Associations Between Shyness and Maternal and Paternal Bonds Across Adolescence

Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry

Associations between Shyness and Maternal and Paternal Bonds across Adolescence

Abstract Research Article

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between shyness

participants’ perceptions of their bond with their parents. Volume 7 Issue 5 - 2017 and the parental bond in early (N = 227) and late adolescence (N = 248) through Method Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Italy

: Shy subjects were compared with their non-shy peers across three *Corresponding author: Lucia Ponti, Via di San Salvi, 12 – bonddimensions measure of theirand a perception measure of of shyness. parenting behavior: (a) care, (b) encouragement towards autonomy, and (c) overprotection. Participants completed a parental 50135 Florence, Italy, Tel: +39 055 2755079; Fax: + 39 055 : Results showed that shy adolescents perceived their parents as less Results 6236047; Email: warm and supportive, less encouraging of autonomy and independence, and more Received: | Published: overprotective than non-shy youth did. No significant differences were found in November 25, 2016 March 24, 2017 relation to gender and age.

Conclusion: Results indicate that the perceived quality of the parent-adolescent

their parents to be more intrusive and protective than non-shy participants did. Theserelationship results is are higher consistent in non-shy with thanprevious in shy findings subjects on since the influence the latter of perceived parental behaviour on shy children and extend these results by confirming that adolescents report a similar tendency in their parents’ behavior.

Keywords: Shyness; Adolescence; Maternal bond; Paternal bond

Introduction paucity of research on shy adolescents. Nevertheless, during this period, important biological, cognitive, and social changes The family, and particularly the parent-child relationship, provides one of the most important social contexts for child during adolescence, parenting behaviours continue to assume development. Several studies have shown that a good quality occur, and although peers become increasingly influential parent-child relationship can affect children’s well-being [1,2]; main purpose of this study is to give a contribution to literature while a poor quality of this relationship is associated with various an influential role on adolescent adjustment [7]. Therefore, the forms of psychopathology [3]. A conceptualization of shyness Previous research has also indicated that parenting can on parenting by examining its influence on shy adolescents. shyness in children. In particular, shyness in infancy has been to show inhibited behavior in interpersonal situations [8], for foundsignificantly to be associated influence with the developmenta particular type and of maintenanceparenting. That of instance,Shyness to hasbe beenafraid defined or experience as a tendency discomfort to feel upon anxious meeting and is, the parents of shy children are overprotective, tend to control people. In particular, certain situations, such as interacting with their children’s lives and to discourage their independence and autonomy [4]. The experience of such parental behaviors tends to more likely to elicit shyness. Studies have also consistently found promote and reinforce children’s shyness [5]. For example, Coplan authority figures, members of the opposite sex and strangers, are and colleagues have found that shy children whose mothers were intrusive and controlling towards them were more likely that shy people appear to be at risk for later maladjustment, such In particular, shyness has been considered to be a risk factor to demonstrate internalizing problems and social dissatisfaction as psychological and social difficulties [9,10]. for the development of internalizing problems, including low self- than shy children whose mothers were less overprotective. At the esteem [11], excessive self-consciousness [12], fear of negative same time, they also have found that the relationship between evaluation, and loneliness [13]. Moreover shy people have been found to be more likely than non-shy people to develop various less evident for shy children whose mothers were more warm and forms of emotional disorders, such as depression and anxiety [14- supportiveshyness and [6]. psychological and social difficulties was significantly 16]. Although the importance of the parental relationship on the Shyness is also associated with several types of interpersonal psychological and social development of shy children during

difficulties, such as expressing one’s own opinions or talking childhood has been sufficiently analyzed, there has been a

