Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, Vol. 83, No.

4, 1009 1024

Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 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 consequences 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 characteristics are also important for shaping behavior. For example, research has highlighted the importance of beliefs about the malleability of intelligence in studies of success in the face of academic 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 academic 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 shyness may not tell the whole story. Research has shown that people who report similar levels of shyness often respond to social challenge 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

do nothing about their intense feelings of shyness may have different goals and responses in social interactions than do individuals who believe their shyness can change over time. The present research explores the usefulness of studying implicit selftheories 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 characteristics. For example, implicit beliefs about the malleability of intelligence shape the way people interpret and react to achievement situations (e.g., Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995a, 1995b; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Robins & Pals, in press). Two implicit selftheories of intelligence have been discussed. Entity theorists believe their intelligence is fixed and cannot change, whereas incremental 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 because of their belief that their performance documents their permanent intelligence level. Individuals with performance goals aim to maximize positive judgments of their performance and minimize 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 encountered. In contrast, incremental theorists, regardless of selfconfidence, 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

Preparation of this article was supported by a graduate research fellowship 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

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 selfconfidence, 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 characteristics 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 performance goals. Children with entity theories of personality preferred 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 condition, 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 condition 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 subcomponent. 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 interpersonal 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, physiological, and cognitiveaffective components (e.g., Cheek & Melchior, 1990; Zimbardo, 1977/1990). Shy individuals exhibit avoidance 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; Zimbardo, 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 differences 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 patterns shy people adopt in the face of social challenge. Consequently, different implicit self-theories and their associated motivational patterns may explain why shy people differ from one another in their social behavior. From this perspective, shy individuals 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

1011

consequences of shyness. In comparison, shy individuals with incremental views (shy incremental theorists) should endorse learning goals in social situations. Shy incremental theorists, regardless 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 selftheories of shyness and their associated social goals and social response patterns may provide an overarching framework to synthesize 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 implications for their social behavior. Wurf (1989) found that individuals who downplay the inevitability of their shyness differed from individuals who felt their shyness was inevitable. Shynessdownplaying individuals tended to seek specific feedback to improve 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 perspective, 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 motivation 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 tendencies 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 participate in social interaction while remaining out of the spotlight. These shy individuals care more about avoiding a negative evaluation 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. Langston 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 themselves, 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

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 selftheories and their associated goals and response styles explained individual differences among shy peoples response to social interaction. 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 selfreport measures and hypothetical situations to test basic hypotheses about implicit self-theories of shyness derived from the research on implicit self-theories of intelligence. In particular, Study 1 tests whether shy individuals social goals and general approachavoidance tendencies depend on their implicit selftheories. 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 incorporating 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 implicit 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 interaction 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

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 wellvalidated scale that measures general approach tendencies, that is, how likely individuals are to identify and approach rewards in their environment .84). An example item is, If I see a chance to get something (13 items; 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.

theories should interact with shyness to predict approach tendencies. 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 Americans, 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, participants 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 intelligence, and three items keyed toward the incremental orientation were .75). The six items included, I have a added to balance the scale ( 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 selftheories 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 .65), which assesses three components of shyness: physiologScale ( ical (e.g., racing pulse, blushing), observable (e.g., avoiding people, reduced eye contact), and cognitive (e.g., feelings of anxiety or embarrassment). 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.

Results
For all variables reported in Study 1, means and standard deviations 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 implicit 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 selftheories. 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 selftheories 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 participants 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 measures 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

1013

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 1

Variable Implicit self-theories Shyness Learning goals Performance goals Approach tendencies Avoidance tendencies M 2.49 3.06 3.66 3.02 3.27 2.90 SD 0.55 0.74 0.99 0.96 0.41 0.56

the interaction between implicit self-theories and shyness (or social 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, regardless of implicit self-theory, shy individuals were more oriented toward potential threats than were extraverted individuals. A moderated multiple regression was conducted to examine the effect of implicit self-theory and shyness on avoidance tendencies. In contrast 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).

