Social inhibition is the conscious or subconscious avoidance of a situation or social interaction. With a high level of social inhibition, situations are avoided because of the possibility of others disapproving of their feelings or actions. Related processes that deal with social inhibition are social evaluation concerns, anxiety in social interaction, social avoidance, and withdrawal. Also related are components such as cognitive patterns, anxious apprehension during social interactions, and internalizing problems. It also describes those who suppress anger, restrict social behavior, withdraw in the face of novelty, and have a long latency to interact with strangers.
Individuals can also have a low level of social inhibition, but certain situations may or may not generally cause people to be more or less inhibited. Social inhibition can sometimes be reduced by the short-term use of drugs including alcohol or benzodiazepines. However, this does not solve the root issue and may cause substance dependence. Major signs of social inhibition in children include cessation of play, hesitancy to approach an unfamiliar person, signs of fear and negative affect, and security seeking. In high level cases of social inhibition, other social disorders can emerge through development, such as social anxiety disorder and social phobia.
Background Social inhibition can range from normal reactions to social situations to a pathological level, associated with psychological disorders like social anxiety or social phobia. Life events are important and are related to the well-being and inhibition levels of a person. In a laboratory study conducted by Buck and colleagues, social inhibition in everyday life was reviewed. Researchers observed how individuals interacted and communicated about different stimuli. In this study, there were female participants referred to as "senders", who viewed twelve emotionally loaded stimuli. There were also participants in the study referred to as "received", who had to guess which stimuli had been viewed by the senders. The senders were either alone, with a friend, or with a stranger while viewing the slides. The results of the study revealed that being with a stranger had inhibitory effects on communication, whereas being with a friend had facilitative effects with some stimuli and inhibitory effects with others. The results show how anyone can be inhibited in daily life, with strangers or even friends. Inhibition can also be determined by one's sensitivity levels to different social cues throughout the day. Gable and colleagues conducted a study in which they examined different events participants would record at the end of their day. Participants were also measured on the behavioral activation system and the behavioral inhibition system. The results revealed that individuals with more sensitivity on the behavioral inhibition system reported having more negative effects from daily events.
Expression can also be inhibited or suppressed because of anxiety to social situations or simple display rules. Yarczower and Daruns' study on social inhibition of expression defined inhibition of expression as a suppression of one's facial behavior in the presence of someone or a perceived anxious situation. They addressed the display rules commonly learned by a person during childhood; we are told what expressions are suitable for what situations, and as age increases, we are socialized into expressing weaker facial emotions. However, leaving the face with a reduced expression hinders communication, in turn making the face a less reliable social cue during social interactions. Friedmen and Miller-Herringer bring these nonverbal expressions to light by studying individuals that have a greater level of emotional suppression. They state that without proper emotional expression, social interactions can become far more difficult because others may not understand another individual's emotional state.
In addition, there are also four commonly seen irrational cognitive patterns involved in social inhibition:
The first pattern centers on self-esteem and perfectionism. In these cases, an individual inhibits themselves through self-criticism; they want to do everything the "right" way. The second pattern deals with unrealistic approval needs; here, individuals want to gain the approval of others and will fear rejection if they express too much. In the third pattern, unrealistic labeling of aggressive and assertive behavior depicts how many individuals that inhibit themselves may feel as though aggression or assertiveness is bad. They believe that if they express these behaviors, they will receive a negative label. Similarly to the first pattern, the final pattern discusses criticism of others. Here, individuals will be highly critical of others, much like they are to themselves. Shyness is another factor that is a part of social inhibition; shyness is associated with low emotional regulations and high negative emotions. In many cases, shy individuals have a greater change of social inhibition.
Over the lifespan Social inhibition can develop over a lifespan. Children can be withdrawn, adolescents can have anxiety to social situations, and adults may have a hard time adjusting to social situations which they have to initiate on their own. Inhibitions can change and be different for many. In many cases, inhibition can lead to other social disorders and phobias.