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com

in the presence of others, meeting people, and establishing have found those adolescents’ feelings of support and cohesion in comparison to people who are not shy, have fewer social thatbond they as lessexperience affectionate from andparent strong relationships [31]. Other decline researchers during and maintaining satisfying relationships [17,18]. Shy people, the transition from pre- to mid- and late-adolescence [32,33]. As a result, they receive less social support from their social Nevertheless, van Well and colleagues have indicated that the networksrelationships, than and their these non-shy are less counterparts. intimate and supportiveMoreover, [11,17].both in perceived quality of the parental bond becomes less positive in childhood and in adolescence, shyness is associated with peer the transition from early to mid-adolescence but improves in late adolescence [34]. rejection,The child-parent exclusion, andbond victimization [19]. relationship, research data are rather inconsistent with respect to childDespite gender the differences. growing Arim body & of Shapka research [28] on reported the parent-child that there Studies on child-parent relations have identified some basic In particular, researchers have recognized two key dimensions girls and boys. Nevertheless, other authors have found that child ofdimensions parenting, that namely are related parental to specific care aspectsand parental of child control. adjustment. The were no significant differences in parental behavior between concept of parental care refers to a parenting style characterized and colleagues found that girls perceived more protection from by affection, emotional warmth, empathy and closeness; and it is theirgender father may thanaffect did parental boys [35], education while Pierrostyle. For and example, colleagues Bonaiuto found that girls reported higher parental control and overprotection and neglect. The other dimension, parental control, includes from both parents than did boys [25]. Finally, others authors opposed to a parenting style typified by aloofness, indifference excessive psychological control and intrusiveness over the child have reported that girls perceived higher levels of care both from their mothers and from their fathers, and also perceived greater of children’s dependence on parents, and it refers to parental control from their father than did boys [24]. behaviors[20]. The constructthat limit of childparental autonomy control involvesand freedom, encouragement and that prevent the development of their independence [21]. Shyness and parenting Given that parenting behavior plays an important role in the promotion of a child’s well being, the literature on shyness has demonstratingExtensive research that lack hasof adequate repeatedly parental shown care a relationshipis a crucial devoted much attention to parenting. Studies addressing the issue between these dimensions of parenting and child adjustment, of the relationship between parenting style and shyness have parental care and high levels of parental control were found to mainly focused on infancy and childhood. These surveys have berisk associated factor for childwith development.psychiatric symptoms Specifically, in adolescence,both low levels such of shown that parents of shy children tend to be protective of, and as depression and phobic anxiety [22] and with a wide range of of parental care were negatively correlated with mental disorders intrusive toward, them [36,37]. and might therefore believe that the best way to help them from inmental children, disorders such in as adulthood anxiety, [23].depression, On the other somatic hand, complaints, high levels potentiallyParents ofemotion-arousing shy children may situations perceive their is to children’scontrol every difficulties aspect of their lives [4,5]. Parents may organise their child’s schedules, positive self-image [25]. Moreover, researchers have found that telling them how to do things or what to do, limiting their child’s parentaland social warmth maladjustment is related [24],to lower and levels positively of externalizing correlated withand activities and behaviors, discouraging their efforts to explore internalizing problems [26], that higher parental support and unfamiliar situations autonomously, and taking over situations care are associated with psychological well-being, academic in which they expect that their children might feel anxious even competence, and higher self-esteem in children and adolescents when it isn’t necessary [5]. Nevertheless, such parenting practices may increase and hand,[7], and higher those psychological parents’ supportive control behaviorswas found appear to be linkedto promote with reinforce shyness, maintaining or exacerbating children’s the quality of adolescents’ friendships [27]. On the other and self-regulation are denied, these children may not learn parentinginternalizing behaviors problems, are suchassociated as depression with child and psychological anxiety [28,29]. and todifficulties. develop Sincecoping necessary skills to opportunitiesdeal with their to practicesocial anxiety, social skills and Overall, research has consistently supported the notion that therefore they might not be able to overcome their fears. In fact, this overprotective, over-controlling parental style discourages socialThe influence adjustment. of child age and gender on parenting risk taking and active exploration in unfamiliar situations. As the nature of the parent-child relationship changes with child and autonomy, and therefore perpetuates children’s feelings of age.Even In particular, if the parental during bondadolescence remains this quite relationship stable over changes time, such, it prevents the development of a belief system of self-efficacy from being asymmetrical, which is typical from early to late insecurityHowever, [38,39]. certain parental behaviors may not only increase, that the most important dimension that changes during child environmental factors might moderate the relationship between childhood, to being symmetrical [30]. Some studies have shown but also decrease shy children’s difficulties. In fact, some family perceive their parents as more encouraging of autonomy and less Coplan and colleagues have found that an overprotective psychologicallydevelopment is parentalcontrolling, control but they[25]. alsoDuring perceive adolescence, their parental youths parentingshyness and style psychological was strongly and socialassociated difficulties. with Forinternalizing example,

Citation:

Lucia P, Franca T (2017) Associations between Shyness and Maternal and Paternal Bonds across Adolescence. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry 7(5): 00451. DOI: 10.15406/jpcpy.2017.07.00451 Copyright: Associations between Shyness and Maternal and Paternal Bonds across Adolescence ©2017 Lucia et al. 3/9

