Language Development in the Primary Years

LaNitraa

contentserver.pdf

Home >English homework help >Language Development in the Primary Years

Infant and Child Development Inf. Child. Dev. 18: 238 – 254 (2009)

Published online 6 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/icd.622

Shy and Soft-spoken: Shyness, Pragmatic Language, and Socio- emotional Adjustment in Early Childhood

Robert J. Coplan� and Murray Weeks Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont., Canada

The goal of this study was to examine the moderating role of pragmatic language in the relations between shyness and indices of socio-emotional adjustment in an unselected sample of early elementary school children. In particular, we sought to explore whether pragmatic language played a protective role for shy children. Participants were n 5 167 children aged 6–7 years, recruited from grade 1 classrooms in public elementary schools. Multi-source assessment was used to measure child shyness, pragmatic language ability, and indices of social and emotional difficulties at school. Results indicated several significant shy- ness-by-pragmatic-language interactions in the prediction of outcome variables. The pattern of results indicated a clear buffering effect of pragmatic language, with associations between shyness and adjustment difficulties exacerbated at lower levels of pragmatic language, and attenuated at higher levels. Results are discussed in terms of the specific positive benefits of pragmatic language for shy children and the implications for ameliorative intervention programs. Copyright r 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: shyness; pragmatic language; adjustment

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Shyness refers to wariness and anxiety in the face of social novelty and perceived social evaluation and is characterized by an approach–avoidance conflict in such situations (Coplan & Armer, 2007). Thus, although shy children may desire social interaction, this social approach motivation is simultaneously inhibited by social fear and anxiety (Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, & Armer, 2004). For younger children, shyness manifests itself primarily as nervousness and fear when encountering new people and new situations. For older children, shyness may also be

*Correspondence to: Robert J. Coplan, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1S 5B6. E-mail: [email protected].

expressed as embarrassment and self-consciousness during situations when children feel they are the ‘center of attention’ (Crozier, 2001).

In the peer context, shy children are less likely to initiate social contact, tend to withdraw from peer interactions (Coplan & Arbeau, 2008; Coplan & Armer, 2007). However, although these terms are often used interchangeably, it is important to distinguish between shyness and social withdrawal. Social withdrawal is an ‘um- brella term’ that is used to describe the consistent and frequent display of solitary behaviours in the presence of peers (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009). Shyness is a temperamental trait and represents one ‘reason’ (i.e. social fear) why children might withdraw from peer interaction (other children may withdraw, as an example, because of a lack of interest in social interaction). Moreover, not all shy children may remain socially withdrawn after an initial ‘warming up’ period (for recent discus- sions of these issues, see Coplan & Armer, 2007; Rubin, et al., 2009).

In the presence of peers, shy children also tend to display overt indices of social anxiety (e.g. Coplan, Arbeau, & Armer, 2008). In older children, extreme social anxiety can lead to a clinical diagnosis of social phobia, an internalizing disorder characterized by ‘a marked and persistent fear of social or performance situations in which embarrassment may occur’ (American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 1994, p. 411). Thus, it should not be surprising that results from a growing number of studies suggest that extreme shyness in early childhood might be linked to the development of anxiety disorders (e.g. Kagan, Snidman, Zentner, & Peterson, 1999; Rapee, Kennedy, Ingram, Edwards, & Sweeney, 2005; Van Ameringen, Mancini, & Oakman, 1998).

Moreover, shy children are at increased risk for a wide range of adjustment difficulties, particularly along the internalizing dimension (Coplan & Armer, 2007; Crozier, 2001; Rubin & Coplan, 2004). From early childhood through ado- lescence, shyness has also been related to loneliness, lower self-esteem, and de- pressive symptoms, as well as difficulties with peers such as peer rejection and exclusion (e.g. Coplan, Closson, & Arbeau, 2007; Coplan et al., 2004, 2008; Crozier, 1995; Gazelle & Ladd, 2003; Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000; Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon, 1995).

There is also growing evidence to suggest that being shy is particularly pro- blematic for boys (Rubin & Coplan, 2004). For example, mothers tend to respond more negatively towards shy boys than shy girls (Radke-Yarrow, Richters, & Wilson, 1988; Simpson & Stevenson-Hinde, 1985). Moreover, through childhood and into adolescence, shy boys appear to be at greater risk than shy girls for maladaptive outcomes, including behaviour problems, loneliness, and peer ex- clusion (Coplan et al., 2007, 2004; Morison & Masten 1991; Stevenson-Hinde & Glover, 1996). These findings have been attributed in part to the notion that shyness appears to be less socially acceptable for boys than for girls (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). It should also be noted that there appear to be cross-cultural dif- ferences in the meanings and outcomes of shyness. For example, shy behaviours appear to be more accepted and associated with positive adjustment in collecti- vistic societies such as China (e.g. Chen, Cen, Li, & He, 2005).

Shyness and Language

Restraint of speech reflects a fundamental characteristic of shy children that can be detected in early infancy (Rezendes, Snidman, Kagan, & Gibbons, 1993). In this regard, difficulty with verbal communication is often a defining character- istic of shy children (Buss, 1984, 1997). Moreover, shy children not only spend less

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 239

time in social interaction but also speak less when they do interact with others (Asendorpf & Meier, 1993).

