Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale: Assessing a proposed

cognitive component of social anxiety
Justin W. Weeks a, Richard G. Heimberg a,*, Thomas L. Rodebaugh b
a

Adult Anxiety Clinic of Temple University, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Weiss Hall,
1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6085, United States
b
Department of Psychology, Washington University in Saint Louis, MO, United States
Received 24 April 2007; received in revised form 27 July 2007; accepted 3 August 2007

Abstract
Cognitivebehavioral models propose that fear of negative evaluation is the core feature of social anxiety disorder. However, it
may be that fear of evaluation in general is important in social anxiety, including fears of positive as well as negative evaluation. To
test this hypothesis, we developed the Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) and conducted analyses to examine the
psychometric properties of the FPES, as well as test hypotheses regarding the construct of fear of positive evaluation (FPE).
Responses from a large (n = 1711) undergraduate sample were utilized. The reliability, construct validity, and factorial validity of
the FPES were examined; the distinction of FPE from fear of negative evaluation was evaluated utilizing confirmatory factor
analysis; and the ability of FPE to predict social interaction anxiety above and beyond fear of negative evaluation was assessed.
Results provide preliminary support for the psychometric properties of the FPES and the validity of the construct of FPE. The
implications of FPE with respect to the study and treatment of social anxiety disorder are discussed.
# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anxiety; Social anxiety disorder; Social phobia; Fear of positive evaluation; Fear of negative evaluation; Assessment

1. Introduction
Social anxiety disorder (social phobia) is the fourth
most common psychiatric disorder, with a lifetime
prevalence rate of 12.1% (Kessler et al., 2005). It is
characterized by excessive fear of social or performance
situations. The majority of patients seeking treatment
for social anxiety disorder report at least moderate

Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New Orleans,
LA, November 2004, and the annual meetings of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Seattle, WA, March 2005, and Miami,
FL, March 2006.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: heimberg@temple.edu (R.G. Heimberg).

0887-6185/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.08.002

impairment in the areas of education, employment,

family relationships, marriage and romantic relationships, and friendships (Schneier et al., 1994; Stein,
McQuaid, Laffaye, & McCahill, 1999). Furthermore,
the comorbidity of social anxiety disorder with other
disorders that produce significant impairment in
functioning, such as depression and alcoholism, is high
(Kessler, Stang, Wittchen, Stein, & Walters, 1999;
Schneier et al., 1994), and individuals with social
anxiety disorder rate their quality of life as very low
(Safren, Heimberg, Brown, & Holle, 1997). Given the
debilitating nature of social anxiety disorder, it is
essential that theoretical conceptualizations of the
disorder address all possible contributing factors.
Cognitivebehavioral models of social anxiety
disorder (e.g., Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg,

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

1997) have labeled fear of negative evaluation (FNE) a

core feature. Individuals with social anxiety disorder
assume that others are inherently critical and therefore
likely to evaluate them negatively (e.g., Leary,
Kowalski, & Campbell, 1988). Furthermore, it has
been hypothesized that socially anxious individuals
form a biased image or mental representation of
themselves as seen by others and simultaneously focus
their attentional resources onto both this internal
representation and onto perceived threats in the social
environment. Specifically, attentional resources are
allocated in part to the salient aspects of the image
(i.e., those that are both relevant to the situation and
potentially negative) and in part to monitoring the social
environment for indicators of negative evaluation by
others (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997).
Rapee and Heimberg (1997) further proposed that
socially anxious individuals believe that others expect
them to perform to unrealistically high standards in
social situations. Because socially anxious individuals
doubt their ability to meet these standards, the perceived
likelihood of negative evaluation from the audience, as
well as the undesirable social consequences that follow
from it (e.g., rejection, loss of status), is likely to be
high. Anticipation of negative evaluation elicits anxiety
and devaluation of the mental representation of the self
as seen by others, creating a maladaptive negative
feedback loop.
Models which highlight FNE as a core feature of
social anxiety are consistent with empirical findings that
individuals with social anxiety disorder report negative
mental representations of their appearance and behavior, particularly in anxiety-evoking social situations
(e.g., Coles, Turk, Heimberg, & Fresco, 2001; Hackman, Surawy, & Clark, 1998). These models have been
useful in explicating the manner in which individuals
with social anxiety disorder both perceive and process
information related to evaluation, as well as the manner
in which these cognitive processes differ between
individuals high and low in social anxiety (e.g., Foa,
Franklin, Perry, & Herbert, 1996; Horley, Williams,
Gonsalvez, & Gordon, 2004; Mansell & Clark, 1999).
Nonetheless, current models may neglect a fundamental
component of socially anxious cognition: individuals
with social anxiety may fear positive evaluation as well
as negative evaluation.
1.1. Theoretical precedents for the construct of fear
of positive evaluation (FPE)
The present study is the first to examine FPE
as a potential feature of social anxiety. However, a