problems in shy children, such as anxiety, loneliness, and peer- their non-shy peers. Nevertheless, given the scarcity of data, no hypothesis was formulated about gender differences for shy adolescents’ perceptions of the parental bond, or about changes andrejection colleagues whereas have supportive found thatparenting shy children was less whoseassociated mothers with occurring in the parent – shy-child relationship from early to late werethese intrusive psychological and controlling and social difficultiestoward them [6]. were Similarly, more Rubinlikely adolescence. to demonstrate inhibited behavior with peers than those shy Methods with these results, other evidence has shown a strong association Participants and procedure betweenchildren maternal whose mothers psychologically were less over-controlling overprotective behavior [40]. In and line higher degrees of social withdrawal and reticent behavior in shy Research participants were recruited from six public schools children [41,42]. Furthermore, other researchers have highlighted in Florence, Italy. Participants were recruited while they were that overprotective maternal behaviour, as opposed to sensitive in class during school hours. Formal consent from parents and maternal behaviour, is a predictor of greater stability in inhibited educational authorities was obtained prior to starting data child behavior over time [43]. collection. Although the relationship between shyness and parenting has attention has been devoted to parenting style in shy adolescents. Subjects completed a battery of questionnaires designed to However,been sufficiently there isexplored evidence in infancy that shy and adolescents childhood, relativelyhave a lower little andgather fathers’ information school aboutattendance personal and andoccupations. demographic Moreover, data (i.e.,the quality relationship with parents than do non-shy adolescents batteryage, gender, included grade, a measureand origin), of the and perceived information parental about bond mothers’ from both mother and father and a measure of shyness.

[9,44]. parental behavior is still important during this developmental These included a group of 11- to 13- year-old early adolescents period,Based it seems on previous relevant to findings also closely that examine have emphasised the child-parent that A total of 595 students were recruited for the present study. relationship in shy adolescents. Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate shy adolescents’ perceptions of their parental bond. (N = 278) who were attending one of three different secondary schools, and another group of 17- to 19-year-old late adolescents The Present Study (N =Ninety-nine 317) who wereparticipants attending cameone of threefrom highthe schools.centre of Italy, particularly the area around Florence. Participants came from To date, few studies have investigated the relationship between families of a middle to high socioeconomic background and more shyness and the parental bond during adolescence. Moreover, very little is known about the extent to which this relationship degree. may differ with regard to child gender and how it may change than 70% of the parents had a high school diploma or university during the transition from early to late adolescence. After data collection, participants were selected based on a th th percentile as cut-off The purpose of this study was to examine relations between shyness and the perception of the parental bond, distinguishing shyness scale score. Using the 40 and 60 maternal and paternal parenting. Indeed, some researchers points, subjects were identified as non-shy and shy, respectively. have highlighted differences in adolescents’ perceptions of their On the basis of these criteria, adolescents who weren’t either mothers and fathers, suggesting the need to distinguish these. shy nor non-shy were excluded from the analyses. The final Moreover, the parent-child relationship was examined separately total sample comprised 475 subjects. This included 227 early for males and females, in order to detect possible differences adolescents with a mean age of 12.40 (SD = .69), of whom 134 relating to child gender. Finally, considering the transformations late-adolescentwere classified togroup be shy was (73 composed males and of 61 248 females), participants and of withwhom a that occur in the parent-child relationship during adolescence, it 93 were categorised as non-shy (52 males and 41 females). The may be reasonable to assume that parenting style may change, even in relation to shy adolescents, during the passage from early mean age of 17.71 (SD = .65), of whom 104 were categorised to be to late adolescence. So, in order to explore possible parenting shy (35 males and 69 females) and 144 were classed as non-shy style changes associated with child age, perceptions of parental Measures(74 males and 70 females). relationships were separately measured for early adolescents and for late adolescents. Shyness In light of the research on parenting in the area of shyness, Shyness in participants was measured using the Revised Cheek the parental bond has been measured on three dimensions: care, measure of shyness consisting of 13 items that measure discomfort and Buss Shyness Scale (Cheek, 1983). This scale is a unifactorial on the previously discussed literature, it was expected that shy encouragement towards autonomy, and overprotection. Based groupand inhibition of people, in I socialhave trouble situations. thinking Examples of the of right items thing are: to “I say”. feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well” and “When in a hypothesizedsubjects would that perceive shy adolescents a poor would quality report parent their relationship. parents to beDrawing more overprotective upon previous and research less encouraging in this area,of autonomy it was than also Items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very uncharacteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic) with a maximum

Citation:

possible score of 65; the higher the score, the higher the shyness. Participants are requested to respond to each item according to ThisIn version this study, consists the of Italian 21 items. version Four of items the Parental were eliminated Bonding to what extent it is characteristic of your feeling and behavior. Instrument devised by Bonaiuto and colleagues [35] was used. Answerthe following each instructionsquestion by “Readchoosing each a item number carefully from and the decide scale below”. because their load factor was lower than .40 or loaded significantly on multiple factors (item 9, “Try to control everything I do”; item This scale is a widely used measure of shyness and has 16, “Make me feel I’m not want”; item. 19,have “Try highlighted to make mea three feel factordependent model, on showing her/him”; the and same item structure 23, “Is bothoverprotective for the mother of me”). and Analyses conducted by Bonaiuto et al shown good psychometric properties. Cheek (1983) reported a Coefficient alpha of .90 and other investigators have found Moreover, the scale has shown high test-retest reliability. Some for the father, which accounts for a total of 47.2% of variance for Coefficient alphas of .81 [46], .86 [47,48]; .88 [49] and .90 [50]. the mother scale, and 50.9% for the father scale. The first factor overallthat was variance extracted for was the father“care and scale affectionate and it consists bond”. of 11It represents items. The authorsIn this have study, reported the Italian a 45-day version retest of reliability RCBS [51] of was.88 [45,50].used. The 24.8% of the overall variance for the mother scale and 28% of the results of the Italian adaptation have confirmed a unidimensional second factor that was extracted was “encouragement towards factorial structure. Confirmatory factor analytic procedures autonomy and independence”. It accounted for a further 13.6% of Moreover,were used theto assess internal the reliability adequacy of of the the scale model, in andthis thesample fit index was variance for the mother scale and 14.5% for the father scale, and .86.indicated an adequate fit to the data (CFI = .91; SRMR = .06). theit consists variance of for6 items. the father The lastscale, factor and wasit consists “overprotection” of 4 items. whichIn the Italianexplained version, 8.9% answersof the variance to items for range the mother on a 4-point scale and scale 8.4% from of Parental bonding has a maximum possible score of 44; the encouragement towards 1 = I don’t agree at all, to 4 = I fully agree. So, the care subscale et al. autonomy subscale has a maximum possible score of 24; and the Parental bonding was assessed via subjects’ responses to the highest possible score for the overprotection subscale is 14. designedParental Bondingto measure Instrument an individual’s by Parker perceptions [20]. ofThe his Parental or her parents’Bonding parenting Instrument style. is There a 25-item, are two self-report parallel versions, questionnaire one for Results Descriptive analysis each parent, and each assesses two dimensions, parental care (12 The means and standard deviations of the three dimensions items, for example “Appeared to understand my problems and worries”) and parental overprotection (13 items, for example “TendedParticipants to baby wereme”). requested to respond to each item on a of the Parental Bonding Instrument for both the mother and e presentedfather, namely in Table “care”, 1& Table “autonomy 2, respectively. and independence”, and “overprotection”, for early and late adolescent groups are 4-point scale ranging from 0 (Very like) to 3 (Very unlik ). The Parental bonding as a function of Shyness, Age, and PBI subscales were scored separately. The “care” subscale has a Gender highermaximum the possibleparental score care ofand 36, overprotection. and the “overprotection” Respondents subscale were askedhas a to maximum read each possible item and score to assess of 39. their The parent’s higher behaviors the score, and the attitudes, answering each question by placing a cross in the most to assess the differences between groups in the perception of A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted appropriate box next to each question. the parental relationship. A follow-up univariate ANOVA was conducted when the MANOVA results were significant. The The PBI scale has good internal consistency. For example, some independent variables were Group (shy and non-shy), Age forauthors the maternal found a Coefficientcare and overprotection alpha of .92 and subscales, .87 for therespectively paternal bonding(early adolescents subscales, three and latefor the adolescents), mother scale and and Gender three for (males the care and overprotection subscale, respectively; and of .94 and .88 fatherand females); scale. and the dependent variables were the six parental the[52]. father Rigby care and andcolleagues overprotection found α-values subscale of [24]..86 and Moreover, .86 for the mother care and overprotection subscale, and of .87 and .84 for between groups with respect to the dependent variables, Wilk’s lambdaThe F overall MANOVA testp revealed 2 a significant difference forParental the care Bonding subscale Instrument and of .63 for has the demonstrated overprotection acceptable subscale F p 2 2 reliability over time with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .76 (6, 462) = 13326.14,F < .001, η = p.99. In particular, there Gender,was a significant F main effectp for both2 Group, (6, 462) = 4.81, over a three-week period [20]. In a longitudinal study, Wilhelm < .001, η = .06; Age, (6, 462) = 25.47, < .001,F η = .25; and and colleagues [53] confirmed the stability of the scale over a ns, Group x(6, Gender, 462) = F 5.10, < .001, ηns=, and.06. InGroup contrast, x Age there x Gender was 20-year period. Retest coefficients varied from .64 to .83 for Fno significant interactionns. effect for Group x Age, (6, 462) = .40, (6, 462) = .40, overprotection.maternal care, and from .74 to .82 for paternal care; from .67 to .77 for maternal overprotection, and from .59 to .78 for paternal (12, 924) = .58,

Citation:

Shyness and parental bonding Shy adolescents also reported lower encouragement towards autonomy and independence than did non-shy youth, from both Subsequent univariate analyses revealed that shyness was their fathers, F p 2 F p 2 in maternal and paternal scales. The means and results of the were more likely(1, 467)to perceive = 6.40, higher = .012, overprotection, η = .01 and their from mothers, their univariatea significant tests factor can for be every seen in parental Table 3. bonding In particular, dimension, adolescents both F fathers,(1, 467), F = 8.78, = .003,p η = . 02. 2Furthermore, shy participants in the shy group perceived less care than did their non-shy 2 2 F p peers, both from their fathers, F p group. (1, 467) = 9.98, = .002, η = .02, and from their mothers, 2 F p (1, 467) = 13.19, < .001, η = .03, than did those in the non-shy (1, 467) = 16.98, < .001, η = Table.04 and 1: Meansfrom theirand standard mothers, deviations (1, 467) of parental = 9.18, bonding = .003, dimensions η = .02. for early adolescents.