Results from several studies have indicated that shy children perform worse than their non-shy counterparts on a variety of tests of language abilities, par- ticularly with regards to aspects of expressive language (e.g. Broberg, Hwang, Lamb, & Bookstein, 1990; Crozier & Perkins, 2002; Evans, 1996). Spere, Schmidt, Theall-Honey, and Martin-Change (2004) found a significant negative association between parental ratings of child shyness and performance on assessments of phonemic awareness and expressive language skills. Findings regarding indices of receptive language skills have been less consistent, with some researchers re- porting poorer performance by shy (and withdrawn) children (e.g. Crozier & Perkins, 2002; Rubin 1982; Spere et al., 2004), and others failing to find such associations (e.g. Coplan, Wichmann, & Lagacé-Séguı́n, 2001; Evans; 1996; Rubin & Krasnor, 1986). This has led to some debate as to whether shy children might suffer from a performance deficit (as a result of the social stresses of the testing environment) as opposed to a competence deficit (e.g. Crozier & Hostettler, 2003).

Pragmatic language Pragmatic language skills involve being able to use social contextual cues in

order to understand a speaker ’s meaning and to attain social goals through effective communication with others. Pragmatic language is considered an im- portant contributor to the development of communicative competence (Leino- nen, Ryder, Ellis, & Hammond, 2003). Eales (1993) argued that pragmatic language deficits could affect a wide range of areas of functioning and should be related to a number of disorders.

However, empirical research linking pragmatic language deficits and socio- emotional difficulties have focused almost exclusively on special populations. For example, children with autism (e.g. Martin & McDonald, 2003; Young, Diehl, Morris, Hyman, & Bennetto, 2005), ADHD (McKown, 2007), or conduct disorder (e.g. Gilmour, Hill, Place, & Skuse, 2004) have been shown to demonstrate deficits in pragmatic language skills. There is also research suggesting that children with language deficits (that include pragmatics) have peer difficulties (e.g. Conti- Ramsden & Botting, 2004).

Communication skills are viewed as an important contributor to social com- petence in childhood (e.g. Farmer, 1997), even after controlling for IQ (e.g. McKown, 2007). However, our review of the literature uncovered only a handful of studies explicitly exploring links between pragmatic language and any aspects of social functioning in typically developing children. Positive associations be- tween pragmatic language skills and peer preference have been reported in both preschool (Gertner, Rice, & Hadley, 1994) and school-aged children (Place & Becker, 1991). As well, Fagan and Iglesias (2000) reported that children with better language scores (including pragmatics) exhibited fewer externalizing and internalizing behaviours.

It has been suggested that shy children may have difficulties in communicative competence (Evans, 1993; Skarpness & Carson, 1987). However, to date there have been few empirical studies that have explored this notion directly. Recently, Pedlow, Sanson, and Wales (2004) examined whether children with emotional/ behavioural maladjustment were less adept at judging the level of politeness required to make requests in different social situations. Their results indicated that children with high self-reported social anxiety (a correlate of shyness, e.g. Coplan et al., 2008) made significantly different judgments about the effectiveness of re-

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks240

quests. They suggest that these children may have trouble understanding the types of requests that are appropriate for different social situations.

Language as a ‘buffer’ Language skills may be particularly important to the social and emotional

adjustment of shy children. To begin with, language impairment in early child- hood has been linked to the development of anxiety disorders in adolescence (Voci, Beitchman, Brownlie, & Wilson, 2006). Thus, language difficulties may pose a particular problem for shy children who are already at risk for experi- encing social anxiety.

In only two studies to date have researchers specifically explored the potential protective role of language for shy children. Asendorpf (1994) examined chil- dren’s verbal IQ and level of observed inhibition towards strangers over a 6-year period. Results indicated that verbal IQ (but not non-verbal IQ) predicted a re- duction in observed and teacher-rated inhibition from age 4 to 10 years. In this same vein, Coplan and Armer (2005) reported that the relation between shyness and indices of maladjustment in preschool were significantly reduced at higher levels of expressive language (i.e. buffering effect). These findings suggest that having the skills to effectively communicate with peers may be an important protective factor for shy children. It seems likely that shy children would parti- cularly benefit from language skills that are specific to the social context (i.e. pragmatic language).

The Current Study

The goals of the current study were to explore the relation between shyness and pragmatic language in an unselected sample of early elementary school children. Moreover, we sought to examine the potential moderating role of pragmatic language in the relation between shyness and adjustment. Drawing upon previous research relating shyness to poorer performance on standardized tests of a variety of language skills (e.g. Spere et al., 2004), it was predicted that shy children would also perform worse on an assessment of pragmatic language. Expanding upon previous research suggesting that language skills may also play a protective role in the adjustment of shy children (e.g. Coplan & Armer, 2005), it was further speculated that pragmatic language ability would moderate the relations between shyness and socio-emotional adjustment outcomes. Finally, given the growing research to suggest that shy boys are more at risk for maladaptive outcomes than shy girls (Rubin & Coplan, 2004), we also explored the role of child gender in these associations. In particular, it was hypothesized that shyness would be more strongly associated with negative adjustment outcomes for boys as compared to girls.

