Gender Differences in Child and Adolescent Social Withdrawal: A Commentary

Gender Differences in Child and Adolescent Social Withdrawal: A Commentary In a manuscript entitled, “Bashful boys and coy girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness” Doey et al. (2013) suggest that shyness and its related constructs pose a greater developmental risk for boys compared to girls. They support this claim by citing empirical evidence suggesting that shy and anxiously withdrawn boys are responded to more negatively by important others (i.e., parents, peers, and teachers) and that the relationship between internalizing problems and anxious withdrawal is stronger for boys compared to girls. The principal aim of our commentary is to provide a critical examination of Doey et al.’s conclusions vis-à-vis gender differences in child and adolescent shyness. In this response, we begin by providing important theoretical background regarding shyness and its related constructs. Next, we critically examine the two main arguments the authors use in support of their conclusion through a review of existing empirical and theoretical work as well as the presentation of data from The Friendship Project. These data were analyzed with the specific purpose of providing an empirical test of the hypotheses implicit in Doey et al.’s primary arguments: 1) shy and anxiously withdrawn boys are responded to more negatively than girls and 2) the association between anxious withdrawal and internalizing problems is stronger for boys compared to girls. Our results indicate mixed support for these two claims. Finally, we conclude by suggesting new directions for future researchers interested in clarifying the relationship between gender and both the correlates and outcomes of childhood shyness. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

Gender Differences in Child and Adolescent Social Withdrawal: A Commentary

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/gender-differences-in-child-and-adolescent-social-withdrawal-a-JHb5zFSrQS
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11199-014-0357-9
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In a manuscript entitled, “Bashful boys and coy girls: A review of gender differences in childhood shyness” Doey et al. (2013) suggest that shyness and its related constructs pose a greater developmental risk for boys compared to girls. They support this claim by citing empirical evidence suggesting that shy and anxiously withdrawn boys are responded to more negatively by important others (i.e., parents, peers, and teachers) and that the relationship between internalizing problems and anxious withdrawal is stronger for boys compared to girls. The principal aim of our commentary is to provide a critical examination of Doey et al.’s conclusions vis-à-vis gender differences in child and adolescent shyness. In this response, we begin by providing important theoretical background regarding shyness and its related constructs. Next, we critically examine the two main arguments the authors use in support of their conclusion through a review of existing empirical and theoretical work as well as the presentation of data from The Friendship Project. These data were analyzed with the specific purpose of providing an empirical test of the hypotheses implicit in Doey et al.’s primary arguments: 1) shy and anxiously withdrawn boys are responded to more negatively than girls and 2) the association between anxious withdrawal and internalizing problems is stronger for boys compared to girls. Our results indicate mixed support for these two claims. Finally, we conclude by suggesting new directions for future researchers interested in clarifying the relationship between gender and both the correlates and outcomes of childhood shyness.

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: Feb 27, 2014

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off