Shy Non-Shy

Male Female Male Female

Variables M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

PBI-FatherCare 35.13 6.18 61 38.24 52 41

Autonomy 16.45 6.40 73 15.4635.20 3.55 61 3.464.49 52 16.5537.21 7.25 41

4.06 73 61 17.966.26 52 4.39 41

Overprotection 7.41 2.90 73 7.62 2.94 1.97 7.05 3.00

PBI-motherCare 36.12 5.46 5.58 61 52 41

Autonomy 16.53 3.26 73 37.45 3.13 61 38.39 3.385.40 52 39.17 4.585.74 41

73 15.17 2.21 61 17.196.88 52 16.806.63 41

Table 2: MeansOverprotection and standard deviations7.60 of parental2.39 bonding73 dimensions7.57 for late adolescents. 2.29 2.30

Shy Non-shy

Males Females Males Females

Variables M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n

PBI-Father Care 31.88 35

6.20 31.99 7.45 69 34.70 7.03 74 34.50 7.29 70 Autonomy 2.66 35 3.43 3.45 18.14 3.33

19.28 17.73 69 19.71 74 70 6.28 35 2.41

Overprotection 1.98 6.96 69 5.49 1.69 74 6.60 2.30 70

PBI-Mother Care 34.26 4.83 35 6.43 36.15 36.86

35.99 69 5.89 74 6.67 70 Autonomy 18.88 3.26 35 18.55 2.84 3.52

69 19.83 3.19 74 19.13 70 35 6.46 2.44

Overprotection 7.48 2.57 7.39 2.49 69 2.78 74 6.93 70

Citation:

Table 3 F values by Group.

: Means, standard deviations and ANOVA Shy Non-Shy

Variables M SD n M SD n F

PBI-father Care 238 35.85 6.83

33.76 6.79 237 16.98*** Autonomy 238 18.32

16.98 3.77 3.74 237 6.40* 2.68 238 6.25 2.26

Overprotection 7.17 237 9.98**

PBI-mother Care 36.15 238

5.75 37.37 6.08 237 9.19** Autonomy 3.42 238 18.52 3.85

17.11 237 8.78** 238 6.68

Overprotection 7.51 2.39 2.49 237 13.19***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 Age and parental bonding Discussion The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between

Follow-up univariate analyses revealed that age was significant thanfor all did dependent late-adolescents variables, from except their maternal fathers, overprotection F (Table adolescence.shyness and specific This relationship parenting practiceswas investigated (i.e., care, by encouragement examining the p4). Results 2indicated that early-adolescentsF perceivedp higher care2 differencestowards autonomy between and shy independence, and non-shy young and overprotection) people’s perceptions during (1, 467) = 25.15, of their parents’ behaviors. Moreover, such perceptions were autonomy < .001, η and= .05 independence and mothers, both (1, from 467) their = 12.50, fathers, < F.001, η = .03. Olderp adolescents2 reported greater encouragementF towards 68.62, p 2 (1, 467) perceptionsexamined in ofrelation parental to genderbonding. and age. Overall, the results of the greater= 38.43, overprotection < .001, η = only.08, andfrom from their their fathers, mothers, F (1, 467) =p present study have shown significant differences on participants’ 2 < .001, η = .13. Finally, younger adolescents perceived late-adolescents on perceived maternal overprotection,(1, 467) F = 9.79, In particular these findings support the results of previous =.002,ns η emerged.= .02, while no significant differences between early- and of shyness in their children. Youths who reported experiencing (1, 467) highinvestigations levels of onshyness the influential perceived role their of parents parents in thedifferently development than =Gender .03, and parental bonding youths who reported experiencing low levels of shyness. As predicted, results showed that the shy group of adolescents perceived their parents to be less warm and close, and less Significant between-subjects effects indicated that child encouraging of their independence than did the non-shy group. perceivedgender was higher influential levels inof allmaternal the dimensions care than ofdid parental boys, F bonding, Shy adolescents also reported greater levels of overprotection 2 exceptp paternal care and maternal overprotection (Table 5). Girls from both parents than did non-shy adolescents. These results are and girls in relation to perceived levels of paternal care, (1,F 467) = 4.20, ns =. .041,However, η = .01; boys while perceived no differences higher levels emerged of encouragement between boys towards autonomy and independence than did girls, both(1, from467) consistent with the findings of previous studies on parenting style 2 their= .17, fathers, F p F shyin shyness children during tend to childhood be intrusive [9,41,42], and overprotective. and during adolescence Moreover, 2 p these[9,44]. parents Specifically, may researchers respond to have shyness found in that their parents children who havewith fathers as being(1, more 467) =overprotective 16.41, < .001, than η = did.03 andboys, mothers, F (1, behaviors that tend to restrict their children’s freedom and 2 8.84,467) =p 4.67, = .031, η = .01. Furthermore, girls reported their autonomy in an attempt to help them [5]. two genders for maternal overprotection, F (1,ns 467). = = .003, η = .02, but no differences emerged between the (1, 467) = .02,

