Content uploaded by Heidi Gazelle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heidi Gazelle on May 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Gazelle, H. Two Models of
the Development of Social
Withdrawal and Social Anxiety in
Childhood and Adolescence:
Progress and Blind Spots. Children
2022,9, 734. https://doi.org/
10.3390/children9050734
Academic Editor: Jason Gilliland
Received: 30 March 2022
Accepted: 13 May 2022
Published: 17 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
children
Perspective
Two Models of the Development of Social Withdrawal and
Social Anxiety in Childhood and Adolescence: Progress and
Blind Spots
Heidi Gazelle
Human Development and Family Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA; hgazelle@fsu.edu;
Tel.: +1-(850)-644-5722
Abstract:
This commentary features a review of two recently reformulated models of the development
of child and adolescent: (1) social withdrawal by Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano 2021, and (2) social
anxiety by Spence and Rapee 2016. The articles that present these reformulated models now cover
advances made during the prior 12 to 18 years of research, including increased knowledge of genetic
vulnerability to anxiety and longitudinal patterns of development, and acknowledgement of multiple
pathways towards and away from the development of social withdrawal or social anxiety (i.e.,
equifinality, multifinality). However, these reformulated models also contain several blind spots.
The model of social withdrawal development would be improved by explicitly referring to peer
treatment (not only attitudinal peer rejection), especially peer exclusion; and incorporating the
potential development of clinically significant anxiety in childhood (not only adolescence) and delays
in developmental milestones in adulthood. The model of social anxiety development would be
improved by featuring social withdrawal as a proximal affective-behavioral profile (rather than a
temperament) and drawing upon the literature on social withdrawal and its links to peer relations.
Overall, there is a continuing lack of integration between developmental and clinical research and
models of the development of social withdrawal and social anxiety.
Keywords:
social anxiety; social withdrawal; shyness; development; peer relations; parenting;
childhood; adolescence
1. Introduction
Conceptual models of the development of social withdrawal [
1
] and etiology of social
anxiety [
2
] in childhood and adolescence have recently been updated by their authors to
reflect the past 12 to 18 years of research. These updated models [
3
,
4
] reflect progress in the
understanding of the development of social withdrawal and social anxiety, but also reveal
blind spots in conceptualization. Furthermore, these models reveal a continuing lack of
integration of developmental and clinical approaches to research on social withdrawal and
social anxiety, despite earlier efforts towards integrating these research traditions [5,6].
Integrating developmental and clinical models and research on social withdrawal and
social anxiety is important because it would foster a greater understanding of the devel-
opmental processes (e.g., parenting, peer relations, emotion regulation, social cognitive,
and self-development processes) that lead to divergent psychosocial adjustment among
vulnerable children and youth over time. Vulnerable children and youth can move toward
(equifinality) or away from (multifinality [
7
]) the development of the clinical disorder
and accompanying impairment, and encounter roadblocks to full participation in society
(e.g., as manifested in delayed or unsuccessful attempts at adult developmental milestones
for education, employment, romantic partnership, procreation, etc.). Likewise, clinical
research on social cognitive patterns related to the development and maintenance of social
anxiety [8] should inform investigations of the development of social withdrawal.
Children 2022,9, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9050734 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children
Children 2022,9, 734 2 of 6
Definitions
Social withdrawal is an umbrella term which identifies children and youths who remain
alone at high rates relative to their age mates in social contexts (e.g., school recess) in which
peers are available as interaction partners [
3
]. Social anxiety/shyness is the most common
motivation for social withdrawal, although some children and youths demonstrate social
withdrawal for other reasons (e.g., unsociability or lack of interest in peer interaction) [
9
–
11
].
Anxious solitary/withdrawn children and youths are conceptualized as wanting to interact
with peers (possessing normative social approach motivation), but being held back by social
anxiety (or elevated social avoidance motivation) that occurs even with familiar peers such
as classmates [
12
]. Social withdrawal, which refers to a child’s solitary behavior, should
not be confused with terms that refer to peer treatment of a child, such as peer exclusion or
isolation by the peer group [
12
]. Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano’s [
3
] model posits that social
withdrawal in childhood may forecast social anxiety in early adolescence and beyond.
The diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD, previously known as “social phobia”)
requires that an individual experiences fear or anxiety in social situations, avoids or en-
dures social situations with anxiety, experiences these symptoms for at least six months,
and that these symptoms are accompanied by distress or life impairment (e.g., interfere
with attending childcare, school, or work) [
4
,
13
,
14
]. Importantly, in children and adoles-
cents, anxiety must occur in interactions with peers (not just adults). Spence and Rapee’s
model [
4
] of the etiology of social anxiety places social withdrawal in a category labelled
“genes/temperament”.
