2 2 The RIGs and the evoked companions as well as the silent dialogue between the real and the evoked companions are highly consistent with Stern’s concept of the schema‐of‐being‐with‐the‐self (discussed in the section on the solitary self and introduced ten years later, in 1995), although Stern did not make an explicit connection between them.
6 Culture, Social Withdrawal, and Development
Xinyin Chenand Mengting Liu
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Culture, Social Withdrawal, and Development
The significance of social interactions for human development has been extensively discussed and well documented in the literature (Hartup, 1996; Piaget, 1932; Rubin et al., 2015; Sullivan, 1953). Social interactions provide opportunities for children to understand standards in the society for appropriate behaviors and to learn skills to cooperate with others and solve problems. The experiences of social interactions are important for children to develop self‐identity. In addition, social relationships that are formed through interactions are a main source of emotional support that children obtain in coping with challenges and stress in daily activities (see Rubin et al., 2015). Therefore, a low level of social participation (or spending time in solitude) has traditionally been viewed as a risk factor that may result in psychopathological functioning and adjustment problems in various areas, such as social incompetence, poor school performance, and negative self‐regard (e.g., Chen & Liu, 2016). Findings from empirical studies have largely supported these arguments (Coplan et al., 2004; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Rubin et al., 2009).
Solitude, as physical or perceived separation from others, may be driven by external or internal factors. Solitude due to external factors, particularly rejection or isolation by others, is robustly related to negative feelings and other socioemotional and cognitive impairments (e.g., Coplan, Zelenski et al., 2018; Rubin et al., 2015). Developmental researchers tend to pay much attention to internally driven solitude, which is typically referred to as social withdrawal. A main feature of social withdrawal is that individuals display solitary behavior or stay alone when opportunities to interact with others are available (Rubin et al., 2009). According to Asendorpf (1990), social withdrawal may be manifested in three forms – social avoidance, unsociability, and shyness, depending on the underlying motivations. Social avoidance, based on the combination of low social approach and high social avoidance motivations, represents active evasion of social interactions with others (Asendorpf 1990; Coplan & Armer 2007). Whereas little is known about the reasons for social avoidance, it is suggested that socially avoidant children may have experienced repeated and consistent exposure to negative peer treatments or display the behavior as a manifestation of social anhedonia and depression (Coplan, Ooi et al., 2018). Unsociability (or social disinterest or preference for solitude) is derived from a low motivation for social interaction; unsociable children lack a strong desire to play with others or express a non‐fearful preference for solitary activities although they may not actively avoid peer interaction (Coplan et al., 2013; Goossens, 2014). Finally, shyness is concerned with excessive wariness, unease, and self‐consciousness, and is characterized by an approach‐avoidant conflict, in contexts of social novelty or perceived social evaluation; shy children have the desire to interact with others (high social approach motivation) but their approach inclination is inhibited by social fear, anxiety, and lack of confidence (Asendorpf, 1991). Shyness shares conceptual overlap with related constructs such as anxious solitude (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Shell et al., 2014) and anxious withdrawal (Booth‐LaForce et al., 2012; Oh et al., 2008).
Most of the existing research has focused on shyness and its relations with adjustment. The results have indicated that in Western societies, shyness is generally regarded as indicating incompetence and immaturity and is linked to adjustment difficulties, such as peer rejection, victimization, and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction (Coplan et al., 2013; Ladd et al., 2011). Relative to shyness, unsociability seems to be relatively benign (Rubin et al., 2009). Research has shown that from early childhood to adolescence, unsociability is not necessarily associated with internalizing problems or peer difficulties (e.g., Bowker & Raja, 2011; Coplan et al., 2004; Ladd et al., 2011). It has been argued that unsociability may become increasingly adaptive in adolescence because it is viewed as indicative of autonomy (Coplan et al., 2019).
In this chapter, we discuss how culture plays a role in the development of social withdrawal in childhood and adolescence. We focus on shyness and, to some extent, unsociability because little research is available on other forms of social withdrawal. We first review major methodological approaches in the study of culture and children’s social withdrawal. Then, we discuss children’s and adolescents’ shyness from a contextual‐developmental perspective. Next, we discuss unsociability, regulated shyness, and other types of social withdrawal. The chapter concludes with some suggestions for future research.
Research Approaches in the Study of Culture and Children’s Social Withdrawal
Culture has been defined as the man‐made part of the environment, the shared lifestyle of a group of people, the beliefs and values in a society concerning how individuals should behave, the meaning system that individuals use to understand the world, or other phenomena (Cole & Cagigas, 2010; Oyserman, 2017). Among the definitions, many researchers seem to prefer the one focusing on beliefs and values that are commonly endorsed in the society (Hofstede, 1994). This definition allows for interpretations of differences and similarities in behaviors, such as social withdrawal, across societies in terms of the potential role of culture. However, the notion of sharing of culture among people within a society or community creates conceptual and methodological challenges for developmental researchers who are interested in understanding and examining how culture is involved in individual‐level socialization processes (e.g., associations between specific socialization practices and social withdrawal) or developmental processes (e.g., contributions of social withdrawal to internalizing problems or other developmental outcomes); it is difficult to establish logical and empirical links between the collective endorsement of cultural beliefs and values by a group and behaviors or developmental patterns that are displayed by individuals. For example, although research shows that Asian parents are more likely than European American parents to endorse power‐assertive, authoritarian parenting (Chao, 1994; Steinberg et al., 1992) and that Asian children may display higher level of shyness than European American children (e.g., Chen & Tse, 2010; Rubin et al., 2006), the relations among cultural values, authoritarian parenting, and children’s shyness are not clear (e.g., Chen, Dong et al., 1997; Chen et al., 1998).
As an approach to address the issue of the “sharing” aspect of culture, researchers may treat it as an individual‐level construct (Triandis, 1995), assuming that personal characteristics and experiences of each individual affect his or her reactions to the influence of external cultural factors. Using this approach, researchers may measure culture by observing individual responses to culturally related questions in self‐report questionnaires or to tasks that are used to activate a particular cultural mindset or experience (Oyserman, 2017; Singelis, 1994). The data allow for direct analysis of relations between cultural variables and child behaviors, interactions between cultural variables and socialization variables in predicting child behaviors, and interactions between cultural variables and child behaviors in predicting developmental outcomes.
The conceptualization of culture as an individual construct and the corresponding research approach, however, may not be consistent with the tradition of developmental research that views culture as a context for socialization and human development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Moreover, it is unclear to what extent cultural context is reflected by an individual cultural trait because individual reactions to specific tasks used to activate a cultural mindset or self‐reports on a questionnaire of culture are likely to be confounded with other personal characteristics and experiences. It is difficult to distinguish individual cultural and noncultural reactions or traits (e.g., collectivism