Citation:

Table 4 F values by Age.

: Means, standard deviations and ANOVA Early-Adolescents Late-Adolescents

Variables M SD n M SD n F

PBI-fatherCare 36.24 6.23 248

Autonomy 16.55 227 18.6633.49 7.19 248 25.15***

3.94 227 6.32 3.40 248 38.43***

Overprotection 7.14 2.78 227 2.20 9.79**

PBI-motherCare 5.61 6.16 248

Autonomy 16.3637.55 3.65 227 36.04 3.22 248 12.50***

2.34 227 19.14 248 68.62***

Overprotection 7.21 227 7.00 2.60 .03 Table 5 F values by Gender. * p < .05; ** p < .01; ** p < .001 : Means, standard deviations and ANOVA Boys Girls

Variables M SD n M SD n F

PBI-fatherCare 234 34.42 241

Autonomy 18.2435.20 6.47 234 7.25 241 .17

6.38 2.343.79 234 17.08 2.653.75 241 16.41***

Overprotection 7.04 8.84**

PBI-motherCare 36.36 5.61 234 6.24 241

Autonomy 234 37.16 241 4.20*

18.07 2.563.60 234 17.56 3.79 241 4.67*

Overprotection 7.06 7.13 2.40 .02

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 psychological control and intrusiveness in the lives of shy children differences between shy boys’ and girls’ perceptions of parental tendsThe to present continue findings even after highlight childhood. the fact Moreover, that parental these results use of care.Moreover, From this the point results of view,of the our current results study are shownot consistent no significant with can extend knowledge about the role of the parenting bond in the ones of previous study carried out on infancy. For example, shyness, especially during a stage that has received little attention in the shyness literature. In fact, as previously discussed, most of childhood was associated with positive aspects of the child- the investigations on parenting style in children’s shyness have parentEngfer relationship, [54] has found while that the shyness reverse inwas girls the during case for infancy shyness and in focused on infancy and childhood, and the adolescent period has been largely neglected. However, our results suggest that during result, however, needs further investigation. this developmental period, shy adolescents continue to perceive boys. On adolescence this difference seems not to be present. This In relation to age, results indicated no differences between their parents as more protective and intrusive than of non-shy shy early and late adolescents in their perceptions of the parental children do. Shy adolescents also perceived their both mother and father to be neglectful and aloof, while non-shy adolescents care, encouragement towards independence, and overprotection perceive their parental relationships as characterized by higher bond. Both younger and older shy adolescents’ perceptions of levels of closeness and emotional support. from their parents weren’t significantly different in both age

Citation:

groups. Hence, possible changes in perceptions of parental externalizing behaviors, and relationships during emerging behaviors during adolescence do not seem to depend on whether adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37(5): 605-615. a subjectThere iswere shy severalor not. limitations in the present work. First, the 10. Kimberley AA, Coplan RJ, Weeks M (2010) Shyness, teacher- cross-sectional study design limits the possibility to understand child relationships, and socioemotional adjustment in grade one. 11. International Journal of Behavioral Development 34(3): 259-269. peer acceptance, and the development of self-perceptions in the development trajectories of the child-parent relationship Nelson LJ, Rubin KH, Fox NA (2005) Social withdrawal, observed from early to late adolescence. Other more rigorous designs, this relation. Moreover, all data were collected via self-report children ages 4 to 7 years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 20: measures.like longitudinal Although projects, these would instruments be needed represent to better an understand important 12. 185-200. source of information, the use of multiple methods to integrate andCrozier Change, WR Routledge, (2000) Shyness New York, and socialUSA, p. relationships: 1-21. Continuity and change. In: Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, Consolidation, information, for example maternal and paternal evaluation, would 13. bethe appropriate. subjective point of view with other source of external determinanti personali della timidezza e della solitudine nell’adolescenza.Caprara GV, Gerbino Psicologia M, Clinica Barbaranelli dello Sviluppo, C (2005) pp. 85-115. Correlati e understanding of the links between parental bond and shyness 14. duringDespite adolescence, these limitations, highlighting the presentimportant study differences adds to ourin parenting style between shy and non-shy adolescents. Such Chavira DA, Stein MB, Malcarne VL (2002) Scrutinizing the relationship between shyness and social phobia. J Anxiety Disord knowledge will provide useful information for clinicians that are 15. 16(6): 585-598. interested in developing interventions for shy individuals. withdrawn behaviours predict later internalising disorders. J Child Goodwin RD, Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ (2004) Early anxious/ References 16. Psychol Psychiatry 45(4): 874-883. 1. Heiser NA, Turner SM, Beidel DC (2003) Shyness: relationship theDawson development G, Ashman of SBpsychobiological (2000) On the systems origins related of a vulnerability to risk for to social phobia and other psychiatric disorders. Behav Res Ther to depression: The influence of the early social environment on 41(2): 209-221.