45

theoretical model that is consistent in part with this

notion is the ethologicalpsychobiological (i.e., psycho-evolutionary) model of social anxiety put forth by
Gilbert (2001) and colleagues (e.g., Trower & Gilbert,
1989; Trower, Gilbert, & Sherling, 1990). According to
this model, social anxiety is directly related to agonistic
threat interactions in humans. The purpose of social
anxiety is to avoid unnecessarily challenging the
dominant member of a social group, while simultaneously remaining within the safe confines of the group.
Thus, Gilbert (2001) proposes that social anxiety is an
evolutionary mechanism that facilitates non-violent
interactions between individuals. In outlining his
ethologicalpsychobiological model, Gilbert suggested
that, Those who feel inferior may fear increases in
status that might bring them into conflict with others, or
they may fear that any gains could not be maintained or
defended in the future (2001, pp. 742743). Gilbert
dubbed this concept the fear of doing well (p. 742).
Furthermore, consistent with Gilberts (2001) interpretation, Wallace and Alden (1995, 1997) reported that
socially anxious individuals who were exposed to
positive social signals via structured social interaction
roleplays rated their social performance positively and
consequently worried that others would expect more of
them. However, they also believed that their typical
performance would not change. As a result, unlike
persons without social anxiety, they worried that initial
positive appraisal would lead to future negative appraisal.
Indeed, after being given standardized (fictitious),
positively framed feedback on their social performance
in a roleplay that was constructed to go well, patients with
social anxiety disorder predicted that they would
experience greater anxiety in a follow-up roleplay. In
contrast, patients given feedback highlighting the
absence of negative aspects of their performance did
not predict that they would experience higher anxiety in
the follow-up roleplay (Alden, Mellings, & Laposa,
2004). Taken together, these findings underscore the
importance of examining the effects of positive social
feedback on social anxiety. However, Wallace and Alden
(1995, 1997) propose that fear of eventual negative
appraisal (i.e., a delayed form of FNE) accounts for acute
fear of positive appraisal, suggesting a lack of
differentiation between the constructs of FPE and
FNE. Therefore, one of the purposes of the present
study was to test whether FPE makes a unique contribution to the prediction of social anxiety, as we propose,
or (if not) whether FPE is merely a proxy for FNE.
Thus, the basic concept of FPE has some precedent.
Indeed, Alden et al. (2004) have highlighted the need
for future research to address the way in which socially

46

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

anxious individuals process positive social information.

However, research to date has not addressed FPE as a
distinguishable cognitive feature of social anxiety.
Following from Gilberts (2001) model, we propose that
socially anxious individuals, upon having performed
well and receiving positive evaluation, will fear reprisal
from others who they perceive to out-rank them. This
concept is based on social hierarchy dynamics;
evaluation of ones social investment worthiness as
low relative to other members of the group triggers
submissive behaviors which function to inhibit (social)
aggression from other, more dominant group members
(Gilbert, 2001). In essence, socially anxious individuals
will fear performing well because it will draw attention
to themselves and draw them into direct competition for
social attention (i.e., resource competition). As an
illustration, a socially anxious individual who volunteers an opinion in a group setting and receives positive
feedback in response to it could fear that others (who
may have been previously leading the group discussion)
will become upset towards him/her for having stolen
the show; the socially anxious individual would then
become concerned with the impact that this event would
have on his/her relationship(s).
To examine the possibility of FPE, we developed the
Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES).1 To this end,
the primary purpose of the present study was to examine
the psychometric properties of the FPES in a large
undergraduate sample; with a secondary purpose of
examining the relationships between FPE, FNE, and
social anxiety. In addition to hypothesizing that FPE
would be significantly and positively associated with
social anxiety, we also hypothesized that FPE and FNE
would be positively correlated (albeit distinct) constructs, given that both of these constructs reflect
cognitive mechanisms which prompt avoidance of
conflict within competitive social contexts.
Analyses conducted with several undergraduate
samples are reported in the present paper, addressing
the following questions: (a) What are the characteristics
of the distribution of FPES scores? (b) Does the FPES
demonstrate adequate internal consistency and test
retest reliability? (c) What is the factorial validity of the
FPES? (d) Utilizing confirmatory factor analysis to
examine responses to the FPES and a measure of fear of
negative evaluation, does a two-factor fear of
evaluation model consisting of separate factors for

1
The FPES was developed to examine whether fear of positive
evaluation is a cognitive feature of social anxiety, not as a specific test
of Gilberts (2001) ethological/psychobiological model.

positive and negative evaluative fears obtain superior

model fit relative to a single-factor fear of evaluation
model? (e) Does the FPES correlate with self-report
measures of social anxiety and fear of negative
evaluation? (f) Does the FPES correlate more strongly
with a measure of social interaction anxiety than with
measures of generalized anxiety, worry, and depression? (g) Does the FPES account for significant variance
of scores obtained on a social interaction anxiety
measure above and beyond that already accounted for
by fear of negative evaluation?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants in the present study were undergraduates enrolled in an Introductory Psychology course at
Temple University. FPES responses were collected
from a total sample of 1711 participants across 4
semesters. The four semester subsamples were pooled
into a larger group for several of the present analyses
and separated for several others, for the purpose of
cross-validation. Of the total 1711 participants, 72%
were female and 58.6% were Caucasian; the average
age was 19.18 years (S.D. = 2.73). Furthermore, 65
students (65.5% female, 70.7% Caucasian) from the
overall sample completed the FPES for a second time
after a period of approximately 5 weeks as part of their
participation in a separate study, thereby allowing a
preliminary assessment of testretest reliability.
2.2. Measures
All participants completed a battery of questionnaires that included the FPES. Other measures were
administered that allowed for the assessment of the
convergent and discriminant validity of the FPES,
although administration of specific additional measures
varied across semesters (see below).
2.2.1. The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale
The 10-item FPES uses a 10-point Likert-type rating
scale, ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 9 (very true). In
line with a scoring strategy recommended by Marsh
(1996), two reverse-scored items (items 5 and 10) were
included for the purpose of reducing the response bias
of acquiesence (i.e., a predisposition to answer all
questions affirmatively), but are not utilized in
calculating the FPES score. The respondent is instructed
to complete FPES items as though they pertain to
individuals that he or she does not know very well to