2. Strengths and Blind Spots of Reformulated Models
2.1. Development of Social Withdrawal: Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano, 2021
A strength of Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano’s [
3
] model of the development of social
withdrawal is its detailed description of the role of children’s and youths’ key interpersonal
relations with parents and peers in contributing to the development of children and youths’
social withdrawal by developmental period, including infancy, toddlerhood, preschool,
early elementary school, late elementary school, and early adolescence. The model also
features additional influences on the development of social withdrawal in childhood
and adolescence that are connected to children’s and youths’ relations with their parents
and peers, including behaviorally inhibited toddler temperament, influences on parents,
parenting beliefs, and sociological setting conditions.
Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano [
3
] deliver an insightful critique of the current state of the
literature that informs their model of the development of social withdrawal. They note that
evidence is modest or lacking for (1) linking behaviorally inhibited temperament among
unfamiliar peers to social withdrawal among familiar peers, (2) sub-cultural differences in the
prevalence and outcomes of social withdrawal, and (3) the development and consequences
of social withdrawal in late adolescence and young adulthood. Additionally, they note that
although the study of social motivations associated with social withdrawal has become
popular [
10
], there is little evidence that these social motivations relate to observable
behavior [9].
Although the description of the role of peer difficulties in maintaining and exacerbating
anxious withdrawal in childhood and adolescence is a strength of Rubin and Chronis-
Tuscano’s [
3
] model, in an unfortunate blind spot, the model refers to peer difficulties as
“peer rejection.” Peer rejection is a construct that carries a specific meaning for peer relations
researchers: peer rejection is an attitudinal variable that indicates that a child or youth is
disliked by many of his or her peers [
15
]. Although peer attitudes and peer treatment of
children and youths are often related, they are not one and the same. Children and youths
are often directly affected by the way they are overtly treated by peers, rather than by
covert peer attitudes. For instance, peer exclusion, or being left out of peer interaction,
predicts not only the maintenance of anxious solitude/withdrawal over the course of
middle childhood after controlling for peer rejection [
12
], but also the emergence of anxious
solitude/withdrawal in early adolescence in youth with no previous history of anxious
Children 2022,9, 734 3 of 6
solitude/ withdrawal [
16
]. Ironically, explicit mention was made of peer exclusion in the
earlier iteration of the model [
1
], but it is missing from the updated model [
3
]. Nonetheless,
Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano draw upon some evidence of peer mistreatment in support
of their model, but mislabeling this as evidence of peer rejection is not likely to accurately
communicate these findings to the community of researchers who have a different shared
understanding of the meaning of this term. Importantly, featuring peer rejection versus peer
exclusion as a key interpersonal process in a model of the development of social withdrawal
is not just a matter of semantics, but rather of accuracy in specifying the interpersonal
processes (i.e., overt peer treatment) known to contribute to the development of social
withdrawal in the current evidence base [12,16–19].
Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano’s model [
3
] is ultimately aimed at explaining the develop-
ment of internalizing problems in socially withdrawn children and youth, which makes
it comparable to Spence and Rapee’s model of the etiology of social anxiety [
4
]. Rubin
and Chronis-Tuscano’s model [
3
] accurately suggests that childhood social withdrawal
may lead to the development of anxiety, but in another blind spot (or perhaps understate-
ment), proposes that this does not occur until the early adolescent period (12 years of
age and beyond). However, even preschool age children can be diagnosed with anxiety
disorders [
20
,
21
]. Moreover, of children identified as anxious solitary/withdrawn in fourth
grade (at about 9 years of age), a third were also diagnosed with SAD [
6
]. A large study
of prevalence [
22
] indicated that the age of onset for SAD occurred by 13 years of age
for 50 percent of individuals who developed the disorder (the median), by eight years
of age for 25 percent of individuals, and by 5 years of age for 5 percent of individuals.
Importantly, these joint age of onset and prevalence rates for child and adolescent SAD
were obtained retrospectively from individuals aged 18 and up in this large-scale preva-
lence study [
22
], and prospective studies of children have produced evidence of similar
rates in unselected samples [
21
,
23
], and substantially higher rates in children at risk due to
social withdrawal [
6
] or behavioral inhibition [
24
]. Thus, models of the development of
social withdrawal should acknowledge the potential for clinically significant social anxiety
to develop in middle childhood, and probably also in the preschool period. Research is
needed on processes involved in the development of clinically significant social anxiety in
withdrawn children and adolescents. Peer adversity may be a key factor contributing to the
development of clinically significant social anxiety and other internalizing problems [12].