affective disorder. In: The Effects of Adversity on Neurobehavioral 17. Asendorpf JB (2000) Shyness and adaptation to the social world of Development: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Mahwah, university. In: Crozier (Ed.), Shyness: Development, Consolidation, 18. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, NJ, USA, pp. 245-278. and Change, Routledge, New York, USA, pp. 103-120. well-being of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and the moderating role of friendship relationships. Journal of Van Wel F, Linssen H, Abma R (2000) The parental bond and the PsychopathologyPonti L, Tani F 21: (2015) 36-52. Shyness and psychologial adjustment:

3. Adolescence 29(3): 307-318. Role of parenting and maltreatment histories in unipolar and bipolarAlloy LB, mood Abramson disorders: LY, SmithMediation JM, Gibbby cognitive BE, Neeren vulnerability AM (2006) to 19. Coplan RJ, Prakash K, O’Neil K, Armer M (2004) Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted-shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Dev Psychol 40(2): 244-258. 4. depression. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 9(1): 23-64. Inhibition, social withdrawal, and parenting. In: Crozier & Alden 20. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB (1979) A parental bonding Burgess KB, Rubin KH, Cheah C, Nelson LJ (2001) Behavioral 21. instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology 52(1): 1-10. research, and interventions relating to the self and shyness, (Eds.), International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, Stattin H, Kerr M (2000) Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. 22. Child Dev 71(4): 1072-1085. 5. young adolescents: Investigations using 2 and 3 factor versions of Chichester, Wiley, UK, pp. 137-158. Martin G, Bergen HA, Roeger L, Allison S (2004) Depression in Rubin KH, Burgess KB, Coplan RJ (2002) Social withdrawal and shyness. In: Smith & Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of Childhood the parental bonding instrument. J Nerv Ment Dis 192(10): 650- 23. Social Development, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, US, pp. 657. psychopathology: results from the US National Comorbility Survey. 6. 330-352. Maternal characteristics linking child shyness to psychosocial and Enns MW, Cox BJ, Clara I (2002) Parental bonding and adult Coplan RJ, Arbeau KA, Armer M (2008) Don’t fret, be supportive! 24. Psychol Med 32(6): 997-1008. parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental school adjustment in kindergarten. Journal of Abnormal Child Rigby K, Slee PT, Martin G (2007) Implications of inadequate Psychology 36: 359-371. genitoriale e benessere psicosociale in adolescenza. Una ricerca in 25. 7. Ciairano S, Bonino S, Jackson S, Miceli R (2001) Stile educativo health. J Adolesc 30(5): 801-812. sociale dell’adolescente e immagine di sé: un modello di equazioni strutturaliPierro A, Bonaiuto per variabili M, Ercolani latenti». AP, PerucchiniGiornale Italiano P, Claes Mdi (1996) Psicologia, Rete 8. due nazioni europee. Età Evolutiva 69: 61-71. reported scale for preschool children’s shyness. Psychological Han PG. Wu YP, Gao FQ (2014) The development of teacher 26. USA, pp. 275-291. individual correlates of depressive symptomatology among US and Research 7(3): 58-62. Greenberger E, Chen C, Tally SR, Qi D (2000) Family, peer, and 9. Nelson LJ, Padilla-Walker LM, Badger S, Barry CM, Carroll JS, et al. (2008) Associations between shyness and internalizing behaviors, Chinese adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(2): 209-219.