METHODS

Participants

The participants in this study were 167 children (83 boys, 84 girls, Mage 5 76.95 months, S.D. 5 3.88 months). Children were enrolled in grade 1 in 14 public schools located in Ottawa, Canada.1 The sample was 74% Caucasian, with a variety of other ethnicities also represented (10% Asian, 5% Black). Approxi- mately 18% of mothers and 21% of fathers had completed high school only, 68%

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 241

of mothers and 64% of fathers had a college/university degree, and 10% of mothers and 9% of fathers also had some post-graduate experience. The public school board from which the sample was drawn did not permit the collection of information regarding parental employment status and income.

Procedure

Data were collected at three time points over the course of the school year (October/November, January/February, and May/June). Multi-source assess- ment was employed, including maternal ratings, teacher ratings, and individual child interviews.

Measures

Child shyness Near the start of the school year, mothers completed the Child Social Preference Scale (CSPS; Coplan et al., 2004). The CSPS has good psychometric properties and has been used in previous studies as a parental assessment of child shyness and social disinterest (Coplan et al., 2004, 2008; Coplan & Armer, 2005). Of particular interest for the current study was the subscale of shyness, which consists of 7 items focusing on social motivations and behaviours consistent with the ‘approach–avoidance conflict’ conceptualization of temperamental shyness (e.g. ‘My child seems to want to play with others, but is sometimes nervous to’ and ‘My child ‘hovers’ near where other children are playing, without joining in,’ a 5 0.90 in the current sample). Coplan et al. (2004) demonstrated theoretically consistent associations between the shyness subscale of the CSPS and (1) other parental assessments of child shyness, (2) teacher ratings of child anxiety, and (3) behavioural observations of children’s free play behaviours. Mothers completed the CSPS again (a 5 0.89) at the end of the school year (i.e. 8 months later).

Pragmatic language In January, children were interviewed individually by six trained research

assistants. Pragmatic language ability was assessed with the ‘pragmatic judgment’ test of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). The CASL is a standardized oral language assessment for children and young adults, and is appropriate for ages 3–21. The pragmatic judgment test involves the reading aloud of a series of vignettes that describe everyday situations. The actors in the vignettes are in situations that require pragmatically appropriate language. Children provide open-ended responses (i.e. are asked to complete the stories). In order to respond correctly, children must be able to understand the actors’ communicative intent, adjust their re- sponses depending on the age or relationship of the actors, and use appropriate language to express various emotions and desires. The CASL pragmatic judg- ment test has previously demonstrated high internal consistency (90%) and test– retest reliability (0.84, Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999), as well as predicting outcomes beyond the contribution of child IQ (e.g. Gilmour et al., 2004).

Child adjustment Near the end of the school year, children were once again interviewed and

individually administered the Social Anxiety Scale for Children—Revised (SASC-R,

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks242

La Greca, 1998). This 18-item self-report measure assesses three subscales of social anxiety: fear of negative evaluation (8 items, a 5 0.83 in the current sample, e.g. ‘I worry about being teased’.); social avoidance and distress to novelty (6 items, a 5 0.72, e.g. ‘I feel shy around kids I don’t know’.); and general social avoidance and distress (4 items, a 5 0.76, e.g. ‘I am quiet when I’m with a group of kids’.). Although this measure is typically used with older children, the SASC-R has been validated for use with children in grade 1 (Ginsburg, La Greca, & Silverman, 1998).

Children were also administered the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Ques- tionnaire for Young Children (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw, 1984), consisting of 16 items (along with 8 filler items) related to loneliness and social dissatisfaction (e.g. ‘Do you have kids to play with at school?’). This measure has been used with children as young as 5 years of age (e.g. Coplan et al., 2007; Ladd & Burgess, 1999). In the current sample, items were averaged to create an aggregate measure of loneliness and social dissatisfaction (a 5 0.85 in the current sample).

Finally, in order to obtain an overall measure of children’s social competence and social skills at school, teachers completed the Child Behaviour Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996) at the end of the school year. Of particular interest for the present study were the subscales of asocial with peers (i.e. social withdrawal; 6 items, a 5 0.82 in the current sample, e.g. ‘solitary child’ and ‘withdraws from peer activities’) and prosocial with peers (7 items, a 5 0.93, e.g. ‘kind toward peers’).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics for all study variables are displayed in Table 1. Of particular note, the sample mean and standard deviation for the norm-standardized assessment of pragmatic language were at expected levels for an unselected sample.

Maternal and paternal education levels were aggregated to create a measure of parental education. Parental education was not significantly related to child shyness (r 5�0.06, ns). However, parental education was significantly correlated with pragmatic language scores (r 5 0.30, po0.001) and a number of child out-

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all study variables

Variable Mean Standard deviation Range

Shyness (start of year) 2.13 0.82 1.00–5.00a

Shyness (end of year) 2.07 0.81 1.00–5.00a

Pragmatic language 103.53 13.91 67–137b

Social anxiety Fear of negative evaluation 1.90 0.58 1.00–3.00c

Distress to novelty 1.92 0.56 1.00–3.00c

General social avoidance 1.73 0.54 1.00–3.00c

Loneliness 1.46 0.38 1.00–2.88c

Asocial with peers 1.22 0.37 1.00–2.67c

Prosocial with peers 2.42 0.52 1.00–3.00c

aRated on a 5-point scale. bNorm-referenced standard score. cRated on a 3-point scale.