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

47

Table 1
The Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale

1.
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

I am uncomfortable exhibiting my talents to others, even if I think my talents will impress them.
It would make me anxious to receive a compliment from someone that I am attracted to.
I try to choose clothes that will give people little impression of what I am like.
I feel uneasy when I receive praise from authority figures.
If I have something to say that I think a group will find interesting, I typically say it.
I would rather receive a compliment from someone when that person and I were alone than when in the presence of others.
If I was doing something well in front of others, I would wonder whether I was doing too well.
I generally feel uncomfortable when people give me compliments.
I dont like to be noticed when I am in public places, even if I feel as though I am being admired.
I often feel under-appreciated, and wish people would comment more on my positive qualities.

Read each of the following statements carefully and fill in a numbered bubble on the answer sheet to indicate the degree to which you feel the
statement is characteristic of you, using the following scale. For each statement, respond as though it involves people that you do not know very well.
Rate each situation from 0 to 9. Please fill in only one bubble for each statement. Note: Items 5 and 10 are not included in the FPES score, which is the
sum of the remaining eight items.

control for familiarity biases, because greater familiarity with a conversation partner has been linked to
lower social anxiety (Vittengl & Holt, 1998).
FPES items were rationally generated and designed
to exclusively assess fear of positive evaluation; thus,
items that could potentially be construed as pertaining
to fear of negative evaluation include qualifiers
specifying that the relevant situation indeed involves
positive evaluation (e.g., I dont like to be noticed in
public places, even if I feel as though I am being
admired). Furthermore, FPES items are structured to
incorporate social hierarchy dynamics. For example,
several items pertain to group settings, thereby
providing context for a hierarchical interpretation. In
addition, other FPES items refer to individuals who
would rank high on a social hierarchy relative to the
respondent (e.g., authority figures, individuals to whom
the respondent is attracted). FPES items and rating
instructions are provided in Table 1.
2.2.2. Measures of convergent validity
2.2.2.1. Social Interaction Anxiety ScaleStraightforward score (SIAS-S; Rodebaugh, Woods, & Heimberg,
2007). The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS;
Mattick & Clarke, 1998) is a measure of anxiety in
dyads and groups and consists of 20 items which are
scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0
(not at all characteristic or true of me) to 4 (extremely
characteristic or true of me). Examples of SIAS items
include I find it easy to make friends of my own age
and When mixing in a group, I find myself worrying I
will be ignored. Rodebaugh et al. have reported that
the 17 straightforwardly worded items of the SIAS are

more valid indicators of social interaction anxiety than

the reverse-scored items in both undergraduate and
clinical samples. Consequently, Rodebaugh et al.
suggested the scoring strategy of utilizing only the
straightforward SIAS items to calculate the total score,
thereby yielding a 17-item score, hereafter referred to as
the SIASStraightforward score. The SIAS-S has
demonstrated excellent internal consistency (a = .93)
and factorial validity in undergraduate samples, and
construct validity in both undergraduate and clinical
samples (Rodebaugh, Holaway, & Heimberg, submitted
for review; Rodebaugh, Woods, et al., 2007). The 20item SIAS was administered to the overall sample.
However, only the straightforward items (SIAS-S) were
utilized in the present analyses2 and demonstrated
excellent internal consistency (a = .93).
2.2.2.2. Brief Fear of Negative EvaluationStraightforward score (BFNE-S; Rodebaugh et al., 2004;
Weeks et al., 2005). The Brief Fear of Negative
Evaluation (BFNE; Leary, 1983) scale is a 12-item selfreport measure of fear and distress related to negative
evaluation from others, a core feature of social anxiety
disorder. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5
(extremely characteristic of me). Rodebaugh et al.
(2004) and Weeks et al. (2005) have reported that the
eight straightforwardly worded items of the BFNE are
more reliable and valid indicators of fear of negative
2

Results using the SIAS total score are available upon request and
are substantively identical to the current results.

48

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

evaluation than the reverse-scored items in undergraduate and clinical samples, respectively. Consequently, Rodebaugh et al. and Weeks et al. suggested the
scoring strategy of utilizing only the straightforward
BFNE items to calculate the total score, thereby
yielding an 8-item BFNE-S score. The BFNE-S has
demonstrated excellent internal consistency (all
as > .92), factorial validity, and construct validity in
undergraduate (Rodebaugh et al., 2004) and clinical
(Weeks et al., 2005) samples, respectively. The 12-item
BFNE was administered only to the first subsample and
was completed by 410 participants. However, only the
straightforward items (BFNE-S) were utilized in the
present analyses and demonstrated excellent internal
consistency (a = .95). The BFNE-S was included in the
present study to examine how the FPES relates to fear of
negative evaluation, as well as to examine how FPE and
FNE relate to social anxiety.
2.2.3. Measures for the assessment of other
constructs (discriminant validity)
Participant responses to the following measures were
utilized to examine the discriminant validity of the FPES.
Discriminant validity would be demonstrated if higher
correlations were exhibited between the FPES and the
measure of social interaction anxiety (the SIAS-S) than
with the following measures.
2.2.3.1. Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire
for DSM-IV (GAD-Q-IV; Newman et al., 2002). The
GAD-Q-IV is a self-report measure for the diagnosis of
generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on DSM-IV
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria. The
first three items inquire about the excessive and
uncontrollable nature of the respondents worry.
Subsequent items inquire about the presence of worry
about day-to-day matters and whether the respondents
worries are bothersome more days than not. The
measure also includes a section in which the respondent
lists the topics that he/she worries about most frequently
and a checklist of physical symptoms experienced in
association with worry over the past 6 months. Finally,
the degree of interference and distress caused by worry
and the associated physical symptoms are rated by the
respondent on separate 9-point Likert-type scales,
ranging from 0 (none or no distress) to 8 (very severely
or very severe distress). In a study by Newman et al.
(2002), the GAD-Q-IV demonstrated adequate 2-week
testretest reliability in an undergraduate sample,
k = .64, and 92% of the sample showed stability of
diagnosis over time. Furthermore, there was adequate
agreement between diagnosis on the GAD-Q-IV and