To address another blind spot, in addition to internalizing problems, the equally
important potential adult outcomes of childhood social withdrawal—delays in achieving
adult developmental milestones [
25
] (e.g., moving out of the parental home, obtaining a
higher education, initiating a career, initiating a romantic partnership, cohabitation with a
romantic partner, childbearing, childrearing, income, homeownership)—should be added
to the model of the development of social withdrawal. Delays in adult developmental
milestones are likely to have profound impacts on wellbeing. For instance, the absence
of a romantic partner and children contributes to loneliness, which can compromise life
satisfaction and even forecast premature death [26].
Consideration of these recommendations in developmental research and prevention
efforts for social withdrawal in children and adolescents could yield improved cross-
fertilization in developmental and clinical knowledge bases, as well as prevention and
intervention efficacy for withdrawn children and adolescents. First, awareness of clinically
significant anxiety could be increased in families, schools, and other professionals who
serve children and adolescents to facilitate the early identification of young people suffering
with anxiety and limit the extent that this anxiety may compromise healthy development by
facilitating prevention and early treatment. Second, the overt forms of peer mistreatment
(i.e., peer exclusion) that are most often detrimental to healthy development in withdrawn
children could be targeted for prevention and intervention [
27
]. Third, patterns of cognition
characteristic of social anxiety and its maintenance [
4
] could be investigated in socially
withdrawn children and adolescents, and these cognitive patterns could also become the
targets of prevention and intervention efforts for withdrawn children and adolescents.
Children 2022,9, 734 4 of 6
Fourth, prevention and intervention efforts for withdrawn children and adolescents could
explicitly support the achievement of adult developmental milestones for participation in
society (e.g., facilitate healthy friendships and romantic relationships, transitions to higher
education, career counseling, financial counseling, and parenting skills).
2.2. Development of Social Anxiety: Spence and Rapee, 2016
Spence and Rapee’s model [
4
] posits that the interplay between “genes/temperament”
and environmental factors contributes to proximal behavioral and cognitive factors, which
in turn determine the individual’s level of anxiety. Additionally, both personal (age, gender)
and cultural factors influence whether the individual’s anxiety engenders sufficient life
impairment to warrant a diagnosis of SAD.
The literature review, which provides the basis for this updated model, has multiple
strengths. For example, it covers research on genetic vulnerability to anxiety. This literature
indicates that both genes (multiple genetic variants which individually have a small impact,
but in combination have a significant impact) and non-shared environment (environmental
influences which are not shared by family members) have a strong impact on anxiety. Major
sources of non-shared environmental influences are children’s and youths’ peer relations
and other experiences at school [
28
]. Also, Spence and Rapee [
4
] review research indicating
that behaviorally inhibited toddler temperament, or wariness to unfamiliar people and
situations/objects [
29
], conveys an increased risk of anxiety over the course of development.
Additionally, Spence and Rapee [
4
] review research on attentional “bias” towards threat,
and nuanced cognitive and social cognitive mechanisms implicated in social anxiety.
In their analysis of the extant literature, Spence and Rapee [
4
] also come to the critical
conclusion that about fifteen percent of children who do not have a history of behaviorally
inhibited temperament nonetheless develop SAD (equifinality). Although they do not
elaborate on this important observation, it may be that non-shared environmental influences
that take on the form of negative interpersonal learning processes, such as peer adversity
and other experiences at school, also contribute to the development of social anxiety in
children and youths who do not have early histories of behavioral inhibition or withdrawal.
In support of this contention, the literature on social withdrawal provides evidence that
peer exclusion predicts increasing anxious solitude in early adolescence, even among
youths without a prior history of social withdrawal in childhood [16].
