention to feedback that is inconsis-
tent with current self-views? The present research suggests that
this might be the case. For example, shy incremental theorists are
more sensitive to the potential rewards in a social interaction when
compared with shy entity theorists. Shy incremental theorists
increased sensitivity to the environmental rewards may be because
their drive for self-improvement makes them more attentive to
information that is inconsistent with their current self-view. In
other words, shy incremental theorists may be more likely to notice
positive feedback about social performance even though it is not
consistent with how they see themselves currently, whereas shy
entity theorists stubbornly seek confirmation of their self-views.
An interesting question about the effect of implicit self-theories on
personality development is raised by these findings. If shy incre-
mental theorists are able to incorporate positive feedback from
social situations, do they eventually become less shy? If so, im-
plicit self-theories in the social domain may have important im-
plications for understanding and predicting personality change
over the life course.
A minor conclusion that can be drawn from the present research
is that it is useful to study implicit self-theories about specific
personality traits. Important predictive power is gained when the
researcher moves to a more specific level of measurement. The
present research shows that there was a .58 correlation between the
broader construct of implicit self-theory of personality and the
more specific construct of implicit self-theory of shyness. At first
blush, these measures seem quite similar. However, the importance
of studying implicit self-theories about specific traits was seen in
Study 2 and indirectly in Study 3. Implicit self-theories of shyness,
but not implicit self-theories of personality, were important for
understanding individual differences among shy peoples avoidant
social strategies. If just implicit self-theories of personality had
been assessed, it would have seemed reasonable to conclude that
entity and incremental beliefs are not important for predicting shy
individuals avoidant social strategies. However, as Study 3 shows,
not only do implicit self-theories of shyness predict differences in
self-reported avoidant social strategies, these differences are strik-
ing enough to be noticed by observers. Therefore, future research
on entity and incremental beliefs about personality should consider
measuring implicit self-theories about the trait in question and not
necessarily personality in general.
Another implication of the present research is that implicit
self-theories are related not only to motivational and behavioral
patterns but also to individual differences in emotional experience
and expression. Although theorists have speculated about the re-
BEER
lation between implicit self-theories and emotion, there are few
empirical tests (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;
Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Research on implicit self-theories of
intelligence suggests that entity theorists are more prone to nega-
tive affect in the face of challenge when compared with incremen-
tal theorists (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
The present research shows that shy incremental theorists reported
feeling less nervous and were perceived as enjoying social inter-
action more than were shy entity theorists. The relationship be-
tween implicit self-theories and emotion may be more complicated
in the social domain than in the academic domain. For example,
the research on intelligence suggests that negative emotion heralds
entity theorists failure to persist in the face of challenge. In the
academic domain, implicit self-theories are perhaps most impor-
tant for understanding individual differences in internal emotional
experiences because of their effect on motivation. Individuals
external expression of negative emotion probably has no effect on
how a test booklet interacts with them. Unlike encounters with test
booklets, individuals emotional expressions have been shown to
affect the reactions of other people in social encounters (e.g.,
Ekman, 1993; Keltner & Gross, 1999). Therefore, in the social
domain, the effect of implicit self-theories on internal emotional
experience as well as external emotional expression may be im-
portant to take into account in future studies. For example, it may
be that shy incremental theorists emotional expressions during the
social interaction task contributed to observers favorable percep-
tions of them. Expressions of positive emotion have been related to
increased liking (e.g., Gross & John, 1998), and this might be one
reason why shy incremental theorists were rated as more likable
than were shy entity theorists. Individuals emotional expressions
are an important cue that can affect the progress of a social
interaction. Therefore, in future studies of implicit self-theories in
the social domain, it may be particularly important to understand
how implicit self-theories affect emotional experience and
expression.
Finally, the present research has shown that implicit self-
theories have implications for differences in the tendency to ap-
proach a stranger, but what about making decisions to maintain or
end an already established relationship? Entity and incremental
views about self and others might be related to decisions about
whether to resolve a relationship problem or end the relationship
altogether. Individuals who hold entity theories about the caregiv-
ing abilities of themselves or their partners may feel helpless when
conflict arises. Beliefs that the self or partner cannot change might
be associated with less persistence in the face of relationship
challenge. However, incremental views about the ability to change
might be associated with greater persistence and more effective
conflict resolution in close relationships. Implicit theories about
caregiving abilities are just one more example of how implicit
self-theories may be used to study motivational patterns in the
social domain.
Conclusion
Self-beliefs exert a powerful influence on individuals percep-
tions of their social worlds. The present research suggests that for
shy individuals, perceived control over shyness is an important
predictor of goals and behavior in social situations. For shy indi-
viduals with entity theories, social situations may seem rife with
 IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS
punishment and are consequently best avoided. For shy individuals
with incremental theories, social situations may be perceived as
opportunities to learn and satisfy an ultimate goal of self-
improvement and affiliation. To more fully understand how self-
beliefs shape social behavior, perceived control over personal
characteristics should be researched in conjunction with individual
differences in personal characteristics.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arkin, R. M., Lake, E. A., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1986). Shyness and
self-presentation. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.),
Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 189 204). New
York: Plenum.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Buss, A. H. (1986). A theory of shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, &
S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment
(pp. 39 46). New York: Plenum.
Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit
theories of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social
comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 78, 965978.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 333.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 330 339.
Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1985, August). Measuring the three
components of shyness. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Convention
of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-
consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evalua-
tion anxiety (pp. 47 82). New York: Plenum.
Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories
and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 73, 923940.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and
implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 73, 19 30.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness:
Continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cogni-
tions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 36, 451 462.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness:
II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 39, 940 952.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their
role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psy-
chological Inquiry, 6, 267285.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration
and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322333.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 273.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psycholo-
gist, 48, 384 392.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
512.
Erdley, C. A., Cain, K. M., Loomis, C. C., Dumas-Hines, F., & Dweck,
C. S. (1997). Relations among childrens social goals, implicit person-
1023
ality theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 33, 263272.
Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1993). Childrens implicit personality
theories as predictors of their social judgments. Child Development, 64,
863 878.
Gervey, B. M., Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1999).
Differential use of person information in decisions about guilt versus
innocence: The role of implicit theories. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 25, 1727.
Goetz, T. E., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). Learned helplessness in social
situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 249 255.
Gough, H. G., & Thorne, A. (1986). Positive, negative, and balanced
shyness. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness:
Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 205225). New York:
Plenum.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity:
Multimethod evidence for hierarchical model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 170 191.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Childrens thinking about traits:
Implications for judgments of the self and others. Child Develop-
ment, 69, 391 403.
Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., & Sacks, R. (1997). Implicit
theories and evaluative processes in person cognition. Journal of Exper-
imental Social Psychology, 33, 296 323.
Jones, W. H., & Briggs, S. R. (1984) The self other discrepancy in social
shyness. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), The self in anxiety, stress and depression
(pp. 93107). New York: North-Holland.
Jones, W. H., & Carpenter, B. N. (1986). Shyness, social behavior, and
relationships. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs, (Eds.),
Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 227238). New
York: Plenum.
Kagan, J. (1994). Galens prophecy. New York: Basic Books.
Kasimatis, M., Miller, M., & Marcussen, L. (1996). The effects of implicit
theories on exercise motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 30,
510 516.
Keltner, D., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Functional accounts of emotions.
Cognition and Emotion, 13, 167180.
Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and
prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360 370.
Langston, C. A., & Cantor, N. (1989). Social anxiety and social constraint:
When making friends is hard. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 56, 649 661.
Leary, M. R. (1986). Affective and behavioral components of shyness. In
W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives
on research and treatment (pp. 2738). New York: Plenum.
Leary, M. R., & Buckley, K. E. (2000). Shyness and the pursuit of social
acceptance. In W. R. Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, consolida-
tion, and change (pp. 139 153). New York: Routledge.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York:
Guilford Press.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Trait- versus process-focused social
judgment. Social Cognition, 16, 151172.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). The impact of childrens static versus
dynamic conceptions of people on stereotype formation. Child Devel-
opment, 70, 11631180.
Levy, S. R., Plaks, J. E., Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (2001).
Static versus dynamic theories and the perception of groups: Different
routes to different destinations. Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view, 5, 156 168.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation
and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 14211436.
Meleshko, K. G. A., & Alden, L. E. (1993). Anxiety and self-disclosure:
1024
Toward a motivational model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 64, 1000 1009.
Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on
the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 816 824.
Paulhus, D. L. & Morgan, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of intelligence in
leaderless groups: The dynamic effects of shyness and acquaintance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 581591.
Paulhus, D. L. & Trapnell, P. D. (1998). Typological measures of shyness:
Additive, interactive, and categorical. Journal of Research in Personal-
ity, 32, 183201.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977a). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal
of Personality, 45, 596 611.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977b). Shyness, public and private, and its relationship to
other measures of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 45, 585595.
Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001).
Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic
versus counterstereotypic information. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 876 893.
Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and
individual differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application
of implicit theories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67 85.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (in press). Implicit self-theories in the
academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect,
and self-esteem change. Self and Identity.
BEER
Ruvolo, A. P., & Rotondo, J. L. (1998). Diamonds in the rough: Implicit
personality theories and views of partner and self. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 750 758.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presen-
tation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641
669.
Silvera, D. H., Moe, S. I., & Iversen, P. (2000). The association between
implicit theories of personality and the attributional process. Scandina-
vian Journal of Psychology, 41, 107111.
Snyder, C. R., & Smith, T. W. (1986). On being shy like a fox: A
self-handicapping analysis. In W. H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, & S. R. Briggs,
(Eds.), Shyness: Perspectives on research and treatment (pp. 161172).
New York: Plenum.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxi-
ety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448 457.
Wurf, E. (1989). Negativity in the self-concept: Self-construal and
feedback-seeking. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5575.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1990). Shyness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. (Orig-
inal work published 1977)
Received September 25, 2001
Revision received March 11, 2002
Accepted March 11, 2002 !