diagnosis on the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule

for DSM-IV-Lifetime Version (ADIS-IV-L; DiNardo,
Brown, & Barlow, 1994), k = .67. Support for the
convergent and discriminant validity of the GAD-Q-IV
is provided by the finding that the GAD-Q-IV correlates
more strongly (r = .66) with a measure of excessive and
uncontrollable worry than with a measure of PTSD
symptoms (r = .45) or the SIAS (r = .34) (Newman
et al., 2002). Moreover, recent findings suggest that the
GAD-Q-IV has a unifactorial structure (Rodebaugh,
Holaway, et al., submitted for review). In this study, we
utilized a weighted (dimensional) scoring system for the
GAD-Q-IV to obtain an overall index of the severity of
GAD (range 013), recommended by Newman et al.
(2002). This dimensional scoring system provides a
weighting for the individual items and is not identical to
the straightforward sum of the item responses. The
GAD-Q-IV was administered to all 1711 participants,
and demonstrated good internal consistency (Guttman
split-half coefficient = .83).3
2.2.3.2. Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ;
Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990). The
PSWQ is a self-report assessment of the frequency,
excessiveness, and uncontrollability of worry. It
consists of 16 items scored on a 5-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (not at all typical) to 5 (very
typical). Examples of PSWQ items include Many
situations make me worry and I am always worrying
about something. The PSWQ demonstrates good
internal consistency in both clinical and undergraduate
samples (all as > .86) and excellent 1-month testretest
reliability in undergraduate samples (r = .93) (Brown,
Antony, & Barlow, 1992; Meyer et al., 1990).
Furthermore, patients with GAD obtain higher scores
than normal control participants and patients with other
anxiety disorders, including social anxiety disorder
(Brown et al., 1992). The PSWQ was administered to
the first subsample in the present study. It was
completed by 420 participants and demonstrated
excellent internal consistency (a = .93).
2.2.3.3. Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck,
Steer, & Brown, 1996). The BDI-II is a 21-item selfreport measure of depression. BDI-II items assess
depressive symptoms and attitudes that can be rated
from 0 to 3 in terms of intensity. Excellent internal
3
The Guttman split-half coefficient was utilized to calculate the
internal consistency of the GAD-Q-IV due to the variant structure of
the GAD-Q-IV items (see Newman et al., 2002).

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

consistency has been reported for the BDI-II in both

outpatient (a = .92) and undergraduate (a = .93) samples (Beck et al., 1996), and convergent validity has
been demonstrated by positive correlations between
scores on the BDI-II and scores on measures of
hopelessness and suicidal ideation. Furthermore, scores
on the BDI-II are more strongly correlated with
clinician-rated depression than with clinician-rated
anxiety (Beck et al., 1996). The BDI-II was administered to the first and second subsamples, and was
completed by 721 participants. The BDI-II demonstrated excellent internal consistency (a = .90).
2.3. Procedure
All participants completed a questionnaire battery that
included the FPES in partial fulfillment of research
requirements for their Introductory Psychology course.
Only those participants who responded to all straightforward items of the FPES (96.6% of the initial sampling
pool; N = 1772) were included in the present study.4
Furthermore, in the context of the research questions
outlined earlier, (a) score distributions and (b) internal
consistency of the FPES were examined in the overall
sample of 1711 participants, with testretest reliability
evaluated in the subsample of 65 participants who
completed the FPES at time 2; (c) the factorial validity of
the FPES was initially examined in the first subsample
and cross-validated in the pooled remaining subsamples,
and (d) the two-factor fear of evaluation construct validity
model was tested utilizing only the first subsample.
Correlations between the FPES (e) and the measures of
social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation and (f)
measures of constructs other than social anxiety were
examined in each of the four subsamples, although as
noted previously, the administration of measures varied
across subsamples. In addition, (g) the amount of variance
in social interaction anxiety accounted for by the FPES
above and beyond the variance accounted for by the Brief
Fear of Negative Evaluation score was examined
exclusively using the first subsample of 410 participants.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed
using the structural equation modeling software
program AMOS 6.0 (Arbuckle, 2005). We evaluated
fit indices according to the suggestions of Hu and
Bentler (1999), who recommend utilizing the Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI; Tucker and Lewis, 1973); the
4
The only other missing data in the present analyses are attributable
to 10 participants in the first subsample (2.4%) who did not answer all
items of the BFNE-S.

49

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of study measures
Measure

S.D.

Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire
for DSM-IV
Penn State Worry Questionnaire
Beck Depression Inventory2nd edition

23.36
22.51
19.72
5.13

13.07
13.01
8.06
3.33

50.18
11.94

14.18
9.67

Note: Ns vary from 410 to 1711 due to varied administration of

measures across semesters, and in part due to missing data.

Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990); the rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger
and Lind, 1980), with 90% confidence intervals; and the
standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; Bentler, 1995; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1981).
3. Results
See Table 2 for means and standard deviations for
participants responses to the study questionnaires.
3.1. Preliminary analyses
FPES scores were normally distributed (skewness = .40, SE = .06; kurtosis = .28, SE = .12) in the
overall sample. Furthermore, no gender difference was
found in the analysis of FPES scores, F(1, 1694) = .53,
p = .47.5
3.2. Internal consistency and testretest reliability
of the FPES
FPES scores were internally consistent (a = .80) in the
overall sample. Moreover, the FPES demonstrated good
5-week testretest reliability in the subsample of 65
participants who completed the FPES at time 2, with a
two-way random intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
for the absolute agreement of the single measure of .70
( p < .001). This ICC provides a more conservative
estimate of retest reliability than a standard correlation
coefficient because it models error variance both in
regard to person and time of administration.
3.3. Factorial validity of the FPES
A confirmatory structural model with all 8 straightforward FPES items serving as indicators of a single
5

Sixteen participants did not report their gender.

50

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

Fig. 1. Completely standardized solution of hypothesized 8-item factorial validity model. *p < .01.

latent fear of positive evaluation factor was tested in the

first subsample and compared to a single-factor model
consisting of all 10 FPES items, including the two
reverse-scored items. It was hypothesized that the 8item model would demonstrate superior fit to the 10item model, possibly due to method effects.6 Variables
in this model demonstrated approximate multivariate
normality (Mardias multivariate kurtosis kappa of
18.37).7 The 8-item solution demonstrated very good fit
(CFI = .97; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .064; CI = .044, .085;
SRMR = .04).8 In contrast, the 10-item solution
did not demonstrate good fit (CFI = .93; TLI = .92;
RMSEA = .070; CI = .055, .085; SRMR = .05). Although these models are not nested, and therefore cannot be
compared directly, all indicators were at least slightly
more favorable for the 8-item solution. The path
diagram for the hypothesized 8-item model is displayed
6
It is not uncommon to find that reverse-scored items load onto a
separate factor from straightforward items (e.g., see Rodebaugh et al.,
2004; Weeks et al., 2005). Thus, specifying separate factors for
straightforward and reverse-scored items can improve model fit.
However, upon testing this model in the present subsamples, the
solution did not converge properly with only two reverse-scored
items.
7
Byrne (1995, 2001) suggests that a Mardias kappa greater than 30
is suggestive of a significant departure from multivariate normality.
8
In addition, to fully examine the possibility that an unhypothesized, yet superior multi-factor solution might exist, a principal
components analysis was conducted, implemented using the Statistics
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0 for Windows. All eight
straightforward items of the FPES were entered, and the full sample
was utilized. Only one factor was extracted, as only one factor
exhibited an eigenvalue greater than 1.00. Parallel analysis (see
Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004) also suggested the extraction of
a single factor. The single factor had an eigenvalue of 3.45 and
accounted for 43.16% of the variance, with item loadings ranging
from 0.38 to 0.78. Thus, the obtained principal components analysis
results failed to suggest additional factors not addressed by our CFA
models. In a follow-up exploratory factor analysis using maximum
likelihood extraction, results were similar. A scree plot indicated only
one factor should be extracted.

in Fig. 1. All loadings from this model were statistically

significant ( p < .01).
Furthermore, the hypothesized 8-item model was
tested in the pooled remaining subsamples (n = 1291).
This model demonstrated adequate to good fit in
our cross-validation sample (CFI = .95; TLI = .91;
RMSEA = .069; CI = .059, .080; SRMR = .04), providing additional support for the factorial validity of the
FPES. The variables in this analysis demonstrated
approximate multivariate normality (Mardias multivariate kurtosis kappa of 28.00).
3.4. Examining the construct validity of the FPES
utilizing confirmatory factor analysis
We also examined the construct validity of the FPES
by testing a two-factor fear of evaluation model, in
which all eight straightforward FPES items loaded onto
a single latent fear of positive evaluation factor and all
eight straightforward BFNE items loaded onto a
correlated latent fear of negative evaluation factor.
Good fit of this two-factor model would provide
additional support for the factorial validity of the FPES,
in further demonstrating that each of the straightforward
FPES items loads onto a single factor, and would
demonstrate that FPE and FNE are distinct (albeit
correlated) constructs. We compared this model to a
nested single-factor model with all straightforward
FPES and BFNE items loading onto a single latent
factor. The variables in this analysis exhibited an
approximately multivariate normal distribution (Mardias multivariate kurtosis kappa of 16.47).
According to the Hu and Bentler (1999) criteria,
the two-factor model demonstrated adequate fit
(CFI = .95; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .046; CI = .042,
.050; SRMR = .06) and provided a better fit to the
data (x2(1) = 604.99, p < .001) than the single-factor
solution, which had poor fit (CFI = .80; TLI = .73;
RMSEA = .086; CI = .082, .090; SRMR = .13). The

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

51

Fig. 2. Completely standardized solution of hypothesized two-factor construct validity model. *p < .01.