However, a major blind spot of Spence and Rapee’s model [
4
] is its treatment of
social withdrawal. Social withdrawal is included under “genes/temperament” rather
than as a “proximal behavior” in the figure depicting the model, and the literature review
which supports the model does not draw upon the literature on social withdrawal. This
treatment of social withdrawal implies that it is the same phenomenon as behaviorally
inhibited temperament. This assumption is not warranted for several reasons. First, as
noted by Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano [
3
], there is little empirical evidence for the link
between behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar and social withdrawal among familiar
peers. Second, the conceptualization of the two constructs differs. Behavioral inhibition
is conceptualized as wariness in the face of the unfamiliar (people, situations, objects),
whereas withdrawal is conceptualized as elevated solitary behavior among peers due to
social evaluative concerns (fears about being poorly treated by peers and/or not behaving
competently with peers) [
12
]. Behavioral inhibition is believed to be rooted in a low
threshold for stimulation in the brain’s limbic system [
29
], whereas social withdrawal is
linked to negative interpersonal learning experiences with parents and peers [
3
]. Behavioral
inhibition may increase the risk for the development of social withdrawal among familiar
peers, but evidence suggests that social withdrawal develops in non-behaviorally inhibited
children who have negative interpersonal learning experiences [
30
,
31
]. A great strength
of the literature on the development of social withdrawal is a detailed assessment of key
interpersonal learning mechanisms with parents and peers. Therefore, in not drawing
upon this literature, models of social anxiety development fail to build upon evidence for
Children 2022,9, 734 5 of 6
the interpersonal learning processes that engender and/or exacerbate social anxiety and
social avoidance.
Considerations of these recommendations in clinical prevention and early treatment
for SAD in children and adolescents could yield many improvements in selection for
intervention as well as intervention efficacy. First, at-risk children and adolescents could
be targeted for intervention based on social withdrawal or the combination of social
withdrawal and peer difficulties, not only behavioral inhibition. This may address the
psychosocial needs and mental health of at-risk children and adolescents that are currently
overlooked. Second, these children and adolescents’ peer relations (e.g., peer exclusion)
could become a target of intervention [
27
], alongside efforts to ameliorate individual
social and emotional competence. Third, interventions could be timed just prior to the
beginning of the new school year to take advantage of the natural rhythms of this ecological
transition to maximize children’s and adolescents’ chances for a fresh start when they
have encountered peer difficulties [
16
]. This opens the possibility that naturally occurring
interactions and relationships with peers could serve a therapeutic purpose.
3. Conclusions
Rubin and Chronis-Tuscano and Spence and Rapee’s updated models [
3
,
4
] reflect
progress in the understanding of the development of social withdrawal and social anxiety
during the last 12–18 years, but also reveal blind spots in conceptualization and evidence, as
well as continuing lack of integration of developmental and clinical research and conceptual
models of social withdrawal and social anxiety, despite earlier efforts towards integrating
these research traditions [
5
,
6
]. Research at the intersection of the development of social
withdrawal and social anxiety has the potential to provide a more integrated explanation
and evidence base for both phenomena by borrowing from the strengths of both traditions
and highlighting cross-disciplinary gaps in evidence and intervention efforts.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD), grant number 1 R03 HD104881-01A1.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
Ethical review and approval were not needed for this review,
because no data were presented.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
Thanks for support from Florida State University and from the students in my
graduate research seminar who have shown such enthusiasm for our discussion of models of social
withdrawal and social anxiety: Jessie Shafer, Jacob Williams, and Karina Sandoval Jalapa.
Conflicts of Interest:
The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the
writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Rubin, K.H.; Coplan, R.J.; Bowker, J.C. Social withdrawal in childhood. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2009
,60, 141–171. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2.
Rapee, R.M.; Spence, S.H. The etiology of social phobia: Empirical evidence and an initial model. Clin. Psychol. Rev.
2004
,24,
737–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3.
Rubin, K.H.; Chronis-Tuscano, A. Perspectives on social withdrawal in childhood: Past, present, and prospects. Child Dev.
Perspect. 2021,15, 160–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Spence, S.H.; Rapee, R.M. The etiology of social anxiety disorder: An evidence-based model. Behav. Res. Ther.
2016
,86, 50–67.
[CrossRef]
5.
Gazelle, H.; Rubin, K.H. Social Anxiety in Childhood: Bridging Developmental and Clinical Perspectives. In Social Anxiety in
Childhood: Bridging Developmental and Clinical Perspectives: New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development; Gazelle, H., Rubin,
K.H., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–16.
6.
Gazelle, H.; Workman, J.O.; Allan, W. Anxious solitude and clinical disorder in middle childhood: Bridging developmental and
clinical approaches to childhood social anxiety. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2010,38, 1–17. [CrossRef]
7.
Cicchetti, D.; Rogosch, F.A. Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol.
1996
,8, 597–600.
[CrossRef]
Children 2022,9, 734 6 of 6
8.
Miers, A.C.; Blöte, A.W.; de Rooij, M.; Bokhorst, C.L.; Westenberg, P.M. Trajectories of Social Anxiety during Adolescence and
Relations with Cognition, Social Competence, and Temperament. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2013,41, 97–110. [CrossRef]
9.