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 243

come variables including loneliness (r 5�0.18, po0.05), fear of negative eva- luation (r 5�0.18, po0.05), and prosocial behaviour (r 5 0.31, po0.001). As a result, parental education was statistically controlled for in all subsequent ana- lyses. Results from t-tests indicated significant gender differences only in the social anxiety subscale of social avoidance and distress to novelty, where girls reported significantly higher scores than boys (Mboys 5 1.80, S.D. 5 0.59; Mgirls 5 2.04, S.D. 5 0.51; t 5�2.76, po0.01).

Associations Among Study Variables

Results from partial correlations (controlling for parental education) among all study variables are displayed in Table 2. Among the results, pragmatic language was significantly and negatively associated with shyness as assessed at both the start and the end of the school year. These correlations did not differ significantly for boys versus girls. Shyness at the start of the school year was significantly and positively associated with teacher-rated asocial behaviour with peers. Shyness at the end of the school year was significantly and positively associated with teacher-rated asocial behaviour with peers, and the negative association with loneliness approached significance. Pragmatic language was significantly and positively related to teacher-rated prosocial behaviour with peers.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

The primary goal of these analyses was to assess how gender and pragmatic language moderated the associations between shyness (at the start of the school year) and socio-emotional adjustment (at the end of the school year). In order to accomplish this goal, a series of hierarchical regression analyses was performed employing Cohen’s partialed products technique (Aiken & West, 1991). For each equation, parental education was entered at Step 1 as a control variable. In Step 2, standardized main effect variables (e.g. shyness, pragmatic language, child gender) were entered next. In Step 3, two-way interaction terms were entered—as represented by multiplicative products (i.e. shyness�gender, shyness�prag- matics, and pragmatics�gender). The three-way interaction term was also tested

Table 2. Partial correlations (controlling for parental education) between all study variables

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Shyness (start year) 0.77�� 0.25�� 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.36�� 0.12 2. Shyness (end year) �0.19� 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.161 0.35�� 0.08 3. Pragmatic language 0.03 �0.12 0.02 0.02 �0.03 0.17�

4. Anx-FNE 0.46�� 0.70�� 0.30�� 0.06 �0.07 5. Anx-SAD-General 0.51�� 0.32�� 0.11 0.02 6. Anx-SAD-New 0.33�� 0.02 0.06 7. Loneliness 0.141 �0.11 8. Asocial with peers �0.16�

9. Prosocial with peers

Anx-FNE, Social Anxiety—Fear of Negative Evaluation; Anx-SAD—General: Social Anxiety—General Social Avoidance and Distress; Anx-SAD—New: Social Anxiety—Social Avoidance and Distress to New Situations and Unfamiliar People. ��po0.001, ��po0.01, �po0.05., 1po0.10.

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks244

at Step 3 (i.e. shyness�gender�pragmatics). No three-way interactions were significant and these findings are not presented here.2 Separate equations were computed to predict each of the self-reported and teacher-rated outcome variables. The N’s for each analysis vary slightly as a function of missing data. In order to ease presentation (and since ‘main effect’ correlations for shyness and pragmatic language are already displayed in Table 2), only results related to the interaction terms are summarized in Table 3.

For child self-reports of social anxiety, results were virtually identical for each of the three subscales. In all cases, a significant shyness�pragmatic language in- teraction effect was observed. To explore these interactions, simple slopes ana- lyses were performed. Following standard procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991), values of �1 and 11 were used to designate low and high levels of parental pragmatic language. Results are displayed in Figure 1, with a similar pattern of findings for each of the three subscales. Decreasing values of pragmatic language corresponded with an increased positive association between shyness and self-reported social anxiety. In other words, pragmatic language acted as a protective factor, with the positive association between shyness and social an- xiety only evident among children with lower pragmatic language abilities.

A significant interaction between shyness and gender was also observed in the prediction of fear of negative evaluation. Results from follow-up regression ana- lyses indicated that shyness was significantly and positively associated with fear of negative evaluation for boys (b 5 0.23, po0.05) but not girls (b 5�0.12, ns).

Two additional significant interactions between pragmatic language and gender were also observed in the prediction of loneliness and asocial behaviours. Results from follow-up regression analyses indicated that although neither relation reached statistical significance, nor the negative relation between pragmatic language and loneliness was stronger for girls (b 5�0.18, ns) than for boys (b 5 0.13, ns). A similar pattern was observed in terms of the relations between pragmatic language and asocial behaviours for girls (b 5�0.17, ns) and boys (b 5 0.14, ns).

A significant interaction between shyness and pragmatic language was also found in the prediction of child loneliness and teacher-rated asocial behaviours (see Table 3). Results from simple slopes analyses are displayed in Figure 2. An almost identical pattern of results is again evident. At lower levels of pragmatic language,

Table 3. Results of regression analyses predicting indices of social adjustment from interactions between gender, child shyness, and pragmatic language

Dependent variable Two-way interaction terms (sr2)

Shyness�gender Pragmatics�gender Shyness�pragmatics

Social anxiety FNE 0.036� 0.002 0.026 SAD-General 0.001 0.002 0.48��

SAD-New 0.010 0.008 0.028�

Loneliness 0.018 0.068 0.027�

Prosocial with peers 0.001 0.013 0.001 Asocial with peers 0.001 0.63�� 0.044��

FNE, fear of negative evaluation; SAD—General: General Social Avoidance and Distress; SAD—New: Social Avoidance and Distress to New Situations and Unfamiliar People. ��po0.001, ��po0.01, �po0.05.