shyness. Consistent with the third hypothesis, implicit self-theories interacted with shyness to predict approach tendencies. Shy individuals were more attuned to the potential rewards in their environment 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 individuals were particularly sensitive to the potential threats in their environment. These findings raise the question of why shy incremental theorists 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 creating 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 theorists. 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 tendencies 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 understanding 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 interaction, 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. Additionally, 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. Implicit self-theories Shyness Learning goals Performance goals Approach tendencies Avoidance tendencies 1 .25 .01 .16 .39 .21 2 .01 .12 .47 .66 3 4 5 6

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

.14 .14 .04

.15 .19

.33

1014

BEER

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 intelligence 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 theorists, 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. Theoretically, 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 selftheories 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 implicit 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% Caucasians, 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 lasting 1 hr. Implicit self-theories of shyness. Participants completed the six-item scale used in Study 1 ( .75).

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 selftheories 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 deviations 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

1015

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables in Study 2

Variable Implicit self-theories of shyness Implicit self-theories of personality Shyness Social confidence Avoidant social strategies M 2.65 2.99 2.85 3.59 3.91 SD 0.65 0.71 0.68 0.87 1.07

regression was conducted to examine the effect of implicit selftheory 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 selftheory 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 implicit 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 shyness 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 individuals 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 regression 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 confidence, and avoidant social strategies found if theories of personality 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 personality 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 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 selfconfidence 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 implicit self-theories about personality in general. In particular, the relation between implicit self-theories and avoidant social strategies 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 construct. The next logical step for understanding implicit selftheories of shyness is to conduct tests using more rigorous methods. For example, Studies 1 and 2 relied on social situations that were only anticipated or hypothetical to test questions about implicit self-theories of shyness. Study 3 enhances the ecological validity of this research by requiring participants to actually interact with a stranger. Additionally, Studies 1 and 2 used only self-report to test hypotheses about implicit self-theories of shyness. The sole use of self-report raises concerns that findings may reflect artificial inflation because of shared method variance. Generally, 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 understanding individual differences among shy peoples social be-

Table 4 Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 2

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Implicit self-theories of shyness Implicit self-theories of personality Shyness Social confidence Avoidant social strategies 1 .58 .31 .26 .29 2 .06 .03 .17 3 4 5

.49 .49

.36

1016

BEER

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 perspective. 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. Additionally, 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 consequences 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 unskilled 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, incremental 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 private 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-

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 Americans, 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 questionnaire. 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 descriptive) scale. The alpha reliability for private social consequences was .70 (Dyad 1), .77 (Dyad 2), and .81 (Dyad 3).

IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS 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 measure 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 consequences 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.

1017

Results
For all variables reported in Study 3, means and standard deviations 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 reported more avoidant social interaction strategies during the second and third dyads. A multiple moderated regression was conducted 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 shyness 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 individuals were perceived as more avoidant in Dyad 1, but shy incremental 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 depend 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. Implicit 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 perceptions 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 theorists 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, observers generally perceived all shy individuals as experiencing shyness

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

Dyad 1 Variable Implicit self-theories Shyness Self-reported social interaction strategies Observer-reported social interaction strategies Self-reported private social consequences Observer-reported private social consequences Self-reported public social consequences Observer-reported public social consequences M 2.37 2.95 SD 0.69 0.79 3.10 2.96 3.32 3.68 6.49 5.89 1.22 1.04 1.65 1.35 1.19 0.97 2.99 2.72 2.89 3.37 6.61 6.02 1.35 0.94 1.71 1.37 1.27 1.17 2.68 3.74 2.66 3.28 6.67 5.99 1.40 0.84 1.69 1.23 1.32 0.87 M SD Dyad 2 M SD Dyad 3 M SD

