A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Bivalent Fear of Evaluation Model for Social Anxiety

Sho Okawa , Honami Arai , Satoko Sasagawa , Shin-ichi Ishikawa , Melissa M. Norberg , Norman B. Schmidt , Jung-Hye Kwon , Ronald M. Rapee , Eiji Shimizu
{"title":"A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Bivalent Fear of Evaluation Model for Social Anxiety","authors":"Sho Okawa ,&nbsp;Honami Arai ,&nbsp;Satoko Sasagawa ,&nbsp;Shin-ichi Ishikawa ,&nbsp;Melissa M. Norberg ,&nbsp;Norman B. Schmidt ,&nbsp;Jung-Hye Kwon ,&nbsp;Ronald M. Rapee ,&nbsp;Eiji Shimizu","doi":"10.1016/j.jbct.2021.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Social anxiety is one of the most common mental health problems worldwide; however, the prevalence of social anxiety symptoms differs between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. These differences may have important implications for guiding cognitive-behavioral treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in the experience of social anxiety exist across countries with varying cultures, and whether the bivalent fear of evaluation model is valid for both individualistic (Australia and the United States) and collectivistic countries (Korea and Japan). A total of 704 participants (279 from Australia, 137 from the United States, 101 from Korea, and 187 from Japan) completed questionnaires assessing these constructs. Analysis of covariance with age and gender as covariates revealed that symptoms of social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation are reported more in collectivistic countries, while fear of positive evaluation (FPE) is higher in individualistic countries. The results of path analysis and multiple group path analysis indicated that the structure of the bivalent fear of evaluation model differs across cultures. A direct path from FPE to social anxiety was only observed in individualistic countries; however, the relationship between disqualification of positive social outcomes (DPSO) and social anxiety was stronger in collectivistic countries. These findings imply that FPE and DPSO may have different functions of relevance to social anxiety in individualistic and collectivistic countries, and indicate that modifications may be necessary in the application of cognitive-behavioral treatment strategies across cultures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36022,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","volume":"31 3","pages":"Pages 205-213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jbct.2021.01.003","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589979121000032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Social anxiety is one of the most common mental health problems worldwide; however, the prevalence of social anxiety symptoms differs between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. These differences may have important implications for guiding cognitive-behavioral treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in the experience of social anxiety exist across countries with varying cultures, and whether the bivalent fear of evaluation model is valid for both individualistic (Australia and the United States) and collectivistic countries (Korea and Japan). A total of 704 participants (279 from Australia, 137 from the United States, 101 from Korea, and 187 from Japan) completed questionnaires assessing these constructs. Analysis of covariance with age and gender as covariates revealed that symptoms of social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation are reported more in collectivistic countries, while fear of positive evaluation (FPE) is higher in individualistic countries. The results of path analysis and multiple group path analysis indicated that the structure of the bivalent fear of evaluation model differs across cultures. A direct path from FPE to social anxiety was only observed in individualistic countries; however, the relationship between disqualification of positive social outcomes (DPSO) and social anxiety was stronger in collectivistic countries. These findings imply that FPE and DPSO may have different functions of relevance to social anxiety in individualistic and collectivistic countries, and indicate that modifications may be necessary in the application of cognitive-behavioral treatment strategies across cultures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社交焦虑的双价恐惧评价模型的跨文化比较
社交焦虑是世界上最常见的心理健康问题之一;然而,在集体主义和个人主义文化中,社交焦虑症状的流行程度是不同的。这些差异可能对指导认知行为治疗具有重要意义。本研究的目的是确定在不同文化的国家中是否存在社交焦虑体验的差异,以及二价恐惧评估模型是否对个人主义国家(澳大利亚和美国)和集体主义国家(韩国和日本)都有效。共有704名参与者(279名来自澳大利亚,137名来自美国,101名来自韩国,187名来自日本)完成了评估这些构念的问卷。以年龄和性别为协变量的协方差分析显示,集体主义国家报告的社交焦虑症状和对负面评价的恐惧更多,而个人主义国家报告的积极评价恐惧(FPE)更高。通径分析和多群体通径分析结果表明,二价恐惧评估模型的结构在不同文化背景下存在差异。从FPE到社交焦虑的直接路径仅在个人主义国家中观察到;然而,在集体主义国家,积极社会结果不合格与社会焦虑之间的关系更强。这些发现表明,在个人主义和集体主义国家中,FPE和DPSO可能对社交焦虑具有不同的相关功能,并表明在跨文化应用认知行为治疗策略时可能需要进行修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy
Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
60 days
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of online mental health education on occupational burnout among medical staff Analyzing data in single-case experimental designs: Objectives and available software options The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy in mental health problems of children and adolescents in child protection system: A meta-analysis Assessing user acceptance of a mental health app & its impact on depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder related knowledge: A mixed method experimental study Morphological changes and body representation: A study of the link between weight cycling and body schema disturbances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1