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 245

shyness is positively associated with loneliness and withdrawn behaviour with peers. These relations are not apparent at higher levels of pragmatic language.

Changes in shyness The goal of these final analyses was to examine if pragmatic language was

associated with changes in maternal ratings of shyness over the course of the school year. Shyness was quite stable from the start to the end of the school year (r 5 0.77, po0.001). Change scores were computed by subtracting shyness scores at the start of the school year from shyness scores at the end of the school year.

(a)

1.5

2.5

F ea

r of

N eg

at iv

e E

va lu

at io

Low Pragmatics

High Pragmatics

(b)

1.5

2.5

G en

er al

S oc

ia l

A vo

id an

ce /D

is tr

es s Low Pragmatics

High Pragmatics

(c)

1.5

2.5

Low Shyness High Shyness

A vo

id an

ce /D

is tr

es s

to N

ov el

Low Pragmatics

High Pragmatics

Figure 1. Interactions between shyness and pragmatic language in the prediction of (a) Fear of Negative Evaluation; (b) General Social Avoidance and Distress; and (c) Social Avoidance and Distress to New Situations and Unfamiliar People.

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks246

Thus, higher scores on this change variable represented a greater increase in shyness over this 8-month period.

A hierarchical regression analysis was then performed to predict shyness change, with parental education entered on Step 1 as a control, child gender and pragmatic language entered on Step 2, and the interaction term (gender�prag- matic language) entered at Step 3. Results indicated only a significant sex by pragmatic language interaction (sr2 5 0.056, po0.05). Results from follow-up analyses indicated that pragmatic language was significantly associated in a decrease in shyness from the start to the end of the school year for boys (b 5�0.27, po0. 05) but not girls (b 5 0.08, ns).

DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to explore the inter-associations between shyness, pragmatic language, and indices of socio-emotional adjustment in early child- hood. In particular, we were interested in the potential moderating role of pragmatic language in the associations between shyness and adjustment outcomes. Overall, both shyness and pragmatic language were associated with various indices of socio-emotional adjustment at school, with some gender differences also evident. Results also indicated a significant and negative

(a)

1.5

Low Shyness High Shyness

L on

el in

es s

(b)

0.5

1.5

Low Shyness High Shyness

A so

ci al

w it

h pe

er s

Low Pragmatics

High Pragmatics

Low Pragmatics

High Pragmatics

Figure 2. Interaction between shyness and pragmatic language in the prediction of (a) loneliness; and (b) asocial behaviour with peers.

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 247

association between shyness and pragmatic language skills. As hypothesized, several significant shyness by pragmatic language interactions were also observed in the prediction of adjustment outcomes. The pattern of result for these interactions was suggestive of a ‘buffering’ role for pragmatic language in the links between shyness and adjustment in early childhood. Each of these results is discussed in turn.

Shyness and Adjustment

Overall, maternal-rated shyness was highly stable across the school year and associated with teacher-rated socially withdrawn behaviours. Results also provided some additional support for the notion that shyness is more problematic in childhood for boys as compared to girls (Rubin & Coplan, 2004). Shyness was associated with self-reported social anxiety (i.e. fear of negative evaluation) for boys only.

Results from previous studies in early childhood indicate that shy children interact less with peers at school and are more anxious (e.g. Coplan et al., 2008, 2004). Aside from falling behind in the acquisition of language skills, young children who consistently refrain from engaging in social interaction are also at risk for a host of maladaptive outcomes in later childhood and beyond (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker 2006). As such, these results add to the growing literature calling attention to the potential social and emotional difficulties that may be experienced by shy children.

Results are also somewhat worrisome for shy boys in particular, who rated themselves as more socially anxious. Aside from the wide range of negative outcomes related to poor peer relations, ‘sub-clinical’ levels of anxiety in early childhood are considered a risk factor for the later development of internalizing disorders (e.g. Goodwin, Fergusson, & Horwood, 2004). The combination of temperamental shyness and social anxiety in boys may further compound risk for more significant emotion problems later on. Results from studies with older children have also reported that shy boys are at greater risk for loneliness, poorer social skills and coping strategies, and lower self-esteem (Eisenberg, Shepard, Fabes, Murphy, & Guthrie, 1998; Morison & Masten 1991; Rubin, Chen, & Hymel, 1993). It is possible that the negative outcomes experienced by shy boys as they get older may be exacerbated by growing feelings of social anxiety.

Shyness and Pragmatic Language

A significant (albeit modest) and negative association was found between shyness and scores on a formal test of pragmatic language. These results are consistent with previous research indicating that shy children perform less well on tests of various aspects of language abilities (e.g. Spere et al., 2004). However, the modest magnitude of this relation does not appear to reflect an enormous and debilitating deficit in pragmatic language for shy children. Indeed, these findings would seem more in keeping with the notion that shy children perform near average levels, whereas uninhibited children tend to perform above norms in language testing (Spere et al., 2004). Notwithstanding, perhaps even more so than other language skills, pragmatic language abilities may need to be developed and practised in social contexts. Thus, with increasing age, shy children may increasingly ‘lag behind’ their peers in the development of socio-communicative skills because of their comparatively less frequent rate of engagement in social interactions (Coplan & Armer, 2005).