path diagram for the hypothesized two-factor model is

displayed in Fig. 2. All loadings from this model were
statistically significant ( p < .01).9
Moreover, the two fear of evaluation factors were
highly positively correlated (r = .74, p < .001),10
suggesting that a higher order fear of evaluation factor
may be present. However, given that at least three
lower order factors are necessary to adequately test a
higher order confirmatory factor solution, we were
unable to evaluate the fit of such a solution in this
study.
3.5. Convergent validity
A Bonferroni correction (.05/5 = .01) was applied,
which controlled for the number of comparisons
between FPES scores and each of the other measures
administered (see Table 3). The FPES was significantly
and positively correlated with both the SIAS-S and the
BFNE-S. Furthermore, we also examined whether
the FPES related more strongly to one or the other
of these measures. Significance tests were conducted
using a Fishers r-to-z transformation refined by
Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin (1992), but the difference
between these correlations was not significant (z = 1.13,
p = .13).
9
Tests of models including factors that modeled method variance
for the BFNE, FPES, or both scales either produced equivalent fit
statistics, or, in the case of a two-factor model, slightly superior fit
statistics marred by uninterpretable factor loadings. Thus, there was
no evidence that model fit could be improved by modeling method
variance specific to the scales. Details of these models are available
from the first author.
10
It is important to note that the correlation between two latent
factors corrects for error variance and is therefore likely to be higher
than the correlation between constructs based on scale scores (see
Table 3 for scale score correlations).

3.6. Discriminant validity

The FPES was significantly correlated with all three
discriminant measures (see Table 3). Significance tests
were conducted to determine whether the FPES
correlated more strongly with the SIAS-S than with
measures of generalized anxiety, worry, or depression.
These tests were conducted according to Meng et al.
(1992). A Bonferroni correction (.05/3 = .017) was
applied, which controlled for the number of comparisons of the relationship between the FPES and the
SIAS-S to that of the FPES with each of the three
discriminant measures. Consistent with hypothesis,
the FPES was more strongly related to the SIAS-S
than to the GAD-Q-IV, the PSWQ, or the BDI-II
(all ps < .006).
In exploratory analyses, we conducted significance
tests (Meng et al., 1992) to examine whether the FPES
and BFNE-S exhibited different patterns of correlations
with the discriminant measures, a finding that would
shed further light on the question of whether FPE and
FNE are meaningfully distinct constructs. Indeed,
following Bonferroni correction (.05/3 = .017), the
FPES related less strongly to the GAD-Q-IV and the
PSWQ than did the BFNE-S (both zs > 2.20, both
ps < .001); however, the FPES and BFNE-S did not
differ in the magnitude of their relationship to the
BDI-II (z = .20, p = .84).
3.7. Unique variance in social interaction anxiety
accounted for by fear of positive evaluation
A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to
examine whether fear of positive evaluation accounted
for variance in social interaction anxiety (SIAS-S)
beyond that already accounted for by fear of negative
evaluation (BFNE-S) (see Table 4). Specifically, the

52

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

Table 3
Correlations among all measures

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale

Social Interaction Anxiety ScaleStraightforward scale
Brief Fear of Negative EvaluationStraightforward scale
GAD-Questionnaire for DSM-IV
Penn State Worry Questionnaire
Beck Depression Inventory2nd edition

.48 *
.45 *
.34 *
.33 *
.40 *

.51*
.42*
.39*
.42*

.48 *
.51 *
.38 *

.74 *
.57 *

.38 *

Note: Bonferroni correction was calculated based on number of comparisons per measure.
*
p = (.05/5) = .01.

Table 4
Regression weights from hierarchical regression analysis examining
the unique variance in social interaction anxiety accounted for by the
Fear of Positive Evaluation Scale (FPES) above and beyond the
contribution of the straightforwardly worded items of the Brief Fear
of Negative Evaluation scale (BFNE-S)
Variable

SE b

Beta

Step 1
BFNE-S

.79

.06

.54

Step 2
BFNE-S
FPES

.57
.29

.06
.04

.39
.33

Notes: Overall adjusted R2 = .38, SE = 9.27; R2 D = .09, F(2, 406) =

124.21, p < .001.

BFNE-S total score was entered in the first step of the

equation, and the FPES was entered in the second step.
After the first step in the regression, the BFNE-S was
significantly and positively related to the SIAS-S,
R2 = .29, F(1, 407) = 166.30, p < .001. In the second
step of the regression, the FPES was also significantly
and positively related to, and significantly improved the
prediction of, the SIAS-S, R2 D = .09, F(1, 406) =
58.59, p < .001. Thus, FPES did account for significant
variance in social interaction anxiety beyond that
already accounted for by the BFNE-S. Cohens (1988)
f 2 for this finding was .61, a very large effect.11

4. Discussion
Existing models specify that persons with social
anxiety fear negative evaluation; we hypothesized that
they might also fear positive evaluation. To begin to
11
Indeed, the relationship between FNE and social interaction
anxiety (SIAS-S) upon controlling for FPE (r = .41, p < .001) was
only slightly larger than the relationship between FPE and social
interaction anxiety (SIAS-S) upon controlling for FNE (r = .36,
p < .001).