1018

Table 6 Intercorrelations Among all Variables in Study 3

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

Variable

BEER

1. IST 2. Shy 3. SRSIS D1 4. SRSIS D2 5. SRSIS D3 6. ORSIS D1 7. ORSIS D2 8. ORSIS D3 9. SRPR D1 10. SRPR D2 11. SRPR D3 12. ORPR D1 13. ORPR D2 14. ORPR D3 15. SRPU D1 16. SRPU D2 17. SRPU D3 18. ORPU D1 19. ORPU D2 20. ORPU D3 .83 .71 .27 .23 .13 .59 .49 .51 .24 .23 .23 .36 .30 .35 .25 .17 .16 .87 .34 .36 .20 .58 .64 .63 .33 .32 .30 .29 .27 .31 .35 .28 .27 .30 .36 .25 .50 .62 .64 .33 .31 .28 .26 .23 .33 .31 .26 .27 .80 .71 .27 .34 .38 .79 .70 .66 .20 .13 .23 .48 .26 .32 .79 .25 .33 .35 .70 .81 .73 .21 .20 .35 .38 .30 .35 .15 .25 .38 .67 .68 .75 .15 .17 .31 .36 .25 .33 .69 .64 .36 .38 .35 .43 .33 .31 .40 .20 .23 .83 .38 .38 .36 .47 .50 .47 .37 .24 .28 .39 .37 .36 .49 .44 .50 .37 .25 .31 .83 .85 .22 .14 .26 .52 .29 .34 .89 .28 .20 .38 .49 .34 .42 .25 .20 .35 .40 .29 .37

.31 .32 .32 .28 .20 .12 .05 .38 .32 .36 .27 .18 .19 .29 .22 .18 .26 .12 .16

.36 .42 .34 .11 .14 .07 .47 .45 .44 .17 .18 .21 .35 .36 .38 .18 .09 .12

.32 .76 .33 .28 .31

.84 .32 .32 .33

.34 .34 .39

.67 .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 Social interaction strategy Shyness IST Shyness Dyad 1 .34* .18 .09 Dyad 2 .42* .13 .25* Dyad 3 .41* .10 .27* Dyad 1 .28* .25* .05 Observer Dyad 2 .39* .13 .24* Dyad 3 .37* .13 .25*

IST

Note. Values are betas. IST * p .05.

implicit self-theory.

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 exhibited fewer undesirable public consequences than did shy entity theorists. Taken together, these findings suggest that shy individuals 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 SelfReported Public and Private Social Consequences
Social consequences Public Shyness IST Shyness Private Shyness IST Shyness Dyad 1 .29* .19 .03 .40* .19 .02 Dyad 2 .33* .08 .01 .48* .09 .23* Dyad 3 .39* .02 .08 .46* .13 .23*

IST

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 handling 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 explicitly 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 inevitability of their social failure or on the possibility for change may have activated individual differences in response patterns. Therefore, the implicit self-theories of shy participants began to significantly 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 selftheories may have only begun to influence social behavior after a certain amount of interaction had transpired. In this case, time rather than the evaluative periods may have been the critical factor for activating the motivational patterns associated with entity and incremental theories of shyness.

IST

General Discussion
The present research provides support for the proposition that individual differences among shy people may be synthesized and

Note. Values are betas. IST * p .05.

implicit self-theory.

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 motivational patterns. Shy peoples goals and behaviors in social situations depend on their implicit self-theories of shyness. These relations emerged even after the main effects of shyness and 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 oriented than are shy incremental theorists. Moving beyond the general tendencies examined in Study 1, Study 2 tested whether implicit self-theories of shyness were important for understanding individual differences among shy individuals avoidant social strategies. Shy entity theorists reported more avoidant social strategies than did shy incremental theorists. This effect was particularly evident for entity theorists who had little confidence in their social skills. Study 3 provides further support for the importance of implicit self-theories in understanding individual differences among shy peoples avoidant responses to social challenge. Not only did shy entity theorists report more avoidant social behaviors, but these differences were also perceived by observers. Finally, shy peoples public and private social consequences depend on their implicit self-theories. Just as shy incremental theorists reported feeling less nervous and shy within a social situation, they

were perceived as more socially competent than were shy entity theorists. These findings have implications for research on shyness and implicit self-theories and, most generally, speak to the role of self-beliefs in shaping individuals social environments.