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks248

By itself, pragmatic language was also modestly related to greater prosocial behaviour with peers. This finding was not surprising and is consistent with previous research suggesting that pragmatic language is an important element of communicative competence and impacts the effectiveness of the child’s interac- tions with peers (Adams, Lloyd, Aldred & Baxendale, 2006; Leinonen & Kerbel, 1999). Teachers would be expected to rate children as being more prosocial if they are using pragmatically appropriate language among their peers. These children would likely find it easier to make friends and to avoid confrontations by using speech that was appropriate to the social context.

Although not a primary focus of the present study, it was interesting to note two interactions between gender and pragmatic language in the prediction of adjustment difficulties. The pattern of the results suggested a stronger negative association between pragmatic language and both loneliness and asocial beha- viours for boys as compared to girls. This is consistent with previous empirical evidence indicating that language difficulties are more strongly associated with behaviour problems for young boys than girls (e.g., Stowe, Arnold, & Ortiz, 1999).

Pragmatic language as a ‘buffer’ Several shyness by pragmatic language interaction effects were noted in the

prediction of adjustment outcomes. Follow-up simple effect analyses produced a consistent pattern of results. Among children with lower pragmatic language skills, shyness at the start of the school year predicted increased self-reported social anxiety and loneliness, as well as teacher-rated social withdrawal at the end of the school year. However, for children with higher pragmatic language skills, these associations were not evident. Thus, with increasing levels of prag- matic language, shyness was no longer associated with negative socio-emotional outcomes at school. Moreover, higher pragmatic language skills predicted a significant decrease in shyness over the school year, but for boys only.

These results add to the growing number of recent studies that have identified risk and protective factors in the adjustment developmental pathways of shy children, including parental characteristics (Coplan et al., 2008), friendships (Rubin et al., 2006), and classroom climate (Gazelle & Spangler, 2007). Moreover, these findings extend the small body of literature suggesting that language skills may serve a protective role for shy children (e.g. Asendorpf, 1994; Coplan & Armer, 2005) and that language impairments increase the likelihood of sub- sequent social anxiety (Voci et al., 2006). However, at this point we can only speculate in terms of the actual theoretical process that underlies these results.

It may be that shy children are less prone to feel anxious around peers if they are able to verbalize their thoughts. Children’s ability to achieve social goals through language may give children the confidence to engage in these situations more often, and to experience fewer negative thoughts about such situations. Confidence in their ability to use appropriate language may make shy children less likely to worry about making social blunders. Increased pragmatic language skills may also help shy children in terms of a better understanding of more subtle aspects of social interaction such as humour and sarcasm. This may make shy children with increased pragmatic skills less wary to approach peers.

Children’s responses to shy children may also change as a result of increased pragmatic skills. Indeed, better pragmatic skills appear to be associated with increased peer-preference (Gertner et al., 1994; Place & Becker, 1991). Thus, shy children who are more skilled in socio-communicative competence may make

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 249

more attractive playmates to peers, and perhaps lead to the formation of im- portant friednships.3 Further, pragmatic language skills might provide shy children with additional important ‘tools’ to assist them to both make and keep these friends. This would further help them to feel less lonely, less anxious, and more socially confident, which would in turn continue to positively affect their trajectories of socio-emotional adjustment.

Of course, we must be careful to point out that there are alternative mecha- nisms that may underlie the pattern of associations found in the current study. For example, it is possible that shy children (at the start of the school year) who went on to experience less socio-emotional difficulties at school (for whatever reason) also engaged in more social interaction with peers, thus providing an avenue for improvement of their pragmatic skills. Alternatively, shy children with better coping skills may have performed better on the test of pragmatic language and also gone on to adjust more successfully to the social demands of the classroom environment.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study provides some preliminary evidence for the protective role of pragmatic language in the socio-emotional adjustment of shy children. Notwithstanding, some limitations must be acknowledged.

As mentioned previously, the correlational nature of this study makes it dif- ficult to infer causal relations among variables. Shyness and adjustment out- comes were assessed roughly 8 months apart. Multi-year longitudinal studies are clearly required to assess the developmental trajectories of shy children over longer time periods (i.e. Gazelle & Ladd, 2003). Moreover, the importance of pragmatic language for shy children may only be evident during a small de- velopmental window (i.e. early childhood), or this effect might increase in later childhood and adolescence. In addition, a wider range of adjustment outcomes across different domains need to be assessed.

In addition, other measures of language abilities and verbal intelligence were not included in the current study. Although the assessment of pragmatic lan- guage used required a minimal amount of speaking, pragmatic language is likely not independent of verbal ability (and other aspects of language development). Thus, in order to establish the unique importance of pragmatic language, it will be necessary in future studies to demonstrate effects after controlling for other language abilities.

As well, whenever shy children’s verbal abilities are assessed by an adult stranger, the issue of ‘performance versus competence’ must be considered. Shy children may perform poorer due to the stresses of the testing environment (Crozier & Perkins, 2002). Naturalistic observations of shy children’s conversa- tions with peers (which could include the coding of pragmatically appropriate language) might help to clarify this issue.