Spangler, T.; Gazelle, H. Anxious solitude, unsociability, and peer exclusion in middle childhood: A multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Soc. Dev. 2009,18, 833–856. [CrossRef]
10.
Coplan, R.J.; Rose-Krasnor, L.; Weeks, M.; Kingsbury, A.; Kingsbury, M.; Bullock, A. Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social
withdrawal, and socioemotional functioning in later childhood. Dev. Psych. 2013,49, 861. [CrossRef]
11. Asendorpf, J.B. Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, & peer avoidance. Human Dev. 1990,33, 250–259.
12.
Gazelle, H.; Ladd, G.W. Anxious solitude and peer exclusion: A diathesis-stress model of internalizing trajectories in childhood.
Child Dev. 2003,74, 257–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
American_Psychiatric_Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed.; Text Rev.; APA: Washington, DC,
USA, 2022.
14.
World Health Organization. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 11th ed.; WHO Press:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
15.
Ladd, G.W.; Kochenderfer-Ladd, B.; Ettekal, I.; Clifford, B.N. Manifestations of Solitude in Interpersonal Contexts and Negative
Peer Experiences. In The Handbook of Solitude; Coplan, R.J., Bowker, J.C., Nelson, L.J., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021;
pp. 117–132.
16.
Gazelle, H.; Faldowski, R.A. Multiple trajectories in anxious solitary youths: The middle school transition as a turning point in
development. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2019,47, 1135–1152. [CrossRef]
17.
Booth-LaForce, C.; Oxford, M.L. Trajectories of social withdrawal from grades 1 to 6: Prediction from early parenting, attachment,
& temperament. Dev. Psych. 2008,44, 1298–1313.
18.
Oh, W.; Rubin, K.H.; Bowker, J.C.; Booth-LaForce, C.; Rose-Krasnor, L.; Laursen, B. Trajectories of social withdrawal from middle
childhood to early adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2008,36, 553–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Asendorpf, J.B. The malleability of behavioral inhibition: A study of individual developmental functions. Dev. Psych.
1994
,30,
912–919. [CrossRef]
20.
Egger, H.L.; Angold, A. The Preschool Age Psychiatric Assessment (PAPA): A structured parent interview for diagnosing
psychiatric disorders in preschool children. In Handbook of Infant, Toddler, & Preschool Mental Health Assessment; DelCarmen-
Wiggins, R., Carter, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 223–243.
21.
Egger, H.L.; Angold, A. Common emotional and behavioral disorders in preschool children: Presentation, nosology, and
epidemiology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry. 2006,47, 313–337. [CrossRef]
22.
Kessler, R.C.; Berglund, P.; Demler, O.; Jin, R.; Merikangas, K.R.; Walters, E.E. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions
of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2005,62, 593–602. [CrossRef]
23.
Bufferd, S.J.; Dougherty, L.R.; Carlson, G.A.; Klein, D.N. Parent-reported mental health in preschoolers: Findings using a
diagnostic interview. Compr. Psychiatry 2011,52, 359–369. [CrossRef]
24.
Rapee, R.M.; Kennedy, S.; Ingram, M.; Edwards, S.; Sweeney, L. Prevention and early intervention of anxiety disorders in inhibited
preschool children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2005,73, 488–497. [CrossRef]
25.
Shafer, J.K.; Gazelle, H. Youth social withdrawal and subsequent adult psychosocial adjustment: A quantitative systematic review.
J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2022,submitted.
26.
Holt-Lunstad, J. Why social relationships are important for physical health: A systems approach to understanding and modifying
risk and protection. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018,69, 437–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Harrist, A.W.; Bradley, K.D. “You can’t say you can’t play”: Intervening in the process of social exclusion in the kindergarten
classroom. Early Child. Res. Q. 2003,18, 185–205. [CrossRef]
28.
Scaini, S.; Belotti, R.; Ogliari, A. Genetic and environmental contributions to social anxiety across different ages: A meta-analytic
approach to twin data. J. Anxiety Disord. 2014,28, 650–656. [CrossRef]
29.
Kagan, J.; Reznick, J.S.; Clarke, C.; Snidman, N.; Garcia Coll, C. Behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child Dev.
1984
,55,
2212–2225. [CrossRef]
30.
Gazelle, H.; Faldowski, R.A. Peer exclusion is linked to inhibition with familiar but not unfamiliar peers at two years of age.
Infant Child Dev. 2014,23, 220–228. [CrossRef]
31.
Asendorpf, J.B. Development of inhibition during childhood: Evidence for situational specificity and a two-factor model. Dev.
Psych. 1990,26, 721–730. [CrossRef]