Implications for Research on Shyness

The present research on implicit self-theories of shyness suggests a promising model for organizing the diverse literature on individual differences within shyness. Previous explanations for individual differences among shy peoples social behavior have alternatively focused on attitudes, goals, and social strategies. The present research suggests that all of these variablesattitudes, goals, and responsesare important for understanding why some shy people are willing to extend themselves in social situations, whereas others avoid interaction at all costs. From an implicit self-theories perspective, attitudes toward the malleability of shyness motivate shy individuals to strive for either avoidance or approach in social situations and respond in a style that supports their desire for either avoidance or approach. The present research supports the proposition that implicit self-theories explain important differences among shy peoples behavior and suggests a framework for understanding why shy people sometimes behave so differently from one another. Consistent with previous research, shy individuals were found to be especially sensitive to potential threats in their environment and fear the negative evaluations of others when anticipating a novel social situation. Main effects of shyness were found for avoidant tendencies and strategies as well as increased social inhibition and decreased social competence within the first 5 min of social interaction. The general desire to avoid social interaction and ineffective social interaction is consistent with previous research on shyness. However, implicit self-theories of shyness were important for understanding why some shy individuals approach social challenge. The present research shows that implicit self-theories significantly interacted with shyness to predict general approach tendencies and observer-reported public social consequences

Table 9 Effects of Implicit Self-Theories of Shyness and Shyness on Observer-Reported Public and Private Social Consequences
Social consequences Public Shyness IST Shyness Private Shyness IST Shyness Dyad 1 .05 .22 .16 .33* .10 .13 Dyad 2 .06 .03 .26* .24* .14 .11 Dyad 3 .05 .10 .28* .24* .16 .11

IST

IST

Note. Values are betas. IST * p .05.

implicit self-theory.

IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

1021

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 interactions 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. Therefore, 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 selftheories are related to important differences among shy individuals, 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 differences 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 knowing 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 individuals with entity versus incremental theories and would not be a true parallel of the research on implicit self-theories of intelligence, where individuals are matched on academic ability. However, 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 selftheories in response to social challenge and less to do with dispositional 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

shyness were only moderately correlated, which suggests that there are individual differences in the sociability of shy people. Zimbardo (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 selftheories 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 behavior. 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 framework. 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 potential 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 selftheories 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 understanding 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

BEER

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, Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2001), and athletic coordination (Kasimatis, 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 inconsistent 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 incremental theorists are able to incorporate positive feedback from social situations, do they eventually become less shy? If so, implicit self-theories in the social domain may have important implications 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 striking 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-

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 negative affect in the face of challenge when compared with incremental 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 interaction more than were shy entity theorists. The relationship between 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 important 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 important 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 perceptions 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 selftheories have implications for differences in the tendency to approach 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 caregiving 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 perceptions 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 individuals with entity theories, social situations may seem rife with

IMPLICIT SELF-THEORIES AND SHYNESS

1023

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 selfimprovement and affiliation. To more fully understand how selfbeliefs 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 Psychology, 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 selfconsciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation 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 Psychology, 73, 923940. Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19 30. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 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 Psychology, 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. Psychological 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 Psychologist, 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-

ality theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychology, 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 Psychology 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 Development, 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 Experimental 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 Psychology, 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, consolidation, 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 Development, 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 Review, 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

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-presentation: 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. Scandinavian 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 anxiety. 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. (Original work published 1977)

Toward a motivational model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 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 Personality, 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.

Received September 25, 2001 Revision received March 11, 2002 Accepted March 11, 2002