It was perhaps somewhat surprising that maternal-rated shyness was not more strongly associated with self-reported anxiety at school. It is likely im- portant to consider the ‘source of assessment’ when considering the results. Al- though there is moderate agreement between sources of assessments with regards to measures of shyness (e.g. Coplan et al., 2008; Ladd & Profilet, 1996), some researchers have suggested that discrepancies between such ratings may be meaningful. For example, Spooner, Evans, and Santos (2005) reported that a group of self-reported shy children whose shyness was ‘undetected’ at school (i.e. they were not rated as shy by teachers) had low self-esteem. Stevenson-Hinde

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks250

and Glover (1996) reported distinctly negative parent–child interactions for a ‘mixed’ group of children who were perceived to be shy by their mothers and observers at home but not rated as shy by experimenters in the laboratory setting.

Finally, it is important for future researchers to explore the implications of these findings for the development of intervention programs designed to assist extremely shy children. Verbal participation is generally viewed as a critical component of the early academic environment (Daly & Korinek, 1980). Indeed, this focus has also come include aspects of communicative competence. For ex- ample, the Ontario language curriculum for grade 1 includes a number of goals related to pragmatics, including perspective-taking skills and an understanding of non-verbal cues (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006). Thus, an increased focus on the development of pragmatic language skills would likely prove beneficial for the class as a whole, and may be particularly important for the socio-emotional adjustment of shy children.

Notes

1. Invitation letters were sent home to parents of all children in a grade 1 class in each school. The consent rate was estimated at just over 50% (which is typical of schools in this area).

2. This was not surprising given the extremely large sample sizes typically needed to detect higher interactions in non-experimental designs (Judd, McClelland, & Culhane, 1995).

3. Thank you to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant to author Coplan. The authors wish to thank Ross Hogg, Brooke Fletcher, Jenna Schleien, Carla Sowinski, Carolyn Warrener, and Emily Wheeler for their help in the collection and coding of data.

REFERENCES

Adams, C., Lloyd, J., Aldred, C., & Baxendale, J. (2006). Exploring the effects of communication intervention for developmental pragmatic language impairments: A signal-generation study. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 41, 41–65.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Abnormal shyness in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1069–1081.

Asendorpf, J. B. (1994). The malleability of behavioral inhibition: A study of individual developmental functions. Developmental Psychology, 30, (6), 912–919.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier, G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in everyday life: Sociability mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1072–1083.

Asher, S. R., Hymel, S., & Renshaw, P. (1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464.

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 251

Broberg, A. G., Hwang, C. P., Lamb, M. E., & Bookstein, F. L. (1990). Factors related to verbal abilities in Swedish preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 335–349.

Buss, A. H. (1984). A conception of shyness. In J. A. Daly, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (pp. 39–50). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Buss, A. H. (1997). A dual conception of shyness. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–128). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Servic, Inc.

Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76, 182–195.

Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 145–161.

Coplan, R. J., & Arbeau, K. A. (2008). The stresses of a brave new world: Shyness and adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22, 377–389.

Coplan, R. J., Arbeau, K. A., & Armer, M. (2008). Don’t fret, be supportive! Maternal characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 359–371.

Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2005). Talking yourself out of being shy: Shyness, expressive vocabulary, and adjustment in preschool. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 20–41.

Coplan, R. J., & Armer, M. (2007). A ‘multitude’ of solitude: A closer look at social withdrawal and nonsocial play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 1, 26–32.

Coplan, R. J., Closson, L., & Arbeau, K. (2007). Gender differences in the behavioral associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Special Issue on Preschool Mental Health), 48, 988–995.

Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you ‘want’ to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40, 244–258.

Coplan, R. J., Wichmann, C., & Lagacé-Séguı́n, D. (2001). Solitary-active play: A marker variable for maladjustment in the preschool? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 164–172.

Crozier, W. R. (1995). Shyness and self-esteem in middle childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 85–95.

Crozier, W. R. (2001). Shyness, self-perception, and reticence. In R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual: Self-perception. (Vol. 2, pp. 53-76) Westport, CT: Ablex.

Crozier, W. R., & Hostettler, K. (2003). The influence of shyness on children’s test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 317–328.

Crozier, W.R., & Perkins, P. (2002). Shyness as a factor when assessing children. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18, (3), 239–244.

Daly, J. A., & Korinek, J. (1980). Interaction in the classroom: An overview. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook IV (pp. 515–532). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Eales, M. J. (1993). Pragmatic impairments in adults with childhood diagnoses of autism or developmental receptive language disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, (4), 593–617.

Eisenberg, N., Shepard, S. A., Fabes, F. A., Murphy, B. C., & Guthrie, I. K. (1998). Shyness and children’s emotionality, regulation, and coping: Contemporaneous, longitudinal, and across-context relations. Child Development, 69, 767–790.

Evans, M. A. (1993) Communicative competence as a dimension of shyness. In K. H. Rubin, & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in children (pp. 189–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Evans, M. A. (1996). Reticent primary grade children and their more talkative peers: Verbal, nonverbal, and self-concept characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 739–749.

Fagan, J., & Iglesias, A. (2000). The relationship between fathers’ and children’s communication skills and children’s behavior problems: A study of Head Start children. Early Education and Development, 11, 307–320.

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks252

Farmer, M. (1997). Exploring the links between communication skills and social competence. Educational and Child Psychology, 14, 38–44.