Infants and children In infants and children, social inhibition is characterized by a temperamental style that results in negative responses and the withdrawal from unfamiliar people, situations and objects. In addition to cessation of play, inhibited infants and children may display long latencies to approaching unfamiliar individuals, signs of fear, negative affect, and security seeking. Avoidant behavior can be observed at a very young age. In one study, Fox and colleagues found that even at four months of age, some infants had negative responses to unfamiliar visual and audio stimuli. The study was longitudinal; therefore, follow ups revealed that half of the infants who had seen to have high negative responses continued to show behavioral inhibition through the age of two. Fox's study reported that the expression of behavioral inhibition showed a small degree of continuity. Over time, the toddlers who were quiet and restrained continued the trend into childhood, being cautious, quiet, and socially withdrawn. The uninhibited control group of the same ages continued to interact easily with unfamiliar people and situations. There has also been an observable link between inhibition at childhood age with social disorders in adolescents and adulthood. Schwartz and Kagan found that in a longitudinal study from ages two to thirteen, sixty-one percent of teens who had exhibited inhibitor traits as toddlers reported social anxiety symptoms as adolescents, compared to the twenty-seven percent of adolescents who were uninhibited in earlier life. Despite this, not every child that has exhibited withdrawn or inhibited behavior will be inhibited into adolescence or will manifest a social disorder.
The caregiver is not solely responsible for inhibition in children, however in some cases it can be a factor. Caregivers can affect the inhibition levels of their child by exposing the child to maternal stress during infancy and the preschool period. In addition, some situations may have the child simply exhibit early manifestation of behavioral inhibition. There has been no parenting style that researchers have agreed upon to be the best to combat social inhibition. Park and Critic claim that a sensitive, accepting, and overprotective parenting is best to reduce negative behaviors because it will allow the child to practice self expression without judgment.Park S, Belsky J, Putnam S, Crnic K. 1997. Infant emotionality, parenting, and 3-year inhibition: exploring stability and lawful discontinuity in a male sample. Dev.Psychol. 33:218–27 However, Kagan hypothesized that firm parenting styles are better suited for socially inhibited children.Kagan J. 1994. Galen's Prophecy. New York: Basic Books Researchers supporting sensitive parenting believe that too firm of a parenting style will send a message to children that says they need to change.
Adolescence Social inhibition has been widely studied in children; however, research on how it develops through adolescence and adulthood is not as prevalent.Gladstone, G. (2004). Behavioral inhibition: Measurement and assessment of aetiology and outcome in adults Dissertation Abstracts International 65, Although anxiety-related social problems are most commonly seen in adolescents, many of the behavioral traits are the same in adolescence as they are in childhood; withdrawing from unfamiliar people, situations and objects are all behavioral traits that have been observed in adolescents. Despite this, it has been tested that adolescents are more aware of social situations, and are more likely to be inhibited in public settings. Researchers found younger individuals to be more likely to differentiate between public and private settings when inquiring about potentially embarrassing issues. It is also thought that inhibition is in many ways addressed in childhood and adolescence simply because schools facilitate interactions with others. As an adult, the same facilitating circumstance may not occur unless the individual prompts them on their own. Guest states that adults do not have as many casual peer interactions and friendship opportunities that guide and support relationships unless they facilitate them on their own. Adolescent research has also shown that social inhibition is associated with a more negative emotional state in young men than women.
This is in contrast to a study that measured inhibition levels through self reports from the adolescent and their parents. West and Newman found that young American Indian women and their parents reported higher levels of inhibition than young American Indian men; in addition, the parental reports also predicted social anxiety in young American Indian women over young American Indian men. In this same study, relationship development with peers was investigated over time. West and Newman stated that low levels of behavioral inhibition had an association with early social and school situations and that were related to greater levels of socially mediated anxiety, especially negative evaluation of fear by peers. This study then speculates about the possibility that adolescents and children who have a generally positive social experience will be more aware of the status of these positive relationships, therefore more anxious about failure in their social domain. Other studies also discussed how in many cases, early behavioral inhibition is a risk factor for the development of chronic high school-age inhibition and possible social anxiety disorder. Although social inhibition can be a predictor of other social disorders there is not an extremely large portion of adolescents who have developed an anxiety disorder and also had a history of inhibition in childhood.