examine this hypothesis, we developed the Fear of

Positive Evaluation Scale. Several analyses were
conducted that provide information about the psychometric properties of the FPES in undergraduate
samples. Our results provided support for the reliability,
factor structure, and the convergent and discriminant
validity of the FPES.
FPES scores were normally distributed, exhibited
good internal consistency, and demonstrated good 5week testretest reliability. In addition, the FPES
correlated positively with measures of social interaction
anxiety and fear of negative evaluation, providing
support for the convergent validity of the scale. The
FPES was more strongly related to a measure of social
interaction anxiety than to measures of generalized
anxiety, worry, and depression, providing initial support
for the discriminant validity of the FPES. The FPES and
BFNE-S also exhibited different patterns of correlations
with two of three discriminant measures included in the
study.
Our confirmatory factor analytic findings were also
highly encouraging. First, confirmatory factor analyses
supported the hypothesized unifactorial model: all 8
straightforward items of the FPES served as indicators
of a single latent factor, and this model was successfully
cross-validated in an independent sample. Moreover,
the hypothesized two-factor construct validity model,
which included separate but correlated factors for fears
of positive and negative evaluation, obtained good
model fit and fit the data better than a single-factor fear
of evaluation model. These findings suggest that fears of
positive and negative evaluation are separate constructs.
Furthermore, that these constructs were highly correlated suggests a higher order fear of evaluation factor.
FPE may play an important role in the cognitions of
socially anxious persons.
FPES scores contributed unique variance to the
prediction of social interaction anxiety above and
beyond the variance predicted by a measure of fear of
negative evaluation (BFNE-S). These results suggest

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

that positive and negative evaluative fears contribute

uniquely to social interaction anxiety and thus reinforce
and extend Wallace and Aldens (1995, 1997) hypothesis that socially anxious individuals experience a
negative reaction to positive appraisal because of their
concern that initial positive appraisal may lead to future
negative appraisal. Wallace and Alden essentially
suggest that acute fear of positive appraisal is a fear
of eventual negative appraisal. However, based solely
on this explanation, we would not expect FPES scores to
contribute unique variance to the prediction of social
interaction anxiety above and beyond scores obtained
on a measure of FNE. It may well be that FPE has both
direct and indirect effects (i.e., through its longitudinal
effect on FNE) on social anxiety. It will be important to
further investigate this question in future research.
The present findings may also supplement current
cognitivebehavioral models of social anxiety. For
example, according to Clark and Wells (1995) and
Rapee and Heimberg (1997), socially anxious individuals attach fundamental importance to being positively
appraised by others, given that fear of negative
evaluation is the core feature of social anxiety.
However, the present findings suggest that socially
anxious individuals may instead attach fundamental
importance to remaining inconspicuous, as either
positive or negative appraisals may result in the
experience of anxiety. In addition, the biased selfimage or mental representation which socially anxious
individuals develop regarding their external appearance
and behavior as presumably seen by an audience (e.g.,
Clark & Wells, 1995; Rapee & Heimberg, 1997) may
include salient aspects of the self which are both
potentially negative and positive. Furthermore, according to Rapee and Heimberg (1997), socially anxious
individuals formulate an unrealistically high performance standard that the audience is expected to utilize
in a social situation and doubt their ability to meet this
unrealistically high standard. However, present findings
suggest that socially anxious individuals may not
necessarily doubt their ability to meet high audience
standards (although this is certainly possible) and
indeed may sometimes fear that they will meet (or even
exceed) such standards.
The present findings suggest that social threat could
entail any experience of conspicuousness/self-consciousness in which the person might receive either
positive or negative evaluation. Such a notion is
indirectly supported by findings that trait social anxiety
is positively associated with public self-consciousness,
ones general tendency to consider his or her public
presence (Bruch, Gorsky, Collins, & Berger, 1989; Hope

53

& Heimberg, 1988). Furthermore, Rapee and Heimberg

(1997, p. 750) propose that, regarding information
received from the audience, . . . positive information
will hold less weight for the individual with social phobia
and will produce less of a shift in anxiety. In contrast, the
present findings (as well as those of Alden et al., 2004;
Wallace & Alden, 1995, 1997) suggest that positive
information received from the audience may produce a
substantial increase in anxiety/discomfort. Indeed,
persons with social anxiety may have difficulty interpreting positive signals (i.e., smiling and nodding from an
audience member could be interpreted as threatening) as
well as negative signals from the audience. Future
research could clarify these questions.
In addition to informing theoretical models of social
anxiety disorder and guiding relevant research, the
current findings have implications for the potential
refinement of existing interventions for social anxiety.
Specifically, given current emphasis on fear of negative
evaluation, cognitive restructuring and exposure work
typically focus on situations involving apprehension of
negative appraisal; therefore, FPE is most likely not
addressed systematically. Speculatively, it is possible
that FPE accounts in part for the thinking error
disqualifying the positive (Beck, 1976), which involves
the rejection of positive experience. Specifically, social
anxiety disorder patients frequently disqualify positive
social experiences or outcomes by developing explanations for their successes that have little to do with their
own ability or effort. Because positive information is
invalidated by this thinking error, the clients negative
belief system is supported or maintained (Heimberg &
Becker, 2002). Indeed, in our clinical experience, this
distortion is among the most frequently encountered
and represents a significant threat to therapeutic
progress if left unaddressed.
Socially anxious individuals may experience anxiety
upon having performed well and receiving positive
social signals/feedback from individuals involved in
exposure exercises in cognitivebehavioral therapy;
consequently, they may reject their success and hinder
their overall progress. If so, incorporating psychoeducational material pertaining to FPE, implementing
cognitive restructuring to address FPE-related automatic thoughts, and designing in vivo exposures (e.g.,
receiving compliments from the therapist or roleplayers) to address FPE-related fears could alleviate a
significant barrier to treatment success. This is an
additional area for future studies and could provide a
model for treatment development involving therapy
programs which systematically address FPE-related
concerns.