Gazelle, H., & Ladd, G. W. (2003). Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood. Child Development, 74, 257–278.

Gazelle, H. & Spangler, T. L. (2007). Early childhood anxious solitude and subsequent peer relationships: Maternal and cognitive moderators. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 515–535 (S. Friedman (Ed.) special issue: New findings from secondary data analysis: Results from the NIHCD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development).

Gertner, B. L., Rice, M. K., & Hadley, P. A. (1994). Influence of communicative competence on peer preferences in a preschool classroom. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 913–923.

Gilmour, J., Hill, B., Place, M., & Skuse, D. H. (2004). Social communication deficits in conduct disorder: A clinical and community survey. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 45, 967–978.

Ginsburg, G. S., La Greca, A. M., & Silverman, W. K. (1998). Social anxiety in children with anxiety disorders: Relation with social and emotional functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 175–185.

Goodwin, R. D., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, J. (2004). Early anxious/withdrawn behaviors predict later internalizing disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 874–883.

Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H. & Culhane, S. E. (1995). Data analysis: Continuing issues in the everyday analysis of psychological data. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 433–465.

Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Zentner, M., & Peterson, E. (1999). Infant temperament and anxious symptoms in school age children. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 209–224.

Ladd, G. W., Burgess, K. B. (1999). Charting the relationship trajectories of aggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children during early grade school. Personality and Social Development, 70, 910–929.

Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1008–1024.

La Greca, A. M. (1998). Manual for the Social Anxiety Scales for Children and Adolescents, University of Miami.

Leinonen, E. & Kerbel, D. (1999). Relevance theory and pragmatic impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, 367–390.

Leinonen, E., Ryder, N., Ellis, M., & Hammond, C. (2003). The use of context in pragmatic comprehension by specifically language-impaired and control children. Linguistics, 41, 407–423.

Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 85, 451–466.

McKown, C. (2007). Concurrent validity and clinical usefulness of several individual administered tests of children’s social–emotional cognition. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 29–41.

Morison, P., & Masten, A. S. (1991). Peer reputation in middle childhood as a predictor of adaptation in adolescence: A seven-year follow-up. Child Development, 62, 991–1007.

Ontario Ministry of Education. The Ontario curriculum, grades 1– 8: Language, 2006 (revised). owww.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language.html4, 2006.

Pedlow, R., Sanson, A. & Wales, R. (2004). Children’s production and comprehension of politeness in requests: Relationships to behavioural adjustment, temperament and empathy. First Language, 24, 347–367.

Place, K. S., & Becker, J. A. (1991). The influence of pragmatic competence on the likeability of grade-school children. Discourse Processes, 14, 227–241.

Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-inhibited temperament in childhood lead to anxiety problems in adolescence? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 461–468.

Radke-Yarrow, M., Richters, J., & Wilson, W. E. (1988). Child development in a network of relationships. In R. A. Hinde, & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 48–67). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Shyness, Pragmatics and Adjustment 253

Rapee, R. M., Kennedy, S., Ingram, M., Edwards, S., & Sweeney, L. (2005). Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in inhibited preschool children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 488–497.

Rezendes, M., Snidman, N., Kagan, J., & Gibbons, J. (1993). Features of speech in inhibited and uninhibited children. In K. H. Rubin, & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 177–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rubin, K. H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53, 651–657.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., & Hymel, S. (1993). Socioemotional characteristics of withdrawn and aggressive children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 518–534.

Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., McDougall, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo Longitudinal Project: Predicting internalizing and externalizing problems in adoles- cence. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 751–764.

Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (2004). Paying attention to and not neglecting social withdrawal and social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 506–534.

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual review of psychology, 60, 11.1–11.31.

Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1986). Social cognitive and social behavioural perspectives on problem-solving. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 1–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls (pp. 571–645). New York: Simon & Schuster Publishers.

Simpson, A. E., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1985). Temperamental characteristics of three- to four-year-old boys and girls and child–family interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 43–53.

Skarpness, L. R., & Carson, D. K. (1987). Correlates of kindergarten adjustment: Temperament and communicative competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 367–376.

Spere, K. A., Schmidt, L. A., Theall-Honey, L. A., & Martin-Change, S. (2004). Expressive and receptive language skills of temperamentally shy preschoolers. Infant and Child Development, 12, 1–11.

Spooner, A. L., Evans, M. A., & Santos, R. (2005). Hidden shyness in children: Discrepancies between self-perceptions and the perceptions of parents and teachers. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 51, 437–466.

Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Glover, A. (1996). Shy girls and boys: A new look. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 37, 181–187.

Stowe, R. M. Arnold, D. H., & Ortiz, C. (1999). Gender differences in the relationship of language development to disruptive behavior and peer relationships in preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20, 521–536.

Van Ameringen, M., Mancini, C., & Oakman, J. M. (1998). The relationship of behavioral inhibition and shyness to anxiety disorder. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186, 425–431.

Voci, S. C., Beitchman, J. H., Brownlie, E. B., & Wilson, B. (2006). Social anxiety in late dolescence: The importance of early childhood language impairment. Anxiety Disorders, 20, 915–930.

Young, E. C., Diehl, J. J., Morris, D., Hyman, S. L., & Bennetto, L. (2005). The use of two language tests to identify pragmatic language problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 62–72.

R.J. Coplan and M. Weeks254