Citation:

41. and the quality of adolescent friendships: A social-contextual behavior in the relation between shyness and social reticence in 27. Cui M, Conger D, Bryant CM, Elder GHE (2002) Parental behavior earlyHane childhoodAA, Cheah andC, Rubin social KH, withdrawal Fox NA (2008) in middle The childhood. role of maternal Social

28. perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 64(3): 676-689. parental control on adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Youth 42. Development 17(4): 795-811. Arim RG, Shapka JD (2008) The impact of pubertal timing and Rubin KH, Cheah CS, Fox NA (2001) Emotion regulating, parenting and Adolescence 37(4): 445-455. and display of social reticence in preschoolers. Early Education and Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental 43. Development 12(1): 97-115. 29. monitoringPettit GS, Lairdand psychological RD, Dodge control KA, Bates in early JE, Crissadolescence. MM (2001) Child Maternal sensitivity and wariness in the transition to kindergarten. Early D, Rimm-Kaufman SE, Cox M, Saluja G, Pianta RC, et al. (2002)

Dev 72(2): 583-598. 44. Parenting: Science & Practice 2(4): 355-377.

30. Noller P, Callan V (1991) The adolescent in the family. Routledge, Tani F, Ponti L, Smorti M (2014) Shyness and psychological 31. London, UK. adjustment during adolescence: the moderating role of parenting negli. 45. style. The Open Psychology Journal 10(7): 33-44. Cicognani E (2002) La percezione degli stili educativi genitoriali 32. Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata 236: 19-31. USA.Cheek JM (1983) The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale (RCBS). Unpublished manuscript. Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA. Furman W, Buhrmester D (1992) Age and sex differences in 46. Paulsen E, Bru E, Murberg T (2006) Passive students in junior high perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Dev school: The associations with shyness, perceived competence and 33. 63(1): 103-115. social support. Social Psychology of Education 9(1): 67-81. McGue M, Elkins I, Walden B, Iacono WG (2005) Perception of the parent-adolescent relationship: A longitudinal investigation. Dev actual-ought self-discrepancy and discomfort in social interaction. 34. Psychol 41(6): 971-984. 47. Amico KR, Bruch MA, Haase RF, Sturmer PJ (2004) Trait shyness, parental bond and the well-being of adolescents and young adults. Van Wel F, ter Bogt T, Raaijmakers Q (2002) Changes in the 48. Personality and Individual Differences 36: 1597-1610. 35. Adolescence 37(146): 317-333. Hopko DR, Stowell J, Jones WH, Armento MEA, Cheek JM (2005) Psychometric Properties of the Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness membersBonaiuto M,of Perucchinihis social network. P, Pierro A (1997) L’adolescente e i membri Scale. J Pers Assess 84(2): 185-192. Shyness, sociability, and significativi della sua rete sociale. Adolescent and significant eating problems in a non-clinical sample of female undergraduates. 36. Età Evolutiva 57: 40-56. 49. Miller JL, Schmidt LA, Vaillancourt T (2008)

Chen YM, Gao FQ, & Han L (2013) Shyness: A review of evidence Eat Behav 9(3): 352-359. from behavioral genetics. Advances in Psychological Science 21(7): development. 1220-1228. 50. Phillips SD, Bruch MA (1988) Shyness and dysfunction in career between Chinese mothers’ parenting practices and social 51. Journal of UnoCounseling strumento Psychology per rilevare 35: 159-165. la timidezza 37. Nelson LJ, Hart CH, Wu B, Yang C, Roper SO, et al. (2006) Relations nella preadolescenza: l’adattamento italiano della Revised Cheek Ponti L, Tani F (2009) withdrawal in early childhood. International Journal of Behavioral 38. Development 30(3): 261-271. 52. and Buss Shyness Scale. Infanzia e Adolescenza, Italy, pp. 165-174. nd measures of parental behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies Rubin KH, Burgess K (2002) Parents of aggressive and withdrawn Safford SM, Alloy LB, Pieracci A (2007) A comparison of two children. In: M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting, (2 edn), Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA, pp. 383-418. 53. 16: 375-384. behavioral consequences of toddlers’ inhibited temperament and 39. Rubin KH, Burgess KB, Hastings PD (2002) Stability and social- Wilhelm K, Niven H, Parker G, Hadzi-Pavlovic D (2005) The stability of the Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period. Psychol parenting behaviors. Child Dev 73(2): 483-495. 54. Med 35(3): 387-393. The consistency and concomitants of inhibition: Some of the boys and girls: A 6-years longitudinal study. In: Rubin & Asendorfp 40. Rubin KH, Hastings PD, Stewart SL, Henderson HA, Chen X (1997) Engfer A (1993) Antecedents and consequences of shyness in

children, all of the time. Chil Dev 68(3): 467-483. (Eds.), Social Withdrawal, Inhibition, and Shyness, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, USA, p. 49-80.

Citation:

Lucia P, Franca T (2017) Associations between Shyness and Maternal and Paternal Bonds across Adolescence. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry 7(5): 00451. DOI: 10.15406/jpcpy.2017.07.00451