54

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

Several limitations to the present study exist. First,

the present data were obtained in undergraduate
samples. Although our findings provide support for
all hypotheses in the present study, examining the
generalizability of these findings to clinical samples is
an important next step in evaluating the psychometric
properties as well as the construct validity of the FPES.
Second, relationships between the FPES and additional
social anxiety-related measures and measures of other
constructs must be examined in order to further test the
convergent and discriminant validity of the FPES,
respectively. Third, it is important to extend the
validation of the FPES through the inclusion of
multimethod data sources, including clinician-administered measures, as well as behavioral and physiological
indicators, of social anxiety. Fourth, the participants in
the present study were primarily female. Although no
significant gender difference in FPES scores was
detected in the present sample, replication of the
present findings in additional samples is essential for
establishing the generalizability of our results.

References
Alden, L. E., Mellings, T. M. B., & Laposa, J. M. (2004). Framing
social information and generalized social phobia. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 42, 585600.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos (Version 6) [Computer Program].
Chicago: SPSS.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.
New York: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression
Inventory Manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint
changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 25, 163172.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Brown, T. A., Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Psychometric
properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical
anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30,
3337.
Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., & Berger, P. A. (1989).
Shyness and sociability reexamined: a multicomponent analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 904915.
Byrne, B. M. (1995). One application of structural equation modeling
from two perspectives: exploring the OQS and LISREL strategies.
In: R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts,
issues, and applications (pp. 138157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic
concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia.

In: R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier
(Eds.), Social phobia: diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp.
6993). New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coles, M. E., Turk, C. L., Heimberg, R. G., & Fresco, D. M. (2001).
Effects of varying levels of anxiety within social situations:
relationship to memory perspective and attributions in social
phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 651665.
DiNardo, P. A., Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1994). Anxiety
Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IVLifetime Version
(ADIS-IV-L). New York: Oxford University Press.
Foa, E. B., Franklin, M. E., Perry, K. J., & Herbert, J. D. (1996).
Cognitive biases in generalized social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 433439.
Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: the role of attraction,
social competition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatric Clinics of
North America, 24, 723751.
Hackman, A., Surawy, C., & Clark, D. M. (1998). Seeing yourself
through others eyes: a study of spontaneously occurring images in
social phobia. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 26,
312.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention
decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel
analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191205.
Heimberg, R. G., & Becker, R. E. (2002). Cognitivebehavioral group
therapy for social phobia: basic mechanisms and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Hope, D. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1988). Public and private selfconsciousness and social phobia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 626639.
Horley, K., Williams, L. M., Gonsalvez, C., & Gordon, E. (2004). Face
to face: visual scanpath evidence for abnormal processing of facial
expressions in social phobia. Psychiatry Research, 127, 4353.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: analysis of linear
structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood.
Chicago: National Educational Resources.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. D., Demler, O., Olga, J. R., Merikangas, K.
R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset
distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity
Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 593602.
Kessler, R. C., Stang, P., Wittchen, H.-U., Stein, M., & Walters, E. E.
(1999). Lifetime comorbidities between social phobia and mood
disorders in the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey. Psychological
Medicine, 29, 555567.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9,
371375.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., & Campbell, C. D. (1988). Selfpresentational concerns and social anxiety: the role of generalized
impression expectancies. Journal of Research in Personality, 22,
308321.
Mansell, W., & Clark, D. M. (1999). How do I appear to others? Social
anxiety and processing of the observable self. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 37, 419434.
Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: a
substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810819.

J.W. Weeks et al. / Journal of Anxiety Disorders 22 (2008) 4455

Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of
measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction
anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455470.
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing
correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111,
172175.
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990).
Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487495.
Newman, M. G., Zuellig, A. R., Kachin, K. E., Constantino, M. J.,
Przeworski, A., Erickson, T., et al. (2002). Preliminary reliability
and validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder QuestionnaireIV: a revised self-report diagnostic measure of generalized anxiety
disorder. Behavior Therapy, 33, 215233.
Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitivebehavioral
model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 35, 741756.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Holaway, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (submitted for
review). The factor structure and dimensional scoring of the
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire for DSM-IV.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The
reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: the reversescored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong.
Behavior Therapy, 38, 192206.
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M., Heimberg, R. G.,
Chambless, D. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from
fewer questions: the factor structure and item properties of the
original and Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Psychological Assessment, 16, 169181.
Safren, S. A., Heimberg, R. G., Brown, E. J., & Holle, C. (1997).
Quality of life in social phobia. Depression and Anxiety, 4,
126133.

55

Schneier, F. R., Heckelman, L. R., Garfinkel, R., Campeas, R., Fallon,

B. A., Gitow, A., et al. (1994). Functional impairment in social
phobia. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 322331.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for
the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Stein, M. B., McQuaid, J. R., Laffaye, C., & McCahill, M. E. (1999).
Social phobia in the primary care medical setting. Journal of
Family Practice, 48, 514519.
Trower, P., & Gilbert, P. (1989). New theoretical conceptions of social
anxiety and social phobia. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 1935.
Trower, P., Gilbert, P., & Sherling, G. (1990). Social anxiety, evolution, and self-presentation. In: H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 1146). New York: Plenum
Press.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for
maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 110.
Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (1998). Positive and negative affect in
social interactions as a function of partner familiarity, quality of
communication, and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 17, 196208.
Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1995). Social anxiety and standard
setting following social success or failure. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 19, 613631.
Wallace, S. T., & Alden, L. E. (1997). Social phobia and positive
social events: the price of success. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 416424.
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Hart, T. A., Turk, C. L.,
Schneier, F. R., et al. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale in
patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment,
17, 179190.